Andreas Capellanus, Scholasticism, and the Courtly Tradition

4. The Problem of Irony: Andreas and the Critics

4 ≥ THE PROBLEM OF IRONY Andreas and the Critics An important aspect of the form of the De amore remains to be discussed: the question of Andreas’s alleged use of irony. This question does not arise from the language of the treatise itself, for neither the Greek borrowing ironia nor its Latin calque dissimulatio appears there. Nor is irony a major component of the scholastic method, with respect to which it occupies a rather marginal place, as one of the numerous figures of speech that may be used to embellish a discourse. Rather, it is the modern scholarly tradition that has brought the subject of irony to the fore, making of it a central, unavoidable question in Capellanus studies. Nevertheless, we shall see that a consideration of the Chaplain’s scholastic method can provide new insights regarding this perennial problem.1 Among the various controversies surrounding the treatise on love attributed to Andreas Capellanus, none is more vexed than the question of the work’s tone. Is the De amore to be taken as a serious, straightforward treatment of its subject, or should it be interpreted, in whole or in part, as humorous or ironic? This question is clearly of crucial importance to our understanding of the work and of its place in medieval literature , hence the considerable interest and passion that it has aroused. A generation ago most scholars were in agreement in taking the work seriously and in viewing it as the earliest and best codification of 122 1. For an earlier version of this chapter, see Monson, “Andreas Capellanus and the Problem.” the love themes of the vernacular poetry. Over the last fifty years, however , ironic interpretations of the treatise have steadily gained ground, though not without resistance and opposition. Those of us who continue to use the De amore as a ready reference guide to courtly love do so, I suspect, with ever increasing uneasiness, and there must be many others who are simply perplexed. The situation is further complicated by the fact that there is not just one ironic interpretation about, but several, including some that do not formally invoke the name of irony. And although the various ironic interpretations sometimes call on each other for corroboration and support , there are in some cases substantial grounds for doubt as to their mutual compatibility. Moreover, much of what has been written about Andreas and irony dispenses with any discussion of the theory of irony, ancient or modern, or of the relationship of the phenomenon to other, related but distinct, phenomena, such as humor, satire, or parody. It therefore seems worthwhile to look at the problem as a whole, in an attempt to get an overview of it. That is what I should like to do in the following remarks. I shall begin with a few words on the theory of irony. Then I shall summarize and criticize the major ironic interpretations of the De amore that have been put forward to date, concentrating particularly on two of them. Finally, I should like to add a few observations of my own. Without harboring any illusion of being able to resolve the matter to everyone’s satisfaction, I hope thus to provide a new and perhaps useful perspective on it. Theory of irony The theory of irony and related topics comprise a vast subject to which many books and articles have been devoted. I can reproduce here only the barest of outlines and such particulars as seem to me to be especially useful for the matter at hand. In the wake of Roman rhetoric, the Middle Ages defined irony very narrowly, as a rhetorical device. It was generally viewed as a subcategory of allegory, which term was taken in the general, etymological sense of saying one thing and meaning another. Irony was specifically the case where one said one thing and meant the opposite. It was frequently t h e p ro b l e m o f i ro n y 123 viewed as a kind of deception and, in addition to the Greek term ironia, the Latin word dissimulatio was sometimes applied to it. Its most characteristic application was in epideictic rhetoric, where it was used to praise while appearing to blame or (more often) to blame through a pretense of praise. It was seen not only as a localized figure of speech, but also as a figure of thought...