|
Objection 1: It seems that vainglory is not opposed to magnanimity.
For, as stated above (Article 1), vainglory consists in glorying
in things that are not, which pertains to falsehood; or in earthly and
perishable things, which pertains to covetousness; or in the testimony
of men, whose judgment is uncertain, which pertains to imprudence.
Now these vices are not contrary to magnanimity. Therefore vainglory
is not opposed to magnanimity.
Objection 2: Further, vainglory is not, like pusillanimity,
opposed to magnanimity by way of deficiency, for this seems
inconsistent with vainglory. Nor is it opposed to it by way of
excess, for in this way presumption and ambition are opposed to
magnanimity, as stated above (Question 130, Article 2;
Question 131, Article 2): and these differ from vainglory.
Therefore vainglory is not opposed to magnanimity.
Objection 3: Further, a gloss on Phil. 2:3, "Let nothing be
done through contention, neither by vainglory," says: "Some among
them were given to dissension and restlessness, contending with one
another for the sake of vainglory." But contention [Question 38]
is not opposed to magnanimity. Neither therefore is vainglory.
On the contrary, Tully says (De Offic. i) under the heading,
"Magnanimity consists in two things: We should beware of the desire
for glory, since it enslaves the mind, which a magnanimous man should
ever strive to keep untrammeled." Therefore it is opposed to
magnanimity.
I answer that, As stated above (Question 103, Article 1, ad
3), glory is an effect of honor and praise: because from the fact
that a man is praised, or shown any kind of reverence, he acquires
charity in the knowledge of others. And since magnanimity is about
honor, as stated above (Question 129, Articles 1,2), it
follows that it also is about glory: seeing that as a man uses honor
moderately, so too does he use glory in moderation. Wherefore
inordinate desire of glory is directly opposed to magnanimity.
Reply to Objection 1: To think so much of little things as to glory
in them is itself opposed to magnanimity. Wherefore it is said of the
magnanimous man (Ethic. iv) that honor is of little account to him.
In like manner he thinks little of other things that are sought for
honor's sake, such as power and wealth. Likewise it is inconsistent
with magnanimity to glory in things that are not; wherefore it is said
of the magnanimous man (Ethic. iv) that he cares more for truth than
for opinion. Again it is incompatible with magnanimity for a man to
glory in the testimony of human praise, as though he deemed this
something great; wherefore it is said of the magnanimous man (Ethic.
iv), that he cares not to be praised. And so, when a man looks upon
little things as though they were great, nothing hinders this from
being contrary to magnanimity, as well as to other virtues.
Reply to Objection 2: He that is desirous of vainglory does in
truth fall short of being magnanimous, because he glories in what the
magnanimous man thinks little of, as stated in the preceding Reply.
But if we consider his estimate, he is opposed to the magnanimous man
by way of excess, because the glory which he seeks is something great
in his estimation, and he tends thereto in excess of his deserts.
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question 127, Article
2, ad 2), the opposition of vices does not depend on their
effects. Nevertheless contention, if done intentionally, is opposed
to magnanimity: since no one contends save for what he deems great.
Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 3) that the
magnanimous man is not contentious, because nothing is great in his
estimation.
|
|