– Read the attached file.- Write 100 word response RELATED TO THE READING
the_reading.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
John of Salisbury, Policratus, Book 4
John of Salisbury. “Book IV.” Policratus. Medieval Sourcebook.
CHAPTER I
OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PRINCE AND A TYRANT AND OF WHAT IS MEANT
BY A PRINCE.
Between a tyrant and a prince there is this single or chief difference, that the latter obeys the law
and rules the people by its dictates, accounting himself as but their servant. It is by virtue of the law
that he makes good his claim to the foremost and chief place in the management of the affairs of the
commonwealth and in the bearing of its burdens; and his elevation over others consists in this, that
whereas private men are held responsible only for their private affairs, on the prince fall the burdens
of the whole community. Wherefore deservedly there is conferred on him, and gathered together in
his hands, the power of all his subjects, to the end that he may be sufficient unto himself in seeking
and bringing about the advantage of each individually, and of all; and to the end that the state of the
human commonwealth may be ordered in the best possible manner, seeing that each and all are
members one of another. Wherein we indeed but follow nature, the best guide of life; for nature has
gathered together all the senses of her microcosm or little world, which is man, into the head, and
has subjected all the members in obedience to it in such wise that they will all function properly so
long as they follow the guidance of the head, and the head remains sane. Therefore the prince stands
on a pinnacle which is exalted and made splendid with all the great and high privileges which he
deems necessary for himself. And rightly so, because nothing is more advantageous to the people
than that the needs of the prince should be fully satisfied; since it is impossible that his will should
be found opposed to justice. Therefore, according to the usual definition, the prince is the public
power, and a kind of likeness on earth of the divine majesty. Beyond doubt a large share of the
divine power is shown to be in princes by the fact that at their nod men bow their necks and for the
most part offer up their heads to the axe to be struck off, and, as by a divine impulse, the prince is
feared by each of those over whom he is set as an object of fear. And this I do not think could be,
except as a result of the will of God. For all power is from the Lord God, and has been with Him
always, and is from everlasting. The power which the prince has is therefore from God, for the
power of God is never lost, nor severed from Him, but He merely exercises it through a subordinate
hand, making all things teach His mercy or justice. “Who, therefore, resists the ruling power, resists
the ordinance of God,” [Romans 13:2] in whose hand is the authority of conferring that power, and
when He so desires, of withdrawing it again, or diminishing it. For it is not the ruler’s own act when
his will is turned to cruelty against his subjects, but it is rather the dispensation of God for His good
pleasure to punish or chasten them. Thus during the Hunnish persecution, Attila, on being asked by
the reverend bishop of a certain city who he was, replied, “I am Attila, the scourge of God.”
Whereupon it is written that the bishop adored him as representing the divine majesty. “Welcome,”
he said, “is the minister of God,” and “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord,” and with
sighs and groans he unfastened the barred doors of the church, and admitted the persecutor through
whom he attained straightway to the palm of martyrdom. For he dared not shut out the scourge of
God, knowing that His beloved Son was scourged, and that the power of this scourge which had
come upon himself was as nought except it came from God. If good men thus regard power as
worthy of veneration even when it comes as a plague upon the elect, who should not venerate that
power which is instituted by God for the punishment of evil-doers and for the reward of good men,
and which is promptest in devotion and obedience to the laws? To quote the words of the Emperor,
“it is indeed a saying worthy of the majesty of royalty that the prince acknowledges himself bound
by the Laws.” [Justinian, Codex I.14.4] For the authority of the prince depends upon the authority
of justice and law; and truly it is a greater thing than imperial power for the prince to place his
government under the laws, so as to deem himself entitled to do nought which is at variance with
the equity of justice.
CHAPTER II
WHAT THE LAW IS; AND THAT ALTHOUGH THE PRINCE IS NOT BOUND BY THE LAW,
HE IS NEVERTHELESS THE SERVANT OF THE LAW AND OF EQUITY, AND BEARS THE
PUBLIC PERSON, AND SHEDS BLOOD BLAMELESSLY.
Princes should not deem that it detracts from their princely dignity to believe that the enactments of
their own justice are not to be preferred to the justice of God, whose justice is an everlasting justice,
and His law is equity. Now equity, as the learned jurists define it, is a certain fitness of things which
compares all things rationally, and seeks to apply like rules of right and wrong to like cases, being
impartially disposed toward all persons, and allotting to each that which belongs to him. Of this
equity the interpreter is the law, to which the will and intention of equity and justice are known.
Therefore Crisippus asserted that the power of the law extends over all things, both divine and
human, and that it accordingly presides over all goods and ills, and is the ruler and guide of material
things as well as of human beings. To which Papinian, a man most learned in the law, and
Demosthenes, the great orator, seem to assent, subjecting all men to its obedience because all law is,
as it were, a discovery, and a gift from God, a precept of wise men, the corrector of excesses of the
will, the bond which knits together the fabric of the state, and the banisher of crime; [Digest I.3.1-2]
and it is therefore fitting that all men should live according to it who lead their lives in a corporate
political body. All are accordingly bound by the necessity of keeping the law, unless perchance
there is any who can be thought to have been given the license of wrong-doing. However, it is said
that the prince is absolved from the obligations of the law; but this is not true in the sense that it is
lawful for him to do unjust acts, but only in the sense that his character should be such as to cause
him to practice equity not through fear of the penalties of the law but through love of justice; and
should also be such as to cause him from the same motive to promote the advantage of the
commonwealth, and in all things to prefer the good of others before his own private will. Who,
indeed, in respect of public matters can properly speak of the will of the prince at all, since therein
he may not lawfully have any will of his own apart from that which the law or equity enjoins, or the
calculation of the common interest requires? For in these matters his will is to have the force of a
judgment; and most properly that which pleases him therein has the force of law, because his
decision may not be at variance with the intention of equity. “From thy countenance,” says the Lord,
“let my judgment go forth, let shine eyes look upon equity”; [Psalm 17:2] for the uncorrupted judge
is one whose decision, from assiduous contemplation of equity, is the very likeness thereof. The
prince accordingly is the minister of the common interest and the bond-servant of equity, and he
bears the public person in the sense that he punishes the wrongs and injuries of all, and all crimes,
with even-handed equity. His rod and staff also, administered with wise moderation, restore
irregularities and false departures to the straight path of equity, so that deservedly may the Spirit
congratulate the power of the prince with the words, “Thy rod and thy staff, they have comforted
me.” [Psalm 23:4] His shield, too, is strong, but it is a shield for the protection of the weak, and one
which wards off powerfully the darts of the wicked from the innocent. Those who derive the
greatest advantage from his performance of the duties of his office are those who can do least for
themselves, and his power is chiefly exercised against those who desire to do harm. Therefore not
without reason he bears a sword, wherewith he sheds blood blamelessly, without becoming thereby
a man of blood, and frequently puts men to death without incurring the name or guilt of homicide.
For if we believe the great Augustine, David was called a man of blood not because of his wars, but
because of Uria. And Samuel is nowhere described as a man of blood or a homicide, although he
slew Agag, the fat king of Amalech. Truly the sword of princely power is as the sword of a dove,
which contends without gall, smites without wrath, and when it fights, yet conceives no bitterness at
all. For as the law pursues guilt without any hatred of persons, so the prince most justly punishes
offenders from no motive of wrath but at the behest, and in accordance with the decision, of the
passionless law. For although we see that the prince has lictors of his own, we must yet think of him
as in reality himself the sole or chief lictor, to whom is granted by the law the privilege of striking
by a subordinate hand. If we adopt the Opinion of the Stoics, who diligently trace down the reason
for particular words, “lictor” means “legis ictor,” or “hammer of the law,” because the duty of his
office is to strike those who the law adjudges shall be struck. Wherefore anciently, when the sword
hung over the head of the convicted criminal, the command was wont to be given to the officials by
whose hand the judge punishes evil-doers, “Execute the sentence of the law,” or “Obey the law,” to
the end that the misery of the victim might be mitigated by the calm reasonableness of the words.
CHAPTER III
THAT THE PRINCE IS THE MINISTER OF THE PRIESTS AND INFERIOR TO THEM; AND
OF WHAT AMOUNTS TO FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF THE PRINCE’S MINISTRY.
This sword, then, the prince receives from the hand of the Church, although she herself has no
sword of blood at all. Nevertheless she has this sword, but she uses it by the hand of the prince,
upon whom she confers the power of bodily coercion, retaining to herself authority over spiritual
things in the person of the pontiffs. The prince is, then, as it were, a minister of the priestly power,
and one who exercises that side of the sacred offices which seems unworthy of the hands of the
priesthood. For every office existing under, and concerned with the execution of, the sacred laws is
really a religious office, but that is inferior which consists in punishing crimes, and which therefore
seems to be typified in the person of the hangman. Wherefore Constantine, most faithful emperor of
the Romans, when he had convoked the council of priests at Nicaea, neither dared to take the chief
place for himself nor even to sit among the presbyters, but chose the hindmost seat. Moreover, the
decrees which he heard approved by them he reverenced as if he had seen them emanate from the
judgment-seat of the divine majesty. Even the rolls of petitions containing accusations against
priests which they brought to him in a steady stream he took and placed in his bosom without
opening them. And after recalling them to charity and harmony, he said that it was not permissible
for him, as a man, and one who was subject to the judgment of priests, to examine cases touching
gods, who cannot be judged save by God alone. And the petitions which he had received he put into
the fire without even looking at them, fearing to give publicity to accusations and censures against
the fathers, and thereby incur the curse of Cham, the undutiful son, who did not hide his father’s
shame. Wherefore he said, as is narrated in the writings of Nicholas the Roman pontiff, “Verily if
with mine own eyes I had seen a priest of God, or any of those who wear the monastic garb,
sinning, I would spread my cloak and hide him, that he might not be seen of any.” Also Theodosius,
the great emperor, for a merited fault, though not so grave a one, was suspended by the priest of
Milan from the exercise of his regal powers and from the insignia of his imperial office, and
patiently and solemnly he performed the penance for homicide which was laid upon him. Again,
according to the testimony of the teacher of the gentiles, greater is he who blesses man than he who
is blessed; [Hebrews 7:7] and so he in whose hands is the authority to confer a dignity excels in
honor and the privileges of honor him upon whom the dignity itself is conferred. Further, by the
reasoning of the law it is his right to refuse who has the power to grant, and he who can lawfully
bestow can lawfully take away. [Digest I.17.3] Did not Samuel pass sentence of deposition against
Saul by reason of his disobedience, and supersede him on the pinnacle of kingly rule with the lowly
son of Ysai? [Jesse] But if one who has been appointed prince has performed duly and faithfully the
ministry which he has undertaken, as great honor and reverence are to be shown to him as the head
excels in honor all the members of the body. Now he performs his ministry faithfully when he is
mindful of his true status, and remembers that he bears the person of the universitas of those subject
to him; and when he is fully conscious that he owes his life not to himself and his own private ends,
but to others, and allots it to them accordingly, with duly ordered charity and affection. Therefore he
owes the whole of himself to God, most of himself to his country, much to his relatives and friends,
very little to foreigners, but still somewhat. He has duties to the very wise and the very foolish, to
little children and to the aged. Supervision over these classes of persons is common to all in
authority, both those who have care over spiritual things and those who exercise temporal
jurisdiction. Wherefore Melchisedech, the earliest whom the Scripture introduces as both king and
priest (to say nought at present concerning the mystery wherein he prefigures Christ, who was born
in heaven without a mother and on earth without a father); of him, I say, we read that he had neither
father nor mother, not because he was in fact without either, but because in the eyes of reason the
kingly power and the priestly power are not born of flesh and blood, Since in bestowing either,
regard for ancestry ought not to prevail over merits and virtues, but only the wholesome wishes of
faithful subjects should prevail; and when anyone has ascended to the supreme exercise of either
power, he ought wholly to forget the affections of flesh and blood, and do only that which is
demanded by the safety and welfare of his subjects. And so let him be both father and husband to
his subjects, or, if he has known some affection more tender still, let him employ that; let him desire
to be loved rather than feared, and show himself to them as such a man that they will out of
devotion prefer his life to their own, and regard his preservation and safety as a kind of public life;
and then all things will prosper well for him, and a small bodyguard will, in case of need, prevail by
their loyalty against innumerable adversaries. For love is strong as death; and the wedge [a military
formation] which is held together by strands of love is not easily broken.
When the Dorians were about to fight against the Athenians they consulted the oracles regarding the
outcome of the battle. The reply was that they would be victorious if they did not kill the king of the
Athenians. When they went to war their soldiers were therefore enjoined above all else to care for
the safety of the king. At that time the king of the Athenians was Codrus, who, learning of the
response of the god and the precautions of the enemy, laid aside his royal garb and entered the camp
of the enemy bearing faggots on his back. Men tried to bar his way and a disturbance arose in the
course of which he was killed by a soldier whom he had struck with his pruninghook. When the
king’s body was recognized, the Dorians returned home without fighting a battle. Thus the
Athenians were delivered from the war by the valor of their leader, who offered himself up to death
for the safety of his country. Likewise Ligurgus in his reign established decrees which confirmed
the people in obedience to their princes, and the princes in just principles of government; he
abolished the use of gold and silver, which are the material of all wickedness, he gave to the senate
guardianship over the laws and to the people the power of recruiting the senate; he decreed that
virgins should be given in marriage without a dowry to the end that men might make choice of
wives and not of money; he desired the greatest honor to be bestowed upon old men in proportion
to their age; and verily nowhere else on earth does old age enjoy a more honored station. Then, in
order to give perpetuity to his laws, he bound the city by an oath to change nothing of his laws until
he should return again. He thereupon set out for Crete and lived there in perpetual exile; and when
he died, he ordered his bones to be thrown into the sea for fear that if they should be taken back to
Lacedaemon, they might regard themselves as absolved from the obligation of their oath in the
matter of changing
the laws.
These examples I employ the more willingly because I find that the Apostle Paul also used them in
preaching to the Athenians. That excellent preacher sought to win entrance for Jesus Christ and Him
crucified into their minds by showing from the example of many gentiles that deliverance had come
through the ignominy of a cross. And he argued that this was not wont to happen save by the blood
of just men and of those who bear the magistracy of a people. Carrying forward this line of thought,
there could be found none sufficient to deliver all nations, to wit both Jews and gentiles, save One
to whom all nations were given for His inheritance, and all the earth foreordained to be His
possession. But this, he asserted, could be none other than the Son of the all-powerful Father, since
none except God holds sway over all nations and all lands. While he preached in this manner the
ignominy of the cross to the end that the folly of the gentiles might gradually be removed, he little
by little bore upward the word of faith and the tongue of his preaching till it rose to the word of
God, and God’s wisdom, and finally to the very throne of the divine majesty, and then, lest the
virtue of the gospel, because it has revealed itself under the infirmity of the flesh, might be held
cheap by the obstinacy of the Jews and the folly of the gentiles, he explained to them the works of
the Crucified One, which were further confirmed by the testimony of fame; since it was agreed
among all that they could be done by none save God. But since fame frequently speaks untruth on
opposite sides, fame itself was confirmed by the fact that His disciples were doing marvellous
works; for at the shadow of a disciple those who were sick of any infirmity were healed. Why
should I continue? The subtlety of Aristotle, the refinements of Crisippus, the snares of all the
philosophers He confuted by rising from the dead.
How the Decii, Roman generals, devoted themselves to death for their armies, is a celebrated tale.
Julius Caesar also said, “A general who does not labor to be dear to his soldiers’ hearts does not
know how to furnish them with weapons; does not know that a general’s humaneness to his troops
takes the place of a host against the enemy.” He never said to his soldiers, “Go thither,” but always
“Follow me”; he said this because toil which is shared by the leader always seems to the soldier to
be less hard. We have also his authority for the opinion that bodily pleasure is to be avoided; for he
said that if in war men’s bodi …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Order a plagiarism free paper now. We do not use AI. Use the code SAVE15 to get a 15% Discount
Looking for help with your ASSIGNMENT? Our paper writing service can help you achieve higher grades and meet your deadlines.
Why order from us
We offer plagiarism-free content
We don’t use AI
Confidentiality is guaranteed
We guarantee A+ quality
We offer unlimited revisions