[1a 2æ] QUESTION 26
[of THE PASSIONS of THE SOUL, IN PARTICULAR: AND FIRST, of LOVE. (FOUR ARTICLES)]

a 2ae. Quaestio 26
Prooemium ^[34633] 

WE have now to consider the soul’s passions in particular, and (1) the passions of the concupiscible faculty; (2) the passions of the irascible faculty.

Consequenter considerandum est de passionibus animae in speciali. Et primo, de passionibus concupiscibilis; secundo, de passionibus irascibilis.

The first of these considerations will be threefold: since we shall consider (1) Love and hatred; (2) Desire and aversion; (3) Pleasure and sadness.

Prima consideratio erit tripartita, nam primo considerabimus de amore et odio; secundo, de concupiscentia et fuga tertio, de delectatione et tristitia.

Concerning love, three points must be considered: (1) Love itself; (2) The cause of love; (3) The effects of love. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:

Circa amorem consideranda sunt tria, primo, de ipso amore; secundo, de causa amoris; tertio, de effectibus eius.Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor.

1. Whether love is in the concupiscible power?

Primo, utrum amor sit in concupiscibili.

2. Whether love is a passion?

Secundo, utrum amor sit passio.

3. Whether love is the same as dilection?

Tertio, utrum amor sit idem quod dilectio.

4. Whether love is properly divided into love of friendship, and love of concupiscence?

Quarto, utrum amor convenienter dividatur in amorem amicitiae et amorem concupiscentiae.

ARTICLE 1:
Whether love is in the concupiscible power?

Articulus 1
[Primo, utrum amor sit in concupiscibili.]

  Objection 1: It would seem that love is not in the concupiscible power. For it is written (Wis. 8:2): “Her,” namely wisdom, “have I loved, and have sought her out from my youth.” But the concupiscible power, being a part of the sensitive appetite, cannot tend to wisdom, which is not apprehended by the senses. Therefore love is not in the concupiscible power.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 1 arg. 1} Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod amor non sit in concupiscibili. Dicitur enim Sap. VIII, hanc, scilicet sapientiam, amavi et exquisivi a iuventute mea. Sed concupiscibilis, cum sit pars appetitus sensitivi, non potest tendere in sapientiam, quae non comprehenditur sensu. Ergo amor non est in concupiscibili.

  Objection 2: Further, love seems to be identified with every passion: for Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7): “Love, yearning for the object beloved, is desire; having and enjoying it, is joy; fleeing what is contrary to it, is fear; and feeling what is contrary to it, is sadness.” But not every passion is in the concupiscible power; indeed, fear, which is mentioned in this passage, is in the irascible power. Therefore we must not say absolutely that love is in the concupiscible power.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 1 arg. 2} Praeterea, amor videtur esse idem cuilibet passioni, dicit enim Augustinus, in XIV de Civ. Dei, amor inhians habere quod amatur, cupiditas est; id autem habens, eoque fruens, laetitia; fugiens quod ei adversatur, timor est; idque si acciderit sentiens, tristitia est. Sed non omnis passio est in concupiscibili; sed timor, etiam hic enumeratus, est in irascibili. Ergo non est simpliciter dicendum quod amor sit in concupiscibili.

  Objection 3: Further, Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) mentions a “natural love.” But natural love seems to pertain rather to the natural powers, which belong to the vegetal soul. Therefore love is not simply in the concupiscible power.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 1 arg. 3} Praeterea, Dionysius, in IV cap. de Div. Nom., ponit quendam amorem naturalem. Sed amor naturalis magis videtur pertinere ad vires naturales, quae sunt animae vegetabilis. Ergo amor non simpliciter est in concupiscibili.

  On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Topic. ii, 7) that “love is in the concupiscible power.”

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 1 s. c.} Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in II Topic., quod amor est in concupiscibili.

  I answer that, Love is something pertaining to the appetite; since good is the object of both. Wherefore love differs according to the difference of appetites. For there is an appetite which arises from an apprehension existing, not in the subject of the appetite, but in some other: and this is called the “natural appetite.” Because natural things seek what is suitable to them according to their nature, by reason of an apprehension which is not in them, but in the Author of their nature, as stated in the FP, Question [6], Article [1], ad 2; FP, Question [103], Article [1], ad 1,3. And there is another appetite arising from an apprehension in the subject of the appetite, but from necessity and not from free-will. Such is, in irrational animals, the “sensitive appetite,” which, however, in man, has a certain share of liberty, in so far as it obeys reason. Again, there is another appetite following freely from an apprehension in the subject of the appetite. And this is the rational or intellectual appetite, which is called the “will.”

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 1 co.} Respondeo dicendum quod amor est aliquid ad appetitum pertinens, cum utriusque obiectum sit bonum. Unde secundum differentiam appetitus est differentia amoris. Est enim quidam appetitus non consequens apprehensionem ipsius appetentis, sed alterius, et huiusmodi dicitur appetitus naturalis. Res enim naturales appetunt quod eis convenit secundum suam naturam, non per apprehensionem propriam, sed per apprehensionem instituentis naturam, ut in I libro dictum est. Alius autem est appetitus consequens apprehensionem ipsius appetentis, sed ex necessitate, non ex iudicio libero. Et talis est appetitus sensitivus in brutis, qui tamen in hominibus aliquid libertatis participat, inquantum obedit rationi. Alius autem est appetitus consequens apprehensionem appetentis secundum liberum iudicium. Et talis est appetitus rationalis sive intellectivus, qui dicitur voluntas.

   Now in each of these appetites, the name “love” is given to the principle movement towards the end loved. In the natural appetite the principle of this movement is the appetitive subject’s connaturalness with the thing to which it tends, and may be called “natural love”: thus the connaturalness of a heavy body for the centre, is by reason of its weight and may be called “natural love.” In like manner the aptitude of the sensitive appetite or of the will to some good, that is to say, its very complacency in good is called “sensitive love,” or “intellectual” or “rational love.” So that sensitive love is in the sensitive appetite, just as intellectual love is in the intellectual appetite. And it belongs to the concupiscible power, because it regards good absolutely, and not under the aspect of difficulty, which is the object of the irascible faculty.

In unoquoque autem horum appetituum, amor dicitur illud quod est principium motus tendentis in finem amatum. In appetitu autem naturali, principium huiusmodi motus est connaturalitas appetentis ad id in quod tendit, quae dici potest amor naturalis, sicut ipsa connaturalitas corporis gravis ad locum medium est per gravitatem, et potest dici amor naturalis. Et similiter coaptatio appetitus sensitivi, vel voluntatis, ad aliquod bonum, idest ipsa complacentia boni, dicitur amor sensitivus, vel intellectivus seu rationalis. Amor igitur sensitivus est in appetitu sensitivo, sicut amor intellectivus in appetitu intellectivo. Et pertinet ad concupiscibilem, quia dicitur per respectum ad bonum absolute, non per respectum ad arduum, quod est obiectum irascibilis.

  Reply to Objection 1: The words quoted refer to intellectual or rational love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 1 ad 1} Ad primum ergo dicendum quod auctoritas illa loquitur de amore intellectivo vel rationali.

  Reply to Objection 2: Love is spoken of as being fear, joy, desire and sadness, not essentially but causally.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 1 ad 2} Ad secundum dicendum quod amor dicitur esse timor, gaudium, cupiditas et tristitia, non quidem essentialiter, sed causaliter.

  Reply to Objection 3: Natural love is not only in the powers of the vegetal soul, but in all the soul’s powers, and also in all the parts of the body, and universally in all things: because, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), “Beauty and goodness are beloved by all things”; since each single thing has a connaturalness with that which is naturally suitable to it.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 1 ad 3} Ad tertium dicendum quod amor naturalis non solum est in viribus animae vegetativae, sed in omnibus potentiis animae, et etiam in omnibus partibus corporis, et universaliter in omnibus rebus, quia, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., omnibus est pulchrum et bonum amabile; cum unaquaeque res habeat connaturalitatem ad id quod est sibi conveniens secundum suam naturam.

ARTICLE 1:
Whether love is a passion?

Articulus 2
 

  Objection 1: It would seem that love is not a passion. For no power is a passion. But every love is a power, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore love is not a passion.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 2} arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod amor non sit passio. Nulla enim virtus passio est. Sed omnis amor est virtus quaedam, ut dicit Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Ergo amor non est passio.

  Objection 2: Further, love is a kind of union or bond, as Augustine says (De Trin. viii, 10). But a union or bond is not a passion, but rather a relation. Therefore love is not a passion.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 2} arg. 2 Praeterea, amor est unio quaedam vel nexus, secundum Augustinum, in libro de Trin. Sed unio vel nexus non est passio, sed magis relatio. Ergo amor non est passio.

  Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 22) that passion is a movement. But love does not imply the movement of the appetite; for this is desire, of which movement love is the principle. Therefore love is not a passion.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 2} arg. 3 Praeterea, Damascenus dicit, in II libro, quod passio est motus quidam. Amor autem non importat motum appetitus, qui est desiderium; sed principium huiusmodi motus. Ergo amor non est passio.

  On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 5) that “love is a passion.”

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 2 s. c.} Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in VIII Ethic., quod amor est passio.

  I answer that, Passion is the effect of the agent on the patient. Now a natural agent produces a twofold effect on the patient: for in the first place it gives it the form; and secondly it gives it the movement that results from the form. Thus the generator gives the generated body both weight and the movement resulting from weight: so that weight, from being the principle of movement to the place, which is connatural to that body by reason of its weight, can, in a way, be called “natural love.” In the same way the appetible object gives the appetite, first, a certain adaptation to itself, which consists in complacency in that object; and from this follows movement towards the appetible object. For “the appetitive movement is circular,” as stated in De Anima iii, 10; because the appetible object moves the appetite, introducing itself, as it were, into its intention; while the appetite moves towards the realization of the appetible object, so that the movement ends where it began. Accordingly, the first change wrought in the appetite by the appetible object is called “love,” and is nothing else than complacency in that object; and from this complacency results a movement towards that same object, and this movement is “desire”; and lastly, there is rest which is “joy.” Since, therefore, love consists in a change wrought in the appetite by the appetible object, it is evident that love is a passion: properly so called, according as it is in the concupiscible faculty; in a wider and extended sense, according as it is in the will.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 2 co.} Respondeo dicendum quod passio est effectus agentis in patiente. Agens autem naturale duplicem effectum inducit in patiens, nam primo quidem dat formam, secundo autem dat motum consequentem formam; sicut generans dat corpori gravitatem, et motum consequentem ipsam. Et ipsa gravitas, quae est principium motus ad locum connaturalem propter gravitatem, potest quodammodo dici amor naturalis. Sic etiam ipsum appetibile dat appetitui, primo quidem, quandam coaptationem ad ipsum, quae est complacentia appetibilis; ex qua sequitur motus ad appetibile. Nam appetitivus motus circulo agitur, ut dicitur in III de anima, appetibile enim movet appetitum, faciens se quodammodo in eius intentione; et appetitus tendit in appetibile realiter consequendum, ut sit ibi finis motus, ubi fuit principium. Prima ergo immutatio appetitus ab appetibili vocatur amor, qui nihil est aliud quam complacentia appetibilis; et ex hac complacentia sequitur motus in appetibile, qui est desiderium; et ultimo quies, quae est gaudium. Sic ergo, cum amor consistat in quadam immutatione appetitus ab appetibili, manifestum est quod amor et passio, proprie quidem, secundum quod est in concupiscibili; communiter autem, et extenso nomine, secundum quod est in voluntate.

  Reply to Objection 1: Since power denotes a principle of movement or action, Dionysius calls love a power, in so far as it is a principle of movement in the appetite.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 2 ad 1} Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quia virtus significat principium motus vel actionis, ideo amor, inquantum est principium appetitivi motus, a Dionysio vocatur virtus.

  Reply to Objection 2: Union belongs to love in so far as by reason of the complacency of the appetite, the lover stands in relation to that which he loves, as though it were himself or part of himself. Hence it is clear that love is not the very relation of union, but that union is a result of love. Hence, too, Dionysius says that “love is a unitive force” (Div. Nom. iv), and the Philosopher says (Polit. ii, 1) that union is the work of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 2 ad 2} Ad secundum dicendum quod unio pertinet ad amorem, inquantum per complacentiam appetitus amans se habet ad id quod amat, sicut ad seipsum, vel ad aliquid sui. Et sic patet quod amor non est ipsa relatio unionis, sed unio est consequens amorem. Unde et Dionysius dicit quod amor est virtus unitiva, et philosophus dicit, in II Polit., quod unio est opus amoris.

  Reply to Objection 3: Although love does not denote the movement of the appetite in tending towards the appetible object, yet it denotes that movement whereby the appetite is changed by the appetible object, so as to have complacency therein.

Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod amor, etsi non nominet motum appetitus tendentem in appetibile, nominat tamen motum appetitus quo immutatur ab appetibili, ut ei appetibile complaceat.

ARTICLE 3:
Whether love (amor) is the same as dilection? (dilectio)

Articulus 3

  Objection 1: It would seem that love is the same as dilection. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that love is to dilection, “as four is to twice two, and as a rectilinear figure is to one composed of straight lines.” But these have the same meaning. Therefore love and dilection denote the same thing.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 3 arg. 1} Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod amor sit idem quod dilectio. Dionysius enim, IV cap. de Div. Nom., dicit quod hoc modo se habent amor et dilectio, sicut quatuor et bis duo, rectilineum et habens rectas lineas. Sed ista significant idem. Ergo amor et dilectio significant idem.

  Objection 2: Further, the movements of the appetite differ by reason of their objects. But the objects of dilection and love are the same. Therefore these are the same.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 3} arg. 2 Praeterea, appetitivi motus secundum obiecta differunt. Sed idem est obiectum dilectionis et amoris. Ergo sunt idem.

  Objection 3: Further, if dilection and love differ, it seems that it is chiefly in the fact that “dilection refers to good things, love to evil things, as some have maintained,” according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7). But they do not differ thus; because as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7) the holy Scripture uses both words in reference to either good or bad things. Therefore love and dilection do not differ: thus indeed Augustine concludes (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7) that “it is not one thing to speak of love, and another to speak of dilection.”

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 3} arg. 3 Praeterea, si dilectio et amor in aliquo differunt, maxime in hoc differre videntur, quod dilectio sit in bono accipienda, amor autem in malo, ut quidam dixerunt, secundum quod Augustinus narrat, in XIV de Civ. Dei. Sed hoc modo non differunt, quia, ut ibidem Augustinus dicit, in sacris Scripturis utrumque accipitur in bono et in malo. Ergo amor et dilectio non differunt; sicut ipse Augustinus ibidem concludit quod non est aliud amorem dicere, et aliud dilectionem dicere.

  On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that “some holy men have held that love means something more Godlike than dilection does.”

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 3 s. c.} Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod quibusdam sanctorum visum est divinius esse nomen amoris quam nomen dilectionis.

  I answer that, We find four words referring in a way, to the same thing: viz. love, dilection, charity and friendship. They differ, however, in this, that “friendship,” according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 5), “is like a habit,” whereas “love” and “dilection” are expressed by way of act or passion; and “charity” can be taken either way.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 3 co.} Respondeo dicendum quod quatuor nomina inveniuntur ad idem quodammodo pertinentia, scilicet amor, dilectio, caritas et amicitia. Differunt tamen in hoc, quod amicitia, secundum philosophum in VIII Ethic., est quasi habitus; amor autem et dilectio significantur per modum actus vel passionis; caritas autem utroque modo accipi potest.

   Moreover these three express act in different ways. For love has a wider signification than the others, since every dilection or charity is love, but not vice versa. Because dilection implies, in addition to love, a choice [electionem] made beforehand, as the very word denotes: and therefore dilection is not in the concupiscible power, but only in the will, and only in the rational nature. Charity denotes, in addition to love, a certain perfection of love, in so far as that which is loved is held to be of great price, as the word itself implies [*Referring to the Latin “carus” (dear)].

Differenter tamen significatur actus per ista tria. Nam amor communius est inter ea, omnis enim dilectio vel caritas est amor, sed non e converso. Addit enim dilectio supra amorem, electionem praecedentem, ut ipsum nomen sonat. Unde dilectio non est in concupiscibili, sed in voluntate tantum, et est in sola rationali natura. Caritas autem addit supra amorem, perfectionem quandam amoris, inquantum id quod amatur magni pretii aestimatur, ut ipsum nomen designat.

  Reply to Objection 1: Dionysius is speaking of love and dilection, in so far as they are in the intellectual appetite; for thus love is the same as dilection.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 3 ad 1} Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Dionysius loquitur de amore et dilectione, secundum quod sunt in appetitu intellectivo, sic enim amor idem est quod dilectio.

  Reply to Objection 2: The object of love is more general than the object of dilection: because love extends to more than dilection does, as stated above.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 3 ad 2} Ad secundum dicendum quod obiectum amoris est communius quam obiectum dilectionis, quia ad plura se extendit amor quam dilectio, sicut dictum est.

  Reply to Objection 3: Love and dilection differ, not in respect of good and evil, but as stated. Yet in the intellectual faculty love is the same as dilection. And it is in this sense that Augustine speaks of love in the passage quoted: hence a little further on he adds that “a right will is well-directed love, and a wrong will is ill-directed love.” However, the fact that love, which is concupiscible passion, inclines many to evil, is the reason why some assigned the difference spoken of.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 3 ad 3} Ad tertium dicendum quod non differunt amor et dilectio secundum differentiam boni et mali, sed sicut dictum est. In parte tamen intellectiva idem est amor et dilectio. Et sic loquitur ibi Augustinus de amore, unde parum post subdit quod recta voluntas est bonus amor, et perversa voluntas est malus amor. Quia tamen amor, qui est passio concupiscibilis, plurimos inclinat ad malum, inde habuerunt occasionem qui praedictam differentiam assignaverunt.

  Reply to Objection 4: The reason why some held that, even when applied to the will itself, the word “love” signifies something more Godlike than “dilection,” was because love denotes a passion, especially in so far as it is in the sensitive appetite; whereas dilection presupposes the judgment of reason. But it is possible for man to tend to God by love, being as it were passively drawn by Him, more than he can possibly be drawn thereto by his reason, which pertains to the nature of dilection, as stated above. And consequently love is more Godlike than dilection.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 3 ad 4} Ad quartum dicendum quod ideo aliqui posuerunt, etiam in ipsa voluntate, nomen amoris esse divinius nomine dilectionis, quia amor importat quandam passionem, praecipue secundum quod est in appetitu sensitivo; dilectio autem praesupponit iudicium rationis. Magis autem homo in Deum tendere potest per amorem, passive quodammodo ab ipso Deo attractus, quam ad hoc eum propria ratio ducere possit, quod pertinet ad rationem dilectionis, ut dictum est. Et propter hoc, divinius est amor quam dilectio.

ARTICLE 4:
Whether love is properly divided into love of friendship and love of concupiscence?

Articulus 4

  Objection 1: It would seem that love is not properly divided into love of friendship and love of concupiscence. For “love is a passion, while friendship is a habit,” according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 5). But habit cannot be the member of a division of passions. Therefore love is not properly divided into love of concupiscence and love of friendship.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 4} arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod amor inconvenienter dividatur in amorem amicitiae et concupiscentiae. Amor enim est passio, amicitia vero est habitus, ut dicit philosophus, in VIII Ethic. Sed habitus non potest esse pars divisiva passionis. Ergo amor non convenienter dividitur per amorem concupiscentiae et amorem amicitiae.

  Objection 2: Further, a thing cannot be divided by another member of the same division; for man is not a member of the same division as “animal.” But concupiscence is a member of the same division as love, as a passion distinct from love. Therefore concupiscence is not a division of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 4} arg. 2 Praeterea, nihil dividitur per id quod ei connumeratur, non enim homo connumeratur animali. Sed concupiscentia connumeratur amori, sicut alia passio ab amore. Ergo amor non potest dividi per concupiscentiam.

  Objection 3: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 3) friendship is threefold, that which is founded on “usefulness,” that which is founded on “pleasure,” and that which is founded on “goodness.” But useful and pleasant friendship are not without concupiscence. Therefore concupiscence should not be contrasted with friendship.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 3} arg. 3 Praeterea, secundum philosophum, in VIII Ethic., triplex est amicitia, utilis, delectabilis et honesta. Sed amicitia utilis et delectabilis habet concupiscentiam. Ergo concupiscentia non debet dividi contra amicitiam.

  On the contrary, We are said to love certain things, because we desire them: thus “a man is said to love wine, on account of its sweetness which he desires”; as stated in Topic. ii, 3. But we have no friendship for wine and suchlike things, as stated in Ethic. viii, 2. Therefore love of concupiscence is distinct from love of friendship.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 4 s. c.} Sed contra, quaedam dicimur amare quia ea concupiscimus, sicut dicitur aliquis amare vinum propter dulce quod in eo concupiscit, ut dicitur in II Topic. Sed ad vinum, et ad huiusmodi, non habemus amicitiam, ut dicitur in VIII Ethic. Ergo alius est amor concupiscentiae, et alius est amor amicitiae.

26_a4_def_of_love_Arist_Rhet

“to love is to wish good to someone.”(cf. ST 1a2ae 23.Resp)
[cf. Catechism, 1766]

Hence the movement of love has a twofold tendency: towards the good which a man wishes to someone (to himself or to another) and towards that to which he wishes some good. Accordingly, man has love of concupiscence towards the good that he wishes to another, and love of friendship towards him to whom he wishes good.

Sic ergo motus amoris in duo tendit, scilicet in bonum quod quis vult alicui, vel sibi vel alii; et in illud cui vult bonum. Ad illud ergo bonum quod quis vult alteri, habetur amor concupiscentiae, ad illud autem cui aliquis vult bonum, habetur amor amicitiae.

   Now the members of this division are related as primary and secondary: since that which is loved with the love of friendship is loved simply and for itself; whereas that which is loved with the love of concupiscence, is loved, not simply and for itself, but for something else. For just as that which has existence, is a being simply, while that which exists in another is a relative being; so, because good is convertible with being, the good, which itself has goodness, is good simply; but that which is another’s good, is a relative good. Consequently the love with which a thing is loved, that it may have some good, is love simply; while the love, with which a thing is loved, that it may be another’s good, is relative love.

Haec autem divisio est secundum prius et posterius. Nam id quod amatur amore amicitiae, simpliciter et per se amatur, quod autem amatur amore concupiscentiae, non simpliciter et secundum se amatur, sed amatur alteri. Sicut enim ens simpliciter est quod habet esse, ens autem secundum quid quod est in alio; ita bonum, quod convertitur cum ente, simpliciter quidem est quod ipsum habet bonitatem; quod autem est bonum alterius, est bonum secundum quid. Et per consequens amor quo amatur aliquid ut ei sit bonum, est amor simpliciter, amor autem quo amatur aliquid ut sit bonum alterius, est amor secundum quid.

  Reply to Objection 1: Love is not divided into friendship and concupiscence, but into love of friendship, and love of concupiscence. For a friend is, properly speaking, one to whom we wish good: while we are said to desire, what we wish for ourselves.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 4 ad 1} Ad primum ergo dicendum quod amor non dividitur per amicitiam et concupiscentiam, sed per amorem amicitiae et concupiscentiae. Nam ille proprie dicitur amicus, cui aliquod bonum volumus, illud autem dicimur concupiscere, quod volumus nobis.

   Hence the Reply to the Second Objection.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 4 ad 2} Et per hoc patet solutio ad secundum.

  Reply to Objection 3: When friendship is based on usefulness or pleasure, a man does indeed wish his friend some good: and in this respect the character of friendship is preserved. But since he refers this good further to his own pleasure or use, the result is that friendship of the useful or pleasant, in so far as it is connected with love of concupiscence, loses the character to true friendship.

^{Iª-IIae q. 26 a. 4 ad 3} Ad tertium dicendum quod in amicitia utilis et delectabilis, vult quidem aliquis aliquod bonum amico, et quantum ad hoc salvatur ibi ratio amicitiae. Sed quia illud bonum refert ulterius ad suam delectationem vel utilitatem, inde est quod amicitia utilis et delectabilis, inquantum trahitur ad amorem concupiscentiae, deficit a ratione verae amicitiae.

27_QUESTION_27

[1a 2æ] QUESTION 27
[of THE CAUSE OF LOVE (FOUR ARTICLES)]

Quaestio 27 [Iª-IIae q. 27 pr]

WE must now consider the cause of love: and under this head there are four points of inquiry:

Prooemium. Deinde considerandum est de causa amoris. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor.

    (1) Whether good is the only cause of love?

Primo, utrum bonum sit sola causa amoris.

    (2) Whether knowledge is a cause of love?

Secundo, utrum cognitio sit causa amoris.

    (3) Whether likeness is a cause of love?

Tertio, utrum similitudo.

    (4) Whether any other passion of the soul is a cause of love?

Quarto, utrum aliqua alia animae passionum.

ARTICLE 1:
Whether good is the only cause of love?

Articulus 1

  Objection 1: It would seem that good is not the only cause of love. For good does not cause love, except because it is loved. But it happens that evil also is loved, according to Ps. 10:6: “He that loveth iniquity, hateth his own soul”: else, every love would be good. Therefore good is not the only cause of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 1 arg. 1} Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non solum bonum sit causa amoris. Bonum enim non est causa amoris, nisi quia amatur. Sed contingit etiam malum amari, secundum illud Psalmi X, qui diligit iniquitatem, odit animam suam, alioquin omnis amor esset bonus. Ergo non solum bonum est causa amoris.

  Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that “we love those who acknowledge their evils.” Therefore it seems that evil is the cause of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 1} arg. 2 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in II Rhetoric., quod eos qui mala sua dicunt, amamus. Ergo videtur quod malum sit causa amoris.

  Objection 3: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that not “the good” only but also “the beautiful is beloved by all.”

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 1} arg. 3 Praeterea, Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod non solum bonum, sed etiam pulchrum est omnibus amabile.

  On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. viii, 3): “Assuredly the good alone is beloved.” Therefore good alone is the cause of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 1 s. c.} Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, VIII de Trin., non amatur certe nisi bonum. Solum igitur bonum est causa amoris.

  I answer that, As stated above (Question [26], Article [1]), Love belongs to the appetitive power which is a passive faculty. Wherefore its object stands in relation to it as the cause of its movement or act. Therefore the cause of love must needs be love’s object. Now the proper object of love is the good; because, as stated above (Question [26], Articles [1],2), love implies a certain connaturalness or complacency of the lover for the thing beloved, and to everything, that thing is a good, which is akin and proportionate to it. It follows, therefore, that good is the proper cause of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 1 co.} Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, amor ad appetitivam potentiam pertinet, quae est vis passiva. Unde obiectum eius comparatur ad ipsam sicut causa motus vel actus ipsius. Oportet igitur ut illud sit proprie causa amoris quod est amoris obiectum. Amoris autem proprium obiectum est bonum, quia, ut dictum est, amor importat quandam connaturalitatem vel complacentiam amantis ad amatum; unicuique autem est bonum id quod est sibi connaturale et proportionatum. Unde relinquitur quod bonum sit propria causa amoris.

  Reply to Objection 1: Evil is never loved except under the aspect of good, that is to say, in so far as it is good in some respect, and is considered as being good simply. And thus a certain love is evil, in so far as it tends to that which is not simply a true good. It is in this way that man “loves iniquity,” inasmuch as, by means of iniquity, some good is gained; pleasure, for instance, or money, or such like.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 1 ad 1} Ad primum ergo dicendum quod malum nunquam amatur nisi sub ratione boni, scilicet inquantum est secundum quid bonum, et apprehenditur ut simpliciter bonum. Et sic aliquis amor est malus, inquantum tendit in id quod non est simpliciter verum bonum. Et per hunc modum homo diligit iniquitatem, inquantum per iniquitatem adipiscitur aliquod bonum, puta delectationem vel pecuniam vel aliquid huiusmodi.

  Reply to Objection 2: Those who acknowledge their evils, are beloved, not for their evils, but because they acknowledge them, for it is a good thing to acknowledge one’s faults, in so far as it excludes insincerity or hypocrisy.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 1 ad 2} Ad secundum dicendum quod illi qui mala sua dicunt, non propter mala amantur, sed propter hoc quod dicunt mala, hoc enim quod est dicere mala sua, habet rationem boni, inquantum excludit fictionem seu simulationem.

  Reply to Objection 3: The beautiful is the same as the good, and they differ in aspect only. For since good is what all seek, the notion of good is that which calms the desire; while the notion of the beautiful is that which calms the desire, by being seen or known. Consequently those senses chiefly regard the beautiful, which are the most cognitive, viz. sight and hearing, as ministering to reason; for we speak of beautiful sights and beautiful sounds. But in reference to the other objects of the other senses, we do not use the expression “beautiful,” for we do not speak of beautiful tastes, and beautiful odors. Thus it is evident that beauty adds to goodness a relation to the cognitive faculty: so that “good” means that which simply pleases the appetite; while the “beautiful” is something pleasant to apprehend.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 1 ad 3} Ad tertium dicendum quod pulchrum est idem bono, sola ratione differens. Cum enim bonum sit quod omnia appetunt, de ratione boni est quod in eo quietetur appetitus, sed ad rationem pulchri pertinet quod in eius aspectu seu cognitione quietetur appetitus. Unde et illi sensus praecipue respiciunt pulchrum, qui maxime cognoscitivi sunt, scilicet visus et auditus rationi deservientes, dicimus enim pulchra visibilia et pulchros sonos. In sensibilibus autem aliorum sensuum, non utimur nomine pulchritudinis, non enim dicimus pulchros sapores aut odores. Et sic patet quod pulchrum addit supra bonum, quendam ordinem ad vim cognoscitivam, ita quod bonum dicatur id quod simpliciter complacet appetitui; pulchrum autem dicatur id cuius ipsa apprehensio placet.

ARTICLE 2:
Whether knowledge is a cause of love?

Articulus 2

  Objection 1: It would seem that knowledge is not a cause of love. For it is due to love that a thing is sought. But some things are sought without being known, for instance, the sciences; for since “to have them is the same as to know them,” as Augustine says (Questions [83], qu. 35), if we knew them we should have them, and should not seek them. Therefore knowledge is not the cause of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 2} arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod cognitio non sit causa amoris. Quod enim aliquid quaeratur, hoc contingit ex amore. Sed aliqua quaeruntur quae nesciuntur, sicut scientiae, cum enim in his idem sit eas habere quod eas nosse, ut Augustinus dicit in libro octoginta trium quaest., si cognoscerentur, haberentur, et non quaererentur. Ergo cognitio non est causa amoris.

  Objection 2: Further, to love what we know not seems like loving something more than we know it. But some things are loved more than they are known: thus in this life God can be loved in Himself, but cannot be known in Himself. Therefore knowledge is not the cause of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 2} arg. 2 Praeterea, eiusdem rationis videtur esse quod aliquid incognitum ametur, et quod aliquid ametur plus quam cognoscatur. Sed aliqua amantur plus quam cognoscantur, sicut Deus, qui in hac vita potest per seipsum amari, non autem per seipsum cognosci. Ergo cognitio non est causa amoris.

  Objection 3: Further, if knowledge were the cause of love, there would be no love, where there is no knowledge. But in all things there is love, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv); whereas there is not knowledge in all things. Therefore knowledge is not the cause of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 2} arg. 3 Praeterea, si cognitio esset causa amoris, non posset inveniri amor ubi non est cognitio. Sed in omnibus rebus invenitur amor, ut dicit Dionysius in IV cap. de Div. Nom., non autem in omnibus invenitur cognitio. Ergo cognitio non est causa amoris.

  On the contrary, Augustine proves (De Trin. x, 1,2) that “none can love what he does not know.”

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 2 s. c.} Sed contra est quod Augustinus probat, in X de Trin., quod nullus potest amare aliquid incognitum.

  I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), good is the cause of love, as being its object. But good is not the object of the appetite, except as apprehended. And therefore love demands some apprehension of the good that is loved. For this reason the Philosopher (Ethic. ix, 5,12) says that bodily sight is the beginning of sensitive love: and in like manner the contemplation of spiritual beauty or goodness is the beginning of spiritual love. Accordingly knowledge is the cause of love for the same reason as good is, which can be loved only if known.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 2 co.} Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, bonum est causa amoris per modum obiecti. Bonum autem non est obiectum appetitus, nisi prout est apprehensum. Et ideo amor requirit aliquam apprehensionem boni quod amatur. Et propter hoc philosophus dicit, IX Ethic., quod visio corporalis est principium amoris sensitivi. Et similiter contemplatio spiritualis pulchritudinis vel bonitatis, est principium amoris spiritualis. Sic igitur cognitio est causa amoris, ea ratione qua et bonum, quod non potest amari nisi cognitum.

  Reply to Objection 1: He who seeks science, is not entirely without knowledge thereof: but knows something about it already in some respect, either in a general way, or in some one of its effects, or from having heard it commended, as Augustine says (De Trin. x, 1,2). But to have it is not to know it thus, but to know it perfectly.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 2 ad 1} Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ille qui quaerit scientiam, non omnino ignorat eam, sed secundum aliquid eam praecognoscit, vel in universali, vel in aliquo eius effectu, vel per hoc quod audit eam laudari, ut Augustinus dicit, X de Trin. Sic autem eam cognoscere non est eam habere; sed cognoscere eam perfecte.

  Reply to Objection 2: Something is required for the perfection of knowledge, that is not requisite for the perfection of love. For knowledge belongs to the reason, whose function it is to distinguish things which in reality are united, and to unite together, after a fashion, things that are distinct, by comparing one with another. Consequently the perfection of knowledge requires that man should know distinctly all that is in a thing, such as its parts, powers, and properties. On the other hand, love is in the appetitive power, which regards a thing as it is in itself: wherefore it suffices, for the perfection of love, that a thing be loved according as it is known in itself. Hence it is, therefore, that a thing is loved more than it is known; since it can be loved perfectly, even without being perfectly known. This is most evident in regard to the sciences, which some love through having a certain general knowledge of them: for instance, they know that rhetoric is a science that enables man to persuade others; and this is what they love in rhetoric. The same applies to the love of God.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 2 ad 2} Ad secundum dicendum quod aliquid requiritur ad perfectionem cognitionis, quod non requiritur ad perfectionem amoris. Cognitio enim ad rationem pertinet, cuius est distinguere inter ea quae secundum rem sunt coniuncta, et componere quodammodo ea quae sunt diversa, unum alteri comparando. Et ideo ad perfectionem cognitionis requiritur quod homo cognoscat singillatim quidquid est in re, sicut partes et virtutes et proprietates. Sed amor est in vi appetitiva, quae respicit rem secundum quod in se est. Unde ad perfectionem amoris sufficit quod res prout in se apprehenditur, ametur. Ob hoc ergo contingit quod aliquid plus amatur quam cognoscatur, quia potest perfecte amari, etiam si non perfecte cognoscatur. Sicut maxime patet in scientiis, quas aliqui amant propter aliquam summariam cognitionem quam de eis habent, puta quod sciunt rhetoricam esse scientiam per quam homo potest persuadere, et hoc in rhetorica amant. Et similiter est dicendum circa amorem Dei.

  Reply to Objection 3: Even natural love, which is in all things, is caused by a kind of knowledge, not indeed existing in natural things themselves, but in Him Who created their nature, as stated above (Question [26], Article [1]; cf. FP, Question [6], Article [1], ad 2).

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 2 ad 3} Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam amor naturalis, qui est in omnibus rebus, causatur ex aliqua cognitione, non quidem in ipsis rebus naturalibus existente, sed in eo qui naturam instituit, ut supra dictum est.

ARTICLE 3:
Whether knowledge is a cause of love?

Articulus 3
 

  Objection 1: It would seem that likeness is not a cause of love. For the same thing is not the cause of contraries. But likeness is the cause of hatred; for it is written (Prov. 13:10) that “among the proud there are always contentions”; and the Philosopher says (Ethic. viii, 1) that “potters quarrel with one another.” Therefore likeness is not a cause of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 3} arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod similitudo non sit causa amoris. Idem enim non est causa contrariorum. Sed similitudo est causa odii, dicitur enim Prov. XIII, quod inter superbos semper sunt iurgia; et philosophus dicit, in VIII Ethic., quod figuli corrixantur ad invicem. Ergo similitudo non est causa amoris.

  Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (Confess. iv, 14) that “a man loves in another that which he would not be himself: thus he loves an actor, but would not himself be an actor.” But it would not be so, if likeness were the proper cause of love; for in that case a man would love in another, that which he possesses himself, or would like to possess. Therefore likeness is not a cause of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 3} arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in IV Confess., quod aliquis amat in alio quod esse non vellet, sicut homo amat histrionem, qui non vellet esse histrio. Hoc autem non contingeret, si similitudo esset propria causa amoris, sic enim homo amaret in altero quod ipse haberet, vel vellet habere. Ergo similitudo non est causa amoris.

  Objection 3: Further, everyone loves that which he needs, even if he have it not: thus a sick man loves health, and a poor man loves riches. But in so far as he needs them and lacks them, he is unlike them. Therefore not only likeness but also unlikeness is a cause of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 3} arg. 3 Praeterea, quilibet homo amat id quo indiget, etiam si illud non habeat, sicut infirmus amat sanitatem, et pauper amat divitias. Sed inquantum indiget et caret eis, habet dissimilitudinem ad ipsa. Ergo non solum similitudo, sed etiam dissimilitudo est causa amoris.

  Objection 4: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4) that “we love those who bestow money and health on us; and also those who retain their friendship for the dead.” But all are not such. Therefore likeness is not a cause of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 3} arg. 4 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in II Rhetoric., quod beneficos in pecunias et salutem amamus, et similiter eos qui circa mortuos servant amicitiam, omnes diligunt. Non autem omnes sunt tales. Ergo similitudo non est causa amoris.

  On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 13:19): “Every beast loveth its like.”

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 3 s. c.} Sed contra est quod dicitur Eccli. XIII, omne animal diligit simile sibi.

  I answer that, Likeness, properly speaking, is a cause of love. But it must be observed that likeness between things is twofold. One kind of likeness arises from each thing having the same quality actually: for example, two things possessing the quality of whiteness are said to be alike. Another kind of likeness arises from one thing having potentially and by way of inclination, a quality which the other has actually: thus we may say that a heavy body existing outside its proper place is like another heavy body that exists in its proper place: or again, according as potentiality bears a resemblance to its act; since act is contained, in a manner, in the potentiality itself.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 3 co.} Respondeo dicendum quod similitudo, proprie loquendo, est causa amoris. Sed considerandum est quod similitudo inter aliqua potest attendi dupliciter. Uno modo, ex hoc quod utrumque habet idem in actu, sicut duo habentes albedinem, dicuntur similes. Alio modo, ex hoc quod unum habet in potentia et in quadam inclinatione, illud quod aliud habet in actu, sicut si dicamus quod corpus grave existens extra suum locum, habet similitudinem cum corpore gravi in suo loco existenti. Vel etiam secundum quod potentia habet similitudinem ad actum ipsum, nam in ipsa potentia quodammodo est actus.

   Accordingly the first kind of likeness causes love of friendship or well-being. For the very fact that two men are alike, having, as it were, one form, makes them to be, in a manner, one in that form: thus two men are one thing in the species of humanity, and two white men are one thing in whiteness. Hence the affections of one tend to the other, as being one with him; and he wishes good to him as to himself. But the second kind of likeness causes love of concupiscence, or friendship founded on usefulness or pleasure: because whatever is in potentiality, as such, has the desire for its act; and it takes pleasure in its realization, if it be a sentient and cognitive being.

Primus ergo similitudinis modus causat amorem amicitiae, seu benevolentiae. Ex hoc enim quod aliqui duo sunt similes, quasi habentes unam formam, sunt quodammodo unum in forma illa, sicut duo homines sunt unum in specie humanitatis, et duo albi in albedine. Et ideo affectus unius tendit in alterum, sicut in unum sibi; et vult ei bonum sicut et sibi. Sed secundus modus similitudinis causat amorem concupiscentiae, vel amicitiam utilis seu delectabilis. Quia unicuique existenti in potentia, inquantum huiusmodi, inest appetitus sui actus, et in eius consecutione delectatur, si sit sentiens et cognoscens.

   Now it has been stated above (Question [26], Article [4]), that in the love of concupiscence, the lover, properly speaking, loves himself, in willing the good that he desires. But a man loves himself more than another: because he is one with himself substantially, whereas with another he is one only in the likeness of some form. Consequently, if this other’s likeness to him arising from the participation of a form, hinders him from gaining the good that he loves, he becomes hateful to him, not for being like him, but for hindering him from gaining his own good. This is why “potters quarrel among themselves,” because they hinder one another’s gain: and why “there are contentions among the proud,” because they hinder one another in attaining the position they covet.

Dictum est autem supra quod in amore concupiscentiae amans proprie amat seipsum, cum vult illud bonum quod concupiscit. Magis autem unusquisque seipsum amat quam alium, quia sibi unus est in substantia, alteri vero in similitudine alicuius formae. Et ideo si ex eo quod est sibi similis in participatione formae, impediatur ipsemet a consecutione boni quod amat; efficitur ei odiosus, non inquantum est similis, sed inquantum est proprii boni impeditivus. Et propter hoc figuli corrixantur ad invicem, quia se invicem impediunt in proprio lucro, et inter superbos sunt iurgia, quia se invicem impediunt in propria excellentia, quam concupiscunt.

   Hence the Reply to the First Objection is evident.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 3 ad 1} Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum.

  Reply to Objection 2: Even when a man loves in another what he loves not in himself, there is a certain likeness of proportion: because as the latter is to that which is loved in him, so is the former to that which he loves in himself: for instance, if a good singer love a good writer, we can see a likeness of proportion, inasmuch as each one has that which is becoming to him in respect of his art.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 3} ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in hoc etiam quod aliquis in altero amat quod in se non amat, invenitur ratio similitudinis secundum proportionalitatem, nam sicut se habet alius ad hoc quod in eo amatur, ita ipse se habet ad hoc quod in se amat. Puta si bonus cantor bonum amet scriptorem, attenditur ibi similitudo proportionis, secundum quod uterque habet quod convenit ei secundum suam artem.

  Reply to Objection 3: He that loves what he needs, bears a likeness to what he loves, as potentiality bears a likeness to its act, as stated above.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 3} ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui amat hoc quo indiget, habet similitudinem ad id quod amat sicut quod est potentia ad actum, ut dictum est.

  Reply to Objection 4: According to the same likeness of potentiality to its act, the illiberal man loves the man who is liberal, in so far as he expects from him something which he desires. The same applies to the man who is constant in his friendship as compared to one who is inconstant. For in either case friendship seems to be based on usefulness. We might also say that although not all men have these virtues in the complete habit, yet they have them according to certain seminal principles in the reason, in force of which principles the man who is not virtuous loves the virtuous man, as being in conformity with his own natural reason.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 3} ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod secundum eandem similitudinem potentiae ad actum, ille qui non est liberalis, amat eum qui est liberalis, inquantum expectat ab eo aliquid quod desiderat. Et eadem ratio est de perseverante in amicitia ad eum qui non perseverat. Utrobique enim videtur esse amicitia propter utilitatem. Vel dicendum quod, licet non omnes homines habeant huiusmodi virtutes secundum habitum completum, habent tamen ea secundum quaedam seminalia rationis, secundum quae, qui non habet virtutem, diligit virtuosum, tanquam suae naturali rationi conformem.

ARTICLE 4:
Whether any other passion of the soul is a cause of love?

Articulus 4

  Objection 1: It would seem that some other passion can be the cause of love. For the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 3) says that some are loved for the sake of the pleasure they give. But pleasure is a passion. Therefore another passion is a cause of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 4} arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliqua alia passio possit esse causa amoris. Dicit enim philosophus, in VIII Ethic., quod aliqui amantur propter delectationem. Sed delectatio est passio quaedam. Ergo aliqua alia passio est causa amoris.

  Objection 2: Further, desire is a passion. But we love some because we desire to receive something from them: as happens in every friendship based on usefulness. Therefore another passion is a cause of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 4} arg. 2 Praeterea, desiderium quaedam passio est. Sed aliquos amamus propter desiderium alicuius quod ab eis expectamus, sicut apparet in omni amicitia quae est propter utilitatem. Ergo aliqua alia passio est causa amoris.

  Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. x, 1): “When we have no hope of getting a thing, we love it but half-heartedly or not at all, even if we see how beautiful it is.” Therefore hope too is a cause of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 4} arg. 3 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in X de Trin., cuius rei adipiscendae spem quisque non gerit, aut tepide amat, aut omnino non amat, quamvis quam pulchra sit videat. Ergo spes etiam est causa amoris.

  On the contrary, All the other emotions of the soul are caused by love, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7,9).

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 4 s. c.} Sed contra est quod omnes aliae affectiones animi ex amore causantur, ut Augustinus dicit, XIV de Civ. Dei.

  I answer that, There is no other passion of the soul that does not presuppose love of some kind. The reason is that every other passion of the soul implies either movement towards something, or rest in something. Now every movement towards something, or rest in something, arises from some kinship or aptness to that thing; and in this does love consist. Therefore it is not possible for any other passion of the soul to be universally the cause of every love. But it may happen that some other passion is the cause of some particular love: just as one good is the cause of another.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 4 co.} Respondeo dicendum quod nulla alia passio animae est quae non praesupponat aliquem amorem. Cuius ratio est quia omnis alia passio animae vel importat motum ad aliquid, vel quietem in aliquo. Omnis autem motus in aliquid, vel quies in aliquo, ex aliqua connaturalitate vel coaptatione procedit, quae pertinet ad rationem amoris. Unde impossibile est quod aliqua alia passio animae sit causa universaliter omnis amoris. Contingit tamen aliquam aliam passionem esse causam amoris alicuius, sicut etiam unum bonum est causa alterius.

  Reply to Objection 1: When a man loves a thing for the pleasure it affords, his love is indeed caused by pleasure; but that very pleasure is caused, in its turn, by another preceding love; for none takes pleasure save in that which is loved in some way.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 4 ad 1} Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum aliquis amat aliquid propter delectationem, amor quidem ille causatur ex delectatione, sed delectatio illa iterum causatur ex alio amore praecedente; nullus enim delectatur nisi in re aliquo modo amata.

  Reply to Objection 2: Desire for a thing always presupposes love for that thing. But desire of one thing can be the cause of another thing’s being loved; thus he that desires money, for this reason loves him from whom he receives it.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 4 ad 2} Ad secundum dicendum quod desiderium rei alicuius semper praesupponit amorem illius rei. Sed desiderium alicuius rei potest esse causa ut res alia ametur, sicut qui desiderat pecuniam, amat propter hoc eum a quo pecuniam recipit.

  Reply to Objection 3: Hope causes or increases love; both by reason of pleasure, because it causes pleasure; and by reason of desire, because hope strengthens desire, since we do not desire so intensely that which we have no hope of receiving. Nevertheless hope itself is of a good that is loved.

^{Iª-IIae q. 27 a. 4 ad 3} Ad tertium dicendum quod spes causat vel auget amorem, et ratione delectationis, quia delectationem causat, et etiam ratione desiderii, quia spes desiderium fortificat, non enim ita intense desideramus quae non speramus. Sed tamen et ipsa spes est alicuius boni amati.

QUESTION 28

1a 2æ. QUESTION 28
[of THE EFFECTS OF LOVE (SIX ARTICLES)]

Quaestio 28 Prooemium
^{Iª-IIae q. 28 pr.}

WE now have to consider the effects of love: under which head there are six points of inquiry:

Deinde considerandum est de effectibus amoris. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex.

    (1) Whether union is an effect of love?

Primo, utrum unio sit effectus amoris.

    (2) Whether mutual indwelling is an effect of love?

Secundo, utrum mutua inhaesio.

    (3) Whether ecstasy is an effect of love?

Tertio, utrum extasis sit effectus amoris.

    (4) Whether zeal is an effect of love?

Quarto, utrum zelus.

    (5) Whether love is a passion that is hurtful to the lover?

Quinto, utrum amor sit passio laesiva amantis.

    (6) Whether love is cause of all that the lover does?

Sexto, utrum amor sit causa omnium quae amans agit.

ARTICLE 1:
Whether union is an effect of love?

Articulus 1

  Objection 1: It would seem that union is not an effect of love. For absence is incompatible with union. But love is compatible with absence; for the Apostle says (Gal. 4:18): “Be zealous for that which is good in a good thing always” (speaking of himself, according to a gloss), “and not only when I am present with you.” Therefore union is not an effect of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 1 arg. 1} Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod unio non sit effectus amoris. Absentia enim unioni repugnat. Sed amor compatitur secum absentiam, dicit enim apostolus, ad Galat. IV, bonum aemulamini in bono semper (loquens de seipso, ut Glossa dicit), et non tantum cum praesens sum apud vos. Ergo unio non est effectus amoris.

  Objection 2: Further, every union is either according to essence, thus form is united to matter, accident to subject, and a part to the whole, or to another part in order to make up the whole: or according to likeness, in genus, species, or accident. But love does not cause union of essence; else love could not be between things essentially distinct. On the other hand, love does not cause union of likeness, but rather is caused by it, as stated above (Question [27], Article [3]). Therefore union is not an effect of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 1} arg. 2 Praeterea, omnis unio aut est per essentiam, sicut forma unitur materiae, et accidens subiecto, et pars toti vel alteri parti ad constitutionem totius, aut est per similitudinem vel generis, vel speciei, vel accidentis. Sed amor non causat unionem essentiae, alioquin nunquam haberetur amor ad ea quae sunt per essentiam divisa. Unionem autem quae est per similitudinem, amor non causat, sed magis ab ea causatur. Ut dictum est. Ergo unio non est effectus amoris.

  Objection 3: Further, the sense in act is the sensible in act, and the intellect in act is the thing actually understood. But the lover in act is not the beloved in act. Therefore union is the effect of knowledge rather than of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 1} arg. 3 Praeterea, sensus in actu fit sensibile in actu, et intellectus in actu fit intellectum in actu. Non autem amans in actu fit amatum in actu. Ergo unio magis est effectus cognitionis quam amoris.

  On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that every love is a “unitive love.”

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 1 s. c.} Sed contra est quod dicit Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod amor quilibet est virtus unitiva.

  I answer that, The union of lover and beloved is twofold. The first is real union; for instance, when the beloved is present with the lover. The second is union of affection: and this union must be considered in relation to the preceding apprehension; since movement of the appetite follows apprehension. Now love being twofold, viz. love of concupiscence and love of friendship; each of these arises from a kind of apprehension of the oneness of the thing loved with the lover. For when we love a thing, by desiring it, we apprehend it as belonging to our well-being. In like manner when a man loves another with the love of friendship, he wills good to him, just as he wills good to himself: wherefore he apprehends him as his other self, in so far, to wit, as he wills good to him as to himself. Hence a friend is called a man’s “other self” (Ethic. ix, 4), and Augustine says (Confess. iv, 6), “Well did one say to his friend: Thou half of my soul.”

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 1 co.} Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est unio amantis ad amatum. Una quidem secundum rem, puta cum amatum praesentialiter adest amanti. Alia vero secundum affectum. Quae quidem unio consideranda est ex apprehensione praecedente, nam motus appetitivus sequitur apprehensionem. Cum autem sit duplex amor, scilicet concupiscentiae et amicitiae, uterque procedit ex quadam apprehensione unitatis amati ad amantem. Cum enim aliquis amat aliquid quasi concupiscens illud, apprehendit illud quasi pertinens ad suum bene esse. Similiter cum aliquis amat aliquem amore amicitiae, vult ei bonum sicut et sibi vult bonum, unde apprehendit eum ut alterum se, inquantum scilicet vult ei bonum sicut et sibi ipsi. Et inde est quod amicus dicitur esse alter ipse, et Augustinus dicit, in IV Confess., bene quidam dixit de amico suo, dimidium animae suae.

   The first of these unions is caused “effectively” by love; because love moves man to desire and seek the presence of the beloved, as of something suitable and belonging to him. The second union is caused “formally” by love; because love itself is this union or bond. In this sense Augustine says (De Trin. viii, 10) that “love is a vital principle uniting, or seeking to unite two together, the lover, to wit, and the beloved.” For in describing it as “uniting” he refers to the union of affection, without which there is no love: and in saying that “it seeks to unite,” he refers to real union.

Primam ergo unionem amor facit effective, quia movet ad desiderandum et quaerendum praesentiam amati, quasi sibi convenientis et ad se pertinentis. Secundam autem unionem facit formaliter, quia ipse amor est talis unio vel nexus. Unde Augustinus dicit, in VIII de Trin., quod amor est quasi vita quaedam duo aliqua copulans, vel copulare appetens, amantem scilicet et quod amatur. Quod enim dicit copulans, refertur ad unionem affectus, sine qua non est amor, quod vero dicit copulare intendens, pertinet ad unionem realem.

  Reply to Objection 1: This argument is true of real union. That is necessary to pleasure as being its cause; desire implies the real absence of the beloved: but love remains whether the beloved be absent or present.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 1 ad 1} Ad primum ergo dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de unione reali. Quam quidem requirit delectatio sicut causam, desiderium vero est in reali absentia amati, amor vero et in absentia et in praesentia.

  Reply to Objection 2: Union has a threefold relation to love. There is union which causes love; and this is substantial union, as regards the love with which one loves oneself; while as regards the love wherewith one loves other things, it is the union of likeness, as stated above (Question [27], Article [3]). There is also a union which is essentially love itself. This union is according to a bond of affection, and is likened to substantial union, inasmuch as the lover stands to the object of his love, as to himself, if it be love of friendship; as to something belonging to himself, if it be love of concupiscence. Again there is a union, which is the effect of love. This is real union, which the lover seeks with the object of his love. Moreover this union is in keeping with the demands of love: for as the Philosopher relates (Polit. ii, 1), “Aristophanes stated that lovers would wish to be united both into one,” but since “this would result in either one or both being destroyed,” they seek a suitable and becoming union---to live together, speak together, and be united together in other like things.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 1 ad 2} Ad secundum dicendum quod unio tripliciter se habet ad amorem. Quaedam enim unio est causa amoris. Et haec quidem est unio substantialis, quantum ad amorem quo quis amat seipsum, quantum vero ad amorem quo quis amat alia, est unio similitudinis, ut dictum est. Quaedam vero unio est essentialiter ipse amor. Et haec est unio secundum coaptationem affectus. Quae quidem assimilatur unioni substantiali, inquantum amans se habet ad amatum, in amore quidem amicitiae, ut ad seipsum; in amore autem concupiscentiae, ut ad aliquid sui. Quaedam vero unio est effectus amoris. Et haec est unio realis, quam amans quaerit de re amata. Et haec quidem unio est secundum convenientiam amoris, ut enim philosophus refert, II Politic., Aristophanes dixit quod amantes desiderarent ex ambobus fieri unum, sed quia ex hoc accideret aut ambos aut alterum corrumpi, quaerunt unionem quae convenit et decet; ut scilicet simul conversentur, et simul colloquantur, et in aliis huiusmodi coniungantur.

  Reply to Objection 3: Knowledge is perfected by the thing known being united, through its likeness, to the knower. But the effect of love is that the thing itself which is loved, is, in a way, united to the lover, as stated above. Consequently the union caused by love is closer than that which is caused by knowledge.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 1 ad 3} Ad tertium dicendum quod cognitio perficitur per hoc quod cognitum unitur cognoscenti secundum suam similitudinem. Sed amor facit quod ipsa res quae amatur, amanti aliquo modo uniatur, ut dictum est. Unde amor est magis unitivus quam cognitio.

ARTICLE 2:
Whether mutual indwelling is an effect of love?

Articulus 2
 

  Objection 1: It would seem that love does not cause mutual indwelling, so that the lover be in the beloved and vice versa. For that which is in another is contained in it. But the same cannot be container and contents. Therefore love cannot cause mutual indwelling, so that the lover be in the beloved and vice versa.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 2 arg. 1} Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod amor non causet mutuam inhaesionem, ut scilicet amans sit in amato, et e converso. Quod enim est in altero, continetur in eo. Sed non potest idem esse continens et contentum. Ergo per amorem non potest causari mutua inhaesio, ut amatum sit in amante et e converso.

  Objection 2: Further, nothing can penetrate within a whole, except by means of a division of the whole. But it is the function of the reason, not of the appetite where love resides, to divide things that are really united. Therefore mutual indwelling is not an effect of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 2} arg. 2 Praeterea, nihil potest penetrare in interiora alicuius integri, nisi per aliquam divisionem. Sed dividere quae sunt secundum rem coniuncta, non pertinet ad appetitum, in quo est amor, sed ad rationem. Ergo mutua inhaesio non est effectus amoris.

  Objection 3: Further, if love involves the lover being in the beloved and vice versa, it follows that the beloved is united to the lover, in the same way as the lover is united to the beloved. But the union itself is love, as stated above (Article [1]). Therefore it follows that the lover is always loved by the object of his love; which is evidently false. Therefore mutual indwelling is not an effect of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 2} arg. 3 Praeterea, si per amorem amans est in amato et e converso, sequetur quod hoc modo amatum uniatur amanti, sicut amans amato. Sed ipsa unio est amor, ut dictum est. Ergo sequitur quod semper amans ametur ab amato, quod patet esse falsum. Non ergo mutua inhaesio est effectus amoris.

  On the contrary, It is written (1 Jn. 4:16): “He that abideth in charity abideth in God, and God in him.” Now charity is the love of God. Therefore, for the same reason, every love makes the beloved to be in the lover, and vice versa.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 2 s. c.} Sed contra est quod dicitur I Ioan. IV, qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo. Caritas autem est amor Dei. Ergo, eadem ratione, quilibet amor facit amatum esse in amante, et e converso.

  I answer that, This effect of mutual indwelling may be understood as referring both to the apprehensive and to the appetitive power. Because, as to the apprehensive power, the beloved is said to be in the lover, inasmuch as the beloved abides in the apprehension of the lover, according to Phil. 1:7, “For that I have you in my heart”: while the lover is said to be in the beloved, according to apprehension, inasmuch as the lover is not satisfied with a superficial apprehension of the beloved, but strives to gain an intimate knowledge of everything pertaining to the beloved, so as to penetrate into his very soul. Thus it is written concerning the Holy Ghost, Who is God’s Love, that He “searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2:10).

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 2 co.} Respondeo dicendum quod iste effectus mutuae inhaesionis potest intelligi et quantum ad vim apprehensivam, et quantum ad vim appetitivam. Nam quantum ad vim apprehensivam amatum dicitur esse in amante, inquantum amatum immoratur in apprehensione amantis; secundum illud Philipp. I, eo quod habeam vos in corde. Amans vero dicitur esse in amato secundum apprehensionem inquantum amans non est contentus superficiali apprehensione amati, sed nititur singula quae ad amatum pertinent intrinsecus disquirere, et sic ad interiora eius ingreditur. Sicut de spiritu sancto, qui est amor Dei, dicitur, I ad Cor. II, quod scrutatur etiam profunda Dei.

   As the appetitive power, the object loved is said to be in the lover, inasmuch as it is in his affections, by a kind of complacency: causing him either to take pleasure in it, or in its good, when present; or, in the absence of the object loved, by his longing, to tend towards it with the love of concupiscence, or towards the good that he wills to the beloved, with the love of friendship: not indeed from any extrinsic cause (as when we desire one thing on account of another, or wish good to another on account of something else), but because the complacency in the beloved is rooted in the lover’s heart. For this reason we speak of love as being “intimate”; and “of the bowels of charity.” On the other hand, the lover is in the beloved, by the love of concupiscence and by the love of friendship, but not in the same way. For the love of concupiscence is not satisfied with any external or superficial possession or enjoyment of the beloved; but seeks to possess the beloved perfectly, by penetrating into his heart, as it were. Whereas, in the love of friendship, the lover is in the beloved, inasmuch as he reckons what is good or evil to his friend, as being so to himself; and his friend’s will as his own, so that it seems as though he felt the good or suffered the evil in the person of his friend. Hence it is proper to friends “to desire the same things, and to grieve and rejoice at the same,” as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 3 and Rhet. ii, 4). Consequently in so far as he reckons what affects his friend as affecting himself, the lover seems to be in the beloved, as though he were become one with him: but in so far as, on the other hand, he wills and acts for his friend’s sake as for his own sake, looking on his friend as identified with himself, thus the beloved is in the lover.

Sed quantum ad vim appetitivam, amatum dicitur esse in amante, prout est per quandam complacentiam in eius affectu, ut vel delectetur in eo, aut in bonis eius, apud praesentiam; vel in absentia, per desiderium tendat in ipsum amatum per amorem concupiscentiae; vel in bona quae vult amato, per amorem amicitiae; non quidem ex aliqua extrinseca causa, sicut cum aliquis desiderat aliquid propter alterum, vel cum aliquis vult bonum alteri propter aliquid aliud; sed propter complacentiam amati interius radicatam. Unde et amor dicitur intimus; et dicuntur viscera caritatis. E converso autem amans est in amato aliter quidem per amorem concupiscentiae, aliter per amorem amicitiae. Amor namque concupiscentiae non requiescit in quacumque extrinseca aut superficiali adeptione vel fruitione amati, sed quaerit amatum perfecte habere, quasi ad intima illius perveniens. In amore vero amicitiae, amans est in amato, inquantum reputat bona vel mala amici sicut sua, et voluntatem amici sicut suam, ut quasi ipse in suo amico videatur bona vel mala pati, et affici. Et propter hoc, proprium est amicorum eadem velle, et in eodem tristari et gaudere secundum philosophum, in IX Ethic. et in II Rhetoric. Ut sic, inquantum quae sunt amici aestimat sua, amans videatur esse in amato, quasi idem factus amato. Inquantum autem e converso vult et agit propter amicum sicut propter seipsum, quasi reputans amicum idem sibi, sic amatum est in amante.

   In yet a third way, mutual indwelling in the love of friendship can be understood in regard to reciprocal love: inasmuch as friends return love for love, and both desire and do good things for one another.

Potest autem et tertio modo mutua inhaesio intelligi in amore amicitiae, secundum viam redamationis, inquantum mutuo se amant amici, et sibi invicem bona volunt et operantur.

  Reply to Objection 1: The beloved is contained in the lover, by being impressed on his heart and thus becoming the object of his complacency. On the other hand, the lover is contained in the beloved, inasmuch as the lover penetrates, so to speak, into the beloved. For nothing hinders a thing from being both container and contents in different ways: just as a genus is contained in its species, and vice versa.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 2 ad 1} Ad primum ergo dicendum quod amatum continetur in amante, inquantum est impressum in affectu eius per quandam complacentiam. E converso vero amans continetur in amato, inquantum amans sequitur aliquo modo illud quod est intimum amati. Nihil enim prohibet diverso modo esse aliquid continens et contentum, sicut genus continetur in specie et e converso.

  Reply to Objection 2: The apprehension of the reason precedes the movement of love. Consequently, just as the reason divides, so does the movement of love penetrate into the beloved, as was explained above.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 2 ad 2} Ad secundum dicendum quod rationis apprehensio praecedit affectum amoris. Et ideo, sicut ratio disquirit, ita affectus amoris subintrat in amatum, ut ex dictis patet.

  Reply to Objection 3: This argument is true of the third kind of mutual indwelling, which is not to be found in every kind of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 2 ad 3} Ad tertium dicendum quod illa ratio procedit de tertio modo mutuae inhaesionis, qui non invenitur in quolibet amore.

ARTICLE 3:
Whether ecstasy is an effect of love?

Articulus 3
 

  Objection 1: It would seem that ecstasy is not an effect of love. For ecstasy seems to imply loss of reason. But love does not always result in loss of reason: for lovers are masters of themselves at times. Therefore love does not cause ecstasy.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 3 arg. 1} Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod extasis non sit effectus amoris. Extasis enim quandam alienationem importare videtur. Sed amor non semper facit alienationem, sunt enim amantes interdum sui compotes. Ergo amor non facit extasim.

  Objection 2: Further, the lover desires the beloved to be united to him. Therefore he draws the beloved to himself, rather than betakes himself into the beloved, going forth out from himself as it were.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 3} arg. 2 Praeterea, amans desiderat amatum sibi uniri. Magis ergo amatum trahit ad se, quam etiam pergat in amatum, extra se exiens.

  Objection 3: Further, love unites the beloved to the lover, as stated above (Article [1]). If, therefore, the lover goes out from himself, in order to betake himself into the beloved, it follows that the lover always loves the beloved more than himself: which is evidently false. Therefore ecstasy is not an effect of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 3} arg. 3 Praeterea, amor unit amatum amanti, sicut dictum est. Si ergo amans extra se tendit, ut in amatum pergat, sequitur quod semper plus diligat amatum quam seipsum. Quod patet esse falsum. Non ergo extasis est effectus amoris.

  On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that “the Divine love produces ecstasy,” and that “God Himself suffered ecstasy through love.” Since therefore according to the same author (Div. Nom. iv), every love is a participated likeness of the Divine Love, it seems that every love causes ecstasy.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 3 s. c.} Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod divinus amor extasim facit, et quod ipse Deus propter amorem est extasim passus. Cum ergo quilibet amor sit quaedam similitudo participata divini amoris, ut ibidem dicitur, videtur quod quilibet amor causet extasim.

  I answer that, To suffer ecstasy means to be placed outside oneself. This happens as to the apprehensive power and as to the appetitive power. As to the apprehensive power, a man is said to be placed outside himself, when he is placed outside the knowledge proper to him. This may be due to his being raised to a higher knowledge; thus, a man is said to suffer ecstasy, inasmuch as he is placed outside the connatural apprehension of his sense and reason, when he is raised up so as to comprehend things that surpass sense and reason: or it may be due to his being cast down into a state of debasement; thus a man may be said to suffer ecstasy, when he is overcome by violent passion or madness. As to the appetitive power, a man is said to suffer ecstasy, when that power is borne towards something else, so that it goes forth out from itself, as it were.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 3 co.} Respondeo dicendum quod extasim pati aliquis dicitur, cum extra se ponitur. Quod quidem contingit et secundum vim apprehensivam, et secundum vim appetitivam. Secundum quidem vim apprehensivam aliquis dicitur extra se poni, quando ponitur extra cognitionem sibi propriam, vel quia ad superiorem sublimatur, sicut homo, dum elevatur ad comprehendenda aliqua quae sunt supra sensum et rationem, dicitur extasim pati, inquantum ponitur extra connaturalem apprehensionem rationis et sensus; vel quia ad inferiora deprimitur; puta, cum aliquis in furiam vel amentiam cadit, dicitur extasim passus. Secundum appetitivam vero partem dicitur aliquis extasim pati, quando appetitus alicuius in alterum fertur, exiens quodammodo extra seipsum.

   The first of these ecstasies is caused by love dispositively in so far, namely, as love makes the lover dwell on the beloved, as stated above (Article [2]), and to dwell intently on one thing draws the mind from other things. The second ecstasy is caused by love directly; by love of friendship, simply; by love of concupiscence not simply but in a restricted sense. Because in love of concupiscence, the lover is carried out of himself, in a certain sense; in so far, namely, as not being satisfied with enjoying the good that he has, he seeks to enjoy something outside himself. But since he seeks to have this extrinsic good for himself, he does not go out from himself simply, and this movement remains finally within him. On the other hand, in the love of friendship, a man’s affection goes out from itself simply; because he wishes and does good to his friend, by caring and providing for him, for his sake.

Primam quidem extasim facit amor dispositive, inquantum scilicet facit meditari de amato, ut dictum est, intensa autem meditatio unius abstrahit ab aliis. Sed secundam extasim facit amor directe, simpliciter quidem amor amicitiae; amor autem concupiscentiae non simpliciter, sed secundum quid. Nam in amore concupiscentiae, quodammodo fertur amans extra seipsum, inquantum scilicet, non contentus gaudere de bono quod habet, quaerit frui aliquo extra se. Sed quia illud extrinsecum bonum quaerit sibi habere, non exit simpliciter extra se, sed talis affectio in fine infra ipsum concluditur. Sed in amore amicitiae, affectus alicuius simpliciter exit extra se, quia vult amico bonum, et operatur, quasi gerens curam et providentiam ipsius, propter ipsum amicum.

  Reply to Objection 1: This argument is true of the first kind of ecstasy.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 3 ad 1} Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa ratio procedit de prima extasi.

  Reply to Objection 2: This argument applies to love of concupiscence, which, as stated above, does not cause ecstasy simply.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 3 ad 2} Ad secundum dicendum quod illa ratio procedit de amore concupiscentiae, qui non facit simpliciter extasim, ut dictum est.

  Reply to Objection 3: He who loves, goes out from himself, in so far as he wills the good of his friend and works for it. Yet he does not will the good of his friend more than his own good: and so it does not follow that he loves another more than himself.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 3} ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui amat, intantum extra se exit, inquantum vult bona amici et operatur. Non tamen vult bona amici magis quam sua. Unde non sequitur quod alterum plus quam se diligat.

ARTICLE 4:
Whether zeal is an effect of love?

Articulus 4

  Objection 1: It would seem that zeal is not an effect of love. For zeal is a beginning of contention; wherefore it is written (1 Cor. 3:3): “Whereas there is among you zeal [Douay: ‘envying’] and contention,” etc. But contention is incompatible with love. Therefore zeal is not an effect of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 4} arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod zelus non sit effectus amoris. Zelus enim est contentionis principium, unde dicitur I ad Cor. III, cum sit inter vos zelus et contentio, et cetera. Sed contentio repugnat amori. Ergo zelus non est effectus amoris.

  Objection 2: Further, the object of love is the good, which communicates itself to others. But zeal is opposed to communication; since it seems an effect of zeal, that a man refuses to share the object of his love with another: thus husbands are said to be jealous of [zelare] their wives, because they will not share them with others. Therefore zeal is not an effect of love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 4} arg. 2 Praeterea obiectum amoris est bonum, quod est communicativum sui. Sed zelus repugnat communicationi, ad zelum enim pertinere videtur quod aliquis non patiatur consortium in amato; sicut viri dicuntur zelare uxores, quas nolunt habere communes cum ceteris. Ergo zelus non est effectus amoris.

  Objection 3: Further, there is no zeal without hatred, as neither is there without love: for it is written (Ps. 72:3): “I had a zeal on occasion of the wicked.” Therefore it should not be set down as an effect of love any more than of hatred.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 4} arg. 3 Praeterea, zelus non est sine odio, sicut nec sine amore, dicitur enim in Psalmo LXXII, zelavi super iniquos. Non ergo debet dici magis effectus amoris quam odii.

  On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv): “God is said to be a zealot, on account of his great love for all things.”

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 4 s. c.} Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod Deus appellatur Zelotes propter multum amorem quem habet ad existentia.

  I answer that, Zeal, whatever way we take it, arises from the intensity of love. For it is evident that the more intensely a power tends to anything, the more vigorously it withstands opposition or resistance. Since therefore love is “a movement towards the object loved,” as Augustine says (Questions. 83, qu. 35), an intense love seeks to remove everything that opposes it.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 4 co.} Respondeo dicendum quod zelus, quocumque modo sumatur, ex intensione amoris provenit. Manifestum est enim quod quanto aliqua virtus intensius tendit in aliquid, fortius etiam repellit omne contrarium vel repugnans. Cum igitur amor sit quidam motus in amatum, ut Augustinus dicit in libro octoginta trium quaest., intensus amor quaerit excludere omne quod sibi repugnat.

   But this happens in different ways according to love of concupiscence, and love of friendship. For in love of concupiscence he who desires something intensely, is moved against all that hinders his gaining or quietly enjoying the object of his love. It is thus that husbands are said to be jealous of their wives, lest association with others prove a hindrance to their exclusive individual rights. In like manner those who seek to excel, are moved against those who seem to excel, as though these were a hindrance to their excelling. And this is the zeal of envy, of which it is written (Ps. 36:1): “Be not emulous of evil doers, nor envy [zelaveris] them that work iniquity.”

Aliter tamen hoc contingit in amore concupiscentiae, et aliter in amore amicitiae. Nam in amore concupiscentiae, qui intense aliquid concupiscit, movetur contra omne illud quod repugnat consecutioni vel fruitioni quietae eius quod amatur. Et hoc modo viri dicuntur zelare uxores, ne per consortium aliorum impediatur singularitas quam in uxore quaerunt. Similiter etiam qui quaerunt excellentiam, moventur contra eos qui excellere videntur, quasi impedientes excellentiam eorum. Et iste est zelus invidiae, de quo dicitur in Psalmo XXXVI, noli aemulari in malignantibus, neque zelaveris facientes iniquitatem.

   On the other hand, love of friendship seeks the friend’s good: wherefore, when it is intense, it causes a man to be moved against everything that opposes the friend’s good. In this respect, a man is said to be zealous on behalf of his friend, when he makes a point of repelling whatever may be said or done against the friend’s good. In this way, too, a man is said to be zealous on God’s behalf, when he endeavors, to the best of his means, to repel whatever is contrary to the honor or will of God; according to 3 Kgs. 19:14: “With zeal I have been zealous for the Lord of hosts.” Again on the words of Jn. 2:17: “The zeal of Thy house hath eaten me up,” a gloss says that “a man is eaten up with a good zeal, who strives to remedy whatever evil he perceives; and if he cannot, bears with it and laments it.”

Amor autem amicitiae quaerit bonum amici, unde quando est intensus, facit hominem moveri contra omne illud quod repugnat bono amici. Et secundum hoc, aliquis dicitur zelare pro amico, quando, si qua dicuntur vel fiunt contra bonum amici, homo repellere studet. Et per hunc etiam modum aliquis dicitur zelare pro Deo, quando ea quae sunt contra honorem vel voluntatem Dei, repellere secundum posse conatur; secundum illud III Reg. XIX, zelo zelatus sum pro domino exercituum. Et Ioan. II, super illud, zelus domus tuae comedit me, dicit Glossa quod bono zelo comeditur, qui quaelibet prava quae viderit, corrigere satagit; si nequit, tolerat et gemit.

  Reply to Objection 1: The Apostle is speaking in this passage of the zeal of envy; which is indeed the cause of contention, not against the object of love, but for it, and against that which is opposed to it.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 4 ad 1} Ad primum ergo dicendum quod apostolus ibi loquitur de zelo invidiae; qui quidem est causa contentionis, non contra rem amatam, sed pro re amata contra impedimenta ipsius.

  Reply to Objection 2: Good is loved inasmuch as it can be communicated to the lover. Consequently whatever hinders the perfection of this communication, becomes hateful. Thus zeal arises from love of good. But through defect of goodness, it happens that certain small goods cannot, in their entirety, be possessed by many at the same time: and from the love of such things arises the zeal of envy. But it does not arise, properly speaking, in the case of those things which, in their entirety, can be possessed by many: for no one envies another the knowledge of truth, which can be known entirely by many; except perhaps one may envy another his superiority in the knowledge of it.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 4 ad 2} Ad secundum dicendum quod bonum amatur inquantum est communicabile amanti. Unde omne illud quod perfectionem huius communicationis impedit, efficitur odiosum. Et sic ex amore boni zelus causatur. Ex defectu autem bonitatis contingit quod quaedam parva bona non possunt integre simul possideri a multis. Et ex amore talium causatur zelus invidiae. Non autem proprie ex his quae integre possunt a multis possideri, nullus enim invidet alteri de cognitione veritatis, quae a multis integre cognosci potest; sed forte de excellentia circa cognitionem huius.

  Reply to Objection 3: The very fact that a man hates whatever is opposed to the object of his love, is the effect of love. Hence zeal is set down as an effect of love rather than of hatred.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 4 ad 3} Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc ipsum quod aliquis odio habet ea quae repugnant amato, ex amore procedit. Unde zelus proprie ponitur effectus amoris magis quam odii.

ARTICLE 5:
Whether love is a passion that wounds the lover?

Articulus 5

  Objection 1: It would seem that love wounds the lover. For languor denotes a hurt in the one that languishes. But love causes languor: for it is written (Cant 2:5): “Stay me up with flowers, compass me about with apples; because I languish with love.” Therefore love is a wounding passion.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 5} arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod amor sit passio laesiva. Languor enim significat laesionem quandam languentis. Sed amor causat languorem, dicitur enim Cant. II, fulcite me floribus, stipate me malis, quia amore langueo. Ergo amor est passio laesiva.

  Objection 2: Further, melting is a kind of dissolution. But love melts that in which it is: for it is written (Cant 5:6): “My soul melted when my beloved spoke.” Therefore love is a dissolvent: therefore it is a corruptive and a wounding passion.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 5} arg. 2 Praeterea, liquefactio est quaedam resolutio. Sed amor est liquefactivus, dicitur enim Cant. V, anima mea liquefacta est, ut dilectus meus locutus est. Ergo amor est resolutivus. Est ergo corruptivus et laesivus.

  Objection 3: Further, fervor denotes a certain excess of heat; which excess has a corruptive effect. But love causes fervor: for Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii) in reckoning the properties belonging to the Seraphim’s love, includes “hot” and “piercing” and “most fervent.” Moreover it is said of love (Cant 8:6) that “its lamps are fire and flames.” Therefore love is a wounding and corruptive passion.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 5} arg. 3 Praeterea, fervor designat quendam excessum in caliditate, qui quidem excessus corruptivus est. Sed fervor causatur ex amore, Dionysius enim, VII cap. Cael. Hier., inter ceteras proprietates ad amorem Seraphim pertinentes, ponit calidum et acutum et superfervens. Et Cant. VIII, dicitur de amore quod lampades eius sunt lampades ignis atque flammarum. Ergo amor est passio laesiva et corruptiva.

  On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that “everything loves itself with a love that holds it together,” i.e. that preserves it. Therefore love is not a wounding passion, but rather one that preserves and perfects.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 5 s. c.} Sed contra est quod dicit Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod singula seipsa amant contentive, idest conservative. Ergo amor non est passio laesiva, sed magis conservativa et perfectiva.

  I answer that, As stated above (Question [26], Articles [1],2; Question [27], Article [1]), love denotes a certain adapting of the appetitive power to some good. Now nothing is hurt by being adapted to that which is suitable to it; rather, if possible, it is perfected and bettered. But if a thing be adapted to that which is not suitable to it, it is hurt and made worse thereby. Consequently love of a suitable good perfects and betters the lover; but love of a good which is unsuitable to the lover, wounds and worsens him. Wherefore man is perfected and bettered chiefly by the love of God: but is wounded and worsened by the love of sin, according to Osee 9:10: “They became abominable, as those things which they loved.”

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 5 co.} Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, amor significat coaptationem quandam appetitivae virtutis ad aliquod bonum. Nihil autem quod coaptatur ad aliquid quod est sibi conveniens, ex hoc ipso laeditur, sed magis, si sit possibile, proficit et melioratur. Quod vero coaptatur ad aliquid quod non est sibi conveniens, ex hoc ipso laeditur et deterioratur. Amor ergo boni convenientis est perfectivus et meliorativus amantis, amor autem boni quod non est conveniens amanti, est laesivus et deteriorativus amantis. Unde maxime homo perficitur et melioratur per amorem Dei, laeditur autem et deterioratur per amorem peccati, secundum illud Osee IX, facti sunt abominabiles, sicut ea quae dilexerunt.

   And let this be understood as applying to love in respect of its formal element, i.e. in regard to the appetite. But in respect of the material element in the passion of love, i.e. a certain bodily change, it happens that love is hurtful, by reason of this change being excessive: just as it happens in the senses, and in every act of a power of the soul that is exercised through the change of some bodily organ.

Et hoc quidem dictum sit de amore, quantum ad id quod est formale in ipso, quod est scilicet ex parte appetitus. Quantum vero ad id quod est materiale in passione amoris, quod est immutatio aliqua corporalis, accidit quod amor sit laesivus propter excessum immutationis, sicut accidit in sensu, et in omni actu virtutis animae qui exercetur per aliquam immutationem organi corporalis.

   In reply to the objections, it is to be observed that four proximate effects may be ascribed to love: viz. melting, enjoyment, languor, and fervor. Of these the first is “melting,” which is opposed to freezing. For things that are frozen, are closely bound together, so as to be hard to pierce. But it belongs to love that the appetite is fitted to receive the good which is loved, inasmuch as the object loved is in the lover, as stated above (Article [2]). Consequently the freezing or hardening of the heart is a disposition incompatible with love: while melting denotes a softening of the heart, whereby the heart shows itself to be ready for the entrance of the beloved. If, then, the beloved is present and possessed, pleasure or enjoyment ensues. But if the beloved be absent, two passions arise; viz. sadness at its absence, which is denoted by “languor” (hence Cicero in De Tusc. Quaest. iii, 11 applies the term “ailment” chiefly to sadness); and an intense desire to possess the beloved, which is signified by “fervor.” And these are the effects of love considered formally, according to the relation of the appetitive power to its object. But in the passion of love, other effects ensue, proportionate to the above, in respect of a change in the organ.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 5 ad 1} Ad ea vero quae in contrarium obiiciuntur, dicendum quod amori attribui possunt quatuor effectus proximi, scilicet liquefactio, fruitio, languor et fervor. Inter quae primum est liquefactio, quae opponitur congelationi. Ea enim quae sunt congelata, in seipsis constricta sunt, ut non possint de facili subintrationem alterius pati. Ad amorem autem pertinet quod appetitus coaptetur ad quandam receptionem boni amati, prout amatum est in amante, sicut iam supra dictum est. Unde cordis congelatio vel duritia est dispositio repugnans amori. Sed liquefactio importat quandam mollificationem cordis, qua exhibet se cor habile ut amatum in ipsum subintret. Si ergo amatum fuerit praesens et habitum, causatur delectatio sive fruitio. Si autem fuerit absens, consequuntur duae passiones, scilicet tristitia de absentia, quae significatur per languorem (unde et Tullius, in III de Tusculanis quaest., maxime tristitiam aegritudinem nominat); et intensum desiderium de consecutione amati, quod significatur per fervorem. Et isti quidem sunt effectus amoris formaliter accepti, secundum habitudinem appetitivae virtutis ad obiectum. Sed in passione amoris, consequuntur aliqui effectus his proportionati, secundum immutationem organi.

ARTICLE 6:
Whether love is cause of all that the lover does?

Articulus 6

  Objection 1: It would seem that the lover does not do everything from love. For love is a passion, as stated above (Question [26], Article [2]). But man does not do everything from passion: but some things he does from choice, and some things from ignorance, as stated in Ethic. v, 8. Therefore not everything that a man does, is done from love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 6} arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod amans non agat omnia ex amore. Amor enim quaedam passio est, ut supra dictum est. Sed non omnia quae agit homo, agit ex passione, sed quaedam agit ex electione, et quaedam ex ignorantia, ut dicitur in V Ethic. Ergo non omnia quae homo agit, agit ex amore.

  Objection 2: Further, the appetite is a principle of movement and action in all animals, as stated in De Anima iii, 10. If, therefore, whatever a man does is done from love, the other passions of the appetitive faculty are superfluous.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 6} arg. 2 Praeterea, appetitus est principium motus et actionis in omnibus animalibus, ut patet in III de anima. Si igitur omnia quae quis agit, agit ex amore, aliae passiones appetitivae partis erunt superfluae.

  Objection 3: Further, nothing is produced at one and the same time by contrary causes. But some things are done from hatred. Therefore all things are not done from love.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 6} arg. 3 Praeterea, nihil causatur simul a contrariis causis. Sed quaedam fiunt ex odio. Non ergo omnia sunt ex amore.

  On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that “all things, whatever they do, they do for the love of good.”

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 6 s. c.} Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod propter amorem boni omnia agunt quaecumque agunt.

  I answer that, Every agent acts for an end, as stated above (Question [1], Article [2]). Now the end is the good desired and loved by each one. Wherefore it is evident that every agent, whatever it be, does every action from love of some kind.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 6 co.} Respondeo dicendum quod omne agens agit propter finem aliquem, ut supra dictum est. Finis autem est bonum desideratum et amatum unicuique. Unde manifestum est quod omne agens, quodcumque sit, agit quamcumque actionem ex aliquo amore.

  Reply to Objection 1: This objection takes love as a passion existing in the sensitive appetite. But here we are speaking of love in a general sense, inasmuch as it includes intellectual, rational, animal, and natural love: for it is in this sense that Dionysius speaks of love in chapter iv of De Divinis Nominibus.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 6 ad 1} Ad primum ergo dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de amore qui est passio in appetitu sensitivo existens. Nos autem loquimur nunc de amore communiter accepto, prout comprehendit sub se amorem intellectualem, rationalem, animalem, naturalem, sic enim Dionysius loquitur de amore in IV cap. de Div. Nom.

  Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Article [5]; Question [27], Article [4]) desire, sadness and pleasure, and consequently all the other passions of the soul, result from love. Wherefore every act proceeds from any passion, proceeds also from love as from a first cause: and so the other passions, which are proximate causes, are not superfluous.

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 6 ad 2} Ad secundum dicendum quod ex amore, sicut iam dictum est, causantur et desiderium et tristitia et delectatio, et per consequens omnes aliae passiones. Unde omnis actio quae procedit ex quacumque passione, procedit etiam ex amore, sicut ex prima causa. Unde non superfluunt aliae passiones, quae sunt causae proximae.

  Reply to Objection 3: Hatred also is a result of love, as we shall state further on (Question [29], Article [2]).

^{Iª-IIae q. 28 a. 6 ad 3} Ad tertium dicendum quod odium etiam ex amore causatur, sicut infra dicetur.