do not fall within the limits
of Vice, nor yet does Bestiality; and to conquer or yield to them does not constitute
in the strict sense, but only the state so called by analogy; just as a man who cannot
control his anger must be described as ‘unrestrained in’ that passion,
（Indeed folly, cowardice, profligacy, and ill-temper, whenever they run to
excess, are either bestial or morbid conditions.
constituted by nature as to be frightened by everything, even the sound of a mouse, shows
the cowardice of a lower animal; the man who was afraid of a weasel was a case of disease.
So with folly: people irrational by nature and living solely by sensation, like certain
remote tribes of barbarians, belong to the bestial class; those who lose their reason
owing to some disease, such as epilepsy, or through insanity, to the morbid.）
With these unnatural propensities it is possible in some cases merely to have the
disposition and not to yield to it: I mean, for instance, Phalaris2
might have had the desire to eat a child,
or to practise unnatural vice, and refrained; or it is possible not merely to possess but
to yield to the propensity.
As therefore with Vice, that
natural to man is called simply vice, whereas the other kind3
is termed not simply vice, but vice with the
qualifying epithet bestial or morbid, similarly with Unrestraint, it is clear that the
bestial and morbid kinds are distinct from unrestraint proper, and that the name without
qualification belongs only