Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Response to Question C
Courtly love should really be compared more to match-making than to lust. Courtly love was, as Tim pointed out, very formulaic and it followed many societal rules in that people of similar classes, whom would often be an attractive match conveniently “fell in love” and were generally married. Courtly love is very archaic and reminds one of primal tendencies to pick the most attractive, youthful appearing mate because they are likely to be fertile, etc. Courtly love is not blind. In this way, it is very unlike lust. Lust is quite blind, but in a more short-term way than love is. Courtly love, however, is certainly very unlike love as well, for it involves no knowledge about the person other than social standing and appearance. Courtly love is often, as we read, “lust from far away”-and even if it is long-lasting it is usually a very shallow attachment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that courtly love is similar to the match-making of today. What about lust, however, is not blind? In my opinion it seems that lust is not blind because the people involved often knew what they were doing and often spoke about how strong the attractions were between the man and the women of that time.
ReplyDeleteCourtly love is not about marriage. In fact, it was viewed that courtly love could not exist between a husband and wife.
ReplyDeleteYou also claim it is a "shallow attachment" but don't support this. How is dedicating yourself to someone else shallow?
Slow down and explore your views one at a time.