Fiction & the Status Quo

As we consider Capellanus' Art of Courtly Love, it's important to remember that the kind of love he's describing is one that exists in fiction and not so much in reality. Whether it was written as a satire that mocks the conventions of courtly love or a serious discussion of what makes the ideal fictional love, it's definitely focused on literature and not on the real world.

And when you're diving into a work of literature, I think the most important question to ask is always, "what does this text's audience 'gets' from this?" Why is/was it appealing to a particular group of people? How does it enforce or challenge the status quo? What does it make people think about? Does it encourage them to make their own lives better or simply allow them a bit of "escape" from a lousy lot in life?

We can't always know what an author intended to achieve with a particular work (in fact, I usually avoid spending too much time thinking about that, so I'm not too fussed about whether Capellanus is satirizing or not), but if something has survived and continued to be circulated a few hundred years later, it's safe to say that it meant something to the people who read and enjoyed it. We don't tend to save the stuff that's not important to us (well, unless we are crazy hoarders and then all bets are off).

As I mentioned in class last Thursday, we need to move past the initial reaction of "I get this - I can relate to this" and try to understand the parts that seem inexplicable or just plain weird to us. And there's plenty of weirdness to go around here, right?

I'm pleased to see that the issue of love between people of the same sex has come up in several blog posts thus far - it's an important human rights issue in our own time and place and so we ought to give it our consideration. So how do we cope with the fact that this form of love is excluded by Capellanus? 

For many reasons, we can't simply say, "well, this is the past and the past was ignorant and judgy." Sexual orientation as a marker of personal identity is a modern concept. Sex between people of the same sex certainly happened, but it wasn't a matter of seeing oneself as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" or anywhere else on that spectrum. Love between men was celebrated in the ancient world. And it was understood that men could develop close bonds with other men and women could develop close bonds with other women. 

So why exclude it here? There are lots of possibilities, but here's one. This is about giving women a bit of power and a chance to be involved in a "man's world." It's about saying that even though women and men are different in lots of ways, it doesn't prevent them from developing a close and loving relationship with one another. When most marriages were matters of practicality or politics, the idea of romantic love between men and women is actually a pretty radical and unexpected notion. Women like Marie de Champagne, who was Chretien de Troyes' patron, were left alone for years at a time to govern their husbands' lands when said husbands were away on pilgrimage or crusade. But they were not always accorded the respect of being treated as an equal, as someone with rights, as someone with whom a man should even bother to have a serious conversation with.

Then what about excluding blind people? (As someone with truly horrific vision who started wearing glasses at age 2 and contacts at age 3, I bristle at this one myself - I certainly would have been labeled as "blind" in the 12th century!) What reasons can you come up with, other than an assumption that love is a shallow or wholly physical thing? 

There are no "right" or "wrong" answers here. (Well, OK, there are some wrong answers, but all reasonable hypotheses are welcome!) I encourage you to think about it and to suggest an answer in Thursday's class. Or if you aren't perplexed by this issue, then come up with an answer to another question you were left with as you read through Capellanus. And please continue to challenge yourself in this way as we tackle each of our readings this semester.

Courtly love - The world "love" then and now

Reading the first few paragraphs of the pages for Courtly Love is quite eye opening, even a little weird. the most eye opening parts was how different people see the world "love" today compared to when this was written.

     Some parts of the essay I thought were very relatable, for example the beginning, explaining how the guy was at the depressed, non stop thinking stage of falling in love with a girl. everyone has been in a situation where they have liked, or even thought they loved someone and had the sort of negative feelings where they think there is NOO for the other person to like them, and just downright impossible for them to start a normal conversation with them, without the opposite sex thinking they are a stalker of some sort.

A part that I was surprised with was reading the part of "love is not possible of two opposite sexes" 

   Reading this made me think, has our time evolved from the traditional romance type time period for relationships? in my opinion people don’t talk or even think like they used to about romance or relationships. you don’t even see movies about typical "romance" anymore, sure, there is your typical once a year love movie that a girl will force you to go and watch, but many of other top hit movies are usually all about the same thing, partying, hooking up type college scene with action and other social norms of today. for example think of the movie Project X, the fact that a movie like that even made it into theaters, much less became a top hit with every high schooler should show that there are some types of flaws in the way relationships are today. 

          Overall after reading this an opinion that struck in my head was has the fear of love dragged us away from what relationships are really about? The first few paragraphs really stood out to me and showed as a good example of how people who are scared of love, are more willing to abandon it and say how it doesn’t exist or it is not possible, rather than go out searching for it. It’s a topic that is really shoved in the dark and not talked about much, but could it be the cause of the loss of modern “Romance” and the raise of how people see relationships and love today as more rewarding if it is a one hook up rather than a long lasting romance? All because of the fear of rejection? 

No Side-Hugs or Supervision? Cool.

                Call me weird, but the first thing I considered when I finished this essay was the definition of “courtly.” I mean, we live in a world where “courting” means side-hugs, no hand-holding (EVER), and constant supervision (thanks a lot, Duggars).  So that was my rather uneducated misconception.  And Capellanus talks A LOT about sex in “The Art of Courtly Love” (and my definition of “courtly” does NOT, under any circumstances have anything to do with sex except for the prohibition of it.) So I was pleasantly surprised when the first sentence I read was, “Love is a certain inborn suffering derived from the sight of and excessive meditation of the beauty of the opposite sex…” (Capellanus).  Now, I think that is simply beautiful; and so is the rest of the sentence, which indicates that this meditation “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 embrace” (Capellanus).  I really wasn’t expecting to have my mind blown so quickly.

                Mostly, I loved that I found so many similarities between this and our modern conceptions of how we should love.  That being said, I think this guy is one of the reasons why so many women harp on being romantic and all that sappy stuff.  Capellanus describes love, and its rules, in a rather blunt way, but in the same respect, it is also beautiful. 

                My favorite chapter is the one in which he describes, of all things, the TYPES of people who should love.  One difference is that “after the sixtieth year in a man and the fiftieth year in a woman…the natural heat begins to lose its force…” (Capellanus).  This just seems funny to me, because love is all about sex? Um, I think that’s what we’re currently trying to get away from, but it still amuses me.  Similarly, he talks about how no boy under the age of eighteen can be in love because he’s too caught up being clumsy and embarrassed by his genitals.  YES.  It’s so funny how even then men were men and boys were boys.  I was pleasantly comforted by the fact that these people (or their beliefs, rather) weren’t so much different from those we have now.  To put it into perspective, I think it really makes reading the work of this time a lot less daunting.  As long as we can put it into a historical perspective, the basic rules and ways in which they conducted themselves can be translated into something we can understand.  A lot of their social beliefs are the same as ours.  Or rather, they are the ones who paved the way for some of the social constructs we have today.  Pretty cool.  

Considering Capellanus

After reading a bit of Capellanus’ The Art of Courtly Love, I’ll have to admit that I am most certainly intrigued…

There wasn’t too much of the text that lost my interest and I was pleasantly surprised to see just how many thought-provoking similarities there were between Capellanus’ definition of love and our modern understanding of the term. Going into the reading this week with the expectation of seeing many stark differences was a great outlook to have as it allowed me to take better notice of the similarities that I honestly wasn’t expecting to find. For instance, the notion that “the easy attainment of love makes it of little value [while] difficulty of attainment makes it prized,” (Capellanus) is clearly something that we still witness / value in our society today. Especially speaking as a female, there have been countless times throughout my life that the term “playing hard to get” has come up in some sort of context or another (and I say especially speaking as a female because – at least from my perspective – this term is usually reserved for / said in reference to a woman). The notion that a lover’s value (specifically a woman’s) increases alongside the level of difficulty it takes to win their affection, a notion that is still very much alive and well today, comes directly from the concept of courtly love.

Indeed looking back at the readings for this week it becomes clear that the ideals of the medieval period still play an incredibly integral role in how our modern society constructs and stereotypes gender roles. For example, the classic 21^st century cliché of a “whipped man” and a “controlling wife” are again direct products of courtly love. The ideal male lover of the medieval age was expected to serve his lady who, as Dr. Thompson points out, was often depicted as “cold and cruel.” This was honestly the part of the reading that stuck out to me the most, as I wasn’t previously aware that our modern concept / stereotype of a subservient or “whipped” male – and by association the “controlling” female - was a product of courtly love (now I know who to blame).

However while I wasn’t expecting to notice so many similarities at the start of my reading this week, I’m certainly glad that I did. These similarities unexpectedly drove me deep into thought and I spent a much longer time than I ever originally intended considering the ways in which our society still reflects the remnants of medieval courtly love as opposed to all the ways in which the two are so starkly different. At first I thought that the differences would be more intriguing; that their examination and consideration would be the best way for me to begin to develop an understanding of courtly love. That clearly wasn’t the case. I actually found it much harder to connect with or relate to the differences. To my surprise it was the similarities between Capellanus’ medieval definition of love and my modern understanding of the term that provided the most useful for consideration.

The Steamy Beach Read Including Prejudice and Creepiness

After two paragraphs of Capellanus’, The Art of Courtly Love, I felt like I just read the classification of a stalker. The examples of what torments a man before “love becomes equally balanced on both sides” (Capellanus, 30) are obsessive and superficial. One fear made me shake my head more than the others: “[I]f he is rich, he fears that his parsimony in the past may stand in his way” (Capellanus, 30). The ugly man and the poor man’s fears are valid but superficial; however, the rich man’s seems like an obsessive person purposely creating reasons to torment himself.

The rest of the book implicates how the rules of courtly love are distasteful and delusional. First, courtly love appears to be homophobic: “Whatever nature forbids, love is ashamed to accept” (Capellanus, 32). I instantly thought that according to the rules of courtly love, a man raping a woman will shame love less than a homosexual couple. Then, love has an age criteria. While men have a minimum age requirement, women have a cut off age. The ages fall into the age ranges for procreation. While I think there should be a minimum age to fully understand love, a woman is capable of having a passionate relationship after the age of fifty. The book ends with the story of the knight and his British lady. It is in the style of a bad role-playing game with ridiculous quests for reciprocated love. By the end of the story, King of Love proclaims the thirty-one rules of courtly love. The thirty-one rules support adultery and obsession, and they are mainly based on superficial grounds. My favorite one could possibly kill a person: “He whom the thought of love vexes eats and sleeps very little” (185).

Courtly love stories appealed to the rich, who were literate and could afford leisurely activities. Many wealthy couples were married based on status rather than attraction or love; therefore, many unhappy marriages existed. The story in Capellanus’ book illustrates a woman able to persuade a man to do anything to please her. This tells me that the tales of courtly love were written mainly for a female audience. The audience is not interested in reading stories similar to their own mundane marriages. Instead, they are interested in indulging in stories about a fantasy life within social acceptance. This is why the love is never between homosexuals and the main characters are within the higher social classes (lady and knight). What more could a woman want than a man tormenting himself until he is willing to do anything for his lady love? Who wants to read a story about a man wooing an old lady?

Courtly love stories seem comparable to the romantic steamy beach reads with a twist of prejudice and obsession.

Courtly Love is Rage Inducing

No, but seriously, what the hell is wrong with these people?

Okay, okay. Maybe I shouldn't judge a bunch of dead people. It's not like it's going to change anything now. So, to really start out I should give Courtly Love some props. One, women were backing this movement and that's pretty freakin' awesome. To be able to commission what you want to see is rad as hell. I mean, we can do it all we want now with fic-prompts and artist commission drives online but I'm sure back then it wasn't one misspelled message away.  To be fair, these were wealthy women who could afford to sit around and read and bullshit rules for lower society to follow.. but its not nothing.

Another thing that is pretty bitchin' is the whole notion of defining and understanding love. It's a very scientific approach to an intensely emotional...thingy so I appreciate the desire for grounding. I guess it could be argued that it takes some of the romance and magic out of love but I say Bah to that. dissect it, poke it, get to the core of it, or as the Chaplain would say, "meditate"in it.

Ok, now onto why I actually really, strongly dislike the notion of courtly love.

 There is nothing mutual about anything that is going on in the rules of courtly love. Like, the woman could be anything else in the world and it wouldn't make a damn difference. She could be a freaking dining room chairs and there'd be no change because it's all about the man. And that isn't even really why it bugs me, it's just I can't understand how you're supposed to love someone but spending too much time with them could dampen that love...or that true love breaks all previous engagements and everyone is relatively cool with it. The man in love seems to be able to love without consequence while the world is shitting itself around him.

Stop, I can hear you saying, "But, Iris! He totally suffers. Didn't you read the very definition of Love? You dumbass, it says it right there that it's an inborn suffering."

That noise don't fly with me. So he has to get a bit of insomnia, lose his appetite, and think about his lady love all the time. 

Guess what the lady has to do? WHO THE HELL KNOWS BECAUSE THIS SURE AS SHIT AIN'T ABOUT HER!

All she has to do is be perceived as pretty by some guy who isn't old, young, blind, or horny. 

UNLESS, WOOO BOY HOWDY, UNLESS SHE IS A PEASANT. THEN, YOU CAN JUST RAPE HER BECAUSE SHES TOO DUMB AND TOO POOR TO KNOW WHEN WOOING IS HAPPENING!!!!!!

Okay, I'm calm. Bringing it down.

Don't mistake my rage for disrespect. I'm grateful that this has led to modern day romance novels because I soak that shit up like butter. But there is at least a teaspoon of personality in the characters. (GASP! BRAIN BLAST! Maybe it's supposed to be like a choose your own adventure book where you pretend to be the lady...hmmm.)

Graaah, There are so many other things I could yell about. For now,

The Art of Clingy Love

Well, I mean I guess you can't hold the homophobia against the guy since it's such an old essay, but it's a little off-putting to see that whole passage about how love cannot exist between people of the same sex right at the start of the list. The first couple of pages had me agreeable, thinking "wow some things never change, we've all been there, who doesn't know what it's like to be stressed out about a crush, what a unifying theme we've found in humanity," and then that ends and he's like "but seriously, if you're gay just get out now."

After the absurd trials overcome by the Briton in quest of the scroll of elegantly-written bullshit, we receive the terrifying list of things we all must adhere to if our love is to be deemed true. If these rules were to be taken seriously, I would have to report that I have never been in love, and I sincerely hope nobody else ever has either.

Scooby Doo took a dip in ratings after this episode.

A good chunk of the rules have to do with thinking of your beloved all the time. True love has to be the reason behind every thought and action. Rule XXX mentions that you must be "constantly and without intermission" thinking about your lover. If you even look at anybody else, you're not truly in love. If you read someone else's blogs, you aren't truly in love. If you're reading this right now and you're dating someone else, you're cheating on them with me, right now. Please stop, you're terrible.

Apparently you're also supposed to have your heart skip a beat every time you see your lover, and turn pale. If you've become comfortable around your significant other, you've fallen out of love, and it's never coming back. So if you spend too much time around your beloved, you'll develop heart palpitations, dizziness, fatigue, loss of appetite, etc. People should not be in love if they are pregnant or may become pregnant. Consult your doctor before falling in love.

A very healthy love, judging by their skin color.

There's definitely a point to some of the rules, but they seem to be mostly common sense. One rule dictates that love is worth more if it's harder to earn, which is true of pretty much everything, all the time. Rarity = value. Something that everybody can get isn't worth anything because they don't need your help getting it. So, basically, don't be a slut.

You can read this whole guide and try to value your relationship, or you can follow my personal guide to love that I've created just now and specifically for use in this blog:

AJ's Guide to Love: How In Love Are You?

Do you need to read a list of rules to determine if your love is true?

                                Yes?                                                                                 No?

                                  

                             It's not.                                                                        Good start.

Amus on, “The Art of Courtly Love”

As I began to contemplate this reading, I skimmed through it and thought, “Nine pages? I can do it”. For the record, I’m not so much into reading for pleasure or just reading period. As I started reading the first chapter, I began to jot down some interesting findings.

A major shock that stood out to me was the first sentence of this reading. “Beauty of the opposite sex,” (Capellanus, 28). Love isn't all about beauty or sex, nor is it only based on the opposite sex. Also, that the same sex is “not fitted for giving each other the exchange of love” (Capellanus, 30). Totally disagree, it can ultimately happen! In our society today, there’s a major debate on same sex-marriage, which I find nothing wrong. Love is held within ourselves and our special someone.

http://merchantsmarketer.com/irs-recognizes-same-sex-marriages-for-tax-returns/

As stated throughout this first chapter, “love is suffering.” People, myself included (no shame!), are scared of what love may hold. What is “single love?” As described in this reading, I immediately thought of cheating and insecurities. I thought to myself, and really agreed that it is a reflection of the mind. The woman has all the power in this court of love; therefore, the men are the ones who are in fear. This is a plus for us females because in the past we didn't have much power as do men.

Now, is money really the answer to love? Or is it what we call, Lust? Yes, love has its ups and down, and can solely be based on wealth. Apparently love increases with wealth, and love decreases with poverty. “Poverty has nothing with which to feed its love” (Capellanus, 30). I totally disagree; we don’t need money to fall in love!

http://www.thefix.com/content/drinking-him?page=all
Amor or Amus? As do fishermen’s, we allure one another into our hook of love! So cheesy, yet so clever.

RULES. RULES. RULES! Does love really have to come with rules? Rules can definitely be strict and precise, but yet awkward. One rule that stood out to me was number 33, which states, “A true lover is constantly and without intermission possessed by the thought of his beloved” (Capellanus, 186). I mean, I understand you’re in love, but the constant thought? That’s a little excessive. Rules are rules, and some may come in handy. Capellanus mentions that men are compared to shameless dogs; they lust for every woman they see. In some cases, he can be right, but not exactly.

Work Cited:

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

            Print.

Schwartz, Debra. "Backgrounds to Romance: 'Courtly Love.'"California Polytechnic University.

            1998-2002. Web

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

 January 26, 2011. Web.

Of Love and the Law

“The Art of Courtly Love” reading was filled with so many contradictions that I found myself simultaneously outraged and amused. I did not even reach the actual laws of love before I found myself going, “WHAT?!?!” In the beginning of the reading the author wrote about who was eligible for courtly love. Amongst those who were not allowed were the blind, and the homosexuals. I thought it was absolutely ridiculous that the basis of courtly love is based solely on physical beauty. “Blindness is a bar to love, because a blind man cannot see anything upon which his mind can reflect immoderately, and so love cannot arise in him…” (33)

In addition to the blindness aspect of love, I hated reading about the denial of love for two same sex people. I understand that this piece was written in the twelfth century but even so, the issue of equal rights for same sex couples in today’s society is quite prevalent. And what is even more interesting is that (I am a history major) in medieval times homosexuality was common, especially in the royal classes.

To acknowledge that actual laws of love, one of the rules that I found absolutely ridiculous was the 33^rd rule which states, “A true lover is constantly and without intermission possessed by the thought of this beloved.” (186) That just sounds absolutely obsessive and while it did not surprise me, it made me cringe while I read it. Who wants to be with a partner who has no others thoughts or passions besides the one he loves? Sounds horrible to me.

In connection to today’s society, I found an immediate thread between one of the laws and one of the popular movies and books from today’s culture. The fourteenth law states, “The easy attainment of love makes it of little value; difficulty of attainment makes it prized.” (185) This is a very prosaic way of saying, love is increased by playing hard to get. This ideal is shown in the most hilarious way in the book and film, Pride and Prejudice. When Elizabeth turns down her awkward suitor Mr. Collins, the man is convinced that Elizabeth is just saying no to “increase my love by suspense” as Mr. Collins would say. Elizabeth reassures him that she is not at all the kind of woman that would do that but Mr. Collins still thinks that all females exercise this cat and mouse dance with their suitors to increase the feelings of love. It is this idea that “no” does not actually mean “no”.

Works Cited:

Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice, Directed by Joe Wright, 2005. Movie.

Capellanus, Andrew. "The Art of Courtly Love." New York: Columbia University Press. 1960. Print. 

Maybe the First and Greatest Love Wasn't Courtly

      As a satire, Andreas Capellanus' The Art of Courtly Love manages to make fun of or tick off pretty much everybody. And here I thought Jonathan Swift was good, but his plan to cannibalize the orphans doesn’t quite measure up to Capellanus’ work. The book’s tongue-in-cheek approach to love kind of mocks the courtiers who swooned (if there was dramatic swooning in the twelfth century) at the idea of a passionate, loving knight in shining armor. Of course, Capellanus probably didn't totally ridicule the idea; I imagine he believed in love between people as well, being that he was a cleric and all.

Eleanor of Aquitaine is not amused.

To make things better, the book is riddled with inside-inside jokes that would have made medieval busybodies seethe with rage. There are numerous subtle twists of Christian doctrine that only a literate person who had read the Bible, essentially only priests and monks (and not even all of them), would understand. Here are a few examples:

1a. “[Love] can endow a man even of the humblest birth with nobility of character; it blesses the proud with humility” (Capellanus 31).

1b.“[The redeemed are] children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:16b-17a). And that “‘the last will be first, and the first last’” (Matthew 20:16).

2a. “A true lover considers nothing good except what he thinks will please his beloved” (Capellanus 185).

2b.“Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). And “'he who does the will of My Father in heaven [shall be saved]'” (Matthew 7:21, which relates to pleasing God). And “He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:32).

Not to mention that Capellanus advocates extramarital relationships, a strict taboo in Christian doctrine. I imagine some priests were in stitches as they read The Art of Courtly Love.

Medieval Fist Bump!

Others might have said, “Andy, my man, we like you, but you took it a bit too far, don’t you think?” That might be why he wrote a third book recanting the first two satires…

            Yet is it possible that Capellanus believed that love was truly powerful, even as he poked fun at courtly love? Perhaps he satirized courtly love in order to differentiate it as a corruption of the love inspired by God. After all, this was a man whose doctrine stated the greatest two commandments were to love God and to love one’s neighbor (Matthew 22). His satire implies that love has a truly divine quality, although courtly love does not. As some historians have pointed out, it is possible The Art of Courtly Love was meant to encourage knights to behave well (Schwartz), but could it have also been meant as a not-so-gentle way to encourage all courtiers to remember God as their first love?

            If so, maybe the priests were right to give him that fist bump after all…