6. If our exposition of the subject had defined happiness as exemption
from pain, sickness, reverses, and great misfortunes, (we would
have implied that) it would be impossible for us to taste happiness
while exposed to one of those evils. But if happiness consist in the
possession of the real good, why should we forget this good to consider
its accessories? Why, in the appreciation of this good, should we
seek things which are not among the number of its elements? If it
consisted in a union of the true goods with those things which alone
are necessary to our needs, or which are so called, even without being
such, we should have to strive to possess the latter also. But as the
goal of man must be single and not manifold--for otherwise it would
be usual to say that he seeks his ends, rather than the more common
expression, his end--we shall have to seek only what is most high and
precious, what the soul somehow wishes to include. Her inclination and
will cannot aspire to anything which is not the sovereign good. Reason
only avoids certain evils, and seeks certain advantages, because it
is provoked by their presence; but it is not so led by nature. The
principal tendency of the soul is directed towards what is best; when
she possesses it, she is satisfied, and stops; only then does she enjoy
a life really conformable to her will. Speaking of will strictly,[7]
and not with unjustifiable license, the task of the will is not to
procure things necessary to our needs (?) Of course we judge that it is
suitable to procure things that are necessary, as we in general avoid
evils. But the avoiding of them is no aim desirable in itself; such
would rather be not to need to avoid them. This, for instance, occurs
when one possesses health and is exempt from suffering. Which of these
advantages most attracts us? So long as we enjoy health, so long as we
do not suffer, it is little valued. Now advantages which, when present,
have no attraction for the soul, and add nothing to her happiness, and
which, when absent, are sought as causes of the suffering arising from
the presence of their contraries, should reasonably be called necessity
rather than goods, and not be reckoned among the elements of our goal.
When they are absent and replaced by their contraries, our goal remains
just what it was.
EVILS WHICH THE WISE MAN CAN SUPPORT WITHOUT DISTURBANCE OF HIS
HAPPINESS.
7. Why then does the happy man desire to enjoy the presence of
these advantages, and the absence of their contraries? It must be
because they contribute, not to his happiness, but to his existence;
because their contraries tend to make him lose existence, hindering
the enjoyment of the good, without however removing it. Besides,
he who possesses what is best wishes to possess it purely, without
any mixture. Nevertheless, when a foreign obstacle occurs, the good
still persists even in spite of this obstacle. In short, if some
accident happen to the happy man against his will, his happiness
is in no way affected thereby. Otherwise, he would change and lose
his happiness daily; as if, for instance, he had to mourn a son, or
if he lost some of his possessions. Many events may occur against
his wish without disturbing him in the enjoyment of the good he has
attained. It may be objected that it is the great misfortunes, and
not trifling accidents (which can disturb the happiness of the wise
man). Nevertheless, in human things, is there any great enough not to
be scorned by him who has climbed to a principle superior to all, and
who no longer depends on lower things? Such a man will not be able to
see anything great in the favors of fortune, whatever they be, as in
being king, in commanding towns, or peoples; in founding or building
cities, even though he himself should receive that glory; he will
attach no importance to the loss of his power, or even to the ruin
of his fatherland. If he consider all that as a great evil, or even
only as an evil, he will have a ridiculous opinion. He will no longer
be a virtuous man; for, as Jupiter is my witness, he would be highly
valuing mere wood, or stones, birth, or death; while he should insist
on the incontestable truth that death is better than the corporeal
life (as held by Herodotus). Even though he were sacrificed, he would
not consider death any worse merely because it occurred at the feet
of the altars. Being buried is really of small importance, for his
body will rot as well above as below ground (as thought Theodorus of
Cyrene).[8] Neither will he grieve at being buried without pomp and
vulgar ostentation, and to have seemed unworthy of being placed in a
magnificent tomb. That would be smallness of mind. If he were carried
off as a captive, he would still have a road open to leave life, in the
case that he should no longer be allowed to hope for happiness. (Nor
would he be troubled if the members of his family, such as sons (?) and
daughters (and female relatives?) were carried off into captivity. If
he had arrived to the end of his life without seeing such occurrences
(we would indeed be surprised). Would he leave this world supposing
that such things cannot happen? Such an opinion would be absurd. Would
he not have realized that his own kindred were exposed to such dangers?
The opinion that such things could happen will not make him any less
happy. No, he will be happy even with that belief. He would still be so
even should that occur; he will indeed reflect that such is the nature
of this world, that one must undergo such accidents, and submit. Often
perhaps men dragged into captivity will live better (than in liberty);
and besides, if their captivity be insupportable, it is in their power
to release themselves. If they remain, it is either because their
reason so induces them--and then their lot cannot be too hard; or it
is against the dictates of their reason, in which case they have none
but themselves to blame. The wise man, therefore, will not be unhappy
because of the folly of his own people; he will not allow his lot to
depend on the happiness or misfortunes of other people.