I answer that, As the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 4), "to love is to wish good to someone." Hence the movement of love has a twofold tendency: towards the good which a man wishes to someone (to himself or to another) and towards that to which he wishes some good. Accordingly, man has love of concupiscence towards the good that he wishes to another, and love of friendship towards him to whom he wishes good.
Now the members of this division are related as primary and secondary: since that which is loved with the love of friendship is loved simply and for itself; whereas that which is loved with the love of concupiscence, is loved, not simply and for itself, but for something else. For just as that which has existence, is a being simply, while that which exists in another is a relative being; so, because good is convertible with being, the good, which itself has goodness, is good simply; but that which is another's good, is a relative good. Consequently the love with which a thing is loved, that it may have some good, is love simply; while the love, with which a thing is loved, that it may be another's good, is relative love.
Reply to Objection 1: Love is not divided into friendship and concupiscence, but into love of friendship, and love of concupiscence. For a friend is, properly speaking, one to whom we wish good: while we are said to desire, what we wish for ourselves.
Hence the Reply to the Second Objection.
Reply to Objection 3: When friendship is based on usefulness or pleasure, a man does indeed wish his friend some good: and in this respect the character of friendship is preserved. But since he refers this good further to his own pleasure or use, the result is that friendship of the useful or pleasant, in so far as it is connected with love of concupiscence, loses the character to true friendship.
Im Wikipedia-Artikel über die Summa theologica wird auf Aristoteles hingewiesen. Daher nehme ich an, dass es sich hier um die Rhetorik des Aristoteles handelt. Auf der folgenden Seite findet man in Kapitel 4 tatsächlich etwas zum Thema Freundschaft (auf englisch): http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotl...ook2.html#book2
 Let loving, then, be defined as wishing for anyone the things which we believe to be good, for his sake but not for our own, and procuring them for him as far as lies in our power. A friend is one who loves and is loved in return, and those who think their relationship is of this character consider themselves friends.
 This being granted, it necessarily follows that he is a friend who shares our joy in good fortune and our sorrow in affliction, for our own sake and not for any other reason. For all men rejoice when what they desire comes to pass and are pained when the contrary happens, so that pain and pleasure are indications of their wish.
 And those are friends who have the same ideas of good and bad, and love and hate the same persons, since they necessarily wish the same things; wherefore one who wishes for another what he wishes for himself seems to be the other's friend.
 We also like those who have done good either to us or to those whom we hold dear, if the services are important, or are cordially rendered, or under certain circumstances, and for our sake only; and all those whom we think desirous of doing us good.
Weiterführend erscheint mir auch der folgende Passus sehr wichtig, weshalb ich diesen ebenfalls zitiere:
Darüber hinaus interessiert es mich selbst ungemein, Dingen, die ich bisher nie hinterfragt, sondern stets als selbstverständlich hingenommen hatte, auf den Grund zu gehen und tieferes Wissen über so manche sprachliche Besonderheit zu erlangen!
Ich halte lateinische Scrabble-Partien mit anschließender Spielanalyse und der Betrachtung der Wörter, die tatsächlich gelegt wurden und die man theoretisch hätte legen können, für eine EXTREM lehrreiche Angelegenheit, insbesondere dann, wenn man die Bedeutung dieser Wörter zusätzlich noch im Lewis & Short nachschlägt.
Das ist eine völlig neue Methode, unbekannte lateinische Vokabeln neu zu lernen oder vergessene lateinische Vokabeln zu wiederholen.
Quintilian schreibt im ersten Buch seiner INSTITVTIO ORATORIA:
Zitat von http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/quintilia...itutio1.shtml#1Neque enim mihi illud saltem placet, quod fieri in plurimis video, ut litterarum nomina et contextum prius quam formas parvoli discant. XXV. Obstat hoc agnitioni earum, non intendentibus mox animum ad ipsos ductus dum antecedentem memoriam secuntur. Quae causa est praecipientibus ut, etiam cum satis adfixisse eas pueris recto illo quo primum scribi solent contextu videntur, retro agant rursus et varia permutatione turbent, donec litteras qui instituuntur facie norint, non ordine: quapropter optime sicut hominum pariter et habitus et nomina edocebuntur. XXVI. Sed quod in litteris obest in syllabis non nocebit. Non excludo autem id quod est notum irritandae ad discendum infantiae gratia, eburneas etiam litterarum formas in lusum offerre, vel si quid aliud quo magis illa aetas gaudeat inveniri potest quod tractare intueri nominare iucundum sit.
Englische Übersetzung bei LacusCurtius:
Zitat von http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Ro...oria/1A*.html#1At any rate I am not satisfied with the course (which I note is usually adopted) of teaching small children the names and order of the letters before their shapes. 25 Such a practice makes them slow to recognise the letters, since they do not pay attention to their actual shape, preferring to be guided by what they have already learned by rote. It is for this reason that teachers, when they think they have sufficiently familiarised their young pupils with the letters written in their usual order, reverse that order or rearrange it in every kind of combination, until they learn to know the letters from their appearance and not from the order in which they occur. It will be best therefore for children to begin by learning their appearance and names just as they do with men. 26 The method, however, to which we have objected in teaching the alphabet, is unobjectionable when applied to syllables. I quite approve on the other hand of a practice which has been devised to stimulate children to learn by giving them ivory letters to play with, as I do of anything else that may be days to delight the very young, the sight, handling and naming of which is a pleasure.
Daraus schließe ich, dass Quintilian Scrabble für ein in pädagogischer Hinsicht sehr wertvolles Spiel halten würde. Es hätte ihm wie auch den Schulkindern sicher auch Spaß gemacht zu scrabblen...
PS: Gero und ich, wir spielten als kleine Kinder oft das Junior-Scrabble zusammen... Das hätte Meister Quintilian sehr gut gefunden, wenn er das gesehen hätte! Allerdings waren unsere Buchstaben nicht aus Elfenbein...