Why is it that something begins and then when it ends it's so hard to re-apprehend the experience? For example, when I experience a beautiful piece of music it only stays with me for so long. The rightness, the goodness, that desire and ardor that is the stuff of rash vows --can it last? Perhaps this is what corresponds to "the death of Beatrice". In the Vita Nuova, Dante describes his experience and vision of Beatrice when he saw her for the first time. Fifteen years later, she died. And Dante goes on to write, "what has never been written in honor of a lady before". Romantic Theology...
Lewis is characteristically lucid:
"A romantic theologian does not mean one who is romantic about theology but one who is theological about romance, one who considers the theological implications of those experiences which are called romantic. The belief that the most serious and ecstatic experiences either of human love or of imaginative literature have such theological implications ,and that they can be healthy and fruitful only if the implications are diligently thought out and severly lived, is the root principle of all his [Charles William's] work" (Introduction to "Essays Presented to Charles Williams").
How do we stay true to the image of the beloved?
Whatever that image may be, nature (think Wordsworth), the city (Virgil), or a girl (Beatrice), or music (Bach? Rachmaninoff?) how do we affirm and love it in such a way that it is neither blasphemous nor destructive?
In short, how do we love rightly?
This is sort of the question I'm starting with for my paper. I'm pretty sure Dante can help me. =D But what he has to say isn't at all easy. At least for me, I don't think of this as just a paper, for me, what Dante is saying and how I interpret him has real and significant implications. Perhaps Dante is wrong and crazy, if not wickedly lustful...
I sure hope not.
"He who has ears let him hear, he who has eyes let him see."
"This is thou, this also is not thou."
"...lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil..."
7 comments:
Head spinning already!
Ah, Dante! How shall we wring your secrets from you!
I look forward to your presentation and paper greatly!
I agree with the comment above, wow, good stuff. May I read your paper too? :P
Interesting...
Are you saying that, as the image of the loved object/person/whatnot becomes fuzzy, your love for it becomes corrupted? Would that imply that you have only been "in love" with the image, and not the essence of the thing itself? Sort of like being more in love with the Image of God than God himself.
Once you strip away the skin from the object, fully comprehend it, and find you can love it, can you lose your love for it?
Dear Sir Claviger,
The answer depends I think on what we mean by "fuzzy". If we mean that the Image becomes corrupted because it is pursued wrongly (think Wentworth in Descent into Hell), then yes, you do not love the thing itself but only an "image". The first thing we should get straight is that the Vision of the object/person/whatnot is never false (I think). It is in the method of loving that we get all screwed up.
As to your second section, I'm not sure what you mean by "fully commprehend". (I'm still working that part out myself). But if you mean that after seeing something beautiful and loving it and then subsequently lose that love, then yes it is possible. (A Severe Mercy...which you need to finish ;) )
Erg. That was jumbled and messy. There were at least three or four terms that were not clarified. This shall (hopefully) be fixed in presentation.
P.S. "Fuzzy" could also mean warm-and-fuzzy, in which case it would be an emotion attendant to an experience. In such cases, warm-and-fuzzy is the right response to (say) romantic comedy (i.e. the chick flick) or cute and cuddly baby animals. Proper sentiments my friend, proper sentiments (The Abolition of Man).
The Vision is never false? How do you mean? I'd pull the classic "the devil parades as an angel of light", but I'm not sure whether this is what you are referencing?
Mmm...Indeed. That's what I'm afraid of. I haven't worked out a comprehensive argument for this, but I can start with an observation. What can we know as true if we don't start with our senses? Now I'm not trying to set up a straw man here, it is a valid observation that the Vision (whatever that is) might be false. I'm merely making the counter-observation that once you start doubting, where does it stop? Dante is adamant that Love must go with the intellect in order for it to be true Love. There's no wishy washyness about his love (at least in the Divine Comedy). If you're looking for a happy fuzzy warm reunion at the top of Purgatory, you're in for a loop. =] (Quick, keep reading so you can get there. Hint: Beatrice descends!). I guess if I could sum up this ramble, I would ask this question: How do we apprehend what is true?
Post a Comment