6C

Courtly love seems to be much more socially acceptable than eros, or lust. It seems much more polite, refined, and meaningful. But are the two really all that different?

There do seem to be many elements of courtly love that make it different than eros. Most obviously, courtly love is not necessarily consummated, as the man’s devotion is to an unattainable lady, so there may not even be a sexual side to the relationship. It also emphasizes restraint in conduct so the man does “nothing disagreeable that might annoy” the lady (according to Andreas Capellanus’s “The Art of Courtly Love”). This means that the man must be obedient and humble towards his love, constantly attempt to do what will please her, and avoid spending too much time with her (especially in public)--not exactly conducive to advancing a sexual relationship. Most significantly, courtly love claims that “character alone…is worthy of the crown of love,” not physical beauty (as with lust), and that love is held for one woman alone (whereas men can lust after many different women).

But let’s look a little more closely at these differences. Lust does not need to be acted upon to exist--so the first two differences don’t really prevent courtly love from being eros. And it turns out that all Capellanus means by “character” is social class (and acting in a manner befitting one’s social class)—all that really needs to be there is good breeding. So courtly love may focus on a little more than just good looks, but not by much. And besides this, courtly love does deal in a large part with physical beauty--it is supposed to spring from “the sight of and excessive meditation on the beauty of the opposite sex” and the desire for physical contact (sounds an awful lot like lust). So much for a sparkling personality and great sense of humor. How much more meaningful can that kind of focus be than lust’s?

These “differences” seem less like real deviations from lust and more like limitations imposed upon lust. For example: Take eros’s fundamental character, a love based on sexual attraction between two people. Now say the relationship might not be consummated, tell the man he has to act a certain way towards the woman, and say it only applies to one woman of a high enough class. These rules limit eros, to be sure, but they do not change its fundamental nature--and if followed, they turn it into courtly love. Courtly love is therefore not a completely new, legitimate form of love, but a way of imposing limitations upon eros to make it socially acceptable.

C

There are so many ways to interpret the rules of courtly love. There is evidence to support both ideas; that these are the rules of legitimate love or that it is simply there to make the lustful feel better about there actions.
On one side, one could say that this was a true guide book of how people truly act when they are in love. It would be an ideal love for all people involved if people were to love for the measure of one’s character and not be overly devoted to the care of one’s body, even though attentiveness to personal health and hygiene are of importance and do not go unaddressed in this book. It is also a base for true love that if you truly love someone, that you can’t lust after other people at the same time. It is true that people who through there love around are no better than a shameless dog. Toying with other people’s emotions is never something to be handled lightly and is rightfully looked down upon in this text, further proving its legitimacy on the subject of love. It also provides a truthful insight that people generally act more kindly and of better character when they are in love, and that is an important part of true love because you can’t be in love with someone and be a jerk to them at the same time. It just wouldn’t be true love.
On the other hand, this book contradicts the ideas of true love in that the man must constantly bending over backwards to ever get the love of the one whom he is devoted to. In the first place, he contradicts himself when he says that love is attained by the meditation upon the beauty of the opposite sex, when later he says that it is the measure of someone’s character which should constitute love. Also it is ridiculous to think that the man should always be on his knees because he is afraid that he might lose the one he loves, because if it were true love, the woman would never consider lusting after another. He also goes on about how a man can never marry a woman “lower” in social status than himself, which angers me to no end because true love transcends all differences (or so I am led to believe) and money and social status should be much less important than love. It is also added that the man must go strutting around like a peacock because he does not want to seem unfit to fight to others when, once again, he had said before that it is but a measure of one’s character which should count.
Had he not made so many contradictions to the idea of true love which I hold, I would have said that it were a very good book in depiction of love. However I cannot accept the importance on which he places outward appearance and how hard the man must work to keep a fickle girls love.

B: The Painful Significance of Love

Is love significant because it's painful or is it painful because it's significant? Saying love is only significant because of pain gives love a negative connotation while saying love and pain come toegther, which is significant, gives love a more romantic and idealized connotation. If love were only significant because of pain, wouldn't love be a total tragedy? Pain as a result of love can come in many forms, such as missing someone or simply feeling overwhelmed with love love love. It seems that pain is always present where love is present. But, in these cases pain comes from a love that is very abundant and seems to be just a side effect. It seems that the pain involved in unrequited love is different, since its accompanied by feelings of rejection. Unrequited love seems to be the most painful, since the pleasure of returned love is not pleasant. The pain in the other cases seems much more bearable, since while there is pain, there is also a feeling of comfort and excitement, and sometimes hope. These different types of pain come from different types of love. In both cases love is significant because of the radical emotions it evokes. One of these emotions is pain, so does that mean love is defined by the emotions it evokes? And since it evokes pain does that mean love is defined by pain?

Maybe the memory of love is significant because it has had an impact on who a person is, and remembering is painful. In this case, it would seem that the love itself was already significant and pain comes with thinking about it. The process of loving could have shaped one's life because of the lessons it taught or the maturity it brought, in which case it would be significant but not because of pain. In this case, love would be significant because of how it effected a person in terms of who he or she truly is, not because of pain. Many great things are associated with love, and why would we be so in love with love if all it was was pain? Love isn't significant because it's painful, but the pain of love can be significant in one's life, and this pain can certainly cause significant changes. Even so, though, pain isn't what shapes love.

B

b. Just because experience of loving someone can hurt us emotionally, is the emotional pain itself just a matter of coincidence or is it a special sign that the experience is more vital in some way? Perhaps another way of looking at the question: is the experience significant because we feel pain or do we feel pain because the experience is significant?

Eotional pain is alost always attached to love in soeway or another. Although many relationships occur and end without having that end result of emotional pain I believe that we know a relationship to be emotionaly painful because the relationship is important to us. The other side of the argument is that a relationship is significant because of the pain. Although pain does relate to significance I dont think they go in that order. This idea is saying that a relationship is only valid because we feel eotional pain, but when thinking about roamantic relationships I believe that they shouldnt be viewed that way.

Relationships are significant when the desire to be with another is so strong that they miss them at times etc, but this feeling is because of they strong bond and connection between the two people, the eotional pain itself doesnt make the relationship. Love makes the relationship and that is the concept that should be emphasized, the pain is due to the love. If pain makes you realize you love the other person then the love is still the thing making the relationship significant, not the pain. Pain and love go hand in hand yet pain comes from a significant relationship not the other way around.

Pain from significance or significance from pain: #6B

What a peculiar question.

Do we feel pain because of the significance of love or is love significant because we feel pain.

Well, maybe if we define the pain associated with love, we'll arrive to some conclusions. Lovers are often very worried about each other. That hurts. Also, as Andreas Capellanus argues in The Art of Courtly Love, love is suffering because lovers fear that their love will not be returned. This fear causes woe to the mind and to the soul. This is a kind of paranoia that makes lovers do crazy things for each other.

So, lovers do crazy things for each other because they are paranoid of losing the other's love. And they are paranoid of losing the other's love because... love is significant.

That seems to make sense. Let me cover my bases here.

We feel pain from the worrying and the paranoia. But we feel the worrying and paranoia because we don't want to lose love; we feel that it is worth maintaining. It is worth maintaining it because it is significant.

But, what makes it significant? I have just gone through the steps to prove that we feel pain due to the significance of love, but maybe the inverse is simultaneously true.

Love is significant because... it is rare? I don't honestly believe that. I feel like love is a relationship achieved with commitment and hard work. So, it's a goal that can be achieved. Also, it seems like almost everybody accomplishes that kind of a relationship. So, I don't think that's why it's significant.

Maybe love provides something that nothing else can. Maybe it's the warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it's the fact that it provides something constant to hold onto.

Then again, other things can fulfill those desires: Drugs and a steady job.

So, is love significant because it is painful? A lot of the other important moments in life seem significant because they are painful. High school is painful. Losing a limb in a war is painful. Both of those things seem to significantly affect your life, whether in the immediate future or the long run. So, maybe love is significant because it is painful.

I think both statements are true, as illogical as it sounds. Love is significant because it's painful and it's painful because it's significant. What a dilemma...

(#6. A) According to The Art of Courtly Love, love is “a certain inborn suffering derived from the sight of and excessive meditation upon the beauty of the opposite sex.” But when asked what is love? Men and woman stumble to find the words to this question. I think it is because we tend to look for words that everyone can relate to. But maybe, love can’t be descried in a straightforward definition. Maybe, love isn’t as simple as black or white or as day and night. Maybe, to every person love is different. Just maybe, Love shouldn’t be regulated by rules. I think one’s love for another is unique. The way one feels, who they feel it for and how they express it is different and I like that about love. But if we follow rules on how to love someone from a book would we all love the same? Would love still be unique? …I doubt it.
But, even if I did believe love can be simply defined and regulated by rules I still wouldn’t think courtly love is a behavioral ideal that you should try to follow when you love someone. I believe some of the rules are a little extreme and outdated if we were to follow them in the twenty-first century.
For instance, in chapter 3: the writer states, “For when he thinks deeply of his beloved the sight of any woman seems to his mind rough and rude.” The idea of finding only one person in the world attractive is almost impossible. And the fact that if you find someone else attractive means you no longer love your love one is overdramatic. I think it is possible to love someone and find someone else attractive. In chapter 5: what persons are fit for love he opens with, “We must now see what persons are fit to bear the arms of love.” Anyone can experience love. Who is he to determine who can experience love or can not? He also tells readers a woman must change her last name to his. Now a days woman rarely change their last names and this action doesn’t necessarily mean you love your partner anymore then you do. But what also makes me object to this piece is his words in book two. He says a man should keep his relationship hidden; kept secret. But by keeping your relationship secret it may seem like you are ashamed of it.
Reading this I felt the author wasn’t thinking about how one should love another but more of how one should treat their partner in the society he lived in at the time.He sets rules rather then advice and love is one thing that shouldn't be based on rules, boarders, and regulations. Therefore, if one wanted to know what to do when they love someone courtly love wouldn’t be the ideal text to read.

Blog Post #6: Courtly Love

In light of our readings and discussions on courtly love (Capellanus’s De Arte Honesti Amandi and Malory’s Le Morte D’Arthur), answer one of the following:

a. Reflect on the rules and customs of the courtly love tradition began in the Medieval period. Is courtly love a behavioral ideal that you should try to follow when you love someone? You should make reference to at least one of the texts we’ve looked concerning courtly love.

b. Just because experience of loving someone can hurt us emotionally, is the emotional pain itself just a matter of coincidence or is it a special sign that the experience is more vital in some way? Perhaps another way of looking at the question: is the experience significant because we feel pain or do we feel pain because the experience is significant?

c. Explain if you believe that courtly love is a legitimate kind of love or just a way of making eros or lust more socially acceptable. To do this, explore the aspects of courtly love that seem to separate it from eros.

POST DUE: Wednesday, March 24 by start of class.
2 RESPONSES TO POSTS DUE: Friday, March 26 by the start of class.