Liber I, Pars I — Quod non decet regiam maiestatem, suam felicitatem ponere in divitiis. Cap. VII.

Liber I, Pars I — Quod non decet regiam maiestatem, suam felicitatem ponere in divitiis. Cap. VII.

The Philosopher says. In his work on politics, he distinguishes two kinds of riches, for according to him, some are natural riches, while others are artificial. Natural riches are some, while others are artificial. Natural riches are said to be those that are produced naturally from natural things, such as those that are taken from fields or from trees, like grains and wines, or even from animals, and universally, whatever serves directly for sustenance and clothing is counted among natural riches. However, artificial riches are those that are invented through the art and industry of men, which are exchanged for these natural riches, such as gold and silver, and universally, all coins, which do not directly supply bodily needs but serve bodily needs through exchange. For gold and silver, although they are natural metals, are nevertheless considered artificial riches. In neither kind of riches should happiness be placed. It is said in the Politics. In the Politics. First, because artificial wealth is ordered to natural wealth. Secondly, because such things have their status as wealth only by human arrangement. Thirdly, because according to themselves, they do not satisfy bodily needs. For it can happen, as it is said in the Politics, that someone who is rich in money may die of hunger. It was said above that happiness is that good to which all other goods are ordered. Therefore, artificial wealth cannot have the nature of happiness, since it is ordered to natural wealth. Secondly, happiness should not be placed in such things, because they do not have the nature of riches except by the arrangement of men. True happiness is our good according to its own nature, not merely our good based on the arrangement of men; however, money does not have the nature of riches except by the arrangement of men. Whence I. It is said in the Politics that, when the users are changed, that is, when the arrangement of the users is changed, or the order and arrangement of men, such riches have no dignity or utility; however, that gold or those coins are worth so much in the opinion of men, and because that is how the order and arrangement of users wills it. Thirdly, happiness should not be placed in such things, because gold, silver, and all coins do not only fail to satisfy the soul, nor are they the perfect good, but they also do not satisfy bodily needs by themselves. For it can happen (as it is said in the Politics). Politics.) Whoever is rich in money will perish from hunger. It is recounted that there was a certain man named Midas, who, being excessively greedy for gold (as the story goes), asked God to grant that whatever he touched would turn to gold. Therefore, since his touch was reserved in every part of his body, he could not touch anything with his mouth without it turning to gold. Thus, he had a great abundance of gold, yet he was dying of hunger. This could not be, if gold or other coins were truly riches and could genuinely satisfy bodily needs. Therefore, since coins are riches in relation to something else, and since they are riches by human institution, and since they are corporeal, they do not suffice for bodily needs; thus, happiness should not be placed in them. Moreover, it is clear that happiness should not be placed in trivial natural goods, such as food and drink, which satisfy bodily needs. For since happiness is the highest good, it should be sought in our highest good. Therefore, since the soul is greater than the body, happiness should not be placed in such riches, which are the goods of the body, but (as was said earlier) it should be placed in the acts of virtues, which are the goods of the soul. Therefore, it is detestable for anyone to place their happiness in riches, but it is especially detestable for royal majesty. For if a king or prince places his happiness in riches, three great evils follow from that. First, because he loses the greatest goods. Secondly, because he becomes a tyrant. Thirdly, because he becomes a plunderer of the people. For a person who is devoted to money as an end, and yet can never lavish money, cannot be magnificent, whose role is to make great expenditures; nor can he be magnanimous, because fearing to lose money, he will attempt nothing great. Rather, since he is magnanimous, to whom nothing bodily is great, as the philosopher wishes. Ethics, chapter. In the opinion of the greedy, and in the view of someone who places their happiness in wealth, riches are seen as something great; however, it is impossible for such a person to be magnanimous. If therefore magnificence and magnanimity are the greatest goods, and it is most fitting for royal majesty to be adorned with such virtues, it is detestable for them to place their happiness in such things. Secondly, it is detestable for a king or prince to place their happiness in wealth, because by doing so they become a tyrant. For there is indeed a difference between a king and a tyrant, as will be made clear in section 3. Book. When it will be determined about the governance of the kingdom. For a king is properly one who intends the good of the kingdom and the common good; but if he intends his own good, that is a consequence. A tyrant, however, primarily intends his own private good; if he intends the public good, that is only as a consequence, inasmuch as some private good results from the common good. Since the end is greatly cherished, one who places his happiness in money primarily intends to reserve and gather wealth for himself. Therefore, he is not a king but a tyrant, since he does not primarily intend the public good, but rather his own. Thirdly, this being established, it follows that the king is a plunderer of the people. For the end is so intensely cherished that anyone strives in every way, by every means, to attain his end. Therefore, placing his happiness in riches, he will not care if he oppresses widows and orphans, if he plunders the people and the common good, as long as he can gather money; for anyone who understands well what is meant by the name of end cannot escape the fact that he wishes to attain his end in every way he can. Thus, he is a tyrant if he wishes to be a lord in such a way that he does not care for the good of the commonwealth; but he is a plunderer when he not only fails to pursue the good but also inflicts harm. Therefore, if it is detestable for a king to admit the greatest goods and to be a tyrant, it is also detestable for him to place his happiness in riches.