Context
The first phase of Giles’ political thought, his exploration of the organization of the temporal power and the ideal ruler, is contained in his treatise On the Rule of Princes (De regimineprincipum). Probably written at the request of the French king Philip III, the work was intended as an educational tool for the instruction of Philip’s son, the future Philip IV. That this treatise was complete by 1282 is confirmed by the existence of a dated French translation commanded by the king. Traditionally, the treatise has been seen as a product of the years after Giles’ university career ended abruptly in 1277, although it could date from as early as 1270, the year of Philip III’s accession. Despite his royal dedicatee, the treatise was written, according to its author, with a much broader audience in mind: it was Giles’ intention to instruct not only the future king in rulership, but also his subjects (1.1.1).
Structure
On the Rule of Princes’ 209 chapters are distributed between three books, themselves subdivided into ten parts. The first of these books concerns the ruler’s governance of himself. Its four parts begin by explaining that a ruler will achieve the greatest happiness by loving God and acting prudently. The book continues with an exploration of the nature of the virtues, the passions and the behavior of men in varied circumstances. In his second book Giles’ focus shifts to the governance of the family. Here, in three parts, he explores marriage and the conduct of women, the education of children, and the management of a ruler’s household. In the work’s final book the scope broadens to consider the manner in which a political unit is to be governed. Giles begins by considering - and often refuting - the views of philosophers concerning the nature and organization of states. In the final two parts he explores how government is to be conducted in times of peace and ends with a treatise on warfare.
Key Concepts
For Giles the ideal model for political units is the kingdom. At the core of his conception of the ruler of such a kingdom is the belief that the ideal king should be unshackled by any limitations. It is preferable that kingship be ‘‘regal,’’ in which the ruler makes the law, as opposed to ‘‘political,’’ in which those governed make the law (for the distinction: 2.1.14). Government by a regal ruler, who is distinguished from a despotic ruler by his focus on the common good, is the most perfect form of government because the position of such a ruler is a more perfect reflection of the natural ordering and hierarchy of the universe. Such a king should accept counsel, and will wish to do so, but Giles makes clear that nothing obliges him to do so.
In considering the various forms in which secular power may be exercised, Giles displays an unreserved preference for hereditary kingship. While he recognizes, in theory, that elective kingship would be a preferable method of selection, all practical experience indicates that hereditary kingship offers greater stability. This is, in part, because the people will more easily accept the sons of previous rulers and, in part, because the knowledge that his progeny will succeed him will ensure the quality of a king’s rule (3.2.5).
Giles assumes that, if properly educated, a ruler will always seek to uphold the common good (Renna 1978). He makes no provision for the possibility that such a ruler will seek his own good and, in so doing, become a tyrant. Nor, in this first phase of his political thought, does Giles seek to address two issues in particular. In common with Peter of Auvergne, he offers no analysis of the relationship that will exist between his regal king and the spiritual power (Renna 1978). Nor does his assessment take any account of the existing feudal structures of contemporary society (Krynen 1993).
Foundations
In its purpose, the instruction of the ruler, Giles’ treatise can be categorized as part of the ‘‘mirrors for princes’’ genre. More specifically, it can be considered part of a uniquely Capetian tradition that began with the instruction manual offered by the Dominican Vincent of Beauvais to Philip III. Giles’ portrait of secular rule is differentiated from the majority of contemporary mirrors for princes by the fact that many of its key concepts originate in the Aristotelian corpus. Engelbert of Admont was one of very few authors who attempted a similar cross-pollination (Blythe 1992). Alongside Aristotle’s works, Giles employed Vegetius’ De re militari in the final part of his third book as a source for military matters.
Giles was keen to present his treatise as a simple vulgarization of Aristotle. While this is true to a certain extent - the work draws heavily upon the Politics and the Nicomachean Ethics, conspicuously avoiding the use of Scripture and the Fathers more common in mirrors for
G
Princes - Giles’ self-assessment is slightly misleading. Giles is, firstly, heavily reliant on Aquinas for his interpretation, particularly the latter’s commentaries on the Politics and the Summa theologiae (Lambertini 1995). At the same time, Giles moves beyond both Aquinas and Aristotle, drawing conclusions neither would have been likely to find acceptable. Aristotle, and following him Aquinas, for example, drew a distinction between civil and domestic government; Giles’ belief in a natural universal hierarchy tends to break down the Aristotelian distinction and he is inclined to use the family as a model for the discussion of modes ofrulership (Blythe 1992). More striking still, while basing his arguments on material drawn from Aristotle, Giles will often draw conclusions diametrically opposed to those originally intended. In the most significant case he adapts Aristotle’s criticism of kingship to present an argument which purports to demonstrate the Greek philosopher’s preference for regal rule over all other forms of government and employs a similar approach to demonstrate Aristotle’s alleged support for hereditary kingship (Lambertini 1995).
Giles had been the earliest Parisian scholar to prepare a commentary on Aristotle’s Rhetoric (c. 1280). As he employed Aristotelian concepts drawn from the Politics and the Ethics to construct his model of regal kingship, so too did he draw upon the Rhetoric in his general structuring of On the Rule of Princes and to imbue his ideal ruler with one of his key characteristics: Giles’ king, above all, needed to know what an orator needed to know, that is how to persuade those under his rule so that they might act in the interest of the common good (Coleman 1998).
It may be the case that for Giles, as for other contemporary Parisian authors writing in the mirrors for princes genre, the model of the ideal king that lay behind his abstract figure is the French king Louis IX (Genet 2003). Giles’ marked preference for hereditary kingship may also find its origins in contemporary circumstances, in particular in the chaos that had erupted in the contemporary Empire - in which an elective system operated - after the death of the Emperor Frederick II in 1250. The imperial experience stood in stark contrast alongside the relative peace of contemporary France where an hereditary system prevailed.
Influence
With the exception of the pseudo-Aristotelian Secret of Secrets (Secretum secretorum), On the Rule of Princes proved to be the most successful product of the mirrors for princes genre and enjoyed considerable longevity, with approximately 300 Latin manuscripts surviving and 11 printings between 1473 and 1617. To the 31 surviving manuscripts of the earliest - simplified - French translation by Henri of Gauchy (1282), can be added a further 20 manuscripts containing two alternative French translations and versions in German, Italian, Swedish, English, Castilian, Catalan, Portuguese, and Hebrew. This popularity probably arose from Giles’ presentation of his treatise as a systematic exposition of Aristotle. The work was one of a limited number to cross the boundaries between the lecture theatre - where it was employed from the fourteenth century as part of the University of Paris’ arts curriculum (Briggs 1999) - and the rest of society. Multiple copies, in both Latin and French, resided in the royal library of the French king Charles V, while translations were commissioned by men such as the lieutenant of the bailiff of Orleans (Merisalo 1998; Briggs 1999). The work was mentioned by Dante and Bartolus of Sassoferrato, while the French version was employed by Christine de Pizan (Krynen 1993; Briggs 1999).
World History
