IL BACIO DI PAOLO MALATESTA -- amore cortese

Speranza

Courtly love in the work of Cristiano di Troia.     Like so many things medieval, the matter of courtly love has been subjected to any variety of treatments and mistreatments. In part this interest probably stems from the radical differences between modern customs and the almost ritualistically codified practices of fin amour as seen in literature; but no small amount of the assorted studies can be attributed to the tug-o-war on how much of popular tradition should be chalked up to poetic licence. To date, the question is still open to debate. This essay will discuss actual, implied and presumed aspects of pre-Renaissance courtly love. Literary reference will be made using the works of Chretien de Troyes, as his poems - written in the later half of the 12th century - are among the earliest clearly identifiable as belonging to the romance genre, and undoubtedly exerted a heavily influence on later treatments of the subject. Examining courtly love According to Lewis, the concept of courtly love first appeared in Languedoc, France, at the end of the 11th century. It's precise roots are uncertain; theories have been constructed tracing it back to Ovid's Ars Amatoria, the cult of the Virgin, early Germanic reverence for women, and even some formal system concocted by French troubadours to govern sentiment and its expression. None of these theories are entirely satisfactory, for while each suggests an origin, few of them address the circumstances that might have prompted the development of a philosophy of romantic adultery, largely at odds with accepted social and theological structures. As a contemporary phenomenon, courtly love can be seen as both misplaced and eminently appropriate to the age it flourished in. On the one hand, by the statement that true love can only exist outside marriage, it invited criticism for encouraging and even glorifying adultery; on the other, this disregard for Christian sexual morality has also been interpreted as an attempt to adhere to the broader conventions of power in social interaction. Central to the ideals of courtly love was the lover's humble service to his lady, in the hope that she might reward his loyalty with the barest token; contemporary society, however, presupposed male superiority, and linked the power of rewarding to superiority. According to Lewis, this meant that a lady could become that supreme object of worship only by outranking her admirer - and as wives were, by scripture and social convention, compelled to honour their husbands, on their wedding day they inevitably degenerated from ladies into mere women. Therefore, love had to be defined as excluding marriage. Lewis's view (now considered somewhat dated) suggests that the very aspects of courtly love that appear to defy contemporary morality and social structure in fact seem to be designed to accommodate them. More recent studies have put another slant on this observation; that of parody. Benson points out that this similarity between a knight serving his lady-love and a retainer serving a feudal lord could well be explained as an intentionally humorous reversal of contemporary social positions and values. There is little evidence, Benson argues, to suggest that courtly love was originally practised as it was portrayed. In fact, given contemporary social values, it is more probable that attempts to do so would have been flatly condemned by all ranks of society. The following of what Malory calls 'virtuous love' developed only in later centuries, and even then it was more a game for courtiers than a serious philosophy. Though later writers or critics may have treated the old tradition at face value, Benson maintains that the bibles of courtly love, down to and including Ovid, were ultimately written as parodies. As the question of origins goes, this explanation seems to do the best job of explaining both method and motivation. Politics and popularity However one decides to view the historicity of courtly love as a mode of behaviour, the fact remains that in literature it enjoyed enormous popularity - especially among the nobility - from the middle ages on. Knight argues that this wide but largely class specific popularity is directly related to the cultural and ideological climate of the age. In addition to the obvious gender-political factors he also mentions the growth of mercantilism fostered by the relative peace and prosperity of the 12th century, and the problems of a primogeniture-oriented society in peacetime. The appeal of courtly love to women is easily understood. The adoption of primogeniture as a means of succession had left property almost exclusively in the hands of men, handicapping women financially. Contemporary theology viewed women as daughters of Eve, the root of original sin, and therefore innately disposed towards sin themselves. Marriage was a contract negotiated more on matters of convenience than congeniality; matches were often difficult and loveless. If the tradition of courtly love is to be taken at face value, this cultural background would easily explain why women found it appealing; and if it is to be treated as parody, the same backdrop can be used to show why the idea of knights swooning over hair from their lady's comb was likely to prompt titters from an audience, regardless of gender. Other reasons were more complex. In the absence of significant wars, the practice of primogeniture created a large body of adventurous young noblemen with no real chance of inheritance until their fathers and brothers died. Knight speculates that the twin ideals of chivalry and courtly love grew popular with the higher aristocracy in part because they provided a way for these energetic youngsters to prove themselves without threatening the lords they often served. To the less wealthy nobles these ideals offered a way to draw a line of distinction between themselves and the villein - such as the wealthy, but not ennobled mercantile class. In a nutshell, Knight's argument is that ideals of courtesy were mainly a smokescreen to conceal the essentially aggressive and exploitative nature of the nobility, while simultaneously establishing them as better than the prosperous but not noble merchant class. This rather nihilistic view finds a measure of justification in Chretien's work. Indeed, it neatly summarises the gist of one entire novel. In Yvain (also Le Chevalier au Lion, The Knight with the Lion) the noble but landless hero sets out to prove his prowess by slaying a knight who guards a magic spring; shortly after accomplishing this, he pledges service to the dead knight's wife Laudine, marries her, and takes over her lands and titles. This display of glory-hunting and acquisitiveness is explained into acceptability by the simple detail that Yvain falls violently in love with Laudine as soon as he sees her; courtly graces, after all, demand that a knight should establish his valour in the eyes of the lady to prove himself worthy of her favour. While satisfactory by the laws of love, in terms of conventional morality the story left a great deal to be desired, even at the time of composition. Love in Lancelot Chretien de Troyes has been called the first man to use romantic love as a major theme in a serious novel; as noted above, the word 'serious' may not be entirely appropriate. Still, he has achieved the dubious honour of becoming one of the grand old men of chivalric romance. His best known work consists of five Arthurian romances - a theme greatly in vogue at the time - and are written in octosyllabic couplets. The last of these, De Conte del Graal, was however completed by others due to the poet's death. While themes of courtly love and chivalry appear prominently in each of Chretien's completed works, one in particular makes the service of a knight to his lady its primary and almost only subject. This of course is Lancelot (Le Chevalier de la Charette, The Knight on the Cart), written under the direction and patronage of Marie de Champagne, daughter of the formidable Eleanor of Aquitaine. According to the poet, Marie supplied both the subject and method of treatment for Lancelot. Snider critics have said it shows, as the work seems more intent on portraying the various idiosyncrasies of courtly love religiously observed than telling a decent story in Chretien's usual style. Modern opinion tends to regard Lancelot as a deliberate skit at courtly love, though opinions vary on whether Countess Marie was in on the joke. The plot of Lancelot consists mainly of the abduction of Guinevere by Meleagant, Lancelot's mission to rescue her, and the inevitable, though very drawn out sequence in which Lancelot finally gets to pay the hostile knight his dues. In the course of the chase Lancelot is called again and again to prove his loyalty to Guinevere. He endures public shame and ridicule when he is forced to travel on a cart for convicts; he proves his courage by sleeping in a perilous bed, and only narrowly escapes being impaled by a fiery lance; he is accosted by an amorous maiden, but refuses her advances; he suffers physical injury crossing the sword bridge to Meleagant's realm, and when he finally reaches the queen, his devotion is such that he gazes dotingly up at her window all through a duel with her abductor. Several characters testify that no knight has ever served his lady better. Guinevere does not agree - somehow, she knows that Lancelot hesitated for the barest moment before stepping on the cart. This minor breach outweighs everything else Lancelot has done for her, and prompts a long sequence involving lengthy declarations of personal misery and the valiant knight's ridiculous attempt to hang himself from his own saddlebow. According to his own word, in Lancelot Chretien set out to prove that love and sense are diametrically opposed. Modern critics take this statement as subtle admission of the poem's burlesque nature. Contemporaries, however, took a more serious approach; literary loans seem to suggest that Lancelot was received as a veritable bible of courtly conduct in love, rather than an epitome of woman worship taken to ridiculous extremes. However Marie intended her commission to be treated, Lancelot clearly contains all the key elements that would later become the hallmarks of courtly love. The lady - Guinevere, the legendary King Arthur's Queen - is exceedingly wellborn, gentle and courteous; only Lancelot receives cruel treatment from her when she feels slighted, or disposed to demand some show of loyalty from him. Lancelot is established as the paragon of knightly virtue, but willing to serve Guinevere even at the expense of his honour. Both lovers are prone to irrational behaviour when dealing with their paramour. Lancelot touches stray stands of Guinevere's hair a thousand times to his eyes, swooning, and genuflects to her bed as to a Christian shrine. When Guinevere spurns him for hesitating to mount the cart, he proclaims with remarkable verbosity that he will die of grief; the Queen herself refuses to eat or sleep for days on end. While somewhat overblown, the behaviour pattern Chretien presents is remarkable consistent with what came to be the discipline of courtly love. What's more, in spite of all the theatrics several passages declare such love the finest of things, with the power to ennoble both men and women - and even more incredibly, later generations allowed themselves to be convinced of this. A modern reader is compelled to question the refining qualities of something capable of making professional soldiers swoon with the best of Victorian ladies. Still, one is tempted to say that the idiosyncrasies of courtly love bear a suspicious resemblance to modern cinematic love - in terms of quality, if not quantity. Sources: Benson, Larry D. Courtly Love and Chivalry in the Later Middle Ages. Online. Accessed April 24th 2001. This link is not working 15.9.2006 Chrétien de Troyes. Arthurian Romances. Trans: W.W. Comfort; Everyman's Library, London, 1914. Online. http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Lancelot/, http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Yvain/ Knight, Stephen. Arthurian Literature and Society. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983. Lewis, C.S. The Allegory of Love: a study in medieval tradition. London: Oxford University Press, 1951. Back to the library Back to main page