!

1
Danielle Jacques
Chapter 14
Question #5
3 March 2015
Damsel: Agency, Nobility, and Sexuality in the Middle Ages
The roles of women in ancient societies underwent a variety of extreme metamorphoses.
In many of the historical periods we have studied, equality for women was an unthinkable
consideration. In Chinese society, the nobility went so far as to bind womens feet in order to
avoid contending with such an advancement. However, in the Middle Ages, the combination of
religions waning power and the new relevancy of the nobility spelled a new era for some
women. While they still had no positions of power, it is in this era that we can see certain classes
of women gain limited freedoms and status within society. Therefore, I feel it pertinent to redress
the limitations posed in the original comparative question. I believe that the status of women as a
gender group remained relatively unchanged during the Middle Ages. However, as social politics
became intertwined with economic and political power and prevalence, I believe that royal and
noble women gained favor in society. Specifically, these women, in comparison with their Greek
and Roman counterparts, were not depicted as lesser and unintelligent beings. In fact in certain
cases they were portrayed as equals to their male counterparts in the same social strata. However,
this newfound equality and agency was solely limited to romantic or sexual concerns, in terms of
economic or political power women were still inextricably bound by the limitations of their
society.
The principal idea here is that women as a gender group did not gain a significant place
or position of power during the Middle Ages. Rather as the Middle Ages progressed, and the

!2
social stratification of Europe began to develop, the waxing power of the nobility offered all
membersregardless of gendera wider place in society. In the excerpt of the Magna Carta in
this chapter, the selection before the document highlights a key feature of its legendary status: it
was mainly crafted in order to protect the rights of English nobility. While for many the Magna
Carta is the ultimate symbol of progress and justice in European society, which it could rightly
be considered, we cannot forget the limiting effect of that justice. Not only do we know that it is
written for the convenience of the nobility to protect from the transitory, and often idiotic, whims
of the king, but the document itself affirms that fact. It offers this proof as security when
describing the system of justice that will take place after the documents ratification: we make
and grant to them [this] security: that the barons may elect at their pleasure twenty ve barons
from the realm, who oughtto observe the peace and privileges which we have granted to
them, (Ward 307). Here a system of justice gatekeepers including sheriffs, constables, justices,
and baillifs is virtually abolished in favor of a system where nobles choose other nobles to serve
in positions of power. While the nobles will work to maintain the freedom of the King Johns
subjects, the management of that freedom will be left to a select social class, and even within that
class a specific group that the nobility itself chooses.
This rearrangement of the justice system is key, because it directly contrasts with one of
the defining characteristics of Greek and Roman society and law: all men were involved. While
this fact does not indicate that these societies lacked a similar social stratification to what is
depicted in the Magna Carta document, it means that the nobility in general held less power, or
maintained it differently. So how could power of men be maintained in these times? Through the
victimization of women. These men of different positions, professions, and power related to one

!3
another and maintained the benefits of their patriarchal society through the understanding that
women in general lacked agency and intelligence. However, as one social class began to become
even more prominent, however, all members of that class drew an increased amount of respect.
This newfound power, however, did not completely extend to all genders. For example,
while the Magna Carta establishes that widows shall not be forced to be married, it is only with
the concession that they not marry without the consent of men. This consideration is extremely
interesting because it shows the strict limitations of female power in this era. While marriage is
romantic considerationsignificantly less so in this erait is principally a political right and
power. Women, while they were allowed to take charge of their romantic and sexual lives, were
still ruled by their male counterparts as soon as considerations extended beyond love and sex.
The clarity of this border is best visible in The Knight of the Cart.
In The Knight of the Cart Guineveres characterization as a powerful and thoughtful
woman who is able to interact with Lancelot is only supported by her status as a queenthe
highest possible mark of nobility. By all accounts, though they are depicted as equals, Guinevere
is Lancelots superior. Even in this elevated position, the only sense of agency that she is
provided as a woman is limited to romantic and sexual matters. Even progress in this limited
range, however, is of a stark contrast to the societal and sexual roles of women in Greek and
Roman societies. For instance when the story indicates that the two have reunited for their secret
tryst, Guinevere is described as return[ing] his [Lancelots] greeting promptly, since she had
great desire for him, as did he for her (Ward 303). In this relationship, Guinevere is Lancelots
equal. Her sexual and romantic desire matches his, and also contributes to the motivation for the
secret affair. Unlike Roman society, where Cicero relates the idea of a womans open sexual

!4
power or energy with prostitution. Guineveres sexual freedom even as a queen in this society is
hidden within the story, but somehow acceptable within the literature of the society, indicating
perhaps not the inherent goodness of her acts, but her own ability and right as a sentient being to
make decisions and have desires.
This sexual progression is in further contrast to what we saw in Greek society when
Euphiletos claims during his murder trial that I must prove is that Eratosthenes seduced my wife
and both corrupted her and disgraced my sons and insulted me by enter-ing my house (Ward
97). In this case, Euphiletos wife is relegated to the status of a nameless sexual being and, more
importantly, a sexual being without agency. The affair is described through the fault of
Erathosthenes, as though he alone could compel the sexual desire of a woman without her
consent or complicit knowledge.
Though the progress reflected in the desires and statements of Guineveres character are
interesting, they are still quite limited. As soon as the situation requires an act of agency,
strength, or cunning, Lancelot immediately becomes superior. It is Lancelot that bends the iron
bars without a care for his pain or physical wellbeing. While Lancelot risks physical harm and
punishment, Guinevere is waiting in her bedchamber, the place where her power begins and
ends: her sex. While part of this can be attributed to the authors desire to maintain the spirit of
folklore and the sense of heroism about Lancelot, Guineveres importance as a sexual symbol is
key to the status of women during this period.
It is undoubted that noble women gained some favor during the Middle Ages. However,
that progress can be captured by Guineveres role in the short story from this chapter. It extends
far past the suffocating conditions and expectations of Greek and Roman societywhere men

!5
had virtually unlimited sexual, political, and economic freedoms and women none. However it
does push past the border of sex and love, defining women as beings purely of these emotions
and desires, and only giving credit to women of superior birth and status.

!6
Works Cited
Ward, Walter, and Denis Gainty. "Europe in the Middle Ages." Sources of World Societies,
Volume I: To 1600. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. 290-311.
Ward, Walter, and Denis Gainty. "The Greek Experience." Sources of World Societies, Volume I:
To 1600. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. 90-115. Print.