From

The Book of the Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry

in

The Writings of Christine de Pizan, ed. by

Charity Cannon Willard, Persea Books 1993, 292-294, 298-299

Concerning the Prime Causes of Wars and Battles (I. iv) 1

As it belongs to sovereign princes to undertake and carry on wars and battles, we must now consider the causes by which, according to lawful means, they may be undertaken and pursued. In this mat-ter one is well advised, it seems to me, to remember that five grounds are commonly held to be the basis of wars, three of which rest on law and the remaining two on will. The first lawful ground upon which wars may be undertaken or pursued is to sustain law and justice; the second is to counteract evildoers who befoul, injure, and oppress the land and the people; and the third is to recover lands, lordships, or other things stolen or usurped for unjust cause by others who are under the jurisdiction of the prince, the country, or its subjects. As for the two of will, one is because of revenge for any loss or damage incurred; the other to conquer and take over foreign lands or lordships.
But going back to the first of these points, which is one of justice:
it should be remembered that there are three chief causes under which the king or prince is empowered to undertake and carry out wars and battles. The first is to uphold and defend the Church and its patrimony against anyone who would defile it; this is expected of all Christian princes. The second is on behalf of his vassal, if he should require it in cases where the prince must settle a quarrel and in which the prince is duly forced to bring about an agreement among various parties, but then only if the adversary proves to be intractable. And the third is that the prince may, if it pleases him, justly go to the aid of any prince, baron, or any other ally or friend of his, or to help any country or land if the need arises and if the quarrel is just; and in this point are included widows, orphans, and all who are unjustly trampled under root by another power.
For this ground and likewise for the other two aforementioned grounds - that is one to counteract evildoers and the other to recover Lost property - it is not only permissible for the prince to start a war r maintain it, indeed he is obliged to do so, through his obligation incurred by his title to lordship and jurisdiction in accordance with his rightful duty.
But as for the other two points - that is, one for revenge for some damage or loss inflicted by another prince, and the other to acquire Foreign lands without title to them - even though conquerors in the past, such as Alexander, the Romans, and others who have been greatly praised and accorded titles of chivalry, as well as those who wreaked great vengeance upon their enemies, for better or for worse, and despite the fact that such actions are commonly undertaken, I do not find in divine law or in any other text that, for these causes, without any other ground, it is proper to start any kind of war or battle upon any Christian land, but rather the contrary.
For according to God's law it is not proper for man either to seize or usurp anything belonging to another, nor even to covet it. Likewise, vengeance is reserved for God, and in no way does any man have the right to carry it out.
But in order to set forth our ideas on this subject more clearly and to answer any questions that might arise, it is true that it is lawful for the prince to keep for himself the same right that is granted to others. And as for what the just prince will do if he considers himself wronged by some other power, should he simply depart, in order to obey divine law, without taking any further action? In God's name, no. For divine law does not deny justice, but rather commands that it should be carried out and requires punishment for misdeeds.2 And in order that a prince may go about the matter justly, he will follow this course: he will gather together a great council of wise men in his parliament, or in that of his sovereign if he is a subject, and not only will he assemble those of his own country, but in order that there may be no suspicion of favor, he will also call upon those from foreign countries who are known nor to take sides, elder statesmen as well as legal advisers and others3; and he will propose or have proposed the whole matter in full and without holding any of it back, for God cannot be deceived, everything according to what may be right or wrong, and he will conclude by saying that he wishes to recount everything and to hold

Here Inquiry Is Made into Whether It Is Right to Seize in
Enemy Territory Simple Peasants Who Are Not Engaged in
Warfare (III. xviii) 4

I ask you whether, whenever a king or prince is warring against another, even though it be just, he has the right to overrun the enemy land and take prisoner all manner of people, common people, that is, peasants, shepherds, and such like; it would appear not. Why should they bear the burden of profession of arms, of which they know nothing? It is not for them to pass judgment about war; common people are not called on to bear arms; rather, it is distasteful to them for they say they want to live in peace and ask no more. They should be free, it seems to me, just as all priests and churchmen are, because their estate is outside military activity. What honor can accrue to a prince to kill, overrun, or seize people who have never borne arms nor could they make use of them, or poor innocent people who do nothing else but till the land and watch over animals?
To this I would answer with a supposition like this: let us suppose that the people of England wished to give no aid to their king in order to injure the king of France, and the French fell upon them instantly with right and reason on their side, and in accordance with lawful practice they should not in any way cause bodily harm or injure the property of the people nor of those who may come to aid the king, offering both goods and counsel. But if the subjects of that king or of another in a similar situation, be they poor or rich, farmers or anything else, give aid and comfort to keep up the war, according to military right the French may overrun their country, seize what they find, that is prisoners of whatever class and all manner of things, without being held by any law to return the same. For I tell you that this is deter-mined as a matter of law, that is the law of war. For if a war is judged by the counsellors of both kings or princes, the men-at-arms can win one over the other. And occasionally the poor and simple folk, who do not bear arms, are injured - it cannot be otherwise, for weeds cannot take root among good plants, because the latter are so close together that the good ones do nor sense their presence. But in truth it is right that the valiant and good gentlemen-at-arms must take every precau-tion not to destroy the poor and simple folk, nor suffer them to be tyrannized or mistreated. For they are Christians and not Saracens. And if I have said that pity is due to some, remember that not less is due the others; those who engage in warfare may be hurt but the humble and peaceful

Notes:

1. The first seven chapters of the book are a discussion of the concept of the Just War from a medieval point of view. This was a subject popular with jurists and theologians of the day. Although Christine's immeidate source here was Honore Bouvet's Tree of Battles, the subject owed much of the its development to the rediscovery of Roman law by jurists at the University of Bologna, where Christine's father and grandfather had beene ducated, and the publication of Gratian's Decretals around 11140. Christine, in accord with many of her contemporaries, was particularly opposed to private wars and duels, which had indeed been outlawed in France in 1405 (Solente, Histoire de litterature francaise, p. 64).

2.The basis for this idea came from Saint Augustine and Isidore of Seville as their ideas were developed by the Italian legists.

3. This practice was followed by Charles V. See the Fais et Bonnes Meurs de Sage Roy Charles V (Solente ed., II, pp. 118-20).

4. Books III and IV are based on HOnore Bouvet's Tree of Battles. This chapter is a considerably revised version of Part IV, chap. 48 of Bouvet's text: "Whether on account of war between the kings ofFrance andEngland the French may lawfully overrun the lands of the English and take their goods." See G.W. Coopland trans. (Liverpool, 1949), pp. 153-54. Christine is more outspoken in her defense of the poor.

Harold Garrett-Goodyear

hgarrett@mtholyoke.edu

Skinner 209, ext. 2451

Dickinson 101, ext. 2055

(insert current office hours here)