Stories About Origins (pp. 115-116)
Stories about origins (here Foucault discusses origin stories about France with respect to Rome) should be disregarded as tentative histories that are tied up with old belief systems, and they should be seen as discourses with specific functions. They function not to record the past, but to speak of power’s right.
The Trojan Myth (p. 116)
The Trojan Myth is that France and Rome are “two branches that grow from the same trunk.” France and Rome are brothers and heirs by virtue of the right of its peoples
France’s Heredity (pp. 116-117)
The Trojan myth means that the king of France has a power over his subjects inherited from those the Roman Emperor held over his subjects, France is heir to the empire and has the same rights of Rome itself. The Trojan mythology was perpetuated until late in the renaissance.
“Franco-Gallia” (pp. 118-119)
Francois Hotman’s text was published in 1573 in which he reintroduces the Germanic thesis that the franks defeated the romans, rather than the gauls (and so were not brothers to rome but adversaries). This reintroduction of the Germanic thesis resulted in the dealth of some states and the birth of others (insofar as states are connected with origin stories).
Invasion, History, and Public Right (pp. 119-121)
From that point on, all the juridico-political debates began to revolve around the theme of invasion. It became no longer possible to recite a lesson in public right which reinforced the unending power of the king. From then on, the great problem of the right was the problem of what happens when one state succeeds another. Hotman’s thesis outlined a juridicial model of government.
National Dualism (pp. 121-127)
Hotman’s thesis was not designed to establish a national duality. In contrast, it helped establish a link between France and Germany. The ideas of restricting the right of the monarchy, reconstructing a past model and reviving a constitution were brought together in Hotman’s discourse but are not found in a national dualism. However there was a backlash against Hotman’s thesis by the French monarchy, and a reintroduction of the Trojan myth by way of Gallo-centrism. And by the end of the seventeenth century, the idea of unity was shattered with the introduction of the theme of national dualism.
The Knowledge of the Prince (pp. 127-128)
A problem in political pedagogy: What must the prince know, where and from whom must he aquire his knowledge, and who is qualified to constitute the knowledge of the prince? In other words politics concerns itself with the body of information about the State, the government and the country needed by the man who will assume the leadership role of that state.
Boulanvillier’s “Etat de la France” (pp. 128- 130)
For Louis XIV to obtain the knowledge of the prince, he had an entourage assemble a mountain of reports, and then appointed Boulanvivlliers to present it. It was so large that they commissioned him to abridge it, and to explain and interpret it. The most important feature of Boulanvillier’s text, in Foucault’s view is a protest against the fact that the knowledge given to the king is a manufactured knowledge. The administration allows the king to rule the country, but through control of information, the administration rules the king.
The Clerk, The Intendant, and the Knowledge of the Aristocracy (pp. 130-133)
Boulanvilier suggested that the nobility needed a counter knowledge to work against the knowledge of the aristocracy. This was knowledge the nobility wished to use to get a grip on the king. The knowledge that the nobility had to get rid of in order to do so, is juridicial knowledge – or the knowledge of the clerk. This is a circular knowledge that derives knowledge from knowledge. Against this, the nobility wished to use history – a history that gets outside right. This history strives to demonstrate that even the most valid institutions of right were the product of a whole series of iniquities, injustices, abuses, dispossessions and betrayals.
The other great adversary for the nobility is the knowledge of th intendant – the knowledge of actual or potential wealth, taxation, and useful taxes. In both cases of knowledge, what is at issue is the knowledge that is created when the state talks to itself.
A New Subject of History (pp. 133-134)
“With Boulainvilliers and the reactionary nobility of the late 18c. a new subject of history appears.” This is a subject that has not been able to speak before. This new subject is the “society” and led to a redefinition of a nation – the Nation begins to speak. This notion of a nation gives rise to the notion of class.
History and Constitution (pp. 135- 138)
History moves from something sacred that reinforces power, to a history of power’s lower depths and betrayals. This provides the foundation of what will later become French right-wing thought. And just as the discourse began to circulate, royal power tried to appropriate and control it. A ministry of history was established between the Prince and the administration in an effort to control the knowledge.
