In order to see her, he took the cross and journeyed across the sea; he fell ill on the ship and was carried ashore in a dying condition.  The countess, on hearing of his great love, hastened to the inn where he lay.  As she entered his room, Jaufre regained consciousness; he knew her at once and died happily in her arms.  She was so touched by his love that she henceforth renounced the world.—­This story is no fairy tale; it is well attested and universally accounted genuine to-day.  Jaufre’s love, expressed in touching poems, was no amour de tete, as it is sometimes called, but a genuine amour de coeur, a purely spiritual love which asked nothing of the beloved woman but permission to love her.  There are other instances, and even in later times it is not an infrequent occurrence in the case of imaginative people (I need only mention Buerger and Klopstock).

We men of the present age look upon this eccentric woman-worship with uncomprehending eyes.  Perhaps we shall feel a little less bewildered when we meet it, stripped of courtly theories and mediaeval fashions, in some of the great men who are closely connected with our own period; in Michelangelo, in Goethe, and in Beethoven.

The Church, dualistic and ascetic from its inception, waged war against sensuality as the evil of evils.  “As fire and water will not mix,” wrote St. Bernard, “so spiritual and carnal delights cannot be experienced together.”  The toleration of matrimony was never more than a compromise; we require no proof that as far as the Church was concerned, chastity was the only real value.  Even Luther took up that position, and to this day Christianity and sexuality remain unreconciled.  But both the Catholic and the Protestant professions of faith regarded matrimony as the lesser evil, a concession made to the enemy, in order to render existence possible.  It is very interesting to observe the position taken up by the Church in connection with the new woman-worship which, although it sprang from the most genuine Christian dualism, had for its object not God, but mortal woman.  The logical attitude of the Church would have been one of welcome, for the chaste worship of woman which regarded matrimony as an inferior state, was her natural ally.  Two clerics, the court-chaplain Andreas, and the prolific rhymester Matfre Ermengau, actually elaborated the theory of spiritual love contrary to the spirit of the Church, but both men hastened to utter a timely recantation and recommendation of orthodoxy as the only means of salvation.  After establishing all the desirable details of love according to substance and accidents, Andreas deduced that every love not dedicated to God was bound to offend Him, and advanced eighteen points against the love of woman, starting with the well-known argument that woman was naturally of a base disposition, covetous, envious, greedy, fickle, garrulous, stubborn, proud, vain, sensual, deceitful, etc.  “He who serves love,