What do you think?
Rate this book
Sexuality in Medieval Europe: Doing Unto Others
Challenging the way the Middle Ages have been treated in general histories of sexuality, Sexuality in Medieval Europe shows how views at the time were conflicted and complicated; there was no single medieval attitude towards sexuality any more than there is one modern attitude. Focusing on marital sexual activity, as well as behavior that was seen as transgressive, the chapters cover such topics as chastity, the role of the church, and non-reproductive activity. Combining an overview of research on the topic with original interpretations, Ruth Mazo Karras demonstrates that medieval culture developed sexual identities that were quite distinct from the identities we think of today, yet were still ancestral to our own. Using a wide collection of evidence from the late antique period until the fifteenth century, this fully revised third edition has been updated to include the latest scholarship throughout, including expanded coverage of Islamic and Jewish cultures and new ideas on how medieval sexual violence relates to the modern world. A new companion website supplements the text featuring an interactive timeline of key events, links to key primary sources, and references to further reading. Sexuality in Medieval Europe is essential reading for those who study medieval history and culture.
258 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
15 people are currently reading
777 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
September 26, 2017
This had some useful and interesting material, and was on the whole written in a readable enough style. It wasn't, however, as useful as I might have hoped in providing me with specific examples relevant to my dissertation, and as such I have a few major criticisms.
Karras never defines how she is using the terms 'medieval' or 'Europe'. The former is frustrating because I'm primarily looking at the early medieval period, and this book spends quite a lot of time talking about the fifteenth century, which is not at all relevant. It would have been nice if there had been more distinction between different periods, and if it had been clearer. Quite often, the specifics were lacking: Karras would write that an attitude was common "in medieval society" but didn't specify WHAT society, and since medieval society was not homogenous across countries or periods, this was frustrating.
As for how she defines "Europe", well, this is puzzling to me. She manages to avoid mentioning Ireland at all in the entire book (I checked the index, it's not in there), which is frankly baffling although at times impressive. I mean, how you can mention Gerald of Wales in the context of ideas of sexual otherness and NOT reference what he says about the Irish is beyond me. The lack of reference to Ireland would make sense if Karras's 'Europe' was a purely continental one, but since she discusses England, this doesn't seem to be the case. Nor was Ireland an isolated backwater during these periods, as its scholars and churchmen had plenty of contact with the Continent, so I don't really understand why it was completely left out.
Most of the time, therefore, I couldn't tell if an example would be relevant as a comparative point because she made no remark about whether or not it applied to Ireland, and indeed there was little enough commentary on how widespread ideas were, though many were attributed to specific places. Sometimes, however, I felt they actively did not. For example, in discussing modern myths of a 'droit de seigneur' in which a lord is entitled to sleep with a female serf on her wedding night before her husband does so, Karras argues that there is no medieval evidence for this whatsoever. But this concept appears in Irish literature:
(From Wikipedia, because it was easier than finding the story itself.) Obviously, this is a literary example rather than a historical one, but so are other examples Karras gives in the book. And of course, a king and his subjects is not the same as a lord and his serfs. But the point remains that this is not purely a modern invention, since it appears in medieval Irish literature -- whether or not it actually happened in reality.
Therefore I can't help but feel that Karras's failure to mention Ireland ever was because of complete ignorance on the subject, and while I don't blame her (nobody can be an expert in everything!), it does weaken a few points. Had she explained her definition of 'medieval' and 'Europe' and acknowledged the omission of Ireland and its literature, I would be less annoyed, but there's something distinctly dismissive about ignoring the entirety of Ireland.
(To be honest, Wales and Scotland aren't mentioned either. I don't know much about Scotland during this period, but I know that there was some interesting stuff going on in Wales with regard to marriage and sexual (im)morality, so that is also an unfair omission that would probably have provided some interesting stuff. That said, Wales was notable primarily because it was outside of Continental norms, whereas Ireland during this period WASN'T. So omitting Wales, if the argument is that her Europe is Continental, makes slightly more sense than leaving out Ireland.)
This has turned out to be a really long review and it probably makes very little sense to others, but since I'm specifically writing about Irish literature it's frustrating that this book, while helpful from a methodological perspective, so completely ignores the exact place I'm looking at, and makes remarks that actually contradict the Irish (literary) evidence.
Sighhhhh.
Karras never defines how she is using the terms 'medieval' or 'Europe'. The former is frustrating because I'm primarily looking at the early medieval period, and this book spends quite a lot of time talking about the fifteenth century, which is not at all relevant. It would have been nice if there had been more distinction between different periods, and if it had been clearer. Quite often, the specifics were lacking: Karras would write that an attitude was common "in medieval society" but didn't specify WHAT society, and since medieval society was not homogenous across countries or periods, this was frustrating.
As for how she defines "Europe", well, this is puzzling to me. She manages to avoid mentioning Ireland at all in the entire book (I checked the index, it's not in there), which is frankly baffling although at times impressive. I mean, how you can mention Gerald of Wales in the context of ideas of sexual otherness and NOT reference what he says about the Irish is beyond me. The lack of reference to Ireland would make sense if Karras's 'Europe' was a purely continental one, but since she discusses England, this doesn't seem to be the case. Nor was Ireland an isolated backwater during these periods, as its scholars and churchmen had plenty of contact with the Continent, so I don't really understand why it was completely left out.
Most of the time, therefore, I couldn't tell if an example would be relevant as a comparative point because she made no remark about whether or not it applied to Ireland, and indeed there was little enough commentary on how widespread ideas were, though many were attributed to specific places. Sometimes, however, I felt they actively did not. For example, in discussing modern myths of a 'droit de seigneur' in which a lord is entitled to sleep with a female serf on her wedding night before her husband does so, Karras argues that there is no medieval evidence for this whatsoever. But this concept appears in Irish literature:
Conchobar has the "right of the first night" over all marriages of his subjects. He is afraid of Cú Chulainn's reaction if he exercises it in this case, but is equally afraid of losing his authority if he does not. Cathbad suggests a solution: Conchobar sleeps with Emer on the night of the wedding, but Cathbad sleeps between them.
(From Wikipedia, because it was easier than finding the story itself.) Obviously, this is a literary example rather than a historical one, but so are other examples Karras gives in the book. And of course, a king and his subjects is not the same as a lord and his serfs. But the point remains that this is not purely a modern invention, since it appears in medieval Irish literature -- whether or not it actually happened in reality.
Therefore I can't help but feel that Karras's failure to mention Ireland ever was because of complete ignorance on the subject, and while I don't blame her (nobody can be an expert in everything!), it does weaken a few points. Had she explained her definition of 'medieval' and 'Europe' and acknowledged the omission of Ireland and its literature, I would be less annoyed, but there's something distinctly dismissive about ignoring the entirety of Ireland.
(To be honest, Wales and Scotland aren't mentioned either. I don't know much about Scotland during this period, but I know that there was some interesting stuff going on in Wales with regard to marriage and sexual (im)morality, so that is also an unfair omission that would probably have provided some interesting stuff. That said, Wales was notable primarily because it was outside of Continental norms, whereas Ireland during this period WASN'T. So omitting Wales, if the argument is that her Europe is Continental, makes slightly more sense than leaving out Ireland.)
This has turned out to be a really long review and it probably makes very little sense to others, but since I'm specifically writing about Irish literature it's frustrating that this book, while helpful from a methodological perspective, so completely ignores the exact place I'm looking at, and makes remarks that actually contradict the Irish (literary) evidence.
Sighhhhh.
January 29, 2021
Doing Unto Others is an introductory text to the study of sexuality in medieval Europe, exploring not just the dominant Christian view but also the Jewish and Islamist views of sexuality. Karras’s approach is less about reading modern sexualities onto the past but about reconstructing how medieval people viewed sexual identity and activity.
I highly recommend this. Karras’s text is authoritative and scholarly but written in an accessible way that prevents it from being impenetrable or too intimidating. She is very open about the problems with evidence – the lack of it or how it, once stripped of its original context, can be misinterpreted to mean something it was never intended, most notably in discussing same-sex attraction and relationships. But she never does with the intention of denying that same-sex attraction and relationships took place – a frequent pitfall lesser historians are constantly falling into. She also points out that all our modern conceptions of sexuality, including heterosexuality, were concepts alien to medieval people and instead prioritises the medieval perspective.
Karras’s approach is broad, not just in terms of religion but also in the time and location. I would’ve liked a definition of what is meant by ‘medieval Europe’ as that is a rather long stretch of time and location. Certainly, Karras pulls evidence from a wide variety of locations, times and sources.
I found this an excellent resource not just in terms of same-sex behaviour but around the medieval concepts of chastity/celibacy/virginity and how the medieval world viewed sex between man and woman. Karras’s work in producing a scholarly but very readable text is to be applauded and I will be seeking out her other work.
I highly recommend this. Karras’s text is authoritative and scholarly but written in an accessible way that prevents it from being impenetrable or too intimidating. She is very open about the problems with evidence – the lack of it or how it, once stripped of its original context, can be misinterpreted to mean something it was never intended, most notably in discussing same-sex attraction and relationships. But she never does with the intention of denying that same-sex attraction and relationships took place – a frequent pitfall lesser historians are constantly falling into. She also points out that all our modern conceptions of sexuality, including heterosexuality, were concepts alien to medieval people and instead prioritises the medieval perspective.
Karras’s approach is broad, not just in terms of religion but also in the time and location. I would’ve liked a definition of what is meant by ‘medieval Europe’ as that is a rather long stretch of time and location. Certainly, Karras pulls evidence from a wide variety of locations, times and sources.
I found this an excellent resource not just in terms of same-sex behaviour but around the medieval concepts of chastity/celibacy/virginity and how the medieval world viewed sex between man and woman. Karras’s work in producing a scholarly but very readable text is to be applauded and I will be seeking out her other work.
January 13, 2021
This is a book designed as an introductory text for undergrad students or for non-history-majors. I'm evaluating this book based on that audience and framing, rather than as a monograph for more advanced scholars. Scholars looking for more advanced reading on the topic would benefit from looking up the extensive bibliography and citations.
I think it's easier to overlook the book's flaws when put into this context. Other reviewers have gone into them in more detail as to the weaknesses of the work, although the major flaw is that Mazo Karras is very fast and loose with both the terms "medieval" and "Europe" with citations mostly focused on 13th-15th Century England, France, Germany, and Italy. But she adds lots of tidbits from time periods and areas as disparate as Ancient Rome, Byzantium, 13th century Iceland, and 9th century Baghdad. With an introductory textbook, this smorgasbord of information is more easily overlooked as the purpose is to provide the reader with just a taste of everything.
I think I would also review this book more favorably if I had not recently read Francis Gies' Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages. Gies' book more clearly lays out the exact influence the Catholic Church had on changing ideas of marriage; it also goes into more depth about issues of kinship and incest. Most importantly, Gies' book probes into the economic factors that determined marriage age and the number of children both peasant and noble families had, leading Gies to conclude that peasants, especially in England and France, tended to delay marriage for women until their late teens to early 20s . Versus Mazo Karras who on multiple occasions stated that marriage was at 14 for girls and 16 for boys, removing the complicated geographical and cultural reasons for later or earlier marriage. Mazo Karras' weakest chapter is the chapter on marriage.
What does Mazo Karras do well? Her introduction does a solid job of describing how we use primary sources to draw conclusions about the past and then goes on to demonstrate how she uses primary sources herself to make assertions. The book also does a solid job explaining the centrality of chastity/unchaste divide that separated the populace more decisively than straight/gay might do now. The book also strives to bring in the views of marginalized populations in Europe, such as Jewish people and Muslims, sex workers, concubines, and people we would call LGBTQ today. The downside is that Mazo Karras never really digs into the Jewish/Muslim issues as much as I wish she would have. A significant number of pages is given up to explaining exactly how ideas of same-sex attraction were different during the Middle Ages, and that it is impossible to know if people really had sex or if they were intimate friends. As a person who's read enough queer history, it was redundant to read, but I think it's important for the author to lay this out for people new to the discussion of sexualities.
Tl;dr: scholars will find this work to be redundant at times and filled with holes in coverage, but the length and tone make the work more ideal for less experienced scholars. That is to say that I found it to be a useful book, but not the comprehensive overview that it might have been.
I think it's easier to overlook the book's flaws when put into this context. Other reviewers have gone into them in more detail as to the weaknesses of the work, although the major flaw is that Mazo Karras is very fast and loose with both the terms "medieval" and "Europe" with citations mostly focused on 13th-15th Century England, France, Germany, and Italy. But she adds lots of tidbits from time periods and areas as disparate as Ancient Rome, Byzantium, 13th century Iceland, and 9th century Baghdad. With an introductory textbook, this smorgasbord of information is more easily overlooked as the purpose is to provide the reader with just a taste of everything.
I think I would also review this book more favorably if I had not recently read Francis Gies' Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages. Gies' book more clearly lays out the exact influence the Catholic Church had on changing ideas of marriage; it also goes into more depth about issues of kinship and incest. Most importantly, Gies' book probes into the economic factors that determined marriage age and the number of children both peasant and noble families had, leading Gies to conclude that peasants, especially in England and France, tended to delay marriage for women until their late teens to early 20s . Versus Mazo Karras who on multiple occasions stated that marriage was at 14 for girls and 16 for boys, removing the complicated geographical and cultural reasons for later or earlier marriage. Mazo Karras' weakest chapter is the chapter on marriage.
What does Mazo Karras do well? Her introduction does a solid job of describing how we use primary sources to draw conclusions about the past and then goes on to demonstrate how she uses primary sources herself to make assertions. The book also does a solid job explaining the centrality of chastity/unchaste divide that separated the populace more decisively than straight/gay might do now. The book also strives to bring in the views of marginalized populations in Europe, such as Jewish people and Muslims, sex workers, concubines, and people we would call LGBTQ today. The downside is that Mazo Karras never really digs into the Jewish/Muslim issues as much as I wish she would have. A significant number of pages is given up to explaining exactly how ideas of same-sex attraction were different during the Middle Ages, and that it is impossible to know if people really had sex or if they were intimate friends. As a person who's read enough queer history, it was redundant to read, but I think it's important for the author to lay this out for people new to the discussion of sexualities.
Tl;dr: scholars will find this work to be redundant at times and filled with holes in coverage, but the length and tone make the work more ideal for less experienced scholars. That is to say that I found it to be a useful book, but not the comprehensive overview that it might have been.
September 9, 2014
Five stars because what this book does is give a good overview about how men and women's roles were viewed in the medieval period. This is important because it is only after you understand the accepted worldview in the time period that you can really understand the exceptions noted throughout history and make an honest evaluation. I recommend it for any one who loves historic romance and wants to see how it differs and yet conforms to actual medieval thought.
September 7, 2018
This is a sober study of how Medieval Europeans thought about sex. It is short but dense. One of the author’s main argument is that, as best we can tell from the limited and skewed sources (often written by celibate men), Medieval Europeans conceptually sorted people into active (male) vs passive (female) gender roles, and into chaste vs sexually active within marriage — but not by orientation (gay vs straight). Karras paints a grim picture of Medieval women’s lack of autonomy; over and over again, the accounts Karras cites are oblivious to the possibility that a woman could consent or not consent to sexual activity. The book provides helpful comparisons between Medieval Christian, Muslim, and Jewish theories and practices.
In a final chapter, Karras asks how important sexuality is to the study of the Middle Ages, and vice versa. She answers that concepts of food (or hunger) and of death were perhaps more central than sexuality to Medieval culture, but that it’s still nearly impossible to understand Medieval societies without grappling with their conceptions of sexuality too. Taken the other way around, Karras thinks exploring the Medieval gender-based frame of sexuality is crucial for understanding how accidental modern notions also are: “it is precisely this quality of being similar and at the same time different that makes medieval Europe worth studying.”[155].
For all that, reading this 2005 book in 2018, the ‘modern’ orientation framework (as decribed by Karras) may be the strangely (dis)similar one. Reading a book about transmen a month ago, I found myself questioning whether it makes any sense to label oneself ‘gay’ or ‘straight’; it seems clearer to say ‘I identify as [male/female/non-binary] and am attracted to [men/women/both/neither/non-binary]’. But that actually seems closer to the Medieval model, just without the assumptions that male is better than female and that desire is sinful. I wonder if labeling of people by orientation will turn out to be a 150 year (or shorter) side excursion from a gender-based default. Also, of course, I hope our culture continues to become more affirming of all gender identities and forms of consensual sexual activity over time.
In a final chapter, Karras asks how important sexuality is to the study of the Middle Ages, and vice versa. She answers that concepts of food (or hunger) and of death were perhaps more central than sexuality to Medieval culture, but that it’s still nearly impossible to understand Medieval societies without grappling with their conceptions of sexuality too. Taken the other way around, Karras thinks exploring the Medieval gender-based frame of sexuality is crucial for understanding how accidental modern notions also are: “it is precisely this quality of being similar and at the same time different that makes medieval Europe worth studying.”[155].
For all that, reading this 2005 book in 2018, the ‘modern’ orientation framework (as decribed by Karras) may be the strangely (dis)similar one. Reading a book about transmen a month ago, I found myself questioning whether it makes any sense to label oneself ‘gay’ or ‘straight’; it seems clearer to say ‘I identify as [male/female/non-binary] and am attracted to [men/women/both/neither/non-binary]’. But that actually seems closer to the Medieval model, just without the assumptions that male is better than female and that desire is sinful. I wonder if labeling of people by orientation will turn out to be a 150 year (or shorter) side excursion from a gender-based default. Also, of course, I hope our culture continues to become more affirming of all gender identities and forms of consensual sexual activity over time.
March 26, 2021
Een goede basis als je wilt beginnen met een onderzoek over seksualiteit! Woorden, visies en tijd worden goed uitgelegd. Er wordt gewezen op je standplaatsgebondenheid maar ook hoe deze wel is in te zetten. Ik heb veel geleerd en mijn kijk op de middeleeuwen is zeker veranderd.
November 25, 2023
This was an engaging read and a nice overview of medieval sexuality, which is going to be useful for a project I'm working on. You can tell just from her writing style that she was John Boswell's student and that she has the utmost respect for him and his thought processes.
June 16, 2019
I don't even know why I picked this up, but it wasn't bad at all. I definitely learnt a lot of new stuff plus it got me thinking, which is a good thing.
March 6, 2021
Went in thinking "the lack of sexual freedom was probably not as bad as modern society thinks it was!"
I was wrong. Turns out, it was much worse.
I was wrong. Turns out, it was much worse.
September 30, 2023
very helpful thank you ruth
October 27, 2025
took genuinely forever but overall was a very good and interesting book, would def recommend
January 4, 2015
I enjoyed how Karrass addressed our modern day construction of sexuality in contrast to the medieval period, destroying any opinion that studying medieval sexuality is irrelevant. She proves that modern law systems and beliefs certainly derive from the past. Two points fueling her thesis is that medieval attitudes about sex were conflicted and complicated and that gender played a fundamental organizing role in medieval sexuality. This is certainly addressed in the sexual rules set by the Church and the fact that society ultimately ignored them. Overall a good and very informational read.
Read
December 29, 2013More needed on linguistic relativity and cultural relativism in this book.
A historian is trapped in a dilemma here. . . . We have to attempt to find a balance between assuming that medieval people experienced sexual desire in much the same ways and in the same kinds of circeumstances as modern people do, and assuming that they were so radically different that we cannot know anything about them.
A historian is trapped in a dilemma here. . . . We have to attempt to find a balance between assuming that medieval people experienced sexual desire in much the same ways and in the same kinds of circeumstances as modern people do, and assuming that they were so radically different that we cannot know anything about them.
January 1, 2015
An excellent and accessible discussion of how medieval people thought about and carried out sexual activity. The author is not notably better as a writer than most academics, but not notably worse, either.
January 24, 2008
Hmmm. More basic and overviewish than I'd hoped, so far. But as a basic overview of what the deal was back in the day, pretty darn clear.
February 27, 2009
I had to read this book for class. It's pretty interesting and definately not nearly as boring as I would have expected.
March 20, 2010
The past really IS a foreign country!
November 18, 2012
Great overview of the field.
April 27, 2014
I thought this was a very interesting and knowledgable overview of what life was like in Medieval Europe.
It is thought provoking and a good starting point for anyone interested in this area.
It is thought provoking and a good starting point for anyone interested in this area.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews