all RIGHT:
Why You're Writing Medieval (and Medieval-Coded) Women Wrong: A RANT
(Or, For the Love of God, People, Stop Pretending Victorian Style Gender Roles Applied to All of History)
This is a problem I see alllll over the place - I'll be reading a medieval-coded book and the women will be told they aren't allowed to fight or learn or work, that they are only supposed to get married, keep house and have babies, &c &c.
If I point this out ppl will be like "yes but there was misogyny back then! women were treated terribly!" and OK. Stop right there.
By & large, what we as a culture think of as misogyny & patriarchy is the expression prevalent in Victorian times - not medieval. (And NO, this is not me blaming Victorians for their theme park version of "medieval history". This is me blaming 21st century people for being ignorant & refusing to do their homework).
Yes, there was misogyny in medieval times, but 1) in many ways it was actually markedly less severe than Victorian misogyny, tyvm - and 2) it was of a quite different type. (Disclaimer: I am speaking specifically of Frankish, Western European medieval women rather than those in other parts of the world. This applies to a lesser extent in Byzantium and I am still learning about women in the medieval Islamic world.)
So, here are the 2 vital things to remember about women when writing medieval or medieval-coded societies
FIRST. Where in Victorian times the primary axes of prejudice were gender and race - so that a male labourer had more rights than a female of the higher classes, and a middle class white man would be treated with more respect than an African or Indian dignitary - In medieval times, the primary axis of prejudice was, overwhelmingly, class. Thus, Frankish crusader knights arguably felt more solidarity with their Muslim opponents of knightly status, than they did their own peasants. Faith and age were also medieval axes of prejudice - children and young people were exploited ruthlessly, sent into war or marriage at 15 (boys) or 12 (girls). Gender was less important.
What this meant was that a medieval woman could expect - indeed demand - to be treated more or less the same way the men of her class were. Where no ancient legal obstacle existed, such as Salic law, a king's daughter could and did expect to rule, even after marriage.
Women of the knightly class could & did arm & fight - something that required a MASSIVE outlay of money, which was obviously at their discretion & disposal. See: Sichelgaita, Isabel de Conches, the unnamed women fighting in armour as knights during the Third Crusade, as recorded by Muslim chroniclers.
Tolkien's Eowyn is a great example of this medieval attitude to class trumping race: complaining that she's being told not to fight, she stresses her class: "I am of the house of Eorl & not a serving woman". She claims her rights, not as a woman, but as a member of the warrior class and the ruling family. Similarly in Renaissance Venice a doge protested the practice which saw 80% of noble women locked into convents for life: if these had been men they would have been "born to command & govern the world". Their class ought to have exempted them from discrimination on the basis of sex.
So, tip #1 for writing medieval women: remember that their class always outweighed their gender. They might be subordinate to the men within their own class, but not to those below.
SECOND. Whereas Victorians saw women's highest calling as marriage & children - the "angel in the house" ennobling & improving their men on a spiritual but rarely practical level - Medievals by contrast prized virginity/celibacy above marriage, seeing it as a way for women to transcend their sex. Often as nuns, saints, mystics; sometimes as warriors, queens, & ladies; always as businesswomen & merchants, women could & did forge their own paths in life
When Elizabeth I claimed to have "the heart & stomach of a king" & adopted the persona of the virgin queen, this was the norm she appealed to. Women could do things; they just had to prove they were Not Like Other Girls. By Elizabeth's time things were already changing: it was the Reformation that switched the ideal to marriage, & the Enlightenment that divorced femininity from reason, aggression & public life.
For more on this topic, read Katherine Hager's article "Endowed With Manly Courage: Medieval Perceptions of Women in Combat" on women who transcended gender to occupy a liminal space as warrior/virgin/saint.
So, tip #2: remember that for medieval women, wife and mother wasn't the ideal, virgin saint was the ideal. By proving yourself "not like other girls" you could gain significant autonomy & freedom.
Finally a bonus tip: if writing about medieval women, be sure to read writing on women's issues from the time so as to understand the terms in which these women spoke about & defended their ambitions. Start with Christine de Pisan.
I learned all this doing the reading for WATCHERS OF OUTREMER, my series of historical fantasy novels set in the medieval crusader states, which were dominated by strong medieval women! Book 5, THE HOUSE OF MOURNING (forthcoming 2023) will focus, to a greater extent than any other novel I've ever yet read or written, on the experience of women during the crusades - as warriors, captives, and political leaders. I can't wait to share it with you all!
If you're writing about Byzantium/Byzantine inspired places, there's a few other things to keep in mind:
-Byzantium was a civilization that spanned a millenia and a huge geographical area. The treatment and experience of women was not constant at all times in all places.
-Women had different levels of autonomy at different periods of their lives. Many women gained great autonomy after their husband's death (and he usually died much before her), and could be registered as the head of household.
-There are basically two career options for Byzantine women: wife/mother or nun. Sometimes both, but never at the same time.
-Just as in the Latin West, class mattered a lot, and basically determined a person's entire life. Peasant women worked in agriculture and trades, while noble women had a much softer life.
-the idea that noble women were confined to the house is likely an exaggeration. (A byproduct of Byzantium's "distorting mirror") Furthermore, the women's quarters were nowhere near as closed off and restricted as the later Ottoman harems. In many places, women could move freely between their own quarters and the rest of the house. However, if a non-related male was visiting it was customary that the women would not be seen. This seems to be a mainly noble/middle class practice, and not an elite or peasant practice.
-Women played important ceremonial functions at the royal court. The Augusta (one of three titles for an empress) received the wives of visiting nobles, and was so important that, even if the emperor was unmarried, he might crown his daughter for the role. (See Leo the Wise) Additionally, there was an office reserved just for a woman, she was called "the lady with the sash" and she was placed very close to the emperor, and thus highly influential.
-Imperial women were highly influential, and could be incredibly masterful politicians.
-Women weren't forced to have endless babies until they died in childbirth. Byzantine women had access to both contraception and abortion, and there was some amount of recognition of a woman's right to choose. Furthermore, if a woman already had kids, but decided she didn't want to be a mom anymore, joining a convent was always an option. (For wealthy women)
If you're interested in learning more, the volume "Byzantine Women: Varieties of Experience," edited by Lynda Garland is a good starting point. You can also read the hymns of Kassia the Nun, or the Alexiad of Anna Komnene to get an idea of how women wrote, and what concerned elite women.
Excellent comments - plus, I'll recommend the great Judith Herrin as a magisterial voice in Byzantine women's history!
