According to Andrew the Chaplain, the founder of the formal doctrine of courtly love, “Love is an inborn suffering proceeding from the sight and immoderate thought upon the beauty of the other sex, for which cause above all other things one wishes to embrace the other and, by common assent, in this embrace to fulfill the commandments of love.”1

Indeed for many centuries in the Middle Ages and earlier, probably since the time of the ancient Greeks, love has been known to be a physical and mental affliction.2 Interestingly, physicians have regularly offered treatments for the lovesick. William of Gaddesden, one of the authorities known to the Physician in Chaucer's General Prologue, treated it only briefly in his medical textbook, since, as he warned his students, "but little money can be made from this disease."3 Alain Chartier in the fifteenth century and Shakespeare4 in the sixteenth objected, “Men have died... and worms have eaten them, but not for love."5 Nevertheless, in the seventeenth century appeared the definitive medical study, Eratomania, which filled 336 large pages, and Robert Burton devoted over a quarter of his huge Anatomy of Melancholy to the problem of love sickness.6 Even in the early nineteenth century some of John Keats's friends thought that the first symptoms of an illness from which he suffered were due to his languishing for unrequited love.7

Courtly Love, however is a much more passionate form of love, and if we go by the concepts of the abovementioned physicians, a more fatal form of the disease. As a doctrine, Courtly Love is a method of love according to the rules set down by Andrew the Chaplain in his famous book, A treatise on Courtly Love. A general concept of courtly love would be that a man falls passionately in love with a married woman of equal or higher rank. Before his love can be declared, he must suffer long months of silence; before it can be consummated, he must prove his devotion by noble service and daring exploits. The lovers eventually pledge themselves to secrecy and to remain faithful despite all obstacles. The Columbia Encyclopaedia interesting remarks though, that “in reality, courtly love was little more than a set of rules for committing adultery.”8 C. S. Lewis famously defined the doctrine of courtly love as "Humility, Courtesy, Adultery, and the Religion of Love."9

Courtly love may be strange, ridiculous, or controvertial as a doctrine, but it was quite important as a literary invention, expressed in such works as Chrétien de Troyes’s Lancelot of 12th century, Guillaume de Lorris’s Roman de la Rose of 13th century, and Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde coming in the 14th century. these works it was the subjective presentation of the lovers’ passion for each other and their consideration for other people that transformed the code of courtly love into one of the most important literary influences in Western culture.







Whether Courtly Love had ever been a doctrine, or it has been only a literary convention, is a topic over which much debate has been going on. The modern critics, such as Larry D. Benson have debunked the idea of Courtly Love being a doctrine, as it has commonly been believed to be. He insisted that the phrase “was not, as is sometimes said, invented in 1883 by Gaston Paris.”2 E. T. Donaldson has announced that "courtly love" is only a critical myth10, D. W. Robertson has even more vigorously dismissed it as a nineteenth-century invention, an impediment to the understanding of medieval literary texts.11 Benson also insisted, like other writers that share his opinion, that “Andreas Capellanus… was not trying to write a serious code of conduct; he was trying to be funny.”2 Attempting to separate the doctrine from the literary convention, he wrote: “Amor cortese, courtly love, was in fairly common use in medieval Italian, and Chaucer might well have come upon the phrase cortesi amanti, courtly lovers, in his reading of Petrarch. As for what he might have thought it meant, we need only note that the lover in Chaucer's complaint is so extravagantly humble that he will obey his lady in everything, so courteous he would rather die than offend her even in thought, and so religiously devoted to her that he prays for but one drop of grace, without which he can have neither bliss nor hope. The speaker is not, so far as we can tell, an adulterer, for the text tells us nothing of his or his lady's marital status. But if we omit adultery from C. S. Lewis's famous definition, I can think of no better description of the attitudes embodied in this stanza than "Humility, Courtesy, and the Religion of Love."2


The debate as the to whether Courtly Love is a formal doctrine of love can probably not be concluded, nonetheless, we know that Courtly Love was still a very important literary convention, and a very influential one. Its power is to be explained by that fact that, as Kittredge said in his apt characterization, courtly love was part of "the settled language of the chivalric system."12



Characteristics of Courtly Love:

Regardless of the inconclusive debate on whether Andrew was serious or mocking when he wrote his rules of courtly love, the rules that he wrote hold utmost importance, for our comprehension of Courtly Love. Even if we accept the argument that he was mocking, his rules still do give us a deep insight on the rules of Courtly Love that he was trying to mock. Based primarily on his views, I have extracted that the concept of courtly love had the following chatacteristics:

• Aristocratic: i.e. its proper milieu was the royal palace or court.
• Ritualistic: Couples engaged in a courtly relationship conventionally exchanged gifts and tokens of their affair. But She was the mistress and he was a faithful slave.
• Secret: Courtly lovers were pledged to strict secrecy.
• Adulterous: "Fine love"--almost by definition--was extramarital
• Literary: Before it established itself as a popular real-life activity, courtly love first gained attention as a subject and theme in imaginative literature.




On Origins of Courtly Love:

There is many a theory on the origin of the concept of Courtly Love. Scholarship on this subject is mainly divided into two camps: those who believe that Courtly Love had its genesis and inspiration in Southern Europe (the Romanists), and those who believe that some external influence, most likely Mozarabic Spain, was acting on Provencal and so spawned the phenomenon (the Arabists). The scholar's choice of one of these broad theories results not from careful study of the available source material, but from cultural predisposition.

Major manifestations of the Romanist doctrine will be herein referred to as the Celtic, the Catharist, and Sociological systems. The British are fond of the Celtic origin of Courtly Love. In this system, Celtic and proto-Arthurian legend crept around Europe until blossoming (in a mutated form) in the south of France. Arthur C.
L. Brown writes, "Only the Celts knew a Happy Other World, peopled with ladies who were on one hand stately and imperious and on the other hand beautiful and devoted to lovemaking."13 C. S. Lewis, draws upon another source for his thesis: the Sociological theory. As love was unrelated to marriage ("marriages had nothing to do with love. . . ") then, once the need for love was invented or realized, it would have to be found extra-conjugally. Further complicating the situation would be the actual setting in which the Courtly Love phenomenon occurred: "... a castle which is a little island of comparative leisure and luxury... in a barbarous country-side. There are many men in it, and very few women – the lady, and her damsels."14 The most mystical Romanist argument is that of the Cahtharist origins of the Courtly Love ideal. Denis de Rougement, the only Frenchman in this Survey, was likely to find a local, French-based cause for Courtly Love. De Rougement's main proof lies in an interesting, if unrelated, coincidence: "...the Catharist heresy and courtly love developed simultaneous in the twelfth and also coincided spatially in the south of France. How suppose that the two movements were entirely unconnected?"15 De Rougement notes that the Cathars and the troubadours both mocked marriage, idolized chastity, disliked the organized church hierarchy, and preferred the wandering, "pure" life. One of the most interesting points of this similarity, noted by Roger Boase, is the "Ecstatic impulse of Eros. Courtly Love and the Cathar Heresy were both inspired by Eros: the soul's nostalgic and insatiable desire to dissolve itself in the Unity whence it sprang."16

The Arabists on the other hand, insist that courtly love is a spinoff of Islamic literary forms, run through a European filter in El-Andalusia (Muslim Spain). Reay Tannahill made some interesting observations on the genesis and form of early Arabic love-poetry in the late seventh century: "...'pure love'... was very much a masculine game designed to satisfy intellectualized masculine emotions... the heroine of the 'pure love' lyric was not a person at all, only a focal point. Thanks to the veil and the harem, the respectable lady's face, figure, charm and wit were all unknown quantities to her poet-lover. Indeed, it seems likely that many heroines of these lyrics were not even aware of the poetry they inspired." 17



It will be important to also mention the theory about the troubadours. Troubodours were 12th century French singers. They wrote almost entirely about sexual love and developed the concept and practice of courtly love.18 The savage society of the middle ages nourished the concept of knightly love, by force, before them. In the later middle ages, they, under the influence of Christianity, transformed the earlier romantic literature based on hedonism into a new literature based on the idealization of love.19 Thus the knights went from lusting after their friends’ wives to swooning in love over a woman’s glove. The literature idealized “love” to such an extent, and set so many obstacles in front of it, that this love became almost impossible to attain. And so it became a sort of poetic quest.

No matter what the origin of the concept of courtly love is, the 12th century social conditions of France & England did favour the concept of courtly love and made the concept into a literary convention of these very societies.




On Social Aspects of Courtly Love:

Dr. Debra Shwartz has beautifully explained why this concept gained popularity as a literary convention.20 The audience for narrative poetry in those times was largely made up of women- the queen, duchess or countess and the other ladies of her court. These women naturally tended to be interested in stories in which women played more central roles. Because the vernacular language poet's livelihood depended upon pleasing his/her audience, the vernacular narratives written for these courts ("romances") tended to focus on other plot developments than the fighting and male-bonding emphasized in epic poetry. The narratives still concern the deeds of brave warriors, but the Middle English knight (unlike the Old English thane) is motivated by love for his lady. Accordingly, women play an increasingly important and active role. This whole attitude has been described as 'a feudalism of love'. 21

The "courtly love" relationship is modelled on the feudal relationship between a knight and his liege lord. The knight serves his courtly lady (love service) with the same obedience and loyalty that he owes to his liege lord. She is in complete control of the love relationship, while he owes her obedience and submission (a literary convention that did not correspond to actual practice!) The knight's love for the lady inspires him to do great deeds, in order to be worthy of her love or to win her favor. Thus "courtly love" was originally construed as an ennobling force whether or not it was consummated, and even whether or not the lady knew about the knight's love or loved him in return.

The "courtly love" relationship typically was not between husband and wife, not because the poets and the audience were inherently immoral, but because it was an idealized sort of relationship that could not exist within the context of "real life" medieval marriages. In the Middle Ages, marriages amongst the nobility were typically based on practical and dynastic concerns rather than on love. The idea that a marriage could be based on love (as in the "Franklin's Tale") was a radical notion. But the audience for romance was perfectly aware that these romances were fictions, not models for actual behavior. The adulterous aspect that bothers many 20th-century readers was somewhat beside the point, which was to explore the potential influence of love on human behavior.


On Psychological Interpretation of Courtly Love:

Dr. Bruce Lennan has written an invaluable treatise on the psychological interpretation of love in literature over history.22 Some of it also refers to the convention of Courtly Love. Some of his views are definitely worth mentioning.

He says that in the feudal world, no less than in the ancient world, married life was not especially conducive to passionate love, which generally occurred outside of marriage. Furthermore, putting one's spouse on a pedestal is not such a good idea even now, since it places unrealistic demands on one partner and raises unrealistic expectations in the other. It's not wise to treat another person as a god; that's what got Psyche into trouble. Therefore, in these societies the divine ecstasy, the possession by Eros and the longing for the eternal Beloved, was usually sought outside of marriage.

Courtly love may be understood as a spiritual practice in which the lover invoked (invited possession by) Eros, and the beloved invoked (invited possession by) Anteros or divine Wisdom. The lover longed for, came to know, and ultimately united with divinity; the beloved came to identify with divinity and to experience the flow of divine Wisdom through herself. Both were elevated, for a time, into the celestial realm, the sphere of Nous. Therefore the lover typically referred to his beloved by a senhal or symbolic name (e.g. "Precious Stone Beyond all Others"). This had the practical effect of disguising her identity (for she was married to someone else), but the spiritual effect of reminding them both that she was representing the eternal Beloved, so they both should behave accordingly. Since the intended relation was archetypal, it was appropriate for each to set aside their egos (hence also the virtue of secrecy).

The lover then undertook many tasks in service to the Beloved and to prove his faithfulness. Psychologically, these tasks are the challenges that must be faced in achieving an integrated personality. Specifically, they represent the rejected parts of the psyche (the shadow, in Jung's terms) and other psychological complexes that must be acknowledged and consciously integrated. (Recall how Parzival fought but then embraced Feirefiz.) From a spiritual perspective, the tasks represent the many difficulties of adhering to the high standards of courtly love; some failures were to be expected and forgiven.

Service to the Beloved was a common characteristic of courtly love, and by it the lover devoted himself to fulfilling the design of divine Providence, that is, to living in harmony with the Self. The lover was vassal to the Beloved, but served her with dignity.

In conclusion, Eros is longing for wholeness or completion. One way in which it manifests is in the longing for a beloved to fulfil the archetypal relation of Lover and Beloved, but whenever we are passionate for completion, Eros is upon us. The ultimate longing is the desire to reunite with the One.







Citations:

1. Andreas Capellanus, De Amore A Treatise on Courtly Love - Andreae Capellani regii Francorum, De amore libri tres, ed. E. Trojel, Copenhagen, 1892.
2. Benson, Larry D., Contradictions: from Beowulf to Chaucer, ed. Theodore M. Andersson & Stephen A. Barney, Aldershot, Hants, England: Scolar Press; Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate Pub. Co., 1995.
3. Lowes, John L., "The Loveres Maladye of Hereos," Modern Philology 11, 1914: 503.
4. Shakespeare, William, As You like It, IV i.108.
5. Alain Chartier, Delectable Demaundes and Pleasant Questions, with Their Severall Answers, in Matters of Love, trans. William Painter, London: Thomas Creede, 1596.
6. Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, 1621; 6th rev. ed., 1651: Part 3, Sec. 1-3.
7. Aileen Ward, John Keats: The Making of a Poet, New York: Viking, 1963: 185.
8. Anon., Courtly Love. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
9. C.S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition. London, 1936 (rpt. 1958), Widener Lit: 596.8.20.
10. E. Talbot Donaldson, "The Myth of Courtly Love," in Speaking of Chaucer, New York, Norton, 1970: 154-63.
11. D. W. Robertson, Jr., "Courtly Love as an Impediment to the Understanding of Medieval Literary Texts," in The Meaning of Courtly Love, ed. F. X. Newman, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1968: pp. 1-18.
12. George Lyman Kittredge, Chaucer and His Poetry, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1951: 63.
13. Arthur C. L. Brown, The Origin of the Grail Legend, New York: Russell and Russell, 1966: 7.
14. C. S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love, London: Oxford University Press, 1936.
15. Denis de Rougement, Love in the Western World, translated by Montgomery Belgion, (New York: Doubleday and Company, 1957.
16. Roger Boase, The Origin and Meaning of Courtly Love, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1977.
17. Reay Tannahill, Sex in History, New York: Stein and Day, 1982.
18. Dr. Diane Thompson, Romance Study Guide: Focus on Courtly Love, February 2003 [Online] available: http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/Troy/amourstudy.htm
19. Robert Briffault, The Mothers (abridged by G. R. Taylor), New York: Atheneum, 1977.
20. Dr. Debora B. Schwartz, Backgrounds to Romance: "Courtly Love", 1998, [Online] available: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dschwart/engl513/courtly/courtly.htm
21. Wechssler, Das Kulturproblem des Minnesangs, 1909, Bnd. 1, page 177.
22. Bruce MacLennan, Interpretation of Courtly Love, March 2001, [Online] available: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/Classes/US310/Interp-Court-Love.html

Registered Members, login
Join now, it's free

Property of EssaySwap.com