, , , , , , ,



It has been widely held in the past, and is perhaps held by many unsophisticated people to-day, that the spiritual danger of Eros arises almost entirely from the carnal element within it; that Eros is “noblest” or “purest” when Venus is reduced to the minimum.  The older moral theologians certainly seem to have thought that the danger we chiefly had to guard against in marriage was that of a soul-destroying surrender to the senses.  It will be noticed, however, that this is not the Scriptural approach.  St. Paul, dissuading his converts from marriage, says nothing about that side of the matter except to discourage prolonged abstinence from Venus (I Cor. VII, 5).  What he fears is pre-occupation, the need of constantly “pleasing”—that is, considering—one’s partner, the multiple distractions of domesticity.  It is marriage itself, not the marriage bed, that will be likely to hinder us from waiting uninterruptedly on God.  And surely St. Paul is right?  If I may trust my own experience, it is (within marriage as without) the practical and prudential cares of this world, and even the smallest and most prosaic of those cares, that are the great distraction.  The gnat-like cloud of petty anxieties and decisions about the conduct of the next hour have interfered with my prayers more often than any passion or appetite whatever.  The great, permanent temptation of marriage is not to sensuality but (quite bluntly) to avarice.  With all proper respect to the medieval guides, I cannot help remembering that they were all celibates, and probably did not know what Eros does to our sexuality; how, far from aggravating, he reduces the nagging and addictive character of mere appetite.  And that not simply by satisfying it.  Eros, without diminishing desire, makes abstinence easier.  He tends, no doubt, to a pre-occupation with the Beloved which can indeed be an obstacle to the spiritual life; but not chiefly a sensual pre-occupation.

The real spiritual danger in Eros as a whole lies, I believe, elsewhere.  I will return to the point.  For the moment, I want to speak of the danger which at present, in my opinion, especially haunts the act of love.  This is a subject on which I disagree, not with the human race (far from it), but with many of its gravest spokesmen.  I believe we are all being encouraged to take Venus too seriously; at any rate, with a wrong kind of seriousness.  All my life a ludicrous and portentous solemnisation of sex has been going on.

One author tells us that Venus should recur through the married life in “a solemn, sacramental rhythm.”  A young man to whom I had described as “pornographic” a novel that he much admired, replied with genuine bewilderment, “Pornographic? But how can it be? It treats the whole thing so seriously”—as if a long face were a sort of moral disinfectant.  Our friends who harbour Dark Gods, the “pillar of blood” school, attempt seriously to restore something like the Phallic religion.  Our advertisements, at their sexiest, paint the whole business in terms of the rapt, the intense, the swoony-devout; seldom a hint of gaiety.  And the psychologists have so bedevilled us with the infinite importance of complete sexual adjustment and the all but impossibility of achieving it, that I could believe some young couples now go to it with the complete works of Freud, Kraft-Ebbing, Havelock Ellis and Dr. Stopes spread out on bed-tables all round them.  Cheery old Ovid, who never either ignored a mole-hill or made a mountain of it, would be more to the point.  We have reached the stage at which nothing is more needed than a roar of old-fashioned laughter.


But, it will be replied, the thing is serious.  Yes; quadruply so.  First, theologically, because this is the body’s share in marriage which, by God’s choice, is the mystical image of the union between God and Man.  Secondly, as what I will venture to call a sub-Christian, or Pagan or natural sacrament, our human participation in, and exposition of, the natural forces of life and fertility—the marriage of Sky-Father and Earth-Mother.  Thirdly, on the moral level, in view of the obligations involved and the incalculable momentousness of being a parent and ancestor.  Finally it has (sometimes, not always) a great emotional seriousness in the minds of the participants.

But eating is also serious; theologically, as the vehicle of the Blessed Sacrament; ethically in view of our duty to feed the hungry; socially, because the table is from time immemorial the place for talk; medically, as all dyspeptics know.  Yet we do not bring bluebooks to dinner nor behave there as if we were in church.  And it is gourmets, not saints, who come nearest to doing so.  Animals are always serious about food.

We must not be totally serious about Venus.  Indeed we can’t be totally serious without doing violence to our humanity.  It is not for nothing that every language and literature in the world is full of jokes about sex.  Many of them may be dull or disgusting and nearly all of them are old.  But we must insist that they embody an attitude to Venus which in the long run endangers the Christian life far less than a reverential gravity.  We must not attempt to find an absolute in the flesh.  Banish play and laughter from the bed of love and you may let in a false goddess.  She will be even falser than the Aphrodite of the Greeks; for they, even while they worshipped her, knew that she was “laughter-loving.”  The mass of the people are perfectly right in their conviction that Venus is a partly comic spirit.

C. S. Lewis



Circa 1960