BOOK IX

PROPERTIES OF FRIENDSHIP

LECTURE 1

Proportionate Properties in Friendship

Chapter 1

I.    HE PROPOSES A MEANS OF PRESERVING FRIENDSHIP. — 1757-1758

In all friendships of dissimilar persons proportion equates the parties and preserves friendship, as has been indicated.” Thus in justice between citizens a return according to value is made to the shoemaker for the shoes he gives. A similar thing is done to the weaver and to other artisans.

II.  HE SHOWS HOW FRIENDSHIP IS DISTURBED BY THE ABSENCE OF THIS MEANS.

      A.  Why disturbance... cannot happen in an exchange based on justice. — 1759

For that reason people invented money to serve as a common measure, and all salable goods were referred to it and measured by it.

      B.  How friendship is disturbed by lack of a proportionate measure.

            1.   FROM THE FACT THAT ONE FRIEND DOES NOT REPAY THE OTHER.

                   a.   He proposes the cause of the disturbance. — 1760

In friendship, however, the lover sometimes complains because his lavish love is not returned—but perhaps he has nothing deserving of love. On the other hand, the beloved very often complains that the lover had promised everything before, but now fulfills nothing.

                   b.   He shows in which friendships this occurs. — 1761

These accusations are made when the lover seeks pleasure and the beloved, utility; and neither has the qualities the other seeks, Consequently, the friendship is broken off since the very reasons why it was formed no longer remain. The parties did not love one another for themselves but for advantages to be gained, and these were not enduring; hence neither were the friendships enduring. But friendship based on virtue remains, as we have indicated, because each friend is loved for himself.

            2.   FROM THE FACT THAT REPAYMENT IS NOT WHAT WAS DESERVED. — 1762-1763

Friends quarrel when given favors different from what they desire, for failure to get what a man wants is like getting nothing. This recalls the lyre-player who was promised that the better he sang the more he would be paid, but next morning when he demanded fulfillment of the pledge the man who promised replied that he had already given pleasure (i.e., of expectation) for pleasure. Certainly if each had wished this it would have been satisfactory. But if one wanted amusement and got it while the other wanted gain and did not get it, an unfair exchange was made; for a man is intent on acquiring what he needs and will give what he possesses to get it.

III. HE RECOMMENDS REMEDIES AGAINST DISTURBANCE OF THIS SORT.

      A.  He suggests the means... to preserve peace in friendship.

            1.   WHO SHOULD DETERMINE A PROPER REPAYMENT.

                   a.   The estimate... should be made by the person who first receives the benefit. — 1764-1765

But who is to fix the amount due to each, the person giving or the person receiving the benefit? The giver evidently seems to leave this to the recipient as, they say, Protagoras used to do. For when he taught he told the student to estimate the value of the knowledge imparted; and Protagoras accepted no more. But in such matters some are satisfied to “let a man have his fixed fee.”

                   b.   How complaint... follows — 1766

Those who first accept money and then carry out nothing they promised—their promises being extravagant—are proper targets for complaints; they are not doing what they undertook to do. The Sophists were forced to this course, for nothing would have been given for their teaching. Such persons then are justly accused for not doing what they are paid to do.

            2.   HE SHOWS HOW THIS REPAYMENT IS MADE.

                   a.   In friendships based on virtue. — 1767-1768

Where the gift is not made with a promise of service, people who give for the sake of others cannot be complained of—as we have noted. This is in accord with the nature of friendship for virtue; and a return is made in view of the giver’s intention which has a special relevancy in a friend and virtue. A similar course should be followed with those imparting philosophy, for their value cannot be measured in terms of money nor can they be given an equivalent return. Perhaps it suffices that we repay them what is possible, as is done with the gods and our parents.

                   b.   In other kinds of friendships.

                         i.    He proposes his intention. — 1769

If the gift is not of this nature but was made in view of a recompense, a return which seems fair to both parties must be arranged. When this is not possible, appraisal of compensation by the beneficiary will seem not only necessary but just.

                         ii.   He proves his proposal.

                               x.   BY ARGUMENT. — 1770

A person will have what is just when he is repaid according to the help and pleasure afforded the recipient; and this is what happens in buying.

                               y.   BY THE AUTHORITY OF LAW. — 1771

In some places the law prescribes that no legal action is possible in voluntary contracts, taking the position that a person who trusts another should be repaid according to the terms of the original agreement. It supposes that the person receiving the benefit makes a more just arrangement. In general those who have things and those who want them do not make equal valuations; each group puts a big price on what it owns and has for sale. But a return is made according to the appraisal of the recipient.

                         iii. He answers an implied question. — 1772

However, a man ought to appraise a benefit not at the value it seems to have after he gets it but at the value it had before he received it.

COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS

1757. After the Philosopher has shown the nature of friendship and defined the kinds of friendship, he now discusses the properties of friendship in the ninth book. First he gives the properties. Then [Lect. 8], at “Likewise the question etc.” (B. 1168 a 28), he raises doubts on questions already settled. He treats the first point from two aspects. First he considers matters pertaining to the preservation and the breaking up of friendship. Next [Lect. 4], at “Kindly acts etc.” (B.1166 a), he investigates the effects of friendship. He discusses the first point in a twofold manner. First’he treats matters pertaining to the preservation of friendship. Second [Lect. 3], at “A question comes up etc.” (B.1165 a 37), he considers questions concerned with its destruction. He handles the first point under three headings. First [I] he proposes a means of preserving friendship. Then [II], at “For that reason etc.,” he shows how friendship is disturbed by the absence of this means. Third [III], at “But who is etc.,” he recommends remedies against disturbance of this sort.

1758. Obviously, friendship between equals is preserved by a fair return. Hence he first explains how it is possible to preserve friendship existing between persons unlike one another—a thing that seems rather doubtful. He observes that in all such friendships between dissimilar persons, like father and son, king and subject and so on, friendship is equated and preserved by something which is analogous or proportionate to each. He makes this clear by an example found in political justice; accordingly, we said in the fifth book (975-976) that a return in conformity with proportionate value is made to the shoemaker for the shoes he gives. The same thing applies to the weaver and other artisans.

1759. Then [II], at “For that reason” he shows how friendship is disturbed by lack of a proportion. He treats this point in a twofold manner. First [II, A] he states the reason why disturbance of this sort cannot happen in an exchange based on justice. He observes that in exchanges between citizens there is found a common measure, currency, to which all articles of exchange are referred as to a criterion; and their price is measured by means of currency. Consequently what is to be charged for them can be determined. But the relations, which are exchanged in friendship, for example, affections, and services of friends, cannot be computed in money. Therefore, ship, however,” he explains how friendship is disturbed by lack of a proportionate measure. He shows this first [II, B, 1] from the fact that one friend does not repay the other; then [II, B, 2], at “Friends quarrel etc.,” from the fact that repayment is not what was deserved. He discusses the first point under two headings. First [II, B, 1, a] he proposes the cause of the disturbance in friendship. Next [II, B, 1, b], at “These accusations are made etc.,” he shows in which friendships this occurs. Concerning the first point we must note that repayment in friendship is judged according to two phases. First in relation to the interior act of love. On this aspect he says that in friendship the lover sometimes complains that, while he lavishes love on the beloved, the beloved does not return the love; and at times his complaint is unjustified, for instance, if he does not have anything making him deserving of love. Second, repayment of friendship is made in external gifts or services. Regarding this aspect he remarks that the beloved very often complains because the lover had promised him everything in the beginning but delivered nothing in the end.

1761. Next [II, B, 1, b], at “These accusations “are made,” he shows in which friendships this occurs. He remarks that these mutual complaints between lover and beloved take place when the lover seeks pleasure and the beloved wants utility. But sometimes these qualities are not present because the beloved neither provides pleasure for the lover, nor the lover utility for the beloved. Consequently, the friendship is broken off, since the very reasons for its existence no longer remain. The persons did not love one another for themselves but for the conditions mentioned, viz., utility and pleasure; and these are not enduring, so neither are friendships of this kind. But friendship for the sake of virtue is permanent—as we have indicated (1622-1623)—because friends love each other for themselves according to virtue.

1762. At “Friends quarrel” [B, 2] he shows how friendship is disturbed because repayment is not made in the service sought but in something else. He observes that very often friends contend among themselves when they have been given favors different from those they desire; for failure to get what a man wants is like getting nothing at all.

1763. He gives an example of a lyreplayer who was promised that the better he sang the more he would be paid. But the morning after playing, when he asked fulfillment of the pledge, the man who promised replied that he had already returned pleasure for pleasure, because conversely he had given the musician pleasure. If the lyre-player was looking for pleasure, the repayment made him was sufficient. But if the one who promised wanted amusement and the player gain, an unfair exchange was made since one party has what he wanted but the other does not. The man who offers a service is intent on getting what he needs and he gives what he possesses to get it.

1764. Then [III], at “But who,” he recommends remedies against these disturbances in friendship. He discusses this point from two aspects. First [III, A] he suggests the means to be used to preserve peace in friendship. Next [Lect. 2; III, B], at “On the other hand etc.” (B.1164 b 22), he resolves a difficulty. He treats the first point under two headings. First [A, 1] he explains who should determine a proper repayment in friendship. Then [A, 2], at “Where the gift etc.,” he shows how this repayment is made. He handles the first point in a twofold manner. First [III, A, 1, a] he shows that the estimate of a fair repayment should be made by the person who first receives the benefit. Second [III, A. 1, b], at “Those who first etc.,” he shows how complaint in friendship follows from this person’s negligence.

1765. He notes first that the arrangement of the amount of repayment pertains to both: the man who bestowed and the man who received the benefit. However, he who bestowed it seems to leave the estimate of the repayment to him who received it. Thus it is said that when Protagoras the philosopher taught students, he told each to reward him with presents that seem to the student fair for the instruction received from the teaching; and Protagoras accepted only that much. In such services of friendship some are satisfied to be recompensed according to the recipients’ judgment of the benefits. In this way they seem to receive an adequate fee, because it is given for the man doing the favor and not for the favor done. This is why it seems satisfactory that the fee suffice for the man even if it is not equal to the benefit.

1766. Next [III, A, 1, b], at “Those who first,” he shows how friendship is disturbed by negligence on the part of those who first receive. He remarks that those who first accept money before they render any service,. and then do none of the things they promised—perhaps because their promises were extravagant—naturally meet with complaints since they do not perform what they promised. This is what the Sophists are driven to do, because nothing would be given them for everything they know if the decision was left to their students, for all their learning consists in shallow and trifling doctrines. So then these men are accused when they do not perform the duties for which they accept a fee.

1767. At “Where the gif” [III, A, 2] he shows how repayment ought to be made in friendship: first [2, a], in friendships based on virtue; then [2, b], at “If the gifts etc.,” in other kinds of friendships. He observes first that where the gift is not made with an agreement or promise of a certain service, as was done in the friendships already treated, men sometimes bestow benefits for the sake of the person receiving them and not in view of a return. It is evident from discussion in the eighth book (1743) that such people are not to be complained of, for this is characteristic of friendship according to virtue in which a return must be made by considering the intention or will of the doer. Indeed, intention has a special relevancy to friendship and virtue, as has been noted (1538).

1768. Our view regarding friendship which consists in the sharing (communicatione) of virtue is the view we should take of sharing of philosophy, for instance, between master and student. The value of philosophy to someone learning is not measurable in terms of money; neither can a student make an equivalent return to his teacher, but perhaps that return, which suffices for God and parents, is to be made.

1769. Then [2, b], at “If the gift,” he shows the way a return is made in the other kinds of friendship. He discusses this point from three aspects. First [b, i] he proposes his intention. Second [b, ii], at “A person will have etc.,” he proves his proposal. Third [b, iii], at “However, a man etc.,” he answers an implied question. He says first that, if the benefit is of such a nature that the person does not give for the friend’s sake but wishes repayment, there must be a return that seems fair to both the giver and the recipient. If this is not possible, then he who was benefited ought to determine a compensation that is reasonable; such a procedure is not only necessary but just.

1770. At “A person will have’ [b, ii] he proves his proposal: first [ii, x] by argument; then [ii, y], at “In some places etc.,” by the authority of law. He notes first that a fair repayment will be determined according to the help a person receives from a friend’s benefit in useful friendship and from pleasure acquired in pleasurable friendship. Buying, too, seems to be done in this fashion, that a man’s appraisal of a thing will be the price he pays for it. But the amount of help or pleasure derived from a benefit can best be known by the person receiving the help or pleasure. Consequently, it is necessary and just to make repayment according to his judgment.

1771. Next [ii, y], at “In some places,” he proves the same point by the authority of law. He observes that in some states the law prescribes that no redress is possible in voluntary agreements for one of the parties who afterwards pleads deception. If a person voluntarily trusts someone with a benefit or service, payment must be made according to the judgment of the person trusted in conformity with the conditions of the original exchange. For legislators are of the opinion that the person who was given the benefit at the outset ought to arrange the repayment more justly than he who granted it. They think this way because there are many things which are not valued at the same price by those who have them and by those who want to have them. Indeed, individuals apparently think that the goods they offer are worth a big price. But a return ought to be made according to the appraisal of the recipients.

1772. At “However, a man” [b, iii] he answers an implied question. He says that a man ought to estimate a benefit not at the price that he considers fair after he receives it but at the value he gave it before he received it.

LECTURE 2

Doubts on the Duties of Friendship

Chapter 2

B.   He now raises doubts concerning benefits and repayments to friends.

      1.   HE RAISES THE DOUBTS. — 1773

On the other hand these questions are raised: whether a man ought to give preference to his father in all matters and obey him; or ought he when ill to obey his doctor; or ought he when a soldier to obey his general. Likewise, must someone aid a friend in preference to a virtuous man? Must a person return a favor to a benefactor or oblige a friend, if unable to satisfy both?

      2.   HE SOLVES THEM.

            a.   By a general answer. — 1774

Certainly it is not easy to come to a decision in all such contingencies; for they vary greatly in degree, merit, and necessity. However, it is clear that all the deferences are not to be rendered to the same person.

            b.  By specific answers.

                   i.    He solves the third doubt.

                         x.   WHAT MUST BE OBSERVED GENERALLY. — 1775

As a rule a man ought to recompense a benefactor rather than present gifts to friends, just as he ought to repay a loan rather than make one to a friend.

                         y.   A CASE WHERE THIS STATEMENT DOES NOT HOLD. — 1776

Perhaps this course is not always to be followed, for instance, in a case of ransom from robbers. Ought a man to ransom a person—whoever he may be—who has freed him from prison? Or ought he to repay the benefactor, who is not a captive, but asks repayment? Or ought he ransom his father even before himself?

                         z.   HOW WE MUST OBSERVE WHAT WAS SAID PREVIOUSLY.

                               aa. He explains his intention. — 1777-1778

It is then a general rule that a debt should be paid, as we have stated. But if a gift has a special goodness or urgency it ought to be given. For sometimes previous benefits must not be returned equally, for example, when the benefit is bestowed on a person known to be virtuous but compensation is paid to the other who is considered wicked. Indeed a loan is not always to be made to a man who has given a loan; for the lender looks for profit from a good man, but the good man lends with no hope of gain from 10 ‘a bad man. Therefore, if all this is true, no equality is present; if it is not really true, but only thought to be then the action will not seem unreasonable.

                               bb.        He deduces a corollary from the discussion. — 1779

As we have indicated many times, discussions about our passions and actions have that definiteness belonging to their subject matter.

                   ii.   He solves the first doubt.

                         x.   NOT ALL HONORS... TO A FATHER. — 1780-1781

It is obvious that the same honors are not to be paid everyone. Hence all homage is not given to a father, just as all sacrifices were not offered to Jove. Since different obligations are due parents, brothers, friends, and benefactors, what is proper and becoming ought to be rendered to each group. And such is apparently the custom. For people send wedding invitations to relatives belonging to the family and interested in its activities. For this reason they think that kindred particularly should meet at funerals.

                         y.   WHAT HONORS ARE TO BE GIVEN TO CERTAIN PERSONS.

                               aa. He explains his intention. — 1782-1783

It seems that children should especially provide enough food for their parents; they are indebted to their parents for life itself, and should aid them rather than themselves in a spirit of honor similar to that given to the gods. However, a man should not render every honor to his parents nor the same honor to his father and mother, nor again to a philosopher and a general. To his father he ought to give the honor proper to a father, and to a mother honor belonging to a mother. Similarly, to all elderly persons he should show honor appropriate to age by rising for them, giving them seats, and so on. To friends and 30 brothers he should offer confidence and community of goods. Moreover, to kinsmen, fellow tribesmen, fellow citizens, and others of this standing, a person must always try to allot appropriate honor, and to accord each his due in conformity with propinquity and virtue or usefulness.

                               bb.        In what cases judgment is easy... — 1784

Judgment in these matters is easy when people are of the same class, but difficult when they are of different classes. Nevertheless, we should not avoid the decision but make it as best we can.

COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS

1773. After the Philosopher has investigated the preservation of friendship by proportionate repayment, he now [III, B] raises doubts concerning benefits and repayments to friends. First [B, 1] he raises the doubts; then [B, 2], at “Certainly it is not etc.,” he solves them. In treating the initial point he presents three doubts. The first is whether a man must assist his father in all matters and obey him rather than anyone else, or whether he must obey other persons in some matters. For example, must a feverish or sick patient obey the doctor before his father; ought a soldier follow the general’s orders rather than his father’s? The second doubt: whether someone is bound to help his friend in preference to a virtuous person. The third doubt: whether a man ought to make a return to a benefactor for a favor before he makes a present to a friend, if unable to satisfy both.

1774. Next [B, 2], at “Certainly it is not,” he solves these questions: first [2, a] by a general answer; second [2, b], at “As a rule a man ought etc.,” by specific answers. He remarks first that it is not easy to decide all these questions with certitude, because their many variations can be considered in all sorts of ways-for instance, the greater or less degree that someone is a good man or friend or benefactor. Likewise, there is a difference sometimes in goodness or necessity. Thus it seems to be better to help a virtuous person or a friend but more necessary to help a benefactor. However, in these matters all the deference is not to be given to the same person, but one kind to some and another kind to others.

1775. At “As a rule” [2, b] he solves previous questions by specific answers. First [b, i] he solves the third doubt. Then [b, ii], at “It is obvious etc.,” he solves the first doubt, and this is understood to include the solution to the second doubt. He treats the first point under three aspects. First [i, x] he teaches what must be observed generally. He notes that a man should make a return to a benefactor before making a present to a friend, if it is not possible to do both. The reason is that a person is bound in honor to return benefits in the same way he is bound to repay a loan in legal justice.

1776. Second [i, y], at “Perhaps this course etc.” he offers a case where this statement does not hold. He says that what has been affirmed is not always to be observed, for instance, in the event that someone can be freed from robbers. It can be uncertain which of three choices should be made. First, ought a man to liberate from robbers a person—whoever he may be—who ransomed him from prison at one time? Or, second. ought a man repay this benefactor who has not been captured but asks a return in some other form? Or, third, ought a man to ransom his father from robbers? The third choice must be made in preference to the others, because it seems that a man is bound to ransom his father even before himself.

1777. Third [i, z], at “It is then etc.,” he shows how we must observe what was said previously. First [z, aal he explains his intention. Next [z, bb], at “As we have indicated etc.,” he deduces a corollary from the discussion. He remarks first that his preceding directive, that we must pay a debt rather than give presents, is to be generally observed. But if a gratuitous gift has a special goodness (say a very Virtuous an needs assistance) or urgency (for example, someone is in a position to ransom his father) it ought to be given preference. For the return, which a person makes for previous benefits, sometimes cannot be equalized by a gratuitous gift; for example, when on the one hand the benefit is bestowed on a man known to be virtuous, and on the other a return is made to him who is considered to be wicked.

1778. Nor is it surprising that a benefactor must not be repaid sometimes, for a person is not always bound to accommodate someone who has accommodated him. Sometimes a bad man does a favor for a good man, thinking to make a profit out of it. But the good man does not expect gain from a loan to a bad man. If then the man is really bad, obviously there is no equality between what should be returned to him and to the virtuous person. If, however, the benefactor is not really bad but the recipient thinks so, it does not seem unreasonable to make a gift to the good man instead.

1779. Then [z, bb], at “As we have indicated,” he deduces a corollary from the discussion. Obvious from our present study (1774-1778) is the truth we have affirmed many times that discussions about human actions and passions cannot settle anything with certitude; likewise they cannot settle the matters treated by human actions and passions.

1780. Next [b, ii], at “It is obvious,” he solves the first doubt. First [ii, x] he explains that not all honors are to be shown to a father. Second [ii, y], at “It seems that etc.,” he decides what honors are to be given to certain persons. He notes first that evidently not the same honors are to be paid everyone. Hence all homage is not to be offered to a father, just as all sacrifices among the pagans were not offered to Jove but some were given to the other gods. Different obligations are due to parents, brothers, friends, benefactors; hence those which are proper and belong to each group are to be attributed to them. Likewise, the same notion is applicable to virtuous persons.

1781. In fact, people seem to act in this way; they send wedding invitations to all those who belong to the family, since, as a result of weddings, the family is increased. They also invite their kindred to activities connected with weddings. For the same reason men think that relatives should meet in kedea or council to discuss matrimonial matches.

1782. At “It seems that” [ii, y] he shows what honors are to be given to certain persons. First [y, aa] he explains his intention. Then [y, bb], at “Judgment in these matters etc.,” he shows in what cases judgment is easy and in which difficult. He says that in the matter of food, it seems that children ought to provide enough for their parents before all others. They are indebted in this way to their parents as the authors of their existence by generation. Consequently, in matters belonging to the conduct of life itself, they should aid their parents rather than themselves. Likewise, men owe honor to their parents, the authors of their existence, as to the gods.

1783. However, man is not bound to render every honor to his parents, since he neither owes the same honor to father and mother, nor does he owe his father the honor due a philosopher or a general. But a son ought to give his father the honor proper to a father, and to his mother the honor that belongs to a mother. Similarly, one should show honor to an elderly citizen on account of his age by rising and bowing to him and so on. Besides he ought to trust and share what he has with friends and brothers, and also with kinsmen, fellow tribesmen, fellow citizens and others of this standing. A person must always try to allot to everyone what is appropriate and to accord each his due in conformity with the dignity of age or virtue like wisdom, and with the exercise of an office like military commander.

1784. Then [y, bb], he shows where this is easy and where difficult. He remarks that judgment in such matters is easy when people belong to one class. For example, of two relatives we must help rather the closer; of two wise men, the wiser. But it is more difficult to make judgment if people are of different classes, for instance, whether we ought to help a wiser person in preference to a near relative. Although this matter is hard to decide, nevertheless we should not shirk its consideration but settle the problem as best we can.

LECTURE 3

Minor Doubts on the Dissolution of Friendship

Chapter 3

I.    HE INQUIRES WHEN A FRIENDSHIP SHOULD BE DISSOLVED.

      A.  He examines the dissolution of friendship for those who have changed.

            1.   HE PROPOSES THE DOUBT. — 1785

A question comes up—should or should not friendship be dissolved when people no longer remain the same?

            2.   HE OFFERS A SOLUTION FOR FRIENDSHIP BASED ON UTILITY AND PLEASURE.

                   a.   In what manner these friendships are destroyed. — 1786

It is not surprising that friendship is broken off between people who are friends for utility or pleasure when these advantages no longer exist. Since the friendship was based on utility and pleasure that have ceased, it is reasonable for the friendship to cease.

                   b.   How just complaints may arise in them. — 1787-1788

But someone will justly complain of a friend who loves for gain or pleasure but pretends to love for virtue. As we remarked in the beginning,’ many differences arise when people are not friends in the way they think they are. If then a person deceives himself in thinking he is being loved for virtue—the other doing nothing of the sort—he has only himself to blame. But if he is deceived by the pretense of the other he can blame the deceiver even more justly than he could blame counterfeiters, because the wrongdoing is against a more precious good.

            3.   (HE OFFERS A SOLUTION) FOR FRIENDSHIP BASED ON VIRTUE.

                   a.   This friendship should be broken off between those who do not remain virtuous.

                         i.    He repeats the question. — 1789

If, however, a person is accepted as good but later becomes bad, and this is apparent, should he still be loved?

                         ii.   He answers the question again. — 1790

It is quite impossible, for not everything should be loved but only good. Neither is it reasonable to be a lover of evil nor to become like an evil man; and we have indicated that like makes friends with like.”

                   b.   How (this friendship) is to be broken off.

                         i.    He asks the question. — 1791

Should the friendship then be broken off immediately?

                         ii.   He answers (it). — 1792

Not always, but only when friends are confirmed in evil. If they will accept guidance, we are even more bound to help them morally than we should be to assist them financially; for this is more noble and more proper to friendship. But when a man breaks off such a friendship he does nothing unreasonable; he was not a friend to such a person and consequently withdraws from the friendship of one who has changed and cannot be regenerated.

      B.  He examines the dissolution of friendship for those who remain in the same status.

            1.   HE RAISES THE QUESTION. — 1793

If, however, one friend remains the same but the other becomes better so that a greater difference in virtue exists between them, should the more advanced cultivate the other?

            2.   HE SOLVES (IT). — 1794

No. He cannot. This becomes evident especially among friends of the remote past, for instance, in friendships begun in childhood. For, if one remains a child mentally and the other becomes very talented, they will have no way of being friends since they do not find satisfaction or delight or pain in the same things; they do not even share them with one another. And without this sharing, friendship is impossible. But we have already treated these questions.

II.  HE SHOWS HOW A PERSON SHOULD BEHAVE TOWARDS A FRIEND AFTER THE DISSOLUTION OF FRIENDSHIP.

      A.  He asks the question. — 1795

Is a person then to behave toward him no differently than if he had not been a friend?

      B.  He answers (it). — 1796

He should remember the former intimacy; and as we think a man ought to act more kindly toward friends than strangers, so he should make some concessions to former friends by reason of past friendship, provided that the separation was not due to extreme wickedness.

COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS

1785. After the Philosopher has investigated the questions pertaining to the preservation of friendship, he now treats the questions dealing with its dissolution. He discusses this point under two headings. First [I] he inquires when a friendship should be dissolved. Then [II], at “Is a person then etc,” he shows how a person should behave towards a friend after the dissolution of friendship. He treats the first point from two aspects. First [I, A] he examines the dissolution of friendship for those who have changed from their former status. Next [I, B], at “if, however, one etc.,” he examines the dissolution of friendship for those who remain in the same status. He handles the first point in a threefold manner. First [A, 1] he proposes the doubt. Second [A, 2], at “It is not surprising etc.,” he offers a solution for friendship based on utility and pleasure; and third [A, 3], at “If, however, a person etc.,” for friendship based on virtue. He says first that a question comes up—should or should not friendship be dissolved for those who do not remain in the same state in which they were friends?

1786. Then [A, 2], at “It is not surprising,” he solves the doubt so far as it concerns useful or pleasurable friendship. First [2, a] he shows in what manner these friendships are destroyed. Next [2, b], at “But someone will etc.,” he explains how just complaints may irisc in them. He observes first that it is not surprising for friendship to be broken up between people who are friends for utility or pleasure when the advantages no longer exist. The reason is that in these friendships men love pleasure and utility, and not the persons for themselves. Hence, when utility or pleasure ceases it is understandable that friendship should cease.

1787. At “But someone will” [2, b] he shows how complaints may justly arise in these friendships. He remarks that someone will fairly complain of a friend who loves for gain or pleasure but pretends to love for virtue. We stated in the beginning of this treatise that there are several varieties of friendship. Hence it is possible that some are not,friends in the way they think they are, i.e., according to the same kind of friendship. For instance, if they are friends for utility and think they are friends for the sake of virtue. In this case, if a man believes he is loved for virtue and deceives himself—the one who loves him contributing nothing to the deception—he ought to blame himself.

1788. But when a person is deceived by the pretense of the other, he can accuse the deceiver even more justly than he could counterfeiters, for the malice of a person pretending virtue consists in an act against a more precious good. Certainly virtue is more precious than money. So people counterfeiting virtue are more wicked than those who forge money.

1789. Next [A, 3], at “If, however, a person,” he answers the question as it concerns friendship based on virtue. First [3, a] he shows that this friendship should be broken off between those who do not remain virtuous; then [3, b], at “Should the friendship etc.,” how it is to be broken off. He treats the first point from two aspects. First [a, i] he repeats the question. if we should admit a person to our friendship as a good man and he later becomes so bad that his wickedness is obvious: should we still love him?

1790. Then [a, ii], at “It is quite,” he answers the question again making two comments. One, it is impossible for the evildoer, whose wickedness is evident, to be loved by a virtuous man who cannot love everything but only the honorable good. Second, it is unreasonable to love a man who has become evil; it is neither useful nor fitting, since a person should not love evil nor become like a perverse man. This might follow if friendship were preserved with an evil man. We have indicated ( 1654) that like makes friends with like; thus it is impossible to maintain friendship with an evil person without becoming somewhat like him in evil.

1791. At “Should the friendship” [3, b] he shows how this friendship should be broken off. First [b, i] he asks the question: should a person immediately dissolve a friendship with a man who has become bad?

1792, Second [b, ii], at “Not always,” he answers the question, replying that we should not immediately break off this friendship with all persons but only with those who are incurable owing to their excessive wickedness (i.e., cannot be returned readily to the path of virtue). But if some would accept guidance so they could come back to a virtuous status, they ought to be given more assistance to regain good morals than lost possessions; for virtue is more noble and more proper to friendship than money. And when someone breaks off friendship with one who has become bad he does not seem to do anything unreasonable, because he was not a friend to a vicious but a virtuous person. Consequently, a friend reasonably withdraws from the friendship with a man who his changed from his previous condition and cannot he regenerated.

1793. Next [I, B], at “If, however, one,” he treats the dissolution of friendship. First [ B, 1] he raises the question. One friend may remain in his former condition but the other becomes more virtuous; and thus a great difference in virtue may exist between the two. Hence the question arises whether the person who has advanced in virtue ought to treat as a friend the other who has made no advance.

1794. Second [B, 2], at “No. He cannot,” he solves the question, observing that it is impossible for the one who is advancing in virtue to continue friendship with him who is standing still. This is especially apparent among friends of the remote past, e.g., in friendships begun in childhood. For, if one remains a child mentally while the other becomes very talented they cannot go on being friends, since they do not have the same tastes, nor are they delighted and pained by the same things. And without this it is impossible to preserve friendship which requires most of all that friends live together. But they cannot live with one another unless they are pleased, delighted, anddistressed by the same objects. These questions have been discussed already (1607-1623).

1795. Then [II], at “Is A person then,” he investigates how someone ought to behave towards a friend after the dissolution of the friendship. First [II, A] he asks the question whether, after severing the friendship, a person should no longer behave on rather friendly terms, just as if he had not been a friend in the past.

1796. Next [II, B], at “He should he answers the question in this wayA man should remember a former intimacy, as we think he should act more kindly towards friends than strangers. So too because of a past friendship a man ought to act more kindly towards persons who were once his friends, except in the one case where separation from the friend was due to his excessive wickedness. For then a man should show no marks of friendliness to another whose friendship he has terminated.

LECTURE 4

The Acts or Effects of Friendship

Chapter 4

I.    HE INDICATES THE EFFECTS OF FRIENDSHIP.

      A.  He lists the effects of friendship.

            1.   HE DESCRIBES THE ORIGIN OF THE EFFECTS... OF FRIENDSHIP. — 1797

Kindly acts done for friends, and the determining factors in friendship, seem to be derived from a man’s attitude towards himself.

            2.   HE LISTS THESE EFFECTS OR ACTS.

                   a.   One consists in the voluntary offering of benefits. — 1798

A friend is defined: (a) as one who wills and does what is good (or apparently good) for the sake of his friend.

                   b.   The second... is proper to good will — 1799

(b) Likewise as one who wills that his friend exist and live for the friend’s sake—mothers feel this toward their children, and former friends toward one another after a quarrel.

                   c.   The third... is proper to concord. — 1800-1801

(c) As one who lives with another and (d) has the same tastes, or (e) shares the same sorrows and joys with his friend. (This, too, happens especially with mothers.) Now friendship will be defined by some one of these characteristics.

      B.  He shows how good men are disposed towards (the effects of friendship).

            1.   HOW A VIRTUOUS PERSON REFERS THESE EFFECTS TO HIMSELF.

                   a.   He proposes his intention. — 1802

Each of these is the standard of the virtuous man in relation to himself, and of other men in relation to themselves inasmuch as they consider themselves virtuous.

                   b.   He gives his reason for his previous remark. — 1803

As we have pointed out, virtue and the virtuous man seem to be a standard for everyone.

                   c.   He clarifies his principal proposition.

                         i.    The virtuous man himself suitably has what is proper to beneficence. — 1804-1805

For he is consistent with himself, always desiring the same things with his whole soul; he wAes for himself both genuine and apparent goods, and produces them. Indeed it is the mark of a good man to take pains to achieve the good, and he does this for himself, i.e., for the sake of the intellectual part which seems to be a man’s real self.

                         ii.   What is proper to goodwill. — 1806-1807

Likewise, he desires his own life and preservation and especially that of his thinking faculty. For existence is a good to a virtuous man and everyone wishes what is good for him. No one would choose to have everything which exists at the price of becoming someone else. (God even now possesses the good, but he always is what he is at any time.) And it seems that the thinking part of man is the man himself or at least the most important part.

                         iii. What is proper to concord.

                               x.   IN REGARD TO COMPANIONSHIP. — 1808

Such a man wishes to converse with himself. He does this with pleasure, for memory of past triumphs is sweet, and hope for the future is encouraging. Besides, his mind is filled with topics for contemplation.

                               y.   THE VIRTUOUS MAN IS AT PEACE WITH HIS OWN PASSIONS. — 1809-1810

He keenly feels his own sorrows and joys, for the same thing is painful or pleasant to his whole being, and not one thing to one part and another to another. To tell the truth, he has few regrets. Therefore, each of these characteristics is attributable to the virtuous man himself.

            2.   HOW HE REFERS (THESE EFFECTS) TO SOMEONE ELSE. — 1811

However, he feels toward his friend as toward himself, for a friend is an other self. Consequently, friendship seems to consist in any of these characteristics, and people who have them are friends.

            3.   HE RAISES A QUESTION. — 1812

But whether a person has friendship for himself is a question that must be dismissed for the present. Friendship seems to exist inasmuch as there are two or more having the characteristics mentioned; and if the b friendship excels it is similar to the love of a man for himself.

      C.  He shows how bad men are disposed towards (the effects of friendship).

            1.   THESE WORKS CANNOT BELONG TO EVIL MEN.

                   a.   He proposes his intention. — 1813

The attributes discussed seem to belong to the greater part of mankind who, though wicked, apparently have a share of them insofar as they are satisfied with themselves and think themselves virtuous. But none of the thoroughly perverse or wicked either actually have these attributes or appear to have them; even the lesser evildoers hardly have them.

                   b.   He explains his proposition.

                         i.    Bad men are not suitable to have the work belonging to beneficence. — 1814

They differ, though, from one another in desiring one pleasure and wishing for another; they are like the incontinent who choose harmful pleasures instead of those that they really think are good for them. Again, others from faintheartedness or laziness avoid doing what they are convinced is in their best interests.

                         ii.   Nor that belonging to good will. — 1815

But those who commit many cruel deeds and are hated for their wickedness seek to avoid living, and take their own life.

                         iii. Nor that belonging to concord.

                               x.   REGARDING COMPANIONSHIP. — 1816

Wicked people therefore seek association with their own kind; they cannot stand themselves, being mindful of many unpleasant deeds in the past and believing, if alone, they will do the same in the future. But when in the company of others they are disposed to forget. Thus they do not experience friendship for themselves, having nothing in them worth loving.

                               y.   WITH THEIR PASSIONS. — 1817

People of this sort neither rejoice nor grieve with themselves, for their soul is at the same time delighted and distressed when abstaining from certain pleasures. Thus it is drawn this way and that as if by conflicting forces.

                               z.   HE ELIMINATES A DOUBT. — 1818

If it is impossible to grieve and rejoice at the same time, it is still true that a person can regret after a little while that he indulged in pleasures and wish that he had not acquired a taste for them. In fact a bad man is filled with remorse. It seems then that the evil person is not amicably inclined even towards himself, for he has nothing lovable about him.

            2.   HE DEDUCES A COROLLARY. — 1819

If to be in such a state is wretched, a man ought to shun evil with great ardor and make every effort to be virtuous. In this way he will acquire friendship for himself and will become a friend of another.

COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS

1797. After the Philosopher has defined the preservation and dissolution of friendship, he now treats its effects. First [I] he indicates the effects of friendship. Then [Lect. 5; II], at “Goodwill resembles etc.” (B.1166 b 30), he describes them. He discusses the first point in a threefold manner. First [I, A] he lists the effects of friendship. Second [I, B], at “Each of these etc.,” he shows how good men are disposed towards them; third [I, C], how bad men are disposed towards them, at “The attributes discussed etc.” He treats the first point under two aspects. First [A, 1] he describes the origin of the effects or acts of friendship. Next [A, 2], at “A friend is defined etc.,” he lists these effects or acts. He says first that the kindnesses and friendly acts that are done by a man for a friend and are the determining factors in friendship seem to have their origin in his attitudes towards himself. Thus it seems that one person is a friend of another if he acts the same way for a friend as he might for himself.

1798. Next [A, 2], at “A friend is defined,” he lists the works of friendship, which are three. One consists in the voluntary offering of benefits [2, a]. He observes that people consider someone a friend who wills and does what is good or apparently good for the sake of his friend. He says “wills and does” because one without the other is not enough for friendship. In fact the good deed does not seem to be friendly if a person unwillingly benefits another or neglects to do his will by action. He says “what is good or apparently good” because now and then someone for friendship gives another presents he thinks good for the other, though they are not. He says “for the sake of his friend” because if a man were voluntarily to give benefits to another not-as it were-intending the other’s good but his own (e.g., when an owner feeds a horse because he derives profit for himself), he does not seem to be a friend of that person but of himself.

1799. The second work, which he describes at “Likewise as one who wills etc.,” is proper to goodwill [2, b]. He remarks that a friend wills his friend to be and to live for his friend’s sake and not for his own, as would be the case were he to seek only personal gain from him. Mothers feel this way towards their children, i.e., will their existence and life. Friends, too, have a similar feeling toward one another when a misunderstanding occurs in their friendship. Even though they do not want to live together on friendly terms because of the misunderstanding, at least they wish their friends to exist and live.

1800. The third work is described at “As one who lives etc.,” and is proper to concord [2, c]. This can be considered in reference to three characteristics. The first refers to exterior association; the second to discrimination; the third to the emotional states which always end in joy or sorrow. Hence he observes that people call someone a friend who has close contact with another (the first characteristic), has the same tastes (the second), and shares sorrows and joys (the third). These are also noticed in mothers with respect to their children.

1801. He adds, by way of summary, so to speak, that friendship is defined by some one of these characteristics; for people think there is friendship in men having any one of these qualities.

1802. Then [I, B], at “Each of these,” he shows how good men are constituted in this matter. First [B, 1] he shows how a virtuous person refers these effects to himself; next [B, 2], at “However, he feels etc.,” how he refers them to someone else. Last [B, 3] at “But whether a person etc.,” he raises a question. He considers the first point under three aspects. First [1, a] he proposes his intention. Second [ 1, b], at “As we have pointed out etc.,” he gives his reason for his previous remark. Third [i, cl, at “For he is consistent etc.,” he clarifies his principal proposition. He says first that all these characteristics belong to a virtuous man in relation to himself, and they belong to other men who are not virtuous in relation to themselves at least inasmuch as they think they are virtuous.

1803. At “As we have pointed out” [1, b] he gives his reason for what is referred to under the second heading. Every man in fact does friendly acts for himself insofar as he considers himself virtuous, since virtue and the good man seem to be a standard for everyone. For what is the perfect being in any order of reality must be considered a measure in that order, because all other things are judged more or less perfect according as they approach or recede from what is most perfect. Consequently, since virtue is the proper perfection of man and the virtuous man is perfect in the human species, this should be taken as the measure in all man’s affairs.

1804. Next [1, c], at “For he is consistent,” he clarifies his principal proposition. First [c, i] he shows that the virtuous man himself suitably has what is proper to beneficence; second [c, ii], what is proper to goodwill, at “Likewise, he desires etc.”; third [c, iii], what is proper to concord, at “Such a man etc.” He says first that the virtuous man desires for himself both genuine and apparent goods, for these latter are identical with genuine goods for him; the reason is that he wishes the goods of virtue, the real good of man. Nor is this desire ineffective in him, but he produces these goods for himself because it is a mark of a good man to labor for the achievement of good.

1805. We said in the second book that virtue makes its possessor good and his work good (222, 307, 309)And the virtuous person wants this and acts for himself, i.e., for the sake of the intellectual element which is foremost in man. Indeed everything seems to be especially what is foremost in it. But the virtuous man strives always to do what is reasonable. It is evident then that he always wishes for himself the absolute good.

18o6. Then [c, ii], at “Likewise, he desires,” he shows that the virtuous man himself suitably has what belongs to goodwill. The Philosopher remarks that the virtuous man especially wishes himself life and conservation in being chiefly for that part of the soul where wisdom resides. If a man is virtuous he must want what is good for him because everyone desires good things for himself. But the good of a virtuous man is that he be virtuous.

1807. However, if a man were to become something else—e.g., if he were transformed into a stone or an ass as the fables relate—he would not trouble himself about whether he had all good things in his transformed state. For that reason everyone wishes himself to exist so that his identity is preserved. But the being that remains identical in his existence is God; he does not wish himself some good he does not now possess but possesses perfect good in himself. He always is what he is at any time, since he is unchangeable. Now we are like God most of all by our intellect which is incorruptible and unchgnueable, Therefore every man’s existence is thought of in terms of his intellect. Hence, a virtuous ho lives entirely according to his intellect and reason especially wishes himself to exist and to live. He also wishes himself to exist and live according to what is permanent in him. On the other hand a person who wishes himself to exist and live chiefly in terms of his body, which is subject to change, does not really wish to be and to live.

1808. At “Such a man etc.” [c, iii] he shows how a virtuous man appropriately has in himself what is proper to concord. First [iii, x] in regard to companionship; he remarks that the virtuous man wishes most of all to converse with himself by turning to his soul and meditating alone. He does this with pleasure: first regarding the memory of past events since the recollection of former triumphs is sweet to him; second regarding hope for the future, for he anticipates success and this is pleasant to him; third regarding present knowledge, for his mind is filled with reflections, i.e., true and useful deliberations.

18og. Second [iii, y], at “He keenly etc.” Aristotlb shows that the virtuous man is at peace with his own passions. He keenly feels his own sorrows and joys since the same thing is painful or pleasant to his whole being (i.e., both the sensitive and intellectual part) and not one thing to one part and another to another. The reason is that his sensitive power is subject to reason to such an extent that it obeys reason’s prompting, or at least does not resist; for the virtuous man is not led by the passions of the sensitive part so that when passion subsides he must repent of having acted against reason. But he always acts according to reason and does not readily have regrets. Thus he is at peace with himself.

1810. He concludes by way of epilogue that the characteristics discussed are appropriate to a virtuous man in relation to himself.

1811. Next [B, 2], at “However, he feels,” he shows how a virtuous man should adapt these characteristics to his friend. Aristotle notes that a virtuous man is disposed to his friend as to himself because a friend is—so to speak—another self by affection, that is, a person feels for a friend what he feels for himself. Consequently, it seems that friendship consists in any of these characteristics that people experience toward themselves; and that those are real friends who have these characteristics.

1812. Then [ B, 3], at “But whether a person,” he raises a question—does a man have friendship toward himself? He observes that this question must be postponed since it is a semantic problem rather than a real one. Friendship seems to exist among any persons who possess two or three of the characteristics mentioned. And when the friendship for others excels, it is similar to the love a man has for himself. Consequently, someone wishing to prove his friendship for another is accustomed to say “I love you as myself.” Hence it doesn’t really make any difference whether the word frienship is applied to self, because the reality of friendship abundantly belongs to a man in regard to himself.

1813. At “The attributes discussed” [I, C] he shows how bad men are disposed toward these works of friendship. First [C, 1] he shows that these works cannot belong to evil men. Second [C, 2], at “If to be in such etc.,” he deduces a corollary from the discussion. He treats the first point from two aspects. First [C, 1, a] he proposes his intention. Then [C, 1, b], at “They differ, though etc.,” he explains his proposition. He says first that these works of friendship seem to belong to many in respect to themselves in spite of the fact that they are evil men. However, we must understand that the more they share in these works of friendship for themselves the more they are satisfied with themselves and think they are virtuous. But those who are completely perverse or wicked neither resort to these works nor seem to live together; and scarcely any evil man finds such behavior agreeable to him. Indeed there are few evil men who think they are virtuous or who are unaware of their wickedness.

1814. Next [C, 1, b], at “They differ, though,” he explains his proposition. First [b, i] he shows that bad men are not suitable to have the work of friendship belonging to beneficence; second, nor that belonging to goodwill, at “But those who etc.” [b, ii]; third, nor that belonging to concord, at “Wicked people, therefore etc.” [b, iii]. He remarks first that bad men are at odds with themselves because they desire some pleasures agreeing with their sensitive appetite at the same time that they wish others agreeing with their reason. Such is obviously the case with the incontinent who want harmful pleasures instead of those they reasonably judge good. Others from faintheartedness and laziness neglect to do what they know is good. Thus they are doubly lacking in beneficence towards themselves: in one way, so far as they do what is harmful; in the other, so far as they shun what is beneficial.

1815. Then [b, ii], at “But those who,” he shows that they are not suitable to have the work that belongs to goodwill. He observes that criminals who have perpetrated many frightful deeds-so that their very personalities are hated by men-do not want to exist or live. But life becomes a burden for them because they know that they are offensive. And they actually so flee from life that they sometimes do away with themselves.

1816. At “Wicked people, therefore” [b, iii] he shows that evil men are not suitable to have the work that belongs to concord. First lb, iii, x] regarding companionship. Evil men cannot converse with themselves by turning to their soul but they seek to associate with others by speaking and co-operating with them in external words and works. They act in this way because when thinking alone about themselves they remember many distressing evils they committed in the past and they are convinced they will do the same in the future-this is painful to them. But when they are in company they forget their wrongdoings in the distraction of external activities. So, since they have nothing in themselves worth loving, they feel no love for themselves.

1817. Second [b, iii, y], at “People of this sort,” be explains that they can not find internal peace with their passions. He observes that people of this sort are not conscious of their own joys and sorrows. In fact their soul struggles against itself, for the sensitive part resists the reason. On the one hand it grieves, when withdrawing from pleasures, because of evil that dominates it and causes distress in the sensitive part; and on the other hand it rejoices according to reason that judges evil pleasures are to be avoided. In this way one part of the soul draws an evil man one way, but the other part draws him the opposite way; just as if his soul were rent into conflicting drives and fought with itself.

1818. Third [b, iii, z], at it is impossible’ he eliminates a doubt. Someone might contend that it is impossible for an evil person to grieve and rejoice at the same time about the same matter; and it is true so far as the two experiences are concerned, although each can be caused at the same time in different parts of the soul. He maintains then that if a wicked man cannot be pained and pleased at the same time, nevertheless shortly after the gratification he is saddened that he was delighted a moment ago, and wishes he had not indulged in such pleasures. Indeed evil men are filled with remorse because, after the impulse of evil or passion that caused the wickedness subsides, their reason tells them they did wrong and they are remorseful. It is obvious then that evil men are not inclined to friendship for themselves, for they have nothing in them worthy of friendship.

18 19. At “If to be in such” [ C, 2 ] he concludes from the premises that, if it is so extremely wretched to live without friendship for oneself, we ought to shun evil with increased ardor, and make every effort to become virtuous. For in this way a person will have friendship for himself and be capable of becoming a friend to others.

LECTURE 5

Goodwill

Chapter 5

II.  HE NOW TREATS (THE ACTS OF FRIENDSHIP) INDIVIDUALLY.

      A.  Concerning goodwill which consists in an interior affection for a person.

            1.   GOOD WILL IS NOT FRIENDSHIP.

                   a.   In its habitual character.

                         i.    He states his intention. — 1820

Goodwill resembles but is not really friendship.

                         ii.   He proves his statement. — 1821

For goodwill may be felt towards people who are unknown to us or who are unaware of it, but not friendship—questions we have discussed already.

                   b.   Nor is it love in terms of passion (for two reasons).

                         i.    First. — 1822

Nor is it love, for it does not include intensity or desire; and these effects follow love.

                         ii.   Second.

                               a.   He proves (it). — 1823

Moreover, love is accompanied by familiarity while goodwill may arise suddenly, as it does toward athletes in contests; spectators become well disposed and sympathetic to the contestants but will take no active part, for they feel goodwill suddenly and love only superficially.

            2.   (GOODWILL) IS THE BEGINNING OF FRIENDSHIP.

                   a.   He proves it. — 1824-1825

Goodwill certainly seems to be the beginning of friendship, as pleasure derived from seeing is the beginning of love. For no one loves who has not been first delighted by what he has seen. However, a man who delights in the form of another does not therefore love him; but there is love if he desires the beloved when he is absent and longs for his presence. In a similar way people cannot become friends unless they first have goodwill. But they are not therefore friends, since the benevolent only wish good to others but are neither active in their behalf nor distressed by their misfortunes. Therefore, by extension of meaning, goodwill can be called an ineffective friendship, though it does develop into friendship from continual and habitual goodwill.

                   b.   Which friendship has goodwill as its beginning.

                         i.    Which... does not have.

                               x.   HE STATES HIS INTENTION. — 1826

But it is not friendship based on utility nor that based on pleasure.

                               y.   HE PROVES HIS STATEMENT. — 1827-1828

For there is no place for goodwill in these friendships. In that for utility the recipient is merely acting justly when he returns goodwill for benefits received; and the person who wishes another to prosper in the hope of getting rich by means of him does not seem to have goodwill to the other but to himself. Likewise, a man is not a friend who is anxious about someone in order to make some use of him.

                         ii.   Which (friendship) does (have goodwill as its beginning). — 1829

As a general rule goodwill is created by reason of virtue and equity when a person seems to another to be good or brave or the like in the way competing athletes do, as we have pointed out.

COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS

1820. After the Philosopher has shown what the works of friendship are and who does them, he now treats the works individually [II]. These works of friendship can be reduced to three: beneficence, goodwill, and concord-as we have indicated ( 1789-1801). So he now delineates the three of them. First [II, A], concerning goodwill that consists in an interior affection for a person. Second [Lect. 6; II B], at “Likewise, concord etc.” (B. 1167 a 21), concerning concord which consists also in affection but based on personal considerations. Third [Lect. 7; II, C], at “Benefactors seem etc.” (B.1167 b 16), concerning beneficence that consists in exterior proof of friendship. He considers two aspects of the first point. First [A, 1] he shows that goodwill is not friendship; then [A, 2], at “Goodwill certainly etc.,” that it is the beginning of friendship. He discusses the first point in a twofold manner. First [i, a] he shows that goodwill is not friendship in its habitual character; next [i, b], at Nor is it etc.,” nor is it love in terms here of passion, as noted in the eighth book (1602). He treats the first point under two headings. First [a, i] he states his intention, observing that goodwill seems to resemble friendship inasmuch as all friends must be of goodwill.

1821. Second [a, ii], at “For goodwill may be,” he proves his statement by two arguments. The first is that goodwill can be felt for strangers whose acquaintance one does not have from familiar association. But this is impossible in friendship. The second argument is that goodwill can be unknown to the person who has our goodwillthis cannot be said of friendship. These questions were discussed in the beginning of the eighth book (1560).

1822. Then [1, b], at “Nor is it love,” he shows that goodwill is not love for two reasons. The first [1, b, i] is that goodwill does not include intensity of soul or desire, i.e., passion of the sensitive appetite which by its impulse extends the soul with a kind of violence towards an enticing object. This occurs in the passions of love but not in goodwill, which consists in a simple movement of the will.

1823. He assigns the second reason at “Moreover, love” [1, b, ii]. He remarks that love is accompanied by familiarity, for it indicates a vehement impulse of the soul, as was just stated. But the soul is not accustomed to be moved instantly and with vehemence towards an object, but is led gradually to what is greater. Therefore, love increases by means of familiarity. But, since goodwill implies a simple movement of the will, it can arise suddenly, for instance, when people watch athletic contests. The spectators become kindly disposed to one of the two contestants and would be pleased if this particular athlete won. However, they would do nothing to bring this about, because men are instantly benevolent and love superficially, i.e., according to a mere feeble movement of the will that does not break forth into action.

1824. Next [A, 2], at “Goodwill certainly,” he shows that goodwill is the beginning of friendship. He handles this point in a twofold manner. First [2, a] he proves that goodwill is the beginning of friendship. Second [2, b], at “But it is not etc.,” he shows which friendship has goodwill as its beginning. He observes that goodwill is called the beginning of friendship, as pleasure at the sight of a woman is the beginning of love for her. For no one begins to love a woman unless he has been first delighted by her beauty. However, when a man is pleased at the sight of a woman’s form he does not immediately love her. But it is sign of complete love that he desires her, as if he feels her absence keenly and longs for her presence when she is absent. The same is true of friendship and goodwill, for it is impossible for people to be friends unless they have goodwill first.

1825. Nevertheless, they cannot be called friends from the fact that they have goodwill, because people of goodwill merely wish good to the objects of their benevolence; but not to the extent of doing good deeds for them nor of being distressed by their misfortunes. Consequently, it can be said, changing our way of speaking, that goodwill is a kind of lazy friendship because it is not joined with any friendly activity. But when a person continues a long time in goodwill and becomes used to wishing well to anyone, his soul is strengthened in willing good, so that his will is not idle but active. In this way friendship arises.

1826. At “But it is not” [2, b] he shows which friendship has goodwill as its beginning. First [2, b, i] which friendship does not have goodwill as its beginning; then [2, b, ii], at “As a general rule,” which does. He discusses the first point in a twofold manner. First [i, x] he states his intention. He notes that goodwill is not raised by length of time and habit to the genuine kind of friendship that is based on utility or pleasure.

1827. Second [i, y], at “For there is no place,” he proves his statement. Goodwill does not develop into that friendship which has no room for it. But goodwill has no place in the friendships just mentioned. This is obvious in pleasurable friendship where each friend desires from the other his own enjoyment—a thing that is sometimes accompanied by harm to the other, thus destroying goodwill. However, goodwill is possible in useful friendship, so far as concerns the recipient of benefits; for he returns goodwill at least for the benefits he has received, if he acts justly.

1828. If one wishes another to be healthy and prosperous because he hopes to have an abundance of possessions through the other, he does not seem to have goodwill toward that other, from whom he hopes to become rich, but towards himself. Likewise a person does not seem to be a friend of someone who is anxious about that person’s good for his own advantage, i.e., in order to make some use of him.

1829. Then [2, b, ii], at “As a general rule,” he shows which friendship has goodwill as its beginning. Aristotle remarks that in general goodwill seems to exist for a person because of his virtue and equity; it seems to someone that the person, towards whom he is benevolent, is good or brave or the like—qualities which people are accustomed to praise. He notes this reaction we have manifested toward athletes for whom we have goodwill on account of the courage or similar virtue they seem to possess.

LECTURE 6

Concord

Chapter 6

(II) B. He now considers concord.

      1.   HE EXPLAINS ITS NATURE.

            a.   The category of concord. — 1830

Likewise, concord seems to belong to friendship, and for this reason it is not identity of opinion that can exist among people unknown to one another.

            b.  Its subject matter.

                   i.    What ... it does not concern. — 1831

Nor do we say that people are in concord who agree on any subject whatsoever, for example, the heavenly bodies. For common agreement on these questions does not pertain to the notion of friendship.

                   ii.   The matters within concord’s competence.

                         x.   IN GENERAL — 1832

But we do say that citizens of a state are in concord when they agree on what is useful and vote for the same measures, and work together to achieve them. Therefore they have concord about things to be done,

                         y.   IN PARTICULAR — 1833-1835

which concern important matters capable of achievement by both or all parties. Thus the cit zens are in concord when they all think that public officials should be elected, or that they should become allies of the Spartans, or that Pittacus should be their ruler (when he is also willing to rule). But when two rivals want power, like the rivals in the Phoenissae [Euripides, The Phoenician Maidens, 588], they introduce discord. For there is no concord when each of the parties wants something for himself, but only when they want it for the same person, as the common people and the upper classes wish the best men torAile. In this case everyone gets what he strives after.

      2.   HOW (CONCORD) IS RELATED TO FRIENDSHIP AMONG CITIZENS. — 1836

Concord then seems to be friendship among citizens, as is commonly held. For it deals with affairs that advance their interests and concern their lives.

      3.   HE INDICATES THE POSSESSOR OF CONCORD.

            a.   It is found among virtuous men. — 1837-1838

Now this kind of concord is found among virtuous men, for they are in accord with themselves and with one another, being, so to speak, of one mind. Their wills remain constant and do not ebb and flow, like Euripos. They desire what is just and useful, and work together for these goals.

            b.  (It) is not found among bad men. — 1839

But it is impossible for vicious men to agree-except in a trifling way—just as it is impossible for them to be friends; for they desire a full share of the advantages but shirk their portion of labor and service. And while each man is intent on gaining these profits he watches his neighbor to prevent him from obtaining them (the public good is destroyed by lack of vigilance!). Consequently, contention arises when they force each other to give way but are unwilling to render justice them selves.

COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS

1830, After the Philosopher has defined goodwill, he now [II, B] considers concord. First [B, 1] he explains its nature; then 113, 21, at “Concord then etc how it is related to friendship among citizens. He discusses the first point under two aspects. First [1, a] he investigates the category of concord; second [1, b], at “Nor do we say etc.,” its subject matter. He says first that concord seems to belong to the category of friendship. We have already pointed out (1800) that friends characteristically make the same choices, and the formal reason of concord consists in this. obviously then concord is not homodoxia, meaning identity of opinion. It can happen that people who do not know one another hold the same opinion, although there is no concord among them, as there is no friendship.

1831. Then [1, b], at “Nor do we say,” he examines the subject matter of concord. First [b, i] he shows what matters it does not concern. He observes that men are not said to be in concord who agree on any subject whatsoever, like people who hold the same opinion about speculative questions, the heavenly bodies for instance. Common agreement on these truths does not pertain to the concept of friendship, because friendship arises from preference; but judgment in speculative problems is not derived from compulsory preference. Consequently, nothing prevents some friends from holding different views and others the same view& on these questions. It is evident then that concord, which pertains to the notion of friendship, does not deal with matters of this kind.

1832. Second [b, ii], at “But we do,” he shows the matters within concord’s competence. First [ii, x] he explains in general that it is concerned with things to be done. He remarks that citizens of a state are said to have concord among themselves when they agree on what is useful, so that they vote for the same measures and work together on projects they consider for their interests. Thus it is evident that concord deals with things to be done.

1833. Then [ii, y], at “which concern,” he explains in particular with what practicable matters concord is concerned. He indicates two kinds. One, that it refers to affairs having some importance; for people do not disrupt concord because of disagreement over minor points. The other, that matters of concord are of such a nature that they can belong to both agreeing parties, or even to all men or citizens of a state. if someone agrees with another that he may have what no one can possibly have, it is not of much concern to concord.

1834. He offers as an illustration states that are said to have concord, for example, when all the citizens hold the same opinion, that rulers should be determined by election and not by lot or succession; when the Athenians think they should form a military alliance with the Spartans to fight together against common enemies; when all the citizens agree that a particular man, Pindar, let us say, should be ruler (if however he be willing to rule). At such times people who have these wishes are said to be in concord.

1835. But when each wishes to rule they begin to quarrel, like the characters in the play Phoenissae. Indeed concord does not consist in the fact that both should wish good for themselves, however much there may seem to be a similarity to an equitable will, since everyone wishes good to himself. On the contrary it is a cause of discord. But in order to have concord, men must agree on the same numerical thing. For example, the common people and the upper classes are in agreement that the best men should rule. In this way, when everyone concurs in the same objective, all get what they are striving for.

1836. Next [B, 2], at “Concord then,” he shows how concord is related to friendship among citizens. He notes that political friendship, either between citizens of the same state or between different states, seems to be identical with concord. And people usually speak of it in this way: that states or citizens of one mind have friendship for one another.

1837. At “Now this kind” [B, 3] he indicates the possessor of concord. First [3, a] he shows that it is found among virtuous men; then [3, b], at “But it is impossible etc.,” that it is not found among bad men. He observes first that concord of the sort we have defined is found among those who are virtuous. These men behave in such a way that they are in accord with themselves and one another inasmuch as they do not change their mind either regarding choices or works. The reason is that good men seemingly are not given to regrets; we have already noted this (1592). He adds “so to speak” because it is impossible for men to have absolute immutability in this life.

1838. To explain the statement, he subjoins that they are of the same mind because the wills of these men remain fixed in good and do not change from one object to another, like Euripos, a strait along the coast of Greece where the water ebbs and flows. Such virtuous men wish what is just and useful, and they work together for these goals.

1839. Then [3, b], at “But it is impossible,” he shows that concord is not found among vicious men. He remarks that bad men cannot agree, except perhaps in a trifling way, any more than they can be friends. Consequently, they cannot be of one mind because they want more than their share of all the advantages but are unwilling to bear the labors-performed by the community and incumbent on them-and administrations, i.e., expenses or services of any kind. And while each one wishes this: to have more of the benefits and less of the burdens, he inquires about his neighbor and prevents him from obtaining what he himself covets. Thus while the common good of justice is not preserved, the common possession of concord among them is destroyed. In this way contention arises when a person forces another to observe justice towards him while he himself is not willing to render justice to the other but wants more advantages and less disadvantages—a condition that is against the equality of justice.

p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in">LECTURE 7

Beneficence

Chapter 7

(II) C. He now considers beneficence.

      1.   HE STATES AN INCIDENT CONNECTED WITH IT. — 1840

Benefactors seem to love those they have benefited, more than those who are well treated love their benefactors.

      2.   HE RAISES A QUESTION. — 1841

This seems unreasonable and we look for an explanation.

      3.   HE ANSWERS THE QUESTION.

            a.   He gives an apparent reason. — 1842-1843

Many people think the reason is that beneficiaries are debtors while benefactors are creditors. Just as in the case of loans, borrowers wish that the lenders d