Having thus noticed the different ideas of nobility which are entertained in the European states, Niccolo proceeds slightly to animadvert upon the notions of the Asiatics upon this subject; and from this induction of particulars, he draws the general inference, that nobility, in the vulgar acceptation of the term, cannot be traced to any fixed principles. On Lorenzo’s intimating that the title of noble should be granted to all those who are esteemed so by the institutions of their country, Niccolo refuses his assent to this proposition, and proceeds to argue the matter at large with much sound reasoning, proving that nobility does not depend upon externals. Lorenzo in reply to Niccolo adduces the definition of nobility proposed by Aristotle, who asserts in his dialogue on Politics, that the virtuous descendants of virtuous and wealthy ancestors are noble. This definition is examined by Niccolo, who maintains that it is faulty, because a virtuous man does not lose his nobility, should he happen to be deprived of his wealth. In opposition to the opinion of the Stagyrite, he quotes the opinion of Plato and the Stoics, who assert, that true nobility consists in virtue. Lorenzo acknowledges that virtue is requisite to true nobility; but still contends that to complete the idea of this distinction, to virtue must be added those external advantages which render a man conspicuous. Niccolo grants that these are desirable adjuncts; but at the same time adheres to his original position, that purity of moral principle is an indispensable characteristic of genuine nobility, and concludes the conference by inviting the company to enjoy the coolness of the evening in walking along the banks of the river.[333]