Obstinacy in a bad cause is but constancy in a good.

This aphorism is attributed to Sir Thomas Browne in the context of his moral and religious reflections, where he frequently probes how the same human quality can be praised or condemned depending on its object. Browne wrote in a period of intense confessional and political conflict in seventeenth-century England, when “steadfastness” could be celebrated as virtue by one party and denounced as stubbornness by another. The line encapsulates a common Brownean habit: reframing ethical judgments by shifting perspective, and warning readers that labels like “obstinacy” often reflect the observer’s evaluation of the cause rather than the inner disposition itself.

Browne’s aphorism plays on the thin line between moral judgment and mere description of character. “Obstinacy” and “constancy” can look identical in behavior—both involve persistence—but they are labeled differently depending on whether the cause is judged “bad” or “good.” The saying suggests that reputations for virtue or vice often hinge less on temperament than on the perceived justice of one’s aims. It also warns that steadfastness is not automatically admirable: perseverance can dignify a worthy cause, but the same tenacity can become culpable when attached to error, faction, or self-interest.