Love & Friendship
Lecture 5: Love of Wanting versus Love of Wishing Well

Transcript
================================================================================

And now you move to the third stage, where you begin to, what, start loving God for his own sake, right? And then he says the fourth stage is when you start loving yourself for the sake of God. He says that's hard to ever realize in this life, right? Perfectly in the next life, huh? But notice that you're passing from the love of wanting there, right, to the love of, what, wishing well, right? Okay. You're seeking God's glory now, see? Will St. Thomas, at some point, not in what we're going to be covering, but does he at some point take up those divisions of St. Bernard into his own work, as those four divisions, does he employ those in the story? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. He'll take up a lot of things from Bernard, like Bernard's various stages of humility and so on. He'll take them, yeah, yeah. I don't know if he takes up that formally, but maybe he'll talk about those two. All kinds of love for God, right? See? Now, what do I have for another person, you see? And I often take the example of the students in class, romantic love, right, huh? And what kind of love really is that, see? And I think if they're honest with them when they think about it, right, they realize that they have the love of wanting, huh? You see? Then when you walk into that dance and you see that beautiful girl over there, right? She's the good you want for yourself. You're not thinking, I'm good for her. After y'all, you know? No, you're thinking that she's good for you. Right? And you're not thinking at all that you're good for her. Right? See? So you have only the love of wanting for her, right? And sometimes, I suppose, you know, if a girl's very beautiful, but all she experiences is that men have this love of wanting for her, right? She's looking for something, you know, better than that, huh? See? And, oh, she's getting the love of wanting, right? They're all approaching her as the good they want for themselves. But they're not really wishing well to her, though. You see? So, I mean, it's very concrete there, right, huh? What kind of love do you have of another person, right? It could be either one, right? And this love of wanting, maybe it's enough, right? Maybe it starts there in some cases, and even with a cat, maybe. And it could go on to the other kind of love. You know? Yeah. Can it be in some cases that both actions would come together at the same time? Well, you could have both, yeah. Yeah, there's still two different kinds of love, I think. But it's kind of a common place, you know, when the mother, for some reason, is away for a week or two, you know? And some men are pretty helpless when the wife is away, and the kids are pretty helpless, you know? And they're not eating right, and they're not getting things washed, and so on, you know? But you hear the mother complain, and when she comes back, you know, they've missed all the things that she does to them, right? You know? And that they, you know, only have the love of wanting. They don't put that in formal terms, but I mean, in a sense, they're feeling right that she's not there doing all these things that she usually does for them, right? So this is not ready, that's not ready, and nobody made the lunch, nobody fixed a nice dinner, nobody did this, nobody did that, right? But the mother kind of is a little bit offended by that, right? Okay? And my mother always tells us a little interesting story, too, I guess, one time. She's given, I don't know, two or three of us, you know, very little. The bath in the bathtub, right, huh? You know, sometimes the kids come out and question, you know, out of the blue, that they get a 20-month. And apparently one of us asked her to know, Mommy, what would happen to us if something happened to you, see? You know? And Christ, her first, you know, reaction was to assure us, you know, well, Aunt Margaret and Aunt Helen would come and take care of you. Oh, oh, okay, okay. She almost got a little let down, you know, that they would, you know, be so relieved, the idea that Aunt Margaret and Aunt Helen, you know, as their sisters, would come and take care of you, you know, and you'd be, you know, so what, quickly, as much as the reaction, the first reaction was to assure us, you know, that we would be taken care of, right, if something happened to her, you know, she must step in here. At least she had to say, found a little singing, you know, a little, when, when, uh, uh, the kid was so completely relieved by the knowledge of the dogma. You see what I mean? Yeah, yeah, yeah. See? So sometimes, you know, even to our own mothers, right, you know, we have this love of wanting, if you're, you know. Love is very much that, usually. So you see the distinction there, right? When I say I love you, do I mean that I wish well to you, right? Or do I mean that you're the good I want for myself? It's an enormous difference, isn't it? Whether you're talking about God or talking about any other person. Now, he says this division is according to before and after. What does that mean? It means these are not love equally, right? For that which is loved by the love of friendship, by the love of wishing well, is simply without qualification and through itself loved. But what is love by the love of wanting is not simply by itself loved, but is loved for what? Another, right? So if the rich girl is being pursued by the man, right? And she says, do you love me or do you love my money? And so in a fit of honesty, he says, well, to tell you the truth, I love you for your money. But then she'd probably say, you don't love me, right? Because that's not the little friendship, right? See? So simply and without qualification, she'd say, you don't love me, right? Okay? But what is love by the love of wanting is not simply and by itself loved, but is loved for another. And he makes the distinction here that we have in, we talk about being. For just as being simply is what is existence, and being in some respect, what is in another. That's the distinction in philosophy between the substance and the accident, right? So, when I was generated, I came to be. Period. When I walked into this room, I came to be in this room. I didn't come to be, right? And when I die, I will cease to be. When I walk out of this room, I won't cease to be, I don't think anyway, but I will cease to be in this room. This is the kind of distinction between simply and but. in some limited way, right? Okay. A very important kind of distinction and corresponds to the second kind of mistake outside of speech. Mistake of mixing up, right? What is so simply and what is so in some limited, qualified sense. Okay? A very interesting mistake that we make, huh? So also the good, which is convertible with being, is simply what has goodness. But what is the good of another is good only in a limited sense. And consequently, the love by which is love something so that good might be for it is to love simply. But the love by which something is love that it might be the good of another is love in some respect, huh? Okay? So if I love the girl because she pleases me, right, and I don't wish well to her. Do I really love her? See? Only in a very qualified sense, right? Okay? And I assume that I love the wine. I love the candy, right? Okay? They please me. You please me, therefore. I remember a girl one time in one of my courses there, you know, and I said, they actually reflect on what you say, you know, and what kind of love that you have and, you know, other things and stuff. But she was reflecting on her parents that apparently a rather stable marriage, right? I mean, marriage didn't last, a lot of marriages don't last these days. And this marriage didn't last, you know. And she says, they really did wish well to each other. She could see that, right? And that's why they stayed, what? Together, huh? She hadn't saw it. It's kind of good that she saw that, you know? And saw it in a case that, you know, she must have been reflecting upon the love of her parents and realized that they had the love of wishing well, right? But some people go into marriage having only the love of wanting for each other, huh? And when the girl's beauty is somewhat lost, there's another more beautiful one comes along or something like that, right? You see? Well, there's a more attractive one comes along than I want her, right? You know, goodbye. You see? And, uh... The woman is a gold digger or something, right? The more wealthy comes along, right? There's more to offer, right? So if you get married with only the love of wanting, you see, that's not enough, is it? And the same way, you know, in an approaching God. If you're just the love of wanting of God, you don't have charity, huh? Charity is a love of wishing well, right? Okay? It's not a love of wanting, huh? Even that comes first for us, right? That comes up sometimes when you talk about the order of generation, you know, that's in Augustine and others talk about, that faith is generated first and then hope, and then charity, and that comes up in the verbum there, in the premium. So by believing we might come to hope, and by hoping we might come to love. And people say, well, how can hope be before love? Because hope is, what, involves desire, and therefore presupposes some love, doesn't it? Well, that love you have of God before you have charity would be more a love of what? Wanting, right? Okay? And that might, that would come first, right? Before it's more perfect love, huh? Where you wish God's honor and glory, right? Okay? Hallowed be thy name, right? The first petition there, right? And then thy kingdom come to us. But it's thy kingdom too. So that's a very interesting distinction, huh? And most people don't make it very clearly, huh? As I say, um, in other words, it says it's probably the first objection, because people must understand what you mean by the love of friendship, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that love is not divided by friendship and wanting, but by the love of friendship and of wanting. So what does it mean? For the one to whom we wish some good is properly called a friend, huh? But what we wish for ourselves is said to what? Want, right? Okay? And to this, he says, is clear the solution to the second, huh? The second one is taking the love of wanting as being the same thing as wanting, right? Okay? But it's a kind of what? I can be said to like candy, right? That's a kind of love, isn't it? Okay? But candy is the good I want for myself. Okay? I'm not wishing well to the candy, because I'm going to chew it and destroy it. You know? Right? So, I mean, there's a possibility of misunderstanding those first two objections, right? Okay? Though the one love is named from friendship and the other from wanting, you don't mean friendship and wanting, right? It's kind of funny the word of, why it's used sometimes. When I say the city of Worcester, what do I mean? The city that belongs to Worcester or something? No, I mean the city that is Worcester, right? Yeah. So sometimes we use that word of in that way, don't we? Like the name of Christ, right? The name that is Christ, right? Okay? But the city of Worcester is a bad example. So when you say the love of friendship, the love of wanting, you don't mean the love that is friendship, the love that is wanting, right? But you're naming them, right? Because in true friendship, or perfect friendship, right, the love you should have for someone else is the love of wishing well, right? So it might be better to name the love of wishing well, but this is already consecrated in the language, right? And the love of wanting is not the wanting itself, right? But the liking of the good that you will want for yourself if you don't have it, right? So I can be said to love candy, and that's not the same as my wanting candy. My wanting candy arises when I don't have any candy. Yes, eh? But you're naming the liking of candy. The love of wanting, right? Not the love that is the wanting. Okay? So there's two objections. Do you follow that? Do you follow that? Do you follow that? Do you follow that? Do you follow that? Do you follow that? Those two objections are, they're based on them. Okay, now the third objection is a little bit different in saying, hey, you're speaking of love or friendship, but there's love, there's three kinds of friendship, right? Okay. It says, to the third it ought to be said that in the friendship of the useful and the pleasant, one does wish some good to the friend, right? Okay. Now, what I'm thinking of, you know, sometimes I notice the students write a paper on this, they'll sometimes want to go and say, you know, the love of, the friendship of the useful is not really friendship, you know, but I've known, like, say, plumbers and carpenters, right? You know, you get a plumber, comes out to do something in your house, let's say, right? And while he's there, you talk about how some carpentry you need done, right? He might recommend this carpenter to you, right? And his friend, the carpenter, right, is doing some carpentry for somebody and they've got a plumbing problem and he recommends this plumber, right? Okay? And he finds this thing with doctors, you know, huh? You know, you're a specialty in one thing, and so I meet somebody who has an ailment that's not my specialty, well, I'll send it to you because that's your specialty, right? Then you have someone who has an ailment that is out of your line, so to speak, but it's my specialty, right? So you send it more to me, right? So we really wish, in a sense, to be useful to each other, don't we, right? Or you and I, we both, you know, work on the stock market or something, right? And I pass you on a hot tip, you know, and you, you know, a few weeks later, you know, you give me a little good clue to something that I should put on you, right? So we, what? In some sense, we wish a little good to each other, right? Okay? Although we, it might be, basically, it seems to be the love of wanting, right? But there's some, something of the same. To the third, it ought to be said that in the friendship of the useful and the pleasant, one does wish some good to the friend. And in this regard, the definition of friendship is kept there, right? But since that good is brought back further to one's own pleasure or useful utility, right? Hence it is that the friendship of the useful or the pleasant, insofar as it is drawn to the love of wanting, falls short of the definition of, what? True friendship, okay? And that's what, my sister doesn't even call it friendship at all, right? But we do often, you know, refer to people that we have those relations with as friends, right? So our style is willing to use the word friend in an extended sense, but he recognizes that the, only the friendship based on virtue is friendship in the true sense, right? This helps you to evaluate those two kinds of friendship, right? But it also shows why it's good to take up the treatise on friendship and love of Thomas here before you look at Aristotle's treatise on friendship, because you can see that friendship involves love, but the kind of love in the lower kinds is more the love of wanting, and only in the highest kind is the love of, what? Wishing well. Well, it's just love of friendship in the full sense, right? The kind of love that you could call, you know, friendship, strictly speaking, huh? Okay? Now, you see why he takes up this distinction between the love of wishing well and the love of wanting, or maybe second among the two divisions, right? Because to some extent, huh? You're dividing the love of the will, right? Okay? Because the love of the will can be either of these kinds, right? The love that is an emotion, as such, is going to be just one of these kinds, right? So it's not really like a subdivision of that, right? So if a division is to some extent a subdivision of a member of the other division, you want to give that division of a bond, don't you? Right? Okay? But nevertheless, these two divisions are the fundamental divisions of love, huh? Of human love, right? I mean, sometimes they'll, you know, they still love to include natural love, you know? Like when you say, you know, about a plant that likes a lot of sunshine, or it likes a lot of water, or... I hear them sometimes saying, you know, the broccoli or something, it's a big feeder, you know? It likes a lot of big meal, you know? But I mean, it's commonly said, it likes sun, or it likes, you know, water, or it likes, you know? And some plants don't like the sun, and, you know, some do... And that's what you can maybe extend it, but... Basically, you talk about human love, you're talking about either the emotion or the act of the will, and it's very difficult sometimes to tell which it is or what proportion it might be. be of these things, right, huh? You see? And, uh, but if you, you know, if you ever teach a class of this to college kids, you know, they have a hard time distinguishing the love that is an emotion and the love that is an act of the will, huh? And, and, and they think of the love. You know, I usually come into class where a student and say, what is love? And usually the answer you'll get, huh? It's an emotion, right? I say, well, so is anger, so is fear. I usually say, you know, well, there's a love that is an emotion. I don't, you know, I don't, you know, I mean, that's why I say that, right? But I say, so is anger in emotion, so is fear. So is hate. So, what's so peculiar about this emotion? Well, that's a very special emotion, I'll say. So they have a hard time defining it, but they think of it as an emotion right away, huh? And I'm sitting there listening to the priest talking to another god, right? And think of loving duty or something, you know? And, uh, what does this mean, you know? They have a notion of the love that is an act of thought. And so when they, you know, if they ever hear about God or they study God and God's love for us, right, huh? You know? If it's not an emotion, it seems kind of cold or something to them, right? Cool reason, as Shakespeare says, right, huh? But, you know, to the Old Testament, I have loved you as a perpetual love, right, huh? Eternal love. God's love, it's much more intense than our love, right? And, uh, you know, as you say, C.S. Lewis trying to get across, you know? You know, metaphorically, he speaks of the love of the angels and being ferocious, right? In that long, long historical psalm, psalm 77, I think it is, it's speaking about Israel's infidelity in the desert. So God scourged them, basically, in some way. And this is, and this love of wanting, because, uh, it says, and then they remembered that God was their helper. And they served him with their mouth. He fed us before. I mean, of course, Christ, it says the crowd, but they're following him because he fed them, you know? Thousands. So most people, when I ask them what love is, they can't bring out this basic truth that it is really the, what, conformity, right? Or agreement of the heart, whether you use the word heart for the emotions or for the, even the will. It's the conformity of the heart, this argument with its object, right? It's agreement with its object. And in our human love, it's a result of that object, in some sense, acting upon our heart, but it tends to act upon our heart either through our senses and imagination or through our, what, our reason, right? Okay? So, wisdom, it acted upon my heart. It acted upon it through my reason, huh? Okay? But the candy or the wine acted upon my heart through my senses, huh? Okay? Now, when you get to something like, say, Shakespeare, you know, Shakespeare appealing to your imagination, maybe primarily, but something to your reason, too, right? Even Mozart is mostly appealing just to the ear, you know? Appealing to your reason, to some extent, you know? But what's up front, so, is that Shakespeare appeals to the imagination, huh? And then Mozart appeals to the ear, right? But when they talk about pleasure, you know, you can kind of distinguish the pleasures that we share with the beasts, right? Pleasures of food and drink and sleep and so on. And then the pleasures we share with God and the angels, huh? Which is the pleasures of understanding, right? So, loving. And then there's the pleasures that are, as Asli said, too high for the animals and too low for the angels, huh? And it's a pleasure of hearing the music of Mozart, the pleasure of seeing some beautiful painting, right? Or the pleasure of reading Shakespeare. Thanks. or Homer or something like that, right? And, you know, we can enjoy the music of Mozart or the play of Shakespeare longer than I can enjoy the wine or the steak because my body's getting satiated, right? Like, you know, you're disagreeable, right? And if I try to enjoy understanding, you know, things, maybe I get tired thinking about these things, right? But the pleasure of Shakespeare or Mozart or the painting, it kind of appeals to the eyes, the senses, and to the, what, reason to some extent. And so it appeals to the whole man, right? You know, one thing we notice, you know, you see that book, the literary converts, that book? Yeah, yeah. It's kind of interesting how a number of people, you know, were moved to Christianity even, you know, by certain forms of fiction and so on. And you're mentioning that movie, right? The effect it had upon this one person that confessed his crime, yeah. And Tolkien's had a good effect upon people, I think, and so on. But the reason why it tends to move us is that it kind of, what, appeals to the whole man, right? Rather than just to his angelic side or to his, you know, bestial side, right? You see, the pleasures we share with the beasts, we have in a more refined way, at least if we have wine and cook our food, right? You know, so on. By the pleasure of understanding, we have the inferior to the angels and God, right? See, because you don't understand it that well, right? Then you have the ones right in the middle, right? See? But there's a kind of ambiguity that go apart when people sometimes get into disagreement, right? What is Mozart appealing to? Your ear or your reason, you see? Mozart, as far as I know, it doesn't appeal to the cats we've had in the house at all. They seem to, you know, I used to playfully say, you know, that she's enjoying Mozart there, you know, curled up in front of the thing when I'm playing the Mozart. But, you know, if I go out in the kitchen there and get some sandwich meat or something, you know, and, anyway, Tabitha would be there, you know, you know? He'd sound asleep, you know, but I'll say, right there, you know? But you have the music playing, and he didn't figure it out, and, you know, they don't seem to be interested, right? Or paintings or anything, right? They say they don't paint themselves. You see? There's something too high about that, right? Of course, the fact that we delight in the beautiful has shown that we're more than a beast, huh? That's kind of what we first see us, rising above, huh? You know? That's kind of the transition, you know, from the life of the beast to the life of an angel, right, to go through the fine arts, huh? Even church, I mean, you know, church should be, the religion should be something beautiful, huh? The architecture, the church, and so on, huh? So do you know any division of love more basic, I don't know if you're in love than these two divisions that Thomas has given here? And people understood that, huh? Then they come to talk about a particular thing, right? You know? Remember a comic strip years ago, huh? The, the, uh, what was it? The girl saying to the guy that she's in love with somebody, he said, that's a pretty big word. Did you know what it means? It wasn't bad for a comic strip, you know? This is what we, 50 years ago. And, uh, uh, but I say, you know, if, if a young man said, I love this woman, you know, I said, well, you know, then the real question is, you know, do you really wish well to this woman? Or is she just the good you want for yourself? I mean, the, the, you know, that's really the crucial thing there, right? And if it's, I can say, this one student who saw that their parents really did wish well to each other, right? And that had given a stability to their marriage that a lot of marriages lack, right? Um, but, but again, you know, I, I, I say to them, you know, when you get married, you know, the priest doesn't say, do you have a wonderful feeling about so-and-so? See, I say, presumably you do. But he doesn't ask you, you know. He's asking you really to, what? To choose, right? You know, you're choosing this person, right? You're getting married by... Choice, it shouldn't be my choice, right? It's not emotion that embarrass you, right? So these are the fundamental things, huh? But then if you go to talk about God, like I was mentioning in Bruno Clairvaux, that's kind of the fundamental distinction, right? But some people are so confused about God that they don't know whether they... that this love that's supposed to have for God is really much more in their will than in their emotions, huh? And, see? But if it's in their will, then to get this other distinction becomes relevant, right? Is God something you turn to just for your need, right? See? Sometimes they call it love of wanting, that kind of thing. They call it need love, that's another way of expressing it, right? I need you. But in that case, then, you're the good that I want for myself, right? If I only need love for you, I have only the love of wanting for you, right? You know, that's a stupid song, you know, people who need other people are the most wonderful. Oh, no. You hear that terrible thing, you know? I said, well, they're talking about, you know, and they're talking about the love of wanting, right? You know? I said, hey, Barbara Streisand. Yeah, I didn't sing to it. But it used to annoy me, this song. Yeah, so I used to play in the supermarket and work that all day. People who need the customers are the most wonderful. Oh, it really says, I love anything in the world. Is this me? I thought it was always cool. We used to just call people who need people. It was all good. It's like people who want other people. Now, this is the first part of the cause of love. So how many comes do you need? We're probably going to need a couple more than I hear. We're missing three. I got plenty of them, so I mean, they got all they want. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, burn and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Amen. And help us to understand what you have written. Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. So these readings from Shakespeare are, some of them are about the good being a cause of love, and some about those who lack or think they lack. That goodness would make them lovable, right? But it illustrates the same point, huh? Now, much ado about nothing is when the love and friendship plays at Shakespeare, huh? And Benedict, huh? Who's existing, getting married, right? One woman is fair, yet I am well. Another is wise, yet I am well. Another virtuous, yet I am well. Now notice, huh? Each of those things is something good, right? Fair, wise, virtuous, huh? But not good enough to move his heart. But till all graces, to all these good things, huh? Be in one woman. One woman shall not come in my grace. In my favor, right? Then in addition to all that, she's got to be, what? Rich she shall be, that's certain, huh? Now in Bassanio, huh? He's in love with Portia there, the merchant of Venice. He's describing to his friend, the merchant of Venice, huh? Antonio, about her. In Belmont is a lady richly left, huh? And she is fair. And fairer than that word of wondrous virtues. And that's what he's doing there, right? The Greeks would divide the goods of man into three kinds, huh? The goods of the soul, the goods of the body, and then the, what? Exterior or outside goods, huh? And even our kind of Mother Goose rhyme is what we did as a child, you know? Ready to bed, ready to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and, what? Wise. And health is one of the chief good, if not the chief good of the body. Wealth is the excellence of exterior goods. And wise is the great good of the soul, right? So... That's the fundamental division of all the goods of man. And she's got them all, right? In Belmont is a lady richly left, huh? That's the exterior goods, but those are the least important, really. And she is fair, right? That's the good of the body. She's a beautiful woman. And of course, he plays a little bit on the word fair, right? And fairer than that word, even better than being beautiful in her body, she's a wondrous, what? Virtues, right? Okay, so she has all three goods, right? All of the three that Benedictine ascends is demanding, huh? And then, in addition to that, she seems to like me, right? But true love is what? Silent, right? So he says, sometimes from her eyes, and the eyes are the windows of the soul, right? I did receive fair, speechless messages, right? Now, sometimes Augustine will talk about, huh? How another's love for you, right? Tends to, what? Cause love in you, right? Okay? Her name is Portia. Nothing undervalued to Cato's daughter, Brutus' Portia, that you meet in what Julius Caesar, right? Now, with all those things, right, is he the only guy after her? Huh? No. Nor is the wide world ignorant of her worth, huh? Of course, that's touching upon the second cause of, what? Love. Knowledge, right? Okay, if the world was ignorant of her worth, right? But those two causes will go together, right? Knowledge of her worth they have, right? For the four winds blow in from every coast, renowned suitors, and her sunny locks hang on her temples like a golden fleece, which makes her seat of Belmont Colchis' strand, huh? The golden fleece, right? Remember the old thing? He's kind of playing in that part of mythology. And many Jasons come in quest of her, right? Okay? See how beautiful that illustrates, huh? That the good is a cause of love, right? And in this particular passage there, he touches upon all three kinds of goods, right? Okay? Not that you have to handle all three of those to love somebody, but it shows you how complete Shakespeare is, huh? And in a more funny way, Benedict was touching upon those things, too, right? She had to be wise, which would be the good of the soul, and virtuous to be the good of the soul, right? Fair would be, what? The good of the body. And then rich she shall be, that's certain. So, but, you know, the sunny was ordered and better, right? From the lower to the higher, right? So it's very well said. And fairer than that word, right? Of wondrous virtues, huh? Okay? It's more important that she'd be virtuous. Now, in this particular scene in King John there, the city is about to be, what, attacked, right? And this guy has got a plan to avoid the city getting attacked by proposing this marriage, right, between the opposing armies and so on, huh? So he says, That daughter there of Spain, the Lady Blanche, is near to England. Look upon the ears of Louis the Dauphin, crown prince, huh? And that lovely maid. If lusty love, Now, of course, lust doesn't mean, what, in a bad sense in Shakespeare, right? It must be vigorous, right? If lusty love should go in quest of beauty, where should he find it fairer than in Blanche? Well, that's the good of the body, right? She's a beautiful lady. If zealous love, right? Now, that's something better, right? Zeal, love, huh? And zeal, in Sanity, will be one of the effects of love, huh? Zeal or jealousy. In Latin, you have the same word, right? But they're different things. If zealous love should go in search of virtue, where should he find it purer than in Blanche? So that's the good of the soul, right? If love ambitious sought a match of birth, whose veins bound richer blood than Lady Blanche. That's almost the exterior good, right? The exterior position, huh? Such as she is in beauty, virtue, birth, the same three almost, is the young doth in every way complete. If not complete of, say he is not she, right? And she again was telling to name want, if want it be not that she is not he. He is the half part of a blessed man left to be finished by such as he. So that's how sometimes you refer to your spouses.