Two Periods in the Transformation of Love

Western society's earliest marriages were practical marriages. Togetherness was seen as something
that it would benefit society more to be practically based rather than romantically based. Despite
the presence of the celebration of love in this period - bards, the sonnet, chivalry - love was seen
as an almost taboo foundation for love (Coontz, 2005, 145). Perhaps this is why we find so many
themes of unrequited love in this period (Petrarch, Dante; the knights who could only love ladies
from afar, in praise of purity rather than passion).
The practical view of love sought to satisfy three needs: first, to cement ties between families,
clans, communities or even whole nations, such as the example of marriages between the young
princes and princesses of Europe; second, to protect or unite legacies, in the business sense, which
is why arranged marriages were common among the wealthier and better-educated; and finally,
for social harmony. Around the world, this survives (Razdan, 2003, 70).
Since then, the role of love in marriage has changed unrecognizably. What may have happened to
reshape Western Europes understanding of love so completely?
What can we identify as the definitely divided periods of European thought - thought of course
being a thing of vagueness - that led to the transformation of the marriage concept from how it
existed in the middle Ages to how it exists in our own time? This is a wide duration that most
historians place as having begun in the very late 1500s and ended in the early 1800s. Three
differently divided periods may be recognized within this time frame, although their beginnings
and ends are not mutually exclusive ("The Age," n.d., p. 1). Also, even though it is ideas that allow
the different periods to be distinguished, and not so much their years or main players behind the
thought, they do have ideas in common as well ("The Age," n.d., p. 1).
The Age of Reason took place most actively in continental Europe, then Britain, and to a lesser
extent the United States. The main players included Descartes of France, Leibnitz of Germany,
Spinoza of the Netherlands and Kant of Germany. It represented a shift in the focus of faith.
Catholic Europe, while retaining much of the teachings of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Galen, etc.,
revived from the preservation by the Arabs and the re-translation from the Arabic into Latin and
the new Germanic and Romance languages, was primarily founded in the importance of "blind"
faith, acceptance of God's will and His methods. Much of the world was beyond human knowledge
and understanding. Thus, much was left unhampered with, unquestioned, in the view that it would
either be sacrilegious or pointless to do so; for example, the dissection of human bodies was
forbidden by the Catholic Church for centuries, severely retarding the development of medical
studies. Contrary to its equation with a retracted belief in God, the Age of Reason retained most
European theism, but moved the theism from a focus on faith to a newfound trust in the intellectual
and reasoning abilities of man ("The Age," n.d., p. 1). They included ideas such as the extraction
of human knowledge from human activities and reasoning rather than Holy Scriptures, a denial of
miracles, the process of discovery and invention rather than prayer and faith to advance human
knowledge, and the transition from God's law to manmade law. The Age of Reason was the first
movement to replace the analysis and interpretation of the holy scriptures with "the experiences of
the physical senses" ("The Age," n.d., p. 2).
The Age of Reason represented the first break that Europe made with millennia old religious
dogma. It gave birth to the Age of Enlightenment. "Enlightenment" being a greater term than
"reason" gives us an idea that the Age of Enlightenment was based on the same principles of the
same philosophers, but with greater applicability and ambitions ("The Age," n.d., p. 2). While the
Age of Reason had dealt with new ways to advance human knowledge, the Age of Enlightenment
promoted "using our own God given reason and understanding to decide what to think and how to
act" ("The Age," n.d., p. 2). Furthermore, the Age of Enlightenment was much bolder than the Age
of Reason, favouring either a theism that moved completely away from denominations or atheism.
For example, "Kant said it was an offence to God given human nature to think and act as the Bible,
Church, or State command and instruct us" ("The Age," n.d., p. 2).
The Age of Reason represented the first break that Europe made with millennia old religious
dogma. It gave birth to the Age of Enlightenment. "Enlightenment" being a greater term than
"reason" gives us an idea that the Age of Enlightenment was based on the same principles of the
same philosophers, but with greater applicability and ambitions ("The Age," n.d., p. 2). While the
Age of Reason had dealt with new ways to advance human knowledge, the Age of Enlightenment
promoted "using our own God given reason and understanding to decide what to think and how to
act" ("The Age," n.d., p. 2). Furthermore, the Age of Enlightenment was much bolder than the Age
of Reason, favoring either a theism that moved completely away from denominations or atheism.
For example, "Kant said it was an offence to God given human nature to think and act as the Bible,
Church, or State command and instruct us" ("The Age," n.d., p. 2). In common with the Age of
Reason, Age of Enlightenment associated the furthering of human knowledge, with human
advancement; this produced the exciting idea that "there was no limit to how far the human race
could progress" ("The Age," n.d., p. 2).
But more significantly, the Age of Enlightenment did not include only the emphasis on human
reason, but the application of human reason to ethics. We have mentioned that the Age of Reason
was in favour of a shift from Biblical law to secular law. The Age of Enlightenment, in turn,
favoured a paradigm shift from thinking about human rights and responsibilities in terms of God
and salvation, to human rights and responsibilities as they existed (or at least ought to exist) in the
natural or ethical sense. Whereas previously Europe had looked at human rights relative to God -
for example, freedom of religion might lead to practicing idolatry, which was a transgression in
the face of the Abrahamic God - the Age of Enlightenment looked at the rights of humans relative
to other humans - for example, if the practice of one religion did not infringe on the practice of
another religion, it was then seen as morally neutral. Some of the changes in thinking produced by
the Age of Enlightenment were political; for example, it delegitimized the idea that kings, princes
and even the Pope could rule in Europe through the favour and appointment by God (although this
idea survived in archaic states until much longer, for example, Tsarist Russia until the October
Socialist Revolution). But in other ways, the Age of Enlightenment threatened, delegitimized and
eventually destroyed social biases that had long been held by the Catholic Church; "for example,
their [the Enlightenment philosophers'] definitions of the concepts of liberty, justice and equality
justified various types of wickedness in relation to sex and easy divorce. Their concept of the
pursuit of happiness quickly degenerated into a worship of both God-given pleasures and evil
perverted uses of these" (The Age, n.d., p. 2).
Thus, while the Age of Reason guided the direction of the sciences and studies, as well as the law,
the Age of Enlightenment extended to simpler individual and human rights, and goaded a social
rebellion.
Works Cited
Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a History. New York: Viking Press
Razdan, A. (2003). What's Love Got to do with it? The Utne Reader.
The Age Of Reason, The Enlightenment And Deism. (n.d.).
http://internetbiblecollege.net/lessons/The%20Age%20Of%20Reason.pdf March 18 2011