4.—Knighthood and the Veneration of Women.

Phantastic writers of romance and scheming persons have endeavored to depict the mediæval age as an especially virtuous one, and as one imbued with a profound veneration of women. The time of the minnesingers, from the twelfth to the fourteenth century, is dwelt upon to furnish proof to this assertion. The poetic courtship of the knights, that was first introduced by the Moriscos in Spain, is supposed to prove that women were highly honored at that time. But let a few facts be remembered. Firstly, the knights only constituted a very small portion of the population, and in the same way their ladies constituted a small portion of the women. Secondly, only a very limited number of the knights practiced this knightly courtship; and thirdly, the true nature of this custom has been considerably misunderstood or distorted. The time when knighthood was in flower, was the age of the rule of brute force in Germany; it was the age in which all bonds of law and order were broken, and the knights practiced extortion, plundering and highway-robbery without restraint. Such an age of brute force is not one in which mild and poetic sentiments predominate. On the contrary. This age was destined to shatter the respect for the female sex that might still have remained. The knights, in the country as well as in the towns, were mostly coarse, brutal fellows, whose chief passion, besides warfare and excessive drinking, was the unrestricted satisfaction of their sexual desires. The chroniclers of that time tell of incessant acts of violence and ravishment committed by the nobility of town and country, who controlled the municipal governments throughout the thirteenth, fourteenth and into the fifteenth centuries. Because the knights conducted the courts in the towns, and the feudal lords passed judgment in the rural districts, the injured persons rarely obtained redress of their grievances. It is a great exaggeration then to assume that their customs of courtship caused the ancient nobility to treat women with special respect and to regard them as superior beings.

A small minority of the knights seem to have been enthusiastic over feminine beauty, but their enthusiasm was by no means platonic but pursued very material aims. Even that clown among the romantic admirers “of lovely women,” Ulrick of Lichtenstein of ridiculous memory, was a platonic lover only so long as he was compelled to be. In the main, this romantic worship of woman was nothing but deification of the mistress at the expense of the legitimate wife; it was nothing but courtesanship, as it has existed in Greece at the time of Pericles, transplanted into medieval Christianity. The mutual seduction of wives was frequently practiced among the knights also, as it is still practiced in certain circles of our bourgeoisie.

The open manifestation of sensuality, characteristic of that age, constituted a frank recognition of the fact that the natural desires implanted in every healthy, adult human being rightfully seek satisfaction. In that respect it expressed a victory of healthy nature over the ascetic teachings of Christianity. But on the other hand it must again be emphasized, that this recognition came into consideration for the one sex only, while the other sex was treated on the assumption that it could not and dare not have the same impulses. The slightest transgression by women of the moral laws laid down for them by men, was punished with unmerciful severity. Women, as a result of constant oppression and a singular education, have become so accustomed to the conception of their rulers, that they still consider this condition quite natural. Were there not also millions of slaves who considered slavery a natural condition and who would never have liberated themselves had not the liberators sprung from the slave owning class? When Prussian peasants were to be emancipated from serfdom, they petitioned the government not to emancipate them, “for who should provide for them when they were aged or ill?” And do we not meet with the same situation in the modern labor movement? How many workingmen still permit their exploiters to influence them and lead them at will!

The oppressed needs some one to animate and inspire him, because he lacks the initiative for independence. It was thus in the present day movement of the proletariat, and it is the same in the struggle for the emancipation of women. Even the bourgeoisie, that enjoyed a relatively more favorable position in its struggle for independence, found its leaders and spokesmen among the nobility and clergy.

Whatever the shortcomings of the middle ages may have been, it possessed a healthy sensuality which sprang from the strong, buoyant nature of the people, and which Christianity could not suppress. The hypocritical prudery and concealed lasciviousness of our day, that fears to call a spade a spade and to speak of natural things in a natural way, was foreign to that age. Neither was it familiar with that piquant ambiguity to which we resort in speaking of what we dare not name, because to be prudish and unnatural has become customary with us, and which is all the more dangerous because such language allures, but does not satisfy, allows us to surmise but does not express clearly. Our social conversations, our novels and our theaters abound with these piquant ambiguities, and their effect is manifested. This spiritualism of the roué, concealed by religious spiritualism, has a powerful influence.