Tractatus duo

and by every duty, so that no hope of interrupting or dissolving it may be conceived, which those who are truly friends to one another never do.

But it has been asked, upon the death of one of the friends, what the surviving friend ought to do with the children of the deceased by the right of his friendship for the father, and whether the same friendship is continued toward the children of the deceased? And certainly, perhaps it ought to be considered most equitable that children, just as they are heirs of the father’s other goods, should also be heirs of the paternal friendship, as Isocrates said excellently in his letter to Demonicus: because paternal friendship is counted among the greatest goods, and is often far more beautiful and useful than any paternal inheritance. And so it is generally contracted by the vow of parents, so that the fruits of the friendship initiated by themselves may reach their descendants and children also. Thus, the friendship of Jonathan and David reached the children of Jonathan 2 Samuel 9:1 and 7. Which, although it could seem to have been done out of the pact that was added (as in 1 Samuel 20:15 and 42), nevertheless this is the vow of friends: that the fruits of their mutual friendship should in some way pertain also to their children: because every pious and faithful person provides most of all not only for himself, but also for his own. Therefore, the friends of the deceased are loved, and his wife, and children, and other things that pertained to him, and even the very dogs and livestock of the friend, by the affection itself impelling them, by right, indeed, and by the duty of friendship: though not as much as the deceased friend himself: but the heat and ardor of such a joining still lives in the breast of the survivor, which emits great sparks of its love wherever either the true image of the friend (such as children are) or the pious memory shines forth and is refreshed. Hence, it has been asked about the donation of those goods