There are two types of male-female relationships in Romantic stories. The first is best typified by Lancelot’s rescuing of Guinevere poetically rendered by Chretien de Troyes [late 12th century], “who was among the first to choose love as the central theme of a serious poem: such a poem he wrote in his Erec, even before he had undergone the influence of the fully developed Provençal formula… And combining this element with the Arthurian legend, he stamped upon men’s minds indelibly the conception of Arthur’s court as the home par excellence of true and noble love…. For it is interesting to notice that he places his ideal in the past. For him already ‘the age of chivalry is dead’. It always was: let no one think the worse of it on that account. These phantom periods for which the historian searches in vain – the Rome and the Greece that the Middle Ages believed in, the British past of Malory and Spenser, the Middle Age itself as it was conceived by the romantic revival – all these have their place in a history more momentous than that which commonly bears the name.”

“…How irresistible is that cryptic knight who comes and goes we know not whence or whither, and lures the reader to follow as certainly as he lured the Queen and Kay.” His love is marked by extreme humility and obedience to the Queen’s whims and tests.

The second type of relationship is illustrated in Chretien’s “Erec”, “the later rules of love and courtesy are outraged at every turn. It is indeed a love story; but it is a story of married love.” But here “we are back in a world where women are merely the mute objects of gift or barter, not only in the eyes of their fathers, but even in the eyes of their lovers.” The man is conspicuously “discourteous” and “cruel” while the wife ‘patiently triumphs’. The man will either uncomfortably go to the ends of the earth at his secret love’s arbitrary (and silly) bidding, or he sends his wife out for his beer – my pet peeve.

Lancelot lets himself be treated humiliatingly at the Queen’s request and then when sensually rewarded, he treats her as if she were a Saint, including genuflecting and adoring her. “The irreligion of the religion of love could hardly go further. Yet Chretien… represents his Lancelot as a pious man and goes out of his way to show him dismounting when he passes a church, and entering to make his prayer; by which, according to Chretien, he proves both his courtesy and wisdom.

… He was one of the first explorers of the human heart, and is therefore rightly to be numbered among the fathers of the novel of sentiment. But these psychological passages have usually one characteristic which throws special light on the subject of this book. Chretien can hardly turn to the inner world without, at the same time, turning to allegory…. Allegory, besides being many other things, is the subjectivism of an objective age. When Lancelot hesitates before mounting the cart [something he was to do to prove his love], Chretien represents his indecision as a debate between Reason which forbids, and Love which urges him on. A later poet would have told us directly – though not, after all, without metaphor – what Lancelot was feeling: an earlier poet would not have attempted such a scene at all.

… The figure of Love personified himself is almost equally connected with the subject of the ‘love-religion’ and with that of allegory…. The idea of Love as an avenging god, coming to trouble the peace of those who have hitherto scorned his power, belongs also to the Latin tradition, but it is more serious for Chretien than for Ovid. The repentance of those who had been fancy free, and their self-surrender to a new deity, are touched with a quasi-religious emotion. It will be seen that no final distinction is possible between the erotic religion, the erotic allegory, and the erotic mythology. (p. 23-32)

I think these problems arise from a false view of our relationship with God. My biased opinion is that the western view of God is at fault here. He is a tyrant who punishes according to his temper and arbitrary will, and demands mindless obedience and total submission or else. There is also a legal, juridicial view of rules and judgment in a court of law. I believe the Eastern view is of mutual freedom, with a goal of intimacy – knowledge of the other as their own person. Obedience is also an element, but I think there is a certain individuality and mutual respect afforded. It’s paradoxical because there is a surrender of will involved, but I believe this surrender can only be trusted to God who will not take advantage. I think it irresponsible to turn off one’s mind and become someone’s puppet, especially where kids are involved. I don’t want to develop that further but switch back to the Church, God, and our spouses. I am more willing to place myself in the hands of the Church (mainly the Saints who have proved themselves) because I have been convinced that they know better than I. But even then I think the goal is to become strengthened more in my own telos which is simultaneously independent and dependent. It does not operate out of fear or lack. If I am in communion with God I am freely myself while He is my source of joy, happiness, and all other needs. I may still be blessed by others, including my spouse, and will hopefully be a blessing to them, but it will become gravy to be thankful for, not desperate need. Relationships are more complicated than that. We all need food, shelter, safety, education, and love at the hands of others, but these can be selfishly or unselfishly obtained. CL is selfish, and the co-dependent givers, male or female, are enabling unhealthy expectations.

I may seem to be harping on this, but I think that suicides and divorce, huge societal problems, largely stem from unfulfilled and unrealistic love expectations. Also, I am of the opinion that Christ, who is our Life, is only fully present and represented in the Orthodox Church, and no wonder the west was hungry for life and love shortly after the Schism from her in the 11th Century. The advent of courtly love and people’s hunger for it displays the void that these people, and those of subsequent generations felt and still feel. If the blessings of sweet communion were no longer present in the western church, then the “ardours” of obedience would leave one feeling cold, dry, and hungry. Obedience would become a burden instead of a means of cleansing accompanied by the blessing of real relationship and Communion. Courtly love provided earthly fulfillment, but usually with tragic consequences.