Second, the Church introduced the concept of mutual consent into marriage; a voluntary exchange of vows by bride and bridegroom stands at the centre of the Christian rite of marriage. Marriage itself became a sacrament, and the Church attempted (largely unsuccessfully) to argue that it should not be treated as a business contract between families. Despite the best efforts of the Church, however, mediaeval parents continued to dispose of their underage children (male and female) with little regard for their wishes. Yet while respect for the participants’ wishes might not have been the norm, women at least had the legal and ethical right to be treated as a consenting partner. We shall see how this right represented the thin edge of a wedge which some women effectively exploited in several spectacular cases.
Last but not least, Christ declared there was no difference between men and women in the eyes of God. Whether man or woman, they were souls created by God and redeemed by Christ. The physical body that enjoyed earthly attributes and pleasures was animal and mortal; the soul, consisting of mind and spirit, was immortal. Bodies are male and female; souls are not. While women’s bodies are weaker than men’s, making them the ‘weaker sex’ in the physical world, their souls suffer no comparative weakness in the spiritual realm.
The spirituality of women is signalled in the gospels by Christ’s willingness to keep company with women and allow them to hear his teachings (i.e., he treated them as rational beings). Most significantly, however, after his resurrection, he first revealed himself – and thereby the truth of his divinity and eternal life – to women rather than men.
The early Church reaffirmed women’s spirituality by canonising many female saints. Most of these saints from the early Christian period were martyrs, and many were women (e.g., St Agnes, St Barbara, St Dorothy, St Juliana, St Lucia, and St Margaret of Antioch) who preferred to die as virgins (and Christians) rather than accept a marriage imposed on them by their pagan fathers.
The large number of virgin saints underlines that women were no longer viewed solely as reproductive instruments whose value disappeared if they were unwilling or unable to bear children. In Christianity, women who devoted their lives to Christ, either as virgins or in later life as widows, were revered as admirable, not rejected as useless. By the era of the crusades, the burgeoning Cult of the Virgin had placed a woman (Mary) almost on a par with Christ himself, a fact reflected in doctrine, art and daily practice.
Furthermore, according to Christian doctrine, reason is not only the characteristic that distinguishes humans from animals but also the means to understand God and his intentions. Christian theology places a burden on people seeking salvation to understand the teachings of Christ in order to follow in his footsteps. Thus, the road to heaven entailed using intellect and reason, something expected of Christian women no less than men.
In their search for divine wisdom, some men and women tried to cut themselves off from the world’s temptations. This included rejecting luxury, wealth, comfort, vanity, pride, and all worldly pleasures, including sex. Indeed, the Church increasingly viewed chastity as an ideal for both men and women because it aided them in their quest to come closer to a sexless God. To fulfil these ideals, individuals formed self-sustaining communities removed from mainstream society and the distractions of the worldly sphere. In these new communal institutions, they worked, prayed and lived in poverty; they were called monasteries.
The earliest known monasteries emerged in Egypt in the fourth century. Significantly, they welcomed both men and women. Indeed, the first record of such an institution established in the Byzantine Empire in Cappadocia was founded jointly by a man and a woman, St Basil the Great (329–379) and his sister, Macrina the Younger (327–379). From its inception, it included communities for women as well as men. The monastic movement spread rapidly throughout the Byzantine Empire and reached Western Europe by the end of the fourth century. In the sixth century, St Benedict (480–547) composed a written ‘rule’ for the members of his community at Monte Cassino in Italy, which greatly influenced Western traditions. He established the three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience for acceptance into the religious community. He too accepted women as well as men from the start. From there, the monastic movement continued to spread to France, the Iberian Peninsula, England and Ireland. By the ninth century, monasteries for both men and women were spreading across the formerly pagan heartland of Germany. The first monastery in Poland was founded in 1044. On the eve of the first crusade, there were thousands of these religious houses across Europe, including hundreds for women.
Nunneries, no less than monasteries, were renowned as places of learning. The inhabitants not only worked and prayed but also copied and illuminated books. Furthermore, they taught others basic literacy and numeracy. Because women were perceived as naturally suited to nurturing children, elementary education was often delegated to nunneries and higher education to monasteries. Some historians argue that literacy and numeracy were more widespread among women than men in the early Middle Ages. They hypothesise that secular men (as opposed to monks and priests) were too busy fighting, doing manual labour and traveling on business to learn to read and write. Instead, they left the business of running estates and keeping the books and correspondence to their wives.
By the crusading era, however, literacy had become widespread among men and women of the upper and middle classes. This was more than functional literacy. We have numerous examples of secular lords and knights who were poets, novelists, philosophers and scholars in the era of the crusades. William, Duke of Aquitaine (1071–1127) is credited with inventing the tradition of poetry in the vernacular and sparking the troubadour movement. Chretien de Troyes (1130–1190), a comparatively humble member of the knightly class, is credited with inventing the modern novel. Walther von der Vogelweide (1170–1230), another writer of romantic and politically critical lyric poetry, was a mere knight.
Yet the emergence of secular men of letters did not (yet) displace women from the realm of learning. Instead, they co-existed with them. The mediaeval theologian and logician Peter Abelard famously was attracted to Heloise, later Abbess of Paraclete, because of her learning; she, too, was and is still viewed as a philosopher. Other examples of learned women in the crusader era include Abbess Hrosvitha of Gandersheim (c.935–973), Mechthild of Magdeburg (c.1207–c.1282), Abbess Herrad of Landsberg (twelfth century), and, of course, St Hildegard, Abbess von Bingen (1098–1179). There were many, many others, and their position in society is documented by the books they wrote and the correspondence they maintained with emperors, kings, popes and saints.4
The Impact of Feudalism
In addition to the influence of Christianity, women in the crusader era benefitted from the rise of feudalism. Feudalism elevated the status of women by recognising their right to inherit. Simplified, in feudalism, bloodlines took precedence over gender. This means that although the hierarchy elevated the firstborn son over his brothers and sons before daughters, it nevertheless gave daughters precedence over illegitimate sons, uncles and cousins, much less individuals without a blood relationship to the hereditary lord. Bonds of marriage, furthermore, were considered ‘blood-ties’, meaning that wives shared status with their husbands and deputised for them. With marriage, a woman effectively obtained control over the vassals, tenants, servants and serfs that went with the titles and properties of her husband whenever he was absent or incapacitated.
In practice, the focus on blood ties and feudal hierarchy meant the closest female relative exercised the same authority in the absence of a male, temporarily or permanently. In other words, class trumped gender. Thus, while women, to a degree, were subject to men of their own class and rank, they had a higher standing and more power than men of any lower class or subordinate position.
At the pinnacle of feudal society, queens were anointed and crowned because they were expected to exercise authority over the entire kingdom; consequently, God’s blessings were deemed essential. Their power was neither nominal nor ceremonial. When a king died, leaving a minor child as his heir, it was customary 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. Even when a king was not dead, circumstances might hand power to his wife. For example, Eleanor of Aquitaine served as regent in England while her son Richard I left his realm to fight in the Holy Land in 1190–1192. Likewise, when Louis IX of France crusaded from 1249 to 1254, 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 his queen must confirm the terms of the agreement. This was because, as his consort she automatically reigned in his stead and could command the resources of the kingdom (including those entrusted to his mother who had been left behind as regent in France) during his captivity.
In the crusading era, the right of women to rule as sovereigns – in their own right – was recognised in England, Portugal, Castile, Aragon, Jerusalem and France. The latter may surprise readers familiar with the Hundred Years War. However, it was not until after the crusading era in the early fourteenth century that French jurists invented the so-called ‘Salic Law’ that excluded women from succession in France. This was a legal ploy to prevent an English king from being crowned king of France, and the invented law was in blatant conflict with legal precedent, namely the Edict of Neustria (c.580). The latter had ruled that daughters could succeed to the hereditary domain (including the kingdom itself) if there were no sons. Notably, the same edict ruled that all other property (acquired by purchase or marriage) must be equally divided between all heirs regardless of gender.
At the next level down, women across Europe could serve as barons because they could give and receive feudal oaths. The importance of this cannot be overstated: feudal oaths were the mortar of feudal society and represented the social contract that made feudalism function. The recognition of a woman as a vassal and lord – not in her capacity as a man’s mother or wife – entailed recognising her as a fully independent legal entity. This was unthinkable under Roman or Athenian law and, sadly, was not the case in France, England or the United States from the sixteenth to the twentieth century, either.
Famous examples of independent female barons in the crusader era are Mathilda of Tuscany and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Mathilda of Tuscany was a significant supporter of the papal reform movement and also sponsored a raid against the base of Muslim pirates terrorising the Mediterranean from North Africa. In her own right, Eleanor, Duchess of Aquitaine, retained control of this rich and powerful territory, taking it into both of her successive marriages. She personally led her barons and their knights on the Second Crusade. Yet these two examples represent only the tip of the iceberg; there were many others. An in-depth study of the lordships of Troyes in Champagne, for example, shows that women held 58 of the 160 direct fiefs.5 In other words, women inherited at a rate of better than one out of three. This is unlikely to have been exceptional, although the exact numbers will vary based on local laws and customs.
When women held feudal titles, they controlled the lands and commanded the men and women that went with them. For example, the Constable of Lincoln in 1217 was Nichola de la Haye, who 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 while commanding the men of the garrison in person. There are countless cases of women holding and defending castles against siege and storm in the story of Outremer.
Not all of feudalism’s benefits went to members of the ruling feudal elite. The right of women to be barons and vassals was derived from the principle of female inheritance. This applied not only to the apex of society but also to the bottom. Peasant women could also inherit and transmit hereditary rights, whether for land or buildings like a mill or shop. Because mediaeval women of any class could hold property, they could accumulate and dispose of wealth. Few things empower a person more than money.
Significantly, it was not only heiresses that enjoyed property and the benefits thereof. On the contrary, it was customary for all women to receive property from their husband’s estate at marriage; this property was called a ‘dower’. A dower is not to be confused with a dowry. A dowry was property a maiden took with her into marriage. Royal brides brought entire lordships into their marriage. Lesser lords might bestow a manor or two, while the daughters of merchants brought ships, houses, jewellery, furnishings, etc.; even peasant girls might call a pasture, orchard or some livestock their dowry. The main thing to remember about dowries, however, is that they were not the property of the bride. They passed from her guardian to her husband.
Dowers, on the other hand, were women’s property. In the early Middle Ages, dowers were inalienable land bestowed on a wife at the time of her marriage. A woman owned and controlled her dower property, and she retained complete control of this property after her husband’s death, even if her husband were attainted for treason. Thus, while a man might be convicted of treason and forfeit his life, land and titles, his widow would not lose her dower.
Whatever the source of a woman’s wealth, in mediaeval France, England and Outremer, women did not need their husband’s permission or consent to dispose of their property. Thousands of mediaeval deeds provide evidence of this simple fact. While it was common to include spouses and children in deeds, this was a courtesy that increased the deed’s value rather than a necessity. Thus, many deeds issued by kings and lords included wives and children as witnesses to demonstrate that the grant or sale was known to their co-owners/heirs.
Middle-class women could inherit whole businesses, and as widows, they ran these businesses and represented them in the respective guilds. Indeed, most wives were active in their husband’s business while he was still alive. More importantly, however, women could learn and engage in trades and business independently. They could do so as widows, unmarried women (femme sole) or married women, running a business separate from their husband’s. Furthermore, if qualified in a trade, women took part in the administration of their respective profession, both as guild members and on industrial tribunals that investigated allegations of fraud, malpractice and the like.
The diversity of professions and trades open to mediaeval women was surprisingly large. A survey of registered trades in Frankfurt from 1320 to 1500 (admittedly a little after the era covered by this book) shows that of 154 trades, 35 were reserved for women, and the remainder were practised by both men and women, although men dominated in 81 of these.6
The Impact of Chivalry
Finally, the era of the crusades was also the age of chivalry. This immensely powerful secular ethos or code of conduct transformed man’s understanding of love and set off a revolution in sexual relations.
Chivalry introduced the notion that a man could become more worthy and ‘noble’ through love for a lady. Love for a lady became a central – if not the central – feature of chivalry, particularly in literature. Other characteristics, as defined in contemporary handbooks on the topic, were nobility of spirit, loyalty, honour, righteousness, prowess (courage), courtesy, diligence, cleanliness, generosity, sobriety and perseverance. Wolfram von Eschenbach in Parzifal stresses a strong sense of right and wrong, compassion for the unfortunate, generosity, kindness, humility, mercy, courtesy (particularly to ladies) and cleanliness. In essence, chivalry entailed upholding justice by protecting the weak, particularly widows, orphans and the Church. Yet, regardless of the exact definition, the inspiration for knights striving to fulfil the ideals of chivalry was love for a lady.
Critically, chivalrous love had to be mutual, voluntary and exclusive on both sides. It could occur between husband and wife, and many romances, such as Erec et Enide and Yvain or the Knight with the Lion (both by Chrétien de Troyes) or Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival, revolve around the love of a married couple. The popular notion that courtly love or the love vaunted by the troubadours was always adulterous is a fallacy. Nevertheless, mediaeval romance put love for another man’s wife on par with love for one’s own – provided the lady returned the sentiment. The most famous of all adulterous lovers in the age of chivalry were, of course, Lancelot and Guinevere, closely followed by Tristan and Isolde.
Strikingly, in an otherwise excessively hierarchical and class-conscious world, the ideal chivalrous lovers took no note of status and wealth and loved one another for their virtues alone. A lady was supposed to be loved and respected for her beauty, graces, kindness, and wisdom regardless of her status, and a knight was ideally loved for his manly virtues rather than his lands or titles.
Even more important is that regardless of which of the partners was the social superior, the lady always took the role and status of ‘lord’ to her lover. In the tradition of chivalry, the term that a lover used to address his lady was ‘mi dons’ – literally, ‘my lord’. The term denoted the knight’s subservience to his lady, his position as her ‘man’ – vassal, subject, servant. In art, knights are frequently shown kneeling before their lady and placing their hands in hers, the gesture of a vassal taking the feudal oath to his lord.
Lastly, courtly or chivalrous love was not a device to obtain sexual favours. For lovers who had the luck to be married, it included physical love, and in many adulterous romances, consummation was sometimes achieved. Yet sexual conquest was not the objective of courtly love. The goal was to become a better person – more courageous, courteous, generous and noble; in short, more chivalrous than before. In this sense, courtly love echoed or reflected religious love because it was first and foremost love of the spirit and character rather than the body. These features set courtly or chivalrous love apart from the erotic love of the ancients and the modern age. These features elevated women above the status of a sexual object and reproductive organ.
In summary, the Catholic Church recognised women in the crusades era as rational and spiritual beings, equal in spirit (if not in body) to men. As rational beings, they were encouraged to seek wisdom through education. Throughout this era, women of the middle and upper classes were largely literate, and exceptionally well-educated women were highly regarded. Furthermore, the Church preached chastity as the ideal for men as well as women, and chaste women, whether virgins or widows, enjoyed respect and even veneration. For those of either sex who chose not to remain chaste, the alternative was a monogamous, indissoluble marriage to which both partners consented freely and forsook all other sexual partners. Sexual relations outside of marriage, for men as well as women, were condemned as sinful. Secular laws in the Middle Ages acknowledged the right of women to inherit, hold and dispose of property and viewed adult women as legal persons without the need for guardians or representatives. Likewise, mediaeval society recognised the right of women to learn trades and engage in business. Chivalry raised women of the upper class to the position of lord over their lovers and enshrined the concept that all love must be free and mutual to be true. Ideally, each partner loved the other for their spirit and character rather than their body, a clear echo of Christianity.
Women in the Muslim World
Like Christianity, Islam views reason as God’s most precious gift to man and the key feature that distinguishes humans from beasts. Unlike Christianity, however, mediaeval Islam did not credit women with being capable of reason. This inherently relegated women to the realm of animals. Leading Islamic scholars of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, such as Imam Ghazali (1050– 1111), considered women not only outside humanity but a threat to it. Based on Mohammed’s writings and experience, Ghazali argued that women’s sexuality threatened to distract men from God.
At the same time, Islam placed no value on male chastity. On the contrary, male chastity was considered unhealthy, and men were encouraged to indulge their animal nature after a tiring day in God’s service. The key to reconciling these apparent contradictions was the complete control, segregation and imprisonment of women so they would not distract men while they pursued God’s business but could service men’s ‘natural’ animal urges when men felt it was time to take a break.
Muslim Professor of Sociology and modern Islamic feminist Fatima Mernisse argues: ‘The entire Muslim social structure can be seen as an attack on, and a defence against, the disruptive power of female sexuality’.7 In consequence, as other scholars point out, an entire century before the first crusaders arrived in the Muslim world, Arab women had ‘lost the greater part of their freedom and dignity … [and] the system of total segregation of the sexes and stringent seclusion of women had become general’.8
Just as the Christian theory of sexless souls and complete spiritual equality profoundly impacted Christian society, the Islamic notion of women as incapable of reason and more animal than human shaped all aspects of their place in society. Since women were not reasonable beings, there was no point in educating them. Since they were not spiritual beings, their only role was sexual and reproductive. Women in mediaeval Islam were not legal persons; like Athenian and Roman women, they lived perpetually under the guardianship of a man, even if that man was a male child decades younger.
Islamic women had no say over whom they married nor any role in the wedding ceremony, which did not require any form of consent on the bride’s part. Women had no right to divorce their husbands, but men could discard wives without cause simply by saying, ‘I divorce you’ three times. Furthermore, Islam recognised polygamy. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Mernisse argues that: ‘Polygamy … is a way for the man to humiliate the woman’, quoting a Moroccan saying: ‘Debase a woman by bringing in another one in [to the house]’.9 Nor did the humiliation end with polygamy. Since Islam only recognised four legal wives, Islamic elites of the crusader era generally maintained large numbers of concubines as well.
Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that Muslims were offended by the Christian reverence of female saints, particularly the Virgin Mary. Indeed, many Muslims of this period ridiculed Christianity precisely because of the role given to women. The Bar al-Fava’id, written between 1159 and 1162, remarks:
