The Political Ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas

• Publisher: Free Press
• Year: 1997
• ISBN:
  9781439105603
• Topic: Philosophie
• Subtopic: Histoire et théorie de la philosophie

Originally published in The Hafner Library of Classics in 1953, The Political Ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas provides important insights into the human side of one of the most influential medieval philosophers. St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1226–1274) is recognized for having synthesized Christian theology with Aristotelian metaphysics, and for his spirited philosophical defense of Christianity that was addressed to the non-Christian reader. In this collection, editor Dino Bigongiari has selected Aquinas's key writings on politics, justice, social problems, and forms of government, including the philosopher's main works: Regimine Principus (On Kinship) and The Summa Theologica.In an authoritative discussion of the historical background and evolution of St. Thomas Aquinas's political ideas, Dr. Bigongiari's commentary explains this philosopher's enduring influence and legacy. Accompanying explanatory notes and a helpful glossary of unusual terms and familiar words help to make this practical volume an ideal text for students and general readers alike.

CHAPTER ONE
WHAT IS MEANT BY THE WORD “KING”

[3] In all things which are ordered toward an end wherein this or that course may be adopted, some directive principle is needed through which the due end may be reached by the most direct route. A ship, for example, which moves in different directions according to the impulse of the changing winds would never reach its destination were it not brought to port by the skill of the pilot. Now, man has an end to which his whole life and all his actions are ordered; for man is an intelligent agent, and it is clearly the part of an intelligent agent to act in view of an end. Men also adopt different methods in proceeding toward their proposed end, as the diversity of men’s pursuits and actions clearly indicates. Consequently man needs some directive principle to guide him toward his end.

[4] To be sure, the light of reason is placed by nature in every man, to guide him in his acts toward his end. Wherefore, if man were intended to live alone, as many animals do, he would require no other guide to his end. Each man would be a king unto himself, under God, the highest King, inasmuch as he would direct himself in his acts by the light of reason given him from on high. Yet it is natural for man, more than for any other animal, to be a social and political animal,¹ to live in a group.²

[5] This is clearly a necessity of man’s nature.³ For all other animals, nature has prepared food, hair as a covering, teeth, horns, claws as means of defense, or at least speed in flight, while man alone was made without any natural provisions for these things. Instead of all these, man was endowed with reason, by the use of which he could procure all these things for himself by the work of his hands.⁴ Now, one man alone is not able to procure them all for himself, for one man could not sufficiently provide for life unassisted. It is therefore natural that man should live in the society of many.

[6] Moreover, all other animals are able to discern, by inborn skill, what is useful and what is injurious, even as the sheep naturally regards the wolf as his enemy. Some animals also recognize by natural skill certain medicinal herbs and other things necessary for their life. Man, on the contrary, has a natural knowledge of the things which are essential for his life only in a general fashion, inasmuch as he is able to attain knowledge of the particular things necessary for human life by reasoning from natural principles. But it is not possible for one man to arrive at a knowledge of all these things by his own individual reason. It is therefore necessary for man to live in a multitude so that each one may assist his fellows, and different men may be occupied in seeking, by their reason, to make different discoveries—one, for example, in medicine, one in this and another in that.

[7] This point is further and most plainly evidenced by the fact that the use of speech is a prerogative proper to man. By this means, one man is able fully to express his conceptions to others. Other animals, it is true, express their feelings to one another in a general way, as a dog may express anger by barking and other animals give vent to other feelings in various fashions. But man communicates with his kind more completely than any other animal known to be gregarious, such as the crane, the ant, or the bee.⁵—With this in mind, Solomon says: “It is better that there be two than one; for they have the advantage of their company.”⁶

[8] If, then, it is natural for man to live in the society of many, it is necessary that there exist among men some means by which the group may be governed. For where there are many men together and each one is looking after his own interest, the multitude would be broken up and scattered unless there were also an agency to take care of what appertains to the common weal. In like manner, the body of a man or any other animal would disintegrate unless there were a general ruling force within the body which watches over the common good of all members.—With this in mind, Solomon says: “Where there is no governor, the people shall fall.”⁷

[9] Indeed it is reasonable that this should happen, for what is proper and what is common are not identical.⁸ Things differ by what is proper to each; they are united by what they have in common. But diversity of effects is due to diversity of causes. Consequently, there must exist something which impels toward the common good of the many, over and above that which impels toward the particular good of each individual. Wherefore also in all things that are ordained toward one end, one thing is found to rule the rest.⁹ Thus in the corporeal universe, by the first body, i.e., the celestial body, the other bodies are regulated according to the order of divine providence; and all bodies are ruled by a rational creature.¹⁰ So, too, in the individual man, the soul rules the body; and among the parts of the soul, the irascible and the concupiscible parts are ruled by reason.¹¹ Likewise, among the members of a body, one, such as the heart or the head, is the principal and moves all the others.¹² Therefore in every multitude there must be some governing power.

[10] Now it happens in certain things which are ordained toward an end that one may proceed in a right way and also in a wrong way. So, too, in the government of a multitude there is a distinction between right and wrong. A thing is rightly directed when it is led toward a befitting end, wrongly when it is led toward an unbefitting end.¹³ Now the end which befits a multitude of free men is different from that which befits a multitude of slaves, for the free man is one who exists for his own sake, while the slave, as such, exists for the sake of another.¹⁴ If, therefore, a multitude of free men is ordered by the ruler toward the common good of the multitude, that rulership will be right and just, as is suitable to free men. If, on the other hand, a rulership aims, not at the common good of the multitude, but at the private good of the ruler, it will be an unjust and perverted rulership. The Lord, therefore, threatens such rulers, saying by the mouth of Ezechiel: “Woe to the shepherds that feed themselves (seeking, that is, their own interest): should not the flocks be fed by the shepherd?”¹⁵ Shepherds indeed should seek the good of their flocks, and every ruler, the good of the multitude subject to him.

[11] If an unjust government is carried on by one man alone,¹⁶ who seeks his own benefit from his rule and not the good of the multitude subject to him, such a ruler is called a “tyrant”—a word derived from “strength”—because he oppresses by might instead of ruling by justice.¹⁷ Thus among the ancients all powerful men were called tyrants. If an unjust government is carried on, not by one but by several, and if they be few, it is called an “oligarchy,” that is, the rule of a few. This occurs when a few, who differ from the tyrant only by the fact that they are more than one, oppress the people by means of their wealth. If, finally, the bad government is carried on by the multitude, it is called a “democracy,” i.e., control by the populace, which comes about when the plebeian people by force of numbers oppress the rich. In this way the whole people will be as one tyrant.

[12] In like manner we must divide just governments. If the government is administered by many, it is given the name common to all forms of government, viz., “polity,” as for instance when a group of warriors exercise dominion over a city or province.¹⁸ If it is administered by a few men of virtue, this kind of government is called an “aristocracy,” i.e., noble governance, or governance by noble men, who for this reason are called the “Optimates.”¹⁹ And if a just government is in the hands of one man alone, he is properly called a “king.” Wherefore the Lord says by the mouth of Ezechiel: “My servant, David, shall be king over them and all of them shall have one shepherd.”²⁰

[13] From this it is clearly shown that the idea of king implies that he be one man who is chief and that he be a shepherd seeking the common good of the multitude and not his own.

[14] Now since man must live in a group, because he is not sufficient unto himself to procure the necessities of life were he to remain solitary, it follows that a society will be the more perfect the more it is sufficient unto itself to procure the necessities of life.²¹ There is, to some extent, sufficiency for life in one family of one household, namely, in so far as pertains to the natural acts of nourishment and the begetting of offspring and other things of this kind. Self-sufficiency exists, furthermore, in one street²² with regard to those things which belong to the trade of one guild. In a city, which is the perfect community, it exists with regard to all the necessities of life. Still more self-sufficiency is found in a province²³ because of the need of fighting together and of mutual help against enemies. Hence the man ruling a perfect community, i.e., a city or a province, is antonomastically²⁴ called the king. The ruler of a household is called father, not king, although he bears a certain resemblance to the king, for which reason kings are sometimes called the fathers of their peoples.²⁵

[15] It is plain, therefore, from what has been said, that a king is one who rules the people of one city or province, and rules them for the common good. Wherefore Solomon says: “The king ruleth over all the land subject to him.”²⁶

CHAPTER TWO
WHETHER IT IS MORE EXPEDIENT FOR A CITY OR PROVINCE TO BE RULED BY ONE MAN OR BY MANY

[16] Having set forth these preliminary points we must now inquire what is better for a province or a city: whether to be ruled by one man or by many.

[17] This question may be considered first from the viewpoint of the purpose of government. The aim of any ruler should be directed toward securing the welfare of that which he undertakes to rule. The duty of the pilot, for instance, is to preserve his ship amidst the perils of the sea and to bring it unharmed to the port of safety. Now the welfare and safety of a multitude formed into a society lies in the preservation of its unity, which is called peace. If this is removed, the benefit of social life is lost and, moreover, the multitude in its disagreement becomes a burden to itself. The chief concern of the ruler of a multitude, therefore, is to procure the unity of peace.¹ It is not even legitimate for him to deliberate whether he shall establish peace in the multitude subject to him, just as a physician does not deliberate whether he shall heal the sick man encharged to him,² for no one should deliberate about an end which he is obliged to seek, but only about the means to attain that end. Wherefore the Apostle, having commended the unity of the faithful people, says: “Be ye careful to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.”³ Thus, the more efficacious a government is in keeping the unity of peace, the more useful it will be. For we call that more useful which leads more directly to the end. Now it is manifest that what is itself one can more efficaciously bring about unity than several—just as the most efficacious cause of heat is that which is by its nature hot.⁴ Therefore the rule of one man is more useful than the rule of many.

[18] Furthermore, it is evident that several persons could by no means preserve the stability of the community if they totally disagreed. For union is necessary among them if they are to rule at all; several men, for instance, could not pull a ship in one direction unless joined together in some fashion. Now several are said to be united according as they come closer to being one. So one man rules better than several who come near being one.⁵

[19] Again, whatever is in accord with nature is best, for in all things nature does what is best. Now every natural governance is governance by one.^a In the multitude of bodily members there is one which is the principal mover, namely, the heart; and among the powers of the soul one power presides as chief, namely, the reason. Among bees there is one king bee,^b and in the whole universe there is One God, Maker and Ruler of all things. And there is a reason for this. Every multitude is derived from unity. Wherefore, if artificial things are an imitation of natural things and a work of art is better according as it attains a closer likeness to what is...