I’m starting to think that it’s required by law that people read Khalil Gibran’s poem On Marriage at their weddings. I recently saw a wedding message board in which almost all of the women planned to include it in their nuptials, and I’ve heard it recited at most of the out-of-church weddings I’ve attended. You can read the whole thing here, but here’s an excerpt:
Love one another, but make not a bond of love:
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.
Fill each other’s cup but drink not from one cup.
Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf
Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,
Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music. [...]And stand together yet not too near together:
For the pillars of the temple stand apart,
And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other’s shadow.
Before I go on, let me say that I’m not knocking weddings at which this poem was read—as someone who walked down the aisle in a dark purple dress in a rented theater, and had a seven-minute ceremony that was overshadowed by a 14-hour reception, I’m the last person to appoint myself as the wedding police. I simply want to get out there something that needs to be said: This poem is very beautiful. But it’s really bad advice. I mean, add a few step-by-step numbers, and it works as an instructional manual:
How to Have a Difficult Marriage
1. Love one another, but make not a bond of love.
2. Fill each other’s cup but drink not from one cup.
3. Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf.
4. Stand together yet not too near together.
Though it was published in 1923, it’s an eloquent articulation of our modern culture’s new understand of marriage. In this view, the individual is more important than the family unit. Marriage is seen as a path to self-fulfillment for each spouse, where protecting yourself trumps self-sacrificial love, and personal autonomy trumps all.
I suspect that this poem has grown in popularity in recent decades because it resonates with people who where children in the 70s and 80s, which had some of the highest divorce rates ever. There is a distinct sense of bet-hedging in this poem: Don’t lose yourself. Don’t give too much. Guard yourself and your possessions. Keep a clear boundary between yourself and your spouse. Otherwise you might get hurt.
It reminds me of a heartbreaking article that was out in the Wall Street Journal last month, where Susan Gregory Thomas talked about the tragedy of Generation X divorces. So many of these couples whose marriages ended tried so hard to make it work, since they had come from broken homes themselves. Their approach was reasonable enough: Make sure you marry someone you like, make sure you work well as roommates, and it should be fine. It was the Khalil Gibran ideal: Two people who love each other doing their own thing under the same roof; each person careful not to give too much of him or herself, not too much intermingling of property. I can see how this seems like it would work. But usually it doesn’t.
Though divorce rates among this generation are looking better than in previous decades, I would suggest that it is in spite of this new “lifelong roommates” view of marriage, not because of it. It is a rare couple that makes it to their 25th anniversary with each person worrying about whether he or she is giving too much to the other. It is through marriage that we have the opportunity to experience the joy that comes with self-giving, and the powerful love that is generated when two people care for one another more than they care for themselves. It isn’t easy, but it’s the only option for a healthy, happy marriage that lasts.
So, if you want to have a great marriage, skip On Marriage as a reading at your wedding, and use it as a reverse how-to guide: Stand close together, eat from the same loaf, drink from the same cup, and, with God at the center, make an unbreakable bond of love.
Comments
Post a Comment
This is a total misunderstanding of Khalil Gibran. In the larger body of work this came from, The Prophet, there is a poem (indeed the preceding one) on Love, which speaks more to total self-giving in a very Eucharistic sense. Gibran, a Christian convert, would not have had the above mentioned populist understanding understanding that I suspect became popular in the 60s and enjoyed a resurgence recently. Here is Gibran on Love:
Then said Almitra, “Speak to us of Love.”
And he raised his head and looked upon the people, and there fell a stillness upon them. And with a great voice he said:
When love beckons to you follow him,
Though his ways are hard and steep.
And when his wings enfold you yield to him,
Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you. And when he speaks to you believe in him,
Though his voice may shatter your dreams as the north wind lays waste the garden.
For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning.
Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches that quiver in the sun,
So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to the earth. Like sheaves of corn he gathers you unto himself.
He threshes you to make you naked.
He sifts you to free you from your husks.
He grinds you to whiteness.
He kneads you until you are pliant;
And then he assigns you to his sacred fire, that you may become sacred bread for God’s sacred feast.
All these things shall love do unto you that you may know the secrets of your heart, and in that knowledge become a fragment of Life’s heart.
But if in your fear you would seek only love’s peace and love’s pleasure,
Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love’s threshing-floor,
Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears.
Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself.
Love possesses not nor would it be possessed; For love is sufficient unto love. When you love you should not say, “God is in my heart,” but rather, I am in the heart of God.”
And think not you can direct the course of love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
Love has no other desire but to fulfil itself.
But if you love and must needs have desires, let these be your desires:
To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night.
To know the pain of too much tenderness.
To be wounded by your own understanding of love;
And to bleed willingly and joyfully.
To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of loving;
To rest at the noon hour and meditate love’s ecstasy;
To return home at eventide with gratitude;
And then to sleep with a prayer for the beloved in your heart and a song of praise upon your lips.
Better yet, don’t read poetry at all in any public venue except possibly a public poetry reading. Except for the Psalms.
I’ve already warned my wife and friends that if they read poetry at my wake, I will stay back and haunt them for years.
My brother got the opportunity to teach honors English to high school juniors and seniors for a couple years. He would start the year with a poem by Robert Frost (whom he loves!) and then proceed to teach his classes how to read and understand poetry. Which even the really good students, after 10 years of education, had never learned how to do. So remember, these are the people who are picking the poetry for your weddings and funerals.
You’re so right about the attitude behind that poem. I’ve noticed the same idea in the advice columnist in my paper (Carolyn Hax). Whenever anybody asks a question related to marriage or getting married, her answer is always firmly based on the axiom that one must never EVER get married out of any sense of need or dependence. The only acceptable marriage in her worldview is one where both parties are 100% fulfilled, healthy, and emotionally satisfied in their separate, independent lives - marriage is some sort of icing that can only be added to an already perfect cake. To see marriage as filling any need, completing you in any way, or structuring your life, is anathema. Of course, it’s only natural that marriage entered this way is a transient arrangement, that will and should end whenever the feelings change. Thanks for articulating this view so clearly here.
Well said, Jennifer! I couldn’t agree more.
The poem thing reminds me: Suz and I were married as Protestants in a Protestant church, and at our wedding—scoff if you must—we did the unity candle thing (we got a fantastic hand-sculpted candle from this custom candle place here in NJ). And we made a point of extinguishing the individual candles after lighting the unity candle. We had seen weddings where the individual candles were left burning, and even where the pastor commented on the symbolism of “remaining individuals” or whatever, and we always thought this was rot. Whatever truth there might be to that notion of “remaining individuals” was not something we felt should be celebrated at a wedding. The two shall become one, not three.
Anyway, we just celebrated 20 years this month. Neither of us can understand married couples who seem to feel a need to build personal space insulating themselves from one another into the relationship: who consider it important, for instance, to get away to the office, or to have evenings out—not for the sake of doing the thing, but for the sake of getting away.
Many years ago I worked at a Kinko’s that was the local training center for new Kinko’s employees, and talking to the store manager I learned that the trainer was his wife. “Oh, so you get to be around your wife all day—that must be nice for you” was my comment. That stopped him in his tracks. “You’re the first person who’s ever said that,” he told me. “Most people say ‘How do you stand it?’” Blinking, I replied, “Well, I guess that says something about my idea of marriage versus other people’s.” I never did find out whether his own experience was more like my idea or more like the other people’s.
Sometimes my job allows me to work at home, even for days at a time. We all love it—me, Suz, the kids. I’d work at home every day if I could.
Oh, and regarding that line about “the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other’s shadow” ... well, check out some of these trees. (Hey, and here’s a striking example.)
I’m pretty sure the unity candle is an attempt to serve the function that a couple laying flowers at the feet of a Marian statue while “Ave Maria” plays serves in most Catholic weddings. It works because “Ave Maria” is only about a minute and a half long, while whatever New Country, Contemporary Christian or Monster Ballad song that gets picked for unity candle ceremonies usually plays on interminably while the couple stands in uncomfortable silence.
@ M.Swaim: “Thigpen’s Wedding,” from Kemper Crabb’s The Vigil, is two minutes long, and is well worth a listen if you haven’t heard it. (If you aren’t familiar with Crabb, his quasi-medieval stylings resemble none of the genres you invoked.)
Well written. Thank you. @Steve G. Thanks for your comment as well. My husband and I very much spend a lot of our day together with the kids. And we love it.
My sister had this poem read at her Catholic wedding in the late 1970’s. I was surprised to hear that it is still being read. She divorced by the way. In the Thomas article from the WSJ, she cites the statistic that shows co-habiting couples are more likely to divorce, but somehow thoutht she and her husband would be “immune” from this. They weren’t. the idea of self-sacrifice seems to be foreign to so many people as they marry now, but was not to my parent’s generation (Mom is in her 80’s.) It is hard to teach your children about sacrifice when the world is telling them it is all about “me” “me” “me”.
Hi - just a near future bride here saying my fiance and I will definitely not be choosing this poem for our wedding. I’m Catholic and my fiance is Protestant and while we’re not quite sure where we’re getting married in March - we both agreed we especially disliked this poem for a wedding. I found it while he was over at my place helping me plan wedding details and after showing it to him - we both agreed it is the exact opposite of the language we would like to represent our future marriage - thanks Jennifer for the excellent post!
Oh my! We used that poem in our wedding. Our first wedding, that is—the hippie one. After crashing and burning, we found our way back to church and got married again in a beautiful Catholic ceremony.
Perhaps this would be a better poem to be read at the pre-nuptial argeement signing that is also very popular these days.
Nothing compares to “til death do you part.” Anything else is imitation.
I don’t know if it was intentional or not, but I found the statement in your last paragraph to be quite appropriate:
“So, if you want to have a great marriage, ... Stand close together, eat from the same loaf, drink from the same cup, and, with God at the center, make an unbreakable bond of love.”
... The picture that formed in my mind was a bride & groom receiving the Eucharist together at their wedding ceremony.
God bless…
Well said! This prompts me to plan a post on the dreadful Henry Scott-Holland poem which is sometimes read at funerals (“Death is nothing at all ...”)
My younger sister summed it up well at a talk I once heard her give on marriage - “One flesh, one cheque book.”
It’s interesting about this poem that the image I get is of NOT sharing in the Eucharist together, which seems deeply wrong. A close friend recently got married and she did a true Catholic marriage (bride and groom walk down together, Eucharist while kneeling, flowers to Mary during the Salve, etc). I had tears in my eyes at the point when they received from the same cup, it was fitting and right.
But isn’t there a need to be individuals in order to come together? I suppose I’m thinking of individuals who are co-dependent in a negative way - where they loose their identity. You must be in possession of something in order to give it to another person, and that goes for your being as well.
I feel this is worded badly…
Thank you for this article. There does sem to be a contrast between “not sharing from the same loaf” and the Holy Eucharist. “one body” I wonder if you were able to share your thoughts on the peom in the wedding board? I agree. Terrible choice.
Excellent article. I can only add “...the two shall become one flesh.”
Great article, Jennifer!
Just wanted to point something out re: Steven’s comments up at the top. In some instances such as my own marriage, the need for personal space and alone time comes from the fact that both my husband and I, but especially him, are introverts and need time by ourselves to recharge.
Ahhhhh, I remember thinking Gibran was truly deep when I was in highschool, and a boyfriend gave me “The Prophet”. I hadn’t reread anything of his until this review of a compilation of his works in “First Things” http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/003-on-the-recent-publication-of-kahlil-gibrans-icollected-worksi-50
Thanks for the opportunity to share a delightful laugh, as well as making an excellent point, Gibran’s faith notwithstanding.
I always appreciate your blog, can’t wait for the book.
God bless,
Lisa
I agree with the whole thrust of Jennifer’s article. However, in regards to Graydanus—oh come on, I need occasional time alone and so does my husband. I assure you that this does not make us raging individualists.
I’ve never been able to read Kahlil Gibran as anything but laughable since I read the First Things review of his collected works: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/03/on-the-works-of-kahlil-gibran
“Isn’t there a need to be individuals in order to come together?”
While the answer is “yes”, one word cannot actually address the idea underlying this question.
The emphasis on “maintaining individuality” seems to be born from fear - specifically fear of “being consumed and used up” - or basically - fear of death.
Yes, you do have to have two individuals to come together.
However, an emphasis on “maintaining individuality” takes a the disturbingly common secular view of marriage as simply a legal contract between two individuals who continue to remain separate, denying any real union actually occurs except in the biological sense of reproduction.
But this is contradictory to the concept (and sacrament) of marriage, which is not just a legal contract, but a complete, sacred (& IMO, mystical) union. As Vince notes, “...the two shall become one flesh.”
In marriage, two become one. No, becoming one in marriage doesn’t mean I can’t read a book by myself. No, we don’t become two headed monsters when we say “I do”. No we don’t become siamese twins joined at the hip, either physically or mentally or anything, but we are called to give ourselves fully, in imitation of Christ, to one another. No, we don’t have to steep ourselves in everyone’s company every second of the day.
Those & more are parts of why I say the marriage union is also “mystical”. I just dont see it as something that can be summarized in a one page (or even one volume) explanation.
That fear of “losing yourself”, is basically a fear of the statement that “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
... or again, a fear of death. The insistence on maintaining one’s own “individuality” and separateness from one’s spouse displays our natural difficulty and reluctance to “lay down our lives”, give ourselves completely to one another, culminating in resisting the union that is marriage.
Which is how I understand Jennifer’s point - essentially that this outlook is contrary to marriage, and can damage the foundation of a marriage.
(These are my own feelings & thoughts on the matter, and I understand that while my personal directness can sometimes seem harsh, I do not mean to impart that in ANY way.)
Nicely put, Jen. Marriage makes you vulnerable, but it makes you open for so much that is good, so it’s no wonder that these “Don’t stand so close to me” marriages fall apart—they don’t allow themselves to get hurt, but they also close themselves off from the help and love that you can only get from someone you’ve bound yourself to.
.
I’ve never been to a wedding with a recitation this dreadful poem, but I did attend a ceremony at which a duet sang—yes, during the ceremony—“All I Ask of You” from Phantom of the Opera. Including references to Chritine and Raoul, even though the bride and groom were. . . .not named Christine and Raoul. It was odd.
@ Courageous Grace: Thanks for your comment. That “recharging” angle is a new one on me. Appreciated.
@ Erika Evans: Raging individualist? When did I say anything like that? I just said Suz and I don’t get it.
If anything, it’s the other way around: Needing alone time away from one’s spouse doesn’t make one an individualist lacking commitment to one’s spouse or marriage, but I suspect individualists lacking commitment to their spouse and marriage probably feel strongly about alone time away from their spouse. I certainly don’t mean to judge anyone, though.
@ Rachel: Isn’t Alan Jacobs wonderful?
@ Steven Greydanus,
That reminds me, there’s a fellow I work with here who has a group picture of himself, his wife and their two young sons, and I need to congratulate him on keeping a picture of himself with his wife publicly viewable. I’ve noticed over too many years of work, that most married people will have pictures of their children on their desks, but very few have pictures of their spouses. Even the ones who I know (or think I know) to be happily married.
Well, we married in a protestant ceremony 30 years ago and we read Gibran’s “On Friendship” rather than the marriage poem. It seemed more meaningful back then ... we’re still married and always will be.
LOL the capcha word is hope77 ...
Great article Jennifer. It’s sad when people miss the point of the selfless giving and love that makes a marriage. It’s not lessening of yourself, it’s creating something greater in the relationship with your spouse. Sometimes you can see in others that they just don’t have the same sense of what marriage is, or could be.
But, hey, too many people people don’t get the difference between a sacramental Catholic marriage and any other ceremony. They complain about having to follow any rules or limits, after all, they just want to get married in a pretty church! (With the dress and music they want—but that’s another topic…)
Steven, not that you need my support, but I agree (but you know that). My husband and I are also married 20 years and we’re far from perfect, but we’ve spent more than 13 years both working at home (separate work projects). And we still love each other very much and hope we don’t have to give up working at home. It is astounding (and sad) how many people are truly amazed at our life. An astonishing number of people tell us they would “kill” their spouse if they were together all the time, or that they can’t stand it if a spouse is home too long (vacation, illness, retirement, etc). How sad.
This doesn’t mean we’re joined at the hip or have lost our distinct identities or opinions. And we have separate interests and have some separate friends and activities. But we actually still like spending time together.
This poem is beautiful, but I feel that the moment is lost in your interpretation. Marriage is not meant to be enslavement of one soul to another, i.e.bonded serviude, but a partnership shared with God, to assist each other to love and serve according to God’s desire. The wholeness of two full cups filled with the sanctifying grace to nourish the individual soul and enhance the spiritual committment. Detaching oneself from the material world even the spouse allows self and the one we love to grow and flourish as a child of God. My mother told me before she died, “I have been in love and in bed with seven different men!” she sighed and added, “Thank God! It was always your father!” I am a seveny-five year old widow. Unfortunately in my time women were chattels, possessions legally and in the confines of religious culture. You are correct about the tragic rise in unwise marriage perceptions and destruction. Marriage is a spiritual union that has been confused with material and physical desire.
I heard a more embarrassing poem. I hope to never hear the phrase “chocolate body paint” at a wedding, ever again.
@ Steven—interesting about the unity candle. I have seen two interpretations. In some ceremonies it seems clear that the two candles represent the couple, but in others they represent their respective parents, and I would hope not to “extinguish” mom-and-dad-in-law! :)
@ Courageous Grace—I hear you loud and clear. I am an only child; I am not used to having anybody around 24/7 so it’s kind of overwhelming when someone is, even someone I love. I do need some space, and the person who respects that can truly live harmoniously with me.
Well, I agree for the most part. But I do think that a couple remains 2 individuals who choose/commit to live as one.. And Paul even says to take breaks from each other to pray. They are one in purpose: developing their individual relationships with God together. But ultimately both will appear as individuals before the throne of God because marriage is not an eternal thing, so the relationship is still 2 souls who are searching for holiness together. It’s similar in a religious community - they share one purpose and live/grow together, but they are all individuals rooted in Christ. And I think the candle ceremony is a beautiful idea - whether the other two get extinguished or not. I wish Catholic Weddings offered it :)
to my opinion, i dont like to judge very much the poem, but it is not the right place to be “proclaimed” in a marryage celebration, when the two are called to be one flesh, and not the other way round. the poem may be a nice one, but not in a proper place and time to be read,with this i addmett my misteakess of having the fear of loosing myself as naturaly cames, but without risk there is no gain, so it is better not to point on individuals but in the unity in these occasions. As the strings of an instrument are of no use if do not make only one melody, and the Composer is a much bigger One.
Haha, I JUST designed an invitation for a wedding rehearsal with a quote from that poem on the front.
One of the readings at my wedding was from The Velveteen Rabbit, where one of the older, wiser toys is explaining to the rabbit how you become real:
“‘It doesn’t happen all at once,’ said the Skin Horse. ‘You become. It takes a long time. That’s why it doesn’t happen often to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept. Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don’t matter at all, because once you are Real you can’t be ugly, except to people who don’t understand.’”
I still can’t think of a better description for marriage. And I did not know when I chose this quote how very meaningful and important it would be for me, for us.
Also, yes, that article from the WSJ is heartbreaking. I think too many couples end up splitting up because of the little things that slowly drive them apart. They don’t take care of their relationship, they don’t reach out to each other, and bit by bit, without realizing it, they lose all love and respect for one another and all will to work on the marriage at all. What is even more heartbreaking is meeting a couple that’s been together for three decades that hate each other - they’re just holding on out of principle, but their marriage is no more charitable and alive than the couple that divorced after ten years.
What’s that saying? “Marriage isn’t for sissies.” DARN TOOTIN’.
The one part of that poem that makes any sense is near the end where it says “give your hearts, but not into each other’s keeping, for only the hand of Life can contain your hearts.” I always point out in marriage prep classes that if you pin all your hope for happiness on another human being, your marriage won’t be able to survive that kind of burden; that hope can only be fulfilled by God. If you’re marrying so as to fill up major holes in yourself (or so as to “save” someone else), you’re going to the wrong source for healing. But JPII said it much better in “The Jeweler’s Shop”: “how can it be done…for you to remain in [the other] since man cannot endure in man and man will not suffice?” That unity of hearts must come from God as no human can fulfill the human heart.
When newlyweds to be start planning their weddings, one of the first things they should BLOCK OUT from any part of their nuptial Masses or ecumenical co-officiated services ... is advice from their parents if the old timers are still emotionally and intellectually in the Sixties or Seventies and were (“positively” affected, tha-dump, tha-dump, tha-dump, by such schmalzy gibberish like the poem this article disses with, as they say would quite appropriately enough in the legal realm, “with prejudice.” In other words, GET THAT CRAP OUTTA HERE AND DON’T EVEN THINK OF INTRODUCING IT: PERIOD. GOT IT? WELL, YA BETTER!
While the next generation of newlyweds are also at it, they should drop all other schmalzy notions of including Peter, Paul & Mary and John Denver songs. If I were a priest and anybody came into my parish insisting that that junk be played during the Mass or Service they’d get another idea of what constitutes a “shotgun wedding.” No, I’m not talking about a heat-packing pastor pullin out a 12 gauge to make his point. Catch your breath everybody. However he could use his authority and more expert knowledge in what constitutes proper liturgical music, readings, etc in a distinctly “making no bones about it” that’ll turn any counter-arguments exchanged during such a “mutual dialogue session” into Swiss Lorraine cheese.
Sigh, and my parents couldn’t figure out why I wasn’t “called” during the early 70s when I came of age. Hell, no seminary back then would put up with me. LOL.
We think of LOVE - however we rarely think of TRUST. Most marriages that I see fail is that the individuals had a problem with trusting themselves and their spouses. The variety of reasons generally rest upon unreal expectations. Social perceptions often cloud spiritual goals and objectives. Checking out impulsive behavior and being honest with oneself is hard. Marriage needs unity, not uniformity to succeed.
So that’s what that poem was! It was read at the wedding of a friend of mine, but the reader announced it very similarly to the Scripture reading that preceded it. I caught that it was from “the prophet” but was confused as it didn’t sound like Isaiah or Daniel or Elijah . . . Now I understand - it was The Prophet!
This sounds like the most anti-love and anti-sacrifice piece of literature ever written. As a matter of fact, it sounds like the antonym of what marriage is all about. If this is what people read at their weddings, then no surprise they will be separated in less than 5 years.
Khalil Gibran <shudder>
“Expansive and yet vacuous is the prose of Kahlil Gibran,
And weary grows the mind doomed to read it.”
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/003-on-the-recent-publication-of-kahlil-gibrans-icollected-worksi-50
If we want our kids to have life-long success in marriage, we should NEVER allow them to even think of using garbage like this Gibran poem during their wedding ceremonies. PERIOD!
Then, after that mushy garbage has been tossed where it belongs, the real mature stuff has to be dealt with, such as PUTTING A LID OR SIMPLY A KABOSH on outrageously expensive weddings, receptions, honeymoons and the like unless the parents and even the couples can justify such extravagance. And by “justification,” I mean every cent for these status-symbol weddings has to be PAID IN FULL a full year ahead of the first posting of any banns or engagement notices.
Better than putting a lid on the fancy-schmansy schmaltzy stuff and honeymoons that would embarrass even that Robin Whatshisface of the Lifestyles of the Maybe Still Rich and Famous ... nothing beats getting the young’ums to focus on making a nice fat down payment on a home, and some mortgage payments in advance, to boot.
Mushy poems containing meaningless and anti-marital messages, lots of dough that shouldn’t be spent, and so forth ... what a waste. But the least expensive items they need, are often the most important: a pair of Rosaries, and his and her own Bibles and Catechisms for readin’ and ritin’ within so they won’t have to do as much hand-wringin’ at a later day.
My mom went through a cous cous-tofu-yoga phase back in the 70s and Gibran is always linked with that in my mind.
Surely , Jennifer, you must be reading a different poem than I am familiar with and have now reread three times since your critique. I read from “The Prophet” at all my children’s wedding receptions. My wife and I have been married 50+ years and those of our children who have remained in the church are still married. We raised our children during the 60s, 70s and 80s and as a father was always proactive in finding ways to counter the distorted and dysfunctional understanding of love, marriage and family growing our culture.I found in “The Prophet” a counter cultural celebration of the Catholic view of marriage and family. A more detailed analysis of the relevant parts of the poem and its overall meaning can be found on my blog (www.vftl.blogspot.com)
While we’re dispensing free marriage and wedding advice, here’s one for the gentlemen: if she’s not a virgin yet insists on a white bridal gown, she’s not one you want for a wife.
Jennifer, I think you are taking the poem the wrong way too. I think the lines you are offended by are just cautioning about being overly possessive and cutting off other relationships. No single person can or should be the only source of Christian love for another person. I think that’s all that’s being said. It is not denigrating the special and superior bond of matrimony, just cautionning that it not be destructive. We are each given gifts to develop and those may differ. We interact with different people throughout our day and are blessed by positive loving people. We love to be together but sometimes need a moment to ourselves. If people are reading it to mean marriage is coexistence and nothing more than they haven’t understood.
K.G. is seriously overrated as a poet… too soft and gentle and oh so cool, like oh wow man… and he is definitely no Prophet. His work is better than much that is pure Karo Syrup but, not a great poet. Now the Song of Solomon that is a great poem about marital love, though after a few decades it can seem like a bit of an exaggeration ;-)
I much prefer:
Wonderful advice! As someone who has from time to time struggled against the whole sharing and giving in part of marriage’s challenges. I can say that, while it may be hard at those moments, wholeheartedly putting yourself into marriage is the only way to do it. (married 21 years)
I think the first commenter misses the point. Gibran was a brilliant poet, and his poem on love certainly does express a deeper understanding of love, but the poem he wrote on _marriage_ displays the, then growing, now in full fruit, married single concept that is ruining marriages. In fact, I’d say that the poem on love makes a greater indictment on his marriage poem, as it fits with the modern understanding that marriage destroys true love, or is somehow a lesser form of it. Christians can get it wrong, too. Even converts. Perhaps especially converts (and I speak as someone who converted 20 years ago).
Gibran’s writings in general should never be read in public, well, if possible, should never be read. Reading that at a wedding? What could a person be thinking?
“if she’s not a virgin yet insists on a white bridal gown, she’s not one you want for a wife.”
Sorry to burst your bubble, but wearing white has NOTHING to do with virginity or “purity.” It is simply a custom that arose after Queen Victoria wore a white gown at her wedding in 1840. Before that, and even after that, plenty of virginal brides wore other colors. In my not-so-humble opinion, ANY bride has a “right” to wear any color she likes regardless of her past.
That said, I do believe many brides go way overboard on the expense and lavishness of their gowns and on insisting that every detail of “their” day be perfect. That attitude (the “bridezilla”) is what you want to watch out for.
There are worse poems, how about The Velveteen Rabbit? Its very in at the moment,I actually attended a wedding where this was read. No gospels or the wonderful Corinthians passage on love.
I guess that to receive the personal loans from creditors you ought to present a great reason. Nevertheless, one time I have received a college loan, because I was willing to buy a car.
I would share my loaf if I knew how to bake. Am tired of eating alone.
Having never read those lines before, if you hadn’t prefaced it by saying that people read it at weddings, I would have taken it for a poetic description of how to end up divorced. What a morbidly distorted view of love! Nothing even close to the union of body and soul that our Lord teaches us is true marriage.
It seems Khalil Gibran was poetically describing marriage in the ambient society and not the ‘ideal marriage’.But yeah,i may be just saying that because he’s so cool,and I’d hate for him to have erred…dear old Gibran,may his soul rest in peace :) I have cut and pasted from here onto my blog… thanks for the post Jen. http://hiddensoulja.blogspot.in/2012/07/on-marriage-on-love-khalil-gibran.html
Regarding LNBE’s comment, the first comment of the page, Khalil Gibran is not a covert, he is a Christian, a Maronite Catholic, but was never a convert to another Church. Khalil Gibran was a Maronite Catholic born and raised. The Maronites’ ancient liturgy is in the Antiochene tradition, or the tradition of Antioch, where they were first called Christians (Acts 11:26).
Perhaps LNBE’s assumption that Gibran was a convert is due to Gibran’s middle eastern ethnicity and Arabic sounding name - which would indicate, to those rather oblivious to the region, as though he must be a Muslim; I may be assuming myself, but I have no other guess at why LNBE and Ranee would think Khalil Gibran is a Christian Convert.
Again, Khalil Gibran was born and raised a Maronite Catholic, I have no account of him changing religions or joining another church. There are some details about threats that he would be excommunication by the Church, which may have been lifted.
I think it is funny that you (Gabe) assume that I thought he was a convert because of his ethnicity or name. You might have noticed that my moniker is Ranee @ Arabian Knits. That is because I am an ethnic Arab. I know quite a lot about Arab Christians. I did not assert that he was a convert, though it might better explain his poor understanding of marriage.
I realize this post is a year old but I stumbled across it and feel inspired to respond. I NEVER analyze poetry but I really disagree with this interpretation. It seems to me that the poem is being bent to the will of the blog author to point out societal issues. These issues have skewed her vision to see some twisted negativity in this poem which in my opinion just isn’t there. I am in no way defending the marital problems of our society but instead expressing my optimistic view of this literature.
I believe Gibran wants to express the union of marriage as an eternal partnership, it is not necessary to be together every waking second because it is, again, eternal. You have more than enough time to spend with each other, infinite time.
Love one another, but make not a bond of love:
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.
The bond he speaks of is not the metaphysical bond of love. Instead this is a metaphor where the bond represents physical chains or shackles, basically don’t handcuff yourself to your spouse. The relationship should be give and take like the ebb and flow of the tides. Neither party should be in a position of servitude or total submission.
And stand together yet not too near together:
For the pillars of the temple stand apart,
The temple is the institution of marriage the spouses its pillars the burden of the relationship is on them both each side should bear their own weight.
And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other’s shadow.
Don’t be overbearing, don’t smother your partner, let them be their own person and love them for who they are.
If anything this poem is about the internal equality within marriage. It’s not telling its readers to be casual married buddies but instead to give your significant other some space once in a while and take some for yourself too.(assuming its needed) If you are a dedicated believer then you know that you have more than all the time in the world to spend with each other.
One last mention…
Fill each other’s cup but drink not from one cup.
Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf
This is not meant literally nor does it have anything to do with possessions. If Gibran were alive today I doubt he would be outraged by Lady and the Tramp because they ate the same spaghetti. Also it was trash, dogs eat trash.trolol?
The concept of independence in marriage vows from the following poem may seem incongruous, so an explanation is in order. Brenda and I met as individuals, and that strength became an attraction as we came to know each other better. We are distinctly different, yet we are alike in our differences, and that is the message in Khalil Gibron’s poem to follow. In order to bring something to the marriage you must have something to give. It is establishing a relationship in which independence is equal, dependence is mutual, and the obligation is reciprocal. It is not only marrying the right partner, it is being the right partner. Strength, courage, commitment, sharing, balance, these are traits endowed on people who have a personality and mind of their own that is not clingy or co-dependent. From these traits comes trust, the unwavering certainty that together we will be there to solve any problem and share any success. Our promise to each other is to preserve our identities and merge them in our future together. We are here today on opposite sides of the aisle, yet headed in the same direction.
Of course human love always has an object. A person place thing Idea thought focus etc. Humans can not love with out an object of their love. Is not the purpose of a Wedding to commit your intentions and oath to the almighty God and there by through Christian morality and practice to bring God’s Love which is much greater than Human Love into the relationship. Grow that tree for 50 years and see what fruit it brings.
I appreciate your point of view…
But I have to say, I disagree with you. I don’t think Khalil Gibran was talking about protecting yourself and your property. Obviously especially after his writings on love. I think what he meant was give of yourself, but don’t lose yourself. It’s SO important for the family to be a strong unit, but I believe that for that to happen each individual needs to be whole and well rounded. Remember that you’re still a person who has social needs. We’ve seen this especially with wives and mothers. They sacrifice so much of themselves and make their families their world. When the kids grow up they have such a hard time letting go because their identity was tied up in the family. Yes, we must give of ourselves in marriage, but we must not LOSE ourselves.
This is a complete misreading of Khalil Gibron’s poem. It SHOULD be read at weddings or explained to couples who are about to enter into a marriage. This poem is not about not giving of yourself, it’s about not losing your identity and becoming dependent on the other person to live and breath! I had this read at my wedding and EVERYONE loved it! My husband and I love the fact that we are two complete individuals chosing to enter into a union as whole human beings, not because we need one another to feel complete in ourselves, but because we enhance one another’s personalities and we enjoy being together. We have a very happy and healthy marriage because we give each other space and don’t need to be with each other every single moment. We don’t try to stiffle each other’s individuality. That is what’s wrong with a lot of marriages. For those of you who said they knew someone or that they read this at their wedding and later were divorced…it’s not because of this poem…it’s because you chose to interpret a marriage that is based on being selfish! In my eyes…this poem is the epitomy of UNSELFISHNESS!
SO PLEASE DO READ THIS AT YOUR WEDDING IF YOU ARE FREE THINKER…WHO DOESN’T BELIEVE THAT ONE HAS TO LOSE ONESELF FOR THE SAKE OF A MARRIAGE!
I’ve always found such strength in this poem that I was a bit horrified by the interpretation of this article. I’m so thrilled, however, to see that it is not the consensus. To suggest that Gibran was supporting a safety net from the togetherness of marriage is pretty incredible. If anything, that would be a modern interpretation void of context of the whole text. I have always regarded his message as one saying to make goals as a couple but also support each other’s personal goals. Love being together but be strong enough to be apart. Do not stamp out eachother’s differences, grow those that are strengths. To say that this article is only read as an effort to say “I’m marrying you but only expect so much because I’m not willing to compromise much, such as my time, or more so who I am” is an insult to both Gibran as well as those marrying. Who gets married and recites something with that premise? Seriously. That is your poor interpretation, not the couple’s.
Love your view on this. Brave to tell it also - since there are so many that feel it is essential to live your own life together with the person of your choosing. I don’t understand why it cannot be both ways?
I do get that we are responsible for our own happiness and that we cannot control others and sometimes we do not cooperate on the same level toward mutual fulfillment - but ....wait, what was I supporting here? (smile)
It can be conflicting even when you throw the Saviour in the mix.
It’s a commitment that many are not willing to make these days as far as I can see.
I’d say that this is your personal belief and interpretation of the poem, but to go as far out as to say that this is a recipe for a failure of a marriage is a stretch. You see it as something dividing a couple, where as I see it as, accepting each others differences. It’s a matter of what you focus on. As far as I’m concerned, no one should even go into a marriage if divorce is even a possibility in your mind. The reason this poem makes sense to me, is that just because now you are married doesn’t mean you stop being yourself and melt into one with your partner. Just because my other half doesn’t like something, doesn’t mean i will change myself and give it up. Just because my husband likes golf, doesn’t mean I have to. He can have his personal time, enjoy his hobby/passion and we can still be a solid couple. There is no need to be codependent just because you are married. If he doesn’t like to go see plays, I will not stop going to see them, I will go with some other friend, or by myself. Why is being able to know who you are and staying true to it, have to be an opposition to a happy marriage? We don’t have to agree on Everything, just know and respect each others point of views. Just because we may differ in opinions doesn’t mean we can’t live in harmony with each other and accept the other person as they are. To me, it shows that even before we go into this marriage, we both understand and agree that we are two people who are coming together, and accepting each other despite our differences. That we will allow each other the respect and space to stay true to our beliefs, instead of saying there is only one possible way of doing things. Marriage is a team effort, not roommates, but people who are willing to go through thick and thin with each other. If you don’t recognize where you differ, then you are not prepared to make compromises and work with each other when the tough times hit. Pretending that you are one person with one brain is pointless since there are no two people that are the same, not even identical twins. If you don’t accept your differences, you’re not prepared for what may come your way, and you’re not truly accepting the other person. You don’t just love someone for the things you agree with them, you love them despite the differences. You love and accept them for who they truly are, not what you have in common.
Actually, I think you misunderstand the meaning of this wonderful poem. To speak of “not drinking from only one cup” means that you cannot “Love” if only one of the two always gives whilst one always takes. The same meaning comes from the allegory of the eating of only one loaf. If a couple should mold one another into new persons, then the two that fell in love will no longer exist and there can no longer be Love. Love is not a prison, there is no bondage of one to the other, no master and beholden. It is a mutual understanding, a mutual sharing and respect, separate and uniquely different like the two strings on the lute. To take those two strings and to twist them together would completely destroy the beautiful music those two strings could ever play. My wonderful wife and I understand this. I love her for who she was when we met, and still is today, because she is her own person, worthy of my Love, and I Hers. I have seen far too many couples strangle and stagnate and embitter themselves and each other because they do not understand the differentness that drew them to one another, and should be allowed to blossom with the other’s radiant influence, rather than get choked into submission.
“...let there be spaces in your togetherness,
And let the winds of the heavens dance between you.”
It is about true mutual Love and Respect, rather than the incessant molding of one another that many couples think marriage and love is all about. It is that molding, that forcing of one by the other that changes who people are. And when one or both people have changed sufficiently, then there is the very real risk that what led them to each other is gone forever.
R
I agree with Raven - a limited interpretation of this poem. In a relationship there is inevitably a dominant personality who often takes more than they give. This poem advises the dominant personality to not overshadow the other and the more submissive personalty to acknowledge their own individuality and bring their personality and needs into the marriage.
Marriage requires sacrifice, but you do not need to sacrifice your individuality. Respect the admirable the positive features of each other’s personalities and laugh at the less admirable. Be bonded through loyalty, trust, mutual respect, support - this is the gift of love we give each other.
Divorce rates were lower prior to the 60’s as divorce was viewed as taboo by religions and therefore society - it took a strong minded and spirited person to brave the stigma of getting divorced. The law was also very unsympathetic and women often left the marriage with no assets or support - and this in a sexist age where it was hard for a women to work and if they did they worked for less pay than male counterparts. Even abused spouses felt obliged to stay married and not go through with divorce.
I didn’t care for the message from The Prophet on Marriage, but I do like his response to Love (using it in my ceremony). It was posted a long time ago on this board:
“Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself.
Love possesses not nor would it be possessed; For love is sufficient unto love.
When you love you should not say, “God is in my heart,” but rather, “I am in the heart of God.”
And think not you can direct the course of love, for love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
Love has no other desire but to fulfill itself.
But if you love and must needs have desires, let these be your desires:
To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night.
To know the pain of too much tenderness.
To be wounded by your own understanding of love;
And to bleed willingly and joyfully.
To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of loving;
To rest at the noon hour and meditate love’s ecstasy;
To return home at eventide with gratitude;
And then to sleep with a prayer for the beloved in your heart and a song of praise upon your lips.”
I don’t see it that way at all. I read it as saying: love one another and enjoy all that brings but remember who you are, all your qualities, strengths, your hobbies and skills. In fact, I have found that the best marriages are those that follow this idea as, after all, it is these indivdualities that make you fall in love with each other in the first place. The ones that are struggling are the ones that can never go out without the other one and have no other life outside of their marriage. It’s not saying don’t compromise, it’s saying don’t overshadow or smother each other and celebrate each other’s uniqueness. On a side note, I hate I those readings that say today is the day when 2 people become one, as if a wedding somehow blends you together and spits out a couple who share the same personality, likes and strengths. How dull! (and slightly stepford wives)
P.s. I am having the prophet at my wedding in 2 weeks time and I think it sums us up perfectly, we love each other, absolutely love being with each other but we sometimes go and enjoy our friendships, families or hobbies on our own. Sometimes we enjoy doing diffrerent things and I think that is perfectly normal!
The fact that the first five lines of this poem were excluded speaks to the why this blog has grossly misinterpreted it.
You were born together, and together you shall be forevermore.
You shall be together when the white wings of death scatter your days.
Ay, you shall be together even in the silent memory of God.
But let there be spaces in your togetherness,
And let the winds of the heavens dance between you.
Thank you Mark. We rely so heavily in our decision making on reporters and bloggers to report the truth. A biased or substantively incomplete account can totally change outcomes. First speak the truth Christ said. A misrepresentation of the poet’s work is not the truth. I don’t believe it was done intentionally but it is still a wake up call.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.