involved him in a scheme by Louis of Anjou to claim
the throne of Naples, in collaboration with the efforts
of Pope Clement VII to establish himself in Rome. In
the spring of 1382, Amadeo set forth, marching through
Italy into a badly mismanaged campaign that was foiled
in part by John Hawkwood, who was now a Florentine
captain in support of the Roman pope Urban VI, and
Hawkwood’s Neapolitan ally Charles of Durazzo. Over
the winter, Amadeo’s forces were ravaged by disease,
which fi nally took his own life (on 27 February 1383).
His remains were lovingly transported back to Savoy
for burial.
Though he was an occasional patron of Guillaume de
Machaut and Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch), Amadeo VI
was a man of war and statecraft rather than of culture.
Shaped at fi rst by the traditions of chivalry, Amadeo
learned to blend them with the newer impulses of prag-
matic realism. From his grandfather he inherited bare
feudal elements which he began to fuse into a viable
entity, balanced between the neighboring powers of
France and Italy and acquiring prestige from his personal
reputation. His grandson, Amadeo VIII, would further
consolidate Savoy as a duchy, established in the natural
capital of Turin and securely set on a course that would
turn the once peripheral house of Savoy into a monarchy
which would eventually unite Italy.
See also Hawkwood, sir John;
Machaut, Guillaume de
Further Reading
Cognasso, Francesco. Il conte verde. Turin, 1926.
Cox, Eugene L. The Green Count of Savoy: Amadeus VI and
Transalpine Savoy in the Fourteenth Century. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1967.
John W. Barker
ANDREAS CAPELLANUS
(André le Chapelain; fl. late 12th c.)
Author of a treatise on the art of love, De amore (or De
arte honeste amandi), composed for a certain Gautier.
Andreas’s identity remains enigmatic. He has most fre-
quently been identifi ed with a chaplain of the same name
in the service of Marie de Champagne, the daughter of
Louis VII and Eleanor of Aquitaine and the patroness
of Chrétien de Troyes.
De amore, preserved in over thirty manuscripts
and collections, is composed of three books. The fi rst
expounds the nature of love; the second, in a series of
twenty-one judgments attributed to some of the noblest
ladies of France (Eleanor of Aquitaine, Marie de Cham-
pagne, Elizabeth of Vermandois, and others), tells how to
maintain love; and the third condemns love. The entire
treatise shows the infl uence of Ovid’s Ars amatoris and
ANDREW OF SAINT VICTORRemedia amoris, as well as an intimate knowledge of the
casuistry and rhetorical traditions of the medieval Latin
school system. Its interpretation, however, like that of
Chrétien’s Chevalier de la charrette, remains problem-
atic. Modern critics are divided as to whether to take the
work seriously or read it ironically. If Andreas’s inten-
tion was to produce a treatise on the practice of (courtly)
love, then how can one explain the aritifeminism of the
fi nal book? Was this true remorse or an ironic stance to
avoid ecclesiastical condemnation?
The work was translated into Franco-Italian prose in
the second half of the 13th century and into Old French
by Drouart la Vache in 1290. It also made its way into
Catalan, Italian, and German.
See also Chrétien de Troyes; Eleanor of Aquitane;
Jean de MeunFurther Reading
Andreas Capellanus. Andreae Capellani regii Francorum De
amore libri tres, ed. E. Trojel. Copenhagen: Libraria Gan-
diana, 1892.
——. The Art of Courtly Love, trans. John J. Parry. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1941.
——. Traité de l’amour courtois, trans. Claude Buridant. Paris:
Champion, 1974.
Karnein, Alfred. “La réception d’André le Chapelain au XIIIe
siècle.” Romania 12 (1981): 324–51, 501–42.
Kelly, F. Douglas. “Courtly Love in Perspective: The Hierarchy of
Love in Andreas Capellanus.” Traditio 24 (1968): 119–47.
Monson, Don A. “Andreas Capellanus and the Problem of Ironly.”
Speculum 63 (1988): 539–72.
William W. KiblerANDREW OF SAINT-VICTOR (d. 1175)
Biblical exegete who provided the most sustained treat-
ment of the Hebrew Bible according to the literal sense
since the time of St. Jerome (4th–5th c). Born probably
in England, Andrew entered the abbey of Saint-Victor in
Paris and studied under Hugh of Saint-Victor. He later
returned to England as abbot of Wigmore, a house of
regular canons in Herefordshire.
Andrew was infl uenced by Hugh’s emphasis on
the importance of the literal sense of Scripture as the
foundation for understanding the allegorical and moral
senses. In contrast to Hugh’s interest in the threefold
interpretation of Scripture, Andrew wrote exegetical
treatises only on the Hebrew Bible, with the literal sense
his only focus. His commentaries on the Octateuch,
Historical Books, Wisdom Books, Minor Prophets,
and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel have been
preserved. These commentaries indicate that Andrew
consulted with Jews in the vernacular and then trans-
lated their interpretations into Latin. It is not likely that
he had extensive knowledge of biblical or postbiblical
Hebrew. From Andrew’s commentaries, however, we