AquinasOperaOmnia/Ethics4.htm at master · Geremia/AquinasOperaOmnia · GitHub

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<!DOCTYPE html>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title></title>
<body style="text-align:justify;font-family:Arial">
  <blockquote>
    <blockquote>
      <p align="center"><span style="font-family:" new=""><b>BOOK IV<br>
      OTHER MORAL VIRTUES<br>
      <br>
      <a name="1" id="1"></a>LECTURE 1<br>
      Liberality</b></span>
      <table cellpadding="12">
        <tbody>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>Chapter 1</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>I.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE EXAMINES THE MATTER OF LIBERALITY AND THE OPPOSITE VICES.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>A.&nbsp;&nbsp;He shows that liberality has to do with wealth.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>A’&nbsp;He says what his intention is. Let us next discuss liberality, — 649-650</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>λέγωμεν δ' ἑξῆς περὶ ἐλευθεριότητος.
            <td>Let us next discuss liberality.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>
            <td><b>B’&nbsp;He shows the matter of liberality.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>δοκεῖ δὴ εἶναι ἡ περὶ χρήματα μεσότης· ἐπαινεῖται γὰρ ὁ ἐλευθέριος οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς, οὐδ' ἐν οἷς ὁ σώφρων, οὐδ' αὖ ἐν ταῖς κρίσεσιν, ἀλλὰ περὶ δόσιν χρημάτων καὶ λῆψιν, μᾶλλον δ' ἐν τῇ δόσει.
            <td>which seems to be a mean in regard to wealth. No one is praised as liberal for exploits in war, or for conduct in matters with which the temperate man is concerned, or again for pronouncing judgments. But a man is praised as liberal for his giving and taking of wealth.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>C’&nbsp;He explains what he had said. — 651-653</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>χρήματα δὲ λέγομεν πάντα ὅσων ἡ ἀξία νομίσματι μετρεῖται.
            <td>(Wealth here means whatever can be evaluated in terms of money.)
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>B.&nbsp;&nbsp;He shows that there are opposite vices dealing with this matter.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>A’&nbsp;He states his general intention. — 654</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἡ ἀσωτία καὶ ἡ ἀνελευθερία περὶ χρήματα ὑπερβολαὶ καὶ ἐλλείψεις·
            <td>Extravagance is the excess and miserliness, the defect in the use of wealth.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>B’&nbsp;He mentions... we always... charge with miserliness people who are more diligent... about... wealth than they ought to be. — 655</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καὶ τὴν μὲν ἀνελευθερίαν προσάπτομεν ἀεὶ τοῖς μᾶλλον ἢ δεῖ περὶ χρήματα σπουδάζουσι,
            <td>Miserliness is always attributed to people who are more careful about money than they should be.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>C’&nbsp;He explains in what manner extravagance may be concerned with wealth. — 656-657</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>τὴν δ' ἀσωτίαν ἐπιφέρομεν ἐνίοτε συμπλέκοντες· τοὺς γὰρ ἀκρατεῖς καὶ εἰς ἀκολασίαν δαπανηροὺς ἀσώτους καλοῦμεν. διὸ καὶ φαυλότατοι δοκοῦσιν εἶναι· πολλὰς γὰρ ἅμα κακίας ἔχουσιν. οὐ δὴ οἰκείως προσαγορεύονται· βούλεται γὰρ ἄσωτος εἶναι ὁ ἓν κακὸν ἔχων, τὸ φθείρειν τὴν οὐσίαν· ἄσωτος γὰρ ὁ δι' αὑτὸν ἀπολλύμενος, δοκεῖ δ' ἀπώλειά τις αὑτοῦ εἶναι καὶ ἡ τῆς οὐσίας φθορά, ὡς τοῦ ζῆν διὰ τούτων ὄντος. οὕτω δὴ τὴν ἀσωτίαν ἐκδεχόμεθα.
            <td>But the intemperate are sometimes accused of extravagance by inference, for the incontinent and the intemperate are notorious as extravagant wasters. For this reason, too, they seem to be very depraved; indeed they have many vices. However, they are not properly called prodigal, for a spendthrift is a man who has acquired one vice, that of wasting his substance (he is ruined by his own fault). The dissipation of one’s substance seems to be a kind of ruin of one’s being, since a man lives by means of riches. It is in this sense that extravagance is treated here.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>II.&nbsp;&nbsp;HE DEFINES THEIR ACTS CONCERNED WITH THE PROPER MATTER (I.E., OF LIBERALITY AND OPPOSITE VICES).</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>A.&nbsp;&nbsp;...considering first the liberal man.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>A’&nbsp;He examines the act of liberality.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE SHOWS WHAT THE PRINCIPAL ACT OF LIBERALITY IS.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He makes clear that the act of liberality is the proper use of wealth. — 658</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὧν δ' ἐστὶ χρεία, ἔστι τούτοις χρῆσθαι καὶ εὖ καὶ κακῶς· ὁ πλοῦτος δ' ἐστὶ τῶν χρησίμων· ἑκάστῳ δ' ἄριστα χρῆται ὁ ἔχων τὴν περὶ τοῦτο ἀρετήν· καὶ πλούτῳ δὴ χρήσεται ἄριστα ὁ ἔχων τὴν περὶ τὰ χρήματα ἀρετήν· οὗτος δ' ἐστὶν ὁ ἐλευθέριος.
            <td>Things that have utility—among which are riches—can be used well or badly. And the man who possesses the virtue concerned with particular objects uses each one best. Therefore he who has the virtue dealing with wealth will use riches to the best advantage. This man is the liberal man.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;He explains what the use of wealth is. — 659</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>χρῆσις δ' εἶναι δοκεῖ χρημάτων δαπάνη καὶ δόσις· ἡ δὲ λῆψις καὶ ἡ φυλακὴ κτῆσις μᾶλλον.
            <td>The spending and distribution of wealth seem to be the use of it; the acceptance and saving of wealth more properly are the possession.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He draws a conclusion.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He states it. — 660</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>διὸ μᾶλλόν ἐστι τοῦ ἐλευθερίου τὸ διδόναι οἷς δεῖ ἢ λαμβάνειν ὅθεν δεῖ καὶ μὴ λαμβάνειν ὅθεν οὐ δεῖ.
            <td>For this reason liberality is rather the bestowal of wealth on the right persons than the acceptance of wealth from proper sources or the refusal from improper sources.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He substantiates the conclusion by five reasons.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>v.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;FIRST. — 661</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>τῆς γὰρ ἀρετῆς μᾶλλον τὸ εὖ ποιεῖν ἢ τὸ εὖ πάσχειν, καὶ τὰ καλὰ πράττειν μᾶλλον ἢ τὰ αἰσχρὰ μὴ πράττειν· οὐκ ἄδηλον δ' ὅτι τῇ μὲν δόσει ἕπεται τὸ εὖ ποιεῖν καὶ τὸ καλὰ πράττειν, τῇ δὲ λήψει τὸ εὖ πάσχειν ἢ μὴ αἰσχροπραγεῖν.
            <td>Virtue consists more in bestowing than in receiving benefits, more in performing good actions than in refraining from disgraceful ones. But it is obvious that the conferring of benefits and the performance of good deeds accompany disbursements.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>w.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;SECOND. — 662</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καὶ ἡ χάρις τῷ διδόντι, οὐ τῷ μὴ λαμβάνοντι, καὶ ὁ ἔπαινος δὲ μᾶλλον.
            <td>Thanks and, in a special way, praise are due the giver and not the recipient.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>x.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;THIRD. — 663</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καὶ ῥᾷον δὲ τὸ μὴ λαβεῖν τοῦ δοῦναι· τὸ γὰρ οἰκεῖον ἧττον προΐενται μᾶλλον ἢ οὐ λαμβάνουσι τὸ ἀλλότριον.
            <td>Likewise, it is easier not to take from another than to give, for people prefer not to accept what belongs to others rather than give what is theirs.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>y.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;FOURTH. — 664</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καὶ ἐλευθέριοι δὲ λέγονται οἱ διδόντες· οἱ δὲ μὴ λαμβάνοντες οὐκ εἰς ἐλευθεριότητα ἐπαινοῦνται, ἀλλ' οὐχ ἧττον εἰς δικαιοσύνην· οἱ δὲ λαμβάνοντες οὐδ' ἐπαινοῦνται πάνυ.φιλοῦνται δὲ σχ.
            <td>People who give donations are called liberal, but not so those who receive gifts even honorably—such persons are praised for justice rather than liberality; those who simply accept gifts, however, are praised very little.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>z.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;FIFTH. — 665</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>εδὸν μάλιστα οἱ ἐλευθέριοι τῶν ἀπ' ἀρετῆς· ὠφέλιμοι γὰρ, τοῦτο δ' ἐν τῇ δόσει.
            <td>Of all virtuous men the liberal person is particularly loved, since he is useful because of his benefactions.
      </table>
    </blockquote>
    <table cellpadding="12">
      <tbody>
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:center">
          <td colspan="2"><b>COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS</b>
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Dicamus autem deinceps de liberalitate et cetera. Postquam philosophus determinavit de fortitudine et temperantia, quae respiciunt ea quibus conservatur ipsa hominis vita, hic incipit agere de aliis medietatibus, quae respiciunt quaedam secundaria bona vel mala. Et primo determinat de medietatibus laudabilibus, quae sunt virtutes. Secundo de his quae non sunt virtutes, sed passiones, ibi: de verecundia autem et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo determinat de virtutibus respicientibus res exteriores. Secundo de virtutibus pertinentibus ad actus humanos, ibi, in colloquiis autem et convivere et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo determinat de virtutibus quae respiciunt exteriora bona. Secundo de virtute mansuetudinis, quae respicit exteriora mala, ibi, mansuetudo autem est quaedam medietas et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo determinat de virtutibus respicientibus divitias. Secundo de his quae respiciunt honores, ibi, magnanimitas autem et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo determinat de liberalitate.
          <td>649. Having completed the study of fortitude and temperance which deals with means preservative of human life itself, he now begins to examine other mediums which concern certain subsidiary goods and evils. First he defines the laudable mediums which are the virtues. Then [Lect. 17], at “Shame is not properly spoken of etc.” (B. 1128 b 10), he defines the mediums that are not virtues but passions. On the first point he does two things. Initially, he considers the virtues that regard external things. Next [Lect. 14], at “Some men seem to be etc.” (B. 1126 b 10), he considers the virtues pertaining to human actions. In regard to the first point he considers the virtues relating to riches. Second [Lect. 8], at “Judging by the name etc.” (B. 1123 a 33), he considers the virtues having to do with honors. He handles the initial point in two ways. First he considers liberality. Then [Lect. 7, at “it seems logical etc.” (B. 1122 a 18), he investigates magnificence.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundo de magnificentia, ibi: videbitur autem consequens esse et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo inquirit materiam liberalitatis et oppositorum vitiorum. Secundo determinat actus eorum circa propriam materiam, ibi, quorum autem est aliqua utilitas, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit, quod liberalitas est circa pecunias. Secundo ostendit quod circa eandem materiam sunt opposita vitia, ibi: est autem et prodigalitas et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo dicit de quo est intentio. Secundo ostendit materiam liberalitatis, ibi: videtur enim esse et cetera. Tertio exponit quod dixerat, ibi, pecunias autem et cetera.
          <td>The first point he subdivides in a twofold manner. Initially [I] he examines the matter of liberality and the opposite vices. Next [II], at “Things that have utility etc.,” he defines their acts concerned with the proper matter. He discusses the initial point from two aspects. First [I, A] he shows that liberality has to do with wealth. Then [I, B], at “Extravagance is the excess etc.,” he shows that there are opposite vices dealing with this matter. The first point is developed in three ways. Initially [I, A, A’] he says what his intention is. Next [A, B’], at “which seems to be a mean etc.,” he shows the matter of liberality. Last [A, C’], at “Wealth here etc.,” he explains what he had said.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Dicit ergo primo, quod post temperantiam dicendum est de liberalitate: et hoc propter convenientiam liberalitatis ad temperantiam. Sicut enim temperantia moderatur concupiscentias delectationum tactus, ita liberalitas moderatur cupiditatem acquirendi vel possidendi res exteriores.
          <td>650. After the treatise on temperance, he says first that we must take up the study of liberality because of the likeness between liberality and temperance. As temperance moderates the desires of tactile pleasures, so liberality moderates the desire of acquiring or possessing external goods.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: videtur enim esse etc., ostendit quae sit materia liberalitatis; et dicit quod est medietas quaedam circa pecunias sicut manifeste apparet, ex hoc scilicet quod liberalis laudatur non in rebus bellicis, circa quas est fortitudo, neque in delectationibus tactus circa quas est temperantia, neque etiam in iudiciis circa quae est iustitia. Sed laudatur in datione et sumptione, id est acceptione pecuniarum; magis tamen in datione quam in acceptione, ut infra ostendetur.
          <td>651. At “which seems” [A, B’] he defines the matter of liberality, saying that it is a certain mean in regard to wealth. This is obvious from the fact that a man is praised as liberal not in military affairs (with which fortitude is concerned), nor in tactile pleasures (temperance has to do with these), nor in judgments (which are matters for justice). But he is praised for the giving and taking, i.e., the acceptance of wealth—more in giving than in taking, as will be shown afterwards (660, 661, 665, 666, 683).
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Est tamen considerandum quod aliquid potest dici materia virtutis moralis dupliciter. Uno modo sicut materia propinqua. Et hoc modo passiones sunt materia plurimarum virtutum moralium. Alio modo sicut materia remota, et hoc modo obiecta passionum ponuntur materiae. Sicut fortitudinis materia proxima est timor et audacia, materia autem remota pericula mortis. Temperantiae autem materia proxima concupiscentiae et delectationes, materia autem remota cibi et actus venerei. Sic igitur et liberalitatis materia quidem propinqua est cupiditas vel amor pecuniarum, materia autem remota ipsa pecunia.
          <td>652. We must consider that something can be called the matter of moral virtue in two ways: in one way as the proximate matter (thus the passions are the matter of many moral virtues); in the other way, as the remote matter (thus the objects of the passions are called their matter). Accordingly the proximate matter of fortitude is fear and recklessness; the remote matter, the fear of death; the proximate matter of temperance is desires and pleasures but the remote matter is food, drink, and sexual acts. Hence we find that the proximate matter of liberality is desire or love of wealth, and the remote matter is wealth itself.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: pecunias autem etc., exponit quid nomine pecuniae intelligatur. Et dicit quod nomine pecuniarum significantur omnia illa, quorum dignum pretium potest numismate mensurari; sicut equus, vestis, domus, et quaecumque denariis appretiari possunt; quia idem est dare vel accipere ista, et dare vel accipere pecunias.
          <td>653. Then [A, C’], at “Wealth here,” he explains what is understood by the name “wealth,” saying that the term signifies everything the value of which can be computed in dollars and cents, like a horse, a coat, a house, or whatever can be evaluated in cash. The reason is that to give or take these objects is the same as to give or take wealth.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: est autem prodigalitas etc., ostendit quomodo circa praedictam materiam, sunt etiam vitia liberalitati opposita. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit in communi, quod intendit. Et dicit, quod etiam circa pecunias se habent secundum superabundantiam et defectum prodigalitas et illiberalitas. Medium enim et extrema circa idem sunt. Unde cum prodigalitas et illiberalitas sint extrema liberalitatis, consequens est quod etiam ipsa sint circa pecunias.
          <td>654. At “Extravagance is” [I, B] he shows in what manner there are vices contrary to liberality. Here he makes the following points. First [B, A’] he states his general intention, saying that extravagance and miserliness in the use of wealth are denominated such by excess and defect.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundo ibi: illiberalitatem quidem etc., ostendit specialiter de illiberalitate, quod semper copulamus eam, idest attribuimus illis qui student, id est sollicitantur, circa pecunias acquirendas vel conservandas magis quam oportet.
          <td>655. Next [B, B’], at “Miserliness is always,” he mentions particularly that we always connect or charge with miserliness people who are more diligent, i.e., solicitous, about making or keeping wealth than they ought to be.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Tertio ibi prodigalitatem autem etc., ostendit quomodo prodigalitas se habeat circa pecunias. Et dicit quod nomen prodigalitatis quandoque extendimus attribuentes ipsum intemperatis hominibus: vocamus enim quandoque prodigos illos qui incontinenter vivunt et consumunt divitias suas in intemperantiam sive ciborum sive venereorum. Unde et tales videntur esse pravissimi in hoc genere, quia simul habent multa vitia, id est intemperantiam et prodigalitatem. Et quamvis quandoque tales vocentur prodigi, nomen tamen intemperantiae proprie competit eis; quia nomen prodigi impositum est ad significandum unum vitium quod consistit in indebita corruptione vel consumptione substantiae, idest propriarum divitiarum. Et hoc probat ex ipso nomine prodigalitatis. Nam prodigus dicitur quasi perditus, inquantum scilicet homo corrumpendo proprias divitias per quas vivere debet, videtur suum esse destruere quod per divitias conservatur.
          <td>656. Finally [B, C’], at “But the intemperate” he explains in what manner extravagance may be concerned with wealth. By extension the term “extravagance” is applied occasionally to the intemperate, for men who live riotously and dissipate their riches by overindulgence in food and sex are sometimes called spendthrifts. Hence they seem very depraved in the sense that they also possess many vices, like intemperance and extravagance. Although such men at times may be called extravagant, nevertheless they do not strictly deserve the name that is used to signify a vice consisting in inordinate waste or consumption of one’s substance or riches. He proves the statement by the name “extravagance.” The extravagant person is spoken of as ruined inasmuch as dissipation of his own riches, by which he ought to live, seems to destroy his existence-a thing sustained by riches.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Sed oportet quod hoc conveniat ei propter seipsum; quia unumquodque habet speciem et denominationem ab eo quod convenit ei per se; ille ergo vere dicitur prodigus cui per se hoc convenit quod consumat suas divitias quasi non habens curam debitam de eis. Ille vero qui consumit suam substantiam propter aliquid aliud, puta propter intemperantiam, non per se est consumptor divitiarum, sed per se est intemperatus. Contingit enim quandoque quod etiam homines cupidi et tenaces propter vim concupiscentiae bona sua consumant. Sic ergo nunc de prodigalitate loquimur, prout scilicet aliqui consumunt proprias divitias secundum se et non propter aliud.
          <td>657. This name should be predicated of a man in relation to himself because each thing receives its species and name from what pertains to it essentially. Therefore a man is truly called extravagant who dissipates his riches precisely because he does not have proper care of them. On the other hand, he who wastes his substance for some other reason, for example, intemperance, is not essentially a spendthrift but an intemperate person. It happens now and then that even the covetous and grasping waste their goods because of the influence of concupiscence. For the present then we are treating extravagance according as some squander riches themselves and do not waste them in some other way.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: quorum autem est aliqua utilitas etc., ostendit qualiter liberalitas et opposita vitia circa praedictam materiam, operantur. Et circa hoc tria facit: primo determinat de liberali. Secundo de prodigo, ibi, qui autem superabundat et cetera. Tertio de illiberali, ibi, illiberalitas autem et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo determinat de actu liberalitatis. Secundo ponit quasdam proprietates ipsius, ibi, liberalis autem est vehementer et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quis sit praecipuus actus liberalitatis; secundo ostendit qualis esse debeat, ibi, quae autem secundum virtutem et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit quod actus liberalitatis est bonus usus pecuniae, tali ratione. Quaecumque sunt ad aliquid utilia, contingit his uti bene vel male. Sed divitiae quaeruntur tamquam ad aliud utiles; ergo contingit eis uti bene vel male; sed si aliquibus rebus contingat bene uti, bonus usus illarum rerum pertinet ad virtutem quae est circa illas res. Ergo bene uti pecuniis pertinet ad liberalitatem quae est circa pecunias, ut supra ostensum est.
          <td>658. Then [II], at “Things that have,” he explains in what way liberality and the opposite vices function in this matter. Here he takes up two (three) points, considering first [II, A] the liberal man; next [Lect. 3; II, B] the spendthrift, at “But the spendthrift etc.” (B. 1120 b 25); and finally [Lect. 5; II, C], the miser, at “Illiberality etc.” (B. 1121 b 13). He treats the first point from two aspects. First [II, A, A’] he examines the act of liberality; then [Lect. 2; II, A, B’], he states certain characteristics of it at “The liberal person however” (B. 1120 b 5). He discusses the first point in a twofold manner. First [A’, 1] he shows what the principal act of liberality is; and next [Lect. 2; A’, 2], what qualities this act should have, at “Since virtuous actions” (B. 1120 a 23). He handles the initial point under two headings. First [i, a] he makes clear that the act of liberality is the proper use of wealth, by the following argument. Whatever has any utility can be used well or badly. But riches are sought because they have some utility. Therefore they can be used well or badly. Now the proper use of things pertains to that virtue which deals with those things. Consequently, the proper use of wealth belongs to liberality, which is concerned with wealth, as we proved before (651-653).
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundo ibi: usus autem etc., ostendit quis sit usus pecuniae: et dicit quod usus pecuniae consistit in emissione eius, quae quidem fit per sumptus expensarum et per dationes, sed accipere vel custodire pecunias non est uti pecuniis, sed est possidere eas. Nam per acceptionem pecuniae acquiritur eius possessio; per custodiam autem conservatur: acceptio enim est sicut quaedam pecuniae generatio, custodia autem sicut quaedam habitualis retentio. Usus autem non nominat generationem vel habitum, sed actum.
          <td>659. Next [1, b ], at “The spending,” he explains what the use of wealth is, indicating that it consists in spending which takes place by disbursements and gifts. To accept or save wealth is not to use it, for acceptance brings about possession, and saving is the preservation of wealth; acceptance is a kind of production, and saving is an habitual retention. Use, however, does not signify production or habit but act.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Tertio ibi: propter quod etc., infert quamdam conclusionem ex dictis. Et primo ponit eam, concludens ex praemissis quod magis pertinet ad liberalem dare pecuniam quibus oportet, quod est bene uti eis, quam accipere unde oportet quod pertinet ad pecuniae generationem debitam, et non accipere unde non oportet quod pertinet ad remotionem contrarii.
          <td>660. Finally [1, c], at “For this reason,” he draws a conclusion from what has been said. First [c, i] he states it, inferring from the premises that it is more characteristic of a liberal man to distribute wealth to the right persons than to accept wealth from the proper sources (this pertains to a lawful increase of wealth), and to refuse wealth from improper sources (this pertains to removal of the contrary).
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundo ibi: virtutis enim magis etc., confirmat inductam conclusionem quinque rationibus. Quarum prima talis est. Magis pertinet ad virtutem benefacere quam bene pati, quia benefacere est melius et difficilius. Similiter etiam magis pertinet ad virtutem bene operari quam abstinere a turpi operatione. Quia recessus a termino est principium motus, cui assimilatur vitatio turpis operationis. Sed operatio boni assimilatur perventioni ad terminum quae perficit motum. Manifestum est autem quoniam ex eo quod aliquis dat, benefacit et bene operatur; ad sumptionem autem, idest receptionem pertinet bene pati, inquantum scilicet aliquis recipit unde oportet, vel non turpe operari, inquantum scilicet non recipit unde non oportet. Ergo consequens est quod ad virtutem liberalitatis magis pertineat bene dare quam bene accipere vel abstinere a mala acceptione.
          <td>661. Then [c, ii], at “Virtue consists,” he substantiates the conclusion by five reasons. The first reason [ii, v] is that it is more characteristic of virtue to bestow than to receive benefits because the act of benefitting is better and more difficult. Likewise, it is more characteristic of virtue to perform a good action than to refrain from an evil one, because departure from a terminus is the principle of motion to which the avoidance of an evil action is likened. But the performance of a good action is likened to the arrival at the goal which perfects motion. It is obvious when someone gives gifts that he bestows a benefit and performs a good action. On the other hand, it pertains to taking or acceptance to receive benefits worthily (inasmuch as a man acquires them from proper sources), and not to act unworthily (inasmuch as a man refuses them from improper sources). Consequently, it belongs to the virtue of liberality to give well rather than to receive worthily or refrain from reprehensible acceptance of gifts.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundam rationem ponit ibi et gratia danti et cetera. Quae talis est. Operationi virtutis debetur laus et gratiarum actio. Sed utrumque horum magis debetur danti quam accipienti bene vel non male accipienti; ergo virtus liberalitatis magis consistit in dando quam in accipiendo.
          <td>662. The second reason [ii, w], at “Thanks and,” follows. Praise and thanks are due in return for a good act. But each one of these is ascribed with better reason to the giver than the receiver, worthy or unworthy. Therefore, the virtue of liberality consists rather in giving than receiving.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Tertiam rationem ponit ibi, et facilius autem et cetera. Quae talis est. Virtus est circa difficile. Sed facilius est quod aliquis non accipiat aliena, quam quod det proprium. Quia cum aliquis dat id quod est sibi proprium, quasi abscidit a se id quod est sibi incorporatum. Ergo virtus liberalitatis magis est circa dationem quam circa acceptionem.
          <td>663. The third reason is presented at “Likewise it is easier” [ii, x]. Virtue is concerned with the difficult. But it is easier not to receive what belongs to others than to give what is one’s own because a person giving what is his cuts himself away, so to speak, from what was a part of him. Therefore, the virtue of liberality more property has to do with giving than receiving.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Quartam rationem ponit ibi, sed et liberales dicuntur et cetera. Quae sumitur ex communi modo loquendi. Dicuntur enim maxime liberales illi qui dant. Illi vero qui non accipiunt inordinate non multum laudantur de liberalitate, sed magis de iustitia; illi vero qui accipiunt non multum laudantur. Ergo liberalitas maxime videtur esse circa dationes.
          <td>664. The fourth reason, beginning at “People who” [ii, y], is taken from common usage. Men who give gifts are said to be liberal in a marked degree; those who do not accept dishonest gifts are commended not so much for liberality as justice, and those who simply accept presents are praised very little. Therefore, the virtue of liberality seems to be concerned in a special way with giving gifts.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Quintam rationem ponit ibi, amantur autem maxime et cetera. Quae talis est. Inter omnes virtuosos maxime amantur liberales, non quidem amicitia honesti, quasi liberalitas sit maxima virtus, sed amicitia utilis, inquantum scilicet sunt aliis utiles. Sunt autem utiles per hoc quod dant. Ergo liberalitas maxime consistit circa dationes.
          <td>665. The fifth reason is given at “Of all virtuous men” [ii, z]. Among all virtuous men the liberal person is especially loved not by an honorable friendship—as if liberality was a most excellent virtue—but by a friendship of utility precisely as he is useful to others. The liberal are indeed useful in this that they make disbursements. Therefore, liberality deals especially with giving gifts.
    </table>
    <hr>
    <blockquote>
      <table cellpadding="12">
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td colspan="2" align="center"><b><a name="2" id="2"></a>LECTURE 2<br>
            The Act of Liberality</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>Chapter 1 (II, A, A’)<br>
            <br>
            2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE SHOWS WHAT ITS QUALITIES (OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT OF LIBERALITY) SHOULD BE.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He explains the quality of the principal act.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;What should be the quality of giving...</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>x.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;THE GIVING OF THE LIBERAL MAN SHOULD BE ENDOWED WITH CIRCUMSTANCES... — 666</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>αἱ δὲ κατ' ἀρετὴν πράξεις καλαὶ καὶ τοῦ καλοῦ ἕνεκα. καὶ ὁ ἐλευθέριος οὖν δώσει τοῦ καλοῦ ἕνεκα καὶ ὀρθῶς· οἷς γὰρ δεῖ καὶ ὅσα καὶ ὅτε, καὶ τἆλλα ὅσα ἕπεται τῇ ὀρθῇ δόσει· καὶ ταῦτα ἡδέως ἢ ἀλύπως·
            <td>Since virtuous actions are good both in themselves and in their intent, the liberal man will give with a good intention and in the right circumstances. He will make gifts to the proper persons, at the opportune time, of whatever gifts are fitting and with all the requisites of reasonable giving.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>y.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;THE GIVING OF A LIBERAL PERSON SHOULD BE ENJOYABLE. — 667</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>τὸ γὰρ κατ' ἀρετὴν ἡδὺ ἢ ἄλυπον, ἥκιστα δὲ λυπηρόν.
            <td>Besides, he will give with pleasure and without sadness, for a virtuous action is pleasurable and either not sad at all or in a very slight degree.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The other kinds of donations do not pertain to liberality.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>x.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;ONE WHO GIVES TO THE WRONG PERSONS... IS NOT CALLED LIBERAL. — 668</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὁ δὲ διδοὺς οἷς μὴ δεῖ, ἢ μὴ τοῦ καλοῦ ἕνεκα ἀλλὰ διά τιν' ἄλλην αἰτίαν, οὐκ ἐλευθέριος ἀλλ' ἄλλος τις ῥηθήσεται.
            <td>The man, however, who gives to the wrong persons, or not with the right intention, but for some other cause will be called not liberal but by some other name.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>y.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A MAN WHO GIVES WITH SADNESS IS NOT LIBERAL. — 669</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>οὐδ' ὁ λυπηρῶς· μᾶλλον γὰρ ἕλοιτ' ἂν τὰ χρήματα τῆς καλῆς πράξεως, τοῦτο δ' οὐκ ἐλευθερίου.
            <td>Nor will anyone be called liberal who gives with sadness, for he would choose money rather than the generous deed. Such a one surely is not liberal.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;(He explains) the qualities of the secondary acts.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;What the liberal person avoids in accepting. — 670</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>οὐδὲ λήψεται δὲ ὅθεν μὴ δεῖ· οὐ γάρ ἐστι τοῦ μὴ τιμῶντος τὰ χρήματα ἡ τοιαύτη λῆψις. οὐκ ἂν εἴη δὲ οὐδ' αἰτητικός· οὐ γάρ ἐστι τοῦ εὖ ποιοῦντος εὐχερῶς εὐεργετεῖσθαι.
            <td>Nor will a liberal man accept a gift from an improper source, since an accepting of this sort is not characteristic of one who does not pay homage to wealth. And certainly he will not be inclined to seek favors, for it is not the usual thing that a man who bestows benefactions readily accepts them.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;What (the liberal man) should observe. — 671</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὅθεν δὲ δεῖ, λήψεται, οἷον ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων κτημάτων, οὐχ ὡς καλὸν ἀλλ' ὡς ἀναγκαῖον, ὅπως ἔχῃ διδόναι. οὐδ' ἀμελήσει τῶν ἰδίων, βουλόμενός γε διὰ τούτων τισὶν ἐπαρκεῖν. οὐδὲ τοῖς τυχοῦσι δώσει, ἵνα ἔχῃ διδόναι οἷς δεῖ καὶ ὅτε καὶ οὗ καλόν.
            <td>He will take from the proper sources, i.e., from his own possessions, for money is not good itself but necessary that he may have something to give. He will not give to everyone so that he can give to the right persons when and where it is fitting.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>B’&nbsp;&nbsp;He states four properties of liberality.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IT PERTAINS TO THE LIBERAL PERSON TO GIVE EAGERLY AND GENEROUSLY. — 672</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ἐλευθερίου δ' ἐστὶ σφόδρα καὶ τὸ ὑπερβάλλειν ἐν τῇ δόσει, ὥστε καταλείπειν ἑαυτῷ ἐλάττω· τὸ γὰρ μὴ βλέπειν ἐφ' ἑαυτὸν ἐλευθερίου.
            <td>The liberal person, however, is characteristically eager to be generous, keeping things of lesser value for his own use, for he is not solicitous about himself.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;LIBERALITY IS ATTRIBUTED ACCORDING TO THE... QUANTITY OF A MANS SUBSTANCE. — 673</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν δ' ἡ ἐλευθεριότης λέγεται· οὐ γὰρ ἐν τῷ πλήθει τῶν διδομένων τὸ ἐλευθέριον, ἀλλ' ἐν τῇ τοῦ διδόντος ἕξει, αὕτη δὲ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν δίδωσιν. οὐθὲν δὴ κωλύει ἐλευθεριώτερον εἶναι τὸν τὰ ἐλάττω διδόντα, ἐὰν ἀπ' ἐλαττόνων διδῷ.
            <td>Liberality makes allowance for the amount of one’s wealth, since the liberal deed does not lie in the number of gifts but in the condition of the giver who gives according to his means. Nothing hinders the smaller donor from being more liberal, if he contributes from more limited resources.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;PEOPLE WHO INHERIT RICHES... ARE MORE LIBERAL THAN THOSE WHO ACQUIRE THEM BY THEIR OWN LABOR. — 674</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ἐλευθεριώτεροι δὲ εἶναι δοκοῦσιν οἱ μὴ κτησάμενοι ἀλλὰ παραλαβόντες τὴν οὐσίαν· ἄπειροί τε γὰρ τῆς ἐνδείας, καὶ πάντες ἀγαπῶσι μᾶλλον τὰ αὑτῶν ἔργα, ὥσπερ οἱ γονεῖς καὶ οἱ ποιηταί.
            <td>People who inherit wealth—not having any experience of need—are more liberal than those who earn their money. All men esteem more highly what they themselves have produced, like parents and poets.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;THE FOURTH PROPERTY.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He indicates the property. — 675</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>πλουτεῖν δ' οὐ ῥᾴδιον τὸν ἐλευθέριον, μήτε ληπτικὸν ὄντα μήτε φυλακτικόν, προετικὸν δὲ καὶ μὴ τιμῶντα δι' αὐτὰ τὰ χρήματα ἀλλ' ἕνεκα τῆς δόσεως.
            <td>It is not easy to increase the wealth of the liberal man who is inclined neither to accept nor keep riches but rather to distribute them, placing value not on riches themselves but on the bestowal of them.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;He makes clear... what he had said. — 676</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>διὸ καὶ ἐγκαλεῖται τῇ τύχῃ ὅτι οἱ μάλιστα ἄξιοι ὄντες ἥκιστα πλουτοῦσιν. συμβαίνει δ' οὐκ ἀλόγως τοῦτο· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε χρήματ' ἔχειν μὴ ἐπιμελόμενον ὅπως ἔχῃ, ὥσπερ οὐδ' ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων.
            <td>Men bring the accusation against fortune that of those who deserve wealth most do not become rich—a fact that has a reasonable explanation. Here (and the same is true in other matters) it is not possible for a person to possess money who does not trouble himself about it.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He excludes a false opinion. — 677</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>οὐ μὴν δώσει γε οἷς οὐ δεῖ οὐδ' ὅτε μὴ δεῖ, οὐδ' ὅσα ἄλλα τοιαῦτα· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἔτι πράττοι κατὰ τὴν ἐλευθεριότητα, καὶ εἰς ταῦτα ἀναλώσας οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι εἰς ἃ δεῖ ἀναλίσκειν. ὥσπερ γὰρ εἴρηται, ἐλευθέριός ἐστιν ὁ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν δαπανῶν καὶ εἰς ἃ δεῖ·
            <td>The liberal man, however, will not give to the wrong persons, nor at the wrong time, nor in any other wrong manner, for he would not be directed to these things according to liberality. Besides, by this squandering he would be without the resources on which to draw. As has been explained, the liberal man then spends according to his means and in the way he ought.
      </table>
    </blockquote>
    <table cellpadding="12">
      <tbody>
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:center">
          <td colspan="2"><b>COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS</b>
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Quae autem secundum virtutem (et) operationes et cetera. Postquam philosophus ostendit quis sit praecipuus actus liberalitatis, hic ostendit qualis debeat esse. Et primo ostendit qualis sit praecipuus actus eius. Secundo quales sint actus eius secundarii, ibi: neque accipiet et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit qualis debeat esse liberalitatis datio quae est praecipuus actus eius. Secundo ostendit quod aliae dationes non pertinent ad liberalitatem, ibi: qui autem dat quibus non oportet et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit, quod datio liberalis debeat debitis circumstantiis esse vestita, quia scilicet omnes operationes quae sunt secundum virtutem debent esse bonae, id est rectificatae a ratione secundum debitas circumstantias, et ulterius ordinatae per intentionem ad bonum finem. Cum igitur datio sit praecipuus actus liberalitatis, consequens est quod liberalis det propter bonum finem, et quod recte, id est secundum regulam rationis; inquantum scilicet dat quibus oportet et quando oportet et quaecumque aliae debitae circumstantiae consequuntur ad rectam dationem.
          <td>666. After the Philosopher has made clear what the principal act of liberality is, he now [(II, A, A’)2] shows what its qualities should be. First [2, a] he explains the quality of the principal act; and next [2, b] the qualities of the secondary acts, at “Nor will a liberal man accept.” In regard to the initial point he does two things. First [a, i] he shows what should be the quality of giving which is the principal act of liberality. Then [a, ii] he shows that other kinds of donations do not pertain to liberality, at “The man, however, etc.” He treats the first point in a twofold manner. First [i, x] he explains that the giving of the liberal man should be endowed with circumstances because all virtuous operations ought to be good, directed by reason according to the required circumstances and ordered to a good end. Since, then, giving is the principal act of liberality, it follows that the liberal man should give with rectitude of intention and of deed, i.e., in conformity with the norm of reason. This means that he bestows on the proper person, in a fitting manner and according to all other requisite circumstances called for by right reason.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundo ibi: et haec delectabiliter etc., ostendit quod datio liberalis debet esse delectabilis. Et hoc est quod dicit quod liberalis dat delectabiliter, vel saltem sine tristitia. Ita enim est in omni virtute, ut ex supradictis patet, quod actus virtuosus, vel est delectabilis, vel saltem est sine tristitia; vel si oporteat aliquam tristitiam admisceri, minimum habebit per comparationem ad alios homines, sicut supra dictum est de forti quod, si non multum delectetur in suo actu, tamen non tristatur, vel saltem minus tristatur inter omnes qui huiusmodi pericula subeunt.
          <td>667. Next [i, y], at “Besides, he will give with pleasure,” he shows that the giving of a liberal person should be enjoyable. This is what he means saying that the liberal man gives cheerfully, or at least without sadness. It is true of any virtue, as evident in previous discussions (265-279, 371-378), that virtuous action is either pleasurable or at least without sadness. If the virtuous man has some sadness mingled with his activity, it will be very slight compared with what other men suffer. This was said before in regard to the brave man who, even if he does not take much pleasure in his operation, nevertheless is not made sad or at least has less sadness than anyone who undergoes trials of this kind in his activities.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: qui autem dat quibus non oportet etc., ostendit quod aliae dationes non pertinent ad liberalem. Et primo de dationibus quibus desunt debitae circumstantiae. Et dicit quod ille qui dat quibus non oportet, vel non propter honestatem, sed propter aliquam aliam causam licitam vel illicitam, non dicitur liberalis. Sed alio nomine nominatur secundum differentiam finis propter quem dat, ex quo moralia speciem et nomen sortiuntur.
          <td>668. Then [a, ii], at “The Man, however,” he brings out that other donations do not pertain to the liberal man. First [ii, x] he says—speaking of disbursements that lack the proper circumstances—that one who gives to the wrong persons, or not for an honorable motive but for some other reason, good or bad, is not called liberal. But he is given a different name according to the difference of the end for which he gives, since moral matters take their species and name from the end.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundo ibi: neque qui triste etc., ostendit idem de dationibus quae sunt cum tristitia. Et dicit quod neque illi qui cum tristitia dant sunt liberales, quia ex hoc ipso quod tristantur in dando, videtur quod magis eligerent pecunias quam operationem virtuosam honestae dationis. Quod non pertinet ad liberalem.
          <td>669. Second [ii, y], at “Nor will anyone,” he affirms that a man who gives with sadness is not liberal. The reason is that the cheerless giver seems to prefer wealth to the virtuous action of honorable giving—which is not the case with a liberal person.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: neque accipiet etc., ostendit quales sint operationes liberalitatis sicut acceptio et alia huiusmodi. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit quid vitet liberalis in accipiendo. Secundo ostendit quid observet, ibi, unde autem oportet et cetera. Circa primum duo ponit. Quorum primum est, quod liberalis non accipit unde non oportet. Sic enim accipere non videtur competere homini, qui non appretiatur pecunias. Secundum est, quod liberalis non est promptus ad petendum. Sicut enim in naturalibus, quod est multum activum est parum passivum, ut ignis, ita etiam in moralibus liberalis, qui est promptus ad benefaciendum donando, non de facili vult beneficia ab alio recipere, quod est bene pati.
          <td>670. Next [2, b], at “Nor will a liberal man accept,” he explains the nature of the secondary acts of liberality like receiving and so on. Here he makes two points, showing first what the liberal person avoids in accepting; and then [b, ii] what he should observe, at “He will take etc.” On the first point he makes two comments. The first is that the liberal man does not take from improper sources, for to take in this way does not seem becoming to a man who does not highly prize wealth. The second is that the liberal man is not quick to make requests. As in the natural order, what is greatly active has little receptivity, for example, fire, so in the moral order the liberal person, who is prompt in making benefactions, is not eager to accept benefits from others, i.e., to be easily receptive.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: unde autem oportet etc., ostendit quid observet liberalis in accipiendo vel retinendo; et ponit tria. Quorum primum est, quod liberalis accipit unde oportet, scilicet a propriis possessionibus vel ab aliis huiusmodi, non quia quaerit pecuniam quasi per se bonum, sed quasi necessarium ad dandum. Secundum est, quod liberalis non negligit procurationem bonorum propriorum, quia vult habere unde sufficiat ad dandum aliis. Tertium est, quod liberalis non dat quibuscumque, sed retinet ad hoc quod possit dare quibus oportet, et loco et tempore debito.
          <td>671. Then [b, ii], at “He will take,” Aristotle shows what the liberal man should observe in taking and retaining. He makes three observations, of which the first is that the liberal man takes from the proper sources, i.e., from his own possessions and not from others, since he seeks wealth not as a good itself but as something necessary for making gifts. The second is that he does not neglect the care of his own goods because he wants to have enough to bestow on others. The third is that he does not give to everyone but holds back so he can give to the right persons at a fitting place and time.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: liberalis autem etc., ponit quatuor proprietates liberalitatis. Quarum prima est, quod ad liberalem pertinet, ut vehementer superabundet in datione, non quidem sic quod superabundet a ratione recta, sed ita quod datio in ipso superabundet retentioni. Quia minus sibi relinquit, quam aliis det. Paucis enim in seipso contentus est; sed dum vult multis providere oportet, quod pluribus largiatur. Non enim pertinet ad liberalem quod sibi soli intendat.
          <td>672. Then [B’], at “The liberal person,” he states four properties of liberality. The first [B’, 1] is that it pertains to the liberal person to give eagerly and generously, not however without right reason but in such a way that what he gives is more than what he retains, because he keeps less for himself than he gives to others. He is indeed content with a few things for himself but if he wants to care for many people, he must distribute much more. It is not a mark of the generous man to have himself alone in mind.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundam proprietatem ponit ibi: secundum substantiam autem et cetera. Et dicit quod liberalitas commendatur secundum proportionem substantiae, idest divitiarum. Non enim datio iudicatur liberalis ex multitudine donorum sed ex habitu, idest ex facultate et voluntate dantis, qui scilicet dat secundum modum suarum divitiarum. Unde nihil prohibet, quod aliquis, qui minora dat, liberalior iudicetur, si a minoribus divitiis det.
          <td>673. At “Liberality makes allowance” he gives the second property [B’, 2], saying that liberality is attributed according to the relative quantity of a man’s substance or riches. Hence there is no reason why someone who bestows smaller gifts may not be judged more liberal, if he gives from more moderate means.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Tertiam proprietatem ponit ibi: liberaliores autem et cetera. Et dicit quod illi qui suscipiunt divitias a parentibus sunt magis liberales quam illi qui proprio labore eas acquirunt. Et huius assignat duas rationes. Quarum prima est, quod illi qui suscipiunt divitias a parentibus, nunquam fuerunt experti indigentiam; unde non timent eam et propter hoc non timent expendere, sicut illi qui aliquando experti sunt paupertatem. Secunda ratio est, quia naturale est quod omnes diligant sua opera, sicut parentes diligunt suos filios, et poetae sua poemata. Illi autem qui acquirunt proprio labore divitias, reputant eas quasi sua opera. Unde magis volunt eas conservare.
          <td>674. He presents the third property at “People who inherit” [B’, 3], affirming that persons who inherit riches from their parents are more liberal than those who acquire them by their own labor. He assigns two reasons for this. The first is that people who are given wealth by their parents have never felt the pinch of need. Consequently, they are not afraid to spend, as those are who have experienced poverty at one time. The second reason is that all men naturally love their own works; parents love their children, and poets, their poems. Likewise, those who acquire riches by their labor look upon them as their own works and rather desire to keep them.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Quartam proprietatem ponit ibi: ditari autem non facile et cetera. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit proprietatem. Et dicit quod non est facile quod ditetur homo liberalis, quum non de facili accipiat, neque multum custodiat divitias; sed magis a se emittit eas dando et expendendo et non appretiatur divitias propter ipsas, sed solum propter dationem.
          <td>675. He presents the fourth property at “It is not easy” [B’, 4]. He considers this point under three aspects. First [4, a] he indicates the property, saying that the liberal man is not easily made rich, since he is not disposed to accept or keep riches but rather to distribute them in gifts and disbursements. Nor does he value riches for themselves but for their distribution.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundo ibi: propter quod etc., manifestat quod dixerat per quoddam signum. Quia enim liberales non de facili sunt divites, homines vulgares accusant fortunam, cui attribuunt divitias, quod non sunt divites illi qui maxime essent digni, scilicet liberales, qui aliis largiuntur. Sed ipse dicit, quod hoc non irrationabiliter accidit: quia non est possibile, quod homo habeat pecunias, qui non multum curat habere; sicut etiam non est possibile, quod aliquid aliud habeatur, de quo homo non curat.
          <td>676. Next [4, b], at “Men bring the accusation,” he makes clear by a certain sign what he had said. Since the liberal do not readily become wealthy, the common people blame fortune—to which they attribute riches—because those who would be especially deserving (i.e., the liberal who give generously to others) are not rich. But Aristotle says that this is not an unreasonable occurrence, for it is not possible that a person should possess wealth who troubles himself very little about it, just as it is not possible that anything else which a man does not care for should be retained.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Tertio ibi: non tamen dabit etc., excludit falsam opinionem. Non enim propter hoc dictum est quod non curet divitias, quia det quibus non oportet, vel quando non oportet, vel indebite secundum quamcumque aliam circumstantiam. Tum quia talis operatio non esset liberalis: tum quia per hoc impediretur ab operatione liberali, dum inutiliter consumens non haberet quod oportune consumeret. Sicut enim dictum est, liberalis dicitur, qui expendit secundum proportionem propriae substantiae, et in ea quae oportet.
          <td>677. Finally [4, c] he excludes a false opinion at “The liberal man, however, will not.” It was not said that the liberal man does not care about riches because he gives to the wrong person, or at the wrong time, or in the wrong manner according to some other circumstance. The reason is both that such an operation would not be liberal and that the liberal person would be hindered in this way from truly generous action, for by reason of useless waste he would lack the means to make the most worthy disbursements. As has been explained (658-659), he is called liberal, then, who gives donations in the proper manner and according to the condition of his own resources.
    </table>
    <hr>
    <blockquote>
      <table cellpadding="12">
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td colspan="2" align="center"><b><a name="3" id="3"></a>LECTURE 3<br>
            Extravagance</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>Chapter 1 (II)<br>
            <br>
            B.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He begins the consideration of the spendthrift.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>A’&nbsp;He treats the person who is altogether extravagant.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE CONSIDERS THE SPENDTHRIFT AS SUCH.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In what respect the spendthrift is excessive. — 678</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὁ δ' ὑπερβάλλων ἄσωτος. διὸ τοὺς τυράννους οὐ λέγομεν ἀσώτους· τὸ γὰρ πλῆθος τῆς κτήσεως οὐ δοκεῖ ῥᾴδιον εἶναι ταῖς δόσεσι καὶ ταῖς δαπάναις ὑπερβάλλειν.
            <td>But the spendthrift is a man who squanders. Hence we do not call tyrants spendthrifts, for it is not easy to be excessive in gifts and expenditures with a vast sum of money in their possession.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Of what nature (the spendthrift’s) act is.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He... resumes what was said about the act of the liberal man.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>x.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HOW THE LIBERAL MAN SHOULD CONDUCT HIMSELF IN MATTERS PRINCIPALLY PERTAINING TO HIM. — 679</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>τῆς ἐλευθεριότητος δὴ μεσότητος οὔσης περὶ χρημάτων δόσιν καὶ λῆψιν, ὁ ἐλευθέριος καὶ δώσει καὶ δαπανήσει εἰς ἃ δεῖ καὶ ὅσα δεῖ, ὁμοίως ἐν μικροῖς καὶ μεγάλοις, καὶ ταῦτα ἡδέως·
            <td>Since liberality is the mean concerned with the giving and taking of wealth, the liberal man will both give and expend whatever he ought and in the way he ought, whether the sum be large or small. He will also do this gladly.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>y.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IN MATTERS SECONDARILY PERTAINING TO HIM.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>aa.&nbsp;&nbsp;The liberal man’s reaction to taking. — 680</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καὶ λήψεται δ' ὅθεν δεῖ καὶ ὅσα δεῖ. τῆς ἀρετῆς γὰρ περὶ ἄμφω οὔσης μεσότητος, ποιήσει ἀμφότερα ὡς δεῖ· ἕπεται γὰρ τῇ ἐπιεικεῖ δόσει ἡ τοιαύτη λῆψις, ἡ δὲ μὴ τοιαύτη ἐναντία ἐστίν. αἱ μὲν οὖν ἑπόμεναι γίνονται ἅμα ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ, αἱ δ' ἐναντίαι δῆλον ὡς οὔ.
            <td>Likewise he will accept both large and small amounts from the proper sources and under the proper conditions. Since virtue consists in the mean regarding both (taking and giving), he will do both as he ought because virtuous taking goes hand in hand with virtuous giving, while improper taking is contrary to virtuous giving. Accordingly, the operations that go hand in hand exist at the same time in the liberal man, but contrary operations obviously cannot.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>bb.&nbsp;(The liberal man’s reaction) to sadness.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>a’.&nbsp;Saddened by disordered giving. — 681</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ἐὰν δὲ παρὰ τὸ δέον καὶ τὸ καλῶς ἔχον συμβαίνῃ αὐτῷ ἀναλίσκειν, λυπήσεται, μετρίως δὲ καὶ ὡς δεῖ· τῆς ἀρετῆς γὰρ καὶ ἥδεσθαι καὶ λυπεῖσθαι ἐφ' οἷς δεῖ καὶ ὡς δεῖ.
            <td>If it should happen that he spends inopportunely and unsuccessfully, he will be sad but in a moderate and fitting manner, for it is characteristic of virtue to be pleased and saddened at the proper things and in the proper circumstances.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>b’.&nbsp;By the privation of wealth. — 682</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καὶ εὐκοινώνητος δ' ἐστὶν ὁ ἐλευθέριος εἰς χρήματα· δύναται γὰρ ἀδικεῖσθαι, μὴ τιμῶν γε τὰ χρήματα,
            <td>But the liberal man is disposed to share his wealth with others. He is even willing to suffer loss by not valuing money highly.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>c’.&nbsp;Is grieved at inappropriate retention of money. — 683</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καὶ μᾶλλον ἀχθόμενος εἴ τι δέον μὴ ἀνάλωσεν ἢ λυπούμενος εἰ μὴ δέον τι ἀνάλωσεν, καὶ τῷ Σιμωνίδῃ οὐκ ἀρεσκόμενος.
            <td>He is more grieved over failure to make an appropriate outlay than over an inopportune expenditure—a thing displeasing to Simonides.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;How the act of the spendthrift is constituted. — 684</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὁ δ' ἄσωτος καὶ ἐν τούτοις διαμαρτάνει· οὔτε γὰρ ἥδεται ἐφ' οἷς δεῖ οὐδὲ ὡς δεῖ οὔτε λυπεῖται· ἔσται δὲ προϊοῦσι φανερώτερον.
            <td>The spendthrift, however, sins in these matters too. Besides, he neither takes pleasure in the right things, nor is saddened when he should be. This will be clarified by what follows.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE MAKES A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SPENDTHRIFT AND THE MISER.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In regard, first to opposition. — 685</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>εἴρηται δὴ ἡμῖν ὅτι ὑπερβολαὶ καὶ ἐλλείψεις εἰσὶν ἡ ἀσωτία καὶ ἡ ἀνελευθερία, καὶ ἐν δυσίν, ἐν δόσει καὶ λήψει· καὶ τὴν δαπάνην γὰρ εἰς τὴν δόσιν τίθεμεν. ἡ μὲν οὖν ἀσωτία τῷ διδόναι καὶ μὴ λαμβάνειν ὑπερβάλλει, τῷ δὲ λαμβάνειν ἐλλείπει, ἡ δ' ἀνελευθερία τῷ διδόναι μὲν ἐλλείπει, τῷ λαμβάνειν δ' ὑπερβάλλει, πλὴν ἐν μικροῖς.
            <td>We have seen that extravagance and miserliness pertain to excess and defect, and occur in two actions, namely, giving and taking. Extravagance then abounds in giving and falls short in taking. On the other hand, miserliness falls short in giving and abounds in taking, except in trifling things.
      </table>
    </blockquote>
    <table cellpadding="12">
      <tbody>
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:center">
          <td colspan="2"><b>COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS</b>
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Qui autem superabundat et cetera. Postquam philosophus determinavit de liberali, hic determinat de prodigo. Et primo determinat de eo, qui est totaliter prodigus. Secundo de eo qui est partim prodigus et partim illiberalis, ibi: sed multi prodigorum, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo determinat de eo prodigo absolute; secundo comparat prodigum illiberali, ibi: dictum est autem a nobis, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit respectu cuius prodigus superabundet. Secundo ostendit qualis sit prodigi actus, ibi, liberalitate utique et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod cum dicatur aliquis liberalis ex hoc quod expendit secundum proportionem suae substantiae; prodigus dicitur, qui superabundat proportionem suae substantiae expendendo vel dando. Et ex hoc concludit, quod tyranni, qui habent indeficientem divitiarum abundantiam, utpote omnia quae sunt communia sibi usurpantes, non dicuntur prodigi, quia multitudine eorum quae possident, non videtur esse facile quod in dando et expendendo superabundent proportionem propriarum divitiarum.
          <td>678. After the Philosopher has finished the study of the liberal man, he now [(II)B] begins the consideration of the spendthrift. First [A’] he treats the person who is altogether extravagant; and next [Lect. 4, B’] the person who is partly extravagant and partly liberal at “But, as we have noted etc.” (B. 1121 a 30). In regard to the first, lie does two things. Initially [1] he considers the spendthrift as such. Then [2] he makes a comparison between the spendthrift and the miser, at “We have seen etc.” He clarifies the initial point by a twofold distinction. First [1, a] he shows in what respect the spendthrift is excessive; and next [1, b], of what nature his act is, at “Since liberality is the mean etc.” Although I man may be called liberal when he spends according to his means, he is called extravagant when he spends or gives beyond his means. From this he concludes that tyrants, who have an inexhaustible supply of wealth-usurping as they do public goods for themselves-are not called extravagant. The reason is that it is not easy for tyrants to exceed the amount of their riches by donations and expenditures because of the great amount of their possessions.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: liberalitate utique etc., manifestat qualis sit actus prodigi. Et quia opposita ex invicem manifestantur, primo resumit ea quae dicta sunt de actu liberalis. Secundo ostendit qualis sit actus prodigi, ibi, prodigus autem, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo resumit qualiter liberalis se habeat circa ea quae principaliter ad eum pertinent, scilicet circa dationem et delectationem dationis. Secundo qualiter se habeat in his circa quae est secundario liberalitas, ibi: et accipiet unde oportet et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod cum liberalitas sit quaedam medietas circa dationem et acceptionem pecuniarum, liberalis emittit pecunias dando et expendendo, et hoc secundum rationem rectam, in quae oportet et quaecumque alia oportet in huiusmodi observare, per quod differt liberalis a prodigo; et hoc facit tam in parvis quam in magnis: per quod differt liberalis a magnifico, qui est tantummodo circa magna, ut infra dicetur. Et hoc facit delectabiliter: per quod differt ab illiberali, qui in emissione pecuniarum contristatur.
          <td>679. Then [i, b], at “Since liberality.” he discloses what the act of the spendthrift is. Because opposites are mutually revealing, he first [b, i] resumes what was said about the act of the liberal man. Next [b, ii], he shows how the act of the spendthrift is constituted, at “The spendthrift, however, etc.” On the first point he proceeds in two ways. First [i, x] he reviews how the liberal man should conduct himself in the matters principally pertaining to him, i.e., in giving and in the pleasure of giving; and next [i, A in matters secondarily pertaining to him, at “Likewise he will accept.” He says first that, since liberality is a certain dealing with giving and taking of wealth, the liberal person, disposes of his funds by making gifts and disbursements—and this in agreement with right reason—in the proper way, of the proper things, and according to other appropriate circumstances. By this the liberal man is distinguished from the spendthrift; by the fact that he gives both in large and small amounts he is distinguished from the munificent man, who is concerned only with great donations; by the fact that he gives with pleasure he differs from the miser who is saddened by the giving away of his wealth.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: et accipiet unde oportet etc., resumit quomodo liberalis se habeat circa ea quae secundario ad liberalitatem pertinent. Et primo quomodo se habeat circa acceptionem. Secundo quomodo se habeat circa tristitiam, ibi: si autem praeter optimum et bene et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod liberalis accipit unde oportet, et observat quaecumque oportet in accipiendo observari. Cum enim liberalitatis virtus medium teneat circa utrumque, scilicet acceptionem et dationem, liberalis utrumque faciet sicut oportet, quia ad decentem dationem sequitur quod sit decens acceptio. Sed si acceptio non sit decens, contraria est decenti dationi, quia ex contrariis causis procedunt. Decens enim datio procedit ex hoc, quod homo praefert bonum rationis cupiditati pecuniae. Sed indecens acceptio provenit ex hoc quod homo cupiditatem pecuniae praeponit bono rationis. Et quia ea quae seinvicem consequuntur simul fiunt in eodem, quae vero sunt contraria simul esse non possunt: inde est quod decens datio et decens acceptio, quae seinvicem consequuntur, simul adunantur in liberali. Sed indecens acceptio non simul invenitur in eo cum decenti acceptione, cui contrariatur.
          <td>680. Next [i, y], at “Likewise he will accept,” Aristotle reviews the way the liberal man should act in matters which secondarily pertain to liberality. He touches first [y, aa] on the liberal man’s reaction to taking; and next [y, bb], to sadness at “If it should etc.” He says first that the liberal person accepts from the proper sources and observes all proper conditions. Since the virtue of liberality abides by the golden mean in regard to both, i.e., taking and giving, the liberal man will perform both as he ought-worthy acceptance going hand in hand with worthy giving. But acceptance that is not virtuous is contrary to virtuous giving because the two proceed from contrary causes. Virtuous giving proceeds from the fact that a man prefers the reasonable good to the desire for wealth. But dishonorable taking arises from placing the desire of wealth before the reasonable good. Things that go hand in hand exist at the same time in the same subject, but not things that are contrary. Hence virtuous giving and taking that accompany one another are united in the liberal person, but dishonorable taking is not found in him together with virtuous taking, its contrary.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: si autem praeter optimum etc., ostendit quomodo se habeat liberalis circa tristitiam, quae est de amissione pecuniae. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit quomodo tristetur de inordinata datione. Et dicit quod si contingat ipsum aliquid de suis divitiis consumere praeter ordinem ad finem optimum et praeter hoc quod bene se habeat in dando secundum debitas circumstantias, de hoc tristatur, sicut et quilibet virtuosus tristatur si contingat ipsum aliquid facere quod sit contra virtutem, et tamen circa ipsam tristitiam modum rationis observat, ut scilicet tristitia sit moderata et secundum quod oportet. Quia ad virtutem pertinet, ut aliquis delectetur et tristetur in quibus oportet et secundum quod oportet.
          <td>681. Then [y, bb], at “If it should,” he explains how the liberal man reacts to sadness arising from the loss of wealth. He develops this point in three steps. First [bb, a’] he shows in what manner the liberal person is saddened by disordered giving, affirming that if some of his own money be lost by reason of foolish spending and unfortunate conditions, he becomes sad as any virtuous man is saddened by doing something contrary to virtue. In this sorrow, however, he observes the rule of reason with moderation and as he should. The reason is that it is characteristic of the virtuous person to be delighted and to be saddened by the right thing and in the right manner.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundo ibi: sed etiam bene communicativus etc., ostendit quomodo tristetur circa ablationem pecuniarum. Et dicit, quod liberalis est bene communicativus in pecuniis, idest promptus ad hoc, quod pecunias suas quasi communes cum aliis habeat. Potest enim absque tristitia sustinere, quod aliquis ei in pecuniis iniurietur, eo quod non multum pecunias appretiatur.
          <td>682. Next [bb, b’], at “But the liberal man,” he shows how the generous person is saddened by the privation of wealth, saying that he is disposed to share his wealth, i.e., is inclined to possess it in common, as it were, with others. He can, without grief, permit someone to injure him in money matters because he does not attach great importance to wealth.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Tertio ibi: et magis gravatus etc., ostendit qualiter tristetur circa indebitam retentionem pecuniae. Et dicit quod magis gravatur, idest tristatur, si non consumit dando vel expendendo, quam tristetur, si consumat aliquid quod non oportebat consumere; et hoc ideo, quia magis ad ipsum pertinet dare quam accipere vel conservare, quamvis hoc non placeret Simonidi idest cuidam poetae, qui contrarium fieri oportere dicebat.
          <td>683. Third [bb, c’], at “He is more grieved,” he discloses in what manner the liberal man is grieved at inappropriate retention of money, explaining that he is more grieved or saddened over not using his wealth in gifts or expenditures than over spending something which he should not have spent. The reason is that he is more concerned with giving than taking and keeping, although this would not please Simonides, a certain poet, who said we ought to do the opposite.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: prodigus autem etc., ostendit ex praemissis qualis sit actus prodigi. Et dicit quod in omnibus praedictis prodigus peccat, idest non solum in dando et accipiendo, sed etiam in delectando et tristando; quia neque delectatur neque tristatur in quibus oportet et secundum quod oportet. Et hoc erit magis manifestum in sequentibus.
          <td>684. Then [b, ii], at “The spendthrift, however,” he explains by the premises how the act of the spendthrift is constituted, saying that the spendthrift sins in all the preceding matters, i.e., not only in giving and accepting but also in taking pleasure and grieving because he is neither delighted nor saddened by the right things and in the right way. This will be made clearer by what follows.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: dictum est autem a nobis etc., comparat prodigalitatem illiberalitati. Et primo quantum ad oppositionem. Secundo quantum ad quantitatem peccati, ibi, quae quidem igitur et cetera. Dicit ergo primo dictum esse supra quod prodigalitas et illiberalitas se habent secundum superabundantiam et defectum in duobus, scilicet in datione et acceptione, et hoc ideo quia expensae, quae etiam ad liberalitatem pertinent, sub datione comprehenduntur. Contrarie autem in his superabundat et deficit prodigus et illiberalis. Prodigus enim superabundat in dando, et in hoc quod non accipiat. Illiberalis autem e contrario deficit in dando, et superabundat in accipiendo; nisi forte in parvis, quae illiberalis dat et non curat accipere.
          <td>685. Next [2], at “We have seen,” he compares extravagance to miserliness in regard, first [2, a] to opposition; and second [Lect. 4, (A’, 2), b] to the gravity of the sin, at “The things that” (B. 1121 a 16). He affirms, as was noted before (654), that extravagance and miserliness are constituted by excess and defect in two things, viz., taking and giving. He says this because expenditures, which pertain to liberality, are included under giving. And it is precisely in expenditures that the spendthrift and the miser exceed and fall short in opposite things. The spendthrift is excessive in giving and in not taking. But the miser, on the contrary, is deficient in giving and excessive in taking, except perhaps in trifling things that he gives and does not care to take.
    </table>
    <hr>
    <blockquote>
      <table cellpadding="12">
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td colspan="2" align="center"><b><a name="4" id="4"></a>LECTURE 4<br>
            The Gravity of Extravagance</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>Chapter 1</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He shows that miserliness is the more serious fault for three reasons.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The first reason is taken from the mutability of extravagance. — 686-687</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>τὰ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἀσωτίας οὐ πάνυ συνδυάζεται· οὐ γὰρ ῥᾴδιον μηδαμόθεν λαμβάνοντα πᾶσι διδόναι· ταχέως γὰρ ἐπιλείπει ἡ οὐσία τοὺς ἰδιώτας διδόντας, οἵπερ καὶ δοκοῦσιν ἄσωτοι εἶναι· ἐπεὶ ὅ γε τοιοῦτος δόξειεν ἂν οὐ μικρῷ βελτίων εἶναι τοῦ ἀνελευθέρου. εὐίατός τε γάρ ἐστι καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς ἡλικίας καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς ἀπορίας,
            <td>The things that are proper to extravagance are not increased very much at the same time, because a man cannot easily take nothing and at the same time give with an open hand to everyone. A generous simpleton-such the spendthrift seems to be-is soon separated from his money. A person of this sort, though, is somewhat better than the miser, for he is quickly set right both by age and want.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The second reason... based on the likeness of extravagance to liberality. — 688-689</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον δύναται ἐλθεῖν. ἔχει γὰρ τὰ τοῦ ἐλευθερίου· καὶ γὰρ δίδωσι καὶ οὐ λαμβάνει, οὐδέτερον δ' ὡς δεῖ οὐδ' εὖ. εἰ δὴ τοῦτο ἐθισθείη ἤ πως ἄλλως μεταβάλοι, εἴη ἂν ἐλευθέριος· δώσει γὰρ οἷς δεῖ, καὶ οὐ λήψεται ὅθεν οὐ δεῖ. διὸ καὶ δοκεῖ οὐκ εἶναι φαῦλος τὸ ἦθος· οὐ γὰρ μοχθηροῦ οὐδ' ἀγεννοῦς τὸ ὑπερβάλλειν διδόντα καὶ μὴ λαμβάνοντα, ἠλιθίου δέ.
            <td>He can attain the mean of virtue, for he possesses qualities of the liberal person. He gives and does not take, although he does neither of these things properly and as he ought. If indeed he performs them out of custom or by reason of some change, he will become liberal, for he will then give to the right persons and not take from the wrong sources. For this reason he does not seem to be entirely evil in the moral sense, for it is not characteristic of an evil or vicious person, but of a foolish one, to give excessively and not to take.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>iii.&nbsp;The third reason taken from a defect in extravagance. — 690</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὁ δὲ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἄσωτος πολὺ δοκεῖ βελτίων τοῦ ἀνελευθέρου εἶναι διά τε τὰ εἰρημένα, καὶ ὅτι ὃ μὲν ὠφελεῖ πολλούς, ὃ δὲ οὐθένα, ἀλλ' οὐδ' αὑτόν.
            <td>In this way the spendthrift seems to be much better than the miser because of what has been said and because he benefits many people while the miser benefits no one, not even himself.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>(II)B’&nbsp;&nbsp;He considers the man who is a blend of spendthrift and miser.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE SHOWS IN WHAT MANNER SOME SPENDTHRIFTS HAVE A BIT OF ILLIBERALITY.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He... explains how some spend thrifts sin in taking.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He presents his proposition. — 691</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ἀλλ' οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν ἀσώτων, καθάπερ εἴρηται, καὶ λαμβάνουσιν ὅθεν μὴ δεῖ, καὶ εἰσὶ κατὰ τοῦτο ἀνελεύθεροι.
            <td>But, as we have noted, many spendthrifts take from tainted sources and in this way they are ungenerous.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He assigns two reasons. — 692-693</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ληπτικοὶ δὲ γίνονται διὰ τὸ βούλεσθαι μὲν ἀναλίσκειν, εὐχερῶς δὲ τοῦτο ποιεῖν μὴ δύνασθαι· ταχὺ γὰρ ἐπιλείπει αὐτοὺς τὰ ὑπάρχοντα. ἀναγκάζονται οὖν ἑτέρωθεν πορίζειν. ἅμα δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ μηδὲν τοῦ καλοῦ φροντίζειν ὀλιγώρως καὶ πάντοθεν λαμβάνουσιν· διδόναι γὰρ ἐπιθυμοῦσι, τὸ δὲ πῶς ἢ πόθεν οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς διαφέρει.
            <td>They are inclined to take because they want to spend. But they cannot readily take enough, for their resources quickly vanish forcing them to acquire from others. Likewise they care nothing about what is right, and take from any quarter whatsoever. They want to give presents, so the how and the whence make no immediate difference to them.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;How (spendthrifts) conduct themselves in giving. — 694</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>διόπερ οὐδ' ἐλευθέριοι αἱ δόσεις αὐτῶν εἰσίν· οὐ γὰρ καλαί, οὐδὲ τούτου ἕνεκα, οὐδὲ ὡς δεῖ· ἀλλ' ἐνίοτε οὓς δεῖ πένεσθαι, τούτους πλουσίους ποιοῦσι, καὶ τοῖς μὲν μετρίοις τὰ ἤθη οὐδὲν ἂν δοῖεν, τοῖς δὲ κόλαξιν ἤ τιν' ἄλλην ἡδονὴν πορίζουσι πολλά.
            <td>For these reasons their donations are not liberal, being good neither in motive nor mode. But they make rich those who would better remain poor. They would give nothing to good men, yet are generous with flatterers and others who provide them with other pleasures.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE DRAWS SOME CONCLUSIONS.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The first is... many spendthrifts are intemperate. — 695</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>διὸ καὶ ἀκόλαστοι αὐτῶν εἰσὶν οἱ πολλοί· εὐχερῶς γὰρ ἀναλίσκοντες καὶ εἰς τὰς ἀκολασίας δαπανηροί εἰσι, καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ πρὸς τὸ καλὸν ζῆν πρὸς τὰς ἡδονὰς ἀποκλίνουσιν.
            <td>Therefore, many of them are intemperate, for being inclined to spend, they waste their resources by intemperance. Moreover, since they do not order their life to good, they turn aside to sensual pleasures.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;He draws the second conclusion. — 696</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὁ μὲν οὖν ἄσωτος ἀπαιδαγώγητος γενόμενος εἰς ταῦτα μεταβαίνει, τυχὼν δ' ἐπιμελείας εἰς τὸ μέσον καὶ εἰς τὸ δέον ἀφίκοιτ' ἄν.
            <td>The spendthrift then who will not learn (the way of virtue) suffers consequences. But with effort he may attain the mean and adopt the right attitude.
      </table>
    </blockquote>
    <table cellpadding="12">
      <tbody>
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:center">
          <td colspan="2"><b>COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS</b>
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Quae quidem igitur prodigalitatis et cetera. Postquam philosophus ostendit oppositionem prodigalitatis ad illiberalitatem, hic ostendit quod illiberalitas excedit in gravitate peccati. Et hoc tribus rationibus. Quarum prima sumitur ex mutabilitate prodigalitatis, quia non de facili augetur, sed de facili removetur. Unde dicit, quod ea quae pertinent ad prodigalitatem non multum possunt augeri simul, ut scilicet aliquis nullo modo accipiat et superflue omnibus det, eo quod substantia, idest divitiae, velociter deserit eos qui dant indiscrete, quasi quidam ydiotae et irrationabiles, et tales videntur esse prodigi. Et quia vitium, quod non multum augetur, sed de facili curatur, est minus grave, inde est, quod prodigus non modicum est melior, idest minus malus illiberali.
          <td>686. After the Philosopher has explained the opposition between extravagance and miserliness, he now shows [b] that miserliness is the more serious fault for three reasons. The first reason [b. i] is taken from the mutability of extravagance: although not readily increased it is easily eliminated. Hence he says that the things belonging to extravagance cannot at the same time be increased very much, so that a person takes nothing and gives to everyone because resources or riches are quickly exhausted for those who spend recklessly, like the simple and senseless. And spendthrifts seem to be of this type. Since then a vice, which is not increased very much but easily remedied, is not so serious, it: follows that the spendthrift is somewhat better, i.e., less evil than the miser.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Prodigus enim de facili sanabilis est a suo vitio ex duobus. Uno quidem modo ab aetate, quia, quantum aliquis magis accedit ad senectutem, fit magis pronus ad retinendum, et ad non dandum. Quia enim divitiae appetuntur, ut per eas humanis defectibus subveniatur, consequens est ut, quanto aliquis maiores sentit defectus, tanto pronior sit ad retinendum, et ad non dandum. Secundo propter paupertatem, quae consequitur ex superflua prodigi datione. Paupertas autem impedit prodigalitatem tum propter impossibilitatem dandi, tum propter experientiam defectus.
          <td>687. The spendthrift is easily cured of his vice in two ways. In the first way by age because the older a man grows the more inclined he is to keep things and not give them away. The reason is that riches are desired to supply the needs of man, and as these needs become greater so a man is more prone to husband and not hand out his wealth. Second, the spendthrift is cured by poverty resulting from excessive giving, for poverty prevents extravagant spending both by reason of the impossibility of further giving and the experience of need.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundam rationem ponit ibi, et ad medium potest venire et cetera. Quae sumitur ex similitudine eius ad liberalitatem. Unde dicit, quod prodigus de facili potest reduci ad medium virtutis propter convenientiam quam habet cum liberali. Habet enim prodigus ea quae habet liberalis, quia scilicet libenter dat, et non de facili accipit. Differt autem a liberali, quia neutrum horum facit secundum quod oportet, et bene, idest secundum rationem rectam. Et ideo si perducatur ad hoc quod faciat praedicta secundum quod oportet, sive per assuetudinem, sive per quamcumque aliam transmutationem, puta aetatis vel fortunae, erit liberalis, ut scilicet det quibus oportet, et non accipiat unde non oportet.
          <td>688. At “He can attain” [b, ii] he gives the second reason, which is based on the likeness of extravagance to liberality. Hence he says that the spendthrift can easily be directed to the mean of virtue on account of the similarity he has with the liberal man. Since the spendthrift generously gives and does not readily take, he has qualities possessed by the liberal person. But he differs from the liberal man in not doing either of these actions properly and as he ought, i.e., according to right reason. Therefore, if he is induced to perform these things as he ought, either by custom or by some change in age or fortune he will become liberal so that he will give to the right persons and not take from the wrong sources.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Et ex hoc concludit, quod prodigus non videtur esse pravus secundum id quod pertinet proprie ad virtutem moralem, quae respicit directe appetitivam potentiam. Non enim pertinet ad malum sive corruptum appetitum, neque ad defectum virilis animi, quod aliquis superabundet in dando et in non accipiendo, sed hoc videtur pertinere ad insipientiam quamdam. Et sic videtur, quod prodigalitas non tam pertineat ad malitiam moralem, quae respicit pronitatem appetitus ad malum, quam secundum rationis defectum.
          <td>689. He concludes from this that the spendthrift does not seem to be evil precisely as it pertains to moral virtue, which directly regards the power of the appetite. It is not characteristic of an evil or perverted appetite or of an effeminate mind to give excessively and not to take. This belongs rather to a kind of stupidity. Thus it seems that extravagance does not belong so much to moral depravity, which regards the inclination of the appetite to evil, as to a lack of common sense.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Tertio ibi: secundum hunc autem modum etc., ponit tertiam rationem, quae sumitur ex effectu prodigalitatis. Unde dicit, quod prodigum esse multo meliorem illiberali, non solum apparet propter praedictas duas rationes, sed etiam propter hanc tertiam, quoniam prodigus multis prodest per suam dationem, licet sibi noceat inordinate dando. Sed illiberalis nulli prodest, in quantum deficit in dando, nec etiam prodest sibiipsi inquantum deficit in expendendo.
          <td>690. At “In this way” [b, iii] he presents the third reason taken from a defect in extravagance. That the spendthrift is much better than the miser is apparent not only from the two reasons already stated but also from a third, namely, the spendthrift helps many by his giving, although he may hurt himself by giving extravagantly. The miser, on the other hand, benefits no one for he fails in giving; he does not benefit even himself, for he fails in spending.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: sed multi prodigorum etc., determinat de eo qui est commixtus ex prodigo et illiberali. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit quomodo aliqui prodigi aliquid illiberalitatis habent. Secundo infert quasdam conclusiones ex dictis, ibi, propter quod intemperati et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quomodo quidam prodigi male se habent in accipiendo. Secundo quomodo male se habent in dando, ibi, propter quod neque liberales et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit: et dicit quod multi qui sunt prodigi secundum superfluam dationem, sunt etiam secundum aliquid illiberales, inquantum accipiunt unde non oportet.
          <td>691. Then [II, B’], at “But, as we have noted,” he considers the man who is a blend of spendthrift and miser. First [1] he shows in what manner some spendthrifts have a bit of illiberality. Next [2] he draws some conclusions from what has been said, at “Therefore.” On the initial point he first [1, a] explains how some spendthrifts sin in taking; and then [1, b] how they conduct themselves in giving, at “For these reasons.” In regard to this first, he presents his proposition [a, i], saying that many who are extravagant in unnecessary donations are also ungenerous in some way, taking as they do from the wrong sources.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundo ibi: acceptivi autem etc., assignat duas rationes. Quarum prima assignat duas rationes. Quarum prima talis est. Quia tales proni sunt ad accipiendum propter hoc quod volunt consumere sua superflue dando et expendendo, et de facili consumunt; quia ea quae habent, cito eos deserunt. Unde ad hoc quod implere possint voluntatem suam circa superfluas dationes et expensas, coguntur aliunde inordinate acquirere quae non habent.
          <td>692. Next [a, ii], at “They are inclined” he assigns two reasons. The first is that spendthrifts are disposed to take because they want to spend their goods in superfluous gifts and expenditures. They readily succeed in this, for their resources are quickly depleted. Hence, in order that they may satisfy their desire regarding unnecessary gifts and disbursements, they are forced to acquire dishonestly from some other place the means they do not possess.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secunda ratio est, quia magis dant ex quadam concupiscentia dandi, quam ex ratione recta, quasi intendentes ad aliquod bonum: unde volunt quidem dare; sed qualiter, aut unde dent, nihil apud eos differt, et ideo, quia nullam curam habent de bono, indifferenter undecumque accipiunt.
          <td>693. The second reason is that they give rather out of a desire of giving than according to right reason, tending, as it were, to some good. They want to give presents but it makes no difference to them how or whence these come. Consequently, they do not concern themselves about what is right and so take from any source without distinction.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit propter quod neque liberales etc., ostendit quomodo deficiant circa dationes. Et dicit quod quia nullam curam habent de bono, ideo dationes eorum non sunt liberales quia neque sunt bonae neque propter bonum neque modum debitum habent. Sed quandoque divites faciunt malos homines quos oporteret pauperes esse, quia, dum divitiis male utuntur, et sibi et aliis sunt nocivi. Et tamen hominibus, qui habent mores moderatos secundum virtutem nihil darent, in quo deficiunt in dando. Sed multa dant adulatoribus, vel aliis hominibus, qui eos qualitercumque delectant; puta hystrionibus, vel lenonibus; in quo superabundant in dando.
          <td>694. Then [i, b], at “For these reasons,” he explains how spendthrifts may be at fault in making donations. He declares that, because they do not care about what is right, their gifts are neither liberal nor good, either in motive or circumstance. But sometimes they make rich evil men who would be better off poor-men who abuse their riches and thereby cause harm both to themselves and others. Yet they would give nothing to men who regulate their lives according to virtue. Thus they are deficient in giving. They are, however, generous with sycophants or others who give them pleasure in any way whatsoever, e.g., buffoons or panderers. In this way they go to excess in giving.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit propter quod intemperati etc., inducit duas conclusiones ex praemissis. Quarum prima est, quod propter praemissa multi prodigorum sunt intemperati. Et hoc apparet ex duobus. Primo quidem, quia cum sint faciles ad consumendum sua, de facili etiam consumunt in intemperantias, puta in cibos, et venerea, a quibus multi retrahuntur timore expensarum. Secundo, quia cum non ordinent vitam suam ad bonum honestum, consequens est, quod declinent ad voluptates. Haec enim duo sunt propter se appetibilia. Honestum quidem secundum appetitum rationalem. Delectabile autem secundum appetitum sensitivum; utile autem refertur ad utrumque horum.
          <td>695. Next [2], at “Therefore,” he draws two conclusions from the premises. The first [2, a] is that many spendthrifts are intemperate. This is evident first, because (being inclined to spend), they readily waste their substance by intemperance in food and sex, from which many people are restrained by fear of the cost. Second, because they do not order their life to an honorable good, consequently they turn aside to the pleasures of sense. These two (the honorable and the pleasurable) are desirable in themselves—the honorable according to rational desire, the pleasurable according to sensual desire. The useful refers to both.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundam conclusionem ponit ibi prodigus quidem igitur et cetera. Et dicit quod ex praemissis patet, quod prodigus si non potest induci ad virtutem, transit in praedicta vitia. Si autem potiatur studio, scilicet virtutis, perveniet de facili ad medium et ut det et abstineat ab accipiendo secundum quod oportet, ut supra dictum est.
          <td>696. He draws the second conclusion [2, b], at “The spendthrift,” pointing out what is clear from the premises: that if the spendthrift cannot be attracted to virtue, he falls into the previously mentioned vices. But if he possesses zeal for virtue, he will easily attain the mean so that he will give and refrain from taking according to what he ought, as was stated before (688).
    </table>
    <hr>
    <blockquote>
      <table cellpadding="12">
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td colspan="2" align="center"><b><a name="5" id="5"></a>LECTURE 5<br>
            The Incurableness of Illiberality</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>Chapter 1</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>(II)C.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He treats illiberality.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>A’&nbsp;He states a quality of illiberality. — 697-698</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ἡ δ' ἀνελευθερία ἀνίατός τ' ἐστίν δοκεῖ γὰρ τὸ γῆρας καὶ πᾶσα ἀδυναμία ἀνελευθέρους ποιεῖν, καὶ συμφυέστερον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τῆς ἀσωτίας· οἱ γὰρ πολλοὶ φιλοχρήματοι μᾶλλον ἢ δοτικοί.
            <td>Illiberality, however, is incurable for it seems that old age and every other disability make men miserly. Besides, it is more innate to men than extravagance because more men are lovers of wealth than donors of it.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>B’&nbsp;He distinguishes the... species of illiberality.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE SHOWS THAT ILLIBERALITY IS CONSIDERED FROM TWO ASPECTS. — 699</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καὶ διατείνει δ' ἐπὶ πολύ, καὶ πολυειδές ἐστιν· πολλοὶ γὰρ τρόποι δοκοῦσι τῆς ἀνελευθερίας εἶναι. ἐν δυσὶ γὰρ οὖσα, τῇ τ' ἐλλείψει τῆς δόσεως καὶ τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῆς λήψεως, οὐ πᾶσιν ὁλόκληρος παραγίνεται, ἀλλ' ἐνίοτε χωρίζεται, καὶ οἳ μὲν τῇ λήψει ὑπερβάλλουσιν, οἳ δὲ τῇ δόσει ἐλλείπουσιν.
            <td>Likewise illiberality can greatly increase, and is very diversified since many species of it seem to exist. It is made up of two elements, namely, deficient giving and needless grasping, which are sometimes found separately and not always together in all subjects. Some indeed are always getting and others never giving.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE GIVES THE SPECIES... ACCORDING TO DEFICIENCY IN GIVING. — 700-702</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐν ταῖς τοιαύταις προσηγορίαις οἷον φειδωλοὶ γλίσχροι κίμβικες, πάντες τῇ δόσει ἐλλείπουσι, τῶν δ' ἀλλοτρίων οὐκ ἐφίενται οὐδὲ βούλονται λαμβάνειν, οἳ μὲν διά τινα ἐπιείκειαν καὶ εὐλάβειαν τῶν αἰσχρῶν δοκοῦσι γὰρ ἔνιοι ἢ φασί γε διὰ τοῦτο φυλάττειν, ἵνα μή ποτ' ἀναγκασθῶσιν αἰσχρόν τι πρᾶξαι· τούτων δὲ καὶ ὁ κυμινοπρίστης καὶ πᾶς ὁ τοιοῦτος· ὠνόμασται δ' ἀπὸ τῆς ὑπερβολῆς τοῦ μηδὲν ἂν δοῦναι· οἳ δ' αὖ διὰ φόβον ἀπέχονται τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ὡς οὐ ῥᾴδιον αὐτὸν μὲν τὰ ἑτέρων λαμβάνειν, τὰ δ' αὐτοῦ ἑτέρους μή· ἀρέσκει οὖν αὐτοῖς τὸ μήτε λαμβάνειν μήτε διδόναι.
            <td>All those who are given names like stingy, grasping, close, fall short in giving. But they do not covet the goods of others, nor do they want to acquire them. With some this is due to a kind of moderation and fear of disgrace. They seem to be, or say that they are, careful about this in order not to be forced at times to do anything dishonorable. Among these are the cumin-splitter and anyone of the type designated before by reason of an excessive desire of not giving to anyone. Some again refrain from what is not theirs for fear that their taking of what belongs to others should make it easy for others to take what is theirs. Therefore, they are content neither to give nor to take.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE GIVES THE SPECIES... ACCORDING TO UNNECESSARY TAKING.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Those who take in a disgraceful way. — 703</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>οἳ δ' αὖ κατὰ τὴν λῆψιν ὑπερβάλλουσι τῷ πάντοθεν λαμβάνειν καὶ πᾶν, οἷον οἱ τὰς ἀνελευθέρους ἐργασίας ἐργαζόμενοι, πορνοβοσκοὶ καὶ πάντες οἱ τοιοῦτοι, καὶ τοκισταὶ κατὰ μικρὰ καὶ ἐπὶ πολλῷ. πάντες γὰρ οὗτοι ὅθεν οὐ δεῖ λαμβάνουσι, καὶ ὁπόσον οὐ δεῖ. κοινὸν δ' ἐπ' αὐτοῖς ἡ αἰσχροκέρδεια φαίνεται· πάντες γὰρ ἕνεκα κέρδους, καὶ τούτου μικροῦ, ὀνείδη ὑπομένουσιν. τοὺς γὰρ τὰ μεγάλα μὴ ὅθεν δὲ δεῖ λαμβάνοντας, μηδὲ ἃ δεῖ, οὐ λέγομεν ἀνελευθέρους, οἷον τοὺς τυράννους πόλεις πορθοῦντας καὶ ἱερὰ συλῶντας, ἀλλὰ πονηροὺς μᾶλλον καὶ ἀσεβεῖς καὶ ἀδίκους.
            <td>Others again are immoderate in their taking by accepting anything and from any quarter, for example, those who engage in disreputable enterprises, those who live from the proceeds of prostitution, and such like, and usurers who lend small sums and at high rates. All of these receive more than they should and from reprehensible sources. Common to them is sordid gain because they all become infamous for the sake of a little money. People who wrongly take great sums from wrong sources are not called illiberal, for instance, usurpers who plunder cities and despoil sacred places but rather wicked, impious, and unjust.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Who take in an unjust way. — 704</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὁ μέντοι κυβευτὴς καὶ ὁ λωποδύτης καὶ ὁ λῃστὴς τῶν ἀνελευθέρων εἰσίν· αἰσχροκερδεῖς γάρ. κέρδους γὰρ ἕνεκα ἀμφότεροι πραγματεύονται καὶ ὀνείδη ὑπομένουσιν, καὶ οἳ μὲν κινδύνους τοὺς μεγίστους ἕνεκα τοῦ λήμματος, οἳ δ' ἀπὸ τῶν φίλων κερδαίνουσιν, οἷς δεῖ διδόναι. ἀμφότεροι δὴ ὅθεν οὐ δεῖ κερδαίνειν βουλόμενοι αἰσχροκερδεῖς· καὶ πᾶσαι δὴ αἱ τοιαῦται λήψεις ἀνελεύθεροι.
            <td>Among the illiberal, however, we count the gambler, the despoiler of the dead and the robber—shameful profit-makers. For the sake of evil gain, these engage in occupations having the stamp of infamy. Some run the risk of very great danger for gain, while others would take from friends to whom they should give. In both cases, those wishing to enrich themselves are makers of shameful profit. It is clear then that all taking of this kind is opposed to liberality.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>C’&nbsp;He makes a comparison of illiberality with its opposite. — 705-706</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>εἰκότως δὲ τῇ ἐλευθεριότητι ἀνελευθερία ἐναντίον λέγεται· μεῖζόν τε γάρ ἐστι κακὸν τῆς ἀσωτίας, καὶ μᾶλλον ἐπὶ ταύτην ἁμαρτάνουσιν ἢ κατὰ τὴν λεχθεῖσαν ἀσωτίαν. περὶ μὲν οὖν ἐλευθεριότητος καὶ τῶν ἀντικειμένων κακιῶν τοσαῦτ' εἰρήσθω.
            <td>Appropriately then illiberality is said to be the vice opposed to liberality, for it is a graver evil than extravagance. Likewise men sin more by illiberality than by extravagance. So far, therefore, we have discussed liberality and the opposite vices.
      </table>
    </blockquote>
    <table cellpadding="12">
      <tbody>
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:center">
          <td colspan="2"><b>COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS</b>
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Illiberalitas autem insanabilis est et cetera. Postquam philosophus determinavit de prodigalitate, hic determinat de illiberalitate. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit quamdam conditionem illiberalitatis. Secundo distinguit illiberalitatis modos seu species, ibi: extendit autem in multum etc.; tertio comparat illiberalitatem ad suum oppositum, ibi, congrue utique illiberalitati et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod vitium illiberalitatis est insanabile. Et huius assignat duas rationes. Quarum prima est quia vita humana et etiam res mundanae, ut plurimum tendunt in defectum; manifestum est autem ex experimento quod et senectus et quaelibet alia impotentia vel defectus facit homines illiberales, quia videtur homini quod pluribus indigeat. Et ideo magis cupit res exteriores quibus humanae indigentiae subvenitur.
          <td>697. After the Philosopher has finished the treatise on extravagance, he now [(II)C] treats illiberality, examining it under three headings. First [A’] he states a quality of illiberality. Next [B’], he distinguishes the modes, i.e., the species of illiberality, at “Likewise etc.” Last [C’], he makes a comparison of illiberality with its opposite at “Appropriately then etc.” He says first that illiberality is incurable, and assigns two reasons for this. The first reason is that human life, and even earthly things, tend to be defective for the most part. It is obvious from experience that old age and every other disability or defect make a man parsimonious, because it seems to him that he is very much in need. Therefore, he has a great desire for external things that supply the wants of man.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secunda ratio est, quia illud ad quod homo naturaliter inclinatur, non de facili removetur ab eo. Magis autem inclinatur homo ad illiberalitatem, quam ad prodigalitatem. Cuius signum est, quod plures inveniuntur amatores et conservatores pecuniarum, quam datores, id autem quod naturaliter est in pluribus invenitur. In tantum autem natura inclinat ad amorem divitiarum, inquantum per eas vita hominis conservatur.
          <td>698. The second reason is this. That to which man is naturally inclined cannot easily be removed from him. But man is more inclined to illiberality than extravagance. A sign of this is that more lovers and custodians of money exist than donors. What is natural is found in the majority of cases. And nature inclines to the love of riches to the extent that man’s life is preserved by them.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: extendit autem in multum etc., distinguit modos seu species illiberalitatis. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit, quod illiberalitas attenditur secundum duo; scilicet secundum superfluum in accipiendo et secundum defectum in dando. Secundo ponit species, quae accipiuntur secundum defectum in dando, ibi, qui quidem enim in talibus et cetera. Tertio ponit species, quae accipiuntur secundum superfluam acceptionem, ibi: hi autem rursus secundum acceptionem et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod illiberalitas in multum augetur, ad multa etiam se extendit, et multiformis est, inquantum scilicet sunt multi modi illiberalitatis. Cum enim illiberalitas in duobus existat, scilicet in defectu dationis et in superabundantia acceptionis; non omnes illiberales in utroque peccant, quasi totam rationem illiberalitatis habentes. Sed dividitur aliquando in diversis; ita quod quidam superabundant in acceptione qui tamen non deficiunt in datione, sicut de prodigis supra dictum est. Alii vero deficiunt in datione, et tamen non superabundant in acceptione.
          <td>699. Then [B’], at “Likewise,” he distinguishes the modes or species of illiberality. On this point he does three things. First [i] he shows that illiberality is considered from two aspects, viz., excess in getting and defect in giving. Next [2], at “All those who,” he gives the species which are understood according to deficiency in giving. Last [3], at “Others again,” he gives the species that are able to be distinguished according to unnecessary taking. He says first that illiberality is increased greatly; it extends to a multitude of things and is diversified inasmuch as there are many kinds of illiberality. Although illiberality may exist in two forms, defect of giving and excess of taking, not all illiberal people sin in both ways as though they possessed the whole nature of illiberality. But it is found separately in various persons so that some abound in taking who nevertheless do not fall short in dispensing, like the spendthrift previously considered (678). Others, however, fall short in dispensing and, notwithstanding, do not abound in taking.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: qui quidem enim etc., determinat modos eorum, qui in datione deficiunt. Et dicit, quod tales appellantur parci, eo quod parum expendunt, et tenaces, a defectu dationis quasi multum retinentes; dicuntur etiam kyminibiles, quasi venditores cymini, a quodam superexcessu tenacitatis, quia scilicet nec minimum aliquid darent absque recompensatione. Et tamen isti non superabundant in accipiendo; quia nec aliena appetunt, nec oblata multum curant accipere. Et hoc propter duas rationes.
          <td>700. Next [2], at “All those who,” he sets down the types of persons who are deficient in giving. He says that some are called stingy who spend very little; others are called grasping who retain nearly everything from a defect in giving. Still others are called closefisted, or cumin-splitters from an excessive tenacity they manifest in refusing to give the smallest thing without a return. However, these are not excessive in taking because they do not covet the goods of others, nor do they care much about accepting gifts. This happens for two reasons.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Quarum prima est, quia scilicet hoc dimittunt propter morum moderantiam et propter timorem turpitudinis. Videntur enim propter hoc custodire sua, et etiam hoc dicunt verbo, ne si sua dent cogantur aliquando propter penuriam aliquid operari; et inde est etiam, quod nolunt recipere aliena, turpe hoc existimantes: vel etiam dubitant ne ab his, qui eis darent, inducerentur ad aliquid indecens. Et de eorum numero videtur esse kyminibilis, id est cymini venditor, qui sic nominatur propter hoc quod in hoc superabundat quod nulli dare vult; et eadem ratio est de omnibus similibus.
          <td>701. The first reason is that they pass up these opportunities out of moral consideration and fear of turpitude. They seem to keep what is theirs—they even say so expressly—lest, if they give what they have, they may be forced sometimes to a shameful act because of need. Likewise, they are unwilling to accept the goods of others since they think it dishonorable. They even hesitate lest they be induced to something unseemly by those who gave to them. Among these seem to be the skinflint or the cumin-splitter, so named because he has an aversion to giving anyone even a tiny seed. The same reason holds in all similar cases.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secunda ratio est, quia aliqui abstinent ab accipiendo aliena propter hoc, quod timent ne oporteat eos dare: quasi non sit facile, ut ipse ea quae sunt aliorum accipiat, et alii non accipiant ea quae sunt eius; et ideo placet eis quod neque dent, neque accipiant.
          <td>702. The second reason is that some refrain from taking other people’s goods because they fear they may have to give, as if it were not easy for men to take the things that belong to others and others not to take the things which are theirs. On this account they are content neither to give nor to take.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: hi autem rursus etc., ponit modos illiberalitatis (qui accipiuntur secundum superfluam acceptionem). Et primo quantum ad eos qui turpiter accipiunt. Secundo quantum ad eos qui accipiunt iniuste, ibi, aleator quidem et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod quidam illiberales superabundant in acceptione, non curantes quid vel unde accipiant seu lucrentur. Quorum quidam lucrantur de vilibus et servilibus operationibus. Quidam vero lucrantur de turpibus et illicitis, puta de meretricio, vel de aliquo simili, sicut lenones. Quidam vero lucrantur per improbam exactionem, sicut usurarii, et qui saltem aliquid parvum volunt lucrari in aliquo multo quod dant vel mutuant. Omnes enim praedicti accipiunt unde non oportet, scilicet de servilibus vel turpibus operationibus, vel quantum non oportet, sicut usurarii, qui accipiunt ultra sortem. Quibus omnibus commune est quod turpiter lucrantur inquantum scilicet sustinent ut opprobrio habeantur propter aliquod, lucrum, et hoc parvum. Quia illi qui, ut magna lucrentur, accipiunt unde non oportet, vel quae non oportet, sicut tyranni, qui depraedantur civitates et templa, non dicuntur illiberales, sed magis dicuntur perniciosi, in homines, et impii, in Deum, et iniusti, quasi legis transgressores.
          <td>703. Then [3], at “Others again,” he mentions the species of illiberality in regard first [3, a ], to those who take in a disgraceful way; and next [3, b], who take in an unjust way, at “Among the illiberal.” He says first that certain illiberal persons are immoderate in taking, not caring what or whence they take or profit. Some benefit from cheap and servile operations. Others, like pimps, make profit from sordid and unlawful dealing, e.g., prostitution and the like. Still others enrich themselves by unjust exaction, for instance, usurers and those who want at least a little gain from a large gift or loan. All these receive from reprehensible sources, i.e., mean or shameful works, or they receive more than they should, like usurers who take more than the interest. All have profit, and this paltry, in common. nose who make enormous profits, and make them b y shameful means—they are considered disgraceful for this reason—are not called illiberal but rather wicked, unjust, and impious against God, as if they were criminals. Men of this caliber are not so designated even though they take when they ought not and what they ought not, for example, usurpers who despoil cities and temples.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: aleator quidem etc., ponit illiberales, qui accipiunt iniuste, sicut aleator, qui lucratur ex ludo taxillorum. Et ille, qui spoliat mortuos, qui antiquitus cum magno apparatu sepeliebantur. Et latro qui spoliat vivos. Omnes enim isti turpiter lucrantur, inquantum propter lucrum negotia quaedam faciunt unde sunt opprobriosi. Quod etiam et de superioribus dictum est, sed in istis est aliqua specialis ratio turpitudinis. Quidam enim horum, scilicet spoliator mortuorum et latro, exponunt se magnis periculis propter lucrum, agentes ea quae legibus puniuntur: alii vero, scilicet aleatores, volunt lucrari ab amicis cum quibus ludunt, cum tamen magis conveniat secundum liberalitatem amicis aliquid dare. Et sic patet, quod utrique, dum volunt lucrari unde non oportet, sunt turpes lucratores. Et sic patet quod omnes praedictae sumptiones, id est acceptiones, sunt illiberales.
          <td>704. Next [3, b], at “Among the illiberal,” he mentions those who take unjustly, like the gambler who makes money by throwing dice, the fellow who steals from the dead (formerly buried in rich apparel), and the robber who plunders the living. All these are enriched by shameful means, inasmuch as, for the sake of gain, they engage in certain occupations considered disgraceful. This agrees with what was said about those persons just mentioned (703). But in these there is a special reason for turpitude. Some, for example, the despoiler of the dead and the robber expose themselves to great danger in doing things punishable by law. Others, namely, gamblers want to take something from their friends with whom they play, although it is more appropriate to liberality to give something to friends. It is obvious then that both types, by wanting to enrich themselves from improper sources, are makers of shameful profits. It is necessary, therefore, to say that all the previously mentioned taking or accepting is opposed to liberality.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: congrue utique etc., determinat de illiberalitate per comparationem ad oppositum vitium. Et dicit, quod illiberalitas congrue denominatur ab oppositione liberalitatis. Semper enim peius vitium magis opponitur virtuti. Illiberalitas autem est peior prodigalitate, ut supra ostensum est; unde relinquitur quod magis opponatur liberalitati. Secunda ratio est, quia homines magis peccant secundum vitium quod dicitur illiberalitas, quam secundum vitium quod dicitur prodigalitas. Et propter hoc nominatur a privatione liberalitatis, quia pluries per hoc vitium corrumpitur liberalitas.
          <td>705. Then [C’], at “Appropriately then,” he explains illiberality by comparison with the opposite vice, saying that illiberality is fittingly named from the contrast with liberality. It always happens that the worse vice is more opposed to the virtue. But illiberality is worse than extravagance, as was shown before (686-690). Consequently, it remains that illiberality is more opposed to liberality. The second reason is that men commit graver sins by the vice of illiberality than by the vice of extravagance. Therefore, illiberality gets its name from the privation of liberality because liberality is frequently destroyed by this vice.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Ultimo autem epilogat quae dicta sunt, dicens, tanta dicta esse de liberalitate, et de oppositis vitiis.
          <td>706. Lastly, he sums up what has been said, stating that so far we have discussed liberality and the opposite vices.
    </table>
    <hr>
    <blockquote>
      <table cellpadding="12">
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td colspan="2" align="center"><b><a name="6" id="6"></a>LECTURE 6<br>
            Magnificence</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>Chapter 2</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>I.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE TREATS THE MATTER OF MAGNIFICENCE AND THE OPPOSITE VICES.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>A.&nbsp;&nbsp;He shows what the matter of magnificence is.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>A’&nbsp;He proposes the matter common to magnificence and liberality. — 707</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>δόξαιε δ' ἂν ἀκόλουθον εἶναι καὶ περὶ μεγαλοπρεπείας διελθεῖν. δοκεῖ γὰρ καὶ αὐτὴ περὶ χρήματά τις ἀρετὴ εἶναι·
            <td>It seems logical to pass now to the consideration of magnificence which apparently is a certain virtue concerned with wealth.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>B’&nbsp;He explains the difference between the two.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE PROPOSES THE DIFFERENCE. — 708</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>οὐχ ὥσπερ δ' ἡ ἐλευθεριότης διατείνει περὶ πάσας τὰς ἐν χρήμασι πράξεις, ἀλλὰ περὶ τὰς δαπανηρὰς μόνον· ἐν τούτοις δ' ὑπερέχει τῆς ἐλευθεριότητος μεγέθει. καθάπερ γὰρ τοὔνομα αὐτὸ ὑποσημαίνει, ἐν μεγέθει πρέπουσα δαπάνη ἐστίν.
            <td>Unlike liberality it does not embrace all but only lavish expenditures of money; it is in wealth’s magnitude (as the name itself indicates) that magnificence exceeds liberality, although the amount expended is not out of proportion.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE MAKES CLEAR WHAT HE SAID. — 709</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>τὸ δὲ μέγεθος πρός τι· οὐ γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ δαπάνημα τριηράρχῳ καὶ ἀρχιθεωρῷ. τὸ πρέπον δὴ πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ ἐν ᾧ καὶ περὶ ὅ.
            <td>But magnitude is a relative term, for the same expenditure is not fit for a captain of a trireme and a leader of a solemn mission to Delphi; it is fitting according to the spender, the thing, and the purpose.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>C’&nbsp;He proves his proposition. — 710</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>
              ὁ δ' ἐν μικροῖς ἢ ἐν μετρίοις κατ' ἀξίαν δαπανῶν οὐ λέγεται μεγαλοπρεπής, οἷον τὸ
              <dl>
                <dd>πολλάκι δόσκον ἀλήτῃ,<br>
                ἀλλ' ὁ ἐν μεγάλοις οὕτως. ὁ μὲν γὰρ μεγαλοπρεπὴς ἐλευθέριος, ὁ δ' ἐλευθέριος οὐδὲν μᾶλλον μεγαλοπρεπής.
              </dl>
            <td>The man, however, who spends small or moderate sums in a becoming manner is not called munificent, for instance, if he makes frequent donations that in the aggregate are large; only he who gives on a grand scale. The munificent man is indeed liberal, but man certain qualities pertaining to the one who is liberal and nothing more is not munificent.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>B.&nbsp;&nbsp;(He shows) what the vices opposed to it are. — 711</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>τῆς τοιαύτης δ' ἕξεως ἡ μὲν ἔλλειψις μικροπρέπεια καλεῖται, ἡ δ' ὑπερβολὴ βαναυσία καὶ ἀπειροκαλία καὶ ὅσαι τοιαῦται, οὐχ ὑπερβάλλουσαι τῷ μεγέθει περὶ ἃ δεῖ, ἀλλ' ἐν οἷς οὐ δεῖ καὶ ὡς οὐ δεῖ λαμπρυνόμεναι· ὕστερον δ' ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἐροῦμεν.
            <td>In this matter the habit of defect is called meanness, and of excess banausia (ostentation); the name apirocalia (lack of taste) is given to all other such defects that are not excessive in the sums expended on the right projects but in the wrong circumstances and with a certain vulgar display. We shall discuss these vices afterwards.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>II.&nbsp;&nbsp;HE EXPLAINS IN WHAT MANNER MAGNIFICENCE AND THE OPPOSITE VICES OPERATE.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>A.&nbsp;&nbsp;Magnificence.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>A’&nbsp;He assigns to the munificent manner of spending.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE ATTRIBUTES... SIX QUALITIES: THE FIRST... — 712-713</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὁ δὲ μεγαλοπρεπὴς ἐπιστήμονι ἔοικεν· τὸ πρέπον γὰρ δύναται θεωρῆσαι καὶ δαπανῆσαι μεγάλα ἐμμελῶς. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν ἀρχῇ εἴπομεν, ἡ ἕξις ταῖς ἐνεργείαις ὁρίζεται, καὶ ὧν ἐστίν. αἱ δὴ τοῦ μεγαλοπρεποῦς δαπάναι μεγάλαι καὶ πρέπουσαι. τοιαῦτα δὴ καὶ τὰ ἔργα· οὕτω γὰρ ἔσται μέγα δαπάνημα καὶ πρέπον τῷ ἔργῳ. ὥστε τὸ μὲν ἔργον τῆς δαπάνης ἄξιον δεῖ εἶναι, τὴν δὲ δαπάνην τοῦ ἔργου, ἢ καὶ ὑπερβάλλειν.
            <td>A munificent person is like a wise man, for he can judge rightly and spend great sums prudently. (As we said in the beginning, habit is determined by operations and is a product of them.) He makes great and dignified expenditures, and the effects are of a like nature. Thus his expenses will be great and also suited to the work. Therefore, the work must be worth the cost, and the cost equal to or in excess of the work.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;THE SECOND QUALITY... ON THE PART OF THE END. — 714</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>δαπανήσει δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα ὁ μεγαλοπρεπὴς τοῦ καλοῦ ἕνεκα· κοινὸν γὰρ τοῦτο ταῖς ἀρεταῖς.
            <td>Things of this kind he spends for the sake of good, and this is common to virtues.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;THE THIRD... TO SPEND GREAT SUMS CHEERFULLY. — 715</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καὶ ἔτι ἡδέως καὶ προετικῶς· ἡ γὰρ ἀκριβολογία μικροπρεπές.
            <td>Furthermore, he acts cheerfully and open-handedly, for closeness in reckoning is niggardly.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;THE FOURTH QUALITY. — 716</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καὶ πῶς κάλλιστον καὶ πρεπωδέστατον, σκέψαιτ' ἂν μᾶλλον ἢ πόσου καὶ πῶς ἐλαχίστου.
            <td>He plans how the best and most splendid work may be achieved rather than how he may acquire as much for a minimum cost.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;THE FIFTH... ONE WHO IS MUNIFICENT SHOULD BE LIBERAL. — 717</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ἀναγκαῖον δὴ καὶ ἐλευθέριον τὸν μεγαλοπρεπῆ εἶναι. καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἐλευθέριος δαπανήσει ἃ δεῖ καὶ ὡς δεῖ· ἐν τούτοις δὲ τὸ μέγα τοῦ μεγαλοπρεποῦς, οἷον μέγεθος, περὶ ταῦτα τῆς ἐλευθεριότητος οὔσης,
            <td>Likewise the munificent man is necessarily liberal, since the liberal person makes the right expenditures in the right manner; and it is in this that the greatness of the munificent person lies—a greatness in these matters being a kind of grand liberality.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;THE SIXTH QUALITY. — 718</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἴσης δαπάνης τὸ ἔργον ποιήσει μεγαλοπρεπέστερον. οὐ γὰρ ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ κτήματος καὶ ἔργου. κτῆμα μὲν γὰρ τὸ πλείστου ἄξιον τιμιώτατον, οἷον χρυσός, ἔργον δὲ τὸ μέγα καὶ καλόν τοῦ γὰρ τοιούτου ἡ θεωρία θαυμαστή, τὸ δὲ μεγαλοπρεπὲς θαυμαστόν· καὶ ἔστιν ἔργου ἀρετή, μεγαλοπρέπεια, ἐν μεγέθει.
            <td>Besides, for the same cost he will produce a more magnificent work, for the perfection of possession and work does not reside in the same thing. But the perfect possession consists of what is most valued and honored, for example, gold. On the other hand, the perfect work consists of what is great and good, for consideration of it brings about admiration. And truly a magnificent work is a cause of admiration, and the perfection of the work, magnificence, resides in its magnitude.
      </table>
    </blockquote>
    <table cellpadding="12">
      <tbody>
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:center">
          <td colspan="2"><b>COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS</b>
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Videbitur autem consequens esse et cetera. Postquam philosophus determinavit de liberalitate, hic determinat de magnificentia. Et dividitur pars ista in duas partes. In prima inquirit materiam magnificentiae et oppositorum vitiorum. In secunda ostendit qualiter magnificentia et opposita vitia, circa propriam materiam operantur, ibi, magnificus autem scienti assimilatur, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit, quae sit materia magnificentiae. Secundo ostendit, quae sint vitia ei opposita, ibi, talis autem habitus, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponit materiam communem magnificentiae et liberalitati. Secundo ostendit differentiam inter utrumque, ibi: non quemadmodum autem liberalitas, et cetera. Tertio probat propositum, ibi, qui autem in parvis, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod post liberalitatem videtur esse conveniens, quod sequatur tractatus de magnificentia. Et ratio convenientiae est, quia magnificentia videtur esse quaedam virtus circa pecunias sicut et liberalitas.
          <td>707. After the Philosopher has finished the study of liberality, he now begins to consider magnificence, the treatment of which he divides into two parts. In the first part [I] he treats the matter of magnificence and the opposite vices. In the second [II] he explains in what manner magnificence and the opposite vices operate in their respective matter, at “A munificent person is like a wise man etc.” On the first point he does two things. First [I, A] he shows what the matter of magnificence is; and second [I, B] what the vices opposed to it are, at “In this matter etc.” To clarify the first division he does three things. First [I, A, A’] he proposes the matter common to magnificence and liberality. Next [I, A, B’] he explains the difference between the two, at “Unlike liberality etc.” Last [I, A, C] he proves his proposition, at “The man, however etc.” He says first it seems appropriate that the treatise on magnificence should follow that on liberality. The reason is that magnificence, like liberality, is apparently a virtue concerned with wealth.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: non quemadmodum autem etc., ostendit differentiam quantum ad materiam inter liberalitatem et magnificentiam. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo proponit differentiam. Secundo manifestat quod dixerat, ibi, magnitudo autem et cetera. Circa primum ponit duas differentias. Quarum prima est, quod liberalitas se extendit ad omnes operationes quae sunt circa pecunias, scilicet ad acceptiones, dationes et expensas, sed magnificentia est solum circa sumptus, idest expensas. Secunda differentia est, quia etiam in sumptibus sive in expensis, magnificentia excedit liberalitatem magnitudine expensarum. Magnificentia enim est solum circa magnas expensas, sicut ipsum nomen demonstrat. Sed liberalitas potest esse etiam circa moderatas vel etiam modicas. Nec tamen intelligendum est, quod quia magnitudo importat excessum quemdam, quod magnificus ita magnos sumptus faciat, quod excedat id quod debet fieri secundum rationem. Sed sumptus magnifici ita est cum magnitudine quod cum hoc est decens; decet enim et personam facientis, et opus in quo fiunt expensae, ut infra dicetur.
          <td>708. Then [1, A, B’], at “Unlike liberality,” he explains the difference between the matter of magnificence and liberality. He explains this point in a twofold manner. First [1, A, B’, 1] he proposes the difference. Next [1, A, B’, 2] he makes clear what he said, at “But magnitude etc.” Regarding the first he mentions two differences. The first is that liberality refers to all transactions concerned with money, viz., expenditures, receipts and donations. But magnificence refers only to disbursements or expenditures. The second difference is that in disbursements or expenditures magnificence exceeds liberality in the magnitude of the amount expended. Magnificence deals only in princely outlays, as the name implies, while liberality can be concerned also with moderate or excessive expenditures. Although magnitude indicates a kind of excess, we are not to understand that the munificent person spends on such a grand scale that he exceeds the bounds of reason, but his expenditures are made in amounts that are also in keeping with what is becoming. It is in keeping with both the one who spends and the projects on which the money is spent, as will be pointed out later (721-724).
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit magnitudo autem etc., exponit quod dixerat; scilicet qualiter magnitudo sumptus conveniat magnifico. Et quia magnum dicitur relative, ut habetur in praedicamentis, ideo et hic dicitur, quod magnitudo sumptus accipitur per respectum ad aliquid aliud; puta ad illud, in quo fiunt expensae, vel ad personam expendentis; quia non idem sumptus dicitur esse magnus per comparationem ad trierarcham, id est principem galearum, quae habent tres ordines remorum, unde et trieres vocantur, et architheorum, idest principem speculationis. Puta si aliquis fuerit praefectus templi, vel etiam studii. Oportet enim sumptum esse decentem per comparationem ad ipsum qui expendit, et per comparationem ad id in quo expendit. Circa quod etiam oportet attendere circa quae illud fiat. Puta si fiunt expensae in aedificatione domus, oportet ulterius considerare cui domus illa aedificetur; utrum scilicet principi, vel privatae personae; quia scilicet secundum hoc diversi sumptus requiruntur.
          <td>709. Next [I, A, B, 2], at “But magnitude,” he explains what he said, i.e., the manner in which the greatness of the expense is becoming to a munificent person. Because the word “great” is predicated relatively, as stated in the <i>Categories</i> (Ch. 6, 5 b 15), it is said here that the greatness of the expenditure is judged in reference to something else, for instance, the thing for which the expenditures are made or the person spending. The reason is that not the same outlay is considered large for a triarch (a commander of galleys having three rows of oars and called a trireme) and for a leader of a solemn enterprise, i.e., the chief superintendent, like a master of a temple or a school. The expenditure must be suitable in comparison with the dispenser and the thing for which the money is spent. Likewise the purpose for which the thing is used must be taken into consideration. Thus if expenses are incurred for the building of a house, we must consider further for whom the house is intended, whether for a public official or a private person, because different expenditures are demanded for different purposes.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: qui autem in parvis etc., probat quod dixerat, scilicet quod ad magnificentiam pertineat magnitudo sumptus. Quia ille qui expendit in rebus parvis vel etiam moderatis secundum quod dignum est, non dicitur magnificus; puta si multoties divisim expenderet multa in parvis rebus, ita quod omnes illae expensae congregatae facerent aliquid tantum quantum est illud quod expendit magnificus, nihilominus tamen magnificus non diceretur, etiam si prompte et liberaliter illa parva expenderet. Quia omnis magnificus est liberalis; non tamen sequitur, quod omnis liberalis sit magnificus.
          <td>710. Then [I, A, C’], at “The man, however,” he proves his statement, i.e., that great expenditure pertains to magnificence. The reason is that one who spends small or even moderate sums in a proper manner is not called munificent, for instance, if he frequently makes many separate disbursements for trifling things, so that all his expenditures taken together would make as great an amount as that which the munificent man spends, nevertheless he would not be called munificent even though he disbursed these small sums promptly and generously. Because every munificent person is liberal, it does not follow that every liberal person is munificent.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: talis autem habitus etc., ostendit, quae sint vitia opposita magnificentiae. Et dicit, quod vitium oppositum habitui magnificentiae per modum defectus vocatur parvificentia. Sed vitium, quod opponitur ei per modum superabundantiae vocatur bannausia, a bannos, quod est fornax. Quia tales sicut in fornace omnia sua consumunt. Vocatur etiam apyrocalia, quasi sine experientia boni, quia scilicet inexperti sunt qualiter oporteat bonum operari: et si quae etiam sunt aliae tales nominationes. Quae quidem important superabundantiam, non quia excedant magnificum in magnitudine expensarum, circa quae oportet expendere; sed superabundant in hoc, quod excedunt rationem rectam in hoc, quod faciunt magnos sumptus cum quadam praeclaritate, in quibus non oportet et sicut non oportet. Ex quo patet quod medium et extrema in virtutibus moralibus non accipiuntur secundum quantitatem absolutam, sed per respectum ad rationem rectam. Subdit autem, quod de istis vitiis posterius dicetur in hoc eodem capitulo.
          <td>711. At “In this matter” [I, B ] he shows what vices are contrary to magnificence. He says that the vice opposed to the habit of magnificence by defect is called meanness; but the vice by excess, <i>banausia</i> (ostentation) from baunos meaning furnace,’ because such as have the vice consume all their goods as in a furnace. If other terms of this kind exist, they come under the name <i>apirocalia</i> (lack of taste): offenders being, as it were, without experience of what is suitable because they do not know how to do the proper thing. Such names signify excess not because they surpass the munificent person in the amount of disbursements on the right projects, but they are excessive in going beyond right reason, spending, with a certain display, great sums on the wrong things. It is obvious from this that the mean and the extremes in moral virtues are not taken according to absolute quantity but in relation to right reason. He adds that he will discuss these vices afterwards in this book (784-790).
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: magnificus autem etc., ostendit quomodo magnificentia et opposita vitia circa praedictam materiam se habeant. Et primo determinat de magnificentia. Secundo de vitiis oppositis, ibi, superabundans autem et bannausus et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit quasdam proprietates magnifici, pertinentes ad modum expendendi. Secundo ostendit, in quibus magnificus expendat, ibi, est autem sumptuum et cetera. Circa primum ponit sex proprietates magnifici. Quarum prima est, quod magnificus assimilatur scienti. Quia scilicet, sicut ad scientem artificem pertinet cognoscere proportionem unius ad aliud, ita etiam ad magnificum pertinet cognoscere proportionem expensarum ad id in quo fiunt expensae. Potest enim magnificus ex virtute habitus sui considerare quid deceat expendere; et sic faciet magnas expensas prudenter, quod requiritur ad omnem virtutem moralem, ut scilicet prudenter operetur.
          <td>712. Next [II], at “A munificent person,” he explains in what manner magnificence and the opposite vices are concerned with the previously mentioned matter. First [II, A] he treats magnificence, and then [Lect. 7 (II) B] the opposite vices, at “One who sins etc.” (B. 1123 a 19). On the initial point he does two things. First [II, A, A’] he assigns to the munificent man certain qualities pertaining to the manner of spending. Then [Lect. 6, (II, A), B’] he shows on what objects the munificent person makes expenditures, at “Magnificence belongs etc.” (B. 1122 b 19). In regard to the first he attributes to the munificent person six qualities, the first (II, A, A’, 1] of which is that he is like a wise man. The reason is that, as it belongs to a wise craftsman to know the proportion of one thing to another, so also it belongs to the munificent man to know the proportion between expenditures and that for which the expenditures are made. In virtue of his habit the munificent man is able to judge what may be proper to spend. Thus he will make grand disbursements in a prudent way because prudent operation is required for every moral virtue.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Hoc autem quod dictum est, manifestat per hoc quod supra dictum est in secundo, quod quilibet habitus determinatur per operationes, et per obiecta quorum est habitus: quia scilicet determinati habitus sunt determinatorum operationum et obiectorum. Et quia operationes magnificentiae sunt expensae, et obiecta operationum sunt ea in quibus fiunt expensae magnae, consequens est, quod ad magnificum pertineat considerare et facere magnos sumptus et convenientes, quod non potest fieri sine prudentia. Oportet etiam quod opera, id est operata, sint talia, id est magna et decentia; per hunc enim modum expensae erunt magnae et convenientes operi operato, puta domui aedificandae, vel alicui huiusmodi. Sic igitur oportet, quod opus, in quo fiunt expensae sit tale quod sit dignum huiusmodi sumptu, id est expensa, sumptum autem, id est expensam, oportet esse talem ut proportionetur operi vel quod etiam superabundet. Quia enim difficillimum est medium attingere, si contingat a medio declinare, semper virtus declinat in id quod minus habet de malo, sicut fortis in minus timendo et liberalis (in plus) dando, et similiter magnificus in plus expendendo.
          <td>713. The Philosopher clarifies the statement by what was said in the second book (322), that every habit is determined by operations and objects of which it is the habit, because determined habits have their own proper operations and objects. Since the operations of magnificence are expenditures, and the objects of the operations are the things for which the expenditures are made, it is therefore the duty of the munificent man to consider and expend large and handsome sums, which cannot be done without prudence. In this way the vast outlay will be in keeping with the operation, for instance, the construction of a house or something of this sort. So then the project on which the money is spent must be such that it is worthy of the cost or expense and this ought to be worthy of the work, or in excess of it. It is very difficult to attain the mean; hence if a departure from the mean should occur, virtue always inclines to what has less evil, as the brave man to less fear, the liberal man to giving and so the munificent man to more spending.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundam proprietatem ponit ibi: consumet autem et cetera. Quae sumitur ex parte finis. Et dicit, quod magnificus consumet, scilicet expendendo, talia magna et decentia propter bonum honestum sicut propter finem; operari enim propter bonum est commune in omnibus virtutibus.
          <td>714. He gives the second quality [II, A, A’, 2], at “Things of this kind,” which is understood on the part of the end. The munificent person, he says, consumes grand and proper amounts for an honorable good as for an end. Now, to work for a good is common to all the virtues.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Tertiam proprietatem ponit ibi: et adhuc delectabiliter et cetera. Et dicit, quod ad magnificum pertinet delectabiliter magna expendere, et emissive, idest prompte, et sine difficultate emittendo. Quia quod aliquis sit multum diligens in ratiocinio, id est in computatione expensarum, pertinet ad parvificentiam.
          <td>715. At “‘Furthermore” [II, A, A’, 3] he presents the third consideration, saying that it is characteristic of the munificent man to spend great sums cheerfully and with an open hand, dispensing them promptly and readily. The reason is that great caution in accounting or computing expenses pertains to illiberality.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Quartam proprietatem ponit ibi: et qualiter optimum et cetera. Et dicit, quod magnificus magis intendit quomodo faciat opus optimum et decentissimum, quam quomodo minimum possit expendere ad opus intentum faciendum.
          <td>716. He introduces the fourth quality at “He plans” [II, A, A’, 4], affirming that the munificent person plans how he may accomplish the best and most splendid work rather than how he can spend the least in doing the desired work.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Quintam proprietatem ponit ibi: necessarium autem et cetera. Et dicit, quod necessarium est quod magnificus sit liberalis. Quia ad liberalem pertinet expendere ea quae oportet et sicut oportet. Et hoc etiam magnificus expendit; expendit enim circa magna et decentia opera, ut dictum est. Et hoc facit delectabiliter et emissive et propter bonum. Sed ad magnificum proprie pertinet, quod aliquid magnum circa hoc faciat, ac si magnificentia nihil aliud sit quam quaedam magnitudo liberalitatis circa praedicta.
          <td>717. He enumerates the fifth quality, at “Likewise the munificent” [II, A, A’, 5] when he says that one who is munificent should be liberal. The reason is that the liberal person should make the right expenditures in the right manner. The munificent man, too, acts in this way, for he makes outlays for great and noble achievements, as was just said (708); and he does this cheerfully, generously, and for a good purpose. But it is characteristic of the munificent person to do something on a grand scale touching this matter. In fact magnificence is nothing other than a kind of magnified liberality concerning these things.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Sextam proprietatem ponit ibi: et ab aequali sumptu et cetera. Et dicit quod dum magnificus in aliquo magno opere facit magnas expensas, constituit opus magis magnificum ex aequalitate expensarum. Quia non ad idem pertinet virtus, idest ultimum et optimum in possessione divitiarum et in opere quo divitiae expenduntur. Quia virtus, idest maximum et optimum in possessionibus, est illud quod est plurimo pretio dignum et quod homines maxime honorant, idest appretiantur. Sed virtus operis est, quod sit magnum et bonum. Quia consideratio talis operis inducit admirationem. Et tale est opus magnificentiae, ut scilicet sit admirabile. Et sic patet, quod virtus operis, idest optima excellentia eius, est secundum magnificentiam cum magnitudine expensarum.
          <td>718. At “Besides, for the same cost” [II, A, A’, 6] he gives the sixth quality. He says that, although the munificent person incurs great expense for some noble work, he produces a more magnificent work with equal expenditure. This is so because excellence (what is ultimate and best) is not the same in possession of money and in a work for which money is spent. Excellence (what is greatest and best) in possessions is found in the most valued object, viz., gold, which men highly honor and prize. But excellence in a work is found in this that a work is great and good; for the contemplation of such a work gives rise to admiration-and this is what magnificence does. So it is evident that the “virtue” of a work, i.e., its greatest excellence corresponds to magnificence involving expenditures on a large scale.
    </table>
    <hr>
    <blockquote>
      <table cellpadding="12">
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td colspan="2" align="center"><b><a name="7" id="7"></a>LECTURE 7<br>
            The Objects of Magnificence</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>Chapter 2</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>B’&nbsp;He shows the principal object on which the munificent person should spend money.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;FOR WHAT THINGS THE MUNIFICENT MAN SHOULD MAKE EXPENDITURES.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The principal objects for which the munificent should spend money.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The principal objects... for which the munificent person disburses funds. — 719-720</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ἔστι δὲ τῶν δαπανημάτων οἷα λέγομεν τὰ τίμια, οἷον τὰ περὶ θεούς, ἀναθήματα καὶ κατασκευαὶ καὶ θυσίαι, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ πᾶν τὸ δαιμόνιον, καὶ ὅσα πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν εὐφιλοτίμητά ἐστιν, οἷον εἴ που χορηγεῖν οἴονται δεῖν λαμπρῶς ἢ τριηραρχεῖν ἢ καὶ ἑστιᾶν τὴν πόλιν.
            <td>Magnificence belongs to those princely outlays we call most honorable, like votive offerings to the gods, preparations, sacrifices and other things pertaining to divine worship. It belongs, also, to any lavish gifts made for the common good, such as a splendid donation for the benefit of all, or the fitting out of a trireme, or the giving of a banquet to the whole community.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>
            <td>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Who should make such expenditures.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>x.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;FOR WHOM, IN GENERAL, SUCH EXPENDITURES ARE APPROPRIATE. — 721</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ἐν ἅπασι δ' ὥσπερ εἴρηται, καὶ πρὸς τὸν πράττοντα ἀναφέρεται τὸ τίς ὢν καὶ τίνων ὑπαρχόντων· ἄξια γὰρ δεῖ τούτων εἶναι, καὶ μὴ μόνον τῷ ἔργῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ποιοῦντι πρέπειν.
            <td>But in all these things, as was just stated, reference is made to the agent—who he is and what possessions he has, for the disbursements must be commensurate with these circumstances and appropriate not only to the work but also to the spender.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>y.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;FOR WHOM, IN PARTICULAR, THEY ARE INAPPROPRIATE. — 722</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>διὸ πένης μὲν οὐκ ἂν εἴη μεγαλοπρεπής· οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἀφ' ὧν πολλὰ δαπανήσει πρεπόντως· ὁ δ' ἐπιχειρῶν ἠλίθιος· παρὰ τὴν ἀξίαν γὰρ καὶ τὸ δέον, κατ' ἀρετὴν δὲ τὸ ὀρθῶς.
            <td>For this reason the poor man will not be munificent, since he has not the resources from which he may spend large sums becomingly. If he tries to do so, he is unwise for this would be improper and inopportune. And what is according to virtue is done rightly.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>z.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;FOR WHOM, IN PARTICULAR, THEY ARE APPROPRIATE. — 723-724</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>πρέπει δὲ [καὶ] οἷς τοιαῦτα προϋπάρχει δι' αὐτῶν ἢ τῶν προγόνων ἢ ὧν αὐτοῖς μέτεστιν, καὶ τοῖς εὐγενέσι καὶ τοῖς ἐνδόξοις καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα· πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα μέγεθος ἔχει καὶ ἀξίωμα.
            <td>A great expenditure is suitable for those who have wealth themselves, from their parents, or from others transferring it to them; likewise for the noble and those renowned for fame or other similar public acclaim, since all these things have a certain greatness and distinction.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>iii.&nbsp;He sums up his views. — 725</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>μάλιστα μὲν οὖν τοιοῦτος ὁ μεγαλοπρεπής, καὶ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις δαπανήμασιν ἡ μεγαλοπρέπεια, ὥσπερ εἴρηται· μέγιστα γὰρ καὶ ἐντιμότατα·
            <td>Such then, especially, is the munificent person, and as we have said, by such expenditures magnificence is exercised in the greatest and most honorable works;
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>
            <td>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The secondary objects (for which the munificent person should spend money).
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The first. — 726</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>τῶν δὲ ἰδίων ὅσα εἰσάπαξ γίνεται, οἷον γάμος καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον,
            <td>or even in any private affair that happens once, for example, a wedding and the like;
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The second kind. — 727</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καὶ εἰ περί τι ἡ πᾶσα πόλις σπουδάζει ἢ οἱ ἐν ἀξιώματι, καὶ περὶ ξένων δὲ ὑποδοχὰς καὶ ἀποστολάς, καὶ δωρεὰς καὶ ἀντιδωρεάς· οὐ γὰρ εἰς ἑαυτὸν δαπανηρὸς ὁ μεγαλοπρεπὴς ἀλλ' εἰς τὰ κοινά, τὰ δὲ δῶρα τοῖς ἀναθήμασιν ἔχει τι ὅμοιον.
            <td>or in any event of great interest to the whole city and the dignitaries; or in the reception and departure of foreign guests, in the presentation of gifts and in the repayment of favors. Yet the munificent man does not spend lavishly on himself but donates for the public welfare gifts that have a likeness to those consecrated to God.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>iii.&nbsp;The third kind. — 728-729</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>μεγαλοπρεποῦς δὲ καὶ οἶκον κατασκευάσασθαι πρεπόντως τῷ πλούτῳ κόσμος γάρ τις καὶ οὗτος, καὶ περὶ ταῦτα μᾶλλον δαπανᾶν ὅσα πολυχρόνια τῶν ἔργων κάλλιστα γὰρ ταῦτα,
            <td>It is the privilege of the munificent man to use his riches to build a home which is indeed an ornament, and to spend larger sums on whatever portions are of a permanent nature, for these are best.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE PRESERVES PROPORTION BETWEEN THE COST AND THE OBJECTS PAID FOR. — 730-731</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καὶ ἐν ἑκάστοις τὸ πρέπον· οὐ γὰρ ταὐτὰ ἁρμόζει θεοῖς καὶ ἀνθρώποις, οὐδ' ἐν ἱερῷ καὶ τάφῳ. καὶ ἐπεὶ τῶν δαπανημάτων ἕκαστον μέγα ἐν τῷ γένει, καὶ μεγαλοπρεπέστατον ἁπλῶσ μὲν τὸ ἐν μεγάλῳ μέγα, ἐνταῦθα δὲ τὸ ἐν τούτοις μέγα, καὶ διαφέρει τὸ ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ μέγα τοῦ ἐν τῷ δαπανήματι· σφαῖρα μὲν γὰρ ἡ καλλίστη ἢ λήκυθος μεγαλοπρέπειαν ἔχει παιδικοῦ δώρου, ἡ δὲ τούτου τιμὴ μικρὸν καὶ ἀνελεύθερον· διὰ τοῦτό ἐστι τοῦ μεγαλοπρεποῦς, ἐν ᾧ ἂν ποιῇ γένει, μεγαλοπρεπῶς ποιεῖν τὸ γὰρ τοιοῦτον οὐκ εὐπέρβλητον καὶ ἔχον κατ' ἀξίαν τοῦ δαπανήματος. τοιοῦτος μὲν οὖν ὁ μεγαλοπρεπής·
            <td>He will spend in a manner proper to each thing. The same expenditure is not appropriate to gods and men, nor in building a temple and a tomb. He will make an outlay for each thing according to the kind, being most munificent in spending a great amount on a great work. But the expense will be great in comparison with the things. What is great in regard to the work differs from what is great in cost considered in itself. A very pretty ball or jar takes on magnificence when presented as a gift to a child, although the price is trivial and not in the category of liberal. Hence the munificent person has the advantage of performing a great work in any category. And a work, great in its class and reasonable in its cost, can hardly be surpassed. This, then, is a description of the munificent person.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>B.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He treats the opposite vices.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>A’&nbsp;First, considering excess. — 732</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὁ δ' ὑπερβάλλων καὶ βάναυσος τῷ παρὰ τὸ δέον ἀναλίσκειν ὑπερβάλλει, ὥσπερ εἴρηται. ἐν γὰρ τοῖς μικροῖς τῶν δαπανημάτων πολλὰ ἀναλίσκει καὶ λαμπρύνεται παρὰ μέλος, οἷον ἐρανιστὰς γαμικῶς ἑστιῶν, καὶ κωμῳδοῖς χορηγῶν ἐν τῇ παρόδῳ πορφύραν εἰσφέρων, ὥσπερ οἱ Μεγαροῖ. καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα ποιήσει οὐ τοῦ καλοῦ ἕνεκα, ἀλλὰ τὸν πλοῦτον ἐπιδεικνύμενος, καὶ διὰ ταῦτα οἰόμενος θαυμάζεσθαι, καὶ οὗ μὲν δεῖ πολλὰ ἀναλῶσαι, ὀλίγα δαπανῶν, οὗ δ' ὀλίγα, πολλά.
            <td>One who sins by excess, i.e., the vulgarian, is immoderate in spending contrary to what he ought, as has been pointed out. He expends great sums on paltry things, and his lavishness is out of harmony, figuratively speaking. He banquets buffoons with dishes fit for a marriage feast, gives presents to comedians, and rolls out a red carpet for their entry like the Megarians. In all such affairs he does not act to attain the good but to show off his wealth, hoping in this way for admiration. Where grand outlays are called for, he spends little; where small expenditures are in order, he lays out much.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>B’&nbsp;Next (considering) defect. — 733</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὁ δὲ μικροπρεπὴς περὶ πάντα ἐλλείψει, καὶ τὰ μέγιστα ἀναλώσας ἐν μικρῷ τὸ καλὸν ἀπολεῖ, καὶ ὅ τι ἂν ποιῇ μέλλων καὶ σκοπῶν πῶς ἂν ἐλάχιστον ἀναλώσαι, καὶ ταῦτ' ὀδυρόμενος, καὶ πάντ' οἰόμενος μείζω ποιεῖν ἢ δεῖ.
            <td>But the petty person falls short in everything; and after spending very much he will spoil the whole good effect for the sake of a trifle. Whatever expenditures he makes, he makes tardily and he takes care to spend as little as he can. Moreover, he does this glumly and is of the opinion that he has done more than he should.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>C’&nbsp;Finally (considering) what is common to both. — 734</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>εἰσὶ μὲν οὖν αἱ ἕξεις αὗται κακίαι, οὐ μὴν ὀνείδη γ' ἐπιφέρουσι διὰ τὸ μήτε βλαβεραὶ τῷ πέλας εἶναι μήτε λίαν ἀσχήμονες.
            <td>These, then, are habits of vice; yet they do not bring shame because they do not injure our neighbor and are not very disgraceful.
      </table>
    </blockquote>
    <table cellpadding="12">
      <tbody>
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:center">
          <td colspan="2"><b>COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS</b>
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Est autem sumptuum et cetera. Postquam philosophus ostendit qualiter magnificus se habeat in expendendo, hic ostendit in quibus magnificus expendat. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit in quibus expendit magnificus; secundo ostendit quomodo servat proportionem sumptuum ad ea in quibus expendat, ibi, et in singulis decens, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo ostendit in quibus principaliter magnificus expendat. Secundo, in quibus expendat secundario, ibi propriorum autem et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit, quae sunt principalia, in quibus magnificus expendit; secundo ostendit ad quos pertineat in talibus expendere, ibi, in omnibus autem quemadmodum dictum est, et cetera. Tertio epilogat quod dictum est, ibi, maxime quidem igitur, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod magnificus facit sumptus circa ea quae sunt maxime honorabilia. Huiusmodi autem sunt duorum generum. Primum genus est eorum quae pertinent ad res divinas, puta cum aliqua donaria reponuntur in templis deorum, et praeparationes, puta templorum aedificia, vel aliquid aliud huiusmodi. Et etiam sacrificia ad idem pertinent. Gentiles autem non solum colebant deos, idest quasdam substantias separatas, sed etiam colebant Daemones, quos dicebant esse medios inter deos et homines. Et ideo subdit, quod ad idem genus pertinet quicquid expenditur circa cultum cuiuscumque Daemonis. Et loquitur hic philosophus secundum consuetudinem gentilium, quae nunc manifestata veritate est abrogata, unde, si aliquis nunc circa cultum Daemonum aliquid expenderet, non esset magnificus, sed sacrilegus.
          <td>719. After the Philosopher has shown in what manner the munificent person should be concerned with spending, he now [II, B’] shows the principal object on which the munificent person should spend money. He gives two explanations of this point. First [B’, 1] he explains for what things the munificent man should make expenditures; and next [B’, 2.], how he preserves proportion between the cost and the objects paid for, at “He will spend in a manner proper to each etc.” He manifests the initial point in a twofold manner. First [i, a] he sets forth the principal objects for which the munificent should spend money; and then [i, b], the secondary objects, at “or even in any private etc.” On this first point he does three things. First [a, i] he discloses what the principal objects are for which the munificent person disburses funds. Next [a, ii], he indicates who should make such expenditures, at “But in all these things etc.” Last [a, iii], he sums up his views, at “Such then, especially etc.” He says first that the munificent man lays out large amounts for things that are honorable in the highest degree. These sums are of two kinds. The first of them pertains to divine things (for example, the placing of votive offerings in the temples of the gods) and preparations (the building of the temple or some other things of this kind). Even sacrifices come under this heading. The gentiles, however, worshipped not only gods, i.e., certain separated substances, but also demons whom they held to be intermediaries between gods and men. Therefore, he adds that everything expended on the worship of any demon whatsoever belongs to this same classification. The Philosopher speaks here of a heathen custom that has been abrogated by the plain truth. Hence if someone now spent any money on the worship of a demon he would not be munificent but sacrilegious.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundum autem genus honorabilium sumptuum sunt ea quae magnifice fiunt per respectum ad bonum publicum, puta quod aliquis ad aliquid utile communitati praeclare et magnifice largiatur, quod oportet. Vel si aliquod officium committitur alicui a civitate, puta quod sit princeps trieris, idest exercitus navium, vel galearum, quod circa executionem officii faciat magnos sumptus. Vel etiam quod convivium faciat toti civitati, sicut solitum erat apud ---, ut habetur in II politicae.
          <td>720. The second kind of honorable expenditures are those made for the common good in a sumptuous manner: a person nobly and lavishly gives a becoming donation of something useful to the community; a man, charged with an office by the state like the captaincy of a trireme (a fleet of ships or galleys), makes great expenditures in the execution of that office; or someone gives a banquet for the whole community according to a custom, as is said in the second book of the Politics (Ch. 9, 11271 a 33; St. Th. Lect. 14, 317).
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: in omnibus autem etc., ostendit quibus competat tales sumptus facere. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit in generali quibus competat tales sumptus facere; secundo concludit in speciali, quibus non competat, ibi: propter quod inops quidem etc.; tertio ostendit in speciali quibus competat, ibi, decet autem et eos et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod in omnibus quae expenduntur, sicut supra dictum est, oportet haberi respectum, non solum ad ea in quibus expenditur, (sed etiam ad eum qui expendit,) ut scilicet consideretur quis est qui expendit, utrum scilicet sit princeps vel privata persona, nobilis aut ignobilis; et etiam consideretur quas possessiones habeat, utrum scilicet magnas vel parvas. Oportet enim expensas esse dignas, idest bene proportionatas his, scilicet conditioni personae et divitiis, ita quod expensae non solum deceant tale opus in quo expenditur, sed etiam deceant facientem.
          <td>721. Next [a, ii], at “But in all these,” he shows for whom such expenditures are appropriate. Regarding this he does three things. First [ii, x] he explains for whom, in general, such expenditures are appropriate. Then [ii, y], at “For this reason the poor man,” he infers for whom, in particular, they are inappropriate. Finally [ii, z], at “A great expenditure etc.,” he shows for whom, in particular, they are appropriate. He says first that in all these things that are expended—as was just mentioned (712-713).we must have regard not only for the objects for which a Person spends money (so that we should consider whether the spender is a prince or a private person, a noble or a commoner) but also what possessions, large or small, he may have. Expenditures must be proper, i.e., well proportioned to the wealth and station of the person, so that the expenses may be suited not only to the work for which they are incurred but also to the spender.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit propter quod inops etc., concludit quos non deceant tales sumptus. Et dicit, quod propter praedicta inops, idest qui habet parvas divitias, non potest esse magnificus, quia non habet tot ex quibus possit convenienter multa consumere. Et si tentet ultra posse expendere, erit insipiens, quia hoc erit praeter dignitatem et praeter id quod fieri oportet et ita non pertinet ad virtutem magnificentiae. Quia secundum virtutem omnia fiunt recte idest secundum quod oportet.
          <td>722. Then [ii, y], at “For this reason,” he infers that such expenditures may not be appropriate. Because of what was just said, the poor man who has little wealth cannot be munificent, for he does not have so great an amount that he can rightly afford to spend much. If he attempts to spend more, he is foolish since it is contrary to good taste and beyond what is proper. So it does not pertain to the virtue of magnificence because, by means of virtue, all things are done correctly, i.e., properly.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: decet autem et eos etc., ostendit quos deceat facere praedictos sumptus. Et accipit hoc secundum duo. Primo quidem secundum quantitatem divitiarum. Unde dicit quod praedictos sumptus facere decet illos homines quibus talia praeexistunt, id est qui habent magnas divitias ex quibus possunt multa consumere decenter, sive habeant huiusmodi divitias abundantes per seipsos, puta acquirendo eas per propriam industriam sive etiam habeant eas per progenitores quibus succedunt, sive etiam per quoscumque alios, per quos ad eos transeunt divitiae; puta cum relinquuntur haeredes extraneorum.
          <td>723. Next [ii, z], at “A great expenditure,” he discloses who may make these expenditures fittingly, understanding this in regard to two things. First he takes it according to the amount of riches. He says that great expenditures should be made by men who are wealthy, i.e., who possess great riches, much of which can be expended becomingly. It makes no difference whether they possess this abundant wealth of themselves, i.e., by acquiring it through their own industry, or have it from their parents (whose heirs they are), or even from ‘any others through whom riches come to them, for example, when they become heirs of those outside the family.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundo autem accipit propositum per conditionem personarum. Decet enim, quod faciant magnos sumptus nobiles genere et gloriosos, puta in honoribus constitutos, et quaecumque similia sunt; omnia enim huiusmodi habent in se quamdam magnitudinem, et quamdam dignitatem, ut deceat tales magnos sumptus facere.
          <td>724. Second, he considers the proposition according to the condition of persons. It is becoming that great sums be disbursed by the highborn and the renowned, i.e., those established in honor and other similar things. Everything of this nature has about it a certain greatness and decorum, so that such splendid donations may be made appropriately.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: maxime quidem igitur etc., epilogat quae dicta sunt. Et dicit, quod talis est magnificus qualis supradictus est. Et in talibus sumptibus est magnificentia, sicut dictum est, scilicet in rebus divinis et communibus: huiusmodi enim inter omnia humana sunt maxima et honorabilissima.
          <td>725. Then [a, iii], at “Such, then,” he sums up his views, affirming that the munificent person is of the sort described above, and that magnificence consists in expenditures of this kind—as was stated in 719-720—viz., on things for divine worship and the public welfare, for such are the greatest and most honorable among all human goods.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit propriorum autem etc., ostendit in quibus secundario magnificus expendit. Et ponit circa hoc tres gradus. Quorum primus est quod magnificus magnos sumptus facit in his quae proprie ad ipsum pertinent, quae semel tantum fiunt, puta nuptiae, militia et si aliquid tale est.
          <td>726. Next [i, b], at “or even,” he shows on what secondary objects the munificent person spends money. He mentions three kinds of objects, the first [b, i] of which consists in the munificent man spending great sums on affairs pertaining properly to himself and happening only once, like marriage, military service, and so on.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundum gradum ponit ibi, et (si) circa aliquid et cetera. Et dicit, quod si tota civitas vel principes civitatis student ad aliquid faciendum, et circa hoc faciet magnos sumptus magnificus. Sicut si oporteat honorifice suscipere aliquos extraneos, puta principes vel reges, vel si oporteat eis mittere magna exenia, vel etiam si oporteat eis praesentialiter dona magna offerre. Vel si oporteat eis retribuere pro aliquibus beneficiis impensis, in omnibus his magnos sumptus faciet magnificus. Magnificus enim non est sumptuosus in se ipsum, ut scilicet multum expendat in proprium usum. Sed facit magnos sumptus in communia. Dona autem, quae magnifice aliquibus dantur, habent aliquid simile cum his quae Deo consecrantur, quia scilicet sicut Deo dona consecrantur, non quia eis Deus indigeat, sed propter reverentiam et honorem, ita etiam et magnis viris dona offeruntur magis propter honorem, quam propter indigentiam.
          <td>72.7. He gives the second kind [b, ii], at “or in any event.” If the whole city or the rulers are anxious to do something and a man makes great expenditures on this he will be munificent, for instance, if he should honorably receive some guests such as princes or kings, if he should give them great banquets, or even personally offer presents to them, or if he should repay certain favors received; in all these situations, the munificent person will spend large sums. He is not lavish with himself so that he spends much for his own use, but he makes great expenditures for the common good. The splendid gifts bestowed on some resemble those given to God. The reason is that, as offerings are consecrated to God not because He needs them but out of reverence and honor, so also presents are made to distinguished men more on account of honor than any need.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Tertium gradum ponit ibi, magnifici autem et cetera. Et dicit quod ad magnificum etiam pertinet praeparare domum convenienter propriis divitiis. Quia habere decentem domum pertinet ad hominis ornatum. Et in aedificiis faciendis magis intendit magnificus facere sumptus circa opera diuturna et permanentia, quam circa aliquos fragiles ornatus; puta circa columnas marmoreas in domo, quam circa fenestras vitreas. Ista enim, quae sunt magis permanentia, sunt optima.
          <td>728. Then [b, iii], at “It is the privilege,” he mentions the third kind, stating that it pertains to magnificence to build a home in the proper manner with one’s own riches, for a decent home adds to a man’s distinction. And in constructing buildings the munificent man desires to spend money rather on lasting and permanent parts than on fragile decorations, for instance, on marble columns in the house rather than on glass windows. Things that are more permanent are best.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Sic igitur ex praedictis patet, quod magnificus principaliter expendit circa res divinas et publicas. Sed circa ea quae pertinent ad privatas personas expendit secundario propter tres conditiones. Primo, quia semel fiunt. Secundo, quia communiter ad hoc insistitur. Tertio, quia sunt diuturna. Haec enim sunt quae afferunt etiam rebus privatis magnitudinem.
          <td>729. Hence, it is clear from what has been said that the munificent man spends money principally on the things destined for divine worship and the public welfare, but secondarily on things pertaining to private persons under three conditions: first that the things happen once, second that in addition the common good is pursued, third that they are of a permanent nature. These are the requisites making for greatness in private matters.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: (et) in singulis decens etc., ostendit quomodo magnificus conservat debitam proportionem sumptuum ad ea in quibus expendit. Et dicit, quod magnificus in singulis expendit illud quod decet, et secundum speciem, et secundum quantitatem. Manifestum est enim quod non idem secundum speciem aut quantitatem congruit exhibere diis et hominibus, neque in templo et sepulcro construendo. Hoc tamen observabit, quod semper faciet magnum sumptum in genere illo. Unde magnificentissimum erit quando in magno facto magnum sumptum facit, sed hic, idest in hoc facto, faciet id quod est magnum in tali genere. Et ita quandoque differt magnum respectu operis ab eo quod est simpliciter magnum in expensa: puta, quod aliquis faciat pulcherrimam sphaeram, idest pilam, vel lecythum, idest aliquod vasculum ad dandum alicui puero, habet magnificentiam in genere puerilis doni, et tamen pretium pulcherrimae sphaerae secundum se consideratum est parvum, et non pertinens ad liberalem donationem. Et propter hoc manifestum est, quod ad magnificum pertinet ut in quolibet genere magnum aliquod opus faciat. In quo etiam facit sumptus secundum operis dignitatem; tale autem factum, scilicet quod est in genere suo magnum et habet sumptus convenientes, non est de facili superabile.
          <td>730. Next [B’, 2], at “He will spend,” he explains in what way the munificent person maintains the proportion Of costs appropriate to the things for which the expenditure is made, spending on each object what is fitting both in kind and quantity. It is obvious that not the same kind and quantity of outlay is suitably offered to gods and men, nor used in the construction of a temple and a tomb. He will see to it that he spends a sum large according to the kind of thing. Hence he will be very munificent when he makes a great expenditure on a great work. But in this work he will make what is great in this class. So, sometimes what is great in regard to the work differs from what is absolutely great in expense. From the fact that someone makes a very pretty globe, i.e., a ball, or a vase (a small vessel) as a gift to a boy, he is said to possess magnificence in the genus of children’s gifts, although the price of the beautiful globe in itself is small, not belonging to the class of generous donations. Obviously, therefore, the munificent person has the advantage of performing a great work in any genus, making expenditures commensurate with the merit of the work. A production of this sort, which is great according to its kind and reasonable in its cost, can hardly be surpassed.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Ultimo autem epilogando concludit, quod magnificus est talis, qualis dictus est.
          <td>731. Last, he succinctly states the conclusion that the munificent man is such as has been described.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit superabundans autem etc., determinat de oppositis vitiis. Et primo de superabundantia. Secundo de defectu, ibi, parvificus autem, et cetera. Tertio determinat communiter de utroque, ibi, sunt quidem et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod ille qui superabundat in sumptibus magnis, qui vocatur bannausus quasi in fornace sua consumens, excedit magnificum non quidem in absoluta sumptuum quantitate, sed in expendendo praeter id quod oportet; quia in superfluis sumptibus multa consumit, et vult splendidos sumptus facere praeter melodiam, idest praeter debitam proportionem (quod parabolice sive metaphorice dictum est), puta quia facit nuptialia convivia histrionibus et comoedis, idest repraesentatoribus multa tribuit et viam cooperit purpura, sicut faciunt Megares qui erant quidam cives Graeciae. Et omnia haec et similia facit, non propter aliquod bonum, sed solum ad ostentandum divitias, et propter hoc existimat quod in admiratione habeatur. Nec tamen ubique superflue expendit; sed quandoque deficit; quia ubi oporteret multa expendere, ibi expendit pauca, et ubi oporteret pauca expendere, ibi expendit multa, quia non attendit ad bonum, sed ad vanitatem.
          <td>732. Then [(II) B], at “One who sins by excess,” he treats the opposite vices: first [B, A’], considering excess; next [B, B’] defect, at “But the petty person etc.”; and last [B, C’] what is common to both, at “These, then, are.” He says that the man who is immoderate in grand outlays—called <i>banausos</i> because he consumes his goods as in a furnace—exceeds the munificent person not in the absolute amount spent but in spending in a way contrary to what he should. The reason is that he uses much money in superfluous expenses, and wants to make lavish expenditures contrary to harmony, i.e., against the right proportion—which is said by way of metaphor—for instance, he entertains buffoons and comedians with nuptial banquets, contributes much to actors, even rolling out the red carpet for their entry, as the Megarians (certain Greek citizens) are in the habit of doing. He does all these and similar things not for some good but for making a show of his riches, thinking that he will be admired for this reason. However, he does not always spend lavishly but sometimes he falls short. Where he ought to spend much, he spends little; but where little, much. The reason is that he does not keep his eye on the good but on vanity.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: parvificus autem etc., determinat de vitio defectus. Et dicit quod parvificus est qui circa omnia deficit. Et ponit quinque proprietates eius. Quarum prima est quod, cum faciat magnas expensas pro modico, perdit quod non bene facit. Secunda proprietas est quod quicquid facit in sumptibus facit cum quadam tarditate. Tertia est quod semper intendit qualiter possit minimum expendere. Quarta est quod expendit cum tristitia. Quinta est quod omnia reputat se maiora facere quam oporteat. Videtur enim ei quod oporteret eum minus expendere.
          <td>733. Next [B, B’], at “But the petty person,” he considers the vice of defect and states that the petty person falls short in everything, assigning him five traits. The first is that when the petty person does make great expenditures he fails to do well because of a trifle. The second, what sums he expends he expends tardily. The third, he always keeps his mind on how he may spend the least. The fourth, he is a gloomy spender. The fifth, when he lays out everything, he thinks he has done more than he should, for it seems to him that he ought to spend less.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: sunt quidem igitur etc., determinat communiter de utroque vitio. Et concludit ex praedictis quod praedicti duo habitus sunt quidem malitiae propter hoc quod contrariantur virtuti (per) recessum a medio, non tamen sunt opprobriosi, quia neque inferunt aliquod nocumentum proximo neque sunt multum turpes eo quod difficile est in magnis sumptibus non recedere a medio.
          <td>734. Then [B, C’], at “These, then,” he considers what is common to either vice. He comes to the conclusion that the two previously mentioned habits are certain vices because they are opposed to virtue by a departure from the mean. However, they are not opprobrious since they do not injure our neighbor in any way, and are not very disgraceful because it is difficult in disbursing large amounts not to depart from the mean.
    </table>
    <hr>
    <blockquote>
      <table cellpadding="12">
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td colspan="2" align="center"><b><a name="8" id="8"></a>LECTURE 8<br>
            Magnanimity</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>Chapter 3</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>I.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE INVESTIGATES THE MATTER OF MAGNANIMITY AND THE OPPOSITE VICES.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>A.&nbsp;&nbsp;He sets forth his proposition. — 735</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ἡ δὲ μεγαλοψυχία περὶ μεγάλα μὲν καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἔοικεν εἶναι, περὶ ποῖα δ' ἐστὶ πρῶτον λάβωμεν· διαφέρει δ' οὐδὲν τὴν ἕξιν ἢ τὸν κατὰ τὴν ἕξιν σκοπεῖν.
            <td>Judging by the name, magnanimity seems to be concerned with great things the nature of which we should first understand. However, it does not matter whether we consider the habit or the man who operates according to the habit.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>B.&nbsp;&nbsp;He explains it.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>A’&nbsp;He exposes the matter of magnanimity generally.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;MAGNANIMITY REFERS TO GREAT THINGS.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He exposes his viewpoint. — 736</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>δοκεῖ δὴ μεγαλόψυχος εἶναι ὁ μεγάλων αὑτὸν ἀξιῶν ἄξιος ὤν·
            <td>A person seems to be magnanimous in thinking himself worthy of great things when he is worthy.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;The magnanimous person must be worthy of great things. — 737</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὁ γὰρ μὴ κατ' ἀξίαν αὐτὸ ποιῶν ἠλίθιος, τῶν δὲ κατ' ἀρετὴν οὐδεὶς ἠλίθιος οὐδ' ἀνόητος. μεγαλόψυχος μὲν οὖν ὁ εἰρημένος.
            <td>But he who presumes this when it is not really so is foolish; yet the man who operates according to virtue in these matters is not unwise or foolish. Consequently, the magnanimous person is such as we have described.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The magnanimous man should think himself worthy of great things. — 738</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὁ γὰρ μικρῶν ἄξιος καὶ τούτων ἀξιῶν ἑαυτὸν σώφρων, μεγαλόψυχος δ' οὔ· ἐν μεγέθει γὰρ ἡ μεγαλοψυχία, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ κάλλος ἐν μεγάλῳ σώματι, οἱ μικροὶ δ' ἀστεῖοι καὶ σύμμετροι, καλοὶ δ' οὔ.
            <td>He who is worthy of small things and considers himself so is temperate, although he is not magnanimous. Magnanimity consists in greatness, as beauty consists in a good build. Short-statured people may be fair and well-proportioned but hardly handsome.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>
            <td>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HOW THE OPPOSITE VICES OCCUR IN REGARD TO THE SAME MATTER.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>
            <td>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;First regarding the vice of excess.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὁ δὲ μεγάλων ἑαυτὸν ἀξιῶν ἀνάξιος ὢν χαῦνος· ὁ δὲ μειζόνων ἢ ἄξιος οὐ πᾶς χαῦνος.
            <td>The person who judges himself worthy of great things and is in fact unworthy is conceited. But one who judges himself worthy of greater things than he merits is not always said to be conceited.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;Then (regarding) the vice of defect. — 740</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὁ δ' ἐλαττόνων ἢ ἄξιος μικρόψυχος, ἐάν τε μεγάλων ἐάν τε μετρίων, ἐάν τε καὶ μικρῶν ἄξιος ὢν ἔτι ἐλαττόνων αὑτὸν ἀξιοῖ. καὶ μάλιστ' ἂν δόξειεν ὁ μεγάλων ἄξιος· τί γὰρ ἂν ἐποίει, εἰ μὴ τοσούτων ἦν ἄξιος;
            <td>On the other hand, the man who thinks he deserves lesser things than he deserves—whether the things be great, ordinary, or little—is pusillanimous. This will be especially evident in one capable of splendid achievements. What would he have done if he had not this capability?
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HOW THE VIRTUE CONSISTS IN THE MEAN. — 741</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ἔστι δὴ ὁ μεγαλόψυχος τῷ μὲν μεγέθει ἄκρος, τῷ δὲ ὡς δεῖ μέσος· τοῦ γὰρ κατ' ἀξίαν αὑτὸν ἀξιοῖ· οἳ δ' ὑπερβάλλουσι καὶ ἐλλείπουσιν.
            <td>However, the magnanimous man holds an extreme in extension but a mean in appropriateness, for he thinks himself deserving in accord with his worth. Others exceed and fall short of this mean.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>B’&nbsp;He exposes (the matter of magnanimity) specifically.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;MAGNANIMITY IS CONCERNED WITH HONOR.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(The magnanimous man) should deem himself deserving of the greatest things. — 742</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>εἰ δὴ μεγάλων ἑαυτὸν ἀξιοῖ ἄξιος ὤν, καὶ μάλιστα τῶν μεγίστων, περὶ ἓν μάλιστ' ἂν εἴη.ἡ δ' ἀξία λέγεται πρὸς τὰ ἐκτὸς ἀγαθά· μέγιστον δὲ τοῦτ' ἂν θείημεν ὃ τοῖς θεοῖς ἀπονέμομεν, καὶ οὗ μάλιστ' ἐφίενται οἱ ἐν ἀξιώματι, καὶ τὸ ἐπὶ τοῖς καλλίστοις ἆθλον· τοιοῦτον δ' ἡ τιμή· μέγιστον γὰρ δὴ τοῦτο τῶν ἐκτὸς ἀγαθῶν· περὶ τιμὰς δὴ καὶ ἀτιμίας ὁ μεγαλόψυχός ἐστιν ὡς δεῖ.
            <td>If a man deems himself deserving of great things and especially of the greatest things when he deserves them, then he will be concerned with one particular object. He is said to be deserving in reference to external goods. But we place that external good highest which we attribute to the gods, which is desired most of all by prominent men and is the reward for virtuous action. Such a good is honor, for it is the best of all external goods. Therefore, the magnanimous man will manage honors and dishonors in a manner which is fitting.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;He manifests his proposition by experience. — 743</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καὶ ἄνευ δὲ λόγου φαίνονται οἱ μεγαλόψυχοι περὶ τιμὴν εἶναι· τιμῆς γὰρ μάλιστα [οἱ μεγάλοι] ἀξιοῦσιν ἑαυτούς, κατ' ἀξίαν δέ.
            <td>Even independent of reasoning, the magnanimous seem to be concerned about honors, for the great exalt themselves in dignity principally by honor.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HOW THE OPPOSITE VICES SHOULD DEAL WITH THIS MATTER. — 744</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὁ δὲ μικρόψυχος ἐλλείπει καὶ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν καὶ πρὸς τὸ τοῦ μεγαλοψύχου ἀξίωμα. ὁ δὲ χαῦνος πρὸς ἑαυτὸν μὲν ὑπερβάλλει, οὐ μὴν τόν γε μεγαλόψυχον.
            <td>The pusillanimous person is deficient in regard both to his own merit and the worthiness of the magnanimous man. But one who is presumptuous is excessive respecting his own merit although he does not exceed the merit of the magnanimous person.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;IN WHAT MANNER MAGNANIMITY IS RELATED TO OTHER VIRTUES.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Magnanimity is related to the other virtues.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;First by a general argument. — 745</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ὁ δὲ μεγαλόψυχος, εἴπερ τῶν μεγίστων ἄξιος, ἄριστος ἂν εἴη· μείζονος γὰρ ἀεὶ ὁ βελτίων ἄξιος, καὶ μεγίστων ὁ ἄριστος.
            <td>But the magnanimous man as worthy of the greatest goods will be best. Since the better person is worthy of greater things, the best will be worthy of the greatest. Therefore, the magnanimous person must be truly good.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>x.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;WHAT MAKES MAGNANIMITY A SPECIAL VIRTUE. — 746</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>τὸν ὡς ἀληθῶς ἄρα μεγαλόψυχον δεῖ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι.
            <td>What is great in every virtue pertains to magnanimity.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>y.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HE REJECTS AN ERROR. — 747</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καὶ δόξειεν ἂν εἶναι μεγαλοψύχου τὸ ἐν ἑκάστῃ ἀρετῇ μέγα. οὐδαμῶς τ' ἂν ἁρμόζοι μεγαλοψύχῳ φεύγειν παρασείσαντι, οὐδ' ἀδικεῖν· τίνος γὰρ ἕνεκα πράξει αἰσχρὰ ᾧ γ' οὐδὲν μέγα;
            <td>It is never becoming for a magnanimous man to flee one about to give unsought advice, nor to practice injustice. Will not the man who considers nothing great be the one to do disgraceful deeds for gain?
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;By the things appearing in individual cases. — 748</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>καθ' ἕκαστα δ' ἐπισκοποῦντι πάμπαν γελοῖος φαίνοιτ' ἂν ὁ μεγαλόψυχος μὴ ἀγαθὸς ὤν. οὐκ εἴη δ' ἂν οὐδὲ τιμῆς ἄξιος φαῦλος ὤν· τῆς ἀρετῆς γὰρ ἆθλον ἡ τιμή, καὶ ἀπονέμεται τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς.
            <td>To an observer of what happens in individual cases, that person will seem altogether ludicrous who thinks himself magnanimous when he is not really virtuous. One who is in fact evil will not be magnanimous nor deserving of honor, for honor is a reward of virtue and is attributed to the virtuous.
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Next drawing certain conclusions from what has been said. — 749</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td>ἔοικε μὲν οὖν ἡ μεγαλοψυχία οἷον κόσμος τις εἶναι τῶν ἀρετῶν· μείζους γὰρ αὐτὰς ποιεῖ, καὶ οὐ γίνεται ἄνευ ἐκείνων. διὰ τοῦτο χαλεπὸν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μεγαλόψυχον εἶναι· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε ἄνευ καλοκαγαθίας.
            <td>Therefore, it seems that magnanimity is an embellishment of the virtues, since it makes virtue more excellent and does not exist without them. It is difficult to be truly magnanimous because this is not possible without goodness.
      </table>
    </blockquote>
    <table cellpadding="12">
      <tbody>
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:center">
          <td colspan="2"><b>COMMENTARY OF ST. THOMAS</b>
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Magnanimitas autem circa magna quidem et cetera. Postquam philosophus determinavit de virtutibus quae sunt circa pecunias, hic determinat de virtutibus quae sunt circa honores. Et primo de magnanimitate quae est circa magnos honores. Secundo de quadam virtute innominata quae est circa moderatos honores, ibi, videtur autem et circa hunc esse virtus quaedam et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo investigat materiam magnanimitatis et oppositorum vitiorum. Secundo determinat actus et proprietates eorum, ibi: maxime quidem igitur circa honores et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit. Secundo manifestat propositum, ibi: videtur magnanimus esse et cetera. Dicit ergo primo quod ex ipso nomine magnanimitatis apparet quod magnanimitas est circa magna. Oportet autem primo accipere circa qualia magna sit. Et determinat de modo considerationis, quod nihil differt utrum loquamur de ipso habitu magnanimitatis, vel de eo qui disponitur secundum habitum, idest de magnanimo.
          <td>735. After the Philosopher has finished the treatise on the virtues concerning money, he treats here the virtues having to do with honors. First he considers magnanimity, which regards great honors [Lects. 8, 9, 10, 11]; and then a nameless virtue concerned with ordinary honors [Lect. 12], at “As we remarked in the beginning etc.” (B. 1125 b). In the first consideration he does two things. First [I] he investigates the matter of magnanimity and the opposite vices; and second [Lect. 9; II] their acts and properties, at “For the most part etc.” (B. 1124 a 4). On the first point he does two things. First [A] he sets forth his proposition; and next [B] he explains it, at “A person seems to be etc.” He says first: from its name, magnanimity apparently is concerned with great things. But at the beginning we must understand the nature of the things with which it deals. Then he designates the manner of consideration, viz., it does not matter whether we speak of the habit of magnanimity or of the man who is disposed by the habit, i.e., the magnanimous person.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: videtur autem magnanimus esse etc., manifestat propositum. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo manifestat materiam magnanimitatis in generali. Secundo in speciali, ibi, si autem utique magnis et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo ostendit quod magnanimitas est circa magna. Secundo ostendit quomodo circa eadem fiunt vitia opposita, ibi, qui autem magnis seipsum dignum facit etc.; tertio ostendit quomodo virtus in medio consistit, ibi: est autem magnanimus et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponit quod intendit: dicens quod ille videtur esse magnanimus qui dignum seipsum aestimat magnis, idest ut magna faciat et magna ei fiant, cum tamen sit dignus.
          <td>736. Next [B], at “A person seems,” he explains his proposition by doing two things. First [A’] he exposes the matter of magnanimity generally; and then [B’] specifically, at “If a man etc.” On the first point he does two (three) things: First [A’, i] he shows that magnanimity refers to great things; and then [A’, 2], at “The person who judges etc.,” how the opposite vices occur in regard to the same matter. Last [A’, 3] he explains how the virtue consists in the mean, at “However, the magnanimous etc.” He treats the first point under three aspects. First [A’, i, a] he exposes his viewpoint, saying that a person seems to be magnanimous who thinks himself worthy of great things, viz., that he may perform great deeds and that great things should happen to him when in fact he is worthy.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundo ibi: qui enim non secundum dignitatem etc., ostendit quod ad magnanimum requiratur quod sit dignus magnis. Ille enim qui magnis se dignificat non secundum dignitatem, idest quorum non est dignus, est insipiens. Sapientis enim est in omnibus debitum ordinem servare. Nullus autem virtuosus est insipiens vel stultus; quia virtus operatur secundum rationem rectam, ut in secundo habitum est. Sic igitur patet quod magnanimus est ille qui dictus est, qui scilicet dignus est magnis quibus seipsum dignificat.
          <td>737. Then [A’, i, b], at “But he who presumes,” he teaches that the magnanimous person must be worthy of great things. One who thinks himself worthy of great things contrary to truth, i.e., of which he is not really worthy, is foolish. It is characteristic of a wise man to keep everything in proper order. But the virtuous man is neither unwise nor foolish because virtue operates according to right reason, as was affirmed in the second book (257, 322, 335). Consequently, it is clear that the magnanimous man is the person just described, i.e., one worthy of great things who thinks himself worthy.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Tertio ibi: qui enim parvis dignus etc., ostendit quod magnanimus dignificet seipsum magnis. Ille enim qui est dignus parvis, et his seipsum dignificat, potest dici temperatus, prout temperantia large sumitur pro quacumque moderatione. Non tamen potest dici magnanimus: quia magnanimitas consistit in quadam magnitudine, sicut pulchritudo proprie consistit in corpore magno. Unde illi qui sunt parvi, possunt dicit formosi propter decentiam coloris, et commensurati, propter debitam commensurationem membrorum, non tamen possunt dici pulchri propter magnitudinis defectum.
          <td>738. Finally [A’, i, c], at “He who is worthy,” he shows that the magnanimous man should think himself worthy of great things. One who is worthy of small things and considers himself so, can be called temperate in the sense that temperance is taken for any moderation whatsoever. However, he cannot be called magnanimous because magnanimity consists in a certain size, just as beauty properly consists in a good build. Hence those who are short can be called fair by reason of complexion or well-proportioned members but not handsome because they lack size.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: qui autem magnis etc., ostendit quomodo circa magna se habeant opposita vitia. Et primo quomodo se habet circa magna vitium quod est in excessu; secundo quomodo ad hoc se habeat vitium quod est in defectu, ibi: qui autem minoribus quam dignus et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod ille qui aestimat seipsum dignum magnis cum sit indignus, vocatur chaymus, idest fumosus; quem possumus dicere ventosum, vel praesumptuosum. Sed ille qui est dignus magnis, et adhuc maioribus se dignum aestimat, non semper vocatur chaymus, eo quod difficile est mensuram rectam attingere, ut aliquis non maioribus vel minoribus se ipsum dignum aestimet.
          <td>739. Next [A’, 2], at “The person who judges” he shows in what manner the opposite vices should be concerned with great things, first [A’, 2, a] regarding the vice of excess; and then [A’, 2, b] the vice of defect, at “on the other hand etc.” Aristotle says first that the man who thinks himself worthy of great things when he is really unworthy is called conceited, i.e., puffed up-we can call him inflated or presumptuous. But the person who is really worthy of great things and thinks himself worthy of still greater things is not always called conceited, because it is difficult to find an exact norm so that someone may judge himself not worthy of great things.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: qui autem minoribus quam dignus etc., ostendit quomodo se habeat ad magna vitium quod est in defectu. Et dicit quod ille qui aestimat seipsum dignum minoribus quam sit dignus, vocatur pusillanimus. Et hoc, sive sit dignus magnis, sive mediocribus, sive parvis, dum tamen adhuc minoribus seipsum dignificet. Maxime tamen vocatur pusillanimus ille, qui est dignus magnis, si illis magnis intendere recuset et intendat aliquibus minoribus; multo enim magis ad parva se deiiceret nisi esset magnis dignus.
          <td>740. Then [A’, 2, b], at “On the other hand,” he explains how the vice of defect is concerned with great things, saying that the man who thinks himself worthy of lesser things than he is worthy is called pusillanimous. This is so, whether in fact he is worthy of great, mediocre, or small things. However, the small-souled person is one who refuses to strive after great accomplishments and aims at certain petty undertakings when he is truly capable of what is great. He would bring himself down to affairs more trifling still, except for the fact that he is capable of great things.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: est autem magnanimus etc., ostendit quomodo magnanimitas sit in medio. Videtur enim, si est circa magna, quod sit in extremo. Nam cum aequale medium sit inter magnum et parvum, magnum habet rationem extremi. Unde dicit quod magnanimus quidem quantum ad magna quibus seipsum dignificat, in extremo consistit. Sed inquantum hoc facit secundum quod oportet, consistit in medio, quia scilicet seipsum dignificat magnis secundum suam dignitatem. Medium enim virtutis non attenditur secundum quantitatem rei, sed secundum rationem rectam. Unde quantumcumque sit opus quod homo faciat, dummodo a ratione recta non recedat, non propter hoc est extra medium virtutis. Sed vitia opposita superabundant et deficiunt ab eo quod oportet.
          <td>741. Next [A’, 3], at “However, the magnanimous man,” he shows how magnanimity is in the mean, for, treating as it does of great things, magnanimity seems to consist in the extreme. Since the average is the mean between the large and the small, the great has the nature of an extreme. Hence he says that the magnanimous person holds an extreme in reference to great things of which he deems himself worthy. But he holds the mean inasmuch as he does this in an appropriate manner in considering himself deserving according to his worth. The mean of virtue is not Judged according to the quantity of the thing but according to right reason. Hence a man is not placed outside the mean of virtue by a work no matter what its size, provided he does not depart from reason. But the opposite vices exceed and fall short of what should be.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: si autem utique magnis etc., manifestat materiam magnanimitatis in speciali. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit quod magnanimitas est circa honores; secundo ostendit quomodo circa hoc se habeant vitia opposita, ibi: pusillanimis autem et cetera. Tertio ostendit quomodo magnanimitas se habeat ad alias virtutes, ibi: magnanimus autem siquidem et cetera. Primum autem ostendit dupliciter. Primo quidem per rationem; dicens quod si magnanimus dignificat se ipsum magnis tamquam eis dignus existens, consequens est quod maxime dignificet seipsum maximis. Et ulterius quod magnanimitas sit praecipue circa unum; quia id quod per excellentiam dicitur, uni attribuitur. Cum autem dicitur aliquis esse aliquibus dignus, talis dignitas refertur ad bona exteriora quae homini pro praemio dantur. Illud autem oportet ponere maximum quod Deo attribuitur et quod maxime desideratur ab his qui sunt in dignitate, et quod est praemium optimorum actuum. Huiusmodi autem est honor. Honorem enim Deo exhibemus. Honor etiam est quem requirunt hi qui sunt in dignitate. Honore etiam praemiantur virtuosi actus. Unde manifestum est quod honor est optimum inter omnia exteriora bona. Et ita sequitur quod magnanimitas maxime attendatur circa honores et opposita, inquantum scilicet magnanimus se habet sicut oportet circa talia.
          <td>742. Then [B’], at “If a man deems,” he explains the matter of magnanimity specifically, taking up three points. He shows first [B’, 1] that magnanimity is concerned with honor; second [B’, 2] how the opposite vices should deal with this matter, at “The pusillanimous person etc.”; and third [B’, 3] in what manner magnanimity is related to other virtues at “But the magnanimous man etc.” He explains the first point in two ways. First he reasons that if the magnanimous man deems himself worthy of great things when he is worthy of them, consequently [B’, i, a] he should deem himself deserving of the greatest things when he is deserving of the greatest. He says further that magnanimity is concerned with one object in particular, for what is predicated by excellence is attributed to one. When someone is said to be worthy of certain things, the worthiness refers to external goods which come to a man as a reward. But that must be placed highest which is attributed to God, which is desired especially by those in eminent positions, and which is the reward of the most noble deeds. Such is honor, for honor is shown to God, is sought by the prominent and is the reward of virtuous action. Obviously then honor is the best of all external goods. Consequently, magnanimity should give the greatest consideration to honors and dishonors, inasmuch as the magnanimous person manages things of this kind in the proper manner.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Secundo ibi: et sine ratione autem etc., manifestat propositum per experimentum; dicens quod etiam sine ratione apparet quod magnanimitas maxime est circa honorem ex hoc quod experimento videmus quod magnanimi maxime dignificant seipsos honore, sed non supra suam dignitatem.
          <td>743. Second [B’, i, b], at “Even independent of reasoning,” he manifests his proposition by experience, saying that, even without discussion, it is clear that magnanimity has to do with honor for the most part because experience shows the magnanimous deem themselves worthy of honor but not above their deserts.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: pusillanimis autem etc., ostendit quomodo opposita vitia se habeant circa praedictam materiam. Et dicit quod pusillanimis deficit et per respectum ad se ipsum, quia scilicet dignificat se minoribus quam dignus sit; et etiam per respectum ad dignitatem magnanimi, quia videlicet dignificat se ipsum minoribus, quam magnanimus sit dignus. Sed chaymus, idest praesumptuosus, superabundat quidem per respectum ad seipsum, quia scilicet magnificat seipsum maioribus quam sit dignus: non tamen superabundat magnanimum, quia scilicet non dignificat seipsum maioribus, quam magnanimus sit dignus.
          <td>744. Next [B’, 2], at “The pusillanimous,” he explains in what manner the opposite vices should be concerned with the previously mentioned matter. He says that the small-souled person is deficient in regard to himself because he considers himself deserving of lesser things than he deserves, and also in regard to the worthiness of the magnanimous man because he considers himself deserving of lesser things than a magnanimous man deserves. But the conceited or presumptuous person is excessive in regard to himself because he makes himself greater than his worth, however, not in regard to the magnanimous man because he does not consider himself deserving of greater things than the magnanimous man deserves.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit magnanimus autem etc., determinat de magnanimitate per comparationem ad alias virtutes. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ostendit quod magnanimitas non est sine aliis virtutibus. Secundo infert quasdam conclusiones ex dictis, ibi, videtur quidem igitur et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit per rationem communem quod magnanimitas non est sine aliis virtutibus. Secundo ostendit idem per ea quae in singulis apparent, ibi, secundum singula autem et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo ostendit quod magnanimitas non est sine aliis virtutibus; secundo ostendit quid faciat magnanimitatem esse specialem virtutem, ibi: videtur autem esse etc.; tertio excludit quemdam errorem, ibi, et nequaquam utique congruit et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod cum magnanimus dignificet seipsum maximis bonis, et eis dignus existat, consequens est ut sit optimus. Maiori enim bono semper melior est dignus; et per consequens ille qui est maximis dignus oportet quod sit optimus. Oportet ergo, quod magnanimus vere sit bonus; alioquin non esset dignus maximis honoribus.
          <td>745. Then [B’, 3], at “But the magnanimous,” he compares magnanimity with other virtues: first [B’, 3, a] showing that magnanimity is related to the other virtues; and next [B’, 3, b] drawing certain conclusions from what has been said, at “Therefore it seems.” On the first point he does two things: he shows that magnanimity is related to the other virtues, first [i] by a general argument; and then [ii] by the things appearing in individual cases, at “To an observer etc.” Regarding the first he does two things. First [x] he explains what makes magnanimity a special virtue, at “What is great etc.”; and next [y] he rejects an error, at “It is never becoming etc.” Aristotle says first that when the magnanimous person deems himself worthy of the greatest goods and is really worthy of them, it follows that he is best. The. better man is always deserving of greater things, and consequently he who is deserving of the greatest must be best. Therefore, the magnanimous man must be truly good, otherwise he would not be deserving of the highest honors.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: videtur autem esse magnanimi etc., ostendit per quid magnanimitas sit specialis virtus, cum concomitetur alias virtutes. Et dicit quod ad magnanimitatem videtur pertinere id quod est magnum in unaquaque virtute, propter hoc, quod non est dignus magno honore, qui non operatur magnum virtutis actum. Sic igitur circa actum alicuius alterius virtutis operatur illa virtus attendens id quod est proprium sibi. Puta fortitudo intendit fortiter agere, sed magnanimitas attendit magnum operari in fortiter agendo. Et quia moralia speciem habent ex fine quem intendunt, manifestum est quod magnanimitas et fortitudo specie differunt, licet circa idem operentur; quia scilicet non ad eamdem rationem motivi attendit utraque virtus.
          <td>746. Then [x], at “What is great,” he shows how magnanimity is a special virtue when it accompanies other virtues. He says that what is great in any virtue seems to pertain to magnanimity because one who does not perform a great act of virtue is not worthy of great honor. So, when that virtue strives for what is proper to itself, it performs an act of another virtue, for example, fortitude intends a courageous action, magnanimity strives for a great deed in the courageous action. Since moral acts take their species from the end to which they tend, it is clear that magnanimity and fortitude differ in species (although they operate in the same matter) because neither virtue follows the same motive.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: et nequaquam utique etc., excludit quemdam errorem. Videtur enim quibusdam quod ad magnanimum pertineat, ut suo sensui semper innitatur et nullius alterius admonitionem sequatur. Et quod non dubitet cuicumque iniustitiam facere. Sed philosophus dicit hoc esse falsum. Quia nullus operatur aliquid indecens nisi propter appetitum alicuius. Sed magnanimus non tantum appretiatur quamcumque rem exteriorem, ut propter eam aliquid turpe operari velit.
          <td>747. Next [y], at “It is never becoming,” he rejects an error. Some seem to think that the magnanimous man should rely upon his own opinion and follow the advice of no one. Likewise, that he should not hesitate to do injustice to anyone. The Philosopher, however, says this is false because no one does a shameful deed except for the desire of something. But the magnanimous person does not place so great a value on any external thing that he would wish to do a shameful action for it.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: secundum singula autem etc., manifestat quod dictum est, per ea quae in singulis apparent. Et dicit quod, si aliquis velit ad singularia intendere, omnino videbitur derisibilis ille, qui reputat se magnanimum nisi sit bonus, quia si sit malus non erit dignus honore. Nam honor est praemium virtutis. Unde magnanimus dignificat seipsum magnis honoribus. Unde non potest esse quod aliquis malus sit magnanimus.
          <td>748. Then [ii], at “To the observer” he explains the clause: “of what happens in individual cases.” He says that to someone willing to observe individual cases, that man will seem altogether ridiculous who judges himself magnanimous without being virtuous. The reason is that if a man is evil he is not deserving of honor, for honor is the reward of virtue. Hence the magnanimous man thinks himself worthy of great honors. Consequently, no evil person is able to be magnanimous.
        <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
          <td>Deinde cum dicit: videtur quidem igitur etc., infert duas conclusiones ex praemissis. Quarum prima est quod magnanimitas videtur esse quasi ornatus quidam omnium virtutum. Quia per magnanimitatem omnes virtutes efficiuntur maiores, eo quod ad magnanimitatem pertinet operari magnum in omnibus virtutibus. Et ex hoc crescunt virtutes. Et iterum non fit magnanimitas sine aliis virtutibus; et sic videtur superaddi aliis tamquam ornatus earum. Secunda conclusio est quod difficile est, esse vere magnanimum. Quia magnanimitas non potest esse sine bonitate virtutis, et etiam sine magna virtute, cui debeatur magnus honor. Hoc autem consequi est difficile. Unde difficile est hominem esse magnanimum.
          <td>749. Last [B’, 3, b], at “Therefore it seems’ “ he draws two conclusions from the premises. The first is that magnanimity seems to be an ornament of all the virtues because they are made more excellent by magnanimity, which seeks to perform a great work in all the virtues. In this way the virtues increase. Likewise, magnanimity accompanies the other virtues and so seems to be added to them as their ornament. The second conclusion is that it is difficult to be magnanimous because magnanimity cannot exist without the goodness of virtue, and even without great virtue to which honor is due. But it is difficult to attain this. Consequently, it is difficult for a man to be magnanimous.
    </table>
    <hr>
    <blockquote>
      <table cellpadding="12">
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td colspan="2" align="center"><b><a name="9" id="9"></a>LECTURE 9<br>
            The Acts of Magnanimity</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>Chapter 3</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>II.&nbsp;&nbsp;HE... STUDIES... ACTS AND PROPERTIES (OF MAGNANIMITY AND THE OPPOSITE VICES).</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">
            <td colspan="2"><b>A.&nbsp;&nbsp;First as touching magnanimity.</b>
          <tr valign="top" style="text-align:justify">