Liber III, Pars II — Quod melius est regimen regni et principatus ire per haereditatem et succesisonem filiorum, quam per electionem aliquam. Cap. V.

Liber III, Pars II — Quod melius est regimen regni et principatus ire per haereditatem et succesisonem filiorum, quam per electionem aliquam. Cap. V.

It might seem better and more worthy for royal and princely rule to come through election rather than through inheritance. For if we consider the truth of the matter superficially, one might doubt whether it is better for royal dignity to come through election or through inheritance. If someone is appointed king through election, it seems that such a kingdom is not subject to chance and fortune, but is established through skill, since the one appointed will be better and more industrious. But if this is done through inheritance, the kingdom will be exposed to chance and fortune, for it is uncertain what kind of son will inherit the royal dignity. Therefore, speaking absolutely, it is better for a prince to be established through election than through inheritance. However, since most people have a corrupt appetite, considering the actions and conditions of people, which we see experimentally, it seems that it is more expedient for a kingdom or city that a lord be appointed through inheritance rather than through election. We can, however, show in three ways that, considering the conditions of people, it is better for such governance to come through inheritance. The first way is taken from the part of the king himself who governs the people. The second consideration is from the perspective of the son who is to succeed in the inheritance. The third consideration is from the perspective of the people who should be governed by such a regime. The first way is thus considered. For according to the Philosopher, this is indeed difficult. It is beyond description how much love a father has and how much it differs to bear something of one's own; for what is natural cannot be idle or vain; naturally, everyone has affection for themselves: therefore, a king is all the more inclined to care for the good of the kingdom, as he believes that the kingdom is more truly his own good: thus, if a king sees that he ought to rule over the kingdom not only for his life but also through inheritance in his own children, he will regard the good of the kingdom as his own good and will be more ardently concerned about such good. Indeed, because the father's entire hope rests in his children and the fathers are moved with great ardor toward the love of their children, therefore, with every care they can muster, they will be moved to ensure the good state of the kingdom if they consider that it will come to the dominion of their children. The Philosopher, however, states this in his Politics. Politics. When discussing this matter, he says that it is difficult. That is to say, fathers can pass on the rule of the kingdom to their own sons. He implies that this is akin to a divine virtue and exceeds human capability. But perhaps this is why the philosopher said that in ancient times kings often turned into tyrants and did not last long, so that sons could succeed to their father's inheritance in this way. Or it is simply said that this is divine, because unless it happens that sons reign after their fathers, if the sons reign, they will scarcely or never be able to have their own sons reign. Therefore, from the king's perspective, we can argue that it is beneficial for royal rule to pass to sons through inheritance. The second way to investigate this same matter is taken from the perspective of the son, to whom it pertains to take on the care of the kingdom. For just as the morals of recent dictators are generally worse than those of the wealthy who have been around since ancient times, so too the morals of recent powerful figures and the new elite through the acquisition of civil power are worse than those of others. They don't know how to bear such fortunes. Recently, being exalted to the position of king seems to be a kind of ignorance of royal dignity. Such people often become tyrants, ruling with inflated egos and ignorance. But if royal governance is to proceed through inheritance. The sons do not become arrogant or overly proud because of this. For they do not consider it great if they possess what their fathers had; therefore, from the perspective of the sons who ought to succeed to their father's inheritance, it is beneficial for the kingdom that they are not ruled by ignorance, and that royal governance does not turn into tyranny, so that royal dignity may be passed down through inheritance to their descendants. A third way is taken from the perspective of the people who ought to be governed by such a regime. For custom is like a second nature; therefore, regimes established by custom are seen as almost natural. Therefore, if the people have obeyed their fathers, sons, and grandsons for a long time, they naturally tend to obey voluntarily; thus, since everything voluntary is less burdensome and difficult, the people will obey the king's commands more willingly and easily, so it is beneficial for the royal dignity to be passed down through inheritance. Therefore, determining the house and lineage from which the king is to be chosen settles disputes, removes tyranny, and establishes a kind of natural dominion. It calms disputes because often conflicts arise among those who are chosen due to the election of a leader, which disturbs the peace of the kingdom. It removes tyranny because those who dominate through election do not care for the good of the kingdom as much as those who inherit their position; and because to be a tyrant means not to intend the good of the kingdom, such individuals more easily become tyrants. This natural dominion also exists because the people tend to obey the commands of such a king almost instinctively. From this, it can be understood that it is not only beneficial for the kingdom to determine the lineage from which the ruler is to be chosen, but it is also necessary to determine the individual who should lead from that lineage. For just as disputes and conflicts arise if it is unclear from which lineage the king should be chosen, so too do disputes arise if it is not determined which person from that lineage should be the leader. Determining such a person does not pose any difficulty. If the royal dignity is passed down through inheritance to descendants, it must be transferred to the sons, because according to the line of blood, sons are most closely connected to their parents: moreover, such dignity should be transferred more to males than to females, since a male is superior to a female in reason, more courageous in heart, and less driven by passions. Among males, such dignity should be granted more to the firstborn than to others, because, as the philosopher says in his Politics, it is fitting for younger ones to obey their elders. In fact, fathers generally love their firstborns more; thus, it is better for the king to care for the good of the kingdom, establishing the kingdom to succeed to the firstborn, so that the father may take greater care for the good of the kingdom, knowing that it will pass to the more beloved son. And if it happens that he is given to love the younger ones more, It is easy to respond to such objections, because human actions and particular deeds do not fall under a strict rule or certain narrative: therefore, it suffices to probabilistically navigate such matters and to establish laws that generally contain the truth. However, what was mentioned earlier, namely that to go through inheritance for royal dignity, is to expose it to fortune, since it is unknown what kind of royal son will be in the future. It must be said that there are hardly any human deeds that are not exposed to dangers in some way. Yet those things that are exposed to many dangers should be avoided more. We see, however, through experience that many evils arise in cities and kingdoms where there is no natural lord: for it sometimes happens that they lack a governor for a long time, and when they do have a governor, they are mostly tyrannized over; indeed, we have seen many such evils in these kinds of governments, which would take a long time to enumerate individually. Therefore, we can say that it is beneficial for the kingdom for a son to succeed in the governance of his father: and if there is any defect in the royal son, to whom royal care should reach, it can be supplemented by wise and good men, whom the king should join to himself as hands and eyes in society; however, kings and princes are very blameworthy if they are not overly concerned that their sons are imbued from infancy with discipline and good morals; since the common good and the good of the entire kingdom depend on this. Nor is it enough that the firstborn alone should reign, so that diligent care is given only to him: for it is unknown what divine providence has determined, and it is not known to whom the kingdom will pass among the sons. Therefore, lest the common good be endangered, diligent care must be taken for all the king's sons.