A letter from Marie of France, countess of Champagne and Troyes (1174?)

Translated letter:

To the prudent and noble woman A. and the illustrious and famous Count G., M., Countess of Champagne, sends greeting. Since we are bound to hear the just petitions of everybody, and since it is not seemly to deny our help to those who ask what is proper, especially when those who go wrong on questions of love ask to be set right by our decision — which is what the tenor of your letter indicates — we have tried diligently and carefully to carry this out without any extended delay. Now your letter has shown that this is the doubt that has arisen between you: whether love can have any place between husband and wife and whether between lovers jealousy is blameworthy; in both questions each of you falls back on his own opinion and opposes that of the other, and you want us to give our opinion which side properly should get the decision. We have therefore examined carefully the statements of both sides and have in very truth inquired into the matter by every possible means, and we wish to end the case with this decision. We declare and we hold as firmly established that love cannot exert its powers between two people who are married to each other. For lovers give each other everything freely, under no compulsion of necessity, but married people are in duty bound to give in to each other's desires and deny themselves to each other in nothing. Besides, how does it increase a husband's honor if after the manner of lovers he enjoys the embraces of his wife, since the worth of character of neither can be increased thereby, and they seem to have nothing more than they already had a right to? And we say the same thing for still another reason, which is that a precept of love tells us that no woman, even if she is married, can be crowned with the reward of the King of Love unless she is seen to be enlisted in the service of Love himself outside the bonds of wedlock. But another rule of Love teaches that no one can be in love with two men. Rightly, therefore, Love cannot acknowledge any rights of his between husband and wife. But there is still another argument that seems to stand in the way of this, which is that between them there can be no true jealousy, and without it true love may not exist, accoridng to the rule of Love himself, which says, "He who is not jealous cannot love." Therefore let this our verdict, pronounced with great moderation and supported by the opinion of a great many ladies, be to you firm and indubitable truth. The first day of May, in the year 1174, the seventh of the indiction.

Original letter:

Prudenti ac nobili feminae A. et viro illustri atque praeclaro G. comiti M. Campaniae comitissa salutem. Quoniam cunctorum iustas tenemur exaudire petitiones, et nullis digna quaerentibus nostrum decet denegari auxilium, maxime ubi in amoris oberrantes articulis nostro postulant arbitrio revocari, quod litterarum vestrarum series indicavit, cuiuslibet intensae dilationis mora reiecta diligenti sollicitudine suo curavimus effectui mancipare. Vestra igitur pagina demonstravit, talem inter vos dubitationis originem incidisse: Utrum inter coniugatos amor possit habere locum, et an inter amantes zelotypia reprobetur, et in ambobus dubiis utrumque vestrum in suam declinare sententiam et alterius adversari opinioni, et cuius de iure mereatur obtinere sententia, nostro velle vos iudicio definiri. Ideoque utriusque diligenter assertione perspecta et ipsa veritate omnimoda inquisita indagine praesens litigium tali voluimus iudicio terminare. Dicimus enim et stabilito tenore firmamus, amorem non posse suas inter duos iugales extendere vires. Nam amantes sibi invicem gratis omnia largiuntur nullius necessitatis ratione cogente. Iugales vero mutuis tenentur ex debito voluntatibus obedire et in nullo se ipsos sibi invicem denegare. Praeterea quid iugalis crescit honori, si sui coniugalis amantium more fruatur amplexu, quum neutrius inde possit probitas augmentari, et nihil amplius [augmento] videantur habere nisi, quod primitus iure suo tenebant? Sed et alia istud ratione asserimus, quia praeceptum tradit amoris, quod nulla etiam coniugata regis poterit amoris praemio coronari, nisi extra coniugii foedera ipsius amoris militiae cernatur adiuncta. Alia vero regula docet amoris, neminem posse duorum sauciari amore. Merito ergo inter coniugatos sua non poterit amor iura cognoscere. Sed et alia quidem ratio eis obstare videtur, quia vera inter eos zelotypia inveniri non potest, sine qua verus amor esse non valet ipsius amoris norma testante, quae dicit: Qui non zelat, amare non potest. Hoc igitur nostrum iudicium cum nimia moderatione prolatum et aliarum quam plurimarum dominarum consilio roboratum pro indubitabili vobis sit ac veritate constanti. Ab anno MCLXXIIII Kal. maii. Indictione VII.

Historical context:

Andreas Capellanus cites this and the other letter to Marie from noblewoman A and count G in his book on love (book 1, dialogue 7). There is no way of knowing if the letters about love and jealousy and marriage are authentic, were made up by Andreas, or were reconstructed by him from letters or discussions he had witnessed. In any case, since Marie is clearly identified as the receiver and sender, they say something about the way she and perhaps her ideas could be portrayed by a contemporary. That Marie heard love debates while/if she was in Poitiers is highly likely, but whether she took part or judged them is unknown. June Hall McCash argues that the ideas in the letter, whether or not it is hers, are consistent with the depiction of love in the Lancelot, “Marie de Champagne’s ‘Cuer d’ome et cors de fame’: Aspects of Feminism and Misogyny in the Twelfth Century,” The Spirit of the Court, ed. G.S. Burgess and R.A. Taylor (Cambridge: Brewer, 1985), 240. McCash notes that Marie imposes a feminist approach in the works she commissions, sometimes against the grain of the author, as in the Lancelot, and Evrat’s Genesis, in which the revised version done for Marie corrects the misogyny of the earlier version. Andreas dates the letters 1174, though his own text may be 1184-86.

Printed source:

Andreae Capellani Regii Francorum, De amore libri tres, ed. E. Trojel (Munich: Eidos, 1964 repr., pub.1892), p.152-55; translation from J.J. Parry, The Art of Courtly Love by Andreas Capellanus, (New York: Ungar, 1964 repr., originally publ by Columbia

Date:

1174?