Quae sit cdia merces priTicipum
The Promise of Succession and Justice
The author explores the divine promise of dynastic succession for kings, contingent upon their commitment to justice and the imitation of their predecessors' virtues.
Yet I don't exclude what the literal surface of the text promises, which offers both a long-lasting kingdom to the fathers and extends that same succession to their children, who will be successors of eternal beatitude just as they are of a temporal kingdom. I know that the Law spoke to a carnal people who still had hearts of stone—uncircumcised in mind if not in flesh—and who for the most part didn't know eternal life, valuing it highly if the good things of the earth were given or promised to them as food. The promise of the flesh was therefore made to those who were carnal, and the length of time was promised to them because they hadn't yet conceived the hope of eternal beatitude; and a temporal kingdom is extended in the succession of children to those who weren't yet seeking eternal things. A son therefore succeeds his father in time, if he imitates his father's justice. Take away, says Solomon, the wickedness from the face of the king, and his throne will be established by justice. For if wickedness recedes from the face—that is, from the will—the works of the entire kingdom are directed by the rod of equity and the cultivation of justice. Hence that saying: The king who sits on the throne of judgment scatters all evil with his gaze. See what a privilege princes enjoy, for whom—to say nothing of eternal beatitude—the glory of the kingdom is perpetuated even in their own flesh and blood. The Lord boasts that He has found a man after His own heart, and after raising him to the pinnacle of the kingdom, He promised him an everlasting kingdom through the succession of his children. "From the fruit of your womb," He says, "I will set upon your throne; and if your children keep My commandments which I have already given, and My testimonies which I will teach them through Myself or My vicars, both they and their children will sit upon your throne, and I will establish his seed forever and his throne as the days of heaven." But if his children abandon My law and don't walk in My judgments, if they profane My statutes and don't keep My commandments, I will visit their iniquities with a rod, so that the kingdom may be transferred from nation to nation, and those heirs who appear to be in the seed according to the flesh being destroyed, the succession may be transferred to those who are found to be heirs of faith and justice. In this, the truth of the promise subsists, and those things which proceeded from the mouth of the Most High remain fixed: that for just kings, the seed remains forever through the succession of the faithful. I believe this holds true forever even according to the letter—not to mention, for the present, Christ, who, having been made from the seed of David according to the flesh, is King of kings and Lord of lords—that children succeed their parents if they have faithfully imitated them in the commandments of the Lord. Indeed, it is so much the case that if, with all things rightly disposed and remaining in that state, there seems to be no anxiety or duty for the one presiding, it is clear to those who have once accepted a prince that a successor won't be lacking from his seed, even if for no other reason than to preserve the clarity of the bloodline. This is also clear from the examples of history. For it is said that when Alexander the Great was exploring the farthest shore of the Ocean, he was preparing to conquer the island of the Brahmins.
The Wisdom of Detachment
Using the example of the Brahmins and Alexander the Great, the author contrasts worldly ambition with the peace found in simplicity and ordered love.
They sent a letter to him in these words: "We have heard, most invincible king, of your prowess and the happiness of the victory that has followed you everywhere." But what could ever be enough for a man to whom the whole world isn't enough? We have no riches whose greed might drive you to attack us; everyone's goods are common to all. For us, food takes the place of wealth, and simple, rare clothing takes the place of finery and gold. Moreover, our women don't dress to please; they consider such finery a burden rather than an embellishment. In fact, they don't know how to desire anything more to enhance their beauty than what they were born with. Caves serve us a double purpose: they are a shelter in life and a burial place in death. We have a king not for the sake of justice, but for the sake of maintaining nobility. After all, what room is there for vengeance where no injustice has been committed? Moved by these words, Alexander, thinking there was no victory to be had if he were to disturb their lasting peace, left them in their quiet. And perhaps, had he attacked them, he would have had little success against the innocent; innocence isn't easily overcome, and truth, standing firm in its own strength, triumphs over malice, no matter how well-armed it may be. But because there is nothing men desire more than to have sons as successors to their possessions—so that those who foresee their own death by the condition of nature may perpetuate their life in the offspring of their own flesh—this is what is promised to princes, and it is from this that they can be most effectively invited to the cultivation of justice. For it happens that those who are secure about themselves are constantly anxious about the state of their children. And in this, the order of charity is least observed, because a father pours into his children the love that was owed especially to his country and his parents, while filial affection alone exhausts the cell of a father's heart. Children also respond to their parents in a fitting manner, bestowing upon them the same affection with which they were received by their parents; although ordered charity demands a different order, which the most learned of poets has prudently expressed. For when Troy was overturned, he placed the old man Anchises on the shoulders of his dutiful son, gave the right hand of the parent Aeneas to Ascanius, and his wife Creusa clung to her husband, following the footsteps of those in front, as was fitting for the frailty of a woman.
The Consul's Burden and Civic Duty
The author examines the tension between parental love and civic duty, citing historical and biblical examples of leaders who prioritized the state over their own kin.
He gave all his fellow citizens a leader, a man distinguished by both his martial skill and his piety. Otherwise, a leader would be useless, since kingdoms can't be acquired without strength or maintained without justice. But now, everyone's only concern is to deck their children out—whoever they may be—with wealth and honors rather than with virtues. For the burden placed upon the state is neglected. After the proud Tarquin was driven out—the last to reign in the city—Brutus, the first consul, learned that his own children were plotting to bring the kings back to the city; he dragged them into the forum and, in the middle of the assembly, had them beaten with rods and finally executed by the axe, so that, as a true father of the public, he seemed to have adopted the people in place of his own children. For my part, although I shudder at the parricide, I can't help but approve the loyalty of a consul who preferred to risk the safety of his own children rather than that of the people. Whether he acted rightly, let the wise judge. For I have known this field to be wide open to orators, and that declaimers have often labored over this ambiguous matter, while loyalty struggles in the acquittal of parricide and parricidal impiety tries to extinguish the merit of loyalty. If you ask for my opinion, I’ll tell you that I find the Areopagites responded to Gnaeus Dolabella regarding the case in Smyrna. A woman from Smyrna was brought before him while he held proconsular authority over the province of Asia; she confessed that she had secretly poisoned her husband and son, claiming she did so because they had wickedly ensnared and murdered her son from a previous marriage—a fine and most innocent young man—and she asserted that the law allowed her to ignore the legal process and avenge such a heinous injury done to herself, her family, and her entire community. The law was outside the scope of the case, since the facts were clear and the question was one of legal interpretation. When Dolabella brought the matter before his council, no one dared to acquit such a clear case of poisoning and murder, or to condemn the punishment that had been carried out against the wicked and the parricides, even though the case was thought to be ambiguous. So, he referred the matter to the Areopagites of Athens, as to judges who were more serious and experienced. But they, having heard the case, ordered the accusers and the accused woman to appear in one hundred years. In this way, the poisoning—which was not permitted by law—was not acquitted, nor was the guilty woman punished, even though many felt she might have been shown mercy. The ninth book of Valerius Maximus’s 'Memorable Deeds and Sayings' shows that this is how it happened. Still, I can easily agree that both Brutus and the woman were in the wrong, for 'the remedy exceeded the measure, and followed too much the hand that led the disease,' and although their crimes were great, it would have been better for them to be punished without the crime of the punisher. The poet who praises him also bears witness to Brutus's unhappiness; in the sixth book, Virgil writes: 'The father will call his sons to punishment for the sake of a beautiful liberty—unhappy man, however later generations may judge those deeds.' Yet he excuses the misfortune of the parricide in the next verse to argue against the vanity of empty glory, saying: 'The love of country and the immense desire for praise will prevail.' But you'll labor in vain to keep anyone from imitating Brutus by preferring the people to their children, since even the faults of children are often preferred to the safety of the state, although it's certain that the safety of the people ought to be preferred to all children. In the Book of Kings, Saul is rebuked because when he had made a vow concerning a daily fast under the penalty for anyone who ate before nightfall against the vow, his son Jonathan tasted honey that he had touched with his scepter—that is, his spear—and Saul, moved by fatherly affection against the religious vow, spared his son; and because of his transgression, the people of Israel appeared to have fallen that day. Eli, too, although he is considered to have been holy himself, died when he fell backward from his seat and broke his neck, because he spared the faults of his sons. To say nothing of others, how much, I ask, did He love and seek the public salvation of men, who did not spare His own Son, but handed Him over for us, so that He might endure the chains, the scourges, and the cross that we had deserved, while He, immune and innocent, was condemned to a most shameful death? Search the history of Kings, and you will find that a king was requested from God for this purpose: that he might go before the face of the people, fight their battles, and bear the burdens of the whole people after the likeness of the nations.
The Sovereignty of God and the Humble Prince
The chapter concludes by asserting that true leadership is rooted in humility and merit rather than bloodline, with God as the ultimate arbiter of a kingdom's stability.
Yet this wouldn't have been necessary if Israel hadn't also strayed into the ways of the nations, acting as if they weren't content with God as their King. For if they had cultivated justice on their own and walked faithfully in the Lord’s commands, God would have humbled their enemies for nothing and laid His hand upon those who oppressed them, so that by the usual help of God, one would chase a thousand and two would put ten thousand to flight. I recall my guest from Piacenza—a man of noble blood, certainly, but one who held the wisdom of this world in the fear of the Lord—saying that it is a very common observation in the cities of Italy that, as long as they love peace, cultivate justice, and abstain from perjury, they enjoy such a joy of liberty and peace that there is absolutely nothing that can disturb their quiet, even in the slightest. But when they slide into fraud and tear themselves apart by following various paths of injustice, the Lord immediately brings upon them either Roman pride, Teutonic fury, or some other scourge, and His hand remains outstretched until they return from their iniquity through repentance; for that is the only remedy by which all storms cease among them. He also added that the merits of the people either empty a principate of all meaning or make it very mild, whereas it’s certain that, because of the sins of the people, God permits a hypocrite to reign, and it’s impossible for someone to enjoy a kingdom for long who exults too proudly in the humiliation of the people and his own high station. But he said that the principate of the one who is always inwardly troubled by a conscience of humility, as if he were reigning against his will, is the one that endures. This is what my guest from Piacenza told me; and, as I believe, it’s consistent with the faith. Something of this sort is found in the writings of the ancients. When Helius was serving as prefect in Rome with great distinction, he was promoted from senator to emperor. When the senate begged him to name his son Caesar—whom he already had—as Augustus, he replied, "It should be enough that I've reigned against my will, when I didn't deserve it." Leadership isn't owed to bloodline, but to merit; someone born a king who doesn't deserve it reigns to no purpose. And without a doubt, a parent sheds his natural affection when he crushes his own little ones under an unbearable weight. This is truly to stifle children, not to promote them. They must first be nurtured and trained in virtue. Once they've progressed to the point where they're proven to surpass in virtue those they're expected to precede in honors, they should be invited to rise, and they must by no means withdraw themselves from the desires of their fellow citizens. Who doubts that those should be preferred who, enlarged by a kind of natural privilege of integrity and the titles of their ancestors, are invited to virtue and, by the benefit of that same virtue, provide others with confidence in their future goodness? So he said. Indeed, he elegantly expressed the privilege of a prince, to whom sons succeed without doubt by the ancient gift of God, unless iniquity subverts the leadership.
Read the original Latin
Nec tamen quod litterae prima facies promittit excludo, quae et longi temporis regnum promittit patribus et eiusdem successionem protendit ad filios qui, sicut temporalis regni, ita erunt et etemae beatitudinis successores. Scio enim quia lex camali populo loquebatur, qui cor adhuc habens lapideum, incircumcisus mente non came, uitam ex magna parte nesciebat etemam, magnifaciens si ei bona terrae darentur uel promitterentur in cibum. Carnaliter itaque sapienti facta est promissio camis, et ei promissa est diutumitas temporis, qui nondum spem conceperat etemae beatitudinis, et temporale in successionem filiorum protenditur regnum illis qui nondum quaerebant etemura. Patri ergo temporaliter succedit filius, si patris iustitiam imitatur. Aufer, inquit Salomon, impietatem de uultu regis, et firmabitur iustitia thronus eius. Si enim a uultu, id est a uoluntate, recedit impietas, totius regni opera uirga aequitatis et cultu iustitiae diriguntur. Vnde illud: Rex qui sedet in solio iudicii dissipat omne malum intuitu suo. Ecce quanto priuilegio gaudeant principes, quibus (ut de etema beatitudine taceam) perpetuatur regni gloria etiam in came et sanguine suo.
Gloriatur Dominus se uirum inuenisse secundum cor suum et, cum eum in regni apicem postmodum sullimasset, succedentium sibi filiomm curriculo regnum ei perpetuum pollicetur. De fmctu uentris tui, inquit, ponam super sedem tuam; et: Si custodierint filii tui mandata mea quae iam dedi, et testimonia mea quae per me uel uicarios meos docebo illos, et ipsi et filii eorum sedebunt super sedem tuam, et ponam in seculum seculi semen eius et thronum eius sicut dies celi. Si autem dereliquerint filii eius legem meam et in iudiciis meis non ambulauerint, si iustitias meas prophanauerint et mandata mea non custodierint, uisitabo in uirga iniquitates eorum, ut translato regno de gente in gentem et deletis his heredibus qui secundum carnem esse uidentur in semine, transferatur successio ad illos qui fidei et iustitiae inueniuntur heredes. In eoque promissionis subsistit ueritas, et rata permanent quae ex ore Altissimi processerunt, quod iustis regibus successione fidelium semen permanet in etemum. Hoc autem (ut ad praesens de Christo, qui factus ex semine Dauid secundum carnem rex regum est et dominus dominantium, nulla sit mentio) etiam secundum litteram perpetuo arbitror obtinere, ut succedant parentibus filii, si eos in mandatis Domini fideliter fuerint imitati. Adeo quidem ut, si omnia bus recte dispositis et in eo manentibus nuUa uideatur esse soUicitudo uel officium praesidentis, constat his, qui semel principem admiserunt, de semine illius successorem non defuturum, etsi non ob ahud uel ad conseruandam sanguinis claritatem. Quod et historiarum liquet exemplis. Fertur enim quod, cum magnus Alexander ultimum litus Occeani perlustraret, Bragmannorum insulam debellare parabat.
Ad quem ilH in his uerbis epistolam miserunt: Audiuimus, inuictissime rex, praeha tua et felicitatem uictoriae ubique subsecutam. Sed quid erit homini satis, cui totus non sufficit orbis? Diuitias non habemus, quarum cupiditate nos debeas expugnare; omnium bona omnibus communia sunt. Esca est nobis pro diuitiis, pro cultibus et auro uilis et rara uestis. Feminae autem nostrae non omantur ut placeant; quem quidem omamentonim cultum potius oneri deputant quam decori. Etenim nesciunt in augenda pulchritudine plus affectare quam quod natae sunt. Antra nobis duplicem usum praestant, tegumentum in uita, in morte sepulturam. Regem habemus non pro iustitia sed pro nobilitate consemanda.
Quem enim locum haberet uindicta, ubi nulla fit iniustitia? His uerbis motus Alexander nullam ratus uictoriam, si eorum pacem perpetuam turbaret, in quiete sua dimisit. Et forte, si eos bello fuisset aggressus, minime praeualuisset aduersus innocentes, eo quod innocentia non facile superatur et ueritas suis uiribus constans de malitia quantumuis armata triumphat. Sed, quia nichil est quod magis desiderent homines quam ut in bonis suis habeant filios successores, ut qui propriam ex conditione praeuident mortem, in propagine camis suae perpetuent uitam, hoc principibus est promissum, unde maxime possunt ad cultum iustitiae inuitari. Contingit enim eos, qui de se ipsis securi sunt, de statu filioram iugiter esse soUicitos. In eoque minimum caritatis ordo seraatur, quod amorem, qui patriae parentibus praecipue debebatur, pater transfimdit in filios, dum filialis affectus patemi pectoris cellam solus exhaurit. Condigna quoque uice respondent parentibus filii, eundem suis impertientes affectum, quo a parentibus aecepti sunt; licet alium ordinem exigat caritas ordinata, quem poetarum doctissimus pradenter expressit. Senem namque Anchisem euersa Troia in humeris pii filii coUocauit, parentis Eneae dexteram dedit Aschanio, et marito coniunx Creusa cohesit, antecedentium pro muliebri infirmitate legens uestigia.
Compatriotis onmibus ducem dedit, uirum armis et pietate praesignem. Alias enim dux esset inutilis, eum sine uiribus regna adquiri non ualeant aut sine iustitia retineri. Nunc uero omnium unica soUicitudo est, liberos, qualescumque sint, diuitiis et honoribus potius quam uirtutibus insignire. Negligitur etenim quod onus rei publicae imponatur. Expulso Superbo Tarquinio, qui regnauit in urbe nouissimus, cum Brutus primus consul liberos suos a de reuocandis in urbem regibus agere cognouisset, eos protraxit in forum et in media contione uirgis caesos tandem securi percuti iussit, ut plane publicus parens in locum liberorum uideretur populum adoptasse. Ego quidem, etsi parricidium perhorrescam, consulis non possum non approbare fidem, qui maluit salutem liberorum suorum periclitari quam populi. Rectene fecerit, iudicent sapientes. Ego enim campum istum oratoribus late patere cognoui, et in eo declamatores in ancipiti materia saepius desudasse, dum in absolutione parricidii fides laborat et parricidalis impietas meritum fidei conatur extinguere.
Quod si me ad sententiam urges, respondeo quod in causa Smimensi Ariopagitas Gneio Dolobellae inuenio respondisse. Ad quem, prouinciam Asiam proconsulari imperio obtinentem, mulier Smirnensis adducta est, confitens se maritum et filium datis clam uenenis occidisse, eo quod illi filium eius ex altero matrimonio optimum et innocentissimum iuuenem exceptum insidiis nequiter occidissent, sibi licitum esse asserens ex indulgentia legum et ius ignorare et suam et suorum et totius rei publicae suae tam atrocem iniuriam uendicare. lus extra causam erat, cum de facto constaret et de iure quaereretur. Cum ergo Dolobella rem in consilium deduxisset, non fuit qui in causa (ut putabatur) ancipiti manifestum ueneficium et parricidium auderet absoluere, uel uindictam, quae in impios et parricidas processerat, condempnare. Rem itaque ad Ariopagitas Atheniensium, tamquam ad iudices grauiores exercitatioresque, reiecit. At illi causa cognita actores et ream mulierem centesimo anno adesse iusserunt. Sic autem neque ueneficium, quod de lege non licuit, absolutum est, neque nocens punita mulier, cui ex sententia multorum uenia poterat indulgeri. Hoc ita fuisse nonus liber Memorabilium dictorum uel factorum Valerii Maximi docet.
Ceterum et Brutum et mulierem deliquisse consentiam facile, eo quod 'excesserit medicina modum, nimiumque secuta est, qua morbi duxere, manum et, licet magna fuerint crimina, praestantius fuerat eadem sine punientis crimine uendicari. Vnde et infelicitatis testimonium Bruto perhibet etiam poeta laudator; ait enim in sexto Virgilius: Natosque pater noua bella mouentes ad penam pulchra pro libertate uocabit infelix, utcumque ferent ea facta minores. At infortunium parricidii sic uersu sequenti excusat ut inanis gloriae arguat uanitatem, dicens: Vincet amor patriae laudumque immensa cupido. Sed, ne quis amodo Brutum imitetur, populum liberis praeferens, frustra sollicitaberis, cum uel uitia liberorum saluti rei publicae praeferantur, licet certum sit quod salutem populi liberis omnibus oporteat anteferri. In libro Regnorum arguitur Saul quod cum, uoto facto de diumo ieiunio sub discrimine illius qui ante noctem contra uotum sumeret cibum, lonathas filius eius mel quod sceptro, a id est, hasta tetigerat, praegustasset, patemo motus affectu contra religionis uotum pepercit filio; cuius praeuaricatione populus Israel ea die uisus est corruisse. Heli quoque, licet sanctus in se fuisse legatur, quia filiorum pepercit uitiis, auersa sella fractis ceruicibus corruens expirauit. Vt de ceteris taceam, quantum quaeso publicam hominum dilexit et quaesiuit salutem qui proprio Filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis tradidit illum, ut quae merueramus uincla flagella crucem sustineret immunis et innocens morte turpissima condempnatus? Regum scrutare historiam, ad hoc petitum regem a Deo inuenies, ut praecederet faciem populi et praeharetur bella eorum et ad similitudinem gentium totius populi onera sustineret.
Qui tamen non fuerat necessarius, nisi et Israel praeuaricatus esset in similitudinem gentium, ut Deo rege sibi non uideretur esse contentus. Si enim per se iustitiam coluisset, si in mandatis Domini fideliter ambulasset, pro nichilo humiliaret Deus hostes eorum et super tribulantes eos mitteret manum suam ut solito Dei auxilio unus persequeretur mille et duo fugarent decem milia. Hospitem meum Placentinum dixisse recolo, uirum utique sanguine generosum, habentem prudentiam mundi huius in timore Domini, hoc in ciuitatibus Italiae usu frequenti celeberrimum esse quod, dum pacem diligunt et iustitiam colunt et periuriis abstinent, tantae libertatis et pacis gaudio perfruuntur, quod nichil est omnino quod uel in minimo quietem eorum concutiat. Cum uero prolabuntur ad fraudes et per uarias iniustitiae semitas scinduntur in semet ipsis, statim uel fastum Romanum uel furorem Teutonicum aliudue flagellum inducit Dominus super eos, et permanet manus eius extenta, donec ipsi ab iniquitate per penitentiam reuertantur; quo solo remedio apud illos omnis cessat tempestas. Adiciebat etiam quod merita: populi omnem euacuant principatum aut eum faciunt esse mitissimum, cum e contrario certum sit quod propter peccata populi permittit Deus regnare hypocritam, et impossibile esse ut diu regno gaudeat qui populi humiliatione et proprio fastigio superbe nimis exultat. Sed illius dicebat protendi principatum, qui apud se de conscientia humilitatis semper in se angitur quasi regnet inuitus. Haec michi Placentinus hospes; et, ut credo, fidei consentaneum est. Tale aliquid inuenitur in scriptis maiorum.
Cum enim Helius Romae praefecturam splendidius ageret, ex senatore imperator creatus est; qui, eum obsecrante senatu ut filium Cesarem, quem habebat, Augustum appellaret: Sufficere, inquit, debet, quod egu ipse inuitus regnauerim cum non mererer. Principatus enim non sanguini debetur, sed meritis; et inutiliter regnat qui rex nascitur non meretur. Et proculdubio parentis affectum exuit qui paruulos suos importabili mole superiecta extinguit. Hoc quidem est sufibcare liberos, non promouere. Alendi prius a sunt et in uirtutibus exercendi; et, cum in eo prof ecerint, ut probentur illos uirtutibus antecedere, quos debent honoribus anteire, inuitati ascendant et se ciuium suorum nequaquam subtrahant uotis. Quis enim illos ambigit aliis praeferendos, qui quasi naturali probitatis priuilegio ampliati maiorum titulis inuitantur ad uirtutem et eorundem beneficio futurae bonitatis aliis faciunt fidem? Haec ille. Et quidem eleganter priuilegium expressit principis, cui ex antiquo munere Dei succedunt filii indubitanter, nisi iniquitas subuertat principatum.
Policraticus companion
Study the argument weekly; pray the tradition daily
Pair the outline with the Chosen Portion app, which serves short daily portions from the same royal devotional tradition — free on iOS.
John of Salisbury argued that rulers must keep the law of God before their eyes daily; Chosen Portion gives modern readers that same daily discipline in five minutes a morning.
- 8 weeks, one book per week, with the 3-4 key chapters flagged in each
- Discussion questions usable for a reading group from week one
- A daily 5-minute companion portion in the app alongside your weekly study