Chivalry was Killed by the Women's Rights Movement

Each year I ask my Senior students to consider the following question: Is Chivalry dead in American teenage culture?

Typically, even after a two week unit on Chaucer and other Medieval literature, during which we address the concept of Chivalry and all its elements--Justice, Faith, Largesse, Humility, Loyalty, Courage, Franchise, Prowess, Defense, and Nobility--the majority of them are only able to muster: Chivalry is dead for some teenagers, but not for others.  These students then highlight how some teenagers hold doors or volunteer to be chivalric, but that those who are rude to teachers (or other elders) do not behave chivalrically.  (In my class, Chivalry also functions as an adverb.) Essays by these students revolve solely around the element of loyalty (or kindness in their modern perspective), and for that reason are quiet flat to read.  (And yes, they butcher the pronoun 'some' in the writing, making the essay vague as well as unoriginal.)

Occasionally a student successfully identifies possible reasons why American teenagers seem void of chivalric understanding and capability.  An eloquent commentary about Chivalry as a learned behavior that identifies a cultural shift away from serving a greater good and toward individual dominance transpires to show the student's awareness that the world just isn't what it used to be.  These essays stand above the previous example, but because they usually end with a trite claim that 'the world would be a better place if we all were a little nicer,' the cliche' squelches the argument.

And then there's the student whose perspective completely blows me away; a student whose depth of thought and understanding of culture far surpasses that of his or her peers; a student whose argument about the death of Chivalry compels me to question my own position on the topic.

This year a student presented such a claim.  The student--let's call him Dan--asserts that "Chivalry has become a concept absent in today's teenage culture and women are to blame....Whatever causes the increased promiscuity of females has made men lower their ideals of how to treat women.  Whether is it the media or just social pressure to accept the new 'norm,' when women lower standards of lady-like behavior, men will follow...If ladies refuse the lifestyle of loose dating and actually require guys to treat them right, they will get what they want.  What women fail to realize is that they hold the key to chivalry being reinstated in society."

Being a liberally minded, 'I am woman, hear me roar' kind of gal, my first response to Dan's position was that of annoyance.  How dare he place the blame for this problem on solely women when men hold equal responsibility in dating and relationships.  And then I reread the essay again and again and even again; the more I read it, the more logical it sounded.

Promiscuity and equality are not synonymous or contingent; having one does not mean accepting the other.  The Women's Rights Movement was founded on the principles of equality for women in regard to taxation, employment, property ownership, legal rights and responsibilities and other politically and professionally driven desires. (Want to know more about Women's Rights? Read The Declaration of Sentiments.)  Nothing in the historical documents indicates a correlation between these rights and the practice of Chivalry; yet many women, myself included from time to time, confuse gentlemanly behavior with domination and control, assuming that allowing (and even expecting) a man to treat a woman according to the fairness of her sex negates the progress made for women in the past 150 years when in fact, if what Dan declares is true, women hold the key to Chivalry in society.

If only all women could agree that females set the tone for equality and Chivalry; in that prospect lies great power--a manner of power that could change American culture in ways more profound the the Women's Rights Movement ever imagined.

Play on words

Old English, spoken 450-1100, was influenced by the Anglo-Saxon invasion.  The Saxons, Germanic in their roots, brought to England a rich vernacular.  Aside for alliterative poetry, however, there is little similarity between Old English and Middle English.

Middle English begins to take shape around 1100 and holds the "title" as official language of England until approximately 1500.  Though changes in language fall parallel to the Norman Invasion, the invasion did not lead to the change of language.  Instead, it simply reflects the natural progression of language.  There is a shift toward more Latin influence in Middle English vernacular.

Modern English--Britian's Modern English, which is not to be confused with today's Americanized English--evolves because of vowels.  Oh yes, those 5 (sometimes 6) letters are powerful little gals.  (Watch "The Letter People"; all the vowels are girls.)  Around 1485, culture enters something known as "The Great Vowel Shift".  This shift takes awhile, and most linguists and historians indicate that major vowel changes have settled themselves by 1800.  Seeing as how Shakespeare's writing falls in the very early years of this movement, it could be argued he writes in Middle English, not Modern.  By 1500, English is the language of high culture.  Latin and French are still learned in school, but English is spoken and written by the elite.

The Canterbury Tales were written in Middle English which is so very cool to read.  Yes, it's arduous and requires, at least for me, several readings to achieve fluidity, but the words are just crazy fun.  (Or maybe I'm just crazy.)  When reading, I easily see in some words the Germanic influence of the Anglo-Saxon invasion ('ich', meaning 'I') and Latin roots that should be familiar to all readers.  My favorite thing about Chaucer's writing:  the way he plays with language.  I'm going to provide you with some of my favorite words.  Some definitions/uses will be obvious; easy.  Others will not.  Don't take that as indication of your intellectual capacity, please.  I will warn you that some of them are associated with sex; they're the most fun!

• compaignye:  Company or group
• me thynketh:  I think.  (I just like the 'ynk' combination.)
• armee:  army or expedition.  This is the only usage of the word in the entirety of Middle English.  Usually scribes use 'arivee' meaning 'amphibious landing'.  But when talking about a Knight, 'armee' makes better sense.
• trouthe:  This word has four meanings:  fidelity to an oath;  truth (reality);  God;  personal integrity.  For gentilesse (the aristocracy), 'trouthe' is stationed as the most important thing of all.  And 'trouthe' is not to be confused with 'honour' which is your standing in the world based upon what others think of you.  Obviously, 'trouthe' and 'honour' can go hand-in-hand, but should a conflict between the two arise, as it does in the "Franklin's Tale," you should choose 'trouthe'.
• lewd:  In Chaucer's day, this word meant low-class or common; it did not mean sexually offensive as it does today.  However, since the lower classes were seen as offensive, the progression of the meaning is natural.
• estaat: Vocation, not your home.
• array:  Clothing
• lust:  Desire, but not sexual desire.  Lust during the Middle Ages was primarily a reference to greed, ambition, or wanting for things--not sex--that you didn't (and possibly couldn't) possess.
• axe: Oh yes.  To the woe of English teachers everywhere, this is the correct spelling for the Middle English verb 'ask'.
• quite:  This word means 'to pay back'.  Throughout the tales, Pilgrims 'quite' each other for their tales.  The Miller 'quites' the Knight, the Reeve 'quites' the Miller, and the Merchant 'quites' them all.  (To name a few.)
• queynte:  Is very unpleasant given that it refers to a vagina.  Sorry, but the reason that I find this interesting is because it also means 'clever'.  Another reason it's interesting:  it's similar in spelling and pronunciation to 'quite' (see above).
• likerous:  inviting or desirable.  When used in the noun form 'liker,' it replaces 'lust' in ME usage.
• grucche:  If you think it looks a little like 'grouch,' you're on the right track.  It means complain.  Griselda vows to Walter that she will never 'grucche' in their marriage, regardless of what happens.  He pretends to kill their children to test her devotion.  When she passes those tests, he kicks her out of the house.  Only then does she 'grucche'. 
• priketh, prikke, prikyng, etc:  These variations mean to incite or to move, as in the spirit priketh you; however, it's usually used in a subtext that implies a prikyng of a sexual nature. 
• labour:  To work...in the bedroom...  Remember, estaat refers to your 'work' or employment.  You also need to remember the idea that sex was a marriage debt, something the couple owed upon vow of marriage.  The concept of 'working off debt' takes on entirely new meaning when you consider all of this.
• swonken:  To work...in the bedroom...  (Chaucer has lots of words for this.)

And my favorite of them all-----swynk:  Which also means to work...in the bedroom, but when read in the phrase 'swynking in a pear tree,' it seems very innocent and fun.  Oh merchant, you tell the best tale!

Do you come here often?

I do not understand those couples who claim to have met at the gym.  Think about it, with the exception of the increased endorphins and self-esteem upon completing a rigorous workout, the gym is one of the least attractive places on earth.  Yes, the blond with the surfer physique and rugged abs is attractive, and the chick in the Yoga pants has a bottom worthy of a T-Pain club anthem (and my envy), but sweat is not a way to entice the opposite sex, in my opinion.  The gym is home to sweat-drenched, odorous, breathless masses working relentlessly to stay one step ahead of the bulge.  (Stop fooling yourself; you do not "glisten".  No one in the gym glistens.  "Glistening" only happens in commercials for cruise lines.  If you go to the gym, and leave with only a glisten, you need to go back in and try again.)  In fact, I think there are only two places where your partner should see you as sweaty and as breathless as he/she will find you in the gym.  (I'll leave you to ponder what those may be.  My siblings would argue that a 311 concert is the third place.  I guess it's a matter of preference.)  The point being that it perplexes me that one could meet a date or a mate at the gym.

But at least women today have avenues such as the gym (though I'd prefer a bookstore or a park or even trivia night) for meeting guys.  In the Middle Ages, chronic dating in search of "the one" was not an option.  Courtship may have happened, but only after an arrangement (fancy talk for financial backing) between the man and the potential in-laws.  In most cases, however, you would have been married off to some guy you barely knew, if you knew him at all, without all the hassle of dating. 

The upsides to such an arrangement: no cheesy pick-up lines and no "dating stress".  The downsides:  too numerous to list.  (But the hassles of dating and the stupid pick-up lines seem quite positive in comparison to a life-long marriage to a person you didn't choose.)

Chaucer: The Medieval Dr. Ruth

The Canterbury Tales are written in a dialect of Middle English closely associated with and understood by the "common people."  The social order (or estates) of the Pilgrims is clearly defined and readers, even those unfamiliar with the social hierarchy of the time, understand very quickly that the Knight resides above the Clerk in status.  Chaucer's use of Middle English as opposed to French or Latin (or even Italian) indicates his desire to move literature from the world of scholars and into the world of man.  Below are a few of my favorite passages from the tales we've read thus far.  Some of them are poetic and flowing while others are raunchy and common.  All of them show a glimpse of life in Medieval England.

General Prologue, lines 1-18:

Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yong sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
So priketh hem nature in hir corages
Thanne longen fold to goon on pilgrimages,
And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes
And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond to Caunterbury they wende
The hooly blisful martir for to seke
That hem hath holpen whan that they were seeke.

Okay, so it seems predictable to start with the "General Prologue" but really, the opening indicates everything you'll find in one form or another from the rest of the text.  The images of birth and renewal suggested by the time of year (April) and a need for penitence (long to go on Pilgrimages).  A suggestion of sex (sleeping at night with an open eye and pricking of nature).  A need for adventure (seek strange lands).  An appreciation for "ancient" beliefs that seems to gesture to the learned folk that might not be so excited about this common tale (Zephirus and Ram).  And probably my favorite thing about the passage, a play the words seke (seek) and seeke (sick).

The final couplet, loosely translated, reads "They seek the holy blissful martyr so he can heal what makes them sick."  The underlying context associates the word sick with sin, so it makes complete sense that the Pilgrims seek Thomas Becket's (the martyr) shrine to assuage the guilt of their sin.  The exact nature of the sin is never precisely detailed, but given the carnal undertone of many of the other tales we've read, I think the sin for which the Pilgrims seek forgiveness is the sin of the flesh.

Some interesting things I've learned about sins of the flesh, according to the clergy and other religious definitions from the Middle Ages, during this class, in no particular order:

• Saving yourself for marriage is more sinful than having premarital sex.  Virginity in the sense of chastity for religious devotion mattered more than being untouched prior to your wedding night. 
• Clergy--monks, friars, nuns, etc.--took a vow of chastity and therefore were not supposed to have sex.  However, many reports indicate that they did.  Surprisingly, saving yourself for marriage is still more sinful than the vow broken by these members of the church.
• Being married and having sex with your partner--and only your partner--doesn't win you more brownie points than the widow who never marries and never has sex after the death of his/her spouse.
• Sex inside marriage is fully acceptable, especially if you get pregnant as a result, as long as you don't enjoy it.  This sex is marriage debt, and if it's too pleasurable and people find out, your purity status falls next to that of the "no sex before marriage" virgin.  (And this is why the Wife of Bath frightens people.  Her sermon boldly indicates her enjoyment of sex with her husbands.  It doesn't exactly help matters that she weds 5 times, making her a remarried widow who enjoys sex.  YIKES!)
• Adultery is favored over having sex when you're not married.  Yep, it was less sinful to be Henry VIII than to be a swinging bachelor.  (Not that he's Medieval, but you understand my point.)
• If you're a single women, give up now because none of these rules apply to you and you can't win for losing.

 While Chaucer didn't practice or support these doctrinal views, people of the time would have easily been surrounded by those who did prescribe to these Puritanical understandings.  It's no surprise that the Pilgrims seem to be in search of forgiveness for their carnal desires.  The tales serve as a sort of therapy, a verbal acknowledgment of bodily urges.  And the Pilgrimage is just what the doctor prescribed.

My favorite (so far) is "The Merchant's Tale", a tale with an interesting take on the original sin.  Give it a read, and then let's talk.
http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/gchaucer/bl-gchau-can-collected.htm