SR
← Speculum caritatis (The Mirror of Charity)/Book 3 · Speculum caritatis — Liber III
Chapter 29SpCar.3.29

Diversos affectus saepe in eadem mente luctari; et quis ei praeponendus sit

The Struggle of Affections Within

Multiple affections can war within a single soul, and great discernment is needed to ensure the higher affection prevails over the lower, as shown in Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac and Jonathan's loyalty to David over his father.

I still need to say something about these affections: that several of them sometimes struggle within a single mind, and in a sense they try to overcome each other, fighting among themselves. When this happens, you need great discernment to recognize which affection should take priority over which, and this takes real virtue, so that the higher isn't driven out by the lower. Take Abraham: when he was ordered to sacrifice his own son, he was by no means hardened, lacking all natural feeling for his own flesh and blood. But when the natural affection that drew him to his son and the spiritual affection that drew him to God were struggling together in that holy man's heart, he placed the higher before the lower — indeed, for the sake of the higher he held the lower in contempt.✦1 Or take the excellent young Jonathan: he did not betray the plan David had devised to kill his father — Jonathan was bound to David by a sacred covenant — even though it meant wronging his own father. Instead he placed rational affection before natural affection, as the legitimate law required.2 And it's no wonder if the grace of friendship, on account of which he held his own father's injury in contempt, erased the affection for his father from his most sacred heart — he did this through unwavering virtue.3 Consider David as he fled from Saul's presence: when in more secluded places the man of unconquerable love met his father, who was about to betray his plans, they threw their arms around each other and kissed, and as they bathed each other in mutual tears, with a devoted weeping they declared their devoted affection for one another. Then, with the covenant renewed, Jonathan made the offer.4 'You will be king,' he said, 'but I will be second after you' (1 Sam. 23).5 23).

Jonathan's Humility Exalted

Jonathan's extraordinary humility is celebrated: though a royal heir famed for valor, he freely chose to be second to David, preferring his friend to a kingdom without a trace of envy.

O man, worthy of the highest praise! A man free of envy, empty of greed, who chose his friend over a kingdom; who wanted what seemed rightfully his to belong to someone else. "I," he says, "will be second after you." O heart of the deepest humility! A man of royal name, from whom the inheritance was expected by right of succession; for whom birth, valor, the favor of soldiers, the goodwill of the people, and even his own celebrated fame in triumph — backed by which, with only one armed companion, he charged the enemy's massed wedge formations and won his people an unexpected victory — cast himself down below a slave: "I," he says, "will be second after you." This man, I say, whose praises are still sung: "The arrow of Jonathan never went back, and his sword did not return empty" (2 Kings). … as if he didn't even know himself, so that he might truly know his friend: "You," he says, "will be king, and I will be second after you."6 Who, I ask, would think this way even about his own brother from the same womb without at least some monstrous envy?7

Envy's Contrast: Jacob's Sons, Solomon, and Jonathan

Where envy drove Jacob's sons to sell Joseph and Solomon to kill his rival brother, Jonathan alone looked down on father, fatherland, and kingdom for love of his friend, weeping yet yielding the throne.

Who would drag down a friend's entire hope into despair? The sons of the patriarch Jacob (Gen. xxxvii), envying the father's favor, by which one brother was cherished more tenderly than the rest; they sold their brother into slavery and brought the deepest sorrow upon their father. That first among the priests, forestalled — unless I am mistaken — by envy toward his most gentle brother, detracting from him, scarcely escaped divine vengeance, with Moses himself interceding (Num. xii); the most wise Solomon destroyed his brother, a rival for the kingdom, seizing any opportunity whatsoever (III Reg. ii); Jonathan alone, looking down on father, fatherland, and kingdom beneath his friend: 'You,' he said, 'will be king, and I will be second after you.' If he had said, 'I will be king, and you will be second after me,' he would have violated neither the law of friendship nor the grace of a friend. They both wept, as Scripture says, but David wept more (I Reg.

The Painful Parting of David and Jonathan

Jonathan faced conflicting duties of affection toward David and obedience to Saul; both friends wept at their bitter separation, paying what they owed to love while yielding to reason's demand to part.

xx). That separation — bitterer than death — was surely closing in, by which those inseparable hearts would be robbed of each other's sight; by which that sweet conversation had to cease, that consolation which eased every danger, that revelation of shared secrets which ought to be preferred even to life itself. And so they both wept. Observe, I beg you, a man of most orderly love. Jonathan owed affection to a friend, but obedience to a father. To a friend, goodwill; but to a father's old age, protection. If he had followed his affection and clung to his friend, he would have violated the rights of paternal love. But if, with his father warning him — nay, even compelling him — he had withdrawn his goodwill from his friend, he would have violated the law of the covenant and of most sacred friendship. From affection, therefore, it pleased both of them to be united; but from reason, it pleased them to part.

Reason Ordering Affection: David's Grief and the Soldier's Rebuke

David wept more than Jonathan because he grieved his friend's loss, while Jonathan restrained tears out of love; later David mourned his dead son but, rebuked by a soldier, set aside grief to fulfill his duty as king.

By weeping, then, they paid what they owed to affection; but by parting, though compelled, they yielded to reason. Each one wept, because each one loved. Why then should David go on?8 Jonathan had foretold it, no doubt (1 Kings9 18) his own loss, in a way, as his friend's advancement — that he himself would be deprived of the kingdom, and David raised up to it. And so the law of friendship demanded this: that the former would weep over the wrong done to him out of sympathy for his friend, while the latter — lest he seem to grieve at his friend's success — would for a while restrain himself with tears.10 He therefore placed natural affection before the rational faculty, but ordered his action according to reason. David himself too, when his loyal army had brought him news of victory over his parricidal son, yielded to natural affection and mourned the death of his own son (2 Kings11 18); but rebuked by a soldier, he put duty before natural feeling. Setting aside his grief, he went out to meet the victorious people with congratulations.12

Christ's Example and the Rule of Ordered Love

Christ in Gethsemane expressed natural dread yet submitted to the Father's will, providing the supreme model for ordering affections: God first, then rational over natural, natural over carnal.

Our Savior also, when He had already declared from the natural affection by which no one has ever hated his own flesh (Eph. 5), 'Father, if it can be so, let this cup pass from me' (Matt.✦ 26); by the spiritual affection by which He had always clung to the Father, He submitted Him by right of reason. 'Nevertheless,' He said, 'not as I will, but as you will' (ibid.).✦ . So in these affections the following rule must be kept: the affection by which our soul is stirred toward God should be preferred above all others; next, the rational over the functional, the functional over the natural, and the natural over the carnal.

Read the original Latin

Dicendum adhuc de his affectibus, quod plures aliquando in una mente compugnent : ac quodammodo invicem se expugnare contendent. Quod cum contigerit, magna discretione opus est, ut quis cui praeponendus sit, agnoscatur, virtusque necessaria, ne ab inferiore superior expellatur. Denique Abraham proprium filium immolare jussus, nequaquam ad propria viscera expers naturalis affectus obduruit; sed cum naturalis, quo filium, spiritalis, quo Deum amplectebatur, in sancti viri pectore compugnarent, superiorem inferiori proposuit : imo ob superiorem inferiorem contempsit. Optimus quoque adolescens Jonathas, non in patris injuriam consilium, quo David neci destinaverat, eidem sacro foedere copulatus prodidit; sed rationalem affectum naturali legitimo jure praeposuit. Nec mirum, si amici gratia in ejus sacratissimo pectore patris obliteraverit affectum ; ob quam propriam, ut putabatur, injuriam immutabili virtute contempsit. Denique David fugienti a facie Saul cum in secretioribus locis vir invictae charitatis occurreret, patris ei consilia proditurus, inter amplexus et oscula cum se mutuis lacrymis perfudissent, ac pio fletu pium protestarentur affectum, renovato rursus foedere intulit Jonathas. Tu quidem eris rex, ego autem ero secundus post te (I Reg. xxiii).

O virum summis laudibus efferendum ! Virum expertem invidiae, cupiditatis vacuum, qui amicum regno praetulit; qui quod videbatur suum esse, voluit alienum. Ego, inquit, ero secundus post te. O summae humilitatis pectus! Vir regii nominis, cui ex successione sperabatur haereditas; cui spem auxerant culminis potiundi genus, virtus, militum gratia, populi favor, ipsius etiam mirabilis fama triumphi, quo uno tantum fulcitus comite armatos cuneos agminis hostilis invasit, ac suae genti insperatam victoriam reportavit, infra servum semet dejiciens : Ego, inquit, ero secundus post te. Hic, inquam, in cujus laudibus adhuc canitur : Sagitta Jonathae nunquam abiit retrorsum, et gladius ejus non est reversus inanis (II Reg. i) ; quasi seipsum nesciens ut sciret amicum : Tu, inquit, eris rex, et ego ero secundus post te. Quis, rogo, haec etiam de uterino suo fratre sine immani saltem cogitaret invidia ?

Quis amici causa totam spem in desperationem deduceret? Filii patriarchae Jacob (Gen. xxxvii), paterni grati, qua unus ceteris dulcius fovebatur, immoderatius invidentes; servitutem fratri, patri summam invexere tristitiam. Primus ille pontificum cum sorore prophetissa praeventus, ni fallor, invidia, fratri mansuetissimo detrahens, vix ipso orante Moyse divinam ultionem evasit (Num. xii) ; sapientissimus Salomon fratrem aemulum regni, accepta qualibet occasione, delevit (III Reg. ii); Jonathas solus infra amicum, patrem, patriam regnumque despiciens : Tu, inquit, eris rex, et ego ero secundus post te. Qui si dixisset : Ego ero rex, tu autem eris secundus post me; nec legem amicitiae, nec amici gratiam violasset. Flebant autem ambo, ut ait Scriptura, sed David amplius (I Reg.

xx). Instabat nimirum illa amarior morte divisio, qua individua illa pectora mutuo frustrarentur aspectu : qua cessare habuit illa dulcis confabulatio, illa periculorum omnium alleviatrix consolatio, illa quoque vitae ipsi praeferenda mutui secreti revelatio : ideo flebant ambo. Cerne, quaeso, ordinatissimae dilectionis hominem. Debebat quippe Jonathas amico affectum, sed patri obsequium. Amico gratiam, sed paternae senectuti custodiam. Si secutus affectum inhaesisset amico, paternae dilectionis jura laesisset. Sed si monente, imo etiam compellente patre, amico gratiam subtraxisset, initi foederis ac sacratissimae amicitiae legem violasset. Ex affectu itaque utrique placebat conjunctio; sed ex ratione placebat divisio.

Flendo igitur solvebant quod debebant affectui; sed dividendo, coacti licet, cedebant rationi. Uterque flebat, quia uterque diligebat. Cur igitur David amplius ? Praedixerat nimirum Jonathas (I Reg. xviii) suum quodammodo defectum, amici profectum; se regno privandum, David assumendum; idcirco lex amicitiae exigebat, et ille compassione amici fleret injuriam : iste ne amici videretur dolere successus, aliquantisper lacrymis temperaret. Affectum igitur naturalem rationali praeposuit, actum vero secundum rationem ordinavit. David quoque ipse cum fidelis ei exercitus de filio parricida victoriam reportasset, naturali cedens affectui, filii sui lugebat interitum (II Reg. xviii); sed correptus a milite officialem naturali praeposuit : depositoque luctu victori populo gratulabundus occurrit.

Salvator etiam noster, cum jam ex affectu naturali, quo nemo unquam carnem suam odio habuit (Ephes. v), proclamasset, Pater, si fieri potest, transeat a me calix iste (Matth. xxvi); spirituali, quo semper Patri inhaesit, rationis eum jure submisit : Verumtamen, inquiens, non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu (ibid.) . Proinde in his affectibus haec ratio servanda est, ut is quo animus noster excitatur in Deum, ceteris omnibus praeponatur ; deinde rationalis officiali, officialis naturali, naturalis carnali.

Scripture echoes

  1. ↩Gen.22.1-Gen.22.19 — After these things, God tested Abraham. And He said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." Gen.22.2 — And He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." Gen.22.3 — And Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took his two young men with him, and Isaac his son, and he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and he arose and went to the place that God had told him. Gen.22.4 — On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from a distance. Gen.22.5 — Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey, while I and the lad will go over there. We will worship and then return to you." Gen.22.6 — Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son. He took in his hand the fire and the knife. And the two of them walked on together. Gen.22.7 — And Isaac said to Abraham his father, and he said, 'My father.' And he said, 'Here I am, my son.' And he said, 'Here is the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?' Gen.22.8 — And Abraham said, 'God will provide for himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son. And the two of them walked on together. Gen.22.9 — And they came to the place that God had told him about. There Abraham built the altar and arranged the wood. Then he bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Gen.22.10 — And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. Gen.22.11 — But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, 'Abraham, Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.' Gen.22.12 — He said, "Do not lay your hand on the boy, and do not do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, and you have not withheld your son, your only one, from Me." Gen.22.13 — And Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold, a ram, afterward, caught in the thicket by its horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. Gen.22.14 — Abraham called the name of that place 'The LORD Will Be Seen,' as it is said to this day, 'On the mountain the LORD will be seen.' Gen.22.15 — And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, Gen.22.16 — and he said, 'By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son— Gen.22.17 — because I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore, and your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies; Gen.22.18 — and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice Gen.22.19 — Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they arose and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham lived at Beersheba.
  2. ↩Matt.26.39 — And going forward a little, he fell on his face, praying and saying, 'My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.'
  3. ↩Matt.26.39 — And going forward a little, he fell on his face, praying and saying, 'My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.'

Notes

  1. 1 ↩The Latin plays on the double meaning of 'viscera' as both 'bowels/inward feeling' and 'offspring'; the rendering 'flesh and blood' captures the emotional weight while preserving the reference to Isaac as his own 'viscera.'
  2. 2 ↩The phrase 'non in patris injuriam' is rendered as 'even though it meant wronging his own father' to capture the concessive force: Jonathan's loyalty to David came at the cost of injury to Saul.
  3. 3 ↩The Latin 'amici gratia' (grace/favor of friendship) is rendered as 'grace of friendship' to preserve the theological weight of 'gratia' while keeping the relational sense. 'Obliteraverit affectum' is rendered as 'erased the affection' to capture the strong metaphor of effacement.
  4. 4 ↩The phrase 'vir invictae charitatis' is rendered as 'the man of unconquerable love' to capture the personification of charity as a conquering virtue. The final clause 'intulit Jonathas' with 'foedere' as ablative of means is rendered as 'Jonathan made the offer' with the covenant renewed — the sense is that Jonathan renewed the covenant bond.
  5. 5 ↩The source citation in the Latin text reads '(I Reg.)' followed by 'xxiii)' in the next sentence. The Vulgate reference is 1 Samuel (1 Regum) 23 or possibly 2 Samuel 7. The citation is preserved as given; final resolution belongs to tx-08.
  6. 6 ↩ut could be purpose or result; the quasi … ut construction favors purpose, rendered here as "so that."
  7. 7 ↩Deliberative subjunctive cogitaret in a rhetorical question: rendered as "would think."
  8. 8 ↩The truncated question (Cur igitur David amplius?) is completed from the surrounding context: the implied verb is something like 'weep' or 'mourn,' drawn from the preceding discussion of David's grief. The translation supplies 'go on' to capture amplius in a natural English idiom.
  9. 9 ↩The sentence is incomplete in the source, breaking off mid-citation. The translation preserves the open parenthesis.
  10. 10 ↩The Latin contrasts ille (Jonathan, the one who loses the kingdom) and iste (David, the one who gains it). The translation renders these as 'the former' and 'the latter' to preserve the distinction.
  11. 11 ↩The sentence is incomplete in the source, breaking off mid-citation. The translation preserves the open parenthesis. The reference is to 2 Samuel (2 Kings in Vulgate) 18–19, David's mourning for Absalom.
  12. 12 ↩The 'soldier' (milite) is Joab, who rebuked David in 2 Samuel 19:5–7. Officialem is rendered as 'duty' to capture the sense of the office or role David owed to his people as king.

Speculum caritatis (The Mirror of Charity) companion

Reorder one love at a time, daily

Use the study map with the free Chosen Portion app's daily readings to work through Aelred at a sustainable pace.

Aelred wrote the Mirror as a rule for daily interior discipline in community, and Chosen Portion carries that discipline forward as a short ordered reading each day.

  • All 3 books and 102 chapters mapped into 4 weekly themes with page-level pointers
  • Aelred's choice-motion-fruit test, turned into a one-page self-examination worksheet
  • 16 discussion questions ready for personal journaling or a 4-session small group
Chosen Portion — Daily Prayer (free iOS app) →