Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 133 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de pusillanimitate. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. | We must now consider pusillanimity. Under this head there are two points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum pusillanimitas sit peccatum. | (1) Whether pusillanimity is a sin? |
| Secundo, cui virtuti opponatur. | (2) To what virtue is it opposed? |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 133 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod pusillanimitas non sit peccatum. Ex omni enim peccato aliquis efficitur malus, sicut ex omni virtute aliquis efficitur bonus. Sed pusillanimus non est malus, ut philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic. Ergo pusillanimitas non est peccatum. | Objection 1: It seems that pusillanimity is not a sin. For every sin makes a man evil, just as every virtue makes a man good. But a fainthearted man is not evil, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3). Therefore pusillanimity is not a sin. |
| Praeterea, philosophus dicit, ibidem, quod maxime videtur pusillanimus esse qui magnis bonis dignus existit, et tamen his non dignificat seipsum. Sed nullus est dignus magnis bonis nisi virtuosus, quia, ut ibidem philosophus dicit, secundum veritatem solus bonus est honorandus. Ergo pusillanimus est virtuosus. Non ergo pusillanimitas est peccatum. | Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3) that "a fainthearted man is especially one who is worthy of great goods, yet does not deem himself worthy of them." Now no one is worthy of great goods except the virtuous, since as the Philosopher again says (Ethic. iv, 3), "none but the virtuous are truly worthy of honor." Therefore the fainthearted are virtuous: and consequently pusillanimity is not a sin. |
| Praeterea, initium omnis peccati est superbia, ut dicitur Eccli. X. Sed pusillanimitas non procedit ex superbia, quia superbus extollit se supra id quod est; pusillanimus autem subtrahit se ab his quibus est dignus. Ergo pusillanimitas non est peccatum. | Objection 3: Further, "Pride is the beginning of all sin" (Ecclus. 10:15). But pusillanimity does not proceed from pride, since the proud man sets himself above what he is, while the fainthearted man withdraws from the things he is worthy of. Therefore pusillanimity is not a sin. |
| Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod qui dignificat se minoribus quam sit dignus, dicitur pusillanimus. Sed quandoque sancti viri dignificant seipsos minoribus quam sint digni, sicut patet de Moyse et Ieremia, qui digni erant officio ad quod assumebantur a Deo, quod tamen uterque eorum humiliter recusabat, ut habetur Exod. III et Ierem. I. Non ergo pusillanimitas est peccatum. |
Objection 4: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3) that "he who deems himself less worthy than he is, is said to be fainthearted." Now sometimes holy men deem themselves less worthy than they are; for instance, Moses and Jeremias, who were worthy of the office God chose them for, which they both humbly declined (Ex. 3:11; Jer. 1:6). Therefore pusillanimity is not a sin. |
| Sed contra, nihil in moribus hominum est vitandum nisi peccatum. Sed pusillanimitas est vitanda, dicitur enim ad Coloss. III, patres, nolite ad indignationem provocare filios vestros, ut non pusillo animo fiant. Ergo pusillanimitas est peccatum. | On the contrary, Nothing in human conduct is to be avoided save sin. Now pusillanimity is to be avoided: for it is written (Col. 3:21): "Fathers, provoke not your children to indignation, lest they be discouraged." Therefore pusillanimity is a sin. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod omne illud quod contrariatur naturali inclinationi est peccatum, quia contrariatur legi naturae. Inest autem unicuique rei naturalis inclinatio ad exequendam actionem commensuratam suae potentiae, ut patet in omnibus rebus naturalibus, tam animatis quam inanimatis. Sicut autem per praesumptionem aliquis excedit proportionem suae potentiae, dum nititur ad maiora quam possit; ita etiam pusillanimus deficit a proportione suae potentiae, dum recusat in id tendere quod est suae potentiae commensuratum. Et ideo, sicut praesumptio est peccatum, ita et pusillanimitas. Et inde est quod servus qui acceptam pecuniam domini sui fodit in terram, nec est operatus ex ea, propter quendam pusillanimitatis timorem, punitur a domino, ut habetur Matth. XXV et Luc. XIX. |
I answer that, Whatever is contrary to a natural inclination is a sin, because it is contrary to a law of nature. Now everything has a natural inclination to accomplish an action that is commensurate with its power: as is evident in all natural things, whether animate or inanimate. Now just as presumption makes a man exceed what is proportionate to his power, by striving to do more than he can, so pusillanimity makes a man fall short of what is proportionate to his power, by refusing to tend to that which is commensurate thereto. Wherefore as presumption is a sin, so is pusillanimity. Hence it is that the servant who buried in the earth the money he had received from his master, and did not trade with it through fainthearted fear, was punished by his master (Mt. 25; Lk. 19). |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod philosophus illos nominat malos qui proximis inferunt nocumenta. Et secundum hoc, pusillanimus dicitur non esse malus, quia nulli infert nocumentum, nisi per accidens, inquantum scilicet deficit ab operationibus quibus posset alios iuvare. Dicit enim Gregorius, in pastorali, quod illi qui prodesse utilitati proximorum in praedicatione refugiunt, si districte iudicentur, ex tantis rei sunt ex quantis venientes ad publicum prodesse potuerunt. | Reply to Objection 1: The Philosopher calls those evil who injure their neighbor: and accordingly the fainthearted is said not to be evil, because he injures no one, save accidentally, by omitting to do what might be profitable to others. For Gregory says (Pastoral. i) that if "they who demur to do good to their neighbor in preaching be judged strictly, without doubt their guilt is proportionate to the good they might have done had they been less retiring." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod nihil prohibet aliquem habentem habitum virtutis peccare, venialiter quidem, etiam ipso habitu remanente; mortaliter autem, cum corruptione ipsius habitus virtutis gratuitae. Et ideo potest contingere quod aliquis ex virtute quam habet sit dignus ad aliqua magna facienda, quae sunt digna magno honore; et tamen, per hoc quod ipse non attentat sua virtute uti, peccat, quandoque quidem venialiter, quandoque autem mortaliter. | Reply to Objection 2: Nothing hinders a person who has a virtuous habit from sinning venially and without losing the habit, or mortally and with loss of the habit of gratuitous virtue. Hence it is possible for a man, by reason of the virtue which he has, to be worthy of doing certain great things that are worthy of great honor, and yet through not trying to make use of his virtue, he sins sometimes venially, sometimes mortally. |
| Vel potest dici quod pusillanimus est dignus magnis secundum habilitatem ad virtutem quae inest ei, vel ex bona dispositione naturae, vel ex scientia, vel ex exteriori fortuna, quibus dum recusat uti ad virtutem, pusillanimus redditur. | Again it may be replied that the fainthearted is worthy of great things in proportion to his ability for virtue, ability which he derives either from a good natural disposition, or from science, or from external fortune, and if he fails to use those things for virtue, he becomes guilty of pusillanimity. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam pusillanimitas aliquo modo ex superbia potest oriri, dum scilicet aliquis nimis proprio sensui innititur, quo reputat se insufficientem ad ea respectu quorum sufficientiam habet. Unde dicitur Prov. XXVI, sapientior sibi piger videtur septem viris loquentibus sententias. Nihil enim prohibet quod se quantum ad aliqua deiiciat, et quantum ad alia se in sublime extollat. Unde Gregorius, in pastorali, de Moyse dicit quod superbus fortasse esset si ducatum plebis suae sine trepidatione susciperet, et rursum superbus existeret si auctoris imperio obedire recusaret. |
Reply to Objection 3: Even pusillanimity may in some way be the result of pride: when, to wit, a man clings too much to his own opinion, whereby he thinks himself incompetent for those things for which he is competent. Hence it is written (Prov. 26:16): "The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that speak sentences." For nothing hinders him from depreciating himself in some things, and having a high opinion of himself in others. Wherefore Gregory says (Pastoral. i) of Moses that "perchance he would have been proud, had he undertaken the leadership of a numerous people without misgiving: and again he would have been proud, had he refused to obey the command of his Creator." |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod Moyses et Ieremias digni erant officio ad quod divinitus eligebantur, ex divina gratia. Sed ipsi considerantes propriae infirmitatis insufficientiam, recusabant, non tamen pertinaciter, ne in superbiam laberentur. | Reply to Objection 4: Moses and Jeremias were worthy of the office to which they were appointed by God, but their worthiness was of Divine grace: yet they, considering the insufficiency of their own weakness, demurred; though not obstinately lest they should fall into pride. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 133 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod pusillanimitas non opponatur magnanimitati. Dicit enim philosophus, in IV Ethic., quod pusillanimus ignorat seipsum, appeteret enim bona quibus dignus est, si se cognosceret. Sed ignorantia sui videtur opponi prudentiae. Ergo pusillanimitas opponitur prudentiae. | Objection 1: It seems that pusillanimity is not opposed to magnanimity. For the Philosopher says (Ethic., 3) that "the fainthearted man knows not himself: for he would desire the good things, of which he is worthy, if he knew himself." Now ignorance of self seems opposed to prudence. Therefore pusillanimity is opposed to prudence. |
| Praeterea, Matth. XXV, servum qui propter pusillanimitatem pecunia uti recusavit, vocat dominus malum et pigrum. Philosophus etiam dicit, in IV Ethic., quod pusillanimi videntur pigri. Sed pigritia opponitur sollicitudini, quae est actus prudentiae, ut supra habitum est. Ergo pusillanimitas non opponitur magnanimitati. |
Objection 2: Further our Lord calls the servant wicked and slothful who through pusillanimity refused to make use of the money. Moreover the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3) that the fainthearted seem to be slothful. Now sloth is opposed to solicitude, which is an act of prudence, as stated above (Question [47], Article [9]). Therefore pusillanimity is not opposed to magnanimity. |
| Praeterea, pusillanimitas videtur ex inordinato timore procedere, unde dicitur Isaiae XXXV, dicite, pusillanimes, confortamini et nolite timere. Videtur etiam procedere ex inordinata ira, secundum illud Coloss. III, patres, nolite ad indignationem provocare filios vestros, ut non pusillo animo fiant. Sed inordinatio timoris opponitur fortitudini, inordinatio autem irae mansuetudini. Ergo pusillanimitas non opponitur magnanimitati. |
Objection 3: Further, pusillanimity seems to proceed from inordinate fear: hence it is written (Is. 35:4): "Say to the fainthearted: Take courage and fear not." It also seems to proceed from inordinate anger, according to Col. 3:21, "Fathers, provoke not your children to indignation, lest they be discouraged." Now inordinate fear is opposed to fortitude, and inordinate anger to meekness. Therefore pusillanimity is not opposed to magnanimity. |
| Praeterea, vitium quod opponitur alicui virtuti, tanto gravius est quanto magis est virtuti dissimile. Sed pusillanimitas magis est dissimilis magnanimitati quam praesumptio. Ergo, si pusillanimitas opponeretur magnanimitati, sequeretur quod esset gravius peccatum quam praesumptio. Quod est contra id quod dicitur Eccli. XXXVII, o praesumptio nequissima, unde creata es? Non ergo pusillanimitas magnanimitati opponitur. | Objection 4: Further, the vice that is in opposition to a particular virtue is the more grievous according as it is more unlike that virtue. Now pusillanimity is more unlike magnanimity than presumption is. Therefore if pusillanimity is opposed to magnanimity, it follows that it is a more grievous sin than presumption: yet this is contrary to the saying of Ecclus. 37:3, "O wicked presumption, whence camest thou?" Therefore pusillanimity is not opposed to magnanimity. |
| Sed contra est quod pusillanimitas et magnanimitas differunt secundum magnitudinem et parvitatem animi, ut ex ipsis nominibus apparet. Sed magnum et parvum sunt opposita. Ergo pusillanimitas opponitur magnanimitati. | On the contrary, Pusillanimity and magnanimity differ as greatness and littleness of soul, as their very names denote. Now great and little are opposites. Therefore pusillanimity is opposed to magnanimity. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod pusillanimitas potest tripliciter considerari. Uno modo, secundum seipsam. Et sic manifestum est quod secundum propriam rationem opponitur magnanimitati, a qua differt secundum differentiam magnitudinis et parvitatis circa idem, nam sicut magnanimus ex animi magnitudine tendit ad magna, ita pusillanimus ex animi parvitate se retrahit a magnis. Alio modo potest considerari ex parte suae causae, quae ex parte intellectus, est ignorantia propriae conditionis; ex parte autem appetitus, est timor deficiendi in his quae falso aestimat excedere suam facultatem. Tertio modo potest considerari quantum ad effectum, qui est retrahere se a magnis quibus est dignus. Sed sicut supra dictum est, oppositio vitii ad virtutem attenditur magis secundum propriam speciem quam secundum causam vel effectum. Et ideo pusillanimitas directe magnanimitati opponitur. |
I answer that, Pusillanimity may be considered in three ways. First, in itself; and thus it is evident that by its very nature it is opposed to magnanimity, from which it differs as great and little differ in connection with the same subject. For just as the magnanimous man tends to great things out of greatness of soul, so the pusillanimous man shrinks from great things out of littleness of soul. Secondly, it may be considered in reference to its cause, which on the part of the intellect is ignorance of one's own qualification, and on the part of the appetite is the fear of failure in what one falsely deems to exceed one's ability. Thirdly, it may be considered in reference to its effect, which is to shrink from the great things of which one is worthy. But, as stated above (Question [132], Article [2], ad 3), opposition between vice and virtue depends rather on their respective species than on their cause or effect. Hence pusillanimity is directly opposed to magnanimity. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de pusillanimitate ex parte causae quam habet in intellectu. Et tamen non proprie potest dici quod opponatur prudentiae etiam secundum causam suam, quia talis ignorantia non procedit ex insipientia, sed magis ex pigritia considerandi suam facultatem, ut dicitur in IV Ethic., vel exequendi quod suae subiacet potestati. | Reply to Objection 1: This argument considers pusillanimity as proceeding from a cause in the intellect. Yet it cannot be said properly that it is opposed to prudence, even in respect of its cause: because ignorance of this kind does not proceed from indiscretion but from laziness in considering one's own ability, according to Ethic. iv, 3, or in accomplishing what is within one's power. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de pusillanimitate ex parte effectus. | Reply to Objection 2: This argument considers pusillanimity from the point of view of its effect. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa procedit ex parte causae. Nec tamen timor causans pusillanimitatem semper est timor periculorum mortis. Unde etiam ex hac parte non oportet quod opponatur fortitudini. Ira autem, secundum rationem proprii motus, quo quis extollitur in vindictam, non causat pusillanimitatem, quae deiicit animum, sed magis tollit eam. Inducit autem ad pusillanimitatem ratione causarum irae, quae sunt iniuriae illatae, ex quibus deiicitur animus patientis. | Reply to Objection 3: This argument considers the point of view of cause. Nor is the fear that causes pusillanimity always a fear of the dangers of death: wherefore it does not follow from this standpoint that pusillanimity is opposed to fortitude. As regards anger, if we consider it under the aspect of its proper movement, whereby a man is roused to take vengeance, it does not cause pusillanimity, which disheartens the soul; on the contrary, it takes it away. If, however, we consider the causes of anger, which are injuries inflicted whereby the soul of the man who suffers them is disheartened, it conduces to pusillanimity. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod pusillanimitas est gravius peccatum, secundum propriam speciem, quam praesumptio, quia per ipsam recedit homo a bonis, quod est pessimum, ut dicitur in IV Ethic. Sed praesumptio dicitur esse nequissima ratione superbiae, ex qua procedit. | Reply to Objection 4: According to its proper species pusillanimity is a graver sin than presumption, since thereby a man withdraws from good things, which is a very great evil according to Ethic. iv. Presumption, however, is stated to be "wicked" on account of pride whence it proceeds. |