In the Defender of Peace or Defensor pacis (1324), the great theorist Marsilius of Padua presents a pragmatic defense of the existing political situation of his time when the emperors tried to reestablish the wit of the monarchy that was being restrained by the multitude and also where the church was claiming unquestioned loyalty. Like Bartolo of Sassoferrato, Marsiglio too depended on the Aristotelian dictums and posed the weight of the ‘best of philosophers’ against contemporary authorities.
Aristotle has described the city in Politics Book I as “a perfect community possessing every limit of self sufficiency, as it is consequent to say, having thus come about for the sake of living, but existing for the sake of living well.” By stating this Aristotle outlines the final and perfect cause of a civil life: not just to live but to live well. Man is in need of different arts to sustain him and since perfect passion is not acquired before birth, man needs to achieve tempering by going beyond natural causes and using his reasons to create it. It is equally important to moderate the acts originating from one’s abilities so that it causes no injury or discomfort to others. In order to prevent the disintegration of a city owing to civil strife, Marsilius states the necessity of a judiciary or the councilor with a set body of rules to regulate what is beneficent/beneficial and just in a community. The ‘judiciary’ forms a part of the six part structure of a city that also includes ‘agriculture’, ‘manufacture’, ‘military’, ‘financial’, and ‘priesthood’ sectors (Politics Book 7).
The different parts of a city were constructed to attain a sufficient and privileged life and it came through a motive cause called the ‘legislator’. Marsilius refers to Aristotle’s idea in the Politics when he states that the legislator differentiates the parts of a city ‘in the manner of the nature of an animal’ (Aristotle claimed the city to be like an organic structure). The princely parts of the city-state are also referred to as the PRINCIPATES that are of two kinds: well-tempered and flawed. While Aristotle describes a ‘well-tempered principate’ as the governance of a state by a prince in accordance with the will of his subjects for general good, a ‘flawed principate’ is defined in quite the opposite terms.
The ‘tempered principate’ can further be subdivided into:
i) Royal monarchy
ii) Aristocracy
iii) Polity
The ‘flawed principate’ is sub-divided into:
i) Tyrannical monarchy
ii) Oligarchy
iii) Democracy
Marsiglio has made the divisions of the various principates in accordance with Book 3 and 4 of Politics and described them according to Aristotle’s understanding of the terms.
· While ‘Royal monarchy’ refers to the domination of a single man for common good in accordance with the will of his subjects, ‘Tyranny’ is considered an antithesis to ‘Royal Monarchy’. It is a ‘flawed principate’ where a single man dominates to his own advantage without the consent and will of his subjects.
· ‘Aristocracy’ is a ‘ tempered principate’ in which the ‘notables’ (the priesthood , the military and the judiciary who formed the part of a city in an unqualified sense) alone
govern the city-state for the common good. Contrary to it is the flawed principate ‘Oligrachy’ where the richer or the more powerful dominates over unwilling subjects by force.
· ‘Polity’ implies a specific type of tempered principate or regime where every citizen has a share in the councilor functions for common advantage whereas in ‘Democracy’ the plebeians or the multitudes of the poor establish the principate and rule by themselves without the consent of other citizens.
Principates can be broadly classified as being established over willing subjects or over unwilling ones. The ‘Royal monarchy’, the first in the category of ‘tempered principate’ is considered to be more perfect. Aristotle has claimed in Politics Book IV Chapter 8 that certain principates were termed ‘royal’ ‘because they were according to the law’ and ‘because they exercised monarchy over the voluntary’. The other was marked as ‘tyrannical’ for they ruled like masters and according to their own opinion. Marsiglio went on to affirm that the will of the governed subjects play a major role in determining the type of principate.
Mode of establishing the Principate:
While ‘tempered principates’ are established through election, ‘flawed principates’ are established through unfair means. Since the ‘royal monarchy’ is considered to be the best mode of government by Aristotle, he has enumerated the five modes of establishing it in Politics Book III Chapter 8:
i) Where the monarch is instituted for the completion of a single task like leading an army to battle (e.g. : Agamemnon’s election by the Greeks).
ii) Becoming a prince through hereditary succession (e.g.: certain Asian monarchs’ election). It is often considered a quasi-despotic law, for the citizens have to bear the barbarous and servile nature of the princes at times.
iii) A principate where an elected individual exercises the function of a prince. But it is quasi-tyrannical for being advantageous to the monarch rather than the subjects.
iv) A principate where some individuals are elected as the ‘prince’ with their posterity in accordance with the law.
v) Establishment of a prince as the lord of everything in a community, disposing of people and things according to his own will.
The remaining types of principates too can be established as governance over willing subjects (where he is elected by the multitude) or unwilling subjects (where he forces himself upon his subjects) that categorically marks them as tempered and flawed principates respectively. Hence, Marsiglio rightly concludes that the elected kind of principate is superior to the non-elected. This form of principate is also more enduring ‘for election can never fail, so long as human race does not’.
. A perfect analogy is drawn between the city-state and an animal where the principate is compared to the heart of an animal (here Marsiglio takes the idea from the Paduan physician Dino del Garbo, his contemporary). It is considered to be the most noble part of a city that works in accordance with reason and the virtue of which is the law (also referred to as ‘statutes’ or ‘customs’) that manifests(empowers) the principate to judge, command or execute sentences if and when required for a better living. Considered to be the most prudent and virtuous of all parts of a city, the principate is also entrusted with the task of dividing the city into various parts as per the law by designating men of required skill and disposition to their respective offices. This view of Aristotle stated in The Ethics Book I Chapter 1 (“for this ordains which disciplines should exist in cities and which each individual should learn and to what extent”) is propounded by Marsiglio in chapter 15 of the first Discourse of Defensor pacis. The efficient cause of the law, i.e. the legislator of the principate can either be the multitude or few virtuous men. It is their approval that is mainly required to pass a law concerning ‘various ceremonies or solemnities’. But the legislators should also take into consideration, while instituting the principates, that different multitudes at different places and time will prefer one form of principate over the others. So, it is the princely part that has to institute, differentiate and preserve the rest of the parts of a city in accordance with human law for the proper functioning of a city-state leading to a good way of life.
Sraddha Chatterjee, PG II
Roll No : 72
No comments:
Post a Comment