Liber I, Pars I — Quod non decet regiam maiestatem suam felicitatem ponere in civili potentia. Cap. X.

Liber I, Pars I — Quod non decet regiam maiestatem suam felicitatem ponere in civili potentia. Cap. X.

Vegetius seems to commend the diligence of warfare above all else in his book On Military Matters. This, according to him, is what most greatly exalted Rome, because they devoted themselves most to military matters and worked hard to figure out how they could subject nations to themselves. For this reason (according to the same Vegetius), this should be the foremost intention of the ruler: that he may abound in civil power and through it subject nations and peoples. But if this were the case, royal happiness would seem to be placed in civil power, which is false; for the Philosopher proves this in Book 7. Pol. For five reasons, happiness should not be placed in civil power. The first argument is taken from the fact that such a principality does not last long. The second is that it can exist without the goodness of life. Thirdly, because he is unworthy, Fourthly, because through such a rule, citizens are directed to lesser goods. Fifthly, because such dominion usually brings harm. The first way is clear. For through civil power to wish to subject nations to oneself is to wish to dominate through violence. Violence does not know perpetuity, therefore when violent things do not last long, such a rule cannot endure. Rather, just as fire, which is of a hot nature, acts when it heats, so a man, who is naturally free by his will, then naturally rules over men when he freely and voluntarily governs what happens if the people freely and voluntarily carry out the commands of the ruler. Therefore, a king ought not to believe himself to be happy if he rules through violence and civil power, for such dominion, being violent and against nature, cannot last long; happiness is not to be placed in something transitory, but rather in something eternal. Secondly, happiness should not be placed in civil power, because this can exist for someone without the goodness of life; for happiness, as was said above, is a perfect and self-sufficient good. It's impossible for anyone to possess the greatest good unless he lives well and is truly good; just as it's impossible for anything to have an intense whiteness unless it becomes intensely white. That civil power can exist in someone without the goodness of life is clear from the things we have observed in past times. We see many of the worst tyrants having abounded in civil power. For Dionysius of Syracuse, or Sicilian, as the Philosopher relates in his Politics, greatly abounded in civil power, and yet he was the worst of tyrants. Nero and Heliogabalus, who were Roman princes, greatly abounded in civil power; nevertheless, they lived very poorly. For such were the luxuries that they seemed entirely womanish. So great was their cruelty that it did not seem there was anything soft in them, nor any clemency. Therefore, the Philosopher in the Politics says that it is ridiculous to think someone is happy if he casts aside living well. Therefore, happiness should not be placed in civil power, which can exist without the goodness of life. Thirdly, happiness should not be placed in such power, because such a principality is not the best and is not worthy. If happiness is to be placed in any principality, it should be in the best and most worthy principality. However, to rule through civil power means to rule over servants, not over free people; for such a principality is based on coercion and violence. When principalities extend to one another, according to those to whom a principality belongs, as the Philosopher says in Politics, the more free people are better than servants: thus, to rule over free people is better and more worthy than to rule over servants. Therefore, a principality based on coercion and civil power, when it does not involve free people but servants, is neither the best nor worthy. Therefore. It is said in Politics that ruling despotically means ruling dominantly. Fourth, happiness should not be placed in civil power, because if a ruler believes he is happy simply because he has an abundance of civil power, he will not direct his citizens toward anything but military might and those things through which he can subjugate nations. Therefore, he will not lead his citizens to the virtue of justice, but to the virtue of strength. Justice, as the philosopher says, is... the Politic. It is a greater good than strength. Thus, he will not direct his citizens toward greater goods, such as justice, but only toward lesser goods, such as strength. Therefore, to avoid endangering the good of the nation, which is more divine than any singular good, it is not fitting for a ruler to place his happiness in civil power. Fifth, it is not fitting for him, because such a rule often brings about harm. Since happiness is the ultimate goal of all actions, everyone tends to direct their entire life and all their works primarily toward that which they believe will bring them happiness. Therefore, if someone places their happiness in civil power and in subjugating nations, they may seem to fare well in times of war; however, in times of peace, they won’t know how to live well. For if someone has devoted themselves primarily to military exercises and has oriented their entire life toward strength rather than justice and temperance, in times of peace—when justice and temperance are needed—they won’t know how to live; instead, they will become vicious and incur harm to their soul. For this reason, the philosopher says in Book 7 of the Politics. Criticizing the Lacedaemonians for placing happiness in civil power, he says it is shameful to participate in good things while at war, but to become vicious when we are at peace and free from conflict. Therefore, if it is inappropriate to place happiness in something that is not lasting, and in something that can exist without the goodness of life, and if it is something shameful that leads citizens to lesser goods and generally brings harm, then it is also inappropriate for a prince to place their happiness in civil power and to believe they are happy if they can subjugate many nations.