From: Michael Holmes (holmic@bethel.edu)
Date: Fri Jun 21 1996 - 17:45:50 EDT
For AGAPAW as a less intimate level of love or affection, cf. Letter of
Polycarp 4.2: "wives ... STERGOUSAS their own husbands in all fidelity and
AGAPWSAS all others in all chastity." Also Dio Cassius 44.48 (Loeb
4.394-395), EFILHSATE AUTON hWS PATERA, KAI HGAPHSATE hWS EUERGETHN, "you
loved him as a father, and respected him as a benefactor," or Xenophon, Mem.
2.7.12 (Loeb 4.154-155), hAI MEN hWS KHDEMONA EFILOUN, hO DE hWS WFELIMOUS
HGAPA, "they loved him as a guardian and he liked them because there were
useful."
At 04:08 PM 6/21/96 EDT, you wrote:
>Until Don Wilkins' post, everything I have read assumes or implies that
>AGAPAW is a "higher" form of love than FILEW, I guess because it is based on
>the "intrinsic worth" of the object loved and seeks nothing (e.g.,
>friendship) in return, whereas the "affection" inherent in FILEW somehow
>implies a more selfish love. I hope there is further discussion around Don's
>intriguing and definitely provocative remarks. Has this perspective been
>discussed in journals/books?
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:45 EDT