Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that the subject of pride is not the irascible faculty. For Gregory says (Moral. xxiii, 17): "A swollen mind is an obstacle to truth, for the swelling shuts out the light." Now the knowledge of truth pertains, not to the irascible but to the rational faculty. Therefore pride is not in the irascible.

Objection 2: Further, Gregory says (Moral. xxiv, 8) that "the proud observe other people's conduct not so as to set themselves beneath them with humility, but so as to set themselves above them with pride": wherefore it would seem that pride originates in undue observation. Now observation pertains not to the irascible but to the rational faculty.

Objection 3: Further. pride seeks pre-eminence not only in sensible things, but also in spiritual and intelligible things: while it consists essentially in the contempt of God, according to Ecclus. 10:14, "The beginning of the pride of man is to fall off from God." Now the irascible, since it is a part of the sensitive appetite, cannot extend to God and things intelligible. Therefore pride cannot be in the irascible.

Objection 4: Further, as stated in Prosper's Liber Sententiarum, sent. 294, "Pride is love of one's own excellence." But love is not in the irascible, but in the concupiscible. Therefore pride is not in the irascible.

On the contrary, Gregory (Moral. ii, 49) opposes pride to the gift of fear. Now fear belongs to the irascible. Therefore pride is in the irascible.

I answer that, The subject of any virtue or vice is to be ascertained from its proper object: for the object of a habit or act cannot be other than the object of the power, which is the subject of both. Now the proper object of pride is something difficult, for pride is the desire of one's own excellence, as stated above (Articles 1,2). Wherefore pride must needs pertain in some way to the irascible faculty. Now the irascible may be taken in two ways. First in a strict sense, and thus it is a part of the sensitive appetite, even as anger, strictly speaking, is a passion of the sensitive appetite. Secondly, the irascible may be taken in a broader sense, so as to belong also to the intellective appetite, to which also anger is sometimes ascribed. It is thus that we attribute anger to God and the angels, not as a passion, but as denoting the sentence of justice pronouncing judgment. Nevertheless the irascible understood in this broad sense is not distinct from the concupiscible power, as stated above in the 1, Question 59, Article 4; 1.2, Question 82, Article 5, ad 1 and 2.

Consequently if the difficult thing which is the object of pride, were merely some sensible object, whereto the sensitive appetite might tend, pride would have to be in the irascible which is part of the sensitive appetite. But since the difficult thing which pride has in view is common both to sensible and to spiritual things, we must needs say that the subject of pride is the irascible not only strictly so called, as a part of the sensitive appetite, but also in its wider acceptation, as applicable to the intellective appetite. Wherefore pride is ascribed also to the demons.

Reply to Objection 1: Knowledge of truth is twofold. One is purely speculative, and pride hinders this indirectly by removing its cause. For the proud man subjects not his intellect to God, that he may receive the knowledge of truth from Him, according to Mt. 11:25, "Thou hast hid these things from the wise and the prudent," i.e. from the proud, who are wise and prudent in their own eyes, "and hast revealed them to little ones," i.e. to the humble.

Nor does he deign to learn anything from man, whereas it is written (Ecclus. 6:34): "If thou wilt incline thy ear, thou shalt receive instruction." The other knowledge of truth is affective, and this is directly hindered by pride, because the proud, through delighting in their own excellence, disdain the excellence of truth; thus Gregory says (Moral. xxiii, 17) that "the proud, although certain hidden truths be conveyed to their understanding, cannot realize their sweetness: and if they know of them they cannot relish them." Hence it is written (Prov. 11:2): "Where humility is there also is wisdom."

Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Question 161, Articles 2, 6), humility observes the rule of right reason whereby a man has true self-esteem. Now pride does not observe this rule of right reason, for he esteems himself greater than he is: and this is the outcome of an inordinate desire for his own excellence, since a man is ready to believe what he desires very much, the result being that his appetite is borne towards things higher than what become him. Consequently whatsoever things lead a man to inordinate self-esteem lead him to pride: and one of those is the observing of other people's failings, just as, on the other hand, in the words of Gregory (Moral. xxiii, 17), "holy men, by a like observation of other people's virtues, set others above themselves." Accordingly the conclusion is not that pride is in the rational faculty, but that one of its causes is in the reason.

Reply to Objection 3: Pride is in the irascible, not only as a part of the sensitive appetite, but also as having a more general signification, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 4: According to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7,9), "love precedes all other emotions of the soul, and is their cause," wherefore it may be employed to denote any of the other emotions. It is in this sense that pride is said to be "love of one's own excellence," inasmuch as love makes a man presume inordinately on his superiority over others, and this belongs properly to pride.

Articulus 3

Argumentum 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod superbia non sit in irascibili sicut in subiecto.

Dicit enim Gregorius, XXIII Moral., obstaculum veritatis tumor mentis est, quia, dum inflat, obnubilat.

Sed cognitio veritatis non pertinet ad irascibilem, sed ad vim rationalem. Ergo superbia non est in irascibili.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, XXIV Moral., quod superbi non eorum vitam considerant quibus se humiliando postponant, sed quibus superbiendo se praeferant, et sic videtur superbia ex indebita consideratione procedere.

Sed consideratio non pertinet ad irascibilem, sed potius ad rationalem. Ergo superbia non est in irascibili, sed potius in rationali.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, superbia non solum quaerit excellentiam in rebus sensibilibus, sed etiam in rebus spiritualibus et intelligibilibus ipsa etiam principaliter consistit in contemptu dei, secundum illud Eccli. X, initium superbiae hominis est apostatare a deo.

Sed irascibilis, cum sit pars appetitus sensitivi, non potest se extendere in deum et in intelligibilia.

Ergo superbia non potest esse in irascibili.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, ut dicitur in libro sententiarum prosperi, superbia est amor propriae excellentiae.

Sed amor non est in irascibili, sed in concupiscibili.

Ergo superbia non est in irascibili.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Gregorius, in II Moral., ponit contra superbiam donum timoris. Timor autem pertinet ad irascibilem. Ergo superbia est in irascibili.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod subiectum cuiuslibet virtutis vel vitii oportet inquirere ex proprio obiecto, non enim potest esse aliud obiectum habitus vel actus nisi quod est obiectum potentiae quae utrique subiicitur. Proprium autem obiectum superbiae est arduum, est enim appetitus propriae excellentiae, ut dictum est.

Unde oportet quod superbia aliquo modo ad vim irascibilem pertineat. Sed irascibilis dupliciter accipi potest.

Uno modo, proprie. Et sic est pars appetitus sensitivi, sicut et ira proprie sumpta est quaedam passio sensitivi appetitus.

Alio modo, potest accipi irascibilis largius, ut scilicet pertineat etiam ad appetitum intellectivum, cui etiam quandoque attribuitur ira, prout scilicet attribuimus iram deo et Angelis, non quidem secundum passionem, sed secundum iudicium iustitiae iudicantis. Et tamen irascibilis sic communiter dicta non est potentia distincta a concupiscibili, ut patet ex his quae in primo dicta sunt.

Si ergo arduum quod est obiectum superbiae, esset solum aliquid sensibile, in quod posset tendere appetitus sensitivus, oporteret quod superbia esset in irascibili quae est pars appetitus sensitivi. Sed quia arduum quod respicit superbia, communiter invenitur et in sensibilibus et in spiritualibus rebus necesse est dicere quod subiectum superbiae sit irascibilis non solum proprie sumpta, prout est pars appetitus sensitivi, sed etiam communius accepta, prout invenitur in appetitu intellectivo.

Unde et in Daemonibus superbia ponitur.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod cognitio veritatis est duplex.

Una pure speculativa. Et hanc superbia indirecte impedit, subtrahendo causam. Superbus enim neque deo suum intellectum subiicit, ut ab eo veritatis cognitionem percipiat, secundum illud Matth. XI, abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus, idest a superbis, qui sibi sapientes et prudentes videntur, et revelasti ea parvulis, idest humilibus.

Neque etiam ab hominibus addiscere dignantur, cum tamen dicatur, Eccli. VI, si inclinaveris aurem tuam.

Scilicet humiliter audiendo, excipies doctrinam.

Alia autem est cognitio veritatis affectiva. Et talem cognitionem veritatis directe impedit superbia. Quia superbi, dum delectantur in propria excellentia, excellentiam veritatis fastidiunt, ut Gregorius dicit, XXIII Moral., quod superbi et secreta quaedam intelligendo percipiunt, et eorum dulcedinem experiri non possunt, et si noverint quomodo sunt, ignorant quomodo sapiunt.

Unde et Proverb. XI dicitur, ubi humilitas, ibi sapientia.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, humilitas attendit ad regulam rationis rectae, secundum quam aliquis veram existimationem de se habet. Hanc autem regulam rectae rationis non attendit superbia, sed de se maiora existimat quam sint. Quod contingit ex inordinato appetitu propriae excellentiae, quia quod quis vehementer desiderat, facile credit. Et ex hoc etiam eius appetitus in altiora fertur quam sibi conveniant. Et ideo quaecumque ad hoc conferant quod aliquis existimet se supra id quod est, inducunt hominem ad superbiam.

Quorum unum est quod aliquis consideret defectus aliorum, sicut e contrario Gregorius, ibidem, dicit quod sancti viri virtutum consideratione vicissim sibi alios praeferunt.

Ex hoc ergo non habetur quod superbia sit in rationali, sed quod aliqua causa eius in ratione existat.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod superbia non est solum in irascibili secundum quod est pars appetitus sensitivi, sed prout communius irascibilis accipitur, ut dictum est.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XIV de CIV. Dei, amor praecedit omnes alias animi affectiones, et est causa earum.

Et ideo potest poni pro qualibet aliarum affectionum. Et secundum hoc, superbia dicitur esse amor propriae excellentiae, inquantum ex amore causatur inordinata praesumptio alios superandi, quod proprie pertinet ad superbiam.