In Chrétien de Troyes we see the developed theory of love put into action in the course of stories [like Lancelot]. His teaching takes the form of example rather than precept, and, to do him justice, the purely narrative interest is never for long subordinated to the didactic. Having thus studied the new ideal in the [greek word], embodied and partly concealed in story, we naturally look next for a professedly theoretical work on the same subject, wherewith to finish off our sketch. Such a work is ready for us in the De Arte Honeste Amandi of Andreas Capellanus (André the Chaplain). It was probably written early in the thirteenth century, and is in Latin prose.

… The De Arte takes the form of methodical instruction in the art of love-making given by the Chaplain to a certain Walter; (illustrating) his subject by a series of ideal dialogues.

Lewis says Andreas shows how a noble should woo a common woman and a peer and how a common man should woo a peer or a noble woman.

“The definition of love on the first page of this work rules out at once the kind of love that is called ‘Platonic’. The aim of love, for Andreas, is actual fruition, and its source is visible beauty: so much so, that the blind are declared incapable of love… On the other hand, love is not sensuality. The sensual man is disqualified from participating in it. It may even be claimed that love is a ‘kind of chastity’, in virtue of its severe standard of fidelity to a single object. The lover must not hope to succeed, except with a foolish lady, by his formae venustas, but by his eloquence, and above all, by his morum probitas… The lover must be truthful and modest, a good Catholic, clean in his speech, hospitable, and ready to return good for evil. He must be courageous in war (unless he is a clerk) and generous in his gifts. He must at all times be courteous. Though devoted in a special sense to one lady, he must be ready to perform ministeria et obsequia for all. With such a conception of the lover’s qualifications, it is not surprising that Andreas should return again and again to the power of love for good. ‘It is agreed among all men that there is no good thing in the world, and no courtesy, which is not derived from love as from its fountain.’ It is ‘the fountain and origin of all good things’; without it ‘all usages of courtesy would be unknown to man’. The lady is allowed free choice in her acceptance or rejection of a lover in order that she may reward the merit of the best: she must not abuse this power in order to gratify her own fancies. By admitting a worthy lover to her favours she does well. Only women who are ‘enlisted in the soldiery of love’ are praised among men. Even a young unmarried woman should have a lover. It is true that her husband, when she marries, is bound to discover it, but if he is a wise man he will know that a woman who had not followed the ‘commands of love’ would necessarily have less probitas. In fine, … all that is good in this present world, depends solely upon love.

There are even rules and a Court of Love where Andreas “bases his judgments on the decisions given by certain noble ladies to whom such problems have been referred.” They concern “limits of obedience” such as if a lover was commanded to stop serving a lady and he rescues her from distress anyway. “The Countess of Champagne ruled that he was not (guilty): the lady’s command, being wrong in the first place, has no binding force… The duty of secrecy in love-one of the legacies of this code ot modern society – is strongly enforced. But perhaps no rule is made clearer than that which excludes love from the marriage relations” because binding duty and responsibility limits the free will aspect, and the male hierarchy turns the relationship upside down, it is anti-frauenddienst. “And yet there are passages that suggest that the chivalrous code, however anti-matrimonial in principle, has already done something to soften the old harshness of the relations between husband and wife. Still Andreas says that marital affection is different from Amor.”

Lewis then goes on to give more examples of how Courtly Love mimics religion in advancing virtues like humility. Favors may be withdrawn in the face of unworthiness. “Yet while Andreas thus wishes to christianize his love theory as far as possible, he has no real reconciliation. His nearest approach to one is a tentative suggestion on the lines of Pope; ‘Can that offend great Nature’s God which Nature’s self inspires?’ – on which we can have no better comment than the words of the lady, in the same conversation, a few lines later, ‘Leaving the religious side of the question out for a moment’…. Once you bring that in, as the lover argues in the same passage, and you must give up, not only loving par amours, but the whole world as well.

Then Andreas “suddenly breaks off and begins anew: ‘You must read all this, my dear Walter, not as though you sought thence to embrace the life of lovers, but that being refreshed by its doctrine and having well learned how to provoke the minds of women to love, you may yet abstain from such provocation, and thus merit a greater reward.’ All that has gone before, we are given to understand, has been written in order that Walter may see, and know, and yet abstain. ‘No man through any good deeds can please God so long as he serves in the service of Love.’

Religion and Courtly Love “are so completely two that analogies naturally arise between them…, Love is, as God is in eternity…. When Frauendienst succeeds in fusing with religion, as in Dante, unity is restored to the mind, and love can be treated with a solemnity that is whole-hearted. But where it is not so fused, it can never, under the shadow of a tremendous rival, be more than a temporary truancy…. We hear the bell clang; and the children, suddenly hushed and grave, and a little frightened, troop back to their master.”

(p32 – 43)

I do not know if Lewis at this point is considering Dante to have invented a dangerous fusion of the two or if he’s providing an answer. I hope he’ll explain it later. I’m also not sure what to do with earthly love as analogy of God’s love either, and have been confused about that for some time, even in a marriage relationship. I think the distinctions between how CL’s view of married love and par amours has been blurred in more recent times with a more idealized view of marital bliss, but we can relate to what he said as well. Now extra-marital affaires de coeur are more often presented in stories, whether fulfilled or tragically not. We dangerously gain sympathy for the adulterous lovers, not that their pain doesn’t deserve some sympathy, if some of the nobility and sacrifice explained above are demonstrated.

It seems to me that this type of adoration of Romantic Love and Beauty is idolatry, where the object of affection is given god-like status over us. It, and the lover become our salvation. I think this is a perversion of proper veneration of Church-recognized Saints who do not embody a dialectic between God and man, but are actually God with and among us. It is His grace and love that are His energies which enliven us through the Saint and enable us to become Saints ourselves – in Communion with God. It is a subtle difference, but the consequences of the error end up driving us away from His Presence, not towards it. It is as if they took Christ out of Mary’s arms and Mary began to act alone. She could probably put on a pretty good imitation, but it would not lead us to deification. Love and Beauty are energies of God, but they are not God’s Essence (however they are not separated from it/Him either). To worship them apart from Him misses the mark.