Secret of Secrets

...[stories] and fables, they were accustomed to conceal it. But Aristotle, knowing that such things could be interpreted by each person at their own pleasure in one way or another, rejected this mode of concealment and pursued another, which consists in the obscurity and brevity of words, as a safer one. When the author does not observe this in this book, but rather the former, he seems to urge it in a wondrous manner. For that which Macrobius says against the Epicurean Colotes, defending Plato, does not seem sufficiently safe. Namely, that it befits a philosopher to use fables—which should rather be called fabulous narratives—when they are introduced not only for the sake of delight, but for the sake of doctrine; not in obscene locutions, but explained in honest words and useful sentiments. Indeed, in this genre are those by which the secrets of this book are enfolded. I say this does not seem sufficiently safe, first because it perhaps does not defend Plato in every way; for in the Symposium he brings forth fables so obscene that ones more obscene are hardly to be found, although it could be said, as Bessarion says, that such were brought forth by those who do not profess the dogma of Plato, as a cover. Next, Averroes, at the end of his paraphrase on Plato’s Republic, mocks that fable which Macrobius affirms befits a philosopher. Add that if we were to concede that this mode of concealment is not in itself reprehensible, we would be forced to affirm that Aristotle used it hesitantly in this book, since it was neglected by him in others.

On the modes of kings regarding liberality and avarice

KINGS are four: A King liberal to himself and liberal to his subjects. A King avaricious to himself and avaricious to his subjects. A King avaricious to himself...