Articulus 12
Duodecimo quaeritur utrum virtutes inter se distinguantur. Quaeritur de distinctione virtutum
|
Article 12
The distinction of the virtues
|
| Et videtur quod non recte virtutes distinguantur.
| It seems that the virtues are not rightly distinguished.
|
| Moralia enim recipiunt speciem ex fine. Si igitur virtutes distinguantur secundum speciem, oportet quod hoc sit ex parte finis. Sed non ex parte finis proximi: quia sic essent infinitae virtutes secundum speciem. Ergo ex parte finis ultimi. Sed finis ultimus virtutum est unus tantum, scilicet Deus, sive felicitas. Ergo est una tantum virtus.
| 1. Moral matters are specified by the end. Therefore, if virtues are specifically different, this must be on the part of the end. But not of the proximate end, because thus there would be an infinity of species of virtues. Therefore, of the ultimate end. But the ultimate end of the virtues is one alone, namely, God, or happiness. Therefore, there is only one virtue.
|
| Praeterea, ad unum finem pervenitur una operatione. Una autem operatio est ex una forma. Ergo ad unum finem ordinatur homo per unam formam. Finis autem hominis est unus: scilicet felicitas. Ergo et virtus, quae est forma per quam homo ordinatur ad felicitatem, est una tantum.
| 2. Moreover, one activity has one end. But an activity is one from one form; therefore, a man is ordered to one end by one form. But man’s end is one, namely, happiness. So virtue too is one, which is the form by which a man is ordered to happiness.
|
| Praeterea, formae et accidentia recipiunt numerum secundum materiam vel subiectum. Subiectum autem virtutis est anima, vel potentia animae. Ergo videtur quod virtus sit una tantum, quia anima est una; vel saltem quod virtutes non excedant numerum potentiarum animae.
| 3. Moreover, forms and accidents are numbered according to matter or subject. But the subject of virtue is the soul or a power of the soul. It seems, therefore, that virtue is one alone, because the soul is one, or, at least, that virtues do not exceed in number the powers of the soul.
|
| Praeterea, habitus distinguuntur per obiecta, sicut et potentiae. Cum ergo virtutes sint quidam habitus: videtur quod eadem sit ratio distinctionis virtutum et potentiarum animae; et sic, virtutes non excedunt numerum potentiarum animae.
| 4. Moreover, habits are distinguished by objects, as powers are. Therefore, since the virtues are habits, it seems that there should be the same basis for distinguishing virtues and powers of the soul, and thus the virtues would not exceed the powers of the soul in number.
|
| Sed dicendum, quod habitus distinguuntur per actus, et non per potentias. —Sed contra, principiata distinguuntur secundum principia, et non e converso; quia ab eodem res habent esse et unitatem. Sed habitus sunt principia actuum. Ergo magis distinguuntur actus penes habitus quam e converso.
| 5. Moreover, it might be said that habits are distinguished by acts and not by powers, but on the contrary: What derive from principles are distinguished by the principles and not the reverse, because a thing has existence and unity from the same cause, but habits are the principles of acts. Therefore, acts are distinguished according to habits rather than conversely.
|
| Praeterea, virtus necessaria est ad hoc quod homo inclinetur ad id quod est virtutis per modum naturae: est enim virtus, ut Tullius dicit, habitus in modum naturae rationi consentaneus. Ad id igitur ad quod ipsa potentia naturaliter inclinatur, non indiget homo virtute. Sed voluntas hominis naturaliter inclinatur ad ultimum finem. Ergo circa ultimum finem non est necessarius homini aliquis habitus virtutis; propter quod nec philosophi posuerunt aliquas virtutes quarum obiectum esset felicitas. Nec ergo nos debemus ponere aliquas virtutes theologicas, cuius obiectum sit Deus, qui est ultimus finis.
| 6. Moreover, virtue is necessary if a man is to be inclined naturally to that with which the virtue is concerned. For, as Cicero says, virtue is a habit in the manner of nature and in harmony with reason. In order for this power to be inclined naturally, therefore, a man does not need virtue, for man’s will is naturally inclined to the ultimate end. Therefore, with respect to the ultimate end, man does not need any habit of virtue, for which reason philosophers do not posit any virtues whose object would be happiness. Therefore, we should not posit such theological virtues either, whose object is God, the ultimate end.
|
| Praeterea, virtus est dispositio perfecti ad optimum. Sed fides et spes imperfectionem quamdam important; quia fides est de non visis, spes de non habitis, propter quod, cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est, ut dicitur I Cor. XIII, v. 10. Ergo fides et spes non debent poni virtutes.
| 7. Moreover, virtue is the disposition of that which is already somewhat perfected for the best, but faith and hope imply imperfection, because faith is concerned with what is not seen and hope with what is not had, because of which, when it comes to be perfected, “that which is imperfect will be done away with,” is said in 1 Corinthians 13:10. Therefore, faith and hope ought not be placed among the virtues.
|
| Praeterea, ad Deum non potest aliquis ordinari nisi per intellectum et affectum. Sed fides sufficienter ordinat intellectum hominis in Deum, caritas autem affectum. Ergo praeter fidem et caritatem non debet poni spes virtus theologica.
| 8. Moreover, no one can be ordered to God except through intellect and will. But faith sufficiently orders a man’s intellect to God and charity his will. Therefore, we ought not posit the theological virtue of hope beyond faith and charity.
|
| Praeterea, id quod est generale omni virtuti, non debet poni specialis virtus. Sed caritas videtur esse communis omnibus virtutibus; quia ut dicit Augustinus in Lib. de moribus Ecclesiae, nihil aliud est virtus quam ordo amoris: ipsa etiam caritas dicitur esse forma omnium virtutum. Ergo non debet poni una specialis virtus inter theologicas.
| 9. Moreover, that which is general to every virtue ought not to be posited as a special virtue. But charity seems to be common to all the virtues, because as Augustine says in On the customs oftbe cburch, virtue is nothing but the order of love. Charity itself is also said to be the form of all virtues, therefore, it ought not be numbered as a special theological virtue.
|
| Praeterea, in Deo non solum consideratur veritas quam respicit fides, vel sublimitas quam respicit spes, vel bonitas quam respicit caritas; sed sunt plura alia quae Deo attribuuntur: ut sapientia, potentia et huiusmodi. Ergo videtur quod sit vel una tantum virtus theologica, quia omnia illa unum sunt in Deo; vel quod sint tot virtutes theologicae, quot sunt quae attribuuntur Deo.
| 10. Moreover, in God should be considered not only truth, which faith looks to, or sublimity which, hope looks to, or goodness, which charity looks to – there are many others things attributed to God, such as wisdom, power, and the like. Therefore, it seems that either there is only one theological virtue because all these are one in God, or that there should be as many theological virtues as there are things attributed to God.
|
| Praeterea, virtus theologica est cuius actus immediate ordinatur in Deum. Sed plura alia sunt talia: sicut sapientia quae contemplatur Deum, timor qui reveretur ipsum, religio quae colit eum. Ergo non sunt tantum tres virtutes theologicae.
| 11. Moreover, a theological virtue is one whose act is ordered immediately to God, but many other things are like that, such as wisdom which contemplates God, fear which reveres him, religion which honors him. Therefore, there are not just three theological virtues.
|
| Praeterea, finis est ratio eorum quae sunt ad finem. Habitis igitur virtutibus theologicis, quibus homo recte ordinatur ad Deum, videtur superfluum ponere alias virtutes.
| 12. Moreover, the end is the reason for the things that are for the sake of the end. Therefore, once the theological virtues, whereby man is rightly ordered to God, are had, it seems superfluous to posit other virtues.
|
| Praeterea, virtus ordinatur ad bonum: est enim virtus quae bonum facit habentem, et opus eius bonum reddit. Sed bonum est tantum in voluntate et in appetitiva parte; et sic videtur quod non sint aliquae virtutes intellectuales.
| 13. Moreover, virtue is ordered to the good, for virtue is what makes the one having it good and makes his work good. But since good is in the will and appetitive part, it seems that there cannot be any intellectual virtues.
|
| Praeterea, prudentia est quaedam virtus intellectualis. Ipsa autem ponitur inter morales. Ergo videtur quod morales virtutes non distinguantur ab intellectualibus.
| 14. Moreover, prudence Is an intellectual virtue. But it is numbered among the moral virtues, so it seems that moral virtues are not distinguished from the intellectual.
|
| Praeterea, scientia moralis non tractat nisi moralia. Tractat autem scientia moralis de virtutibus intellectualibus. Ergo virtutes intellectuales sunt morales.
| 15. Moreover, moral science deals only with moral matters, but moral science treats of the intellectual virtues; therefore, the intellectual virtues are moral.
|
| Praeterea, id quod ponitur in definitione alicuius, non distinguitur ab eo. Sed prudentia ponitur in definitione virtutis moralis: est enim virtus moralis, habitus electivus in medietate consistens determinata secundum rectam rationem, ut dicitur II Ethic.: ratio enim agibilium est prudentia, ut dicitur VI Ethic. Ergo morales virtutes non distinguuntur a prudentia.
| 16. Moreover, what is put into the definition of a thing is not distinguished from it, but prudence is put into the definition of moral virtue, for moral virtue is an elective habit consisting in a mean determined by right reason, as is said in Ethics 2. But right reason with respect to things to be done is prudence, as is said in Ethics 6. Therefore, the moral virtues are not distinguished from prudence.
|
| Praeterea, sicut prudentia pertinet ad cognitionem practicam, ita et ars. Sed praeter artem non sunt aliqui habitus in appetitiva parte ordinati ad operandum artificialia. Ergo pari ratione nec praeter prudentiam sunt aliqui habitus virtuosi in appetitu ad operandum agibilia; et ita videtur quod non sint aliquae virtutes morales distinctae a prudentia.
| 17. Both art and prudence pertain to practical knowledge. But art does not require habits in the appetitive part ordered to effecting artificial things. Therefore, by parity of reasoning, there should be no need for virtuous habits in the appetitive part in order that prudence might be effective. Thus, it seems that not are no moral virtues distinct from prudence.
|
| Sed dicendum, quod ideo arti non respondet aliqua virtus in appetitu, quia appetitus est singularium, ars autem universalium. —Sed contra, Aristoteles dicit II Ethic., quod ira semper est circa singularia: sed odium est etiam universalium; habemus enim odio omne latronum genus. Odium autem ad appetitum pertinet. Ergo appetitus est respectu universalium.
| 18. Moreover, should it be said that no virtue in appetite answers to art because appetite is of singulars, on the contrary, Aristotle says in Ethics 2 that wrath deals with singulars, but hate is also of universals, for we hate the whole genus of thieves. But hate pertains to aPpetite. Therefore, appetite deals with universals.
|
| Praeterea, unaquaeque potentia naturaliter tendit in suum obiectum. Obiectum autem appetitus est bonum apprehensum. Ergo appetitus naturaliter tendit in bonum ex quo est apprehensum. Sed ad apprehendendum bonum sufficienter nos perficit prudentia. Ergo praeter prudentiam non est necessarium nos habere aliquam virtutem aliam moralem in appetitu, cum ad hoc sufficiat inclinatio naturalis
| 19. Moreover, every power naturally tends to its object, but the object of appetite is the known good. Therefore, appetite naturally tends to the good insofar as it is known, but prudence sufficiently perfects us for knowing the good. Therefore, we have no need of any other moral virtue than prudence in appetite, since the natural inclination suffices for this.
|
| Praeterea, ad virtutem sufficit cognitio et operatio. Sed utrumque horum habetur per prudentiam. Ergo praeter prudentiam non oportet ponere alias virtutes morales.
| 20. Moreover, knowledge and action suffice for virtue, but both of these are had in prudence. Therefore, there is no need to posit other moral virtues besides prudence.
|
| Praeterea, sicut appetitivi habitus distinguuntur penes obiecta, ita et habitus cognoscitivi. Sed de omnibus moralibus est unus habitus cognoscitivus, vel scientia moralis circa omnia moralia, vel etiam prudentia. Ergo et una tantum est in appetitu virtus moralis.
| 21. Moreover, the habits of the cognitive part, like those of the appetitive, are distinguished by their objects. But there is one cognitive habit of all the moral virtues, either one moral science which concerns all moral matters, or prudence. Therefore, there is only one moral virtue in the appetite.
|
| Praeterea, ea quae conveniunt in forma, et differunt solum in materia, sunt unum specie. Sed omnes virtutes morales conveniunt secundum id quod est formale in eis, quia in omnibus est medium acceptum secundum rationem rectam; non autem differunt nisi penes materias. Ergo non differunt specie, sed numero tantum.
| 22. Moreover, things which agree in form and differ only in matter are specifically the same. But all moral virtues agree in that which is formal in them, because in all of them there is a mean accepted from right reason; and they differ only in their matters. Therefore, they do not differ in species but only in number.
|
| Praeterea, ea quae differunt specie, non denominantur ad invicem. Sed virtutes morales denominant se ad invicem: quia, ut Augustinus dicit, oportet quod iustitia sit fortis et temperata, et temperantia iusta et fortis, et sic de aliis. Ergo virtutes non distinguuntur ad invicem.
| 23. Moreover, specifically different things are not named from one another. But the moral virtues are denominated from one another. Augustine says that justice must be brave and temperate and temperance just and brave, and so with the rest. Therefore, virtues are not distinct from one another.
|
| Praeterea, virtutes theologicae et cardinales, sunt principaliores quam morales. Sed virtutes intellectuales non dicuntur cardinales, neque theologicae. Ergo nec morales debent dici cardinales, quasi principales.
| 24. Moreover, the theological and cardinal virtues rank higher than moral virtues. But the intellectual, not the theological, virtues are said to be cardinal. No more then should the moral virtues be called cardinal, as if they ranked higher.
|
| Praeterea, tres ponuntur animae partes; scilicet rationalis, irascibilis et concupiscibilis. Ergo si sunt aliquae virtutes principales, videtur quod sint tres tantum.
| 25. Moreover, the soul has three parts, namely, the rational, the irascible, and the concupiscible. Therefore, if there are principal virtues, it seems that they should be only three in number.
|
| Praeterea, aliae virtutes videntur istis principaliores; sicut est magnanimitas, quae operatur magnum in omnibus virtutibus, ut dicitur IV Ethic.; et humilitas, quae est custos virtutum; mansuetudo etiam videtur esse principalior quam fortitudo, cum sit circa iram, a qua denominatur irascibilis; liberalitas et magnificentia, quae dant de suo, videntur esse principaliores quam iustitia quae reddit alteri debitum. Ergo istae non sunt virtutes cardinales, sed magis aliae.
| 26. Moreover, other virtues seem to rank higher, such as magnanimity which does great things in all the virtues, as is said in Ethics 6, and humility, which is the guardian of virtue. Even meekness seems superior to courage, since it governs wrath from which the irascible is denominated; liberality and magnificence, which give of themselves, seem higher than justice, which renders another his due. Therefore, these rather than the others should be the cardinal virtues.
|
| Praeterea, pars non distinguitur a suo toto. Sed aliae virtutes ponuntur a Tullio, partes istarum quatuor: scilicet prudentiae, iustitiae, fortitudinis, et temperantiae. Ergo saltem aliae virtutes morales non distinguuntur ab istis; et sic videntur virtutes non recte distingui.
| 27. Moreover, a part is not distinguished from its whole. But Cicero says that the other virtues are parts of these, namely, of prudence, justice, courage, and temperance. Therefore, at the least the other virtues ought not be distinguished from these, and thus the virtues do not seem to be correctly distinguished.
|
| Sed contra, est quod I Cor. XIII, 13, dicitur: nunc autem manent fides, spes, caritas, tria haec; et Sap. VIII, 7: sobrietatem et prudentiam docet, et iustitiam, et virtutem.
| ON THE CONTRARY. In 1 Corinthians 13:13, we read, “there remain now these three, faith, hope and charity,” and Wisdom 8:7. “For she teaches temperance and prudence and justice and fortitude.”
|
| Respondeo. Dicendum quod unumquodque diversificatur secundum speciem secundum id quod est formale in ipso. Formale autem in unoquoque est id quod est completivum definitionis eius. Ultima enim differentia constituit speciem: unde per eam differt definitum secundum speciem ab aliis; et si ipsa sit multiplicabilis formaliter secundum diversas rationes, definitum in species diversas dividitur secundum ipsius diversitatem. Illud autem quod est completivum et ultimum formale in definitione virtutis, est bonum: nam virtus universaliter accepta sic definitur: virtus est, quae bonum facit habentem, et opus eius bonum reddit: ut patet in Lib. Ethic. Unde et virtus hominis, de qua loquimur, oportet quod diversificetur secundum speciem, secundum quod bonum ratione diversificatur. Cum autem homo sit homo in quantum rationalis est; oportet hominis bonum esse eius quod est aliqualiter rationale. Rationalis autem pars, sive intellectiva, comprehendit et cognitivam et appetitivam. Pertinet autem ad rationalem partem non solum appetitus, qui est in ipsa parte rationali, consequens apprehensionem intellectus, qui dicitur voluntas: sed etiam appetitus qui est in parte sensitiva hominis, et dividitur per irascibilem et concupiscibilem. Nam etiam hic appetitus in homine sequitur apprehensionem rationis, in quantum imperio rationis obedit; unde et participare dicitur aliqualiter rationem. Bonum igitur hominis est et bonum cognitivae et bonum appetitivae partis.
| RESPONSE. It should be said that a thing is specified by that which is formal in it, and what is formal in a thing is that which completes its definition, for the ultimate difference constitutes the species, which is why the defined differs specifically from others because of it. If this could be formally multiplied according to different notions, the defined would be divided into different species. But what completes and is ultimately formal in the definition of virtue is the good. For taken generally virtue is that which makes the one having it good and makes his action good, as is clear from the Ethics. Hence, man’s virtue, which is what we are speaking of, will be specifically different insofar as the good is differentiated by reason. But since man is man insofar as he is rational, his good must be in some way rational. But the rational or intellective part comprises both the cognitive and appetitive. However, it is not just the appetite which is in the rational part which follows on the grasp of intellect, that is, will, that pertains to the rational part, but also the appetite in man’s sensitive part which is divided into the irascible and concupiscible. For in man this appetite too follows the lead of reason insofar as it obeys the command of reason. That is why it is said to participate in reason. Therefore, man’s good is the good of both the cognitive and the appetitive Parts.
|
| Non autem secundum eamdem rationem utrique parti bonum attribuitur. Nam bonum appetitivae parti attribuitur formaliter, ipsum enim bonum est appetitivae partis obiectum: sed intellectivae parti attribuitur bonum non formaliter, sed materialiter tantum. Nam cognoscere verum, est quoddam bonum cognitivae partis; licet sub ratione boni non comparetur ad cognitivam, sed magis ad appetitivam: nam ipsa cognitio veri est quoddam appetibile. Oportet igitur alterius rationis esse virtutem quae perficit partem cognoscitivam ad cognoscendum verum, et quae perficit rationem appetitivam ad apprehendendum bonum; et propter hoc philosophus in Lib. Ethic., distinguit virtutes intellectuales a moralibus: et intellectuales dicuntur quae perficiunt partem intellectualem ad cognoscendum verum, morales autem quae perficiunt partem appetitivam ad appetendum bonum. Et quia bonum magis congrue competit parti appetitivae quam intellectivae, propter hoc, nomen virtutis convenientius et magis proprie competit virtutibus appetitivae partis quam virtutibus intellectivae; licet virtutes intellectivae sint nobiliores perfectiones quam virtutes morales, ut probatur VI Ethic.
| But good is not attributed to each part in the same sense, for good is formally attributed to the appetitive part, since good is the object of the appetitive part. Good is not attributed formally to the intellective part, but only materially for to know the true is a good of the cognitive part, although it does not relate to the cognitive part under the formality of the good as it does to the appetitive, for knowledge of truth is desirable. Therefore, the virtue which perfects the cognitive part in knowledge of the true must have a different sense than that which perfects the appetitive in attaining the good, for which reason the Philosopher in the Ethics distinguishes the intellectual from the moral virtues. Those are called intellectual which perfect the intellectual part in knowing the true, and those that perfect the appetitive part in seeking the good are called moral. And because the good belongs to the appetitive part more properly than to the intellective, the term virtue more fittingly and properly belongs to the virtues of the appetitive than to the virtues of the intellective, although intellectual virtues are more noble perfections than are the moral virtues, as is said in Ethics 6.
|
| Cognitio autem veri non est respectu omnium unius rationis. Alia enim ratione cognoscitur verum necessarium, et verum contingens: et iterum verum necessarium alia ratione cognoscitur si sit per se notum, sicut intellectu cognoscuntur prima principia; alia ratione si fiat notum ex alio, sicut fiunt notae conclusiones per scientiam vel sapientiam circa altissima: in quibus etiam est alia ratio cognoscendi, eo quod ex hac homo dirigitur in aliis cognoscendis.
| But knowledge of the true does not always have the same sense. To know necessary truth is one thing, to know the contingent another, and necessary truth is further subdivided into the self-evident (as when the intellect knows first principles) and that which is known by inference (as intellect knows conclusions by science and the highest things by wisdom: means something different when a man is led on to know other things).
|
| Et similiter circa contingentia operabilia non est eadem ratio cognoscendi ea quae sunt in nobis, quae dicuntur agibilia, ut sunt operationes nostrae, circa quas frequenter contingit errare, propter aliquam passionem; quarum est prudentia: et ea quae sunt extra nos a nobis factibilia, in quibus dirigit ars aliqua; quorum rectam aestimationem passiones animae non corrumpunt. Et ideo philosophus ponit VI Ethic., virtutes intellectuales, scilicet sapientiam, et scientiam et intellectum, prudentiam et artem.
| There is also another notion of knowing in them, from the fact that by this a man is directed in knowing other things. And similarly, with respect to contingent things to be done, there is not a single sense of knowing [1] the things that remain in us and are called do-able, as being our operations, concerning which we often err on account of passion and with which prudence is concerned, and [21 things outside us but makeable by us where art is directive and in which the passions of the soul do not vitiate estimation. Therefore, in Ethics 6 the Philosopher posits intellectual virtues, namely, wisdom, science, and understanding, prudence and art.
|
| Similiter etiam bonum appetitivae partis non secundum eamdem rationem se habet in omnibus rebus humanis. Huiusmodi autem bonum in tripartita materia quaeritur; scilicet in passionibus irascibilis et in passionibus concupiscibilis, et in operationibus nostris quae sunt circa res exteriores quae veniunt in usum nostrum, sicut est emptio et venditio, locatio et conductio, et huiusmodi alia. Bonum enim hominis in passionibus est, ut sic homo in eis se habeat, quod per earum impetum a rationis iudicio non declinet; unde si aliquae passiones sunt quae bonum rationis natae sint impedire per modum incitationis ad agendum vel prosequendum, bonum virtutis praecipue consistit in quadam refrenatione et retractione; sicut patet de temperantia, quae refrenat et compescit concupiscentias. Si autem passio nata sit praecipue bonum rationis impedire in retrahendo, sicut timor, bonum virtutis circa huiusmodi passionem erit in sustinendo; quod facit fortitudo. Circa res vero exteriores bonum rationis consistit in hoc quod debitam proportionem suscipiant, secundum quod pertinent ad communicationem humanae vitae; et ex hoc imponitur nomen iustitiae, cuius est dirigere, et aequalitatem in huiusmodi invenire.
| No more does the good of the appetitive part always have the same sense in all human affairs. This good is sought in three kinds of matter, namely, in the passions of the irascible and in the passions of the concupiscible and in our acts which are concerned with external things or things which come into our use, as in buying and selling, placing, guiding, and other like things. Man’s good in the case of the passions is that he be so related to them that he does not turn from the judgment of reason because of their influence; hence, if there are passions which are such as to impede the good of reason by mode of inciting to action or pursuit, the good of virtue consists chiefly in a restraint and holding back, as is evident in temperance, which refrains and holds back desires. If, however, a passion is such that it chiefly impedes the good of reason in withdrawal, as in fear, the good of virtue with respect to such a passion consists in sustaining, which is what courage does. With respect to external things, the good of reason consists in this, that they receive a fitting proportion, insofar as they pertain to the sharing of human life, and the word justice is imposed from this, since it directs and discovers equality in such things.
|
| Sed considerandum est, quod tam bonum intellectivae partis quam appetitivae est duplex: scilicet bonum quod est ultimus finis, et bonum quod est propter finem; nec est eadem ratio utriusque. Et ideo praeter omnes virtutes praedictas, secundum quas homo bonum consequitur in his quae sunt ad finem, oportet esse alias virtutes secundum quas homo bene se habet circa ultimum finem, qui Deus est; unde et theologicae dicuntur, quia Deum habent non solum pro fine, sed etiam pro obiecto.
| But it should be considered that both the good of the intellectual and of the appetitive part are twofold, namely, the good which is the ultimate end and the good that is for the sake of the end, and these do not have the same sense. Therefore, beyond the virtues mentioned, thanks to which a man pursues the good which is for the sake of the end, there must be other virtues thanks to which he is well related to the ultimate end which is God. That is why they are called theological: They have God not only for their end, but for their object.
|
| Ad hoc autem quod moveamur recte in finem, oportet finem esse et cognitum et desideratum. Desiderium autem finis duo exigit: scilicet fiduciam de fine obtinendo, quia nullus sapiens movetur ad id quod consequi non potest; et amorem finis, quia non desideratur nisi amatum. Et ideo virtutes theologicae sunt tres: scilicet fides, qua Deum cognoscimus; spes, qua ipsum nos obtenturos esse speramus; et caritas, qua eum diligimus. Sic ergo patet quod sunt tria genera virtutum: theologicae, intellectuales et morales et quodlibet genus sub se plures species habet.
| In order that we be moved correctly to the end, the end must be known and desired. But the desire of the end requires two things, namely, trust concerning the end to be obtained, because no wise man moves toward that which he cannot attain, and love of the end, because only the loved is desired. There are accordingly three theological virtues, namely, faith, by which we know God, hope, whereby we hope to attain him, and charity, by which we love him. It is clear then that there are three kinds of virtue: theological, intellectual, and moral and that there are several species of each kind.
|
| Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod moralia recipiunt speciem a finibus proximis; qui tamen non sunt infiniti, si in eis sola differentia formalis consideretur: nam finis proximus uniuscuiusque virtutis est bonum quod ipsa operatur, quod differt ratione, ut ostensum est in corp. art.
| Ad 1. It should be said that moral matters are specified by proximate ends, which, however, are not infinite if we consider in them only their formal difference. For the proximate end of any virtue is the good that is done by means of it, which goods provide their different definitions, as was shown in the body of the article.
|
| Ad secundum dicendum, quod ratio illa procedit in his quae agunt per necessitatem naturae, quia ea consequuntur finem una actione et una forma: homo autem ideo habet rationem, quia per plura et diversa oportet quod ad finem suum perveniat; unde sunt ei necessariae plures virtutes.
| Ad 2. It should be said that the argument works in things which act from the necessity of their nature, since they attain the end by one action and one form. But man has reason because he must reach his end by many different ways, and that is why many virtues are necessary for him.
|
| Ad tertium dicendum, quod accidentia non multiplicantur in uno secundum numerum, sed tantum secundum speciem; unde non oportet unitatem vel multitudinem in virtutibus considerari secundum subiectum, quod est anima, vel potentiae eius, nisi quatenus diversitatem potentiarum consequitur diversa ratio boni, secundum quam distinguuntur virtutes, ut dictum est.
| Ad 3. It should be said that accidents are not multiplied numerically in the same thing, but only specifically; hence, the unity or multitude of virtues ought not be looked for according to their subject, which is the soul, or its potencies, unless a different notion of good follows on the diversity of powers, since virtues are distinguished according to that, as has been said.
|
| Ad quartum dicendum, quod non secundum eamdem rationem est aliquid obiectum potentiae et habitus. Nam potentia est secundum quam simpliciter possumus aliquid, puta irasci vel confidere; habitus autem est secundum quem aliquid possumus bene vel male, ut dicitur in Ethic. Et ideo ubi est alia ratio boni, est alia ratio obiecti quantum ad habitum, sed non quantum ad potentiam; propter quod contingit in una potentia multos habitus esse.
| Ad 4. It should be said that a thing is not the object of a power and of a habit for the same reason, for a power is that thanks to which we can do something, simply, for example, wax wrathful or trust, but a habit is that thanks to which we do something wen or badly, as is said in the Ethics. Therefore, where there is a different sense of the good, there is a difference sense of object with respect to habit, but not with respect to power, since there are many habits in one Potency.
|
| Ad quintum dicendum, quod nihil prohibet aliquid esse causam effectivam alterius, quod tamen est causa finalis illius; sicut medicina est causa effectiva sanitatis, quae est finis medicinae, ut philosophus dicit I Ethic. Habitus igitur sunt causae effectivae actuum; sed actus sunt fines habituum; et ideo habitus formaliter secundum actus distinguuntur.
| Ad 5. It should be said that nothing prevents a thing from being the efficient cause of that which is its final cause, as medicine is the efficient cause of health, which is the end of medicine, as the Philosopher says in Ethics 1. Therefore, habits are the efficient cause of acts, but acts are the ends of habits, and, therefore, habits are formally distinguished according to their acts.
|
| Ad sextum dicendum, quod respectu finis qui est naturae humanae proportionatus, sufficit homini ad bene se habendum naturalis inclinatio; et ideo philosophi posuerunt aliquas virtutes, quarum obiectum esset felicitas, de qua ipsi tractabant. Sed finis in quo beatitudinem speramus, Deus, est naturae nostrae excedens proportionem; et ideo supra naturalem inclinationem necessariae sunt nobis virtutes, quibus in finem ultimum elevemur.
| Ad 6. It should be said that with respect to the end proportioned to human nature, natural inclination suffices in order for a man to be well related to it; that is why the philosophers spoke of various virtues whose object is happiness. But the end in which we hope for happiness, God, exceeds the proportion of our nature, which is why above the natural inclination virtues are necessary which raise us to the ultimate end.
|
| Ad septimum dicendum, quod attingere ad Deum qualitercumque et imperfecte, maioris perfectionis est quam perfecte alia attingere; unde philosophus dicit de proprietatibus animalium, et in II de Cael. et Mund.: quod de sublimioribus rebus percipimus, est dignius, quam quod de aliis rebus multum cognoscimus. Et ideo nihil prohibet et fidem et spem esse virtutes, quamvis per eas imperfecte attingamus ad Deum.
| Ad 7. It should be said that to attain God in whatever imperfect way is of greater perfection that to attain other things perfectly. Hence, the Philosopher says in the Properties ofanimals and On the heatens 2, that what we grasp of higher things is more worthy than to know much of other things. Therefore, nothing prevents faith and hope from being virtues although by means of them we attain God imperfectly.
|
| Ad octavum dicendum, quod affectus in Deum ordinatur et per spem in quantum confidit de Deo, et per caritatem in quantum diligit ipsum.
| Ad 8. It should be said that the affections are ordered to God both through hope, whereby we trust in him, and through charity, whereby we love him.
|
| Ad nonum dicendum, quod amor est principium et radix omnium affectuum: non enim gaudemus de praesentia boni nisi in quantum est amatum; et similiter patet in omnibus aliis affectionibus. Sic igitur omnis virtus quae est ordinativa alicuius passionis, est etiam ordinativa amoris. Nec etiam sequitur quod caritas, quae est amor, non sit virtus specialis; sed oportet quod sit principium quodammodo omnium virtutum, in quantum omnes movet ad suum finem.
| Ad 9. It should be said that love is the principle and root of all affections, for we do not rejoice in a present good if it is not loved, and the same thing is clear in other affections. Therefore, every virtue which orders some passion also orders love, nor does it follow that charity which is love is not a special virtue, but it must be, as it were, the principle of all the virtues insofar as it moves them all to its end.
|
| Ad decimum dicendum, quod non oportet secundum omnia attributa divina accipi virtutes theologicas, sed solum secundum illa secundum quae appetitum nostrum movet ut finis; et secundum hoc sunt tres virtutes theologicae, ut dictum est art. 10 huius quaestionis.
| Ad 10. It should be said that it is not necessary that all the divine attributes give rise to theological virtues, but only insofar as they move our appetite as an end, and in this respect there are three theological virtues, as was said in article 10 of this question.
|
| Ad undecimum dicendum, quod religio habet Deum pro fine, non autem pro obiecto, sed ea quae offert colendo ipsum; et ideo non est virtus theologica. Similiter etiam sapientia, qua nunc contemplamur Deum, non immediate respicit ipsum Deum, sed effectus ex quibus ipsum in praesenti contemplamur. Timor etiam respicit pro obiecto aliquid aliud quam Deum; vel poenas vel propriam parvitatem, ex cuius consideratione homo Deo reverenter se subiicit.
| Ad 11. It should be said that God is the end of religion, not its object; its object is those things involved in reverencing Him. So it is not a theological virtue. Likewise, the wisdom whereby we contemplate God now does not look immediately to God, but to His effects which are the present means of contemplating him. Moreover, fear looks to something other than God for its object - either punishments or one’s insignificance, by thinking of which a man is brought reverently to submit himself to God.
|
| Ad duodecimum dicendum, quod sicut in speculativis sunt principia et conclusiones: ita et in operativis sunt fines et ea quae sunt ad finem. Sicut igitur ad perfectam cognitionem et expeditam non sufficit quod homo bene se habeat circa principia per intellectum, sed ulterius requiritur scientia ad conclusiones; ita in operativis praeter virtutes theologicas, quibus bene nos habemus ad ultimum finem, sunt necessariae virtutes aliae, quibus bene ordinemur ad ea quae sunt ad finem.
| Ad 12. It should be said that just as in speculative matters there are principles and conclusions, so in action there are ends and means. Therefore, for perfect and expeditious knowledge it does not suffice that a man have true knowledge of principles, he also needs knowledge of conclusions. So it is that in action, over and above the theological virtues by which we are well related to the ultimate end, there must be other virtues which order us to the means.
|
| Ad decimumtertium dicendum, quod licet bonum, in quantum huiusmodi, sit obiectum appetitivae virtutis et non intellectivae; tamen id quod est bonum, potest inveniri etiam in intellectiva. Nam cognoscere verum, quoddam bonum est; et sic habitus perficiens intellectum ad verum cognoscendum, habet virtutis rationem.
| Ad 13. It should be said that, although the good as such is the object of the appetite and not the intellectual part, the good can be found in the intellectual part as well, for to know the true is a kind of good, and thus the habit perfecting intellect in knowledge of the truth has the note of virtue.
|
| Ad decimumquartum dicendum, quod prudentia secundum essentiam suam intellectualis est, sed habet materiam moralem; et ideo quandoque cum moralibus numeratur, quodammodo media existens inter intellectuales et morales.
| Ad 14. It should be said that in its essence prudence is an intellectual virtue, but it has moral matter; therefore, sometimes it is numbered with the moral as existing in a way between intellectual and moral virtues.
|
| Ad decimumquintum dicendum, quod virtutes intellectuales licet distinguantur a moralibus, pertinent tamen ad scientiam moralem in quantum actus earum voluntati subduntur: utimur enim scientia cum volumus, et aliis virtutibus intellectualibus. Ex hoc autem aliquid morale dicitur, quod se habet aliquo modo ad voluntatem.
| Ad 15. It should be said that, although intellectual virtues are distinguished from the moral, they fall to moral science insofar as their acts are subject to will, for we use science when we want to, and likewise with the other intellectual virtues. Something is called moral because it is related in some way to the will.
|
| Ad decimumsextum dicendum, quod ratio recta prudentiae non ponitur in definitione virtutis moralis, quasi aliquid de essentia eius existens; sed sicut causa quodammodo effectiva ipsius, vel per participationem. Nam virtus moralis nihil aliud est quam participatio quaedam rationis rectae in parte appetitiva, ut in superioribus dictum est.
| Ad 16. It should be said that the right reason of prudence is not put in the definition of moral virtue as something of its essence but either as its efficient cause or because of participation, for moral virtue is nothing other than the appetitive part’s participation in right reason, as was said in what has gone before.
|
| Ad decimumseptimum dicendum, quod materia artis sunt exteriora factibilia; materia autem prudentiae sunt agibilia in nobis existentia. Sicut igitur ars requirit rectitudinem quamdam in rebus exterioribus, quae ars disponit secundum aliquam formam; ita prudentia requirit rectam dispositionem in passionibus et affectionibus nostris; et propter hoc prudentia requirit aliquos habitus morales in parte appetitiva, non autem ars.
| Ad 17. It should be said that external makeables are the matter of art whereas the matter of prudence are things to be done which are within us. Therefore, just as art requires rectitude in exterior things, which it disposes according to some form, so prudence requires a correct disposition in our passions and affections. For this reason prudence needs moral virtues in the appetitive part, but art does not.
|
| Ad decimumoctavum concedimus. Appetitus enim intellectivae partis, qui est voluntas, potest esse universalis boni, quod per intellectum apprehenditur; non autem appetitus qui est in parte sensitiva, quia nec sensus universale apprehendit.
| Ad 18. We concede. The appetite of the intellective part, that is, will, bears on a universal good grasped by intellect, but the appetite of the sensitive part does not bear on a universal good anymore than sense can grasp the universal.
|
| Ad decimumnonum dicendum, quod licet appetitus naturaliter moveatur in bonum apprehensum; ad hoc tamen quod faciliter inclinetur in hoc bonum, quod ratio consequitur per prudentiam perfectam, requiritur in parte appetitiva aliquis habitus virtutis; et praecipue vera ratio deliberans et demonstrans aliquod bonum, in cuius contrarium appetitus natus est ferri absolute; sicut concupiscibilis nata est moveri in delectabile sensus, et irascibilis in vindictam, quae tamen interdum ratio prohibet per suam deliberationem. Similiter etiam voluntas, ea quae in usum hominis veniunt, nata est appetere sibi ad necessitatem vitae, sed ratio deliberans aliquando praecipit alteri communicanda. Et ideo in parte appetitiva necessarium est ponere habitus virtutum ad hoc quod faciliter obediat rationi.
| Ad 19. It should be said that although appetite is naturally moved by the good as apprehended, in order for it to be inclined easily to the good that reason perfected by prudence grasps, it must have virtue. Particularly when appetite left to itself is drawn to the opposite, it needs true reason deliberating about and showing the good. For example, the is fashioned to be moved by what is delightful to sense and the irascible by revenge, but sometimes, after deliberation, reason forbids these. Likewise the will, with respect to the things that fall to man’s use, is so fashioned as to desire what is necessary for its life, but reason after deliberation sometimes commands that it be shared with another. That is why a habit of virtue is needed in the appetitive part in order for it to obey reason with ease.
|
| Ad vicesimum dicendum est, quod cognitio ad prudentiam immediate pertinet; sed operatio pertinet ad eam mediante appetitiva virtute; et ideo debent in appetitiva etiam virtute esse aliqui habitus, qui dicuntur virtutes morales.
| Ad 20. It. should be said that knowledge pertains immediately to prudence, but action pertains to it through the mediation of the appetitive power; therefore, in the appetitive power there must be the habits that are called moral virtues.
|
| Ad vicesimumprimum dicendum, quod in omnibus moralibus est una ratio veri: in omnibus enim moralibus est verum contingens agibile; non tamen in eis est una ratio boni, quod est obiectum virtutis. Et ideo respectu omnium moralium est unus habitus cognoscitivus, sed non una virtus moralis.
| Ad 21. It should be said that there is one notion of truth in an moral virtues, for in all there is the true contingent thing to be done, but there is not the same notion of good, which is the object of virtue. Therefore, there is one knowing habit for all moral matters, but not one moral virtue.
|
| Ad vicesimumsecundum dicendum, quod medium in diversis materiis diversimode invenitur; et ideo diversitas materiae in virtutibus moralibus causat diversitatem formalem secundum quam virtutes morales specie differunt.
| Ad 22. It should be said that the mean is found differently in different matter, and therefore, the diversity of matter in the moral virtues causes a formal difference insofar as moral virtues differ in species.
|
| Ad vicesimumtertium dicendum, quod quaedam virtutes morales speciales, et circa materiam specialem existentes, appropriant sibi illud quod est commune omni virtuti, et ab eo denominantur: propterea quod illud quod est omnibus commune in aliqua speciali materia, praecipue difficultatem et laudem habet. Manifestum est enim quod ad quamlibet virtutem requiritur quod actus eius sit modificatus secundum debitas circumstantias, quibus in medio constituitur, et quod sit directus in ordine ad finem, vel ad quodcumque aliud exterius; et iterum quod habeat firmitatem. Immobiliter enim operari est una de conditionibus virtutis, ut patet III Ethic.; persistere autem firmiter praecipue habet difficultatem et laudem in periculis mortis, et ideo virtus quae est circa hanc materiam, nomen sibi fortitudinis vindicat. Continere autem, specialiter habet difficultatem et laudem in delectabilibus tactus; unde virtus quae est circa hanc materiam, temperantia nominatur. In usu autem rerum exteriorum praecipue requiritur et laudatur rectitudo, quia in huiusmodi bonis homines sibi communicant; et ideo hoc est bonum virtutis in eis, quia quantum ad ea homo directe secundum aequalitatem quamdam se habet ad alios; et ab hoc denominatur iustitia. Quandoque ergo homines de virtutibus loquentes, utuntur nomine fortitudinis et temperantiae et iustitiae, non secundum quod sunt virtutes speciales in determinata materia, sed secundum conditiones generales a quibus denominantur. Et per hoc dicitur quod temperantia debet esse fortis, id est firmitatem habere; et fortitudo debet esse temperata, id est modum servare, et eadem ratio est in aliis. De prudentia vero manifestum est quod quodammodo est generalis, in quantum habet pro materia omnia moralia, et in quantum omnes virtutes morales quodammodo eam participant, ut ostensum est in isto art. ad 16 arg., et hac ratione dicitur quod omnis virtus moralis debet esse prudens.
| Ad 23. It should be said that some special moral virtues with their own special matter appropriate to themselves what is common to all virtues and are denominated from it. Moreover, that which is common to all has a special difficulty and praise in some special matter. For it is clear that every virtue requires that its act be modified according to fitting circumstances by which it is constituted in a mean, and that it be ordered to the end or to something else outside, and again that it have firmness, for to act unchangingly is one of the conditions of virtue, as is clear in Ethics 3, and firmly to persist has especial difficulty and praise in mortal danger, and then the virtue bearing on this matter claims for its name fortitude. Restraint in the matter of the pleasures of touch especially involves difficulty and merits praise: the virtue bearing on this is called temperance. In the use of external things rectitude is especially needed and praised in the goods that men share. Therefore, the good of virtue in these is that a man be related to others according to equality, and justice is named from this. Therefore, speaking of virtues, men sometimes use the name of fortitude and temperance and justice, not insofar as they are special virtues with a determinate matter, but with respect to the general conditions from which they are named. That is why it is said that temperance should be brave, that is, have firmness, and fortitude be tempered, that is, to keep to a measure, and so too with the others. It is clear in the case of prudence that it is in some way general, insofar as it has all morals for its matter, and insofar as all moral virtues in a way participate in it, as was shown in this article and in ad 16. For this reason every moral virtue ought to be identical with prudence.
|
| Ad vicesimumquartum dicendum, quod virtus aliqua dicitur cardinalis, quasi principalis, quia super eam aliae virtutes firmantur sicut ostium in cardine. Et quia ostium est per quod introitur in domum, ratio cardinalis virtutis non competit virtutibus theologicis, quae sunt circa ultimum finem, ex quo non est introitus vel motus ad aliquid interius. Convenit enim virtutibus theologicis quod super eas aliae virtutes firmentur, sicut supra aliquid immobile; et ideo fides dicitur fundamentum, I Corinth., III, 11: fundamentum enim aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id quod positum est; spes ancora, Heb. VI, 19: sicut anima ancoram etc.; caritas radix, Ephes. III, 17: in caritate radicati et fundati. Similiter etiam intellectuales non dicuntur cardinales, quia perficiunt in vita contemplativa quaedam earum, scilicet sapientia, scientia, et intellectus: vita autem contemplativa est finis, unde non habet rationem ostii. Sed vita activa, in qua perficiuntur morales, est ut ostium ad contemplativam. Ars autem non habet virtutes sibi cohaerentes, ut cardinalis dici possit. Sed prudentia, quae dirigit in vita activa, inter cardinales virtutes computatur.
| Ad 24. It should be said that a virtue is called cardinal, or principal, because other virtues are fixed on it as a door is on its hinges. And since the door is that through which one enters the house, the notion of cardinal virtue does not belong to the theological virtues, which look to the ultimate end from which there is no movement or going into the interior. It does belong to the theological virtues that other virtues are fixed on them as on something unchangeable, which is why faith is called a foundation, 1 Corinthians 3:11, “For other foundation no one can lay but that which has been laid...” and hope an anchor, Hebrews 6:19, “as a sure and firm anchor of the soul... “ charity a root, Ephesians 3:17, “being rooted and grounded in love...” Similarly, the intellectual virtues are not called cardinal because some of them are perfective of the contemplative life, namely, wisdom, science, and understanding, but the contemplative fife is the end; hence, it does not have the notion of a door. The active life, which moral virtues perfect, is a door to the contemplative. Although art does not have virtues attached to it that it might be called cardinal, prudence which is directive in the active life is counted among the cardinal virtues.
|
| Ad vicesimumquintum dicendum, quod in parte rationali sunt duae virtutes, scilicet appetitiva, quae vocatur voluntas; et apprehensiva, quae vocatur ratio. Unde in parte rationali sunt duae virtutes cardinales: prudentia quantum ad rationem, iustitia quantum ad voluntatem. In concupiscibili autem temperantia; sed in irascibili fortitudo.
| Ad 25. It should be said that there are two powers of the rational part, namely, the appetitive, which is called will, and the apprehensive, which is called reason. So there are two cardinal virtues in the rational part, prudence with respect to reason and justice with respect to will. In the concupiscible there is temperance and in the irascible fortitude.
|
| Ad vicesimumsextum dicendum, quod in unaquaque materia oportet esse cardinalem virtutem circa id quod est principalius in materia illa. Virtutes autem quae sunt circa alia quae pertinent ad illam materiam, dicuntur secundariae vel adiectae. Sicut in passionibus concupiscibilis, principaliores sunt concupiscentiae et delectationes quae sunt secundum tactum, circa quas est temperantia; et ideo in materia ista temperantia ponitur cardinalis; eutrapelia vero, quae est circa delectationes quae sunt in ludis, potest poni secundaria vel adiuncta. Similiter inter passiones irascibilis, praecipuum est quod pertinet ad timores et audacias circa pericula mortis, circa quae est fortitudo: unde fortitudo ponitur virtus cardinalis in irascibili; non mansuetudo, quae est circa iras, licet ab ira denominetur, irascibilis propter hoc quod est ultima inter passiones irascibilis; nec etiam magnanimitas et humilitas, quae quodammodo se habent ad spem vel fiduciam alicuius magni: non enim ita movent hominem ira et spes, sicut timor mortis. In actionibus autem quae sunt respectu exteriorum quae veniunt in usum vitae, primum et praecipuum est quod unicuique quod suum est, reddatur: quod facit iustitia. Hoc enim subtracto, neque liberalitas neque magnificentia locum habet, et ideo iustitia est cardinalis virtus, et aliae sunt adiunctae. In actibus etiam rationis praecipuum est praecipere, sive eligere, quod facit prudentia: ad hoc enim ordinatur et consultiva, in quo dirigit eubulia, et iudicium de consiliatis, in quo dirigit synesis. Unde prudentia est cardinalis, aliae vero virtutes sunt adiunctae.
| Ad 26. It should be said that in any matter there should be a cardinal virtue bearing on that which is principal in that matter. Virtues concerned with other less principal aspects of the matter are called secondary or adjunct virtues. E.g, in concupiscible passions, desires and pleasure, are the chief things with respect to touch, and temperance is concerned with them and is called the cardinal virtue in such matter. But pleasantness (eutrapelia), which concerns the pleasures of games, can be posited as a secondary or adjunct virtue. Similarly with the irascible passions: Fear and boldness are the chief things which pertain to mortal peril, and fortitude deals with them, which is why it is called the cardinal virtue in irascible matters, and not meekness, which concerns anger, even though the irascible is denominated from anger: Fortitude concerns that which is ultimate in irascible passions. Magnanimity and humility, which are concerned with hope, and faithfulness is concerned with something greater. Hope and anger do not move a man as does the fear of death With regard to actions concerned with external things useful for fife, the first and foremost is that each be accorded what is his own, and this justice does. Absent this, neither liberality nor magnificence can occur, and, therefore, justice is a cardinal virtue and the others adjunct. To command or to choose is the principal act of reason, and this prudence does and to it are ordered eubulia, which is deliberative, and then judgment about what has been deliberated, which is the work of synesis. That is why prudence is the cardinal virtue and the others adjunct.
|
| Ad vicesimumseptimum dicendum, quod aliae virtutes adiunctae vel secundariae ponuntur partes cardinalium, non integrales vel subiectivae, cum habeant materiam determinatam et actum proprium; sed quasi partes potentiales, in quantum particulariter participant, et deficienter medium quod principaliter et perfectius convenit virtuti cardinali.
| Ad 27. It should be said that other adjunct or secondary virtues are listed as integral or subjective parts of the cardinal virtues when they have a matter determined to a proper act, but as potential parts insofar as they participate in a particular way and bear in a lesser way on the mean which belongs principally and more perfectly to the cardinal virtue.
|