|
Romance - Past and Present
By Paul Dennis Sporer
It is fair to say, that the final factor in the chain of life's milestones — contentment — cannot be possible unless the full potential use is made of social engagement, education, and career in the establishment and maintenance of love. We should appreciate the fact that this linkage of the profoundly physical with the profoundly emotional is buried deep in human history and psyche. In spite of the recent creation of support institutions, neither the desire for true love nor these factors leading to contentment is modern. What our generation might call 'quaint' or 'cherished and dear' feelings about one's spouse are neither 'romantic' ideas nor are they unattainable. For example, the ancient Romans unabashedly extolled the virtues of marriage, looking upon life-long union as indicative of stability and fidelity. The giving of life to such important concepts was rewarded by the community and even in some cases, by the gods, as in the myth of Philemon and Baucis. The Hebrews also knew about the importance of emotional attachment, as Ecclesiastes 9:9 (NIV) says to 'Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun'. Following Judaic traditions, the Christian Church from the beginning expected only the most caring and empathetic relationship between husbands and wives. Note that this expectation had nothing to do with material considerations, either before the fact or after the fact. Emotional fulfilment was openly promoted as the focus of marriage, as when St Paul, in Ephesians 5:28 (NIV), enjoins husbands to love their wives as 'their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself'. Traditional Christianity, despite its praise of celibacy, recognised that extraordinary happiness could be achieved in marriage as well, as we can see in the lives of many canonised men and women throughout the last two millennia. Some of the more major figures were Paula (347-404), Elizabeth of Hungary (1207-1231), Frances of Rome (1384-1440), Nicholas von Flüe (1417-1487), Joan de Lestonnac (1556-1640). Many intellectuals, poets, painters, musicians, composers also had happy marriages. John Donne (1572-1631), whose poems and sermons are considered some of the best of the 17th century, openly credited his wife for his emotional strength and inspiration. One of the most charming descriptions of domestic tranquillity comes from the life of composer Heinrich Schütz (1585-1672). Although an author of exquisite sacred pieces, and totally imbued in mellifluity, it was said that he 'never knew or heard a more lovely sound or song than when he heard the voice or word of his precious wife'. 'She cared for him daily...when he came home from his work she was overjoyed to see him and ran with happiness to greet him'. Both Donne and Schütz lost their wives tragically early and neither remarried, which as a pragmatic matter was rather unusual for their time. Fortunately, both used their respective losses as an inspiration to make the love they had felt resonate through the word, voice and instrument.
No one can regard the warm thoughts of literate people of the past without acknowledging that affection was common, and was not considered abnormal, unusual, or strange. That these types of loving unions were praised by contemporaries shows high regard for affection between spouses. That we do not know more about such marriages is more attributable to the lack of detailed knowledge about the private lives of men and women of the past rather than some silent denigration of romance. Ironically, the people that we know most about, the kings, queens, dukes, duchesses and other high-born nobility and aristocracy, often had the worst marriages, suffering through loveless relationships as the products of early and arranged marriage. Perhaps this is one reason why we think of the past as wrapped in such cold emotional desolation.
Academia has attained a divided view of society where the past is 'pragmatic', the present is 'romantic' when it comes to marriage. The truth may be that it is precisely the other way around. Compared to the pre-industrial age, society of our time looks at the married couple not as a 'simple unit of production, but a focus of affection and solidarity'. From the point of view of the 20th century, the history of the Western world could be reduced to simplistic metaphors of winter and summer: A cold, sterile pre-modern folk, marrying only for money; and passionate, steamy romantic modern people, where romance is by far the overriding factor. To look at marriage in merely economic terms grossly underestimates the value of affection in pre-modern times. It is true that material aspects were more of an anxious concern than in our day, but this does not mean that fondness and deep emotional satisfaction were irrelevant. Many today see the two issues as mutually exclusive: Either a couple is materially orientated or it is romantically orientated. Our ancestors certainly did not view marriage as necessarily lacking in affection or thoughtfulness; most would certainly have been shocked if told that affection does not have to be at the centre of the ideal or proper marital relationship. Further, simply because they would have thought of a love-only relationship as reckless, they should not be condemned as unfeeling pragmatists. As respect, cooperation, consideration, all key ingredients of affection, were expected and experienced of and by family members, friends, and relatives, to have it lacking between a husband and wife would have been strange indeed.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright holder.
|
