Jane Eyre is such good example. This also makes me think a bit of Jane Austen's Sense & Sensibility, which is in part about the dangers of being carried away by passion, untempered by virtue or reason (or just plain common sense).
This is great and ALSO the original piece has never made sense to me because the entire point of the story is that David marrying Dora was a mistake, one that he regrets almost immediately. He then goes onto marry Agnes, who is the true love of his life.
These are the last words of David Copperfield: "And now, as I close my task, subduing my desire to linger yet, these faces fade away. But one face, shining on me like a Heavenly light by which I see all other objects, is above them and beyond them all. And that remains. I turn my head, and see it, in its beautiful serenity, beside me. My lamp burns low, and I have written far into the night; but the dear presence, without which I were nothing, bears me company. O Agnes, O my soul, so may thy face be by me when I close my life indeed; so may I, when realities are melting from me, like the shadows which I now dismiss, still find thee near me, pointing upward."
How does the author of the original piece reconcile that with her claim that Dora is adored and Agnes is "settled for"? I fear her entire premise is based on a misapprehension.
Yes! Did he settle or did he rightly recalibrate his desires? We need to talk about training the affections. That's why Solomon wrote Proverbs warning young men to simply stay! away! from the strange woman. She lures you in by appealing to misdirected desire. Solomon's solution isn't a complete numbing of desire, but the redirection of it. He tells his son to "be intoxicated always" by his lovely wife. Same guy wrote Song of Songs. I really don't think "intoxicating" and "settled for" are anywhere near each other in the spectrum of desire. Turns out you can adore and settle down with the same woman. The properly ordered soul acquires a settled disposition to adore a good woman.
Without having seen or read the original piece I thoroughly enjoyed your article. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
In an age where divorce seems like *the thing to do*, I am encouraged by those who realize chasing emotions is a bad path whereas taking them captive brings about better ends.
Very interesting piece. The idea of 'psychomachia' has a very long history in (English) literature, leading to the celebration of the passions over reason in the 18th century (much mocked by Jane Austen). I've been planning to write about this in detail and your great piece here might just give me the impetus I need.
I look forward to reading your piece when it comes out! My knowledge of the literary history of psychomachia definitely pales in comparison to that of anyone who's studied it at length.
Thank you so much for this. I felt quite disturbed after reading the original article and couldn't articulate why...but its emphasis on passion was drastically misplaced. Reading your article is like a soothing restorative balm to the mind! Thank you for laying this out so clearly. The point about the dragon-slaying is an excellent metaphor. (I am also a mad fan of Jane Eyre for doing what she knew to be right even when her beloved -- and even her own heart -- was pleading otherwise.)
I had some fairly similar thoughts when I read the original piece, but a slightly less negative reaction. In my experience, there are 3 components that make any relationship (romantic or otherwise) work, and relationships require at least 2 of them to stably function: a shared honor system, positive feelings (in this case passion), and shared loves. By that last point, I don't mean love for each other, I mean a shared love for something outside the relationship. The easiest way to be loved, is to sacrificially love the things that someone else loves. This is an element that gets comepletely lost in most dating advice. There is more to a relationship than what is in the relationship.
I agree! Positive feelings are critical for the health of a relationship—fortunately, virtue helps us train our affections so that positive feelings can be maintained long after passion has, inevitably, withered. I strongly back your last point and would submit that virtue also helps us foment love for what our partners love despite our natural disinclinations. I surmise that this is lost in dating advice because dating isn't a good time to conform your will to that of your partner, whereas in marriage that's required. In dating, which is the pick-and-choose process, I might ask myself, "Why go out of my way to love [hobby my dating partner loves] if instead I could move on to a more compatible dating partner who has the same interests as me?" It's a fundamentally selfish process, as it should be if you're in charge of picking the person you'll be with until death do you part. Why not be picky? Why settle? There are always more fish in the sea. I completely agree with your point, but I think we first need to confront the reality that there is no perfect match, and if someone is just looking to marry his/her clone then we might need to have a different conversation. Sounds basic, but I'm always baffled to discover yet another young person who has yet to grasp that reality. Only once it's clear that no amount of dating app swiping/relationship tourism will result in a total 1:1 can we proceed. Having established that our will not always love exactly what we do, we can now discuss the non-negotiables (if unmarried) and, later, move toward loving what the other loves (in marriage).
I much agree with your inclinations, perhaps best summed up by your response to Kelly Garrison's comment ("Yes! Did he settle or did he rightly recalibrate his desires? We need to talk about training the affections. That's why Solomon..."). I also have the impression that your critique of Lillywhite's post is more an expansion than a refutation. Lillywhite did not stipulate that the childishness and other emotionality of the characters was the reason for their attractiveness, but their openness and vulnerability. Also, your attention to dragon slaying can be seen as affirmation of Lillywhite's argument that a man need to feel heroic. From a high level, I can see where the two views blend quite well...at least when you get rid of materialism as a primary cause of the current dysfunction.
Jane Eyre is such good example. This also makes me think a bit of Jane Austen's Sense & Sensibility, which is in part about the dangers of being carried away by passion, untempered by virtue or reason (or just plain common sense).
Oh that's a good one!! Need to reread!
Thank you so much for this — it’s so well articulated, and I love that you pull from Scripture and Aristotle and Jane Eyre!!
Thank you for your kind words! 🥹 I'm working on a follow-up piece to keep fleshing out the problem of passion—stay tuned!
love the aquinas and randall smith.
my best-kept secret: being a Reformed Prot
how I keep it: loving Catholics
Amen, amen; verily, verily
This is great and ALSO the original piece has never made sense to me because the entire point of the story is that David marrying Dora was a mistake, one that he regrets almost immediately. He then goes onto marry Agnes, who is the true love of his life.
These are the last words of David Copperfield: "And now, as I close my task, subduing my desire to linger yet, these faces fade away. But one face, shining on me like a Heavenly light by which I see all other objects, is above them and beyond them all. And that remains. I turn my head, and see it, in its beautiful serenity, beside me. My lamp burns low, and I have written far into the night; but the dear presence, without which I were nothing, bears me company. O Agnes, O my soul, so may thy face be by me when I close my life indeed; so may I, when realities are melting from me, like the shadows which I now dismiss, still find thee near me, pointing upward."
How does the author of the original piece reconcile that with her claim that Dora is adored and Agnes is "settled for"? I fear her entire premise is based on a misapprehension.
Yes! Did he settle or did he rightly recalibrate his desires? We need to talk about training the affections. That's why Solomon wrote Proverbs warning young men to simply stay! away! from the strange woman. She lures you in by appealing to misdirected desire. Solomon's solution isn't a complete numbing of desire, but the redirection of it. He tells his son to "be intoxicated always" by his lovely wife. Same guy wrote Song of Songs. I really don't think "intoxicating" and "settled for" are anywhere near each other in the spectrum of desire. Turns out you can adore and settle down with the same woman. The properly ordered soul acquires a settled disposition to adore a good woman.
Yes!! You’re so right, it’s the proper ordering of our desires that is crucial here!
And thank you for adding this quotation from the book! Dickens has a mighty way of bringing tears to my eyes.
Without having seen or read the original piece I thoroughly enjoyed your article. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
In an age where divorce seems like *the thing to do*, I am encouraged by those who realize chasing emotions is a bad path whereas taking them captive brings about better ends.
This is awesome. You are an author for Christ, standing up for Him when many stand down. I salute you🫡.
Very interesting piece. The idea of 'psychomachia' has a very long history in (English) literature, leading to the celebration of the passions over reason in the 18th century (much mocked by Jane Austen). I've been planning to write about this in detail and your great piece here might just give me the impetus I need.
I look forward to reading your piece when it comes out! My knowledge of the literary history of psychomachia definitely pales in comparison to that of anyone who's studied it at length.
Thank you so much for this. I felt quite disturbed after reading the original article and couldn't articulate why...but its emphasis on passion was drastically misplaced. Reading your article is like a soothing restorative balm to the mind! Thank you for laying this out so clearly. The point about the dragon-slaying is an excellent metaphor. (I am also a mad fan of Jane Eyre for doing what she knew to be right even when her beloved -- and even her own heart -- was pleading otherwise.)
Love this, love the sources, love the thoughts. All of it. Thank you for writing this!!
Thank you!!
I had some fairly similar thoughts when I read the original piece, but a slightly less negative reaction. In my experience, there are 3 components that make any relationship (romantic or otherwise) work, and relationships require at least 2 of them to stably function: a shared honor system, positive feelings (in this case passion), and shared loves. By that last point, I don't mean love for each other, I mean a shared love for something outside the relationship. The easiest way to be loved, is to sacrificially love the things that someone else loves. This is an element that gets comepletely lost in most dating advice. There is more to a relationship than what is in the relationship.
I agree! Positive feelings are critical for the health of a relationship—fortunately, virtue helps us train our affections so that positive feelings can be maintained long after passion has, inevitably, withered. I strongly back your last point and would submit that virtue also helps us foment love for what our partners love despite our natural disinclinations. I surmise that this is lost in dating advice because dating isn't a good time to conform your will to that of your partner, whereas in marriage that's required. In dating, which is the pick-and-choose process, I might ask myself, "Why go out of my way to love [hobby my dating partner loves] if instead I could move on to a more compatible dating partner who has the same interests as me?" It's a fundamentally selfish process, as it should be if you're in charge of picking the person you'll be with until death do you part. Why not be picky? Why settle? There are always more fish in the sea. I completely agree with your point, but I think we first need to confront the reality that there is no perfect match, and if someone is just looking to marry his/her clone then we might need to have a different conversation. Sounds basic, but I'm always baffled to discover yet another young person who has yet to grasp that reality. Only once it's clear that no amount of dating app swiping/relationship tourism will result in a total 1:1 can we proceed. Having established that our will not always love exactly what we do, we can now discuss the non-negotiables (if unmarried) and, later, move toward loving what the other loves (in marriage).
Yes! Thank you
I much agree with your inclinations, perhaps best summed up by your response to Kelly Garrison's comment ("Yes! Did he settle or did he rightly recalibrate his desires? We need to talk about training the affections. That's why Solomon..."). I also have the impression that your critique of Lillywhite's post is more an expansion than a refutation. Lillywhite did not stipulate that the childishness and other emotionality of the characters was the reason for their attractiveness, but their openness and vulnerability. Also, your attention to dragon slaying can be seen as affirmation of Lillywhite's argument that a man need to feel heroic. From a high level, I can see where the two views blend quite well...at least when you get rid of materialism as a primary cause of the current dysfunction.