@Robert
The Latin was translated correctly.
Porphyry 1.11
Here is what he wrote:
Scio praecepisse quosdam, ne virgo Christi cum eunuchis lavet, ne cum maritis feminis, quia alii non deponant animos virorum, aliae tumentibus uteris praeferant foeditatem. Mihi omnino in adulta virgine lavacra displicent, quae se ipsam debet erubescere et nudam videre non posse. Si enim vigiliis et ieiuniis macerat corpus suum et in servitutem redigit, si flammam libidinis et incentiva ferventis aetatis extinguere cupit continentiae frigore, si adpetitis sordibus turpare festinat naturalem pulchritudinem, cur c contrario balnearum fomentis sopitos ignes suscitat?
1.14 Steefen said
Chat, translate this to English:
Chat:
Here is the English translation of the Latin passage:
“I know that some have given instructions that a virgin of Christ should not bathe with eunuchs, nor with married women, because the former do not suppress the passions of men, and the latter display the ugliness of their swelling wombs. For my part, I am entirely opposed to baths for a virgin of full age, who ought to blush at herself and be unable to look upon her own nakedness. For if she mortifies her body with vigils and fasts and brings it into subjection, if she seeks to extinguish the flame of lust and the desires of her fervent youth with the chill of chastity, if she hurries to defile her natural beauty by embracing filth, then why, on the contrary, does she reignite the smothered flames with the heat of the baths?”
This passage reflects Saint Jerome’s ascetic philosophy, emphasizing modesty, self-denial, and chastity, alongside a critical view of physical indulgence, including bathing.
Comment 3
Porphyry
[ Because she is beautiful she should be ashamed to be naked because this hiding due to shame will lead to chastity. ]
No, bathing is not embracing filth.]
He is asking why the virgin would besmirch herself with dirt [anything less than hiding her body and being ashamed is dirt] (to hide her natural beauty as a means to chastity) and still rush to the baths (which are, you know, places to remove dirt).
Steefen
To which I questioned: “Shame? Why? Shame even when bathing? Why?”
Then I answered my question above. Exposing nakedness is what one must do when using public baths.
Jerome did not say she had access to a private/personal means of bathing.
Porphyry
He seems to think she shouldn’t bathe.
seefen
That doesn’t make sense.
= = =
Porphyry
Who said Anything about a vigil of being sure to bathe?
Jerome
For if she mortifies her body with vigils and fasts and brings it into subjection, if she seeks to extinguish the flame of lust and the desires of her fervent youth with the chill of chastity, if she hurries to defile her natural beauty by embracing filth, then why, on the contrary, does she reignite the smothered flames with the heat of the baths?”
Steefen
If she disciplines herself to maintain her beauty with fasts and bathing…
She disciplines herself to maintain her physical beauty and the beauty of her chastity/virginity.
She extinguishes the flame of lust but she is still young and beautiful.
But when she hurries to fulfill the beauty vigil of taking a public bath, she embraces filth because she is not ashamed to take a public bath.
= = = = = =
Porphyry had the nerve to give us a Latin passage that does not mention pregnant women.
Chat, The Latin passage translated into English above does not mention pregnant women. Is pregnant women mentioned in Letter 107 (To Laeta)?
ChatGPT4
You are correct that the translated Latin passage provided earlier does not explicitly mention “pregnant women.” However, the phrase “tumentibus uteris praeferant foeditatem” can be translated as “display the ugliness of their swelling wombs.” This phrase refers to the physical appearance of pregnancy, which Jerome criticizes in the context of his ascetic worldview.
To directly address your question: Yes, the idea of pregnancy is mentioned in Letter 107 (To Laeta) in this context, as Jerome criticizes the sight of “swelling wombs” (a reference to pregnant women) as part of his broader commentary on modesty and chastity. This reflects his disapproval of what he perceived as physical indulgence or immodesty associated with such situations.
Steefen
Listen CHAT, I want to see the Latin passage with the mention of pregnant women in Latin, then translate the passage into English.
Certainly! Here’s the Latin passage from Letter 107 (To Laeta) that includes the mention of pregnant women:
Scio praecepisse quosdam, ne virgo Christi cum eunuchis lavet, ne cum maritis feminis, quia alii non deponant animos virorum, aliae tumentibus uteris praeferant foeditatem.
Translation into English:
“I know that some have given instructions that a virgin of Christ should not bathe with eunuchs, nor with married women, because the former do not suppress the passions of men, and the latter display the ugliness of their swelling wombs.”
This passage specifically critiques the practice of bathing with others, focusing on both eunuchs and married women. The phrase “tumentibus uteris” (swelling wombs) is Jerome’s reference to pregnant women, which he describes as presenting a “foeditatem” (ugliness).
Porphyry says, I think translating ‘foeditatem’ as “deformity” is distracting and obscures the point.
But Chat says, pregnant women, which he describes as presenting a “foeditatem” (ugliness).
= = =
Usually, for Jerome, Porphyry says, this is sexual sin.
= = = =
Above (starting at Comment 18), I said that does not fit the passage because the passage says MARRIED WOMEN. There is no sin when married women become pregnant within a loving relationship with the woman’s husband.
1.20 Porphyry said Yes, I’m telling you that both Hardesty and Barr are calumniating Jerome in those passages.
Steefeb
calumniate: make false and defamatory remarkes about Jerome
So,
1 Ammon Hillman
2. Google search and Google ai
3. The Christian History Institute in “Paula: A Portrait of 4th Century Piety” by Nancy A. Hardesty, 1988
4. Jane Barr in the book After Evee, edited by Janet Martin Soskicegot
and
5. ChatGPT
all 5 are calumniating Jerome? Answer: No.
Porphyry
Scio praecepisse quosdam, ne virgo Christi cum eunuchis lavet, ne cum maritis feminis, quia alii non deponant animos virorum,
aliae tumentibus uteris praeferant foeditatem.
Chat GPT
Scio praecepisse quosdam, ne virgo Christi cum eunuchis lavet, ne cum maritis feminis, quia alii non deponant animos virorum,
aliae tumentibus uteris praeferant foeditatem.
GOOGLE, GIVE ME THE LATIN TO ENGLISH TRANSLATOR TOOL
HERE, TRANSLATE THIS:
aliae tumentibus uteris praeferant foeditatem.
Google Translator Tool:
others prefer filthiness to swollen wombs.
I know that some have commanded that the virgin of Christ should not bathe with eunuchs, nor with women with husbands, because others do not put down the hearts of men.
others prefer filthiness to swollen wombs.
Porphyry
The part about pregnant women being unsightly because their big bellies are a deformity
(“tumentibus uteris praeferant foeditatem”) is in a sentence where he is recounting the opinion of others:
“I know that some admonish [“Scio praecepisse quosdam”] that a virgin of Christ should not bathe with eunuchs or married women
because the former are not rid of manly spirits and the latter [Married Women] exhibit deformity in their swollen bellies.”
Jerome fails to correct this:
What are you talking about? We want a happily married couple to get the woman pregnant.
That is a beauty as well as young virgins of Christ.
Porphyry says the naked, virgin woman of Christ is beautiful but should be ashamed of her body because it is beautiful and can easily promote lust.
The happily married wife should be as beautiful as the young virgin woman of Christ.
Does Jerome say that? Answer: No.
So, it is NOT that Jerome thinks the bodies of young virgins are beautiful.
He needs to be saying the bodies of Happily Married Pregnant Women are beautiful, so, if they are at the public baths, that is okay.
But NOooooo, Don’t take a public bath because ugly pregnant women will be there–others would say but who am I to correct that opinion, I’m just Jerome, writer of the Vulgate.
Comment link: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Author: Porphyry
Comment:
Steefen and I have had this conversation on the forum, but since this is public, I want to respond here:
Jerome never said that he ” found the sight of pregnant women distasteful”.
Yes, there are scholars who have alleged he did, but, if we consult the cited passage (Ep. 107,11) they have plainly–and I would make bold to add, dishonestly–ignored and suppressed the context, particularly that the sentence in question starts with him saying “I know certain ones have admonished . . .”.: what follows in the sentence is manifestly not presented as his own opinion.
Porphyry goes on to say:
But I suppose he is a dead, white, male, orthodox Christian, so no need to read him honestly, let alone charitably.
In fairness, I do have trouble with his attitude towards sexuality, but this isn’t the quotation to prove that point.
Bart:
Interesting. Thanks for the clarificatoin. I should have looked it up myself!
Steefen:
Hi Bart,
ChatGPT:
Here’s the Latin passage from Letter 107 (To Laeta) that includes the mention of pregnant women:
Scio praecepisse quosdam, ne virgo Christi cum eunuchis lavet, ne cum maritis feminis, quia alii non deponant animos virorum, aliae tumentibus uteris praeferant foeditatem.
Translation into English:
“I know that some have given instructions that a virgin of Christ should not bathe with eunuchs, nor with married women, because the former do not suppress the passions of men, and the latter display the ugliness of their swelling wombs.”
This passage specifically critiques the practice of bathing with others, focusing on both eunuchs and married women. The phrase “tumentibus uteris” (swelling wombs) is Jerome’s reference to pregnant women, which he describes as presenting a “foeditatem” (ugliness).
Porphyry says Jerome was saying others hold that view.
I say Jerome does not correct that view. He says young virgins of Christ are beautiful but he does not correct the original view by others by saying: pregnancy without sin is also beautiful
1 Ammon Hillman
2. The Christian History Institute in “Paula: A Portrait of 4th Century Piety” by Nancy A. Hardesty, 1988
3. Jane Barr in the book After Eve, edited by Janet Martin Soskicegot
and
4. AI
are not calumniating Jerome.
Steefen:
This is the first time I’m seeing JHD Scourfield.
Where is the thesis?
The thesis by JHD Scourfield was not inferred by Porphyry or explicitly linked?
For the sake of edification, I’ll look at it.
Porphyry criticized my sources (and more which we do not have to revisit). I’m just double checking my re-assertion of what my sources said.
If three scholars made the assertion and one of the scholars had an editor that let the assertion go through,
And if ChatGPT, google ai, and google’s latin to english tool are wrong,
I’m too happy for my edification and the edification of people who respect my opinion to get an argument that passes muster against them.
When I was very young, and still in the church, I heard a minister say he didn’t know anyone who wasn’t ashamed of his own body. Even then I thought that very sad.
I’m no living god but, ashamed? The idea of immaterial spirit is a recent historical innovation, but the flesh was created by the universe in the fires of exploding suns. The flesh is what the ancients thought spirit was. Why be ashamed to be cousin to the Trilobites?
Porphyry had the nerve to give us a Latin passage that does not mention pregnant women. . . . Ohhhh, so Porphyry is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
I gave you the passage that Jane Barr explicitly cited in the quotation that you provided as your justification for saying that Jerome “expressed distaste for the sight of pregnant women” and that “he refers with aversion to ‘tumor uteri.”
It is pretty clearly the same passage Nancy Hardesty used to justify claiming that “Jerome said she should not be taken to the baths, because there she might see the totally revolting sight of a pregnant woman” (though she didn’t give a specific citation); another passage you quoted in this discussion.
It was you and your sources that first brought up the passage and claimed it was about pregnant women.
I’m not pulling the wool over anyone’s eyes. Even if you were right that the passage doesn’t mention pregnant women (which even your own discussion with Google AI has told you you are wrong about), that would only impugn you and your sources.
Porphyry
I have only just realized just why I find the (alleged) advice that virgins ought not to bathe with married women, on account of their unsightly bellies, so bizarre–to the point of being difficult to accept as the correct reading. It isn’t that I doubt that may have been people who had an aversion to seeing pregnant women. That is not unbelievable (I mean there *still* are some people who have that particular distaste), but it is strange that that distaste–even if it was so acute as to be neurotic–would be taken as justification for a rule imposed on consecrated virgins. “You are disgusted by the sight of pregnant women–okay, so what? What does that aversion have to do with whether a consecrated virgin should bathe? Will you also lay down rules that they should not eat kidneys or Brussels sprouts?” It just doesn’t make sense. Even if someone did give such strange guidance, it isn’t clear why anyone else would have paid any attention to it, nor why Jerome would have had any reason to mention it. Anyway, that it what motivates my doubting that the line should be understood speak of some physical repulsiveness. And in contrast (to belabor the point) taking it to speak of their bellies as an obvious reminder of the obscene (in the literal sense) acts they have done–precisely the sorts of acts a consecrated virgin should studiously avoid thinking of, makes exquisite sense.
I mentioned elsewhere an excellent treatment of the passage, and I proffer it now to the interested:
JHD Scourfield, A literary commentary on Jerome, Letters 1, 60, 107, a dissertation in two parts. The relevant bit is in Volume 2, pp.587-593.
praeferant foeditatem. praeferant bears both a literal and a metaphorical meaning: the women reveal their foeditas, which refers rather to their moral state than to their aspect, simply by being pregnant – it implies that they have indulged in the sexual act – and literally carry it before them. J. is probably thinking of worldly women, who possess foeditas in other respects as well; he will not have considered that women bear it simply by virtue of being married (cf. e.g. epist. 22.20.1)
(p590)
Similarly,
it is scarcely desirable that virgins should see other naked bodies, especially when – in the case of married
women – they might bear visible indications of the sex act having been committed.
(p588)
But if you have been following, the whole section is worth reading–he makes, for example, some consideration who the quosdam were that Jerome refers to.
Steefen
I questioned, what is the problem with happily married women being pregnant without sin.
Answer: The virgin of Christ will have evidence of the act that led to pregnancy and think about that act.
Chastity for Jerome had been characteristic of the life of man in the Garden of Eden, and would again be the state of affairs in paradise to come. Matrimony was granted to man only as an indulgence; virginity remained the ideal state to which he should always aspire. Much of the treatise against Jovinian is devoted to showing the superiority of virginity to marriage.
= = = =
@Porphyry and #Robert
The above quote from the link does not support the beauty of pregnancy.
So, if Robert isn’t defending Stephen against Steefen, or criticizing Steefen for any and everything, he’s defending Porphyry against Steefen even when it doesn’t strengthen Porphyry’s argument.
Porphyry’s link to this paper was not a piece of evidence that would persuade a judge to judge in his favor. So for Robert to criticize the amount of time I spent making an effort to consider and analyze Porphyry’s posts I did not consider earlier is evidence of his prejudice. It did not reverse my earlier judgement call. Ignoring many minutes of work but finding some knit-picking minutia that did not support: Jerome found pregnant women beautiful.
Porphyry could have introduced his evidence by saying: To support my position that others, not Jerome, found that virgins for Christ were endangered by pregnant women, I am linking Oxford research archive. This will show that the two sources you presented, Steefen, are countered by this dissertation or what have you.
On the contrary, Jerome thinks virginity is superior to pregnancy within a marriage which is just an indulgence.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert