[Footnote 1: Aquinas, _In Orat. Dom. Expos_., iv. Ashley gives many quotations from early English literature to show how fully the idea of _status_ was accepted (_Economic History_, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 389). On the warfare waged by the Church on luxury in the Middle Ages, see Baudrillard, _Histoire du Luxe privé et publique_, vol. iii. pp. 630 _et seq._] The avaricious man offended against liberality by caring too much about riches; the prodigal, on the other hand, cared too little about them, and did not attach to them their proper value. 'In affection while the prodigal falls short, not taking due care of them, in exterior behaviour it belongs to the prodigal to exceed in giving, but to fail in keeping or acquiring, while it belongs to the miser to come short in giving, but to superabound in getting and in keeping. Therefore it is clear that prodigality is the opposite of covetousness.'[1] A man, however, might commit both sins at the same time, by being unduly anxious to acquire wealth which he distributed prodigally.[2] Prodigality could always be distinguished from extreme liberality by a consideration of the circumstances of the particular case; a truly liberal man might give away more than a prodigal in case of necessity.[3] Prodigality, though a sin, was a sin of a less grievous kind than avarice.[4] [Footnote 1: II. ii. 119, 1.] [Footnote 2: _Ibid._, ad. 1.] [Footnote 3: _Ibid._, ad. 3.] [Footnote 4: _Ibid._, art. 3. 'Per prodigalitatem intelligimus habitum quo quis præter vel contra dictamen rectae rationis circa pecunias excedit in datione vel consumptione vel custodia; et per illiberalitatem intelligimus habitum quo quis contra dietamen rectae rationis deficit circa pecunias in datione vel consumptione, vel superabundat in acceptione vel custodia ipsarum' (Buridan, _Eth._, iv. 3).]