Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 117 [<< | >>]
| Deinde considerandum est de liberalitate, et vitiis oppositis, scilicet avaritia et prodigalitate. | We must now consider liberality and the opposite vices, namely, covetousness and prodigality. |
| Circa liberalitatem quaeruntur sex. | Concerning liberality there are six points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum liberalitas sit virtus. | (1) Whether liberality is a virtue? |
| Secundo, quae sit materia eius. | (2) What is its matter? |
| Tertio, de actu ipsius. | (3) Of its act; |
| Quarto, utrum magis ad eum pertineat dare quam recipere. | (4) Whether it pertains thereto to give rather than to take? |
| Quinto, utrum liberalitas sit pars iustitiae. | (5) Whether liberality is a part of justice? |
| Sexto, de comparatione eius ad alias virtutes. | (6) Of its comparison with other virtues. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 117 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod liberalitas non sit virtus. Nulla enim virtus contrariatur inclinationi naturali. Inclinatio autem naturalis est ad hoc ut aliquis plus sibi quam aliis provideat. Cuius contrarium pertinet ad liberalem, quia, ut philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., liberalis est non respicere ad seipsum, ita quod sibi minora derelinquit. Ergo liberalitas non est virtus. | Objection 1: It seems that liberality is not a virtue. For no virtue is contrary to a natural inclination. Now it is a natural inclination for one to provide for oneself more than for others: and yet it pertains to the liberal man to do the contrary, since, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 1), "it is the mark of a liberal man not to look to himself, so that he leaves for himself the lesser things." Therefore liberality is not a virtue. |
| Item, per divitias homo suam vitam sustentat, et ad felicitatem divitiae organice deserviunt, ut dicitur in I Ethic. Cum igitur omnis virtus ordinetur ad felicitatem, videtur quod liberalis non est virtuosus, de quo philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod non est acceptivus pecuniae neque custoditivus, sed emissivus. | Objection 2: Further, man sustains life by means of riches, and wealth contributes to happiness instrumentally, as stated in Ethic. i, 8. Since, then, every virtue is directed to happiness, it seems that the liberal man is not virtuous, for the Philosopher says of him (Ethic. iv, 1) that "he is inclined neither to receive nor to keep money, but to give it away." |
| Praeterea, virtutes habent connexionem ad invicem. Sed liberalitas non videtur connexa aliis virtutibus, multi enim sunt virtuosi qui non possunt esse liberales, quia non habent quod dent; multique liberaliter dant vel expendunt qui tamen alias sunt vitiosi. Ergo liberalitas non est virtus. | Objection 3: Further, the virtues are connected with one another. But liberality does not seem to be connected with the other virtues: since many are virtuous who cannot be liberal, for they have nothing to give; and many give or spend liberally who are not virtuous otherwise. Therefore liberality is not a virtue. |
| Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, in I de Offic., quod in Evangelio multas disciplinas accipimus iustae liberalitatis. Sed in Evangelio non docentur nisi ea quae ad virtutem pertinent. Ergo liberalitas est virtus. | On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Offic. i) that "the Gospel contains many instances in which a just liberality is inculcated." Now in the Gospel nothing is taught that does not pertain to virtue. Therefore liberality is a virtue. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Lib. Arbit., bene uti his quibus male uti possumus, pertinet ad virtutem. Possumus autem bene et male uti non solum his quae intra nos sunt, puta potentiis et passionibus animae, sed etiam his quae extra nos sunt, scilicet rebus huius mundi concessis nobis ad sustentationem vitae. Et ideo, cum bene uti his rebus pertineat ad liberalitatem, consequens est quod liberalitas virtus sit. | I answer that, As Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii, 19), "it belongs to virtue to use well the things that we can use ill." Now we may use both well and ill, not only the things that are within us, such as the powers and the passions of the soul, but also those that are without, such as the things of this world that are granted us for our livelihood. Wherefore since it belongs to liberality to use these things well, it follows that liberality is a virtue. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Ambrosius et Basilius dicunt, superabundantia divitiarum datur aliquibus a Deo ut meritum bonae dispensationis acquirant. Pauca autem uni sufficiunt. Et ideo liberalis plura laudabiliter in alios expendit quam in seipsum. Debet autem homo semper magis sibi providere in spiritualibus bonis, in quibus unusquisque sibi praecipue subvenire potest. Et tamen etiam in temporalibus rebus non pertinet ad liberalem ut sic aliis intendat quod omnino se et suos despiciat. Unde Ambrosius dicit, in I de Offic., est illa probanda liberalitas ut proximos seminis tui non despicias, si egere cognoscas. | Reply to Objection 1: According to Ambrose (Serm. lxiv de Temp.) and Basil (Hom. in Luc. xii, 18) excess of riches is granted by God to some, in order that they may obtain the merit of a good stewardship. But it suffices for one man to have few things. Wherefore the liberal man commendably spends more on others than on himself. Nevertheless we are bound to be more provident for ourselves in spiritual goods, in which each one is able to look after himself in the first place. And yet it does not belong to the liberal man even in temporal things to attend so much to others as to lose sight of himself and those belonging to him. Wherefore Ambrose says (De Offic. i): "It is a commendable liberality not to neglect your relatives if you know them to be in want." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ad liberalem non pertinet sic divitias emittere ut non sibi remaneat unde sustentetur, et unde virtutis opera exequatur, quibus ad felicitatem pervenitur. Unde philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod liberalis curat propria, volens per hoc quibusdam sufficere. Et Ambrosius dicit, in libro de Offic., quod dominus non vult simul effundi opes, sed dispensari. Nisi forte ut Elisaeus boves suos occidit et pavit pauperes ex eo quod habuit, ut nulla cura teneretur domestica, quod pertinet ad statum perfectionis spiritualis vitae, de quo infra dicetur. | Reply to Objection 2: It does not belong to a liberal man so to give away his riches that nothing is left for his own support, nor the wherewithal to perform those acts of virtue whereby happiness is acquired. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1) that "the liberal man does not neglect his own, wishing thus to be of help to certain people"; and Ambrose says (De Offic. i) that "Our Lord does not wish a man to pour out his riches all at once, but to dispense them: unless he do as Eliseus did, who slew his oxen and fed the poor, that he might not be bound by any household cares." For this belongs to the state of perfection, of which we shall speak farther on (Question [184], Question [186], Article [3]). |
| Et tamen sciendum quod hoc ipsum quod est sua liberaliter largiri, inquantum est actus virtutis, ad beatitudinem ordinatur. | It must be observed, however, that the very act of giving away one's possessions liberally, in so far as it is an act of virtue, is directed to happiness. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., illi qui consumunt multa in intemperantias, non sunt liberales, sed prodigi. Et similiter quicumque effundit quae habet propter quaecumque alia peccata. Unde et Ambrosius dicit, in I de Offic., si adiuves eum qui possessiones aliorum eripere conatur, non probatur largitas. Nec illa perfecta est liberalitas, si iactantiae causa, magis quam misericordiae, largiaris. Et ideo illi qui carent aliis virtutibus, licet in aliqua mala opera multa expendant, non sunt liberales. | Reply to Objection 3: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1), "those who spend much on intemperance are not liberal but prodigal"; and likewise whoever spends what he has for the sake of other sins. Hence Ambrose says (De Offic. i): "If you assist to rob others of their possessions, your honesty is not to be commended, nor is your liberality genuine if you give for the sake of boasting rather than of pity." Wherefore those who lack other virtues, though they spend much on certain evil works, are not liberal. |
| Nihil etiam prohibet aliquos multa in bonos usus expendentes habitum liberalitatis non habere, sicut et aliarum virtutum opera faciunt homines antequam habitum virtutis habeant, licet non eo modo quo virtuosi, ut supra dictum est. Similiter etiam nihil prohibet aliquos virtuosos, licet sint pauperes, esse liberales. Unde philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., secundum substantiam, idest facultatem divitiarum, liberalitas dicitur, non enim consistit in multitudine datorum, sed in dantis habitu. Et Ambrosius dicit, in I de Offic., quod effectus divitem collationem aut pauperem facit, et pretium rebus imponit. | Again, nothing hinders certain people from spending much on good uses, without having the habit of liberality: even as men perform works of other virtues, before having the habit of virtue, though not in the same way as virtuous people, as stated above (FS, Question [65], Article [1]). In like manner nothing prevents a virtuous man from being liberal, although he be poor. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1): "Liberality is proportionate to a man's substance," i.e. his means, "for it consists, not in the quantity given, but in the habit of the giver": and Ambrose says (De Offic. i) that "it is the heart that makes a gift rich or poor, and gives things their value." |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 117 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod liberalitas non sit circa pecunias. Omnis enim virtus moralis est circa operationes vel passiones. Esse autem circa operationes est proprium iustitiae, ut dicitur in V Ethic. Ergo, cum liberalitas sit virtus moralis, videtur quod sit circa passiones, et non circa pecunias. | Objection 1: It seems that liberality is not about money. For every moral virtue is about operations and passions. Now it is proper to justice to be about operations, as stated in Ethic. v, 1. Therefore, since liberality is a moral virtue, it seems that it is about passions and not about money. |
| Praeterea, ad liberalem pertinet quarumcumque divitiarum usus. Sed divitiae naturales sunt veriores quam divitiae artificiales, quae in pecuniis consistunt, ut patet per philosophum, in I Polit. Ergo liberalitas non est principaliter circa pecunias. | Objection 2: Further, it belongs to a liberal man to make use of any kind of wealth. Now natural riches are more real than artificial riches, according to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 5,6). Therefore liberality is not chiefly about money. |
| Praeterea, diversarum virtutum diversae sunt materiae, quia habitus distinguuntur secundum obiecta. Sed res exteriores sunt materiae iustitiae distributivae et commutativae. Ergo non sunt materia liberalitatis. | Objection 3: Further, different virtues have different matter, since habits are distinguished by their objects. But external things are the matter of distributive and commutative justice. Therefore they are not the matter of liberality. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod liberalitas videtur esse medietas quaedam circa pecunias. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1) that "liberality seems to be a mean in the matter of money." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in IV Ethic., ad liberalem pertinet emissivum esse. Unde et alio nomine liberalitas largitas nominatur, quia quod largum est, non est retentivum, sed est emissivum. Et ad hoc idem videtur pertinere etiam liberalitatis nomen, cum enim aliquis a se emittit, quodammodo illud a sua custodia et dominio liberat, et animum suum ab eius affectu liberum esse ostendit. Ea vero quae emittenda sunt ab uno homine in alium, sunt bona possessa, quae nomine pecuniae significantur. Et ideo propria materia liberalitatis est pecunia. | I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 1) it belongs to the liberal man to part with things. Hence liberality is also called open-handedness [largitas], because that which is open does not withhold things but parts of them. The term "liberality" seems also to allude to this, since when a man quits hold of a thing he frees it [liberat], so to speak, from his keeping and ownership, and shows his mind to be free of attachment thereto. Now those things which are the subject of a man's free-handedness towards others are the goods he possesses, which are denoted by the term "money." Therefore the proper matter of liberality is money. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, liberalitas non attenditur in quantitate dati, sed in affectu dantis. Affectus autem dantis disponitur secundum passiones amoris et concupiscentiae, et per consequens delectationis et tristitiae, ad ea quae dantur. Et ideo immediata materia liberalitatis sunt interiores passiones, sed pecunia exterior est obiectum ipsarum passionum. | Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Article [1], ad 3), liberality depends not on the quantity given, but on the heart of the giver. Now the heart of the giver is disposed according to the passions of love and desire, and consequently those of pleasure and sorrow, towards the things given. Hence the interior passions are the immediate matter of liberality, while exterior money is the object of those same passions. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de doctrina Christ., totum quidquid homines in terra habent, et omnia quorum sunt domini, pecunia vocatur, quia antiqui, quae habebant, in pecoribus habebant. Et philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod pecunias dicimus omnia quorum dignitas numismate mensuratur. | Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says in his book De Disciplina Christi (Tract. de divers, i), everything whatsoever man has on earth, and whatsoever he owns, goes by the name of "'pecunia' [money], because in olden times men's possessions consisted entirely of 'pecora' [flocks]." And the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1): "We give the name of money to anything that can be valued in currency." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod iustitia constituit aequalitatem in istis exterioribus rebus, non autem ad eam proprie pertinet moderari interiores passiones. Unde aliter pecunia est materia liberalitatis, et aliter iustitiae. | Reply to Objection 3: Justice establishes equality in external things, but has nothing to do, properly speaking, with the regulation of internal passions: wherefore money is in one way the matter of liberality, and in another way of justice. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 117 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod uti pecunia non sit actus liberalitatis. Diversarum enim virtutum diversi sunt actus. Sed uti pecunia convenit aliis virtutibus, sicut iustitiae et magnificentiae. Non ergo est proprius actus liberalitatis. | Objection 1: It seems that using money is not the act of liberality. For different virtues have different acts. But using money is becoming to other virtues, such as justice and magnificence. Therefore it is not the proper act of liberality. |
| Praeterea, ad liberalem non solum pertinet dare, sed etiam accipere et custodire. Sed acceptio et custodia non videtur ad usum pecuniae pertinere. Ergo inconvenienter dicitur proprius liberalitatis actus usus pecuniae. | Objection 2: Further, it belongs to a liberal man, not only to give but also to receive and keep. But receiving and keeping do not seem to be connected with the use of money. Therefore using money seems to be unsuitably assigned as the proper act of liberality. |
| Praeterea, usus pecuniae non solum consistit in hoc quod pecunia detur, sed in hoc quod expendatur. Sed expendere pecuniam refertur ad ipsum expendentem, et sic non videtur esse liberalitatis actus, dicit enim Seneca, in V de Benefic., non est liberalis aliquis ex hoc quod sibi donat. Ergo non quilibet usus pecuniae pertinet ad liberalitatem. | Objection 3: Further, the use of money consists not only in giving it but also in spending it. But the spending of money refers to the spender, and consequently is not an act of liberality: for Seneca says (De Benef. v): "A man is not liberal by giving to himself." Therefore not every use of money belongs to liberality. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., unoquoque optime utitur qui habet circa singula virtutem. Divitiis ergo utetur optime qui habet circa pecunias virtutem. Iste autem est liberalis. Ergo bonus usus pecuniarum est actus liberalitatis. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1): "In whatever matter a man is virtuous, he will make the best use of that matter: Therefore he that has the virtue with regard to money will make the best use of riches." Now such is the liberal man. Therefore the good use of money is the act of liberality. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod species actus sumitur ex obiecto, ut supra habitum est. Obiectum autem sive materia liberalitatis est pecunia, et quidquid pecunia mensurari potest, ut dictum est. Et quia quaelibet virtus convenienter se habet ad suum obiectum, consequens est ut, cum liberalitas sit virtus, actus eius sit proportionatus pecuniae. Pecunia autem cadit sub ratione bonorum utilium, quia omnia exteriora bona ad usum hominis sunt ordinata. Et ideo proprius actus liberalitatis est pecunia vel divitiis uti. | I answer that, The species of an act is taken from its object, as stated above (FS, Question [18], Article [2]). Now the object or matter of liberality is money and whatever has a money value, as stated in the foregoing Article (ad 2). And since every virtue is consistent with its object, it follows that, since liberality is a virtue, its act is consistent with money. Now money comes under the head of useful goods, since all external goods are directed to man's use. Hence the proper act of liberality is making use of money or riches. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ad liberalitatem pertinet bene uti divitiis inquantum huiusmodi, eo quod divitiae sunt propria materia liberalitatis. Ad iustitiam autem pertinet uti divitiis secundum aliam rationem, scilicet secundum rationem debiti, prout scilicet res exterior debetur alteri. Ad magnificentiam etiam pertinet uti divitiis secundum quandam specialem rationem, idest secundum quod assumuntur in alicuius magni operis expletionem. Unde et magnificentia quodammodo se habet ex additione ad liberalitatem, ut infra dicetur. | Reply to Objection 1: It belongs to liberality to make good use of riches as such, because riches are the proper matter of liberality. On the other hand it belongs to justice to make use of riches under another aspect, namely, that of debt, in so far as an external thing is due to another. And it belongs to magnificence to make use of riches under a special aspect, in so far, to wit, as they are employed for the fulfilment of some great deed. Hence magnificence stands in relation to liberality as something in addition thereto, as we shall explain farther on (Question [134]). |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ad virtuosum pertinet non solum convenienter uti sua materia vel instrumento, sed etiam praeparare opportunitates ad bene utendum, sicut ad fortitudinem militis pertinet non solum exserere gladium in hostes, sed etiam exacuere gladium et in vagina conservare. Sic etiam ad liberalitatem pertinet non solum uti pecunia, sed etiam eam praeparare et conservare ad idoneum usum. | Reply to Objection 2: It belongs to a virtuous man not only to make good use of his matter or instrument, but also to provide opportunities for that good use. Thus it belongs to a soldier's fortitude not only to wield his sword against the foe, but also to sharpen his sword and keep it in its sheath. Thus, too, it belongs to liberality not only to use money, but also to keep it in preparation and safety in order to make fitting use of it. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, propinqua materia liberalitatis sunt interiores passiones secundum quas homo afficitur circa pecuniam. Et ideo ad liberalitatem praecipue pertinet ut homo propter inordinatam affectionem ad pecuniam non prohibeatur a quocumque debito usu eius. Est autem duplex usus pecuniae, unus ad seipsum, qui videtur ad sumptus vel expensas pertinere; alius autem quo quis utitur ad alios, quod pertinet ad dationes. Et ideo ad liberalem pertinet ut neque propter immoderatum amorem pecuniae aliquis impediatur a convenientibus expensis, neque a convenientibus dationibus. Unde circa dationes et sumptus liberalitas consistit, secundum philosophum, in IV Ethic. Verbum autem Senecae intelligendum est de liberalitate secundum quod se habet ad dationes. Non enim dicitur aliquis liberalis ex hoc quod sibi aliquid donat. | Reply to Objection 3: As stated (Article [2], ad 1), the internal passions whereby man is affected towards money are the proximate matter of liberality. Hence it belongs to liberality before all that a man should not be prevented from making any due use of money through an inordinate affection for it. Now there is a twofold use of money: one consists in applying it to one's own use, and would seem to come under the designation of costs or expenditure; while the other consists in devoting it to the use of others, and comes under the head of gifts. Hence it belongs to liberality that one be not hindered by an immoderate love of money, either from spending it becomingly, or from making suitable gifts. Therefore liberality is concerned with giving and spending, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 1). The saying of Seneca refers to liberality as regards giving: for a man is not said to be liberal for the reason that he gives something to himself. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 117 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ad liberalem non maxime pertineat dare. Liberalitas enim a prudentia dirigitur, sicut et quaelibet alia moralis virtus. Sed maxime videtur ad prudentiam pertinere divitias conservare, unde et philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod illi qui non acquisierunt pecuniam, sed susceperunt ab aliis acquisitam, liberalius eam expendunt, quia sunt inexperti indigentiae. Ergo videtur quod dare non maxime pertineat ad liberalitatem. | Objection 1: It seems that it does not belong to a liberal man chiefly to give. For liberality, like all other moral virtues, is regulated by prudence. Now it seems to belong very much to prudence that a man should keep his riches. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1) that "those who have not earned money, but have received the money earned by others, spend it more liberally, because they have not experienced the want of it." Therefore it seems that giving does not chiefly belong to the liberal man. | ||||
| Praeterea, de hoc quod aliquis maxime intendit, nullus tristatur, neque ab eo cessat. Sed liberalis quandoque tristatur de his quae dedit, neque etiam dat omnibus, ut dicitur in IV Ethic. Ergo ad liberalem non maxime pertinet dare. | Objection 2: Further, no man is sorry for what he intends chiefly to do, nor does he cease from doing it. But a liberal man is sometimes sorry for what he has given, nor does he give to all, as stated in Ethic. iv, 1. Therefore it does not belong chiefly to a liberal man to give. | ||||
| Praeterea, ad illud implendum quod quis maxime intendit, homo utitur viis quibus potest. Sed liberalis non est petitivus, ut philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., cum per hoc posset sibi praeparare facultatem aliis donandi. Ergo videtur quod maxime non intendat ad dandum. | Objection 3: Further, in order to accomplish what he intends chiefly, a man employs all the ways he can. Now a liberal man is not a beggar, as the Philosopher observes (Ethic. iv, 1); and yet by begging he might provide himself with the means of giving to others. Therefore it seems that he does not chiefly aim at giving. | ||||
| Praeterea, magis homo obligatur ad hoc quod provideat sibi quam aliis. Sed expendendo aliquid providet sibi, dando autem providet aliis. Ergo ad liberalem magis pertinet expendere quam dare. | Objection 4: Further, man is bound to look after himself rather than others. But by spending he looks after himself, whereas by giving he looks after others. Therefore it belongs to a liberal man to spend rather than to give. | ||||
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod liberalis est superabundare in datione. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1) that "it belongs to a liberal man to surpass in giving." | ||||
| Respondeo dicendum quod proprium est liberalis uti pecunia. Usus autem pecuniae est in emissione ipsius, nam acquisitio pecuniae magis assimilatur generationi quam usui; custodia vero pecuniae, inquantum ordinatur ad facultatem utendi, assimilatur habitui. Emissio autem alicuius rei, quanto fit ad aliquid distantius, tanto a maiori virtute procedit, sicut patet in his quae proiiciuntur. Et ideo ex maiori virtute procedit quod aliquis emittat pecuniam dando eam aliis, quam expendendo eam circa seipsum. Proprium autem est virtutis ut praecipue tendat in id quod perfectius est, nam virtus est perfectio quaedam, ut dicitur in VII Physic. Et ideo liberalis maxime laudatur ex datione. | I answer that, It is proper to a liberal man to use money. Now the use of money consists in parting with it. For the acquisition of money is like generation rather than use: while the keeping of money, in so far as it is directed to facilitate the use of money, is like a habit. Now in parting with a thing —for instance, when we throw something—the farther we put it away the greater the force [virtus] employed. Hence parting with money by giving it to others proceeds from a greater virtue than when we spend it on ourselves. But it is proper to a virtue as such to tend to what is more perfect, since "virtue is a kind of perfection" (Phys. vii, text. 17,18). Therefore a liberal man is praised chiefly for giving. | ||||
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ad prudentiam pertinet custodire pecuniam ne subripiatur aut inutiliter expendatur. Sed utiliter eam expendere non est minoris prudentiae quam utiliter eam conservare, sed maioris, quia plura sunt attendenda circa usum rei, qui assimilatur motui, quam circa conservationem, quae assimilatur quieti. Quod autem illi qui susceperunt pecunias ab aliis acquisitas, liberalius expendunt, quasi existentes inopiae inexperti, si solum propter hanc inexperientiam liberaliter expenderent, non haberent liberalitatis virtutem. Sed quandoque huiusmodi inexperientia se habet solum sicut tollens impedimentum liberalitatis, ita quod promptius liberaliter agant. Timor enim inopiae, ex eius experientia procedens, impedit quandoque eos qui acquisiverunt pecuniam ne eam consumant liberaliter agendo. Et similiter amor quo eam amant tanquam proprium effectum, ut philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic. | Reply to Objection 1: It belongs to prudence to keep money, lest it be stolen or spent uselessly. But to spend it usefully is not less but more prudent than to keep it usefully: since more things have to be considered in money's use, which is likened to movement, than in its keeping, which is likened to rest. As to those who, having received money that others have earned, spend it more liberally, through not having experienced the want of it, if their inexperience is the sole cause of their liberal expenditure they have not the virtue of liberality. Sometimes, however, this inexperience merely removes the impediment to liberality, so that it makes them all the more ready to act liberally, because, not unfrequently, the fear of want that results from the experience of want hinders those who have acquired money from using it up by acting with liberality; as does likewise the love they have for it as being their own effect, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 1). | ||||
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ad liberalitatem pertinet convenienter uti pecunia, et per consequens convenienter dare, quod est quidam pecuniae usus. Quaelibet autem virtus tristatur de contrario sui actus, et vitat eius impedimenta. Ei autem quod est convenienter dare duo opponuntur, scilicet non dare quod convenienter est dandum, et dare aliquid non convenienter. Unde de utroque tristatur liberalis, sed de primo magis, quia plus opponitur proprio actui. Et ideo etiam non dat omnibus, impediretur enim actus eius si quibuslibet daret; non enim haberet unde aliis daret, quibus dare convenit. | Reply to Objection 2: As stated in this and the preceding Article, it belongs to liberality to make fitting use of money, and consequently to give it in a fitting manner, since this is a use of money. Again, every virtue is grieved by whatever is contrary to its act, and avoids whatever hinders that act. Now two things are opposed to suitable giving; namely, not giving what ought suitably to be given, and giving something unsuitably. Wherefore the liberal man is grieved at both: but especially at the former, since it is more opposed to his proper act. For this reason, too, he does not give to all: since his act would be hindered were he to give to everyone: for he would not have the means of giving to those to whom it were fitting for him to give. | ||||
| Ad tertium dicendum quod dare et accipere se habent sicut agere et pati. Non est autem idem principium agendi et patiendi. Unde quia liberalitas est principium dationis, non pertinet ad liberalem ut sit promptus ad recipiendum, et multo minus ad petendum. | Reply to Objection 3: Giving and receiving are related to one another as action and passion. Now the same thing is not the principle of both action and passion. Hence, since liberality is a principle of giving, it does not belong to the liberal man to be ready to receive, and still less to beg. Hence the verse:| Ordinat autem ad dandum aliqua secundum liberalitatis convenientiam, scilicet fructus propriarum possessionum; quos sollicite procurat, ut eis liberaliter utatur.
| But he makes provision in order to give certain things according as liberality requires; such are the fruits of his own possessions, for he is careful about realizing them that he may make a liberal use thereof. | Ad quartum dicendum quod ad expendendum in seipsum natura inclinat. Unde hoc quod pecuniam quis perfundat in alios, pertinet proprie ad virtutem.
| Reply to Objection 4: To spend on oneself is an inclination of nature; hence to spend money on others belongs properly to a virtue. | |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 117 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod liberalitas non sit pars iustitiae. Iustitia enim respicit debitum. Sed quanto aliquid est magis debitum, tanto minus liberaliter datur. Ergo liberalitas non est pars iustitiae, sed ei repugnat. | Objection 1: It seems that liberality is not a part of justice. For justice regards that which is due. Now the more a thing is due the less liberally is it given. Therefore liberality is not a part of justice, but is incompatible with it. |
| Praeterea, iustitia est circa operationes, ut supra habitum est. Liberalitas autem praecipue est circa amorem et concupiscentiam pecuniarum, quae sunt passiones. Ergo magis videtur liberalitas ad temperantiam pertinere quam ad iustitiam. | Objection 2: Further, justice is about operation as stated above (Question [58], Article [9]; FS, Question [60], Articles [2],3): whereas liberality is chiefly about the love and desire of money, which are passions. Therefore liberality seems to belong to temperance rather than to justice. |
| Praeterea, ad liberalitatem pertinet praecipue convenienter dare, ut dictum est. Sed convenienter dare pertinet ad beneficentiam et misericordiam, quae pertinent ad caritatem, ut supra dictum est. Ergo liberalitas magis est pars caritatis quam iustitiae. | Objection 3: Further, it belongs chiefly to liberality to give becomingly, as stated (Article [4]). But giving becomingly belongs to beneficence and mercy, which pertain to charity, as state above (Questions [30],31). Therefore liberality is a part of charity rather than of justice. |
| Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, in I de Offic., iustitia ad societatem generis humani refertur. Societatis enim ratio dividitur in duas partes, iustitiam et beneficentiam, quam eandem liberalitatem aut benignitatem vocant. Ergo liberalitas ad iustitiam pertinet | On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Offic. i): "Justice has to do with the fellowship of mankind. For the notion of fellowship is divided into two parts, justice and beneficence, also called liberality or kind-heartedness." Therefore liberality pertains to justice. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod liberalitas non est species iustitiae, quia iustitia exhibet alteri quod est eius, liberalitas autem exhibet id quod est suum. Habet tamen quandam convenientiam cum iustitia in duobus. Primo quidem, quia principaliter est ad alterum, sicut et iustitia. Secundo, quia est circa res exteriores, sicut et iustitia, licet secundum aliam rationem, ut dictum est. Et ideo liberalitas a quibusdam ponitur pars iustitiae, sicut virtus ei annexa ut principali. | I answer that, Liberality is not a species of justice, since justice pays another what is his whereas liberality gives another what is one's own. There are, however, two points in which it agrees with justice: first, that it is directed chiefly to another, as justice is; secondly, that it is concerned with external things, and so is justice, albeit under a different aspect, a stated in this Article and above (Article [2], ad 3). Hence it is that liberality is reckoned by some to be a part of justice, being annexed thereto as to a principal virtue. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod liberalitas, etsi non attendat debitum legale, quod attendit iustitia, attendit tamen debitum quoddam morale, quod attenditur ex quadam ipsius decentia, non ex hoc quod sit alteri obligatus. Unde minimum habet de ratione debiti. | Reply to Objection 1: Although liberality does no consider the legal due that justice considers, it considers a certain moral due. This due is based on a certain fittingness and not on an obligation: so that it answers to the idea of due in the lowest degree. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod temperantia est circa concupiscentias corporalium delectationum. Concupiscentia autem pecuniae, et delectatio, non est corporalis, sed magis animalis. Unde liberalitas non pertinet proprie ad temperantiam | Reply to Objection 2: Temperance is about concupiscence in pleasures of the body. But the concupiscence and delight in money is not referable to the body but rather to the soul. Hence liberality does not properly pertain to temperance. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod datio benefici et misericordis procedit ex eo quod homo est aliqualiter affectus circa eum cui dat. Et ideo talis datio pertinet ad caritatem sive ad amicitiam. Sed datio liberalitatis provenit ex eo quod dans est aliqualiter affectus circa pecuniam, dum eam non concupiscit neque amat. Unde etiam non solum amicis, sed etiam ignotis dat, quando oportet. Unde non pertinet ad caritatem, sed magis ad iustitiam, quae est circa res exteriores. | Reply to Objection 3: The giving of beneficence and mercy proceeds from the fact that a man has a certain affection towards the person to whom he gives: wherefore this giving belongs to charity or friendship. But the giving of liberality arises from a person being affected in a certain way towards money, in that he desires it not nor loves it: so that when it is fitting he gives it not only to his friends but also to those whom he knows not. Hence it belong not to charity, but to justice, which is about external things. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 117 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod liberalitas sit maxima virtutum. Omnis enim virtus hominis est quaedam similitudo divinae bonitatis. Sed per liberalitatem homo maxime assimilatur Deo, qui dat omnibus affluenter et non improperat, ut dicitur Iac. Ergo liberalitas est maxima virtutum. | Objection 1: It seems that liberality is the greatest of the virtues. For every virtue of man is a likeness to the divine goodness. Now man is likened chiefly by liberality to God, "Who giveth to all men abundantly, and upbraideth not" (James 1:5). Therefore liberality is the greatest of the virtues. |
| Praeterea, secundum Augustinum, in VI de Trin., in his quae non mole magna sunt, idem est esse maius quod melius. Sed ratio bonitatis maxime videtur ad liberalitatem pertinere, quia bonum est diffusivum, ut patet per Dionysium, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Unde et Ambrosius dicit, in I de Offic., quod iustitia censuram tenet, liberalitas bonitatem. Ergo liberalitas est maxima virtutum. | Objection 2: Further, according to Augustine (De Trin. vi, 8), "in things that are great, but not in bulk, to be greatest is to be best." Now the nature of goodness seems to pertain mostly to liberality, since "the good is self-communicative," according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). Hence Ambrose says (De Offic. i) that "justice reclines to severity, liberality to goodness." Therefore liberality is the greatest of virtues. |
| Praeterea, homines honorantur et amantur propter virtutem. Sed Boetius dicit, in libro de Consolat., largitas maxime claros facit. Et philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod inter virtuosos maxime liberales amantur. Ergo liberalitas est maxima virtutum. | Objection 3: Further, men are honored and loved on account of virtue. Now Boethius says (De Consol. ii) that "bounty above all makes a man famous": and the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1) that "among the virtuous the liberal are the most beloved." Therefore liberality is the greatest of virtues. |
| Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, in I de Offic., quod iustitia excelsior videtur liberalitate, sed liberalitas gratior. Philosophus etiam dicit, in I Rhetoric., quod fortes et iusti maxime honorantur, et post eos liberales. | On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Offic. i) that "justice seems to be more excellent than liberality, although liberality is more pleasing." The Philosopher also says (Rhet. i, 9) that "brave and just men are honored chiefly and, after them, those who are liberal." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod quaelibet virtus tendit in aliquod bonum. Unde quanto aliqua virtus in melius bonum tendit, tanto melior est. Liberalitas autem tendit in aliquod bonum dupliciter, uno modo, primo et per se; alio modo, ex consequenti. Primo quidem et per se tendit ad ordinandum propriam affectionem circa pecuniarum possessionem et usum. Et sic, secundum hoc, praefertur liberalitati et temperantia, quae moderatur concupiscentias et delectationes pertinentes ad proprium corpus; et fortitudo et iustitia, quae ordinantur quodammodo in bonum commune, una tempore pacis, alia tempore belli; et omnibus praeferuntur virtutes quae ordinant in bonum divinum. Nam bonum divinum praeeminet cuilibet bono humano; et in bonis humanis bonum publicum praeeminet bono privato; in quibus bonum corporis praeeminet bono exteriorum rerum. Alio modo ordinatur liberalitas ad aliquod bonum ex consequenti. Et secundum hoc, liberalitas ordinatur in omnia bona praedicta, ex hoc enim quod homo non est amativus pecuniae, sequitur quod de facili utatur ea et ad seipsum, et ad utilitatem aliorum, et ad honorem Dei. Et secundum hoc, habet quandam excellentiam ex hoc quod utilis est ad multa. Quia tamen unumquodque magis iudicatur secundum illud quod primo et per se competit ei quam secundum id quod consequenter se habet, ideo dicendum est liberalitatem non esse maximam virtutem. | I answer that, Every virtue tends towards a good; wherefore the greater virtue is that which tends towards the greater good. Now liberality tends towards a good in two ways: in one way, primarily and of its own nature; in another way, consequently. Primarily and of its very nature it tends to set in order one's own affection towards the possession and use of money. In this way temperance, which moderates desires and pleasures relating to one's own body, takes precedence of liberality: and so do fortitude and justice, which, in a manner, are directed to the common good, one in time of peace, the other in time of war: while all these are preceded by those virtues which are directed to the Divine good. For the Divine good surpasses all manner of human good; and among human goods the public good surpasses the good of the individual; and of the last named the good of the body surpasses those goods that consist of external things. Again, liberality is ordained to a good consequently, and in this way it is directed to all the aforesaid goods. For by reason of his not being a lover of money, it follows that a man readily makes use of it, whether for himself. Or for the good of others, or for God's glory. Thus it derives a certain excellence from being useful in many ways. Since, however, we should judge of things according to that which is competent to them primarily and in respect of their nature, rather than according to that which pertains to them consequently, it remains to be said that liberality is not the greatest of virtues. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod datio divina provenit ex eo quod amat homines quibus dat, non autem ex eo quod afficiatur ad ea quae dat. Et ideo magis videtur pertinere ad caritatem, quae est maxima virtutum, quam ad liberalitatem. | Reply to Objection 1: God's giving proceeds from His love for those to whom He gives, not from His affection towards the things He gives, wherefore it seems to pertain to charity, the greatest of virtues, rather than to liberality. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod quaelibet virtus participat rationem boni quantum ad emissionem proprii actus. Actus autem quarundam aliarum virtutum meliores sunt pecunia, quam emittit liberalis. | Reply to Objection 2: Every virtue shares the nature of goodness by giving forth its own act: and the acts of certain other virtues are better than money which liberality gives forth. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod liberales maxime amantur, non quidem amicitia honesti, quasi sint meliores; sed amicitia utilis, quia sunt utiliores in exterioribus bonis, quae communiter homines maxime cupiunt. Et etiam propter eandem causam clari redduntur. | Reply to Objection 3: The friendship whereby a liberal man is beloved is not that which is based on virtue, as though he were better than others, but that which is based on utility, because he is more useful in external goods, which as a rule men desire above all others. For the same reason he becomes famous. |