WE must now consider the remedies of pain or sorrow: under which head there are five points of inquiry:

Deinde considerandum est de remediis doloris seu tristitiae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quinque.

(1) Whether pain or sorrow is assuaged by every pleasure?

Primo, utrum dolor vel tristitia mitigetur per quamlibet delectationem.

(2) Whether it is assuaged by weeping?

Secundo, utrum mitigetur per fletum.

(3) Whether it is assuaged by the sympathy of friends?

Tertio, utrum per compassionem amicorum.

(4) Whether it is assuaged by contemplating the truth?

Quarto, utrum per contemplationem veritatis.

(5) Whether it is assuaged by sleep and baths?

Quinto, utrum per somnum et balnea.

A1

(1a2ae 38) Article: 1  WHETHER PAIN OR SORROW IS ASSUAGED BY EVERY PLEASURE?

  Objection 1: It would seem that not every pleasure assuages every pain or sorrow. For pleasure does not assuage sorrow, save in so far as it is contrary to it: for “remedies work by contraries” (Ethic. ii, 3). But not every pleasure is contrary to every sorrow; as stated above (Question [35], Article [4]). Therefore not every pleasure assuages every sorrow.

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non quaelibet delectatio mitiget quemlibet dolorem seu tristitiam. Non enim delectatio tristitiam mitigat, nisi inquantum ei contrariatur, medicinae enim fiunt per contraria, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed non quaelibet delectatio contrariatur cuilibet tristitiae, ut supra dictum est. Ergo non quaelibet delectatio mitigat quamlibet tristitiam.

  Objection 2: Further, that which causes sorrow does not assuage it. But some pleasures cause sorrow; since, as stated in Ethic. ix, 4, “the wicked man feels pain at having been pleased.” Therefore not every pleasure assuages sorrow.

Praeterea, illud quod causat tristitiam, non mitigat tristitiam. Sed aliquae delectationes causant tristitiam, quia, ut dicitur in IX Ethic., malus tristatur quoniam delectatus est. Non ergo omnis delectatio mitigat tristitiam.

  Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (Confess. iv, 7) that he fled from his country, where he had been wont to associate with his friend, now dead: “for so should his eyes look for him less, where they were not wont to see him.” Hence we may gather that those things which united us to our dead or absent friends, become burdensome to us when we mourn their death or absence. But nothing united us more than the pleasures we enjoyed in common. Therefore these very pleasures become burdensome to us when we mourn. Therefore not every pleasure assuages every sorrow.

Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in IV Confess., quod ipse fugit de patria, in qua conversari solitus erat cum amico suo iam mortuo, minus enim quaerebant eum oculi eius, ubi videre non solebant. Ex quo accipi potest quod illa in quibus nobis amici mortui vel absentes communicaverunt, efficiuntur nobis, de eorum morte vel absentia dolentibus, onerosa. Sed maxime communicaverunt nobis in delectationibus. Ergo ipsae delectationes efficiuntur nobis dolentibus onerosae. Non ergo quaelibet delectatio mitigat quamlibet tristitiam..

  On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 14) that “sorrow is driven forth by pleasure, both by a contrary pleasure and by any other, provided it be intense.”

Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in VII Ethic., quod expellit delectatio tristitiam, et quae contraria, et quae contingens, si sit fortis.

  I answer that, As is evident from what has been said above (Question [23], Article [4]), pleasure is a kind of repose of the appetite in a suitable good; while sorrow arises from something unsuited to the appetite. Consequently in movements of the appetite pleasure is to sorrow, what, in bodies, repose is to weariness, which is due to a non-natural transmutation; for sorrow itself implies a certain weariness or ailing of the appetitive faculty. Therefore just as all repose of the body brings relief to any kind of weariness, ensuing from any non-natural cause; so every pleasure brings relief by assuaging any kind of sorrow, due to any cause whatever.

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex praedictis patet, delectatio est quaedam quies appetitus in bono convenienti; tristitia autem est ex eo quod repugnat appetitui. Unde sic se habet delectatio ad tristitiam in motibus appetitivis, sicut se habet in corporibus quies ad fatigationem, quae accidit ex aliqua transmutatione innaturali, nam et ipsa tristitia fatigationem quandam, seu aegritudinem appetitivae virtutis importat. Sicut igitur quaelibet quies corporis remedium affert contra quamlibet fatigationem, ex quacumque causa innaturali provenientem; ita quaelibet delectatio remedium affert ad mitigandam quamlibet tristitiam, ex quocumque procedat.

  Reply to Objection 1: Although not every pleasure is specifically contrary to every sorrow, yet it is generically, as stated above (Question [35], Article [4]). And consequently, on the part of the disposition of the subject, any sorrow can be assuaged by any pleasure.

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet non omnis delectatio contrarietur omni tristitiae secundum speciem, contrariatur tamen secundum genus, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo ex parte dispositionis subiecti, quaelibet tristitia per quamlibet delectationem mitigari potest.

  Reply to Objection 2: The pleasures of wicked men are not a cause of sorrow while they are enjoyed, but afterwards: that is to say, in so far as wicked men repent of those things in which they took pleasure. This sorrow is healed by contrary pleasures.

Ad secundum dicendum quod delectationes malorum non causant tristitiam in praesenti, sed in futuro, inquantum scilicet mali poenitent de malis de quibus laetitiam habuerunt. Et huic tristitiae subvenitur per contrarias delectationes.

  Reply to Objection 3: When there are two causes inclining to contrary movements, each hinders the other; yet the one which is stronger and more persistent, prevails in the end. Now when a man is made sorrowful by those things in which he took pleasure in common with a deceased or absent friend, there are two causes producing contrary movements. For the thought of the friend’s death or absence, inclines him to sorrow: whereas the present good inclines him to pleasure. Consequently each is modified by the other. And yet, since the perception of the present moves more strongly than the memory of the past, and since love of self is more persistent than love of another; hence it is that, in the end, the pleasure drives out the sorrow. Wherefore a little further on (Confess. iv, 8) Augustine says that his “sorrow gave way to his former pleasures.”

Ad tertium dicendum quod, quando sunt duae causae ad contrarios motus inclinantes, utraque alteram impedit, et tamen illa finaliter vincit, quae fortior est et diuturnior. In eo autem qui tristatur de his in quibus simul cum amico mortuo vel absente delectari consuevit, duae causae in contrarium moventes inveniuntur. Nam mors vel absentia amici recogitata, inclinat ad dolorem, bonum autem praesens inclinat ad delectationem. Unde utrumque per alterum minuitur. Sed tamen, quia fortius movet sensus praesentis quam memoria praeteriti, et amor sui ipsius quam amor alterius diuturnius manet; inde est quod finaliter delectatio tristitiam expellit. Unde post pauca subdit ibidem Augustinus quod pristinis generibus delectationum cedebat dolor eius.

A2

Article: 2  WHETHER PAIN OR SORROW IS ASSUAGED BY TEARS?

  Objection 1: It would seem that tears do not assuage sorrow. Because no effect diminishes its cause. But tears or groans are an effect of sorrow. Therefore they do not diminish sorrow.

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fletus non mitiget tristitiam. Nullus enim effectus diminuit suam causam. Sed fletus, vel gemitus, est effectus tristitiae. Ergo non minuit tristitiam.

  Objection 2: Further, just as tears or groans are an effect of sorrow, so laughter is an effect of joy. But laughter does not lessen joy. Therefore tears do not lessen sorrow.

Praeterea, sicut fletus vel gemitus est effectus tristitiae, ita risus est effectus laetitiae. Sed risus non minuit laetitiam. Ergo fletus non mitigat tristitiam.

  Objection 3: Further, when we weep, the evil that saddens us is present to the imagination. But the image of that which saddens us increases sorrow, just as the image of a pleasant thing adds to joy. Therefore it seems that tears do not assuage sorrow.

Praeterea, in fletu repraesentatur nobis malum contristans. Sed imaginatio rei contristantis auget tristitiam, sicut imaginatio rei delectantis auget laetitiam. Ergo videtur quod fletus non mitiget tristitiam.

  On the contrary, Augustine says (Confess. iv, 7) that when he mourned the death of his friend, “in groans and in tears alone did he find some little refreshment.”

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in IV Confess., quod quando dolebat de morte amici, in solis gemitibus et lacrimis erat ei aliquantula requies.

  I answer that, Tears and groans naturally assuage sorrow: and this for two reasons. First, because a hurtful thing hurts yet more if we keep it shut up, because the soul is more intent on it: whereas if it be allowed to escape, the soul’s intention is dispersed as it were on outward things, so that the inward sorrow is lessened. This is why men, burdened with sorrow, make outward show of their sorrow, by tears or groans or even by words, their sorrow is assuaged. Secondly, because an action, that befits a man according to his actual disposition, is always pleasant to him. Now tears and groans are actions befitting a man who is in sorrow or pain; and consequently they become pleasant to him. Since then, as stated above (Article [1]), every pleasure assuages sorrow or pain somewhat, it follows that sorrow is assuaged by weeping and groans.

Respondeo dicendum quod lacrimae et gemitus naturaliter mitigant tristitiam. Et hoc duplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia omne nocivum interius clausum magis affligit, quia magis multiplicatur intentio animae circa ipsum, sed quando ad exteriora diffunditur, tunc animae intentio ad exteriora quodammodo disgregatur, et sic interior dolor minuitur. Et propter hoc, quando homines qui sunt in tristitiis, exterius suam tristitiam manifestant vel fletu aut gemitu, vel etiam verbo, mitigatur tristitia. Secundo, quia semper operatio conveniens homini secundum dispositionem in qua est, sibi est delectabilis. Fletus autem et gemitus sunt quaedam operationes convenientes tristato vel dolenti. Et ideo efficiuntur ei delectabiles. Cum igitur omnis delectatio aliqualiter mitiget tristitiam vel dolorem, ut dictum est, sequitur quod per planctum et gemitum tristitia mitigetur.

  Reply to Objection 1: This relation of the cause to effect is opposed to the relation existing between the cause of sorrow and the sorrowing man. For every effect is suited to its cause, and consequently is pleasant to it; but the cause of sorrow is disagreeable to him that sorrows. Hence the effect of sorrow is not related to him that sorrows in the same way as the cause of sorrow is. For this reason sorrow is assuaged by its effect, on account of the aforesaid contrariety.

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ipsa habitudo causae ad effectum contrariatur habitudini contristantis ad contristatum, nam omnis effectus est conveniens suae causae, et per consequens est ei delectabilis; contristans autem contrariatur contristato. Et ideo effectus tristitiae habet contrariam habitudinem ad contristatum, quam contristans ad ipsum. Et propter hoc, mitigatur tristitia per effectum tristitiae, ratione contrarietatis praedictae.

  Reply to Objection 2: The relation of effect to cause is like the relation of the object of pleasure to him that takes pleasure in it: because in each case the one agrees with the other. Now every like thing increases its like. Therefore joy is increased by laughter and the other effects of joy: except they be excessive, in which case, accidentally, they lessen it.

Ad secundum dicendum quod habitudo effectus ad causam est similis habitudini delectantis ad delectatum, quia utrobique convenientia invenitur. Omne autem simile auget suum simile. Et ideo per risum et alios effectus laetitiae augetur laetitia, nisi forte per accidens, propter excessum.

  Reply to Objection 3: The image of that which saddens us, considered in itself, has a natural tendency to increase sorrow: yet from the very fact that a man imagines himself to be doing that which is fitting according to his actual state, he feels a certain amount of pleasure. For the same reason if laughter escapes a man when he is so disposed that he thinks he ought to weep, he is sorry for it, as having done something unbecoming to him, as Cicero says (De Tusc. Quaest. iii, 27).

Ad tertium dicendum quod imaginatio rei contristantis, quantum est de se, nata est augere tristitiam, sed ex hoc ipso quod homo imaginatur quod facit illud quod convenit sibi secundum talem statum, consurgit inde quaedam delectatio. Et eadem ratione, si alicui subrepat risus in statu in quo videtur sibi esse lugendum, ex hoc ipso dolet, tanquam faciat id quod non convenit, ut Tullius dicit, in III de Tuscul. quaestionibus.

A3

Article 3. WHETHER PAIN OR SORROW ARE ASSUAGED BY THE SYMPATHY OF FRIENDS?

  Objection 1: It would seem that the sorrow of sympathizing friends does not assuage our own sorrow. For contraries have contrary effects. Now as Augustine says (Confess. viii, 4), “when many rejoice together, each one has more exuberant joy, for they are kindled and inflamed one by the other.” Therefore, in like manner, when many are sorrowful, it seems that their sorrow is greater.

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod dolor amici compatientis non mitiget tristitiam. Contrariorum enim contrarii sunt effectus. Sed sicut Augustinus dicit, VIII Confess., quando cum multis gaudetur, in singulis uberius est gaudium, quia fervere faciunt se, et inflammantur ex alterutro. Ergo, pari ratione, quando multi simul tristantur, videtur quod sit maior tristitia.

  Objection 2: Further, friendship demands mutual love, as Augustine declares (Confess. iv, 9). But a sympathizing friend is pained at the sorrow of his friend with whom he sympathizes. Consequently the pain of a sympathizing friend becomes, to the friend in sorrow, a further cause of sorrow: so that, his pain being doubled his sorrow seems to increase.

Praeterea, hoc requirit amicitia, ut amoris vicem quis rependat, ut Augustinus dicit, IV Confess. Sed amicus condolens dolet de dolore amici dolentis. Ergo ipse dolor amici condolentis est causa amico prius dolenti de proprio malo, alterius doloris. Et sic, duplicato dolore, videtur tristitia crescere.

  Objection 3: Further, sorrow arises from every evil affecting a friend, as though it affected oneself: since “a friend is one’s other self” (Ethic. ix, 4,9). But sorrow is an evil. Therefore the sorrow of the sympathizing friend increases the sorrow of the friend with whom he sympathizes.

Praeterea, omne malum amici est contristans, sicut et malum proprium, nam amicus est alter ipse. Sed dolor est quoddam malum. Ergo dolor amici condolentis auget tristitiam amico cui condoletur.

  On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 11) that those who are in pain are consoled when their friends sympathize with them.

  I answer that, When one is in pain, it is natural that the sympathy of a friend should afford consolation: whereof the Philosopher indicates a twofold reason (Ethic. ix, 11). The first is because, since sorrow has a depressing effect, it is like a weight whereof we strive to unburden ourselves: so that when a man sees others saddened by his own sorrow, it seems as though others were bearing the burden with him, striving, as it were, to lessen its weight; wherefore the load of sorrow becomes lighter for him: something like what occurs in the carrying of bodily burdens. The second and better reason is because when a man’s friends condole with him, he sees that he is loved by them, and this affords him pleasure, as stated above (Question [32], Article [5]). Consequently, since every pleasure assuages sorrow, as stated above (Article [1]), it follows that sorrow is mitigated by a sympathizing friend.

Respondeo dicendum quod naturaliter amicus condolens in tristitiis, est consolativus. Cuius duplicem rationem tangit philosophus in IX Ethic. Quarum prima est quia, cum ad tristitiam pertineat aggravare, habet rationem cuiusdam oneris, a quo aliquis aggravatus alleviari conatur. Cum ergo aliquis videt de sua tristitia alios contristatos, fit ei quasi quaedam imaginatio quod illud onus alii cum ipso ferant, quasi conantes ad ipsum ab onere alleviandum et ideo levius fert tristitiae onus, sicut etiam in portandis oneribus corporalibus contingit. Secunda ratio, et melior, est quia per hoc quod amici contristantur ei, percipit se ab eis amari; quod est delectabile, ut supra dictum est. Unde, cum omnis delectatio mitiget tristitiam, sicut supra dictum est, sequitur quod amicus condolens tristitiam mitiget.

  Reply to Objection 1: In either case there is a proof of friendship, viz. when a man rejoices with the joyful, and when he sorrows with the sorrowful. Consequently each becomes an object of pleasure by reason of its cause.

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in utroque amicitia manifestatur, scilicet et quod congaudet gaudenti, et quod condolet dolenti. Et ideo utrumque ratione causae redditur delectabile.

  Reply to Objection 2: The friend’s sorrow itself would be a cause of sorrow: but consideration of its cause, viz. his love, gives rise rather to pleasure.

Ad secundum dicendum quod ipse dolor amici secundum se contristaret. Sed consideratio causae eius, quae est amor, magis delectat.

   And this suffices for the reply to the Third Objection.

Et per hoc patet responsio ad tertium.

A4

Article 4. WHETHER PAIN AND SORROW ARE ASSUAGED BY THE CONTEMPLATION OF TRUTH?

  Objection 1: It would seem that the contemplation of truth does not assuage sorrow. For it is written (Eccles. 1:18): “He that addeth knowledge addeth also sorrow” [Vulg.: ‘labor’]. But knowledge pertains to the contemplation of truth. Therefore the contemplation of truth does not assuage sorrow.

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod contemplatio veritatis non mitiget dolorem. Dicitur enim Eccle. I, qui addit scientiam, addit et dolorem. Sed scientia ad contemplationem veritatis pertinet. Non ergo contemplatio veritatis mitigat dolorem.

  Objection 2: Further, the contemplation of truth belongs to the speculative intellect. But “the speculative intellect is not a principle of movement”; as stated in De Anima iii, 11. Therefore, since joy and sorrow are movements of the soul, it seems that the contemplation of truth does not help to assuage sorrow.

Praeterea, contemplatio veritatis ad intellectum speculativum pertinet. Sed intellectus speculativus non movet, ut dicitur in III de anima. Cum igitur gaudium et dolor sint quidam motus animi, videtur quod contemplatio veritatis nihil faciat ad mitigationem doloris.

  Objection 3: Further, the remedy for an ailment should be applied to the part which ails. But contemplation of truth is in the intellect. Therefore it does not assuage bodily pain, which is in the senses.

Praeterea, remedium aegritudinis apponendum est ubi est aegritudo. Sed contemplatio veritatis est in intellectu. Non ergo mitigat dolorem corporalem, qui est in sensu.

  On the contrary, Augustine says (Soliloq. i, 12): “It seemed to me that if the light of that truth were to dawn on our minds, either I should not feel that pain, or at least that pain would seem nothing to me.”

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in I Soliloq., videbatur mihi, si se ille mentibus nostris veritatis fulgor aperiret, aut non me sensurum fuisse illum dolorem, aut certe pro nihilo toleraturum.

  I answer that, As stated above (Question [3], Article [5]), the greatest of all pleasures consists in the contemplation of truth. Now every pleasure assuages pain as stated above (Article [1]): hence the contemplation of truth assuages pain or sorrow, and the more so, the more perfectly one is a lover of wisdom. And therefore in the midst of tribulations men rejoice in the contemplation of Divine things and of future Happiness, according to James 1:2: “My brethren, count it all joy, when you shall fall into divers temptations”: and, what is more, even in the midst of bodily tortures this joy is found; as the “martyr Tiburtius, when he was walking barefoot on the burning coals, said: Methinks, I walk on roses, in the name of Jesus Christ.” [*Cf. Dominican Breviary, August 11th, commemoration of St. Tiburtius.]

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, in contemplatione veritatis maxima delectatio consistit. Omnis autem delectatio dolorem mitigat, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo contemplatio veritatis mitigat tristitiam vel dolorem, et tanto magis, quanto perfectius aliquis est amator sapientiae. Et ideo homines ex contemplatione divina et futurae beatitudinis, in tribulationibus gaudent; secundum illud Iacobi I, omne gaudium existimate, fratres mei, cum in tentationes varias incideritis. Et quod est amplius, etiam inter corporis cruciatus huiusmodi gaudium invenitur, sicut Tiburtius martyr, cum nudatis plantis super ardentes prunas incederet, dixit, videtur mihi quod super roseos flores incedam, in nomine Iesu Christi.

  Reply to Objection 1: ”He that addeth knowledge, addeth sorrow,” either on account of the difficulty and disappointment in the search for truth; or because knowledge makes man acquainted with many things that are contrary to his will. Accordingly, on the part of the things known, knowledge causes sorrow: but on the part of the contemplation of truth, it causes pleasure.

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod qui addit scientiam, addit dolorem, vel propter difficultatem et defectum inveniendae veritatis, vel propter hoc, quod per scientiam homo cognoscit multa quae voluntati contrariantur. Et sic ex parte rerum cognitarum, scientia dolorem causat, ex parte autem contemplationis veritatis, delectationem.

  Reply to Objection 2: The speculative intellect does not move the mind on the part of the thing contemplated: but on the part of contemplation itself, which is man’s good and naturally pleasant to him.

Ad secundum dicendum quod intellectus speculativus non movet animum ex parte rei speculatae, movet tamen animum ex parte ipsius speculationis, quae est quoddam bonum hominis, et naturaliter delectabilis.

  Reply to Objection 3: In the powers of the soul there is an overflow from the higher to the lower powers: and accordingly, the pleasure of contemplation, which is in the higher part, overflows so as to mitigate even that pain which is in the senses.

Ad tertium dicendum quod in viribus animae fit redundantia a superiori ad inferius. Et secundum hoc, delectatio contemplationis, quae est in superiori parte, redundat ad mitigandum etiam dolorem qui est in sensu.

A5

Article 5. WHETHER PAIN AND SORROW ARE ASSUAGED BY SLEEP AND BATHS?

  Objection 1: It would seem that sleep and baths do not assuage sorrow. For sorrow is in the soul: whereas sleep and baths regard the body. Therefore they do not conduce to the assuaging of sorrow.

Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod somnus et balneum non mitigent tristitiam. Tristitia enim in anima consistit. Sed somnus et balneum ad corpus pertinent. Non ergo aliquid faciunt ad mitigationem tristitiae.

  Objection 2: Further, the same effect does not seem to ensue from contrary causes. But these, being bodily things, are incompatible with the contemplation of truth which is a cause of the assuaging of sorrow, as stated above (Article [4]). Therefore sorrow is not mitigated by the like.

Praeterea, idem effectus non videtur causari ex contrariis causis. Sed huiusmodi, cum sint corporalia, repugnant contemplationi veritatis, quae est causa mitigationis tristitiae, ut dictum est. Non ergo per huiusmodi tristitia mitigatur.

  Objection 3: Further, sorrow and pain, in so far as they affect the body, denote a certain transmutation of the heart. But such remedies as these seem to pertain to the outward senses and limbs, rather than to the interior disposition of the heart. Therefore they do not assuage sorrow.

Praeterea, tristitia et dolor, secundum quod pertinent ad corpus, in quadam transmutatione cordis consistunt. Sed huiusmodi remedia magis videntur pertinere ad exteriores sensus et membra, quam ad interiorem cordis dispositionem. Non ergo per huiusmodi tristitia mitigatur.

  On the contrary, Augustine says (Confess. ix, 12): “I had heard that the bath had its name [*Balneum, from the Greek {balaneion}] . . . from the fact of its driving sadness from the mind.” And further on, he says: “I slept, and woke up again, and found my grief not a little assuaged”: and quotes the words from the hymn of Ambrose [*Cf. Sarum Breviary: First Sunday after the octave of the Epiphany, Hymn for first Vespers], in which it is said that “Sleep restores the tired limbs to labor, refreshes the weary mind, and banishes sorrow.”

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, IX Confess., audieram balnei nomen inde dictum, quod anxietatem pellat ex animo et infra, dormivi, et evigilavi, et non parva ex parte mitigatum inveni dolorem meum. Et inducit quod in hymno Ambrosii dicitur, quod quies artus solutos reddit laboris usui, mentesque fessas allevat, luctusque solvit anxios.

  I answer that, As stated above (Question [37], Article [4]), sorrow, by reason of its specific nature, is repugnant to the vital movement of the body; and consequently whatever restores the bodily nature to its due state of vital movement, is opposed to sorrow and assuages it. Moreover such remedies, from the very fact that they bring nature back to its normal state, are causes of pleasure; for this is precisely in what pleasure consists, as stated above (Question [31], Article [1]). Therefore, since every pleasure assuages sorrow, sorrow is assuaged by such like bodily remedies.

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, tristitia secundum suam speciem repugnat vitali motioni corporis. Et ideo illa quae reformant naturam corporalem in debitum statum vitalis motionis, repugnant tristitiae, et ipsam mitigant. Per hoc etiam quod huiusmodi remediis reducitur natura ad debitum statum, causatur ex his delectatio, hoc enim est quod delectationem facit, ut supra dictum est. Unde, cum omnis delectatio tristitiam mitiget, per huiusmodi remedia corporalia tristitia mitigatur.

  Reply to Objection 1: The normal disposition of the body, so far as it is felt, is itself a cause of pleasure, and consequently assuages sorrow.

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ipsa debita corporis dispositio, inquantum sentitur, delectationem causat, et per consequens tristitiam mitigat.

  Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Question [31], Article [8]), one pleasure hinders another; and yet every pleasure assuages sorrow. Consequently it is not unreasonable that sorrow should be assuaged by causes which hinder one another.

Ad secundum dicendum quod delectationum una aliam impedit, ut supra dictum est, et tamen omnis delectatio tristitiam mitigat. Unde non est inconveniens quod ex causis se invicem impedientibus tristitia mitigetur.

  Reply to Objection 3: Every good disposition of the body reacts somewhat on the heart, which is the beginning and end of bodily movements, as stated in De Causa Mot. Animal. xi.

Ad tertium dicendum quod omnis bona dispositio corporis redundat quodammodo ad cor, sicut ad principium et finem corporalium motionum, ut dicitur in libro de causa motus animalium.