§ 1. I do not judge it equitable for a woman to hold government over men unless, in an extraordinary danger or through heroic virtue, the woman should be an example to the men themselves. Nevertheless, women are not excluded from public life through injury and contempt for their sex, but because they are weaker. “The counsel of a woman is without strength, that of a boy imperfect,” says Aristotle in book 1 of the Politics.
Those who proclaim that all women are wicked and all instructed in the same school for wickedness are injurious toward their own mother. It is not astonishing that all speak against that sex which is defended by no one. Let us weigh the matter in a political and humane manner. For what an impudent persecutor of women says is bitter:
“Γυναῖκες εἰς μὲν ἐσθλὰ ἀμηχανώταται”
“Κακῶν δὲ πάντων τέκτονες σοφώταται.”
“We women are indeed most unfit for good things,
but most cunning artificers of all evil things.”
But it has seemed otherwise to others. The case is before the judge. The Salic Law bars women from the scepter. “Lilies do not spin,” Philip of Valois announces to Edward the Briton. Cujas, book 8 of Observations, chapter 14; Tolosanus, book 7, chapter 16; Heigius, book 1, question 7. It seemed otherwise to the Spaniards, English, and Scots, and also to the Austrians.
§ 2. First, indeed, there is the natural weakness of women. Men, because they are strong and ambidextrous, can rule and be ruled; but women are ruled only, for they are subject to men. And they speak truly when they repeat what Hippocrates teaches in the Aphorisms, section 7, chapter 44: “γυνὴ ἀμφιδέξιος οὐ γίνεται”; “A woman does not become ambidextrous.” Pliny also teaches this, book 7, chapter 17.
Weakness of counsels also follows this infirmity of nature. Assuredly, by the Roman laws a tutor and curator is given to women although they are fully adult, indeed even after the husband’s death. Cicero, For Flaccus: “Women are not permitted to conduct any matter without the counsel of tutors and procurators.” And For A. Caecina: “What a woman promised without a tutor as author is not owed.” And For L. Murena: “Our ancestors wished all women, on account of the weakness of their counsel, to be within the power of tutors.”
At Athens, a limit upon their transaction of business was prescribed by law, and it was defined as six modii of barley. This also seems to have been transferred to the Romans. “Our ancestors,” says Cato in book 4 of the Macedonian War, “did not wish women to conduct even a private matter without an author.” Much more, therefore, are they to be barred from scepters. That defect is one of judgment and prudence, from which arises a certain inconstancy of will, an inclination toward a fall, and a lack of control over the passions. Thus they neither possess authority nor can execute most things without others; it is also not fitting for them to speak in public.
“γυναικὶ κόσμον ἡ σιγὴ φέρει.”
“Silence is a woman’s ornament.”
§ 3. For these reasons the Parthians and Thracians treated women after the fashion of slaves; more mildly did the Lydians and Numidians, among whom women commanded at home and men outside. More mildly, but not rightly; more consonant with nature and reason was the law of Romulus, by which a chaste wife who was compliant toward her husband was mistress of the family equally with the man. For since a woman has been added to a man and it has been said, “You shall be beneath the power of the man,” and since Lucretius sings truly in book 5:
“The whole male sex far excels in art
and is much more skillful,”
equity demands equal rights for the same nature, so that the man may command after the manner of a father of a family, not with the harshness of a master.
Those who cast down into the condition of female slaves the women from whom they were born with pain and by whose milk they were nourished are ungrateful toward nature—women whom they ought to assert into liberty, even at peril of their own head, lest they be slaves. But if, because their nature is less noble than that of men, they must for that reason be deprived of participation in liberty, “Τὸ χεῖρον γὰρ ἀνάγκη νικᾶσθαι ὑπὸ τὸ κρεῖττον, ὅπου τὸ χεῖρόν ἐστι.” For it is necessary that what is inferior should be conquered by what is better, wherever the better exists. Let us also diminish the civil standing of men debilitated by vices, in strength, and in mind, and consign them to workhouses. For there are many women more excellent than many men in many things, as Plato says in book 5 of the Republic.
Therefore the liberty of women, their right within the family, and their honor must be defended no less than their chastity and reputation. For the Christian law also orders that more abundant honor be placed around the weaker vessels, 1 Corinthians 12:23. But only so far that they are companions and assistants, not that they dominate.
Among the Achaeans indeed dominion and the conduct of business resided with women. Hence in Homer’s Iliad they are called insultingly, “κρατούμενοι,” or “those ruled [by women],” “Ἀχαΐδες οὐκ ἔτι Ἀχαιοί”: “Achaean women, no longer Achaeans.” Histories hand down that the Lycians also were subjected to governments by women. And, what I grieve to report, Tacitus says concerning the unconquered Germans: “A woman dominates; to such a degree do they degenerate not only from liberty but even from servitude.” At Rome it was the highest reproach to live an Achaean life. For Plutarch says most truly: “ἡ φύσις παρανομεῖται γυναικοκρατουμένη”; “It is a transgression of nature to be governed by a woman.”
§ 4. Therefore I approve a middle way. Let women and slaves not be held in the same position, as occurs among barbarians according to Aristotle’s testimony. Nor let a husband possess the right of death over them, as among the Gauls, as Caesar teaches in book 6; much less let old women be sold, oppressed by labors, or even buried alive, as was customary among the most monstrous of the barbarians, the Parthians and Thracians.
Conversely, I would not wish government to be conferred upon them by human law unless a great reason demands it. For if it is fitting that an honorable woman should obey her husband, how is it suitable that she should command armies and kingdoms? A man is rendered infamous if he obeys his wife; a wife infamous if she commands her husband.
§ 5. This is a strong presumption against the scepters of women, but not a judgment by which all power and right of governing is denied them. For although the laws order that a woman obey her husband, she is nevertheless mistress of the family—that is, of the maidservants and servants—and illustrious women retain right over their cities and dominions.
§ 6. Therefore I judge the government of a woman legitimate and useful to the commonwealth when, after her husband has died, the children are heirs at an age too young to administer government. Then I judge that, together with the tutors, the mother must be admitted not only to a share in the kingdom but even in precedence over the tutors, with chief authority for educating the son and governing. For she is the mother of the family, and care of the offspring ought not to be denied to her. But that care possesses as an annex the care of the inheritance—that is, of the kingdom. Nor will maternal authority suffice for ruling the son and the son’s ministers unless she also possesses lawful power in the kingdom.
Next, great dangers surround an infant king; and many make use of his age for wrongdoing, many attempt novelties. In this necessity
no one is more sagacious than the mother, no one more faithful to the son, especially since the son’s danger will also drag the mother with it. And the practice of the noblest kingdoms possesses this rule. France does not allow women to be heirs of the kingdom, nor does almost any part of Germany. Nevertheless, queen mothers and princely matrons in Germany, as the most loving guardians and helpers of their sons, are always held in chief honor and consulted concerning public business. I judge that this is done most prudently for many reasons.
For first, it is a decree of divine law that a son should honor his mother. Therefore to approach her, seek counsel, and admit her into participation in affairs is consonant with the bond and obligation of nature. For whom will the prince trust if he does not trust his mother, by whose pain he was born, from whose breasts he hung, and whose safety rests upon the preservation of her son?
Next, it is useful to none of the administrators that the mother should be separated from the administration of affairs. The prince will soon grow to adolescence and recognize the authors of that alienation. He will either disdain the ministers or certainly cast them away when they are detected in some error. Nor will errors be lacking among many; and if they are lacking, nevertheless they will not escape denunciations. Meanwhile the mother will be reconciled with her son; they themselves will pay the penalties of their ill-considered rashness.
But if they possess the prince’s mother as conscious of and authorizing their business, their accounting will not be difficult with such an advocate, nor, in an offense, their pardon with such an intercessor. Therefore it is advantageous to all that authority should remain with the mothers of princes.
§ 7. Second, I approve the government of a woman when, according to the laws of the kingdom, she herself is the heir. For if a farm or castle ought not to be taken from a woman because she is a woman, neither, therefore, should a kingdom, unless by the laws of the kingdom the inferior sex is barred from the scepter. This, nevertheless, under the condition that, with the fatherland consenting or not opposing, she should come under the laws and into the house of a husband; meanwhile, she herself should administer the state.
In this matter, the advantage of the fatherland and the integrity of religion show that two things must be observed. First, let her not love a bridegroom unwelcome or suspect to the fatherland; next, let the fatherland not obtrude upon the heir a man hateful to her. Rather, by mutual consent let them select both a good husband and a good prince. By this method the Spains grew to so great a magnitude; and the best poet begins Roman majesty from a dotal kingdom, “when an only daughter preserved so great a house.”
But it is fitting that this kingdom of a woman should be brief. For there are customarily many competitors when a wife draws so great a dowry; some even advance to such shamelessness that they adorn nuptials with war and blood. For most of the wars which Francis, king of the Gauls, waged with Charles, duke of Guelders, although other causes were displayed as pretexts, tended toward this: that Charles should select for himself a son-in-law from the princes of Gaul. This was so much the case that at times the king himself and Charles were ignorant of the true and inward cause of the war, as Commynes, a most prudent counselor of kings, left in writing.
§ 8. Third, I approve it if the matron is of proven constancy, piety, and prudence, of royal lineage, and possesses the favor of the common crowd and the nobles, especially if otherwise seditions and the promotions of unworthy persons are feared. Pulcheria assuredly preserved the commonwealth while her brother was alive and vindicated it excellently after he died, calling Marcian, a man both brave and just, into partnership.
§ 9. The crimes of women in administering governments which political writers enumerate provide insufficient cause for us to bar all women from public affairs. Jezebel was impious, Athaliah cruel. Laodice, the wife of the Cappadocian, was the murderess of six sons born from herself, much more savage than Medea. Cleopatra was wanton and savage toward her brother. Messalina, Faustina, and Fredegund were monstrous harlots; for these royal women are adduced.
But if we employ that argument, we should not judge even men to have the right to command; they have sinned more often and in more things. Against one Jezebel I set Ahab together with all the apostate kings of Israel; against Athaliah, Abimelech, who killed all his brothers, seventy men, upon one stone. They are indignant that Laodice was savage toward her sons; the Turks do this daily, for they are not ignorant of the law and custom by which they decree government for one and death for the others.
We deny that Messalina, Faustina, and Fredegund commanded. They were powerful harlots and poisoners, and they employed male administrators no better than themselves. Nero surpassed Messalina; Commodus, his mother Faustina. We certainly can recount excellent heroines and bring forward women constant beyond manly strength.
The first is Jael, wife of Heber the Kenite, blessed in her tent. She gave milk to him who sought water and offered butter in the bowl of princes. She put her left hand to the nail and her right hand to the workman’s hammers, struck Sisera, and sought a place for the wound in his head. The second is Deborah, who judged the people, for all Israel ascended to her for every judgment. Judges 4 and 5: “Arise, arise, Deborah; arise, arise, and speak a canticle. The remnants of the people were saved; the Lord contended among the brave. The leaders of Issachar were with Deborah and followed the tracks of Barak, who exposed himself to danger as though plunging headlong into an abyss.”
I would not even exclude from the kingdom that wise woman who settled a most grievous sedition through her eloquence, 2 Kings 20. For she went out to the people and spoke wisely to them, and they cut off the head of Sheba, son of Bichri, and cast it to Joab. She furnished more than victory itself, more than David’s bravest army. The histories of Judith and Esther also are known; I hasten to others: Mamaea, the mother of Alexander; Placidia; Pulcheria; finally Matilda, who, although of unequal power, nevertheless with the highest constancy, fidelity, piety, and prudence defended Italy and the Church against the most powerful kings.
I add to them Isabella, wife of Ferdinand; Irene Augusta; and especially Libussa, queen of the Bohemians, whose government was peaceful, just, and brave. Then she lost the kingdom not through sloth or tyranny but by making a correct judgment for the people, as Aeneas Silvius relates. Two of the best men were contending before her concerning possession of fields. A sentence was pronounced from goodness and equity: the more powerful was condemned in favor of the humbler. He, as if it were an injury for the more powerful man to succumb in a trial, appealed to the people and said that it was dishonorable and unworthy that so great a people, so many nobles, and so great a government should be subject to the judgment of one woman.
The multitude, stirred by his voice, began to accuse government by a woman, to bring forward the customs of neighboring nations, and to seek a man who would rule over them. Libussa, after ordering silence, said that she had perceived the desire of the people and would not frustrate them in it; after her father’s death she had held government for her subjects, not for herself. She ordered them to return on the following day. They obeyed; they departed and returned.
When Libussa saw in the assembly that the multitude was present, she said: “Bohemians, down to this day I have commanded you peacefully and gently, as is the custom of women. I have taken from no one what was his; I have injured no one. You have experienced a mother, not a mistress. But my government is unacceptable to you. You act with me according to the custom of human disposition: nothing pleases a human being for long. Peoples desire a pious and just prince more readily than they endure one.
“Be free, therefore, by my judgment. I shall give you a man who will be over you and judge your heads according to his own decision, as you wished. Go, saddle my white horse and lead it into a broad, open field; release it there free and unbridled, following it wherever it goes. The horse will run for some
time; finally it will halt before a man eating upon an iron table. He will be my husband and your prince.”
The speech was pleasing to the assembly. The released horse traversed ten thousand paces. At last it halted beside the river Biela before a plowman named Primislaus. The nobles and people, reassured after they saw the horse standing and caressing and fawning upon the plowman, came nearer and said: “Hail, good man, whom the gods have given us as prince. Unyoke the oxen, mount the horse, and come with us. Libussa seeks you as husband, Bohemia as leader.” Primislaus, although rustic, received the messengers kindly and answered that he would do what was asked. Thus the most learned man relates it most briefly from Silvius.
But if the rationale of those who admit women also into the hope and inheritance of the kingdom does not yet please, let them assuredly hear of many other reigns by no means to be regretted. Semiramis augmented Babylon. Tomyris propagated the bounds of her government widely and—what is a distinguished glory—satiated the slain Cyrus with blood. Rhodogune vindicated her fatherland; and the kings of the Persians, delighted by her valor, stamped coins with an image of Rhodogune startled, her hair loosened and blowing. For when she heard of the defection of her people while she was washing, she set out against the rebels without drying her hair and even bound herself by an oath that she would not wash her hair unless victory over the enemies had been carried back.
Zarina, queen of the Sacae, by prudence and clemency led her nation toward a gentler and more humane cultivation and founded many cities. So great was her glory among her own people that the Parthians defected from the Medes to her, a distinguished commendation of government by a woman. For they preferred her justice and humanity to the insolence of the Medes and judged that so great was the strength in a woman that they did not doubt they could be defended by her against their former lords.
With how great valor did Blanche, queen of France and mother of St. Louis, both administer the kingdom and educate her son? Margaret, queen of England and wife of Henry VI, when her husband’s zeal for quiet withdrew his mind from public affairs, administered all things in peace and war as an equal to great kings. She restored Henry, captured by conspirators, to liberty by war; expelled from the kingdom, with an indefatigable spirit she sought it again three times with a fleet.
The Poles, bravest of peoples, conferred government upon the heroine Wanda. Since she said, “I prefer to be a prince rather than the wife of a prince,” she lived unmarried and triumphed over the Marcomanni. What people is fiercer, what people more arrogant, than the Lombards? Nevertheless, when Authari died and, as occurs, they divided into factions concerning the successor and sedition and civil war began to grow, they conferred government upon Theodelinda of Bavaria, Authari’s wife, under this law: that whomever she chose as husband, the entire nation would also venerate as king. Thus it was done. She named Agilulf, and from his government that nation began to be more cultivated and humane.
And these things suffice concerning the first causes of the commonwealth—efficient cause, matter, and form. Now let us treat of the end.