Foolish Expectations? Or Something Else? -Elizabeth

Some of the rules from Capellanus’ Art of Courtly Love really surprised me. At least they did, before I was made aware it had been a satirical reading. For example the concept that a born-blind man can never love is simply absurd. Love is not something that relies purely on sight, for it is an emotion that is also created through interactions, trust, and understanding.

The rules “he who is not jealous cannot love” and “real jealousy always increases the feeling of love” are ridiculous to me due to the fact distrust, fear, and being overly possessive (often the sources of jealousy) can prevent communication and are well known factors of what can end a relationship. It’s a shame that so many people, for so long, took these ideas seriously. For ideas like these could do so much harm emotionally, or worse, if taken as facts.

I interpreted what courtly love was by comparing it to modern fictional love, through a few common elements: through their goals, target people, social acceptance levels, and women-rights of the time. For example, some of the goals for the creation of courtly love was to entertain, teach younger men proper social etiquette, and provide women with a small feeling of power/status during an age where women were powerless and often looked down upon.

The targets of courtly love were often portrayed as (upper-class) married women and young men (knights), for the idea of love within marriage was an odd, if not deplored, notion due to their current religious beliefs. Courtly love itself encouraged men to desire, respect, and protect women rather than just sexually pursue/interact with them. In other words, it shifted some power from the male lover to the female beloved.

Compared to modern fictional love, these elements vary quite a bit in some areas. While it is similar in the fact some of the goals are to entertain and set social standards (to a degree), what is different is the status/rights of the female audience and how they’re influenced. In terms of the woman-rights of the female audience, woman have become closer than ever, if not are already, to being on equal standing with men, and as a result do not focus as much on a need for higher status/power in modern fictional romances. Instead, they crave more the emotional fulfillment, the desire, the lust, the passion from stories, which they often cannot find in real life (similar to what the male position in courtly love offered, but with more accepted sexual relations).

Modern fictional love has more equal treatment and expectations between the sexes, unlike courtly love, which was just beginning to close the gap. The targets for this modern love are practically anyone and anything, with the general exception of incestuous relations, because the social acceptance of ‘love’ (both in the church and public) has increased greatly since the origins of courtly love. Along with greater acceptance, love within marriages became not only socially okay, but desired and sought for too. This modern shift in genre transformed the conception of courtly love, one of purely mental desire and service, to a form of love that needs both an emotional and physical connection to be content.

I wonder though, was this shift in fictional ‘love’ types mainly the result of a change in audience over the years? Or did the created shift in fiction (starting with courtly love) actually succeed in changing the beliefs/expectations of its audience, over time eventually snowballing into this current version of modern fictional love?

Courtly Love Then & Marriage Now

We know that there are thirty-one rules laid out under the so-called "art" of courtly love. I'm not a historian, and I definitely don't play one on TV (I'm an English major for a reason!), but I want to assume that the general population knew about this courtly love thing that was going on. These are rules set for men pursuing an affair with married women. So my major questions are: Did those knights have nothing better to do? Wasn't there crusading to get to? Couldn't they woo unmarried women? Were husbands aware when their wives were being pursued, and if so did they do or say anything? How often did these courtly relationships really result in a physical relationship? To me, the whole thing is just

Those are the thoughts that run through my head when I consider what courtly love truly was. I noticed something that intrigued me as I was reading through the rules. Something only a few in our group will understand through experience: the rules apply to modern marriage. Here the definition of modern marriage is the union of a happy couple with true love and little animosity between them. Stick with me for a moment; I'm not crazy.

I. Marriage is no real excuse for not loving. In short: there is adultery, and divorces* occur because one or both parties feel differently than when the marriage began. I don't have any personal experience with this one, but it's pretty evident for anyone who has paid attention over the last decade or two. *I realize this isn't always the case, but it is common enough to apply it to the rule.

IV. It is well known that love is always increasing or decreasing. I'm going to be honest, y'all. There are days when my love for my husband is almost nonexistent. He can do or say things that I just cannot believe and the roller coaster car plunges down the hill. I'm going to spare you the Rom-Com details, but just know that there are days when that car climbs back up the hill and sits at the top for weeks afterward. Sometimes there are even loops, when both are felt within a short period of time! Do you want to know the secrets about this crazy roller coaster? It is never-ending and married couples know all about it.

VIII. No one should be deprived of love without the very best of reasons. Okay, so this may be stretching it a bit, but this is how my brain works. I see this directly relating to rule IV. When we go down that hill, losing a little bit of love with every foot descended, you can rest assured there is a good reason for it. I'm not going to push myself off the peak and enjoy the ride down just because I can.

X. Love is always a stranger in the home of avarice. Rarely in modern matrimony is the bond made in pursuit of wealth. The global economy doesn't allow for it, and we as a people of the twenty-first century are almost obsessed with love (the obsession could fill a book by itself).

XII. A true lover does not desire to embrace in love anyone except his beloved. The operative word here is true. I mentioned adultery with rule I, and it applies to this rule as well. I think it's self-explanatory here that if you truly love someone, there shouldn't be any desire for another person. While the rule references the male in the relationship, it applies to either sex in our time.

XIII. When made public love rarely endures. Obviously we're not talking about marriage here, but that relationship has to start somewhere right? When my husband and I met, we worked together. Relationships were not forbidden, but there were certain rules. We broke one over the first few months of our relationship, but we didn't let anyone know we were dating at the time. Had we been found out, we might not be where we are today.

XV. Every lover regularly turns pale in the presence of his beloved.

XVI. When a lover suddenly catches sight of his beloved his heart palpitates. "Puppy love," as it's called by parents of young adults, causes what some call silly physical reactions. When true love persists and results in a marriage, these things still occur. Over time the moments are not as frequent as they were in the beginning, but they are regular enough to prove the love is still alive.

XXII. Jealously, and therefore love, are increased when one suspects his beloved. Jealously occurring when one is suspicious is natural and easily understood. The increase of love, however, when one is suspicious is difficult to put into words. The best way I can think of to explain is it is the fight or flight response. The additional love is the emotional equivalent to the fight response; no one wants to lose their spouse and love them more to prevent the loss from happening.

XXIII. He whom the thought of love vexes eats and sleeps very little. Ah, that sudden onset of love. When a person can do little more than think of the person they have fallen for. It doesn't always stop just because he put a ring on it.

XXV. A true lover considers nothing good except what he thinks will please his beloved. I may have just gotten lucky here, but I'm not sure because I have nothing else to compare it to. My husband is always thinking of me and surprising me with things he knows I will love or enjoy. I do the same for him. We rarely ever fault from this. 

XXX. A true lover is constantly and without intermission possessed by the thought of his beloved. Have you ever had a conversation with a married person, male or female? If you have think about it - I can almost guarantee you that at one point during that conversation they have mentioned their spouse. A married person does almost everything with their partner, and can find something in any scenery that is a reminder of them. Even in the busiest of moments in life, the mind rarely wanders from the true love.

The rules above were formed with affairs and adultery in mind. They were meant to protect men who were looking for love from the consequences of being caught. It's now eight-ish centuries later and we can still find connections to our medieval roots and ancestors in their words. It is fascinating how words can be written to mean one thing but be interpreted in a different way. So Guinevere can stay in her time period with her Arthur and Lancelot drama. I am going to stick with my time period's belief and keep just one man for both.      

  

Rules of Love: Restrictive or Freeing?

Did anyone else get the impression from the readings that courtly love makes love more confusing and frustrating than it already is? Call me individualistic, but there’s something not quite right about spelling out particular rules for something that is so personal and intimate and variable. No couple will have exactly the same love as another, so why try to standardize it so completely? If this is love, then I’m not so sure I want to get involved.

And yet, Rule 8 of Love is “No one should be deprived of love without the very best of reasons” (Capellanus 185). Great.

Capellanus establishes “no homo” in Chapter 2, but I bet he never thought of this! My roommate has an out!

Courtly love’s relationship with marriage also threw me off . . . at first. Then it intrigued me. “Feudal nobility arranged marriage to suit families’ advantages, often while the children were still infants” (Thompson). Yet the rules of courtly love and the stories that concern them don’t seem too concerned with honoring these marriages if love conflicts. After all, Rule Number 1 of Love is don’t talk about—er, I mean, “Marriage is no real excuse for not loving” (184). We see this played out too perfectly in the summary that Dr. Diane Thompson gives of Marie de France’s Eliduc. Eliduc’s wife seems to experience no anger or pain from her husband falling in love with another woman. To me, she seems a little too content to become a nun while Eliduc marries his new love.

Marriages arranged for advantage, convenience, and gain have no promise of love for the spouses-to-be. Perhaps Eliduc and his first wife were in a loveless arranged marriage. Perhaps they really were happy to leave each other. Perhaps tales of courtly love, and the prioritization of love over marriage vows, provided hope and comfort to nobles in arranged marriage. Just as many people today (myself included) enjoy stories that provide an escape, maybe stories of courtly love provided an escape from the reality of marrying for social climbing and political alliances rather than for love.

"I am determined that only the deepest love will induce me into matrimony. So, I shall end an old maid, and teach your ten children to embroider cushions and play their instruments very ill."

Wow. We've needed the comfort and daydreams a lot over the centuries, haven't we?

Capellanus, Andreas. The Art of Courtly Love. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960.

Thompson, Diane. “Courtly Love Study Guide.” Northern Virginia Community College.

I pledge that I have neither given nor received any unauthorized aid on this assignment.

Miranda A. Barrientos

Of Cougars & Knights

The principles of courtly love genuinely surprised me when I read about how men under the age of 18 supposedly cannot love.  Yes, I’m sure we’ve all had our fair share of 13 year-old selves believing they are in love (especially with Justin Timberlake, or is that just me?), but who’s to say that we cannot learn from those dark, selfie filled times?  However, age does not equate to maturity and I find that the reading uses maturity as a necessity for love.  “Love” in this passage seems to be defined as a broader term as opposed to what we would find “true love” from typical fairytales.  Placing these conditions into the mind-set of people in the 21^st century is like hearing your grandparents tell you about “the good ole days” as they quake with despair as they watch “teens these days” treat love as something disposable like lust. 

Courtly love is similar to our society’s ideals in the differentiation between passion, lust and love.  There is a recognition that passion and lust are pieces in the great puzzle of love, but do not correlate to the phenomenon itself.  The idea in courtly love that if one becomes impoverished, it can only damage the love is a complete 180 flip from the fictional ideals of “for richer or for poorer”.  Love being unconditional is an all-known fictional ideal that has wormed its way into the vows of married couples for years.  However, the courtly love idea rings true for most couples, leading to numerous divorces and fights.

The original audience for tales of courtly love was women.  These tales gave men a set of guidelines to courtly love to prevent them from roaming the lands and raping women.  It taught chivalry with the proper romantic tricks.  It gave power to the women (the beloved) over whom they chose to love.  The implications are more than a sexual response to another human, it is a mental one.  Courtly love focuses on what we would call ‘genuine connection’ between two individuals.  It cannot be neither forced nor feigned nor denied.  The concreteness of feelings is explored in depth for lovers near and far with courtly love, as well as the women’s ability to muster a form of power over the men.   

Fairy tales of romance written about couples that are not married is a foreign subject.  During the time period, most people didn’t marry for love, but for practicality - which isn’t as foreign as romance stories for unmarried couples.  It was a creative, entertaining outlet that taught young men ways to woo a woman and to extend future marriages to greater heights.  Also, I find it laughable that the stories include Cougars and Sugar Mommas.  I find that the power that comes from money and prestige is still a part of these tales despite the attention on mental wooing methods.  Evidently, love appeals to most people despite the lack of it in peoples’ real lives.  It’s nice to see how women took the reigns on the horse of love and managed to drag it out of muddied pits to polish and present to us all. 

Court and Spark

Court and Spark

“Love came to my door


With a sleeping roll


And a madman’s soul

He thought for sure I’d seen him


Dancing up a river in the dark


Looking for a woman

To court and spark”

--Joni Mitchell

As Dr Schwartz’s analysis of Campellanus’ “The Art of Courtly Love” suggests in Marie, Countess of Champagne’s France, courtly love was a model of  “behavior for a class of unmarried young men that might otherwise have threatened social stability.” This offered a guide, a template for a sophisticated version of wooing, or “courting”, putting men in “love service rather than wandering around the countryside, stealing or raping women”, as was almost a typical script of knighthood. 

Some suggest these enterprising society women elevated themselves to an equal status through this art of courtship and the power it afforded them, but I only see a game they were allowed to play until such time—through loss of their standing in society, or their “Lord” deemed it appropriate – that those freedoms of will would be eliminated as he saw fit. 

From another vantage, because she’s a women, even a Countess has to look to a man’s work, the Latin poet Ovid’s, revised by yet another, Capellanus and finally credited to him as author of the ‘rule book” of courtship. When Campellanus revised a wholly different version later, his patriarchal (Christian) roots trumped the Countess’ position, weighing the criminal accusation that all women were “Eve” and had “characters like that of the serpent” (Courtly Love Study Guide, Thompson) all the while praising women for the Virgin Mary’s salvation and redemption. These perceptions were all without merit or a women’s perspective.

I think, though, Courtly Love also served as a fairly accurate commentary on medieval women’s inability to garner anything close to equality with men. Rather than “elevate” women’s status in society as some would claim, I think it only points to the depravity of patriarchal norms that women were forced to live through. 

Still, one might also claim this courtship with its set “codes” or “rules” a man must adhere to in pursuing a woman’s affection was the perfect outlet for a frustrating, confined, if not boring existence (a society women) would live with lacking an ability to contribute, except through sex.

The control – or the premise of it at least – bestowed on these society “babes”, acted out in their quite serious game, was paramount to Eleanor and Marie’s existence, I think, because it also gave them at least the possibility, the option, of sexual attention, or satisfaction, within the patriarchic confines of the day.

It’s hard to not romanticize this period, certainly, giving these women credit for celebrating the poetry of the “troubadorean” “works of Venus” -- flirtation, courtship, love, and sex -- because lets face it, with their knights out gallivanting in adventurous endeavors, often having sexual conquests of their own outside of marriage, courtship was a way to even the playing field if only a little bit. Besides, as Campellanus says, Courtly Love “makes a man shine with so many virtues and teaches everyone, no matter who he is, so many good traits of character!” 

Rules?

I find it really interesting that here are so many rules on courtly love. Rules? Rules about love? That makes absolutely no sense. Mainly because some of the rules are absolutely ridiculous. For instance it says "How Love May be Retained," and then says "keep it secret," and while I understand why it says this it isnt something that I think is true. Then it says "jealously increases love." and that isnt true either. These are things that scream toxic... but I guess they would make for an interesting story.

I like that this idea of courtly love revolves around staying within a Catholic religion. It shows how during a certain time period religion was something valued. These views on love and what love is are actually vaguely similar to what people think love means today (but are completely wrong about.) Its kind of funny because mostly women are into these types of literature which isnt surprising. It kind of explains why people think that certain aspects that come with falling in love "just happen," because thats what love is and it isnt.

The ideas that keeping secrets and jealously are ways to hold a relationship or to maintain love are associated with the idea of drama. I can understand why these things are found within literature because it keeps it interesting but it impacts the thoughts of people reading or watching.

Apparently blasphemy and anti-religious behavior will cause failure in love, and I find that comical. The values they had and the importance of religion are way different than today. There are people whos religion is a primary thing within their relationship but I feel like it isnt taken as seriously now as it was then.

In general I dont understand how rules were put on love, because there are no rules. Everyone is different.

Love or Obsession?

I believe the most interesting thing about the essence of romance in the Middle Ages was based on rules. Not only that love was based on rules but that women frequently tended to enjoy a lot more than men. I can see why these women would enjoy such a reading because they are actually viewed as an equivalent and significant to men rather than something of lesser value. This could even make women feel empowered and maybe even more appreciated.  By reading the rules of Courtly Love, I can clearly see how much romance has changed and the extent at which it has changed as well.

The court of love defined courtly love as” Love is a certain inborn suffering derived from the sight of and excessive meditation upon the beauty of the opposite sex, which causes each one to wish above all things the embraces of the other and by common desire to carry out all of love’s precepts in the other’s embraces.” In modern romance, love and suffering tend to go hand in hand, but in the Middle Ages infatuation and obsession go together, not necessarily “love”. Courtly love tends to be shallow and sensual in my opinion because it focuses on the “beauty of the opposite sex” and there tends to be a great amount of embracing. Many romance novels today resemble the “bodice ripping” kind of love which can be translated to being demeaning to women today.

In the Middle Ages, “He who is not jealous cannot love”. In romance today, one lover making another jealous is prominent in romance. According to this rule those who play mind games really love each other. In today’s society using jealousy to keep a lover seems foolish. Being that trust is so big and is a possible integral part of love, it makes playing on jealousy counterproductive. This could be a speculation, but maybe in the Middle Ages, this rule was not associated with jealousy but with passion. What I mean by this is that a lover is willing to do anything for their love. Yes, even myself find making someone jealous to find true love is slightly petty but, modern romance still makes room for this ritual.

Courtly Love was definitely looked down upon by a large population of the intellectuals in the Middle Age society. The intellectuals that were in this society read things in Latin, and unfortunately Courtly Love was written in French. In today’s world, (a little speculation) people may put love off until they reach certain career goals or they think that they won’t find love because they are intelligent. Possibly, wealthy people today may not feel as if they have anything in common with someone who is less wealthy or less intelligent than them, so there is a minor correlation in intelligence and wealth in when love is involved in today’s society. Although, I believe that more people are open to understanding in today’s society than in the Middle Ages, I still find that minor correlation interesting to bring up.

Will the world ever revert back to these rules? I could never know in the world we are living in right now I would say that Modern lovers are trying to stray away from tradition instead of following rules. I know that Romance has changed since the days of Eleanor of Aquitaine but there is definitely some consistency in the way that men and women till play mind games, love has always been considered a two-way street, and lovers always have a common ground for passion and trust in relationships today. I loved seeing the correlation between Modern Romance and Romance in the Middle Ages.