De duobus naturalibus affectibus, scUicet amore
The Two Appetites of the Human Heart
Human conduct is shaped by the tension between the appetite for justice and the appetite for convenience.
The just and the love of convenience; and concerning their sequence, namely the love of liberty and the love of dominating; and concerning the comparison of Caesar and Cato; of Alexander, Aristotle, Augustus, and Plato; and of those who walk the crooked path toward glory. The authority of Holy Scripture indicates that two affections have existed in man from the beginning: the appetite for what is just and the appetite for convenience. One of these consists in the will, the other in necessity; and the more the appetite for the just—which is in the will—grows, the better it is and the more worthy of greater beatitude. For no one can desire what is just too much, unless perhaps someone could be too just or too blessed. Furthermore, if the appetite for convenience exceeds the measure of necessity, it veers toward guilt, and being conscious of its own vices, it gives birth to the origin of greed. One of these, therefore, because it serves charity, seeks what belongs to God; the other is occupied with its own utility, setting aside what belongs to God or to one's neighbor. From this double fountain, human conduct arises. Conduct is upright, indeed, if you do to another what you want done to yourself and refrain from inflicting on another what you wouldn't want inflicted by another; but it's distorted if you harm another or fail to help when you're able.
The False Glory of the Ancients
The pursuit of worldly glory, even among the virtuous pagans, is revealed as a form of vanity that obscures true justice.
They suppressed all other desires with the overwhelming desire for this one thing. In the end, they longed for their own country to be free, and then to be a master, because they thought it was shameful to serve, but glorious to dominate and rule; for they fought first for liberty, and then for dominion. Yet there were some for whom justice—as much as was available to a pagan—was enough, with their desires kept in check. For others, nothing was ever enough; instead, by feigning great courage or even by attempting the impossible, they gained the highest praise and glory. Cato’s virtue, therefore, seems to have been much closer to the truth than Caesar’s. This will become quite clear from his own statement. "Don't think," he says, "that our ancestors made the republic great from a small one through force of arms." If that were the case, we would have a much more beautiful one now; for we have a greater supply of allies and citizens, and furthermore, of arms and horses, than they did. But those men were made great by other things that we completely lack: industry at home, just rule abroad, and a mind in counsel that was free and beholden to neither wrongdoing nor lust. In their place, we have luxury and greed—poverty in public, but wealth in private. We praise riches and pursue laziness. There is no distinction between the good and the bad. Ambition possesses all the rewards of virtue. It’s no wonder, when you each make your own plans separately, and when at home you serve pleasures, and here, money or influence. The result is that an assault is made upon a hollow public life. Therefore, the virtue of the few who strive for glory, honor, and power by the true path—that is, by virtue itself—was even praised by Cato. This led to the domestic industry Cato mentions, ensuring the treasury stayed wealthy while private households remained modest. Because of corrupted morals, however, the vice was reversed: public poverty and private wealth. Tullius himself couldn't hide this in his books On the Republic, where he discusses establishing a leader for the state who must be nourished by glory; he notes that his ancestors performed many wonderful and remarkable deeds out of a desire for that same glory. Therefore, they didn't just fail to resist this vice; they actually thought it should be stirred up and ignited, believing it benefited the state. In his books on philosophy, Tullius also introduced this general sentiment: Honor nourishes the arts, and everyone is driven toward study by glory, while things that everyone disapproves of are always left neglected. It's better, therefore, to resist this desire without hesitation than to yield to it; for as the blessed Augustine says in The City of God, the more a person is cleansed of this filth, the more they resemble God. Even if this desire is not entirely eradicated from the heart in this life—because it never stops tempting those who are making good progress—at least the desire for glory should be overcome by a love of justice; for he sees more sanely who recognizes that the love of praise is itself a vice. This is the opinion not only of Augustine but also of the pagans: that this glory is nothing more than the swelling of a windy spirit, much like smoke.
The Vanity of the Narcissistic Spirit
Like smoke or the myth of Narcissus, the pursuit of self-glory is an empty, destructive obsession that ignores the divine source of all good.
Smoke dims the eyes; the higher it rises, the faster it fades, and the more it is cast down, the more it settles, for when it reaches the heights, it vanishes. That’s fitting, because it originated from the prince of all vanity. Those caught by an excessive love of self forget who they are while they chase clouds and empty things, struggling to grasp something solid in the void, even though they see nothing but themselves through jaundiced eyes. They refuse to grasp who they are or to look at themselves with true judgment for the sake of their own improvement; instead, they follow only the phantastic shadows of vain opinion. Indeed, they despise others in comparison to themselves and aspire to the impossible, presuming upon a fallacious image of things. Thus, in the fables, Narcissus is caught by the vain image of himself and turns into a flower; while he imprudently gazes at himself, the flower childishly vanishes without fruit. It was also the opinion of many—including those who excelled in ancient philosophy—that Alexander and Aristotle were born of the gods, because they sought their own glory in all things. They also handed down that Plato, because of the divine wisdom in which he somehow excelled, and Augustus, because of his power and tranquil fortune, drew their origin from the gods. In fact, they would have more accurately concluded the opposite: that they were either not divine in origin, or that they were degenerate sons of the gods—unless, of course, the gods of the nations are demons, and wherever demons are, they leave behind in their offspring certain signs of their own vanity and malice, if they produce any at all. For even the true Son of God, God made man, doesn't seek His own glory in all the glorious things He does, but the Father's; and He is illuminated with even greater glory because He refers the glory of all good works back to Him from whom all things come. So, every truly wise, truly powerful, and truly good person refers all their praiseworthy deeds back to the single fountain of all good—namely, the supreme, creative, and indivisible Trinity. Consider Alexander’s heart, insatiable for praise, who, when his companion Anaxarchus told him on the authority of his teacher Democritus that there were countless worlds, said, 'Woe is me, that I haven't even conquered one yet!' He is truly a miserable man, and worthy of his misery, whose every virtue was swallowed up by that single, insatiable hunger for praise. The tragedies of the ancients mock him, because the world that is sufficient to be the home of all the gods was too small a possession for one man. Yet, even though the desire for glory always seems to be a fault, the error of those who thought it a great thing to become famous even through crimes is far more destructive. Pausanias, when he asked Hermoclea how he could suddenly become famous, and was told that if he killed an illustrious man, it would result in his own glory, immediately murdered Philip—and he did indeed achieve what he had sought.
The Madness of Infamy
Seeking fame through destruction or crime is a form of madness that ultimately ruins the temple of the Holy Spirit.
For he made himself known to posterity by his parricide and by the famous punishment of the gallows to which he was affixed, while the golden crown that Mirtalis—who was also called Olympias—placed upon his head as he hung there, offered him no comfort at all. Yet, in vengeance for the modesty violated by that injury—since Philip did not punish the wrong but instead mocked it—the crime of sacrilege can, according to Trogus, be excused to some extent. A man was found who wanted to burn the temple of Diana of Ephesus so that, once that most beautiful work was consumed, his name might be spread throughout the whole world; he revealed his madness when he was placed on the rack. And if the great eloquence of Theopompus had not included him in his histories, the Ephesians would have done well to decree by common consent that the memory of such a vile man be wiped out in silence. Those who seek glory seem to be driven by a similar, or even greater, madness—not by wanting to destroy the temple of Diana of Ephesus through religious practices, but by destroying the temple of the Holy Spirit: the whole person, that is, both soul and body, so that they might become known to men through this. They lay it waste with the fires of luxury. For they seek praise from him, and often they attain the honor for which it would have been more just to endure shame and punishment.
Read the original Latin
iusti et amore commodi; et de sequda eorum, amore scilicet lihertatis et amore domxinandi; et de comparatione Cesaris et Catonis; de Alexandro, AristotUe, Augusto, etPlatone; et de his qui uia deuia ad gloriam pergunt. Duos quidem affectus in homine ab initio extitisse sacrae Scripturae designat auctoritas, appetitum scilicet iusti et commodi appetitum. Quorum alter in uoluntate, alter in necessitate consistit; et quanto appetitus iusti qui in uoluntate est amplius crescit, tanto melior est et dignus beatitudine ampliori. Nam nimis uelle quod iustum est nemo potest, nisi forte quis queat esse iustus nimium aut beatus. Porro, si appetitus commodi mensuram necessitatis excedat, uergit ad culpam et cupiditatis conscius sibi uitiorum parit originem. Alter ergo istorum, quoniam militat caritati, quaerit quae Dei sunt; alter in propria utilitate uersatur, postponens quae Dei sunt aut proximorum. Ab hoc duplici fonte mores oriuntur. Recti quidem, si faciat quis alii quod sibi uult fieri et ab eo abstineat alii inferendo quod sibi nollet ab alio irrogari; distorti uero, si quis alium ledat uel non prosit, cum possit, mortem.
Ceteras cupiditates huius unius ingente cupiditate presserunt. Ipsam denique patriam suam, quoniam seruire uidebatur inglorium, dominari uero atque imperare gloriosum, prius omni studio liberam deinde dominam esse concupierunt; prius enim pro libertate, deinde pro dominio certatum est. Fuerunt tamen quibus iustitia, quantura gentili dabatur, sufficiebat, cupiditate deducta. Aliis nichil satis erat, sed sub imagine magnanimitatis uel impossibilia praesumentes laudem maximam consequebantur et gloriam. Longe igitur uirtus Catonis ueritati uidetur propinquior fuisse quam Cesaris. Quod ex ipsa sententia eius facillime liquebit. Nolite, inquit, existimare maiores nostros armis rem publicam ex parua magnam fecisse. Si ita esset, multo pulcherrimam eam nos haberemus nunc; quippe sociorum atque ciuium, praeterea armorum et equorum maior copia nobis quam iUis est.
Sed alia fuere quae illos uiros magnos fecerunt quae nobis nulla sunt; domi industria, foris iustum imperium, animus in consulendo liber, neque delicto neque libidini obnoxius. Pro his nos habemus luxuriam atque auaritiam, publice egestatem, priuatim opulentiam. Laudamus diuitias sequimur inertiam. Inter bonos et malos discrimen nuUum. Omnia uirtutis praemia ambitio possidet. Neque mirum ubi uos separatim sibi quisque consilia capitis, ubi domi uoluptatibus hic pecuniae aut gratiae seruitis. Eo fit ut impetus fiAt in uacuam rem publicam. Paucorum igitur uirtus ad gloriam honorem imperium, uera uia, id est ipsa uirtute nitentium, etiam a Catone laudata est.
Hinc erat domi industria, quam commemorat Cato, ut erarium esset opulentum, tenues res priuatae. Vnde corruptis moribus uitium e contrario posuit, publice egestatem, priuatim opulentiam. Ipse Tullius hoc dissimulare non potuit in eisdem libris quos De Re publica scripsit, ubi loquitur de instituendo principe ciuitatis, quem dicit alendum esse gloria et consequenter a commemorat maiores suos multa mira atque praeclara gloriae cupiditate fecisse. Huic ergo uitio non solum non resistebant uerum etiam id excitandum et accendendum esse censebant putantes hoc rei publicae expedire. In libris quoque Philosophiae idem Tullius hanc intulit uniuersalem generalemque sententiam: Honos alit artes, et gloria accenduntur omnes ad studia, iacentque ea semper quae apud quosque improbantur. Huic igitur cupiditati melius est resistere sine dubitatione quam cedere; ut enim ait beatus Augustinus in libro De Ciuitate Dei, tanto quisque est Deo similior, quanto et ab hac immunditia mundior. Quae in hac uita etsi non funditus eradicatur ex corde, quia bene proficientes animos temptare non cessat, saltem cupiditas gloriae superetur dilectione iustitiae, Nam sanius uidet qui et amorem laudis uitium esse cognoscit. Nec solius id Augustini, sed etiam gentilium sententia est gloriam hanc nichil aliud esse quam uentosi quodammodo spiritus tumorem fumo simillimum.
Nam et fumus oculorum obtundit aciem, et quo magis ascendit, citius deficit; et quo magis deicitur, amplius solidatur; cum enim ad excelsa peruenerit, euanescit. Recte quidem eo quod a principe totius uanitatis traxit originem. Nimio sui capiuntur amore qui, dum nubes et inania captant et nescio quid in inani solidum apprehendere moliuntur, obliuiscuntur sui, cum tamen nichil aliud quam se oculis contueantur iniquis. Nolunt enim apprehendere quod sunt, et illud ad emendationem uero iudicio intueri, sed phantasticas dumtaxat uanae opinionis secuntur umbras. Siquidem alios spemunt prae se et aspirant ad impossibilia, de fallaci rerum praesumentes imagine. Sic Narcisus in fabulis, dum uana sui imagine capitur, abit in florem et, dum seipsum imprudenter aspicit, flos sine fructu pueriliter euanescit. Multorum quoque fuit opinio, et eorum qui in ueteri philosophia prae ceteris floruerunt, Alexandrum (et) Aristotilem a numinibus esse progenitos, eo quod in omnibus propriam quaerebant gloriam. Platonem quoque propter diuinam quodammodo qua eminuit sapientiam et Augustum propter potentiam fortunamque tranquillam a diis traxisse originem tradiderunt.
Et quidem in contrarium rectius coUegissent eos aut diuini non esse generis aut deorum filios esse degeneres, nisi quia dii gentium demonia sunt, et iucubi demones uanitatis et malitiae suae certa indicia, si quem tamen gignunt, relinquunt in sobole. Nam et uerus Dei Filius, Deus homo, propriam non quaerit gloriam in omnibus quae gloriose fiunt ab eo, sed Patris; eoque illustratur gloria ampliori quod ad eum, ex quo sunt omnia, bonorum operum gloriam refert. Sic et uere sapiens omnis, uere potens, et uere bonus, ad unicum omnium bonorum fontem sua omnia laudabilia refert, summam scilicet creatricem et indiuiduam Trinitatem. Alexandri pectus laudis insatiabile qui Anacarso comiti suo ex auctoritate Democriti 3praeceptoris innumerabiles mundos esse referenti: Heu me, inquit, miserum, quod nec uno quidem adhuc potitus sum! Plane miser dignusque miseria, cuius uirtutes omnes absorbuerat laudis insatiata et insatiabilis fames una. Insultant ei tragediae antiquorum eo quod angusta homini possessio fuit quae deorum omnium domicilio sufficit. Sed tamen, licet appetitus gloriae semper uideatur in culpa, error eorum pemiciosior est qui uel sceleribus innotescere magni duxerunt. Pausanias, cum Hermoclea percunctatus esset quonam modo subito clarus posset euadere, atque is respondisset, si occidisset aliquem uirum illustrem, futurum ut in gloriam eius ipsum redundaret, continuo Philippum interemit, et quidem quod petierat assecutus est.
Nam et se parricidio notum posteris reddidit et celebri supplicio patibuli, cui affixus est, corona aurea, quam Mirtalis, quae et Olimpias dicta est, capiti eius pendentis imposuit, nullum dante solatium. In uindictam tamen pudicitiae per iniuriam prostitutae, Philippo non puniente sed deridente iniuriam, potest auctore Trogo aliquatenus crimen sacrilegii excusari. Inuentus est qui Dianae Ephesinae templum uellet incendere ut pulcherrimo opere consumpto nomen eius per totum terrarum orbem diffunderetur, furoremque suum detexit impositus eculeo; et, nisi Theoponti magnae facundiae ingenium eum suis comprehendisset historiis, bene consuluerant Ephesii decreto communi statuentes ut teterrimi hominis memoria aboleretur silentio. Simili quidem uidentur gloriam affectare immo maiori insania qui non Ephesinae Dianae templum religiosis moribus excidendum sed templum Spiritus sancti, homines totos, animas scilicet et corpora, ut per hoc hominibus innotescant. luxuriae uastant incendiis. Nam ab eo laudem appetunt, et plerumque assequuntur honorem unde aequius fuerat ignominiam sustinere et penam.
Policraticus companion
Study the argument weekly; pray the tradition daily
Pair the outline with the Chosen Portion app, which serves short daily portions from the same royal devotional tradition — free on iOS.
John of Salisbury argued that rulers must keep the law of God before their eyes daily; Chosen Portion gives modern readers that same daily discipline in five minutes a morning.
- 8 weeks, one book per week, with the 3-4 key chapters flagged in each
- Discussion questions usable for a reading group from week one
- A daily 5-minute companion portion in the app alongside your weekly study