Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 123 [<< | >>]
Consequenter, post iustitiam, considerandum est de fortitudine.
|
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 123 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortitudo non sit virtus. Dicit enim apostolus, II ad Cor. XII, virtus in infirmitate perficitur. Sed fortitudo infirmitati opponitur. Ergo fortitudo non est virtus. | Objection 1: It seems that fortitude is not a virtue. For the Apostle says (2 Cor. 12:9): "Virtue is perfected in infirmity." But fortitude is contrary to infirmity. Therefore fortitude is not a virtue. |
| Praeterea, si est virtus, aut est theologica, aut intellectualis, aut moralis. Sed fortitudo neque continetur inter virtutes theologicas, neque inter intellectuales, ut ex supra dictis patet. Neque etiam videtur esse virtus moralis. Quia, ut philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., videntur aliqui esse fortes propter ignorantiam, aut etiam propter experientiam, sicut milites, quae magis pertinent ad artem quam ad virtutem moralem, quidam etiam dicuntur esse fortes propter aliquas passiones, puta propter timorem comminationum vel dehonorationis, aut etiam propter tristitiam vel iram, seu spem; virtus autem moralis non operatur ex passione, sed ex electione, ut supra habitum est. Ergo fortitudo non est virtus. | Objection 2: Further, if it is a virtue, it is either theological, intellectual, or moral. Now fortitude is not contained among the theological virtues, nor among the intellectual virtues, as may be gathered from what we have said above (FS, Question [57], Article [2]; FS, Question [62], Article [3]). Neither, apparently, is it contained among the moral virtues, since according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 7,8): "Some seem to be brave through ignorance; or through experience, as soldiers," both of which cases seem to pertain to act rather than to moral virtue, "and some are called brave on account of certain passions"; for instance, on account of fear of threats, or of dishonor, or again on account of sorrow, anger, or hope. But moral virtue does not act from passion but from choice, as stated above (FS, Question [55], Article [4]). Therefore fortitude is not a virtue. |
| Praeterea, virtus humana maxime consistit in anima, est enim bona qualitas mentis, ut supra iam dictum est. Sed fortitudo videtur consistere in corpore, vel saltem corporis complexionem sequi. Ergo videtur quod fortitudo non sit virtus. | Objection 3: Further, human virtue resides chiefly in the soul, since it is a "good quality of the mind," as stated above (Ethic. iii, 7,8). But fortitude, seemingly, resides in the body, or at least results from the temperament of the body. Therefore it seems that fortitude is not a virtue. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus, in libro de moribus Eccle., fortitudinem inter virtutes numerat. | On the contrary, Augustine (De Morib. Eccl. xv, xxi, xxii) numbers fortitude among the virtues. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in II Ethic., virtus est quae bonum facit habentem, et opus eius bonum reddit, unde virtus hominis, de qua loquimur, est quae bonum facit hominem, et opus eius bonum reddit. Bonum autem hominis est secundum rationem esse, secundum Dionysium, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Et ideo ad virtutem humanam pertinet ut faciat hominem et opus eius secundum rationem esse. Quod quidem tripliciter contingit. Uno modo, secundum quod ipsa ratio rectificatur, quod fit per virtutes intellectuales. Alio modo, secundum quod ipsa rectitudo rationis in rebus humanis instituitur, quod pertinet ad iustitiam. Tertio, secundum quod tolluntur impedimenta huius rectitudinis in rebus humanis ponendae. Dupliciter autem impeditur voluntas humana ne rectitudinem rationis sequatur. Uno modo, per hoc quod attrahitur ab aliquo delectabili ad aliud quam rectitudo rationis requirat, et hoc impedimentum tollit virtus temperantiae. Alio modo, per hoc quod voluntatem repellit ab eo quod est secundum rationem, propter aliquid difficile quod incumbit. Et ad hoc impedimentum tollendum requiritur fortitudo mentis, qua scilicet huiusmodi difficultatibus resistat, sicut et homo per fortitudinem corporalem impedimenta corporalia superat et repellit. | I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6) "virtue is that which makes its possessor good, and renders his work good." Hence human virtue, of which we are speaking now, is that which makes a man good, and tenders his work good. Now man's good is to be in accordance with reason, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv, 22). Wherefore it belongs to human virtue to make man good, to make his work accord with reason. This happens in three ways: first, by rectifying reason itself, and this is done by the intellectual virtues; secondly, by establishing the rectitude of reason in human affairs, and this belongs to justice; thirdly, by removing the obstacles to the establishment of this rectitude in human affairs. Now the human will is hindered in two ways from following the rectitude of reason. First, through being drawn by some object of pleasure to something other than what the rectitude of reason requires; and this obstacle is removed by the virtue of temperance. Secondly, through the will being disinclined to follow that which is in accordance with reason, on account of some difficulty that presents itself. In order to remove this obstacle fortitude of the mind is requisite, whereby to resist the aforesaid difficulty even as a man, by fortitude of body, overcomes and removes bodily obstacles. |
| Unde manifestum est quod fortitudo est virtus, inquantum facit hominem secundum rationem esse. | Hence it is evident that fortitude is a virtue, in so far as it conforms man to reason. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod virtus animae non perficitur in infirmitate animae, sed in infirmitate carnis, de qua apostolus loquebatur. Hoc autem ad fortitudinem mentis pertinet, quod infirmitatem carnis fortiter ferat, quod pertinet ad virtutem patientiae vel fortitudinis. Et quod homo propriam infirmitatem recognoscat, pertinet ad perfectionem quae dicitur humilitas. | Reply to Objection 1: The virtue of the soul is perfected, not in the infirmity of the soul, but in the infirmity of the body, of which the Apostle was speaking. Now it belongs to fortitude of the mind to bear bravely with infirmities of the flesh, and this belongs to the virtue of patience or fortitude, as also to acknowledge one's own infirmity, and this belongs to the perfection that is called humility. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod exteriorem virtutis actum quandoque aliqui efficiunt non habentes virtutem, ex aliqua alia causa quam ex virtute. Et ideo philosophus, in III Ethic., ponit quinque modos eorum qui similitudinarie dicuntur fortes, quasi exercentes actum fortitudinis praeter virtutem. Quod quidem contingit tripliciter. Primo quidem, quia feruntur in id quod est difficile ac si non esset difficile. Quod in tres modos dividitur. Quandoque enim hoc accidit propter ignorantiam, quia scilicet homo non percipit magnitudinem periculi. Quandoque autem hoc accidit propter hoc quod homo est bonae spei ad pericula vincenda, puta cum expertus est se saepe pericula evasisse. Quandoque autem hoc accidit propter scientiam et artem quandam, sicut contingit in militibus, qui propter peritiam armorum et exercitium non reputant gravia pericula belli, aestimantes se per suam artem posse contra ea defendi; sicut Vegetius dicit, in libro de re militari, nemo facere metuit quod se bene didicisse confidit. Alio modo agit aliquis actum fortitudinis sine virtute, propter impulsum passionis, vel tristitiae, quam vult repellere; vel etiam irae. Tertio modo, propter electionem, non quidem finis debiti, sed alicuius temporalis commodi acquirendi, puta honoris, voluptatis vel lucri; vel alicuius incommodi vitandi, puta vituperii, afflictionis vel damni. | Reply to Objection 2: Sometimes a person performs the exterior act of a virtue without having the virtue, and from some other cause than virtue. Hence the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 8) mentions five ways in which people are said to be brave by way of resemblance, through performing acts of fortitude without having the virtue. This may be done in three ways. First, because they tend to that which is difficult as though it were not difficult: and this again happens in three ways, for sometimes this is owing to ignorance, through not perceiving the greatness of the danger; sometimes it is owing to the fact that one is hopeful of overcoming dangers—when, for instance, one has often experienced escape from danger; and sometimes this is owing to a certain science and art, as in the case of soldiers who, through skill and practice in the use of arms, think little of the dangers of battle, as they reckon themselves capable of defending themselves against them; thus Vegetius says (De Re Milit. i), "No man fears to do what he is confident of having learned to do well." Secondly, a man performs an act of fortitude without having the virtue, through the impulse of a passion, whether of sorrow that he wishes to cast off, or again of anger. Thirdly, through choice, not indeed of a due end, but of some temporal advantage to be obtained, such as honor, pleasure, or gain, or of some disadvantage to be avoided, such as blame, pain, or loss. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ad similitudinem corporalis fortitudinis dicitur fortitudo animae, quae ponitur virtus, ut dictum est. Nec tamen est contra rationem virtutis quod ex naturali complexione aliquis habeat naturalem inclinationem ad virtutem, ut supra dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3: The fortitude of the soul which is reckoned a virtue, as explained in the Reply to the First Objection, is so called from its likeness to fortitude of the body. Nor is it inconsistent with the notion of virtue, that a man should have a natural inclination to virtue by reason of his natural temperament, as stated above (FS, Question [63], Article [1]). |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 123 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortitudo non sit specialis virtus. Dicitur enim Sap. VIII, quod sapientia sobrietatem et prudentiam docet, iustitiam et virtutem, et ponitur ibi virtus pro fortitudine. Cum ergo nomen virtutis sit commune omnibus virtutibus, videtur quod fortitudo sit generalis virtus. | Objection 1: It seems that fortitude is not a special virtue. For it is written (Wis. 7:7): "She teacheth temperance, and prudence, and justice, and fortitude," where the text has "virtue" for "fortitude." Since then the term "virtue" is common to all virtues, it seems that fortitude is a general virtue. |
| Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit, in I de Offic., non mediocris animi est fortitudo, quae sola defendit ornamenta virtutum omnium, et iudicia custodit; et quae inexpiabili praelio adversus omnia vitia decertat. Invicta ad labores, fortis ad pericula, rigidior adversus voluptates, avaritiam fugat tanquam labem quandam quae virtutem effeminet. Et idem postea subdit de aliis vitiis. Hoc autem non potest convenire alicui speciali virtuti. Ergo fortitudo non est specialis virtus. | Objection 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Offic. i): "Fortitude is not lacking in courage, for alone she defends the honor of the virtues and guards their behests. She it is that wages an inexorable war on all vice, undeterred by toil, brave in face of dangers, steeled against pleasures, unyielding to lusts, avoiding covetousness as a deformity that weakens virtue"; and he says the same further on in connection with other vices. Now this cannot apply to any special virtue. Therefore fortitude is not a special virtue. |
| Praeterea, nomen fortitudinis a firmitate sumptum esse videtur. Sed firmiter se habere pertinet ad omnem virtutem, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Ergo fortitudo est generalis virtus. | Objection 3: Further, fortitude would seem to derive its name from firmness. But it belongs to every virtue to stand firm, as stated in Ethic. ii. Therefore fortitude is a general virtue. |
| Sed contra est quod in XXII Moral., Gregorius connumerat eam aliis virtutibus. | On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxii) numbers it among the other virtues. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, nomen fortitudinis dupliciter accipi potest. Uno modo, secundum quod absolute importat quandam animi firmitatem. Et secundum hoc est generalis virtus, vel potius conditio cuiuslibet virtutis, quia sicut philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., ad virtutem requiritur firmiter et immobiliter operari. Alio modo potest accipi fortitudo secundum quod importat firmitatem animi in sustinendis et repellendis his in quibus maxime difficile est firmitatem habere, scilicet in aliquibus periculis gravibus. Unde Tullius dicit, in sua rhetorica, quod fortitudo est considerata periculorum susceptio et laborum perpessio. Et sic fortitudo ponitur specialis virtus, utpote materiam determinatam habens. | I answer that, As stated above (FS, Question [61], Articles [3],4), the term "fortitude" can be taken in two ways. First, as simply denoting a certain firmness of mind, and in this sense it is a general virtue, or rather a condition of every virtue, since as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ii), it is requisite for every virtue to act firmly and immovably. Secondly, fortitude may be taken to denote firmness only in bearing and withstanding those things wherein it is most difficult to be firm, namely in certain grave dangers. Therefore Tully says (Rhet. ii), that "fortitude is deliberate facing of dangers and bearing of toils." In this sense fortitude is reckoned a special virtue, because it has a special matter. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod secundum philosophum, in I de caelo, nomen virtutis refertur ad ultimum potentiae. Dicitur autem uno modo potentia naturalis secundum quam aliquis potest resistere corrumpentibus, alio modo secundum quod est principium agendi, ut patet in V Metaphys. Et ideo, quia haec acceptio est communior, nomen virtutis secundum quod importat ultimum talis potentiae, est commune, nam virtus communiter sumpta nihil est aliud quam habitus quo quis potest bene operari. Secundum autem quod importat ultimum potentiae primo modo dictae, qui quidem est modus magis specialis, attribuitur speciali virtuti scilicet fortitudini, ad quam pertinet firmiter stare contra quaecumque impugnantia. | Reply to Objection 1: According to the Philosopher (De Coelo i, 116) the word virtue refers to the extreme limit of a power. Now a natural power is, in one sense, the power of resisting corruptions, and in another sense is a principle of action, as stated in Metaph. v, 17. And since this latter meaning is the more common, the term "virtue," as denoting the extreme limit of such a power, is a common term, for virtue taken in a general sense is nothing else than a habit whereby one acts well. But as denoting the extreme limit of power in the first sense, which sense is more specific, it is applied to a special virtue, namely fortitude, to which it belongs to stand firm against all kinds of assaults. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod Ambrosius accipit fortitudinem large, secundum quod importat animi firmitatem respectu quorumcumque impugnantium. Et tamen etiam secundum quod est specialis virtus habens determinatam materiam, coadiuvat ad resistendum impugnationibus omnium vitiorum. Qui enim potest firmiter stare in his quae sunt difficillima ad sustinendum, consequens est quod sit idoneus ad resistendum aliis quae sunt minus difficilia. | Reply to Objection 2: Ambrose takes fortitude in a broad sense, as denoting firmness of mind in face of assaults of all kinds. Nevertheless even as a special virtue with a determinate matter, it helps to resist the assaults of all vices. For he that can stand firm in things that are most difficult to bear, is prepared, in consequence, to resist those which are less difficult. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de fortitudine primo modo dicta. | Reply to Objection 3: This objection takes fortitude in the first sense. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 123 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortitudo non sit circa timores et audacias. Dicit enim Gregorius, VII Moral., iustorum fortitudo est carnem vincere, propriis voluptatibus contraire, delectationem vitae praesentis extinguere. Ergo fortitudo magis videtur esse circa delectationes quam circa timores et audacias. | Objection 1: It seems that fortitude is not about fear and daring. For Gregory says (Moral. vii): "The fortitude of the just man is to overcome the flesh, to withstand self-indulgence, to quench the lusts of the present life." Therefore fortitude seems to be about pleasures rather than about fear and daring. |
| Praeterea, Tullius dicit, in sua rhetorica, quod ad fortitudinem pertinet susceptio periculorum et perpessio laborum. Sed hoc non videtur pertinere ad passionem timoris vel audaciae, sed magis ad actiones hominis laboriosas, vel ad exteriores res periculosas. Ergo fortitudo non est circa timores et audacias | Objection 2: Further, Tully says (De Invent. Rhet. ii), that it belongs to fortitude to face dangers and to bear toil. But this seemingly has nothing to do with the passions of fear and daring, but rather with a man's toilsome deeds and external dangers. Therefore fortitude is not about fear and daring. |
| Praeterea, timori non solum opponitur audacia, sed etiam spes, ut supra habitum est, cum de passionibus ageretur. Ergo fortitudo non magis debet esse circa audaciam quam circa spem. | Objection 3: Further, not only daring, but also hope, is opposed to fear, as stated above (FS, Question [45], Article [1], ad 2) in the treatise on passions. Therefore fortitude should not be about daring any more than about hope. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in II et in III Ethic., quod fortitudo est circa timorem et audaciam. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 7; iii, 9) that fortitude is about fear and daring. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ad virtutem fortitudinis pertinet removere impedimentum quo retrahitur voluntas a sequela rationis. Quod autem aliquis retrahatur ab aliquo difficili, pertinet ad rationem timoris, qui importat recessum quendam a malo difficultatem habente, ut supra habitum est, cum de passionibus ageretur. Et ideo fortitudo principaliter est circa timores rerum difficilium, quae retrahere possunt voluntatem a sequela rationis. Oportet autem huiusmodi rerum difficilium impulsum non solum firmiter tolerare cohibendo timorem, sed etiam moderate aggredi, quando scilicet oportet ea exterminare, ad securitatem in posterum habendam. Quod videtur pertinere ad rationem audaciae. Et ideo fortitudo est circa timores et audacias, quasi cohibitiva timorum, et moderativa audaciarum. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), it belongs to the virtue of fortitude to remove any obstacle that withdraws the will from following the reason. Now to be withdrawn from something difficult belongs to the notion of fear, which denotes withdrawal from an evil that entails difficulty, as stated above (FS, Question [42], Articles [3],5) in the treatise on passions. Hence fortitude is chiefly about fear of difficult things, which can withdraw the will from following the reason. And it behooves one not only firmly to bear the assault of these difficulties by restraining fear, but also moderately to withstand them, when, to wit, it is necessary to dispel them altogether in order to free oneself therefrom for the future, which seems to come under the notion of daring. Therefore fortitude is about fear and daring, as curbing fear and moderating daring. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Gregorius ibi loquitur de fortitudine iustorum secundum quod communiter se habet ad omnem virtutem. Unde praemittit quaedam pertinentia ad temperantiam, ut dictum est, et subdit de his quae pertinent proprie ad fortitudinem secundum quod est specialis virtus, dicens, huius mundi aspera pro aeternis praemiis amare. | Reply to Objection 1: Gregory is speaking then of the fortitude of the just man, as to its common relation to all virtues. Hence he first of all mentions matters pertaining to temperance, as in the words quoted, and then adds that which pertains properly to fortitude as a special virtue, by saying: "To love the trials of this life for the sake of an eternal reward." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod res periculosae et actus laboriosi non retrahunt voluntatem a via rationis nisi inquantum timentur. Et ideo oportet quod fortitudo sit immediate circa timores et audacias, mediate autem circa pericula et labores, sicut circa obiecta praedictarum passionum. | Reply to Objection 2: Dangers and toils do not withdraw the will from the course of reason, except in so far as they are an object of fear. Hence fortitude needs to be immediately about fear and daring, but mediately about dangers and toils, these being the objects of those passions. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod spes opponitur timori ex parte obiecti, quia spes est de bono, timor de malo. Audacia autem est circa idem obiectum, et opponitur timori secundum accessum et recessum, ut supra dictum est. Et quia fortitudo proprie respicit temporalia mala retrahentia a virtute, ut patet per definitionem Tullii; inde est quod fortitudo proprie est circa timorem et audaciam, non autem circa spem, nisi inquantum connectitur audaciae, ut supra habitum est. | Reply to Objection 3: Hope is opposed to fear on the part of the object, for hope is of good, fear of evil: whereas daring is about the same object, and is opposed to fear by way of approach and withdrawal, as stated above (FS, Question [45], Article [1]). And since fortitude properly regards those temporal evils that withdraw one from virtue, as appears from Tully's definition quoted in the Second Objection, it follows that fortitude properly is about fear and daring and not about hope, except in so far as it is connected with daring, as stated above (FS, Question [45], Article [2]). |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 123 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortitudo non solum sit circa pericula mortis. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de moribus Eccle., quod fortitudo est amor facile tolerans omnia propter id quod amatur. Et in VI musicae dicit quod fortitudo est affectio quae nullas adversitates mortemve formidat. Ergo fortitudo non est solum circa pericula mortis, sed circa omnia alia adversa. | Objection 1: It seems that fortitude is not only about dangers of death. For Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. xv) that "fortitude is love bearing all things readily for the sake of the object beloved": and (Music. vi) he says that fortitude is "the love which dreads no hardship, not even death." Therefore fortitude is not only about danger of death, but also about other afflictions. |
| Praeterea, oportet omnes passiones animae per aliquam virtutem ad medium reduci. Sed non est dare aliquam aliam virtutem reducentem ad medium alios timores. Ergo fortitudo non solum est circa timores mortis, sed etiam circa alios timores. | Objection 2: Further, all the passions of the soul need to be reduced to a mean by some virtue. Now there is no other virtue reducing fears to a mean. Therefore fortitude is not only about fear of death, but also about other fears. |
| Praeterea, nulla virtus est in extremis. Sed timor mortis est in extremo, quia est maximus timorum, ut dicitur in III Ethic. Ergo virtus fortitudinis non est circa timores mortis. | Objection 3: Further, no virtue is about extremes. But fear of death is about an extreme, since it is the greatest of fears, as stated in Ethic. iii. Therefore the virtue of fortitude is not about fear of death. |
| Sed contra est quod Andronicus dicit, quod fortitudo est virtus irascibilis non facile obstupescibilis a timoribus qui sunt circa mortem. | On the contrary, Andronicus says that "fortitude is a virtue of the irascible faculty that is not easily deterred by the fear of death." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ad virtutem fortitudinis pertinet ut voluntatem hominis tueatur ne retrahatur a bono rationis propter timorem mali corporalis. Oportet autem bonum rationis firmiter tenere contra quodcumque malum, quia nullum bonum corporale aequivalet bono rationis. Et ideo oportet quod fortitudo animi dicatur quae firmiter retinet voluntatem hominis in bono rationis contra maxima mala, quia qui stat firmus contra maiora, consequens est quod stet firmus contra minora, sed non convertitur; et hoc etiam ad rationem virtutis pertinet, ut respiciat ultimum. Maxime autem terribile inter omnia corporalia mala est mors, quae tollit omnia corporalia bona, unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de moribus Eccle., quod vinculum corporis, ne concutiatur atque vexetur, laboris et doloris; ne auferatur autem atque perimatur, mortis terrore animam quatit. Et ideo virtus fortitudinis est circa timores periculorum mortis. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [3]), it belongs to the virtue of fortitude to guard the will against being withdrawn from the good of reason through fear of bodily evil. Now it behooves one to hold firmly the good of reason against every evil whatsoever, since no bodily good is equivalent to the good of the reason. Hence fortitude of soul must be that which binds the will firmly to the good of reason in face of the greatest evils: because he that stands firm against great things, will in consequence stand firm against less things, but not conversely. Moreover it belongs to the notion of virtue that it should regard something extreme: and the most fearful of all bodily evils is death, since it does away all bodily goods. Wherefore Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. xxii) that "the soul is shaken by its fellow body, with fear of toil and pain, lest the body be stricken and harassed with fear of death lest it be done away and destroyed." Therefore the virtue of fortitude is about the fear of dangers of death. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod fortitudo bene se habet in omnibus adversis tolerandis. Non tamen ex toleratione quorumlibet adversorum reputatur homo simpliciter fortis, sed solum ex hoc quod bene tolerat etiam maxima mala. Ex aliis autem dicitur aliquis fortis secundum quid. | Reply to Objection 1: Fortitude behaves well in bearing all manner of adversity: yet a man is not reckoned brave simply through bearing any kind of adversity, but only through bearing well even the greatest evils; while through bearing others he is said to be brave in a restricted sense. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod quia timor ex amore nascitur, quaecumque virtus moderatur amorem aliquorum bonorum, consequens est ut moderetur timorem contrariorum malorum. Sicut liberalitas, quae moderatur amorem pecuniarum, per consequens etiam moderatur timorem amissionis earum. Et idem apparet in temperantia et in aliis virtutibus. Sed amare propriam vitam est naturale. Et ideo oportuit esse specialem virtutem quae moderaretur timores mortis. | Reply to Objection 2: Since fear is born of love, any virtue that moderates the love of certain goods must in consequence moderate the fear of contrary evils: thus liberality, which moderates the love of money, as a consequence, moderates the fear of losing it, and the same is the case with temperance and other virtues. But to love one's own life is natural: and hence the necessity of a special virtue modifying the fear of death. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod extremum in virtutibus attenditur secundum excessum rationis rectae. Et ideo si aliquis maxima pericula subeat secundum rationem, non est virtuti contrarium. | Reply to Objection 3: In virtues the extreme consists in exceeding right reason: wherefore to undergo the greatest dangers in accordance with reason is not contrary to virtue. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 123 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortitudo non consistat proprie circa pericula mortis quae sunt in bello. Martyres enim praecipue de fortitudine commendantur. Sed martyres non commendantur de rebus bellicis. Ergo fortitudo non proprie consistit circa pericula mortis quae sunt in bellicis. | Objection 1: It seems that fortitude is not properly about dangers of death in battle. For martyrs above all are commended for their fortitude. But martyrs are not commended in connection with battle. Therefore fortitude is not properly about dangers of death in battle. |
| Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit, in I de Offic., quod fortitudo dividitur in res bellicas et domesticas. Tullius etiam dicit, in I de Offic., quod cum plerique arbitrentur res bellicas maiores esse quam urbanas, minuenda est haec opinio, sed si vere volumus iudicare, multae res extiterunt urbanae maiores clarioresque quam bellicae. Sed circa maiora maior fortitudo consistit. Ergo non proprie consistit fortitudo circa mortem quae est in bello. | Objection 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Offic. i) that "fortitude is applicable both to warlike and to civil matters": and Tully (De Offic. i), under the heading, "That it pertains to fortitude to excel in battle rather than in civil life," says: "Although not a few think that the business of war is of greater importance than the affairs of civil life, this opinion must be qualified: and if we wish to judge the matter truly, there are many things in civil life that are more important and more glorious than those connected with war." Now greater fortitude is about greater things. Therefore fortitude is not properly concerned with death in battle. |
| Praeterea, bella ordinantur ad pacem temporalem reipublicae conservandam, dicit enim Augustinus, XIX de Civ. Dei, quod intentione pacis bella aguntur. Sed pro pace temporali reipublicae non videtur quod aliquis debeat se periculo mortis exponere, cum talis pax sit multarum lasciviarum occasio. Ergo videtur quod virtus fortitudinis non consistat circa mortis bellicae pericula. | Objection 3: Further, war is directed to the preservation of a country's temporal peace: for Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix) that "wars are waged in order to insure peace." Now it does not seem that one ought to expose oneself to the danger of death for the temporal peace of one's country, since this same peace is the occasion of much license in morals. Therefore it seems that the virtue of fortitude is not about the danger of death in battle. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod maxime est fortitudo circa mortem quae est in bello. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii) that fortitude is chiefly about death in battle. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, fortitudo confirmat animum hominis contra maxima pericula, quae sunt pericula mortis. Sed quia fortitudo virtus est, ad cuius rationem pertinet quod semper tendat in bonum, consequens est ut homo pericula mortis non refugiat propter aliquod bonum prosequendum. Pericula autem mortis quae est ex aegritudine, vel ex tempestate maris, vel ex incursu latronum, vel si qua alia sunt huiusmodi, non videntur directe alicui imminere ex hoc quod prosequatur aliquod bonum. Sed pericula mortis quae est in bellicis directe imminent homini propter aliquod bonum, inquantum scilicet defendit bonum commune per iustum bellum. Potest autem aliquod esse iustum bellum dupliciter. Uno modo, generale, sicut cum aliqui decertant in acie. Alio modo, particulare, puta cum aliquis iudex, vel etiam privata persona, non recedit a iusto iudicio timore gladii imminentis vel cuiuscumque periculi, etiam si sit mortiferum. Pertinet ergo ad fortitudinem firmitatem animi praebere contra pericula mortis non solum quae imminent in bello communi, sed etiam quae imminent in particulari impugnatione, quae communi nomine bellum dici potest. Et secundum hoc, concedendum est quod fortitudo proprie est circa pericula mortis quae est in bello. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [4]), fortitude strengthens a man's mind against the greatest danger, which is that of death. Now fortitude is a virtue; and it is essential to virtue ever to tend to good; wherefore it is in order to pursue some good that man does not fly from the danger of death. But the dangers of death arising out of sickness, storms at sea, attacks from robbers, and the like, do not seem to come on a man through his pursuing some good. on the other hand, the dangers of death which occur in battle come to man directly on account of some good, because, to wit, he is defending the common good by a just fight. Now a just fight is of two kinds. First, there is the general combat, for instance, of those who fight in battle; secondly, there is the private combat, as when a judge or even private individual does not refrain from giving a just judgment through fear of the impending sword, or any other danger though it threaten death. Hence it belongs to fortitude to strengthen the mind against dangers of death, not only such as arise in a general battle, but also such as occur in singular combat, which may be called by the general name of battle. Accordingly it must be granted that fortitude is properly about dangers of death occurring in battle. |
| Sed et circa pericula cuiuscumque alterius mortis fortis bene se habet, praesertim quia et cuiuslibet mortis homo potest periculum subire propter virtutem; puta cum aliquis non refugit amico infirmanti obsequi propter timorem mortiferae infectionis; vel cum non refugit itinerari ad aliquod pium negotium prosequendum propter timorem naufragii vel latronum. | Moreover, a brave man behaves well in face of danger of any other kind of death; especially since man may be in danger of any kind of death on account of virtue: thus may a man not fail to attend on a sick friend through fear of deadly infection, or not refuse to undertake a journey with some godly object in view through fear of shipwreck or robbers. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod martyres sustinent personales impugnationes propter summum bonum, quod est Deus. Ideo eorum fortitudo praecipue commendatur. Nec est extra genus fortitudinis quae est circa bellica. Unde dicuntur fortes facti in bello. | Reply to Objection 1: Martyrs face the fight that is waged against their own person, and this for the sake of the sovereign good which is God; wherefore their fortitude is praised above all. Nor is it outside the genus of fortitude that regards warlike actions, for which reason they are said to have been valiant in battle. [*Office of Martyrs, ex. Heb. xi. 34.] |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod res domesticae vel urbanae distinguuntur contra res bellicas, quae scilicet pertinent ad bella communia. In ipsis tamen rebus domesticis vel urbanis possunt imminere pericula mortis ex impugnationibus quibusdam, quae sunt quaedam particularia bella. Et ita etiam circa huiusmodi potest esse proprie dicta fortitudo. | Reply to Objection 2: Personal and civil business is differentiated from the business of war that regards general wars. However, personal and civil affairs admit of dangers of death arising out of certain conflicts which are private wars, and so with regard to these also there may be fortitude properly so called. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod pax reipublicae est secundum se bona, nec redditur mala ex hoc quod aliqui male ea utuntur. Nam et multi alii sunt qui bene ea utuntur, et multo peiora mala per eam prohibentur, scilicet homicidia, sacrilegia, quam ex ea occasionentur, quae praecipue pertinent ad vitia carnis. | Reply to Objection 3: The peace of the state is good in itself, nor does it become evil because certain persons make evil use of it. For there are many others who make good use of it; and many evils prevented by it, such as murders and sacrileges, are much greater than those which are occasioned by it, and which belong chiefly to the sins of the flesh. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 123 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sustinere non sit principalis actus fortitudinis. Virtus enim est circa difficile et bonum, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed difficilius est aggredi quam sustinere. Ergo sustinere non est praecipuus fortitudinis actus. | Objection 1: It seems that endurance is not the chief act of fortitude. For virtue "is about the difficult and the good" (Ethic. ii, 3). Now it is more difficult to attack than to endure. Therefore endurance is not the chief act of fortitude. |
| Praeterea, maioris potentiae esse videtur quod aliquid possit in aliud agere quam quod ipsum ab alio non immutetur. Sed aggredi est in aliud agere, sustinere autem est immobile perseverare. Cum ergo fortitudo perfectionem potentiae nominet, videtur quod magis ad fortitudinem pertineat aggredi quam sustinere. | Objection 2: Further, to be able to act on another seems to argue greater power than not to be changed by another. Now to attack is to act on another, and to endure is to persevere unchangeably. Since then fortitude denotes perfection of power, it seems that it belongs to fortitude to attack rather than to endure. |
| Praeterea, magis distat ab uno contrariorum aliud contrarium quam simplex eius negatio. Sed ille qui sustinet hoc solum habet quod non timet, ille autem qui aggreditur contrarie movetur timenti, quia insequitur. Ergo videtur quod, cum fortitudo maxime retrahat animum a timore, quod magis pertineat ad eam aggredi quam sustinere. | Objection 3: Further, one contrary is more distant from the other than its mere negation. Now to endure is merely not to fear, whereas to attack denotes a movement contrary to that of fear, since it implies pursuit. Since then fortitude above all withdraws the mind from fear, it seems that it regards attack rather than endurance. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod in sustinendo tristia maxime aliqui fortes dicuntur. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 9) that "certain persons are" said to be brave chiefly because they endure affliction. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, et philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., fortitudo magis est circa timores reprimendos quam circa audacias moderandas. Difficilius enim est timorem reprimere quam audaciam moderari, eo quod ipsum periculum, quod est obiectum audaciae et timoris, de se confert aliquid ad repressionem audaciae, sed operatur ad augmentum timoris. Aggredi autem pertinet ad fortitudinem secundum quod moderatur audaciam, sed sustinere sequitur repressionem timoris. Et ideo principalior actus est fortitudinis sustinere, idest immobiliter sistere in periculis, quam aggredi. | I answer that, As stated above (Article [3]), and according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 9), "fortitude is more concerned to allay fear, than to moderate daring." For it is more difficult to allay fear than to moderate daring, since the danger which is the object of daring and fear, tends by its very nature to check daring, but to increase fear. Now to attack belongs to fortitude in so far as the latter moderates daring, whereas to endure follows the repression of fear. Therefore the principal act of fortitude is endurance, that is to stand immovable in the midst of dangers rather than to attack them. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sustinere est difficilius quam aggredi, triplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia sustinere videtur aliquis ab aliquo fortiori invadente, qui autem aggreditur invadit per modum fortioris. Difficilius autem est pugnare cum fortiori quam cum debiliori. Secundo, quia ille qui sustinet iam sentit pericula imminentia, ille autem qui aggreditur habet ea ut futura. Difficilius autem est non moveri a praesentibus quam a futuris. Tertio, quia sustinere importat diuturnitatem temporis, sed aggredi potest aliquis ex subito motu. Difficilius autem est diu manere immobilem quam subito motu moveri ad aliquid arduum. Unde philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod quidam sunt praevolantes ante pericula, in ipsis autem discedunt, fortes autem e contrario se habent. | Reply to Objection 1: Endurance is more difficult than aggression, for three reasons. First, because endurance seemingly implies that one is being attacked by a stronger person, whereas aggression denotes that one is attacking as though one were the stronger party; and it is more difficult to contend with a stronger than with a weaker. Secondly, because he that endures already feels the presence of danger, whereas the aggressor looks upon danger as something to come; and it is more difficult to be unmoved by the present than by the future. Thirdly, because endurance implies length of time, whereas aggression is consistent with sudden movements; and it is more difficult to remain unmoved for a long time, than to be moved suddenly to something arduous. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that "some hurry to meet danger, yet fly when the danger is present; this is not the behavior of a brave man." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod sustinere importat quidem passionem corporis, sed actum animae fortissime inhaerentis bono, ex quo sequitur quod non cedat passioni corporali iam imminenti. Virtus autem magis attenditur circa animam quam circa corpus. | Reply to Objection 2: Endurance denotes indeed a passion of the body, but an action of the soul cleaving most resolutely [fortissime] to good, the result being that it does not yield to the threatening passion of the body. Now virtue concerns the soul rather than the body. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ille qui sustinet non timet, praesente iam causa timoris, quam non habet praesentem ille qui aggreditur. | Reply to Objection 3: He that endures fears not, though he is confronted with the cause of fear, whereas this cause is not present to the aggressor. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 123 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortis non operetur propter bonum proprii habitus. Finis enim in rebus agendis, etsi sit prior in intentione, est tamen posterior in executione. Sed actus fortitudinis in executione est posterior quam ipse fortitudinis habitus. Non ergo potest esse quod fortis agat propter bonum proprii habitus. | Objection 1: It seems that the brave man does not act for the sake of the good of his habit. For in matters of action the end, though first in intention, is last in execution. Now the act of fortitude, in the order of execution, follows the habit of fortitude. Therefore it is impossible for the brave man to act for the sake of the good of his habit. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, XIII de Trin., virtutes, quas propter solam beatitudinem amamus, sic persuadere quidam nobis audent, scilicet dicendo eas propter se appetendas, ut ipsam beatitudinem non amemus. Quod si faciunt, etiam ipsas utique amare desistemus, quando illam propter quam solam istas amavimus, non amamus. Sed fortitudo est virtus quaedam. Ergo actus fortitudinis non est ad ipsam fortitudinem, sed ad beatitudinem referendus. | Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "We love virtues for the sake of happiness, and yet some make bold to counsel us to be virtuous," namely by saying that we should desire virtue for its own sake, "without loving happiness. If they succeed in their endeavor, we shall surely cease to love virtue itself, since we shall no longer love that for the sake of which alone we love virtue." But fortitude is a virtue. Therefore the act of fortitude is directed not to fortitude but to happiness. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de moribus Eccle., quod fortitudo est amor omnia propter Deum facile perferens. Deus autem non est ipse habitus fortitudinis, sed aliquid melius, sicut oportet finem esse meliorem his quae sunt ad finem. Non ergo fortis agit propter bonum proprii habitus. | Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. xv) that "fortitude is love ready to bear all things for God's sake." Now God is not the habit of fortitude, but something better, since the end must needs be better than what is directed to the end. Therefore the brave man does not act for the sake of the good of his habit. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod forti fortitudo est bonum, talis autem et finis. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 7) that "to the brave man fortitude itself is a good": and such is his end. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est finis, scilicet proximus, et ultimus. Finis autem proximus uniuscuiusque agentis est ut similitudinem suae formae in alterum inducat, sicut finis ignis calefacientis est ut inducat similitudinem sui caloris in patiente, et finis aedificatoris est ut inducat similitudinem suae artis in materia. Quodcumque autem bonum ex hoc sequitur, si sit intentum, potest dici finis remotus agentis. Sicut autem in factibilibus materia exterior disponitur per artem, ita etiam in agibilibus per prudentiam disponuntur actus humani. Sic ergo dicendum est quod fortis sicut finem proximum intendit ut similitudinem sui habitus exprimat in actu, intendit enim agere secundum convenientiam sui habitus. Finis autem remotus est beatitudo, vel Deus. | I answer that, An end is twofold: proximate and ultimate. Now the proximate end of every agent is to introduce a likeness of that agent's form into something else: thus the end of fire in heating is to introduce the likeness of its heat into some passive matter, and the end of the builder is to introduce into matter the likeness of his art. Whatever good ensues from this, if it be intended, may be called the remote end of the agent. Now just as in things made, external matter is fashioned by art, so in things done, human deeds are fashioned by prudence. Accordingly we must conclude that the brave man intends as his proximate end to reproduce in action a likeness of his habit, for he intends to act in accordance with his habit: but his remote end is happiness or God. |
| Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. Nam prima ratio procedebat ac si ipsa essentia habitus esset finis, non autem similitudo eius in actu, ut dictum est. 44100] II-IIae, q. 123 a. 7 ad 2 Alia vero duo procedunt de fine ultimo. | This suffices for the Replies to the Objections: for the First Objection proceeds as though the very essence of a habit were its end, instead of the likeness of the habit in act, as stated. The other two objections consider the ultimate end. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 123 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortis delectetur in suo actu. Delectatio enim est operatio connaturalis habitus non impedita, ut dicitur in X Ethic. Sed operatio fortis procedit ex habitu, qui agit in modum naturae. Ergo fortis habet delectationem in suo actu. | Objection 1: It seems that the brave man delights in his act. For "delight is the unhindered action of a connatural habit" (Ethic. x, 4,6,8). Now the brave deed proceeds from a habit which acts after the manner of nature. Therefore the brave man takes pleasure in his act. |
| Praeterea, Galat. V, super illud, fructus autem spiritus caritas, gaudium, pax, dicit Ambrosius quod opera virtutum dicuntur fructus quia mentem hominis sancta et sincera delectatione reficiunt. Sed fortis agit opera virtutis. Ergo habet delectationem in suo actu. | Objection 2: Further, Ambrose, commenting on Gal. 5:22, "But the fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace," says that deeds of virtue are called "fruits because they refresh man's mind with a holy and pure delight." Now the brave man performs acts of virtue. Therefore he takes pleasure in his act. |
| Praeterea, debilius vincitur a fortiori. Sed fortis plus amat bonum virtutis quam proprium corpus, quod periculis mortis exponit. Ergo delectatio de bono virtutis evacuat dolorem corporalem. Et ita delectabiliter omnino operatur. | Objection 3: Further, the weaker is overcome by the stronger. Now the brave man has a stronger love for the good of virtue than for his own body, which he exposes to the danger of death. Therefore the delight in the good of virtue banishes the pain of the body; and consequently the brave man does all things with pleasure. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod fortis in suo actu nihil delectabile videtur habere. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 9) that "the brave man seems to have no delight in his act." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod sicut supra dictum est, cum de passionibus ageretur, duplex est delectatio, una quidem corporalis, quae consequitur tactum corporalem; alia autem animalis, quae consequitur apprehensionem animae. Et haec proprie consequitur opera virtutum, quia in eis consideratur bonum rationis. Principalis vero actus fortitudinis est sustinere aliqua tristia secundum apprehensionem animae, puta quod homo amittit corporalem vitam (quam virtuosus amat, non solum inquantum est quoddam bonum naturale, sed etiam inquantum est necessaria ad opera virtutum) et quae ad eam pertinent, et iterum sustinere aliqua dolorosa secundum tactum corporis, puta vulnera et flagella. Et ideo fortis ex una parte habet unde delectetur, scilicet secundum delectationem animalem, scilicet de ipso actu virtutis et de fine eius, ex alia vero parte habet unde doleat, et animaliter, dum considerat amissionem propriae vitae, et corporaliter. Unde, ut legitur II Machab. VI, Eleazarus dixit, diros corporis sustineo dolores, secundum animam vero, propter timorem tuum, libenter haec patior. | I answer that, As stated above (FS, Question [31], Articles [3],4,5) where we were treating of the passions, pleasure is twofold; one is bodily, resulting from bodily contact, the other is spiritual, resulting from an apprehension of the soul. It is the latter which properly results from deeds of virtue, since in them we consider the good of reason. Now the principal act of fortitude is to endure, not only certain things that are unpleasant as apprehended by the soul—for instance, the loss of bodily life, which the virtuous man loves not only as a natural good, but also as being necessary for acts of virtue, and things connected with them—but also to endure things unpleasant in respect of bodily contact, such as wounds and blows. Hence the brave man, on one side, has something that affords him delight, namely as regards spiritual pleasure, in the act itself of virtue and the end thereof: while, on the other hand, he has cause for both spiritual sorrow, in the thought of losing his life, and for bodily pain. Hence we read (2 Macc. 6:30) that Eleazar said: "I suffer grievous pains in body: but in soul am well content to suffer these things because I fear Thee." |
| Sensibilis autem dolor corporis facit non sentiri animalem delectationem virtutis, nisi forte propter superabundantem Dei gratiam, quae fortius elevat animam ad divina, in quibus delectatur, quam a corporalibus poenis afficiatur; sicut beatus Tiburtius, cum super carbones incensos nudis plantis incederet, dixit quod videbatur sibi super roseos flores ambulare. | Now the sensible pain of the body makes one insensible to the spiritual delight of virtue, without the copious assistance of God's grace, which has more strength to raise the soul to the Divine things in which it delights, than bodily pains have to afflict it. Thus the Blessed Tiburtius, while walking barefoot on the burning coal, said that he felt as though he were walking on roses. |
| Facit tamen virtus fortitudinis ut ratio non absorbeatur a corporalibus doloribus. Tristitiam autem animalem superat delectatio virtutis, inquantum homo praefert bonum virtutis corporali vitae et quibuscumque ad eam pertinentibus. Et ideo philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod a forti non requiritur ut delectetur, quasi delectationem sentiens, sed sufficit quod non tristetur. | Yet the virtue of fortitude prevents the reason from being entirely overcome by bodily pain. And the delight of virtue overcomes spiritual sorrow, inasmuch as a man prefers the good of virtue to the life of the body and to whatever appertains thereto. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 3; iii, 9) that "it is not necessary for a brave man to delight so as to perceive his delight, but it suffices for him not to be sad." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod vehementia actus vel passionis unius potentiae impedit aliam potentiam in suo actu. Et ideo per dolorem sensus impeditur mens fortis ne in propria operatione delectationem sentiat. | Reply to Objection 1: The vehemence of the action or passion of one power hinders the action of another power: wherefore the pain in his senses hinders the mind of the brave man from feeling delight in its proper operation. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod opera virtutum sunt delectabilia praecipue propter finem, possunt autem ex sui natura esse tristia. Et praecipue hoc contingit in fortitudine. Unde philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod non in omnibus virtutibus operari delectabiliter existit, praeter inquantum finem attingit. | Reply to Objection 2: Deeds of virtue are delightful chiefly on account of their end; yet they can be painful by their nature, and this is principally the case with fortitude. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 9) that "to perform deeds with pleasure does not happen in all virtues, except in so far as one attains the end." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod tristitia animalis vincitur in forti a delectatione virtutis. Sed quia dolor corporalis est sensibilior, et apprehensio sensitiva magis est homini in manifesto, inde est quod a magnitudine corporalis doloris quasi evanescit delectatio spiritualis, quae est de fine virtutis. | Reply to Objection 3: In the brave man spiritual sorrow is overcome by the delight of virtue. Yet since bodily pain is more sensible, and the sensitive apprehension is more in evidence to man, it follows that spiritual pleasure in the end of virtue fades away, so to speak, in the presence of great bodily pain. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 123 [<< | >>]
Article: 9 [<< | >>]
| Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortitudo non maxime consistat in repentinis. Illud enim videtur esse in repentinis quod ex inopinato provenit. Sed Tullius dicit, in sua rhetorica, quod fortitudo est considerata periculorum susceptio et laborum perpessio. Ergo fortitudo non consistit maxime in repentinis. | Objection 1: It seems that fortitude does not deal chiefly with sudden occurrences. For it would seem that things occur suddenly when they are unforeseen. But Tully says (De Invent. Rhet. ii) that "fortitude is the deliberate facing of danger, and bearing of toil." Therefore fortitude does not deal chiefly with sudden happenings. |
| Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit, in I de Offic., fortis viri est non dissimulare cum aliquid immineat, sed praetendere, et tanquam de specula quadam mentis obviare cogitatione provida rebus futuris, ne forte dicat postea, ideo ista incidi, quia non arbitrabar posse evenire. Sed ubi est aliquid repentinum, ibi non potest provideri in futuro. Ergo operatio fortitudinis non est circa repentina. | Objection 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Offic. i): "The brave man is not unmindful of what may be likely to happen; he takes measures beforehand, and looks out as from the conning-tower of his mind, so as to encounter the future by his forethought, lest he should say afterwards: This befell me because I did not think it could possibly happen." But it is not possible to be prepared for the future in the case of sudden occurrences. Therefore the operation of fortitude is not concerned with sudden happenings. |
| Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod fortis est bonae spei. Sed spes expectat aliquid in futurum, quod repugnat repentino. Ergo operatio fortitudinis non consistit circa repentina. | Objection 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that the "brave man is of good hope." But hope looks forward to the future, which is inconsistent with sudden occurrences. Therefore the operation of fortitude is not concerned with sudden happenings. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod fortitudo maxime est circa quaecumque mortem inferunt, repentina existentia. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that "fortitude is chiefly about sudden dangers of death." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in operatione fortitudinis duo sunt consideranda. Unum quidem, quantum ad electionem ipsius. Et sic fortitudo non est circa repentina. Eligit enim fortis praemeditari pericula quae possunt imminere, ut eis resistere possit, aut facilius ea ferre, quia, ut Gregorius dicit, in quadam homilia, iacula quae praevidentur minus feriunt, et nos mala mundi facilius ferimus, si contra ea clipeo praescientiae praemunimur. Aliud vero est considerandum in operatione fortitudinis quantum ad manifestationem virtuosi habitus. Et sic fortitudo maxime est circa repentina, quia secundum philosophum, in III Ethic., in repentinis periculis maxime manifestatur fortitudinis habitus. Habitus enim agit in modum naturae. Unde quod aliquis absque praemeditatione faciat ea quae sunt virtutis, cum necessitas imminet propter repentina pericula, hoc maxime manifestat quod sit fortitudo habitualiter in anima confirmata. | I answer that, Two things must be considered in the operation of fortitude. One is in regard to its choice: and thus fortitude is not about sudden occurrences: because the brave man chooses to think beforehand of the dangers that may arise, in order to be able to withstand them, or to bear them more easily: since according to Gregory (Hom. xxv in Evang.), "the blow that is foreseen strikes with less force, and we are able more easily to bear earthly wrongs, if we are forearmed with the shield of foreknowledge." The other thing to be considered in the operation of fortitude regards the display of the virtuous habit: and in this way fortitude is chiefly about sudden occurrences, because according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iii, 8) the habit of fortitude is displayed chiefly in sudden dangers: since a habit works by way of nature. Wherefore if a person without forethought does that which pertains to virtue, when necessity urges on account of some sudden danger, this is a very strong proof that habitual fortitude is firmly seated in his mind. |
| Potest autem aliquis etiam qui habitu fortitudinis caret, ex diuturna praemeditatione animum suum contra pericula praeparare. Qua praeparatione etiam fortis utitur, cum tempus adest. | Yet is it possible for a person even without the habit of fortitude, to prepare his mind against danger by long forethought: in the same way as a brave man prepares himself when necessary. |
| Et per hoc patet responsio ab obiecta | This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 123 [<< | >>]
Article: 10 [<< | >>]
| Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortis non utatur ira in suo actu. Nullus enim debet assumere quasi instrumentum suae actionis illud quo non potest uti pro suo arbitrio. Sed homo non potest uti ira pro suo arbitrio, ut scilicet possit eam assumere cum velit et deponere cum velit, ut enim philosophus dicit, in libro de memoria, quando passio corporalis mota est, non statim quiescit ut homo vult. Ergo fortis non debet assumere iram ad suam operationem. | Objection 1: It seems that the brave man does not use anger in his action. For no one should employ as an instrument of his action that which he cannot use at will. Now man cannot use anger at will, so as to take it up and lay it aside when he will. For, as the Philosopher says (De Memoria ii), when a bodily passion is in movement, it does not rest at once just as one wishes. Therefore a brave man should not employ anger for his action. |
| Praeterea, ille qui per seipsum sufficit ad aliquid agendum, non debet in auxilium sui assumere illud quod est infirmius et imperfectius. Sed ratio per seipsam sufficit ad opus fortitudinis exequendum, in quo iracundia deficit. Unde Seneca dicit, in libro de ira, non ad providendum tantum, sed ad res gerendas satis est per se ipsa ratio. Et quid stultius est quam hanc ab iracundia petere praesidium, rem stabilem ab incerta, fidelem ab infida, sanam ab aegra? Ergo fortitudo non debet iram assumere. | Objection 2: Further, if a man is competent to do a thing by himself, he should not seek the assistance of something weaker and more imperfect. Now the reason is competent to achieve by itself deeds of fortitude, wherein anger is impotent: wherefore Seneca says (De Ira i): "Reason by itself suffices not only to make us prepared for action but also to accomplish it. In fact is there greater folly than for reason to seek help from anger? the steadfast from the unstaid, the trusty from the untrustworthy, the healthy from the sick?" Therefore a brave man should not make use of anger. |
| Praeterea, sicut propter iram aliqui vehementius opera fortitudinis exequuntur, ita etiam et propter tristitiam vel concupiscentiam, unde philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod ferae propter tristitiam seu dolorem incitantur ad pericula, et adulteri propter concupiscentiam multa audacia operantur. Sed fortitudo non assumit ad suum actum neque tristitiam neque concupiscentiam. Ergo, pari ratione, non debet assumere iram. | Objection 3: Further, just as people are more earnest in doing deeds of fortitude on account of anger, so are they on account of sorrow or desire; wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that wild beasts are incited to face danger through sorrow or pain, and adulterous persons dare many things for the sake of desire. Now fortitude employs neither sorrow nor desire for its action. Therefore in like manner it should not employ anger. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod furor cooperatur fortibus. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that "anger helps the brave." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod de ira et ceteris animae passionibus, sicut supra dictum est, aliter sunt locuti Peripatetici, et aliter Stoici. Stoici enim et iram et omnes alias animae passiones ab animo sapientis, sive virtuosi, excludebant. Peripatetici vero, quorum princeps fuit Aristoteles, iram et alias animae passiones attribuebant virtuosis, sed moderatas ratione. Et forte quantum ad rem non differebant, sed solum quantum ad modum loquendi. Nam Peripatetici omnes motus appetitus sensitivi, qualitercumque se habentes, passiones animae nominabant, ut supra habitum est, et quia appetitus sensitivus movetur per imperium rationis ad hoc quod cooperetur ad promptius agendum, idcirco ponebant et iram et alias passiones animae assumendas esse a virtuosis, moderatas secundum imperium rationis. Stoici vero vocabant passiones animae immoderatos quosdam affectus appetitus sensitivi (unde nominabant eos aegritudines vel morbos), et ideo penitus eos a virtute separabant. | I answer that, As stated above (FS, Question [24], Article [2]), concerning anger and the other passions there was a difference of opinion between the Peripatetics and the Stoics. For the Stoics excluded anger and all other passions of the soul from the mind of a wise or good man: whereas the Peripatetics, of whom Aristotle was the chief, ascribed to virtuous men both anger and the other passions of the soul albeit modified by reason. And possibly they differed not in reality but in their way of speaking. For the Peripatetics, as stated above (FS, Question [24], Article [2]), gave the name of passions to all the movements of the sensitive appetite, however they may comport themselves. And since the sensitive appetite is moved by the command of reason, so that it may cooperate by rendering action more prompt, they held that virtuous persons should employ both anger and the other passions of the soul, modified according to the dictate of reason. On the other hand, the Stoics gave the name of passions to certain immoderate emotions of the sensitive appetite, wherefore they called them sicknesses or diseases, and for this reason severed them altogether from virtue. |
| Sic ergo iram moderatam assumit fortis ad suum actum, non autem iram immoderatam. | Accordingly the brave man employs moderate anger for his action, but not immoderate anger. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ira moderata secundum rationem subiicitur imperio rationis. Unde consequens est ut homo ea utatur pro suo arbitrio, non autem si esset immoderata. | Reply to Objection 1: Anger that is moderated in accordance with reason is subject to the command of reason: so that man uses it at his will, which would not be the case were it immoderate. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio non assumit iram ad sui actum quasi auxilium ab ea accipiens, sed quia utitur appetitu sensitivo ut instrumento, sicut et membris corporis. Nec est inconveniens si instrumentum sit imperfectius principali agente, ut martellus fabro. Seneca autem sectator fuit Stoicorum, et directe contra Aristotelem verba praemissa proponit. | Reply to Objection 2: Reason employs anger for its action, not as seeking its assistance, but because it uses the sensitive appetite as an instrument, just as it uses the members of the body. Nor is it unbecoming for the instrument to be more imperfect than the principal agent, even as the hammer is more imperfect than the smith. Moreover, Seneca was a follower of the Stoics, and the above words were aimed by him directly at Aristotle. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, cum fortitudo, sicut dictum est, habeat duos actus, scilicet sustinere et aggredi, non assumit iram ad actum sustinendi, quia hunc actum sola ratio per se facit, sed ad actum aggrediendi. Ad quem magis assumit iram quam alias passiones, quia ad iram pertinet insilire in rem contristantem, et sic directe cooperatur fortitudini in aggrediendo. Tristitia autem, secundum propriam rationem, succumbit nocivo, sed per accidens coadiuvat ad aggrediendum; vel inquantum tristitia est causa irae, ut supra dictum est; vel inquantum aliquis periculo se exponit ut tristitiam fugiat. Similiter etiam concupiscentia, secundum propriam rationem, tendit in bonum delectabile, cui per se repugnat aggressio periculorum, sed per accidens quandoque coadiuvat ad aggrediendum, inquantum scilicet aliquis potius vult pericula incidere quam delectabili carere. Et ideo philosophus dicit, in III Ethic., quod inter fortitudines quae sunt ex passione, naturalissima esse videtur quae est per iram, et accipiens electionem et cuius gratia (scilicet debitum finem), fortitudo (scilicet, fuit vera). | Reply to Objection 3: Whereas fortitude, as stated above (Article [6]), has two acts, namely endurance and aggression, it employs anger, not for the act of endurance, because the reason by itself performs this act, but for the act of aggression, for which it employs anger rather than the other passions, since it belongs to anger to strike at the cause of sorrow, so that it directly cooperates with fortitude in attacking. On the other hand, sorrow by its very nature gives way to the thing that hurts; though accidentally it helps in aggression, either as being the cause of anger, as stated above (FS, Question [47], Article [3]), or as making a person expose himself to danger in order to escape from sorrow. In like manner desire, by its very nature, tends to a pleasurable good, to which it is directly contrary to withstand danger: yet accidentally sometimes it helps one to attack, in so far as one prefers to risk dangers rather than lack pleasure. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5): "Of all the cases in which fortitude arises from a passion, the most natural is when a man is brave through anger, making his choice and acting for a purpose," i.e. for a due end; "this is true fortitude." |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 123 [<< | >>]
Article: 11 [<< | >>]
| Ad undecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortitudo non sit virtus cardinalis. Ira enim, ut dictum est, maximam affinitatem habet ad fortitudinem. Sed ira non ponitur passio principalis, nec etiam audacia, quae ad fortitudinem pertinet. Ergo nec fortitudo debet poni virtus cardinalis. | Objection 1: It seems that fortitude is not a cardinal virtue. For, as stated above (Article [10]), anger is closely allied with fortitude. Now anger is not accounted a principal passion; nor is daring which belongs to fortitude. Therefore neither should fortitude be reckoned a cardinal virtue. |
| Praeterea, virtus ordinatur ad bonum. Sed fortitudo non directe ordinatur ad bonum, sed magis ad malum, scilicet ad sustinendum pericula et labores, ut Tullius dicit. Ergo fortitudo non est virtus cardinalis. | Objection 2: Further, the object of virtue is good. But the direct object of fortitude is not good, but evil, for it is endurance of evil and toil, as Tully says (De Invent. Rhet. ii). Therefore fortitude is not a cardinal virtue. |
| Praeterea, virtus cardinalis est circa ea in quibus praecipue versatur vita humana, sicut ostium in cardine vertitur. Sed fortitudo est circa pericula mortis, quae raro occurrunt in vita humana. Ergo fortitudo non debet poni virtus cardinalis sive principalis. | Objection 3: Further, the cardinal virtues are about those things upon which human life is chiefly occupied, just as a door turns upon a hinge [cardine]. But fortitude is about dangers of death which are of rare occurrence in human life. Therefore fortitude should not be reckoned a cardinal or principal virtue. |
| Sed contra est quod Gregorius, XXII Moral., et Ambrosius, super Luc., et Augustinus, in libro de moribus Eccle., numerant fortitudinem inter quatuor virtutes cardinales seu principales. | On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxii), Ambrose in his commentary on Lk. 6:20, and Augustine (De Moribus Eccl. xv), number fortitude among the four cardinal or principal virtues. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, virtutes cardinales seu principales dicuntur quae praecipue sibi vindicant id quod pertinet communiter ad virtutes. Inter alias autem communes virtutis conditiones, una ponitur firmiter operari, ut patet in II Ethic. Laudem autem firmitatis potissime sibi vindicat fortitudo. Tanto enim magis laudatur qui firmiter stat, quanto habet gravius impellens ad cadendum vel retrocedendum. Impellit autem hominem ad discedendum ab eo quod est secundum rationem et bonum delectans et malum affligens, sed gravius impellit dolor corporis quam voluptas, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro octoginta trium quaest., nemo est qui non magis dolorem fugiat quam affectat voluptatem, quandoquidem videmus et immanissimas bestias a maximis voluptatibus exterreri dolorum metu. Et inter dolores animi et pericula maxime timentur ea quae ducunt ad mortem, contra quae firmiter stat fortis. Unde fortitudo est virtus cardinalis. | I answer that, As stated above (FS, Question [61], Articles [3],4), those virtues are said to be cardinal or principal which have a foremost claim to that which belongs to the virtues in common. And among other conditions of virtue in general one is that it is stated to "act steadfastly," according to Ethic. ii, 4. Now fortitude above all lays claim to praise for steadfastness. Because he that stands firm is so much the more praised, as he is more strongly impelled to fall or recede. Now man is impelled to recede from that which is in accordance with reason, both by the pleasing good and the displeasing evil. But bodily pain impels him more strongly than pleasure. For Augustine says (Questions [83], qu. 36): "There is none that does not shun pain more than he desires pleasure. For we perceive that even the most untamed beasts are deterred from the greatest pleasures by the fear of pain." And among the pains of the mind and dangers those are mostly feared which lead to death, and it is against them that the brave man stands firm. Therefore fortitude is a cardinal virtue. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod audacia et ira non cooperantur fortitudini ad actum eius qui est sustinere, in quo praecipue commendatur firmitas eius. Per hunc enim actum fortis cohibet timorem, qui est passio principalis, ut supra habitum est. | Reply to Objection 1: Daring and anger do not cooperate with fortitude in its act of endurance, wherein its steadfastness is chiefly commended: for it is by that act that the brave man curbs fear, which is a principal passion, as stated above (FS, Question [25], Article [4]). |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod virtus ordinatur ad bonum rationis, quod conservari oportet contra impulsus malorum. Fortitudo autem ordinatur ad mala corporalia sicut ad contraria, quibus resistit, ad bonum autem rationis sicut ad finem, quem intendit conservare. | Reply to Objection 2: Virtue is directed to the good of reason which it behooves to safeguard against the onslaught of evils. And fortitude is directed to evils of the body, as contraries which it withstands, and to the good of reason, as the end, which it intends to safeguard. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod quamvis pericula mortis raro immineant, tamen occasiones horum periculorum frequenter occurrunt, dum scilicet homini adversarii mortales suscitantur propter iustitiam quam sequitur, et propter alia bona quae facit. | Reply to Objection 3: Though dangers of death are of rare occurrence, yet the occasions of those dangers occur frequently, since on account of justice which he pursues, and also on account of other good deeds, man encounters mortal adversaries. |
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 123 [<< | >>]
Article: 12 [<< | >>]
| Ad duodecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod fortitudo praecellat inter omnes virtutes. Dicit enim Ambrosius, in I de Offic., est fortitudo velut ceteris excelsior. | Objection 1: It seems that fortitude excels among all other virtues. For Ambrose says (De Offic. i): "Fortitude is higher, so to speak, than the rest." |
| Praeterea, virtus est circa difficile et bonum. Sed fortitudo est circa difficillima. Ergo est maxima virtutum. | Objection 2: Further, virtue is about that which is difficult and good. But fortitude is about most difficult things. Therefore it is the greatest of the virtues. |
| Praeterea, dignior est persona hominis quam res eius. Sed fortitudo est circa personam hominis, quam aliquis periculo mortis exponit propter bonum virtutis, iustitia autem et aliae virtutes morales sunt circa alias res exteriores. Ergo fortitudo est praecipua inter virtutes morales. | Objection 3: Further, the person of a man is more excellent than his possessions. But fortitude is about a man's person, for it is this that a man exposes to the danger of death for the good of virtue: whereas justice and the other moral virtues are about other and external things. Therefore fortitude is the chief of the moral virtues. |
| Sed contra est quod Tullius dicit, in I de Offic., in iustitia virtutis splendor est maximus, ex qua viri boni nominantur. | Objection 4: On the contrary, Tully says (De Offic. i): "Justice is the most resplendent of the virtues and gives its name to a good man." |
| Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in I Rhet., necesse est maximas esse virtutes quae maxime aliis utiles sunt. Sed liberalitas videtur magis utilis quam fortitudo. Ergo est maior virtus. | Objection 5: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 19): "Those virtues must needs be greatest which are most profitable to others." Now liberality seems to be more useful than fortitude. Therefore it is a greater virtue. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in VI de Trin., in his quae non mole magna sunt, idem est esse maius quod melius. Unde tanto aliqua virtus maior est quanto melior est. Bonum autem rationis est hominis bonum, secundum Dionysium, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Hoc autem bonum essentialiter quidem habet prudentia, quae est perfectio rationis. Iustitia autem est huius boni factiva, inquantum scilicet ad ipsam pertinet ordinem rationis ponere in omnibus rebus humanis. Aliae autem virtutes sunt conservativae huius boni, inquantum scilicet moderantur passiones, ne abducant hominem a bono rationis. Et in ordine harum fortitudo tenet locum praecipuum, quia timor periculorum mortis maxime est efficax ad hoc quod hominem faciat recedere a bono rationis. Post quam ordinatur temperantia, quia etiam delectationes tactus maxime inter cetera impediunt bonum rationis. Id autem quod essentialiter dicitur, potius est eo quod dicitur effective, et hoc etiam potius est eo quod dicitur conservative, secundum remotionem impedimenti. Unde inter virtutes cardinales prudentia est potior; secunda, iustitia; tertia, fortitudo; quarta, temperantia. Et post has, ceterae virtutes. | I answer that, As Augustine says (De Trin. vi), "In things that are great, but not in bulk, to be great is to be good": wherefore the better a virtue the greater it is. Now reason's good is man's good, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) prudence, since it is a perfection of reason, has the good essentially: while justice effects this good, since it belongs to justice to establish the order of reason in all human affairs: whereas the other virtues safeguard this good, inasmuch as they moderate the passions, lest they lead man away from reason's good. As to the order of the latter, fortitude holds the first place, because fear of dangers of death has the greatest power to make man recede from the good of reason: and after fortitude comes temperance, since also pleasures of touch excel all others in hindering the good of reason. Now to be a thing essentially ranks before effecting it, and the latter ranks before safeguarding it by removing obstacles thereto. Wherefore among the cardinal virtues, prudence ranks first, justice second, fortitude third, temperance fourth, and after these the other virtues. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Ambrosius fortitudinem aliis virtutibus praefert secundum quandam generalem utilitatem, prout scilicet et in rebus bellicis et in rebus civilibus seu domesticis utilis est. Unde ipse ibidem praemittit, nunc de fortitudine tractemus, quae, velut excelsior ceteris, dividitur in res bellicas et domesticas. | Reply to Objection 1: Ambrose places fortitude before the other virtues, in respect of a certain general utility, inasmuch as it is useful both in warfare, and in matters relating to civil or home life. Hence he begins by saying (De Offic. i): "Now we come to treat of fortitude, which being higher so to speak than the others, is applicable both to warlike and to civil matters." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio virtutis magis consistit in bono quam in difficili. Unde magis est mensuranda magnitudo virtutis secundum rationem boni quam secundum rationem difficilis. | Reply to Objection 2: Virtue essentially regards the good rather than the difficult. Hence the greatness of a virtue is measured according to its goodness rather than its difficulty. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod homo non exponit personam suam mortis periculis nisi propter iustitiam conservandam. Et ideo laus fortitudinis dependet quodammodo ex iustitia. Unde dicit Ambrosius, in I de Offic., quod fortitudo sine iustitia iniquitatis est materia, quo enim validior est, eo promptior ut inferiorem opprimat. | Reply to Objection 3: A man does not expose his person to dangers of death except in order to safeguard justice: wherefore the praise awarded to fortitude depends somewhat on justice. Hence Ambrose says (De Offic. i) that "fortitude without justice is an occasion of injustice; since the stronger a man is the more ready is he to oppress the weaker." |
| Quartum concedimus. | The Fourth argument is granted. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod liberalitas utilis est in quibusdam particularibus beneficiis. Sed fortitudo habet utilitatem generalem ad conservandum totum iustitiae ordinem. Et ideo philosophus dicit, in I Rhet., quod iusti et fortes maxime amantur, quia sunt maxime utiles et in bello et in pace. | Reply to Objection 5: Liberality is useful in conferring certain particular favors: whereas a certain general utility attaches to fortitude, since it safeguards the whole order of justice. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 9) that "just and brave men are most beloved, because they are most useful in war and peace." |