[xv][1] Again, I say that being, unity and goodness are related in a sequence, according to the fifth sense of the term ‘priority’. Being naturally comes before unity, and unity before goodness: perfect being is perfect unity, and perfect unity is perfect goodness; and the further removed something is from perfect being, the further it is from being one and consequently from being good.

[2] Therefore in every species of thing the best is that which is perfectly one, as Aristotle says in the Metaphysics. This is how it comes about that unity seems to be the root of what it is to be good, and plurality the root of what it is to be evil; that is why Pythagoras in his correlations placed unity on the side of goodness and plurality on the side of evil, as is clear in the first book of the Metaphysics.

[3] Hence it can be seen that to sin is nothing other than to spurn unity and move towards plurality; the Psalmist saw this when he said: ‘From the fruit of the corn, the wine and the oil they have been multiplied’.

[4] It is clear then that everything which is good is good for this reason: that it constitutes a unity. And since concord, in itself, is a good, it is clear that it consists in some unity as in its root.

[5] What this root is will appear if we consider the nature or meaning of concord, for concord is a uniform movement of several wills; from this definition it is clear that unity of wills, which is what is signified by ‘uniform movement’, is the root of concord or indeed is concord itself.

[6] For just as we would describe a number of clods of earth as being ‘in concord’ because of their all falling towards the centre of the world, and a number of flames as ‘in concord’ because of their all rising towards its circumference, if they did this of their own free will; in the same way we describe a number of people as being ‘in concord’ when they move all together and of their own free will towards one thing which is in their wills formally, just as there is one quality (heaviness) formally in the clods of earth, and another (lightness) in the flames.

[7] For the capacity to will is a potentiality, and its form is the image of good which is perceived; and this form, just like other forms, is one in itself and becomes multiple according to the multiplicity of the material which receives it – just like soul, number and other forms which are found in composites.

[8] Having made these preliminary points in order to clarify the proposition to be advanced for our purposes, we may reason as follows: all concord depends on the unity which is in wills; mankind in its ideal state represents a kind of concord; for just as one man in his ideal state spiritually and physically is a kind of concord (and the same holds true of a household, a city, and a kingdom), so is the whole of mankind; thus the whole of mankind in its ideal state depends on the unity which is in men’s wills.

[9] But this cannot be unless there is one will which controls and directs all the others towards one goal, since the wills of mortals require guidance on account of the seductive pleasures of youth, as Aristotle teaches at the end of the Ethics. Nor can such a single will exist, unless there is one ruler who rules over everybody, whose will can control and guide all the other wills.

[10] Now if all the above conclusions are true – as they are – for mankind to be in its ideal state there must be a monarch in the world, and consequently the well-being of the world requires a monarchy.