Kings for the People or Kings of the People?
“Thou askest me to prepare for thee a treatise on the measure and balance of thy rule, which shall be unto thee as my substitute…” So begins Moses Gaster’s translation of the Secretum Secretorum, one of the most popular texts of the Middle Ages, read, re-copied, and re-produced countless times (Gastler, p. 1065). Supposedly written by Aristotle, the work’s true author(s) are unknown, but its illustrious origin story gave its political teachings great credibility (Gaster, p. 1065). Who could neglect Aristotle’s wisdom, so well proven through Alexander the Great’s astonishing feats? In this manner, the Secretum served as a mouthpiece for the more ordinary people of the Medieval Ages, a link to rulers they could never otherwise hope to influence. By examining the Secretum’s ideals of rulership and comparing them to two famed medieval kings, Charlemagne and Saladin, we can see the extent to which kings truly ruled for their people.
The Secretum emphasizes that a king should be available to his subjects and deal fairly with them, advice both Saladin and Charlemagne heeded. People will obey their king only if “they see him dealing righteously with them” (Secretum, p. 116). In Ibn Shaddad’s Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, he writes that Saladin would dispense justice every Monday and Thursday: “the door would be opened to litigants so that everyone, great and small, senile women and old men might have access” (Saladin, p. 23). Not only that, but Saladin accepted petitioners at any moment of the day. Charlemagne heard disputes in court and, like Saladin, made himself constantly available for matters of justice, whatever the situation. In the morning, “while putting on his shoes and dressing ... if the court of the palace informed him there was some unresolved dispute that could not be sorted out without his judgement, he would order him to bring the disputed parties before him [Charlemagne] at once,” records Einhard in his Life of Charlemagne (Charlemagne, p. 32). Undoubtedly this display of commitment to justice for their subjects both high and low served to enhance the great reputations of these kings.
The Secretum also insists on the importance of a king’s faith as the spiritual leader of his people. Only by true faith will a king “be pleasing to God, blessed by He, and make himself beloved of his servants” (Secretum, p. 121). Both Saladin and Charlemagne used displays of charity to publicize their religiosity. For Saladin, alms were required as one of the Five Pillars of the Islamic faith, “but his gifts were beyond what any petitioner hoped for” (Saladin, p. 25). Charlemagne was motivated by the parallel Christian tradition of alms, and as such was “deeply committed to assisting the poor spontaneously with charity… When he learned that Christians in Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Carthage were living in poverty, he was moved by their impoverished condition and used to send money” (Charlemagne, p. 33). The end of both kings’ lives led to the culmination of their giving, although even more so for Saladin, who “exhausted all that he owned” (Saladin, p. 19). In Charlemagne’s will, he merely ensured one final large gift of alms would be made to his Christian subjects (Charlemagne, p. 37). But overall, the generosity of both kings is so exaggerated, it seems clear this was one of the most highly valued attributes of rulership.
The Secretum’s last major piece of advice warns kings to heed the council of those around them: “Honour thy vizier (councillor) more than thyself, and seek his advice in small or great matters, and keep him near to thy palace, for he is thy honour before all the people" (Secretum, p. 128). Very few examples can be found, however, of either Charlemagne or Saladin delegating political power. Saladin “took his creed from proof by means of study with the leading men of religious learning and eminent jurisconsults” (Saladin, p. 18), but this was primarily religious, rather than overtly political, advice. Charlemagne did send “men bearing gifts and letters to one king after another of the most far-off lands,” but these men served as messengers rather than ambassadors and had little national political relevance. When it came to sharing political power, both Saladin and Charlemagne balked.
The Secretum is an exemplar of the people’s ideal ruler during the Middle Ages: a king who would treat them justly and generously while heeding their council. Both Saladin and Charlemagne were unreserved in activities which publicized their fairness and charity; neither had political advisers. Meting out justice and giving religiously, however, were also methods of displaying power and wealth. This is the likely explanation for both kings’ fulfillment of these ideals, as well as their simultaneous rejection of the guidance of others, which would have represented a dissemination of political power. But even if both kings’ rulership was absolute, they do seem to have made conscious efforts to interact with and improve the status of their subjects, as the Secretum implores them to do.
The Secretum emphasizes that a king should be available to his subjects and deal fairly with them, advice both Saladin and Charlemagne heeded. People will obey their king only if “they see him dealing righteously with them” (Secretum, p. 116). In Ibn Shaddad’s Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, he writes that Saladin would dispense justice every Monday and Thursday: “the door would be opened to litigants so that everyone, great and small, senile women and old men might have access” (Saladin, p. 23). Not only that, but Saladin accepted petitioners at any moment of the day. Charlemagne heard disputes in court and, like Saladin, made himself constantly available for matters of justice, whatever the situation. In the morning, “while putting on his shoes and dressing ... if the court of the palace informed him there was some unresolved dispute that could not be sorted out without his judgement, he would order him to bring the disputed parties before him [Charlemagne] at once,” records Einhard in his Life of Charlemagne (Charlemagne, p. 32). Undoubtedly this display of commitment to justice for their subjects both high and low served to enhance the great reputations of these kings.
The Secretum also insists on the importance of a king’s faith as the spiritual leader of his people. Only by true faith will a king “be pleasing to God, blessed by He, and make himself beloved of his servants” (Secretum, p. 121). Both Saladin and Charlemagne used displays of charity to publicize their religiosity. For Saladin, alms were required as one of the Five Pillars of the Islamic faith, “but his gifts were beyond what any petitioner hoped for” (Saladin, p. 25). Charlemagne was motivated by the parallel Christian tradition of alms, and as such was “deeply committed to assisting the poor spontaneously with charity… When he learned that Christians in Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Carthage were living in poverty, he was moved by their impoverished condition and used to send money” (Charlemagne, p. 33). The end of both kings’ lives led to the culmination of their giving, although even more so for Saladin, who “exhausted all that he owned” (Saladin, p. 19). In Charlemagne’s will, he merely ensured one final large gift of alms would be made to his Christian subjects (Charlemagne, p. 37). But overall, the generosity of both kings is so exaggerated, it seems clear this was one of the most highly valued attributes of rulership.
The Secretum’s last major piece of advice warns kings to heed the council of those around them: “Honour thy vizier (councillor) more than thyself, and seek his advice in small or great matters, and keep him near to thy palace, for he is thy honour before all the people" (Secretum, p. 128). Very few examples can be found, however, of either Charlemagne or Saladin delegating political power. Saladin “took his creed from proof by means of study with the leading men of religious learning and eminent jurisconsults” (Saladin, p. 18), but this was primarily religious, rather than overtly political, advice. Charlemagne did send “men bearing gifts and letters to one king after another of the most far-off lands,” but these men served as messengers rather than ambassadors and had little national political relevance. When it came to sharing political power, both Saladin and Charlemagne balked.
The Secretum is an exemplar of the people’s ideal ruler during the Middle Ages: a king who would treat them justly and generously while heeding their council. Both Saladin and Charlemagne were unreserved in activities which publicized their fairness and charity; neither had political advisers. Meting out justice and giving religiously, however, were also methods of displaying power and wealth. This is the likely explanation for both kings’ fulfillment of these ideals, as well as their simultaneous rejection of the guidance of others, which would have represented a dissemination of political power. But even if both kings’ rulership was absolute, they do seem to have made conscious efforts to interact with and improve the status of their subjects, as the Secretum implores them to do.
Comments
Post a Comment