Giovanni,The letter raises an interesting tension here, one that has existed throughout history: namely, the relationship between continuity and social ascent. Aristocracies themselves were often formed through exceptional acts of service, loyalty, or ability before becoming hereditary realities. Yet modernity differs in that it tends to universalize striving itself, dissolving permanence into perpetual competition and mobility.
Well stated points in several areas. I agree, as we were raised with those values: legacy, continuity of family, and family history. You hit on the key point, not to confuse circumstance with vocation or calling. Anyone in modernity can move to a new place and can achieve wealth or lose wealth, but tradition, crianza, and cognizance of history and roots remain (or should). The modern argument, which you may hear in response to this article, is that every individual should strive and rise, not just be the best in his class or neighborhood, and in fact, those of us with ancestors who did rise made it possible to have those barons and marquises in the family. One of the big topics in noble circles is the notion of seggi or piazze chiuse, i.e., cities and towns where no new families could be aggregated into the closed seats of power or councils, and the strict enforcement of endogamy. Modern democratic thinking hates the idea of closing the door "arbitrarily" after somebody else got in. But if all classes move to the middle class, both from above and from below, there are no role models to emulate. If we are all individuals, not moving ahead in our lane, but constantly outside our lane, there is nobody to look to. Everyone is torn between serving by doing well in their station and trying to compete/dominate in the market because of the "prosperity gospel".
I love that you cited the example of Masaniello as a legitimist leader who turned power back over and did not seek personal gain when he could have abused the circumstances. He is often portrayed falsely as a zany revolutionary, like a proto-leftist, even. Your last paragraph sums it up perfectly. Anyway, I wouldn't change anything. Not sure if you want to expand based upon any of the above. I like that you quoted the proverb, variants of which I've heard: 'a lira fa 'o ricco, 'a crianza fa 'o signore/ 'e renare fanno 'o ricco, ma 'a crianza fa 'o signore, etc.
