Virgin Martyrs

[osprey_archer]

The virgin martyrs don't get too much love these days. Virginity is out of fashion, as are the general gender politics virgin martyr legends espouse. The average virgin martyr plot - Roman official courts pious girl, girl shoots Roman official down, Roman official tortures girl until she dies and goes straight to heaven - strikes the average reader as a little torture-pornish. Also, the virgin martyrs are all probably apocryphal, which puts rather a damper on things.

It's a pity, because I LOVE the virgin martyrs. They're just so...kickass. I mean, you wouldn't think it, because mainly what a virgin martyr does is get tortured to death, but she mocks her tormentors so delightfully while being tortured, and when her evil suitor finally realize that nothing he does will harm the virgin martyr ever he has her beheaded - and her soul flies to heaven, cackling with victory - and the suitor generally melts into a puddle of misery, utterly defeated FOREVER.

It's wish-fulfillment for the oppressed (or for anyone who feels like identifying with the oppressed). Some scholars want to read this as subversive - and it certainly helps their cause that the virgin martyrs don't much resemble the meek, mild, obedient, submissive Ideal Medieval Lady - but I don't think there's that much cause to do so; especially given that the Ideal Medieval Lady lives mostly in conduct books, and the queens and noblewomen of medieval England were often notably feisty and would have fit right in with the vituperative virgin martyrs.

I've mentioned my favorite, St. Juliana who whipped the devil with chains; but she is not alone. St. Margaret defeated a dragon with the power of the cross; St. Cecilia's head was chopped off three times before her executioners finally succeeded, and St. Justina repelled every devil her suitor sent to seduce her with the sheer awesome power of her faith.

Their suitors try their darndest to torture the virgin martyrs into submission, and the virgin martyrs just sit there and mock them. One of the martyrs actually tossed her severed tongue at her erstwhile suitor/torturer. He was struck dumb for a week, and the tongue cheerfully harangued him all the while.

Okay, I've come up with another reason why the virgin martyrs have fallen out of favor: they appeal entirely to the vengeful side of human nature, which is perfectly fine with turning the other cheek just as long as the party to whom the cheek is turned will have this occasion burned forever in his memory as one of the most humiliating defeats of his life. The virgin martyr legends are very much "the meek will inherit the earth - NEENER NEENER NEENER!"

...now I feel a little bad about liking them so much.

Comments

[goldjadeocean.livejournal.com]

I love the virgin martyrs too! Also St. Uncumber, for sheer WTFery.

I totally think you should love them. They're awesome.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

I had to look up St. Uncumber. Excellent legend! I wonder if carnival freak shows ever thought of adopting her as a patron saint, back in the day: St. Uncumber, the very first Bearded Lady? Probably not. But that could have been awesome.

I'm glad to hear that other people love the virgin martyrs. Everyone else in my class was talking gravely about psychosexual politics and the patriarchy and I was sitting there going "But...but...surely they should get some points for sheer awesome? Even if they are secret agents of the status quo? Couldn't we at least give them cool Secret Agent of the Status Quo sunglasses, like CIA agents?"

[goldjadeocean.livejournal.com]

I wonder if carnival freak shows ever thought of adopting her as a patron saint, back in the day: St. Uncumber, the very first Bearded Lady? Probably not. But that could have been awesome.

I first heard of her by reading Robertson Davies' Fifth Business, which is really good. The protagonist, who has a fascination with hagiography, endears himself to a travelling circus in the 1920s by telling the story to their bearded lady.

Women used to offer oats to St. Uncumber's shrine; the oats were supposed to feed the horse that would carry their husbands to the Devil.

I think part of the reason the virgin-martyrs don't get much play lately is they don't fit a neat box. They aren't totally meek mild do-gooders (which, I love St. Therese of Liseux, but really) but they're not the kind of symbol feminist Christians would invest in either. But they're still pretty fierce ladies.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

I should add that book to my reading list.

And yes, certainly about the boxes. The virgins martyrs can't fit in anywhere, poor things, so they get over-simplified out of existence.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

Now see, I never did have a proper appreciation of them. I have to confess to being put off by the focus on virginity. But you've shown me them in a new light--seriously, I always thought of them as pretty hard done by, but you've shown me how to see them as empowered--even with the torturing and the gruesome deaths.

I like the idea of the severed tongue haranguing the torturer.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

My goal in life: to defend the honor of misunderstood dead and fictional people. Well, at least I have a goal, right?

I think the problem for the virgin martyrs - aside from the chastity thing - is that modern audiences generally don't see being tortured to death by one's enemies as anything but a loss, whereas medieval audiences instantly saw the empowerment (because being tortured to death by your enemies makes you exactly like Jesus!)

The focus on virginity is nonetheless problematic. I like this about the virgin martyr stories, as a historical document: it's easy to connect with them, because the stories are quite exciting and fun, but it also shows that although they weren't entirely alien, medieval people were very, very different than we are.

...but as purely part of the story, it's problematic.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

You've got me thinking about the importance--or at least presence--of pain in life. People often say that modern, Western society wishes it could ignore death, and in fact does ignore death, and so is startled when death rears its head and actually, y'know, is a fact of life. But it seems to me that that's true for pain too. Of course, lots and lots of people, in the West as well as elsewhere, know all about pain, but I get the feeling that in the past, when pain was even more universally present than it is now, people had to look at it more squarely and find some way to come to terms with it. Buddhism has its four noble truths: Life is suffering; suffering comes from desire; if you rid yourself of desire, you can get rid of suffering; this (the eightfold path) is the way to rid yourself of desire). But Christianity embraces suffering, because Christ's suffering = expiation and salvation.

Although I've never liked the sacrificial nature of what Jesus did, the idea of God being willing to suffer like people suffer, to go through what they go through I find very moving. And to embrace that aspect of human experience, rather than to (attempt to) obliterate or negate it, is pretty amazing. I never thought about how being tortured made you just like Jesus--but sure! And the same with any martyrdom, but the gruesomer, the better.

I have to go on my dog walk now, and I think I'll think about this some more.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I would say modern Christianity embraces pain, but medieval Christianity certainly did - the "being tortured makes you like Christ" thing was a very popular form of piety, hence the flagellants and the wearing of hair shirts etc.

I can't help but think they missed the point - if Jesus's crucifixion involves him suffering like one of us, surely we don't need to heap more suffering on our heads to suffer as he did - especially for medieval people, who suffered buckets already.

I am a bit confused about the distinction you're drawing between the idea of God suffering as people suffer, and the sacrificial nature of the crucifixion? Do you mean "Christ suffering for our sins," as if God couldn't forgive humanity without sacrificing Jesus for it?

I think you're right about the modern aversion to pain: just looking over modern self-help manuals, they're mostly about how to prevent pain from occurring, without the self-discipline that the Buddhist or stoic path would demand to reach that end. Although perhaps it's unfair to compare self-help books to great works of religion or philosophy? But I think older self-help books tended to face suffering much more head-on, too, so perhaps it is a historical shift.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

Yes! Yes, that's exactly it. Why does Jesus need to suffer for humanity's sins to be forgiven? Suffering to know us and love us and understand us, that I can see (and that's I think a great value in suffering for us, now--so that we can know and understand other people in pain--and maybe that's what the people in the medieval days were getting out of it too, they were identifying with Jesus, getting to know and love him better, through their pain... though yeah, it ends up being circular, if he's doing it for our sake... ) <--whoa, got lost in my parenthetical remark...

So anyway, suffering to be one with humanity, I can understand, but why must Jesus suffer to erase humanity's sins? I don't like the whole notion of sacrificial offerings, of killing something as an act of atonement, and the crucifixion seems to be the ultimate example of that.

ETA (since I'm going around editing comments)... I don't mind *personal* sacrifices--giving up some thing of your own. It's killing a lamb or a dove that I don't like as a form of atonement... Bah, I don't think I'm going to get coherent about this...

[longlegs21.livejournal.com]

Do you mind if I butt in? In my bible study I've been learning some things about this subject that you might find interesting.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

No problem. I don't have anything enlightening to say on the topic so I'd love to hear what you've learned.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

Sure, feel free (if osprey_archer doesn't mind).

With references!

[longlegs21.livejournal.com]

Jesus didn’t need to suffer for humanity’s sins to be forgiven. He needed to give his life. Why? Adam lost perfect human life for himself and his offspring when he sinned (Romans 5:12). To buy us back from slavery to sin and death (Romans 7:14), something of corresponding value to Adam’s life needed to be given: another perfect human life (1 Timothy 2:6). So Jesus willingly took the job (Philippians 2:7). He took Adam’s place by giving us back the chance for everlasting life (1 Corinthians 15:45). Since he died in perfect obedience to God, he could present the value of his sacrifice to God when he returned to heaven (Hebrews 9:24), and it was worth enough to cover the sins of everyone who exercised faith (Romans 5:19; Hebrews 10:10; John 3:16).

So if the ransom didn’t require Jesus’ suffering, why did he go through all that torture? Well, remember Job? Satan challenged God, saying that Job was only faithful because of the protection and blessings he received, but if he were allowed to experience real hardship in his life, he would stop serving God (Job 1:10, 11). Satan broadened that challenge to include all humans when he said, “Everything that a man has he will give in behalf of his soul” (Job 2:4). Jesus gave his own answer to that challenge when he faithfully endured so much suffering; and it was the best answer because he showed that a perfect human with free will could remain perfectly faithful to God despite the worst trials (Proverbs 27:11).

Re: With references!

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

This is really well presented and well explained, and agrees with the sorts of things I've heard elsewhere.

I think the problem for me (or with me?) is that I'm talking from some weird position of being deeply in touch with Christianity, but not--I guess, if I'm honest--being an actual believer? I don't know. I'm not sure that I'm not a believer either, weird as that sounds...

And so, the thing is, I can see how the logic and the arguments work within the parameters of belief, but I still feel barriers to acceptance--but they're more barriers to accepting the whole premise, maybe?

... so now I feel like I've opened up the discussion on false pretenses, and I feel bad about that. I really appreciate your taking the time to write all this up, all the same. Thank you :-)

[longlegs21.livejournal.com]

I honestly tried to keep my response short! Anyway, I hope I don't sound pedantic or dogmatic here, because that is not my intention at all.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

Not at all! It was very clearly put, not at all long, and not at all dogmatic. I appreciated it.

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

I'm honestly not really sure - this is part of the reason I'm not a Christian - but longlegs21 seems to have done an able job answering below.

I agree about personal sacrifices. I find martyrdom stories very compelling.

I think the point of a sacrificial offering is in part the fact that it will cause the offerer hardship, at least in an agrarian society - because lambs were worth a tremendous amount...but killing something else in order to cause yourself pain seems ethically dubious.

And I think most people thought of animal sacrifice as an incantation more than anything else, so it wasn't even working as a sacrifice.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

That's interesting what you say about an incantation--yes, this whole conversation has been very thought provoking, though as I mentioned to longlegs21, I feel, in a way, bad for starting something I can't actually continue.

[longlegs21.livejournal.com]

Hey, those virgin martyrs do sound like fun (in a weird sort of way)! Do any of them have some tenuous connection to a true story? 'Cause, wouldn't that be cool!

[osprey-archer.livejournal.com]

A few of them do! The original St. Apollonia was an old women in...somewhere in North Africa...who was attacked by a mob who knocked her teeth out and threatened to burn her alive if she didn't renounce Christ. She asked them to step back a minute to give her time to think, then threw herself into the fire they had built.

Medieval hagiographers hacked fifty some years off her age.