Philip the Fair--A "Constitutional" King

Abstract

THE reign of Philip the Fair offers one of the great paradoxes of French history. On the one hand, it sees the culmination of the medieval French monarchy; the royal government reaches a peak of power which it is not to attain again for generations. On the other hand, the king who presides over the government during these crowded years of great events is a shadowy, elusive figure, almost completely hidden behind a screen of bureaucrats. It is hard to prove that any important act of the reign was the result of a personal decision by the king. It is easy to argue that he did nothing, and by doing nothing allowed his ministers to express the traditions of the bureaucracy in a relentless drive for power. And yet those who believe that the important decisions of the reign were made by Philip's ministers merely change the form but not the substance of the paradox. For no one minister held power throughout the reign and no one minister had complete control of the government for even a short period. Yet basic policy remained constant, though tactics changed. If the king did not give continuity and direction to policy, who did? Can it be true that the whole bureaucracy was so imbued with the spirit of aggrandizement that it made no difference who was selected to sit in the royal Council? Or did Philip express his hidden desires through a careful choice of ministers? This problem worried Philip's contemporaries, and it has worried historians ever since. On the whole, French writers of the early fourteenth century tended to believe that Philip was dominated by evil counsellors. This is the story of Yves of St. Denis,' of Geoffroi de Paris,2 even of such an ardent supporter of the monarchy as Pierre Dubois.3 Bishop Bernard Saisset made many indiscreet remarks, but the one which stung most and hias been re-