Sacred or Profane? Reflections on Love and Friendship in the Middle Ages

  • Klaus Oschema


‘The most holy bond of society is friendship’, Mary Wollstonecraft declared in 1792, explaining that ‘true friendship’ existed even less often than ‘true love’ — thus putting the two emotionally based types of relationship on an equal footing,1 leaving the reader puzzled with the apparent connection between an individual, personal bond and the sphere of sacrality. The concept of friendship that Wollstonecraft develops in this brief passage is not easily to be reconciled with modern everyday perceptions of the phenomenon: she forwards its importance as a foundation of female-male relationships and thus seems to perpetuate an idea that reminds the historian of medieval ideas on love and marriage.2 However she might have imagined the concrete realization of this ideal, she obviously did not draw a rigid line between relationships including sexual activity and non-sexual types.


Twelfth Century Male Friendship Rigid Line True Friendship Roman Supremacy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M. Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman [1792], ed. C.H. Poston (New York/London: W.W. Norton, 1988), p. 30.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thomas Aquinas readily uses the concept of friendship (amicitia) in his discussion of marriage, see idem, Summa contra gentiles, ed. K. Allgaier, 4 vols (Darmstadt: WBG, 2001), book 3, questions 123–5 — only one of many examples for the far-reaching interchangeability of the concepts amor, caritas, dilectio and amicitia; see K. van Eickels, ‘Kuss und Kinngriff, Umarmung und verschränkte Hände. Zeichen personaler Bindung und ihre Funktion in der symbolischen Kommunikation des Mittelalters’, in J. Martschukat and S. Patzold (eds), Geschichtswissenschaft und »performative turn«. Ritual, Inszenierung und Performanz vom Mittelalter bis zur Neuzeit (Cologne/Vienna/Weimar: Böhlau, 2003), pp. 133–59, on pp. 135f.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    When Harty met Sally, director R. Reiner, MGM 1989; cf. G. Meilaender, ‘When Harry and Sally read the Nicomachean Ethics: Friendship between Men and Women’, in L.S. Rouner (ed.), The Changing Face of Friendship (Notre Dame: University Press of Notre Dame, 1994), pp. 183–96; Der grosse Brockhaus, 12 vols (Wiesbaden: Brockhaus, 1954), 4: 290; Duden. Das grosse Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, ed. Dudenredation, 9 vols (Mannheim, Vienna and Zürich: Bibliographisches Institut, 1976), 2: 900f. On French ‘amitié’, see H. Legros, ‘Amitié, féodalité, liens de parenté dans les chansons de geste d’oc et d’oil au XIIe siècle’, 3 vols (Aix-en-Provence, PhD dissertation, 1993), 1: 15–24; in spite of certain exceptions, the OED explains that friend was ‘not ordinarily applied to lovers or relatives’ (s.v. friend, n., 1.a.).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cf. C.S. Lewis, ‘The Four Loves’ [1960], in P. Blosser and M.C. Bradley (eds), Friendship. Philosophic Reflections on a Perennial Concern (Landham, NY, and Oxford: University Press of America, 1997), pp. 289–304.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Bray, The Friend (Chicago/London: Chicago University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibid., pp. 140–76; A. Bray and M. Rey, ‘The Body of the Friend: Continuity and Change in Masculine Friendship in the Seventeenth Century’, in T. Hitchcock and M. Cohen (eds), English Masculinities 1660–1800 (London and New York: Longman, 1999), pp. 65–84.Google Scholar
  7. On gestures in the Middle Ages see J.-Cl. Schmitt, La raison des gestes dans l’occident médiéval (Paris: Gallimard, 1990), andGoogle Scholar
  8. J.A. Burrow, Gestures and Looks in Medieval Narrative (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 7.
    For an overview on recent developments and further reading see Placing Friendship in Context, ed. R.G. Adams and G. Allan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998);Google Scholar
  10. F.R. Santos, Amigos y redes socials. Elementos para una sociologia de la amistad (Madrid: Siglo Veintiuno, 1994);Google Scholar
  11. cf. the critical assessment by M. Eve, ‘Is Friendship a Sociological Topic?’, Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 43 (2002), 386–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 8.
    M. Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane. The Nature of Religion, trans. W.R. Trask (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1959); cf. D.J. Farace, ‘The Sacred-profane Dichotomy. A Comparative Analysis of its Use in the Work of Emile Durkheim and Mircea Eliade, as far as Published in English’ (Utrecht PhD dissertation, 1982), esp. pp. 2–10Google Scholar
  13. W. Gantke, Der umstrittene Begriff des Heiligen. Eine problemorientierte religionswissenschaftliche Untersuchung (Marburg: Diagonal, 1998).Google Scholar
  14. 10.
    Cf. P. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (New York: Doubleday, 1966); see also Gantke, Der umstrittene Begriff (n. 8), pp. 229–31.Google Scholar
  15. 12.
    See, however, A. Hochschild, The Managed Heart (Berkeley and Los Angeles: California University Press, 1983), and her concept of ‘emotional work’, which unfortunately does not provide a basis for an essential comparison across cultural or historical ruptures;Google Scholar
  16. cf. B.H. Rosenwein (ed.), ‘Controlling Paradigms’, Anger’s Past. The Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1998), pp. 233–47.Google Scholar
  17. 14.
    Cf. J. Haseldine (ed.), Friendship in Medieval Europe (Stroud: Sutton, 1999) (with supplementary bibliography: pp. 275–7).Google Scholar
  18. Current interest in friendship is also reflected by recent anthologies, e.g. K.-D. Eichler (ed.), Philosophie der Freundschaft (Leipzig: Reclam, 1999);Google Scholar
  19. J. Follon and J. McEvoy (eds), Sagesses de l’amitié, 2 vols (Fribourg and Paris: Ed. du Cerf, 1997–2003); Bloser and Bradley (eds), Friendship (n. 4).Google Scholar
  20. 15.
    Plato, ‘Symposium’, Lysis. Symposium. Gorgias, ed. and trans. W.R.M. Lamb (Cambridge Mass. and London: Loeb. 1925). pp. 73–245.Google Scholar
  21. 16.
    Plato, ‘Phaedrus’, Eutyphro. Apology. Crito. Phaedo. Phaedrus, ed. and trans. H.N. Fowler (Cambridge, Mass., and London: Loeb, 1914), pp. 405–579.Google Scholar
  22. 18.
    Cf. for a brief summary A.W. Price, Love and Friendship in Plato and Aristotle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  23. 19.
    Cf. J. McEvoy, ‘Philia and Amicitia: The Philosophy of Friendship from Plato to Aquinas’, Sewanee Mediaeval Colloquium Occasional Papers, 2 (1985), 1–23, on p. 3.Google Scholar
  24. 20.
    Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics (NE), ed. and trans. H. Rackham (Cambridge, Mass., and London: Loeb, 1926);Google Scholar
  25. see J.-Cl. Fraisse, Philia. La notion de l’amitié dans la philosophie antique (Paris: Vrin, 1974), pp. 189–286 (for a concordance with the relevant passages in the Eudemian Ethics see pp. 280f.);Google Scholar
  26. F.M. Schroeder, ‘Friendship in Aristotle and Some Peripatetic Philosophers’, in J.T. Fitzgerald (ed.), Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), pp. 35–58;Google Scholar
  27. S. Stern-Gillet, Aristotle’s Philosophy of Friendship (Albany: State University of New York, 1995);Google Scholar
  28. S. Tegos, ‘L’amitié politique chez Aristote: un tournant anthropologique’, in G. Samama (ed.), Analyses & réflexions sur&Aristote. Éthique à Nicomaque. Livres VIII et IX (Paris: Ellipses, 2001), pp. 63–9.Google Scholar
  29. 23.
    Stern-Gillet, Aristotle’s Philosophy (n. 20), pp. 148–61; G. Herman, Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 142–56.Google Scholar
  30. 27.
    Sansen, ‘Doctrine’ (n. 26), pp. 446–51; D. Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 131–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 29.
    G. Glauche, Schullektüre im Mittelalter. Entstehung und Wandlung des Lektürekanons bis 1200 nach den Quellen dargestellt (Munich: Arbeo, 1970), pp. 102, 112.Google Scholar
  32. 30.
    R. Boussuat, ‘Jean Miélot, traducteur de Cicéron’, Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes, 99 (1938), 82–124, on p. 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 31.
    P.M. Gathercole, ‘The Manuscripts of Laurent de Premierfait’s Works’, Modern Language Quarterly, 19 (1958), 262–70, on p. 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. The translation by Premierfait is still unedited; for an English translation of the prologue see R. Hyatte, The Arts of Friendship. The Idealization of Friendship in Medieval and Early Renaissance Literature (Leiden, etc.: Brill, 1994), pp. 209–26.Google Scholar
  35. 32.
    L. Laurand, ‘Les manuscrits de Cicéron’, Revue des études latines, 11 (1933), 92–128, on pp. 108 and 113–15.Google Scholar
  36. 35.
    Augustine, ep. 258, 1 in J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia cursus completus, series Latina, 218 vols (Paris, 1844–1905), 33; id., ‘Contra Academicos’, III 6, 13, in Patrologia Latina, 32, col. 941; Aelred of Rievaulx, ‘De spiritali amicitia’, in id., Opera omnia, ed. Anselm Hoste and C.H. Talbot (Turnhout: Brepols, 1971) (=Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Medievalis, 1), pp. 279–350, at I 11.Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    Herman, Ritualised Friendship (n. 23), esp. pp. 130–42; idem, ‘friendship, ritualised’, in S. Hornblower et al. (eds), The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 611–13.Google Scholar
  38. 41.
    H. Pétré, Caritas. Etude sur le vocabulaire latin de la charité chrétienne (Louvain: Université Catholique de Louvain, 1948);Google Scholar
  39. Reinhard Schneider, Brüdergemeine und Schwurfreundschaft. Der Auflösungsprozess des Karolingerreiches im Spiegel der caritas-Terminologie in den Verträgen der karlingischen Teilkönige des 9. Jahrhunderts (Lübeck and Hamburg: Matthiesen, 1964), pp. 54–75.Google Scholar
  40. 42.
    This reasoning was at the centre of St Thomas Aquinas’ analysis in his De caritate, cf. C. Baladier, Érôs au moyen âge: amour, désir et delectation morose (Paris: Ed. du Cerf, 1999), p. 34.Google Scholar
  41. 43.
    Cf. Peter Brown, The Body and Society. Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press. 1988).Google Scholar
  42. 44.
    Cicero, De officiis, ed. and trans. M. Testard, 2 vols (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1965–70), 2: 69. Cf. S.N. Eisenstadt and L. Roniger, Patrons, Clients and Friends. Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 52–64;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. R. Saller, ‘Patronage and Friendship in Early Imperial Rome: Drawing the Distinction’, in A. Wallace-Hadrill (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society (London and New York: Routledge, 1989), pp. 49–62;Google Scholar
  44. M. Peachin (ed.), Aspects of Friendship in the Graeco-Roman World (Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2001).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    S. Mratschek, Der Briefwechsel des Paulinus von Nola. Kommunikation und zosiale Kontakte zwischen christlichen Intellektuellen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2000), pp. 293f.;Google Scholar
  46. cf. P. Fabre, Saint Paulin de Nole et l’amitié chrétienne (Paris: Boccard, 1949).Google Scholar
  47. On the minor role of ‘Christian friendship’ during the fourth century see C. White, Christian Friendship in the Fourth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Fraisse, Philia (n. 20), pp. 461–8, argued that Christianity put an end to the cult of friendship that was characteristic for Greco-Roman antiquity — a concept that has recently repeatedly been criticized:CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. cf. V. Epp, Amicitia. Zur Geschichte personaler, sozialer, politischer und geistlicher Beziehungen im frühen Mittelalter (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1999); Konstan, Friendship (n. 27).Google Scholar
  49. 46.
    See M.A. McNamara, Friendship in Saint Augustine (Fribourg: Fribourg University, 1958);Google Scholar
  50. E. Cassidy, ‘Le rôle de l’amitié dans la quête du bonheur chez s. Augustin’, in J. Follon and J. McEvoy (eds), Actualité de la pensée médiévale (Louvain and Paris: Ed. Peeters, 1994), pp. 171–201.Google Scholar
  51. 47.
    Aurelius Augustinus, Confessiones, ed. L. Verheijen (Turnhout: Brepols, 1981) (=Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, 27), IV 8 (13).Google Scholar
  52. 50.
    On the author’s life and work see M. Heinzelmann, Gregory of Tours. History and Society in the Sixth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
  53. The text is edited with a German translation in Gregory of Tours, Zehn Bücher Geschichten, 2 vols, ed. Rudolf Buchner (Darmstadt: WBG, 1964) (=Freiherr-Vom-Stein-Gedächtnisauseabe. 3).Google Scholar
  54. 53.
    Cf. for later, analogous examples F.L. Cheyette, ‘Suum cuique tribuere’, French Historical Studies, 6 (1970), 287–99, andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. M. Clanchy, ‘Law and Love in the Middle Ages’, in J. Bossy (ed.), Disputes and Settlements. Law and Human Relations in the West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983). pp. 47–67.Google Scholar
  56. 54.
    Cf. Bray and Rey, ‘The Body’, pp. 69f.; M. Aurell et al. (eds), La sociabilité à table. Commensalité et convivialité à travers les âges (Rouen: Publications de l’Univisité de Rouen, 1992);Google Scholar
  57. M. Aymard, ‘Amitié et convivialité’, in P. Ariès and G. Duby (eds), Histoire de la vie privée, vol. 3 (Paris: Seuil, 1986), pp. 455–99;Google Scholar
  58. G. Althoff, ‘Der frieden-, bündnis- und gemeinschaftsstiftende Charakter des Mahles im früheren Mittelalter’, in T. Ehlert et al. (eds), Essen und Trinken in Mittelalter und Neuzeit (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1990), pp. 12–25.Google Scholar
  59. 57.
    J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1980), p. 29;Google Scholar
  60. see also J.A. Brundage, Richard Lion Heart: A Biography (New York: Scribner, 1974), pp. 46, 256;Google Scholar
  61. for a critical assessment see K. van Eickels, Vom inszenierten Konsens zum systema-tisierten Konflikt (Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke, 2002), p. 389.Google Scholar
  62. 58.
    P. Dinzelbacher, ‘Pour une histoire de l’amour au Moyen Age’, Le Moyen Age, 93 (1987), 223–40, on p. 227. On the other hand, the distinction between a pure amor amicitiae and a selfish amor concupiscentiae seems to have been established at approx, the time of the indicated changes,Google Scholar
  63. see R. Schnell, Causa amoris. Liebeskonzeption und Liebesdarstellung in der mittelalterlichen Literatur (Bern/Munich: Francke, 1985), p. 57, n. 220.Google Scholar
  64. 59.
    C. Morris, The Discovery of the Individual, 1050–1200 (London: SPCK, 1972), pp. 96–120;Google Scholar
  65. cf. the critical reevaluation by C. Walker Bynum, ‘Did the Twelfth Century Discover the Individual?’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 31 (1980), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 60.
    [Roger of Howden] Benedict of Peterborough, Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols (London; Longmans, 1867) (=Rolls Series, 49), 2: 7. On the author’s identity, see D. Corner, ‘The “Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi” and “Chronica” of Roger, Parson of Howden’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 56 (1983), 126–44;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. A. Gransden, Historical Writing in England c. 550–c. 1307, 2 vols (London and New York: Routledge, 1996 [orig. 1974]), 1: 222f. and 228f.Google Scholar
  68. 62.
    See G. Hasenohr and M. Zink (eds), Dictionnaire des lettres françaises. Le Moyen Age (Paris: Fayard, 1992), pp. 56–7. The French version from ca.1200 is edited in Ami et Amile: chanson de geste, ed. P. Dembowski (Paris: Champion, 1969).Google Scholar
  69. 66.
    Cf. C.S. Jaeger, Ennobling Love (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 1999), pp. 34f.Google Scholar
  70. 68.
    Aucassin et Nicolette. Chantefable du XIII siècle, ed. M. Roques (Paris: Champion, 1977): cf. Dictionnaire des lettres francaises (n. 621. pp. 111–13.Google Scholar
  71. 70.
    R. Schnell, Sexualität und Emotionalität in der vormodernen Ehe (Cologne, Vienna and Weimar: Böhlau, 2002), esp. p. 471;Google Scholar
  72. see also L. Otis-Cour, Lust und Liebe. Geschichte der Paarbeziehungen im Mittelalter (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer TB. 2000).Google Scholar
  73. 74.
    This is typical of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries’ revalorization of the physical dimension of existence, cf. K. Ueltschi, ‘La chair et le corps: de la morale à la science’, in B. Ribémont (ed.), Le corps et ses énigmes au Moyen âge (Caen: Paradigme, 1993), pp. 221–32.Google Scholar
  74. Cf. the perception of the relation between body and soul as ‘friendship’, see C. Walker Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity (200–1336) (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), pp. 329–34,Google Scholar
  75. and J. Baschet, ‘Âme et corps dans l’occident médiéval: une dualité dynamique, entre pluralité et dualisme’, Archives de Sciences sociales des Religions, 112 (2000), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 75.
    In a critical review, Schnell recently criticized Jaeger’s analyses of ‘ennobling love’ (see n. 66) by referring to its mixing up of both concepts (cf. R. Schnell, ‘Genealogie der höfischen Liebe. Ein kulturwissenschaftlicher Entwurf in kritischer Sicht’, Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, 122 (2003), 101–17). Even if this is justified for the early or high Middle Ages, later centuries are definitively characterized by the blending which is outlined in the following passages.Google Scholar
  77. 76.
    P. Studer, ‘Une définition d’amour en prose anglo-normande’, Mélanges de philologie et d’histoire offerts à M. Antoine Thomas par ses élèves et ses amis (Paris: Champion, 1927 [repr. Geneva, 19731), pp. 433–6.Google Scholar
  78. 77.
    Jehan le Bel, Li ars d’amour, de vertu et de boneurté, ed. J. Petit, 2 vols (Brussels: Devaux, 1867–9).Google Scholar
  79. 78.
    J. Thomas, ‘Un art d’aimer du XIIIe siècle: [L’amistiés de vraie amour]’, Revue Belge de philologie et d’histoire, 36 (1958), 786–811, on p. 799:’ … amour est engenree par resgart, et resgars est li premiers degrés pour monter a le perfection d’amistié …’ The text dates from c.1191/1200, on its authorship see ibid., p. 789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ibid., p. 436; on the classical ideal of friendship see e.g. Epp, Amicitia (n. 45), pp. 7–16, 299f.; McGuire, Friendship (n. 61), pp. xxix-xl; J. Haseldine, ‘Love, Separation and Male Friendship: Words and Actions in Saint Anselm’s Letters to his Friends’, in D.M. Hadley (ed.), Masculinity in Medieval Europe (London and New York: Longman, 1999), pp. 238–55, on pp. 240–6.Google Scholar
  81. 83.
    ‘… ou baisier les deux choses plus jointables se joignent et un devienent, en mellant l’un avec l’autre: ce sunt les alaines des baisans […] Dont il avient as baisans pour le perchevance de la jointure et del unité des cuers, laquele est ensi con sovrainement désirée, k’il ont en baisant si très-grand déduit, k’il sunt aussi come ravi et hors d’eaus meismes, […] Li usages aussi communs nous moustre ke baisiers est signes de conjunction et d’unité de corages; car nous véons s’entre aucuns a eüt lontans rihote par guerre u par rancune, ke à le pais faite, on les fait entrebaisier, en signe de ce, k’ensi con lor alaines aspirituées se sunt entremellées, et lor corage par bone loïauté le soient. […] Li acolers aussi est pour ce meisme quis, pour quoi li baisiers, selonc se manière; car al acoler joint-on volentiers le pis [=1a poitrine] ensanle et s’estraint-on ensanle et près, por le conjunction et pour l’unité des cuers ki sunt desous le pis estraint segnefiier’: ibid., vol. 1, pp. 164ff. On the symbolic and ritual dimension of the kiss see K. Petkov, The Kiss of Peace. Ritual, Self, and Society in the High and Late Medieval West (Leiden, etc.: Brill, 2003);Google Scholar
  82. W. Frijhoff, ‘The Kiss Sacred and Profane: Reflections on a Cross-cultural Confrontation’, in J. Bremmer and H. Roodenburg (eds), A Cultural History of Gesture (Ithaca and New York: Cornell University Press, 1992), pp. 201–36.Google Scholar
  83. 85.
    A systematic monograph on princes’ meetings in the late Middle Ages is still a desideratum, W. Kolb, Herrscherbegegnungen im Mittelalter (Bern, etc.: Peter Lang, 1988), being far from satisfactory.Google Scholar
  84. For the French realm see P. Contamine, ‘Les rencontres au sommet dans la France du XVe siècle’, in H. Duchhardt and G. Melville (eds), Im Spannungsfeld von Recht und Ritual. Soziale Kommunikation in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit (Cologne, etc.: Böhlau, 1997), pp. 273–89;Google Scholar
  85. G.P. Marchal, ‘Fehltritt und Ritual. Die Königskrönung Friedrichs III. und Herrscherbegegnungen in Frankreich: Eine Recherche’, in P. von Moos (ed.), Der Fehltritt. Vergehen und Versehen in der Vormoderne (Cologne, etc.: Böhlau, 2001), pp. 103–38.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    ‘Fragments de la Geste des nobles françois’, in A. Vallet de Viriville (ed.), Chronique de la Pucelle (Paris: Delahays, 1859 [repr. Geneva, 1976]), pp. 105–204, on pp. 111ff.: ‘… pour seurté de ferme paix, jurèrent les ducs d’Orléans et de Bougoingne fraternité et compaignie d’armes prindrent; et portèrent les ordres et les devises l’un de l’autre, et après leurs seremens faiz ès/mains de Monsieur Jehan de Montagu adonq évesque de Chartres sur les saints canons et la croiz par eulx touchez, usèrent le corps de Nostre Seigneur parti en deux; souvent, d’illec en avant, burent, mangèrent et couchèrent ensemble tenans toutes manières d’amour et bienveillance’.Google Scholar
  87. See van Eickels, Vom inszenierten Konsens (n. 57), p. 374; B. Guenée, Un meurtre, une société. L’assassinat du duc d’Orléans, 23 novembre 1407 (Paris: Gallimard, 1992), p. 167;Google Scholar
  88. cf. M. Keen, ‘Brotherhood in Arms’, History, 47 (1962), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 94.
    The Essays of Michel Eyquem de Montaigne, trans. C. Cotton, ed. W.C. Hazlitt (Chicago: William Benton, 1952), p. 85; cf. J.-F. Chappuit, ‘Cruauté et amitié d’après Montaigne et Shakespeare. Renaissance d’une théologie laïque’ (Paris PhD dissertation, 1999), pp. 245–311;Google Scholar
  90. U. Langer, Perfect Friendship. Studies in Literature and Moral Philosophy from Boccaccio to Corneille (Geneva: Droz, 1994), pp. 164–76;Google Scholar
  91. M. Rey, ‘Communauté et individu: l’amitié comme lien social à la Renaissance’, Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, 38 (1991), 617–25.Google Scholar
  92. 95.
    See n. 94; cf. D.E. Pozen, ‘Friendship Without the Friend: The Many Meanings of La Boétie for Montaigne’, Comitatus, 34 (2003), 135–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Klaus Oschema 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Oschema

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations