Here's a rundown of the four:
Bravery. The willingness to go the distance (possibly losing something dear to yourself) for someone.
Bravery is overcoming fear. We all have fears we wish to overcome, which is why this virtue if so appealing. But is that a good way to judge a person? Their ability to overcome strong emotion? perhaps that emotion is not so strong for them in the first place.
Patience. The ability to control and conquer one's baser emotions, and by so doing possibly preserve love.
This approaches rejecting emotion completely. Or completely controlling it. If patience is such a great virtue, then the most virtuous person must be stone cold and calculating. Patience is a virtue, but to put it above others seems unwarranted.
Loyalty. Sticking with a person or ideal even when it may cost you.
This depends largely on what one is loyal to. I believe all authority should be questioned. Anything that would tell you what to do, how to behave, what is and isn't true, should be judged with harsh scrutiny before it is accepted. At it's best, loyalty is the outcome of that judgment. But at its worst, loyalty is the difference of personal responsibility to another. It can mean differing your own judgment to someone or something unqualified and wrong. With that in mind, even at its best, is loyalty the right virtue to praise? Is that one has passed judgment on something and deemed it worthy the true magical quantity when it's involved?
Temperance. The ability to resist illicit or ignoble impulses.
If one holds that love is the greatest magic, then this surely cannot be the second. For whatever love is, it can be the strongest of impulses. If you value love first, then temperance second, you've judged that love is the only emotion worth having. You may consider temperance to apply only to ignoble impulses, but what makes an impulse noble or ignoble is largely a mater of degree. Is love really that good that it would be the only impulse that you would always at fist judgment think nobly about?