‘‘Wear the Armor of Your Shame!’’: Debating Veiling and the Salvation of the Flesh in Tertullian of Carthage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the early third century, Tertullian (approx. 150—220 C.E.) penned On the Veiling of Virgins to cajole unveiled virgin women to cover their heads. While scholars have read the treatise primarily as evidence of his misogyny or his attempt to establish a male ecclesiology, this article examines it as evidence of a debate between Tertullian and virgin women in Carthage over the nature of a woman’s flesh and the possibility of its transformation. Employing Judith Butler’s conception of performativity, I consider how Tertullian connects veiling to his conception of the salvation of the flesh, and why he perceives the virgins’ unveiling a visible contestation (or, in Butler’s terms, a performative undoing) of that vision. For Tertullian, the flesh is both corruptible and shameful and only transformed through Christ’s death and resurrection. Across his writings, women’s flesh serves as evidence of the degradation of the human condition. The notion that women’s flesh indicates sordidness also underlies his complaint against the virgins who ‘‘expose’’ their heads. In On the Veiling of Virgins, Tertullian employs a host of cultural discourses—most especially the notion that a woman’s head indicates her genitalia, and materialistic conceptions of vision that cast the gaze as erotic and intrusive—in order to establish veiling as the outward sign of a Christian woman’s shame. Ultimately, however, connecting his vision of salvation to the performance of veiling, he reveals why unveiling threatens this link. When virgins refuse to veil, they suggest that their flesh does not signal shame, but instead reveals their exalted spiritual status.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".