The Nature of Love
What, with the new encyclical out, it seems to me appropriate to discuss ideas, opinions etc. that we all have concerning the nature of human love, romantic, familial, of friends, of neighbors and of course, of God. To get the ball rolling, i thought i'd quote a small poem by Robert Graves:
Love without hope, as when the young bird-catcher
Swept off his tall hat to the squire's own daughter,
So let the imprisoned larks escape, and fly
Singing about her head as she rode by.
With this poem in mind: how should love be careless, if it should be so at all? I applaud the carelessness of the birdcatcher, because i feel he is careless about the right things. Also, should we sacrafice a days labor for an extravagant, and yet very fleeting gesture? We don't know her response. Does the worth of the gesture depend upon her being impressed? Finally, when we "love without hope" how do we distinguish between total joyful abandonement to Grace, (i.e. David dancing before the ark, rather carelessly) and foolish presumption of God's (or women's)mercy (i.e. the devil's tempting of Christ to jump from the rooftop).
posted by windmilltilter at 2:03 PM
5 Comments:
Marvellous poem, eh? Graves had a haunting imagination--sort of like Robert de la Mare that way.
Well, I think that, for the question of love's response, we have to say that love does not need to be requited on earth for it to be affective (or effective), as Mother Teresa, who sent larks after everyone (Bill Clinton included) who crossed her path, no doubt knew. She sacrificed more than a day--indeed her whole life--for the sake of love, mostly unrequited.
As to the question of David vs. presumption, yeesh, I don't know. I suppose I'd chalk that up to careful prudence and the guidance of the Holy Ghost.
4:06 PM
I agree with Mr. Flyte on the David question. There is a difference between careless and carefree; the former has to do with the presumption of tempting God's mercy (jumping off cliff-tops), the latter has more to do with resting (or rejoicing) in it. The love of woman and the love of God are different things (eros & agape) - I'm not sure that it would be wise to 'Love without Hope', though I think I understand and appreciate the (Chestertonian/Chivalric) spirit in which he says this. In Christ, we do ultimately have hope that all our actions will be blessed, because this Love is not without faith and hope here on earth. As for romantic love, I would venture to say that where there is real love, there will always be hope - even if it is the 'fool's hope' of Gandalf. And that's the beauty of it.
9:11 AM
I agree with what you have said concerning hope, annie. I would here make a differentiation between ordinary hope and Hope, the theological virtue. Ordinary hope must have a material origin, some reason for the "Hoper", to suspect some change. However, the theological virtue, wed to Love and Faith understands that hope can stand apart from material reality, and is has its origin in God, outside of knowable reality. This is all a long way of getting to my point: I think the young birdcatcher is loving beyond earthly hope, without expectation. This actually betrays a suspected dependence on theological hope; otherwise, there would be no reason for his romantic gesture.
9:48 AM
I see what you're saying, and the distinction is important. Let me just say that,in return for your birdcatcher defying all worldly hope in tipping his hat, I would wish that the squire's daughter would defy all worldly wisdom in catching one of those larks, and holding it close to her heart. It is a woman's prerogative to take up a hopeless cause.
12:08 PM
i spelled sacrIfice wrong...and they call me an english teacher...
9:41 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home