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

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

It was previously stated that there are three distinct forms of governance in the household. The first is the marital governance, where the husband presides over the wife. The second is paternal governance, where the father presides over the children. The third is dominative governance, where one presides over the servants. After distinguishing marital governance from paternal governance, we find that paternal governance is more complete and straightforward, while marital governance is more specific; and since paternal governance aligns more with nature, marital governance is somewhat based on choice, as it pertains to different duties. It remains to show how marital governance differs from servile governance. However, one should not treat their spouse as a servant; we can approach this in three ways. The first is derived from the natural order itself. The second is based on the perfection of the household. The third comes from the equality of spouses. The first way is clear. For all of nature is moved and governed by God and by separate substances: hence, the Philosopher says in the book On Good Fortune that the natural impulses we have in our soul come from God as the mover of the whole nature. Just as in a work crafted by a wise artisan nothing superfluous or diminished is found, so nature, unless impeded, acts and directs itself by the wisest artisan as by God, producing nothing superfluous and lacking nothing necessary. Therefore, whatever nature does and whatever nature prepares must be most orderly, because it is directed by the one from whom all order comes. Thus, something is most orderly when one thing is arranged for one purpose: since a wife is naturally ordered to bear children, she will not be ordered to serve. Therefore, it is said to be I. In politics, men and women are naturally distinguished. For, as the philosopher says there, nature does not create anything superfluous, just as the craftsmen did not create the Delphic sword. In Delphi, swords were made in such a way for the poor that one sword served multiple purposes. Since the poor were unable to have multiple tools, they had one tool made that could serve multiple functions. Nature does not act in such a way, but rather it arranges things so that natural objects are better made, always directing one thing primarily to one purpose. Thus, the philosopher also says that each of the organs will perform its function best if it serves one purpose rather than many. Therefore, when nature has arranged a spouse for procreation, it is inappropriate for that spouse to be arranged for servitude. Thus, it is not the natural order for a man to rule over his wife in the same way a master rules over his servants. Even if this is how it is according to the natural order, among some peoples, like the Barbarians, women and slaves have the same status. The philosopher states that among the Barbarians, women and slaves hold the same position. For they used their wives as if they were slaves. But this happened because, as it is stated there, among the Barbarians, no one is naturally in charge; being a Barbarian and being a slave are essentially the same. To be a Barbarian means to be estranged from someone, that is, to be foreign to them, and not to be understood by them. Therefore, who can be a Barbarian to this person or that one, since they are not understood by this one or that one? Just as the Germans are barbarians to the Italians, and the Italians are barbarians to the English. However, he is simply a Barbarian who is estranged from himself and does not understand himself; this cannot be, unless he lacks the use of reason and intellect. But since someone who lacks the use of reason is naturally a servant, because they don't know how to direct themselves, and they depend on someone else to guide them, being naturally barbaric and being a servant are the same. Therefore, if among the Barbarians the wife and the servant have the same status, it is due to a lack of reason, because they do not know how to distinguish between marital and servile authority. Thus, if it is fitting for citizens to be industrious and to understand the natural order, it is disgraceful for them to treat their wives like servants. This is even more disgraceful among kings and princes, as it is more detestable for them to be barbaric and to lack reason and intellect. From the perspective of natural order, it is clear that marital authority is different from servile authority, and that one should not treat wives like servants. The second way to investigate this same issue is taken from the perspective of the perfection of the household. For it seems that a household is imperfect and lacks the necessary things, and cannot sustain itself in life, if the wife and the servant have the same status. Hence it is said that... The Politician says that the poor, because they lack a supply of servants and do not have an abundance of what is needed for the perfection of the household, use their wives and children as if they were servants. The third way is taken from the equality that should exist between a husband and wife. For although a husband should have authority over his wife because he is superior in reason, there should not be such a disparity between husband and wife that she must be treated like a servant, but rather as a partner. For there is not such a disparity between a wife and a husband as there is between a master and a servant; rather, a husband and wife are judged to be equal in some respects.