No courtly love

This is getting much, much more interesting. The best article I have found was written in French.

http://histoire-ma.chez-alice.fr/troubadours/Troubadour/GuillaumeDePoitiers-1.html

The article of the Wikipedia is a bit sensationalist when compared to the French one, harping upon William's love affairs, rather than giving us hints about his thought:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_IX_of_Aquitaine

As a consequence, I will mostly rely on the French article, which is very insightful.

William the Troubadour is indeed considered as being the first "troubadour". However, the article makes it very clear that his poetry is much too elaborate not to be part of an already existing tradition (and it was in the XIth and XIIth centuries...).

-for those who speak French a little:

"Elles ne sont pas de vagues essais balbutiants. Au contraire, elles apparaissent comme un art déjà mûri par des poètes de générations précédentes. Mais de cette lente maturation, rien ne nous est parvenu. Il faut l'accepter et l'admettre. Guillaume IX est le premier troubadour dont on possède les oeuvres et cela en fait l'inventeur du Trobar".

In this passage, William's work is described as being part of a form of art that had already reached its mature stage, after a slow process, though William the Troubadour is the first artist whose works have been preserved until this day.

He was a Crusader (1101-1102) and, apparently, a poor military commander (although a good knight and combatant), in part because of his rashness and impetuosity. When he returned from captivity, he recounted his experience in verse.

He stayed in Constantinople, and was probably very much influenced by Byzantine culture. That is very interesting, isn't it?

He also led some expeditions as part of the Reconquista in Spain, as some of you have already noticed. At the battle of Cutanda, the body of his mistress was painted on his shield.

At Poitiers, he gave shelter to Blédri ap Davidor, a knight and bard of Welsh origin. The latter revived the story of "Tristan et Iseult" in France, which was part of Celtic folklore.

About his works, the article points out that the notion of sensuality is not absent, although an ideal conception of love prevails. The "troubadour" is even compared to a monk who has to submit to the law of love. One has to keep in mind that the notion of love in the West is very much influenced by Christianity and the relevant principles of "agapè" and "caritas" (charity).

The "troubadour" must also abstain from behaving like a "villain". "Villain" is a word of French origin, whose Latin etymology, vilicus, means "peasant".
In French, "vilain" means "ugly" in popular language, which tells us a lot about the opinion of the aristocracy on the lower classes of medieval society...
"Court-ly love" indeed consists in an aristocratic conception of love.

William IX thought of himself as "the flower" of the "Trobar" (which is the name of the art), thus implying that he was at the roots of this new conception of love.

Welsh poetry, from which the Arthur story comes, is generally of a very melancholy tone. Heroes are praised for their bravery in facing, and losing, against impossible odds. The Arthur story fits into this melancholy tradition, as although he is temporarily victorious, in the end, Gwenivere betrays him, his own son rebels and kills him, and Camelot is lost.

Melancholy is indeed an interesting theme. I remember looking at Celtic first names on a website, and seeing that some which were meant for boys had something to do with the concept, which I found surprising, given the level of abstraction of the whole thing...

About my theory according to which Japan and Europe have much in common, there is a book known by most scholars studying Japanese in the West, which is called something like "The Nobility of Failure" (La Noblesse de l'Echec" in French)...
 
Last edited:
I was not aware of that. Thank you for having clarified this, Rick. And there is no need to disparage yourself: you are not "clumsy" at all!:)

Clumsy in that this is not firm ground for me at all. I don't even have nodding acquaintance with the sources, and may be talking essentially through my hat. Especially I don't know the literature of other cultures. For all I know, classical Chinese pop literature is full of stories that intermingled sexual tension between sympathetic characters (AKA love story, as opposed to mysterious/evil enchantress yada yada) with good old hack & hew.

In short, I don't know whether Romance in the sense I'm describing is distinctive to Western lit or not. I believe it is, has Celtic roots, and was flavored rather than essentially transformed by Arab influences, but with little more than a vibe to offer as argument, let alone evidence. :D

I'm rather skeptical of modern feminist back-readings of the little-recorded Celtic past, since it could always be one Phoenician merchant's account away from going the way of the Peaceful Maya. :eek: That said, there's fair evidence for women playing an active social role. (How is that for squeezed dry? Someone has seriously suggested that Minoan 'palaces' should be called 'regional centers.')
 
Instead of mournful ballads celebrating bravery in defeat, we may get epics celebrating the victory of the Britons and congratulating the ruling dynasty. And like the Iliad, these epics may not give much place to romance. Could the whole courtly love phenomenon develop in such a setting at all?

"Arthur needs you, Gwen, you're what keeps him going. If you don't get on that longship with him you'll regret it, maybe not tomorrow or the next day but soon, and for the rest of your life ..."


Another issue...how much influence do you think William IX of Aquitaine (William the Troubadour) had on the development of the genre in question (courtly love). Assuming he does not exist, or the Troubador movement never gets started, how does that affect things?

Well, he was both a patron of it and composed it himself, so without him it certainly doesn't catch on or spread as fast. But maybe it was like rock 'n' roll, the happening thing at that time. Take away Elvis or the Beatles and the result is different, but it still happens with comparable influence.

For a better answer you'd have to know the period well, and be very clear on the boundary of 'courtly love' and romance in general, because romance certainly seems to have been the happening thing. I would blame the Normans. We don't see them as a romantic bunch, but wherever they went they trailed along some Breton knights, who trailed along their bards, who had a dynamite playlist. And so it spread, and in my guess is the troubadours just added their own twist.
 
Well, he was both a patron of it and composed it himself, so without him it certainly doesn't catch on or spread as fast. But maybe it was like rock 'n' roll, the happening thing at that time. Take away Elvis or the Beatles and the result is different, but it still happens with comparable influence.

Coudn't have said it better myself. Although the distance in time makes it more difficult for us to realize, William IX certainly had a lot in common with Byron and Elvis! He was a cultural phenomenon unto himself.

I also believe that a character like William IX was bound to appear in the Middle Ages, because of a long artistic, cultural and sociological tradition according to which women were given prominence. Certainly, at some point, and somewhere in Europe, someone would have had the idea to dedicate his life to the praise of feminine beauty!

I'm rather skeptical of modern feminist back-readings of the little-recorded Celtic past, since it could always be one Phoenician merchant's account away from going the way of the Peaceful Maya. :eek: That said, there's fair evidence for women playing an active social role. (How is that for squeezed dry? Someone has seriously suggested that Minoan 'palaces' should be called 'regional centers.')

I can understand that some of the opinions expressed by "feminist" scholars need qualifications. I hesitated to post some of those remarks myself, because I thought they were perhaps a bit exaggerated (especially the point about the "equality of the sexes" skewed towards the "weaker vessel"!).

However, what Caesar says about the Celts appears noteworthy, and although I cannot post a relevant link for the moment, Celtic women in Ireland were supposed to be part of the military draft, very early in history, which is unheard of in any other part of the world (unless one of you is better informed than I am).

Your point about the Minoans is indeed thought-provoking, and lets us envision that the Celtic source is not sufficient to explain the condition of women in Europe. Maybe it has something to do with the Stone Age.

We also have to keep in mind, to be perfectly fair, that in Ancient Egypt (but not in the Middle-East), the condition of women was also relatively good compared to other countries.

Therefore, I am also of the opinion that courtly love was bound to appear, even without William IX, all the more so as some scholars seem to imply that he may not have been the first troubadour, although he certainly was the most flamboyant of all!
 
Coudn't have said it better myself. Although the distance in time makes it more difficult for us to realize, William IX certainly had a lot in common with Byron and Elvis! He was a cultural phenomenon unto himself.

Note to Hollywood: If, by some fluke, you find yourself portraying William IX or any troubadour, your prototype should not be that wimp on the stairs in "Animal House" ('until the 12th of never ...') who gets his guitar smashed by John Belushi. Your prototype should be the Pelvis, Morrison, or the rocker of your choice.

I also believe that a character like William IX was bound to appear in the Middle Ages, because of a long artistic, cultural and sociological tradition according to which women were given prominence. Certainly, at some point, and somewhere in Europe, someone would have had the idea to dedicate his life to the praise of feminine beauty!

My explanation is simpler, though it comes to the same thing. Somewhere in some castle, probably in the 11th century, the ladies rebelled against the evening's scheduled entertainment billing. They said if it was all just going to be Roland killing another 700 Saracens, they would just as soon withdraw to the womens' chambers to work on their embroidery, thank you very much.

The lord (we're not that feminist, in the 11th century) looked around the now woman-less Great Hall, and found this unsatisfying. He personally would be happy for Roland to kill a few hundred more Saracens. But he had done his own share of sweaty killing to become a lord, with the accompanying pleasures of wine, women, and song - and suddenly he was only getting two thirds of the deal, and frankly #2 is the most important of the three. So he booted his trouvere, and hired a kid with a sneer who said he'd keep the chicks from walking out.

Seriously, the key feature of romance, in practical terms, is that it is designed for a mixed audience. The guys, left to themselves, would be perfectly happy with nothing but explosions - AKA the Iliad, though Homer being sophisticated did tart it up with the hero's buddy getting wasted, giving the hero extra excuse to go ape sh!t. The women, left to themselves, would go with some awful Disease of the Week story, though since this is the 11th century it is probably Virgin Martyr of the Week. Don't know what the gals see in that stuff.

Romance, from the beginning through at least next weekend, has always been the 'date movie' that both can sit through.


I can understand that some of the opinions expressed by "feminist" scholars need qualifications. I hesitated to post some of those remarks myself, because I thought they were perhaps a bit exaggerated (especially the point about the "equality of the sexes" skewed towards the "weaker vessel"!).

However, what Caesar says about the Celts appears noteworthy, and although I cannot post a relevant link for the moment, Celtic women in Ireland were supposed to be part of the military draft, very early in history, which is unheard of in any other part of the world (unless one of you is better informed than I am).

Your point about the Minoans is indeed thought-provoking, and lets us envision that the Celtic source is not sufficient to explain the condition of women in Europe. Maybe it has something to do with the Stone Age.

We also have to keep in mind, to be perfectly fair, that in Ancient Egypt (but not in the Middle-East), the condition of women was also relatively good compared to other countries.

Therefore, I am also of the opinion that courtly love was bound to appear, even without William IX, all the more so as some scholars seem to imply that he may not have been the first troubadour, although he certainly was the most flamboyant of all!

I know many instances where women have taken up arms against last ditch threat, but the only case I know of women in the 'peacetime' draft is Israel, a country always at last ditch.

On the European literary side, Homer is more complex than I admit above. In the Iliad, as said, he is doing pure standard guy-flick with lots of explosions. Even so, it is as if a germ of romance was struggling to get out, because lots of women are around, though not fully utilized. The Odyssey is not romance, but man does it come close. Surely it was meant for a mixed audience as well, with full entertainment value all around - even the first scene in Western lit of girls playing beach volleyball. Homer covered all bases.

But the Odyssey model has never worked again. If you want to see it failing, watch any 1950s Air Force movie with Jimmy Stewart. Wonderful aviation scenes, the B-36 or B-47 seen from all angles in all phases of flight. But the Penelope character, probably played by June Allyson, is a drip. She was only put in there to keep the women happy, but I doubt it convinced them this was any real human relationship story, and it only makes guys wince.

Archeology. I'm also a bit leery of feminist reads of Minoan art. If you had to judge Roman Catholicism only by its iconography, you would think it was a mother-goddess religion. Mary and her sacrificial son are all over the place; God the Father only rarely appears, and Christ triumphant never - we only even know him by his Greek Orthodox name, Pantokrator.

And of course no one could ever imagine that dominant males might like to cover their palace (or 'regional center') walls with frescoes of pretty priestesses in procession, ta-tas on display. ;) :D Having said that, men who choose to do so are certainly sending a different signal than if they cover their walls with the usual battle scenes.

From another perspective, perhaps the Minoans and the Odyssey reflect seafaring cultures. The Iliad is a soldier's story, the Odyssey a sailor's yarn. The iconography and self-presentation of maritime societies - even very powerful ones - tends to be strikingly pretty and 'feminine.' Military and even naval scenes are rare. Golden age Dutch art is a familiar example; you would not look at Rembrandt or Vermeer and think 'ruthless cutthroats.'

I don't know if William IX ever went aboard a ship in his life, or even saw many, but is it significant that from Greece to Scandinavia we are talking about maritime regions? Knight errantry is not soldiering; it is sea adventure without explicit mention of boats.

Whole layers of sexual culture in these images. The buddy cop movie is a soldiers' story. There is always a homoerotic substrate between Achilles and Patroklos, not at all the modern western Oscar Wilde image, but a very etherealized leather-biker thing. Any actual involvement, homo- or hetero- is almost always disruptive of the comradeship. The true soldier does not squander his precious bodily fluids the night before the big game, with anyone.

The archetypal sailor is Jack Sparrow, curiously ambisexual; his masculinity proven in advance by the fact that he got back alive. Sailors by reputation are casual about homosexuality, but they have a girl in every port, and once on the beach they have one on each arm if they can get them both to agree.
 
Note to Hollywood: If, by some fluke, you find yourself portraying William IX or any troubadour, your prototype should not be that wimp on the stairs in "Animal House" ('until the 12th of never ...') who gets his guitar smashed by John Belushi. Your prototype should be the Pelvis, Morrison, or the rocker of your choice.



My explanation is simpler, though it comes to the same thing. Somewhere in some castle, probably in the 11th century, the ladies rebelled against the evening's scheduled entertainment billing. They said if it was all just going to be Roland killing another 700 Saracens, they would just as soon withdraw to the womens' chambers to work on their embroidery, thank you very much.

The lord (we're not that feminist, in the 11th century) looked around the now woman-less Great Hall, and found this unsatisfying. He personally would be happy for Roland to kill a few hundred more Saracens. But he had done his own share of sweaty killing to become a lord, with the accompanying pleasures of wine, women, and song - and suddenly he was only getting two thirds of the deal, and frankly #2 is the most important of the three. So he booted his trouvere, and hired a kid with a sneer who said he'd keep the chicks from walking out.

Seriously, the key feature of romance, in practical terms, is that it is designed for a mixed audience. The guys, left to themselves, would be perfectly happy with nothing but explosions - AKA the Iliad, though Homer being sophisticated did tart it up with the hero's buddy getting wasted, giving the hero extra excuse to go ape sh!t. The women, left to themselves, would go with some awful Disease of the Week story, though since this is the 11th century it is probably Virgin Martyr of the Week. Don't know what the gals see in that stuff.

Romance, from the beginning through at least next weekend, has always been the 'date movie' that both can sit through.




I know many instances where women have taken up arms against last ditch threat, but the only case I know of women in the 'peacetime' draft is Israel, a country always at last ditch.

On the European literary side, Homer is more complex than I admit above. In the Iliad, as said, he is doing pure standard guy-flick with lots of explosions. Even so, it is as if a germ of romance was struggling to get out, because lots of women are around, though not fully utilized. The Odyssey is not romance, but man does it come close. Surely it was meant for a mixed audience as well, with full entertainment value all around - even the first scene in Western lit of girls playing beach volleyball. Homer covered all bases.

But the Odyssey model has never worked again. If you want to see it failing, watch any 1950s Air Force movie with Jimmy Stewart. Wonderful aviation scenes, the B-36 or B-47 seen from all angles in all phases of flight. But the Penelope character, probably played by June Allyson, is a drip. She was only put in there to keep the women happy, but I doubt it convinced them this was any real human relationship story, and it only makes guys wince.

Archeology. I'm also a bit leery of feminist reads of Minoan art. If you had to judge Roman Catholicism only by its iconography, you would think it was a mother-goddess religion. Mary and her sacrificial son are all over the place; God the Father only rarely appears, and Christ triumphant never - we only even know him by his Greek Orthodox name, Pantokrator.

And of course no one could ever imagine that dominant males might like to cover their palace (or 'regional center') walls with frescoes of pretty priestesses in procession, ta-tas on display. ;) :D Having said that, men who choose to do so are certainly sending a different signal than if they cover their walls with the usual battle scenes.

From another perspective, perhaps the Minoans and the Odyssey reflect seafaring cultures. The Iliad is a soldier's story, the Odyssey a sailor's yarn. The iconography and self-presentation of maritime societies - even very powerful ones - tends to be strikingly pretty and 'feminine.' Military and even naval scenes are rare. Golden age Dutch art is a familiar example; you would not look at Rembrandt or Vermeer and think 'ruthless cutthroats.'

I don't know if William IX ever went aboard a ship in his life, or even saw many, but is it significant that from Greece to Scandinavia we are talking about maritime regions? Knight errantry is not soldiering; it is sea adventure without explicit mention of boats.

Whole layers of sexual culture in these images. The buddy cop movie is a soldiers' story. There is always a homoerotic substrate between Achilles and Patroklos, not at all the modern western Oscar Wilde image, but a very etherealized leather-biker thing. Any actual involvement, homo- or hetero- is almost always disruptive of the comradeship. The true soldier does not squander his precious bodily fluids the night before the big game, with anyone.

The archetypal sailor is Jack Sparrow, curiously ambisexual; his masculinity proven in advance by the fact that he got back alive. Sailors by reputation are casual about homosexuality, but they have a girl in every port, and once on the beach they have one on each arm if they can get them both to agree.

Your remarks about Greek epics have just reminded me of the ongoing debate about the nature of tragedy which is taking place in my country (and perhaps in yours as well). Looking back, I think it is very relevant to the topic at hand, although I realize that this may not be absolutely clear without detailed explanation.

Nicole Loraux wrote a book entitled "La Voix Endeuillée" (The Mourning Voice), in which she argues that women had a prominent influence on the elaboration of the first tragic plays. She notably mentions Euripides and plays such as The Trojans. She conceives of tragedy as a genre voicing private suffering and subject-matters that were traditionally associated with women.
For her, tragedy (tragos: billy-goat/ oidea: song) is a way to give voice to the expression of mourning, a very private topic.

This is a groundbreaking analysis, in that it contradicts previous analyses (equally as good as that one) made, for instance by Vidal-Naquet and Jean-Pierre Vernant (Mythe et Tragedie en Grèce Ancienne: Tragedy and Myth in Ancient Greece), according to which tragedy is a genre concerned with the polis, and especially with the struggle between the individual man and society (or the city, in Greek times). For Vidal-Naquet and Vernant, tragedy is therefore a public genre. Arthur Miller made a comparable analysis when he said:

-"I think the tragic feeling is evoked in us when we are in the presence of a character who is ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure only one thing, his sense of personal dignity (...). The underlying struggle is that of the individual man trying to find his rightful position in society. Tragedy, then, is the consequence of a man's total compulsions to evaluate himself justly."

Besides, your interesting and colourful depiction of the scene in the castle with the ladies (utterly bored...) leaving knights to their own devices seems to have something to do with the concept of the opposition between the private and the public. Ladies indeed have a way of being intent on discussing private feelings and expressing their emotions instead of focussing on "explosions":p...

You are also absolutely right in mentioning that courtly love became popular because it was likely to appeal to both sexes...
 
Last edited:
Your remarks about Greek epics have just reminded me of the ongoing debate about the nature of tragedy which is taking place in my country (and perhaps in yours as well). Looking back, I think it is very relevant to the topic at hand, although I realize that this may not be absolutely clear without detailed explanation.

Nicole Loraux wrote a book entitled "La Voix Endeuillée" (The Mourning Voice), in which she argues that women had a prominent influence on the elaboration of the first tragic plays. She notably mentions Euripides and plays such as The Trojans. She conceives of tragedy as a genre voicing private suffering and subject-matters that were traditionally associated with women.
For her, tragedy (tragos: billy-goat/ oidea: song) is a way to give voice to the expression of mourning, a very private topic.

This is a groundbreaking analysis, in that it contradicts previous analyses (equally as good as that one) made, for instance by Vidal-Naquet and Jean-Pierre Vernant (Mythe et Tragedie en Grèce Ancienne: Tragedy and Myth in Ancient Greece), according to which tragedy is a genre concerned with the polis, and especially with the struggle between the individual man and society (or the city, in Greek times). For Vidal-Naquet and Vernant, tragedy is therefore a public genre. Arthur Miller made a comparable analysis when he said:

-"I think the tragic feeling is evoked in us when we are in the presence of a character who is ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure only one thing, his sense of personal dignity (...). The underlying struggle is that of the individual man trying to find his rightful position in society. Tragedy, then, is the consequence of a man's total compulsions to evaluate himself justly."

Besides, your interesting and colourful depiction of the scene in the castle with the ladies (utterly bored...) leaving knights to their own devices seems to have something to do with the concept of the opposition between the private and the public. Ladies indeed have a way of being intent on discussing private feelings and expressing their emotions instead of focussing on "explosions":p...

You are also absolutely right in mentioning that courtly love became popular because it was likely to appeal to both sexes...


I take it that your country is the one formerly ruled by the actual Louix XI? (Was he the spider king, or was that XII? For some reason, everything and everyone between Charlemagne and Francis I is a blur to me.)

In any case, your comments on tragedy are one of those annoying cases where both arguments sound right. I believe the standard treatment has been that tragedy was political (in broad sense), just as 'old' comedy was political. But at least as often as not it is a woman caught in the crosshairs of conflict between duty to the polis and some other duty, and she gets hurt in a really personal way.

Once again let's see how I can fake discussing a subject about which I know nothing. I don't remember who wrote which plays, Euripides and Aeschylus (sp?). If you can build two different theories of tragedy off the work of two leading tragedians who wrote hit plays, the Athenian audience must have been open to both approaches.

Lurking here is a whole 'nother can of worms, the role and status of women in ancient Greece, particularly Athens. The image of classical Athens regarding women is Saudi Arabia with representational art, plus the men so predominantly gay that they weren't even that interested in getting laid. I suspect things were more complicated. Girls raised on Homer were learning that they had sexual power over men, and could push back against male pressure on them. Tragedy is full of strong women. Comedy thinks it is all a joke, but since people were laughing the jokes must have rung true.

I wonder, though, about the assumption that mourning is private. In our culture it is, certainly anglophone culture, but women in modern Mediterranean cultures can be very open about it - in the Middle East women's grief can be right out there on cable news, keening in its agony, obscene to us in the original sense that we feel it should be off camera. The idea of grief as essentially private may work better for western European and derived cultures than Mediterranean ones.

The public/private distinction works very well, though, for the modern Hollywood convention of 'mens' versus 'womens' film/TV. Explosions are inherently public events, emotions mostly private in our culture. Romance, as you would expect, straddles, with both close-ups and panoramic battle scenes. It can be political; in fact I verge on saying it is intrinsically political - Camelot expresses a political idea, after all. In 'Casablanca,' the modern Hollywood retelling, Rick Blaine does not put Ilsa on the plane for Victor Lazlo's sake as a man, or because he shouldn't be diddling another man's wife, but for a political reason: Laslo is vital to the Allied cause.

The politics may not be so overt, but love versus duty is great grist for romance, pitting our highest values head on. That is why the Arthur story works either way. Gwen and Lance screw up big time by screwing, but we consider it tragic, not just two people being assholes. Yet Rick Blaine can put Ilsa on the plane without looking like a drip, because duty is the one thing worth sacrificing love for.

Does this play at all into 'courtly love' as such? Courtly love is the Casablanca version; the hero doesn't get his true love into the sack. In the original Arab version I suspect she is simply unattainable. The lover would be better off wishing for the moon; if he had a Saturn V he could get there. This thread is part of romance as it has developed, as plenty of pop lyrics attest. But we westerners just aren't very ethereal, and in the romance tradition the unattainable love object has tended to become the forbidden one. Which means she can be attained, and often is, though with unfortunate consequences.

Even then, we sorta think that Romeo & Juliet are better off dead with each other than going through their lives with regrets. Notice that in this case, no value or duty attaches to the Montague or Capulet causes. In fact they are both contemptible. At the end, the prince of the city - standing in for the polis - tells it like it is: They are nothing but a couple of mafia families, totally unworthy of the lovers. Not only contemptible but stupid, because to the 16th century English audience it must have been obvious that Romeo & Juliet were the Tudor Rose just waiting to happen, the union of rival houses. A happy-ending version would be a typical Shakespeare comedy.


If an ATL that butterflies Courtney Love also butterflies everything since 2000, I'm all for it!
 
Last edited:

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
I am not the one spewing hatred here.

Yes, you are. In a thread about love.

Your first response was completely out of line, insulting, and unacceptable. The rest took it to the level of bad comedy. I'm kicking you for a week, during which you will be unable to post. Don't insult people on this board.

Maybe the rest of you can salvage something from this thread.
 

Susano

Banned
I take it that your country is the one formerly ruled by the actual Louix XI? (Was he the spider king, or was that XII? For some reason, everything and everyone between Charlemagne and Francis I is a blur to me.)
[
Just because its expected of me: Charlemagne was NOT a French King ;)

And I wont even get into what L'Empereur... eh, Louis XI I meant ;) has said here, as hes been kicked. But Freudian Psychoanalysis, Great Mother esoterics and refutation of causality - my effing god!:rolleyes:
 
[
Just because its expected of me: Charlemagne was NOT a French King ;)

And just to be extra pedantic, I never said he was. :D

He's on the French king list, I'm pretty sure, whether he was 'French' in some later sense or not. I suppose we could say he was Belgian, since that is where the ancestral seat of Herstal is. To think that the Belgians once ruled Europe!
 

Susano

Banned
And just to be extra pedantic, I never said he was. :D

He's on the French king list, I'm pretty sure, whether he was 'French' in some later sense or not. I suppose we could say he was Belgian, since that is where the ancestral seat of Herstal is. To think that the Belgians once ruled Europe!

He was Frankish, and France is the West Frankish Realm. However, Germany is the East Frankish Realm. Thats why I always protest the issue - Charlesmagne was AS much German as French, if not more so. After all, the Fankish corelands, Charles' capital Aachen and eventually also his Impeiral dignity fell to the Eastern Frankish Realm = Germany, and the guy himself surely spoke something rather resembling German than French, too! But yes, the best compromsie and also the most truth is that both nations have an equal share of the Frankish heritage, making Charlesmagne not French exclusively, but German-French ;)
 
A simple question: WI the concept of courtly love had never arisen in 11th century France?

Thoughts?

Doug M.

Pretty influential, yeah. I'll have a more substantive response once I have more time to read and think, but some notes from abstract browsing on google scholar and jstor; prefaced by some thoughts

A couple thoughts, then notes below. (1) In some sense, courtly love's social implications helped work out the results of the formation of a new knightly class and nobility. In the high middle ages (very moderately and relatively!) deeper "state" (not the right term, but) structures emerged, requiring lots of new, less land bound and more state based nobles and knights. The ideals of courtly love helped smooth over the merging of these classes. A more distinct division has some social implications. (2) Courtly love helped advance the pursuit of courtliness: the idea that a member of the knightly/noble classes should have an education, literacy, know rhetoric etc. Honored in the breach, but still influential. (3) Higher status of women, relative. Still, a journey of a thousand miles [not yet completed, but] begins... It also had a literary and psychological impact: some women because subjects in literature where before they had been objects. (4) Once the commercial revolution and Renaissance arrived, the status of women in those societies and concordant family structure were related to earlier notions of courtly love. Bourgeois society from 15/16th c on was pretty damn sexist, but at least a substantial component of marriages among the nouveaux riche were love matches or self-selected marriages for money. This wasn't a normal commercial class norm, and (maybe?) helped prevent the emergence of a more stratified and static bourgeois. In general, courtly love seems to have helped social mobility. (5) Something probably steps into the gap... I'm not sure what.

________

"courtly poetry, in connection w courly behavior and attitudes, became an intrinsic part of the value system of the new noble genre de vie in the 'second feudal age"

roots in hispano-arabic poetry- spiritualized love- roots b/c arab and forms migrate into spain w/ lotsa men. Polygamy + massive male surplus+ sex selective immigration+preexisting forms --> precursors of romantic love poetry

provencal vs middle high german forms

both heavy emphasis on sexual frustration related to fantasy about social person

nobles more into it than clergy and bourgoiusse

class div btwn new and old knightly classes- expansion of tix and govt and
prosperity and infighting --> lot more nights and nobles vs old nobility

goal of low nobility men to marry upper nobility women

(The meaning of courtly love)
__________

allowed xp of sexuality w/o po church

courtly love --> pursuit of courtliness: includes moderation and knowledge (knowledge b/c wish to speak and act elegantly), avoid xcessive arrogance in public

(Courtly love and coutrliness)

-----

(Courtly Love- who needs it?)

infl on some less restrictive female models

a fair number of female poets in the courtly love tradition

higher status of women - hold both status of an object and of a feudal ruler

major part of creating women as a subject/actor in literature

---

(Culture and Unconciouss Fantasy)

higher status of women - ambivilence between nobility and beauty

much less class centric than other poetry - character determines worth rather than family

elevation of love from an abberation to a cultural sanctioned ideal, moral justification for always existing feelings

----

(Romantic Love in the Pre-Modern Period)

influence in modernization-

much more choice of who to marry - less institutional parental influence- but this was actualized more w urbanization and industrialization

psychological coping mech for loveless and govt marraiages

greater personal autonomy-

more individualism, more self expressions
 
(2) Courtly love helped advance the pursuit of courtliness: the idea that a member of the knightly/noble classes should have an education, literacy, know rhetoric etc. Honored in the breach, but still influential.

A basic fact of existence: in order to please women, you must have brains. Now, courtly love requires a gentleman to better himself, not only through chivalrous deeds, but through displays of his own intellectual achievements...
That is undoubtedly an excellent point you made, Andrew;).

roots in hispano-arabic poetry- spiritualized love- roots b/c arab and forms migrate into spain w/ lotsa men. Polygamy + massive male surplus+ sex selective immigration+preexisting forms --> precursors of romantic love poetry

If you could (and if I understood your point correctly), I would ask if you would kindly post statistics or links in that respect. Your theory could indeed help explain (in part) the emergence of courtly attitudes in Arabic Spain, since it is self-evident that in a society where women are scarce, men do have to be more attentive to their needs than in societies where the sex ratio is more balanced. Your way of discussing the problem is crucial for further discussion on this subject, since I and others like Rick have mostly discussed literature, whereas you have a sociological way of looking into the problem...

higher status of women - ambivilence between nobility and beauty

much less class centric than other poetry - character determines worth rather than family

I am not so sure about that. Could you be more specific?

influence in modernization-

much more choice of who to marry - less institutional parental influence- but this was actualized more w urbanization and industrialization

This led to the writings of Jane Austen, for instance, in which women are generally hampered in their choices of husbands by their social status. However, I am not sure that it was directly influenced by 'courtly love' per se.

I have found a good article on courtly love:

http://cla.calpoly.edu/~dschwart/engl513/courtly/courtly.htm

Here are a few quotes:

"The knight serves his courtly lady with the same obedience and loyalty which he owes to his liege lord."

Well, I was asked by someone on another thread if "I took orders from my wife"... I guess those attitudes must be deeply and culturally ingrained in some Western males, to the extent that it might even appear shocking to those who are not privy to Western culture...

This episode reminded me of the movie "The Last of the Mohicans", in which the Indian Magwa disaparages a British officer for his subservience to the ladies (although I am not sure the Indians in general shared Magwa's point of view, who is after all a fictional character...).

Another quote:

"She is in complete control of the love relationship, while he owes her obedience and submission"

This is a very astute remark. It is also worth noting that this article is written by a woman, and I think she made the most interesting point of all when she linked the feudal system to the emergence of courtly love, implying that it was in fact reversed in favour of women. Basically, women used manly codes of behaviour to serve their own advantage. Brilliant...

Even better, and in keeping, I believe, with some of Andrew's remarks:

"the knight's love for the lady inspires him to do great deeds, in order to be worthy of her love or to win her favour. Thus "courtly love" was originally construed as an ennobling force (...)"

In literary terms, this means that men have to take into account their personal representation when dealing with women. They must be careful to appear courtly, and become actors not only in front of other men (chivalrous prowess, etc...), but also in front of women. In short, they must think of women as an audience, at least more so than before.

This might have played a role in the emergence of increased competition between males in the West, since they can be humbled not only by other men, but also by women. You can find nobility not only through defeating other men, but also through women's appreciation.
 
Top