Female Shame,Male Honor

Introduction

Societies where notions of honor and dishonor have acquired a superordinate importance can be regarded as honor cultures. In such societies, the rules for what gives and deprives someone of honor are determined by the culture-specific honor code. ¹ In many cultures, men’s honor has depended on controlling the sexual behaviour of female relatives, and the reputation of women has been contingent on them conducting themselves in such a way that they do not risk bringing shame on male relatives. Women must therefore be sexually unavailable since their sexuality constitutes honor’s Achilles heel. ² A chastity code, a set of rules and regulations that govern how women should demonstrate sexual unavailability, prescribes the forms of control. ³ The chastity code’s rules and regulations, whose exact content can change temporally and spatially depending on various social, historical, and economic circumstances, are socially mandatory since women who do not adhere to them bring shame on themselves and their families. Such a view held by an honor culture of women and their sexuality is today principally associated with Middle Eastern cultures, but has also been prevalent in the European Mediterranean world and, to a lesser extent, in the rest of Europe during antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the early modern period. Margaret L. King has summarized the idea of honor that governed women’s conditions in southern Europe during the Renaissance:

Chastity assured future husbands of the purity of their line, the legitimacy of their heirs, and the reputation of their family. Thus, the guarding of chastity was the primary business of the daughters of the Renaissance. Their honor consisted in the maintenance of their chastity; their fathers' honor consisted in their supervision of the chastity of their daughters and wives. ⁴

Juan Luis Vives, born in Valencia, was of noble birth and Jewish descent. His whole adult life was spent in northern Europe, where he was one of the most important non-Italian humanists of the sixteenth century. He was characterized by a Christian and morally tinged humanism, and during his lifetime completed fifty-two monographs on pedagogical, moral, political, theological, philosophical, and constitutional questions. ⁸ The first version of De institutione was completed in 1523 and presented to Catherine of Aragon, the Queen of England, before it was printed the following year. In 1538, Vives published a revised version of De institutione, which was considerably different from the 1524 edition. Vives strengthened his views using long quotations from markedly misogynistic writers, and passages that demonstrate women’s inferiority to men are included. ⁹ We can only speculate whether this was perhaps Vives' reaction to now living in the North Sea coastal town of Bruges, a region where the women lived extremely emancipated lives, totally the opposite to what he advocated. ¹⁰

De institutione is written in Latin and divided into three parts: the first, and the longest, part describes the conduct that Vives regarded as ideal for a virgin, and the second and the third part describe the ideal conduct of a wife and widow, respectively. Vives believes that the action recommendations as a whole are applicable to all categories of women regardless of in which section of his work the recommendation is. When an individual recommendation is specifically for a category of woman, he then usually clearly states this. ¹¹ Hence, in the analysis here, there is generally no need to make a distinction between the categories either.

Already in the preface, Vives emphasizes that the main aim of the book is to impress on women that chastity is their most important virtue. ¹² He legitimizes and naturalizes all the action recommendations in De institutione by an ideological use of examples and sayings from Christian and antique literature, ¹³ the most important and most reactionary of which, in terms of their view of women, he consistently chooses. Vives himself explains his composition technique: “[t]hings that would not accord with generally accepted customs I have supported and sustained with the testimony of great authorities lest they be nullified by the force of public opinion.” ¹⁴ This means that he can convey in his own words such views that he expects his intended readers to share with him, while those views that Vives wants to convey, but which are not shared by the public, are validated by having referred to important authorities who share his view. While excerpts from works of antique literature are used to illustrate and exemplify points of view, the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers are employed using religion to validate and legitimate the action recommendations.

Right from the start, it should be pointed out that the chastity code in De institutione appears to primarily mirror the values of the Mediterranean world, and especially Spain, which Vives left when he was young. Further north in Europe, neither strict female seclusion nor the wearing of a veil, which Vives advocated, was to be found. This should presumably be seen in the light of Vives having grown up in a conservative Spanish environment and surrounded himself with Spanish friends even in north-western Europe. ¹⁵ It should also be stressed that in Spain the chastity code was not, in reality, followed to the letter either. Many researchers have noted huge disparities between the ideal and reality regarding female conduct in early modern Europe, and even in Spain. Only in the upper social strata could women meet the ideal expectations of their sex and nor were they here, as a rule, slavishly adhered to. ¹⁶

The chastity code in De institutione has not been subjected to closer examination. Instead, the studies on De institutione have primarily been about whether Vives was a misogynist or not. This question was originally posed in 1922 by Foster Watson, who established an enduring view of Vives as a friend of women since he advocated female education. Watson’s view was then reinforced by Garrett Mattingly in 1942, and firmly established by Francis L. Utley in 1944. ¹⁷ In 1956, Ruth Kelso was the first to observe that Vives advocated strict gender segregation, but she had, nevertheless, a favorable opinion of him. ¹⁸ Carlos G. Noreña was similarly positive, but noted in 1970 that Vives' condemnation of premarital sexuality and demand for female seclusion went further than usual. ¹⁹ In 1975, Juliet Dusinberre was the first to seriously question the view of Vives as a friend of women. She observed that his female-friendly traits are easily overshadowed by his antifemale characteristics and quite correctly pointed out that previous researchers have often ignored this fact. ²⁰ Then in 1978, Gloria Kaufman called attention to the fact that De institutione discusses women’s conduct rather than their education (a view with which Valerie Wayne has concurred) and is constantly consumed by the idea of the importance of female chastity. ²¹ In 1991, Emilie Bergmann pointed out that Vives sees chastity as women’s only virtue, to which Hilmar M. Pabel has subsequently concurred. ²² This shift in the view of Vives from that of a friend of women to a misogynist can presumably be at least partially understood in the light of the changes in the view of women during the twentieth century rather than in a new understanding of Vives' view of women.

Gender Order and Female Chastity in De institutione

Vives perceives the difference between sexes as biologically based and thus regards it as innate. Nature has allowed this difference to form by way of a clear external distinction between the sexes of both animals and humans. To try and minimize the difference between the sexes is a crime against nature, where all living creatures have their God-given place. The sexes must therefore be clearly differentiated by an external gender marker, such as clothing. Vives believes that the external reflects the internal; he thus feels that by observing a person’s external appearance, his or her inner traits can be determined. This notion is of fundamental importance in order to understand the gender order that Vives represents. From the idea that an external difference is matched by an internal difference, it follows, namely, that the external difference between the sexes must also be matched by a similar internal one.

Vives believes that men are superior to women in everything. They are possessed by a nobler spirit and have more power of initiative, whereas women are more malicious and more inclined to be suspicious and conspire. As proof of women’s spiritual weaknesses, Vives quotes the Bible, which, he feels, clearly and distinctly shows this by the fact that it was Eve who enticed Adam and caused the Fall of Man. ²³ It is, however, not only through women’s alleged inner weaknesses that Vives legitimizes the female subordination, but also through their weaker physique. As an argument for gender order, he cites that women “possess a tender and defenceless body” and exemplifies their physical inferiority by, among other things, their menstruation, problems of the womb, and childbirth. ²⁴

The basis of Vives' gender order is the idea that women are created to serve, respect, and obey men in exchange for their protection in accordance with both human and divine laws. ²⁵ According to Vives, women must accept their subordination as the weaker sex, just as a blind person has to accept a sighted person’s advantage and an invalid a healthy person’s. By comparing women to invalids and the handicapped, he implies that he does not see women as fully functional people. With the aim of strengthening the impression that gender order is natural, Vives uses examples from the animal world; gender order is thus no social construction, but a natural order. ²⁶ Vives does not believe that men and women have a symmetrical or equal relationship with God, but, instead, a hierarchical one based on Creation’s chronological order in the Bible. It is almost more important for women to serve their men than God since, for women, men take God’s place. ²⁷

Vives thus advocates a patriarchal family system. The biological (physical and mental) difference that Vives ascribes to the sexes will result in gender roles based on these biological conditions. He believes that nature has created a gender order in which men must obtain while women have to look after, manage, and preserve. To be able to fulfil these roles, nature, he believes, has given men more power of initiative so that they will more energetically be able to achieve things, while women, instead, hold on to them. ²⁸ As guardians, women’s place is in the home. ²⁹ The upbringing and education of boys and girls must be arranged differently in order to meet the demands of their gender roles. Vives is of the opinion that the most important obligation for women is to preserve their chastity, and this must be constantly impressed on them. ³⁰ Vives writes the following in the introduction to De institutione:

[…] although rules of conduct for men are numerous, the moral formation of women can be imparted with very few precepts, since men are occupied both within the home and outside it, in public and in private, and for that reason it requires lengthy volumes to explain the norms to be observed in such varied duties. A woman’s only care is chastity; therefore when this has been thoroughly elucidated, she may be considered to have ample instruction. Wherefore, all the more hateful is the crime of those who seek to corrupt this one good that women possess, as if you were set on extinguishing the sight left to a one-eyed person. ³¹

According to Vives, women do not own their bodies. When they are unmarried, their bodies belong to their fathers, and to their husbands when they are married. How they use their bodies is, therefore, not their own business; they are not the sole owners of their bodies. ³⁴ Vives goes so far as to explain that women’s bodies are a male possession. By owning women’s bodies, it is, for Vives, a logical consequence that men also own their chastity. Vives clearly demonstrates this and points out that women have only been entrusted to be the guardians of their chastity, but it is by no means their possession. If women do not, in any way, have the right to do what they want with their bodies, how, Vives wonders, will they then have the right to be unchaste. ³⁵ When women defile their chastity, they defile at the same time men’s honor since the latter’s honor is closely linked to women’s chastity. Being thieves of honor, they must, of course, be punished, and Vives is not unsympathetic to the idea of women having to pay for this with their lives, something which will not, however, be discussed in this article. ³⁶

The Link between Honor, Shame, and Chastity

Vives is not wholly sympathetic to the idea of honor and is conscious that it is a social construction that, unlike his view of gender order, has changed temporally and spatially. ³⁷ However, for Vives, it is of the utmost importance to avoid dishonor, and dishonor presupposes that its antithesis, honor, exists. Vives shares the view typically held by honor cultures that honor is reserved for men, and women have the same honor as their male family members. ³⁸ Women should always feel embarrassed by any marks of honor as if they were undeserved. ³⁹ It is clear that, for Vives, honor is solely about the recognition of those around you and is not related to your own self-image. Noreña has noted that nor in his other works, has Vives linked individual feelings of guilt with dishonor. ⁴⁰ According to Vives' gender order, women are the guardians of what men acquire. ⁴¹ This division is applicable even to honor. Men acquire their families' honor, while women are guardians of it by way of their chastity, which has been entrusted to them by nature. ⁴² The view that women are the guardians of honor is probably closely linked to the idea that women’s only important mission in life is to protect their chastity.

With reference to the idea that honor is something reserved for men, it is usually the view that women should feel a sense of shame about their bodies and their sexuality. In honor societies, the sense of shame is usually regarded as the protection of women’s chastity, and it is believed that without it, women would be sexually loose. The more shameful a woman feels—and the more timid she behaves because of the sense of shame—the more important her chastity is regarded to be. ⁴³ Vives clearly refers to this thinking:

The inseparable companions of chastity are a sense of propriety and modest behaviour. Chastity (pudicitia) seems to be derived from shame (pudor), so that one who has no sense of shame cannot be chaste. ⁴⁴

Female Seclusion

In order not to endanger their chastity, Vives believes that women must live in strict seclusion in the home away from the public world. Such demands for female seclusion are the rule in honor cultures' chastity codes, which always contain restrictions on women’s freedom of movement. ⁵⁰ The demand for seclusion can be so great that it is superordinated to other social values, such as in Catholic Spain where it occasionally happened that unmarried girls, not even veiled and escorted, were allowed to leave their homes and go to church. ⁵¹ Vives is of the opinion that women are by nature vicious, and instead of confronting and attempting to successfully resist lust, it is, therefore, better to avoid encounters with men so that it never occurs. ⁵² Encounters between the sexes outside the family must be avoided and Vives' argument naturalizes a strict gender segregation under the premise that female chastity must not, under any circumstances, be endangered. According to Vives, women must leave the public sphere and live in seclusion in the home, the private sphere. In his rhetoric, the home simply acquires the role of a protection against lust, while the public sphere is described as a battle against this invincible enemy: ⁵³

In public, exposed to men’s eyes, in contact with many people, little by little she assumes a bold air; chastity and shame waver and are exposed to danger. If she is not defeated in the battle, she is surely under assault. ⁵⁴

My opinion is, or I should say Christ’s opinion, that young women should be kept at home, should stay out of public, except for attendance at sacred offices, and be well covered, separated from the view of men, which St. John Chrysostom writes was the custom of his time, so that they will neither provide a snare nor discover one. ⁵⁸

Even if Vives seems to believe it would be best if women never left the home, he thus realizes that such total seclusion is not practically possible, and he concedes, for instance, that women must be allowed to attend church. ⁶⁰ Although Vives uses examples from antique literature of the total, lifelong seclusion of women in the home, he thus accepts that women “should [be allowed to] go out at times, if circumstances demand it.” ⁶¹ No clear answer is given as to what is meant by “if circumstances demand it.” If economic necessity requires, Vives can envisage women, for example, buying and selling rather than being in need as long as they “sooner suffer a loss in their sales than in their chastity.” ⁶²

Vives is clear that the unmarried, young woman must not leave the home on her own. She has to be accompanied by her mother or another virtuous woman, who guards her chastity. Respectable women will not long to leave the home and show themselves in public; only vain women who do not sufficiently value their chastity regard seclusion in the home as being in prison. Virtuous women are aware of the risks of leaving the private sphere and only take them when it is absolutely necessary. Using military metaphorism, Vives emphasizes that when women go out into the public sphere, they are penetrating enemy territory. They are strangers among the aggressive, and, for them, hostile, male public. These raids into hostile territory are of necessity full of risks, always hazardous and should therefore be made as seldom as possible and only when circumstances require such a dangerous operation.

Since the chastity code that Vives gives expression to prescribes female seclusion, he believes that a woman risks her reputation, and, with that, the honor of her family, by showing herself in public. Vives explains that a “[w]oman should live in seclusion and not be known to many. It is a sign of imperfect chastity and of uncertain reputation to be known by a great number of people.” ⁶³ He describes this in more detail as follows:

Which girl guards her chastity and her good name more irreproachably, the one who stays at home or the one who appears frequently in public? At home there is no occasion to commit wrong; outside there are innumerable occasions that crop up on all sides and multiply like the heads of the hydra. On the girl hidden away in her house no one passes judgments. On one who is often seen in public everyone has something to say, whence arises dishonor, and her reputation is easily besmirched according to the diverse opinions of her critics. ⁶⁴

How much more profitable would it not be for them to remain at home than to incur such manifold and unjust criticisms and such imminent dangers! Nowhere is the truth of the Greek proverb more apparent: ‘Live a hidden life.’ ⁶⁶

Female Veiling

According to some chastity codes, veiling can be a substitute for seclusion and allow women to leave the home and be in the male public. The head-veil becomes a marker signalling women’s sexual inaccessibility, and the full veil, which hides the woman’s body when she is in public, can be regarded as a portable tent that is a substitute for the four walls of the home. ⁷⁰ Because veiling is nowadays closely associated with Islam, it may seem surprising that Vives advocates this practice. Since female veiling has never been a custom in parts of Europe north of the Mediterranean, except for the medieval married woman’s and widow’s head-veil, there can hardly be any doubt that Vives' opinion in this matter is an expression of his Spanish background. ⁷¹

Vives considers that women’s dress should clearly bear witness to their chastity. This view can be understood in the light of Vives seeing honor as something contingent on what those around can see as well as him believing that the external always reflects the internal. ⁷² With this approach, a woman’s appearance indicates her morals, which is why the dress is of major importance to Vives. As a symbol of chastity, the veil has a special place in women’s dress, and is, for Vives, both a metaphor and a marker of propriety. ⁷³ It is, however, clear that the veil is not only of metaphoric significance to him. Vives namely describes in this way the dress he wants the virgin to wear when she shows herself in public:

St. Paul insists that a woman should not have her head uncovered. As for the rest of her body, Jerome recommends that when she appears in public she should not expose her breast or neck, or by rolling back her pallium show the back of her neck, but she should conceal her face, leaving only one eye uncovered as she walks, to see her way. She should not desire to see or be seen, or cast her glance this way and that, or be anxious to know who lives here or there when she should barely know who her neighbors are. He wishes that a young woman be completely covered except for her eyes, which guide her way. ⁷⁴

The message should thus be interpreted that a virgin must never leave the private sphere, but, instead, take it with her when she has to leave the home. This can be understood as Vives' solution to the problem facing the moralists regarding the demand that even virgins should be allowed to leave the home to attend Mass. There can hardly be any doubt that Vives shared St. Jerome’s view regarding the veiling of virgins. He could have, otherwise, chosen to cite one of the more liberal Church Fathers in this matter, such as Tertullian. Nor does Vives anywhere in his text contradict St. Jerome’s recommendation. Instead, Vives comments in passing that, even if somewhat tolerable, it is improper to show the neck; however, even a blind person can see how shameful it is to show the breast, the shoulders, and the part between the shoulder blades. ⁷⁶ He then goes on and expresses in his own words:

For what purpose were long sleeves and gloves invented? Was it to keep the hands snug in soft and fragrant wrappings? Antiquity was not so ingenious in luxury and self-indulgence. Certainly they were invented out of necessity and so that except when engaged in work the hands would be hidden and that no part of the body, vile and useless servant, would be seen. ⁷⁷

As for married women, ⁷⁹ Vives writes that if they cover their heads with obedience, then they are wearing the most elegant headdress of all. But they must, however, supplement this headdress with a cloth one. Using almost direct quotes from the First Epistle to the Corinthians (11, 4–11), Vives points out that a woman must cover her head because she is subordinate to the man, while the man does not need to since he is the image of God. It can be interpreted that Vives believes the head veil should indicate and show the subordination and obedience of women. In many chastity codes, the demand that women should cover their hair is based on hair being regarded as symbolizing sexuality and it must therefore be covered. By wearing a veil, the woman is signaling her sexual inaccessibility and is thus adhering to the requirements of the chastity code.

The demand that women must cover their heads should be regarded as unconditional. Vives argues that by showing their heads, women are breaking men’s (read God’s) rules and rejecting the command of the Apostle. ⁸⁰ St. Paul actually only says that women need to cover their heads when “praying or prophesying,” but here Vives adopts the Church Fathers' stricter interpretation that women must also cover their heads when showing themselves in other public contexts.

Unlike the virgin, the married woman should not cover her face with a veil so that she becomes anonymous and invisible. According to Vives, covering the married woman’s face with a veil would allow improper conduct. ⁸¹ The reason for this attitude is probably that the anonymity provided by covering the face with a veil is perceived as a threat to women’s feeling of shame. Since shame, regarded as a necessary protection for the chastity of women, is a public phenomenon, those women who are unidentifiable do not need to feel any shame.

Why is it that while full veiling is recommended for the virgin, it is forbidden for the married woman? As pure speculation, we can assume the answer lies in the fact that Vives has expressly forbidden the virgin from going out without an escort while it is conceivable that the married woman did so. Since a close eye is kept on the virgin, the feeling of shame, which befits a woman who shows herself in the male public, is not a necessary protection for chastity. She can wrap the private sphere around her in the form of a veil, becoming invisible to the public, and, thus, not risking being eyed by men. For a married woman who goes out on her own, the feeling of shame is, however, a necessary protection. On this latter point, the Spanish ecclesiastical and secular authorities fully concurred—during the sixteenth century, they prohibited the veiling of the face—but, unlike Vives, they were opposed to both married women and virgins covering their faces with veils. ⁸²

The Outward Conduct of Women

According to the chastity code that Vives advocates, it is not sufficient that women are veiled when they leave the home: it also stipulates a number of other instructions for their outward conduct. In accordance with the chastity code in many honor societies, Vives exhorts women to protect themselves against everything that can call into question their chastity; in their movement, look, attitude, and speech, women must, in the presence of men, follow the chastity code to the letter in order to not bring shame on their families. The body language must be an outward marker that, just like the veil, should illustrate women’s sexual inaccessibility. The shame that women should feel about their bodies must be demonstrated by their deeds. Vives gives strict instructions regarding women’s public conduct:

In her walk a woman should not be too hurried nor deliberately slow. When she is present at a meeting in the company of men, her countenance and her whole body should exhibit great modesty of attire and adornment, born not of ostentation but of true Christian gentleness and humility of spirit. […] She will keep her eyes cast down, and will raise them but rarely and with modesty and decorum. ⁸³

Conversing with men outside the family is totally forbidden. Vives regards conversations between men and women as a sexual stimulus that must be avoided. ⁸⁶ In this context, Vives also expresses the view that a young woman does not have anything to talk about with a man—except for evil matters. He believes that the best way for the woman to defend her chastity is always to remain silent. Even the charge of being unchaste must be greeted with silence since silence is proof of her chastity. For Vives, the chastity code demands that women, even in the company of other women, must preferably be silent in public and have their gaze fixed on the ground. Using examples, Vives points out that women’s silence is such a strict demand that it is better that their right is violated than they defend it themselves using their tongues in their heads when male relatives cannot plead their case. An exemplum from the Bible is used to emphasize that silence is a virtue for women, even in extreme situations. ⁸⁷

Vives extols women’s silence with judgements, such as that it is “the greatest adornment of a woman” and “a sweet seasoning for chastity.” ⁸⁸ He writes that “the most eloquent woman for me is the one who when required to speak to men will become flushed in her whole countenance, perturbed in spirit and at a loss for words.” ⁸⁹ Vives thus prescribes a chastity code, according to which women should blush with shame if they speak to men. Regarding the demand made during the Renaissance for women’s silence, Peter Stallybrass has pointed out a metaphorical meaning: the closed mouth symbolized seclusion behind the closed doors of the home, which ensured women’s chastity. ⁹⁰

The use of jewellery and cosmetics is strongly condemned. Using the sayings of Apostle St. Paul and a selection of the most important Church Fathers as well as antique examples, Vives describes very thoroughly his negative view of the use of jewellery and cosmetics. ⁹¹ Adornment is the invention of wicked lust. Beautifully adorned women more easily arouse a man’s sexual lust and he is then caught in the snares of the Devil. As for women, adornment means that their souls and propriety are defiled. ⁹² By covering their faces with a veil and wearing no jewellery, Vives wants women’s appearance to reduce their sexual attraction and signal sexual inaccessibility.

Vives even presents other formulas for guaranteeing women’s chastity. Women must refrain from using perfume and take care of their hygiene since their own body smell can act as a sexual stimulant for men. ⁹³ In keeping with the other Renaissance humanists, ⁹⁴ Vives believes that abstemiousness in food and drink promoted chastity. He feels that prior to marriage, it is good for young women to fast often in order to “extinguish the fires of youth” and women are not allowed to stimulate their own lust by eating seasoned food or drinking strong drinks. ⁹⁵ Vives is of the notion that young people’s bodies have an innate “warmth” and, therefore, “warm food” is harmful—it increases the bodily warmth. The young woman’s body glows with heat, which endangers her chastity, meaning that she should satisfy her hunger with bread and vegetables and slake her thirst with water. ⁹⁶

Nearly all kinds of pleasure are also stimuli that must be avoided. Vives believes that a young woman’s bed should be clean but not soft and luxurious; it should allow her to sleep peacefully, but it will not produce sensual pleasure. She should have little sleep, but not dangerously little. It is essential that rest is not pleasurable and does not lead to sexual longing. ⁹⁷ Therefore, the amount of time spent in bed should be reduced and the opportunities for pleasure in bed limited.

Vives believes that women’s natural work—if nothing else occupies their time—is to try and satisfy their insatiable sexual desire. Therefore, women must always have something to do. It is their hands, not their intellect, which women must keep busy. While it is good for women to work with their hands, and prevent instincts from prevailing due to restlessness, intellectual work risks producing the opposite effect. If women are given the opportunity to use their power of reasoning, the intellectual creativity is in danger of going awry:

Neither is it safe for them to surrender their mind to thoughts, however honorable and pious they may be at first. A woman’s thoughts are inconstant and they do not remain easily fixed in one place. She could descend from good thoughts to bad with very little trouble. ⁹⁸

Conclusion

This article examines the chastity code for women that Juan Luis Vives prescribed in De institutione feminae Christianae (1524/1538). It takes as its starting point some key concepts from the chastity codes described by anthropological research for honor societies in the Mediterranean region and the Middle East, such as gender order, restrictions on women’s physical freedom of movement, regulations, and instructions regarding women’s clothing, and various rules for women’s outward conduct. Previous research has failed to thoroughly analyze the chastity code in De institutione since the interest was instead centered on Vives' general attitude toward women, with the focus often being on his view of female education. Furthermore, these studies have also often overlooked the fact that Vives does not want to allow women to use their education in social life or the fact that education in itself has as its main aim to promote women’s chastity and religiousness. This study has clearly shown that Vives embraced a very traditional, patriarchal view of women, and the chastity code he represented prescribed a very strict gender segregation, with female seclusion a central component as well as veiling and stringent rules for women’s conduct when they leave the home. The analysis has also shown that it is possible to discern a normative, premodern chastity code from sources, such as De institutione, and concepts from modern anthropological research are fruitful when analyzing the social ideals in such texts. To see and understand the view of women and sexuality in premodern European discourse, it is necessary to step outside the framework of modern European values and, instead, look for analogies and anthropological concepts from traditional, patriarchal societies in, for example, the Middle East.