How is our understanding of culture through Medieval literature influenced by the disproportionate amount of writers at the time who came from ruling classes? (From Conrad-O’Briain, Were Women Able to Read and Write in the Middle Ages?)
Medieval Feminism
ENGL 361 and WGST 322 | Spring 2020 | Dr. Myra Seaman
It is believed that many people, more specially women, were uneducated and illiterate. Yet, this is untrue, as stated by Conrad O’briain. O’briain points out that “the assumption of higher levels of illiteracy among women, sometimes encouraged by scholarly misogyny,” is unable to be found in evidence (236). As stated by Liz Mcavoy, women writers are overshadowed by the male dominated canon of Medieval literature. Because of this, we are left to assume that women are not as intelligent as men, who are incapable of writing classics that becomes the center of Western literature. Did women merely take on their gendered roles in the Middle Ages, not producing pieces that would be remembered and talked about hundreds of years later and further? Through “Were Women Able to Read and Write in the Middle Ages,” the understanding of culture is twisted into a male-centric point of view, leaving little, if any, room for aspiring women writers. But despite our generally male favoring western culture, women have been taking education and literacy very seriously, allowing them to produce great works, such as Marie de France. Women, despite our idea that the poor, specifically poor women, found various ways to educate themselves and become literate. O’briain points out that even the working class in trades such as printing were the most literate, and that “there is good evidence for daughters, wives, and widows working beside their menfolk or carrying on their business” (237).
A large amount of literature that dates back to the Middle Ages certainly comes from upper-class figures of the time. These narratives tell only one aspect of the cultural influences and social expectations of the time, however. As O’Briain explains, the idea that women were illiterate at this time goes back to the Romans and how only those who came from ruling classes were able to read and write. This fact, among the influence of the Romans in Europe, “had a disproportionate effect on Western European culture” (237). Women, according to O’Briain, were actually often more educated than their male counterparts. This false, and widespread preconceived notion, shows the patriarchal and misogynistic influences which have altered true history.
Just as there is a prevalent issue in our modern era of storytelling with a disproportionate amount of male filmmakers, there are many female storytellers whose voices are being squandered by misogyny and ignorance. This same situation seems to lend itself to the Middle Ages. Due to the ruling class, many voices (primarily female) were stifled showing only a small margin of the cultural identity of the time. Although “throughout the period, the evidence for laywomen’s education [was] greater than that of men,” the misbalanced and one-sided nature of medieval society and its control from the ruling class muddied and prevented the culture from thriving under a larger umbrella of literate voices in the other classes, regardless of gender, but primarily that of females (238).
Our understanding of culture has always been that men were well educated, if they didn’t live in very rural areas, and that all women were typically illiterate. It fits with what we believe/know to be true of the time, how women were thought of in society and their rights, or lack thereof. It also fits with our knowledge that people living in rural areas have less access to education among other things even today. What we tend to study of Medieval literature, and the literature from most any time period, were written by men with money and therefore literacy. That leads to us only hearing upper-class Men’s narratives, and thinking of history, and of women and the lower/working-class, in their terms. Our knowledge of history is largely influenced by the written records that came out of different times, and majority of that is literature. But if all we have is recounts from a small margin of people, we don’t have the full story. It’s untrue that all women were illiterate however. The truth is that many were, granted the women that got an education tended to be from families in high-class society, there was still much literature coming from women writers even though it’s not as studied. I think the case could be made that as much as women were silenced, and that’s affected our understanding of culture at the time, so were minorities and all the people that made up the lower classes.
Our understanding of medieval culture is complementary to what makes the question so disproportionate. Because of how hierarchical standings within the society were placed it was natural for the upper crust of society to have more access to knowledge. Placing women in this question is what makes it unique due to the fact that women were able to have more access to this knowledge do to not being the ‘man’ that existed in society. There was not a need for women to learn to fight and survive. And the lower in the feudal system the less need there was for an individual to know how to read. It is because of this that the view of what it was like or the point of view of the lower class. If it was written, it never survived.
A large amount of literature that dates back to the Middle Ages certainly comes from upper-class figures of the time. These narratives tell only one aspect of the cultural influences and social expectations of the time, however. As O’Briain explains, the idea that women were illiterate at this time goes back to the Romans and how only those who came from ruling classes were able to read and write. This fact, among the influence of the Romans in Europe, “had a disproportionate effect on Western European culture” (237). Women, according to O’Briain, were actually often more educated than their male counterparts. This false, and widespread preconceived notion, shows the patriarchal and misogynistic influences which have altered true history.
During this time-period, people that were apart of the upper class had more access to better books, education, and ability to write anything they wanted to. If you weren’t upper class, you had to struggle with that and if you were also a woman that added to the struggle of it all. The main struggle in my eyes is that women during this time-period weren’t taken serious enough and you can spin this around and say that women have been fighting for themselves for so long that they have all the motivation and challenges to work off on. It’s unfortunate, but it’s always a reminder to never let this happen again.
Our understanding of the Medieval culture is skewed by the belief that writers were mostly ruling class. The amount of anonymous writers are often even assumed to be male or ruling class. In O’Briain’s piece we learn that women from the Middle Ages were literate, despite our common understanding of women in the Middle Ages. But, because of the patriarchal and classist standards surrounding writing, these anonymous writers could have definitely been women (of any class; especially lower class) or men of lower class. Given that most of the Medieval literature we read today is either written by someone of the ruling class or an anonymous figure, it makes sense that our understanding of Medieval writing has come to be associated with the ruling class. Thanks to O’Briain’s piece, we know that is not quite true.