Aristocratic women of the twelfth century exercised wider
rights, duties and freedom of action beyond their ‘role of housekeeper’ as
suggested by McNamara and Wemple. However, later evidence is indicative of the
fact that aristocratic women were allowed to inherit their parent’s feudal
lands and revenue and therefore acquired to duties of managing these
territories until they decided to pass them onto a successor. Furthermore, noblewomen, especially in the
counties of Chartrain and Champagne in France were allowed to control their
dowry and could be consulted as dowers. Medieval women were also considered to
write family hagiography and historiography for further generations,
informative in the way in which both men and women collaborated in maintaining
memorial tradition. Furthermore, the fact that noblewoman in particular were
10% ahead of men in terms of life expectancy (given the situation of constant battles
and feudalism) women were compelled to take over duties which were usually
assigned to men, in tradition. This essay will attempt to analyse the above
factors contrary to the argument that women were ‘confined to the role of
housekeeper’.
McNamara and Wemple suggest that the power of women was
severely reduced in the twelfth century as a result of a return to public
power. This is true to the extent that a rise in public power meant a decline
or ‘corresponding loss’[1]
of family power, meaning that women, heiresses or even Queens were excluded
from the public life. Georges Duby argued that efforts were made to entrench
the idea of ‘primogeniture and the indivisibility of the patrimony’ thereby
endangering a daughters claims to her rights.
Medieval marriage reinforced the idea of women as housekeeper
considering that according to Canon Law (Law of the Catholic Church) women were
expected to give their power and control to men. Furthermore, their marriage
was to reflect that of Adam and Eve and therefore the original sin. [2]
However, the evidence presented by Mcnamara and Wemple lack primary sourcing
and case studies evident of aristocratic women being ‘confined to the role of
housekeeper’.
However, later 20
th century sources and
historians have suggested the contrary - that Aristocratic women exercised
freedom and various duties beyond their role as housekeeper. This is specifically
evident from the position of noblewomen in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and France
(in particular the county of Chartrain and Champagne). Characterized by
‘impartible inheritance and patrilineage’[3],
the dowry system could be said to reflect a decline in the status of women. When daughters were married, grant of property
was provided to them in the form of a ‘dowry’ and in return, the groom’s family
provided a morning gift or ‘morgengeben’. Women did, however, have certain
rights over their dowries, suggestive by evidence from Chartrain. One such case
was that of Hugh of Cherville. Hugh’s daughter Isenberg married Fulcaud of Dangeau. As a gesture of dowry, Dangeau was set to receive ‘two bovates of land’. However the land having been already donated to the monastery of Marmoutier brought the situation into conflict. Nevertheless, the ‘lack of a wife’s or a
daughter’s consent to the
disposition of her dowry lands was sufficient grounds for her (Isenberg) to
challenge the donation’[4]and in recognition of her right to the
dowry, Isenberg and her husband received 20 S. in quittance, from the Monks of Saint-Père. [5]
Numerous charters from the county of Chartrain suggest that 35% of aristocrats
referred to their daughters as consenters to their parent’s property, feudal lands and revenue[6] This is evident from a case study in Chartrain
where a woman named Alburg sold the fief (feodum) she retained through
inheritance from her father, to the monks of Saint Père, with the consent of her
daughter Odelina (This is indicative of
the fact that she considered her daughter her likely heir and that women could inherit
feudal property from both their parents)[7] The monks
referred to her as ‘certain women of ours’ parallel with ‘certain of our men’
that ‘monastic scribes used to refer to the abbey’s fifeholders’[8]. Women
maintained control over their inheritance and therefore being confined to the ‘role of housekeeper’
is a mere statement in the face of this, considering that their duties extended
beyond it and involved management of revenues and feudal lands .
Another example of where
women enjoyed a better legal status and freedom of action within state in the
twelfth century, was in the historical kingdom of Jerusalem. In heritance law in jerusalem enabled women to
not just enjoy substantial amount of revenue but also rule over various
holdings. This applied not only in fiefs and lordships but to the crown
as well. Therefore Queen Melisende ‘as
the heiress of King Baldwin II was crowned together with her husband Fulk of
Anjou on 14th September 1131, thus transmitting the crown to her husband Fulk
and, following the latter’s death (1143), to their son Baldwin III’[9].
Furthermore, Queen Melisende also held and ruled fiefs by her right of
‘guardianship (bailage), acting as regent for her under-aged so Baldwin and also
gained financial control over the land, including the right to alienate it.
Therefore women in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem enjoyed wider freedom of action
and rights during the twelfth century and some also found themselves forced to
command armies, especially against the forces of Saladin in 1101. [10]
The most important factor dictating the position of women in the kingdom was
neither canon nor feudal law ‘but rather the conditions on a society in a state
of constant war’. [11]
The average life expectancy of noblewomen was forty-four, in comparison to men
which was thirty to thirty-five. A situation of constant warfare and foreign
threat therefore generated a situation in which women were compelled to take up
functions that were traditionally fulfilled by men, especially in the military
front.
Aristocratic women were also encouraged to be the ‘prime
movers behind the surge in commemorative writing’[12]
and the preservation of family knowledge. The widow of King Henry 1, Queen Matilda I of
Germany, discharged her own responsibility of writing family historiography and
documentary memorials, to her granddaughter Abbess Matilda of Quedlinburg
(d.999). She is said to have handed her a roll with the ‘request to pray for
the souls of herself, her husband and those of other German nobles[13]’.
Although the roll disappeared, similar documents have survived from various German
monasteries. This is informative of ‘the role of women and the way in which men
and women collaborated in the memorial tradition’[14]
by issuing letter, charters and writing fictional literature. Therefore
aristocratic women played an important role in conveying family history to
further generations, beyond their ‘role as housekeeper’ as suggested by
McNamara and Wemple.
In conclusion, noblewomen exercised
freedom of action, shared inheritance rights similar to those of men, and
performed duties such as conserving family history and even fighting in defence
of their territories in the twelfth century. Therefore it is fair to state they
were not ‘confined to the role of housekeeper’ considering that further
evidence produced by Evergates, Edginton and Lambert, indicate to particular
primary case studies/ accounts of women sharing similar rights to men,
especially in terms of marital dowry and inheritance. These accounts also
suggest the involvement of heiress and in particular, Queen Matilda I (widower
of Henry I) in performing duties similar to her husband during the time period.
[1] Jo
Ann McNamara, the power of women Through the Family in Medieval Europe:
500-1100 (Feminist Studies, 1973) pg. 137[2]
Sara McDougall. ‘Women and Gender in
Canon Law’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press) pg. 166[3] Theodore
Evergates, Aristocratic women in Medieval
France, (USA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999) pg. 54[4] Evergates,
Aristocratic women in Medieval France
pg. 55[5] Evergates,
Aristocratic women in Medieval France
pg. 55[6] Evergates,
Aristocratic women in Medieval France
pg.50[7] Evergates,
Aristocratic women in Medieval France
pg. 51[8] Evergates,
Aristocratic women in Medieval France
pg. 51[9]Susan
Edgington, Sarah Lambert, Gendering the crusades (N.Y: Columbia
University Press, 2002) pg. 144[10] Edgington
& Lambert, Gendering the crusades
pg. 147[11] Edgington
& Lambert, Gendering the crusades
pg. 148[12] Elisabeth
Maria Cornelia Van Houts, Memory and
Gender in Medieval Europe, (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999) pg. 66[13] Van
Houts, Memory an Gender in Medieval
Europe pg. 66[14] Van
Houts, Memory and Gender in Medieval
Europe pg. 65
