While I'm on the topic of things mediaeval, there are two other subjects on my mind, which rather interrelate.
First, this book I've been reading:
Best book on knighthood and chivalry I've ever read. No contest. The author is thoroughly acquainted with and profoundly knowledgeable of the actual medieval texts, treatises, romances, and visual arts, as well as with modern history and archaeology on the subject, and draws his conclusions and arguments from them. No revisionism. No ex post facto ideological bias. No repetition of "facts" that aren't facts at all, but long-perpetuated lies. Just superb.
Anyway, in the book I keep running across things like this:
"Loyalty is one of the greatest virtues that there can be in any person, and especially in a knight, who ought to keep himself loyal in many ways. But the principal ways are two: first to keep loyalty to his lord, and secondly to love truly her in whom he has placed his heart." -- quoted from the statutes of the chivalric Order of the Band of Castile
And this, in speaking of the Emprise de l'Escu vert à la Dame Blanche, (Enterprise of the Green Shield and White Lady) another knightly order:
"The upholding of the honour of womankind was the chief avowed concern of [this order], whose companions bound themselves for five years to the service of women, especially of the defenceless and disinherited"
When I read things like this, it strikes a chord in my soul that resonates everything within me. This is how life should be. I don't know how I got this way, but I always have been. Maybe the genes, or maybe something spiritual, from those ancestors I was talking about a couple of posts back got passed down to me. I think of what Gandalf said of Faramir, that somehow he had received something of the true blood or spirit of Numenor from across the ages.
But these examples lead me to the other thing that has been on my mind. I watched a movie, recently which, when I started it, I thought, "Good Lord, a medieval movie in which the weapons, armor, clothing, culture, and other details actually look right!" And it was based on actual historical events. The movie is The Last Duel, if you happen to have seen it. If not, there are some spoilers ahead, though I'll try not to ruin the whole plot.
It's about a charge of rape brought by a knight against his former friend, on behalf of his wife, which ultimately resulted in the last judicial duel fought in France. In case you don't know, in medieval times, matters could be settled by single combat between the two parties or their champions, and the outcome was seen as the result of the Will of God as to who was telling the truth. We'll leave the discussion of whether that's any more or less fair or arbitrary and results in any more or less injustice than the modern court system to another time. (We can say, "Well, that's not justice, the best fighter is going to win!" But how about, "That's not justice, the best lawyer is going to win!"? Okay, I'm done.)
The film is divided into three segments: 1) the truth according to the husband, 2) the truth according to the rapist, and 3) the truth according to the wife; and then ends with the duel itself and its outcome. Which sounds very reasonable and good. Except....
Parts one and two were taken mostly from the historical sources, and are accurate reflections of the court records and other documents. Part three, however, by the filmakers' own admission, was pure fiction. It was, in their words, "original screenplay" based on what they thought the woman's view must have been. If they had had sources, to say what her view of the matter actually was (beyond her actual testimony, which is given in part one), then I would say, by all means, tell her story! But they don't. It's pure imagination. And the real problem is, it's written entirely from a modern, feminist perspective. It assumes, with absolutely no historical basis, support, or even hint (I checked) that she must have been unhappy and miserable in her marriage, that the husband would have been an insensitive and abusive boor, that he quite badly mistreated her the night she told him of the rape, that he was only concerned with his own honour and reputation in the matter rather than her honour and welfare, etc. Which would have been all well and fine for the movie, if ANY of it had ANY basis in historical fact or record. But no, it's all pure assumption on the part of modern authors who assume that must have been this way because all men are, after all, abusive, insensitive boors, and especially those violent, barbaric knights must have been.
Here, on the other hand, is a much more balanced view of the matter by someone who seems to have a grasp on what history actually is: https://alexabaczak.medium.com/the-real-life-last-duel-the-assault-of-marguerite-de-carrouges-ca0ca4eba592. Although she can't help slipping a bit of feminism in there too.
There actually are some points to be made about the difficulty which a woman faced in bringing rape charges (which was a crime punishable by death) at the time. But they fit into the weaknesses of the justice system of the time overall, rather than to some overarching misogynist conspiracy to oppress women. And really, it's never going to be easy, is it? It still isn't. There's always going to be shame, and humiliation, and scandal, and gossip. And to be just, a justice system has to use impartial methods to determine truth to its best ability, and the accused in any crime has to be given a fair trail, because there is such a thing as false accusation, as well as mistaken identity, etc. Even in a crime as heinous as rape, there has to be due process, because there's a chance that the man accused is not actually guilty.
Don't take that as me defending rape or rapists: anyone who knows me knows how I feel about these things. Some of you reading this have experienced me acting on your behalf in exactly this capacity. I would have joined that order and made that vow. I'm just saying that this abominable crime is always going to be difficult for the victim to pursue justice, by its very nature. The perfect justice system would make it as easy as possible for her (or him), but medieval justice was not perfect. Nor is ours.
And after all, what better justice could there be than the vile rapist facing the armed fury of the woman's husband or other defender, in front of her, God, and everyone they know? Death is the only punishment suitable for rape.
Anyway, back to the main point: the postmodern feminist assumption that all the men involved were guilty and complicit in the abuse and oppression of all women, patriarchy, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah. They seem to me to have terribly slandered a brave and good man based on nothing but their own presumptions and ideological agenda. But compare that assumption with the quotes I gave from the actual middle ages above. And these are not exceptions, they are the rule. Every man who joined that particular order made a vow to devote five full years of his life to aiding the cause of all women, especially those who had no defender or champion, i.e., widows, women whose inheritance had been stolen, etc.
There have always been, and always will be, evil men. Until Christ returns. But there have always been, and still are, good men too. Yes, there was injustice in the middle ages. Yes, there was injustice against women. But there was injustice against men too. Yes, there still is injustice against women, some of it perpetrated by men. But there also still is injustice against men, some of it perpetrated by women.
