|
Objection 1: It seems that effeminacy is not opposed to
perseverance. For a gloss on 1 Cor. 6:9,10, "Nor
adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind," expounds
the text thus: "Effeminate---i.e. obscene, given to unnatural
vice." But this is opposed to chastity. Therefore effeminacy is not
a vice opposed to perseverance.
Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7)
that "delicacy is a kind of effeminacy." But to be delicate seems
akin to intemperance. Therefore effeminacy is not opposed to
perseverance but to temperance.
Objection 3: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7)
that "the man who is fond of amusement is effeminate." Now
immoderate fondness of amusement is opposed to eutrapelia, which is the
virtue about pleasures of play, as stated in Ethic. iv, 8.
Therefore effeminacy is not opposed to perseverance.
On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7) that
"the persevering man is opposed to the effeminate."
I answer that, As stated above (Question 137, Articles
1,2), perseverance is deserving of praise because thereby a man
does not forsake a good on account of long endurance of difficulties and
toils: and it is directly opposed to this, seemingly, for a man to be
ready to forsake a good on account of difficulties which he cannot
endure. This is what we understand by effeminacy, because a thing is
said to be "soft" if it readily yields to the touch. Now a thing is
not declared to be soft through yielding to a heavy blow, for walls
yield to the battering-ram. Wherefore a man is not said to be
effeminate if he yields to heavy blows. Hence the Philosopher says
(Ethic. vii, 7) that "it is no wonder, if a person is overcome
by strong and overwhelming pleasures or sorrows; but he is to be
pardoned if he struggles against them." Now it is evident that fear
of danger is more impelling than the desire of pleasure: wherefore
Tully says (De Offic. i) under the heading "True magnanimity
consists of two things: It is inconsistent for one who is not cast
down by fear, to be defeated by lust, or who has proved himself
unbeaten by toil, to yield to pleasure." Moreover, pleasure itself
is a stronger motive of attraction than sorrow, for the lack of
pleasure is a motive of withdrawal, since lack of pleasure is a pure
privation. Wherefore, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii,
7), properly speaking an effeminate man is one who withdraws from
good on account of sorrow caused by lack of pleasure, yielding as it
were to a weak motion.
Reply to Objection 1: This effeminacy is caused in two ways. In
one way, by custom: for where a man is accustomed to enjoy pleasures,
it is more difficult for him to endure the lack of them. In another
way, by natural disposition, because, to wit, his mind is less
persevering through the frailty of his temperament. This is how women
are compared to men, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7):
wherefore those who are passively sodomitical are said to be
effeminate, being womanish themselves, as it were.
Reply to Objection 2: Toil is opposed to bodily pleasure:
wherefore it is only toilsome things that are a hindrance to pleasures.
Now the delicate are those who cannot endure toils, nor anything that
diminishes pleasure. Hence it is written (Dt. 28:56): "The
tender and delicate woman, that could not go upon the ground, nor set
down her foot for . . . softness." Thus delicacy is a kind of
effeminacy. But properly speaking effeminacy regards lack of
pleasures, while delicacy regards the cause that hinders pleasure, for
instance toil or the like.
Reply to Objection 3: In play two things may be considered. In
the first place there is the pleasure, and thus inordinate fondness of
play is opposed to eutrapelia. Secondly, we may consider the
relaxation or rest which is opposed to toil. Accordingly just as it
belongs to effeminacy to be unable to endure toilsome things, so too it
belongs thereto to desire play or any other relaxation inordinately.
|
|