Liber I, Pars II — Quod reges et principes quodammodo impossibile est esse prodigos, et quod maxime detestabile est eos esse avaros, et quod potissime decet eos liberales esse. Cap. XVIII.

Liber I, Pars II — Quod reges et principes quodammodo impossibile est esse prodigos, et quod maxime detestabile est eos esse avaros, et quod potissime decet eos liberales esse. Cap. XVIII.

The philosopher says this in Book 4. The essence of generosity isn't found in the abundance of gifts, but in the disposition of the giver, that is, in their ability and willingness to give. For, as it is written there, nothing prevents someone from being less generous if they receive from those of lesser means. Therefore, generosity takes its measure from the proportion of the gifts to the possessions of the giver. Thus, the philosopher says that tyrants cannot be extravagant because they do not seem able to exceed the abundance of their possessions, gifts, and expenses. Anyone who has so much and receives so much that their gifts and expenses cannot surpass the multitude of their possessions cannot, in a sense, be considered extravagant. Therefore, kings and princes, because they are abundant in possessions, cannot only not be extravagant, but they can hardly even reach the point of being generous. Thus, they should always consider that they do less than they ought to. From this, it can be seen that it is inappropriate for them to be greedy. For if a kingdom is to be natural for someone, it must be proportionate to what we see in nature. In nature, nothing is superfluous, as the principles of physics demonstrate. Therefore, nothing in the governance of human life should be superfluous. Since human nature is content with modest things, because a single person needs only a little: if one person abounds in wealth, that wealth is idle if it is not directed toward the good of others. The more that kings and princes abound in wealth, the more detestable it is for them to be greedy. The philosopher proves this. In three ways, the ethics show that greed is worse than prodigality. Therefore, it is utterly detestable for kings and princes to be greedy, for greed is to be avoided by leaders; if they could be extravagant, it would be better for them to be extravagant than greedy. First, because it is better to be afflicted by a curable illness than by an incurable one. Extravagance, however, is a curable illness, whether due to youth or poverty. For those who are extravagant in their youth (because the elderly are greedier than the young) often find that their extravagance is mostly cured when they reach old age, and they cease to be extravagant. Extravagance can also be cured by poverty, for those who are extravagant often find themselves in need because their expenses exceed their income. Therefore, experiencing poverty leads them to stop being extravagant. Thus, according to the philosopher, extravagance is a curable vice, whether due to youth or poverty. But greed is an incurable vice: for the more one advances in greed, and the older one gets, the more greedy one becomes. If therefore the head of the kingdom, from whom the entire realm should be governed, is indecently sick according to the incurable disease of morals, it is utterly detestable for a king to be greedy, and it would be better for him to be extravagant than greedy. Secondly, this is evident: because extravagance is closer to virtue than greed is; for a generous person does not gladly receive, but gladly gives, and both actions make one extravagant; however, neither makes one greedy. Therefore, extravagance does not differ from generosity, except that an extravagant person does not give as he ought, nor to whom he ought, nor for what reason he ought. Therefore, since an extravagant person is not a lover of money, just as neither is a generous person, it is possible for someone who is slightly extravagant to become generous. If therefore it is entirely fitting for a king to be virtuous, it is all the more detestable for him to be greedy than extravagant, because greed is much more contrary to virtue than extravagance. Thirdly, this is more detestable: because a king is placed in the kingdom for the sake of the kingdom's welfare, and to benefit those who are in the kingdom. A greedy person, however, is of no benefit to anyone, because he is even worthless to himself; but an extravagant person is beneficial to many. Therefore, it is utterly detestable for a king to be greedy. It seems almost impossible for kings to be extravagant, and it's utterly detestable for them to be greedy; therefore, it remains to show that they should be generous, liberal, and communicative. This virtue, which concerns expenditures, is called generosity, liberality, and communicativeness by a certain analogy. Generosity is said to be in the likeness of vessels. For vessels that have a narrow opening do not pour out abundantly what is inside them. Therefore, one who is abundant in expenditures and gifts is called generous, because he pours out abundantly what he contains, like a generous vessel. Since it is fitting for a source to have a wider opening, so that many can partake from it, it is all the more fitting for a king to be generous, as his influence should extend to many more than that of others. Secondly, this virtue is called liberality because those who possess it are like free people. Greedy people are not free; rather, they are slaves to money. Therefore, if it is inappropriate for kings and princes to be servants, it is fitting for them to be generous. Thirdly, this virtue is called generosity because through it people share their goods, by which communication they are especially loved by others; for generous people are most lovable. Therefore, if it is especially fitting for kings and princes to be loved by those who are in the kingdom, it is especially fitting for them to be generous. However, it pertains to the generous person first to consider the amount given, so that they do not give less or more than they should. Secondly, they should consider to whom they give, so that they do not give to those to whom it is inappropriate. Thirdly, it must be considered for whose sake they give, so that they give for the sake of the good, not for some other reason. For kings and princes can hardly deviate from generosity in giving more, because the magnitude of expenses can hardly exceed the multitude of revenues. Indeed, if it happens that a generous person gives more than is fitting, as the philosopher says, they will be moderately saddened. A generous person is more burdened if they give less than they should or if they don't spend where they ought, than if they spend where they shouldn't. However, kings and princes deviate from generosity when they give to those they shouldn't or for reasons that aren't appropriate. For they give (as the philosopher says) to actors, flatterers, or others to whom they shouldn't give, because it would be better for them to be poor than rich. So too, they give for reasons that aren't appropriate. For they don't give for the sake of doing good, but rather they give to be praised and for empty glory or for some other reason. Therefore, it is fitting for kings to be generous; and to be generous, they must benefit the good and for the sake of the good.