The Magnanimous Man A Case For Aristotle

ST BONAVENTURE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
THE NOTION OF MAGNANIMOUS MAN: A CASE FOR ARISTOTLE

AND THOMAS AQUINAS
A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the BA

Degree in Philosophy
Student:
Jacques Kilulu KITUA, OFM Conv
Moderator:
Lucas GOLOLOMBE, OFM, MA
Lusaka - Zambia 2015

DECLARATION
I hereby certify that, this thesis is a result of my own work and that all the
sources I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged as complete
references.
Signature: Date:
………………………. ..…/..…/……….
Candidate: Jacques Kilulu KITUA
Signature: Date:
……………………… ..…/..…/……....
Moderator: Lucas GOLOLOMBE, OFM.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................ i
DEDICATION .......................................................................................................................... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................ vi
GENERAL INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER I............................................................................................................................... 3
THE MAGNANIMOUS MAN IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF ARISTOTLE ............................ 3
1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 The Contrast Between The Magnanimous Man And Other Men ............................... 3
1.2 The Magnanimous Man And Honor ........................................................................... 5
1.3 Magnanimous Man And Courage ............................................................................... 6
1.4 Magnanimity As The Crown of All Virtues................................................................ 8
1.5 Nobility As A Character of The Magnanimous Man .................................................. 8
1.6 The Magnanimous Man Is Not a Slave of Honor ....................................................... 9
1.7 The Magnanimous Man And His Use Of Power ...................................................... 11
1.8 Magnanimous Man and His Use of Wealth .............................................................. 12
1.9 He Confers Benefits But He is Ashamed of Receiving Them .................................. 13
1.10 He is Unmindful of Services ................................................................................... 14
1.11 His attitude towards others ...................................................................................... 15
1.12 His Attitude Towards Things Held In Honor .......................................................... 16
1.13 His Openness to Hates and Love ............................................................................ 16
1.14 He Is Unmindful of Wrongs .................................................................................... 17
1.15 He Does Not Gossip ................................................................................................. 17
1.16 Step By Step Is Part of His Character ..................................................................... 18
1.17 Comment ................................................................................................................. 19
ii
1.18 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER II ........................................................................................................................... 21
THE MAGNANIMOUS MAN IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS ...... 21
2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 21
2.1 The Difference In Outlook Between The Magnanimous Man of St. Thomas
Aquinas and Aristotle .......................................................................................................... 21
2.2 The Dangers of Honor ............................................................................................... 23
2.3 Magnanimous Man Can Achieve Moderation of Honors ......................................... 24
2.3 How Magnanimous Man Achieves Moderation ....................................................... 25
2.4 Humility And Magnanimity: A Two-Fold Virtue ..................................................... 26
2.5 Magnanimity, A Secondary Virtue After Fortitude .................................................. 28
2.6 The Adornment of Magnanimity............................................................................... 29
2.7 Mediocrity In Pursuing Magnanimity ....................................................................... 30
2.7.1 Ways To Avoid Mediocrity ............................................................................... 31
2.8 Magnanimity And Confidence .................................................................................. 32
2.9 The Magnanimous Man And Goods Of Fortune ...................................................... 32
2.10 How To Become Magnanimous .............................................................................. 33
2.11 The Magnanimous Man Needs Theological Virtues............................................... 34
2.12 Comment ................................................................................................................. 35
2.13 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 35
CHAPTER III .......................................................................................................................... 36
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MAGNANIMOUS MEN OF ARISTOTLE AND

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS ....................................................................................................... 36
3.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 36
3.1 The Likeness between the Magnanimous Man of Aristotle and St. Thomas
Aquinas................................................................................................................................ 37
iii
3.2 The Standard Measure of Magnanimous Man in St. Thomas Aquinas .................... 37
3.3 Aquinas’ View on Godlikeness ................................................................................. 37
3.4 Aristotle’s View on Godlikeness............................................................................... 38
3.5 The Similarities and Differences They Hold On Godliness ...................................... 39
3.6 For Aristotle the External Conduct is the Basis of Worthiness................................. 40
3.7 For Thomas Aquinas the Basis of Worthiness Is Internal Rectitude ........................ 41
3.8 A Citizen of Heavenly Jerusalem .............................................................................. 41
3.9 Thomas Aquinas and the Order of Nature And Grace .............................................. 42
3.10 Comment ................................................................................................................. 42
3.11 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 44
GENERAL CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 45
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................... 48
iv
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my parents, who made me start philosophizing in my

tender age. To all my friends and the people of good will who in one way or the
other, have helped me understand the mystery of reasoning. In a special way I
dedicate it to my late sister, Sarah Kavini, may she rest in peace.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
To God be the Glory, great things He has done; for the strength and the good
health granted me during the time of preparing this material. It was not an easy task;
it required a lot of sacrifice and dedication but it has been possible. A very special
word of appreciation goes to my moderator Fr. Lucas GOLOLOMBE OFM., for his
guidance and support when I was preparing this work. He was always there and
ever ready to assist me. I further extend words of appreciation to my Guardian Fr.
Charles MUKUKA OFM Conv., the formation team and all the solemn professed
friars in the community. Also, to all the brothers of Rivotorto community, who have
contributed generously and immensely by means of encouragement, providing
moral, material and spiritual support, to making this work a success. Prominent
among these brothers are; Ebenezer EKUBAN, Philip OBENG, Francis MUTUKU,
Christian AHIAWODZI, and Felix N.K AGYAPONG, who helped in editing the
work. I salute you for your good work. It will be much ingratitude on my part not to
mention Mother M. Burke, R.S.C.J., who allowed me to develop her ideas in
shaping this paper. My last but not least thanks goes to everyone who has not been
particularly mentioned but has contributed his or her quota to help bring this work
to a successful completion. May God almighty bless you all and keep you firm in
his love.
vi
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
It is a contention that the essential difference which separates and divides
human being was, is and will be his spiritual nature in whatever guise it is presented
whether recognized or ignored. These differences therefore depend upon one thing;
the acceptance or rejection of the belief in God in the full sense and meaning in
relation to the call one is accepting. This contention implies that men’s different
attitudes to God is fundamental, that is, men’s attitude on this ultimate fundamental
question determines the whole direction of living in all its aspects and in all
relations and that opposition in this one decisive matter implies secondary but
resultant opposition in outlook and value throughout all life.
Therefore, this paper will propose the case of magnanimous man, or rather
the magnanimous men because they are two considering the discussion. There is the
Aristotelian magnanimous man as in the Nicomachean ethics and the magnanimous
man as presented by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. The former is a
product of this world while the latter is a product of the world to come. In other
words, while there is treasure in one there is conflict in the other and vice versa.
This will become an apparent place for discussion in this paper as it does its
investigations.
In any considerations of this nature, it is impossible to be quite impartial. The
thought about the matter, which has inevitably come to some conclusions, is bound
to range ourselves on one side or the other; yet if the discussion is to serve any
purpose we must endeavor to state the issues fairly. The magnanimous man is at
once a philosophical and historical problem. There is no doubt that the Aristotelian
Magnanimous man is the predecessor and type of his Thomistic counterpart. The
relation is obvious and repeatedly acknowledged. The problem lies rather in
breaking away from the habit of looking on the magnanimous man of Aristotle
simply as a predecessor. Unless we avoid this error he will have no significance
except in relation to the man he becomes in the Thomistic synthesis. His own
personality will be lost, submerged in that of another. This thought is admirably
expressed by Pegis in his masterful study, St. Thomas Greeks. To look on them (the
Greeks) as the predecessors of Christian thought is, in part, to look on them out of
focus. It is to look on them from a standpoint which is not their own. That is like
saying that one must look at Greek philosophy with Christian eyes in order to
understand what the Greeks were talking about.1
St. Thomas Aquinas was a Christian philosopher. The magnanimous man of
the Summa Theo1ogica will be a Christian. Aristotle was a pagan philosopher. The
magnanimous man of the Nicomachean Ethics is a pagan. This does not mean that
the two will have no intercourse. It does mean that we must heed the warning of
Etienne Gilson and not baptize Aristotle in order to discuss philosophy with him.2
After seeing each magnanimous man in his own historical and philosophical setting
and interpreted his conduct and actions in this same light it will be an essential part
of our study to note the differences between the two.
1
A. C. PEGIS. St. Thomas and the Greeks: Aquinas lectures, Marquette University Press, Milwaukee, 1939,
16-17.
2
E.GILSON, The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York 1940, 8.
2
CHAPTER I
THE MAGNANIMOUS MAN IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF ARISTOTLE
1.0 Introduction
Magnanimity is undoubtedly one of the many insightful themes Aristotle

treats with great interest in his philosophy. Magnanimity as it were is the quest of
the spirit for great things especially things of great honor. The one who strives and
seeks to correspond to it is said to be magnanimous. Magnanimity is therefore,
rooted firmly in the highest possibility of human nature. It is worthwhile to consider
the distinction between magnanimity and vanity in this chapter.
1.1 The Contrast Between The Magnanimous Man And Other Men
In the first place, it must be noted with a careful interest that, the vain man
loves the honor and prestige that comes from great things whereas magnanimous
man loves the work and effort that have been done to achieve them. 3 Secondly
Magnanimous man, as his name implies, is concerned with great things. 4 In
3
R.GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE, The Three Ages of the interior life, Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford
1989, 84.
4
ARISTOTLE, ‘’Nicomachean Ethics’’, In the Basic Works of Aristotle, R.MCKEON, ed., W. D. ROSS,
trans., Random House, New York 1941. IV, iii, 1123 a 34.
introducing him, Aristotle tells us no more than this, preferring to present him in
contrast with some of his fellows, that by looking at them and observing their
actions we may see for ourselves and judge him.
Moreover, it is praiseworthy to call to attention, the presence of the
temperate man. It takes no great discernment to distinguish him from the
magnanimous man. The vain man thinks himself worth little and rightly. He is not
worth much. There is no greatness in his deeds or in his deserts. He is not envious
of the Magnanimous man. In this case, envy, is pain at the sight of good fortune
which a man feels towards his equals.5
In addition to the aforementioned distinctions is that, the temperate man
acknowledges his inferiority. This is not so with the vain man. The magnanimous
man has what he has and he is not envious. He thinks himself the equal of the
magnanimous man. He yearns for reputation, honor, fame and fortune. He wants
them for himself and thinks that he is entitled to them. Like the magnanimous man
he seems to tend to great things, but in reality he is a man out of his depth. He does
not know himself. In his attempt to equate himself to the magnanimous man, he
clings to great things and in the possession of honor he flounders and blusters. He
has such a-magnified opinion of his own excellence and ability that he oversteps it.
The vain man dares not show himself for what he really is but affects an
ostentatious show; his needs must masquerade as magnanimous man.
This is not the case with the pusillanimous man. His little soul shrivels even
more in the face of greatness. He under-estimates his own power and over-estimates
the greatness of the work that faces him. That he differs from the magnanimous
man is obvious. Pusillanimity and magnanimity differ as littleness and greatness.
Just as the magnanimous man tends to great things out of greatness of soul, so the
pusillanimous man shrinks from great things out of littleness of soul. The only
justification that can be urged for him is ignorance of his own qualifications and
5
RHET. II, x, 1387b 23.
4
fear of failure. He seems not to know himself else he would have desired the things
he was worthy of since these were good.6
Neither ignorance nor fears have any place in the life of the magnanimous
man. He tends to the extreme in respect of the greatness of his claims. He has
abilities and recognizes them but he keeps the mean in respect to the rightness of
them. He claims what is in accordance with his merits while the others go to excess
or fall short.7
1.2 The Magnanimous Man And Honor

We are left with the magnanimous man in possession of the great things he
claims and deserves. What, then, are these things? Above all things else the
magnanimous man claims honor. Desert is relative to external goods; and the
greatest of these, we should say, is that which we render to the gods, and which
people of position most aim at, and which is the prize appointed for the noblest
deeds.8
It is of great interest to stress the point that, it is not his claim to honor that
distinguishes the magnanimous man from the vain man and the Pusillanimous man,
certainly not, for they too are concerned with honor; it is rather the rightness of his
claims that sets him apart. Surely, his claim is just. Honor is the token of a man
being notable for doing good and magnanimity is the virtue that disposes a man to
good on a grand scale.9 If we consider him point by point we will see the utter
absurdity of a magnanimous man who is not good.10
6
E.N. IV, iii, 1125a 22,23.
7
E.N. IV, iii, 1123b 13, 14.
8
E.N. IV, iii, 1123b 16-20.
9
RHET. I, V, 1361a 27; I, IX, 1366b 16.
10
E.N. IV, iii, 1123b 32.
5
It might interest you to note that, if the magnanimous man deserves the
greatest honors he must be good in the highest degree. The more praiseworthy
things are the nobler and, therefore, the better they are. So it is with things that earn
greater honors than others; honor is, as it were, a measure of value. The
magnanimous man must be good, then, and greatness in every virtue must
characterize him.
1.3 Magnanimous Man And Courage

Here it is of great interest to note that, the chief character that illustrates the
goodness of the magnanimous man is his courage. It would be unbecoming for the
magnanimous man to fly from danger, swinging his arms by his sides. 11 Closely
related to the aforementioned point is that, He does not run into dangers, nor is he
fond of danger, because he honors few things; but he will face great dangers, and
when he is in danger, he is unsparing of his life, knowing that there are conditions
on which life is not worth having.12 We can judge better of the magnanimous man's
courage if we investigates Aristotle's requirements, for ordinary courage will not
suffice for a man pledged to great things. Being magnanimous he must perform the
greatest acts of courage.
Disgrace, poverty, disease, friendlessness and death are all evils, but the
courageous man is not concerned with all of them. To fear some things is right and
noble; it would be base not to fret them. Poverty and disease he ought not to fear,
nor, in general, the evils that do not flow from vice and which are outside a man's
control. But not even the man that is fearless of these is brave. With what sort of
terrible things, then, is the brave man concerned? Surely, with the greatest.
11
E.N. IV, iii, 112b 32.
12
E. N. IV, iii, 1124b 6-8.
6
Now death is the most terrible of evils because it is the end. But the brave
man would not seem to be concerned even with death in all circumstances, but only
in the noblest. Such a death would be met in face of the greatest and noblest
danger. Those who thus lay down their lives are honored in the city-states.
Properly speaking, then, he alone can be called truly courageous who is fearless in
the face of a noble death and all emergencies that involve death.13
This is the condition on which the magnanimous man considers life not
worth having though this does not give us a complete picture of the courage of the
magnanimous man. Albeit he would not shrink from laying down his life; but the
opportunities of proving this fact are not daily occurrences, yet courage is woven
into the very texture of his life. The magnanimous man will not run from danger
swinging his arms because fear does not enter into his make-up. A man is afraid
when he is at the mercy of another; not so is the magnanimous man. Being superior
to others, of whom would he be afraid? What could any man do to him that would
cause him to fear?
A man who has done wrong is afraid; he lives in fear of retaliation.14 The
magnanimous man would never wrong anyone. That would be disgraceful, and
why should a man to whom nothing is great do disgraceful acts? Shame would
keep him from wronging another and so bringing discredit upon himself; what
could ever accrue to him from such a deed that would recompense him for such an
evil? Again, our rivals for a thing cause us to fear. But only ambitious men who
are striving for something that exceeds their merits but not their desires have rivals.
These are some of the reasons why ordinary men are fearful. They have no point of
application in the case of the magnanimous man. In the face of these contingences
he remains calm. When a man is calm and fearless in all circumstances it can be
traced to two reasons: first, he may have no experience of the thing at hand.
13
E.N. III, vi, 1115a 11-32.
14
Rhet. II, v. 1382 b 1; E. N. IV, iii, 1123 b 33, 34.
7
This really is a fact in the case of the magnanimous man. The fears that
trouble others and cause them to flee are outside his experience. In the second place
a man is unafraid if he has the means to deal with the circumstances at hand. The
magnanimous man feels that he is superior to others in the number and importance
of the advantages that make men formidable.15
1.4 Magnanimity As The Crown of All Virtues

What is true of courage is true of all the virtues, for magnanimity, in which
all other virtues subsist, makes the magnanimous man greater and is not fond of
doing disgraceful acts, he to whom nothing is great without virtues.16 Because
magnanimity implies the practice of the greatest acts of all the virtues, it is difficult.
In fact, it is impossible, without nobility and goodness of character.17
Furthermore, when a man performs the greatest acts of justice, courage,
temperance, magnificence, liberality, gentleness, prudence and wisdom and
performs them not only because they are worthy of praise, but for their own sake,
which nobility requires; he has merited his claim to honor. And the man becomes a
magnanimous man because his claims are rendered by his way of acting.
1.5 Nobility As A Character of The Magnanimous Man

We may scrupulously wonder or perhaps ask that which makes it a requisite
quality for the man who would practice the greatest acts of all the virtues. Nobility
of character impels a man to perform great acts of virtue simply for the reward of
honor, rather than money or any material benefit. It prompts him to perform acts
that are desirable for someone else's sake without thinking of his own interests.
15
Rhet. II, v. 1313 a 27 sq.
16
E. N. IV, iii, 1124 a 1, 2.
17
E.N. IV, iii, 1124 a 3, 4.
8
All actions done for the sake of others and all successes which benefit others
are noble since these, less than other actions, are done for one's self. In fact,
nobility impels a man to do the opposite of those things which would make him say,
do, or intend anything of which he would be ashamed.
Without nobility and goodness of character, a man who is directly concerned
with honor is in danger of becoming a slave of honor. Not so to the magnanimous
man. Men who are the slaves of honor seek it for its own sake; he is not concerned
with honor, in that he seeks it as an end. The magnanimous man seeks only to be
worthy of honor.
1.6 The Magnanimous Man Is Not a Slave of Honor

Honors that are great and conferred by good men, the magnanimous man will
be moderately pleased with them since he knows that they are coming from others
and may even be less than his own arms; for there can be no honor that is worthy of
perfect virtue, yet he will at any rate accept it since they have nothing greater to
bestow on him.18
It is costly to labor for such a reward, but the magnanimous man will never
become the slave of honor simply because he is above honor; though honor and a
good reputation are among the most precious things that life can offer him; they are
the only things that men can offer. They are inadequate reward it is true; but the
magnanimous man is not thinking in terms of reward. Thus, he is moderately
pleased when he is honored by those whom he considers good judges.
His close neighbors are better judges than people at a distance; his associates
with fellow-countrymen better than strangers; his contemporaries better than
posterity; good men are best of all. It is significant that the magnanimous Man is
most pleased with recognition from the prudent man,19 realizing that honor
conferred by a man of such discernment is a true testament of worthiness. The man
18
E. N. IV, iii, 1124 a 5-9.
19
E. N. I, iv, 1095b 27.
9
of practical wisdom and good men generally, are not likely to be deceived about
true virtue nor are they apt to be lavished in their praise with honor; from such as
these the magnanimous man is moderately pleased. He is only moderately pleased
because his attention is centered on great acts of virtue and not on honor.
Obviously then, the honor of men, even of the prudent man, is not an
adequate reward of perfect virtue. And if man has nothing greater to offer, who
has? Resignation is not conducive to exuberance. But honor from casual people
and on trifling grounds he will utterly despise since it is not this that he deserves
neither is it dishonor. Besides, in his case it cannot be just. 20 The magnanimous
man could not but despise honor and credit bestowed on him by those who are
inferior to him. Virtue demands it. Honor is a measure of value. Only the good
man, the man practiced in virtue, is capable of a just evaluation.
Casual people value honor for its own sake and insult the magnanimous man
by inferring that their standards are his. He does not consider honor as if it were a
very great thing.21 After all, what are the honors that men can offer? Sacrifices,
commemorations in verse or prose, privileges, grants of land, front seats at civic
celebrations, state burial, statues. What are these things that the magnanimous man
should desire them? What proportion is there between these things and perfect
virtue? The man who values honor for its own sake is pleased with recognition
from casual people because it makes him see himself in the character of a fine
fellow.
20
E. N. IV, iii, 1124a 11-13.
21
E. N. IV, iii, 1124a 16.
10
1.7 The magnanimous man and his use of power
In respect to the use of power, the magnanimous man knows his worthiness
and the justice of his claims is above such conduct. Such motives as these are
unworthy of the magnanimous man. Power and wealth are desirable for the sake of
honor (at least those who have them wish to get honor by means of them); and for
him to whom even honor is a little thing the others must be so. Hence
magnanimous men are thought to be disdainful.22
More so, magnanimous man is bound to be misunderstood by his inferiors.
Such is often the case with men of virtue. No man is a prophet in his own country
and a man of such perfect virtue as the magnanimous man is looked on askance by
those not so familiar with virtue and those to whom it is a well-merited rebuke.
They resent the fact that he is powerful, and completely misinterpret the great deeds
that his power permits him to do. Power is a dangerous weapon in the hands of a
man without virtue. The magnanimous man realizes that power is a trust. The
sense of responsibility makes him serious. He must pay attention to the duties of
his position. The respect in which he is held inspires him with dignity; but this
dignity is mistaken for disdain and arrogance by his inferiors who do not realize that
dignity is a mild and becoming form of arrogance.23
Wealth could not be in better hands than those of the magnanimous man, but
as with power, so he does with wealth. It is misunderstood by many that the
magnanimous man is not judged by them by his own standards but by those of the
ordinary type of character produced by wealth. People see wealthy men as insolent
that their possession of wealth goes to their heads. Such men feel that in possessing
wealth they have every good thing that exists. They make it a standard of value by
which they judge everything else and they think that there is nothing that wealth
cannot buy. Such men are luxurious and ostentatious: luxurious because of the way
they live and the prosperity they display; ostentatious and vulgar because their
22
E.N. IV, iii, 1724a 17-19.
23
RHET. II, xvii, 1391a 29.
11
minds are regularly occupied with the object of their love and admiration and also
because they think that other people’s ideas of happiness are the same as their own.
It is quite natural that they should think this way, for if a man has money there are
always plenty of people who will come begging from him. In short, the ordinary
type of character produced by wealth is that of the prosperous fool.24
Casual people, observing these characteristics of wealthy men do not realize
that it is wealth without virtue that produces such characters. Wealth places a man
in a position of superiors and everything that is superior is held in honor. However,
those who have wealth without virtue are neither justified in their claim to honor
nor are they magnanimous, for magnanimity implies perfect virtue. For without
virtue it is not easy to bear gracefully the goods of fortune; and, being unable to
bear them, and thinking themselves superior to others, they despise others, and
themselves do what they please. They imitate the magnanimous man without being
like him.25
1.8 Magnanimous Man and His Use of Wealth

With wealth the magnanimous man can act expeditiously. Virtue needs
external good for it is impossible, or not easy, to do great deeds without the proper
equipment. It takes money to produce great works. Friends, riches and power,
while not essential to the magnanimous man, are instruments of which he makes
good use. With them he can, and the effects must be experiences while without
them he would be powerless to bring about anything. He despises them in as much
as he does not think them so great as to do anything unbecoming for their sake. On
the other hand he prizes them in so far as they are useful for the accomplishment of
virtuous deeds. If a man does not think much of a thing, he is neither very joyful at
obtaining it, nor very grieved at losing it. The magnanimous man despises the
prosperous fool for his vulgarity.
24
RHET. II xv, 1390b 31 sq.
25
E. N. IV, iii, 1124a 30; 1124b 2.
12
He himself is educated in the use of riches. He bears gracefully the good of
fortune. It would be unthinkable that the magnanimous man would use his wealth in
vulgar ostentation. It is true that he possesses beautiful and profitless things rather
than profitable and useful ones,26 these are more fitting than others for a
gentleman.27 Those things are particularly good, which are a man's very own,
which no one else possesses. There is no distinction in having the things which
everyone has. Practical things may be had by one’s equals and even by one's
inferiors. Their possession is an admission of dependence, not proper to a character
that suffices to itself.28
1.9 He Confers Benefits But He is Ashamed of Receiving Them

Significantly, the possessions of beautiful and profitless things are not vulgar
ostentation. Like great deeds, beautiful things are rare. The magnanimous man uses
his wealth virtuously. Wealth used virtuously is employed in providing and
preserving good things. Magnanimity disposes a man to do good to others on a
grand scale. He is the sort of man to confer benefits; but is ashamed of receiving
them; for the one is the mark of a superior and the other of an inferior.29
More so, the magnanimous man is quick to see the needs of others and to
supply them their wants. It is a mark of a virtuous man to provide for others.
Besides, to confer a benefit implies both possession and superiority. A man cannot
give what he does not possess; he who can supply what is lacking to others is their
superior.
26
E. N. IV, iii, 1125a 12, 13.
27
RHET. I, ix, 1367 a 27.
28
E. N. IV, iii, 1125 a 13.
29
E.N. IV, iii, 1124 b 9, 10.
13
The magnanimous man is ashamed of receiving benefits because it is a mark
of inferiority, an acknowledgment of need. For the most part he is safeguarded
against such a humiliation because what need could a magnanimous man possibly
have, and, granting that he did stand in need of something, who would there be who
could fulfill it? However, should it happen that he were forestalled in beneficence
by another, the magnanimous man is quick to recover his position of superiority.
He is apt to confer greater benefits in return; for thus the original benefactor
besides being paid a debt will be the gainer by the transaction.30 Generosity is one
of the virtues in which the magnanimous man excels. In the event that another had
benefited him it would be niggardly and unbecoming of a man of his position if he
were careful to return the benefit in kind and exactly. In that case the act would be
a mere return and not a kindness.
Rather, it would be more fitting that he outdo his benefactor for this would
not only be in accordance with generosity but more especially, it would be more in
keeping with his position. Some hold it against magnanimous men that they seem to
remember any service they have done, but not those they have received (for he who
received a service is inferior to him who has done it, but the magnanimous man
wishes to be superior), and to hear of the former with pleasure and the latter with
displeasure.31
1.10 He is Unmindful of Services

This charge goes beyond every reasonable doubt. However, the need for
further clarification would be of great help. He remembers the services he has
rendered because he delights in fulfilling the needs of others. Such opportunities
give him real joy. There are so many occasions of exercising virtue and of living up
to his position. One remembers events that are joyous and gratifying. The
magnanimous man is not the only one who remembers these services. The
30
E. N. IV, iii, 1124 b 11-13.
31
E. N. IV, iii, 1124b 13-15.
14
recipients are likewise mindful of the favors done them, of the need that was
supplied. Men have a way of remembering those who have alleviated their
sufferings or in any way helped them. The magnanimous man is not mindful of the
services that he has received, for these services did not fulfill any real need, much
less any desire.
He accepted them, it is true because it would have been unbecoming to
refuse others these little opportunities of gratification; but once the debt is repaid in
abundance, why should he be mindful of it? It is a mark of the magnanimous an to
be dignified toward people who enjoy high position and good fortune, but
unassuming towards those of the middle class; for it is a difficult and lofty thing to
be superior to the former, but easy to be so to the latter, and a lofty bearing over the
former is no mark of ill-breeding, but among humble people it is as vulgar as a
display of strength against the weak.32
1.11 His attitude towards others

This attitude is especially a prime characteristic of the magnanimous man.
He is guided by good taste, a sense of what should be done, of what is fitting. To
adopt a deferential attitude toward people in high positions would be as great a
breach of etiquette, as great a mark of ill-breeding, as adopting a lofty attitude
toward the lowly. He demands and must demand deference as his due; he does not
assert himself; is not aggressive; he is simply conscious of his own worth and of his
duty to himself and his position.
32
E. N. IV, iii, 1124b 17-23.
15
1.12 His Attitude Towards Things Held In Honor
Again, it is characteristic of the magnanimous man not to aim at things
commonly held in honor, or the things in which others excel; to be sluggish and to
hold back except where great honor or a great work is at stake, and not to be a man
of few deeds but of great and notable deeds.33
These characteristics should not raise an alarm or cause us to be surprised.
No one hires an army of men to do a piece of work that could be done by one man.
To what purpose then, would the magnanimous man waste his time over works in
which most others could succeed? He is not concerned with many works but with
great works. Let others do the works that are proportioned to their talents and
abilities. When the work is one, which is equal to his merits and is in conformity
with his position. Therefore, the magnanimous man will readily undertake it.
Obviously, such tasks are not numerous.
1.13 His Openness to Hates and Love

The next point in the character of the magnanimous man which Aristotle
presents has to do with his intercourse with others. He must also be open in his hate
and in his love, for to conceal one's feelings, that is, to care less for truth than for
what people will think, is a coward's part, and must speak and act openly. He is free
of speech because he is contemptuous, and is given to telling the truth, except when
in irony he speaks to the vulgar.34
The reason which Aristotle gives because he is contemptuous could not be
more indicative. A man feels contempt for what he considers unimportant.35 What
other people think just does not matter to the magnanimous man. Human respect is
paralyzing.
33
E. N. IV, iii, 1124b 23-27.
34
E. N. IV, iii, 1124b 27-30.
35
RHET. II, ii, 1387b 15.
16
Why should the magnanimous man conceal his hates or loves? What
difference does it make for him whether others agree with him or not? He is a man
of decided opinions. He hates what is vulgar, what is in bad form, and he doesn't
care who knows it, least of all those who offend in these respects.
1.14 He Is Unmindful of Wrongs

He is not mindful of wrongs; for it is not the part of a magnanimous man to
have a long memory, especially for wrongs, but to overlook them.36 The same
motive is at work here. The magnanimous man is not mindful of wrongs because
he considers them unimportant. Why should he stop over them? One only
remembers the things that one considers important. It would be unseemly for a man
to whom the greatest honor and even dishonor is as nothing, to fret over trifles; for a
man of few and notable deeds to concentrate on something so insignificant. To do
so would be to invest them with an importance that they could never merit.
1.15 He Does Not Gossip

Neither is he a gossip; for he does not will nor does he speak about himself
or about another, since he cares not to be praised nor for others to be blamed.37
That the magnanimous man would not talk about himself goes without saying. In
the first place it would be bad form and unworthy of his position. Secondly, and
more obviously, the magnanimous man doesn't have to talk about himself. His
notable deeds, his goodness and nobility of character, his perfect virtue, speak for
him. What is more, he would be drawing attention to the inferiority of others,
which would be unkind. Those who talk about themselves have no other means of
drawing attention to themselves. They must be their own press agents.
36
E. N. IV, iii, 1125a 3, 5.
37
E. N. IV, iii, 1125a 5-7.
17
The small talk and choice bits of the gossip mongers are utterly beneath him.
Gossip and much talking about others often results in others being blamed. Even
though others do not equal him in virtue. The magnanimous man wants them to
have their due. Those who try to get others blamed are trying to thwart them
because they consider them rivals. The magnanimous man has no rivals. These
others cannot do him any good nor can they do him any harm. If this is so, the
question now is, why then should he talk about them? Why should he do or say
anything that might cause shame or annoyance to others? Just because he is
superior to others he need not rob them of the little honor or reputation due them.
The magnanimous man expects to be respected by his inferiors in birth, capacity
and goodness. He looks for respect from those whom he is treating well but not
from those whom he has frightened into an attitude of respect. He must be unable to
make his life revolve around another, unless he is a friend; for this is slavish, and
for this reason all flatterers are servile and people lacking in self-respect are
flatterers.38
Casual people are fond of flatterers; the magnanimous man, loving truth,
hates flattery. He looks with pity on those who stoop so low and with equal pity on
those who solace their wounded pride and shattered ambitions on the smooth
phrases of flatterers. Friends are different. The magnanimous man is devoted to his
friends. They think good the same things that he values.
1.16 Step By Step Is Part of His Character

They are good tempered and not too ready to show him his mistakes. They
praise his good qualities; they believe in his goodness and virtue. Their deference is
respectful not servile. They do not try to thwart the magnanimous man in his
aspirations or to get in his way. A slow step is thought proper to the magnanimous
man, a deep voice and a level utterance; for the man who takes few things
38
E.N.II, 1124 b 30; 1125 a 2.
18
seriously is not likely to be hurried, nor the man who thinks nothing great to be
excited, while a shrill voice and a rapid gait are the results of hurry and
excitement.39
Calmness is one of the outstanding characteristics of the magnanimous man.
Hurry and excitement are typica1 of men who are busy about many things, or who
have undertaken either more or greater things than they can accomplish. The
magnanimous man considers well an action before he undertakes it. He must make
sure that it is worthy of his efforts, such things are not so numerous as to make him
a busy man and that is proportioned to his ability. Once these conditions have been
assured he proceeds with the quiet dignity beckoning him to accomplish the work at
hand. His is the easy consciousness of effortless superiority.
1.17 Comment
The magnanimous man whom we have been considering is one of the

outstanding characters which Aristotle presents in his renowned work of the
Nicomachean Ethics. He is cultured, reasonable, self-controlled. He is conscious
of himself as representative of the elite; he is a superior being. The essence of his
superiority is moderation and wisdom, kindness and good sense, and nothing too
much as a counsel of perfection. With it goes the sense of obligation, of duty
towards himself, his neighbor, the community, of leading the good life as an end in
itself; almost one might say, for the sake of self-respect. The good life he sees as
moderate, harmonious, balanced, with this moderate ideal there goes a reasoned
pride, not exaggerated pride that is bad form; it is not done by the magnanimous
man.
He has achieved and he knows it, why pretend? He is a superior being as
compared with others and he knows it. He surpasses them in exactly those qualities
39
E. N. IV, iii, 1125a 13-16.
19
which he values; in control and moderation and self-respect. He knows what is due
himself and what is due others and will, in so far as he lives up to his principles,
take care to apportion their relative claims justly, but he will not be unfair to
himself, or forego his rights, why should he? Undue humility is as distasteful to
him as exaggerated pride.
Finally, it must be said that his relations are all relation-to-man values; he is
at his best in purely human relations so long as we do not endeavor to force him
beyond the bounds that limit him, or to speak to him in a language he does not
know. If we do that, we are stopped short, for he cannot function outside of his own
medium; he cannot breathe another atmosphere; but here, on his own grounds, he is
supreme.
1.18 Conclusion
Magnanimity implies prudence, but not the false prudence that reflexively
advices caution in the face of great undertaking. Magnanimity is not madness. It is
the greatness of spirit, a large heart wherein many can find refuge. Magnanimity
gives us the energy to break out of ourselves and be prepared to undertake generous
tasks which will be of benefit to all. One who is magnanimous devotes all his
strength, unstintingly to what is worthwhile. As a result he is capable of giving
himself. He is not contented with merely giving, he gives the very self.
20
CHAPTER II
THE MAGNANIMOUS MAN IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF ST. THOMAS

AQUINAS
2.0 Introduction
Aquinas defines magnanimity, insofar as it tends to things involving

excellence, as being concerned with beneficence, generosity, and gratitude; thus, a
magnanimous man would always be ready to perform these acts. Aquinas believes
that thinking too much of external goods or evils so that a man abandons justice or
virtue is an example of acts that are defective, which the magnanimous man shuns.
Any concealment of truth indicates defect as it seems to be the outcome of fear; so
too, complaining indicates defect in that the man who does it is giving in to external
evils. The magnanimous man avoids these things because it is contrary to his
excellence. 40
2.1 The Difference In Outlook Between The Magnanimous Man of St.

Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle
In the Aristotelian moral code where what is morally good is essentially that
which merits praise and honor, there was no doubt as to the virtue of a man who
was concerned with honor on the grand scale and who was good in the highest
40
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, 4th edn., Marietti, Turin 1897, Q. 129, a. 3.
degree. The magnanimous man of St. Thomas is not going to have other concerns.
St. Thomas is such a man but he is going to make an important distinction. The
magnanimous man of the Summa Theo1ogica is ever mindful of what the
magnanimous man of the Nicomachean Ethics did not know that in the order of
good the initiative is always with the Divine. Everything comes from the Supreme
Being, even the magnanimous man's co-operation. He is intent upon great deeds,
deeds worthy of the highest honors, but he knows that it is only with the Supreme
Being and through Him that he will achieve these great deeds. 41 The knowledge of
this fundamental fact affects his attitude towards honor.
Since magnanimity, from its very name implies striving for great things, the
magnanimous man of St. Thomas is going to be concerned chiefly with honor of the
external good that lay open to man's choice. He recognizes riches, honor and power
as having the greatest appeal. Of these, honor is the greatest since it draws more
closer to virtue and witnesses to a man's virtue and because it is given to God and to
the best and because men set aside everything in order to win honor and to avoid
shame they are ready to sacrifice all else.42
The magnanimous man is not just concerned with ordinary honors. He is also
concerned with the greatest honors and that is what makes it a difficult virtue to
practice since the desirability of honor presents a serious threat to reason's
command. For this reason, many snares lurk in the shadow of honor's attractiveness
that a virtue regulative of honor is necessary. From this point of view, it is difficult
for a man to ascertain just how far he may go in his pursuit of honor. Likewise he
gets little help from the matter of this virtue, for honor has a way down the
restraining check of reason.43
41
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 129, a. l, c.
42
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 129, a. l, c.
43
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 129, a.2, c.
22
Nonetheless, honor is not the reward of virtue in the sense that the
magnanimous man seeks it as his reward. The real reward of virtue is happiness,
which is the end of virtue. Honor becomes a reward of virtue only in as far as others
are concerned, for men have nothing greater than honor to offer him. Yet this does
not make honor an adequate reward.44
2.2 The Dangers of Honor

In this very insufficiency of honor as a reward of virtue there lies danger.
The man who traffics in honor treads on dangerous ground. This is what St. Thomas
realized that man needs a virtue governing his expectations, of this witness of virtue
from men; it is evident from the three ways which he enumerates in which the
desire of honor may be inordinate. In the first place, a magnanimous man may
desire more than the honor due him. If the magnanimous man were to fail on this
point he would by that very fact forfeit his claim to virtue, for there can be no virtue
if the rule of reason is violated.
Because he is striving for the greatest honors, it does not follow that there is
no limit to the honor which he may claim. When we consider the absolute quantity
of the honor toward which the magnanimous man tends, we must qualify it as
extreme and the limit, but if the same honors are studied in the light of other
circumstances, the rule of reason is seen to be safeguarded. The magnanimous man
must seek the greatest honors, since magnanimity is concerned with such honors,
but the magnanimous man must seek them reasonably, that is, he ought to know
where and when to seek them.45
44
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 131, a. l, ad 2.
45
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica I-II, Q. 64, a.1, ad 2.
23
2.3 Magnanimous Man Can Achieve Moderation of Honors
Admittedly, magnanimity can be established as a virtuous habit and this will
come about by moderation which a reason injects into honor. This presupposes that
the magnanimous man will tend to great acts but with moderation. This moderation
is not measured by the greatness of the acts since the magnanimous man aims at the
greatest acts possible. Moderation is achieved by the magnanimous man in two
ways: in his choice of the great and in his proportion to the great. With regard to his
choice of the great, he seeks that which is simply or absolutely great. He does not
seek honor as an end in itself, it is not the object of his will for he reckons it trivial
since it is an empty and passing good. It is for this reason that he does not care so
much to be honored as to be worthy of honor, since honor is the witness to virtue. In
the second place reason demands that the great deeds to which he tends be in
proportion to his competence and his merits.46
It is an excellent thing to aim high and to desire and value one's own honor,
which, after virtue, is most worthy of our efforts; but it is an excellent thing only if a
man proportions his desires and his efforts to his merits and his capacity. His limit
must be the highest honor that reason tells him, he is worthy of.47
In the second place, he may desire honor for himself without referring it to
the Supreme Being itself. Lastly, there is the danger that his desire for honor may
lead him to rest in the honor itself, without using it to the benefit of others.48
Of course, St. Thomas does not point out the dangers without offering any
remedy to offset them. He advances a two-fold solution to these difficulties. The
magnanimous man must remember that he has not from himself that in which he
excels. It is, as it were, something divine in him, and so honor, though, it is given to
him, is due really to Supreme Being. He may not stop over the honors that are
accorded him; he may not rest in them with the same movement with which he
receives the honor but he must pass it on to the Divine to whom it is due.
46
II Sent. Dist. 42, Q. 2, a.4, c.
47
Dist. 42, Q.2, a.4, c.
48
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 131, a. l, c.
24
The second point which St. Thomas bids the magnanimous man remember
lest he be misled by honor is that the excellence which he has and which he
possesses due to Divine’s bounty, is trust, given him not for himself, but that he
may use it to the profit of others. He must therefore, answer for the honor bestowed
on him. This implies on the one hand that there has been a trust made over to him
and on the other hand that there is a higher authority from whom it has been
received and to whom the account is due. Viewed thus, honor loses much of the
danger with which it is charged. Yet the danger is not entirely removed. St. Thomas
would have the magnanimous man penetrated with the thought that, it is God who
works in Him, both to will and to accomplish.49
2.4 How Magnanimous Man Achieves Moderation

Magnanimity regards pursuit, the pursuit of honors. The magnanimous man
must strive to do what is worthy of honor, yet not so as to think much of the honor
accorded him by men. St. Thomas seemed to have thought that the safety of the
magnanimous man lay in his being humble. There is no other way of accounting for
the importance which St. Thomas gives to humility in connection with
magnanimity. In explaining the harmony between these two virtues which are
apparently so contrary, St. Thomas' treatment recalls the fortiter et suaviter of
Scripture. It is not to be honored by men that the magnanimous man strives for great
things. It is true that he looks upon great honors as his due and as something that he
deserves. Hence men should honor him. There can never be sufficiently honor
goodness which deserves to be honored by God and which is his thanks to the
goodness of God.50
49
PHIL. 2: 13.
50
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica II-II, Q. 129, a.2, ad 3.
25
He is not puffed up by great honors because he does not deem them above
himself rather he despises them. And so he is not cast down or discouraged by
dishonor which he despises too, because he sees clearly that he does not deserve it.
Magnanimity concentrating on great works moderates the expectations of honor. If
his expectations are too great, a man will begin in despair to be satisfied with petty
things. On the other hand, they must not be too small, for then he will refuse to
undertake great things.
Magnanimity makes this adjustment. The great things for which the
magnanimous man is striving are difficult and at the same time attract and
repulsive. They attract because of their goodness and repel because they are difficult
to attain. With respect to their attractiveness, hope surges up to urge him on.
Magnanimity draws closer to hope than can be said of any other virtue. This is
because it is the direction of the appetite to a good that is difficult to obtain and
therefore it turns to hope and its opposite.51
At the same time despair looms up to hold him back. Hope and despair are
motions, gushing from the sensitive appetite: the one pursuing a good that in spite
of its difficulties is judged attainable; the other fleeing from a good because its
difficulties makes it appear unattainable.
2.5 Humility And Magnanimity: A Two-Fold Virtue

In this situation a man has need of a holy boldness: a two-fold virtue with
respect to the difficult good: one to tamper and restrain his mind lest it tend to great
things immoderately, and the other to strengthen his mind against despair and urge
him on to the pursuit of great things according to reason.
51
II Sent. Dist. XXVI, Q. 2, a.2, ad 4.
26
These two fold virtues are humility and magnanimity and St. Thomas
considers one the obverse of the other.52 At first sight the two virtues seem to imply
a contradiction. Humility implies worthy, self-abasement to the lowest place.53
Magnanimity aims at great deeds worthy of honor. How are we to reconcile these
two virtues, one aiming at great things while the other shuns them? St. Thomas does
it by showing that humility and magnanimity, though they differ as to their formal
object, have the same material object. Humility restrains a man from aiming at great
things against right reason while magnanimity urges him to great things in accord
with right reason. Magnanimity, then, is not opposed to humility or, they concur
with each other since they both deal with right reason.54
However, although they agree in regard to the matter, they differ in regard to
the mode. The humble man subjects and abases himself from the consideration of
his own fragility, while the magnanimous man aims at great things from the
consideration of God's help and His gifts.55 Gilson aptly remarks of magnanimity:
“It is a tight rope that this virtue walks, for to believe ourselves able to reach what is
above our heads is presumption; to believe ourselves worthy of an honor not in line
with our true merit is ambition; to like honors won on false titles or as seen by
man’s fallible mind, or for any other end than God's honor or man's good, is vain
and empty glory.”56
By virtue of his humility, the magnanimous man recognizes his true position
with respect to his Creator and his fellow creatures and is disposed to shaping his
conduct accordingly. Humility is the true expression in thought and conduct of what
a man really is. Hence it is based on truth. Wit is not false self-depreciation.57 It is
possible for him to have the full perfection of the virtue and yet be perfectly aware
of his endowments. Humility is not merely thinking little of one's self. It is rather
52
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 161, a.l, o.
53
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 161, a.l, ad 2.
54
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 161, a.l, ad 3.
55
III Sent. Dist. XXXIII, Q. 2, a. l, ad 3.
56
E.GILSON. Moral Values and the Moral Life, Herder, St. Louis 1931, 283-4.
57
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 169, a. l, ad 2.
27
not thinking of self at all. That is why the magnanimous man is not puffed up by
great honors, nor depressed if honor is not given him. He is not thinking of himself.
Magnanimity makes him deem himself worthy of great things in consideration of
the gifts he holds from God.58
Humility also prevents him from aspiring after what is beyond him and so
making himself ridiculous, as well as subjecting himself to that which he should not
be subject to and so degrading himself.
2.6 Magnanimity, A Secondary Virtue After Fortitude

For St. Thomas there can be no question of classifying magnanimity under
justice, for although the magnanimous man should be honored and honor is his due,
yet it cannot be due him in justice because he has not of himself that to which honor
is accorded. Rather, St. Thomas classifies magnanimity as a secondary virtue under
fortitude. Without being in a proper sense identified with the virtue of fortitude,
magnanimity is yet related to it and dependent on it. Fortitude, like the other
cardinal virtues, can be looked at in two ways: first, as simply denoting a certain
firmness of mind, and as such, it is a condition of every virtue; secondly, fortitude
may be taken to denote firmness only in bearing with and withstanding those
dangers on which it is most difficult to stand firm.59
There is a difference in the difficulties in which the brave man and the
magnanimous man must stand firm. Honors are difficult to get, even though a man
be worthy of them. The magnanimous man must have firmness of soul, not of
course, so much as to face death, which is the principal act of fortitude, but enough
to stand up against the obstacles that block his way and would prevent him from
accomplishing the great deeds he aims at.60
58
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 129, a.3, ad 4.
59
60
28
Lest we get the impression that because the magnanimous man is firm in
resisting the obstacles that oppose his accomplishment of great deeds, he is unduly
aggressive, St. Thomas stresses the importance of confidence in the character of the
magnanimous man. Confidence is allied to faith and hope. It is allied to faith
because it based on faith, someone believed in or something is believed. It is not in
himself and in his own ability and merits that the magnanimous man believes; his
faith is in the Divine and in the divine assistance without which he knows that he
can do nothing.61 His faith is not complacent belief in his own ability and merits.
He has the power to perform great deeds, it is true, and as far as his own ability is
concerned, he has confidence in himself, but he realizes that it is in God that he can
do all things and that it surpasses man to be self-sufficient. In the first place he
needs the help of God since no man can accomplish anything without the divine
assistance. He needs the help of others, also, and in so far as he has need of others,
it belongs to the magnanimous man to have confidence in them.62
2.7 The Adornment of Magnanimity

Magnanimity is often lived in quiet, simple ways off the radar screen of most
of the world. The person who daily endeavors to be a better spouse, parent, friend,
or child is truly seeking greatness of soul and therefore a child of the God.
Indeed, the magnanimous person continuously strives to perfect the virtues in
all areas of his life. He is not content with simply being good. He reaches out
toward excellence. For example, magnanimity may impel a good man to go beyond
his daily obligations and make more sacrifices in his daily life for the sake of others.
He may be driven to defer to others' preferences, to endure criticism with patience,
to respond gently to his temper tantrum, or to avoid defending his opinion in non-
essential matters. These are small ways of living greatness of soul.
61
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 129, a.6, c.
62
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 129, a.5, ad 1.
29
As such, magnanimity is sometimes called the adornment of all the virtues,
for the magnanimous man endeavors to make his virtues greater.63 Or as Aquinas
explains, "If his soul is endowed with great virtue, magnanimity makes him tend to
perfect works of virtue."64
2.8 Mediocrity In Pursuing Magnanimity

Yet what is it that prevents a person from pursuing greatness and causes him
to settle for mediocrity in life? The man lacking in magnanimity suffers from a vice
called pusillanimity, or rather smallness of soul. Whereas the magnanimous man
seeks what is best, even if it is difficult; the pusillanimous man shies away from
noble, arduous tasks because they will demand a lot from him. He instead pursues
the path of least resistance, opting for whatever is easier.65
According to Aquinas, one reason why the pusillanimous man shrinks from
great things is ignorance of one's own qualification. Many people do not think they
are capable of great things. They do not know what higher call God has for every
one of us, a call to perfection. Even more, they are not aware of the grace He
confers on us to enable us achieve this perfection that we could never arrive at on
our own. So instead of striving for greatness, which they view as impossible to
achieve, they merely seek to avoid doing bad things.66
A second reason for which people shrink from doing great things is fear of
failure. For instance, Some people may have that inner feeling of the Divine calling
them to share their faith more, pray more, or serve the poor, but would be afraid to
take a step forward because they are too worried that they will not be good at these
63
E. N. IV, 3.
64
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 129, Art. 3.
65
http://www.catholictheology.info/summa-theologica/summa-part2B.php?q=157. Accessed on 7th August
2014.
66
http://thosecatholicmen.com/are-you-magnanimous-or-pusillanimous-2/. Accessed on 11th November,
2014
30
works. They are afraid they will not be successful, and so their fear of failure keeps
them from striving after the great desires God has placed on their hearts67
2.8.1 Ways To Avoid Mediocrity

As a magnanimous man one has to have a dream or a project in his or her
endeavors. This is needed to avoid mediocrity as it allows you to have something to
work towards.68 This means that we are moving forward instead of staying idle.
One should always keep his dream in mind and constantly remind himself to
achieve it. Now is a good time to think about what you really want in your life.
Besides, if one wants what others think you should be doing, what results do you
think you will get? Results that are the same as others! It is obnoxious to think like
the majority. So what one wants to get out of mediocrity and get excellent results,
then he has to do things that are different from what others are doing that get them
mediocre results.69
Nevertheless are you staying too much in your safety zones? If you are
spending too much time in your safety zone, that means you are losing out
opportunities that can take you a level forward to your success. If you find yourself
getting bored over things that you are doing now, most probably you are staying in
your safety zone and not doing anything to move into a new horizons. In addition,
when we start to slack and want to avoid doing things that are hard, we tend to
move into a slump in our life. In life, things that are worth doing are things that are
hard to do. Things that are hard to do also guarantee you the best benefits.
67
http://books.google.co.zm/books. Accessed on 5th October, 2014.
68
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/avoiding-mediocrity-do-you-dare-to-be-different.html.
Accessed on 10th June, 2014.
69
R. LEJEUNE, Robert Schuman, Pere del’ Europe, LibrairieAcademique Perrin, Paris 1980, Chapter 21.
31
Lastly but not the least, if one wants to avoid mediocrity, there is no point
ever to settle to anything less than what he or she really want. By not settling for
less, you tend to get what you want if you can persevere on and therefore one is
credited to be magnanimous.70
2.9 Magnanimity And Confidence

Confidence is allied to hope in that confidence denotes the hope of having
something, not a groundless hope, but one that is based on a consideration alike of
the great deeds to be done and his ability to do them. The magnanimous man is
strong in hope that he will achieve the good which he is intends to achieve. He will
do what lies in his power and God will do the rest. Confidence gives security. The
great works are God's; so is the honor that follows on their accomplishment. The
magnanimous man is not dispensed from labor and thought, but from trouble of
mind. Although perfect security will be a part of virtue's reward, yet here and now
the magnanimous man is secured such that nothing can disturbs his peace of mind.71
2.10 The Magnanimous Man And Goods Of Fortune

The confidence and security of the magnanimous man are expressions of the
truest and most Christian attitude of soul, and the most spiritual that is rejoicing in
hope. He has reached the serene spiritual joy which rejoices in hope of the unseen,
the un-possessed. He has let go of earthly things; for as long as a man is clutching at
them to give him comfort, support, entertainment, he has no peace. This is evident
in his attitude toward goods of fortune.
70
S. COVEY, The 7 Habits Of Highly Effective People, Free Press, Simon &Schuster, New York 2003, 21-
22.
71
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 129, a.7, c. et ad 3.
32
They are not so important that the magnanimous man should be unduly
disturbed about them, nor are they so unimportant that he should disregard them
completely. If he were to be destitute of the goods of fortune he would not be less
virtuous, but his virtue might be less effective.72
Thus, he realizes that man is dependent on external goods, and that it is his
duty to acquire the material means that are necessary for the upkeep of life.
Shiftlessness and improvidences are not virtues. However, striving for wealth is not,
an obligation. His attitude toward external goods is one of detachment and
indifference because they are only means and ought to be sought after only to the
extent that they serve higher ends. Since nothing enslaves man more than the desire
for riches. The man who aims at the accumulation of wealth misses the finest things
of life. The accumulation of riches would prove a real obstacle to higher
achievement. In using the goods of fortune toward the accomplishment of great
deeds, the Magnanimous man will manifest a fine scorn for them. It is a sign of
nobility of mind to make little of material goods. Such is the magnanimous man as
St. Thomas presents him and that he is a man of no ordinary virtue should be
evident. Doubtless such men are needed, for there are great works to be done
though not all men are magnanimous.
2.11 How To Become Magnanimous

Now, how should a man go about becoming magnanimous? To be simply
virtuous, a man must be inclined to do some kind of good deeds. This inclination
may be either natural or he may train himself to do what is good. 73 In either event,
he will be in possession of the natural moral virtues, which through prudence are
bound together; but he need not necessarily be magnanimous. Magnanimity raises a
man above the common level and because occasion is not offered to all men to this
virtue, a man can have the other moral virtues without having magnanimity. His
72
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 129, a.8, ad 1 et 2.
73
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 65, a. l, c.
33
virtue is limited to lifting him up to the level of common duties, such virtues as a
man must have to live an ordinary life. Not all men are worthy of great honor and
great deeds are not in the same proportion to the capacity of all men. But the fact
that a man has not magnanimity does not detract from the other moral virtues which
he may possess. All the same, if he has acquired the other moral virtues, he has the
virtue of magnanimity virtually. If he is perfect the works that present themselves
and in those that are proportioned to his merits and his capacity to the best of his
ability, when the great deeds after which the magnanimous man strives come his
way, he will be both ready and worthy. If he uses small and ordinary honors well he
will not be in danger of succumbing to the attractiveness of great honors.74
2.12 The Magnanimous Man Needs Theological Virtues

Such a man would be magnanimous but his would be a naturally acquired
magnanimity. He would still fall short of the ideal magnanimous man that St.
Thomas portrays. He would, by his own efforts, have acquired virtues that would
produce good works directed to an end not surpassing his natural powers. St.
Thomas would hold that his virtue is imperfect, not completely realizing the notion
of virtue.75
He has need of the theological virtues, infused by God into the soul; perfect
virtues, because they direct him to his end of ends, for man's happiness is not
limited to this world alone. There is a happiness proportioned to his human nature
which he can obtain by means of the natural virtues. But there is a happiness which
surpasses all his powers and which he can obtain by the power of God alone and for
the attainment of which the natural virtues are to no avail. He must receive from
God additional help by means of the theological virtues which have God as their
object and direct a man to Him.76
74
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 65, a. l, ad 1.
75
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 65, a. l, c.
76
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 62, a.1.
34
2.13 Comment
Recognizing an end that surpasses his natural powers and striving after the
great things that are in proportion to his supernatural last end, aided thereto by the
grace of God and referring the consequent honor to God, he becomes the
magnanimous man as St. Thomas presents him. To him God is the key to life and to
happiness. Temporal lift centered in itself would be unsatisfactory and puzzling to
him. It would not bear the mark of finality. Taken by itself, life points to something
beyond itself, to a vast finality, to spiritual and eternal destinies, to ultimate
triumphs. He is a citizen of two worlds, one temporal and one eternal. There are
great deeds to be done in the one but they get their value from the other.
2.14 Conclusion
In conclusion it may be asserted that striving for greatness is at the heart of

magnanimity, that is, the greatness of soul. Since by virtue, man pursues that which
is great and honorable in his life, even if it is difficult. St. Thomas Aquinas
describes it as a stretching forth of the mind to great things.77 The magnanimous
person seeks to do great acts, things that are deserving of honor.78
However, this is not opposed to humility. The magnanimous person pursues
greatness in proportion to his ability. He humbly takes stock of all the gifts that God
has given him and seeks to use them as best he can. As Aquinas explains,
"Magnanimity makes a man deem himself worthy of great things in consideration of
the gifts he holds from God."79 While magnanimity is certainly exhibited among
the famous honorable people, it is also found in simple, small, ordinary people
whose sincere desire to give the best of themselves is used by God to do
extraordinary things.
77
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 129, a. 1.
78
79
35
CHAPTER III
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MAGNANIMOUS MEN OF

ARISTOTLE AND ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
3.0 Introduction
Virtue is not something we cultivate just to become better at what we do,
although it is good to want that. It is cultivated first and foremost for its own sake
not for any other sake, that is, to become better people. In other words, virtue
implies excellence of being, rather than excellence in doing. Aquinas and Aristotle,
therefore recognize that virtue is not its own reward and has little meaning apart
from an ultimate goal. A man is virtuous because his actions correspond to an
objective norm, which for Aristotle was knowable by reason and for Aquinas by
both reason and faith.80
We as human persons, strengthen our character by becoming virtuous,
through the habitual practice of sound moral habits, called ethical or human virtues.
In so doing, character leaves an indelible imprint on our temperament, which ceases
then to dominate our personality.81 Virtues are qualities of the mind, the will, and
the heart that instill strength of character and stability of personality. In addition,
virtues are acquired through repetition. Virtues do not take the place of professional
competence, but are part and parcel of it and significantly so.
80
A. HAVARD, Virtuous Leadership, Strathmore University Press, Nairobi 2013, 15.
81
A. HAVARD, Leadership Is A Character, available at: http://www.univforum.org.htm. Accessed on 13th,
September 2014.
3.1 The Likeness between the Magnanimous Man of Aristotle and St.
Thomas Aquinas
In considering the magnanimous man as he is presented by Aristotle and by
St. Thomas, the likenesses are perhaps more striking than the differences. The
magnanimous man of the Nicomachean Ethics and the Magnanimous man of the
Summa Theologica often act in the same way, make the same moral judgments;
they are both virtuous, both concerned with great deeds and the consequent honors;
they are both honorable and just. With the Greek as with the Christian, what he
prizes is intangible, immaterial; they are both unselfish; they may be equally so, but
the magnanimous man of Aristotle is satisfied while the Magnanimous man of St.
Thomas not at all so. The Greek was pledged to the ideal of honor of the good; but
to him the ideal was attainable; it would have been his fault and his disappointment
if he had failed to attain it, he did attain it. He is a man of honor, a good citizen, a
good human being. He knows it and he is content.
3.2 The Standard Measure of Magnanimous Man in St. Thomas Aquinas

The magnanimous man of St. Thomas, on the other hand, measures himself
by quite another standard, not according to human excellence but in relation to God.
He is a citizen, but of another city. The idea of God becomes, to him, more real,
more absorbing in proportion as he himself draws nearer to Him. He is living his
life as it were in a new dimension, in which the goodness he has attained seems
negligible, non-existent, in comparison with the goodness he apprehends.
3.3 Aquinas’ View on Godlikeness

When one couples the inherent freedom of the magnanimous man due to his
place in society, with the highest degree of virtue, the result is a godlike character
among men. This is one of the keys to understanding this virtue. The Christian
ethicist might not find it difficult to believe that one of the corrupting influences of
37
sin produces an unhealthy desire in men to be godlike. One way that men can be
godlike is by answering and granting requests. Thus, to be a benefactor is an
illustrious honor that man can have in common with God, for both are sought for
help, which signifies and creates dependence, and both have the means to grant it,
creating praise and further honor.
In this way, the magnanimous man is primarily concerned with honor
because it is what is rendered to the gods and is thus the greatest external good. In
this, the magnanimous man is striving for something divine insofar as he is striving
for that which is rendered to the gods. His chief interest is in god emulation, and
this is only accomplished with resources. Not many requests are answered without
power. The magnanimous need their political and economic power to be
benefactors, revealing one of the unfortunate aspects of the virtue, the man who has
the most is in a superior position, morally speaking, relative to him who has
acquired little.
3.4 Aristotle’s View on Godlikeness

Aristotle believes that honor, not praise, is rendered to the gods for being
benefactors and for being perfectly happy. Praise is an expression of opinion and is
expressed toward something that contributes to obtaining an end. It is like a
cheerleader cheering the players on for their success, as praiseworthy play is the
means to victory, which is the end of the game. Because happiness is the final end
and aim of all actions, happiness is superior to the praiseworthy for happiness is the
end (victory in the game) while the praiseworthy are the good feats during the game
that have the potential to contribute to victory. Thus, praiseworthy things are not
desired for their own sake. Things desired for their own sake are honored and those
who possess things that are desired for their own sake are honored, not praised, for
being happy.82
82
H.V.JAFFA, Thomism and Aristotelianism: A Study of the Commentary by Thomas Aquinas on the
Nicomachean Ethics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1952, 116-117.
38
Human virtue is a means to an end, which means it is praiseworthy. If the
gods are praiseworthy, then they must be capable of achieving a good, being a
means to an end, for humans.
Aristotle thinks then that it is absurd to praise the gods because things
praised are subsidiary to that which is honored. What is praised is imperfect, but
happiness and the gods are perfect and thus honored. Because prayers are requests,
it implies that the petitioner believes that the petitioned (either a god or another
man) is capable of granting beneficence.83 It is the magnanimous man who is
capable of granting beneficence in that he has the power to spend money on
expenditures that cannot be met by ordinary citizens: funding the military, entering
foreign ambassadors, funding public entertainment, and so forth. "He is above the
concern of more ordinary mortals, toward whom he is effortlessly superior; he
speaks with a slow, calm and deep voice."84 D. S. Hutchinson believes that the
magnanimous man assumes the responsibility of using his resources prudently, not
only for his family and friends but by fulfilling his duties as a patron; savior of his
city.85 In this, the magnanimous man seeks to emulate the gods by being the object
of request (prayer), thus, he is above all a benefactor.86
3.5 The Similarities and Differences They Hold On Godliness

Godlikeness reveals an apparent hierarchy in Aristotle's thought that Aquinas
never challenges; in fact, through his interpretation he seems to affirm it. The
natural hierarchy, combining Aristotle's and Aquinas' ethics has God at the top, a
few magnanimous men in the middle, and every other man at the bottom. The
common men look up to and make requests to the magnanimous man and God. The
magnanimous man looks up to God only. All men seek to honor their superior and
83
H.V. JAFFA, Thomism and Aristotelianism, 118.
84
G. J. HUGHES, Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Aristotle on Ethics, Routledge, New York 2001, 212.
85
D. S. HUTCHINSON, "Ethics," in The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, Cambridge University Press,
ed., J. BARNES, Cambridge 1996, 226.
86
H.V. JAFFA, Thomism and Aristotelianism, 120.
39
receive honor from their inferior. In this way, magnanimity is tied to religion in that
honoring and making sacrifices to a superior, especially God, as the greatest good.
According to Aquinas, sacrifices to God are the most commendable expenditures,
thus, the chief object of magnificence is sacrifice to God. In this way, the liberal
man is like his magnanimous counterpart in that he sacrifices to God, but of course
he cannot sacrifice on the same sacrificial scale.
3.6 For Aristotle the External Conduct is the Basis of Worthiness

The difference in the standard of measurement of the two men is perhaps one
of the most striking. For Aristotle, external conduct was the basis of worthiness.
"That which is praised is good."87 This accounts for the fact that in portraying the
character of the Magnanimous man Aristotle gave such a wealth of minute details:
his intercourse with others, his attitudes, the impressions he created, his walk, the
tone of his voice; all details, but all important because for Aristotle this was virtue.
The Magnanimous man of the Nicomachean Ethics assessed himself by a high
standard of value, but it was the value in which he himself excelled. With St.
Thomas there was poverty of detail but a wealth of emphasis. The magnanimous
man was good in the highest degree, but he owed his goodness to God. Honor, was
his due, but the honor was referred to God. He practiced the greatest acts of all the
virtues but they were united and crowned by charity. He is living his life, here and
now, in relation to the supernatural life, in a medium unknown to the Magnanimous
man of Aristotle.
87
RHET. I, vi, 1363 a 9.
40
3.7 For Thomas Aquinas the Basis of Worthiness Is Internal Rectitude
For the Magnanimous man of St. Thomas, internal rectitude is substituted for
external conduct as the basis of worthiness. For him, goodness consists radically in
the internal choice.88 His will is directed to a paramount end, “to a transcendent
principle worthy of all honor in itself and absolutely, more truly even than virtue,
which is honorable on account of this,’’89 virtue was to be all and the end all of the
Aristotelian Magnanimous man. It was desired for itself and not for the sake of
anything else. St. Thomas’ virtue is desired that all the attributes ascribed to the
supremely happy man can have no place in a life given to great deeds. Getting and
safeguarding deserved honor is quite a task; acquiring and disposing of goods of
fortune after the manner of a Magnanimous man is likewise not a slight matter.
There are these and other distractions to prevent the Magnanimous man from giving
himself up to a life of contemplation.
3.8 A Citizen of Heavenly Jerusalem

Ordained to the vita civilis he is one of those who must take care of the
world. For the magnanimous man of St. Thomas it is different. He, too, is a citizen,
but he is not only a citizen of the earthly city, but he is also a member of the
heavenly city, of that heavenly Jerusalem whose prince is God and whose citizens
are the angels and all the saints, whether they reign in glory and are stationed in the
homeland, or are still in pilgrimage on this earth.90
The Magnanimous man of' the Summa Theologica is in via; he has here no
abiding city; but it is going to require more than the natural virtues with which
Aristotle equipped the Magnanimous man in order that he reach his journey's end.
For a man to be a member' of this city, nature is not enough; he must be lifted up by
God's grace. Furthermore, it is clear that the virtues necessary for this final
88
THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 145, a. l, ad 3.
89
E. GILSON, 325.
90
De Virt. incommuni. Q. a. 9, c
41
achievement he cannot acquire by his own natural powers. The homeland is in an
order that cannot be reached by his greatest efforts. These virtues must be infused
into him by God.91
3.9 Thomas Aquinas and the Order of Nature And Grace

St. Thomas takes into account at once the orders of nature and of grace. The
infused moral virtues proportion the Magnanimous Man's actions to his eternal end.
The proper field of these virtues is that of eternal life begun with life on earth. St.
Thomas does not disparage the vita civilis, but he clearly recognizes that it is not the
end of life. For the right living of civil life a man has need of virtues that will
temper his actions to that temporal end, the good of the state.
These are the acquired moral virtues which he shares with the magnanimous
Man of the Nicomachean Ethics. By them the virtuous activity of both men is
proportioned to their temporal end. The Magnanimous man of St. Thomas has need
of these acquired moral virtues. His human nature is no different from that of
Aristotle's Magnanimous man, nor does his temporal end differ from that of his
predecessor. But his acquired virtue has need of infused virtue to carry him beyond
civil life, which belongs to the natural order, to his supernatural last end.
3.10 Comment
Of the two men, the Magnanimous man of St. Thomas will most likely be the
better citizen because he will guide and direct his temporal life with a greater
measure of success than will the Magnanimous man of Aristotle. The strength of the
latter is measured by that supplied him by the acquired moral virtues. The
Magnanimous man of St. Thomas has in addition to the acquired moral virtues,
sanctifying grace, charity, and the infused moral virtues. The acts of the acquired
91
III. Sent. Dist. 33, Q. 1, a.4, o.
42
virtues which he performs in the temporal order are elevated by charity and the
corresponding infused virtues. Although they live and work side by side the citizens
of the earthly city, the temporal life of the Aristotelian Magnanimous man is
concerned with good life in the state as a temporal end.
The life and activity of the Magnanimous man of St. Thomas is referred to a
supernatural end. With Aristotle moral philosophy was subordinated to politics.
Moral philosophy found its realization in political philosophy. It was the function of
moral philosophy to make good citizens and the end of the virtuous man was the
happy life in the state. Moral philosophy fulfilled its end in dealing with the human-
acts of man ordained to a temporal life and natural ends. St. Thomas would hold, on
the other hand, that the Magnanimous man of Aristotle would be in danger of
missing the attainment of his natural end.
He maintains that man only orders his life efficaciously for its natural last
end if he also orders it efficaciously for its supernatural last end. For St. Thomas
political philosophy has to make room for the consideration of the last end to which
political life has reference indirectly. For St. Thomas Aquinas, the Magnanimous
man was not only human, he was also divine. He had an end that was human and
temporal, but he had at the same time an end that was divine.
The Magnanimous man needed the best natural equipment in the way of the
acquired virtues that he could get to ensure his temporal end but he needed also
sanctifying grace and the infused virtues to ensure the attainment of his supernatural
end. St. Thomas knew this because he was “philosophizing in the faith.” The
magnanimous man of St. Thomas has his abode in a Summa of Theology. It was St.
Thomas the philosopher who in dealing with the magnanimous man was dealing
with the direction of that man's human acts, but it was St. Thomas the Theologian
that supplied the fact that the magnanimous man's last end is supernatural.
43
The contrast between these two men we may take as an emphasis on
otherworldly values as opposed to this-worldly, on eternal as against temporal; on
supernatural as against natural, or including and summing up all the alternatives,
recognition of God as the ultimate reality of life, or man. This seems to be the
essential difference underlying and dominating all others.
3.11 Conclusion
The virtue of magnanimity presupposes a noble and lofty soul. It is often

described as greatness of soul or nobility of character. Magnanimous persons are a
superior type of persons. They are never envious, they are not rivals of others, and
they do not feel humiliated or embarrassed by the good of others. They are calm and
leisurely in their actions; they do not give themselves to many activities, but only to
those of greater importance.
They are truthful, sincere, somewhat reserved in speech, and a loyal friend.
They never lie, but they speak their mind without being concerned about the
opinion of others. They are open and frank, and never imprudent or hypocritical.
They are objective in their friendships, and yet do not close their eyes to the defects
of their friends. They are never excessive in their admiration of other people, nor
attached to anything. They look primarily to virtue and to that which is noble.
The petty affections or disagreements that cause so many difficulties in
social life mean nothing to them. If they are injured by others, they quickly forget
and forgive. They are not thrilled at the praise and applause of others, nor are they
saddened at the criticism they may receive from others. They do not complain about
the things they lack, but they learn to do without them. This virtue presupposes a
high degree of perfection in the other virtues.
44
GENERAL CONCLUSION
According to Aristotle, a man's economic and political status characterizes

him in one of two ways: common or wealthy. Both classes possess the capacity to
acquire all of the moral virtues (except one) by way of habituation, and the
possession of these virtues makes a man good. However, magnanimity is a moral
virtue that arises accidentally and is not part of the inherent moral paradigm within
the species man, a paradigm that gives each man equal right to virtue. The common
man is relegated to cultivating the set of moral virtues that include liberality; only
the wealthy man can ascend into the domain that includes magnanimity. Aquinas
believes he can reconcile this seemingly problematic dichotomy that elevates the
virtue and honor of the rich man above that of the poor man. Although Aquinas
attempts to alleviate this problem by showing how magnanimity is consigned to one
of the four cardinal virtues, thus not placing it in as prominent of a position as
Aristotle, who designates it "the crown of the virtues", he still seems too over-
accommodating toward the Aristotelian definition.
The magnanimous man, according to Aristotle, is worthy of great things and
rightly claims them as his due, knowing that he is worthy of them. In the
Aristotelian scheme, magnanimity is a moral virtue as it is a middle state between
vanity, which is deeming oneself unjustifiably worthy of great things, and smallness
of spirit, being worthy of great things but not claiming them. The former does not
possess the amplitude of spirit to wield the most obstinate powers on earth and
should not boast as if he could, while the latter, out of some defect of character,
does not claim them. The magnanimous man, on the other hand, is extreme in the
greatness of his claims but a mean in the rightness of them he claims what is in
accordance with his merit.92 The more unfortunate man, he who has not been
blessed with the fortune of an aristocratic pedigree, is confined to the limitations of
the small spirit that nature has given him, a limitation that is given to all men who
are not born at the top of the political hierarchy. The common man, with the
common small spirit, is virtuous when he is concerned with the small things that his
soul is meant to handle. Nature, as it were, blessed the common man with a small
place in society compatible with his small spirit. He, according to Aristotle, all other
virtues being equal, is of the same nature as the great spirited man insofar as the
nature of his character is the same claiming that of which he is worthy.93
Aquinas however, does not question the economic-political-ethical system
that may have been molding the virtue into its Aristotelian form. Rather, he agrees
with Aristotle that magnanimity is a necessary and special virtue required to
withstand the inherent difficulty that a selected group of men must face when
wielding exceeding amounts of wealth and honor. Every virtue, according to
Aquinas, is a perfection of a power, or more specifically, the extreme limit of that
particular power. When a power is exercised, it is not the case that the extreme limit
or perfection of that power is exerted with every instance of its use. Powers must be
used on simple and ordinary things, like the liberal man does with simple and
ordinary amounts of money, but the extreme limit of a power is its perfection.
Hence, Aquinas believes that magnanimity solidifies a man in dealing with the
extreme limits of external goods; a normal virtue will not suffice.94 In this regard,
Aquinas affirms Aristotle's ontological hierarchy that places men relative to the
extreme limit of virtue, which can only be attained with the accompaniment of
magnanimity and, thus, great wealth and power.
92
ARISTOTLE, Nicomachean Ethics, Oxford University Press, trans., David Ross, Oxford 1925, 89.
93
ARISTOTLE, TheEudemian Ethics, Harvard University Press, trans., H. RACKHAM, Cambridge 1835,
338.
94
THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, Christian Classics, trans., Fathers of the English Dominican
Province, Westminster, Md 1981, Q. 129, art. 2.
46
The virtue of magnanimity and liberality that tie together ethics, economics,
and politics reveal that both Aristotle and Aquinas think that wealth creates two
distinct domains of virtue, one for the common person and the other for the
aristocratic. This dichotomy between liberality and magnanimity is incompatible
with Christian ethics. If there were one virtue, as is the case with courage, wherein
all men could be weighed in the balance equally, the problem would be resolved. As
Aristotle and Aquinas have described it, it is archaic and antiquated; an aristocratic
virtue reflecting an attitude unfamiliar with the modern free markets that have
revealed each class of men possessing the capacity to act virtuously when acquiring
the opportunity, with the most important responsibilities.
47
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES
ARISTOTLE, The Basic Works of Aristotle, Random House, R. MCKEON, ed., New York
1941.
–––––––––––––, Nicomachean Ethics, Oxford University Press, trans., David Ross,

Oxford 1925.
–––––––––––––, The Eudemian Ethics, Harvard University Press, trans., H. RACKHAM,
Cambridge 1835.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica, Christian Classics, trans., Fathers of the
English Dominican Province, Westminster, Md., 1981.
––––––––––––––, De Virtutibus in Communi, 4th edn., Marietti, Turin 1897
––––––––––––––, Summa Theologica, 4th edn., marietti, Turin 1897.
––––––––––––––, Scriptum Super Libros Sententiarum III, Moos, Lethielleus, Paris 1933.
––––––––––––––, Scriptum Super Libros Sententiarum II, Mandonnet, lethielleux, Paris

1929.
––––––––––––––, In decem Libros Ethicorum Aristotle ad Nicomachum Expositio,

Pirotta, ed., Marrietti, Turin 1934.
SECONDARY SOURCES
BURNET, J., The ethics of Aristotle, Methuen and Co., London, 1900.
COVEY, S., The 7 Habits Of Highly Effective People, Free Press, Simon &Schuster, New
York 2003.
GILSON, E. H., Christianity and Philosophy, Published for the Institute of Mediaeval
Studies by Sheed and Ward, Trans., R. MACDONALD, New York 1931.
______________God and Philosophy: Powell Lectures, Yale University Press, New

Haven, 1941.
______________Moral Values and the Moral Life, Herder, Trans., L. R. WARD, St. Louis
193l.
______________The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy, Gifford Lectures, 1931-32, New

York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1940, vii, 485, Trans. A. H. C. DOWNES.
HAVARD, A., Virtuous Leadership, Strathmore University Press, Nairobi 2013.

HUGHES, G. J., Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Aristotle on Ethics, Routledge, New
York 2001.
HUTCHINSON, D. S., "Ethics," in The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, Cambridge
University Press, ed., J. BARNES, Cambridge 1996.
JAFFA, H.V., Thomism and Aristotelianism: A Study of the Commentary by Thomas
Aquinas on the Nicomachean Ethics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1952.
LEJEUNE, R., Robert Schuman, Pere del’ Europe, LibrairieAcademique Perrin, Paris
1980.
MARITAIN, J., De La Phi1osophie Chretienne, Desclee Science and Wisdom, trans.,
B. WALL, New York, 1940.
MURE, G.R.G., Aristotle, Muethuen and Co., 1930.
PEGIS, A.C., St. Thomas and the Greeks, Aquinas Lecture, Marquette University Press,
Milwaukee 1989.
49
ELECTRONIC SOURCES
BURKE, M., "Magnanimous Man in the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas" .in the
Master's Theses, Paper 78, 1942 available at:
http://www.ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/78
HAVARD, A., Leadership Is A Character, available at: http://www.univ.forum.org.html
Accessed on 13th, September 2014.
http://www.catholictheology.info/summa-theologica/summa-part2B.php?q=157. Accessed
on 7th August 2014.
http://thosecatholicmen.com/are-you-magnanimous-or-pusillanimous-2/. Accessed on 11th
November, 2014
http://books.google.co.zm/books. Accessed on 5th October, 2014.
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/avoiding-mediocrity-do-you-dare-to-be-
different.html. Accessed on 10th June, 2014.
50

The Magnanimous Man A Case For Aristotle

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Magnanimous Man A Case For Aristotle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ST BONAVENTURE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

THE NOTION OF MAGNANIMOUS MAN: A CASE FOR ARISTOTLE

A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the BA

Lusaka - Zambia 2015

Candidate: Jacques Kilulu KITUA

Moderator: Lucas GOLOLOMBE, OFM.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1

THE MAGNANIMOUS MAN IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF ARISTOTLE ............................ 3

1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 The Magnanimous Man And Honor ........................................................................... 5

1.3 Magnanimous Man And Courage ............................................................................... 6

1.4 Magnanimity As The Crown of All Virtues................................................................ 8

1.5 Nobility As A Character of The Magnanimous Man .................................................. 8

1.6 The Magnanimous Man Is Not a Slave of Honor ....................................................... 9

1.7 The Magnanimous Man And His Use Of Power ...................................................... 11

1.8 Magnanimous Man and His Use of Wealth .............................................................. 12

1.9 He Confers Benefits But He is Ashamed of Receiving Them .................................. 13

1.10 He is Unmindful of Services ................................................................................... 14

1.11 His attitude towards others ...................................................................................... 15

1.12 His Attitude Towards Things Held In Honor .......................................................... 16

1.13 His Openness to Hates and Love ............................................................................ 16

1.14 He Is Unmindful of Wrongs .................................................................................... 17

1.15 He Does Not Gossip ................................................................................................. 17

1.16 Step By Step Is Part of His Character ..................................................................... 18

1.17 Comment ................................................................................................................. 19

THE MAGNANIMOUS MAN IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS ...... 21

2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 21

2.2 The Dangers of Honor ............................................................................................... 23

2.3 Magnanimous Man Can Achieve Moderation of Honors ......................................... 24

2.3 How Magnanimous Man Achieves Moderation ....................................................... 25

2.4 Humility And Magnanimity: A Two-Fold Virtue ..................................................... 26

2.5 Magnanimity, A Secondary Virtue After Fortitude .................................................. 28

2.6 The Adornment of Magnanimity............................................................................... 29

2.7 Mediocrity In Pursuing Magnanimity ....................................................................... 30

2.7.1 Ways To Avoid Mediocrity ............................................................................... 31

2.8 Magnanimity And Confidence .................................................................................. 32

2.9 The Magnanimous Man And Goods Of Fortune ...................................................... 32

2.10 How To Become Magnanimous .............................................................................. 33

2.11 The Magnanimous Man Needs Theological Virtues............................................... 34

2.12 Comment ................................................................................................................. 35

2.13 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 35

CHAPTER III .......................................................................................................................... 36

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MAGNANIMOUS MEN OF ARISTOTLE AND

3.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 36

3.3 Aquinas’ View on Godlikeness ................................................................................. 37

3.4 Aristotle’s View on Godlikeness............................................................................... 38

3.5 The Similarities and Differences They Hold On Godliness ...................................... 39

3.6 For Aristotle the External Conduct is the Basis of Worthiness................................. 40

3.8 A Citizen of Heavenly Jerusalem .............................................................................. 41

3.10 Comment ................................................................................................................. 42

3.11 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 44

GENERAL CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 45

I dedicate this work to my parents, who made me start philosophizing in my

THE MAGNANIMOUS MAN IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF ARISTOTLE

Magnanimity is undoubtedly one of the many insightful themes Aristotle

1.2 The Magnanimous Man And Honor

1.3 Magnanimous Man And Courage

1.4 Magnanimity As The Crown of All Virtues

1.5 Nobility As A Character of The Magnanimous Man

1.6 The Magnanimous Man Is Not a Slave of Honor

1.8 Magnanimous Man and His Use of Wealth

1.9 He Confers Benefits But He is Ashamed of Receiving Them

1.10 He is Unmindful of Services