¹ The most recent critical studies on Andreas' career are Felix Schlösser, Andreas Capellanus: seine Minnelehre und das christliche Weltbild um 1200 (Bonn 1960) 29–50 and Benton, John F., ‘The Court of Champagne as a Literary Center,’ Speculum 36 (1961) 578–582.Google Scholar

² In the edition of Trojel, E., De Amore (Copenhagen 1892) 310 pages (3–312) for the praise of love as opposed to 49 pages (313–361) for the condemnation; this edition has been used for all references to the De Amore. Google Scholar

³ Schlösser, 182–183. For a summary of other interpretations, see Schlösser, pp. 176–190, and Benton, , Speculum 580 and note 100.Google Scholar

⁴ Schlösser, 151–152, 182–183, 188–190, 376–386. Cf. also Denomy, A. J., ‘The De Amore of Andreas Capellanus and the Condemnation of 1277,’ Mediaeval Studies 8 (1946) especially 148–149.Google Scholar

⁵ See Wind, Bartina H., rev. Schlösser, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 7 (1964) 350.Google Scholar

⁶ Schlösser is inclined to think Andreas is being ironic at this point; see p. 183.Google Scholar

⁷ Italics mine. The following examples will help to demonstrate this point: ‘Nam quum omnibus, quae fiunt in saeculo, bonis amor praestet initium, merito in primis tanquam omnium bonorum radix et causa principalis est postulandus’ (p. 69); ‘Quid enim valeat in saeculo bonum ab aliquo exerceri, nisi ex amore suam sumat originem, videre non possum’ (p. 86); ‘Sed amore in orbe nihil appetibilius reperitur, quum ex eo omnis boni procedat instructio, et sine eo nihil boni aliquis operetur in orbe’ (pp. 87–88); ‘sine ipso nihil aliquis boni operatur in orbe’ (p. 98); ‘satis omnibus constat et est manifestum, et amoris hoc nobis doctrina demonstrat, quod neque mulier neque masculus potest in saeculo beatus haberi nec curialitatem nec aliqua bona perficere, nisi sibi haec fomes praestet amoris’ (p. 118); ‘Credo … et est verum, bonos omnes ob hoc a Deo in hac vita disponi, ut vestris et aliarum dominarum voluntatibus obsequantur, et lucidissima videtur mihi ratione constare, quod homines nil esse possunt nilque de bonitatis valent fonte praelibare, nisi dominarum hoc fecerint svadela commoti’ (p. 156); ‘Nam quidquid boni faciunt dicuntque viventes, totum mulierum solent laudibus indulgere et eis obsequendo ea perficere, et earum possint gloriari muneribus, sine quibus nemo posset in hac vita proficere nec aliqua laude dignus haberi’ (p. 157); ‘fas nullatenus esse videtur, id inter crimina reputare, a quo bonum in hac vita summum habet initium, et sine quo nullus in orbe posset laude dignus haberi’ (p. 162), etc. In Book III Andreas does not deny the fact that courtly lovers assert that their love is the greatest possible earthly good: ‘Quem enim vere gladius pertingit amoris, de coamantis cogitatione continua sine intermissione quassatur nullisque divitiis nullove in hoc saeculo tantum posset honore beari vel aliqua dignitate, quantum si juxta proprii animi voluntatem suo recte fruatur amore’ (p. 319). But he does challenge the contention that love is really a source of good in this world by showing all the misfortune and evil that come from love, both on earth and after death (see notes 49 and 51 infra). His argument remains unconvincing to most lovers; see pp. 161–164 in the De Amore. Google Scholar

⁸ There are two sets of rules besides the well known list at the end of the Brito episode (pp. 310–312), as well as a number of separate rules scattered throughout the treatise and used largely as authority or for illustration. The first list (pp. 64–68), referred to here, comprises not only rules for love, but also for courtliness in general: ‘quae constituant hominem amore dignissimum’ (p. 63); the second list (p. 106) contains only twelve precepts, that is the ‘principalia … amoris praecepta’ (p. 105).Google Scholar

⁹ Dupin, Henri, La Courtoisie au moyen âge d'après les textes du XII ^e et du XIII ^e siècle (Paris 1931) 93.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Robertson, D. W. Jr., ‘The Subject of the De Amore of Andreas Capellanus,’ MP 50 (1953) 153–154.Google Scholar

¹¹ Li Livres d'amours de Drouart la Vache, ed. Bossuat, Robert (Paris 1926).Google Scholar

¹² According to von Wartburg, , FEW, 10.395, rire à and rire de had the meaning of both ‘sourire … avec bienveillance’ and ‘se moquer’ in the thirteenth century.Google Scholar

¹³ de Troyes, Chrétien, Cligés, ed. Micha, Alexandre (Paris 1957).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Drouart's Prologue and Epilogue are not in the De Amore. Are we to assume that he too is being ironic when referring to his lady, or when he excludes all ‘good women’ from the general condemnation found in the Reprobatio? Or, for that matter, is Andreas being ironic when he advises Walter against courting nuns and prostitutes? If one begins to consider the on again-off again irony alleged to be in the De Amore, it becomes a perplexing treatise indeed. One begins to look upon Andreas as a kind of twelfth-century Arnolphe from Molière's L'École des femmes, as he alternates between high amusement and outraged horror at the widespread cuckoldry in society. It might even be necessary to determine the degree of laughter Drouart and Andreas allowed themselves, since excessive laughter is considered improper in the De Amore: ‘Modico risu in mulierum utatur aspectu, quia juxta Salomonis eloquium stultitiam videtur risus nimius indicare’ (p. 66); but then, perhaps this is simply more irony! Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Faral, Edmond, ‘La Pastourelle,’ Romania 49 (1923) 211.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Andreas considers friendship and marital affection the only forms of human affection compatible with love for God and the teachings of the Church (pp. 316–318 and 331–332); but courtly love and friendship are, like courtly love and love for God, incompatible (p. 320). The relationship between love and marriage is not so clear cut. In Books I and II, Marie de Champagne's opinion prevails: ideally, there should be no conflict between the marital state and courtly love for another who is not the spouse. That reality did not always conform to the ideal is evident from certain statements in Book III: ‘Praeterea nulla mulier tanta fidei puritate colligatur amico vel manet unita marito, quae alium non admittat amantem’ (p. 354); ‘Videas ergo, qualis sit mulier reputanda, quae in rerum felicitate posita et honorabili amico vel optimo … honorata marito alterius appetit voluptatibus commiseeri’ (p. 354); ‘Mulier … nulla est, quae marito vel fidem servet amico’ (p. 356).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Müller, G., ‘Gradualismus: eine Vorstudie zur altdeutschen Literaturgeschichte,’ Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Geistesgeschichte und Literaturwissenschaft 2 (1924) 681–720.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Brinkmann, H., ‘Zur geistesgeschichtlichen Stellung des deutschen Minnesangs,’ Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift 3 (1925) 615–641.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Müller, , art. cit. (see n. 17 supra) 697 and 719; Lovejoy, Arthur, The Great Chain of Being (Cambridge, Mass. 1936) 73–74. See also Gilson, Étienne, (Le Thomisme, Études de Philosophie médiévale 1 Paris 1922) 140–142.Google Scholar

²⁰ Köhler, Erich, Ideal und Wirklichkeit in der höfischen Epik (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 97 Tübingen 1956) 1.Google Scholar

²¹ Schlösser, , op. cit. (see n. 1 supra) 375.Google Scholar

²² Ibid. 373–376; for further bibliography, consult these pages.Google Scholar

²³ Brinkmann, , Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift (see n. 18 supra) 619.Google Scholar

²⁴ MP (see n. 10 supra) 147–153. See also Jackson, W. T. H., ‘The De Amore of Andreas Capellanus and the Practice of Love at Court,’ Romanic Review 49 (1958) 245–246.Google Scholar

²⁵ Art. cit. 152–153.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid. 153.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid. 156, note 58.Google Scholar

²⁸ Zumthor, Paul, ‘Notes en marge du traité de l'amour de André le Chapelain,’ Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 63 (1943) 181–182; Schlösser, 97–114.Google Scholar

²⁹ Zumthor, , art. cit. 182.Google Scholar

³⁰ Dronke, Peter, rev. Schlösser, Medium Aevum 32 (1963) 57, erroneously makes Schlösser say that courtly love must remain an unfulfilled desire (similarly Wind, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 7, 349): ‘Central to the system is that love ‘appears only as an unfulfilled longing’ …, that the troubadours never desired the complete possession of their beloved, only lesser favours from her, because love is ennobling if it remains unfulfilled, but degrading if fulfilled.’ Schlösser is being cited out of context, and both he and Andreas are made to assert what neither ever said. If Andreas wanted courtly love to remain forever unfulfilled, why did he write Book II on how to maintain a love that has reached the stage of physical possession (see especially pp. 241–242, 268, 269–270), or evoke so vividly the punishment reserved in Love's Hell for those women who refuse to grant the physical embraces of love to worthy suitors (pp. 85–109) ? Andreas expresses clearly and unequivocally the goal of courtly love: ‘Retinetur quoque amor delectabilia et svavia carnis exercendo solatia, talia tamen et tanta, quae taediosa non videantur amanti’ (p. 241). A more accurate summary of Schlösser's argument on this subject is found on p. 160 of his study (Dronke's translated citation comes from p. 159): ‘Wie in “De amore” bleibt das Ziel des Mannes auch bei den Troubadours immer die sinnliche Freude geschlechtlicher Umarmung.’ It is true, as Schlösser points out (p. 159), that the troubadours and trouvères seldom attain this goal in their chansons, but this is because the chanson is essentially a song of unrequited love; for works dealing with the mutual joy of love, one must turn to other forms, such as the aube, some of the chansons de croisade, or narrative romance.Google Scholar

³¹ See the glossary, p. 264, in Bossuat's edition.Google Scholar

³² Andreas may have known Cligés, and, under the name ‘Amphelice’ (p. 181), referred to Fénice; see Trojel, liv–lv. Parry, John J., The Art of Courtly Love by Andreas Capellanus (New York 1941) translates the name as Anfelis (121), the heroine of Folque de Candie by Herbert le Duc de Danmartin; Parry points out however that some manuscripts of the De Amore use Fénice's name (p. 121, note 65; see Trojel, p. 1v, note 1, and p. 181, variant 15). Google Scholar

³³ Fénice's allusion to the folly of Iseut is significant, since Drouart uses folie and fox as translations for stultitia, improbitas, improbus, and similar words, all of which imply something both uncourtly and unreasonable. For bibliography on the anti-Tristan question in Cligés , see Frappier, Jean, ‘Chrétien de Troyes,’ in Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages (ed. Loomis, Roger Sherman; Oxford 1959) 171–172, and 171, note 1. The subordination of love to a reasoned choice is characteristic of Chrétien; see Frappier, , Chrétien de Troyes: l'homme et l'oeuvre (Paris 1957), 72–73 and 218.Google Scholar

³⁴ Lovejoy, , op. cit (see n. 19 supra) 84. Cf. also, for Thomas Aquinas, the summary of the problem in Gilson, , Le Thomisme, especially pp. 148–151; and in general the chapter ‘The Background of Ideas’ in Dronke, Peter, Medieval Latin and the Rise of European Love-Lyric, 2 vols. (Oxford 1965) 1. 57–97. Dronke does however go too far in excluding Andreas from the courtly tradition (1. 47–48, 83–85). Andreas is not, of course, a poet. But he is a teacher of sorts, and what he has to say illuminaes certain ideas found in the poets' writings. It is true that, as Dronke says, there were many treatises on love in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and that these treatises are not all like the De Amore; Dronke refers especially to the survey of them found in Gorra, Egidio, Fra drammi e poemi (Milan 1900) 201–302. They are not however as disparate as Dronke implies. Gorra groups these writings into three classes, distinguished from one another by the type of love described: 1) the ‘Ovidian’ treatises, dealing with licentious love, described by Gorra as of ‘tendenza … realistica’ (216); 2) those dealing with a pure or Platonic type of love, and 3) those concerned with what we call courtly love, including most of the troubadours, Guillaume de Lorris, and Andreas, whose De Amore ‘può considerarsi come il trattato scientifico per eccellenza in questa materia’ (226). I can detect no significant distinction between Gorra's description of troubadour courtly love and that depicted in the De Amore: ‘una continua progression di desideri che in maniera più o meno gentile tende sempre al possedimento del corpo’ (220); see also note 30 supra. The relation between the poets and Andreas is more complex and subtle than what Dronke calls ‘a quality of mind’ expressed by the former and ‘a comedy of manners’ drawn by the latter (see Love-Lyric, 1.85).Google Scholar

³⁵ Lovejoy, 7.Google Scholar

³⁶ Lovejoy, 10; cf. also Müller, , Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift (see n. 17 supra) 686.Google Scholar

³⁷ Cf. also Müller, , Ibid. 705.Google Scholar

³⁸ The Church did not openly oppose courtly love until towards the end of the thirteenth century, that is at the time gradualistic ideas in Christian thought began to be supplanted by more dualistic views; see Müller, , Ibid. 708 and 719–720. Andreas was condemned by the Church in 1277; see Schlösser, 367, and, in general, Denomy (see n. 4 supra) 107–149.Google Scholar

³⁹ Lovejoy, , 89.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ It is generally agreed today that more than one person worked on the composition of the entire Lancelot-Graal, but that a single ‘architect’ inspired the composition of the whole work. The conclusions reached below with regard to courtly love in the work support this interpretation. On the question of authorship, see in general Frappier, Jean, Étude sur la Mort le Roi Artu, 2d ed. (Geneva, Paris 1961) 122–146; and Frappier, , ‘The Vulgate Romances,’ in Loomis, , ed., Arthurian Literature 315–317, and the bibliography found there. One of the most striking divergencies between the Lancelot Proper and the Queste is the reason given for Lancelot's being unable to achieve the Quest of the Holy Grail. In the Lancelot Proper, Symeu bases his failure on the love for Guenevere and the sins of Lancelot's father; see The Vulgate Version of the Arthurian Romances, ed. Oskar Sommer, H. (Washington 1908–16) IV.176. In the Queste, the sole cause is Lancelot's love for Guenevere; the idea that the sins of the father may be punished in his children is repugnant to the author of the Queste; see La Queste del Saint Graal, ed. Pauphilet, Albert (Paris 1949) 138–139, and Frappier, , Étude 89.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Vulgate Version, IV.17, lines 40–42; 54, lines 10–11.Google Scholar

⁴² Vulgate Version, V.193.Google Scholar

⁴³ Étude sur le Lancelot en prose (Paris 1918) 93; see also Adler, Alfred, ‘Problems of Aesthetic versus Historical Criticism in La Mort le Roi Artu,’ PMLA 65 (1950) 936–939. It has long been recognized that Lancelot's sin consists in his loss of virginity and chastity, rather than in the adultery as such; see Heinzel, Richard, Über die französischen Gralromane, Denkschr. Akad. Vienna 40, 3 (Vienna 1891) 161–162; in general, Étienne, Gilson, Les Idées et les lettres (Paris 1932) 74–75.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Vulgate Version, IV. 176.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Queste, 66. Cf. Köhler, , op. cit. (see n. 20 supra) 187–188, who stresses the impossibility of the ideal advocated by Lancelot and Andreas, and what he calls the first generation of enthusiasts for courtly love in the twelfth century: ‘Die edelste Blüte des höfischen Rittertums — Guenievre liebt in Lancelot “le seignor et la flor de tot cest monde …” — setzt hier die in der höfischen Liebe auf die Spitze getriebene “superbia” voraus: die höchste weltlich-sittliche Vollendung ist die Ursache für das Scheitern des höchsten Auftrags und für die Versagung der Gnade. Dahinter steht die Erkenntnis, dass der ritterliche Heilsweg ein falscher war. Dass Lancelot nicht entsprechend dieser Einsicht handeln kann, sondern die Sünde bejahen muss, weil er in ihr die Voraussetzung seiner ganzen Existenz sieht, verleiht seiner Gestalt die tragische Würde und kennzeichnet die reife Situation des zum Gott-Mensch-Problem gesteigerten Widerspruchs zwischen Ideal und Wirklichkeit, in dem sich das Rittertum um 1200 befindet. In Lancelots Weigerung, sich von der Liebe zu Guenievre loszusagen, wehrt sich das alte Rittertum gegen den Zwang, sich von den realen Grundlagen seiner Existenz zu trennen.’ (188) Lancelot does, of course, finally leave Guenevere, after their love has been instrumental in the break-up and destruction of Arthur's kingdom, and he dies a Christian death at the end of the Mort Artu. Nevertheless, Lancelot's self-justification and the nobility of his entire life, which becomes particularly clear in contrast with Gawain in the Mort Artu, make him an admirable figure throughout the prose romance; he is the best knight at Arthur's court until the appearance of Galahad (Queste 12–13), and he occupies a worthy place among the knights in search of the Grail in the Queste. Pauphilet's words — 'Lancelot, âme noble et abusée d'une fausse doctrine, n'a qu'une grandeur mondaine à qui manque la vérité (Legs du moyen âge [Melun 1950] 216) accurately describe the extent and limitations of Lancelot's gloire in the Lancelot Proper and the Queste. For evidence of a conflict between ideal and reality in Andreas, see note 16 supra. Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Queste 126. Pauphilet comments: 'L'auteur de la Queste … donne dès le début de son livre l'impression qu'autour du Graal le monde prend un aspect nouveau, où la valeur traditionnelle des hommes et des choses est renversée' (p. viii). Pauphilet and Frappier are, so far as I can determine, the only scholars to hint at anything like a gradualistic philosophy in the Queste. 'Les personnages de la Queste sont des types d'hommes qui espacent, en une soigneuse gradation, de l'impiété à la parfaite sainteté (Pauphilet, , Études sur la Queste del Saint Graal [Paris 1921] 124). However, he did not develop the idea, partly because he did not compare the Queste with the rest of the Lancelot-Graal (it is also missing in Pauphilet's rev., Lot, , Étude, in Romania 45 [1918–19] 514–534; and in Legs du moyen âge), partly because he stressed the dualistic distinction between those who succeed in the Quest (Galahad, Perceval, Bohort) and those who fail (Lancelot, Gawain, the other knights of the Round Table), and partly because he tended to see the heroes of the Queste as typical rather than exceptional human beings: ‘notre romancier symbolise par la “quête” du saint Graal la recherche de Dieu, c'est-à-dire la grande aventure collective de l'humanité et … il résumait en quelques personnages typiques la diversité qu'une telle aventure fait paraître entre les hommes’ (p. 162). It is difficult to see in any of the five knights mentioned above ‘personnages typiques’! Frappier summarized his conclusions thus: ‘The infinite variety of these creatures [in the Lancelot-Graal] involves a combination of evil and good in each, so that a man's faults do not nullify irremediably his virtues. Thus the nobility of Lancelot coexists with his sin, and Gauvain's almsgiving offsets his worldliness and hatred’ (in Loomis, , ed. Arthurian Literature 312–313).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Queste 125–126.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Lancelot in the prose romance is unique in one important respect. Since he was predestined to put an end to the adventures in Arthur's realm, he belonged to the order of the Heavenly Knights, and was thus superior to the Terrestrial Knights, a large number of whom are knights of the Round Table. As one can see in the account of Galahad's, Perceval's, and Bohort's adventures, the obligations upon the Heavenly Knights are not the same as those that obtain among Arthur's knights. Therefore, by falling in love with Guenevere and losing his chastity, Lancelot committed a far graver sin than he would have had he not been destined for the higher order. However, his love for Guenevere was courtly; he remained good enough to become a better knight than all his temporal peers. The distinction becomes clearer if one compares Lancelot in Chrétien's Charrette with his counterpart in the Queste; in Chrétien's poem Lancelot belongs only to the Round Table, and there is no suggestion that his love for Guenevere might be sinful.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Lewis, C. S., The Allegory of Love (Oxford 1936) 103. Both Andreas and Alan of Lille make much of the virtue of largesse. Cf. Raynaud de Lage, G., Alain de Lille, Publications de l'Institut d'Études médiévales 12 (Montreal 1951) 99: ‘Son chevalier [in the Anti-claudianus] est doté … par les Vertus de l'idéal courtois.’ That Andreas' gentleman is no ascetic is evident from the concern shown in Book III for his physical well-being; the adverse effects of love on the body force the lover to limit his eating and drinking, deprive him of rest, upset his digestion, and bring on sickness and an early old age (335–337). Indeed, a reputation for chastity is advantageous, since one may cultivate other vices and commit crimes with more impunity: ‘si aliquis in se ipso illam [pudicitiam] constat habere, multi per eam in homine excessus operiuntur, et varia quoque crimina tolerantur’ (p. 334). Obviously, this ‘gentleman’ is not obsessed by strictly otherwordly thoughts! Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Müller, , Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift (see n. 17 supra) 709. Müller's discussion of courtly love and gradualism is particularly valuable for the interpretation of courtly literature (705–710). I have refrained however from a detailed discussion of gradualism in this paper, because the writings of Müller and Lovejoy are readily available; I have used them only in so far as they help to elucidate the thought of the De Amove. Furthermore, in the comparison with the Lancelot-Graal, I have passed over the distinction between Platonism and Aristotelianism that Adler found in, respectively, the Queste and the Mort Artu, because the distinction is not immediately relevant to Andreas; in any case, both Platonistic and Aristotelian thought was gradualistic in the Middle Ages (see Lovejoy, 61–62 and 156–158).Google Scholar

⁵¹ The impracticability and evil effects of courtly love are stressed in the Reprobatio; cf.: ‘ex amore, proximus laeditur’ (316); ‘exinde unus ab altero divertitur amicus, et inimicitiae inter homines capitales insurgunt, nec non et homicidia malave multa sequuntur’ (316); ‘ex amore detestabilis procedit egestas, et ad inopiae carcerem devenitur’ (320); ‘nullius criminis notatur excessus, qui ex ipso non sequatur amore’ (324); ‘Amor … huius saeculi penitus subducit honores’ (326–327); ‘Amor praeterea inextricablies consvevit hominibus et mortales guerras parare ac perpetuae pacis foedera removere’ (330); ‘Amor enim inique matrimonia frangit et cogit sine causa ab uxore avertere virum, quos Deus lege data firmiter non posse statuit ab homine separari’ (331); ‘ex amore et Veneris opere corpora debilitantur humana, et ideo homines efficiuntur in bello minus potentes’ (335). Note however that all these excesses proceed from lovers unable to exercise the self-control demanded in courtly love; it is the difference between ideal and reality that Andreas is stressing in these passages. The blow he makes is softened by his final argument that no woman faithfully returns a man's love, and that the scales of love are deliberately weighted against the courtly suitor — arguments that recall Andreas' own amatory misfortunes.Google Scholar

⁵² Mimesis (Bern 1946) 139.Google Scholar

⁵³ Dronke, , art. cit. (see n. 30 supra) , 56–60; Wind, , art. cit. (See n. 5 supra) 349.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ ‘Trois motifs de la lyrique courtoise confrontés avec les Arts d'aimer,’ Romanica Gandensia 7 (1959) 6.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See for example Ibid. 13–16; 19, n. 6. I have shown the value of Andreas' treatise for the interpretation of Chrétien's Charrette in Ch. 5 of Sens and Conjointure in the Chevalier de la Charrette (The Hague 1966). For a brief comparison of some ideas common to Andreas and the troubadours, see Denomy, , ‘An Inquiry into the Origins of Courtly Love,’ Mediaeval Studies 6 (1944) 177–188.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Romanica Gandensia 46.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ibid. 33–34.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Bernart von Ventadorn: seine Lieder, ed. Appel, Carl (Halle 1915) 251–252.Google Scholar