Obj. 3: Further, meekness or mildness is included (Matt. 5:4) among the beat.i.tudes, and (Gal. 5:23) among the fruits. Now the virtues differ from the beat.i.tudes and fruits. Therefore they are not comprised under virtue.
_On the contrary,_ Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 5): "Every good man is conspicuous for his clemency and meekness." Now it is virtue properly that belongs to a good man, since "virtue it is that makes its possessor good, and renders his works good also" (Ethic. ii, 6).
Therefore clemency and meekness are virtues.
_I answer that,_ The nature of moral virtue consists in the subjection of appet.i.te to reason, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic.
i, 13). Now this is verified both in clemency and in meekness. For clemency, in mitigating punishment, "is guided by reason," according to Seneca (De Clementia ii, 5), and meekness, likewise, moderates anger according to right reason, as stated in _Ethic._ iv, 5.
Wherefore it is manifest that both clemency and meekness are virtues.
Reply Obj. 1: Meekness is not directly opposed to severity; for meekness is about anger. On the other hand, severity regards the external infliction of punishment, so that accordingly it would seem rather to be opposed to clemency, which also regards external punishing, as stated above (A. 1). Yet they are not really opposed to one another, since they are both according to right reason. For severity is inflexible in the infliction of punishment when right reason requires it; while clemency mitigates punishment also according to right reason, when and where this is requisite.
Wherefore they are not opposed to one another as they are not about the same thing.
Reply Obj. 2: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 5), "the habit that observes the mean in anger is unnamed; so that the virtue is denominated from the diminution of anger, and is designated by the name of meekness." For the virtue is more akin to diminution than to excess, because it is more natural to man to desire vengeance for injuries done to him, than to be lacking in that desire, since "scarcely anyone belittles an injury done to himself," as Sall.u.s.t observes [*Cf. Q. 120]. As to clemency, it mitigates punishment, not in respect of that which is according to right reason, but as regards that which is according to common law, which is the object of legal justice: yet on account of some particular consideration, it mitigates the punishment, deciding, as it were, that a man is not to be punished any further. Hence Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 1): "Clemency grants this, in the first place, that those whom she sets free are declared immune from all further punishment; and remission of punishment due amounts to a pardon." Wherefore it is clear that clemency is related to severity as equity [the Greek _epieikeia_ [*Cf. Q. 120]] to legal justice, whereof severity is a part, as regards the infliction of punishment in accordance with the law. Yet clemency differs from equity, as we shall state further on (A. 3, ad 1).
Reply Obj. 3: The beat.i.tudes are acts of virtue: while the fruits are delights in virtuous acts. Wherefore nothing hinders meekness being reckoned both virtue, and beat.i.tude and fruit.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 157, Art. 3]
Whether the Aforesaid Virtues Are Parts of Temperance?
Objection 1: It would seem that the aforesaid virtues are not parts of temperance. For clemency mitigates punishment, as stated above (A.
2). But the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 10) ascribes this to equity, which pertains to justice, as stated above (Q. 120, A. 2). Therefore seemingly clemency is not a part of temperance.
Obj. 2: Further, temperance is concerned with concupiscences; whereas meekness and clemency regard, not concupiscences, but anger and vengeance. Therefore they should not be reckoned parts of temperance.
Obj. 3: Further, Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 4): "A man may be said to be of unsound mind when he takes pleasure in cruelty." Now this is opposed to clemency and meekness. Since then an unsound mind is opposed to prudence, it seems that clemency and meekness are parts of prudence rather than of temperance.
_On the contrary,_ Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 3) that "clemency is temperance of the soul in exercising the power of taking revenge."
Tully also (De Invent. Rhet. ii, 54) reckons clemency a part of temperance.
_I answer that,_ Parts are a.s.signed to the princ.i.p.al virtues, in so far as they imitate them in some secondary matter as to the mode whence the virtue derives its praise and likewise its name. Thus the mode and name of justice consist in a certain _equality,_ those of fort.i.tude in a certain _strength of mind,_ those of temperance in a certain _restraint,_ inasmuch as it restrains the most vehement concupiscences of the pleasures of touch. Now clemency and meekness likewise consist in a certain restraint, since clemency mitigates punishment, while meekness represses anger, as stated above (AA. 1, 2). Therefore both clemency and meekness are annexed to temperance as princ.i.p.al virtue, and accordingly are reckoned to be parts thereof.
Reply Obj. 1: Two points must be considered in the mitigation of punishment. One is that punishment should be mitigated in accordance with the lawgiver"s intention, although not according to the letter of the law; and in this respect it pertains to equity. The other point is a certain moderation of a man"s inward disposition, so that he does not exercise his power of inflicting punishment. This belongs properly to clemency, wherefore Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 3) that "it is temperance of the soul in exercising the power of taking revenge." This moderation of soul comes from a certain sweetness of disposition, whereby a man recoils from anything that may be painful to another. Wherefore Seneca says (De Clementia ii, 3) that "clemency is a certain smoothness of the soul"; for, on the other hand, there would seem to be a certain roughness of soul in one who fears not to pain others.
Reply Obj. 2: The annexation of secondary to princ.i.p.al virtues depends on the mode of virtue, which is, so to speak, a kind of form of the virtue, rather than on the matter. Now meekness and clemency agree with temperance in mode, as stated above, though they agree not in matter.
Reply Obj. 3: _Unsoundness_ is corruption of _soundness._ Now just as soundness of body is corrupted by the body lapsing from the condition due to the human species, so unsoundness of mind is due to the mind lapsing from the disposition due to the human species. This occurs both in respect of the reason, as when a man loses the use of reason, and in respect of the appet.i.tive power, as when a man loses that humane feeling whereby "every man is naturally friendly towards all other men" (Ethic. viii, 1). The unsoundness of mind that excludes the use of reason is opposed to prudence. But that a man who takes pleasure in the punishment of others is said to be of unsound mind, is because he seems on this account to be devoid of the humane feeling which gives rise to clemency.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 157, Art. 4]
Whether Clemency and Meekness Are the Greatest Virtues?
Objection 1: It would seem that clemency and meekness are the greatest virtues. For virtue is deserving of praise chiefly because it directs man to happiness that consists in the knowledge of G.o.d.
Now meekness above all directs man to the knowledge of G.o.d: for it is written (James 1:21): "With meekness receive the ingrafted word," and (Ecclus. 5:13): "Be meek to hear the word" of G.o.d. Again, Dionysius says (Ep. viii ad Demophil.) that "Moses was deemed worthy of the Divine apparition on account of his great meekness." Therefore meekness is the greatest of virtues.
Obj. 2: Further, seemingly a virtue is all the greater according as it is more acceptable to G.o.d and men. Now meekness would appear to be most acceptable to G.o.d. For it is written (Ecclus. 1:34, 35): "That which is agreeable" to G.o.d is "faith and meekness"; wherefore Christ expressly invites us to be meek like unto Himself (Matt. 11:29), where He says: "Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart"; and Hilary declares [*Comment. in Matth. iv, 3] that "Christ dwells in us by our meekness of soul." Again, it is most acceptable to men; wherefore it is written (Ecclus. 3:19): "My son, do thy works in meekness, and thou shalt be beloved above the glory of men": for which reason it is also declared (Prov. 20:28) that the King"s "throne is strengthened by clemency." Therefore meekness and clemency are the greatest of virtues.
Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 2) that "the meek are they who yield to reproaches, and resist not evil, but overcome evil by good." Now this seems to pertain to mercy or piety which would seem to be the greatest of virtues: because a gloss of Ambrose [*Hilary the deacon] on 1 Tim. 4:8, "Piety [Douay: "G.o.dliness"] is profitable to all things," observes that "piety is the sum total of the Christian religion." Therefore meekness and clemency are the greatest virtues.
_On the contrary,_ They are not reckoned as princ.i.p.al virtues, but are annexed to another, as to a princ.i.p.al, virtue.
_I answer that,_ Nothing prevents certain virtues from being greatest, not indeed simply, nor in every respect, but in a particular genus. It is impossible for clemency or meekness to be absolutely the greatest virtues, since they owe their praise to the fact that they withdraw a man from evil, by mitigating anger or punishment. Now it is more perfect to obtain good than to lack evil.
Wherefore those virtues like faith, hope, charity, and likewise prudence and justice, which direct one to good simply, are absolutely greater virtues than clemency and meekness.
Yet nothing prevents clemency and meekness from having a certain restricted excellence among the virtues which resist evil inclinations. For anger, which is mitigated by meekness, is, on account of its impetuousness, a very great obstacle to man"s free judgment of truth: wherefore meekness above all makes a man self-possessed. Hence it is written (Ecclus. 10:31): "My son, keep thy soul in meekness." Yet the concupiscences of the pleasures of touch are more shameful, and hara.s.s more incessantly, for which reason temperance is more rightly reckoned as a princ.i.p.al virtue. as stated above (Q. 141, A. 7, ad 2). As to clemency, inasmuch as it mitigates punishment, it would seem to approach nearest to charity, the greatest of the virtues, since thereby we do good towards our neighbor, and hinder his evil.
Reply Obj. 1: Meekness disposes man to the knowledge of G.o.d, by removing an obstacle; and this in two ways. First, because it makes man self-possessed by mitigating his anger, as stated above; secondly, because it pertains to meekness that a man does not contradict the words of truth, which many do through being disturbed by anger. Wherefore Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 7): "To be meek is not to contradict Holy Writ, whether we understand it, if it condemn our evil ways, or understand it not, as though we might know better and have a clearer insight of the truth."
Reply Obj. 2: Meekness and clemency make us acceptable to G.o.d and men, in so far as they concur with charity, the greatest of the virtues, towards the same effect, namely the mitigation of our neighbor"s evils.
Reply Obj. 3: Mercy and piety agree indeed with meekness and clemency by concurring towards the same effect, namely the mitigation of our neighbor"s evils. Nevertheless they differ as to motive. For piety relieves a neighbor"s evil through reverence for a superior, for instance G.o.d or one"s parents: mercy relieves a neighbor"s evil, because this evil is displeasing to one, in so far as one looks upon it as affecting oneself, as stated above (Q. 30, A. 2): and this results from friendship which makes friends rejoice and grieve for the same things: meekness does this, by removing anger that urges to vengeance, and clemency does this through leniency of soul, in so far as it judges equitable that a person be no further punished.
_______________________
QUESTION 158
OF ANGER (In Eight Articles)
We must next consider the contrary vices: (1) Anger that is opposed to meekness; (2) Cruelty that is opposed to clemency. Concerning anger there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it is lawful to be angry?
(2) Whether anger is a sin?
(3) Whether it is a mortal sin?
(4) Whether it is the most grievous of sins?
(5) Of its species;
(6) Whether anger is a capital vice?
(7) Of its daughters;
(8) Whether it has a contrary vice?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 158, Art. 1]
Whether It Is Lawful to Be Angry?
Objection 1: It would seem that it cannot be lawful to be angry. For Jerome in his exposition on Matt. 5:22, "Whosoever is angry with his brother," etc. says: "Some codices add "without cause." However, in the genuine codices the sentence is unqualified, and anger is forbidden altogether." Therefore it is nowise lawful to be angry.
Obj. 2: Further, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) "The soul"s evil is to be without reason." Now anger is always without reason: for the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 6) that "anger does not listen perfectly to reason"; and Gregory says (Moral. v, 45) that "when anger sunders the tranquil surface of the soul, it mangles and rends it by its riot"; and Ca.s.sian says (De Inst. Caen.o.b. viii, 6): "From whatever cause it arises, the angry pa.s.sion boils over and blinds the eye of the mind." Therefore it is always evil to be angry.
Obj. 3: Further, anger is "desire for vengeance" [*Aristotle, Rhet.
ii, 2] according to a gloss on Lev. 19:17, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart." Now it would seem unlawful to desire vengeance, since this should be left to G.o.d, according to Deut.
32:35, "Revenge is Mine." Therefore it would seem that to be angry is always an evil.