"Hey, don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love."
- ALVY SINGER (Woody Allen) in Annie Hall (1977)
Okay, I do not even know where to start with this post…
We read a case investigated by the Inquisition, as it relates to heresy, with regards to a beata named Marina de San Miguel. Now, one of the major reasons for reading this article was to understand the procedural dichotomy used by the investigators and notaries, for the purpose of analyzing what formula was followed during such trials and how they were interpreted by the notaries. So let us skim through this first. Jacqueline Holler informs us that notaries did not transcribe the procedures verbatim, rather, they more often than note were a summary of what the accused had said; especially when the accused repeated a culturally used phrase or quote (i.e. scripture from the Bible). Holler does point out, however, that the records are very specific and personal, given their empirical inclination. She then explains the standard formula in succession, as it relates to procedural flow of a typical inquisition trial. I did find it highly unusual that in a trial of such magnitude, the defendant was allowed counsel; even if they had been appointed through the court itself.
What makes Holler’s argument so interesting is the case she chose to examine. Marina was a fifty-three year old woman, living as a beata in Mexico, circa1598. Beata’s were less formal version of nuns, giving themselves a position socially that was acceptable, but also establishing a nun’s life without the restrictions of living in a monastery. Through her testimony, we are able to establish that she belonged to the Dominican order and her occupation was as a needle worker and she owns her own home; thus reflecting the independence Marina had spiritually, financially and socially, especially since she had never married. In her first confession, she declares that perhaps the reason she has been arrested was because of a conversation she had had with a non believer. She informs the committee that she had already told her order’s priest about this and was absolved. She is then sent back to her cell and told to reexamine her memory. Three days later, Marina again confesses to the same conversation and was again sent back to her cell to go over her thoughts. Then her narrative starts to get weird.
One day later, on her third confession, she began confessing to seeing a hallucination of Christ and body aches similar to what might have been the onset of menopause. She then describes what sounds like an epileptic seizure and astral flight. The court then set her back to her cell (and probably took away her mushroom stash). The next day she starts to describe another delusion that depicted…hell? Somehow, in this version, Christ superimposed himself on her “former” fiancé, then she got drunk, and (if I understand this correctly) got married and had sex with him, before waking up the next morning, probably with one hell of a hangover and trying to figure out what had happened the night before; too bad Marina did not have Alan Jackson to sing her the explanation.
A couple of days later she confesses eating meat at times it is restricted by her faith and asks for forgiveness. Then nearly two months later Marina, literally lets the “(pussy) cat out of the bag” She divulges to the committee that fact that she has been “self-sustaining” sexually for at least the last fifteen years, where upon “came to pollution”, (i.e. orgasm), but only a couple of times every other month or so. From self-love, she then admits to having sex with Juan Nunez, apparently an accountant, also living among her order. Actually, she not only admits to having sex, but to specific and descriptive sexual acts. Then next day she confesses to having sex with another man, Alonso Gutierrez, as well as more masturbation. Then next day, she admitted to sexual acts with a former priest, who was now in China.
Her ninth and final confession, Marina admits to having a sexual relationship with another beata in her order. Finally, on February 2nd, oddly enough the Day of Purification, Marina decides she has confessed enough. She was later convicted, her punishment being gagged, bound, while partially nude, beat a hundred times, fined, and sentenced to a live in a plague hospital, where it appears she became ill and died.
So what can we take away from this bizarre story? First, the longer someone is held in prison, the more things they will confess to. Second, Marina starting confessing things before she ever knew why she was there or by whom the Inquistition had gotten her name. Third, she admitted to sexual behaviors, which she was punished for, though she had only taken a promise to be celibate, unlike the vows nuns were required to adhere by. Fourth, the Order of Saint Dominic was a very “loving” and sexual group of believers. It appears that Marina’s punishment was intended to kill her, but my question would be, why did it take nearly two years after her confessions for her to be punished? Also, were there records of who actually turned her in and for what charges? Were they punished in a manner similar to Marina, or was she punished worse because she was an independent, female beata?
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Week 15: A Cold Shower would have been more appealing
It’s like being at a climax, then pausing to watch Fox News…
My question is how come society in the 17th century allowed women legal protections under the law, yet by the time the 20th century rolled around, they had absolutely none? The opening of Women’s Lives in Colonial Quito by Kimberly Gauderman, gives two examples of two married women, separated and in essence, hiding themselves from their abusive husbands. Both women, Maria and Ventura (dona Ventura de Zarate), asked the local law enforcement to intervene on their behalf regarding the domestic violence imposed on them by their estranged spouses. Maria’s plight went completely ignored, while the police did intervene on Ventura’s behalf. Gauderman never does give an explanation as to what social and legal changes brought about the full usage of the patriarchal imposed limitations of rights, with regards to women and child, and leaves the reader to gather their own assumptions as to the cause(s).
Despite this, Gauderman does extensively explain how she gathered much of her information, and uses it to bring a well rounded glimpse into the lives of women in Ecuador during the colonial period. I also found chapters 1-3 more stimulating than the last two; especially chapter three on the criminal justice system and women. I find it completely interesting that the ecclesiastical court, which granted very few divorces, contradicted the secular courts, yet women bonded to bad marriages, could find relief in the secular realm. In fact, Gauderman’s example of the priest, Maestro Francisco de la Vega, giving his parishioner, Agustina de la Vega (no known relation to priest Vega), sound advice on how to deal with her philandering excuse of a husband; sue him! Again, though Gauderman gives details into the case, I was again left confused; and no it is not because I am a natural blonde… We are told that Augustina sued her husband for what we can assume was abandonment, adultery, and domestic violence. However, the reader is left without knowing if this was part of a divorce suit or what the outcome of the case was; trust me, it has been driving me up a wall because no where have I been able to find the outcome and it is kind of like reading a book, only to find out the last chapter is missing and the book is out of print. This again shows that Gauderman has excellent sources and examples, yet for some unknown reason, wants to torture the reader by never telling the entire story.
I did learn an interesting fact I never knew before I read this book. I never realized that when Queen Isabella died, her daughter would gain the throne, rather than her husband; I am also still confused as to how Ferdinand was able to maintain control of both empire’s despite this legacy. According to Gauderman, the two empires were not unified again until Charles I took over and co-ruled with his mother until her death. Unfortunately, I had to look up online as to exactly how and why this happened. I realize that Gauderman used certain examples, such as the one above, to show that patriarchy was a permeable state of the family gave women power not only within the family structure, but also within her community; and therefore her society during the colonial period in Quito, but most of the book felt like an economic historical archive; like a sex instruction manual using mundane photos to illustrate correct execution of the matter at hand.
My question is how come society in the 17th century allowed women legal protections under the law, yet by the time the 20th century rolled around, they had absolutely none? The opening of Women’s Lives in Colonial Quito by Kimberly Gauderman, gives two examples of two married women, separated and in essence, hiding themselves from their abusive husbands. Both women, Maria and Ventura (dona Ventura de Zarate), asked the local law enforcement to intervene on their behalf regarding the domestic violence imposed on them by their estranged spouses. Maria’s plight went completely ignored, while the police did intervene on Ventura’s behalf. Gauderman never does give an explanation as to what social and legal changes brought about the full usage of the patriarchal imposed limitations of rights, with regards to women and child, and leaves the reader to gather their own assumptions as to the cause(s).
Despite this, Gauderman does extensively explain how she gathered much of her information, and uses it to bring a well rounded glimpse into the lives of women in Ecuador during the colonial period. I also found chapters 1-3 more stimulating than the last two; especially chapter three on the criminal justice system and women. I find it completely interesting that the ecclesiastical court, which granted very few divorces, contradicted the secular courts, yet women bonded to bad marriages, could find relief in the secular realm. In fact, Gauderman’s example of the priest, Maestro Francisco de la Vega, giving his parishioner, Agustina de la Vega (no known relation to priest Vega), sound advice on how to deal with her philandering excuse of a husband; sue him! Again, though Gauderman gives details into the case, I was again left confused; and no it is not because I am a natural blonde… We are told that Augustina sued her husband for what we can assume was abandonment, adultery, and domestic violence. However, the reader is left without knowing if this was part of a divorce suit or what the outcome of the case was; trust me, it has been driving me up a wall because no where have I been able to find the outcome and it is kind of like reading a book, only to find out the last chapter is missing and the book is out of print. This again shows that Gauderman has excellent sources and examples, yet for some unknown reason, wants to torture the reader by never telling the entire story.
I did learn an interesting fact I never knew before I read this book. I never realized that when Queen Isabella died, her daughter would gain the throne, rather than her husband; I am also still confused as to how Ferdinand was able to maintain control of both empire’s despite this legacy. According to Gauderman, the two empires were not unified again until Charles I took over and co-ruled with his mother until her death. Unfortunately, I had to look up online as to exactly how and why this happened. I realize that Gauderman used certain examples, such as the one above, to show that patriarchy was a permeable state of the family gave women power not only within the family structure, but also within her community; and therefore her society during the colonial period in Quito, but most of the book felt like an economic historical archive; like a sex instruction manual using mundane photos to illustrate correct execution of the matter at hand.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
"Although the most acute judges of the witches and even the witches themselves, were convinced of the guilt of witchery, the guilt nevertheless was non-existent. It is thus with all guilt." Friedrich Nietzsche
"A major difference between witches and psychotherapists is that witches see the mental health of women as having important political consequences." Naomi R. Goldenberg
What makes a witch a witch? Is it her warts, her sinister ways? Does she live by herself? Is she old or is she young? Has she buried many husbands to unknown illnesses? Why is the witch more often than not, a woman? From Western Europe to Salem, Massachusetts, our “civilized” culture has been mesmerized with the thoughts wrapping around such superstition and urban legend. Descriptions of traits and attributions do not seem to have played a great role in the pursuit of locating such evil sorcerers; nor do the articles we examined this week. Rather the only way to discover a witch was if someone accused someone else of practicing witchcraft. Does this feel like déjà vu to anyone else? Was this not the same position of the American government during the Joseph McCarthy era? How out the Stasi in Germany or the NKVD (People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs) under Stalin.
How were these not the same tactics? According to Ruth Behar, there are numerous interconnected reasons for the different treatment of those accused of the practice of witchcraft. First, unlike it other witch hunts conducted in the United States and western Europe, these witches not only were entitled to, but also received the right for a legal defense. Second, if found guilty of witch craft, women in Latin America underwent “religious education”, rather than the gristly torture and subsequent death that their Europeans counterparts were claimed by. Behar also points out that unlike the Moors and Jews that were put to death by the Spanish for similar accusations, the indigenous peoples in Latin America were given great leeway because of their recent conversion and adaptation of Christianity. It should also be pointed out that the Moors and Jews were already considered either enemies or suspect of being enemies of the crown and therefore their behavior was of greater concern to the crown given their physical closeness. Additionally, witchcraft in Latin America was looked upon more as superstition by the paternal Spanish authorities; remember the indigenous people were lesser (childlike)peoples, therefore, “re-education” was the better way to promote a true understanding of their Christian conversion.
Behar further explains that accusations of witchcraft were related to sex; examples she used were of scorned lovers, abusive or unfaithful husbands against their wife after they had fallen ill from unknown sources, etc. Behar writes extensively about what these “sorcerers” had used in their concoctions. Herbs, spells, hair and bodily fluids; yes, I did say bodily fluids. To be more specific, menstrual blood was often placed by the women in either food or drink that the man then unknowingly consumed. Though this would have made Billy Bob Thorton right at home, the idea that this was used as part of a spell obviously had serious social ramifications. Behar’s examples are of women confessing to using this tactic to gain power over their cheating or abusive husband. Men thought the blood weaken them. I am personally grossed out by this fact in a total ethnocentric viewpoint and find myself pondering what this culture would have thought (or done with) the invention of the tampon or Always maxi (heavy flow with wings). Either way, Behar’s main point was not the method that the women used, rather, the point that these women felt let down in their litigious society with regards to their personal situation. She writes that in the cases she studied, the “use of witchcraft” was as a last result when either their petition for divorce was denied or no arrest and/or punishment followed their husbands’ actions. Witchcraft gave women a psychological edge over their mate, and appeared to do more to stop the evil infecting their husbands than the legal system provided. Behar is also quick to point out that these records mainly exist because the women felt guilty about some injury that befell their husbands and the result was a confession to gain forgiveness and cleanse them of the damages they had caused.
Overall, Behar used great illustrations to prove her points and gives one pause to think about what they would do (or be accused of) if restitution through the legal system fails them. Too bad for me, I have had a hysterectomy… though I have been called something that rhymes with “witch” by my other half. Maybe that is what those men were really calling their wives…
"A major difference between witches and psychotherapists is that witches see the mental health of women as having important political consequences." Naomi R. Goldenberg
What makes a witch a witch? Is it her warts, her sinister ways? Does she live by herself? Is she old or is she young? Has she buried many husbands to unknown illnesses? Why is the witch more often than not, a woman? From Western Europe to Salem, Massachusetts, our “civilized” culture has been mesmerized with the thoughts wrapping around such superstition and urban legend. Descriptions of traits and attributions do not seem to have played a great role in the pursuit of locating such evil sorcerers; nor do the articles we examined this week. Rather the only way to discover a witch was if someone accused someone else of practicing witchcraft. Does this feel like déjà vu to anyone else? Was this not the same position of the American government during the Joseph McCarthy era? How out the Stasi in Germany or the NKVD (People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs) under Stalin.
How were these not the same tactics? According to Ruth Behar, there are numerous interconnected reasons for the different treatment of those accused of the practice of witchcraft. First, unlike it other witch hunts conducted in the United States and western Europe, these witches not only were entitled to, but also received the right for a legal defense. Second, if found guilty of witch craft, women in Latin America underwent “religious education”, rather than the gristly torture and subsequent death that their Europeans counterparts were claimed by. Behar also points out that unlike the Moors and Jews that were put to death by the Spanish for similar accusations, the indigenous peoples in Latin America were given great leeway because of their recent conversion and adaptation of Christianity. It should also be pointed out that the Moors and Jews were already considered either enemies or suspect of being enemies of the crown and therefore their behavior was of greater concern to the crown given their physical closeness. Additionally, witchcraft in Latin America was looked upon more as superstition by the paternal Spanish authorities; remember the indigenous people were lesser (childlike)peoples, therefore, “re-education” was the better way to promote a true understanding of their Christian conversion.
Behar further explains that accusations of witchcraft were related to sex; examples she used were of scorned lovers, abusive or unfaithful husbands against their wife after they had fallen ill from unknown sources, etc. Behar writes extensively about what these “sorcerers” had used in their concoctions. Herbs, spells, hair and bodily fluids; yes, I did say bodily fluids. To be more specific, menstrual blood was often placed by the women in either food or drink that the man then unknowingly consumed. Though this would have made Billy Bob Thorton right at home, the idea that this was used as part of a spell obviously had serious social ramifications. Behar’s examples are of women confessing to using this tactic to gain power over their cheating or abusive husband. Men thought the blood weaken them. I am personally grossed out by this fact in a total ethnocentric viewpoint and find myself pondering what this culture would have thought (or done with) the invention of the tampon or Always maxi (heavy flow with wings). Either way, Behar’s main point was not the method that the women used, rather, the point that these women felt let down in their litigious society with regards to their personal situation. She writes that in the cases she studied, the “use of witchcraft” was as a last result when either their petition for divorce was denied or no arrest and/or punishment followed their husbands’ actions. Witchcraft gave women a psychological edge over their mate, and appeared to do more to stop the evil infecting their husbands than the legal system provided. Behar is also quick to point out that these records mainly exist because the women felt guilty about some injury that befell their husbands and the result was a confession to gain forgiveness and cleanse them of the damages they had caused.
Overall, Behar used great illustrations to prove her points and gives one pause to think about what they would do (or be accused of) if restitution through the legal system fails them. Too bad for me, I have had a hysterectomy… though I have been called something that rhymes with “witch” by my other half. Maybe that is what those men were really calling their wives…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)