In addition to the duties which were imposed on the owners of property in all circumstances there was a further duty which only arose on special occasions, namely, magnificentia, or munificence.  This virtue is discussed by Aquinas[1], but we shall quote the passages of Buridan which explain it, not because they depart in any way from the teaching of Aquinas, but because they are clearer and more scientific.  ’By munificence, we understand a habit inclining one to the performance of great works, or to the incurring of great expenses, when, where, and in the manner in which they are called for (fuerit opportunum), for example, building a church, assembling great armies for a threatened war, and giving splendid marriage feasts.’  He explains that ’munificence stands in the same relation to liberality as bravery acquired by its exercise in danger of death in battle does to bravery simply and commonly understood.’  Two vices stand opposed to munificentia:  (1) parvificentia, ’a habit inclining one not to undertake great works, when circumstances call for them, or to undertaking less, or at less expense, than the needs of the situation demand,’ and (2) ([Greek:  banousia],) ’a habit inclining one to undertaking great works, which are not called for by circumstances, or undertaking them on a greater scale or at a greater expense than is necessary[2].’

[Footnote 1:  II. ii. 134.]

[Footnote 2:  Eth., iv. 7.]

Both in the case of avarice and prodigality the offending state of mind consisted in attaching a wrong value to wealth, and the inculcation of the virtue of liberality must have been attended with good results not alone to the souls of individuals, but to the economic condition of the community.  The avaricious man not only imperilled his own soul by attaching too much importance to temporal gain, but he also injured the community by monopolising too large a share of its wealth; the prodigal man, in addition to incurring the occasion of various sins of intemperance, also impoverished the community by wasting in reckless consumption wealth which might have been devoted to productive or charitable purposes.  He who neglected the duty of munificence, either by refusing to make a great expenditure when it was called for (parvificentia) or by making one when it was unnecessary ([Greek:  banousia]) was also deemed to have done wrong, because in the one case he valued his money too highly, and in the other not highly enough.  In other words, he attached a wrong value to wealth.  Nothing could be further from the truth than the suggestion that the schoolmen despised or belittled temporal riches.  Quite on the contrary, they esteemed it a sin to conduct oneself in a manner which showed a defective appreciation of their value[1].  Riches may have been the occasion of sin; but so was poverty.  ‘The occasions of sin are to be avoided,’ says Aquinas, ’but poverty is an occasion of evil, because theft, perjury, and flattery are frequently brought about by it.