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, which causes each one to wish above all things the embrace of the other and by common desire to carry out all of love’s precepts in the other’s embrace.”

In this passage, Andreas explains what love is. The lover is consumed with thoughts of his beloved and can attend to nothing else. This definition echoes Roman writer Ovid. Later in the text, Andreas will draw on this definition to explain what makes love so harmful. Since men in love can think of nothing but the object of their affection, they sacrifice care of body and soul, which leads to torment in life and after death.

“Just as a skilled fisherman tries to attract fishes by his bait and to capture them on his crooked hook, so the man who is a captive of love tries to attract another person by his allurements and exerts all his efforts to unite two different hearts with an intangible bond, or if they are already united he tries to keep them so forever.”

Andreas explains the etymology of the word love. It derives from the word “hook” (31), which frames love as a game of hunt and capture. Andreas will draw on this association throughout the book, using a variety of hunting similes and metaphors. In Book 3, Andreas will return to the idea of capture as a way to argue that love is a form of enslavement that harms men by preventing them from focusing on anything but the beloved.

“Love causes a rough and uncouth man to be distinguished for his handsomeness; it can endow a man even of the humblest birth with nobility of character; it blesses the proud with humility; and the man in love becomes accustomed to performing many services gracefully for everyone. O what a wonderful thing is love, which makes a man shine with so many virtues and teaches everyone, no matter who he is, so many good traits of character!”

The notion of love as elevating a common man to nobility through the inspiration it provides to perform good deeds is an element of courtly love. Some scholars believe this aspirational element of courtly love provided an opportunity for knights who were not born of the nobility to rise in the ranks. In light of Andreas’s repudiation of love in Book 3, the reader could interpret the exclamatory statement that Andreas ends with as ironic. 

“I wish you therefore to keep always in mind, Walter my friend, that if love were so fair as always to bring his sailors into the quiet port after they had been soaked by many tempests, I would bind myself to serve him forever. But because he is in the habit of carrying an unjust weight in his hand, I do not have full confidence in him any more than I do in a judge whom men suspect. And so for the present I refuse to submit to his judgment, because ‘he often leaves his sailors in the mighty waves.’”

Immediately after explaining love’s ennobling qualities, Andreas cautions Walter that love is not fair. He does not explain specifically how love is unfair until Book 3, when he explains that “Love […] carries unequal weights” (209-10) because he makes men fall in love with women who are incapable of returning that love. Throughout the book, Andreas personifies love, sometimes capitalizing the word, other times referring to him as a king or a god. He also often associates love with the Roman goddess Venus and god Cupid. Given his role as a Christian cleric, his repudiation of pagan gods associated with sex and prostitution is not surprising.

“Character alone, then, is worthy of the crown of love. Many times fluency of speech will incline to love the hearts of those who do no love, for an elaborate line of talk on the part of the lover usually sets love’s arrows a-flying and creates a presumption in favor of the excellent character of the speaker.”

Andreas makes an oblique reference to Cupid (“arrows a-flying”), explaining that a man who speaks fluently can provoke love with his beautiful words. The eight dialogues that make up a sizable portion of the book can be seen as elaborating on this point. In addition, they serve a didactic purpose, providing a blueprint for how men of different classes should approach women of different classes.

“For as the Heavenly King rejoices over the conversation of one sinner more than over ninety-nine just, because of the good that followed therefrom, so a woman does better if she takes a man who is none too good, makes him praiseworthy through her good character, and by her instruction adds him to the court of Love, than if she makes some good man better. In other words, just as there is more profit to God in the conversion of one sinner than in the improvement of the ninety-nine just, so society gains more when one man who is not good is rendered excellent than when the worthy character of some good man is increased.”

In this passage from the dialogue between the middle-class man and the middle-class woman, the man is attempting to convince the woman that she should not be afraid to accept love from a man who is still developing his character. His discussion blends pagan and Christian imagery, as “the court of Love” refers to the pagan Roman gods and the “Heavenly King” rejoicing over a sinner’s conversation refers to one of Jesus’ parables. Functionally, his discussion provides an opportunity for him to introduce the four stages of love that follow. He argues that, during the first three stages, women can accept men who still need to develop, before yielding the whole self in the fourth stage.

“I know well that Love is not in the habit of differentiating men with titles of distinction, but that he obligates all equally to serve in his (that is, Love’s) army, making no exceptions for beauty or birth and making no distinctions of sex or of inequality of family, considering only this, whether anybody is fit to bear Love’s armor. Love is a thing that copies Nature herself, and so lovers ought to make no more distinction between classes of men than Love himself does.”

The middle-class man addresses the noblewoman, explaining why their class differences should not prevent them from having a love affair. Love transcends class, which is bestowed by good deeds and excellent character rather than titles and lineage. The man’s need to clear the path of obstacles related to social rank demonstrates their importance in the culture depicted in Andreas’s text.

“I answer that if she finds anyone in the classes above him who is more worthy or as worthy, she ought to prefer the love of that man; but if she doesn’t find any such person in these classes, then she should not reject the commoner. But she ought to test his constancy by many trials before he deserves to have the hope of her love granted him, for that which is not in keeping with anyone’s character is usually blown away by a light breeze and lasts but a brief moment.”

This passage is from the dialogue between the middle-class man and the woman of the higher nobility. Since nobility is a product of character and good deeds, his middle-class status should not prevent the woman from giving him her love. However, it is first necessary for him to prove his character through a series of tests. This notion of trials to prove one’s love was a central feature of courtly love.

“For it seems to be ‘known to all the half-blind and the barbers’ that neither excellence of birth nor beauty of person has much to do with the loosing of Love’s arrow, but it is love alone that impels men’s hearts to love, and very often it strongly compels lovers to claim the love of a stranger woman—that is, to throw aside all equality of rank and beauty. For love often makes a man think that a base and ugly woman is noble and beautiful and makes him class her above all other women in nobility and beauty.”

In this dialogue, the nobleman attempts to convince the middle-class woman to accept his love despite their differences in class. Just as good deeds can transform a middle-class man into a nobleman, a nobleman’s love for a middle-class woman can make her beautiful and noble in his eyes. Rank need not be an obstacle, whether it is a nobleman seeking the love of a middle-class woman or a middle-class man seeking the love of a noblewoman. Love’s arrow does not discriminate.

“Suppose everything did turn out prosperously for our embraces, if the affair came to the ears of the common people they would ruin my good name by blaming me openly on the ground that I had gone far outside my natural limits. Besides, it is not usual for a man of higher rank to love faithfully a woman of lower one, and if he does he soon comes to loathe her love, and he despises her on slight provocation.”

This passage expresses the middle-class woman’s reservations about accepting a nobleman’s love. Even if the sentiments between them are true, she fears the censure of others within and outside of her status. Further, she questions whether a nobleman will be happy in the long term with a woman considered below her. Losing both the respect of her peers and the love who caused her to be criticized would put the woman in an untenable social position. 

“But it seems to me impossible wholly to escape the detractions of the wicked and difficult to curb them, for it would be much easier to take a stream that is flowing naturally down hill and lead it through the same channel swiftly back to its source than it would be to stop the mouths of slanderers or to keep them from plotting.”

In this dialogue, a simple nobleman speaks with the higher nobleman who seeks her love. Here, she expresses her concern about gossip. Although she has faith in the strength of her character, she worries about gossips who revel in destroying others. Andreas frequently uses analogies. Typically, these are related to hunters and prey but in this instance, he uses a natural force—a stream that flows downhill—to show how impossible it is to alter human nature. Later in the book, he will elaborate on this in his repudiation of love when he argues that women are inherently wicked and therefore are not capable of love.  

“On the other hand, whenever the possession of some good thing is postponed by the difficulty of getting it, we desire it more eagerly and put forth a greater effort to keep it.”

The higher nobleman attempts to refute the simple noblewoman’s claim that they live to far apart to sustain a love affair. The harder something is to get, the more we want it. This notion of people loving something that is difficult to obtain can be linked back to Ovid, and it is a feature of courtly love that persists even to this day in characterizations of love and its pursuit in the idea of “playing hard to get.”

“For lovers give each other everything freely, under no compulsion of necessity, but married people are in duty bound to give in to each other’s desires and deny themselves to each other in nothing. […] But another rule of Love teaches that no one can be in love with two men. Rightly, therefore, Love cannot acknowledge any rights of his between husband and wife. But there is still another argument that seems to stand in the way of this, which is that between them there can be no true jealousy, and without it true love may not exist, according to the rules of Love himself.”

At the end of the Seventh Dialogue, the man and woman submit a letter to the Countess of Champagne for a ruling on whether love can exist in marriage and whether jealousy is a defining feature of love. This passage is a portion of the countess’s response. She rules in favor of the man’s position that love and marriage are not compatible because married people have responsibilities to each other while lovers enter into their relationship of their own free will. Marriages during the Middle Ages were typically arranged, and divorce was rare. Marriage did not result from love, and they did not fear losing each other, which made jealousy moot. 

“If a man of the higher nobility should seek the love of a woman of the same class, he should first above all things follow the rule to use soft and gentle words, and he should take care not to say anything that would seem to deserve a reproof. For a nobleman or a woman of the higher nobility is found to be very ready and bold in censuring the deeds or the words of a man of the higher nobility, and she is very glad if she has a good opportunity to say something to ridicule him.”

Andreas introduces the dialogue between the man and woman of the higher nobility. In contrast to middle-class women, who Andreas says “delight in being commended and readily believe every word that looks like praise” (37), women of the higher nobility are shrewd, confident, and on guard for opportunities to ridicule men who make missteps with their words. Thus, men must be careful in the way that they address them if they wish to secure their love. 

“Why the same nature acts differently in women and in men you can plainly see; for a woman’s constancy is more firmly established at the beginning of her puberty and most certainly remains unchanged, and nature has permitted the act of Venus to her earlier than to the men, because in women the cold temperament dominates, while the men have a natural heat, and a cold object warms up more quickly with the addition of a little heat than a hot one does if you add a little more.”

In this passage, the higher nobleman attempts to refute the higher noblewoman’s assertion that she is too young for love. His argument is that women are ready for love sooner than men are. To support his point, he draws on a physiological concept from Aristotle’s Problems, which associates cool and hot temperatures with women and men, respectively. His evidence is significant in two ways. First, it demonstrates the line of thought that women and men have inherently different natures that impact social behaviors and expectations. Second, drawing on Aristotle demonstrates how members of the nobility received education in both secular and religious texts. 

“For true love joins the hearts of two persons with so great a feeling of delight that they cannot desire to embrace anybody else; on the contrary they take care to avoid the solaces of everybody else as though they were horrible things, and they keep themselves for each other.”

The above passage appears in Andreas’s section on “the easy attainment of one’s object” (149), in which Andreas associates love and struggle. The passage speaks to the idea that something difficult to obtain is more precious than something easily achieved. This idea helps explain the importance of lovers proving their worth through trials. By enduring struggles and persevering through obstacles, lovers demonstrate their commitment. 

“For when one of the lovers is seen to be enjoying the embraces of a new love, or for some reason or other the woman suspects that he is thinking of doing so, she begins at once to be greatly disturbed in heart and soul and to be deeply smitten with an unbearable jealousy; at once her face begins to make manifest this inner suffering of her soul. It is well if lovers pretend from time to time to be angry and that something has made him indignant with his loved one, he can find out clearly how faithful she is.”

According to Andreas, lovers can determine whether their love is returned by attempting to make their beloveds jealous. The lover will be able to tell from the expression on the beloved’s face. In addition, starting arguments can help the lover discover how true the beloved’s feelings are. This advice clearly contradicts earlier advice to be honest with one’s love, and the contradictory advice supports the notion that Andreas’s text is satire.

“God forbid that we should ever declare that a woman who is not ashamed to wanton with two men should go unpunished. Although in the case of men such a thing is tolerated because it is so common and because the sex has a privilege by which all things in this world which are by their nature immodest are more readily allowed to men, in the case of a woman they are, because of the decency of the modest sex, considered so disgraceful that after a woman has indulged the passions of several men everybody looks upon her as an unclean strumpet unfit to associate with other ladies.”

This passage discusses what to do if one discovers a lover has been unfaithful. Faithlessness is unacceptable whether the unfaithful lover is a man or a woman, but it is more unacceptable in women. According to Andreas’s logic and beliefs in the Middle Ages about biological sex and gender, faithless represents a more grievous sin in women than in men since women are by nature meant to be modest and decent. Regarding fidelity, expectations of men are lower, so it is less surprising when they are unfaithful. To an extent, this correlates with the view that a sinner who repents is more impressive than an honorable person continuing to be honorable. 

“A certain knight asked for the love of a certain lady, and she absolutely refused to love him. The knight sent her some rather handsome presents, and these she accepted with eager face and greedy heart; she did not, however, grow any more yielding in the matter of love, but gave him a flat refusal. The knight complained that the woman, by accepting appropriate gifts, had given him a hope of love, which she was trying to take away from him without a cause. To those facts the Queen responded in this fashion. ‘Let a woman either decline gifts which are offered her with a view to love, or let her pay for them with her love, or let her suffer in patience being classed with the prostitutes.’”

Andreas discusses a case about love that is sent to the queen to adjudicate. A woman accepts gifts sent to her by a prospective lover but continues to withhold her love. The knight who sent the presents argues that accepting the gifts obligates the woman to be his lover. According to the rules of love described earlier in the text, love can be neither bought nor sold. By this logic, gifts should not be a factor, but the queen rules in favor of the man, instructing the woman to “pay for” the gifts with love her or be deemed a prostitute. Although these are presented as an either-or proposition, paying for the gifts with love would seem to be equivalent to prostitution. Inconsistencies of this kind fuel speculation that Andreas’s rules of love may be parodic.

“To the man who asked this the Countess replied, ‘A woman who loves may freely accept from her lover the following: a handkerchief, a fillet for the hair, a wreath of gold or silver, a breastpin, a mirror, a girdle, a purse, a tassel, a comb, sleeves, gloves, a ring, a compact, a picture, a wash basin, little dishes, trays, a flag as a souvenir, and, to speak in general terms, a woman may accept from her lover any little gift which may be useful for the care of the person or pleasing to look at or which may call the lover to her mind, if it is clear that in accepting the gift she is free from avarice.’”

A man has asked the countess to tell him what gifts it is acceptable for a lover to accept, and she provides a list. The gifts should be primarily tokens of love rather than objects of great value. The list is absurdly extensive and includes items that feed vanity, which in this context is deemed acceptable despite being considered sinful in other parts of the texts but condemn avarice.  

“Read this title book, then, not as one seeking to take up the life of a lover, but that, invigorated by the theory and trained to excite the minds of women to love, you may, by refraining from so doing, win an eternal recompense and thereby deserve a greater reward from God. For God is more pleased with a man who is able to sin and does not, than with a man who has no opportunity to sin.”

Andreas devotes Book 3 to repudiating love, essentially rendering all the advice he has dispensed in the majority of the book moot. His justification for educating Walter about love then telling him that following these rules will lead to dishonor and eternal torment is that giving up the temptation of love will make him more impressive in the eyes of God than if he did not engage in love because of ignorance. This accords with the New Testament parable Andreas references earlier in the text, in which a sinner’s conversion is more impressive than when a faithful person remains so. 

“I will go even further and say that in old or young, clerk or layman, footman or knight, man or woman, men praise chastity and virtue and bodily purity and condemn the corruption of the flesh. […] Indeed, although in men an excess of love or of lechery is tolerated on account of the boldness of the sex, in women it is considered a damnable offense; a woman’s good name is ruined by it, and every wise person looks upon her as an unclean harlot and holds her in utter contempt.”

As part of his repudiation of love, Andreas praises the virtue of chastity, regardless of profession or gender. As elsewhere in the text, however, Andreas condemns its opposite more harshly in women than in men because men are bolder by nature. Natural differences create distinct expectations and roles for men and women in Andreas’s society.

“A man ought not to love anything in this world as much as the wife to whom he is lawfully bound, for God has told us that the wife is one flesh with her husband, and he bade her, forsaking all others, to cleave only to him; for he said, ‘For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.’ Besides, with a wife we overcome our passion without sinning.”

Among the numerous reasons Andreas condemns love affairs is that they violate the biblical injunction that men should love their wives more than any other person. The rules of love deny that love and marriage can coexist, a belief that the Countess of Champagne upholds in her ruling at the end of the Seventh Dialogue. Since the rules of love run contrary to the Bible’s teachings, these rules cannot lead to spiritual correctness.