Four Loves by C.S. Lewis (Review)
Four Loves made it onto my reading list because of an excerpt I once read about Lewis and his group of friends, the Inklings. The Inklings included J.R.R. Tolkien and author Charles Williams, who died unexpectedly. This was Lewis’s observation after Williams died:
“In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets. Now that Charles is dead, I shall never again see Ronald’s [Tolkien’s] reaction to a specifically Charles joke. Far from having more of Ronald, having him ‘to myself’ now that Charles is away, I have less of Ronald. Hence true Friendship is the least jealous of loves. Two friends delight to be joined by a third, and three by a fourth, if only the newcomer is qualified to become a real friend. They can then say, as the blessed souls say in Dante, ‘Here comes one who will augment our loves.’”
The story struck me and emphasized the way that people shape who we are. Admittedly, this idea in itself is not surprising. Yet in self-reliant America with our deep sense of individual, it can be easy to forget the intimacy that can develop between people and the depths of how affecting that intimacy can be. Lewis’s friendship drew me into the book in which he discussed four types of love: (1) storgí or affection, (2) filía or friendship, (3) eros, and (4) agape. He explained that the Greek distinguishment between types of relationships or love is far more precise than the blanket concept of love in the English language.
A few years ago, I read about the ills of male loneliness (https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/...), so the subject of relationships in modern America subsequently became of interest to me. “Four Loves” seemed to be a worthwhile way to explore the subject, and I recommend it for this purpose. That said, a number of the ideas Lewis explored are ones I have encountered in the past. It did not make the read any less enjoyable, but my past reading on relationships cause me to temper the extent of my recommendation. Still, the book is a quick read and provides a helpful framework for considering relationships.
As is my normal approach to book reviews, here are the notes I took during my read broken down by the four sections of the book:
Storgí or Affection
Lewis notes that storgi is based on familiarity, much like a dog wagging its tail at a familiar face. Lewis also compared storgi to gin—something good on its own but also a base for many good mixed drinks. Similarly, storgi is the base for other loves. Familiarity teaches us to endure and then enjoy other people despite their fallibilities. Lewis argues that all the loves he describes are but cheap substitutes for the love God has for us. But they are still foundational for agape.
Filía or Friendship
Lewis explores the importance of time in relation to friendship. There are many people who experience commonality—through work, school, or otherwise—and believe the relationship is friendship. Yet after time apart, a reunion reveals that it was mere companionship rather than the shared love of friendship. Companionship can only call upon past experiences. Friendship will resume the friendship as if no time had passed.
Friendship requires a shared understanding of the world—not necessarily the same opinion in that world but a knowledge of what makes the other person tick. The first requirement of friendship is companionship and sharing experience.
To echo the story Lewis told about losing Charles Williams to death: “The death of a friend is like the loss of a limb.”
Lewis contrasted friendship and eros by observing that friendship’s delight is the nakedness of souls rather than eros’s nakedness of bodies. It is the least jealous of loves; a group of friends can gather in shared affection. Good friends make people better, and bad friends make people worse; friendship amplifies an individual’s character.
Eros or Romantic Love
Lewis distinguishes between sex and eros. When a person wants sex, the other person is the necessity by which sex is possible—like a cigarette or a drink giving the chemical response. To continue the analogy, you wouldn’t keep the package of cigarettes or the bottle of alcohol after you’re finished consuming. For the desire of sex, the person is somewhat irrelevant and far different from eros. With eros—Lewis argues—a person wants his or her beloved, not for the pleasure that person can provide. Instead, the pleasure is a byproduct of being completely with the person.
Lewis’s comment about not taking sex too seriously was interesting and unexpected. He said it’s a disservice to treat sex as an act to be done without playfulness or joy. This take is not what I would expect from an English Christian in the mid-1900s. Here Lewis identified three views of the body. It is either (1) a sack of dung, (2) glorious or godlike, or (3) like Francis Bacon said—the body is like a donkey, sturdy, useful, infuriating, and comical. Lewis follows the third view.
Lewis focused on the male’s role in marriage to be Christlike. Marriage is to be sacrificial to the point of crucifixion. Eros—like the other loves—cannot sustain itself. It is like a garden. Left unattended, it will be overrun by weeds.
Agape
Lewis set up the discussion of agape by placing the other loves in comparison to divine love—particularly the inferiority of the lesser loves. Lewis posits that storgi, filia, and eros can only be eternal so far as their elements include an agape element—sharing an element of crucifixion. As part of his emphasis, Lewis referenced Augustine’s “Confessions.” Here is what Lewis wrote: “This is what comes, he says, of giving one's heart to anything but God. All human beings pass away. Do not let your happiness depend on something you may lose. If love is to be a blessing, not a misery, it must be for the only Beloved who will never pass away.
Lewis emphasizes the risk of love: “To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket—safe, dark, motionless, airless—it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. This conclusion is harsh, yet it is important as society wrestles with what relationships look like in the modern era.
Lewis is effective in how he gives insight into divine love. This fourth love emphasizes the importance of precision when looking at relationships. It shows the inadequacy of “love” as a catch-all phrase in the English language.
As I mentioned before, Four Loves is a worthwhile read, particularly if you have not given thought to the scope of relationships and how we interact with those around us and how we classify those relationships. The book may seem theoretical or—quite literally—mere semantics. Yet because relationships are so critical to who we are, it is valuable and practical to give thought and analysis to those we love—irrespective of what type of love it is.
