Liber III, Pars II — Quae sunt in quibus rex alios debet excedere, et quomodo differat rex a tyranno. Cap. VI.

Liber III, Pars II — Quae sunt in quibus rex alios debet excedere, et quomodo differat rex a tyranno. Cap. VI.

He speaks of three ways in which a king should surpass others. First, a king is appointed through an excess of good deeds. Second, a king is often appointed due to an excess of power and dignity. For it is likely that nobles and powerful people are more ashamed to commit disgraceful acts than others; thus, they are often believed to be more suited to rule, and in this way, many have obtained kingdoms in ancient times. If a king is generated and appointed from such excesses, then, if his generation is right, this excess must be found more abundantly and perfectly in the king already established in royal dignity. For we see in the natural generations that if fire is generated through rarefaction and heat, because the material ignites when it is heated and rarefied, the rarity and heat must be found more perfectly in the fire that is already generated and established. Therefore, if the excess of virtuous action and power can be the cause for someone to be rightly appointed as king, it is fitting that such excesses be found more perfectly in the monarchy itself. It is fitting for the king who wishes to rule rightly to be concerned about three things. Secondly, someone can be appointed king because of an excess of virtuous actions: for it is characteristic of virtuous goods to love the common good more than the private good; therefore, he is considered worthy to be appointed king who is believed by the people to be virtuous. Thirdly, someone is often appointed king because of an excess of power and dignity. For if the excesses of benefits, virtuous actions, and power can be the cause for someone to be rightly appointed as king, it is fitting that such excesses should be found more perfectly in the monarchy itself. If, therefore, a king is generated and appointed from such excesses, and if his generation is right, it is necessary that this kind of excess be found in a greater and more perfect manner in a king already established in royal dignity. For we see in the generations of natural things that if fire is generated through rarefaction and heat, because matter ignites when it is heated and rarefied, it is necessary that rarity and heat be found more perfectly in fire that has already been generated and is in existence. Therefore, if the excess of benefits from virtuous action and power can be the cause for someone to be rightly appointed as king, it is fitting that such excesses should be found more perfectly in the monarchy itself. For it is fitting for the king who wishes to rule rightly (as far as the present situation allows) to be concerned with three things. First, that he be loved by the people. Second, a vigilant care should promote the common good. Third, he should correct and punish those who incite seditions and disturb the people. Therefore, it is necessary for a king to have these three qualities. For if he is abundant in bestowing benefits, he will be loved by the people. If he excels in virtuous actions, he will promote the common good; for if it is a virtue to strive for good, it will be more fitting for him to aim for a greater good, which is the good of the people and the common good, which is more divine than any singular good; thus, a good and virtuous man will promote it more than any private or personal good. Third, it is beneficial for him to abound in civil power, so that he can correct those who wish to rise up and disturb the peace of the kingdom. Having seen the qualities in which a king should surpass others, it remains to show how he differs from a tyrant, as the philosopher touches upon. There are four distinctions between a tyrant and a king. The first is that a king looks out for the common good, while a tyrant seeks only his own benefit. For a kingdom is a rightful authority, but tyranny is a perverse domination. Therefore, since the good of the people is more divine than the good of an individual, he who disregards the common good and seeks his own benefit rules perversely. From this first distinction follows the second. Namely, that a tyrant's intention is focused on material gain, while a king's intention is directed toward honorable good. For just as it is inexpressible how much one delights in personal gain, so it is almost inexpressible how great the honor is that follows from seeking the common good. Thus, if a tyrant seeks his own private good, it follows that his intention revolves around material pleasure. But the intention of a king is directed toward honorable good, because he seeks the common good. From this second difference, a third follows. Namely, that the tyrant's intention is focused on pleasure. A tyrant, having disregarded the common good, cares only about his own pleasures, and thus his intention is primarily directed toward money, believing that through it he can obtain such delights. But the king's intention is directed toward virtue and to ensure that the citizens are virtuous, because from this, the honorable and common good results most significantly. From this third difference, a fourth follows: namely, that the tyrant does not care to be protected by his citizens, but rather by outsiders; whereas the king wants to be protected by his own citizens and by those born in his own kingdom. For a tyrant, since he disregards the common good, does not care except for his own pleasures, seeing himself as burdensome and tedious to those who are in the kingdom, he entrusts his entire bodily protection to outsiders; but conversely, the king, seeing that he has the greatest care for the good of the kingdom and the common good, places his greatest trust in those who are in the kingdom. Therefore, he makes sure to be protected by his own people, not by outsiders.