The Afterlife, Reincarnation, and Courtly Love

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

This and other comments I have read make perfect sense to me. I could provide other quotes but to what point? You believe what you want to believe and ignore the evidence and resort to name-calling. Is that really the best you can do? You can easily look up Norris J. Lacy on the web and see that he is at least one of the most prominent and respected medievalists of our day and well versed in what most people would call courtly love literature.

Name calling? The source you quoted was inundated with equivocation: "may", "likely", "probably" - is Lacy a dissembling scholar or is he running for office? In either case, his delivery was weak. You insulted Joseph Campbell, trying to minimize his points by claiming that he "greatly oversimplifies", and you ignored the quotes from The Allegory of Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition (1936) by C.S. Lewis, Tolkien's friend and peer, and since the question is whether Tolkien's work exhibited courtly love, then what Lewis referred to in his book is far more cogent to the discussion than a professor who can't make a single straightforward statement.

Originally Posted by jallanite

You have really only provided two romances and ignored the many, many, many other medieval romances that don’t fit your idea of what people should have been reading.

I offered the most popular of their time. The most popular. I also mentioned The Canterbury Tales and The Decameron, both immensely popular and highly influential to this day. In addition, I referred to Yvain, the Knight and the Lion and Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart. If you'd like more, then read Marie de France, who wrote Bisclavret (which I also mentioned) and Equitan, both dealing with adultery; in fact, over half the lais Marie de France wrote concerned illicit or adulterous lovers. See also Chevrefoil (a Tristanian poem), and Yonec (a tale of a woman in a loveless marriage who has a child through an adulterous affair).

Also, Gottfried von Strassburg's Tristan, Guillame Loris and Jean de Meung's Roman de la Rose (incredibly popular in the 13th and 14th century - stirring an international literary debate over courtly love, with Christine di Pizan writing Querelle du Roman de la Rose and Le Livre des trois vertus in opposition to the work and to courtly love in general), and the convention outlived the Middle Ages altogether and can be found in the works of Tasso and Ariosto. I am also not going to dig up the hundreds of lais and poems written by every trouvere, troubadour or minnesinger who spoke of courtly love.

I also remain contextual, which is why I keep referring to the 14th century in regards to courtly love, because from a historical standpoint that is when it was wound inextricably with the courts of England and France, discussed and debated most regularly, and used in a real-life sense like a religion of love, often to disastrous effect.

Originally Posted by jallanite

You are like a broken record, not seeing anything but courtly love and not seeing anything outside French tales. At least some English were also as well or instead reading things like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Havelok the Dane, Floris and Blauncheflour, and various other works. Even French works contain many in which no love-affair even occurs or in which it is hardly treated in a courtly manner, for example Huon de Bordeaux or Le Roman de Mélusine by Jean d’Arras. Even the French Vulgate Merlin was adapted into English by three different authors and it has almost nothing in it that anyone would call courtly love.

I didn't refer to those because they have nothing to do with the literary conventions of courtly love. I also didn't mention fabliaux like Reynard the Fox, and neither did I mention Von Eisenbach's Parzifal. I never stated anywhere that every story written from 1100 to 1500 AD concerned courtly love. Neither did I refer back to the chansons de geste that are not of the courtly love tradition. You keep wanting to muddy the waters with superfluity.

Originally Posted by jallanite

The Odyssey, the Aeneid, and other classical works and works from Germanic tradition also have lots of adultery. And those traditions also provide tales in which there almost no sexual activity. You are so overstating the presence of courtly love.

I didn't mention 1960s films like Mrs. Robinson either. Because that would be out of context. Context. Use it. But in another discussion, please. I see no point in continuing this one.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Name calling? The source you quoted was inundated with equivocation: "may", "likely", "probably" - is Lacy a dissembling scholar or is he running for office? In either case, his delivery was weak.

A medieval scholar “who can’t make a single straightforward statement″ would have not reached the level of eminence and number of publications that Lacy has. Lacy is naturally choosing to not make straightforward statements when discussing something in an encyclopedia article which is controversial. You would apparently prefer that he be dishonest by making straightforward statements. But that would not fit with what he is here writing about. Anyone who wishes can read of his accomplishments and his many books on http://www.personal.psu.edu/njl2/ , including authorship of the book The Literature of Courtly Love.

You grossly misrepresent why the author writes as he does and use that to avoid coming to terms with what he does say.

You insulted Joseph Campbell, trying to minimize his points by claiming that he "greatly oversimplifies", …

But he does. I greatly respect much of Campbell’s writings, but consider almost all his monomyth theory to be nonsense. See the criticisms of the theory at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth . See also
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks/joseph-campbell.html ,
http://storyfanatic.com/articles/sto...-heros-journey ,
http://autotelic.com/the_hack_of_a_thousand_faces ,
http://www.andrewrilstone.com/search...eph%20Campbell (click on “Show older posts” twice and start at the bottom to read these articles in numerical order beginning with article 1), and
http://filmcrithulk.wordpress.com/20...-journey-****/ (I admit the constant use of uppercase is annoying).

You insult Norris J. Lacy and then blame me for insulting Joseph Campbell. *Sigh*

… and you ignored the quotes from The Allegory of Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition (1936) by C.S. Lewis, Tolkien's friend and peer, and since the question is whether Tolkien's work exhibited courtly love, then what Lewis referred to in his book is far more cogent to the discussion than a professor who can't make a single straightforward statement.

That Lewis was a friend of Tolkien ought not to make a comment by him in a book more or less credible. The comment should stand on it own. But I am aware of hundreds of medieval romance which includes a marriage of hero and heroine. Apparently medievals liked to ignore questions of property in their escapist literature. Lewis’ comment does not connect with many medieval romances which I have read, including Chrétien’s Yvain, Chrétien’s Erec et Enide, Yder, Li chevaliers as deus espées (The knight of the two swords), Li Bel Inconnu (The Fair Unknown), Fergus, Huon de Bordeaux, and others in which the hero marries a lady-love who is sufficiently beautiful, and wealthy, and well-born to satisfy.

Lewis’ comment had nothing to do with Tolkien’s fantasy writing and appears to me to be very cynical even when considering general medieval society in which divorce was not even allowed.

A medieval scholar “who can’t make a single straightforward statement″ would have not reached the level of eminence and number of publications that Lacy has. Lacy is naturally choosing to not make straightforward statements when discussing something which is controversial. You would apparently prefer that he be dishonest by making straightforward statements. But that would not fit with what he is here writing about. Anyone who wishes can read of his accomplishments and his many books on http://www.personal.psu.edu/njl2/ , including authorship of the book The Literature of Courtly Love.

You grossly misrepresent why the author writes as he does and use that to avoid coming to terms with what he does say.

I offered the most popular of their time. The most popular.

I already mentioned that Malory was not one of the most popular authors of the 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries. Jakemon Sakesep’s Châtelain de Coucilet may have been very popular, but most popular? Do you have a credible source for this claim?

I also mentioned The Canterbury Tales and The Decameron, both immensely popular and highly influential to this day. In addition, I referred to Yvain, the Knight and the Lion and Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart. If you'd like more, then read Marie de France, who wrote Bisclavret (which I also mentioned) and Equitan, both dealing with adultery; in fact, over half the lais Marie de France wrote concerned illicit or adulterous lovers. See also Chevrefoil (a Tristanian poem), and Yonec (a tale of a woman in a loveless marriage who has a child through an adulterous affair).

I have read every work you mention more than once, save for Jakemon Sakesep’s Châtelain de Coucilet. You here admit that almost half of the writings of Marie de Fance are not “concerned [with] illicit or adulterous lovers.” As already mentioned by me, Chrétien’s Yvain does not “deal with adulterous or illicit love” at all. For that alone, by most modern definitions of courtly love, it is not a romance of courtly love. Canterbury Tales also contains stories that have no adultery and even those that do are not all courtly, as one would expect of a collection of tales reflecting the many different likes and styles of stories told in Chaucer’s day. The Decameron mostly derives from so-called bourgeois romance and one would expect such a work to be full of tales of cleverness and sexual pranks.

I am also not going to dig up the hundreds of lais and poems written by every trouvere, troubadour or minnesinger who spoke of courtly love.

No-one asked you to. But you might at least admit that if you dug up every work that did not mention courtly love, that list would be longer

I also remain contextual, which is why I keep referring to the 14th century in regards to courtly love, because from a historical standpoint that is when it was wound inextricably with the courts of England and France, discussed and debated most regularly, and used in a real-life sense like a religion of love, often to disastrous effect.

In short you are not talking about medieval literature at general, but only about medieval literature eminating from France and Provence and only some of this literatue in a particular period. Cherry-picking.

I didn't refer to those because they have nothing to do with the literary conventions of courtly love. I also didn't mention fabliaux like Reynard the Fox, and neither did I mention Von Eisenbach's Parzifal. I never stated anywhere that every story written from 1100 to 1500 AD concerned courtly love. Neither did I refer back to the chansons de geste that are not of the courtly love tradition. You keep wanting to muddy the waters with superfluity.

In short you admit that works which arguably concern courtly love are only a portion of medieval literary production but you choose to write about them only and then blame Tolkien for not basing his work of them. You even use the word bowdlerize. It is your attempt to not include these works that seems to be to be closer to bowdlerization, but perhaps better called by some term which might mean the opposite. Would domneiation work?

I didn't mention 1960s films like Mrs. Robinson either. Because that would be out of context. Context. Use it. But in another discussion, please. I see no point in continuing this one.

No. No point.

You admit that Tolkien did not draw from courtly love stories and then suggest that in not doing so that Tolkien was bowdlerizing. Then you fall over backward to claim that any attempt to point out that medieval literature contains loads of literature that was not greatly influenced by courtly love is muddying the water. I say it is clarifying the water.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

In short you are not talking about medieval literature at general, but only about medieval literature eminating from France and Provence and only some of this literatue in a particular period. Cherry-picking.

Is it that you are being contrary, or is it merely some insatiable need to flex your distended erudition? The original question, and the only one I was referring to throughout this discussion was: did Tolkien's work exhibit the characteristics of courtly love? It was the discussion I was having with Idril prior to your voyage on the Good Ship Prolix, matey. Disemboguing discurions into Welsh "streams" that have nothing to do with courtly love were unnecessary and out of context. Obviously, you had a desperate desire to press your agenda, and talk about everything but courtly love. Congratulations, you succeeded brilliantly. In short, I never was talking about medieval literature in general, but the literary convention of courtly love. And, not surprisingly, this literature of courtly love did eminate from France and Provence and was read also by the Anglo-Norman court in England and in the Italian city-states. What part of that did you not get?

Originally Posted by jallanite

You admit that Tolkien did not draw from courtly love stories and then suggest that in not doing so that Tolkien was bowdlerizing. Then you fall over backward to claim that any attempt to point out that medieval literature contains loads of literature that was not greatly influenced by courtly love is muddying the water. I say it is clarifying the water.

When having a discussion about whether or not Tolkien's works exhibited courtly love, droning on about literature that has no relation to the aspects of courtly love is muddying the water. In fact, it is damming the stream, choking off the waterways and clogging the sewers.

I would say and have said previously that Tolkien's work does not exhibit the characteristics of courtly love. If he were trying to exhibit the characteristics of courtly love or fin'amour (which I do not believe to be the case), then yes, he would be using a highly bowdlerized, sanitized, abridged and purified form, hence my use of the modifier "If anything" in relation to "bowderlize". This is particularly true when aspects of courtly love were put into practice beyond the literary record and its use by nobles in English and French courts as noted extensively in the historical record.

And with that, I bid you adieu.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Is it that you are being contrary, or is it merely some insatiable need to flex your distended erudition?

Enough with the insults. No, I am merely writing what I believe is correct. And from my point of view you keep evading answering any of my points directly which tends to confirm any belief I have that I am correct.

The original question, and the only one I was referring to throughout this discussion was: did Tolkien's work exhibit the characteristics of courtly love? It was the discussion I was having with Idril prior to your voyage on the Good Ship Prolix, matey. Disemboguing discurions into Welsh "streams" that have nothing to do with courtly love were unnecessary and out of context. Obviously, you had a desperate desire to press your agenda, and talk about everything but courtly love. Congratulations, you succeeded brilliantly. In short, I never was talking about medieval literature in general, but the literary convention of courtly love. And, not surprisingly, this literature of courtly love did eminate from France and Provence and was read also by the Anglo-Norman court in England and in the Italian city-states. What part of that did you not get?

One reason Tolkien could so easily for the most part ignore courtly love in his somewhat medieval-styled The Lord of the Rings is that many, perhaps most medieval literature, was not about courtly love. Even stories that contained adultery were not always about courtly love. That seems to me to be in context for this thread.

I could say about you ″obviously, you had a desperate desire to press your agenda″ but that would be gratuitously insulting and only avoids discussing the actual matter.

When having a discussion about whether or not Tolkien's works exhibited courtly love, droning on about literature that has no relation to the aspects of courtly love is muddying the water. In fact, it is damming the stream, choking off the waterways and clogging the sewers.

I am damming your words by opposing them? I am preventing your free speech? Obviously not. Your metaphor fails, completely.

I would say and have said previously that Tolkien's work does not exhibit the characteristics of courtly love. If he were trying to exhibit the characteristics of courtly love or fin'amour (which I do not believe to be the case), then yes, he would be using a highly bowdlerized, sanitized, abridged and purified form, hence my use of the modifier "If anything" in relation to "bowderlize". This is particularly true when aspects of courtly love were put into practice beyond the literary record and its use by nobles in English and French courts as noted extensively in the historical record.

What you said instead was “If anything, Tolkien bowdlerized the idea of courtly love, …″ which tells me that you were entertaining the possibility that Tolkien was perhaps bowdlerizing the idea of courtly love.

That still seems ludicrous to me, but apparently you did not intend your statement to be taken as strongly as I took it.

You defined courtly love as: ″Courtly love, in the medieval literary sense, is guilty love …”. But then, by insisting that Chrétien’s Yvain is a tale of courtly love you include a story with not even a suggestion of guilty love. Sources I have checked most don’t mention that Yvain is a tale of courtly love. Only John Jay Parry in his Introduction to his translation of Andreas Capellanus’ The Art of Courtly Love says that of Chétien’s poem only his Lancelot is a full-fledged tale of courtly love and that in Yvain Chrétien “rejects the idea of an adulterous love, which he did not like, but, retains the other conventions of courtly love, which apparently he did.”

Certainly I see Yvain as a tale influenced by the ideas of courtly love, but not a full-fledged tale of courtly love because Yvain very quickly marries the protagonist. Ovid stated that husbands and wives cannot love each other and Andreas Capellanus indicates the same, as do other undenied writers who are pushing courtly love. If this be taken as a given, then Yvain is not a romance of courtly love, although influenced by some courtly love conventions.

I introduced Welsh into my discussion of the Tristan stories only because it factually is one of the four streams of medieval Tristan stories and felt it would be dishonest to leave it out as I originally intended. That was the only mention I made of Welsh tales. You are the one who has mentioned Welsh tales again and again, as a stick with which to beat me over the head instead of responding to the points I did raise hoping for meaningful response.

Noting that it is you (not me) who brought in The Mabinogion, that contains one story called “The Lady of the Fountain″ which duplicates Chrétien’s Yvain. Is that therefore also a tale of courtly love, according to your definition. If not, then why not? Perhaps because it does not reproduce most of Chrétien’s internal monologs on love? But the plot, including the marriage of the protagonist to the widow of the man he had slain is common to both stories and for some reason that I do not understand that to you speaks courtly love.

This is an honest question. I really don’t understand how one would include Yvain among the romances of courtly love. Even just provide source literature that claims Yvain is a romance of courtly love if you know any.

If anyone is following this besides Morthoron they can read an English translation of Yvain as the fourth story at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/831 and can read an English translation of “The Lady of the Fountain” at http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/fountain.htm .