“Ladder of Love” / Courtly Love / Neoplatonism
Plato’s “ladder of love” (300s BC): a movement from the apparent, physically beautiful to the immortal, transcendent, and
divine beauty (i.e. appreciation of earthly beauty—especially female is a stepping stone to love and spiritual/intellectual beauty;
each level naturally & eternally aspires upward.
Courtly Love (new idea of “romantic love”): In the Middle Ages (starting in 12th century), much of this translated into the
ideal of courtly love—probably more of a literary rather than historical construct. For example, a knight may be in love with
an aristocratic lady who is married and of higher social standing than him; .his love and adoration for her is ideal and he
manifests this love through devotion and service but not physical consummation. Honor in courtly love comes from the selfsacrifice of a spiritual love. This is basically what happens with some knights and Guenevere, Petrarch and Laura, with Dante
and Beatrice, and with Sir Philip Sidney and “Stella” (Elizabeth I?). Of course, if any consummation does happen, it is outside
the context of marriage, where love is thought to more easily flourish.
From Prof. Michael Delahoyde: “Rather unlike "Courtly Love," the literature of the Church is anti-feminist. And the
tastemakers in feudal society marry not for love but for real estate and heirs. Idealized "love" goes against the utilitarian
economics of marriage, and passion was forbidden by the Church, so until the courtly version came along, Love was duty and
"Luv" was sinful. Thus, "Courtly Love" emerged and remained outside of marriage. C.S. Lewis decided that its key features
were humility, courtesy, and adultery.”
Andreas Capellanus in De amore libri tres (1184): “It is the pure love which binds together the hearts of two lovers with every
feeling of delight. This kind consists in the contemplation of the mind and the affection of the heart; it goes as far as the kiss
and the embrace and the modest contact with the nude lover, omitting the final solace, for that is not permitted for those who
wish to love purely.... That is called mixed love which gets its effect from every delight of the flesh and culminates in the final
act of Venus.”
Love is not necessarily possible within the institution of marriage.
Ficino (15th century) was a Florentine humanist who translated and wrote commentaries on Plato’s writings; he attempted to
reconcile Platonism and Christianity by equating “The One” with the Christian God. His De Amore proposed that the beauty
of women could represent an aspect of Divine Beauty. Ficino thought that an individual may aspire upward by exerting the
will.
Francesco Petrarch (14th century) was influenced by both Plato and Ficino, and his poetry reflects many of the neoplatonic
ideals. It is, actually, the result of his unrequited/unconsummated love. The poetry is an expression of his love.
True Love does not necessarily equal sex/consummation. (Desire still there!)
Sonnet 132
What do I feel if this is not love?
But if it is love, God, what thing is this?
If good, why this effect: bitter, mortal?
If bad, then why is every suffering sweet?
If I desire to burn, why tears and grief?
If my state's evil, what's the use of grieving?
O living death, O delightful evil,
how can you be in me so, if I do not consent?
And if I consent, I am greatly wrong in sorrowing.
Among conflicting winds in a frail boat
I find myself on the deep sea without a helm,
so light in knowledge, so laden with error,
that I do not know what I wish myself,
and tremble in midsummer, burn in winter.
The Petrarchan Tradition:
Ideally, human love reflects the love of God or the love of
the spirit; it is therefore spiritual.
Lust is associated with the base functions of the body, and
therefore has nothing to do with ideal love, which is
associated with the mind and spirit.
Ideally, all physical beauty – including the beauty of nature
and human beauty – also reflects the eternal perfection
of God’s design of the universe. Even if individual
beauty is fleeting, it is part of the beautiful whole of
God’s creation, and therefore good.
Ideally, love for a beautiful human inspires in the lover the
same feelings as divine love does.
The best love is a love from afar for a person whose beauty
is nearly divine, because it is most like a human’s love
for God.
The object of love can be male or female because erotic
desire is not an issue.
The Anti-Petrarchan Tradition
(not the opposite of the Petrarchan ideal, but rather a
variation on it, focusing on the reality rather than the
ideal):
The sight of human beauty inspires desire AND love;
therefore humans almost never feel love without feeling
lust as well.
Most humans cannot be satisfied with spiritual love because
physical desire is so strong.
Love fades when the beauty that inspired it fades (as beauty,
which is physical and transitory, always does).
Physical desire tends to be painful, possessive, and frustrating,
rather than joyful, expansive and inspiring.
Paradox: love often dies when accompanied by the frustration
of unrequited desire; however, when desire is satisfied,
love often dies anyway because the destructive powers of
lust often kill the positive aspects of love. For this reason,
real human love rarely lives up to the ideal.
The object of love is of the opposite sex. If, however, love
for a person of the same sex becomes tainted by desire or
jealousy, that love is problematized.
Poetry is the most beautiful (therefore divine) form of
language; therefore it is best suited to explore the
divine beauty of love (or the divine love of beauty).
Similarly, most poets are not really divinely inspired, so their
poems fail to inspire ideal love in the writer or reader.
THEREFORE: the emotion of love, expressed poetically,
is humankind’s greatest path to good.
THEREFORE: the emotion of love is humankind’s greatest
source of pain and frustration, either in practice or in
poetry.
{Table from Prof. Kristen McDermott}
Within and inspired by this tradition, Marquerite de Navarre is writing and exploring many of these ideas in certain Heptameron
stories.
Heptameron Discussion Questions
o How is marriage different for men and women? How does romantic love challenge the idea of duty behind
marriage? What do the various characters in the frame narrative provide as a contextual backdrop for this
kind of critique?
o Do you think Dagoucin’s idea of love is best/most beneficial? Consider also how gender may affect your
answer.
o How do you see Navarre’s religious experience affecting the views of love, marriage, sex, gender relations in
the Heptameron?
o What kinds of sexuality and sexual desire are assigned to men and women? What different ideas do the
narrators express?
o Consider what duties spouses or life partners have to each other. Is it different for men or women? How do
the stories and the narrators envision marriage? Romantic love? Is the institution of marriage good? Is it
conducive to love?
o Do you feel that Heptameron upholds or critiques more strongly the notion of neo-platonism/platonic
love/courtly love?
o What different attitudes towards love are present in the selections here?
o Do you feel that the narrators’ attitudes about women, marriage, sex, adultery, and the clergy divide up
strictly along gender lines? Or are there characters who cross over to help defend points of view largely put
forward by the other gender? If there are any such crossover characters, do their stories support their
complicated positions on the central questions of the collection?
o Who are the most chauvinistic of the men among the group? Does the narrator undercut them in any way,
or are their points of view allowed to stand without authorial contestation? What rhetorical points does the
narrator make in treating these characters the way she does?
o “Love at first sight” was absolutely a part of the Platonic ladder of love and courtly love. Do the stories
seem to comment on this? What do you think?
o Should sexual desire always be gratified? Are there contexts in which it should remain more in line with
courtly love?
o Is Plato’s ideal attainable? Is it true to experience?
o Is love without sex more perfect?