Secondary Analysis History.

MODULE 4 HISTORY 102H: INTERPRETING THE EUROPEAN PAST

Thomas Aquinas On Kingship (written in 1267)

1.3 …[W]e must now inquire what is better for a province or a city: whether to be ruled by one man or by

many. This question may be considered first from the viewpoint of the purpose of government. The aim of any

ruler should be directed towards 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. 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 entrusted to him, for no one

should deliberate about an end which he is obliged to seek, but only about the means to attain that end…. Thus,

the more efficacious a government is in keeping the unity of peace, the more useful it will be…. 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. Therefore the rule of one man is more useful than the

rule of many.

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.

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. 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’ 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…as it attains a closer likeness to what is in nature, it follows that it is

best for a human multitude to be ruled by one person.

This is also evident from experience. For provinces or cities which are not ruled by one person are torn with

dissensions and tossed about without peace…. On the other hand, provinces and cities which are ruled under

one king enjoy peace, flourish in justice, and delight in prosperity. Hence, the Lord by His prophets promises to

His people as a great reward that He will give them one head and that “one Prince will be in the midst of them”

[Ezekiel 34:24, Jeremiah 30:21].

1.4 Just as the government of a king is the best, so the government of a tyrant is the worst. For democracy

stands in…opposition to polity [polity: a government where citizens at large govern for the public good], since

both are governments carried on by many persons…; while oligarchy is the opposite of aristocracy, since both

are governments carried on by a few persons; and kingship is the opposite of tyranny since both are carried on

by one person. Now, as has been shown above, monarchy is the best government. If therefore, “it is the contrary

of the best that is worst,” it follows that tyranny is the worst kind of government….

Moreover, a government becomes unjust by the fact that the ruler, paying no heed to the common good, seeks

his own private good. Wherefore the further he departs from the common good the more unjust will his

government be. But there is a greater departure from the common good in an oligarchy, in which the advantage

of a few is sought, than in a democracy, in which the advantage of many is sought; and there is a still greater

departure from the common good in a tyranny, where the advantage of only one man is sought. For a large

number is closer to the totality than a small number, and a small number than only one. Thus, the government of

a tyrant is the most unjust….

1.5 Because both the best and the worst government are latent in…in the rule of one man, the royal dignity is

rendered hateful to many people on account of the wickedness of tyrants. Some men, indeed, whilst they desire

to be ruled by a king, fall under the cruelty of tyrants, and not a few rulers exercise tyranny under the cloak of

royal dignity.

A clear example of this is found in the Roman Republic. When the kings had been driven out by the Roman

people, because they could not bear the…tyrannical arrogance, they instituted consuls and other magistrates by

whom they began to be ruled and guided. They changed the kingdom into an aristocracy, and, as Sallust relates:

“The Roman city, once liberty was won, waxed incredibly strong and great in a remarkably short time.” For it

frequently happens that men living under a king strive more sluggishly for the common good, inasmuch as they

consider that what they devote to the common good, they do not confer upon themselves but upon another,

under whose power they see the common goods to be. But when they see that the common good is not under the

power of one man, they do not attend to it as if it belonged to another, but each one attends to it as if it were his

own. Experience thus teaches that one city administered by rulers, changing annually, is sometimes able to do

more than some kings…and small services exacted by kings weigh more heavily than great burdens imposed by

the community of citizens. This held good in the history of the Roman Republic….

On the other hand, when the Romans were worn out by continual dissensions taking on the proportion of civil

wars, and when by these wars the freedom for which they had greatly striven was snatched from their hands,

they began to find themselves under the power of emperors who, from the beginning, were unwilling to be

called kings, for the royal name was hateful to the Romans. Some emperors, it is true, faithfully cared for the

common good in a kingly manner, and by their zeal the commonwealth was increased and preserved. But most

of them became tyrants towards their subjects while indolent and vacillating before their enemies and brought

the Roman commonwealth to naught….

1.7 Therefore, since the rule of one man…is to be preferred, and since it may…be changed into a tyranny…, a

scheme should be carefully worked out which would prevent the multitude ruled by a king from falling into the

hands of a tyrant. First, it is necessary that the man who is raised up to be king by those whom it concerns

should be of such condition that it is improbable that he should become a tyrant. Wherefore Daniel…says: “The

Lord sought a man according to his own heart, and the Lord appointed him to be prince over his people.” Then,

once the king is established, the government of the kingdom must be so arranged that opportunity to tyrannize is

removed. At the same time his power should be so tempered that he cannot easily fall into tyranny.…

…If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a…multitude, it is not unjust that the king be deposed or

have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he abuses the royal power. It must not be

thought that such a multitude is acting unfaithfully in deposing the tyrant, even though it had previously

subjected itself to him in perpetuity, because he himself has deserved that the covenant with his subjects should

not be kept, since, in ruling the multitude, he did not act faithfully as the office of a king demands….

Should no human aid whatsoever against a tyrant be forthcoming, recourse must be had to God, the King of all,

Who is a helper in due time in tribulation. For it lies in his power to turn the cruel heart of the tyrant to

mildness…. Those tyrants, however, whom he deems unworthy of conversion, he is able to put out of the way

or to degrade….He it was who, seeing the affliction of his people in Egypt and hearing their cry, hurled

Pharaoh, a tyrant over God’s people, with all his army into the sea. He it was who not only banished from his

kingly throne…Nebuchadnezzar because of his former pride, but also cast him from the fellowship of men and

changed him into the likeness of a beast. Indeed, His hand is not shortened that He cannot free His people from

tyrants. For by Isaiah He promised to give his people rest from their labors and lashings and harsh slavery in

which they had formerly served…

But to deserve to secure this benefit from God, the people must desist from sin, for it is by divine permission

that wicked men receive power to rule as a punishment for sin, as the Lord says by the Prophet Hosea [13:11]:

“I will give you a king in my wrath” and it is said in Job [34:30] that he “makes a man that is a hypocrite to

reign for the sins of the people.” Sin must therefore be done away with in order that the scourge of tyrants may

cease…