David Morphew
Abstract:
Many have described Augustine as deeply misogynistic and as the most influential writer
to propagate misogynistic thinking in the Western world (Daly 1968, Boullough 1973, Ruether
1983 & Pagels 1988). Some have suggested that Augustine’s Manichaean background is to
blame for his androcentric / misognystic views, even after his rejection of Manichaeism and
conversion to Catholic Christianity (Boullough 1973, van Oort 1987, Pagels 1988, Bloch 1991 &
Gilmore 2001). This is wrong. Manichaeism denounces sexuality and marriage and denigrates
the status of women because of their role in reproduction. However, Augustine’s androcentric
anthropology provides the theoretical justification for the subordination of women to men, and
Augustine’s anthropology is most influenced by his allegorical interpretation of Genesis, drawn
from the dualism of Neo-Platonism, not Manichaeism.
Augustine, adopting the hermeneutic method of allegoresis through the influence of Neo-
Platonism, reads the story of Adam and Eve’s creation within a dualistic framework. The
creation of Adam and Eve describes the creation of both “spirit,” the higher category of being,
and “body,” the lower category associated with flesh and, in the later fallen condition, with sin
and temptation. In ways similar to some of his near contemporaries, such as Origen and Gregory
of Nyssa, as well as to his predecessor Philo of Judea, all of whom adopt allegorical interpretive
methods under the influence of Platonism, Augustine reads into the creation story of Adam the
spiritual creation of humanity as prototypically male. Adam and Eve are made in the imago Dei
as spiritual creatures insofar as they imitate the perfect rationality typical of man. Eve partakes of
this spiritual essence in her unity with Adam insofar as she is human, but Eve qua woman is
described as an imperfect and subordinate creation (De trinitate 12.7). Her helpmate status in
service to Adam is associated with “body” through her sexuality and capacity for procreation (De
Genesi ad literram 9.5 & 9.9). She must be assimilated to man apart from her distinctly
embodied characteristics of womanhood to be raised from her inferior status to unity in spirit
with Adam (De Genesi contra Manichaeos 2.7.9, De Genesi ad Litteram 8.23, Confessiones
13.22).
Augustine’s use of allegoresis in developing his anthropology is not drawn from his
Manichaean past. Mani, the founder of the Manichees, rejected the story of Genesis, the Old
Testament scriptures, and allegorical interpretation itself. Augustine rejected Manichaeism partly
for its lack of the more sophisticated method of allegoresis, which he found in Neo-Platonic
philosophy. He also later made use of allegoresis of the Christian scriptures to argue against
prominent Manichees.
Why have some thought Augustine’s Manichaean past to be the main culprit for his
androcentric views? In short, many focus on Manichaean extreme asceticism. Manichees
emphasize the renunciation of sexuality to avoid procreation, which they consider to be a process
of trapping light in darkened matter. Ascetic practices and the emphasis on renouncing
womanhood to become “like a man” through virginity, however, are pervasive in early
Christianity apart from Manichaean influence. Philo, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, like
Augustine, also formulate their views on asceticism by drawing on a theoretical, Platonic
framework in their allegorical interpretation of Genesis.
While Augustine’s view of women, like Philo’s, Origen’s, and Gregory of Nyssa’s, is
largely influenced by the hermeneutical practice of reading the creation story of Genesis
allegorically, Augustine is far more moderate than his contemporaries in his attempts to include
women as also made in the image of God (De trinitate 12.7). Augustine holds the view that
women will not be resurrected as perfected men but will be raised in glory as women (De civitate
Dei 22.17–18). He also affirms the goodness of procreation, though he continues to consider
sexuality and sexual desire apart from the purposes of child-bearing to be sinful (De sermone
Domini in monte 1.15.41).