Having confuted the error of other men in that part wherein it was
advanced in support of riches, it remains now to confute it in that
part where Time is said to be a cause of Nobility, saying, "Descent of
wealth;" and this reproof or confutation is made in that part which
begins: "They will not have the vile Turn noble." And in the first
place one confutes this by means of an argument taken from those men
themselves who err in this way; then, to their greater confusion, this
their argument is also destroyed; and it does this when it says, "It
follows then from this." Finally it concludes, their error being
evident, and it being therefore time to attend to the Truth; and it
does this when it says, "Sound intellect reproves."
I say, then, "They will not have the vile Turn noble." Where it is to
be known that the opinion of these erroneous persons is, that a man
who is a peasant in the first place can never possibly be called a
Nobleman; and the man who is the son of a peasant in like manner can
never be Noble; and this breaks or destroys their own argument when
they say that Time is requisite to Nobility, adding that word
"descent." For it is impossible by process of Time to come to the
generation of Nobility in this way of theirs, which declares it to be
impossible for the humble peasant to become Noble by any work that he
may do, or through any accident; and declares the mutation of a
peasant father into a Noble son to be impossible. For if the son of
the peasant is also a peasant, and his son again is also a peasant,
and so always, it will never be possible to discover the place where
Nobility can begin to be established by process of Time.
And if the adversary, wishing to defend himself, should say that
Nobility will begin at that period of Time when the low estate of the
ancestors will be forgotten, I reply that this goes against
themselves, for even of necessity there will be a transmutation of
peasant into Noble, from one man into another, or from father to son,
which is against that which they propound.
And if the adversary should defend himself pertinaciously, saying that
indeed they do desire that it should be possible for this
transmutation to take place when the low estate of the ancestors
passes into oblivion, although the text takes no notice of this, it is
right that the Commentary should reply to it. And therefore I reply
thus: that from this which they say there follow four very great
difficulties, so that it cannot possibly be a good argument. One is,
that in proportion as Human Nature might become better, the slower
would be the generation of Nobility, which is a very great
inconvenience; since in proportion as a thing is honoured for its
excellence, so much the more is it the cause of goodness; and Nobility
is reckoned amongst the good. What this means is shown thus: If
Nobility, which I understand as a good thing, should be generated by
oblivion, Nobility would be generated in proportion to the speediness
with which men might be forgotten, for so much the sooner would
oblivion descend upon all. Hence, in proportion as men might be
forgotten, so much the sooner would they be Noble; and, on the
contrary, in proportion to the length of time during which they were
held in remembrance, so much the longer it would be before they could
be ennobled.
The second difficulty is, that in nothing apart from men would it be
possible to make this distinction, that is to say, Noble or Vile,
which is very inconvenient; since, in each species of things we see
the image of Nobility or of Baseness, wherefore we often call one
horse noble and one vile; and one falcon noble and one vile; and one
pearl noble and one vile. And that it would not be possible to make
this distinction is thus proved; if the oblivion of the humble
ancestors is the cause of Nobility, or rather the baseness of the
ancestors never was, it is not possible for oblivion of them to be,
since oblivion is a destruction of remembrance, and in those other
animals, and in plants, and in minerals, lowness and loftiness are not
observed, since in one they are natural or innate and in an equal
state, and Nobility cannot possibly be in their generation, and
likewise neither can vileness nor baseness; since one regards the one
and the other as habit and privation, which are possible to occur in
the same subject; and therefore in them it would not be possible for a
distinction to exist between the one and the other.
And if the adversary should wish to say, that in other things Nobility
is represented by the goodness of the thing, but in a man it is
understood because there is no remembrance of his humble or base
condition, one would wish to reply not with words, but with the sword,
to such bestiality as it would be to give to other things goodness as
a cause for Nobility, and to found the Nobility of men upon
forgetfulness or oblivion as a first cause.
The third difficulty is, that often the person or thing generated
would come before the generator, which is quite impossible; and it is
possible to prove this thus: Let us suppose that Gherardo da Cammino
might have been the grandson of the most vile peasant who ever drank
of the Sile or of the Cagnano, and that oblivion had not yet overtaken
his grandfather; who will be bold enough to say that Gherardo da
Cammino was a vile man? and who will not agree with me in saying that
he was Noble? Certainly no one, however presumptuous he may wish to
be, for he was so, and his memory will always be treasured. If
oblivion had not yet overtaken his ancestor, as is proposed in
opposition, so that he might be great through Nobility, and the
Nobility in him might be seen so clearly, even as one does see it,
then it would have been first in him before the founder of his
Nobility could have existed; and this is impossible in the extreme.
The fourth difficulty is, that such a man, the supposed grandfather,
would have been held Noble after he was dead who was not Noble whilst
alive; and a more inconvenient thing could not be. One proves it thus:
Let us suppose that in the age of Dardanus there might be a
remembrance of his low ancestors, and let us suppose that in the age
of Laomedon this memory might have passed away, and that oblivion had
overtaken it. According to the adverse opinion, Laomedon was Noble and
Dardanus was vile, each in his lifetime. We, to whom the remembrance
of the ancestors of Dardanus has not come, shall we say that Dardanus
living was vile, and dead a Noble? And is not this contrary to the
legend which says that Dardanus was the son of Jupiter (for such is
the fable, which one ought not to regard whilst disputing
philosophically); and yet if the adversary might wish to find support
in the fable, certainly that which the fable veils destroys his
arguments. And thus it is proved that the argument, which asserted
that oblivion is the cause of Nobility, is false.