§ 1. I have already detested an avaricious prince above, when I was treating liberality, and I detest him now also. Nevertheless, I require a provident and well-funded prince; indeed, I affirm that industry in accumulating riches is one of the principal virtues of princes. Nor do those men offend slightly who establish such a government that the treasury is always empty. This, therefore, must now be demonstrated by me: that this is pious and holy, and the duty of the prince and of the state, so that in the discussions which follow I may treat the method of gathering resources.
§ 2. At the outset I establish this as fixed and ratified: rich men who are devastated by desires, scattered by cupidities, tormented by fears, and consumed by sorrow are not to be approved. For these are vices of men, alike in the poor, the man of moderate means, and the rich. But I assert that riches are necessary to the prince and the state. They are a gift of God, as Augustine teaches: welcome when given to private persons, necessary when given to a prince. And so the prince will desire them “for the supplements of necessity,” as Augustine speaks on Psalm 66.
The slothful man is sent to the ant and warned of timely labor, lest he hunger in winter; where is the state to be sent, lest it abandon itself? Those who have money do not sin, but those who love it excessively. Indeed, riches are possessed more safely and better in proportion as they are loved less. Nor let them set before me the apostolic threat: “They who desire to become rich fall into temptation.” Augustine answers for me in book 1, chapter 10 of The City of God: “Surely he censures cupidity in riches, not the means themselves.” For although private persons with difficulty hold resources without loving them, the state can more easily employ them as instruments of virtue and defenses of protection. “I do not know,” says Augustine, “how it is that, when superfluous and earthly things are loved, they bind more tightly once obtained than when desired.” But this arises from the fact that money is sought by private persons to fulfill their own desires, by the prince for the safety of the state.
§ 3. From the foundation of the world we have David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah as the wisest of all kings. What was gathered for the temple demonstrates the resources of David, 1 Chronicles 22:14: “Behold, in my poverty I have prepared for the expenses of the house of the Lord one hundred thousand talents of gold and one million talents of silver; but of bronze and iron there is no weight, for number is overcome by magnitude; timber and stones I have prepared for all the expenses.” Concerning his manifold treasuries, 1 Chronicles 27:25: “Over the king’s treasuries was Azmaveth the son of Adiel. But over those treasuries which were in the cities, villages, and towers was Jonathan the son of Uzziah.” Behold: first, the king’s treasuries; second, in the cities; third, in the villages; fourth, in the towers. Add the fields and livestock. Behold a king possessing so many treasuries and nevertheless not avaricious, but liberal and gentle, who was accustomed to sing before the Lord: “Blessed is he who understands concerning the needy and poor; in the evil day the Lord will deliver him.” For the treasure was preserved for the needy, the poor, and the whole people.
It is fruitless to say a few things about Solomon because many are found everywhere. 1 Kings 10:26: “And Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen, and he had one thousand four hundred chariots and twelve thousand horsemen.” And in 2 Chronicles 9 he is said to have been richer than all kings and to have furnished in Jerusalem an abundance of silver as great as that of stones.
I have spoken above about the riches of Jehoshaphat and about his army.
Scripture proclaims the riches of Hezekiah, 2 Chronicles 32:27: “But Hezekiah was rich and exceedingly renowned, and he gathered for himself very many treasures of silver and gold, precious stones, spices, arms of every kind, and vessels of great price; storehouses also of grain, wine, and oil, stalls of all beasts of burden and folds of cattle. And he built cities for himself; he also had innumerable flocks of sheep and herds, because the LORD had given him exceedingly great substance.”
The piety and zeal of Josiah, indeed, are praised in Scripture more than his resources; nevertheless, the power by which he removed every abomination from the land and even the high places—something no king before had done—shows that he was rich. And he restored such a Passover as had never been, in which from the king’s substance he himself gave thirty thousand head of small livestock and three thousand oxen. Nor is it a small sign of power that he met Pharaoh Necho as he proceeded against the Assyrians. For without doubt Necho’s army, which he was leading against a most powerful king, was immense; yet Josiah did not think himself unequal to it, and perhaps would have conquered if the Lord had not disapproved the expedition.
It is madness to accuse such men of bad administration, and those greatly err who think it royal to give gold but not to preserve it. It must be given and preserved; both are necessary. But it cannot be given with reason unless it is preserved. Yet if one pleases to accuse these men, what shall we do with Joseph, who furnished Pharaoh’s palace with immense revenues? For he received money, livestock, and fields, and finally the fifth part of the annual crops. Why did he furnish the king with so great an abundance of resources if those riches did not belong to the art of ruling? I truly judge that the entire public revenue of the Romans was a small part of Pharaoh’s resources, if every kind of crop is considered. For, first, six hundred thousand men dwelt in the land of Goshen, and those men were Israelites. There were as many Egyptians, so that altogether they were 1,200,000. Add as many adult women: they will be 2,400,000. You will double this number by the young boys and girls and by servants, so that in Goshen alone there were 4,800,000. The fifth part of these would be at least 900,000, whom Pharaoh could maintain from the fifth part of the land of Goshen alone. For if the whole land suffices for the whole people, then a fifth part suffices for a fifth. Indeed, very much grain was exported into neighboring and distant kingdoms. If, therefore, so great was the revenue from the land of Goshen alone, how great was it from all Egypt?
§ 4. Nor does reason advise otherwise: “You are worth as much as you have.” If resources are lacking, friends will be lacking; no one readily inclines himself toward an unhappy lot. For many avoid meeting needy and indebted princes because they fear that loans of money may be sought from them. Mucianus truly said that money is the sinew of command. Resources are needed; without them nothing will be done which must be done. All things are purchasable with money, and Rome found a buyer, as Jugurtha predicted. If you possess money in the enemy camp and in his councils, you will have friends, if not sincere, at least useful. For what is wiser than that saying?
Ἀργυρέαις λόγχαις μάχου, καὶ πάντα κρατήσεις.
“Fight with silver spears, and you will conquer all things.” Therefore, he who has not gathered money deprives himself of the short way to victory. Nor let the speech of ancient simplicity move you: “Not trafficking in war, but waging war.” Rather, redeeming war—for why should I not conquer by the expenditure of money rather than blood? If an ass laden with gold can capture a citadel, I shall preserve the army intact.
But riches are necessary not only in war but also in peace. Of those who attach themselves to a prince, many desire to be honored, most to be gilded. Therefore, a prince ought to give; and because he needs the faithful service of many, to give lavishly. But the fountain of liberality is thrift.
§ 5. Those who say that they rely upon virtue alone and deny that gold should be trusted employ a specious but fallacious speech. It is not a prince’s virtue to strip himself of means and the state of defenses. Gold is not to be trusted, but used; and in order that you may use it, it must be possessed. For since the services and fidelity of many are necessary to a prince, and they place virtue after gold, they must be held by gifts. And this belongs to virtue: to draw each man by his own pleasure, as though by bait, to perform his duty.
An old saying of Cyrus and of others who flourished in the praise of prudence is also circulated and pronounced amid the applause of young men: “Friends are treasures.” Thus Alexander too answered Darius that Darius had enclosed his treasures within a citadel, but that he himself possessed no treasures except the hearts of his friends.
Yet the event shows that these words were spoken for appearance, from a display of generous confidence, and more to conciliate the hearts of friends than from the heart. For Alexander gathered gold in that madness: “Thirty thousand mules carry your captive gold,” the noble defendant casts against him. And although he plundered so much, it is wonderful that he gave so little. But let us examine his treasures. Which of his friends did not plot against him? Which prince did not participate in extinguishing his stock? Not to speak, indeed, of those whom the king’s vices had provoked: he did not retain the hearts of his soldiers when the hope of resources had collapsed. Let the turning-back from the journey out of India be read in Curtius. Everyone will understand that without the hope of money he accomplished absolutely nothing, and without money little. What then? Do you think that anyone from Macedonia would have followed without that lure, when we so often read that his soldiers, after squandering their gifts and their own plunder, demanded a return? When the Argyraspids, in order to redeem their baggage, delivered their own commander Eumenes to the enemy?
The same thing which is done among the standards is sought in the forum and senate house. Few defend a needy man. The soldier must bring arms into the field, the prince money. Among so many peoples scarcely one fidelity is found; minds must be retained by coin. In order that this may be done, the treasury must be cared for. If anyone is a friend without hope of money—and surely he is rare—he nevertheless must be enriched: both because it is expedient for the prince that a man of so faithful a spirit should be as powerful as possible, and because poverty ought not to be the penalty for so generous a will. Friends, therefore, are treasures, but they must be fostered and raised up, lest the condition of enemies seem better with the prince. “But when I have enriched my friends, they themselves will succor me when I am needy.” Julian was never desirous of increasing money, which he thought was kept more securely among its owners. But these things can persuade only boys. I seek serious things. I believe neither Marcellinus when he praises Julian nor Constantine when he prosecutes him. I shall not believe that Julian was not desirous of money, since I know that he stuffed his coffers through the persecution of Christians and confiscations. At times he feigned philosophy in words and deeds; at other times he was accustomed to mock Christians when they complained of injury, saying that Christ had commended poverty and that they would be blessed by it.
But if we consider the state as it is ordinarily constituted, a prince in danger will not easily seek protection from the friends to whom he gave riches in prosperity. For even then he made them friends only by giving; and now by asking or plundering he will make them enemies. He will also find many who would prefer that the prince should not exist rather than that they should be poor for his sake. Caligula and Nero squandered all things through largesses and luxury; did they therefore find a friend? If we speak of good and just princes, I seek one example thus far of a prince whom friends mindful of a benefit restored to his former condition, unless either the hope of greater gain enticed liberality or fear of greater loss extorted their money. Hope must therefore be placed in friends with the knowledge that there is more protection in those who hope for new benefits than in those from whom gratitude is requested.
§ 6. The care of gathering resources rests not only upon the prince but also upon him to whom the succession looks, who by some right can come to the principate. For since all things obey money, it is certain that there is nothing which does not obey, except virtue. All things, I say, obey money—even money already received obeys that which is hoped for, the former money the future; all things obey, even the enemy’s arms and even the money of the enemy treasury, if more is hoped for from you. Hence many have attained the principate by money. “Queen Money bestows both birth and kingdom.” Thucydides, book 1, relates that Pelops, by the Asiatic money which he had brought as a foreigner, obtained among poor men first reputation and favor, then a kingdom. Didius Julianus purchased the empire from the soldiers, Herodian, book 2. Manlius formerly attempted the same; and, something at which you will marvel, the sons of Brutus were made Tarquin’s men by hope of rewards. Tarquinius Priscus obtained command, although the sons of Ancus were disregarded, by an honorable use of money. Nor did anything different thereafter occur in the state: canvassing for office, although suppressed by so many laws, trials, and punishments, was absent from no elections.
The annual contests return venal to the Field.
The reason is that all seek a prince for themselves rather than for the state. They most desire that man to have power from whom they hope for most.
Virtue, reputation, honor, things divine and human obey splendid riches. He who has amassed them will be renowned, brave, just, wise, even a king; and whatever he wishes, he will hope that this, as though procured by virtue, will redound to his great praise.
Even prudent men judge thus. For if he enlarged his estate while in a private station, and was kind and generous to friends, what will he do in the principate? Consider that, in proportion as each man’s estate is well provided, so his friends are firm; if his estate totters, his friends likewise collapse. An estate finds friends; an estate advances a man to kingship. I do not say these things in order to teach that command must be sought by evil arts and largesses, but to impress upon a prince how great is the force of an estate well arranged at home for obtaining his right. Moreover, command is retained and acquired by the same arts. Resources are an eminent instrument of civil affairs.
Thus Aristotle, Politics 1.8. After saying τὴν κτητικήν, the art of acquisition, to be a part of household management which supplies things necessary for life and useful to the community of the city, he adds:
καίτοι κἂν οὐδ᾽ ἀληθινῶς πλοῦτος ἐκ τούτων εἴη· ἡ γὰρ τῆς τοιαύτης κτήσεως αὐτάρκεια πρὸς ἀγαθὴν ζωὴν οὐκ ἄπειρός ἐστιν, ὥσπερ Σόλων φησὶ ποιήσας·
Πλούτου δ᾽ οὐδὲν τέρμα πεφασμένον ἀνδράσι κεῖται.
κεῖται γὰρ, ὥσπερ καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις τέχναις· οὐδὲν γὰρ ὄργανον ἄπειρον οὐδεμιᾶς ἐστὶ τέχνης, οὔτε πλήθει οὔτε μεγέθει· ὁ δὲ πλοῦτος ὀργάνων πλῆθός ἐστιν οἰκονομικῶν καὶ πολιτικῶν.
True riches seem to consist of these things, for the sufficiency from such possession for a blessed life is not infinite, as Solon expressed in verse: “No limit of riches has been established for men.” Yet there is a limit, as in the other arts; for no instrument of any art is infinite, either in multitude or magnitude. Riches, however, are a multitude of household and political instruments. But the state has need of very many instruments; therefore, unless it prefers to be prey, they must be acquired in due season.
§ 7. I contend not only that the prince or the state ought to be rich, but also its administrators—not because I judge that unfit rich men should be admitted to the helm, for thence follow those evils which Gregorio Tolosano prudently noted in book 5, chapter 1, §25. Plato, he said, called the constitution of the few that polity in which magistracies are distributed to citizens according to the valuation of their property, and in which the rich rule, while the poor have no participation in the state. Thus, the more money and property qualifications bestow honors, the more base virtue becomes; and men, following one another’s example, are more intent upon amassing money than upon good morals, while the good poor are excluded. Hence also follows
the corruption of that state, no differently than a ship is not safe from danger of shipwreck when a rich man ignorant of the art is placed over its navigation, while a needy man more skilled in governing is by no means admitted. Soon thereafter one state begins to become two: one of the rich, the other of the poor; and it always happens that men dwelling within the same walls plot against one another. Another evil follows: the rich always gape after the means of the poorer, oppress them by usuries, compel them to sell, and make them altogether beggars, thieves, robbers, plunderers, and finally seditious conspirators who seize the state. But I would have administrators instructed and chosen, for they can aid the state; and because they are participants in honor and government, they also wish to aid it.