Andreas Capellanus: The Art of Courtly Love, (btw. 1174-1186)

DE ARTE HONESTE AMANDI
[The Art of Courtly Love], Book Two: On the Rules of Love

Marriage is no real excuse for not loving.
He who is not jealous cannot love.
No one can be bound by a double love.
It is well known that love is always increasing or decreasing.
That which a lover takes against his will of his beloved has no relish.
Boys do not love until they arrive at the age of maturity.
When one lover dies, a widowhood of two years is required of the survivor.
No one should be deprived of love without the very best of reasons.
No one can love unless he is impelled by the persuasion of love.
Love is always a stranger in the home of avarice.
It is not proper to love any woman whom one should be ashamed to seek to marry.
A true lover does not desire to embrace in love anyone except his beloved.
When made public love rarely endures.
The easy attainment of love makes it of little value; difficulty of attainment makes it prized.
Every lover regularly turns pale in the presence of his beloved.
When a lover suddenly catches sight of his beloved his heart palpitates.
A new love puts to flight an old one.
Good character alone makes any man worthy of love.
If love diminishes, it quickly fails and rarely revives.
A man in love is always apprehensive.
Real jealousy always increases the feeling of love.
Jealousy, and therefore love, are increased when one suspects his beloved.
He whom the thought of love vexes, eats and sleeps very little.
Every act of a lover ends with in the thought of his beloved.
A true lover considers nothing good except what he thinks will please his beloved.
Love can deny nothing to love.
A lover can never have enough of the solaces of his beloved.
A slight presumption causes a lover to suspect his beloved.
A man who is vexed by too much passion usually does not love.
A true lover is constantly and without intermission possessed by the thought of his beloved.
Nothing forbids one woman being loved by two men or one man by two women.

“Chivalry” comes from the French word chevalier, a “man on horseback.” The Age of Chivalry, as an historical concept, refers to the period in European history between the First Crusade (c. 1100) and the Reformation (c.1500). The concept of the chivalric knight is largely a literary version that grew out of the cycles of romance. Chivalry represents an ideal of conduct worthy of emulation, not a description of the typical warrior of the middle ages. The details of the concept differed among various European nations, but the common essentials are listed below.

The true knight exemplifies a model of true chivalry, displaying the following virtues:

Prowess in arms Chastity

Truthfulness Frankness

Loyalty to God, King, and country Temperance

Strength Honor

Generosity and Compassion to the less fortunate Service Courage

Courtesy and Gentility Piety

The Code of Knighthood:

To love God and be willing to spill blood for him

To possess justice and loyalty

To protect the poor and weak

To keep his flesh clean

To keep his spirit pure

To avoid lechery and other sins of the flesh

To strive for humility and avoid pride

To bear no false witness

To always protect a lady

To attend Mass

The Rules of Knighthood:

The knight cannot attack an unarmed or injured knight

The knight must allow an unhorsed opponent to remount before continuing the fight, or must himself dismount to continue the fight on foot

The knight must treat the defeated with honor

The knight must always play fair

The Conventions of Courtly Love

“Courtly Love” is conventionally associated with Chivalry. The ideas of “Courtly Love” were probably first expressed in the love lyrics of the 11^th century Troubadours of southern France, there may also be ties to Arabic love literature. Courtly Love was eventually codified and defined in the court of Eleanor of Aquitaine by Andreas Capellanus (Andrew the Chaplain) in his Latin text The Art of Courtly Love (c.1174). Scholars still do not agree as to whether any individuals ever accepted Courtly Love as a serious way of life or it was merely a court game or pleasant literary convention. It seems that lovers were tried and judged under the rules of Courtly Love in Eleanor of Aquitaine’s court, but the seriousness of the trials is certainly in question. Some of the cases were more hypothetical proofs or examples of how a lover should behave than cases involving the actions of actual individuals.

Whether seriously accepted in every day life or not, the rules of Courtly Love have found expression in numerous medieval texts and lovers had expectations for proper action of the part of themselves and their beloved based on many of these ideas. Sometimes Courtly Love seems especially chivalric, but at times (Guinevere/Lancelot/Arthur) its short comings are made quite explicit. Andreas’s text often reads like a medieval seduction manual, but it also contains many commonplaces applied to love throughout medieval literature. A similar type of love is used in Renaissance sonnets and sonnet cycles. Women could be the lovers and men the beloveds, but that was more the exception that proves the rule.

Some of the Conventions are:

· The Lover is smitten through the eyes and the beloved’s image is imprinted in his heart/brain.

· Initially, he fears to make his love known to the lady.

· He suffers from love sickness, as a result he cannot eat or sleep and his health begins to fail.

· He writes highly emotional letters to his lady. (And he spends much time lamenting his lot.)

· A go-between delivers letters between he and his lady and pleads his case for him.

· The Lady holds herself aloof from his advances.

· Eventually, she assigns him difficult tasks so he may prove his love to her.

· Once he wins the lady, the lover is ennobled and possesses all virtues and accomplishments (or he believes this will happen).

· Absolute secrecy of their love must be maintained.

· The knight is a faithful champion of his lady.

· The Lady inspires the knight to achieve more than he could without her.

· Stories differ on how innocent their love play is and on how shamefully their actions may be interpreted.

· There may be set backs in his progress to achieve his lady’s love that cause him to lose faith in himself.

· With love interests of lower station the treatment of the lady may become increasingly less noble.

Canterbury Tales

Post your pilgrim below. Think about the following questions when you define your pilgrim:

1- who are they? What facts can we identify in their description?

2- How does the narrator view the pilgrim?

3 – How do they fit their social role?

4 – what techniques does the author use to question the narrator’s point of view?

5 – Can we find a modern equivalent for the pilgrim?

Parson

I think that the Parson is one of the few “true” portrayals we see. He is poor and rich at the same time – the ultimate Christian. In this portrait, the author and narrator both seem to concur that this is a good man. Yet, within the portrait we get a picture of a bad parson, as our pilgrim is defined in terms of what he is not. The narrator says “He was not hars to weak souls in temptation, / Not overbearing nor haugthy in his speech”(504 -5), using the word “not” repeatedly to emphasize what the Parson is. He is poor, humble and dedicated. He travels, “plodding his way on foot, his staff in hand” (483) through rain and thunder to visit those who need him. We get a few references to his flock, and I think he is truly a shepherd of his people. He is a good example, and when the narrator tells us that “I doubt there was a priest in any place / His better” (512 -3), I think we can believe him. The language is sincere and pious, and the voice of the Parson is simple, too, defining himself by his job and finding contentment there.

Class Portraits

Parson (see above)

Medea Assignment (for those missing class)

This assignment is for those who missed class due to religious holidays. It’s due 10/20 @9am.

In class, we have been talking about whether or not a case can be made in defense of Medea. It seems to me that Euripides goes to great lengths to make her a sympathetic character, although any accrued sympathy (for most people) vanishes the moment she slaughters her children.

In 300-500 words, using the text as evidence (a minimum of two quotations) explain how you might defend Medea or justify her rage. Explain how Euripides validates her claim to an act of revenge, and finally, think about whether or not this evidence mitigates her actual vengeance for you. If you say no, I’d like to know why you think her actions are so unforgivable.

As usual, MLA rules apply. It’s in verse, so quote the line numbers, and / to indicate a line break.