Monarchia (I, xiv, 1-11)

(1) Et quod potest fieri per unum, melius est per unum fieri quam per plura. Quod sic declaratur: sit unum, per quod aliquid fieri potest, A, et sint plura, per que similiter illud fieri potest, A et B; si ergo illud idem quod fit per A et B potest fieri per A tantum, frustra ibi assummitur B, quia ex ipsius assumptione nichil sequitur, cum prius illud idem fiebat per A solum. (1) And what can be brought about by a single agent is better done by a single agent than by more than one. This can be explained as follows: let there be one agent (A) by which something can be brought about, and let there be several agents (A and B) by which it can equally be brought about; now if that same thing which can be brought about by means of A and B can be brought about by A alone, then B is introduced unnecessarily, because nothing is achieved by the introduction of B, since that same thing was already achieved by means of A alone.
(2) Et cum omnis talis assumptio sit otiosa sive superflua, et omne superfluum Deo et nature displiceat, et omne quod Deo et nature displicet sit malum, ut manifestum est de se, sequitur non solum melius esse fieri per unum, si fieri potest, quam fieri per plura, sed quod fieri per unum est bonum, per plura simpliciter malum. (2) And since the introduction of any such means is unnecessary and pointless, and everything which is pointless is displeasing to God and to nature, and everything which is displeasing to God and to nature is evil (as is self-evident), it follows that not only is it better that something should be brought about by a single agent, where that is possible, rather than by several, but that being brought about by a single agent is good, by more than one is in absolute terms bad.
(3) Preterea, res dicitur melior per esse propinquior optime; et finis habet rationem optimi; sed fieri per unum est propinquius fini: ergo est melius. Et quod sit propinquius patet sic: sit finis C; fieri per unum A; per plura A et B: manifestum est quod longior est via ab A per B in C, quam ab A tantum in C. (3) Moreover, a thing is said to be better the closer it is to the best; and the goal itself is the measure of what is best; but to be brought about by a single agent is closer to the goal; therefore it is better. And that it is closer can be shown as follows: let the goal be C; let the achieving of that goal by a single agent be A, and by several agents be A and B; it is clear that to go from A through B to C is a longer route than to go from A directly to C.
(4) Sed humanum genus potest regi per unum supremum principem, qui est Monarcha. Propter quod advertendum sane quod cum dicitur 'humanum genus potest regi per unum suppremum principem', non sic intelligendum est, ut minima iudicia cuiuscunque municipii ab illo uno inmediate prodire possint: cum etiam leges municipales quandoque deficiant et opus habeant directivo, ut patet per Phylosophum in quinto ad Nicomacum epyikiam commendantem. (4) But mankind can be ruled by one supreme ruler, who is the monarch. On this point it must of course be noted that when we say "mankind can be ruled by one supreme ruler", this is not to be taken to mean that trivial decisions in every locality can be made directly by him - even though it can happen that local laws are sometimes defective and there may be a need for guidance in implementing them, as is clear from what Aristotle says in the fifth book of the Ethics when he commends the principle of equity.
(5) Habent nanque nationes, regna et civitates intra se proprietates, quas legibus differentibus regulari oportet: est enim lex regula directiva vite. (5) For nations, kingdoms and cities have characteristics of their own, which need to be governed by different laws; for law is a rule which governs life.
(6) Aliter quippe regulari oportet Scithas qui, extra septimum clima viventes et magnam dierum et noctium inequalitatem patientes, intolerabili quasi algore frigoris premuntur, et aliter Garamantes qui, sub equinoctiali habitantes et coequatam semper lucem diurnam noctis tenebris habentes, ob estus aeris nimietatem vestimentis operiri non possunt. (6) Thus the Scythians, who live beyond the seventh zone and are exposed to nights and days of very unequal length, and who endure an almost unbearable intensity of cold, need to have one set of laws, while the Garamantes require different laws, since they live in the equatorial zone and always have days and nights of equal length, and because of the excessive heat of the air cannot bear to cover themselves with clothes.
(7) Sed sic intelligendum est: ut humanum genus secundum sua comunia, que omnibus competunt, ab eo regatur et comuni regula gubernetur ad pacem. Quam quidem regulam sive legem particulares principes ab eo recipere debent, tanquam intellectus practicus ad conclusionem operativam recipit maiorem propositionem ab intellectu speculativo, et sub illa particularem, que proprie sua est, assummit et particulariter ad operationem concludit. (7) It is rather to be understood in this sense, that mankind is to be ruled by him in those matters which are common to all men and of relevance to all, and is to be guided towards peace by a common law. This rule or law should be received from him by individual rulers, just as the practical intellect, in order to proceed to action, receives the major premiss from the theoretical intellect, and then derives the minor premiss appropriate to its own particular case, and then proceeds to the action in question.
(8) Et hoc non solum possibile est uni, sed necesse est ab uno procedere, ut omnis confusio de principiis universalibus auferatur. (8) And it is not only possible for one person to do this, but necessary for this to come from one person, to avoid any confusion about universal principles.
(9) Hoc etiam factum fuisse per ipsum ipse Moyses in lege conscribit, qui, assumptis primatibus de tribubus filiorum Israel, eis inferiora iudicia relinquebat, superiora et comuniora sibi soli reservans; quibus comunioribus utebantur primates per tribus, secundum quod unicuique tribui competebat. (9) Moses himself writes in the Law that he did just this when, having chosen certain leaders from the tribes of the sons of Israel, he left less important judgments to them, retaining for himself alone the more important ones which concerned all of them; these judgments of more general relevance were then applied by the leaders to their tribes, according to what was appropriate for each particular tribe.
(10) Ergo melius est humanum genus per unum regi quam per plura, et sic per Monarcham qui unicus est princeps; et si melius, Deo acceptabilius, cum Deus semper velit quod melius est. Et cum duorum tantum inter se idem sit melius et optimum, consequens est non solum Deo esse acceptabilius hoc, inter hoc 'unum' et hoc 'plura', sed acceptabilissimum. (10) Therefore it is better for mankind to be ruled by one person than by several, and thus by a monarch who is the only ruler; and if this is better, then it is more acceptable to God, since God always wills what is better. And since when there are only two things being compared, the better is the best, it follows that when the choice is between "one" and "more than one", not only is the first of these more acceptable to God, but it is entirely acceptable.
(11) Unde sequitur humanum genus optime se habere cum ab uno regitur; et sic ad bene esse mundi necesse est Monarchiam esse. (11) It follows from this that mankind is in its ideal state when it is ruled by one person; and thus monarchy is necessary to the well-being of the world.