Courtly Love, the Love of Courtliness, and the History of Sexuality (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Courtly Love, the Love of Courtliness, and the History of Sexuality Christine McWebb James A. Schultz . Courtly Love, the Love of Courtliness, and the History of Sexuality. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006. 242 pp. US$ 39 (Cloth). ISBN 0-226-74089-7. James Schultz's aim is to introduce the study of courtly love into the broader context of the history of sexuality because, as he states, courtly love has traditionally been ignored in the history of sexuality, though it cannot and should not be considered peripheral to it. The author's overarching definition of courtly love is "anything in a text written for a courtly audience that is called love – provided that it seems to have making love as one of its goals, no matter how distant or unlikely" (xviii). His corpus is a limited group of the most famous texts written in Middle High German in the decades around 1200, such as Heinrich von Veldeke's Eneasroman, Hartmann von Aue's Erec and Iwein, the Nibelungenlied, Gottfried von Strassburg's Tristan und Isold, Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival, Willehalm, and Titurel, as well as the lyrics in Minnesangs-Frühling and those of Walther von der Vogelweide. At the same time, the author does take into account the corresponding French tradition, in particular Chrétien de Troyes' Graal-cycle. The De amore by Alanus Capellanus is not mentioned, however, and neither is the huge amount of critical work that it has engendered. The target audience is clearly one that is familiar with the corpus. The structure of the volume, adhered to schematically, divides the analysis into four segments with three chapters each. Following the prescriptions of the Aristotelian prologue, the author begins with the causa materialis. In other words: how is the body given meaning in the context of the courtly love paradigm, and how is it invested with erotic qualities? Though these are undoubtedly pertinent questions to ask here, the author frequently limits his arguments to pointing out established commonplaces. On page 14, for instance, he reiterates the danger of anachronism when modern scholarship, influenced by Foucault and others, discusses notions of sexuality. His point that the male and female lover in courtly love share identical physical characteristics turning them into some kind of androgynous beings lacks depth, since it involves again the danger of anachronism. More useful are his deliberations on terminology, which make up most of part two of the volume, the causa efficiens. In the author's view, terms like heterosexuality and homosexuality are of little use when discussing the phenomenon of courtly love, as they point to a sexual reality that was not perceived in these categorical notions in the Middle Ages. This is very helpful in understanding the concept of gender relations in courtly love. Schultz offers a wonderfully detailed analysis of the various sexual orientations and how they were perceived and theorized by theologians of the high Middle Ages. Chapter 4 in particular is a very astute analysis of heterosexuality, gender, and homosexuality, as well as same-sex relations. Section three, the causa formalis, moves into what the author calls love of courtliness, which means that the fictional literature of courtly love should be read as a reflection of the social, upwardly mobile characteristics of life at court to which many aspired. The author distinguishes between desire, concupiscence, and social aspirations that according to him were the real attractions of courtly love, i.e. the love of life at court, of nobility and courtliness. As Schultz concludes at the end of chapter 8: "The institution of love service is itself a courtly discipline and participation in such a relation therefore [End Page 470] promises distinction" (136). This line of argument dovetails with the fourth and last section on the causa finalis, where Schultz proposes to answer the question as to why, albeit fictionally, lovers subject themselves to such hardship, behavioural discipline, and suffering in love. He sees three main historic realities as the driving force behind the engendering of the literature of courtly love, namely the practice of Landfrieden, the theological and legal consolidation of the institution of marriage, and courtly protocols. Unfortunately, he all but ignores the...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".