Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 49 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de singulis prudentiae partibus quasi integralibus. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. | We must now consider each quasi-integral part of prudence, and under this head there are eight points of inquiry: |
| Primo, de memoria. | (1) Memory; |
| Secundo, de intellectu vel intelligentia. | (2) Understanding or Intelligence; |
| Tertio, de docilitate. | (3) Docility; |
| Quarto, de solertia. | (4) Shrewdness; |
| Quinto, de ratione. | (5) Reason; |
| Sexto, de providentia. | (6) Foresight; |
| Septimo, de circumspectione. | (7) Circumspection; |
| Octavo, de cautione. | (8) Caution. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 49 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod memoria non sit pars prudentiae. Memoria enim, ut probat philosophus, est in parte animae sensitiva. Prudentia autem est in ratiocinativa; ut patet in VI Ethic. Ergo memoria non est pars prudentiae. | Objection 1: It would seem that memory is not a part of prudence. For memory, as the Philosopher proves (De Memor. et Remin. i), is in the sensitive part of the soul: whereas prudence is in the rational part (Ethic. vi, 5). Therefore memory is not a part of prudence. |
| Praeterea, prudentia per exercitium acquiritur et proficit. Sed memoria inest nobis a natura. Ergo memoria non est pars prudentiae. | Objection 2: Further, prudence is acquired and perfected by experience, whereas memory is in us from nature. Therefore memory is not a part of prudence. |
| Praeterea, memoria est praeteritorum. Prudentia autem futurorum operabilium, de quibus est consilium, ut dicitur in VI Ethic. Ergo memoria non est pars prudentiae. | Objection 3: Further, memory regards the past, whereas prudence regards future matters of action, about which counsel is concerned, as stated in Ethic. vi, 2,7. Therefore memory is not a part of prudence. |
| Sed contra est quod Tullius, in II Rhet., ponit memoriam inter partes prudentiae. | On the contrary, Tully (De Invent. Rhet. ii, 53) places memory among the parts of prudence. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod prudentia est circa contingentia operabilia, sicut dictum est. In his autem non potest homo dirigi per ea quae sunt simpliciter et ex necessitate vera, sed ex his quae ut in pluribus accidunt, oportet enim principia conclusionibus esse proportionata, et ex talibus talia concludere, ut dicitur in VI Ethic. Quid autem in pluribus sit verum oportet per experimentum considerare, unde et in II Ethic. philosophus dicit quod virtus intellectualis habet generationem et augmentum ex experimento et tempore. Experimentum autem est ex pluribus memoriis; ut patet in I Metaphys. Unde consequens est quod ad prudentiam requiritur plurium memoriam habere. Unde convenienter memoria ponitur pars prudentiae. |
I answer that, Prudence regards contingent matters of action, as stated above (Question [47], Article [5]). Now in such like matters a man can be directed, not by those things that are simply and necessarily true, but by those which occur in the majority of cases: because principles must be proportionate to their conclusions, and "like must be concluded from like" (Ethic. vi [*Anal. Post. i. 32]). But we need experience to discover what is true in the majority of cases: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1) that "intellectual virtue is engendered and fostered by experience and time." Now experience is the result of many memories as stated in Metaph. i, 1, and therefore prudence requires the memory of many things. Hence memory is fittingly accounted a part of prudence. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quia, sicut dictum est, prudentia applicat universalem cognitionem ad particularia, quorum est sensus, inde multa quae pertinent ad partem sensitivam requiruntur ad prudentiam. Inter quae est memoria. |
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Question [47], Articles [3],6), prudence applies universal knowledge to particulars which are objects of sense: hence many things belonging to the sensitive faculties are requisite for prudence, and memory is one of them. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod sicut prudentia aptitudinem quidem habet ex natura, sed eius complementum est ex exercitio vel gratia ita etiam, ut Tullius dicit, in sua rhetorica, memoria non solum a natura proficiscitur, sed etiam habet plurimum artis et industriae. | Reply to Objection 2: Just as aptitude for prudence is in our nature, while its perfection comes through practice or grace, so too, as Tully says in his Rhetoric [*Ad Herenn. de Arte Rhet. iii, 16,24], memory not only arises from nature, but is also aided by art and diligence. |
| Et sunt quatuor per quae homo proficit in bene memorando. Quorum primum est ut eorum quae vult memorari quasdam similitudines assumat convenientes, nec tamen omnino consuetas, quia ea quae sunt inconsueta magis miramur, et sic in eis animus magis et vehementius detinetur; ex quo fit quod eorum quae in pueritia vidimus magis memoremur. Ideo autem necessaria est huiusmodi similitudinum vel imaginum adinventio, quia intentiones simplices et spirituales facilius ex anima elabuntur nisi quibusdam similitudinibus corporalibus quasi alligentur, quia humana cognitio potentior est circa sensibilia. Unde et memorativa ponitur in parte sensitiva. Secundo, oportet ut homo ea quae memoriter vult tenere sua consideratione ordinate disponat, ut ex uno memorato facile ad aliud procedatur. Unde philosophus dicit, in libro de Mem., a locis videntur reminisci aliquando, causa autem est quia velociter ab alio in aliud veniunt. Tertio, oportet ut homo sollicitudinem apponat et affectum adhibeat ad ea quae vult memorari, quia quo aliquid magis fuerit impressum animo, eo minus elabitur. Unde et Tullius dicit, in sua rhetorica, quod sollicitudo conservat integras simulacrorum figuras. Quarto, oportet quod ea frequenter meditemur quae volumus memorari. Unde philosophus dicit, in libro de Mem., quod meditationes memoriam salvant, quia, ut in eodem libro dicitur, consuetudo est quasi natura; unde quae multoties intelligimus cito reminiscimur, quasi naturali quodam ordine ab uno ad aliud procedentes. | There are four things whereby a man perfects his memory. First, when a man wishes to remember a thing, he should take some suitable yet somewhat unwonted illustration of it, since the unwonted strikes us more, and so makes a greater and stronger impression on the mind; the mind; and this explains why we remember better what we saw when we were children. Now the reason for the necessity of finding these illustrations or images, is that simple and spiritual impressions easily slip from the mind, unless they be tied as it were to some corporeal image, because human knowledge has a greater hold on sensible objects. For this reason memory is assigned to the sensitive part of the soul. Secondly, whatever a man wishes to retain in his memory he must carefully consider and set in order, so that he may pass easily from one memory to another. Hence the Philosopher says (De Memor. et Remin. ii): "Sometimes a place brings memories back to us: the reason being that we pass quickly from the one to the other." Thirdly, we must be anxious and earnest about the things we wish to remember, because the more a thing is impressed on the mind, the less it is liable to slip out of it. Wherefore Tully says in his Rhetoric [*Ad Herenn. de Arte Rhet. iii.] that "anxiety preserves the figures of images entire." Fourthly, we should often reflect on the things we wish to remember. Hence the Philosopher says (De Memoria i) that "reflection preserves memories," because as he remarks (De Memoria ii) "custom is a second nature": wherefore when we reflect on a thing frequently, we quickly call it to mind, through passing from one thing to another by a kind of natural order. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ex praeteritis oportet nos quasi argumentum sumere de futuris. Et ideo memoria praeteritorum necessaria est ad bene consiliandum de futuris. | Reply to Objection 3: It behooves us to argue, as it were, about the future from the past; wherefore memory of the past is necessary in order to take good counsel for the future. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 49 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod intellectus non sit pars prudentiae. Eorum enim quae ex opposito dividuntur unum non est pars alterius. Sed intellectus ponitur virtus intellectualis condivisa prudentiae, ut patet in VI Ethic. Ergo intellectus non debet poni pars prudentiae. | Objection 1: It would seem that understanding is not a part of prudence. When two things are members of a division, one is not part of the other. But intellectual virtue is divided into understanding and prudence, according to Ethic. vi, 3. Therefore understanding should not be reckoned a part of prudence. |
| Praeterea, intellectus ponitur inter dona spiritus sancti, et correspondet fidei, ut supra habitum est. Sed prudentia est alia virtus a fide, ut per supradicta patet. Ergo intellectus non pertinet ad prudentiam. |
Objection 2: Further, understanding is numbered among the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and corresponds to faith, as stated above (Question [8], Articles [1],8). But prudence is a virtue other than faith, as is clear from what has been said above (Question [4], Article [8]; FS, Question [62], Article [2]). Therefore understanding does not pertain to prudence. |
| Praeterea, prudentia est singularium operabilium, ut dicitur in VI Ethic. Sed intellectus est universalium cognoscitivus et immaterialium; ut patet in III de anima. Ergo intellectus non est pars prudentiae. | Objection 3: Further, prudence is about singular matters of action (Ethic. vi, 7): whereas understanding takes cognizance of universal and immaterial objects (De Anima iii, 4). Therefore understanding is not a part of prudence. |
| Sed contra est quod Tullius ponit intelligentiam partem prudentiae, et Macrobius intellectum, quod in idem redit. [41074] II-IIae q. 49 a. 2 co. | On the contrary, Tully [*De Invent. Rhet. ii, 53] accounts "intelligence" a part of prudence, and Macrobius [*In Somn. Scip. i, 8] mentions "understanding," which comes to the same. |
| >Respondeo dicendum quod intellectus non sumitur hic pro potentia intellectiva, sed prout importat quandam rectam aestimationem alicuius extremi principii quod accipitur ut per se notum, sicut et prima demonstrationum principia intelligere dicimur. Omnis autem deductio rationis ab aliquibus procedit quae accipiuntur ut prima. Unde oportet quod omnis processus rationis ab aliquo intellectu procedat. Quia igitur prudentia est recta ratio agibilium, ideo necesse est quod totus processus prudentiae ab intellectu derivetur. Et propter hoc intellectus ponitur pars prudentiae. | I answer that, Understanding denotes here, not the intellectual power, but the right estimate about some final principle, which is taken as self-evident: thus we are said to understand the first principles of demonstrations. Now every deduction of reason proceeds from certain statements which are taken as primary: wherefore every process of reasoning must needs proceed from some understanding. Therefore since prudence is right reason applied to action, the whole process of prudence must needs have its source in understanding. Hence it is that understanding is reckoned a part of prudence. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio prudentiae terminatur, sicut ad conclusionem quandam, ad particulare operabile, ad quod applicat universalem cognitionem, ut ex dictis patet. Conclusio autem singularis syllogizatur ex universali et singulari propositione. Unde oportet quod ratio prudentiae ex duplici intellectu procedat. Quorum unus est qui est cognoscitivus universalium. Quod pertinet ad intellectum qui ponitur virtus intellectualis, quia naturaliter nobis cognita sunt non solum universalia principia speculativa, sed etiam practica, sicut nulli esse malefaciendum, ut ex dictis patet. Alius autem intellectus est qui, ut dicitur in VI Ethic., est cognoscitivus extremi, idest alicuius primi singularis et contingentis operabilis, propositionis scilicet minoris, quam oportet esse singularem in syllogismo prudentiae, ut dictum est. Hoc autem primum singulare est aliquis singularis finis, ut ibidem dicitur. Unde intellectus qui ponitur pars prudentiae est quaedam recta aestimatio de aliquo particulari fine. |
Reply to Objection 1: The reasoning of prudence terminates, as in a conclusion, in the particular matter of action, to which, as stated above (Question [47], Articles [3],6), it applies the knowledge of some universal principle. Now a singular conclusion is argued from a universal and a singular proposition. Wherefore the reasoning of prudence must proceed from a twofold understanding. The one is cognizant of universals, and this belongs to the understanding which is an intellectual virtue, whereby we know naturally not only speculative principles, but also practical universal principles, such as "One should do evil to no man," as shown above (Question [47], Article [6]). The other understanding, as stated in Ethic. vi, 11, is cognizant of an extreme, i.e. of some primary singular and contingent practical matter, viz. the minor premiss, which must needs be singular in the syllogism of prudence, as stated above (Question [47], Articles [3],6). Now this primary singular is some singular end, as stated in the same place. Wherefore the understanding which is a part of prudence is a right estimate of some particular end. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod intellectus qui ponitur donum spiritus sancti est quaedam acuta perspectio divinorum, ut ex supradictis patet. Aliter autem ponitur intellectus pars prudentiae, ut dictum est. |
Reply to Objection 2: The understanding which is a gift of the Holy Ghost, is a quick insight into divine things, as shown above (Question [8], Articles [1],2). It is in another sense that it is accounted a part of prudence, as stated above. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ipsa recta aestimatio de fine particulari et intellectus dicitur, inquantum est alicuius principii; et sensus, inquantum est particularis. Et hoc est quod philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic., horum, scilicet singularium, oportet habere sensum, hic autem est intellectus. Non autem hoc est intelligendum de sensu particulari quo cognoscimus propria sensibilia, sed de sensu interiori quo de particulari iudicamus. | Reply to Objection 3: The right estimate about a particular end is called both "understanding," in so far as its object is a principle, and "sense," in so far as its object is a particular. This is what the Philosopher means when he says (Ethic. v, 11): "Of such things we need to have the sense, and this is understanding." But this is to be understood as referring, not to the particular sense whereby we know proper sensibles, but to the interior sense, whereby we judge of a particular. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 49 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod docilitas non debeat poni pars prudentiae. Illud enim quod requiritur ad omnem virtutem intellectualem non debet appropriari alicui earum. Sed docilitas necessaria est ad quamlibet virtutem intellectualem. Ergo non debet poni pars prudentiae. | Objection 1: It would seem that docility should not be accounted a part of prudence. For that which is a necessary condition of every intellectual virtue, should not be appropriated to one of them. But docility is requisite for every intellectual virtue. Therefore it should not be accounted a part of prudence. |
| Praeterea, ea quae ad virtutes humanas pertinent sunt in nobis, quia secundum ea quae in nobis sunt laudamur vel vituperamur. Sed non est in potestate nostra quod dociles simus, sed hoc ex naturali dispositione quibusdam contingit. Ergo non est pars prudentiae. | Objection 2: Further, that which pertains to a human virtue is in our power, since it is for things that are in our power that we are praised or blamed. Now it is not in our power to be docile, for this is befitting to some through their natural disposition. Therefore it is not a part of prudence. |
| Praeterea, docilitas ad discipulum pertinet. Sed prudentia, cum sit praeceptiva, magis videtur ad magistros pertinere, qui etiam praeceptores dicuntur. Ergo docilitas non est pars prudentiae. | Objection 3: Further, docility is in the disciple: whereas prudence, since it makes precepts, seems rather to belong to teachers, who are also called "preceptors." Therefore docility is not a part of prudence. |
| Sed contra est quod Macrobius, secundum sententiam Plotini, ponit docilitatem inter partes prudentiae. | On the contrary, Macrobius [*In Somn. Scip. i, 8] following the opinion of Plotinus places docility among the parts of prudence. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, prudentia consistit circa particularia operabilia. In quibus cum sint quasi infinitae diversitates, non possunt ab uno homine sufficienter omnia considerari, nec per modicum tempus, sed per temporis diuturnitatem. Unde in his quae ad prudentiam pertinent maxime indiget homo ab alio erudiri, et praecipue ex senibus, qui sanum intellectum adepti sunt circa fines operabilium. Unde philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic., oportet attendere expertorum et seniorum et prudentium indemonstrabilibus enuntiationibus et opinionibus non minus quam demonstrationibus, propter experientiam enim vident principia. Unde et Prov. III dicitur, ne innitaris prudentiae tuae; et Eccli. VI dicitur, in multitudine presbyterorum, idest seniorum, prudentium sta, et sapientiae illorum ex corde coniungere. Hoc autem pertinet ad docilitatem, ut aliquis sit bene disciplinae susceptivus. Et ideo convenienter ponitur docilitas pars prudentiae. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [2], ad 1; Question [47], Article [3]) prudence is concerned with particular matters of action, and since such matters are of infinite variety, no one man can consider them all sufficiently; nor can this be done quickly, for it requires length of time. Hence in matters of prudence man stands in very great need of being taught by others, especially by old folk who have acquired a sane understanding of the ends in practical matters. Wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 11): "It is right to pay no less attention to the undemonstrated assertions and opinions of such persons as are experienced, older than we are, and prudent, than to their demonstrations, for their experience gives them an insight into principles." Thus it is written (Prov. 3:5): "Lean not on thy own prudence," and (Ecclus. 6:35): "Stand in the multitude of the ancients" (i.e. the old men), "that are wise, and join thyself from thy heart to their wisdom." Now it is a mark of docility to be ready to be taught: and consequently docility is fittingly reckoned a part of prudence |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod etsi docilitas utilis sit ad quamlibet virtutem intellectualem, praecipue tamen ad prudentiam, ratione iam dicta. | Reply to Objection 1: Although docility is useful for every intellectual virtue, yet it belongs to prudence chiefly, for the reason given above. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod docilitas, sicut et alia quae ad prudentiam pertinent, secundum aptitudinem quidem est a natura, sed ad eius consummationem plurimum valet humanum studium, dum scilicet homo sollicite, frequenter et reverenter applicat animum suum documentis maiorum, non negligens ea propter ignaviam, nec contemnens propter superbiam. | Reply to Objection 2: Man has a natural aptitude for docility even as for other things connected with prudence. Yet his own efforts count for much towards the attainment of perfect docility: and he must carefully, frequently and reverently apply his mind to the teachings of the learned, neither neglecting them through laziness, nor despising them through pride. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod per prudentiam aliquis praecipit non solum aliis, sed etiam sibi ipsi, ut dictum est. Unde etiam in subditis locum habet, ut supra dictum est, ad quorum prudentiam pertinet docilitas. Quamvis etiam ipsos maiores oporteat dociles quantum ad aliqua esse, quia nullus in his quae subsunt prudentiae sibi quantum ad omnia sufficit, ut dictum est. |
Reply to Objection 3: By prudence man makes precepts not only for others, but also for himself, as stated above (Question [47], Article [12], ad 3). Hence as stated (Ethic. vi, 11), even in subjects, there is place for prudence; to which docility pertains. And yet even the learned should be docile in some respects, since no man is altogether self-sufficient in matters of prudence, as stated above. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 49 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod solertia non sit pars prudentiae. Solertia enim se habet ad facile invenienda media in demonstrationibus; ut patet in I Poster. Sed ratio prudentiae non est demonstrativa, cum sit contingentium. Ergo ad prudentiam non pertinet solertia. | Objection 1: It would seem that shrewdness is not a part of prudence. For shrewdness consists in easily finding the middle term for demonstrations, as stated in Poster. i, 34. Now the reasoning of prudence is not a demonstration since it deals with contingencies. Therefore shrewdness does not pertain to prudence. |
| Praeterea, ad prudentiam pertinet bene consiliari, ut dicitur in VI Ethic. Sed in bene consiliando non habet locum solertia, quae est Eustochia quaedam, idest bona coniecturatio, quae est sine ratione et velox; oportet autem consiliari tarde; ut dicitur in VI Ethic. Ergo solertia non debet poni pars prudentiae. | Objection 2: Further, good counsel pertains to prudence according to Ethic. vi, 5,7,9. Now there is no place in good counsel for shrewdness [*Ethic. vi, 9; Poster. i, 34] which is a kind of {eustochia}, i.e. "a happy conjecture": for the latter is "unreasoning and rapid," whereas counsel needs to be slow, as stated in Ethic. vi, 9. Therefore shrewdness should not be accounted a part of prudence. |
| Praeterea, solertia, ut dictum est, est quaedam bona coniecturatio. Sed coniecturis uti est proprie rhetorum. Ergo solertia magis pertinet ad rhetoricam quam ad prudentiam. |
Objection 3: Further, shrewdness as stated above (Question [48]) is a "happy conjecture." Now it belongs to rhetoricians to make use of conjectures. Therefore shrewdness belongs to rhetoric rather than to prudence. |
| Sed contra est quod Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., sollicitus dicitur quasi solers et citus. Sed sollicitudo ad prudentiam pertinet, ut supra dictum est. Ergo et solertia. |
On the contrary, Isidore says (Etym. x): "A solicitous man is one who is shrewd and alert [solers citus]." But solicitude belongs to prudence, as stated above (Question [47], Article [9]). Therefore shrewdness does also. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod prudentis est rectam aestimationem habere de operandis. Recta autem aestimatio sive opinio acquiritur in operativis, sicut in speculativis, dupliciter, uno quidem modo, per se inveniendo; alio modo, ab alio addiscendo. Sicut autem docilitas ad hoc pertinet ut homo bene se habeat in acquirendo rectam opinionem ab alio; ita solertia ad hoc pertinet ut homo bene se habeat in acquirendo rectam existimationem per seipsum. Ita tamen ut solertia accipiatur pro Eustochia, cuius est pars. Nam Eustochia est bene coniecturativa de quibuscumque, solertia autem est facilis et prompta coniecturatio circa inventionem medii, ut dicitur in I Poster. Tamen ille philosophus qui ponit solertiam partem prudentiae, accipit eam communiter pro omni Eustochia, unde dicit quod solertia est habitus qui provenit ex repentino, inveniens quod convenit. | I answer that, Prudence consists in a right estimate about matters of action. Now a right estimate or opinion is acquired in two ways, both in practical and in speculative matters, first by discovering it oneself, secondly by learning it from others. Now just as docility consists in a man being well disposed to acquire a right opinion from another man, so shrewdness is an apt disposition to acquire a right estimate by oneself, yet so that shrewdness be taken for {eustochia}, of which it is a part. For {eustochia} is a happy conjecture about any matter, while shrewdness is "an easy and rapid conjecture in finding the middle term" (Poster. i, 34). Nevertheless the philosopher [*Andronicus; Cf. Question [48], Objection [1]] who calls shrewdness a part of prudence, takes it for {eustochia}, in general, hence he says: "Shrewdness is a habit whereby congruities are discovered rapidly." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod solertia non solum se habet circa inventionem medii in demonstrativis, sed etiam in operativis, puta cum aliquis videns aliquos amicos factos coniecturat eos esse inimicos eiusdem, ut ibidem philosophus dicit. Et hoc modo solertia pertinet ad prudentiam. | Reply to Objection 1: Shrewdness is concerned with the discovery of the middle term not only in demonstrative, but also in practical syllogisms, as, for instance, when two men are seen to be friends they are reckoned to be enemies of a third one, as the Philosopher says (Poster. i, 34). In this way shrewdness belongs to prudence. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod philosophus veram rationem inducit in VI Ethic. ad ostendendum quod eubulia, quae est bene consiliativa, non est Eustochia, cuius laus est in veloci consideratione eius quod oportet, potest autem esse aliquis bene consiliativus etiam si diutius consilietur vel tardius. Nec tamen propter hoc excluditur quin bona coniecturatio ad bene consiliandum valeat. Et quandoque necessaria est, quando scilicet ex improviso occurrit aliquid agendum. Et ideo solertia convenienter ponitur pars prudentiae. | Reply to Objection 2: The Philosopher adduces the true reason (Ethic. vi, 9) to prove that {euboulia}, i.e. good counsel, is not {eustochia}, which is commended for grasping quickly what should be done. Now a man may take good counsel, though he be long and slow in so doing, and yet this does not discount the utility of a happy conjecture in taking good counsel: indeed it is sometimes a necessity, when, for instance, something has to be done without warning. It is for this reason that shrewdness is fittingly reckoned a part of prudence. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod rhetorica etiam ratiocinatur circa operabilia. Unde nihil prohibet idem ad rhetoricam et prudentiam pertinere. Et tamen coniecturatio hic non sumitur solum secundum quod pertinet ad coniecturas quibus utuntur rhetores, sed secundum quod in quibuscumque dicitur homo coniicere veritatem. | Reply to Objection 3: Rhetoric also reasons about practical matters, wherefore nothing hinders the same thing belonging both to rhetoric and prudence. Nevertheless, conjecture is taken here not only in the sense in which it is employed by rhetoricians, but also as applicable to all matters whatsoever wherein man is said to conjecture the truth. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 49 [ << | >> ]
Article: 5 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ratio non debeat poni pars prudentiae. Subiectum enim accidentis non est pars eius. Sed prudentia est in ratione sicut in subiecto, ut dicitur in VI Ethic. Ergo ratio non debet poni pars prudentiae. | Objection 1: It would seem that reason should not be reckoned a part of prudence. For the subject of an accident is not a part thereof. But prudence is in the reason as its subject (Ethic. vi, 5). Therefore reason should not be reckoned a part of prudence. |
| Praeterea, illud quod est multis commune non debet alicuius eorum poni pars, vel, si ponatur, debet poni pars eius cui potissime convenit. Ratio autem necessaria est in omnibus virtutibus intellectualibus, et praecipue in sapientia et scientia, quae utuntur ratione demonstrativa. Ergo ratio non debet poni pars prudentiae. | Objection 2: Further, that which is common to many, should not be reckoned a part of any one of them; or if it be so reckoned, it should be reckoned a part of that one to which it chiefly belongs. Now reason is necessary in all the intellectual virtues, and chiefly in wisdom and science, which employ a demonstrative reason. Therefore reason should not be reckoned a part of prudence |
| Praeterea, ratio non differt per essentiam potentiae ab intellectu, ut prius habitum est. Si ergo intellectus ponitur pars prudentiae, superfluum fuit addere rationem. |
Objection 3: Further, reason as a power does not differ essentially from the intelligence, as stated above (FP, Question [79], Article [8]). If therefore intelligence be reckoned a part of prudence, it is superfluous to add reason. |
| Sed contra est quod Macrobius, secundum sententiam Plotini, rationem numerat inter partes prudentiae. | On the contrary, Macrobius [*In Somn. Scip. i], following the opinion of Plotinus, numbers reason among the parts of prudence. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod opus prudentis est esse bene consiliativum, ut dicitur in VI Ethic. Consilium autem est inquisitio quaedam ex quibusdam ad alia procedens. Hoc autem est opus rationis. Unde ad prudentiam necessarium est quod homo sit bene ratiocinativus. Et quia ea quae exiguntur ad perfectionem prudentiae dicuntur exigitivae vel quasi integrales partes prudentiae, inde est quod ratio inter partes prudentiae connumerari debet. | I answer that, The work of prudence is to take good counsel, as stated in Ethic. vi, 7. Now counsel is a research proceeding from certain things to others. But this is the work of reason. Wherefore it is requisite for prudence that man should be an apt reasoner. And since the things required for the perfection of prudence are called requisite or quasi-integral parts of prudence, it follows that reason should be numbered among these parts. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio non sumitur hic pro ipsa potentia rationis, sed pro eius bono usu. | Reply to Objection 1: Reason denotes here, not the power of reason, but its good use. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod certitudo rationis est ex intellectu, sed necessitas rationis est ex defectu intellectus, illa enim in quibus vis intellectiva plenarie viget ratione non indigent, sed suo simplici intuitu veritatem comprehendunt, sicut Deus et Angeli. Particularia autem operabilia, in quibus prudentia dirigit, recedunt praecipue ab intelligibilium conditione, et tanto magis quanto minus sunt certa seu determinata. Ea enim quae sunt artis, licet sint singularia, tamen sunt magis determinata et certa, unde in pluribus eorum non est consilium, propter certitudinem, ut dicitur in III Ethic. Et ideo quamvis in quibusdam aliis virtutibus intellectualibus sit certior ratio quam prudentia, tamen ad prudentiam maxime requiritur quod sit homo bene ratiocinativus, ut possit bene applicare universalia principia ad particularia, quae sunt varia et incerta. | Reply to Objection 2: The certitude of reason comes from the intellect. Yet the need of reason is from a defect in the intellect, since those things in which the intellective power is in full vigor, have no need for reason, for they comprehend the truth by their simple insight, as do God and the angels. On the other hand particular matters of action, wherein prudence guides, are very far from the condition of things intelligible, and so much the farther, as they are less certain and fixed. Thus matters of art, though they are singular, are nevertheless more fixed and certain, wherefore in many of them there is no room for counsel on account of their certitude, as stated in Ethic. iii, 3. Hence, although in certain other intellectual virtues reason is more certain than in prudence, yet prudence above all requires that man be an apt reasoner, so that he may rightly apply universals to particulars, which latter are various and uncertain. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod etsi intellectus et ratio non sunt diversae potentiae, tamen denominantur ex diversis actibus, nomen enim intellectus sumitur ab intima penetratione veritatis; nomen autem rationis ab inquisitione et discursu. Et ideo utrumque ponitur pars prudentiae, ut ex dictis patet. | Reply to Objection 3: Although intelligence and reason are not different powers, yet they are named after different acts. For intelligence takes its name from being an intimate penetration of the truth [*Cf. SS, Question [8], Article [1]], while reason is so called from being inquisitive and discursive. Hence each is accounted a part of reason as explained above (Article [2]; Question [47], Article [2],3). |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 49 [ << | >> ]
Article: 6 [ << | >> ]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod providentia non debeat poni pars prudentiae. Nihil enim est pars sui ipsius. Sed providentia videtur idem esse quod prudentia, quia ut Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., prudens dicitur quasi porro videns, et ex hoc etiam nomen providentiae sumitur, ut Boetius dicit, in fine de Consol. Ergo providentia non est pars prudentiae. | Objection 1: It would seem that foresight should not be accounted a part of prudence. For nothing is part of itself. Now foresight seems to be the same as prudence, because according to Isidore (Etym. x), "a prudent man is one who sees from afar [porro videns]": and this is also the derivation of "providentia [foresight]," according to Boethius (De Consol. v). Therefore foresight is not a part of prudence. |
| Praeterea, prudentia est solum practica. Sed providentia potest etiam esse speculativa, quia visio, ex qua sumitur nomen providentiae, magis pertinet ad speculativam quam ad operativam. Ergo providentia non est pars prudentiae. | Objection 2: Further, prudence is only practical, whereas foresight may be also speculative, because "seeing," whence we have the word "to foresee," has more to do with speculation than operation. Therefore foresight is not a part of prudence. |
| Praeterea, principalis actus prudentiae est praecipere, secundarii autem iudicare et consiliari. Sed nihil horum videtur importari proprie per nomen providentiae. Ergo providentia non est pars prudentiae. | Objection 3: Further, the chief act of prudence is to command, while its secondary act is to judge and to take counsel. But none of these seems to be properly implied by foresight. Therefore foresight is not part of prudence. |
| Sed contra est auctoritas Tullii et Macrobii, qui ponunt providentiam partem prudentiae, ut ex dictis patet. |
On the contrary stands the authority of Tully and Macrobius, who number foresight among the parts of prudence, as stated above (Question [48]). |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, prudentia proprie est circa ea quae sunt ad finem; et hoc ad eius officium proprie pertinet, ut ad finem debite ordinentur. Et quamvis aliqua necessaria sint propter finem quae subiiciuntur divinae providentiae, humanae tamen prudentiae non subiiciuntur nisi contingentia operabilia quae per hominem possunt fieri propter finem. Praeterita autem in necessitatem quandam transeunt, quia impossibile est non esse quod factum est. Similiter etiam praesentia, inquantum huiusmodi, necessitatem quandam habent, necesse est enim Socratem sedere dum sedet. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [47], Article [1], ad 2, Articles [6],13), prudence is properly about the means to an end, and its proper work is to set them in due order to the end. And although certain things are necessary for an end, which are subject to divine providence, yet nothing is subject to human providence except the contingent matters of actions which can be done by man for an end. Now the past has become a kind of necessity, since what has been done cannot be undone. In like manner, the present as such, has a kind of necessity, since it is necessary that Socrates sit, so long as he sits. |
| Unde consequens est quod contingentia futura, secundum quod sunt per hominem in finem humanae vitae ordinabilia, pertineant ad prudentiam. Utrumque autem horum importatur in nomine providentiae, importat enim providentia respectum quendam alicuius distantis, ad quod ea quae in praesenti occurrunt ordinanda sunt. Unde providentia est pars prudentiae. | Consequently, future contingents, in so far as they can be directed by man to the end of human life, are the matter of prudence: and each of these things is implied in the word foresight, for it implies the notion of something distant, to which that which occurs in the present has to be directed. Therefore foresight is part of prudence. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quandocumque multa requiruntur ad unum, necesse est unum eorum esse principale, ad quod omnia alia ordinantur. Unde et in quolibet toto necesse est esse unam partem formalem et praedominantem, a qua totum unitatem habet. Et secundum hoc providentia est principalior inter omnes partes prudentiae, quia omnia alia quae requiruntur ad prudentiam ad hoc necessaria sunt ut aliquid recte ordinetur ad finem. Et ideo nomen ipsius prudentiae sumitur a providentia, sicut a principaliori sua parte. | Reply to Objection 1: Whenever many things are requisite for a unity, one of them must needs be the principal to which all the others are subordinate. Hence in every whole one part must be formal and predominant, whence the whole has unity. Accordingly foresight is the principal of all the parts of prudence, since whatever else is required for prudence, is necessary precisely that some particular thing may be rightly directed to its end. Hence it is that the very name of prudence is taken from foresight [providentia] as from its principal part. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod speculatio est circa universalia et circa necessaria, quae secundum se non sunt procul, cum sint ubique et semper, etsi sint procul quoad nos, inquantum ab eorum cognitione deficimus. Unde providentia non proprie dicitur in speculativis, sed solum in practicis | Reply to Objection 2: Speculation is about universal and necessary things, which, in themselves, are not distant, since they are everywhere and always, though they are distant from us, in so far as we fail to know them. Hence foresight does not apply properly to speculative, but only to practical matters. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod in recta ordinatione ad finem, quae includitur in ratione providentiae, importatur rectitudo consilii et iudicii et praecepti, sine quibus recta ordinatio ad finem esse non potest. | Reply to Objection 3: Right order to an end which is included in the notion of foresight, contains rectitude of counsel, judgment and command, without which no right order to the end is possible. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 49 [ << | >> ]
Article: 7 [ << | >> ]
| Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod circumspectio non possit esse pars prudentiae. Circumspectio enim videtur esse consideratio quaedam eorum quae circumstant. Huiusmodi autem sunt infinita, quae non possunt comprehendi ratione, in qua est prudentia. Ergo circumspectio non debet poni pars prudentiae. | Objection 1: It would seem that circumspection cannot be a part of prudence. For circumspection seems to signify looking at one's surroundings. But these are of infinite number, and cannot be considered by the reason wherein is prudence. Therefore circumspection should not be reckoned a part of prudence. |
| Praeterea, circumstantiae magis videntur pertinere ad virtutes morales quam ad prudentiam. Sed circumspectio nihil aliud esse videtur quam respectus circumstantiarum. Ergo circumspectio magis videtur pertinere ad morales virtutes quam ad prudentiam. | Objection 2: Further, circumstances seem to be the concern of moral virtues rather than of prudence. But circumspection seems to denote nothing but attention to circumstances. Therefore circumspection apparently belongs to the moral virtues rather than to prudence. |
| Praeterea, qui potest videre quae procul sunt multo magis potest videre quae circa sunt. Sed per providentiam homo est potens prospicere quae procul sunt. Ergo ipsa sufficit ad considerandum ea quae circumstant. Non ergo oportuit, praeter providentiam, ponere circumspectionem partem prudentiae. | Objection 3: Further, whoever can see things afar off can much more see things that are near. Now foresight enables a man to look on distant things. Therefore there is no need to account circumspection a part of prudence in addition to foresight. |
| Sed contra est auctoritas Macrobii, ut supra dictum est. | On the contrary stands the authority of Macrobius, quoted above (Question [48]). |
| Respondeo dicendum quod ad prudentiam, sicut dictum est, praecipue pertinet recte ordinare aliquid in finem. Quod quidem recte non fit nisi et finis sit bonus, et id quod ordinatur in finem sit etiam bonum et conveniens fini. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [6]), it belongs to prudence chiefly to direct something aright to an end; and this is not done aright unless both the end be good, and the means good and suitable. |
| Sed quia prudentia, sicut dictum est, est circa singularia operabilia, in quibus multa concurrunt, contingit aliquid secundum se consideratum esse bonum et conveniens fini, quod tamen ex aliquibus concurrentibus redditur vel malum vel non opportunum ad finem. Sicut ostendere signa amoris alicui, secundum se consideratum, videtur esse conveniens ad alliciendum eius animum ad amorem, sed si contingat in animo illius superbia vel suspicio adulationis, non erit hoc conveniens ad finem. Et ideo necessaria est circumspectio ad prudentiam, ut scilicet homo id quod ordinatur in finem comparet etiam cum his quae circumstant. |
Since, however, prudence, as stated above (Question [47], Article [3]) is about singular matters of action, which contain many combinations of circumstances, it happens that a thing is good in itself and suitable to the end, and nevertheless becomes evil or unsuitable to the end, by reason of some combination of circumstances. Thus to show signs of love to someone seems, considered in itself, to be a fitting way to arouse love in his heart, yet if pride or suspicion of flattery arise in his heart, it will no longer be a means suitable to the end. Hence the need of circumspection in prudence, viz. of comparing the means with the circumstances. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod licet ea quae possunt circumstare sint infinita, tamen ea quae circumstant in actu non sunt infinita, sed pauca quaedam sunt quae immutant iudicium rationis in agendis. | Reply to Objection 1: Though the number of possible circumstances be infinite, the number of actual circumstances is not; and the judgment of reason in matters of action is influenced by things which are few in number |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod circumstantiae pertinent ad prudentiam quidem sicut ad determinandum eas, ad virtutes autem morales inquantum per circumstantiarum determinationem perficiuntur. | Reply to Objection 2: Circumstances are the concern of prudence, because prudence has to fix them; on the other hand they are the concern of moral virtues, in so far as moral virtues are perfected by the fixing of circumstances. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod sicut ad providentiam pertinet prospicere id quod est per se conveniens fini, ita ad circumspectionem pertinet considerare an sit conveniens fini secundum ea quae circumstant. Utrumque autem horum habet specialem difficultatem. Et ideo utrumque eorum seorsum ponitur pars prudentiae. | Reply to Objection 3: Just as it belongs to foresight to look on that which is by its nature suitable to an end, so it belongs to circumspection to consider whether it be suitable to the end in view of the circumstances. Now each of these presents a difficulty of its own, and therefore each is reckoned a distinct part of prudence. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 49 [ << | >> ]
Article: 8 [ << | >> ]
| Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod cautio non debeat poni pars prudentiae. In his enim in quibus non potest malum esse non est necessaria cautio. Sed virtutibus nemo male utitur, ut dicitur in libro de Lib. Arb. Ergo cautio non pertinet ad prudentiam, quae est directiva virtutum. | Objection 1: It would seem that caution should not be reckoned a part of prudence. For when no evil is possible, no caution is required. Now no man makes evil use of virtue, as Augustine declares (De Lib. Arb. ii, 19). Therefore caution does not belong to prudence which directs the virtues. |
| Praeterea, eiusdem est providere bona et cavere mala, sicut eiusdem artis est facere sanitatem et curare aegritudinem. Sed providere bona pertinet ad providentiam. Ergo etiam cavere mala. Non ergo cautio debet poni alia pars prudentiae a providentia. | Objection 2: Further, to foresee good and to avoid evil belong to the same faculty, just as the same art gives health and cures ill-health. Now it belongs to foresight to foresee good, and consequently, also to avoid evil. Therefore caution should not be accounted a part of prudence, distinct from foresight. |
| Praeterea, nullus prudens conatur ad impossibile. Sed nullus potest praecavere omnia mala quae possunt contingere. Ergo cautio non pertinet ad prudentiam. | Objection 3: Further, no prudent man strives for the impossible. But no man can take precautions against all possible evils. Therefore caution does not belong to prudence. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Ephes. V, videte quomodo caute ambuletis. |
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph. 5:15): "See how you walk cautiously [Douay: 'circumspectly']." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod ea circa quae est prudentia sunt contingentia operabilia, in quibus, sicut verum potest admisceri falso, ita et malum bono, propter multiformitatem huiusmodi operabilium, in quibus bona plerumque impediuntur a malis, et mala habent speciem boni. Et ideo necessaria est cautio ad prudentiam, ut sic accipiantur bona quod vitentur mala. | I answer that, The things with which prudence is concerned, are contingent matters of action, wherein, even as false is found with true, so is evil mingled with good, on account of the great variety of these matters of action, wherein good is often hindered by evil, and evil has the appearance of good. Wherefore prudence needs caution, so that we may have such a grasp of good as to avoid evil. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod cautio non est necessaria in moralibus actibus ut aliquis sibi caveat ab actibus virtutum, sed ut sibi caveat ab eis per quae actus virtutum impediri possunt. | Reply to Objection 1: Caution is required in moral acts, that we may be on our guard, not against acts of virtue, but against the hindrance of acts of virtue. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod opposita mala cavere eiusdem rationis est et prosequi bona. Sed vitare aliqua impedimenta extrinseca, hoc pertinet ad aliam rationem. Et ideo cautio distinguitur a providentia, quamvis utrumque pertineat ad unam virtutem prudentiae. | Reply to Objection 2: It is the same in idea, to ensue good and to avoid the opposite evil, but the avoidance of outward hindrances is different in idea. Hence caution differs from foresight, although they both belong to the one virtue of prudence. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod malorum quae homini vitanda occurrunt quaedam sunt quae ut in pluribus accidere solent. Et talia comprehendi ratione possunt. Et contra haec ordinatur cautio, ut totaliter vitentur, vel ut minus noceant. Quaedam vero sunt quae ut in paucioribus et casualiter accidunt. Et haec, cum sint infinita, ratione comprehendi non possunt, nec sufficienter homo potest ea praecavere, quamvis per officium prudentiae homo contra omnes fortunae insultus disponere possit ut minus laedatur. | Reply to Objection 3: Of the evils which man has to avoid, some are of frequent occurrence; the like can be grasped by reason, and against them caution is directed, either that they may be avoided altogether, or that they may do less harm. Others there are that occur rarely and by chance, and these, since they are infinite in number, cannot be grasped by reason, nor is man able to take precautions against them, although by exercising prudence he is able to prepare against all the surprises of chance, so as to suffer less harm thereby. |