Beatrice or Iseult? The debate about romantic love

Anglican Theological Review, Fall 1997 by Thomas, Owen C

Both Williams and de Rougemont make gestures toward the other's position. Williams states that one reaction to falling in love is to "lose ourselves in it,"29 which means to treat it as an end in itself which excuses any response to it, rather than treating it as the beginning of a new way of life. He also states that among the attacks which Hell has made on the Way of Romantic Love is the assumption that the state of love is a personal possession of the lover, and that it is sufficient to have known the state of love and to consider oneself as one of the elect.30

On his side de Rougemont states that Agape, Christian love, can rescue Eros, passionate love, from the myth of romantic love. Agape makes the bondage of Eros evident and thus delivers from this bondage. He states, "All pagan religions deify Desire. All seek to be upheld and saved by Desire, which is thus instantly transformed into the greatest enemy of Life, the seduction of Nothingness. . . . In ceasing to be a god, [Eros] ceases to be a demon. And he finds his proper place in the provisional economy of Creation and of what is human."31 De Rougemont does not elucidate what he means by this "proper place" of Eros, except to add that "fidelity secures itself against unfaithfulness by becoming accustomed not to separate desire from love," and to define marriage as "the institution in which passion is `contained, not by morals, but by love."32

De Rougemont goes on to state that in Christian marriage "fidelity is a refusal on oath `to cultivate' the illusions of passion, to render them a secret worship or to expect from them any mysterious intensification of life."33 Furthermore, "when a man is faithful to one woman, he looks on other women in quite another way, a way unknown to the world of Eros: other women turn into other persons instead of being reflections or means. This `spiritual exercise' develops new powers of judgement, self-possession, and respect.... The sway of the myth [of romantic love] is by so much weakened, and although this sway is unlikely ever to be entirely abolished without leaving traces in hearts drugged by images, hearts such as men harbour today, at least it loses its efficacy."34

De Rougemont seems to be quite negative about passion. He views it as the ultimate enemy of humanity and Christianity and also as an unavoidable element in human life which needs to be "contained." Williams, on the other hand, sees passion as "a gateway to divine things."

The exception mentioned above to the silence of the debate between Williams and de Rougemont is a brief review by Williams of the first English edition of de Rougemont's main work. In this review he dismisses much of de Rougemont's historical interpretation and argues for his own quite different view that the experience of falling in love can be one of grace and thus should not be identified with de Rougemont's passion myth. "The great tradition of romantic loverenewed like the phoenix in each generation-is quite other than the desire of death. The passion myth is a heresy of it: at moments a temptation; in moments of agony a very great temptation.... By virtue of the Incarnation Eros and Agape are no longer divided, though they may be again at the next moment."35