|
Objection 1: It would seem that there cannot be virtue and vice in
connection with outward apparel. For outward adornment does not belong
to us by nature, wherefore it varies according to different times and
places. Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12)
that "among the ancient Romans it was scandalous for one to wear a
cloak with sleeves and reaching to the ankles, whereas now it is
scandalous for anyone hailing from a reputable place to be without
them." Now according to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 1) there
is in us a natural aptitude for the virtues. Therefore there is no
virtue or vice about such things.
Objection 2: Further, if there were virtue and vice in connection
with outward attire, excess in this matter would be sinful. Now
excess in outward attire is not apparently sinful, since even the
ministers of the altar use most precious vestments in the sacred
ministry. Likewise it would seem not to be sinful to be lacking in
this, for it is said in praise of certain people (Heb.
11:37): "They wandered about in sheepskins and in goatskins."
Therefore it seems that there cannot be virtue and vice in this
matter.
Objection 3: Further, every virtue is either theological, or
moral, or intellectual. Now an intellectual virtue is not conversant
with matter of this kind, since it is a perfection regarding the
knowledge of truth. Nor is there a theological virtue connected
therewith, since that has God for its object; nor are any of the
moral virtues enumerated by the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 7),
connected with it. Therefore it seems that there cannot be virtue and
vice in connection with this kind of attire.
On the contrary, Honesty [Question 145] pertains to virtue.
Now a certain honesty is observed in the outward apparel; for Ambrose
says (De Offic. i, 19): "The body should be bedecked
naturally and without affectation, with simplicity, with negligence
rather than nicety, not with costly and dazzling apparel, but with
ordinary clothes, so that nothing be lacking to honesty and necessity,
yet nothing be added to increase its beauty." Therefore there can be
virtue and vice in the outward attire.
I answer that, It is not in the outward things themselves which man
uses, that there is vice, but on the part of man who uses them
immoderately. This lack of moderation occurs in two ways. First, in
comparison with the customs of those among whom one lives; wherefore
Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): "Those offenses which are
contrary to the customs of men, are to be avoided according to the
customs generally prevailing, so that a thing agreed upon and confirmed
by custom or law of any city or nation may not be violated at the
lawless pleasure of any, whether citizen or foreigner. For any part,
which harmonizeth not with its whole, is offensive." Secondly, the
lack of moderation in the use of these things may arise from the
inordinate attachment of the user, the result being that a man
sometimes takes too much pleasure in using them, either in accordance
with the custom of those among whom he dwells or contrary to such
custom. Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii, 12):
"We must avoid excessive pleasure in the use of things, for it leads
not only wickedly to abuse the customs of those among whom we dwell,
but frequently to exceed their bounds, so that, whereas it lay
hidden, while under the restraint of established morality, it displays
its deformity in a most lawless outbreak."
In point of excess, this inordinate attachment occurs in three ways.
First when a man seeks glory from excessive attention to dress; in so
far as dress and such like things are a kind of ornament. Hence
Gregory says (Hom. xl in Ev.): "There are some who think that
attention to finery and costly dress is no sin. Surely, if this were
no fault, the word of God would not say so expressly that the rich man
who was tortured in hell had been clothed in purple and fine linen. No
one, forsooth, seeks costly apparel" (such, namely, as exceeds his
estate) "save for vainglory." Secondly, when a man seeks sensuous
pleasure from excessive attention to dress, in so far as dress is
directed to the body's comfort. Thirdly, when a man is too
solicitous [Question 55, Article 6] in his attention to outward
apparel.
Accordingly Andronicus [De Affectibus] reckons three virtues in
connection with outward attire; namely "humility," which excludes
the seeking of glory, wherefore he says that humility is "the habit of
avoiding excessive expenditure and parade"; "contentment"
[Question 143, Objection 4, which excludes the seeking of
sensuous pleasure, wherefore he says that "contentedness is the habit
that makes a man satisfied with what is suitable, and enables him to
determine what is becoming in his manner of life" (according to the
saying of the Apostle, 1 Tim. 6:8): "Having food and
wherewith to be covered, with these let us be content;"---and
"simplicity," which excludes excessive solicitude about such things,
wherefore he says that "simplicity is a habit that makes a man
contented with what he has."
In the point of deficiency there may be inordinate attachment in two
ways. First, through a man's neglect to give the requisite study or
trouble to the use of outward apparel. Wherefore the Philosopher says
(Ethic. vii, 7) that "it is a mark of effeminacy to let one's
cloak trail on the ground to avoid the trouble of lifting it up."
Secondly, by seeking glory from the very lack of attention to outward
attire. Hence Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii,
12) that "not only the glare and pomp of outward things, but even
dirt and the weeds of mourning may be a subject of ostentation, all the
more dangerous as being a decoy under the guise of God's service";
and the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7) that "both excess and
inordinate defect are a subject of ostentation."
Reply to Objection 1: Although outward attire does not come from
nature, it belongs to natural reason to moderate it; so that we are
naturally inclined to be the recipients of the virtue that moderates
outward raiment.
Reply to Objection 2: Those who are placed in a position of
dignity, or again the ministers of the altar, are attired in more
costly apparel than others, not for the sake of their own glory, but
to indicate the excellence of their office or of the Divine worship:
wherefore this is not sinful in them. Hence Augustine says (De
Doctr. Christ. iii, 12): "Whoever uses outward things in such
a way as to exceed the bounds observed by the good people among whom he
dwells, either signifies something by so doing, or is guilty of sin,
inasmuch as he uses these things for sensual pleasure or ostentation."
Likewise there may be sin on the part of deficiency: although it is
not always a sin to wear coarser clothes than other people. For, if
this be done through ostentation or pride, in order to set oneself
above others, it is a sin of superstition; whereas, if this be done
to tame the flesh, or to humble the spirit, it belongs to the virtue
of temperance. Hence Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. iii,
12): "Whoever uses transitory things with greater restraint than
is customary with those among whom he dwells, is either temperate or
superstitious." Especially, however, is the use of coarse raiment
befitting to those who by word and example urge others to repentance,
as did the prophets of whom the Apostle is speaking in the passage
quoted. Wherefore a gloss on Mt. 3:4, says: "He who preaches
penance, wears the garb of penance."
Reply to Objection 3: This outward apparel is an indication of
man's estate; wherefore excess, deficiency, and mean therein, are
referable to the virtue of truthfulness, which the Philosopher
(Ethic. ii, 7) assigns to deeds and words, which are indications
of something connected with man's estate.
|
|