Helinand’s De Bono Regimine Principis: A Mirror for Princes or an Exegesis of Deuteronomy 17, 14-20?

Abstract

Book 11 of the Universal History composed by the Cistercian monk Helinand of Froidmont in the first decades of the thirteenth century contains a comprehensive chapter entitled ‘Lex de rege constituendo’. About half of this chapter has been edited as a separate treatise under the title ‘De bono regimine principis’ in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, vol. 212. Today, it is commonly considered to be a Mirror for Princes. Twentieth-century scholarship generally claims that ‘De bono regimine’ originally existed as an independent treatise composed by Helinand under commission of King Philip Augustus of France and subsequently inserted - by Helinand himself - in his Chronicon. This view appears, however, to be based on an error that originated in Oudin’s Commentarius (1722) and that has gained increasing acceptance in modern scholarship since having been adopted by Wilhelm Berges in his pioneering study Die Fürstenspiegel in 1938. The misconception is all the more remarkable given the lack of any evidence for the existence of a Mirror of Princes by Helinand in his own writings or in Vincent of Beauvais’ Speculum Historiale, which was the most important witness for Helinand’s life and works in the Middle Ages. A closer inspection of Book 11 provides evidence for a reversal of the accepted chronology. Books 10 and 11 constitute a commentary on the Bible books of Exodus through Deuteronomy. The chapter of Book 11 entitled ‘Lex de rege constituendo’ is a regular and systematic continuation of this commentary. Though longer than the surrounding chapters, it is not essentially different from them; the chapter is part of a biblical exegesis and not an instructive guide for princes. Furthermore, the exegetical character of this chapter must have been clearly apparent from the very beginning of its conception. The present text ‘De bono regimine’ was excerpted by Vincent of Beauvais from the Chronicon, abbreviated, restructured and included as an independent text in the Speculum Historiale. The above-mentioned misreading then caused it to gain the status of a separate treatise composed by order of the French King.