This
paper will discuss Bynums point of view in further depth as I explore
the various arguments for and against a diagnosis of the starving saints
as anorectics. My ultimate conclusion, however, does not rest on either
side of this debate. A discussion of the tenuous nature of the sources
will attempt to illuminate the unfeasibility of adhering to a side (either
that the starving saints were anorectics or that they were not) that
categorizes a large group of women for whom the corresponding historical
information is questionable in the first place. Such a generalization
would imply that the women being studied were a homogenous group and
that the evidence available on them allows a decisive claim to be made
regarding an element of their personal psyche. This paper will show
that the information on the starving saints is not reliable enough to
be the basis for such a claim and that it is unlikely that all of the
women discussed in Bynum's book can be relegated to a single grouping.
However, before moving on the issue of the sources, it is important
to examine the arguments for both sides of the debate which is addressed
in Holy Feast and Holy Fast.
Many female holy women of the High Middle Ages (from the late twelfth
to the early fourteenth century) exhibited an extreme form of food asceticism,
surpassing many male saints in their excessive abstinence. Their fasting
behaviors were often performed in a compulsive manner and for extended
periods of time. Some women, such as Columba of Rieti, actually died
of their self-inflicted starvation.2 In drawing parallels
between these fasting saints and modern anorectics, it becomes apparent
that the medieval women may have had some variation of the eating disorder.
Such behaviors which parallel the modern understanding of anorexia
nervosa include a feeling of dissatisfaction with the results of
fasting, a fear of sexual development, an attempt to exert control,
and a propensity to think about or deal with food.3