Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 120 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de epieikeia. Circa quam quaeruntur duo. | We must now consider "epikeia," under which head there are two points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum epieikeia sit virtus. | (1) Whether "epikeia" is a virtue? |
| Secundo, utrum sit pars iustitiae. | (2) Whether it is a part of justice? |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 120 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod epieikeia non sit virtus. Nulla enim virtus aufert aliam virtutem. Sed epieikeia aufert aliam virtutem, quia et tollit id quod iustum est secundum legem; et opponi videtur severitati. Ergo epieikeia non est virtus. | Objection 1: It seems that "epikeia" is not a virtue. For no virtue does away with another virtue. Yet "epikeia" does away with another virtue, since it sets aside that which is just according to law, and seemingly is opposed to severity. Therefore "epikeia" is not a virtue. |
| Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de vera Relig., in istis temporalibus legibus, quanquam de his homines iudicent cum eas instituunt, tamen cum fuerint institutae et firmatae, non licebit iudici de ipsis iudicare, sed secundum ipsas. Sed epieikes videtur iudicare de lege, quando eam aestimat non esse servandam in aliquo casu. Ergo epieikeia magis est vitium quam virtus. | Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi): "With regard to these earthly laws, although men pass judgment on them when they make them, yet, when once they are made and established, the judge must pronounce judgment not on them but according to them." But seemingly "epikeia" pronounces judgment on the law, when it deems that the law should not be observed in some particular case. Therefore "epikeia" is a vice rather than a virtue. |
| Praeterea, ad epieikeiam videtur pertinere ut attendat ad intentionem legislatoris, ut philosophus dicit, in V Ethic. Sed interpretari intentionem legislatoris ad solum principem pertinet, unde imperator dicit, in codice, de legibus et Constitut. Princip., inter aequitatem iusque interpositam interpretationem nobis solis et oportet et licet inspicere. Ergo actus epieikeiae est illicitus. Non ergo epieikeia est virtus. | Objection 3: Further, apparently it belongs to "epikeia" to consider the intention of the lawgiver, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But it belongs to the sovereign alone to interpret the intention of the lawgiver, wherefore the Emperor says in the Codex of Laws and Constitutions, under Law i: "It is fitting and lawful that We alone should interpret between equity and law." Therefore the act of "epikeia" is unlawful: and consequently "epikeia" is not a virtue. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus, in V Ethic., ponit eam virtutem. | On the contrary, The Philosopher (Ethic. v, 10) states it to be a virtue. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, cum de legibus ageretur, quia humani actus, de quibus leges dantur, in singularibus contingentibus consistunt, quae infinitis modis variari possunt, non fuit possibile aliquam regulam legis institui quae in nullo casu deficeret, sed legislatores attendunt ad id quod in pluribus accidit, secundum hoc legem ferentes; quam tamen in aliquibus casibus servare est contra aequalitatem iustitiae, et contra bonum commune, quod lex intendit. Sicut lex instituit quod deposita reddantur, quia hoc ut in pluribus iustum est, contingit tamen aliquando esse nocivum, puta si furiosus deposuit gladium et eum reposcat dum est in furia, vel si aliquis reposcat depositum ad patriae impugnationem. In his ergo et similibus casibus malum esset sequi legem positam, bonum autem est, praetermissis verbis legis, sequi id quod poscit iustitiae ratio et communis utilitas. Et ad hoc ordinatur epieikeia, quae apud nos dicitur aequitas. Unde patet quod epieikeia est virtus. |
I answer that, As stated above (FS, Question [96], Article [6]), when we were treating of laws, since human actions, with which laws are concerned, are composed of contingent singulars and are innumerable in their diversity, it was not possible to lay down rules of law that would apply to every single case. Legislators in framing laws attend to what commonly happens: although if the law be applied to certain cases it will frustrate the equality of justice and be injurious to the common good, which the law has in view. Thus the law requires deposits to be restored, because in the majority of cases this is just. Yet it happens sometimes to be injurious—for instance, if a madman were to put his sword in deposit, and demand its delivery while in a state of madness, or if a man were to seek the return of his deposit in order to fight against his country. In these and like cases it is bad to follow the law, and it is good to set aside the letter of the law and to follow the dictates of justice and the common good. This is the object of "epikeia" which we call equity. Therefore it is evident that "epikeia" is a virtue. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod epieikes non deserit iustum simpliciter, sed iustum quod est lege determinatum. Nec etiam opponitur severitati, quae sequitur veritatem legis in quibus oportet, sequi autem verba legis in quibus non oportet, vitiosum est. Unde dicitur in codice, de legibus et Constit. Princip., non dubium est in legem committere eum qui, verba legis amplexus, contra legis nititur voluntatem. | Reply to Objection 1: "Epikeia" does not set aside that which is just in itself but that which is just as by law established. Nor is it opposed to severity, which follows the letter of the law when it ought to be followed. To follow the letter of the law when it ought not to be followed is sinful. Hence it is written in the Codex of Laws and Constitutions under Law v: "Without doubt he transgresses the law who by adhering to the letter of the law strives to defeat the intention of the lawgiver." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ille de lege iudicat qui dicit eam non esse bene positam. Qui vero dicit verba legis non esse in hoc casu servanda, non iudicat de lege, sed de aliquo particulari negotio quod occurrit. | Reply to Objection 2: It would be passing judgment on a law to say that it was not well made; but to say that the letter of the law is not to be observed in some particular case is passing judgment not on the law, but on some particular contingency. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod interpretatio locum habet in dubiis, in quibus non licet, absque determinatione principis, a verbis legis recedere. Sed in manifestis non est opus interpretatione, sed executione. | Reply to Objection 3: Interpretation is admissible in doubtful cases where it is not allowed to set aside the letter of the law without the interpretation of the sovereign. But when the case is manifest there is need, not of interpretation, but of execution. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 120 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod epieikeia non sit pars iustitiae. Ut enim ex praedictis patet, duplex est iustitia, una particularis, et alia legalis. Sed epieikeia non est pars iustitiae particularis, quia se extendit ad omnes virtutes, sicut et iustitia legalis. Similiter etiam non est pars iustitiae legalis, quia operatur praeter id quod lege positum est. Ergo videtur quod epieikeia non sit pars iustitiae. |
Objection 1: It seems that "epikeia" is not a part of justice. For, as stated above (Question [58], Article [7]), justice is twofold, particular and legal. Now "epikeia" is not a part of particular justice, since it extends to all virtues, even as legal justice does. In like manner, neither is it a part of legal justice, since its operation is beside that which is established by law. Therefore it seems that "epikeia" is not a part of justice. |
| Praeterea, virtus principalior non assignatur virtuti minus principali ut pars, cardinalibus enim virtutibus, quasi principalibus, assignantur secundariae virtutes ut partes. Sed epieikeia videtur esse principalior virtus quam iustitia, ut ipsum nomen sonat, dicitur enim ab epi, quod est supra, et dikaion, quod est iustum. Ergo epieikeia non est pars iustitiae. | Objection 2: Further, a more principal virtue is not assigned as the part of a less principal virtue: for it is to the cardinal virtue, as being principal, that secondary virtues are assigned as parts. Now "epikeia" seems to be a more principal virtue than justice, as implied by its name: for it is derived from {epi}, i.e. "above," and {dikaion}, i.e. "just." Therefore "epikeia" is not a part of justice. |
| Praeterea, videtur quod epieikeia sit idem quod modestia. Nam Philipp. IV, ubi dicitur, modestia vestra nota sit omnibus hominibus, in Graeco habetur epieikeia. Sed secundum Tullium, modestia est pars temperantiae. Ergo epieikeia non est pars iustitiae. |
Objection 3: Further, it seems that "epikeia" is the same as modesty. For where the Apostle says (Phil. 4:5), "Let your modesty be known to all men," the Greek has {epieikeia} [*{to epieikes}]. Now, according to Tully (De Invent. Rhet. ii), modesty is a part of temperance. Therefore "epikeia" is not a part of justice. |
| Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., quod epieikes est quoddam iustum. | On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 10) that "epikeia is a kind of justice." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, virtus aliqua habet triplicem partem, scilicet partem subiectivam, integralem et quasi potentialem. Pars autem subiectiva est de qua essentialiter praedicatur totum, et est in minus. Quod quidem contingit dupliciter, quandoque enim aliquid praedicatur de pluribus secundum unam rationem, sicut animal de equo et bove; quandoque autem praedicatur secundum prius et posterius, sicut ens praedicatur de substantia et accidente. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [48]), a virtue has three kinds of parts, subjective, integral, and potential. A subjective part is one of which the whole is predicated essentially, and it is less than the whole. This may happen in two ways. For sometimes one thing is predicated of many in one common ratio, as animal of horse and ox: and sometimes one thing is predicated of many according to priority and posteriority, as "being" of substance and accident. |
| Epieikeia ergo est pars iustitiae communiter dictae, tanquam iustitia quaedam existens, ut philosophus dicit, in V Ethic. Unde patet quod epieikeia est pars subiectiva iustitiae. Et de ea iustitia per prius dicitur quam de legali, nam legalis iustitia dirigitur secundum epieikeiam. Unde epieikeia est quasi superior regula humanorum actuum. | Accordingly, "epikeia" is a part of justice taken in a general sense, for it is a kind of justice, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). Wherefore it is evident that "epikeia" is a subjective part of justice; and justice is predicated of it with priority to being predicated of legal justice, since legal justice is subject to the direction of "epikeia." Hence "epikeia" is by way of being a higher rule of human actions. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod epieikeia correspondet proprie iustitiae legali, et quodammodo continetur sub ea, et quodammodo excedit eam. Si enim iustitia legalis dicatur quae obtemperat legi sive quantum ad verba legis sive quantum ad intentionem legislatoris, quae potior est, sic epieikeia est pars potior legalis iustitiae. Si vero iustitia legalis dicatur solum quae obtemperat legi secundum verba legis, sic epieikeia non est pars legalis iustitiae, sed est pars iustitiae communiter dictae, contra iustitiam legalem divisa sicut excedens ipsam. | Reply to Objection 1: Epikeia corresponds properly to legal justice, and in one way is contained under it, and in another way exceeds it. For if legal justice denotes that which complies with the law, whether as regards the letter of the law, or as regards the intention of the lawgiver, which is of more account, then "epikeia" is the more important part of legal justice. But if legal justice denote merely that which complies with the law with regard to the letter, then "epikeia" is a part not of legal justice but of justice in its general acceptation, and is condivided with legal justice, as exceeding it. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., epieikeia est melior quadam iustitia, scilicet legali quae observat verba legis. Quia tamen et ipsa est iustitia quaedam, non est melior omni iustitia. | Reply to Objection 2: As the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10), "epikeia is better than a certain," namely, legal, "justice," which observes the letter of the law: yet since it is itself a kind of justice, it is not better than all justice. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ad epieikeiam pertinet aliquid moderari, scilicet observantiam verborum legis. Sed modestia quae ponitur pars temperantiae, moderatur exteriorem hominis vitam, puta in incessu vel habitu, vel aliis huiusmodi. Potest tamen esse quod nomen epieikeiae, apud Graecos, per quandam similitudinem transfertur ad omnes moderationes. | Reply to Objection 3: It belongs to "epikeia" to moderate something, namely, the observance of the letter of the law. But modesty, which is reckoned a part of temperance, moderates man's outward life—for instance, in his deportment, dress or the like. Possibly also the term {epieikeia} is applied in Greek by a similitude to all kinds of moderation. |