Fixing An Important But Misunderstood Section in Swedenborg’s Book on Conjugial Love
August 17, 2024
There is a section in Emanuel Swedenborg’s book, Conjugial Love (also translated as Love in Marriage) that has stopped me in my tracks while reading it because it felt incorrect, like it hit the wrong note and said something that just didn’t make sense. I decided to do a deep-dive into the Latin text and see if I could parse it out and understand it better, and to determine if what was translated was Swedenborg’s original intent. For anybody reading the book who may be similarly curious, I believe what I discovered solves the dilemma, reveals his full intent, and clears up the confusion.
The section under question is #259.
There are six different translations of Conjugial Love on New Christian Bible Study, but they more or less all translate this section into the same ideas, which I believe are incorrect. I’ll paste in just one of the translations here and then work through it with you:
The Roger’s translation says:
Of these incidental reasons for coldness, a fourth is the man’s thinking of his wife day and night that she wants to (be intimate), and conversely the wife's thinking of her husband that he does not want to. Except to observe that the first is a reason for coldness in men, and that the second is a reason for love’s ceasing in wives, we pass this by without discussion. For among the things known to husbands who explore secrets relating to conjugial love is the fact that a man is chilled to the bone if, at the sight of his wife by day or at her side by night, he thinks of her that she has the desire or wants to, and conversely, that a wife loses her love for her husband if she thinks of him that he is able and does not want to.
We include these observations as well in order to make this work complete and not omit anything from our treatment of the delights of wisdom relating to conjugial love.
The reason this struck me as incorrect was because of this thought: since when does a man get cold because he thinks his wife or girlfriend is too interested in him, but even if so, would he be thinking about that day and night?
And so, I read this as a “code smell,” that something may be off about the current translations of it.
Swedenborg did say in the prior section (Conjugial Love #258) that it sometimes happens with earthly couples that the man may become cold with his wife if she’s overly assertive with him or lectures him about her wants. But, when reading the whole book, it’s made clear that this typically only happens with a man who is in a carnal rather than an enlightened state of being. That still left the problem, however, that this current section likely wouldn’t be repeating the same cause as the prior section, and appeared to have an added reason for explaining coldness.
So I did a new translation of my own and then used ChatGPT to help me refine and test it against the Latin. Here is what I translated it as:
Regarding the causes of coldness that are accidental, the fourth is when the man’s thoughts, both by day and night, are whether his wife wants him, and conversely, the thoughts of his wife are whether he does not want her. That this may be the cause for the cessation of love among wives, and the cause of coldness among men, is because it is passed over by them without discussion. For example, the man, if he thinks of his wife while she’s in his presence during the day and by his side at night, about whether she desires or wants him, grows cold to the extreme; and conversely, if the wife thinks that her husband could act but chooses not to, she loses her love for him. This is known among husbands who study the secrets of conjugial love. These things are mentioned with the aim of perfecting this work and completing the delights of wisdom concerning conjugial love.
Most women want to be desired and loved by their husbands, even if they sometimes appear like they don’t. Swedenborg has a few stories in Conjugial Love where he demonstrates this (Conjugial Love #294). This behavior by the woman is to stress test the man. I suspect many men reading this will most likely know what I’m talking about. If a woman wants to know that her man is genuine, whether she realizes it or not, she may put him through a temporary trial by removing her attention and affection to see what he’ll do and how he’ll react. This may happen if she doubts his authenticity, but sometimes she’s wrong, that’s why it can be one of many accidental causes of coldness, as Swedenborg wrote. It sometimes occurs because of the result of the man’s lack of self-confidence, rather than lack of interest, even though that’s how she reads or reacts to it.
The original translators may have come to their conclusions because of what was written a section earlier in Conjugial Love #258, as well as later, in Conjugial Love #294, where angels teach Swedenborg that men who are in a natural state of mind cannot tolerate any feelings of loving affection coming towards them from their wives, if it comes in the form of nagging, and that if they do, it makes the men cold. However, a man has to be a natural state in order to act that coldly, and so, my conclusion was that that story doesn’t negate the more nuanced translation of #259, above. It doesn’t make sense that men would be cold towards their wives for desiring them. This is because Swedenborg explained in the book the nuances between partners, that the situation can sometimes be that one partner is in a spiritual state and the other in a natural state, and it can be either the man, the woman, or both. Therefore, an added accidental cause for coldness between partners is when either partner assumes a natural state in the other partner — that is, a lack of spiritual intent — when that isn’t actually the case. This misunderstanding between them can often occur because nobody can know the true, spiritual state of another person during earthly life, except for the Lord alone.
Regarding either of them, one will get cold and close themselves off to the other, either way, whether he or she is correct about the other person being in a natural state or not. For example, she may perceive him to be more interested in other women or some other interest than he is in her, but her perception about his inner state could be incorrect and based on faulty or biased information.
It follows, then, that communication between them (and perhaps with the help of a counselor), often resolves it.
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Swedenborg said that this was mentioned by him in order to perfect his work on Conjugial Love, which is why I went deep on this section in order to understand it. It seems to be a capstone concept regarding his work, as #259 fills out this nuance on the subject.
If women in the New Church read the mistranslation of it, however, they may become disillusioned with Swedenborg’s teachings on conjugial love, because they’ll infer from it, “If this is true, it would mean that I’d have to act cold towards my husband, otherwise it’ll turn him off from me,” and they know this doesn’t ring true, because with a spiritual man, if they did this, it would have the opposite effect, and would cause disunity in their marriage.
In fact, I spoke to at least two or three ex-members of the New Church who expressed disgust with Swedenborg’s book on Conjugial Love, perhaps, in part, stemming from a misunderstanding of what he was truly communicating regarding this. The fact is, among spiritual couples, the more that they honestly communicate and assume the best in each other, the more their fantasies or interests in other people or pursuits wanes, and the more their interests in each other increases.
The husband’s love depends on the wife’s love; so far as she loves such things, so far does the husband. It is the reverse in love which is not conjugial. The reason is because the former are one, and are conjoined as to interiors.
—Spiritual Experiences #6055 (2)
Among angels in heaven husbands do not encounter refusal or resistance on the part of their wives as happens in some cases on earth. Among angels in heaven one also finds discourse by wives about love and not the same silence that one finds in some cases on earth.
Dissecting the Latin
For anyone interested to how I drew these conclusions into my translation from the Latin text of #259, I’ve listed out my points for reasoning here.
Point #1
Base Translation: “the man’s thinking of his wife day and night that she wants to.”
Revised Translation: “the man’s thoughts, both by day and night, are whether his wife wants him.”
Change: The key Latin phrase under question is “de uxore quod velit” for “of the wife that wants.”
In Latin, while quod directly means that, the surrounding context can sometimes imply a sense of doubt or consideration, especially in introspective or reflective sentences.
The Latin word velit allows that sense of consideration to be applied here because it is in the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood is one of the grammatical moods used in Latin and it is primarily used to express ideas that are not certain or factual. Instead, the subjunctive mood is used for actions or states that are potential, hypothetical, desired, or dependent on certain conditions. With that in mind, our translation then becomes, “of the wife, with respect to her wants.”
If we shorten it for brevity, it becomes, “whether the wife wants.” And, since the wife is the man’s, and the subject of this clause are his thoughts, we say, “whether his wife wants.”
Finally, the question becomes, what does she want? Well, it’s pretty obvious in this case that she’s desiring a loving connection with her husband. So we add that in so that it reads clearly in English, and we get, “whether his wife wants him.” “him” is implied, given the context of the work and the passage.
As a result, rather than interpreting this statement as the man being turned off that his wife is constantly desiring him, the man is thinking that he is unsure whether she desires him. This is an important nuance.
Point #2
Base Translation: “we pass this by without discussion”
Revised Translation: “is because it is passed over by them without discussion.”
Change: The base translation makes it appear that the author (Swedenborg) is saying that he and the reader will be moving on to another topic without further discussion of the present one. But this doesn’t make sense because he then goes on to continue to talk about it in the next sentence. So I saw that as an indication that something may be wrong regarding the context for the construction of that translation. The revised translation says that the people in question — the man and his wife — make the mistakes mentioned when they pass over them in silence without discussing them as a couple. In other words, that they just live out their days without actually sitting down and having a heart-to-heart.
This translation makes a lot more sense within that context and because the Latin word praeteritur for “passed over” is in the singular, third-person, which is where we get the “it” instead of “we.”
While the passive form of praeteritur does not explicitly name the agents (husband and wife), the third-person context supports the interpretation that they are the implied subjects who neglect to reflect or communicate on the matter. If the agents were “we” rather than “it” or “them,” the Latin term used would have been the second person, praeterimus, with imus rather than itur affixed to the end. “By them” in the translated English, makes this distinction clear.
The “is because” is inferred from the use of the subjunctive mood, with the Latin terms quod illud sit, which means “because it may be.”
Point #3
Base Translation: “thinks of her that she has the desire or wants to”
Revised Translation: “when he thinks of his wife...about whether she desires or wants him”
Change: The revised translation introduces the element of doubt or uncertainty in the husband’s thoughts, which aligns more closely with the subtlety of the original Latin. This nuanced approach better reflects the emotional complexity of the situation. This translation incorporates a subtle uncertainty with “about whether she desires,” which reflects the husband’s possible doubts or concerns. This is in line with the context of the passage, where the husband’s thoughts about his wife’s desires are not absolute but rather contemplative.
The Latin here is quod illa cupiat aut velit which directly translates to “that she desires or wants,” and like before, we translate quod as whether she desires or wants, because of the subjunctive mood of cupiat and velit, and because it has to do with their relationship. Swedenborg’s use of two Latin terms here — cupiat and velit — along with aut for “or” to connect them, indicates that he was clarifying his use of velit within the context of cupiat, in order to give us more contextual understanding of his meaning. Otherwise, he would have just said velit again. Cupiat comes from the same source as the English word for Cupid, the mythical Roman god of love, and indicates a romantic desire, and the wish for love.
