But, to repeat; I assume sufficient intelligence in her to be able to
control her inclination. For to hold a lover, it is not enough
(perhaps it is too much) to love passionately, she must love with
prudence, with restraint, and modesty is, for that reason, the most
ingenious virtue refined persons have ever imagined. To yield to the
impetuosity of an inclination; to be annihilated, so to speak, in the
object loved, is the method of a woman without discernment. That is
not love, it is a liking for a moment, it is to transform a lover into
a spoiled child. I would have a woman behave with more reserve and
economy. An excess of ardor is not justifiable in my opinion, the
heart being always an impetuous charger which must be steadily curbed.
If you do not use your strength with economy, your vivacity will be
nothing but a passing transport. The same indifference you perceive in
a lover, after those convulsive emotions, you, yourself, will
experience, and soon, both of you will feel the necessity of
separating.

To sum up: There is more intelligence required to love than is
generally supposed, and to be happy in loving. Up to the moment of the
fatal "yes" or if you prefer, up to the time of her defeat, a woman
does not need artifice to hold her lover. Curiosity excites him,
desire sustains him, hope encourages him. But once he reaches the
summit of his desires, it is for the woman to take as much care to
retain him, as he exhibited to overcome her; the desire to keep him
should render her fertile in expedients; the heart is similar to a
high position, easier to obtain than to keep. Charms are sufficient
to make a man amorous; to render him constant, something more is
necessary; skill is required, a little management, a great deal of
intelligence, and even a touch of ill humor and inequality.
Unfortunately, however, as soon as women have yielded they become too