Liber I, Pars IV — Qui sunt mores potentum, et quomodo ad mores illos reges, et principes debeant se habere. Cap. VII.

Liber I, Pars IV — Qui sunt mores potentum, et quomodo ad mores illos reges, et principes debeant se habere. Cap. VII.

Nobility, wealth, and civil power are counted among external goods; however, they do not represent the same good. It happens that some are noble because they come from a noble lineage, yet they are not wealthy. Similarly, it also happens that some are wealthy who are not noble, because they did not come from a respectable lineage but have recently become rich. Therefore, being noble and being wealthy are different. It is also different to be noble and to be wealthy from being powerful. For someone is said to be powerful because they hold some principality and have many under their authority. For when we see many nobles who are powerless and unable to lead, it is clear that being noble and being powerful are not the same. Again, we see some who abound in silver and gold, and in fields and vineyards, yet they lack civil power, for no one is governed under their authority. Therefore, it is not the same to be rich as it is to be powerless. Now, having seen the ways of the noble, it remains to see the ways of the rich. The powerful, however, as the philosopher says, the rhetorician.) they have much better morals than the rich. The philosopher narrates three ways in which the morals of the powerful exceed those of the rich. First, the powerful are more studious than the rich. Second, they are more temperate. Third, they are less contemptuous than the wealthy. For they are more studious and more virtuous than the rich, because, according to the philosopher, they are compelled to focus on what concerns the powerful. Indeed, anyone in a position of power or leadership, because they are a common and public person to whom many look up, is ashamed to decline from the middle ground and not to engage in virtuous actions. Therefore, power in some way leads a person toward goodness and justice. Thus, the powerful are indeed more studious than the wealthy, because they are compelled to focus on the works of power, which ought to be good and virtuous. Secondly, the powerful are more temperate than the wealthy. For when someone dedicates themselves to a task, they are drawn away from idleness; and when they commit themselves to one work, they are drawn away from another. Therefore, if the wealthy do not abound in civil power and are not compelled to focus on works of justice, they remain idle and are easily inclined to give their attention to trivial matters, leading them to engage in indulgent behaviors. Powerful people and leaders, because they must focus on external affairs, are drawn away so that they cannot completely indulge in sensual pleasures. Therefore, it happens that powerful people are more temperate than the wealthy. Thirdly, powerful people are less contemptuous than the wealthy. Therefore, it is written 2. rhetor. If powerful people are wronged, they are not wronged in small matters, but in significant ones. For powerful people who are in positions of authority, because they are in a place of great honor, do not strive for anything less than great and difficult tasks. Therefore, if it happens that they are wronged by others, they will not be wronged in small matters, but in significant ones. They won't bother to commit a minor offense, but they'll either harm others in significant ways or cause great damage. Therefore, the powerful are more contemptuous than the wealthy, because they don't care to inflict any insult, no matter how small, but only those that are significant. The morals of the wealthy are entirely worse than the morals of the nobility or the powerful. Thus, wealth, if it does not accompany power and nobility, often makes a person more unfortunate than fortunate. For a person who is wealthy but not noble, and who does not come from some ancient and honorable lineage, is often intemperate and foolishly fortunate, or is foolishly lucky. A wealthy person who is not noble and does not come from an ancient and honorable lineage, but is newly rich, is said to be foolishly fortunate, because they do not know how to handle wealth, which is a means to happiness. Or they are said to be foolishly fortunate because they do not know how to bear wealth or do not know how to conduct themselves properly with wealth, which is a good fortune. Therefore, it is said that... A person who has recently become wealthy lacks the education to manage their riches. Those who have recently acquired wealth are not educated in how to use it properly. Wealth without wisdom is a foolish burden. It is written that the ways of the wealthy are, in summary, the ways of the foolish and fortunate. Nobility is rightly associated with wealth, for those who are wealthy and noble, whose ancestors were rich, know how to handle riches and are not overly exalted because of them. Indeed, material goods seem to be entirely contrary to knowledge and virtue. For wealth and material goods are considered greater before they are possessed than they are once they are obtained; once acquired, they lose their value. However, knowledge and virtue seem to behave in the opposite manner. For before they are possessed, material goods are not regarded as significant; however, once they are acquired, they lose their value. Those who begin to taste the sweetness of virtues and the delight of knowledge quickly realize that these are greater goods than they had believed. Therefore, the more material goods are possessed, the less they are valued. When those who are wealthy by inheritance are more accustomed to wealth and more attached to it than those who have recently become wealthy, they do not value riches as much, nor are they so easily swayed by them, as those who have just acquired wealth. Thus, it is necessary that no one should be a foolishly happy rich person who does not know how to bear wealth; it is fitting that nobility should accompany riches. For a noble rich person, who has been wealthy for a long time, knows better how to manage their fortunes than a newly rich peasant. Therefore, it is rightly said that to avoid being a foolishly happy rich person, one must be noble; but to avoid being intemperate, one must also be noble; and to avoid being intemperate, one must be powerful; for, as has been said, powerful kings, because they are engaged in various concerns due to their authority, cannot easily devote themselves to pleasures. Kings and princes, because they generally abound in these three external things—namely, wealth, nobility, and power—should be learned and temperate. For through nobility, since they have long been wealthy, they know better how to bear their fortunes, and regarding wealth, they know better how to conduct themselves with wisdom. Again, since they are powerful in leadership and authority, and they must attend to various matters, they are drawn away from sensual pleasures and are led to be temperate. Therefore, it must be understood regarding morals. For the elderly, the young, and those who are in positions of power, nobility, and wealth have the kinds of morals we have mentioned: not that all are universally like this, or that it is necessary for them to be so; but for the most part, the wealthy, the noble, and others have the kinds of morals we spoke of earlier. Again, although it is not necessary for them to have such morals, they are nonetheless greatly inclined to them and have a certain propensity to follow those morals. Therefore, the young and the old should not be offended if we have recounted some bad morals about them: for we do not impose any necessity on them through such morals, so that they cannot avoid all bad morals and follow the order of reason. If even the noble or the wealthy should not be offended if we have narrated some bad morals about them: because not all need to be like this, but it suffices to find this in many: for we intended to place a certain propensity, and not a necessity, through such morals in them. Therefore, when you speak of commendable and blameworthy morals according to different ages and statuses, it is fitting for all people to follow commendable morals and to flee from blameworthy ones: but this is even more fitting for kings and princes, as they exist in a higher degree. For they should be, as was said earlier, an example and a rule for others, and a model of living. Therefore, whatever is commendable in the character of individuals should be found in them all the more abundantly and perfectly. This is the conclusion of the first book on the governance of princes, in which it has been stated how a prince should govern himself.