Liber II, Pars III — Quod in domibus regum et principum sunt ipsis ministris officia committenda. Cap. XVI.

Liber II, Pars III — Quod in domibus regum et principum sunt ipsis ministris officia committenda. Cap. XVI.

When responsibilities are assigned to ministers in the houses of kings and princes, so that some oversee the table, some manage the multitude of horses, and others handle various tasks as required by domestic order, three things must be considered: namely, the order of service, the ease of execution, and the condition of the ministers. First, it is essential to ensure that domestic duties are assigned to ministers in such a way that the proper order of service is maintained; this is most likely to happen if no single task is assigned to multiple ministers unless they are under one leader, whose role is primarily to oversee the assigned duties. The rationale for this is outlined in the second book of Politics. As stated in Politics. It is said that sometimes many ministers serve worse than a few. For when the same duty is assigned to many, it is often neglected; for often any one of the ministers believes that another will carry it out: wherever there is a multitude, there is confusion, unless that multitude is reduced to one. As we see in the universe, which is most orderly, because the multitude of existing beings within it is reduced to one primary being, namely God, from whom all things are ordered. So, any multitude, if it is to be orderly, must be reduced to one, from which it is ordered. Therefore, if a task is assigned to many ministers, so that it isn't neglected and doesn't become confused or disordered, one chief minister must be appointed over them, whose role it is to oversee and organize them. This principle is especially necessary in the governance of royal households, where due to the complexity of duties, the same ministry must be assigned to many ministers, since one person alone would not be able to carry out that work effectively. Thus, in the assignment of duties, the order of service must be observed. Secondly, the ease of execution must be taken into account. This is especially likely to happen if too many different duties are assigned to the same person. The reason for this can be understood from what is said in the fourth book. In fact, it is stated there that sometimes many ministers serve worse than a few. We must therefore imagine that just as a large city relates to a small one, so a large household relates to a small one. In a large city, the various offices or different magistrates shouldn't be gathered together, because in a big city the offices and principalities have such great responsibilities attached to them that one person couldn't manage to carry out many duties easily. But in a small city or a small village, where due to the small number of inhabitants not many can oversee the offices, and where the assigned duties don't carry a significant burden, the offices and magistrates can be gathered together so that different duties can be assigned to the same person. Therefore, what has been said about a small and a large city should also be understood in terms of a small and a large household. In a small household, where there are few ministers and where the duties require only a modest level of attention, it's not inappropriate for multiple duties to be assigned to the same person; for the household could be so small that one person could easily serve as the entire minister of the table and the gatekeeper. But in the houses of kings and princes, where there is a multitude of ministers and where the duties require the utmost attention, the offices must be clearly defined and distinguished, and not many duties should be assigned to the same person, so that the ease of execution is not hindered. Thirdly, in the assignment of duties, the condition of the ministers must be considered. For ministers generally tend to fail in two ways: some poorly carry out the assigned work because they are deceivers and defraud legal rights; others poorly achieve the task itself, but not out of malice of will, because they genuinely want to do good, yet this happens due to dullness of understanding, for they are indeed dull and imprudent; therefore, although they do not deceive or defraud, they are nonetheless deceived and defrauded. Therefore, the condition of ministers must be that they are faithful and prudent: faithful indeed in terms of the integrity of their will, so that they do not defraud; and prudent in terms of the diligence of their understanding, so that they do not defraud through ignorance. Faithfulness can be recognized over time; we can't see the heart of a person, but if someone has acted faithfully over a long period and in various entrusted roles, they can be judged as faithful. Wisdom can be recognized by the qualities we discussed in the first book: if someone is mindful, prudent, cautious, and circumspect, as well as other traits we mentioned there, they should be considered wise; and according to how much they possess those qualities, they can be judged more or less wise.