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.
I found this reading to be very difficult, despite being only nine pages. I have a hard time taking Capellanus seriously, although I'm sure that in the time period when the Art of Courtly Love was written, it was a sort of manual for a very distinct social practice - the fact that there are established rules really made it an actual THING. I think courtly love was, like anything else, a reflection of the beliefs of the time - homosexuality was taboo, as Capellanus states right off the bat. I also think the emphasis on complete devotion and the opinion that love must somehow make you ecstatic yet simultaneously miserable is ridiculous. This might be when the popular trope of "love = suffering" that was (and still is) common in art/literature/etc today, began. The only thing that I find not-irritating about this is that women hold the power in a courtly relationship.
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts on how money affects love caught my attention. You think that love exists independently of money, and say so in opposition to Capellanus' assertion that you cannot form love without the presence of money. I find myself going to a Marx-esque materialistic analysis. I think that people's motivations, emotions, and actions are largely driven by the material conditions in which they live - note that this is not necessarily the same as how much money they have, as money is socially constructed and removed from the actual material condition, but it is affected by money under both the feudalistic system of the time and the capitalist system under which we currently live. Capellanus' idea that “Poverty has nothing with which to feed its love” is accurate in that under the material conditions of poverty, love is less likely to form. This remains true, as is shown in this article from the Journal of Marriage and Family: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00977.x/abstract
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that love exists independently of money, but I also think the practical material conditions can have a strong impact.