Liber I, Pars I — Quod sunt modi vivendi, et quomodo in eis felicitas habet esse. Cap. IIII.

Liber I, Pars I — Quod sunt modi vivendi, et quomodo in eis felicitas habet esse. Cap. IIII.

Having laid out some necessary preliminaries for our purpose, since we have rendered the royal majesty benevolent in relation to the following work by the ease of the methods of presentation, we have made it docile according to the order of discourse, and we have made it attentive based on the usefulness found in them; it remains to state in detail what needs to be said in this work. However, since the end is the principle of actions in a more significant way than any other, as was stated above, it is necessary to begin with the end and happiness. Therefore, since according to various ways of living, different kinds of ends are set for themselves, we need to discuss the ways of living and show how happiness is to be placed within them. The philosophers, however, distinguished these (as is evident from the Ethics). Ethics.) They proposed a threefold life, namely, the life of pleasure, the political life, and the contemplative life. For they believed that man is a medium between the higher and the lower: man is naturally in the middle between the brute creatures, which he surpasses, and the separated substances (which we commonly call angels), to which he is inferior. Thus, man can be considered in three ways: First, as he communicates with brutes; Second, as he is something in himself; Third, as he participates with angels or with separated substances. According to these three considerations, the philosophers distinguished three types of life: they believed that for a person who communicates with animals, a life of pleasure is appropriate; for one who is something in himself, a political life is fitting; but for one who participates with separate substances, a contemplative life is suitable. Therefore, each person either lives like a beast, or lives like a human, or lives like an angel; for according to the life of pleasure, one lives like a beast: according to the civil life, one lives like a human: according to the contemplative life, one lives like an angel. Thus, the philosophers distinguished these three lives, or these three ways of living; however, they only proposed two kinds of happiness: for in the life of pleasure, they denied that happiness exists, which the theologians also deny; for they proposed political happiness and contemplative happiness: so that someone may be called happy politically when he is happy as a human, possessing in himself the wisdom that is the right reason for actions; he may be called happy contemplatively when he is above a human, and when he is happy not only as a human, but as one who has something divine and something better than a human. Therefore, the perfect in actions were called happy politically: but the perfect in contemplative matters were called happy contemplatively, and they referred to him, not as a human, but as a better human. For acting and communicating in actions with others is fitting for a person as he is human: but to speculate and to know the truth is fitting for him as he has a speculative intellect, which is something divine, and according to which we communicate with God and with separate substances. Hence from I. It is clear from the political writings that everyone is either a human, or worse than a human, and then he is a beast: or he is better than a human, and then he is something divine and semi-divine. If, however, he is a human, because a human (as is proven there) is naturally a social, civil, and political animal, it follows that he is governed according to wisdom, and lives a political life. If someone is a beast and worse than a human, then they are not governed by reason and prudence, but are ruled by passion and live a life of pleasure. But if someone is divine and better than a human, then they contemplate through wisdom and live a contemplative life. Therefore, there is a significant difference between a prudent person in practical matters and a perfect one in contemplative matters, just as there is a difference between someone living a human and political life and someone living a contemplative and angelic life. Those devoted to practical matters, due to the diversity of emerging tasks, are troubled by many things, and for the most part, they feel the passions of the flesh; whereas those devoted to contemplative matters are, in a way, abstracted from these passions. And because living in the flesh, and not according to the flesh, is more angelic than human, philosophers want to call the happy life contemplative, not happy in a political sense and as a human, but as one who communicates with separated substances. Therefore, wise men and speculative individuals are to be greatly honored because they are placed above humanity. Thus, concerning the ways of living and the happiness found in them, philosophers distinguished them, yet not to the fullest extent, and they could not fully grasp the truth in every way. For although they truly said that happiness is not to be sought in a life of pleasure, as will be shown more clearly below, regarding the political life, which theologians call the active life, and the contemplative life, they did not fully understand the truth: for they believed that from pure natural means, without any other help of grace, one could avoid all sins and live perfectly according to the active or contemplative life. This is false. For, as was mentioned above, divine grace is necessary for all who wish to live rightly, and it is especially necessary for the laws and for the rulers of others. They also claimed that the contemplative life is to be found in pure speculation. This is false. Never does anyone achieve perfection in such a life unless there is in him the love of God or the love of charity. Therefore, they did not understand these things well. However, that they said the contemplative life is preferable to the political and active life does not disagree with theologians or with Catholic truth. Having completed these things, let us say that it is fitting for royal majesty to recognize these ways of living and to flee from a pleasurable life, lest it be worse than man: for such are said to be. Those who choose the life of the Ethicists are like cattle. However, one ought to have both an active and a contemplative life within oneself, so that through the active life one may devote oneself to others by doing great things and rightly governing those under one's care. Through the contemplative life, one should devote oneself through internal devotion and the love of God, advancing in the love of God. For we do not place the contemplative life in pure speculation, as the philosophers thought. Therefore, if the contemplative life consists in the contemplation of divine things, this means that from such contemplation arises internal devotion and divine love. Moreover, it is all the more fitting for kings and rulers to have this internal devotion, as they will have to give an account of many matters before the tribunal of the supreme Judge.