Liber II, Pars I — Quod omnes cives, et maxime reges et principes non decet suas uxores regere eodem regimine, quo regendi sunt filii. Cap. XIIII.

Liber II, Pars I — Quod omnes cives, et maxime reges et principes non decet suas uxores regere eodem regimine, quo regendi sunt filii. Cap. XIIII.

For it’s not enough to know what a marriage should be like and how one ought to behave with a wife to be taken, unless one knows how to behave properly with her once she is already married. Therefore, having established the preceding chapters, it is reasonable to connect this, so that we may understand how the marital governance, by which spouses are to be ruled, is distinct from other forms of governance. We can investigate in two ways that spouses are governed by one kind of rule, while children are governed by another. The first way is derived from the nature of governance. The second, however, is derived from the actions of those being governed. The first way is thus evident. For, according to the philosophers, the governance of the universe is reserved for one man; hence, man is called a microcosm. For just as the entire universe is directed by one ruler, as by one God, who is the separate and pure intellect, so all that exists within man, if it is to be governed properly, must be ruled by intellect and reason. In fact, the way the universe is governed is reserved for every human being, as Plato noted that the entire order of the heavens is preserved in each rational soul. If, therefore, the governance of the entire universe is likened to the governance that should exist in one human being, and since a city is a part of the universe, the governance of the entire city will much more so be reserved in one household. For a household is greater than a single individual, and a city is less than the universe; if the whole universe is reserved in a certain likeness in one human being, then much more the governance that exists in a city is reserved in a household by a certain likeness. Thus, the Philosopher in the first book of Politics likens the governance of a single household to the governance of a city. However, a city can be governed in two ways, namely by political and royal governance. It is said that one governs with royal authority when he governs according to his own discretion and according to the laws he himself has established. But he governs with political authority when he does not govern according to his own discretion, nor according to the laws he has established, but according to those that the citizens have instituted. For when the ruler in a city governs according to himself and establishes the laws, that governance takes its name from that ruler and is called royal. But since laws are not established by the ruler but by the citizens, that governance should not be named after the one ruling and leading, but rather after the polity itself and the citizens. Therefore, such governance is called political or civil. These two forms of governance in the city are, according to the Philosopher, discussed in Politics. Two forms of governance are compared to those of a household: paternal and marital. For paternal governance is likened to royal governance; marital governance, however, is political. A man should govern his wife with political authority, because he must lead her according to certain laws, and according to the laws of marriage, and according to conventions and agreements. But a father must govern his children according to his own discretion and according to royal governance. For between a father and a son, there are no conventions and agreements regarding how he should govern him; rather, the father governs according to his own judgment as he sees fit for the son, and similarly, a king must govern the people subject to him according to his own judgment, as he sees fit for that people. Therefore, such a rule is rightly called royal. But between a husband and wife, there are always certain agreements and contracts, and some discussions about how the husband should conduct himself toward her. Thus, this rule is called political because it is similar to that rule by which citizens, calling a lord, show him certain agreements and conventions they observe in their governance. From the very way of ruling, since one is political and the other royal, the marital rule differs from paternal governance. For we see that royal governance is more total and natural: whereas political governance is more paternal and based on choice. For to rule royally means to rule totally and according to one's own judgment; whereas to rule politically means to rule not totally or simply, but according to certain agreements and contracts. Moreover, although every rule (if it is right) is natural, nonetheless, political rule, however right it may be, is not as natural as royal rule. Indeed, that rule is in a way based on choice, since in such governance, citizens choose a lord for themselves. From this, the difference between marital and paternal governance is clearly evident: a father has more authority over his children simply and completely than over his wife. Moreover, paternal authority is more in accordance with nature than marital authority: for in some way, a wife is judged to be equal to her husband and chooses her husband. However, children are not judged to be equal to their father in the same way, nor do they choose their father; rather, they are naturally born from him. It is said that paternal authority is more in accordance with nature than marital authority: for although a marital animal is naturally so, the choice of which wife to have is based on preference and selection; just as a human is naturally capable of speech, yet the language he speaks is based on preference and selection. Therefore, marital governance is not as natural as paternal governance: for children are in no way governed by marital authority as they are by paternal authority, since one is more simple and natural; the other is rather particular and based on choice: it can be seen in minor matters how this governance differs from that in terms of the actions performed. For a father should govern his children in such a way that he directs them to other activities than he does his wife. For sons are to be instructed in military or civil affairs, which they should engage in when they are adults; to which wives are not to be instructed, because they should not engage in such matters. It is clear, therefore, how it is fitting for all citizens to govern their wives in one way and their children in another. This is especially true for kings and rulers, who ought to observe even more closely what natural order and reason dictate.