Secunda Secundae · Temperance

Of Shamefacedness

II-II, q. 144 · Four articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de partibus temperantiae in speciali. Et primo, de partibus quasi integralibus, quae sunt verecundia et honestas. Circa verecundiam autem quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum verecundia sit virtus. Secundo, de quibus sit verecundia. Tertio, a quibus homo verecundetur. Quarto, quorum sit verecundari.

We must now consider the parts of temperance in particular: and in the first place the integral parts, which are shamefacedness and honesty. With regard to shamefacedness there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether shamefacedness is a virtue?

(2) What is its object?

(3) Who are the cause of a man being ashamed?

(4) What kind of people are ashamed?

1 Whether Shamefacedness Is a Virtue?
2 Whether Shamefacedness Is About a Disgraceful Action?
3 Whether Man Is More Shamefaced of Those Who Are More Closely Connected with Him?
4 Whether Even Virtuous Men Can Be Ashamed?

Articulus I

Whether Shamefacedness Is a Virtue?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod verecundia sit virtus. Esse enim in medio secundum determinationem rationis est proprium virtutis, ut patet ex definitione virtutis quae ponitur in II Ethic. Sed verecundia consistit in tali medio, ut patet per philosophum, in II Ethic. Ergo verecundia est virtus.

It seems that shamefacedness is a virtue. For it is proper to a virtue "to observe the mean as fixed by reason": this is clear from the definition of virtue given in Ethic. ii, 6. Now shamefacedness observes the mean in this way, as the Philosopher observes (Ethic. ii, 7). Therefore shamefacedness is a virtue.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, omne laudabile vel est virtus, vel ad virtutem pertinet. Sed verecundia est quiddam laudabile. Non est autem pars alicuius virtutis. Non enim est pars prudentiae, quia non est in ratione, sed in appetitu. Neque etiam est pars iustitiae, quia verecundia passionem quandam importat, iustitia autem non est circa passiones. Similiter etiam non est pars fortitudinis, quia ad fortitudinem pertinet persistere et aggredi, ad verecundiam autem refugere aliquid. Neque etiam est pars temperantiae, quia temperantia est circa concupiscentias, verecundia autem est timor quidam, ut patet per philosophum, in IV Ethic., et per Damascenum, in II libro. Ergo relinquitur quod verecundia sit virtus.

Further, whatever is praiseworthy is either a virtue or something connected with virtue. Now shamefacedness is praiseworthy. But it is not part of a virtue. For it is not a part of prudence, since it is not in the reason but in the appetite; nor is it a part of justice. Since shamefacedness implies a certain passion, whereas justice is not about the passions; nor again is it a part of fortitude, because it belongs to fortitude to be persistent and aggressive, while it belongs to shamefacedness to recoil from something; nor lastly is it a part of temperance, since the latter is about desires, whereas shamefacedness is a kind of fear according as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iv, 9) and Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 15). Hence it follows that shamefacedness is a virtue.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, honestum cum virtute convertitur, ut patet per Tullium, in I de Offic. Sed verecundia est quaedam pars honestatis, dicit enim Ambrosius, in I de Offic., quod verecundia socia ac familiaris est mentis placiditati, proterviam fugitans, ab omni luxu aliena, sobrietatem diligit, et honestatem fovet, et decorem requirit. Ergo verecundia est virtus.

Further, the honest and the virtuous are convertible according to Tully (De Offic. i, 27). Now shamefacedness is a part of honesty: for Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 43) that "shamefacedness is the companion and familiar of the restful mind, averse to wantonness, a stranger to any kind of excess, the friend of sobriety and the support of what is honest, a seeker after the beautiful." Therefore shamefacedness is a virtue.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, omne vitium opponitur alicui virtuti. Sed quaedam vitia opponuntur verecundiae, scilicet inverecundia et inordinatus stupor. Ergo verecundia est virtus.

Further, every vice is opposed to a virtue. Now certain vices are opposed to shamefacedness, namely shamelessness and inordinate prudery. Therefore shamefacedness is a virtue.

Arg. 5 Objection 5

Praeterea, ex actibus similes habitus generantur, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed verecundia importat actum laudabilem. Ergo ex multis talibus actibus causatur habitus. Sed habitus laudabilium operum est virtus, ut patet per philosophum, in I Ethic. Ergo verecundia est virtus.

Further, "like acts beget like habits," according to Ethic. ii, 1. Now shamefacedness implies a praiseworthy act; wherefore from many such acts a habit results. But a habit of praiseworthy deeds is a virtue, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. i, 12). Therefore shamefacedness is a virtue.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod philosophus, in II et IV Ethic., dicit verecundiam non esse virtutem.

On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 7; iv, 9) that shamefacedness is not a virtue.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod virtus dupliciter accipitur, proprie scilicet, et communiter. Proprie quidem virtus perfectio quaedam est, ut dicitur in VII Physic. Et ideo omne illud quod repugnat perfectioni, etiam si sit bonum, deficit a ratione virtutis. Verecundia autem repugnat perfectioni. Est enim timor alicuius turpis, quod scilicet est exprobrabile, unde Damascenus dicit quod verecundia est timor de turpi actu. Sicut autem spes est de bono possibili et arduo, ita etiam timor est de malo possibili et arduo, ut supra habitum est, cum de passionibus ageretur. Ille autem qui est perfectus secundum habitum virtutis, non apprehendit aliquod exprobrabile et turpe ad faciendum ut possibile et arduum, idest difficile ad vitandum, neque etiam actu facit aliquid turpe, unde opprobrium timeat. Unde verecundia, proprie loquendo, non est virtus, deficit enim a perfectione virtutis. Communiter autem virtus dicitur omne quod est bonum et laudabile in humanis actibus vel passionibus. Et secundum hoc, verecundia quandoque dicitur virtus, cum sit quaedam laudabilis passio.

I answer that, Virtue is taken in two ways, in a strict sense and in a broad sense. Taken strictly virtue is a perfection, as stated in Phys. vii, 17, 18. Wherefore anything that is inconsistent with perfection, though it be good, falls short of the notion of virtue. Now shamefacedness is inconsistent with perfection, because it is the fear of something base, namely of that which is disgraceful. Hence Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 15) that "shamefacedness is fear of a base action." Now just as hope is about a possible and difficult good, so is fear about a possible and arduous evil, as stated above (I-II, Q. 40, A. 1; Q. 41, A. 2; Q. 42, A. 3), when we were treating of the passions. But one who is perfect as to a virtuous habit, does not apprehend that which would be disgraceful and base to do, as being possible and arduous, that is to say difficult for him to avoid; nor does he actually do anything base, so as to be in fear of disgrace. Therefore shamefacedness, properly speaking, is not a virtue, since it falls short of the perfection of virtue.

Taken, however, in a broad sense virtue denotes whatever is good and praiseworthy in human acts or passions; and in this way shamefacedness is sometimes called a virtue, since it is a praiseworthy passion.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod esse in medio non sufficit ad rationem virtutis, quamvis sit una particula posita in virtutis definitione, sed requiritur ulterius quod sit habitus electivus, idest ex electione operans. Verecundia autem non nominat habitum, sed passionem. Neque motus eius est ex electione, sed ex impetu quodam passionis. Unde deficit a ratione virtutis.

Observing the mean is not sufficient for the notion of virtue, although it is one of the conditions included in virtue's definition: but it is requisite, in addition to this, that it be "an elective habit," that is to say, operating from choice. Now shamefacedness denotes, not a habit but a passion, nor does its movement result from choice, but from an impulse of passion. Hence it falls short of the notion of virtue.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, verecundia est timor turpitudinis et exprobrationis. Dictum est autem supra quod vitium intemperantiae est turpissimum et maxime exprobrabile. Et ideo verecundia principalius pertinet ad temperantiam quam ad aliquam aliam virtutem, ratione motivi, quod est turpe, non autem secundum speciem passionis, quae est timor. Secundum tamen quod vitia aliis virtutibus opposita sunt turpia et exprobrabilia, potest etiam verecundia ad alias virtutes pertinere.

As stated above, shamefacedness is fear of baseness and disgrace. Now it has been stated (Q. 142, A. 4) that the vice of intemperance is most base and disgraceful. Wherefore shamefacedness pertains more to temperance than to any other virtue, by reason of its motive cause, which is a base action though not according to the species of the passion, namely fear. Nevertheless in so far as the vices opposed to other virtues are base and disgraceful, shamefacedness may also pertain to other virtues.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod verecundia fovet honestatem removendo ea quae sunt honestati contraria, non ita quod pertingat ad perfectam rationem honestatis.

Shamefacedness fosters honesty, by removing that which is contrary thereto, but not so as to attain to the perfection of honesty.

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod quilibet defectus causat vitium, non autem quodlibet bonum sufficit ad rationem virtutis. Et ideo non oportet quod omne illud cui directe opponitur vitium, sit virtus. Quamvis omne vitium opponatur alicui virtuti secundum suam originem. Et sic inverecundia, inquantum provenit ex nimio amore turpitudinum, opponitur temperantiae.

Every defect causes a vice, but not every good is sufficient for the notion of virtue. Consequently it does not follow that whatever is directly opposed to vice is a virtue, although every vice is opposed to a virtue, as regards its origin. Hence shamelessness, in so far as it results from excessive love of disgraceful things, is opposed to temperance.

Ad 5 Reply to Objection 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod ex multoties verecundari causatur habitus virtutis acquisitae per quam aliquis turpia vitet, de quibus est verecundia, non autem ut aliquis ulterius verecundetur. Sed ex illo habitu virtutis acquisitae sic se habet aliquis quod magis verecundaretur si materia verecundiae adesset.

Being frequently ashamed causes the habit of an acquired virtue whereby one avoids disgraceful things which are the object of shamefacedness, without continuing to be ashamed in their regard: although as a consequence of this acquired virtue, a man would be more ashamed, if confronted with the matter of shamefacedness.

Articulus II

Whether Shamefacedness Is About a Disgraceful Action?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod verecundia non sit de turpi actu. Dicit enim philosophus, in IV Ethic., quod verecundia est timor ingloriationis. Sed quandoque illi qui nihil turpe operantur, ingloriationem sustinent, secundum illud Psalmi, propter te sustinui opprobrium, operuit confusio faciem meam. Ergo verecundia non est proprie de turpi actu.

It would seem that shamefacedness is not about a disgraceful action. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 9) that "shamefacedness is fear of disgrace." Now sometimes those who do nothing wrong suffer ignominy, according to Ps. 67:8, "For thy sake I have borne reproach, shame hath covered my face." Therefore shamefacedness is not properly about a disgraceful action.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, illa solum videntur esse turpia quae habent rationem peccati. Sed de quibusdam homo verecundatur quae non sunt peccata, puta si aliquis exerceat servilia opera. Ergo videtur quod verecundia non sit proprie de turpi actu.

Further, nothing apparently is disgraceful but what is sinful. Yet man is ashamed of things that are not sins, for instance when he performs a menial occupation. Therefore it seems that shamefacedness is not properly about a disgraceful action.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, operationes virtutum non sunt turpes, sed pulcherrimae, ut dicitur in I Ethic. Sed quandoque aliqui verecundantur aliqua opera virtutis facere, ut dicitur Luc. IX, qui erubuerit me et meos sermones, hunc filius hominis erubescet, et cetera. Ergo verecundia non est de turpi actu.

Further, virtuous deeds are not disgraceful but most beautiful according to Ethic. i, 8. Yet sometimes people are ashamed to do virtuous deeds, according to Luke 9:26, "He that shall be ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of man shall be ashamed," etc. Therefore shamefacedness is not about a disgraceful action.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, si verecundia proprie esset de turpi actu, oporteret quod de magis turpibus homo magis verecundaretur. Sed quandoque homo plus verecundatur de his quae sunt minus peccata, cum tamen de gravissimis quibusdam peccatis glorientur, secundum illud Psalmi, quid gloriaris in malitia? Ergo verecundia non proprie est de turpi actu.

Further, if shamefacedness were properly about a disgraceful action, it would follow that the more disgraceful the action the more ashamed would one be. Yet sometimes a man is more ashamed of lesser sins, while he glories in those which are most grievous, according to Ps. 51:3, "Why dost thou glory in malice?" Therefore shamefacedness is not properly about a disgraceful action.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, in II libro, et Gregorius Nyssenus, quod verecundia est timor in turpi actu, vel in turpi perpetrato.

On the contrary, Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 15) and Gregory of Nyssa [Nemesius, (De Nat. Hom. xx)] say that "shamefacedness is fear of doing a disgraceful deed or of a disgraceful deed done."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, cum de passione timoris ageretur, timor proprie est de malo arduo, quod scilicet difficile vitatur. Est autem duplex turpitudo. Una quidem vitiosa, quae scilicet consistit in deformitate actus voluntarii. Et haec, proprie loquendo, non habet rationem mali ardui, quod enim in sola voluntate consistit, non videtur esse arduum et elevatum supra hominis potestatem, et propter hoc non apprehenditur sub ratione terribilis. Et propter hoc philosophus dicit, in II Rhet., quod horum malorum non est timor. Alia autem est turpitudo quasi poenalis, quae quidem consistit in vituperatione alicuius, sicut quaedam claritas gloriae consistit in honoratione alicuius. Et quia huiusmodi vituperium habet rationem mali ardui, sicut honor habet rationem boni ardui; verecundia, quae est timor turpitudinis, primo et principaliter respicit vituperium seu opprobrium. Et quia vituperium proprie debetur vitio, sicut honor virtuti, ideo etiam ex consequenti verecundia respicit turpitudinem vitiosam. Unde, sicut philosophus dicit, in II Rhet., minus homo verecundatur de defectibus qui non ex eius culpa proveniunt. Respicit autem verecundia culpam dupliciter. Uno modo, ut aliquis desinat vitiosa agere, propter timorem vituperii. Alio modo, ut homo in turpibus quae agit vitet publicos conspectus, propter timorem vituperii. Quorum primum, secundum Gregorium Nyssenum, pertinet ad erubescentiam, secundum ad verecundiam, unde ipse dicit quod qui verecundatur, occultat se in his quae agit, qui vero erubescit, timet incidere in ingloriationem.

I answer that, As stated above (I-II, Q. 41, A. 2; Q. 42, A. 3), when we were treating of the passions, fear is properly about an arduous evil, one, namely, that is difficult to avoid. Now disgrace is twofold. There is the disgrace inherent to vice, which consists in the deformity of a voluntary act: and this, properly speaking, has not the character of an arduous evil. For that which depends on the will alone does not appear to be arduous and above man's ability: wherefore it is not apprehended as fearful, and for this reason the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that such evils are not a matter of fear.

The other kind of disgrace is penal so to speak, and it consists in the reproach that attaches to a person, just as the clarity of glory consists in a person being honored. And since this reproach has the character of an arduous evil, just as honor has the character of an arduous good, shamefacedness, which is fear of disgrace, regards first and foremost reproach or ignominy. And since reproach is properly due to vice, as honor is due to virtue, it follows that shamefacedness regards also the disgrace inherent to vice. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 5) that "a man is less ashamed of those defects which are not the result of any fault of his own."

Now shamefacedness regards fault in two ways. In one way a man refrains from vicious acts through fear of reproach: in another way a man while doing a disgraceful deed avoids the public eye through fear of reproach. In the former case, according to Gregory of Nyssa (Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xx), we speak of a person "blushing," in the latter we say that he is "ashamed." Hence he says that "the man who is ashamed acts in secret, but he who blushes fears to be disgraced."

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verecundia proprie respicit ingloriationem secundum quod debetur culpae, quae est defectus voluntarius. Unde philosophus dicit, in II Rhet., quod omnia illa homo magis verecundatur quorum ipse est causa. Opprobria autem quae inferuntur alicui propter virtutem, virtuosus quidem contemnit, quia indigne sibi irrogantur, sicut de magnanimis philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic.; et de apostolis dicitur Act. V, quod ibant apostoli gaudentes a conspectu Concilii, quoniam digni habiti sunt pro nomine Iesu contumeliam pati. Ex imperfectione autem virtutis contingit quod aliquis verecundetur de opprobriis quae sibi inferuntur propter virtutem, quia quanto aliquis est magis virtuosus, tanto magis contemnit exteriora bona vel mala. Unde dicitur Isaiae li, noli timere opprobrium hominum.

Shamefacedness properly regards disgrace as due to sin which is a voluntary defect. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 6) that "a man is more ashamed of those things of which he is the cause." Now the virtuous man despises the disgrace to which he is subject on account of virtue, because he does not deserve it; as the Philosopher says of the magnanimous (Ethic. iv, 3). Thus we find it said of the apostles (Acts 5:41) that "they (the apostles) went from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus." It is owing to imperfection of virtue that a man is sometimes ashamed of the reproaches which he suffers on account of virtue, since the more virtuous a man is, the more he despises external things, whether good or evil. Wherefore it is written (Isa. 51:7): "Fear ye not the reproach of men."

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod sicut honor, ut supra habitum est, quamvis non debeatur vere nisi soli virtuti, respicit tamen quandam excellentiam; ita etiam vituperium, quamvis debeatur proprie soli culpae, respicit tamen, ad minus secundum opinionem hominum, quemcumque defectum. Et ideo de paupertate et ignobilitate et servitute, et aliis huiusmodi, aliquis verecundatur.

As stated above (Q. 63, A. 3), though honor is not really due save to virtue alone, yet it regards a certain excellence: and the same applies to reproach, for though it is properly due to sin alone, yet, at least in man's opinion, it regards any kind of defect. Hence a man is ashamed of poverty, disrepute, servitude, and the like.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod de operibus virtuosis in se consideratis non est verecundia. Contingit tamen per accidens quod aliquis de eis verecundetur, vel inquantum habentur ut vitiosa secundum hominum opinionem; vel inquantum homo refugit in operibus virtutis notam de praesumptione, aut etiam de simulatione.

Shamefacedness does not regard virtuous deeds as such. Yet it happens accidentally that a man is ashamed of them either because he looks upon them as vicious according to human opinion, or because he is afraid of being marked as presumptuous or hypocritical for doing virtuous deeds.

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod quandoque contingit aliqua graviora peccata minus esse verecundabilia, vel quia habent minus de ratione turpitudinis, sicut peccata spiritualia quam carnalia, vel quia in quodam excessu temporalis boni se habent, sicut magis verecundatur homo de timiditate quam de audacia, et de furto quam de rapina, propter quandam speciem potestatis. Et simile est in aliis.

Sometimes more grievous sins are less shameful, either because they are less disgraceful, as spiritual sins in comparison with sins of the flesh, or because they connote a certain abundance of some temporal good; thus a man is more ashamed of cowardice than of daring, of theft than of robbery, on account of a semblance of power. The same applies to other sins.

Articulus III

Whether Man Is More Shamefaced of Those Who Are More Closely Connected with Him?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod homo non magis verecundetur a personis coniunctis. Dicitur enim in II Rhet. quod homines magis erubescunt ab illis a quibus volunt in admiratione haberi. Sed hoc maxime appetit homo a melioribus, qui quandoque non sunt magis coniuncti. Ergo homo non magis erubescit de magis coniunctis.

It would seem that man is not more shamefaced of those who are more closely connected with him. For it is stated in Rhet. ii, 6 that "men are more shamefaced of those from whom they desire approbation." Now men desire this especially from people of the better sort who are sometimes not connected with them. Therefore man is not more shamefaced of those who are more closely connected with him.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, illi videntur esse magis coniuncti qui sunt similium operum. Sed homo non erubescit de suo peccato ab his quos scit simili peccato subiacere, quia sicut dicitur in II Rhet., quae quis ipse facit, haec proximis non vetat. Ergo homo non magis verecundatur a maxime coniunctis.

Further, seemingly those are more closely connected who perform like deeds. Now man is not made ashamed of his sin by those whom he knows to be guilty of the same sin, because according to Rhet. ii, 6, "a man does not forbid his neighbor what he does himself." Therefore he is not more shamefaced of those who are most closely connected with him.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in II Rhet., quod homo magis verecundatur ab his qui propalant multis quod sciunt, sicut sunt irrisores et fabularum fictores. Sed illi qui sunt magis coniuncti non solent vitia propalare. Ergo ab eis non maxime est verecundandum.

Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 6) that "men take more shame from those who retail their information to many, such as jokers and fable-tellers." But those who are more closely connected with a man do not retail his vices. Therefore one should not take shame chiefly from them.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, philosophus, ibidem, dicit quod homines maxime verecundantur ab eis inter quos in nullo defecerunt; et ab eis a quibus primo aliquid postulant; et quorum nunc primo volunt esse amici. Huiusmodi autem sunt minus coniuncti. Ergo non magis verecundatur homo de magis coniunctis.

Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 6) that "men are most liable to be made ashamed by those among whom they have done nothing amiss; by those of whom they ask something for the first time; by those whose friends they wish to become." Now these are less closely connected with us. Therefore man is not made most ashamed by those who are more closely united to him.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur in II Rhet., quod eos qui semper aderunt, homines magis erubescunt.

On the contrary, It is stated in Rhet. ii, 6 that "man is made most ashamed by those who are to be continually with him."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, cum vituperium opponatur honori, sicut honor importat testimonium quoddam de excellentia alicuius, et praecipue quae est secundum virtutem; ita etiam opprobrium, cuius timor est verecundia, importat testimonium de defectu alicuius, et praecipue secundum aliquam culpam. Et ideo quanto testimonium alicuius reputatur maioris ponderis, tanto ab eo aliquis magis verecundatur. Potest autem testimonium aliquod maioris ponderis reputari vel propter eius certitudinem veritatis vel propter effectum. Certitudo autem veritatis adest testimonio alicuius propter duo. Uno quidem modo, propter rectitudinem iudicii, sicut patet de sapientibus et virtuosis, a quibus homo et magis desiderat honorari, et magis verecundatur. Unde a pueris et bestiis nullus verecundatur, propter defectum recti iudicii qui est in eis. Alio modo, propter cognitionem eorum de quibus est testimonium, quia unusquisque bene iudicat quae cognoscit. Et sic magis verecundamur a personis coniunctis, quae magis facta nostra considerant. A peregrinis autem et omnino ignotis, ad quos facta nostra non perveniunt, nullo modo verecundamur. Ex effectu autem est aliquod testimonium magni ponderis propter iuvamentum vel nocumentum ab eo proveniens. Et ideo magis desiderant homines honorari ab his qui possunt eos iuvare, et magis verecundantur ab eis qui possunt nocere. Et inde est etiam quod, quantum ad aliquid, magis verecundamur a personis coniunctis, cum quibus semper sumus conversaturi, quasi ex hoc nobis perpetuum proveniat detrimentum. Quod autem provenit a peregrinis et transeuntibus, quasi cito pertransit.

I answer that, Since reproach is opposed to honor, just as honor denotes attestation to someone's excellence, especially the excellence which is according to virtue, so too reproach, the fear of which is shamefacedness, denotes attestation to a person's defect, especially that which results from sin. Hence the more weighty a person's attestation is considered to be, the more does he make another person ashamed. Now a person's attestation may be considered as being more weighty, either because he is certain of the truth or because of its effect. Certitude of the truth attaches to a person's attestations for two reasons. First on account of the rectitude of his judgement, as in the case of wise and virtuous men, by whom man is more desirous of being honored and by whom he is brought to a greater sense of shame. Hence children and the lower animals inspire no one with shame, by reason of their lack of judgment. Secondly, on account of his knowledge of the matter attested, because "everyone judges well of what is known to him" [Ethic. i, 3]. In this way we are more liable to be made ashamed by persons connected with us, since they are better acquainted with our deeds: whereas strangers and persons entirely unknown to us, who are ignorant of what we do, inspire us with no shame at all.

An attestation receives weight from its effect by reason of some advantage or harm resulting therefrom; wherefore men are more desirous of being honored by those who can be of use to them, and are more liable to be made ashamed by those who are able to do them some harm. And for this reason again, in a certain respect, persons connected with us make us more ashamed, since we are to be continually in their society, as though this entailed a continual harm to us: whereas the harm that comes from strangers and passersby ceases almost at once.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod similis ratio est propter quam verecundamur de melioribus, et de magis coniunctis. Quia sicut meliorum testimonium reputatur magis efficax propter universalem cognitionem quam habent de rebus, et immutabilem sententiam a veritate; ita etiam familiarium personarum testimonium videtur magis efficax propter hoc quia magis cognoscunt particularia quae circa nos sunt.

People of the better sort make us ashamed for the same reason as those who are more closely connected with us; because just as the attestation of the better men carries more weight since they have a more universal knowledge of things, and in their judgments hold fast to the truth: so, too, the attestation of those among whom we live is more cogent since they know more about our concerns in detail.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod testimonium eorum qui sunt nobis coniuncti in similitudine peccati, non reformidamus, quia non aestimamus quod defectum nostrum apprehendant ut aliquid turpe.

We fear not the attestation of those who are connected with us in the likeness of sin, because we do not think that they look upon our defect as disgraceful.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod a propalantibus verecundamur propter nocumentum inde proveniens, quod est diffamatio apud multos.

Tale-bearers make us ashamed on account of the harm they do by making many think ill of us.

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod etiam ab illis inter quos nihil mali fecimus, magis verecundamur, propter nocumentum sequens, quia scilicet per hoc amittimus bonam opinionem quam de nobis habebant. Et etiam quia contraria, iuxta se posita, maiora videntur, unde cum aliquis subito de aliquo quem bonum aestimavit, aliquid turpe percipit, apprehendit hoc ut turpius. Ab illis autem a quibus aliquid de novo postulamus, vel quorum nunc primo volumus esse amici, magis verecundamur, propter nocumentum inde proveniens, quod est impedimentum implendae petitionis et amicitiae consummandae.

Even those among whom we have done no wrong, make us more ashamed, on account of the harm that would follow, because, to wit, we should forfeit the good opinion they had of us: and again because when contraries are put in juxtaposition their opposition seems greater, so that when a man notices something disgraceful in one whom he esteemed good, he apprehends it as being the more disgraceful. The reason why we are made more ashamed by those of whom we ask something for the first time, or whose friends we wish to be, is that we fear to suffer some injury, by being disappointed in our request, or by failing to become their friends.

Articulus IV

Whether Even Virtuous Men Can Be Ashamed?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod etiam in virtuosis hominibus possit esse verecundia. Contrariorum enim contrarii sunt effectus. Sed illi qui sunt superabundantis malitiae non verecundantur, secundum illud Ierem. III, species meretricis facta est tibi, nescisti erubescere. Ergo illi qui sunt virtuosi magis verecundantur.

It would seem that even virtuous men can be ashamed. For contraries have contrary effects. Now those who excel in wickedness are not ashamed, according to Jer. 3:3, "Thou hadst a harlot's forehead, thou wouldst not blush." Therefore those who are virtuous are more inclined to be ashamed.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in II Rhet., quod homines non solum erubescunt vitia, sed etiam signa vitiorum. Quae quidem contingit etiam esse in virtuosis. Ergo in virtuosis potest esse verecundia.

Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 6) that "men are ashamed not only of vice, but also of the signs of evil": and this happens also in the virtuous. Therefore virtuous men can be ashamed.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, verecundia est timor ingloriationis. Sed contingit aliquos virtuosos ingloriosos esse, puta si falso infamantur, vel etiam indigne opprobria patiantur. Ergo verecundia potest esse in homine virtuoso.

Further, shamefacedness is "fear of disgrace" [Ethic. iv, 9]. Now virtuous people may happen to be ignominious, for instance if they are slandered, or if they suffer reproach undeservedly. Therefore a virtuous man can be ashamed.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, verecundia est pars temperantiae, ut dictum est. Pars autem non separatur a toto. Cum igitur temperantia sit in homine virtuoso, videtur quod etiam verecundia.

Further, shamefacedness is a part of temperance, as stated above (Q. 143). Now a part is not separated from its whole. Since then temperance is in a virtuous man, it means that shamefacedness is also.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod verecundia non est hominis studiosi.

On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 9) that a "virtuous man is not shamefaced."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, verecundia est timor alicuius turpitudinis. Quod autem aliquod malum non timeatur, potest duplici ratione contingere, uno modo, quia non aestimatur ut malum; alio modo, quia non aestimatur ut possibile, vel ut difficile vitari. Et secundum hoc, verecundia in aliquo deficit dupliciter. Uno modo, quia ea quae sunt erubescibilia, non apprehenduntur ut turpia. Et hoc modo carent verecundia homines in peccatis profundati, quibus sua peccata non displicent, sed magis de eis gloriantur. Alio modo, quia non apprehendunt turpitudinem ut possibilem sibi, vel quasi non facile vitabilem. Et hoc modo senes et virtuosi verecundia carent. Sunt tamen sic dispositi ut, si in eis esset aliquid turpe, de hoc verecundarentur, unde philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod verecundia est ex suppositione studiosi.

I answer that, As stated above (AA. 1, 2) shamefacedness is fear of some disgrace. Now it may happen in two ways that an evil is not feared: first, because it is not reckoned an evil; secondly because one reckons it impossible with regard to oneself, or as not difficult to avoid.

Accordingly shame may be lacking in a person in two ways. First, because the things that should make him ashamed are not deemed by him to be disgraceful; and in this way those who are steeped in sin are without shame, for instead of disapproving of their sins, they boast of them. Secondly, because they apprehend disgrace as impossible to themselves, or as easy to avoid. In this way the old and the virtuous are not shamefaced. Yet they are so disposed, that if there were anything disgraceful in them they would be ashamed of it. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 9) that "shame is in the virtuous hypothetically."

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod defectus verecundiae contingit in pessimis et optimis viris ex diversis causis, ut dictum est. Invenitur autem in his qui mediocriter se habent, secundum quod est in eis aliquid de amore boni, et tamen non totaliter sunt immunes a malo.

Lack of shame occurs in the best and in the worst men through different causes, as stated in the Article. In the average men it is found, in so far as they have a certain love of good, and yet are not altogether free from evil.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ad virtuosum pertinet non solum vitare vitia, sed etiam ea quae habent speciem vitiorum, secundum illud I ad Thess. V, ab omni specie mala abstinete vos. Et philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic., quod vitanda sunt virtuoso tam ea quae sunt mala secundum veritatem, quam ea quae sunt mala secundum opinionem.

It belongs to the virtuous man to avoid not only vice, but also whatever has the semblance of vice, according to 1 Thess. 5:22, "From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves." The Philosopher, too, says (Ethic. iv, 9) that the virtuous man should avoid "not only what is really evil, but also those things that are regarded as evil."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod infamationes et opprobria virtuosus, ut dictum est, contemnit, quasi ea quibus ipse non est dignus. Et ideo de his nemo multum verecundatur. Est tamen aliquis motus verecundiae praeveniens rationem, sicut et ceterarum passionum.

As stated above (A. 1, ad 1) the virtuous man despises ignominy and reproach, as being things he does not deserve, wherefore he is not much ashamed of them. Nevertheless, to a certain extent, shame, like the other passions, may forestall reason.

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod verecundia non est pars temperantiae quasi intrans essentiam eius, sed quasi dispositive se habens ad ipsam. Unde Ambrosius dicit, in I de Offic., quod verecundia iacit prima temperantiae fundamenta, inquantum scilicet incutit horrorem turpitudinis.

Shamefacedness is a part of temperance, not as though it entered into its essence, but as a disposition to it: wherefore Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 43) that "shamefacedness lays the first foundation of temperance," by inspiring man with the horror of whatever is disgraceful.

Showing Thomas's answers only.