Prima Secundae
91. Theobald, Shakespeare and Homer on 'Looking Before and After'; Is Every Sadness Contrary to Every Pleasure? (Summa I-II, Q35, A4)
Class of 2012-11-15
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/091-theobald-shakespeare-and-homer-on-looking-before-and-after/

[0:00] Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gratias. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Right. Help us to understand all that you've written. Saint Albert the Great. Albert the Great, yeah. Pray for us Right. Right for us.

[0:35] Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. Mustn't they say, bishop and doctor? He didn't want to be bishop very long, though. I don't think. Yeah. So we're going to have a little poetry here today. Now, I mentioned how Theobald was one of the what editors of Shakespeare, huh? I think Nicholas Rowe was the first guy, huh? He was poet laureate of England, and then Dryden came along, the poet, huh?

[1:05] And then I think Theobald's edition comes, right? Theobald was quite critical of Dryden's edition, right? He took liberties, right? Now, in Shakespeare's words, they have two different excellences, huh? Sometimes you save the words of Shakespeare because of their wisdom, right? And sometimes you save the words because of their what? What excellence, right? So one of each of these is Theobald, right? But as far as the excellence is, Theobald's famous what?

[1:39] Emendation, right? Now, this is the scene here in Henry V, Act II Scene III, which is describing the death of what? Falstaff. Falstaff, right? Okay.

[2:01] So Pistol says, "No, for my manly heart doth yearn. Bardolph be blithe; them rouse thy vaunting veins. Boy, bristle thy courage up, for Falstaff he is dead, and we must yearn therefore." Bardolph says, "Would I were with him! Wheresoever he is, either in heaven or in hell." He's thoughtless, guys. He's a young. But

[2:31] the hostess says, "I'm going to describe his last things." "Nay, sure he's not in hell. He's in Arthur's bosom." Instead, Abraham's bosom. Okay. He's in Arthur's bosom. If ever man went to Arthur's bosom, I made a finery end, and went away as it, and it had been any christened child. I parted even just between twelve and one, even at the turn of the tide. That's the old prejudice you had at the turn of the tide, right?

[3:01] For after I saw him fumble with the sheets, and play with flowers, and smile upon his fingers' ends, I knew there was but one way. For his nose was as sharp as a pen, right? And now this is in the what original

[3:23] folio, right now. The folio has and a table of green fields. Does that make any sense? I knew there was but one way. For his nose was as sharp as a pen, and a table of green fields. Huh? This is where Theobald corrected the text, right? The folio he says has a table of green fields. Huh? Now what did Theobald do? He turned it to and a babbled of green fields.

[4:03] And they what? A babbled. Babbled. You know. You know how it says in scripture, you know, you know, I'm talking about the this little man, right? Let no field, you know, escape our eyes, you know, and so on. So, a babbled of green fields, huh? Okay. So anyway, this is the Rowe edition, huh?

[4:30] Okay. A babbled of green fields. The folio has a table of green fields, huh? The emendation is Theobald's, right? And is generally adopted, so you get almost the Texas Shakespeare is going to have Theobald's just. White calls it quote the most felicitous conjectural emendation ever made of Shakespeare's text. That's quite an honor for Theobald.

[4:56] It is sustained by the preceding play with flowers, huh? Various other corrections have been suggested, but they are not worth mentioning. Now, in the new Hudson Shakespeare, right? Huh? Another edition of Shakespeare, huh? Or, of course they have the text babbled of green fields, right? This is Theobald's emendation of the text of the folio, huh? And is perhaps the happiest emendation in all literature. Oh, that's quite bigger.

[5:36] Yeah. yeah. Now, Kittredge's edition, right? You know, Kitridge is a famous Chaucerian and Shakespearean scholar, right? Taught at Harvard, huh? And Kitridge says, you know, it's a stroke of genius. Okay. So I give as an example the excellence of Theobald in terms of the poetic excellence of Shakespeare, right? Huh? Is restoring the poetic excellence that has been lost in that obvious defect, huh? But now the other thing we go to Shakespeare course for is what, words of wisdom, right?

[6:09] Okay. Now in Act Four, Scene Four of the Hamlet, right, you have the famous definition to use what, reason, right? Know that. What is a man if his chief good and market of his time be but to sleep and feed, a beast no more? Sure, he that made us with such large discourse, looking before and after, gave us not that capability in godlike reason to foster us unused.

[6:48] So in the definition, Shakespeare defines reason, right? Capability, or I have shortened it to ability, for large discourse, looking before and after. And he gives us what, tells us what it is to use reason, right? You look before and after, scores and so on. And then he gives you, touches upon five actually excellent reasons why you should use your reason, or use it more than you do, right?

[7:19] But anyway, in another edition that Rolfe did of Hamlet, this goes back to this book. This is George Woodward, 831 Main Street, Worcester, Mass. Shakespeare class, February 19, 1896. To get some kind of notes there, much better than these old editions, you know. So you got to pick around. Mike's always complaining, "I came up with another volume Shakespeare."

[7:48] No imagination. Yeah. Now, Rolf has got two quotes apropos of the such large discourse, looking before and after, right? And the first one is from Samuel Johnson, who was also an editor of the works of what Shakespeare, right? And the second one is from what, Theobald, right? Okay, was earlier than Johnson, right? That's kind of funny because both excellent the ones he quotes, but Johnson, you know, was influenced, unfortunately, by Dryden's attack upon Theobald because Dryden was angry that Theobald had criticized his edition, right?

[8:33] And he, you know, tried to make more English 18th century, you know, and kind of crept the text and so on. And so he wrote the Dunciad right, attacking you know. Okay, but it's kind of interesting. He quotes the two guys, right? You know. But anyway, this is the the quote from Johnson's about the whole phrase, right? So he says such latitude of comprehension. That's kind of his paraphrase of large discourse, right?

[9:00] Which has the idea of universal discourse, right? Such latitude of comprehension, such power of reviewing the past and anticipating the what future, right? Now notice, Johnston doesn't give us the whole meaning of before and after. You have to go to the twelfth chapter, the categories, right, for the five you know senses thereof, before and after, right? But he seizes obviously upon the first meaning of before and after, which is in time, in the twelfth chapter, of the categories.

[9:34] So he says the power of reviewing the past, anticipating the future, right? So you see, you know that he knows where to begin. He said so. It comes to mind first, right? That Aristotle begins in the right place, so it helps us to what appreciate Aristotle knew where this begins. Now, Theo uh uh Theobald's remark that he has here is just on the last part. Looking before and after, right?

[10:05] Theobald remarks that looking before and after is quote an expression purely Homeric. This is very interesting. He says that because he's now referring to the poet, as Aristotle calls him. And he says Theobald refers, for example, to Iliad, Book Three, one o nine, and Book Eighteen, two fifty, right? Okay. Now, that's our Butcher and Lang, Homer. Okay, down the Greek here in the Latin translation.

[10:42] Now the one in Book Three, huh, is the one where they're going to have stop the war, in a sense, and have Menelaus and Alexander what fight, and whoever wins would take Helen and forget about the war, right? This is the best way to solve the problem, right? Instead of having two armies kill each other. Okay.

[11:14] So Hector has just got through speaking. So he spoke, and all of them stayed stricken to silence. But among them spoke out Menelaus of the great war cry. Listen now to me, also, since beyond all others this sorrow comes closest to my heart. It's his wife that was stolen by Alexander. And I think the Argives and the Trojans can go free of each other at last. You have suffered much evil for the sake of this my quarrel since Alexander began it.

[11:46] As for that, one of us two to whom death and doom are given, let him die. The rest of you be made friends with each other. Bring two lambs; let one be white and the other black for Earth and the Sun God, and for Zeus we will bring yet another. Bring that he may seal the pledges, the strength of Priam, Priam himself. That's the fathering of Alexander.

[12:15] For his sons are outrageous, not to be trusted. Lest some man overstep Zeus's oaths and make them be nothing. Always now, this is the key word now. Always it is that the hearts of the younger men are frivolous. But when an elder man is among them, he looks behind the men in front, so that all comes out far better for both sides.

[12:41] Incidentally, you could apply that to the election, right? Because the young people kind of reelected Obama, right? Yeah. Why the older men are somewhat wiser than the younger men, right?

[12:54] That's what they say. Dear, you know, you're old before your time. What do you mean? You're old before you're wise. No fool worse than an old fool. You know what I'm saying, right? But you expect the older to be a little bit wiser than the younger, right? So English fiction there to play the young man means to play the fool. I'd say stock phrase. Play the young man.

[13:17] Well, if you want to play the young man, go ahead. Okay, that's the key thing, huh? Well, when an elder man is among them, he looks behind him and in front, huh? So it's like Shakespeare's what phrase before and after, although Shakespeare's one is more in terms of time, right? Huh? Just in terms of place, but they go together, right? Now the second part is is even more striking, huh?

[13:44] The book 16, because that's the place where Patroclus has been killed, the best friend of Achilles, and Achilles has now has been pouting and staying out of the war, is now to come back, right? Now of course the Trojans have been doing pretty good with Achilles out of the action for a while, right? And they're down there by the ships and so on. Well, Polydamas is going to what urge them to get back inside the walls of the city where they can fight better from, you know?

[14:15] And but Hector overrules them, right? Huh? So it's just around nightfall, so Achilles doesn't come back into battle. but He roars, you know, at the edge of the battle, you know, and so on.

[14:39] Now the lady Hera of the ox eyes drove the unwilling, weariless sun god to sink in the depth of the ocean, and the sun went down, and the brilliant Achaeans, that's the Greeks, gave over their strong fighting in the doubtful collision of battle. The Trojans on the other side moved from the strong encounter in their turn and unhitched their running horses from under the chariots and gathered into assembly before taking thought for their supper.

[15:09] They stood on their feet in assembly, nor did any man have the patience to sit down, but the terror was on them all, seeing that Achilles had appeared after he had stayed so long with the difficult fighting. Now, first to speak among them was the careful Polydamas, the careful Polydamas, Penthesus' son, who alone of them looked before and behind him. He's the only guy who looked before and behind, right?

[15:38] He was companion to Hector and born in the same night with him. But he, that means Polydamas, was better in words; the other with the spear far better. One guy is the brains. Yeah. He, in kind intention toward all, stood forth and addressed them. Now take careful thought, dear friends, for I myself urge you to go back into the city. And not wait for the divine dawn in the plain beside the ships.

[16:08] We are too far from the wall now. While this man was still angry with great Agamemnon, for all that time the Achaeans were easier men to fight with. For I also used then to be one who was glad to sleep out near their ships, and I hoped to capture the oarswept vessels. But now I terribly dread the swift-footed son of Peleus. So violent is the valor in him, he will not be willing to stay here in the plain, where now Achaeans and Trojans, from either side, thunder between them the wrath of the war god.

[16:44] With him the fight will be for the sake of our city and woman. Let us go into the town. Believe me, thus did what happen. For this present, immortal knight has stopped the swift-footed son of Peleus. But if he catches us still in this place tomorrow and drives upon us in arms, a man will be well aware of him. Be glad to get back into Sacred Ilium.

[17:09] The man who escapes, there will be many Trojans, the vultures, and dogs will feed on. But let such a word be out of my hearing. If all of us will do as I say, though it hurts us to do it, this night we will hold our strength in the marketplace, in the great walls, in the gateways, in the long smooth plain, close jointed gate timbers that close to fit them shall defend our city.

[17:34] Then early in the morning, under dawn, we shall arm ourselves in our war gear and take stations along the walls. The worst for him if he endeavours to come away from the ships and fight us here for our city. Back he must go to his ships again when he wears out the strong necks of his horses, driving them at a gallop everywhere by the city. His valor will not give him leave to burst in upon us nor sack our town.

[17:59] Sooner the circling dogs will feed on him. Then looking darkly at him, Hector the shining helm spoke, Polydamas, these things that you argue please me no longer. When you tell us to go back again and be cooped in our city, have you not all had your gluts of being fenced in our outworks? There was a time when mortal men would speak of the city of Priam as a place with much gold and much bronze and so on.

[18:27] Now, when the son of devious devising, Ponus, has given me the winning of glory by the ships to pin the Achaeans on the sea, why fool no longer show these thoughts to our people. Not one of the Trojans will obey you. I shall not allow it. Come then, do as I say, and let us all be persuaded. So on. If it is true that brilliant Achilleus has risen beside their ships, then the worst for him if he tries it, since I, for my part, will not run from him out of the sorrowful battle, but rather stand fast.

[18:59] The war god is impartial. Before now he has killed. Killer. So spoke Hector, and the Trojans thundered to hear him. Fools, fools, says Homer, since Pallas Athena had taken away the wits from them. Right. Contrast that with Polydamas, right? Where he says, "In the beginning part, I read. First to speak among them was the careful Polydamas, Pandrasus's son, who alone of them looked before and behind him.

[19:34] That's just marvelous, huh? That that Theobald, right, has got the, you know, they call it the happiest imitation of the style of fiction. Suddenly Shakespeare, right, he was adopted, right. And then he's seeing this likeness between. Homer, this is kind of a stock phrase you find even in the Odyssey. You know, for the man who looks before and behind him. So the two greatest poets, Homer and Shakespeare, right. See the same thing as characterizing what reason?

[20:07] So that's very very precedent. I can speak of all few volumes work. I don't know it, but yes, the imitations are good too. I understand. Such a imagination, for imagination, but for reason, right? Have many other testimonies of witnesses from other fictional writers, you know, to this being the key thing. But I won't belabor you with all of them, you know. Enough to give deep poet you know as Aristotle calls him huh Antonomasia Now we are on article four remember at the end there.

[21:11] Let's go over the body again. It's a little difficult that text. Whether every sadness is what contrary to every what delight? Now, what is the what kind of opposition is contrariety?

[21:31] Things that are farthest apart in the same genus. Yeah, yeah, that's why they say it can only be two contrary sometimes, right? Just like there's only two points that are furthest away in a line, right? The end points, huh?

[21:47] So I answer it should be said. That is said in the tenth book of wisdom, the tenth book after the books in natural philosophy, the Physica, the Tertio Metaphysicae Contrariety is a difference according to what form. This is the contrast between what having and lack, right? Where the having is something formal, but the lack is a is a lack, an unbeing of something, huh? And the opposition of being and non-being, right?

[22:24] Contradiction, right? Now form can be both what a general form and a special what forma. Whence it happens that some what things are contrary according to the form of their genus, right, which is more general. Just as virtue and what vice, huh? And some things are contrary according to the form of their species, as justice and what injustice, right? So even temperance and what and and injustice are opposed as virtue and vice, right?

[23:10] In general, but not in particular, like temperance and intemperance, or justice and injustice. But then Thomas sees a distinction. Notice that's implied when you say that reason looks before and after, right? Reason sees distinctions.

[23:33] That can be seen from the axiom of before and after, which is that nothing is before or after itself, right? So today can be before tomorrow and after yesterday, but can today be before or after itself? No. So there must be always some distinction between what is before and what is after, right? So reason must see a distinction before it can see a before and what after, right?

[24:14] So which is better, Cabernet Sauvignon or Pinot Noir, right? Well, if you can't taste a distinction between them, you're in no position to say which is better, right?

[24:30] I can't distinguish between two students. Can I say which one is better? No. So presuppose you might say to seeing it before and after is to see a what distinction, right? Huh? So if reason is ability to see before and after, right, it must also be the ability to see what distinction, right?

[24:58] And therefore to see division, which is a kind of distinction, and even definition, which involves distinction. Now he said it should be considered that some things are what specified; they are what as to their very nature, right? Huh? According to absolute forms. Now, the word "absolute" now is used kind of a crazy way, but "absolute" is often used by Thomas in contrast to what relative, right? Towards another, right?

[25:35] Okay. So he says some things are specified according to absolute forms, as for example substances are, right? Dog and cat and horse and qualities, right?

[25:53] Like the virtues, the vices, and so on. But some are specified in comparison ad aliquid extra, right being towards another, right? Huh? Okay. So seven is something also absolute, right? And what is double? What is half?

[26:19] Yeah, yeah. So what is half could be more than what is double. You know, I mean, half half the city of Worcester, right? And double my house or something, right? Ah, so it's not something absolute, right? Huh? But it's towards another.

[26:41] And you see the word ad aliquid of course. There, you think first of all maybe of the category of ad aliquid huh pros ti, right? Which we sometimes translate relation, but the Greek is very what precise pros ti, and they translate it in the Greek, in the English, Latin rather. commentary says ad aliquid right? Pros is towards, and T is towards something, right? Okay. I mentioned my great discovery during the Gospel of Saint John, right?

[27:15] We say in English, "The beginning was the Word, and the Word was what? Yeah, but in the Greek, it is, and the Word was toward God, pros. Yeah. So man has been, you know, taught. I was taught by Aristotle, but my old teacher, you know, didn't say relation. you know He says pros ti ad aliquid, right? Very concrete way of saying it. Well, as you know from from our great teachers Augustine there and Thomas and so on, they distinguish the divine persons by what relations, right?

[27:52] The Father to the Son and Son to the Father, right? Huh? So you say in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, huh? God there standing for what? The Father, yeah, yeah. It's kind of indicated, you know, that the distinction is one of what towards another, right? Huh? Okay. It's not an absolute distinction, right? They are the same God. They have the same nature, and not just in kind, but the same numerical nature, right?

[28:22] Huh? Father and I are one, as he says, huh? Okay. You've seen me. You've seen the Father. Kind of a little playful there? With the apostles, because you see them in His human nature, right? But they saw Him in His divine nature, they would have seen the Father' nature too, right? Okay. So, but notice he doesn't apply it to ad aliquid the category, but he applies it to what passions and motions, right?

[28:58] Okay. And why is he saying it, right? Because in a way, there is something ad aliquid in a motion or a passion; it is towards something, right? Like coming into this room,

[29:14] it's towards something, right? Towards some object, right? Wanting, right? Angry, you know. Getting angry, I'm going towards you, right? When I want something, you know, I'm going towards it, right? Huh? Here's here's the bar. Here's the.

[29:39] Went down to here. Here a doctor speaker there, a pro life there the other day, up in Lemmonster, And it was being held at the Knights of Columbus place there, right? So walk in, and it's kind of like a big, you know, dance floor with set up with chairs. Now, you know, But they got a real bar over there, A, real. I wonder if I walk over there when he starts serving me or not.

[30:04] You know, just help yourself. You can see along that long bars, and so is it. Esslers in Saint Paul. I used to go with my father sometimes.

[30:21] Long long bars. You were just odd as a kid. That's just odd, huh? I don't know, so so long. But goes in fighting, nevertheless, huh? Okay, you tend towards it now, especially as an open bar. Okay.

[30:47] So he's not saying that that passion or emotion is a relation, right? In the category of relation or post T, but there's something like post T there, right? It's yeah, and and it's very neatly specified by that, right? Huh? Okay.

[31:12] Now he says, in those things whose species are considered according to absolute forms, right, like qualities or substances, it happens that what species which are contained under contrary genera are not contrary sometimes according to the ratio of the species, right? Okay. So it's temperance contrary to injustice, right? I

[31:46] mean, we say it's the contrary, that would you, you know? These old things, you know, they say black, say white, you know, hot, cold, you know, tend to jump to the contrary, right? You wouldn't say, you know, temperance injustice. I say temperance intemperance, right? Okay. And but nevertheless, the genera contrary. One is a virtue and one is a vice, right? Okay. While

[32:15] justice and injustice are contrary both according to the genus and according to the what species, right? Huh? It does not ever happen that they have some affinity or what agreement to each other, right? Huh? In particular, Intemperance and justice, right?

[32:50] Which are in contrary genera, right? To wit, virtue and vice, right? But they're not contrary to each other according to their what own species, right?

[33:05] Nor do they have some affinity or agreement towards each other. So you catch that point, huh? But in those whose species are taken according to their, I notice the word habitudinem now, which is kind of a word for relation again. Thomas uses it. To something extrinsic, right, huh?

[33:45] It happens that species of contrary genera, right, not only are what are not contrary to each other, but also that they have some agreement and affinity to each other. In that they have themselves in the same way to what contraries, they induce therefore a certain what contrariety. Just as to what approach or go towards what white, and to approach or go towards black have the notion of what contrariety, huh?

[34:27] But in a contrary way, they have themselves to contraries. They have the ratio of similitude What does that mean? Well, if you recede from white, but you approach blackness, right? Then they would seem to be what the same. The same. Yeah. If I'm a lover of wisdom, then I must be a hater of what. Yeah.

[34:58] Or if you love virtue, you must hate what vice. Yeah. And this most of all appears in contradiction, which is the what beginning of what opposition, huh? For an affirmation, negation of the same thing, this this opposition consists, right? As white and what not white, huh?

[35:27] Now, in the affirmation of one opposite and the negation of another, there is what to be noted a certain agreement and likeness, as if I say, for example, black, and then I say what not white. There's agreement those two, right?

[35:49] Now, sadness and pleasure, since they are what passions or emotions, you'd say, right, huh? But notice the word emotion. is taking the word motion, that was said to be towards another, right?

[36:05] And according to their genus, they have what contrariety, right? Because the one pertains to the pursuit and the other to the flight, right? Which are in the desiring power, like affirmation, negation, in what reason? Yes. No. So you bring the stake, yes. Bring the seven, no.

[36:37] And therefore, sadness and pleasure, which are about the same thing, have opposition to each other according to what the species, right? But sadness and pleasure about diverse things, right? If those diverse things are not what opposed, but are simply disparate, um, diverse, they do not have opposition to each other by reason of their species, but they are also what disparate, um, just as to be sad about the death of a friend and to delight in what contemplation.

[37:22] If, however, those diverse things are contrary, then pleasure and sadness not only do not have contrariety according to what ratio species, but also they have what agreement and affinity, as when a man rejoices about the good and he's sad about the bad. On the first argument, he's saying overlooks this distinction that he's putting out in the body of the article that whiteness and blackness do not have their species from relation to something what outside, as do what pleasure and sadness, whence there is not the same reason for both them.

[38:17] Now, in the second objection, right? Medicines come to be through contraries, right? No, so you're talking about purgation, right? That was borrowed from from medicine, right? Huh? Okay. So the definition of comedy, the great comic authors, there they see it as purging what melancholy, huh? So by contraries, huh? By by bringing them.

[38:55] Interesting. Shakespeare sometimes speaks of anger as eliminating pity, right? Huh? And then when Hal is seeing, you know, he snatched the horse of False Death, so he's larding the lean earth as he walks along, you know, he's very annoyed at this practical joke being carried on him, right? And he says, "if it's not for laughing, I should pity him." He's sweating, you know, embarrassing, you know. But

[39:29] if you laugh, you know, sometimes, you know, when when a friend is in some kind of trouble, you know, and your first reaction to is to laugh sometimes, because the the comic aspect and he just have annoyed, you know, you want you to feel sorry for him or something, you know. But but laughter can what eliminate pity, right? And but anger can too, right? Because anger makes you want to punish, right?

[39:53] Not to feel sorry for somebody. But any what pleasure is a medicine against any sadness, huh? As is clear through the philosopher in the seventh book of the Ethics. Therefore, every pleasure is to any sadness, what contrary, right?

[40:20] What does Thomas say to this? To second, it should be said that genus is taken from matter, as is clear in the eighth book of the what metaphysics. where he talks about matter and form.

[40:36] An accident, however, in place of matter is the what subject, right? That's why the sense in which an accident is in substance or in its subject is like form and matter, right? But it's not exactly the same, right? Now it has been said that pleasure and sadness are contrary, according to their genus, huh?

[41:04] And therefore, in every sadness there is a disposition contrary to the subject. There's a contrary disposition, of the subject. that's contrary to the disposition which is in any what pleasure, right? Huh? Disposition of the subject.

[41:29] For in every pleasure, the appetite has itself as accepting that which it what has, huh? In every sadness, it has itself as fleeing it, right?

[41:44] And therefore, on the side of the subject, every pleasure is a medicine against every what sadness, and every sadness impedes every what pleasure, right? But

[42:04] more so, right? Most of all, especially right, by which way, when the pleasure or what is contrary to the sadness, even according to what its species, yeah.

[42:21] Whence is clear the solution to the third, huh? Or it could be said otherwise that although not every sadness is contrary to every pleasure according to species, right? Nevertheless, as far as their effect, they're contrary. For from one of them, the nature of the animal is what strengthened, right? From the other, it is what in a way molested, right? Huh?

[43:01] Okay.