View profile

Conditional Intentions and Chastity - Issue #135

MLA: My hope is that 2020 will see the number of this newsletter's 'members' double. Remember that yo
The Path Before Us
Conditional Intentions and Chastity - Issue #135
By Matthew Lee Anderson • Issue #135 • View online
MLA: My hope is that 2020 will see the number of this newsletter’s ‘members’ double. Remember that you may become a member for free. For those interested, Tim Carmody offers an interesting analysis of the importance of patronage for our contemporary economy of writing, which comes near to explaining how I’ve thought about this effort. Thanks, as always, for reading.
Florence Mountjoy is a peculiarly gripping young woman, who, as so often happens in Anthony Trollope’s novels, has promised herself to a young man that her mother objects to. Trollope’s Mr. Scarborough’s Family is one long examination of the nature and rationality of fidelity. Florence and Henry Annesley become betrothed early on, and then the latter is falsely accused of scandalous behavior that threatens his inheritance and his betrothal. As happens, the family puts all sorts of pressure on Florence to break the engagement, which she resolutely resists: she will have her Henry, or no one. 
Of course, other eligible young men are introduced to Florence in order to weaken her attachment. Mr. Anderson (no relation), a rather dashing if otherwise banal civil servant, falls rather badly for her. He proposes to Florence, but she will not deviate from the course of her original love. Instead, Florence exacts from Anderson a promise to desist from bothering her further—a promise that he keeps, as a proper gentleman should. 
That might be the end of it, but Anderson isn’t done. “A cloud has passed over me,” he announces to Florence at their final meeting, and “it will never be effaced.” Disconsolate and heartbroken, Anderson reminds Florence that he kept her promise and asks one of her: if Florence should change her mind about Annesley, would she give him a chance? Such a promise would only impose an obligation on Florence to notify Anderson if her fiancé were, for whatever reason, to not become her wife. 
Now pause for a moment: what do you think that Florence should do? Is such a promise benign? It is a conditional promise: she would give Anderson a try only if Annesley were to disappear from her life. And it would be a weak promise, at that: she need only notify Anderson, and give him a chance to try his fortune again. For a young woman who has spent 350 pages or so having her faithfulness to her fiancé tested, such a proposal seems benign. 
As you might imagine, though, Dear Florence will have none of it. The promise is “so impossible,” she responds, offended at the suggestion that anything could remove Annesley from his position as fiancé. She rejects the conditional: she cannot bring herself to contemplate a possibility where Annesley goes one way and she another, much less make a promise that would be contingent upon this happening. 
It might seem like Florence is simply too romantic, or that she has too exacting a standard for faithfulness to her promise. I suspect that if we polled most people, they would give us either of those responses. I am sympathetic to her stance, in part because both responses are so intuitive: there is something delightfully romantic about such extraordinary fidelity to a promise, something death-defying about such an unswerving commitment that will not even contemplate other possibilities. The romantic has discovered the iron law within love, which is more indestructible than any a legalist might erect. They will not contemplate conditionals, because they cannot contemplate life without their beloved. 
This is the sort of scenario that I think we are regularly faced with, in both erotic contexts and many others. The hypothetical mood is a crucial arena for moral reasoning: phrases like ‘would you,’ ‘could you,’ and ‘should you’ that are all preceded by an if disclose something crucial about our hearts and our selves. “Would you ever consider marrying that person?” The question is an invitation to consider a person within an erotic context—and if we are already married or pledged to someone, that is precisely what we ought not do. (It seems to me licit for the single person to ask such a question—and even, in some cases, wise!) The wrongness is more clear, though, if the thought is an intention or a promise: if my spouse died, I would try to marry that person. While such an intention is conditional, it still commits ourselves in a way that signals the non-exclusivity of our present love. There are certain thoughts and intentions that the exclusive commitment of love delights in rejecting, and conditional intentions or desires are among them. 
Which is to say, the exclusivity of love within marriage is tied to its all-consuming nature: it is because the other so fully and completely captures our attention and desire that we cannot contemplate even the possibility of others taking their place, regardless of how fanciful the conditions might be. Florence Mountjoy had it right. But then, Trollope’s heroines usually do. 

On Related Matters
Why Anthony Trollope Is Trending
The Penultimate Word
“Therefore, an eye that has been made pure and undivided will be fit for and capable of perceiving and contemplating its own interior light, for this is the eye of the heart. That person possesses such an eye who has determined that the purpose of his good works is that they should truly be good works, not for winning people’s approval. If he happens to please them, though, he thinks rather in terms of their salvation and the glory of God and not of his own vain boastfulness. Nor does he perform a good deed for the salvation of his neighbour in order to acquire things that are necessary for maintaining his livelihood. Nor does he rashly pass judgment on a person’s intention and will, inasmuch as it is not apparent with what intention and will a deed may be done. And whatever service he may render to another person he performs with the same intention with which he would want it rendered to himself, that is, in such a way that he would not expect some temporal gain from him. This is how the heart with which we seek God will be undivided and pure.” – Augustine
Did you enjoy this issue?
Become a member for $3 per month
Don’t miss out on the other issues by Matthew Lee Anderson
Matthew Lee Anderson

I'll help you train your powers of discernment, so that you can better discern good and evil in this world.

You can manage your subscription here
If you were forwarded this newsletter and you like it, you can subscribe here.
Powered by Revue