Self-as-an-End
SAE Love Theory · Paper 7

Stories
故事

Han Qin (秦汉) · Independent Researcher · 2026
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.23627784 · Full PDF on Zenodo · CC BY 4.0
Abstract

Papers 1 to 6 laid down forty-eight propositions. This paper lays down none; it presses on them with six love stories that have been handed down: Pride and Prejudice, Jane Eyre, Penelope's waiting, chapter eight of Eugene Onegin, Casablanca and The Bridges of Madison County. Interfacing with tradition presses on this series with other people's theories; reading stories presses on it with people and events that come with no ready-made conclusions. Whether a proposition holds up or not shows as soon as it is read against them.

This paper first asks a question from the side of love: why do these stories endure, and what do they give their readers that readers do not ordinarily get? It proposes a reading: of love, from outside, only clues can be seen; a good story presses outside forces, layer upon layer, onto "this one, irreplaceable," and lets the reader see whether he exchanges her or not, waits or not, owns his mistake or not, lets go or not; the clues are thereby pressed very tight, yet they are still clues; and the novel, in addition, hands the reader the first-person side, which in real life cannot be seen from outside. How a story comes to be acknowledged in common among its readers is a matter for aesthetics; the full set of reasons why a story lasts also has a side in reception history, which this paper does not judge; how the two people in a story love is a matter for Love Theory.

The six stories press on eighteen of the propositions of Papers 1 to 6. These eighteen largely hold up, and often hold up only by the qualifications they already carry: a direction is not a label; direction is not read from mildness or its absence, nor inferred backward from the benefit the other party later drew; whether it took hold is seen in the other party afterward; from outside, only clues can be seen; a thing is read by its uses. The pressing brings out two points. One is that testing love must be kept apart from verifying who a person is; on this ground Paper 2 has added a sentence. The other is the range of entrusted deliberation: when a person asks the one she loves to think for her, how the one entrusted afterward uses this entrustment, and whether it still leaves a place for her objections and changes of mind; Papers 1 to 6 did not read these steps together, and the point is registered as a remainder. There is also one thing seen: seeing wrongly and folding back may also happen before love, and make room for a love; Paper 3 has added a boundary sentence. The other thirty propositions these six cases do not press on; they are left for later cases. This paper does not judge the characters good or bad, and does not rank the stories.

Introduction

Papers 1 to 6 each read one layer, and each runs a made-up pair of people through the whole paper. A made-up example is useful because it holds only what was put into it; its shortcoming lies in the same place: it does not resist. Stories that have been handed down do. Those who wrote them never read this series, and what the people in them do sometimes falls exactly into the gap between two propositions. Reading with them is a pressure test for this series.

The choice of stories. The stories chosen have lasted a long time, have been read by many and have two people who both fall within this series' scope. There are six: four novels (Onegin is a novel in verse), one epic and one film. Of Onegin only chapter eight is read, the stretch in which the two meet again after many years; of The Bridges of Madison County, Waller's novel is read, not the later film. In each case the text shows the characters having the two capacities: having their own cannot-not, and having begun to be able to understand that others have theirs. Elizabeth acts as she herself thinks will constitute her happiness, and Darcy later recognizes what she said of how she saw him; Jane has her "independent will," and also recognizes Rochester's suffering; Penelope holds off the suitors in her own way, and Odysseus recognizes her caution; Tatyana can say where she will stand, and can also speak of Onegin's pride and honor; Rick and Ilsa each have something they cannot put down, and each recognizes the other's; Francesca keeps to her family, and Robert acknowledges her staying. Four of the six cases press on an existing marriage; this is a bias in the choice of examples, and should be kept in mind in the reading.

How they are read. Each story is read in four steps. First, what the story gives: the gist only, with short quotations from the original. Next, which propositions it presses on. Then this series' reading. Last, what this case leaves is registered. The characters are read by the words and deeds the book or the film gives them; where a novel writes out a character's inner life, that side is read along with the rest; what is not written out is not supplied on the author's behalf. No character is judged good or bad, and no love is said to be truer than another; this series reads only structure. Sex is not read.

Method. As in the earlier papers, sources, original texts and the proposition numbers of the papers are in the notes. In this series literature serves only as example, not as interfacing;1 this paper keeps to that as well: what it reads is the people and events in the stories, not the authors' theories.

§1 Why They Endure

From Paper 1 on, this series has held that whether one loves is a matter for the one who loves, and that from outside, only clues can be seen.2 What onlookers see, a person looking up, watching someone out of sight, staying together for many years, is only clues; from clues alone one cannot tell whether it is love, appreciation, habit or others' ruler.

What a good story does is press the clues into clarity. It presses outside forces, layer upon layer, onto "this one, irreplaceable": the family says no, class says unworthy, the law says it cannot be, war separates the two, one of them is already promised to another, twenty years have passed. Then it lets the reader watch what he does. Others also make sense: does he exchange her? She is not before him: does he wait? He has seen wrongly: does he own it? She means to leave: does he let go? These choices make it clear how that "irreplaceable" may land in words and deeds: another would also make sense, and he does not exchange her; habit, decorum and others' ruler all push him to exchange her, and still he does not. The clues are thereby pressed very tight, yet they are still clues; choices alone cannot certify the love in a character's heart, and Paper 4's test, too, is only a fallible look back after the fact.3 There is one thing more, in the next paragraph.

The novel gives one thing more: the narrator can enter the characters' minds. Elizabeth, having read the letter, says to herself, alone, "Till this moment, I never knew myself"; Jane argues with herself in her own mind. In real life the first-person side cannot be had from outside; where the novel writes it out, the reader has it. This too has limits: the narrator's entering a character's mind does not amount to answering every inner question on the character's behalf; where a given character gives this side, it is read at that place. The reader cannot get this elsewhere; this offers one path toward understanding why these stories have been able to go on moving people.

One more thing must be kept apart. How a story comes to be acknowledged in common among different readers is read at the point that those who look cannot not acknowledge together, that is, the overlap, and belongs to aesthetics.4 Love Theory does not ask about this. Love itself does not enter the overlap, and need not: others need not acknowledge that she is irreplaceable. So this paper keeps the two faces apart: how a story is acknowledged in common is aesthetics; how the two people in the story love is Love Theory. The six cases below read the second face.

Last, enduring is not evidence. That a love is movingly written and long handed down proves neither that its structure is better nor which layer it is at. This series does not rank loves by depth, by length or by whether they move anyone.

§2 I Saw Wrongly: Pride and Prejudice

The story. Darcy's first proposal begins: "In vain have I struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you."5 Then he says a great deal more: about her inferiority, about the match being a degradation, about the obstacles of her family, which judgment had always set against inclination. Elizabeth refuses him, and her words are hard: had he behaved more like a gentleman, she might have felt some concern in refusing him; from the time she came to know him, she had been convinced of his arrogance, his conceit and his disdain for the feelings of others. The next day Darcy hands her a letter. She reads it again and again, understands that she has seen Darcy wrongly and wrongly believed another man's words, and says, alone: "How despicably have I acted! … I, who have prided myself on my discernment! … Till this moment, I never knew myself." In the same passage she also says, "But vanity, not love, has been my folly."6 Later, Darcy's aunt comes to the house to press her to promise not to marry Darcy, and she says: "I am only resolved to act in that manner, which will, in my own opinion, constitute my happiness, without reference to you, or to any person so wholly unconnected with me."7 At last the two speak openly, and Darcy says: "By you, I was properly humbled."8

Where it presses. Three points. First, Paper 3's folding back: I saw wrongly, and this judgment is mine. Second, Paper 4's cannot-exchange and others' ruler. Third, a question ready to hand: did Elizabeth's hard words fix for him who he is, or make space for him?

The reading. Elizabeth's "Till this moment, I never knew myself" is exactly the instant Paper 3 reads: having seen wrongly, one does not say the world was wrong, but says: I saw wrongly. She had also been deceived: that man had told her many lies. Paper 3 says that when I see her wrongly, this judgment is mine, even if she kept something from me; her keeping it from me is a separate entry.9 Elizabeth keeps exactly this division: the deceiving of her is a separate entry; the judgment that saw wrongly is her own, and she does not push it outward.

But when this instant happens, she does not yet love Darcy; she says so plainly: her folly was vanity, not love. When Paper 3 reads seeing wrongly, it reads seeing wrongly within love: the owner shows itself in the folding back, and a mistake corrected need not make the love end. Elizabeth's folding back comes before she loves; what then shows in the folding back is still the owner of the judgment, not the owner of love.10 Love, by Paper 1, begins from the cannot-not of that moment; what this instant does is make room for a love: while she did not know herself, she could not see him either; only once she had owned her mistake did she begin to look at him anew. Paper 3 has added a boundary sentence for this.

Darcy's first proposal reads like what Paper 4 describes, only the other way round: other accounts make just as much sense, his judgment and his family both say no, and he cannot exchange her. The long speech he makes also brings others' ruler to bear on her: birth, decorum, rank. Love and the ruler appear together in one proposal. Paper 4 gives a way of testing: take that ruler away; if one still acknowledges it, and can change it oneself, it is one's own direction.11 Here the test tests the ruler, not his love: his love ran against the ruler to begin with. What has to be seen is whether the thing with which he measured her by rank was his own, and whether he can change it. The book gives material for looking back: his later words and deeds, and his own words, "I have been a selfish being all my life … to care for none beyond my own family circle, to think meanly of all the rest of the world … You taught me a lesson".12 By Paper 4, this test is a fallible look back after the fact, not a criterion; what the book gives is a very strong clue, together with his own acknowledgment; it is not a verdict.

Elizabeth's hard words are not mild, and they also say how she sees him; half of this judgment later proves mistaken. Direction does not look at whether the speech is mild, nor is it judged from a single remark; it looks at where this one effect is headed, and whether it took hold is seen in how the other party afterward understands and acts.13 What she says is her judgment at that moment; she refuses him; she does not require him to become the man her words describe, nor require him to accept them. Paper 2 has said that if a hard sentence is not used to require the other party to understand himself by it, its direction is not judged from that one sentence; and merely not fixing it for the other party is still not enough by itself to certify cultivation.14 How he afterward understands those words is his affair; that he himself calls them a lesson lies on the side of whether it took hold, and does not reach back to certify the direction of the words. What this case shows clearly is that direction is not read from whether words are mild, nor inferred backward from the benefit the other party later drew.

Her words to Darcy's aunt show the shape of another layer: she stands on her own law, waits for no one's nod and lets no one judge for her. She refuses to make that commitment; Paper 4 says that a vow is where I stand today,15 and one forced out of her would not be where she stands either.

What this case leaves. Seeing wrongly and folding back can make room for a love; direction is not read from whether words are mild, nor inferred backward from the benefit the other party later drew.

§3 Falsity, Where One Stands and Leaving: Jane Eyre

The story. Rochester proposes to Jane: "it is you only I intend to marry."16 He is hiding one thing: he already has a wife, still living, shut up on the top floor of this very house. At the wedding the secret is spoken out in front of everyone. That same day Jane tells him: "Mr. Rochester, I must leave you." "I must part with you for my whole life".17 He answers: "You mean you must become a part of me." He adds that he does not count as married, that she will still be his wife, "You shall be Mrs. Rochester—both virtually and nominally", and asks her to go with him to the south of France.18 Jane will not. A voice within her urges her to comply: who in the world cares for you? In her own mind she answers: "I care for myself. … I will keep the law given by God; sanctioned by man. … Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation… If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth?" Rochester reads in her face that she now stands firm.19 Before dawn she leaves, without a farewell. Earlier she had said: "I am no bird; and no net ensnares me; I am a free human being with an independent will".20 Later she returns to him; the book's last chapter opens: "Reader, I married him."21

Where it presses. It presses hard on the proposition of Paper 4 that reads vows and leaving.22 Does Rochester's promise count as falsity? Jane leaves before dawn without a farewell while bound by a commitment: does that count as quietly setting down, does it count as dropping? And there is the sentence "you must become a part of me."

The reading. Rochester first. This series takes breaking a promise in the narrow sense: what carries the direction of colonization is only dropping and falsity; falsity is when what was put in was empty from the start. That he loves Jane, the book writes out in full; but what he promised was a lawful marriage, and he knew perfectly well that he could not stand there. The thing promised was empty from the start. This is not inferred by onlookers: when the matter came out at the wedding, he acknowledged it himself: "Bigamy is an ugly word!—I meant, however, to be a bigamist".23 Paper 4 says that whether something is falsity needs the first person; this case has his own acknowledgment, and only on that ground is it read as the structure of falsity.24 His love is not false on that account. This case keeps two things apart: love is one thing, the promise another; effect, direction and whether it took hold are each read on their own.

Next, the plea to go to France. "You shall be Mrs. Rochester" uses the name of love to fix for her what she will be; "you must become a part of me" asks that the two be made into one. The direction of colonization that Paper 5 reads is precisely judging her law for her in the name of love; Paper 6 says that that moment is not fusion either: the two are still two.25 Whether it took hold is seen in her afterward: she did not become a part of him; she left.

Then Jane's leaving. She is bound by a commitment: she had promised to marry him. By Paper 4, where there is a commitment, leaving must be entered on the books, and there must also be an exit declaration that the other party can clearly understand; only quietly setting down without such a declaration is dropping. Jane said to his face "I must leave you" and "part with you for my whole life", and he understood. Leaving before dawn without a farewell lacks one farewell; it does not lack the declaration. Nor does this series require that an exit have reasons;26 and how she held to this decision in her own mind, the novel also writes out for the reader. There is one more layer: Paper 4 says that a promise goes on signifying "I stand here" only while its original content and conditions still apply;27 the condition this promise rested on was that he was able to marry her, and that condition was never there to begin with. So under the pressure of this case, that proposition did not read Jane as dropping.

Jane's sentence in her own mind, "If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth", falls on the same word as this series' definition of dropping: dropping is quietly setting something down when it is convenient, without keeping the books.28 What she says to herself concerns her own law, not her commitment to Rochester; what she holds to is precisely not setting it down when it is convenient. This is the story and this series meeting at one place; it is not interfacing.

Later she comes back and marries him. Once they are wed, with a commitment and with institutional protection as well, the matter has reached Marriage Theory; that part is not read.

What this case leaves. Paper 4's proposition holds under the pressure, and one of its qualifications, "the content and conditions of the original promise still apply", is put to use here.

§4 Waiting and Making Trial: Penelope

The story. Odysseus has been away from home for twenty years. Suitors fill his hall and press Penelope to remarry. She says she must first finish weaving a shroud for the old man; she weaves by day and unpicks it by night, and so holds them off for three years.29 When Odysseus at last returns to Ithaca, the goddess Athena tells him: any other man, coming home from his wanderings, would have hurried into his halls to see his children and his wife; but you do not yet wish to learn or to ask, not until you have first made trial of your wife.30 He enters the house disguised as a beggar, and does not make himself known to her. When the suitors are all dead, the old nurse comes to tell her that he has come home. Penelope does not believe it, and says: if he really is Odysseus, the two of us will know each other, and better; we have signs that only the two of us know.31 She tells the nurse to bring the bed out of the bedchamber and make it up for him; Homer writes: so she spoke, making trial of her husband.32 Odysseus is angered: who could move that bed? He made that bed with his own hands: he built the bedchamber around a living olive tree, cut off its crown, and trimmed the trunk left on its root into the bedpost; he says he does not know whether the bed is still where it was, or whether some man has already moved it elsewhere. Hearing this, Penelope's knees give way, and she runs to him and holds him. She says: do not be angry with me that I did not welcome you like this as soon as I saw you; my heart was always shuddering for fear that some man would come and deceive me with words.33

Where it presses. Paper 2's longing and testing. How twenty years of waiting are read in this series; and Homer uses one and the same word for the two of them making trial of each other: are these two trials what Paper 2 calls testing love?34

The reading. Waiting first. For twenty years Odysseus is not before her, and with her he still counts: this is Paper 2's longing. She too at one time believed he would not come back; when the one loved is gone, the remembered him is still there, and death is not the same as love's ending; and besides, he had not died. Her waiting is not a duty anyone gave her. Paper 2 says that expectation is what I arrange on the strength of dealings, and that it does not turn into the other party's duty;35 the same holds the other way round: her waiting is hers. They are husband and wife; the side of commitment and institution in their marriage belongs to Marriage Theory; here only the side of love is read. The shroud woven and unpicked is her own way of holding off the suitors, of not letting others fix for her where she is going.

Then the two trials. Paper 2 says that testing love is a demand arranged in advance; the response obtained in this way can become material, and cannot certify the love in the other party's heart. Penelope's bed tries not whether he loves her but whether he is he: through his answer about how the bed was made, she recognizes that the man before her is Odysseus; in this story the answer checks identity; it does not bear witness to his love. So this trial does not fall within the testing that Paper 2 speaks of. Yet in the same scene the question of fidelity is there as well: at the end of Odysseus's reply, what he asks is whether the bed is still where it was. The two questions fall within one and the same scene and are to be read apart: what is tested is love; what is verified is identity.

On Odysseus's side it is different. What the goddess says is "until you have first made trial of your wife": he does not make himself known to her, so as to see what she does while she does not know he has come back. This trial comes much closer to the testing of Paper 2: the criterion lies with him, and she does not know there is a setup. Paper 2 has written that the words and deeds that arrange the setup are entered separately; knowing only what he intends in his heart cannot yet by itself certify that this entry has landed on her.36 His concealing who he is also has another use: the suitors are still in the hall, and if it came out, he would die. Read by its uses, this concealment has two uses, and the book writes both; this series does not pick one on Homer's behalf.

Last, the embrace. Penelope says that the two of them will know each other better, because they have signs the two of them know. Knowing each other is knowledge; Paper 6 says that mutual knowledge does not yield mutual non dubito.37 Once the question about the bed has been answered, she runs to him and holds him; whether that instant is the moment in which the two meet, from outside, only clues can be seen. Homer gives clues, not a verdict.

What this case leaves. Testing love and verifying who a person is must be kept apart; the two questions can fall within one and the same scene. Paper 2's proposition on testing has had a sentence added that states this range.

§5 Direction or Target: Eugene Onegin, Chapter Eight

The story. Years later, at a ball in Petersburg, Onegin sees Tatyana again. She is now a princess; her husband is a general wounded in battle and favored at court, and she is held in respect by everyone in high society. Onegin falls in love with her and writes her letter after letter; she answers none. At last he bursts into her room and finds her sitting alone, reading a letter, in tears. She speaks to him at length. In one stanza she asks: why do you pursue me now? Is it not because I now move in high society, because I am rich and of rank, because my husband is favored at court? Is it not because, if I were disgraced through you, everyone would see it, and it could bring you an alluring distinction in society?38 The speech closes: "I love you (why dissemble?), but I have been given to another; I shall be faithful to him all my life."39 She rises and leaves. Onegin stands there as if struck by lightning; her husband's spurs are heard. Here Pushkin takes leave of his hero.

Where it presses. Paper 4's direction and target, and direction and others' ruler.40 And one more: she says "I love you," and also says "I shall be faithful to him all my life."

The reading. The stanza in which Tatyana questions Onegin asks exactly Paper 4's question. A direction is not a target: to treat a person as a target to be won is to be done with her once she is won. Others' ruler can pass itself off as a direction: where a choice withdraws as soon as everyone's gaze withdraws, the direction was that ruler's all along. What she asks is: is it me you love, or my present rank? Me, or the distinction that winning me could give you? From outside, she puts that test to him once on his behalf; she can ask it, and cannot answer it.

This case presses on one of this series' boundaries: of whether one loves, from outside, only clues can be seen; and Paper 4's test, too, is only a fallible look back after the fact, not a criterion.41 Tatyana can voice her suspicion; she cannot say what is in his heart, and neither can the reader. Pushkin does not answer for Onegin; he leaves him where he stands, as if struck by lightning, and then takes leave of him. That this series can read no conclusion here is not a failure: from outside, only clues can be seen, and that was written into the first proposition from the start. The story stops at the same place and gives no verdict.

Now her. "I love you": her love is hers, and it does not cease to count because she refuses him; whether one loves is a matter for the one who loves.42 "But I have been given to another": this sentence is in the passive; in the same passage she also says "I married," and says that her mother begged her with tears, and that at the time every lot seemed the same to her.43 These words make where her faithfulness comes from a question that can be asked; but one passive sentence alone cannot decide it entirely. This paper asks one more question of its own: is her faithfulness her own direction, or others' ruler? The question is this paper's; in the novel Onegin does not put it to her. What she says is "I shall": this is where she stands today, and it is a vow; Paper 4 says that a vow is where I stand today; it does not sign for tomorrow.44 She stands there, says it to him and says it clearly. As for where this faithfulness comes from, this series does not judge it from outside, here as elsewhere. Her marriage and her commitment to her husband belong to Marriage Theory; here only her love for Onegin is read, together with the sentence she said plainly to his face.

She asks him to leave her from now on; she does not require him not to love her. Paper 5 says that my cannot-not is not her must;45 the same holds the other way round: his loving her does not add a duty for her; nor does her loving him add for herself a duty to respond.

What this case leaves. That test cannot be carried out from outside; this series and the novel stop at the same place. Where her faithfulness comes from, this paper has asked on its own account, and here too it does not judge from outside.

§6 Deciding for Her: Casablanca

The story. Rick and Ilsa fall in love in Paris. On the day the Germans enter the city, they arrange to leave together by train; Ilsa does not come, and sends a note by someone else: she cannot go with him and cannot see him again, and he must not ask why.46 She has just learned that her husband Laszlo, whom she believed dead, is alive. A year and a half later the two meet again in Casablanca. To get letters of transit for Laszlo, Ilsa goes to Rick at night. She says she cannot hold out any longer, that she no longer knows what is right: "You have to think for both of us. For all of us." Rick says: "All right, I will."47 At the airport Rick tells her to get on the plane with Laszlo. Ilsa refuses: "No, Richard, no. What has happened to you? Last night…" Rick cuts her off: "Last night we said a great many things. You said I was to do the thinking for both of us." He says he has thought it over, and it all comes down to one thing: she is getting on that plane with Laszlo. She starts to object again; he cuts her off again, telling her "you've got to listen to me". If she stays, it is ten to one that both of them end up in a concentration camp. Ilsa says: "You're saying this only to make me go." Rick says: "I'm saying it because it's true." He adds that if the plane leaves the ground and she is not with Laszlo, she will regret it. She asks: what about us? "We'll always have Paris."48

Where it presses. Paper 5's "judging her law for her in the name of love." This is almost that sentence as it stands: he decides for her which plane she gets on. Also Paper 4's leaving, and Paper 6's after that moment.

The reading. The note in Paris first. They had arranged to leave together: that is a promise. Ilsa did not come, but she sent a note saying that she could not go and could not see him again. This is an exit declaration: she leaves, and lets him clearly understand that she has left. She gave no reasons; this series does not require that an exit have reasons. By Paper 4, this is not quietly setting down. The pain Rick carries afterward is an effect left by that leaving, and it is entered as such; that the effect is entered does not supply, after the fact, a judgment on the direction of her leaving.49

Next, "You have to think for both of us." The direction of colonization that Paper 5 reads is judging her law for her in the name of love, and its crux is occupying the step in which she judges for herself. But that night it is she herself who asks him to think for them all. Paper 5 has also read accommodation: one has a judgment of one's own, keeps it back for the sake of peace, and one's own share is not given.50 Ilsa that night is not like this: she says she cannot hold out, that she no longer knows what is right, and she makes her request plainly; this is how she was at that moment, and she is not judged for it. Rick says "All right, I will," and takes up the request. This does not yet amount to her handing over, along with it, her later objections and the room to reconsider; how he takes it up is seen in how he later uses this entrustment.

The difficulty is at the airport. Ilsa objects first, and speaks of last night; Rick cuts her off, invokes her request of the night before, and says he has thought it over and it all comes down to one thing. She tries to object again; he cuts her off again. After that she says he is only trying to make her go; he answers that what he says is true, and speaks of her and Laszlo and of her regret to come. In this scene, last night's request is used to stop her present objection: she is saying no, and he uses her words of last night to turn that no back, and presents the conclusion as already worked out. Its shape is close to using a vow to say "You swore, so you're not allowed to leave", and close as well to using a past moment to demand something of her.51 Using her entrustment of last night to stop her present objection, this one effect heads toward occupying; this reading rests on the lines in the film in which he twice cuts her off and presents the conclusion as already worked out.52 He also gives reasons: the concentration camp, Laszlo's work, her regret. Paper 5 has a sentence almost the same: saying only "I'm worried you'll regret it if you go", giving her the reason and allowing her to disagree, is not judged on these words alone to be judging on her behalf.53 Rick's reasons come after her objection has been stopped, and along with an arrangement already fixed for her; giving reasons does not in itself fix a direction; whether these reasons made space for her, the material of this case does not let one read, and this series does not supply it. Whether it took hold is seen in how she afterward understands and acts; that she got on the plane is a visible act; how she understood this decision, the film does not give. This series reads up to here, and does not say what kind of man Rick is.

Last, "We'll always have Paris." Paper 6 says that after that moment, later dealings are not thereby made mutual automatically, nor may one party demand that it come again.54 Rick does not demand that it come again; he leaves Paris to the two of them to remember, and the remembered stretch still counts with each of them: this is Paper 2's longing. What he says is that "we" both have it, not that I have you.

What this case leaves. The range of entrusted deliberation, and later objections: when a person asks the one she loves to think for her, how the one entrusted afterward uses this entrustment, and whether it still leaves a place for her objections, changes of mind and withdrawal, are to be read apart. Papers 1 to 6 read judging for her, accommodation and using a past sentence to lock the other party, but did not read these steps together; the point is registered in §8.

§7 Four Days: The Bridges of Madison County

The story. This case reads Waller's novel. On a farm in Iowa, Francesca's husband and children have gone to the state fair, and she is at home alone. A photographer, Robert, pulls up and asks her the way to Roseman Bridge. In four days the two fall in love. Robert says to her: "In a universe of ambiguity, this kind of certainty comes only once, and never again, no matter how many lifetimes you live."55 He asks her to go away with him. She does not go: her husband and children come back, and she goes on living her life as before. He leaves alone. Afterward he sends her a letter and two photographs; the letter says: "Somehow, we must see each other again. Any place, anytime." If she can ever come, she should let him know, at any time.56 She does not go. Many years later, after her husband has died, she tries to find him, does not find him and does not search further. After his death a lawyer sends his effects to her, and among them is a letter he wrote some years earlier: "There have been times, many of them, I've said, ‘The hell with it. I'm going to Winterset, Iowa, and, whatever the cost, take Francesca away with me.’ But I remember your words, and I respect your feelings."57 After her death, at her wish, her ashes are scattered by that bridge.

Where it presses. Paper 6's that moment and certainty; Paper 5's letting go; Paper 2's death, longing and letters; the four kinds of ending out of step. And one more thing: this is an affair outside marriage.

The reading. The affair first. This series reads it in two parts: the love between the two belongs to Love Theory; breaking the commitment of marriage belongs to Marriage Theory.58 Here only the first is read, and she is not judged.

Robert's sentence speaks of certainty. Paper 6 has read something often taken for that moment: mutual certainty. Certainty can be prediction, can come from habit and can also come from taking the other party into one's own arrangements; non dubito does not follow from it, and it is not the criterion of that moment.59 This case presses very directly: the sentence carries certainty to the extreme. This series does not say that in those four days there was no moment in which the two met; from outside, only clues can be seen; it says only that certainty by itself cannot certify it. Robert's sentence is his own words, and it is first-person; this series reads him by this sentence, and does not use it to judge her.

Next, her not going. He asked once, she said no and he left alone. That he left is not by itself enough to say whether he acknowledges her staying; but the novel gives his own words. In that letter he says they must see each other again somehow, and that if she can come, she should let him know at any time: this is an invitation, not a demand; whether to go is left with her. In the letter he left years later, he says that many times he wanted to take her away whatever the cost, "But I remember your words, and I respect your feelings." Paper 5 says that my cannot-not is not her must; she leaves, and I acknowledge her leaving.60 Here it is turned the other way: she stays, and he acknowledges her staying; this reading has his own first-person words for its ground. The thought that rose in him again and again he did not act on; a thought that has not entered her conditions of occurrence through words or deeds is not read as a direction toward her.61

Then what came after. The four days spent together ended, and the love of each did not end with them. This series divides ending into four kinds, which can fall out of step with one another: an appearance passes; my love ends; the shared dealings terminate; commitments and effects remain unsettled.62 In this story, the time together, the later contact, the love each still has and the effects left behind must be read apart: the time together stops on the fourth day; the later contact is very thin, one letter, two photographs, her one search that did not find him, his effects sent after his death, each entered as what actually happened; the love, with each of the two, went on through the many years after, each on its own. Paper 2 says that a letter is the words and deeds the other party has left, and can enter the conditions of occurrence of the other side; the remembered four days do not pass themselves off as a new response from the other party.63 When the one loved is gone, the remembered him is still there, and death is not the same as love's ending; the ashes scattered by the bridge are a choice she still made, later. Paper 6 also says that after that moment, no party may demand that it come again; he invited, and did not demand. Inviting a meeting and using the past to demand something of the other party are two different things.

One more thing: "comes only once" is a statement of quantity. This series does not say that what is rare is therefore truer; a love of four days is no lighter than one of forty years, and no heavier.

What this case leaves. Certainty is not the criterion of that moment; pressed against a sentence that carries certainty to the extreme, this proposition still holds, and does not on that account read those four days as small. The four kinds of ending being out of step can be read very clearly here: the time together stopped, contact thinned, love remained with each and effects lasted beyond death.

§8 What the Pressing Yields

The six stories press on eighteen of the propositions of Papers 1 to 6, and these eighteen largely hold up. Where they hold up, they often do so by qualifications already in the propositions. Without these, several of the cases would be misread:

Case Where it presses The qualification it rests on
Pride and Prejudice seeing wrongly and folding back; cannot-exchange and others' ruler; whether the hard words are colonization her keeping something from me is a separate entry; the test of taking the ruler away is a fallible look back after the fact; direction does not look at whether words are mild, nor is it inferred backward from the benefit the other party later drew
Jane Eyre falsity; leaving under a commitment; "become a part of me" breach is taken in the narrow sense, and whether it is falsity needs the first person; with a declaration it is not dropping; the content and conditions of the original promise still apply; that moment is not fusion
Penelope twenty years of waiting; the two trials expectation does not turn into a duty; what is tested is love, not identity; the words and deeds that arrange a setup are entered separately, and read by their uses
Onegin, chapter eight direction or target; where her faithfulness comes from from outside, only clues can be seen; the test is a fallible look back after the fact, not a criterion; a vow is where I stand today
Casablanca the note in Paris; the entrustment to think for her; "We'll always have Paris" exit needs a declaration, not reasons; effects are entered, and do not supply a judgment of direction after the fact; giving reasons does not by itself certify cultivation, and direction and whether it took hold are read apart; after that moment, no demand that it come again
The Bridges of Madison County the certainty that comes only once; her staying; four days and the many years after certainty is not a criterion; my cannot-not is not her must, and a thought in the heart is not read as a direction; the four kinds of ending are out of step

For the numbers of the propositions, see the note.64

The pressing brings out two points that must be registered:

First, testing love and verifying who a person is must be kept apart. Penelope's trial aims at recognizing the man; in Odysseus's reply the question of fidelity is there as well. The two questions can fall within one and the same scene, and are to be read apart. Paper 2's proposition on testing was about testing love from the start; Paper 2 has added a sentence stating this range.

Second, the range of entrusted deliberation, and later objections. That a person asks the one she loves to think for her is her own step; how the one entrusted understands and uses this entrustment, and whether it still leaves a place for her later objections, changes of mind and withdrawal, are to be read apart. If, later, this request is used to seal the objection she has at that time, what was a taking up has turned into a direction toward occupying; whether it took hold is seen in her afterward. Papers 1 to 6 read judging for her (Paper 5), read accommodation (Paper 5), and read using a past sentence to lock the other party (Papers 4 and 6), but did not read these steps together. This point the series registers and does not close; it does not judge the request itself in advance to be accommodation, nor take being entrusted as grounds for passing final judgment for her.

There is also one thing seen, which is not registered: seeing wrongly and folding back may also happen before love. What shows in Elizabeth's instant is still the owner of the judgment, not the owner of love; that instant made room for a love, and love still began from that moment's cannot-not. Paper 3 has added a boundary sentence for this.

There are a few more places this paper reached where the pressing brought out nothing new and showed only how the words of Papers 1 to 6 land in the stories: Ilsa's note is an exit declaration needing no reasons; Jane's leaving shows that with a declaration it is not dropping; Rick's Paris shows that after that moment there is no demand that it come again; Robert's letters only invite and do not demand, and say that he respects her feelings: she stays, and he acknowledges her staying. Where Tatyana's faithfulness comes from is this paper's own questioning, read by Paper 4; it is not a new structure.

The other thirty propositions these six cases do not press on: the propositions on first sight, Paper 3's mirror and the first several propositions of Paper 5 that read recognizing her as an end too are among them; they are left for later cases.

§9 Drawing Together

This paper lays down no propositions. It does two things.

One is to propose, from the side of love, a reading of why these stories endure: of love, from outside, only clues can be seen; a good story presses outside forces onto "this one, irreplaceable," and lets the reader see how that irreplaceability may land in choices; the clues are pressed very tight, and are still clues; the novel, in addition, puts into the reader's hands the first-person side that real life does not give. How a story is acknowledged in common is the overlap of aesthetics; the full set of reasons why a story lasts also has a side in reception history, which this paper does not judge; how the two people in a story love is Love Theory. Enduring is not evidence, and does not rank loves.

The other is the pressure test. The six stories press on eighteen propositions, which largely hold up, often by the qualifications in them; the pressing brings out two points, registered in §8: testing love and verifying identity must be kept apart, and Paper 2 has added a sentence; the range of entrusted deliberation, and later objections, is registered as a remainder. That seeing wrongly and folding back can happen before love and make room for a love is one thing seen; Paper 3 has added a boundary sentence.

This paper does not prove which of these six loves is truer, does not prove whether the stories' endings are right, and does not answer on the authors' behalf the questions they left unanswered.

Acknowledgments

This paper is signed by Han Qin alone; the author decided every argument and choice and bears sole responsibility for the text. Models from Anthropic and OpenAI assisted with drafting and review; the author thanks them.

Notes

  1. See Paper 0, §4, the item on interfacing with tradition: literature serves as example, not as interfacing. ↩︎
  2. Paper 1, L1; Relation Theory Paper 4, H41: "From outside, only clues can be seen". ↩︎
  3. Paper 1, L1; Paper 4, the section on L28: "This test, too, is a fallible look back after the fact, not a criterion". ↩︎
  4. The aesthetic rays read the overlap: the point that those who look cannot not acknowledge together. On love's not entering the overlap, see Paper 0, §3. ↩︎
  5. Pride and Prejudice, ch. XXXIV. The paraphrase that follows rests on the same chapter: "His sense of her inferiority, of its being a degradation, of the family obstacles which judgment had always opposed to inclination, were dwelt on with a warmth…"; Elizabeth's answer: "…had you behaved in a more gentlemanlike manner."; "…your arrogance, your conceit, and your selfish disdain of the feelings of others…" (same chapter). Works written in English are quoted in the original; renderings from other languages are this paper's own, here and below. ↩︎
  6. Pride and Prejudice, ch. XXXVI. ↩︎
  7. Pride and Prejudice, ch. LVI. ↩︎
  8. Pride and Prejudice, ch. LVIII. ↩︎
  9. Paper 3, L19. ↩︎
  10. Aesthetics Ray 10 §2 calls the one who can say "I saw wrongly" the owner of the judgment; the boundary sentence at the end of Paper 3, §4; Paper 1, L1. ↩︎
  11. Paper 4, L24, L28. ↩︎
  12. Pride and Prejudice, ch. LVIII: "I have been a selfish being all my life, in practice, though not in principle. … to care for none beyond my own family circle, to think meanly of all the rest of the world … You taught me a lesson, hard indeed at first, but most advantageous." ↩︎
  13. Relation Theory Paper 1, H8; Paper 0, §4, "Cultivation and colonization are taken in the broad sense." ↩︎
  14. Paper 2, the section on L11: "merely not fixing it for her is not yet enough to certify cultivation by itself"; Paper 2, §5: "If it only puts forward a fallible observation and asks her to respond, no direction is judged on the strength of this sentence." ↩︎
  15. Paper 4, L29. ↩︎
  16. Jane Eyre, ch. XXIII. ↩︎
  17. Jane Eyre, ch. XXVII. ↩︎
  18. Jane Eyre, ch. XXVII. The paraphrase rests on "you shall yet be my wife: I am not married." In the same chapter he also says that his love "fuses you and me in one". ↩︎
  19. The voice within her asks: "Who in the world cares for you?"; and afterward: "Mr. Rochester, reading my countenance, saw I had done so." (ch. XXVII) ↩︎
  20. Jane Eyre, ch. XXIII. ↩︎
  21. Jane Eyre, ch. XXXVIII. ↩︎
  22. Paper 4, L29. ↩︎
  23. Jane Eyre, ch. XXVI. ↩︎
  24. Paper 4, the section on L29. ↩︎
  25. Paper 5, L40; Paper 6, L44. ↩︎
  26. Paper 0, §8: this series does not require that an exit have reasons. ↩︎
  27. Paper 4, L29, the subsection "Where the Direction of Dropping Falls". ↩︎
  28. Second Critique, Chapter Five §2: "Dropping is quietly setting it down when it suits, with no account kept." The Introduction, Section 1, of the same book defines it in the same way: "Dropping is quietly setting a law down when that is convenient". ↩︎
  29. Odyssey 19.137–156; see also 2.93–110, 24.128–148. ↩︎
  30. ἀσπασίως γάρ κʼ ἄλλος ἀνὴρ ἀλαλήμενος ἐλθὼν / ἵετʼ ἐνὶ μεγάροις ἰδέειν παῖδάς τʼ ἄλοχόν τε· / σοὶ δʼ οὔ πω φίλον ἐστὶ δαήμεναι οὐδὲ πυθέσθαι, / πρίν γʼ ἔτι σῆς ἀλόχου πειρήσεαι (13.333–336). The English rendering of the Greek in this section is this paper's own. ↩︎
  31. εἰ δʼ ἐτεὸν δὴ / ἔστʼ Ὀδυσεὺς καὶ οἶκον ἱκάνεται, ἦ μάλα νῶϊ / γνωσόμεθʼ ἀλλήλων καὶ λώϊον· ἔστι γὰρ ἡμῖν / σήμαθʼ, ἃ δὴ καὶ νῶϊ κεκρυμμένα ἴδμεν ἀπʼ ἄλλων (23.107–110). ↩︎
  32. ὣς ἄρʼ ἔφη πόσιος πειρωμένη (23.181). "Making trial" here and "made trial of" in Athena's words quoted above (πειρήσεαι) are the same verb, πειράω; Odysseus himself also tells his son to let his mother make trial of him in the house (ἔασον πειράζειν ἐμέθεν, 23.113–114). How the bed was made: 23.183–201; the question whether the bed is still where it was: 23.202–204. She says afterward that apart from the two of them, only one maidservant had ever seen the bed (23.226–229). ↩︎
  33. 23.205–206; αὐτὰρ μὴ νῦν μοι τόδε χώεο μηδὲ νεμέσσα, / οὕνεκά σʼ οὐ τὸ πρῶτον, ἐπεὶ ἴδον, ὧδʼ ἀγάπησα. / αἰεὶ γάρ μοι θυμὸς ἐνὶ στήθεσσι φίλοισιν / ἐρρίγει μή τίς με βροτῶν ἀπάφοιτο ἔπεσσιν / ἐλθών (23.213–217). ↩︎
  34. Paper 2, L10, L16, L17. ↩︎
  35. Paper 2, L15; Relation Theory Paper 1, H10. ↩︎
  36. Paper 2, the section on L16; Relation Theory Paper 1, H1; Relation Theory Paper 6, H57. ↩︎
  37. Paper 6, L47. ↩︎
  38. Chapter Eight, XLIV (stanza numbering of the Russian text). This stanza is only paraphrased. Spalding's English has: "Because my lord, in battles maimed, / Is petted by the Emperor?— / That my dishonour would ensure / A notoriety proclaimed, / And in society might shed / A bastard fame prohibited?" (Spalding's stanza numbers differ from those of the Russian text by one). ↩︎
  39. Я вас люблю (к чему лукавить?), / Но я другому отдана; / Я буду век ему верна. (Chapter Eight, XLVII; from the standard text, not checked against a retrieved page in this round.) The English rendering in the body is this paper's own. Spalding's English: "I love you—to what end deceive?— / But I am now another's bride— / For ever faithful will abide." ↩︎
  40. Paper 4, L26, L28. ↩︎
  41. Paper 1, L1; Paper 4, the section on L28: "This test, too, is a fallible look back after the fact, not a criterion". ↩︎
  42. Paper 1, L1. ↩︎
  43. Chapter Eight, XLVII (Spalding's XLVI): "With bitter tears my mother prayed, / And for Tattiana, mournful maid, / Indifferent was her future fate. / I married". ↩︎
  44. Paper 4, L29. ↩︎
  45. Paper 5, L39. ↩︎
  46. The content of the note is given only in gist. ↩︎
  47. Dialogue as recorded on quotes.net and greatbooksandfilm.com; some transcriptions have "You'll have to think…". ↩︎
  48. "If that plane leaves the ground and you're not with him, you'll regret it." The order follows the continuous dialogue transcription of Scriptnotes episode 648 published on johnaugust.com, cross-checked against the records on preachingtoday.com and clip.cafe; not checked line by line against the film. The film is in copyright; it is quoted only briefly. ↩︎
  49. Paper 4, L29; Relation Theory Paper 3, H25, and Relation Theory Paper 6, H56: the costs left behind do not by themselves supply a judgment of direction; Paper 0, §8. ↩︎
  50. Paper 5, the section on L40; accommodation as in Aesthetics Ray 12. ↩︎
  51. Paper 4, the section on L31: "You swore, so you're not allowed to leave"; Paper 6, §5 (by L45): using a past moment to demand the same response of her. ↩︎
  52. Relation Theory Paper 1, H8: "direction is read on this one effect, by its structure, and can be read at the time; whether it took hold is seen in how the other party afterward understands and acts. Neither looks at motive." ↩︎
  53. Paper 5, the section on L40. ↩︎
  54. Paper 6, L45. ↩︎
  55. Waller, The Bridges of Madison County, as recorded on Goodreads; the speaker is Robert, which agrees with the account in Kirkus Reviews (1992). The novel is in copyright; it is quoted only briefly, and otherwise given only in gist; the pages of the original book were not checked. ↩︎
  56. "Let me know if you can come out here sometime—anytime." (The letter is dated September 10, 1965.) As recorded in chapter two of the novel on drhoanglan.wordpress.com; the pages of the original book were not checked. ↩︎
  57. The letter is dated August 16, 1978, and arrived with his effects in 1982. Her searching for him after her husband's death, and the lawyer's sending the effects, are in chapter seven as recorded at the same place. The pages of the original book were not checked. ↩︎
  58. Paper 0, §2, the second item of scope. ↩︎
  59. Paper 6, the section on L47. ↩︎
  60. Paper 5, L39, L41. ↩︎
  61. Relation Theory Paper 6, H57; the passage of Paper 6, §5 that reads falling back: if that sentence is only in his heart and is not said out loud, it does not enter her conditions of occurrence and is not read as a direction toward her. ↩︎
  62. Paper 5, §4; Paper 0, §8. That death is not the same as love's ending: Paper 2, L17; that after that moment there is no demand that it come again: Paper 6, L45; hoping for another such instant, or the two arranging together to meet again, is not within demanding: Paper 6, §5. ↩︎
  63. The "Boundary" at the end of the section on L17 in Paper 2; Relation Theory Paper 1, H1: where there is only an imagined image, "one does not claim to have received that person's response". ↩︎
  64. Pride and Prejudice: Paper 1, L1; Paper 2, L11; Paper 3, L19; Paper 4, L24, L28; Relation Theory Paper 1, H8. Jane Eyre: Paper 4, L29; Paper 5, L40; Paper 6, L44. Penelope: Paper 2, L10, L15, L16, L17; Paper 6, L47. Onegin: Paper 1, L1; Paper 4, L26, L28, L29; Paper 5, L39. Casablanca: Paper 4, L29, L31; Paper 5, L40; Paper 6, L45; Relation Theory Paper 1, H8. The Bridges of Madison County: Paper 2, L17; Paper 5, L39, L41; Paper 6, L45, L47; Relation Theory Paper 6, H57. Eighteen in all: Paper 1, L1; Paper 2, L10, L11, L15, L16, L17; Paper 3, L19; Paper 4, L24, L26, L28, L29, L31; Paper 5, L39, L40, L41; Paper 6, L44, L45, L47. ↩︎

References

All SAE works below are cited by concept DOI, which always resolves to the latest version.

I · SAE works directly cited in this paper

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Love Theory Paper 0: The Place of Love Theory [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23627790

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Love Theory Paper 1: At First Sight [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23627762

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Love Theory Paper 2: Longing [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23627766

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Love Theory Paper 3: It Is I [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23627774

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Love Theory Paper 4: No Substitute [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23627776

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Love Theory Paper 5: Without Waiting for You [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23627779

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Love Theory Paper 6: That Moment [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23627781

Qin, H. (2026). SAE: The Second Critique [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23250387

Qin, H. (2026). The Beauty of the Self (SAE Aesthetics, Ray 10) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22990079

Qin, H. (2026). The Beauty of Non Dubito (SAE Aesthetics, Ray 12) [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22992615

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Relation Theory Paper 1: What a Relation Is, and What It Is Not [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23545047

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Relation Theory Paper 3: Commitment [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23545023

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Relation Theory Paper 4: Dealings and Expectation [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23545057

Qin, H. (2026). SAE Relation Theory Paper 6: Asymmetry, Divergence and Ending [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23545087

II · The stories

Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice (1813). (Project Gutenberg #1342 text)

Brontë, Charlotte. Jane Eyre (1847). (Project Gutenberg #1260 text)

Homer. Odyssey. Ed. A. T. Murray. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919. (Greek from the PerseusDL text; line numbers as in the standard text)

Пушкин, А. С. Евгений Онегин (1833), глава восьмая. (The three Russian lines from the standard text, not checked against a retrieved page in this round; English translation: Henry Spalding, 1881, Project Gutenberg #23997)

Casablanca. Dir. Michael Curtiz. Screenplay by Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein and Howard Koch. Warner Bros., 1942. (Dialogue from online transcriptions; order cross-checked against the continuous dialogue transcription of Scriptnotes episode 648; quoted only briefly)

Waller, Robert James. The Bridges of Madison County. New York: Warner Books, 1992. (Short quotations from Goodreads and from chapters two and seven of the novel as recorded on drhoanglan.wordpress.com; original pages not checked; otherwise given only in gist)

Interfaces

  • Main upstream: Love Theory Papers 1 to 6 (the propositions each case presses on are given in the table in §8 and in note 64); Paper 0 (§§2, 3, 4 and 8).
  • Also used: Relation Theory Paper 1 (H1, H8, H10), Paper 3 (H25), Paper 4 (H41), Paper 6 (H56, H57); Aesthetics Ray 10 (§2), Ray 12 (accommodation); Second Critique (Introduction, Section 1; Chapter Five §2).
  • This series: This paper lays down no propositions; of the two points registered in §8, one has had a sentence added in Paper 2, and the other enters the remainders of Paper 0; for the point on seeing wrongly and folding back, Paper 3 has added a boundary sentence.