|
Objection 1: It seems that the daughters of covetousness are not as
commonly stated, namely, "treachery, fraud, falsehood, perjury,
restlessness, violence, and insensibility to mercy." For
covetousness is opposed to liberality, as stated above (Article
3). Now treachery, fraud, and falsehood are opposed to prudence,
perjury to religion, restlessness to hope, or to charity which rests
in the beloved object, violence to justice, insensibility to mercy.
Therefore these vices have no connection with covetousness.
Objection 2: Further, treachery, fraud and falsehood seem to
pertain to the same thing, namely, the deceiving of one's neighbor.
Therefore they should not be reckoned as different daughters of
covetousness.
Objection 3: Further, Isidore (Comment. in Deut.) enumerates
nine daughters of covetousness; which are "lying, fraud, theft,
perjury, greed of filthy lucre, false witnessing, violence,
inhumanity, rapacity." Therefore the former reckoning of daughters
is insufficient.
Objection 4: Further, the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 1)
mentions many kinds of vices as belonging to covetousness which he calls
illiberality, for he speaks of those who are "sparing,
tight-fisted, skinflints [kyminopristes], misers [kimbikes], who
do illiberal deeds," and of those who "batten on whoredom, usurers,
gamblers, despoilers of the dead, and robbers." Therefore it seems
that the aforesaid enumeration is insufficient.
Objection 5: Further, tyrants use much violence against their
subjects. But the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 1) that
"tyrants who destroy cities and despoil sacred places are not to be
called illiberal," i.e. covetous. Therefore violence should not be
reckoned a daughter of covetousness.
On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. xxxi) assigns to covetousness
the daughters mentioned above.
I answer that, The daughters of covetousness are the vices which
arise therefrom, especially in respect of the desire of an end. Now
since covetousness is excessive love of possessing riches, it exceeds
in two things. For in the first place it exceeds in retaining, and in
this respect covetousness gives rise to "insensibility to mercy,"
because, to wit, a man's heart is not softened by mercy to assist the
needy with his riches [Question 30, Article 1]. In the second
place it belongs to covetousness to exceed in receiving, and in this
respect covetousness may be considered in two ways. First as in the
thought [affectu]. In this way it gives rise to "restlessness,"
by hindering man with excessive anxiety and care, for "a covetous man
shall not be satisfied with money" (Eccles. 5:9). Secondly,
it may be considered in the execution [effectu]. In this way the
covetous man, in acquiring other people's goods, sometimes employs
force, which pertains to "violence," sometimes deceit, and then if
he has recourse to words, it is "falsehood," if it be mere words,
"perjury" if he confirm his statement by oath; if he has recourse to
deeds, and the deceit affects things, we have "fraud"; if persons,
then we have "treachery," as in the case of Judas, who betrayed
Christ through covetousness.
Reply to Objection 1: There is no need for the daughters of a
capital sin to belong to that same kind of vice: because a sin of one
kind allows of sins even of a different kind being directed to its end;
seeing that it is one thing for a sin to have daughters, and another
for it to have species.
Reply to Objection 2: These three are distinguished as stated in
the Article.
Reply to Objection 3: These nine are reducible to the seven
aforesaid. For lying and false witnessing are comprised under
falsehood, since false witnessing is a special kind of lie, just as
theft is a special kind of fraud, wherefore it is comprised under
fraud; and greed of filthy lucre belongs to restlessness; rapacity is
comprised under violence, since it is a species thereof; and
inhumanity is the same as insensibility to mercy.
Reply to Objection 4: The vices mentioned by Aristotle are species
rather than daughters of illiberality or covetousness. For a man may
be said to be illiberal or covetous through a defect in giving. If he
gives but little he is said to be "sparing"; if nothing, he is
"tightfisted": if he gives with great reluctance, he is said to be
kyminopristes [skinflint], a cumin-seller, as it were, because he
makes a great fuss about things of little value. Sometimes a man is
said to be illiberal or covetous, through an excess in receiving, and
this in two ways. In one way, through making money by disgraceful
means, whether in performing shameful and servile works by means of
illiberal practices, or by acquiring more through sinful deeds, such
as whoredom or the like, or by making a profit where one ought to have
given gratis, as in the case of usury, or by laboring much to make
little profit. In another way, in making money by unjust means,
whether by using violence on the living, as robbers do, or by
despoiling the dead, or by preying on one's friends, as gamblers do.
Reply to Objection 5: Just as liberality is about moderate sums of
money, so is illiberality. Wherefore tyrants who take great things by
violence, are said to be, not illiberal, but unjust.
|
|