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, second 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 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum ratio debeat poni pars prudentiae Whether reason should be reckoned a part of prudence? 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. Obj. 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. Obj. 3: Further, reason as a power does not differ essentially from the intelligence, as stated above (I, Q. 79, A. 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, 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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, while reason is so called from being inquisitive and discursive. Hence each is accounted a part of reason as explained above (A. 2; Q. 47, A. 2, 3). Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum providentia debeat poni pars prudentiae Whether foresight should be accounted a part of prudence? 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. Obj. 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. Obj. 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 (Q. 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 (Q. 47, A. 1, ad 2, AA. 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, insofar 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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, insofar 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 Obj. 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. Articulus 7 Article 7 Utrum circumspectio possit esse pars prudentiae Whether circumspection can be a part of prudence? 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. Obj. 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. Obj. 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 (Q. 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 (A. 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 (Q. 47, A. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 2: Circumstances are the concern of prudence, because prudence has to fix them; on the other hand they are the concern of moral virtues, insofar 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 Obj. 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.