Source: http://www.ecu.edu/medieval/bacio1.htm

I have come to find you so you might liberate me from a thought that I do not know how to rid myself of, it seems to me so difficult and so novel.

You are welcome, my dear signor Angelo  But what is the thought that brings such preoccupation?

Many times I myself have experienced the sweetness that one feels in a kiss, a sweetness that in truth is so great that if it does not hold the first place in the sweetness of love, it surely holds the second. And I have many times looked for the reason for this, but I have never been able to imagine such a thing that would please me and in a sense satisfy my soul.  I have even gone to those writers who write about love, and there I have really found many beautiful and marvelous things, but nothing about the kiss, as though it were of no force or value in love.  For this reason I have now been motivated to come to you, so that you can make clear to me what is the reason why the kiss is so sweet.

Not a very good decision, amorous signor Angelo, to come to inquire about love to a man who is solitary and intent on studies other than amorous ones; and you know that in a hermitage these can have no place.

My decision was a good one, since I know that before you became a solitary, you were in love, and I equally well know that in love and for its practice and science you understand more that anyone else what they might be.  So do set your mind to it and elucidate the subject for me.

So without any warning you want me to elucidate such a great and novel line of reasoning without my knowing or even imagining what I should say.

Surely it is a much easier thing for you to tell me something about my question now rather than for me to return another time for this same purpose by such a difficult road.  So with a little effort on your part I ask you to be willing to free me now from having to climb such a steep road to such a fatiguing place, so I will not be compelled to do so again.

You move me very much, dear signor Angelo, with these words, and now I shall show myself to be a great wizard for you, since your prayers have the power to move my soul to say something about a subject of which I know nothing.  Surely you do the impossible, but since you compel me to do this, I shall do it.  But where shall we begin?

That's your business.

Oh the great power of your magic!  Who has ever heard of such a thing, that while others are attentive and watching someone give a discourse about something that he knows he does not know.  But tell me, do you believe that every kiss is something sweet?

 This I do not know.

Have you ever been kissed by your father, or brother, or some other member of your family?

Yes I have.  But what is the purpose of such a question?

It is best for me, charming signor Angelo, to go about treating of such questions that have no value until finally Love, or at least its spirit, or those obedient to its charms, inspire me with what is good about a kiss, something that can satisfy you.  And it surely is not difficult for you to answer such paltry questions.

I will do so.

So did that kiss from a family member seem very sweet?

Certainly it gave me no sweetness.

So it appears that not every kiss is sweet.

So it seems.

And have you never been kissed on the forehead or cheek?

Yes I have been.

And then did you experience any sweetness?

Not I.

So what kind of kiss do you find sweet?

A kiss on the mouth gives sweetness.

Have you never found that some relative or companion or friend, such as those you have in Venice, with the habit of kissing others along the way, has exchanged kisses on the mouth?

Yes.  But I do not mean this sort of kiss, but one of those that are given due to love.

If you by chance had some loving exchange with an old woman, or with an ugly lady, or with someone whose breath was foul, what sweetness would then be yours?

Someone who wants can take that sort of sweetness, but I do not delight in it.

But you do delight in the kisses of a beautiful woman.

Of those, yes indeed.

So do you believe that every kiss from a beautiful woman would be something sweet?

Yes, I would believe that.

Many times I have heard many forthcoming youths say that when they have a loving exchange with a common woman, however beautiful, they avoid every kiss, as though they would feel annoyance from it instead of sweetness.

I do not know if I should believe that about frivolous matters, but in a kiss from a beloved person what would you say are the results?

Oh the great providence of Love, how you have lead us from vain things all the way to your marvels!  Indeed this solitude is filled with you, and this air with your holy spirits!  Look, amorous signor Angelo, how I am filled with amorous spirits that dictate sweet words to solve your sweet and loving question.  And yet you, o Love, so revered and venerated by me, are rousing your spirits in me, and reigniting my heart once chilled in its solitude, so that I may be able in keeping with your divine flames to enlighten this amorous youth about your marvelous and ineffable powers.  And so you too, my signor Angelo, pray that today and always he be propitious and favorable to you.

And I will pray for that, but you respond to my question.

I believe that ineffable sweetness is experienced in the kiss of a beloved person;  and now the spirit that fills my heart tells me that no other thing produces sweetness in a kiss other than love, without which the kiss is something dead and not at all sweet.

In what way is that?

I will tell you, but do not impede the spirit that speaks in me, since it is a good spirit and is not about to lie to you.

I will do that, but please continue.

The kiss of deformed women is distasteful, is it not?

It certainly is.
 

That of family members and of friends is neither distasteful, nor does it have that sweetness of which we speak, which is in the amorous kiss alone.

That is true.

Nothing burns and heats except due to fire.  So no kiss is spiced with sweetness if it is not amorous.  Is that not so?

It is.

Love then is what puts sweetness in a kiss, since without love it is bereft of sweetness, just as wood bereft of fire does not burn or heat.

What you say is true.

So it is not that the kiss by its very nature gives sweetness, since if by its nature it brought sweetness irregardless of whatever person bestowed it, it would always be sweet, which is not the case, since it is disgusting if different from this.

That is true.

So it is nothing else but love that bestows sweetness on the kiss, since that kiss alone is sweet which is shared by lovers, just as the wood alone that has fire in it heats.

In fact that spirit that has entered your heart speaks the truth to you.

So the kiss, seasoned in the sweetnesses of love, bestows on the lovers that ineffable sweetness experienced in one's kissing the other.

This alone does that.

But is it possible, my signor Angelo, that you do not experience sweetness in any other amorous kiss than that on the mouth?

I also feel it in a kiss on the cheek, but not of so great a force.

And a kiss elsewhere?

Where else?  Because that on the forehead is not an amorous kiss, but just the great endowment of a loving person.

Beg, beg Love that it show and reveal to us all the secrets of its sweetness, because without its grace you will even dare to gaze into the profound abyss of its sweetnesses.

And I devoutly beseech him with all my heart, that he make me worthy to consider his marvelous and ineffable pleasures.

Now the amorous spirit that is in me commands me that I say that amorous kisses are given in six parts of the beloved person, and in four ways, and no more.

And what are these six parts?

They are the nostrils, the breast, the neck, the cheeks, the eyes, and the mouth.

And the ways?

The ways are these: with the tips of the lips, with moisture of the lips, with a bite, and with the tongue.

I thank you, Love, for making me able to follow this.  And so I ask again for your kindness that you enrich me with your secrets.  But you, Spirit in the heart of Patricio, deign to detail these things one by one.

So I shall.  Of the parts, my signor Angelo, the less sweet to kiss are the hands.  More sweet that these is the breast.  And it is an important thing to say what I want to say now, that though the breast is softer and more delicate than the neck, nevertheless more sweetness is experienced in kissing the neck than kissing the breast.  This sweetness is so great, that if it does not equal that of the cheeks, which alone in great part are the dwelling of beauty, surely it lags behind but by little.

You speak truly: the sweetness from a kiss on the neck is great, but that it is so in comparison with the cheeks, I will take your word for that, amorous Spirit, because I have not had the experience.

If you wish to do that, you will sense what I way to you is true.  The kiss on the eyes is very sweet, but the kiss on the mouth is the kiss that exceeds and surpasses all other kisses, even when they are taken together.

I do not doubt this, o good spirit.

And you know that there are four ways of kissing on the mouth, each more tender and sweet that the other.

And what are these?

By joining lips to lips, by the moisture of the beloved lips, by offering the tongue, and by receiving it.

What you say is true.  And I sense that this is the greatest sweetness that one can sense in a kiss.

But Dolphin, you are not attending to the great difference that the kiss of the mouth has in comparison with the other kisses.

Not for certain.  What is it?

All the other kisses, whether on the hand, the breast or the neck, or on the cheeks or eyes - these are all given; but that of the mouth alone is both given and received.

I understand that.

But according to you which is the greater sweetness between these two: the kiss given or the kiss received?

As far as I can presently think, I feel greater sweetness when the woman kisses me.

That is in part true and in part not true.

In what way?

Because there are three sorts of kisses of the mouth: those of the tips of the lips, of the moisture, and of the tongue.

That is true.

The first, that of the lips, offers equal sweetness to both, because both the one and the other gives of his own, and receives of the other.  And so it is this kiss that is less sweet both to the one and to the other of the lovers that the other two.

That is true.  But which one of them feels greater delight in the other two?

Absolutely the one who loves the more.

In the case where both equally love each other, which of them experiences the greater sweetness, the one who gives or the one who receives?

In any kind of kiss, the one who receives feels pleasure greater beyond comparison than the one who gives.

And that spirit of mine has no appearance of truth at all!

And why not.

Because in view of the fact that in the kiss of the tongue the one who receives feels (as is the case) greater sweetness that the other who gives, in all the other kisses it seems to me to be the contrary.  The reason is that in the kiss of the top of the mouth the one who sucks, who is the one who gives, feels greater sweetness than the one sucked, who is the one who receives.  And so one who is kissed on the eyes, or on the cheek, or on the neck, or on the breast, or on the hand feels little or no sweetness, while the one who kisses feels it most intensely.

You argue truly about the kiss, o Dolphin, but I was speaking of another thing.

Of what other?

Of the reason for the sweetness of the kiss.

And what sort of joy is the reason for this sweetness?

The spirit of the beloved, whom the lover delights in kissing.

That indeed may well be so; but I do not understand it, o gracious spirit.

I say that the one who kisses is insensibly delighted by the spirit of the one kissed.
And this is the reason why in the kiss one feels so great a sweetness.

In part I understand, and in part I do not understand: consequently it is necessary to clarify this thing which seems extremely beautiful for me.

That certainly is true, but it is not something easy to explain, because it is a matter for profound contemplation, and it is necessary for you to be very intent on what I will say.

I shall be most intent.

I say that there are two things that explain the sweetness in a kiss: love, which was said first, and the goodness of the spirits of the beloved, which is said now.  Wherefore kisses bestowed on a person who is not beloved have no sweetness, all that one's spirit delights in.  And I shall continue at length on this topic so you will understand perfectly the mystery of the secret reasons for this loving sweetness we are seeking.

And this I beg you, o gentle spirit, that you clarify it fully for me, and for this I shall always have praise for you.

Be really alert about this.  We now have two things to see: the one, in what manner love makes the spirits of the beloved sweet, and the other, how they are delighted by the lover.  And I speak in this manner:  love is born in hearts either from the likeness which the others have among themselves, or of the beauty that the other has in himself, or of both things joined together.  Do not be distressed, Dolfin, to have to believe that a woman very rarely is similar to man, and yet she both loves a man and is loved by a man.  Because one likeness is exterior and the other is interior. It is true that the exterior is not the reason for any love, but the interior is always the reason for love.  And this is of two kinds:  of the quality of the soul, and of the quality of the body.  That of the body is all in the equilibrium of the humors and of the spirits which make up and give life to the human body.  And that of the soul consists in the impressions which, as they descend from Heaven, they took from the one ruling planet two souls in their ethereal body.  That first corporeal likeness is an easy thing to understand.  And this second you will understand with a little effort. And you must know that the planets work both on the elemental bodies, and on themselves among themselves, with movement and with light brought by the movement, with warmth brought by the light, and with the influx of their properties from the transported warmth.  And because the warmth and the influence is dependent on the light, from its variations they will further undergo variation in their operations, provoked by the diverse movements of the heavens, of the planets; these, [according as they are in one place in heaven or another are found to be among themselves either more distant or more close, or are seen with one or other aspect,]  operate more or less either on themselves, or on the elements, or on the other bodies.
And when one of them is found that is more powerful than the others, then it is said that the dominion of operating belongs to it.  From this dominion of theirs each one takes an impression or quality (either jovial, or sexy, or of some other designation); it is requested from the dominant planet.  Up to now I believe that you have easily understood.

Yes, I understand, certainly.

Now consider this other side.  The human soul, after it has been created by God and has come to rule the earthly body, in order that, incorporeal as it is, it can be joined to what is corporeal, such as is our elemental body, is clothed with an ethereal body, by which, as though by something in between, it is carried from the one extreme above downward to the other extreme here below, and for this reason it is called by some wise men a vehicle and carriage of the soul.  And in this body made in this way from here below arising above the heavens, the soul descending in the terrestrial element takes a luminous impression from each of the planets, through the spheres through which it passes, but it takes more from those which are powerful in appearance, and more than all the others from that which is found to be the King of the others.  From this it takes a quality in the way that another, walking in the sun, receives a dark color.  And now two souls take that quality and influence from the same reigning planet or from another of strong light, they will be similar, and from the similarity brought about in this way, or from that due to temperament, which is created from this in a certain way and not from the exterior, is born the love which I was describing.  And if you see that some time a deformed man loves some woman, or on the contrary a woman loves a repugnant man, it is due to this and nothing else..

Now I understand and for my part I am satisfied.

From another point of view, beauty is the most universal reason for love, but that is not beautiful which is not pleasing to everyone.

Do you say that yourself, Patricio, or rather is it your spirit that says it?

It seems to me that the spirit says it.

Do you believe that it would please it for me to ask why it is that beauty is pleasing to everyone, but not everyone is enamored of her?

He tells me that I should reply to you that there is the most supreme reason for that.

And what is that?

Our soul, he says, even though it is vested in a ethereal body when it comes from its maker, filled with all the ideas of things formed, takes into its substance the understanding of all the ideas.  These, being the most beautiful creatures of the most perfect kind that they can be in the intellect, still remain beautiful in the soul in the most complete manner that its nature admits.  And the soul so informed, while the celestial body having been put on, descends through the heavens and through the elements into the basin of the mothers of men, and digests the matter in a better form, corresponding to the region of the idea it of the human body, which it carries with. So every soul that descends from heaven still carries with it the concept of beauty and of all its parts, which among us it carries into some body.  And these, compared by the soul with the concepts it has of them in itself, through the consciousness which they have among them, are more or less pleasing, depending on whether the soul has knowledge according to a lesser or greater consciousness.  And since every human soul has such concepts of beauty in itself, and every one through some recollection of them can make a comparison of corporeal beauties with those parts that are incorporeal, it is due to this that all beauties and its parts are pleasing to everyone;  these latter are:  the proportions of the corporeal parts, their physiognomy, colors, lights, shadows, and the graces, all of which things together and each for itself pleases.  But how do they bring about falling in love? you would say.  And why not everyone?

This is the thing I am seeking.

To this I say that pleasing is one thing, desire another, affection another, and love still another.  Pleasing is delight of the soul in itself, in contemplating beauty that is seen, or some other good and perfect thing.  But desire is an integral compound of pleasing, of desire, and of and affection.

Now I speak in this way: every beauty pleases everyone, and after experiencing this pleasure there is no man who does not desire to possess the beauty. Not that it is the case that everyone has an inclination to take advantage of the pleasing and desired thing.  That is what I have called affection, which, when it is joined to satisfaction and desire, results in love, but without affection love will not result.  Now this affection is not born from beauty, since every beauty, being pleasing and arousing desire for itself, does not ignite love, but love is born rather from the hidden similarity already described, since it is seen that a man meeting a person who is neither beautiful nor graceful is drawn to bestow affection on the person because of a hidden reason.  This reason is nothing other than that similarity that we spoke about, either of the soul or of the body.

Now just as beauty can be found in a person who is similar to us, so similarity can likewise be found in a person who is not beautiful.  And thus for the first there will be produced in us pleasure and desire, and for the second affection, but each one apart, so when all are joined together there is produced love in us, at the same time that our beauty and similarity will be found in the one same person.

Therefore the concourse of pleasure, desire, and affection is truly love, and so it is that every beauty produces pleasure and the desire for itself in everyone, and yet everyone is not enamored by it.  And why also a handsome man loves a woman who is less beautiful, and a beautiful woman a man who is less handsome.

I know that.  But  it is not yet clear, oh graceful and love-filled Spirit, whence it is that a beautiful woman love an unattractive man, or that a man a deformed woman.

That will also be clear if you would consider that one kind of love is ugly and wild, and the other love is beautiful and worthy of man.  Of these the one is completely inclined to the ugliness of lust, and the other almost completely given to the pleasure of conversing and loving in a beautiful way.

That is indeed true.  But what does that have to do with my question?

It brings it about that love of someone ugly for someone else ugly, or of one who is beautiful for one who is ugly, is always a wild and brutish love, and is only for the purpose of releasing the impetuous appetites of the degraded soul.  But that which is of who is deformed for one who is beautiful, and of one who is beautiful for someone else who is also beautiful, is more of a proper nature and of a refined manner.  And so it can be that the first two manners of love are not born of likeness.  Yet they are never born of beauty, but they are the most imperfect types.  But the second two always are born of likeness or of beauty, and so they are always of the perfect and complete type of love.

Now I remain content and satisfied about my second question, but return, amorous Spirit full of gentleness, to investigate the first, the one about the sweetness of kisses.

I am content to do that, but listen to me with attention.  Since the beautiful and perfect types of love are born from likeness and beauty, and by their nature sense in themselves the perfect sweetness of kisses, which I have said is diffused throughout love, it remains to be seen how love diffuses it there among the sweetness, and how by this means kisses are so sweet a thing.  As I reason on this, I will develop my main reasoning based on the most noble and most beautiful love among all the others, in which there is truly the perfect sweetness of the kiss.

Yes, it is true;  but it is not however so exclusively its own, gentle Spirit, that even that other less beautiful love does not have part of it.

That is true.  But that is by accident, not by nature, since that ardent rabies man has in this love makes something appear sweet when it is not.  And it is rather that sweetness of the imagination or of a youth than that in truth, and it is not our intention to reason about that..

If it is so, Spirit full of goodness and of truth, cease speaking of that and pursue the true and natural sweetness of the kiss.

So I shall.  But tell me, do you know what is the guide that directs love in human hearts.

I do not understand that it be other than the similarity and the beauty already spoken of.

These are the generators and the mothers of love, but I am asking what is the Leader that brings love in the human heart from similarity and beauty.

This I do not know.

The eyes which, oh men, are nothing but a passageway through which love passes from one who beautiful and similar into our soul.

And how then does it pass, amorous Spirit?

Through no other means than through the rays of the eyes and of the flares of all beauty and of the one who is beautiful and similar do they bring with them spirits of his heart.  And as they gaze into our eyes from there they cast themselves into our heart, stamping his spirits with the beauty whence they emerged, they even ignite them with their flames.  And these are the real darts, and the arrows, and the flashes of Love, with which by shooting him with arrows and inflaming the other's heart,  it brings about in these sweet wounds, and those ardent flames, which one can exult in for such a great sweetness, that they are not rehealed or rebound.  And have you never, amorous Dolphin, burned with a love so produced? [152, 1] 

Main Menu