Dainty

"Dainty"

Via Cassy Fiano, whose blog I've been reading on account of her participation in the Marine Team, Project VALOUR-IT(!), an examination of the question of whether chivalry is necessarily sexist. The philosophical inquiry into the question begins at the 1:50 mark.



The answer given to what about chivalry is sexist is this: "The notion of gender difference whereby women are these sort of... you know, the dainty, delicate, in need of assistance... sort of the 'women and children first' on the liferaft."

Some people are certainly guilty of making such assumptions about women; but chivalry is not guilty of them. For example, consider the following plate from the work of Hans Talhoffer, a fifteenth-century master of arms. It is telling for two reasons:

1) It treats a judicial duel. In an era when every legal question could be resolved by such a duel, women might well find themselves wanting to fight one. The assumption of modern readers is that they were therefore placed in a position of 'needing assistance' -- as from a champion, perhaps. Not so! The medievals simply balanced the playing field, by constructing rules that made for a fair fight. The man is required to fight with a wooden club (limiting his force and the effectiveness of any martial training), while standing in a pit two feet deep. The woman swings a stone in her veil, of about five pounds -- around the weight of a small sledgehammer.

That a master of arms like Talhoffer -- who made his living teaching fighting skills -- went to the trouble of drawing up such plates indicates that this was common enough that prospective clients were worried about it.

2) The plate here is described as follows: "The woman has grasped the man's head from behind to pull him out of the pit onto his back, and strangle him." In other words, no one thought she would be dainty.



This series of plates, by the way, ends with a plate described as follows: "The woman has the man locked in a hold by the neck and the groin, and pulls him out of the pit." If you want to see the plate (and many others nearly as interesting), it's available in Medieval Combat by Hans Talhoffer, trans. & ed. by Mark Rector.

We've talked about all this before, of course, but it's important to separate 19th-century ideas from the original fighting ideas. Chivalry as an term didn't treat of women originally; it was at first just a name for a band of horsemen. Eventually it became an ethic, one based on feudal loyalty. The language of courtly love is the language of feudal oaths, with service and loyalty being a mutual bond: one between lady and knight, as between lord and knight. It was an ethic of mutual service and love, whereby I helped you and cared for you, and you aided me in return. The lady was often of greater power and status; there was much she could do for a young knight, in return for his friendship and service. This was as true for the feudal bond between lord and knight, as for the courtly bond between lady and knight.

If chivalry is "sexist," it is so in the sense of recognizing a difference between the sexes with the intent of honoring it. It is no insult; practiced properly, it entertains no insults. It is only an offer of service and friendship, in the hope that such service and such friendship will meet with a fit reply.

In the frank offer, at least, it is the language of equals. To the degree that this is an illusion, it is an illusion because the knight is the weaker party. In making an offer in the language of equals, he is the one who is making bold.