The burden is heavy on us to get our presentations right. Most living historians do. And at the same time, we also hope to inspire and enrich. So when I found out a teacher in Texas muffed a living-history assignment on Medieval Chivalry, I had to speak up. Let me dive deep into this assignment, as tweeted out by a Lubbock-area reporter.
First, here's the assignment for the ladies.
Here’s a really ... interesting ... assignment on chivalry from @shallowaterisd. They are requiring the female students to lower their heads and curtsy for men; clean up after men; cook for and bring a drink to the men’s class. This goes on for the entire day ... even at home. pic.twitter.com/i81Zr2iAva
— Brandi D. Addison Davis 🗞 (@BrandiDAddison) March 3, 2021
People keep asking, so yes, here’s the assignment for the male students. You can compare them. pic.twitter.com/sIzA8J8PIJ
— Brandi D. Addison Davis 🗞 (@BrandiDAddison) March 5, 2021
Ladies must dress in a feminine manner to please the men.
Right away, we're starting with trouble. Who is defining "in a feminine manner?" And who defines "to please the men?" Does this mean "wear a dress?" Does it mean "no pantsuits or strapless tops?" Does it mean "skirts below the knees?" I gather the definition ultimately rests with the teacher, who I will graciously gather is trying to tell the ladies to dress modestly in a way that they will not turn a guy off. Perhaps. This could have been said in more finite language.
Ladies must address all respectfully with by title, with a lowered head and curtsy.
Respect with a title is fine. Some of us still say "sir," don't we, and not in a chivalrous context. A curtsy is beautiful. But lowering the head? Here's where you're coming into my wheelhouse.
In 18th Century and Renaissance dancing, many ladies bow the head as they curtsy -- but the gentlemen don't have to do the same as they bow. This comes with a troubling subtext for a lot of people about women subjugating themselves to men. Here's why it's troubling for me: the historic ballroom was intended to be the great equalizer, where people of many different backgrounds and professions could dance with each other, and the ladies were always treated with reverence and respect.
I found it patently unfair for a lady to bow her head when curtsying to me without a reciprocal measure. So I began bowing my head as well when I bowed the rest of my body during honours.
This has the consequence of you not being able to see how the lady is honouring your servant, but that was never the point.
Ironically, one lady who has now unfriended your servant demanded that I face her when bowing. I said I would not give that up, because this wasn't just about giving reverence to the lady; I was also giving reverence to GOD.
Ladies must not complain or whine. Ladies must never criticize a male.
In historical context, this was probably true for the era of chivalry, whether we like it or not. However, when a teacher feels the need to expressly state this as part of an assignment, I have to ask, "Why?" What is the motivation? What is the purpose? Most of us are taught it's good manners not to complain or whine anyway.
As for criticizing a male, how is "criticize" defined? Is constructive criticism included in that blanket edict? Again, we have a teacher leaving a term obtuse, opening the door for all sorts of misunderstandings.
Ladies must cook (preferrably not buy) something for the gentlemen in their class. Sweet baked goods are preferable.
I can easily read this as, "Bring homemade cookies or brownies." Asking the kids to bring a snack doesn't really move the outrage needle, but insisting that they make it? Even in Ye Olden Days, we had bakers.
I gather the reasoning is a continuation of part of the first edict, "to please the men," by showing a lady was capable of what was considered women's work. Admittedly, this doesn't appear out of character for the age of chivalry. Today, however, it seems lacking in value. What is the lesson to be taught by forcing a lady to bake something for somebody, beyond education by immersion? This edict could have been left on the table (excuse the pun).
Ladies must not initiate conversations with males (with the exception of male teachers).
Ladies must walk behind men or walk dantily, as if their feet were bound.
Outside the classroom, ladies cannot show intellectual superiority if it would offend the men around them.
Ladies should clean up after the men.
Ladies must obey any reasonable request of a male. If not sure it is considered reasonable, ladies can check with their teachers.
Huuuh boy. You can draw the conclusion of "the ladies should be seen and not heard, and they should be deferential to men." That was true of the time. But what is the lesson to be learned?
I think back to that classic full-immersion lesson on discrimination and racism by elementary school teacher Jane Elliott, unforgettably captured in the 1970 ABC documentary, "The Eye of the Storm."
Ms. Elliott's lesson was uncomfortable and yet enlightening. It had a clear objective: develop empathy in children and show them what prejudice feels like, helping them to understand their self-worth.
This lession? I dunno. Was this teacher trying to use negative reinforcement to help combat sexism? Was there going to be dialogue among students about this at the end about how they felt and what they learned, like Ms. Elliott did with her class?
Ladies must bring in root beer, ginger ale or sparkling cider for the gentlemen in their class.
After the subjugations mentioned above, I don't know if it would be wise for any of the so-called gentlemen to accept any drink from a lady, if you know where I'm going with this...
Now, let's get to the edicts for the gents.
Gentlemen will dress appropriately in jackets and ties or suits.
Unlike the ladies' dress code, we actually have something clearly defined and reasonable. Why couldn't this teacher have been specific with the ladies? One could say, "dress at a semi-formal level in a skirt of at least knee-length." That is the guideline many historic dance groups use for balls, for those who don't have access to period attire.
Gentlemen will show courtly courtesy as they assist ladies who may have dropped an article by picking it up for them.
Er, picking up what others drop sounds like good manners in any time period, and it sounds a lot better than the ladies' edict to "clean up after the men."
What is meant by "courtly courtesy" here? Is it simply the act of picking up the article, or is there special reverence that must be displayed? A bow, perhaps? Again, a term is left undefined and subject to misunderstanding.
Gentlemen will assist ladies to seat themselves or rise from their seats.
Helping ladies to sit down likely had more than just a ceremonial implication if somebody was wearing a full, ornate gown. Today, it just seems awkward and diminutive. Context is everything.
However, I'm curious to know how many ladies would really object if all the gentlemen in the room stood at attention when they entered. Admit it: we'd all like to feel like royalty at one time or another.
All females in the class and all female faculty members will be considered noblewomen and be addressed as "Milady."
Notice that there is no similar edict for the ladies. They are not required to consider the gents as noblemen and refer to them as "Milord," short for "My Lord," as "Milady" is short for "My Lady."
Gentlemen will create a yummy treat of friendship in Medieval tradition of coded messages for a lady in his class. If he is a particularly amourous knight, he may bring treats for the other ladies in the class. The ladies may, of course, share these sweets with their kindly knights.
Notice the word "cook" isn't used, giving the gents slightly more options. But pray tell, what kind of coded message would I send with chocolate chip cookies? What is to be gleaned by somebody bringing in Pez? I gather this should be an appropriate message, but oh, the possibilities for misinterpretation.
When taking a lady out for the evening, the gentlemen will pay all expenses.
No quarrel here. This courtesy has stood the test of time, and the only people who complain about it seem to fit into two groups: 1) those who see any act of courtesy as repression and 2) moochers.
Gentlemen shall rise when a lady walks into the room. Gentlemen should bow when greeting a lady.
Finally, we get to honours. Notice, as I alluded to above, the gentlemen don't have to bow their heads along with their bodies. The degree and angle of the bow depended on the rank of those being bowed too, but as I tell kids when teaching them 18th Century dancing honours, "If you wish to honour your lady like a queen, I don't think she will object!"
Gentlemen will speak genteelly, that is using appropriate language around ladies. There will be no profanity or use of vulgar words.
No quarrel with this one, either.
Gentlemen will allow the ladies to leave the room before they leave.
"Ladies first" is a courtesy that has endured and yet has been interpreted by many to be repressive, along with holding the door open for a lady. In your servant's experience, the vast majority of ladies appreciate this courtesy.
Gentlemen will sing or recite a few lines of poetry to the ladies in their class. Poems will be memorized and must be respectable poems of a romantic nature (no nursery rhymes).
I gather that also means no dirty limericks about men named Enos or folks from Nantucket. Here's where the gents now have to stretch their horizons a little, perhaps digging into those dead poets, or perhaps watching Dead Poets Society for a little direction and inspiration.
In the process, they learn they can be beautifully literate, even if they aren't literally beautiful.
There will be no complaining on the part of the gentlemen.
At last, some equity with the ladies' edicts.
You don't have to do a lot of math to see the gentlemen have it relatively easy on this assignment. Such was the reality of the age of chivalry. Many of these troublesome conventions would last into the 18th Century, where my historic heart lies. But as re-enactors, we have choices. We can take what edifies us, inspires us, and enlightens us, tossing out the rest.
"Isn't it cool we can grocery-shop the 18th Century?" one re-enactor friend once remarked. Hear, hear. The Society for Creative Ananchonism, which draws inspiration from the middle ages, even has a saying: "We re-create the past not as it was, but as we would have liked it to have been."
This teacher could have done a better shopping job. It first starts with an objective: what do I want my students to learn? Is it respect? Is it the value of manners? Is it recognizing sexism disguised as courtly behavior? Is it empathy for those who are taught to be subservient to others and treated like property?
You'll notice the objective listed at the top of the assignment reads, "how the concept of chivalry and standards set in the medieval concept of courtly love carries over into the modern day." But much of this concept and many of these standards aren't around anymore. The assignment is doomed to fail even before it begins.
I love bowing to the ladies, and I love it when they curtsy to me. I am not ashamed to say I still bow to ladies in this day in age. I carried a few of the courtly behaviors I learned in studying the 18th Century into the the present day because they uplifted people. The only thing getting lifted up in this assignment is tempers.
