Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/523

 HONTHEIM

463

HONTHEIM

Father, or Master, like the Pharisees; the greatest among His disciples should be the servant of all; and whosoever exalteth himself shall be humbled, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Here we touch upon the distinctive characteristic of Christian morality as distinguished from pagan ethics. The ideal type of manhood in the system of Aristotle is drawn for us in that philosopher's cele- brated description of the magnanimous man. The magnanimous man is described as one who, being really worthy of great things, holds himself worthy of them. For he who holds himself thus worthy beyond his real deserts is a fool, and no man possessed of any virtue whatsoever can ever be a fool or show want of imderstanding. He, on the other hand, who holds himself worthy of less than his merits is little- minded, no matter whether the merits which he thus underrates be great, or moderate, or small. The merits, then, of the high-minded man are extreme, but in his conduct he observes the proper mean. For he holds himself worthy of his exact deserts, while others either overestimate or else underestimate their own merits. And since he is not only worthy of great things, but also holds himself worthy of them — or rather, indeed, of the very greatest things — it follows that there is some one object which ought most espe- cially to occupy him. Now this object is honour, for it is the very greatest of all external goods. But the high-minded man, since his deserts are the highest possible, must be among the best of men; for the better a man is the higher will be his deserts, and the best man will have the highest deserts. True high- mindedness, therefore, cannot but imply virtue; or, rather, the criterion of high-mindedness is the con- joint perfection of all the individual virtues. High- mindedness, then, would seem to be the crown, as it were, of all the virtues; for it not only involves their existence, but it also intensifies their lustre. It is with honour, then, and with dishonour that the high- minded man is most especially concerned. And where he meets with great honour, and that from up- right men, he will take pleasure in it; although his pleasure will not be excessive, inasmuch as he has obtained at the outside only what he merits, if not perhaps less — since adequate honour for perfect virtue cannot be found. He will, however, none the less receive such honour from upright men, inasmuch as they have no greater reward to offer him. But hon- our given by the common herd, and upon unimportant occasions, he will hold in utter contempt, for it will be no measure of his deserts. Now the high-minded man justly despises his neighbours, for his estimate is always right; but the majority of men despise their fellows upon insufficient grounds. He also loves to confer a favour, but feels shame at receiving one; for the former argues superiority, the latter inferiority. The high-minded would, moreover, seem to bear those in mind to whom they have done kindnesses, but not those from whom they have received them. For he who has received a kindness stands in a position in- ferior to that of him who has conferred it, whereas the high-minded man desires a position of superiority. And so he hears with pleasure of the favours he has conferred, but with dislike of those which he has received.

These are the chief traits in this celebrated portrait as far as they relate to the matter with which we are dealing. Aristotle fills in the details of the pic- ture with minute accuracy; it is obvious that he dwelt upon it with loving care, as the highest ideal of his ethical system. And yet, as we read it now, the description has in it an element of the ridiculous. If the high-minded man of Aristotle appeared to-day in any decent society, he would soon be given to under- stand that he took himself a great deal too seriously, and he would be quizzed unmercifully until he abated something of his pretensions. It is, indeed, a con-

summate picture of a noble pride which the pagan pliilosopher paints for us, anil Clu-istianity teaches us that all pride is a lie. Human nature, even at its best and noblest, is, after all, a poor thing, and even vile, as Christian asceticism tells us. Was, then, Aristotle simply wrong in his doctrine concerning magnanimity? By no means. St. Thomas accepts his teaching concerning tliis virtue, but, to prevent it becoming pride, he tempers it with the doctrine of Cliristian humility. Christian doctrine joins all that is true and noble in Aristotle's description of mag- nanimity with what revelation and experience alike teach us concerning human frailty and sinfulness. The result is the sweetness, the truth, and the strength of the highest Christian character. Instead of a self- satisfied Aristides or Pericles, we have a St. Paul, a St. Francis of Assisi, or a St. Francis Xavier. The great Christian saint is penetrated with a sense of liis own weakness and unworthiness apart from God's grace. This prevents him thinking himself worthy of any- thing except punishment on account of his sins and unfaithfulness to grace. He never despises his neigh- bour, but esteems all men more than he does himself. If left to himself, he prefers, with St. Peter of Alcan- tara, to be despised of men and to suffer for Christ. But if the glory of God and the good of his fellow-men require it, the Christian saint is prepared to abandon his obscurity. He knows that he can do all things in Him Who strengthens him. With incredible energy, constancy, and utter forgetfulness of self, he works wonders without apparent means. If honours are bestowed on him, he knows how to accept them and refer them to God if it be for His service. Otherwise he despises them as he does riches, and prefers to be poor and despised with Him Who was meek and hum- ble of heart.

In opposition to the pagan doctrine of Aristotle and the selfish worldliness of the Pharisees, the Chris- tian attitude towards honours may be stated in a few words. Honour, being the due homage paid to worth, is the chief among the external goods which man can enjoy. It may be lawfully sought for, fiut inasmuch as all worth is from God, and man of himself has noth- ing but sin, it must be referred to Ciod and sought only for His sake or for the good of one's fellow-men. Honours, like riches, are dangerous gifts, and it is praiseworthy to renounce them out of love for Him who for our sakes was poor and despised.

Aristotle, The Nicomarhean Ethics; St. Thomas, Summa; St. Alphonsus Liguori, Theologia Moralis (Turin, 1825); St. Ignatius Loyola, Spiritual Exercises; Lessius, De Justitid et Jure (Venice, 1625).

T. Slater.

Hontheim (Febronius), Johannes Nicolausvon, auxiliary Bishop of Trier; b. at Trier, 27 January, 1701; ci. at Montquentin, near Orval, 2 Sept., 1790. The son of Karl Caspar von Hontheim and of Anna Margareta von Anethan, he received his early educa- tion from the Jesuits of Trier, with whom he subse- quently had little sympathy. He afterwards attended tne Universities of Trier, Louvain, and Leyden, where he devoted himself to the study of law and theology. The works of Van Espen, the Louvain professor, and his Galilean doctrine influenced him greatly. He became a doctor of law at Trier in 1724, and then made an educational tour through various countries — Holland, Belgium, Germany, and Italy-^and spent three years in Rome. Having become a priest 22 May, 1728, he was received without delay among the Canons of St-Simeon at Trier, in the prebend which his uncle, Hugo Frederick von Anethan, had given him when he reached the age of twelve years, at which time he had received the tonsure. He also discharged other ecclesiastical functions, and in 1732 became professor of the Pandects at the University of Trier. In 17.38 he went to Coblenz where he discharged the duties of official and president of the Grand S^minaire