Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T20:07:18.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ALBERT THE GREAT ON NATURE AND THE PRODUCTION OF HERMAPHRODITES: THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2019

IRVEN M. RESNICK
IRVEN M. RESNICK*
Affiliation:
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
*
Irven-Resnick@utc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite its rarity, hermaphroditism is often discussed in medieval texts in theoretical and practical contexts by canonists, theologians, and natural philosophers. For the canonist or theologian, hermaphroditism raised questions concerning baptism, marriage, entry to clerical orders, and legal status. For the natural philosopher, the hermaphrodite seemed to violate the strict dichotomy of male and female. Here I examine Albert the Great's natural-philosophical treatment of hermaphroditism. Albert rejects the view that hermaphrodites constitute a “third sex” and instead invokes Aristotle's authority to show that hermaphrodites are a “monstrous” flaw in nature. He carefully investigates the manner in which nature produces hermaphrodites in the womb and introduces a discussion of the generative capacity of hermaphrodites themselves. He concludes that they are incapable of reproducing in and of themselves (i.e., they are incapable of auto-fecundation) although they seem able to generate in another individual through coition.

Keywords

Albertus MagnusDe animalibushermaphroditesmonstersfemale as imperfect maletwinsresurrected bodies
Type
Research Article
Information
Traditio , Volume 74 , 2019 , pp. 307 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

In this article, the following abbreviations are employed:

Ed. A. Borgnet: B. Alberti Magni Ratisbonensis Episcopi Ordinis Praedicatorum Opera Omnia, ed. Auguste Borgnet. 38 vols. Paris: L. Vivès, 1890–99.

Ed. Colon.: Sancti Doctoris Ecclesiae Alberti Magni Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum episcopi Opera Omnia, ad fidem codicum manuscriptorum edenda apparatu critico notis prolegomenis indicibus instruenda curavit Institutum Alberti Magni Coloniense (Münster, 1951–).

QDA: Albert the Great's Questions concerning Aristotle's “On Animals,” trans. Irven M. Resnick and Kenneth F. Kitchell Jr., Fathers of the Church, Medieval Continuation 9 (Washington, DC, 2008).

St: Albertus Magnus De animalibus libri XXVI, ed. Hermann Stadler, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters 15 and 16, 2 vols. (Münster, 1916–20).

SZ: Albertus Magnus On Animals. A Medieval Summa Zoologica, rev. ed. and trans. Kenneth F. Kitchell Jr. and Irven M. Resnick (Columbus, OH, 2018).

References

1 De Vun claims that hermaphroditism had very positive connotations among medieval alchemists, who saw in the hermaphrodite a natural analogue to the alchemical process of transmutation. Thus, “The fluidity of sexes in the alchemical hermaphrodite hinted at the fluidity of boundaries between metals, which alchemy argued could be changed through the art of the alchemist.” De Vun, Leah, “The Jesus Hermaphrodite: Science and Sex Difference in Premodern Europe,” Journal of the History of Ideas 69 (2008): 193–218 at 217CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 “Quidam etiam Hermaphroditi seu gemini sexus in partibus Francie a multis visi fuerunt.” Historia Orientalis sive Hierosolymitanae, 92, ed. Moschus, F. (Douai, 1597), 218Google Scholar. Italics are mine. All translations are my own unless indicated otherwise.

3 Thomas of Cantimpré, Liber de naturis rerum, fol. 12v (Paris, BNF, Ms Lat. nouv. acq. 1617); accessed at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55009808d/f28.image. Thomas was one of Albert the Great's students at the same time as Thomas Aquinas.

4 Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum Naturale 31, 128, in Speculum quadruplex, sive, Speculum maius: Naturale, doctrinale, morale, historiale (Graz, 1964–65), 1: 2394Google Scholar. Ps-John Folsham repeats this claim in his Liber de naturis rerum; see “‘Liber de naturis rerum’ von Pseudo-John Folsham — eine moralisierende lateinische Enzyklopädie aus dem 13. Jahrhundert,” ed. Dmitri Abramov (Ph.D. diss. Hamburg University, 2003), 425. Hünemörder has shown that a late redaction of Thomas of Cantimpré’s Liber de natura rerum is dependent on the work of Ps-John Folsham. See Hünemörder, Christian, “Der Text des Michael Scotus um die Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts und Thomas Cantimpratensis III,” in Aristotle's Animals in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, ed. Steel, Carlos, Guldentops, Guy, and Beullens, Pieter (Leuven, 1999), 238–48Google Scholar.

5 Metzler, Irina, “Hermaphroditism in the Western Middle Ages: Physicians, Lawyers and the Intersexed Person,” in Bodies of Knowledge: Cultural Interpretations of Illness and Medicine in Medieval Europe, ed. Crawford, Sally and Lee, Christina (Oxford, 2010), 27–37 at 34Google Scholar.

6 Weisheipl, James A., “Albertus Magnus,” in Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. Strayer, Joseph R. (New York, 1982–89), 129Google Scholar.

7 Siraisi, Nancy, “The Medical Learning of Albertus Magnus,” in Albertus Magnus and the Sciences: Commemorative Essays 1980, ed. Weisheipl, James A. (Toronto, 1980), 379–404 at 380Google Scholar.

8 “Androgyni, quos etiam Hermaphroditos nuncupant, quamvis admodum rari sint, difficile est tamen ut temporibus desint, in quibus sic uterque sexus apparet, ut ex quo potius debeant accipere nomen, incertum sit: a meliore tamen, hoc est a masculino, ut appellarentur, loquendi consuetudo praevaluit.” De civitate dei 16.8.2 (PL 41: 486). Translated by Marcus Dods in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, 2 (Buffalo, NY, 1887), rev. and ed. for New Advent by Kevin Knight, accessed at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1201.htm.

9 For discussion of the text's medieval Latin translations and its impact, see Ventura, Iolanda, “Translating, Commenting, Re-Translating: Some Considerations on the Latin Translations of the pseudo-Aristotelian Problemata and Their Readers,” in Science Translated: Latin and Vernacular Translations of Scientific Treatises in Medieval Europe, ed. Goyens, Michèle, De Leemans, Pieter, and Smets, An (Leuven, 2008), 123–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Cadden, Joan, “Preliminary Observations on the Place of the Problemata in Medieval Learning,” in Aristotle's Problemata in Different Times and Tongues, ed. De Leemans, Pieter and Goyens, Michèle (Leuven, 2006), 1–19Google Scholar. The earliest Latin translation that circulated in medieval Europe is attributed to Bartholomew of Messina between 1258 and 1266.

10 “Queritur utrum debeat baptizari nomine viri vel mulieris? Respondetur quod nomine viri imponuntur ad placitum et a digniori fieri denominatio quia vir est dignior muliere ex quo agens praestantius est suo passo, ut patet tertio de anima.” Problemata varia anatomica, University of Bologna, MS 1165, ed. Lind, L. R. (Lawrence, 1968), 67Google Scholar. For the reference to Aristotle's De anima, see book 3, 11 (430a18–19). Lind suggests that the questions gathered in this work were collected in the fourteenth century, probably in Germany, and printed in the fifteenth. For the relationship between this work and the larger collection of Ps-Aristotle's Problemata, see Blair, Ann, “Authorship in the Popular ‘Problemata Aristotelis,’” Early Science and Medicine 4 (1999): 189–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 See van der Lugt, Maaike, “Pourquoi Dieu a-t-il créé la femme? Difference sexuelle et théologie mediévale,” in Eve et Pandora: la création de la première femme, ed. Schmitt, Jean-Claude (Paris, 2001), 89–115 at 99Google Scholar; van der Lugt, , “L'humanité des monstres et leur accès aux sacrements dans la pensée medieval,” in Monstres et imaginaire social: Approches historiques, ed. Caiozzo, Anna and Demartini, Anne-Emmanuelle (Paris, 2008), 135–62 at 154–56Google Scholar; van der Lugt, , “Sex Difference in Medieval Theology and Canon Law: A Tribute to Joan Cadden,” Medieval Feminist Forum 46 (2010): 101–21 at 110–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Gratian notes, “Hermaphroditus an ad testimonium adhiberi possit, qualitas incalescentis sexus ostendit.” Decreti pars secunda, Causa 4, Questio 2, IV, pars 20 (PL 187: 709B).

13 “Quaeritur utrum habendus sit talis pro viro vel pro muliere? Respondetur quod in eo consideranda est quantitas unius membri super quantitatem alterius membri et debet considerari in quo membro sit potens in actu venereo et si in virili, tunc est vir et si in alio tunc est mulier.” Problemata varia anatomica, 67.

14 Women's Secrets: A Translation of Pseudo-Albertus Magnus's De secretis mulierum with Commentaries, cap. 6, Comm A., trans. Lemay, Helen Rodnite (Albany, 1992), 117Google Scholar. For a critical edition, see El De secretis mulierum atribuido a Alberto Magno: Estudio, edición crítica y traducción, ed. José Pablo Barragán Nieto, Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’Études Médiévales, Textes et Études du Moyen Age 63 (Porto, 2012).

15 “Queritur utrum debeat stare in iudicio tanquam vir tanquam mulier? Respondetur secundum regulam iuris quia debet iurare antequam admitatur ad iudicium quo membro potest uti et secundum hoc est admittendus secundum usum et potentiam talis membri, et si utentur ambobus membris tunc secundum catholicam in.c. mundus [secundum sanctam matrem ecclesiam non est tolerandus text of 1500].” Problemata varia anatomica, 67.

16 “Queritur consimiliter utrum possit assumere sacros ordines? Respondetur secundum iam dicta.” Problemata varia anatomica, 67.

17 Antoninus of Florence (d. 1459) explains that a hermaphrodite “is rejected for promotion owing to deformity and monstrousness.” Nevertheless, although the hermaphrodite should not be ordained, if he tends toward the male sex more than the female and has been ordained, then he receives the character of the sacrament, whereas if s/he inclines toward the female, then s/he will not receive the character of the sacrament, just as a woman cannot. Summa Theologica 3, tit. 23, ch. 6, par. 6, ad cit. III (Verona, 1740; repr. Graz, 1959), 134–35. For some discussion of diverse medieval opinions on the ordination of hermaphrodites, see Martin, John Hilary, “The Ordination of Women and the Theologians in the Middle Ages,” Escritos del Vedat 16 (1986): 115–77, esp. at 134–35Google Scholar; and “The Ordination of Women and the Theologians in the Middle Ages (II),” Escritos del Vedat 18 (1988): 87–143Google Scholar, esp. at 106. On women's bodies and the character of the sacrament, see Minnis, A. J., “De impedimento sexus: Women's Bodies and Medieval Impediments to Female Ordination,” in Medieval Theology and the Natural Body, York Studies in Medieval Theology 1, ed. Biller, Peter and Minnis, A. J. (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1997), 109–39Google Scholar.

18 “Illi qui est hermaphroditus non est membrum viri neque membrum mulieris. Et de illis est qui habet utrumque, sed unum eorum est occultius, et debilius, et aliud est e contrario [descendit sperma] ex uno eorum absque alio. Et de illis est in quo ambo sunt aequalia, et pervenit ad me, quod de illis est quod agit et patitur, sed parum verificatur hoc.” Avicenna, Liber canonis medicine III, fen. 20, tr. 2, cap. 43 (Venice, 1527; repr. Brussels, 1971), fol. 284r.

19 Oswald, Dana, “Monstrous Gender: Geographies of Ambiguity,” in Ashgate Research Companion to Monsters and the Monstrous, ed. Mittman, Asa Simon and Dendle, Peter J. (Burlington, VT, 2012), 343–64 at 358Google Scholar. For brief discussion of hermaphrodites as liminal creatures and monsters in ancient Rome, see Asma, Stephen T., On Monsters: An Unnatural History of Our Worst Fears (Oxford, 2009), chap. 3Google Scholar.

20 See especially Nederman, Carey J. and True, Jacqui, “The Third Sex: The Idea of the Hermaphrodite in Twelfth-Century Europe,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 6 (1996): 497–517Google ScholarPubMed; and Rolker, Christof, “The Two Laws and the Three Sexes: Ambiguous Bodies in Canon Law and Roman Law (12th–16th centuries),” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtgeschichte: Kanonistische Abteilung 100 (2014): 178–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 “Natura nihil facit frustra nec deficit in necessariis.” Quaestiones super de animalibus 1, q. 2.3, sed contra, ed. Ephrem Filthaut, ed. Colon. 12 (Münster, 1955), 79; QDA, 17, citing Aristotle's De anima 3.11 (434a30). All references to the the Latin of the Quaestiones will be to Filthaut's critical edition, while English translations will come from Albert the Great's Questions concerning Aristotle's “On Animals,” trans. Resnick, Irven M. and Kitchell, Kenneth F. Jr., Fathers of the Church, Medieval Continuation 9 (Washington, DC, 2008)Google Scholar (QDA).

Albert cites this dictum in his Quaestiones super de animalibus more than ten times. Oddly, it appears only once, and in a slightly different form, in his later commentary on De animalibus 11.2.3.87 (St, 1: 794; SZ 1: 890). English translations of this work are from Albertus Magnus On Animals: A Medieval Summa Zoologica, rev. ed. and trans. Kitchell, Kenneth F. Jr. and Resnick, Irven M. (Columbus, OH, 2018)Google Scholar, (SZ). Also cf. Magnus, Albertus, De anima 3.5.1, ed. Stroick, Clemens, ed. Colon. 7.1 (Münster, 1968), 244Google Scholar.

22 “Natura non deficit in necessariis nec abundat superfluis.” Albertus Magnus, De anima 3.4.3, p. 230. Cf. Aristotle, De anima 3.9 (432b20f.).

23 Problemata varia anatomica, p. 67.

24 Cadden, Joan, “Sciences/Silences: The Natures and Languages of ‘Sodomy’ in Peter of Abano's Problemata Commentary,” in Constructing Medieval Sexuality, ed. Lochrie, Karma, McCracken, Peggy, and Schultz, James A. (Minneapolis, 1997), 40–57 at 47Google Scholar.

25 See Remigio dei Girolami (d. 1319), Quodlibet 2, art. 9, resp., in Panella, Emilio, “I quodlibeti di Remigio dei Girolami,” Memorie domenicane, n.s. 14 (1983): 1–149 at 126–27Google Scholar. For conjoined twins in scholastic texts, see Resnick, Irven M., “Conjoined Twins, Medieval Biology, and Evolving Reflection on Individual Identity,” Viator 44 (2013): 343–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zuccolin, Gabriella, “Two Heads Two Souls? Conjoined Twins in Theological Quodlibeta (1270–c. 1310),” Quaestio 17 (2017): 573–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Physica 2.3.3, ed. Hossfeld, Paul, ed. Colon. 4.1 (Münster, 1987), 136–39Google Scholar. The heading for this chapter is “De probatione, quod natura agit propter finem determinatum, ex peccato, quod accidit in opere eius; in quo etiam est de diversitate monstrorum.”

27 “De intentione prima naturae est producere melius, quantum potest. Sed de intentione secunda est, quod si deficiat a meliori, producere quod sibi est propinquius. Et ideo cum virtus naturalis potens est, marem producit; cum autem impeditur a productione maris propter resistentiam materiae, si dispositiones materiae excellant vel simpliciter vincant, producit simile illi a quo descindebatur materia, ut <si> producit feminam. Si autem virtus in parte vincat et in parte vincatur, inquantum vincit, producit membra convenientia mari, inquantum vincitur, producit membra convenientia feminae. Illud tamen non fit sine superfluitate materiae, alioquin non produceret in eodem fetu virgam et matricem. Unde si respiciamus primam intentionem naturae, productio talis fetus est innaturalis; si autem respiciamus secundam intentionem, ista productio naturalis est, quia a causa naturali procedit.” Quaestiones super de animalibus 18, q. 2, resp., ed. Ephrem Filthaut, 297; QDA 532–33.

28 “Quasdam stellas impedire figurationem hominis, quantumcumque sit semen efficax et matrix ad concipiendum bene disposita, sicut sunt quaedam stellae in signo Arietis monstruosos operantes partus, … et aliqua de talibus monstris facta sunt apud nos et ad nostram notitiam pervenerunt.” Liber de causis proprietatum elementorum 1.2.13, ed. Hossfeld, Paul, ed. Colon. 5/2 (Münster, 1980), 85-86Google Scholar; Magnus, Albertus, On the Causes of the Properties of the Elements, trans. Resnick, Irven M. (Milwaukee, WI, 2010), 91Google Scholar; cf. Physica 2.3.3, p. 138.

29 Super Sent. II, dist. 7, art. 9, ed. A. Borgnet (Paris, 1894), p. 157b. For an excellent introduction to Albert's scientific astrology, see Rutkin, Daniel, “Astrology and Magic,” in A Companion to Albert the Great, ed. Resnick, Irven M. (Leiden, 2013), 451–505Google Scholar.

30 “Partus hominis forte habebit caput arietis aut tauri, sicut dicitur de Minotauro in fabulis poetarum.” De animalibus 18.1.6.47 (St 2: 1215; SZ 2: 1304).

31 “Secundam habundantiam vel defectum aut positionem aut figuram membrorum.” De animalibus 18.1.6.51 (St 2: 1217; SZ 2: 1306). Cf. Physica 2.3.3, p. 138.

32 “Verumtamen per occasionem naturae mas et femina concurrere possunt in eodem ratione diversorum, sicut patet in hermaphrodita, qui habet utrumque membrum; sed hoc est monstrum in natura.” Quaestiones super de animalibus 15, q. 4, resp. 1, ed. Filthaut, 262; QDA, 445–446. Cf. De animalibus 18.2.3.65 (St 2: 1224; SZ 2: 1312): “There are accidental monstrous traits which occur in certain generated ones which people call hermaphrodites because during the first generation they take on both the male and the female members.”

33 “Prima radix monstruositatis est ex parte materiae, secundario tamen provenit monstruositas ex parte efficientis.” Quaestiones super de animalibus 18, q. 6, ed. Filthaut, 300; QDA, 539.

34 “Unde prima occasio monstri est a parte materiae, sed quia materia non ducit se in actum, sed ducitur ab agente, ideo agens secundaria causa est monstruositatis.” Quaestiones super de animalibus 18, q. 6, ed. Filthaut, 300; QDA, 540–41.

35 Generation of Animals 2.3 (737a27–28) in Aristotle, De Partibus Animalium and De Generatione Animalium I with passages from II. 1–3, ed. Balme, D. M. (Oxford, 1972)Google Scholar. Cf. Cadden, Joan, Meanings of Sex Differences in the Middle Ages: Medicine, Science, and Culture (Cambridge, 1995), esp. at 23–24Google Scholar.

36 “Femina est mas occasionatus; femine sunt debiliores maribus preter ursum et leopardum.” “‘Liber de naturis rerum’ von Pseudo-John Folsham — eine moralisierende lateinische Enzyklopädie aus dem 13. Jahrhundert,” 424. Abramov dates the two oldest MSS available to him from 1230–40. Bartholomew the Englishman (Bartholomaeus Anglicus) makes the same claim in his De rerum proprietatibus 18.47 (Frankfurt, 1601; repr. Frankfurt am Main, 1964), 1069. Bartholomew likely produced this work ca. 1245.

37 Davidis de Dinanto Quaternulorum Fragmenta, ed. Marianus Kurdzialek, Studia Mediewistyczne 3 (Warsaw, 1963), 23. The Quaternuli were condemned at a provincial council in 1210 and again in 1215 by the papal legate Robert Courçon.

38 “Mas est secundum definitionem qui potest generare in alio femina vero quae potest generare in se vel potius quae generat ab alio. Vir dat principium motus et formam generato sed femina dat corpus et materiam… . Corpus animalis est ex femina anima ex mare. Anima est substantia et forma substantialis corporis. Femina est mas occasionatus.” Iohannes de Fonte, Auctoritates Aristotelis, Senecae, Boethii, Platonis, Apulei, Porphyrii, Gilberti opus, 9, sent. 196, in Hamesse, Jacqueline, Les Auctoritates Aristotelis: Un florilège medieval; Étude historique et édition critique (Louvain, 1974), 225Google Scholar.

39 For a good discussion of Aristotle's position and its influence on Thomas Aquinas, see Hartel, Joseph Francis, Femina ut Imago Dei in the Integral Feminism of St. Thomas Aquinas (Rome, 1993), 97–110Google Scholar. For an argument that medieval texts identify the female body as monstrous in a more significant sense, see Miller, Sarah Alison, Medieval Monstrosity and the Female Body (New York, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 “Natura particularis numquam intendit mulierem, sed quod potius foemina est mas occasionatus.” Albert the Great, Super Sententiarum IV, dist. 35, art. 1, ed. Borgnet, A. (Paris, 1894), 30: 344Google Scholar. For the claim that “femina est quasi mas occasionatus,” cf. Aristotle, De animalibus: Michael Scot's Arabic-Latin Translation, Part Three: Books XV–XIX: Generation of Animals 16, 737a, ed. Van Oppenraaij, Aafke M. I. (Leiden, 1992), 76Google Scholar.

41 “Femina, quam numquam intendit facere natura particularis, sed causatur ex corruptione alicuius principiorum naturalium, eo quod natura intendit opus perfectum, quod est mas, et ideo dicit Aristoteles, quod ‘femina est mas occasionatus’ sicut tibia curva. Tamen femina non est extra cursum naturalem universalis naturae, quae ordinis est causa in inferioribus et movet generando feminam, ut sit viro adiutorium generationis, quoniam nisi esset necessaria generationi, numquam natura produceret feminam, sed natura hominis salvaretur et staret in mare.” Physica 2.1.5, p. 84. For the date assigned to his commentary on the Physics, see Weisheipl, James A., “Albert's Works on Natural Science (libri naturales) in Probable Chronological Order,” in Albertus Magnus and the Sciences: Commemorative Essays 1980, ed. Weisheipl, James A. (Toronto, 1980), 565–615 at 565Google Scholar.

42 “Duplex est natura: universalis et particularis. Natura universalis intendit conservare totum universum et partes eius, et quia species sunt partes universi et non individua, ideo natura universalis principaliter intendit conservare species. Sed species animalium non potest conservari sine generatione individuorum, et ad istam generationem requiritur femina sicut et mas. Ideo natura universalis intendit feminam, sicut illud sine quo species salvari non potest. Natura autem particularis intendit producere sibi simile, et quia in generatione animalis virtus maris est agens et non virtus feminae, ideo agens particulare principaliter intendit producere marem. Si tamen defectus sit in materia vel calore, quo utitur tamquam instrumento et non possit generare congrue secundum intentum, tunc intendit, quod potest, et ita natura particularis principaliter intendit masculum, secundario tamen et occasionaliter feminam intendit.” Quaestiones super de animalibus 15, q. 2, resp., ed. Filthaut, 260–61; QDA, 442–43. N.b. my emendations in line 3, substituting “universal” for “universe,” and the sixth line from the bottom, rendering agens particulare as “specific agent.” Albert treats this distinction at length at Physica 2.1.5, pp. 83–84, where once again a female is identified as that which natura particularis never intended; rather, she is caused by a corruption of natural principles and is called a mas occasionatus or flawed male. Here Albert compares her “flaw” to that of a curved tibia (whose curve renders it unable to complete its proper act). Once more, however, from the standpoint of universal nature, the female is necessary for the perpetuation of the species. For discussion of Albert's view of woman as a flawed man, see Hossfeld, Paul, Albertus Magnus über die Frau (Bad Honnef, 1982), 1–24Google Scholar; reprinted in Trierer theologische Zeitschrift 91 (1982): 221–40Google Scholar.

43 Thomas Aquinas, In IV Sent. dist. 36, q. 1, art. 1, resp. ad arg. 2, line 1; In II Sententiarum, dist. 20, q. 2, art. 1 [Scriptum super libros Sententiarum, ed. Mandonnet, P. and Moos, M. F., 4 vols. (Paris, 1929–47)Google Scholar].

44 Thomas Aquinas, De veritate, q. 5 a. 9 ad 9. This text is usually dated to the second half of the 1250s. For the Latin, see Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones disputatae de veritate, ed. Raymund Spiazzi (Turin, 1964–65). For Albert the Great's influence on Thomas on the female as flawed male, see Mitterer, Albert, “Mas occasionatus: Oder zwei Methoden der Thomasdeutung,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 72 (1950): 80–103Google Scholar; for an apologist's defense of Thomas's position, see Nolan, Michael, “What Aquinas Never Said about Women,” First Things 87 (1998): 11–12Google Scholar. Unlike Albert, Thomas adds that, because she is essential to the perpetuation of the species, there is also a sense in which “femina non est aliquid occasionatum.” See his Summa theologiae I, q. 92, art. 1,1.

45 Thomas Aquinas, In II Sententiarum, dist. 20, q. 2, art. 1, sed contra. Cf. Thomas Aquinas, In IV Sent., dist. 36, q. 1, art. 1, resp. ad 2; Summa theologiae I, q. 92, art. 1, and 1, q. 99, art. 2, obj. 1–2.

46 Molynsis: from the context, apparently a version of the Greek mōlysis, which indicates an imperfect boiling or heating.

47 “Accidit indigestionem aliquam pati sperma modo praedicto et tunc generat feminam et si non patiatur eam, procreat masculum … propter quod etiam femina est mas occasionem passus. Sicut enim in antehabitis istius scientiae bene ostensum est, sperma maris quod est formativum et factivum conceptus, semper simile sibi facere intendit, et semper marem producere, nisi impediatur per occasionem corruptionis instrumenti cum quo operatur, et hoc est calor; aut impediatur ex inobedientia materiae quam format et facit, et hic est humor; et quando alterum illorum vel ambo molinsim passa sunt in loco genitalium, ne omnino ad nichilum opus naturae redigatur, format feminam, quae licet non generet proprie, tamen est adiutorium masculo necessarium ad generationem; sicut passivum necessarium est activo, et sicut materia subiacet artis operibus. Propter quod in Physicis diximus quod materia desiderat formam sicut femina masculum et turpe bonum.” Cf. Albert the Great, De animalibus 16.1.14.73 (St 2: 1100; SZ 2: 1195). For the reference to Albert's commentary on Aristotle's Physics, see Physica 1.3.16–17, pp. 70–75.

48 “Et quis obiciat dicens quod causa masculinitatis est sperma viri, et causa femininitatis est sperma muliebre, dicimus quod est omnino falsum, quoniam causa masculinitatis propria est caliditas spermatis, et causa femininitatis est complexionalis frigiditas eiusdem, et licet causa illa sit masculinitatis vera, tamen ad hanc causam multa cooperantur … . Et ideo causa masculinitatis et femininitatis quasi semper est secundum diversitates et raro habet causam simplicem; et quando aequales sunt causae concurrentes ad inguinum formationem, tunc fit ermafroditus.” De animalibus 9.2.3.101–2 (St 1: 715; SZ 1: 812–13). Jacquart and Thomaset argue that Albert's position on the female role in procreation evolved from his Quaestiones super de animalibus to his De animalibus, which he completed in the decade following. In the latter, he accords some status to a female “sperm,” attempting to reconcile Galenic and Aristotelian positions. See Jacquart, Danielle and Thomasset, Claude, “Albert le Grand et les problèmes de la sexualité,” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 3 (1981): 73–93, esp. 78–80Google Scholar; cf. Miguel de Asúa, “War and Peace: Medicine and Natural Philosophy in Albert the Great,” in A Companion to Albert the Great, 269–98, esp. 275, 285–89. Even though he recognizes the presence of a female “seed” that appears during coition, he does not endow it with efficient causality for the production of a fetus. For a good discussion of the medieval Islamic medical sources from which Albert derived his knowledge of the Ps-Galenic doctrine of “female seed,” see Ragab, Ahmed, “One, Two, or Many Sexes: Sex Differentiation in Medieval Islamicate Medical Thought,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 24 (2015): 428–54, esp. 431–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for Avicenna on female sperm and the Galenic-Aristotelian debate, see also Musallam, Basim, “The Human Embryo in Arabic Scientific and Religious Thought,” in The Human Embryo: Aristotle and the Arabic and European Traditions, ed. Dunstan, G. R. (Exeter, 1990), 32–45Google Scholar.

49 “Tota et vera causa est calor spermatis, et aliae causae quae sunt in materia mulieris aut in loco matricis.” De animalibus 9.2.3.102 (St 1: 715; SZ 1: 813).

50 See Augustine, De civitate Dei 22.17.

51 “Praeterea, illud quod est occasionaliter et praeter intentionem naturae inductum, non resurget: quia in resurrectione omnis error tolletur. Sed sexus muliebris est praeter intentionem naturae inductus ex defectu virtutis formativae in semine, quae non potest perducere materiam concepti ad perfectionem virilem; unde dicit philosophus in 16 de animalibus, quod femina est mas occasionatus. Ergo sexus muliebris non resurget.” Thomas Aquinas, In IV Sent., dist. 44, q. 1, art. 3, quaest. 3, arg. 3. Cf. Summa theologiae Suppl. III, q. 81, art. 3.

52 Le Registre d'Inquisition de Jacques Fournier, Évêque de Pamiers (1318–1325), ed. Duvernoy, Jean (Toulouse, 1965), 2:442Google Scholar. For Belibasta, see Matthias Benad, Domus und Religion in Montaillou, Spätmittelalter und Reformation, neue Reihe 1 (Tübingen, 1990), 183–86.

53 Cf. Otto, Bishop of Freising (r. 1138–58), Chronica sive historia de duabus civitatibus 8, 12, ed. Adolf Hofmeister (Hanover, 1912), 408; and Augustine, De civitate Dei 22.17.

54 Albert the Great, De resurrectione tr. 1, ques. 6, art. 10, sol., ed. Wilhelm Kübel, ed. Colon. 26 (Münster, 1956), 257.

55 “Omne imperfectum naturaliter appetit perfici; et mulier est homo imperfectus respectu viri, ideo omnis mulier appetit esse sub virilitate. Non enim est mulier, quin ipsa vellet exuere rationem femineitatis et induere masculinitatem naturaliter. Et eodem modo materia appetit induere formam.” Quaestiones super de animalibus 5, q. 4, resp. 1, ed. Filthaut, 156; QDA, 191; cf. De animalibus 16.1.14.73 (St 2: 1100; SZ 2:1195). Cf. Ps-Albert the Great, Philosophia Pauperum sive Isagoge in libros Aristotelis physicorum, de coelo et mundo, de generatione et corruptione, meteorum et de anima, ed. A. Borgnet (Paris, 1895), 5: 445–536 at 449.

56 A view espoused earlier by William of Auvergne, De universo pars iii secundae partis, cap. 24, in Opera omnia, 2 vols. (Paris: 1674), 1: 1066 and 1068; cf. Elliott, Dyan, “The Physiology of Rapture and Female Spirituality,” Medieval Theology and the Natural Body, ed. Biller, Peter and Minnis, A. J., York Studies in Medieval Theology 1 (Woodbridge, 1997), 141–73 at 157Google Scholar.

57 Albert the Great, De incarnatione tr. 3, q. 2, art 4, ed. Ignatius Backes, Ed. Colon. 26 (Münster, 1958), 198.

58 “Dicimus, quod resurrectio communi duo corrigit in natura, scilicet errorem et defectum, errorem in monstruositate membrorum, defectum in statura corporis diminuta.” De Resurrectione tr. 3, q. 1, sol., p. 305.

59 For discussion, see Biller, Peter, The Measure of Multitude: Population in Medieval Thought (Oxford, 2000), 91–93Google Scholar. For medieval discussion of hermaphroditism and resurrected bodies, see DeVun, Leah, “Heavenly Hermaphrodites: Sexual Difference at the Beginning and End of Time,” Postmedieval: A Journal of Medieval Cultural Studies 9 (2018): 132–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Peter Lombard, Sentences IV, dist. 44, cap. 8.3.

61 On the resurrection of conjoined twins, see Irven M. Resnick, “Conjoined Twins, Medieval Biology, and Evolving Reflection on Individual Identity,” 344–45.

62 “Monstrum autem est id quod excedit modum naturae.” Albert, Super Sent. 2, dist. 18, art. 5, p. 319b.

63 Cited above, see n. 27.

64 Still important for a discussion of Albert's theory of generation and for his teratology, see Demaitre, Luke and Travill, Anthony A., “Human Embryology and Development in the Works of Albertus Magnus,” in Albertus Magnus and the Sciences: Commemorative Essays 1980, ed. Weisheipl, James A. (Toronto, 1980), 405–40Google Scholar. For a discussion of Albert's teratology related to modern disability studies, see Gloria Frost, “Medieval Aristotelians on Congenital Disabilities and Their Early Modern Critics,” forthcoming in Disability in Medieval Philosophy, ed. Scott Williams.

65 Albert the Great, Physica 2.3.3, pp. 136–38; cf. Albert, Super Sent. 2, dist. 18, art. 5, p. 319b.

66 Michael Scot, Liber phisionomiae cap. 1. Albert attributes this notion of the seven-chambered womb to Galen's De spermate; see De animalibus 22.1.3.6 (St 2: 1352; SZ 2: 1443). On the seven-chambered womb, see also Bartholomew the Englishman, De proprietatibus rerum 5.49 (Strassburg, 1505; available at http://goo.gl/bAC8u); Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum Naturale 31.26, in Speculum quadruplex 1: 2313; and Problemata varia anatomica, p. 66. For an attempt to establish the origin of this doctrine, see Kudlien, Fridolf, “The Seven Cells of the Uterus: The Doctrine and Its Roots,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 39 (1965): 415–23Google ScholarPubMed. The popular medieval doctrine is found in rabbinic literature as well. See Reichman, Edward, “Anatomy and the Doctrine of the Seven-Chamber Uterus in Rabbinic Literature,” Ḥakirah, the Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought 9 (2010): 245–65Google Scholar. Reichman identifies Michael Scot as a likely source for the doctrine in medieval Jewish sources at 250.

67 De animalibus 1.2.24.453 (St 1: 162; SZ 1: 218–19). In this, Albert is closer to the Hippocratic view, which identified two chambers in the human female. For discussion see Dasen, Véronique, “Les naissances multiples dans les texts médicaux antiques,” Gesnerus 55 (1998): 183–204, esp. at 184–86Google Scholar.

68 De animalibus 18.1.1.4 (St 2: 1193; SZ 2: 1283); cf. Aristotle, De generatione animalium 4.1 (765a17–22).

69 De animalibus 18.2.2.58 (St 2: 1221; SZ 2: 1309).

70 De animalibus 18.2.2.59 (St 2: 1221; SZ 2: 1310).

71 See Quaestiones super de animalibus 18, q. 1, ed. Filthaut, 296–97; QDA 530–31.

72 For treatment of these opposing models in medieval and early modern sources, see Daston, Lorraine and Park, Katherine, “The Hermaphrodite and the Orders of Nature: Sexual Ambiguity in Early Modern France,” in Premodern Sexualities, ed. Fradenburg, Louise and Freccero, Carla (New York, 1996), 117–36Google Scholar.

73 “Accidentia autem monstruosa quae accidunt quibusdam generatis quos ermafroditos vocant … causantur a superfluitate quae est materia generationis.” De animalibus 18.2.3.65 (St 2: 1224; SZ 2: 1312).

74 “Ermafroditi autem de quibus nunc loquimur causam suae habent generationis quam diximus. Si enim sperma impraegnans inveniat habundans humidum et vincat ipsum perfecte et in toto dividet ipsum et faciet duos gemellos in sexu simile maris. Si autem aequaliter vincatur in toto et in partibus, faciet duas gemellas sorores. Si autem in una parte divisa vincatur et in alia vincat, erunt gemini in dispari sexu unus mas et alter femina… . Si enim non habundet materia nisiin uno membro quod est circa inguen, ibidem superhabundans dividetur; et si vincatur virtus in uno et vincat in alio, generabitur ermafroditus. Et aliquando est ita figura utriusque membri completa quod ad visum et tactum discerni non potest quis sexus praevaleat; et non est inconveniens quin talis partus etiam habeat duas vesicas et urinam emittat per utrumque et quod in coitu et agat et patiatur, et incumbat et succumbat; sed non puto quod et impraegnat et impraegnatur. Sed pro certo sexus erit principalior qui a cordis iuvatur complexione; tamen aliquando etiam complexio cordis ita media est quod vix discerni potest quis sexuum praevaleat.” De animalibus 18.2.3.66 (St 2: 1224–25; SZ 2: 1312–13); cf. Quaestiones super de animalibus 18, q. 1, ed. Filthaut, 297; QDA, 531.

75 “Et dicitur de quibusdam, quod in coitu et succumbunt et incumbunt; situs enim membrorum genitalium non impedit hoc, quis situs membri virilis est secundum naturam super nervum coxae et situs vulvae mulieris est iuxta anum.” Physica 2.3.3, p. 138; cf. De animalibus 18.2.3.66 (St 2: 1224–25; SZ 2: 1312–13).

76 “Sicut ad visum probavimus in quibusdam esse esse utrumque sexum, ita quod a sapientibus discerni non potuit, quis pravaleret.” Physica 2.3.3, p. 138.

77 “In quodam etiam nostri temporis nato testiculi infra pellem contenti erant superius, ita quod prominentia eorum representabat duo labra vulvae muliebris; et fissura videbatur esse in medio clausa per pellem; et cum putaretur esse puella a parentibus et deberet aperiri fissura ut habilitaretur ad coitum, incisione facta prosilierunt testiculi et virga; et postea duxit uxorem et genuit ex ea plures filios.” De animalibus 18.2.4.69, (St 2: 1226; SZ 2: 1314). Miri Rubin has drawn attention to a report for the year 1300 that appeared in the Annales Colmarienses minores, which records a similar case of a woman who was in an unfruitful marriage for ten years. Because she could not have sex with her husband and therefore could not satisfy the conjugal debt, an ecclesiastical court dissolved the union. Then in Bologna a surgeon cut open her vagina, and a penis and testicles fell out. S/he then returned home, “married a wife, did hard [physical] labour, and had proper and adequate sexual congress with her wife.” See Rubin, Miri, “The Person in the Form: Medieval Challenges to Bodily Order,” in Framing Medieval Bodies, ed. Kay, Sarah and Rubin, Miri (Manchester, 1994), 100–122, at 101Google Scholar. For the Latin text, see Annales Colmarienses maiores, ed. Ph. Jaffé, MGH, SS 17 (Hanover, 1861), 225. The surgeon's intervention may reflect the growing role accorded to such practitioners; according to De Vun, from the end of the thirteenth century, “an elite group of surgeons had begun to circulate instructions for determining the masculinity and femininity of hermaphrodites, certifying their sex, and offering ‘cures’ that brought their bodies into conformity with standard expectations of male or female anatomy.” Vun, Leah De, “Erecting Sex: Hermaphrodites and the Medieval Science of Surgery,” Osiris 30 (2015): 17–37 at 18Google Scholar.

78 De animalibus 12.1.2.24, 12.2.3.116 (St 1: 807; 843–44; SZ 2: 903; 937).

79 “Ad partem dextra maior est influentia cordis.” Quaestiones super de animalibus 18, q. 1, ed. Filthaut, 297; QDA, 531.

80 “Haec enim cum sexu dispari in eodem individuo causam habent unam et eamdem quae etiam causa huiusmodi aborsus secundum quae non abortit mulier aut femina, sed ipse conceptus monstruosatur in figura.” De animalibus 18.2.3.67 (St 2: 1225; SZ 2: 1313); for causes of miscarriage in humans, see esp. Quaestiones super de animalibus 9, qq. 19–23, ed. Filthaut, 211–12; QDA, 321–24; De animalibus 9.1.2.25, 9.1.5.56, 10.2.2.49, 10.2.2.51–54 (St 1: 683, 696, 750, 751–52; SZ 1: 782; 794; 846; 847–48). Most often Albert explains miscarriage as resulting from movement of the womb, or from a lack of adequate nutriment.

81 Mineralia IV, tr.1, cap.1, ed. A. Borgnet (Paris, 1890), 5: 84b; cf. De vegetabilibus I, tr.1, cap. 2, ed. Ernest Meyer and Carl Jessen (Berlin, 1867; repr. Frankfurt am Main, 1982), 8.

82 De animalibus 4.2.4.102 (St 1: 403–404; SZ 1: 484).

83 “Perfectum enim est principium cognoscendi imperfectum. Solus autem homo perfectissimus est animalium.” De animalibus 1.2.26.498 (St 1: 178–79; SZ 1: 237).

84 “Dicunt enim quidam de lepore quem quidam hyzum vocant, quod aliquando sit mas et aliquando femina et aliquando concipiat et aliquando impraegnat; … Hoc autem quod aestimant de lepore, quem adhab Arabes vocant quod habeat utrumque membrum per vices mensium, non est verum … Haec igitur quae dicunt sunt falsa; et has quas diximus, causas habent erroris.” De animalibus 17.1.5.38–39 (St 2: 1164–65; SZ 2: 1255–56). For the claim that the hare is hermaphroditic, see Neckam, Alexander, De naturis rerum, ed. Wright, Thomas, Rerum Brittanicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores 34 (London, 1863), 134Google Scholar.

85 De animalibus 22.2.1.106 (57) (St 2: 1405; SZ 2: 1512).

86 “Aliquando enim nascitur partus habens utrumque sexum, habens virgam virilem et vulvam muliebrem; qui partus ermafroditus vocatur; et accidit haec monstruositas aliquando etiam in capris quas Graeci virreagaryes vocant, eo quod membrum habent et maris et feminae.” De animalibus 18.1.6.53 (St 2: 1218; SZ 2: 1306–7). Cf. Aristotle, Generation of Animals (770b35) for tragainai, hermaphroditic goats.

87 “Nec virtutes istae in uno congregari possunt perfecte. Formans enim virtus, ut dicit Avicenna, confortatur calido sicco, formabilis vero frigido humido: quae si in unum corpus congregarentur secundum suas intensiones, destrueretur perfecta generatio: propter hoc quod hermaphroditus non generat.” Summa theologiae, pars II, tr. 13, q.80, m.2, ed. A. Borgnet (Paris, 1895), 33:116b.

88 “Tunc incidit haeresis Judaeorum, … Crescite, et multiplicamini. ” Summa theologiae, pars II, tr.11, q.64, ed. A. Borgnet (Paris, 1895), 32: 613a. For some medieval Jewish views on Adamic androgyny, see Reisenberger, Azila Talit, “The Creation of Adam as Hermaphrodite — and Its Implications for a Feminist Theology,” Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought 42 (1993): 447–52Google Scholar.

89 “Masculus ex substantia sua generat in alio, hoc est, in sanguine menstruo.” Mineralia IV, tr.1, cap.1, 84b.

90 Constantine the African, Theorices 9.41 (Basel, 1536), 3: 298. Michael Scot considers this to be the “natural” state for hermaphrodites. See his Liber phisionomiae, cap. 6 (Venice, 1486). Michael's Liber phisionomiae is the third book of his tripartite Liber introductorius, following after the Liber quattuor distinctionum and Liber particularis, and relies heavily on al-Rāzī’s Book to al-Mansūr, either in the Arabic or Latin translation.

91 Women's Secrets: A Translation of Pseudo-Albertus Magnus's De secretis mulierum with Commentaries, cap. 6, Comm B., 117. For the Latin of commentary B —“Et ideo semper hermofrodita est impotens ad generationem quoad virile membrum” — see Tractatus Henrici de Saxonia, Alberti magni discipuli, De secretis mulierum (Augsburg, 1489)Google Scholar, accessed at https://bildsuche.digitale-sammlungen.de/index.html?c=viewer&l=en&bandnummer=bsb00082301&pimage=00104&v=100&nav=.

92 “Ergo dicunt naturales quod hermofrodita semper sit impotens in membro virili.” Problemata varia anatomica, 67.

93 “Quia licet habeat membra utriusque sexus, tamen per membrum maris non potest spermitizare in matricem propriam. Unde forte in aliam potest spermitizare et generare, tamen impraegnari non potest, quia tactum fuit in QUINTO, quod omnes viragines sunt steriles, quia habent matrices conceptui non convenientes; ideo etc.” Quaestiones super de animalibus 18, q. 2, resp. ad 3, ed. Filthaut, 297; QDA 533–34. No reference is found in the fifth book of this work, but see De animalibus 18.2.9.93 (St 2: 1240–41; SZ 2: 1327–28).

94 Aristotle, Generation of Animals 747a; cf. Aristotle, De animalibus: Michael Scot's Arabic-Latin Translation, Part Three: Books XV–XIX: Generation of Animals, 747a, 107.

95 “Ipsum tamen monstrum, inquantum rationem entis habet, bonum est.” Quaestiones super de animalibus 18, q. 5, ed. Filthaut, 299; QDA, 539.