Building
on last weeks' entry, which confronted the common myth that women were
"mere chattels" of their husbands in the Middle Ages, over the next four weeks Dr Schrader will look more closely
at the opportunities for women in the medieval world, starting today with a look at women's access to political power.
Non-historians
are inclined to assume that progress is linear. Since women did not
obtain the right to vote in major democracies until the early 20th
century, the assumption is that before the 20th century women had no rights. Yet, as the noted French historian Régine Pernoud argues eloquently in her book Women in the Days of the Cathedrals (Ignatius, 1989) women
enjoyed much greater power in the Middle Ages than in the centuries that
followed. Pernoud attributes this retrogressive development to the Renaissance and
the attendant fascination with all things “antique.” The focus on Rome ultimately
led to the re-introduction of many elements of Roman law, a legal tradition
that was extremely misogynous.
The
higher status of women in the Middle Ages as compared to antiquity and the
renaissance and early modern periods stems from the two principles that formed
the basis of medieval society: 1) Christianity and 2) Feudalism. Christianity,
as I discussed in length in my essay on “Women as Chattels,”
accorded women
unprecedented status because it eliminated polygamy and divorce, while
elevating women from sexual objects to spiritual beings. Feudalism
raised the status of women because power derived through hereditary
titles to land.
Simplified:
in feudalism bloodlines were more important than gender. What this means is that
although the hierarchy gave precedence to the first born son over his brothers,
and to sons before the daughters, it nevertheless gave the daughters precedence
over cousins and illegitimate children of either sex, much less individuals
without any blood relationship to the hereditary lord. Bonds of
marriage, furthermore, were considered “blood-ties,” meaning that wives were
given very powerful rights over property, which in turn gave them control over
the vassals, tenants, servants and serfs that went with the land. In practice,
the feudal focus on blood-ties and land meant that in the absence of a male,
whether temporarily or permanently, females exercised the same authority as
the absent male. In other words, in a hierarchical society such as feudalism,
class trumped gender. Thus, while women were to a degree subject to men of their
own class, they nevertheless had a higher standing and more power than men of
any lower class.
At
the pinnacle of feudal society, queens were anointed and crowned because they
were expected to exercise authority over the entire kingdom, and so the
blessings of the Divine were deemed essential. This was not a nominal nor
ceremonial power. When a king died leaving a minor child as his heir, it was
normal for the child’s mother to act as regent.
In France the custom goes back at least to 1060, when, at the death of
Henry I, his wife Anna became regent for their son Philip I. In England, an example of this is when Isabella of France served as
regent for Edward III after his father’s death but before he attained his
majority. Even when a king was not dead,
circumstances might hand power to his wife. In England, Marguerite of Anjou
ruled during the frequent periods of mental illness exhibited by Henry VI. When Louis IX of France went on crusade to
the Holy Land in 1249, he left his mother as his regent ― a function she
had fulfilled during his minority as well.
Indeed, when Louis IX was taken captive by the Saracens, he negotiated a ransom
with the caveat that, since he was a prisoner, his queen was reigning and
only she could confirm the terms of the agreement.
Admittedly,
in the 14th Century, in order to preclude an English king
claiming
the throne of France, French jurists invented the so-called “Salic Law”
that excluded women
from the succession in France. This law stands in contraction to the
laws that had been in place since the middle of the sixth century, when
the edict of
Neustria (ca. 580) ruled that daughters could succeed to the main manor
(hereditary domain) if there
was no son and sisters could succeed if there were no brother. Notably,
the same edict ruled that all other property (acquired by purchase or
marriage) must be divided equally between all heirs regardless of gender. (Pernoud,
p. 163). Furthermore, the prohibition against
women succeeding to the crown did not apply to other kingdoms from England and
Castile to Jerusalem.
Even
more significant, across most of Europe women could be barons in the sense that
they could both give and receive feudal oaths. The importance of this cannot be
over stated: feudal oaths were the very basis of feudal society, they were the
mortar that held society together, the social contract that made feudalism
function. The recognition of a woman as a vassal and a lord ― not in her capacity as a man’s wife or daughter but in
her own right ― entailed recognizing her as a fully independent legal entity.
This was unthinkable under Roman or Athenian law, and, sadly, was not the case
in the France from the 16th to the 20th century!
As
noted above, women were lords in the absence of males capable of
representing
their particular barony/fiefdom, but the essential point is that they
were
recognized as being capable of holding a title and the lands that went
with it.
Eleanor of Aquitaine held the Duchy of Aquitaine in her own right, and
her vassals (powerful and militant barons for the most part)
paid homage to her ― not to either of her royal husbands. The same is
true of
countless other women in the Middle Ages from Countesses of Flanders and
Burgundy in France to Joan, Countess of Kent, in England. There were
many, many others. In depth studies of specific lordships in France such
as
Troyes in the Champagne, for example, show that women held 58 of a total
of 160
fiefs held directly (as opposed to being property of a higher lord,
administrated by an appointee). (Pernoud, p. 180.) This suggests that
women
inherited at a rate of slightly better than one out of three.
Not
only did women hold the titles, they controlled the lands and commanded the men
and women that went with them. One of my favorite stories in that of the
“Keeper of the King’s Forrest” and Constable of Lincoln in 1217 ― a certain
Nicholaa, who Austin Hernon has brought wonderfully to life in his
well-researched novel The Women Who Saved
England. She defended the castle of
Lincoln against forces attempting to put the King of France on England’s throne
during the minority of Henry III. She withstood multiple assaults, commanding
the men of the garrison in person. But there are literally countless cases of
women holding and defending castles against siege and storm.
Last
but not least, no description of political power in the Middle Ages would be complete
without noting that the emergence of nuns and convents in the 5th
century AD opened completely new opportunities for women. Convents were
centers of learning, music, and illumination (something I’ll discuss in more
length in my essay on women and education).
The Order of the Hospital also offered women careers in social
work and
medical care ― not to mention an opportunity to travel to the Holy Land.
Critical to understanding these institutions is to note that they were
self-governing, so that women were not subject to any men inside the
community,
and ― often completely overlooked ― in many double foundations
(monastery and
convent side-by-side) the Abbess ruled over the men as well as the
women. What
this means is that monks entering the monastery took their vows to the
abbess ―
not the abbot. Finally, although such power is indirect, many abbesses
enjoyed great influence outside the
walls of the convent. As women of recognized learning and wisdom, some
of the greater abbesses such as Agnes of Poitiers, Mathilda of
Fontevrault, or Hildegard von Bingen, corresponded
with popes, emperors and kings.
Maria Comnena, Byzantine Princess and Queen of Jerusalem, was certainly a woman with political power. She is the
female protagonist of my Jerusalem Trilogy and also plays a significant role in
“The Last Crusader Kingdom.”
For readers tired of clichés and cartoons, award-winning novelist Helena P. Schrader offers nuanced insight into historical events and figures based on sound research and an understanding of human nature. Her complex and engaging characters bring history back to life as a means to better understand ourselves.
Find out more at: https://www.helenapschrader.com/crusades.html
No comments:
Post a Comment