Thomas Aquinas on Mixed Government and The

CEU eTD Collection THOMAS AQUINAS ONMIXEDGOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DOMINICANORDER MA Thesis inComparativeHistory, withaspecialization in InterdisciplinaryMedievalStudies. Central EuropeanUniversity Dóra Kis-Jakab May 2014 Budapest

CEU eTD Collection THOMAS AQUINAS ONMIXEDGOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT OF Central EuropeanUniversity, Budapest,inpartialfulfillmentof the requirements of theMaster Arts degreeinComparativeHistory, withaspecializationin Accepted inconformancewiththestandardsofCEU. Thesis submittedtotheDepartmentofMedievalStudies, ______Interdisciplinary MedievalStudies. Chair, ExaminationCommittee THE DOMINICANORDER Thesis Supervisor Dóra Kis-Jakab (Hungary) May 2014 Examiner Examiner Budapest by CEU eTD Collection THOMAS AQUINAS ONMIXEDGOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT OF Central EuropeanUniversity, Budapest,inpartialfulfillmentof the requirements of theMaster Arts degreeinComparativeHistory, withaspecializationin Accepted inconformancewiththestandardsofCEU. Thesis submittedtotheDepartmentofMedievalStudies, ______Interdisciplinary MedievalStudies THE DOMINICANORDER External Reader Dóra Kis-Jakab (Hungary) May 2014 Budapest by

CEU eTD Collection THOMAS AQUINAS ONMIXEDGOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT OF Central EuropeanUniversity, Budapest,inpartialfulfillmentof the requirements

of theMaster Arts degreeinComparativeHistory, withaspecializationin Accepted inconformancewiththestandardsofCEU Thesis submittedtotheDepartmentofMedievalStudies, ______Interdisciplinary MedievalStudies. THE DOMINICANORDER External Supervisor Dóra Kis-Jakab (Hungary) May 2014 Budapest by

CEU eTD Collection Budapest, 21May2014 to anyotherinstitutionofhighereducationforanacademicdegree. institution’s copyright. I alsodeclare that no part of thethesishasbeen submitted in this form use wasmade ofthe work ofothers, and nopart of the thesis infringes on any person’s or illegitimate and unidentified no that declare bibliography.I and notes in credited properly as thesis isexclusively my ownwork,basedonresearchandonlysuchexternal information with aspecialization in Interdisciplinary Medieval Studies declare herewith thatthepresent I, the undersigned, Dóra Kis-Jakab, candidate for the MA degree in Comparative History, ______Signature CEU eTD Collection indebted tohimforlettingmeusepiecesofhisownlibrary. his valuable comments and advices on the government ofthe Dominican Order andIam also his substantialobservationsandencouragement. thanks areduetoGáborKlaniczayfor My process ofwritingthisthesis.IamalsogratefultomysecondreaderMatthiasRiedlforall supervisor György Gerébyforhisconstantintellectual supportandhelpduringthewhole University who helped me while I was working onthisproject. I am much obliged to my I am grateful to the whole staff of Medieval Studies Department at the Central European ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CEU eTD Collection BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 81 CONCLUSION...... 79 DOMINICAN INFLUENCES IN INFLUENCES DOMINICAN AQUINAS’ NOTIONOFGOVERNMENT...... 56 MIXED GOVERNMENTTHE MIXED OF ORDER...... 32 THE DOMINICAN THOMAS ON BESTAQUINAS GOVERNMENT...... 7 INTRODUCTION Secondary sources...... 82 Primary sources...... 81 Dominican Practice, Thomistic Notions...... 59 Aquinas’Government ...... 56 Dominican the in Role Constitutional Checks inthe Dominican Government ...... 51 Elements of MixedGovernment intheDominican Order The Best Government...... 22 Aquinas’ Two TypologiesGovernment...... 14 Political of Literature Overview The Dominican Order Theories ofMixedGovernment...... 3 The Western Integration of Aristotle’s Political Notions...... 2 Legal Limitations...... 73 Unity inMonarchy Offices ...... 66 of Rotation Removal of Rulers...... 62 Elections...... 59 The Monarchic Element Element The Aristocratic The Democratic Element Mixed Governmentasan Alternative Pure MonarchyandItsDangers...... 22 Modes ofGovernment: Despotic, Regal, and Political Forms ofGovernment: The RuleofOne,theFew, andtheRuleofMany ...... 1 ...... 8 ...... 5 ...... 70 ...... 49 ...... 41 ...... 37 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 26 i ...... 34 ...... 18 ...... 15 CEU eTD Collection Fig. 1. The constitutionofDominicanchapters.43.Createdbytheauthor. LIST OF FIGURES ii CEU eTD Collection http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ 2002. Pol. ST Sent. DR LP DCD Aristotle. Thomas Aquinas. “Summa Theologica.” trans. R. W. Dyson,72-75.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, Tyrants inParticular. InStThomas Aquinas PoliticalWritings, ed.and Whether Christians Are BoundtoObeytheSecularPowers,and Thomas Aquinas. ScriptaSuperLibros Sententiarum,II.44.2.2: of MedievalStudies,1982. Phelan, RevisedbyI. TH. Eschmann, Toronto: The PontificalInstitute Thomas Aquinas. OnKingship.To theKingofCyprus. Regan, Indianapolis:HackettPublishing,2007. Thomas Aquinas. Commentaryon Aristotle’s Politics. H. Bettenson.Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks,1984. Augustin: The PeripateticPress,1986. LIST OFLIST ABBREVIATIONS Politics Concerning theCityofGod Against thePagans . Trans. byH.G. Apostle, andL.P. Gerson,Grinnell: iii . Lastaccessed:May15,2014. Trans. byR.J. Trans. byG.B. . Trans. by CEU eTD Collection 4 3 2 1 coercive kind. is of a directive kind, and another, which emerged only after the appearance of sin, is of a that therearetwokindsofgovernment: one, whichexistedeveninthestate ofinnocence, but hestill considers that a distinction was implemented bytheFall. As aresult,heargues preserving elements of both.Headopts Aristotle’s notionofman’s essentially political nature, together inapolitical community is anessentialconstituent of humannature. by Aristotle, whodeclaresthatmanisazoónpolitikon, meaning that theinclination for living Middle Ages, also dealt with issues ofpolitics. His interest in this topic was probably inspired was Aristotle’s politicaltheory. What is the best government for human communities? One of his major influences on this issue question: following the with himself concerns Accordingly,governance. Aquinas political of he maintains that it is natural for human beings to live together in society under some kind political lifeisnotpartofman’s essentialnature. He, accordingly,no political that inthestateofinnocencetherewas government, and proposes that political life is the result of and punishment for man’s fall into his present sinful condition. community. argues political Augustine of theory contradicts Augustine’sinfluential however, (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1982),759-761. Rediscovery of Aristotle totheDisintegrationofScholasticism1100-1600, ed.N.Kretzmannand A. Kenny State ofNatureandtheOrigin ofState,”in ST, I.96.4. ST, I.96.4.andDR,1.8. The issue isdescribedinmoredetail,forinstance,in:D.E.Luscombe, “The DCD,XIX.15. Pol.1253A1-11. Thomas Aquinas, primarily considered to be one of the most eminent theologians of the Aquinas, however, expresses a view different from both Aristotle and Augustine, while 3 Thomas insists that man is naturally asocial and political animal. INTRODUCTION The CambridgeHistoryofLater MedievalPhilosophy:From the 1 2 1 This notion, This 4 That is, That CEU eTD Collection N. Kretzmannand A. Kenny(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1982),723. Medieval Philosophy:From the Rediscoveryof Aristotle totheDisintegrationofScholasticism1100-1600, ed. the endofpoliticalcommunity, andjustunjustgovernments. slavery, the family, political unity, political regimes, citizenship, the specific virtues of a citizen, ends at Book III,6.Intheseparagraphs many issues are covered, including political community, of book first the from starts commentary his and 1272, and 1269 between text the on unraveling the Aristotelian ideas partially hidden by the translation. focused mostly himself, frequently Aquinas and Great including Aquinas’the teacher, Albert 2007. 10 9 8 7 6 5 unintelligibility”. by counterbalanced than more is accuracy Unfortunately, rendering. accurate very a is “it that attempts to be maximally faithful to the original text. Despite its minor errors, Dunbabin asserts completed in 1260.JeanDunbabin describes this version asaword-for-word translation, which explained in the of hisCategoriesandDeinterpretiatione more extensive study of Aristotle only started in the thirteenth century. were accessibleinLatin at theendoftwelfthcentury, theywerenotwidelyread,andthe governmental formsandthebestgovernment. first to render the Latin version of the translator of the Aristotelian corpus was William of Moerbeke, a Dominican friar. He was the (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1982),45-46. Rediscovery of Aristotle totheDisintegrationofScholasticism 1100-1600, ed.N.Kretzmannand A. Kenny Dunbabin,“TheReceptionand Interpretationof Aristotle’s Politics, J.H.Dunbabin,“TheReceptionandInterpretationof Aristotle’s Politics. Dod,Ibid.,49-51. Dod,“AristotelesLatinus,”48-49. BernardG.Dod,“AristotelesLatinus,”in See Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics Accordingly, formost Western scholars, the political conceptions of Aristotle, as Aristotle was known in the Western world from quite early on. The first Latin translations The Western Integrationof Aristotle’s PoliticalNotions Politics, 8 Thus, concludes Dunbabin, theearliest Latin commentators on thetext, became accessible only after Moerbeke’s Latin translation was The CambridgeHistoryofLaterMedievalPhilosophy:From the Politics weremade by Boethius. , Aristotle’s majorworkdiscussingsuchissuesas 7 2 , trans. R. J. Regan, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, ” 724. ” inTheCambridgeHistoryofLater 10 5 Still, while most ofhistexts 9 Aquinas commented on 6 At this time the major Politics and CEU eTD Collection University Press,1982),87-88. 13 University Press,1992),5. 12 11 Politics rediscovery inthe Western theoretical tradition initiated by theLatintranslation of Aristotle’s it inhisownpoliticaltheory. commenting on Aristotle’s work,became familiar with this idea, he made considerable use of of Aristotle’srediscovery constitution of Aristotle withtheMosaic governmentasdescribedintheBible. mixed Church. the arguesthe associate Tierney, Aquinas, or to nation first whole the a was of applied tosmall-scale city-states, while inmedieval thought itwasbeingusedforthegovernment aristocracy and democracy. Tierney adds that in antique thought the notion was predominantly the ideathatmoststableconstitution consists ofamixturetheelements of monarchy, polis canappearintheLatinversionas the Greekwordpolis Aquinas’ time. This is why, argues Voegelin, Aquinas used many different words to incorporate encountered in the context of the Hellenic Aristotle problems political the that Voegelinemphasizes Eric different. quite were authors to bringthemtogetherintoaharmonioussystem.Besides,thepolitical contexts ofthetwo attempted and Aquinas ideals Christian with clashed notions the Aristotelian when especially (sometimes in a modified form) into his own theory. This process resulted in unique solutions, (Columbia: UniversityofMissouri Press,1997),215. Eric Voegelin, Brian Tierney, JamesM.Blythe, The theoryofmixedgovernmenthadalonghistory, beforeitsthirteenth-century Theories ofMixedGovernment One ofthepolitical notions that had practically been forgotten in the West until the However, Thomas not only commented on Aristotle’s political ideas, he integrated them . 12 Brian Tierney refers to Aristotle, Polybius and Cicero as the antique supporters of supporters antique the as Cicero and Polybius Aristotle, to refers Tierney Brian History ofPoliticalIdeas. Religion, Law, andtheGrowth ofConstitutional Thought,1150-1160 (Cambridge:Cambridge Ideal GovernmentandtheMixed ConstitutionintheMiddle Ages (Princeton:Princeton into hisLatin text, adjustingthemeaning to hisimmediate context. Thus, Politics wasthatofmixedgovernment. However, after Thomas, Volume II. civitas polis hadnodirect meaning for the political issues of The Middle Ages to Aquinas, ed.P.Middle Ages The vonSivers, , gensregnum, andprovincia 3 . 11 13 CEU eTD Collection 17 16 15 14 introduce a kindofchecksandbalances model, in whichtheelements of mixed government on the balance of class interests in the state, as Aristotle’s does, but primarily attempts to of mixedgovernment into hisownpolitical theory. Hisconcept, argues Tierney, doesnotfocus and rarely made use ofuntil the rediscovery of Aristotle’s Politics in amoderateconstitutionwhichsuccessfullybalancespower. mixed government combines the advantages of all the simple governmental forms andresults possible waytoslowdownthedegeneration of governments. Finally, couldbea Cicero believes that stableconstitution, amore in resulting forms, governmental mixing that finds polities go througharecurrentcyclical transformation fromonegovernmental form toanother, in contrast, is based on a different notion. Blythe explains that Polybius, who assumesthat form, sinceallclassescanparticipate in government. Polybius’ notionofmixedgovernment, forms, monarchy, aristocracyandpolity. Headvocates itasthemoststablegovernmental of themany, thefeworone. describes amixedconstitution as oneinwhichpowerissharedbyatleasttwooutofthegroups sense. was the difference between political and despotic governments, conceived in the Aristotelian not on the number of rulers(i.e., the rule of the one, the few orthe many), the central issue was placedhalfwaybetween ruler-sovereignty and people-sovereignty and theemphasiswas the thirteenth century, in with the concept of limited monarchy. Heargues that mixed government developed was it as government, mixed of theory the equates Luscombe E. David Luscombe,“TheStateofNature andtheOriginofState,”765. Ibid.,30-31. Blythe,Ibid.,18-29. Blythe, 17 Thomas was among the first commentators on the on commentators first the among was Thomas Blythe maintains that theideaofmixedgovernmentwaslatermoreandneglected, James M. Blythe, in his essential book on medieval theories of this governmental form, Ideal GovernmentandtheMixed Constitution 14 Aristotle describesitasamixtureofthesimplegovernmental 4 , 12, Politics 15 , andheadaptedthenotion in the thirteenth century. 16

CEU eTD Collection according to the needs ofhisorder. canons Augustinian the of Rule the modified and adopted who Guzman, of Dominic St. by government thatmanifestedmanyoftheelementsmixedgovernment. a had Dominicans, The to. belonged he order religious the circumstance: possible quite but any contemporaryinspirationsforhisgovernmental theory, thereisonestillbarelyresearched, example of mixed government. Although Thomas, as is his general practice, does not refer to an as identifies he which Bible, the in described as government Mosaic the of interpretation aremarkable offers also It Philosopher”. by“the influenced definitely is it although ideas, Press, 1925),33-35. 20 19 18 remarkable Dominican theologians. most the of one of Great, teachings the the Albert with acquainted becoming he after 1244, in Thomas describesasthebestgovernmentforactualhumancommunities. one the to similar quite is arrangement authority.This of misuses grave prevent to as way a representatives. These three forms ofgovernment were mixed in the Dominican Order insuch principles. All members of theordersharedinitsgovernance, even if indirectly through elected were elected by the friars from among the friars. Finally, the order operated on democratic provincial and general chapters, managing a greatpartofOrderPreachers’ governance, represented the element of monarchy. Aristocracy is alsopresent, since the members of the powerwas whose constitutionally limited, but whowasstill the most powerfulindividual in theorderand general, master the was order the of head The it. defines Thomas that mutually temper eachother’s power. G.R.Galbraith, JohnFinnis,Aquinas.Moral,Politicaland LegalTheory, (Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press, 1998),15. Tierney, Aquinas lived all his adult life in the context of the Dominican Order. He joined them Order.joined Dominican He the of context the in life adult his all lived Aquinas The government of the Order ofPreachers can be interpreted as mixed in the sense The DominicanOrder Religion, Law, andtheGrowth ofConstitutional Thought, The ConstitutionoftheDominican Order: 1216-1360(Manchester:ManchesterUniversity 20 19 Their main goal wastocombat heresy withpreaching and The order of the Friars Preachers was established in 1216 18 Histheoryisnotasimplerepetition of the Aristotelian 5 90. CEU eTD Collection that Thomas consistently supported political monarchy, that is, aconstitution with onehead on sectionsfromtheDeRegnoandparagraphof Summa onmixedgovernment, I argue predominantly Based government. best the on interpret Aquinas’theory and analyze present, his owntheory. influenced Preachers Friars the of government the that possible is it government, best the on striking similarities between the Dominican governmental practice and Thomas’ own theory with thehighestlevelsofDominicanorganization. government. elected as well), only practiced bythefriarsinthirteenth century (forinstance, the popesandemperorswere Davis (Stanford:StanfordUniversity Press,1995),83. 26 25 24 23 22 21 of representation with a strongfocusonthe process ofelection. preachers. they emphasizedtheeducationoforder’s members toenablethembecomesuccessful Rome, general hewasexpectedtoparticipate in alltheprovincialchaptersofhisownprovince, present. Moreover, hebecame closely involved in thegovernment of thefriars;asapreacher- and votingwerethepartofeverydaypractice, and theideaofrepresentation was fundamentally was preservedbyitsremarkableorganization and government. Brian Tierney, “FreedomandtheMedieval Church,”in Galbraith, R. W. Southern,Western SocietyandtheChurch intheMiddle Ages (London:PenguinBooks,1990),280. Finnis,Aquinas,7,Galbraith, Tierney, “FreedomandtheMedieval Church,”83. Tierney, 26 This thesis proposes to examine this possibility. To do this, first it is necessary to is necessary it first this, do To possibility. this examine to proposes thesis This Since familiar governed,andalso,asthereare Thomas waswiththewayhisorder One ofthe most interesting aspects of Dominican government was the intricate system andherepeatedly represented hisprovinceatgeneralchapters. Thus, hewasfamiliar Religion, Law, andtheGrowth ofConstitutional Thought 21 The ConstitutionoftheDominicanOrder, 5. Dominic succeeded in building an enduring centralized and unified order which order unified and centralized enduring an building in succeeded Dominic 25 Therefore Aquinas lived his whole adult life in an atmosphere where electing where atmosphere an in life adult whole his lived Aquinas Therefore 24 the Dominicans developed a highly sophisticated scheme of representative The ConstitutionoftheDominican Order, 168-70. 6 The OriginsofModernFreedom intheWest, ed.R. W. , 40. 22 23 Although election was not CEU eTD Collection the shortperiodbetween1269and1272. quite different from those developed later, Aquinas’ major political ideas were written down in with the exception of theCommentaryOnSentences and Finnis,Aquinas,5;10. 27 on Aristotle’scommentary unfinished the and 1272; in written the commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachaean Ethics , from thisrespect,theI-II,probablywrittenbetween1269-72;DeRegno,in1267; 57; theSummaTheologiae political ideas are the Aquinas’ of sources important most The oeuvre. extensive his throughout scattered found namely, the writing, of piece political specifically one Thomas’ notionsandclarifysomeaspectsof Aquinas’ theory. suggesting that the similarities can both point to a possible influence ofthe order’s practice on between the Dominican governmental practice and Thomas’ theoryofthebestgovernment, the order throughelected representatives. Finally, Iwill outline some examples of parallels element in theorder’s governance) andthatallthefriarshadsomeshareingovernance of of the order, buthispowerwaslimited and supervisedbythe general chapter (the aristocratic Order was,similarly, organized as amixed government, wherethemaster general was thehead democracy in the government. Afterwards, Idemonstrate that the thirteenth century Dominican of thecommunity, whosepowerislimited by theadmixture of theelements of aristocracy and Antony Black, Antony One ofthe central political concerns for Thomas was the issue ofpolitical government; Thomas Aquinas, although he frequently referred to political issues, left behind only behind left issues, political to referred frequently he although Aquinas, Thomas THOMAS AQUINAS ON BEST GOVERNMENT Political ThoughtinEurope 1250-1450 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1992),22, Commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences Politics , writtenbetween1265/6-72/3,withthemostimportant section , writtenmostlikelybetween1269-72. 7 De Regno.Hispolitical theory can be , whichindeed includes some notions , written between 1252/3- 27

This meansthat, CEU eTD Collection as an equivalent of limited monarchy, since he states that for Aquinas monarchy is monarchy Aquinas for that states he since monarchy, limited of equivalent an as Summa the in constitution mixed of government political the conceive Voegelindoes that seems It elaborated. sufficiently not is monarchy limited of concept the work unfinished this in that emphasizes authors, most Voegelin,although tyranny,like against precaution a as monarchy constitution. One example is Voegelin, who states that in the the changed hisviewsontheissue. form throughout his oeuvre.Questionscan also be resolved by stating that Thomas eventually identified. One stance is to state that Aquinas supported a coherent view on the best governmental for thecommongood,whileotherisamixtureofsimpleformsgovernment. proposes or what exactly a “mixed government” is, beyond the facts that one is the rule of one he “kingship” of kind what explicate clearly not does Aquinas since examined, are details that hesupportsakindofmixedgovernment. The issueisevenmorecomplicated when the simple form ofgovernment, namely, monarchy, isthebestregime. In other sections it appears a that argues Aquinas texts his of some in that is difficulty the of core The divided. equally ways toaccommodate the contradictions, and accordingly, theories outlined by scholarsare constitution, thatis,thecompoundofmonarchy, aristocracy, anddemocracy. monarchy, in sections of the theory, as expressed in different texts. While in the the most suitable type for political communities. Still, there seems tobeacontradiction in his he developed ideas on its origins, on the typology of regimes, and also attempted to identify De Regno,intheSummaheexpressesasomewhatdifferent ideaandargues foramixed Aquinas’ apparent inconsistency has intrigued many scholars. There are many possible Literature Overview Some scholarsmaintain that while Thomas supportsakindoflimited monarchy in be can trends main two Aquinas’statement, of sense make to attempts diverse the In Summa he states that the best political government is mixed 8 De Regno it appears that Thomas favors De Regno Aquinas proposes limited CEU eTD Collection indicate a decided preference for a mixed form of government instead of the pure monarchy.” section of the unlimited authority) is thebestgovernmental form. McIlwaindealswiththethenperplexing with sovereign a is king the where kingship is McIlwain for (which, monarchy” “pure that supported a“puremonarchy.” consistently Aquinas that conclusion his maintains McIlwain Thus, monarchy). hereditary to participation is nomore thanamanifestation of preferenceforelective monarchy (asopposed Stump, (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1993),220-21. 34 33 32 31 Middle Ages (New the York: The MacmillanCompany, 1932),328-333. 30 29 28 age.” own his of polities the “for not but Israel, ancient of of all contemporary exponents of pure monarchy.” regal monarchy). Charles Howard McIlwain, is, (that sovereignty ruler maintained permanently works his all in that Aquinas argued some demonstrate that Thomas supported the same type of government in all his works.Firstofall, constitution. danger of tyranny. Hestatesthat, as aresult, in the the of was Aquinas’ awareness Sigmund, argues factor, of Aristotle. Another influence the to Aquinas’thought in divergence the attributes and monarchy for support of tradition decisive approach suggeststhatfor Voegelin thetwotypesofgovernmentarenotidentical. only ideally the best,whileinactual situations heprefersmixedgovernment. This contrasting See:CharlesHowardMcIlwain, P. E.Sigmund,“LawandPolitics,”in Voegelin, Ibid.,331-32. Ibid.,332 McIlwain,Ibid.,331. McIlwain,TheGrowth ofPoliticalThoughtIntheWest, 333. Similarly, PaulSigmund states thatintheDeRegnoAquinas conforms to the previously McIlwain argues that Thomas only finds mixed government acceptable for the people the for acceptable government mixed finds only Thomas that argues McIlwain to try to is notions Aquinas’in inconsistencies the of sense make to way other The History ofPoliticalIdeas 29 Summa I-II.105 only in a footnote, and states that this text “at first sight seems to TheGrowth ofPoliticalThoughtInthe West. From theGreeks totheEndof 34 , 215-22. The CambridgeCompanionto Aquinas, ed.N.Kretzmann,andE. 30 for instance, states that Thomas “was the greatest 9 31 Summa Thomas argues forapopular mixed He claims that Aquinas consistently argues 33 He adds that support for popular 28 32 CEU eTD Collection because the rulers are chosen by all.” by chosen are rulers the because and govern, to eligible are “all because constitution mixed in present is element democratic the popularelement of thegovernment to theelection of theking,ashemakesitclear that the for elective monarchy is equally incorrect. It is clear from the text that Aquinas does not equate that claim, second His unfounded. seems age, own his Aquinas’support show only statements that mixedgovernment was thebestforpeopleofIsrael,butnotpolitical communities of 38 37 36 35 the in power kings’ the tempering with concern Thomas’ on reflect ... partly aristocracy ... partly democracy.” polity,of form best the “is government mixed a that statement universal kingdom partly being problematic. Although Thomas uses the Mosaic government as an example, he also makes the law ofthedaysabsoluteEmpire.” of anabsolutemonarchythanarethetheories popularsovereigntyembodiedintheRoman of monarchyfrompopularelection in theSummaneedbenomoreincompatible with support one isonlyexpressedbyconcernwithpopularelection. democratic the while king, the to subordinated strongly is constitution mixed of ingredient” “aristocratic the while monarch, the to attributed firmly are authority legislative and executive is that, in asimilar manner, inthe passages in the ideas, also states that Thomas consistently supported absolute monarchy. Heinterprets the supported apuremonarchyseemsunsubstantiated. Morrall,PoliticalThoughtinMedieval Times, 79. J.B.Morrall,PoliticalThoughtinMedieval Times (London:Hutchinson,1971), 77-78. Ibid.,tumquiaexomnibuseligipossunt, tumquiaetiamabomnibuseliguntur. ST, I-II.105.1.Talis enimestoptima politia,benecommixtaexregno ...et aristocratia…etexdemocratia. orl cam ta qia cnitnl spot aslt mnrh. e os not does He monarchy. absolute supports consistently Aquinas that claims Morrall o, osdrn te xc wrs f qia, clans hoy em quite seems theory McIlwain’s Aquinas, of words exact the considering Now, John B. Morrall, although he is more aware of the contradictions among Aquinas’ among contradictions the of aware more is he although Morrall, B. John De Regno as explicitly arguing for absolute monarchy. Morrall’s argument Aquinas outlines a governmental form in which in form governmental a outlines Aquinas Summa 36 Therefore, McIlwain’s claim that Thomas consistently 38 35 McIlwain’s claim that Thomas onlymeanstostate 10 37 Morrall concludes that the “derivation De Regno;apparently it CEU eTD Collection practically powerlesselementingovernment. importance of thearistocratic element of government and states that it isonlyasubordinate and statements about thepartsinSummaareevenmoreproblematic. Morrall playsdownthe does notoccurtohimthat these passagescouldeasily supportakindoflimited monarchy. His (Oxford, Blackwell,1965),72. 41 40 39 the by inspired although government, mixed on theory Aquinas’that length some at argues communities. For Tierneyto provethenoveltyof theimportantpointwas Thomas’ ideas.He that monarchy, although it was the best government for ideal societies, is not suited for actual judged Aquinas that argues instance, Tierney,for constitution. mixed a supports consistently authority” because there “are others having governing powers ... in so far as a number of persons are set in Theologiae does notequatewiththeelectionofmonarch,butthataristocraticcouncil. Dunbabin, contrarytoMcIlwain,notesthatfor Thomas theelement of popularparticipation in whichthekingandapopularly elected council wield legislative and executive power. monarchy. Dunbabininterprets mixed constitution as alimitation on thepowerofking, in all his works, it might be more fruitful to state, like Dunbabin, that it was a kind of limited monarchy for support a manifests arguethat Thomas to like would one If unconvincing. quite power, contrarytothenotionthatMorrallholds. method of theirruling is not indicated, it is stronglyimplied that they have actual governing powerless constituent, but hedeclares that theyactually rule(principantur).Eveniftheexact JeanDunbabin,“Aristotlein theSchools,”in ST, I-II.105.1.Suntaliquiprincipantessecundum virtutem...multiprincipantursecundumvirtutem. Morrall,Ibid.,78. He alsofailstotaketheactual text oftheparagraphintoconsideration. In Summa There is another line of harmonizing Thomas’ theory, namely, bystating that he Consequently, I find the idea that Aquinas consistently supports absolute monarchy absolute supports consistently Aquinas that idea the find I Consequently, 40 I-II 105.1, Aquinas notes that aristocracy is manifested in a mixed constitution mixed a in manifested is aristocracy that notes Aquinas 105.1, I-II Itappearsthat Thomas doesnotenvisagethearistocratic elements as anauxiliary, Trends inMedieval PoliticalThought 39 11 , ed.BerylSmalley 41 CEU eTD Collection (i. e.,implyingaconstitutional framework) inakindofpolitical rule. institutions governmental by monarch the of power the of tempering the meant Aquinas that reasons people”, free pertains “government on Aquinas’that based tyranny.claims Blythe, of Regno stronglysuggestthe idea of tempering the power ofthe king in ordertoavoid the danger ruling powers. that he focusesonthe element of checks and balances, namely, onthe mutual tempering of the one. into government of forms in element novel Another Aquinas’theory, proposes Tierney,is in mixedgovernment, Thomas endeavorstounitetheexcellent features ofthethreesimple differences arethatwhile Aristotle attempts to reachastablebalance between thethreeclasses the Old Testament, hedoescontrastitwiththeideasof Aristotle and concludesthatthemain mixed government. of favor in considerations practical the were these for Aquinas that concludes He king. the of of tyrannycanbeavoided by establishing governmental institutions that could limit the power danger the that convinced is he since Commentary government mixed advocates also Aquinas 46 45 44 43 42 the of section a is first the examples; two near the end of a relatively short writing career.” some change of opinion or development of ideas, stating that “these statements all were written approach. He convincingly rejects the idea that the contradictions in Thomas’ notions are due to sources.” his of either in exist really not “does notions, Biblical of and elements Aristotelian traditional Tierney, Ibid.,50. Blythe,Ibid., Blythe, Tierney, Ibid.,90. Tierney outlinethesameideaalsoin: Tierney, “FreedomandtheMedievalChurch,” 90-91. Blythe adds that Thomas presents somenormative arguments in the Blythe, whosedoctoral work wassupervisedby Tierney, isalsoagreatsupporterofthis Ideal GovernmentandtheMixed Constitution Religion, Law, andtheGrowth ofConstitutional Thought, 42 Although he does not explain how explain not does he Aquinas’Although in outlined one the differsfrom theory 49. 43 46 Summa (ST I-II.95.4.3.) where Thomas discusses 12 , 41. 44 InBlythe’s interpretation the passagesinDe 90. 45 Blythestatesthatinthe Summa. Hecites CEU eTD Collection and PoliticalPowerinthe Work of Thomas Aquinas,” JournaloftheHistoryIdeas concerned withthesametopic: JamesM.Blythe,“TheMixedConstitutionandtheDistinction betweenRegal 51 50 49 48 47 power of the governing person is limited by “certain laws of the state,” Finnis describes Thomas’ notionofpolitical government asconsisting oftheideathat regime. political best the on discussion Aquinas’understanding for key is government regal perfect virtue, whichispractically impossible. abstractly, but not best “considering the nature of humanity,” since a king should be a person of monarchy (that is, amonarchy where the power ofthekingisnotrestricted by law)isthe best “plenary presidential power,” that suchruleisconstitutional. Incontrast,statesFinnis,inregalgovernmenttherulerhas limited. constitution with political monarchy, that is, amonarchy wherethe power ofthe king islegally mixed equates He Blythe. argues constitution, mixed a is communities actual for government by reasonissupportedthedivineintention.” are broughtinasanexamplegovernment, andtheJews todemonstrate that whathehasdeduced of themixedconstitution is derived a priorifromgeneral principles of whatconstitutes good superiority “the texts Aquinas’in that concludes Blythe people. chosen his to God by given government political the with it equating by constitution mixed justified that Aquinas stating has thebestlaws.Second,BlythereferstoST I-II.105.2,thesectiononMosaicgovernment, what kindofhumanlawsuitswhichgovernmental form, concluding that mixedgovernment are freepeoplewhostill hold somepowerofresistance. Finnis,justlikeBlythe, stresses that it Ibid.,55-56. A quitesimilar, though morecompressed,lineofargument isexplicatedbyBlytheinhisarticle Ibid.,55. Ibid.,53-54. Finnis,Ibid.,259. Finnis,Aquinas,259. John Finnis,similarly to Blythe, emphasizes that the distinction between political and regal for Aquinas that arguing by conflicts ideological the resolve to attempts He 49 51 but, unlike in a despotic government, in a regal one the subjects 13 48 But what Aquinas suggests as the best political 47 50 47(1986):547-565. thatis,heemphasizes CEU eTD Collection 55 54 53 52 government willbeexamined. Finally, apossibleideological factor, namely, theorganization Afterwards, theconfusingandsomewhatcontradictory passages ontheissueofbest of therulers,otheronextent of political power heldbytherulers)willbediscussed. Thus, first Aquinas’ two governmental typologies (one differentiating on the basis of the number political regimes makes it possible tohighlight the problematic character of these passages. political monarchy, option, argues Finnis,isto consider the mixed government as atype of monarchy, namely, a both Tierney and Blythe propose suchasolution to avoid the apparent contradiction. The other scenario, in mostreal-life cases Thomas opted for mixed government. As wasmentioned above, state that Aquinas preferred monarchy only if it was not corrupt, but as it was quite an unlikely (expressed inthe is amistaketoequateregalgovernmentwithmonarchy power. he concludes that the idea oftempered authority is incompatible with the notion of plenary precautions, these for method exact an propose to fails that Aquinas agrees also he Although the opportunity ofthemonarchtotyrannize must beremoved and hispowermustbelimited. the supreme rulers, to the regal.” the to rulers, supreme the form ofstategovernment,limited by lawsmadeforthepurposeofregulating and limiting even government, since he states that: “Aquinas gives the impression that he preferred the “political” Ibid.,262. Ibid. Ibid.,261. Ibid.,259 54 Examining the mostrepresentative Thomistic texts on thetypology and evaluation of Aquinas’ Two Typologies ofPoliticalGovernment government mixed for preferences Aquinas’ reconcile to ways two proposes Finnis ins hs dcdd pno o wehrAuns upre a ea o a political a or regal a supported Aquinas whether on opinion decided a has Finnis’ Summa) andmonarchy (as implied inDeRegno).Oneoption he outlines is to 55 anideathathasalsobeenproposedbyBlythe. 53 He argues that in the 14 52 . De Regno Thomas emphasizes that CEU eTD Collection as democracy majority, whenitisrightly ordained, is called rule ofthebestmen,anditsperverted form isoligarchy, theruleofwealthy. The ruleofthe deviation from itistyranny. The ruleofthefewforcommongoodisaristocracy, thatis,the explains that the rulebyoneman,ifaimed at thecommoninterest, is called monarchy, while it isaimedonlyattheinterestoflowerclassessociety. 1986), 82.Herethetranslators translate dominatur unus,autpauci, multi. 60 59 58 57 56 community.” political a in rule persons need to distinguishregimes by their different kind of rulers. For either one, a few, ormany “Wenoting: rulers, their to according groups, three into regimes political allocated Aristotle that explains Aquinas typology. governmental Aristotle’s with deals unfinished, is though belong tooneruler, toafewrulers,orthemajority ofthepolitical community. governments, differentiated bythenumberofpeople holding governmental power. Powercould the rulersaimfortheirownprivateinterests. the rightformsrulersseekcommoninterestofpeople,whileincorruptgovernments deviations. What sets the right and perverted forms apart, according to Aristotle, is their aims; in distinguishes betweentwomaincategoriesinhisPolitics who Forms ofGovernment:TheRuleOne,theFew, andtheRuleofMany decisive evidence,someclarificationoftheissue. of the government of the Dominican Order, will be introduced, which could promote, if not See,forinstance: Pol.1279a27-29. Pol.1279a27-33. LP, III. 6.2.Necesseestquoddistinguantur politiaesecundumdiversitatemdominantium. Aut enimincivitate Pol.1279a34-1279b10. Aquinas wrote a commentary on Aristotle’son commentary a wrote Aquinas In the Aristotelian typologytherearethreesub-categoriesofbothjustandunjust Aquinas’ typology of government was profoundly influenced by the ideas of ideas the by Aquinas’ Aristotle, influenced profoundly was government of typology 58 ). Itsperversion can also be translated as democracy or asthe people’s rule, and Aristotle’s Politics , trans.H.G. Apostle andL.P. Gerson,(Grinnell: The Peripatetic Press, politeia 60 asdemocracyand Then Thomas makesadistinction between just and 56 15 politeia Politics orpolity (which issometimes translated demokratia aspeople’s rule. , around 1271-1272, which, even 59 : justgovernmentsandtheir 57 Aristotle CEU eTD Collection perversion is called oligarchy, a government that “strives for the benefit of the wealthy.” the of benefit the for “strives that government oligarchy,a called is perversion regime in which the multitude rules and strives for the common benefit a polity,” a benefit common the for strives and rules multitude the which in regime the call “we that declares many,he the of rule the of notion Aristotelian the with connection is “a monarchy striving for the benefit of the ruler.” the of benefit the for striving monarchy “a is none onthe Aristotelian choice ofthebestregime, which isexplained only later in thePolitics breaks off. Thus, even though hiscommentary on the types ofgovernment is available, there is about theexplanation of the Aristotelian typology ofgovernments, Thomas’ commentary ordinatur talispolitiaadidquodestoptimumcivitati etomniumcivium. aristocratia, idestpotestasoptimorumveloptima,quia optimiprincipantur, scilicetvirtuosi;velquia communem sunt transgressiones politiarum quando principanturadpropriam utilitatemeorumquidominantur, sivesitunus,pauci, plures; ettunc 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 “none of these regimes strives for the common benefit.” benefit,” common the for striving is ruler the if “kingship is: it kinds, two has one the of rule the that states he Accordingly, perversion, democracy, isdefinedasagovernmentaiming“forthebenefitofpoor.” benefit, whethertherebeone,afew, ormanyrulers,andthentheregimesareperversions.” own their for rule rulers when way second a in … just be will regimes the then and benefit, Aristotle rulers can use their power in two ways: “in one way when rulers rule for the common unjust governmentsinconformitywiththeaimofrulers,explaining that according to such a regime is directed to what is best for the political community and all its citizens.” its all and community political the for best is what to directed is regime a such because or rule, virtuous, namely,the people, best the because either called so is “aristocracy Ibid.,III.6.2.politiainquapauciprincipanturpropter bonumcommune,plures tamenuno,vocatur Ibid.,III.6.3.tyrannisestmonarchia, idestprincipatusuniusintendensutilitatemprincipantis. Ibid.,III.6.2.monarchia, idestprincipatusunius,vocatur regnum consuetonominesiintendat utilitatem LP, III.6.2.Unomodoquandoprincipanturadutilitatemcommunem, et tunceruntrectae politiae. Alio modo Ibid.,III.6.4.nullavero earumintenditadutilitatemcommunem. Ibid.,III.6.3.Democratiavero adutilitatempauperum Ibid.,III.6.2.quandomultitudoprincipatur intendens adutilitatemcommunem,vocaturpolitia Ibid.,III.6.3.Oligarchia vero esttendens ad utilitatemdivitum. Aquinas employs the same names for the different types of government as Aristotle. as government of types different the for names same the employs Aquinas Aquinas concludes that the that concludes Aquinas 62 whilethecorruption of theone-man rule istyranny, which differentia specifica ofcorrupt governmental forms isthat differentia 16 63 68 Similarly, theruleof few, that is, Unfortunately, just after the paragraph 66 while its 67 64 65 Its 61 In . CEU eTD Collection rectum etiustum...Sivero non adbonumcommunemultitudinis,sedprivatum regentis regimen 72 the firstchapteroftreatise. see: Black,P to beaworkwhich,evenifnot completelywrittenby Aquinas, isabletorepresenthisbasicnotions.Forthis, being PtolemyofLucca),who wasquitefamiliarwiththepoliticaltheoryofhismaster scholars acceptthattheremainingpartsareprobablywritten byapupilof is ambiguousandsomeargue that,withtheexceptionofChapter1,itisnot Aquinas’ workatall.Still,most I. TH. Eschmann(Toronto: The PontificalInstituteofMedievalStudies,1949). Theauthorshipofthistreatise 71 70 69 that direct human affairs andwhicharederivedfromthemoregeneral tenets ofnatural law. arrangements particular are him for briefly, laws issue human Tothe human laws. summarize notions. Oneexample is apassagefromtheSummaTheologiae Aristotle’s typology, butheactually incorporates the Aristotelian theory intohisownpolitical good oftheruler, itwillbeanunjustandpervertedrulership.” on theotherhand,arulershipaims,notatcommongoodofmultitude, but attheprivate if, … just and right be will rulership that multitude, the of good common the towards ruler the between just and unjust governments, maintaining that if “a multitude of free men is ordered by clearly follows the scheme set down by Aristotle. First, he imitates Aristotle in distinguishing In theverybeginningoftreatise, enumerating the different kindsofgovernment, Thomas corrupt, hasnoproperlaws. assembly.altogether Tyranny,plebeian being the declares Aquinas, of acts the by democracy in aristocracy’s perversion, that is, inanoligarchy, bypraetorian or honorary law, whilein by royalordinances, in aristocracy by authoritative legal opinions anddecreesoftheSenate, different kinds of government. Accordingly, he asserts that in monarchy people are governed these of notions. In this paragraph Aquinas argues source that different human laws are suitable for states with the as Philosopher,” “the Aristotle, to referring explicitly law, human of In hisdiscussion,heconnectsthe Aristotelian forms ofgovernment with the different kinds DR,I.10.Siigiturliberorum multitudoaregente adbonum communemultitudinisordinetur, eritregimen edition: An ST, I-II.95.4. For Aquinas’ definitionofandrelationbetweennaturalhuman law, see:ST, I-II.91.2-3. Moreover, hemakesuseofthe Aristotelian typology in histreatise titled oee, hr ae te psae ta so ta Auns o ol cmet on comments only not Aquinas that show that passages other are there However, olitical ThoughtinEurope , 22.Nevertheless,inthisthesis Ichoosetoreferonlysectionsfrom DeRegnoadRegemCypri 70 . OnKingship.To theKingofCyprus,. 17 Aquinas (themostlikelycandidate 72 Trans. GerardB.Phelan, rev. by , where Thomas dealswith . Thus, itcanbeargued De Regno. 71 69

CEU eTD Collection vocatur …Sivero iustumregimen adunumtantum pertineat,illeproprie rex vocatur. nomine politiavocatur…Sivero administretur perpaucos,virtuosos autem,huiusmodiregimen aristocratia Similiter autemetiustumregimen distinguioportet.Sienimadministretur peraliquammultitudinem,communi paucorum …Sivero iniquumregimen exerceatur permultos,democratianuncupatur, idestpotentatuspopuli… iniustum regimen nonperunumfiat,sedplures, siquidemperpaucos,oligarchia vocatur, idestprincipatus 73 Kempshall, ordinetur, eritregimen iniustumatqueperversum. are not free. A further differentiation, namely, between regal and political government, is that while the regal and political forms govern free people, the subjects of despotic government of political power, thegovernmental authority of thestate’s rulers. The main difference is that classification. Despotic, regal and political governments are rather labels that refer to the “extent” typology does not refer to the number or person of the rulers, unlike the previously examined political governments. Despite what the names of thesecategories might suggest, the tripartite governmental power. Accordingly, hesetsapartthreemaincategories: despotic, regaland Modes ofGovernment:Despotic,Regal,andPolitical typology inspiredby Aristotelian concepts. exercised by thosewhoholdit. Thomas, however, explains this elsewhere, employing another of governmentalformsdoesnotgiveanyinformation about thewaypolitical authority is for.power governmental exercising in aims classification their of and kind ruler(s) This the of Thomas explicatesas: of people holding governmental power, corresponding to the sixfold classification of Aristotle. Ibid.,I.11-12. Siigiturregimen iniustumperunumtantumfiat...talis rector tyrannusvocatur…Sivero qia dfeetae aog h tps f oenet y h wy ues exercise rulers way the by government of types the among differentiates Aquinas number The aspects: two to according government of types the differentiates Aquinas In the following section, in a similar manner, he outlines a typology based on the number in thehandsofonemanalone,heisproperlycalledaking. is government just a … if aristocracy And an called is government of kind this forms ofgovernment, i.e. polity the government isadministered by many, it is given the name common to all If governments. just divide must we manner like In … populace the by control the bad government is carried on bythe multitude, it is called democracy, i.e. finally,few.If, a … of rule the oligarchy.is, an called That few,is be it they if a tyrant. … If an unjust government is carried on, not by one but by several, and If an unjust government is carried on by one man alone … such a ruler is called The CommonGoodinLateMedievalPoliticalThought

... Ifitisadministered byafewmenofvirtue, On medievaltheoriesofcommongoodsee:Matthew 18 . Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1999. 73 CEU eTD Collection qualitatively. interprets Aristotle’sdiffernot do rule of types these that implying as words quantitatively but authority they have over their subjects. Commenting on this section of the quibus subiiciturlegi. quantum adeascilicetquaeeius potestatemsubsunt;etsecundumpartemsitsubiectus, quantumadeain secundum legespositasperdisciplinam politicam,estregimen politicum; quasisecundumpartemprincipetur, et secundumomnia,diciturregimen regale. Quandoautempraeestsecundumsermones disciplinales,idest habet potestatemcoarctatam secundumaliquasleges civitatis…Quandoenimipsehomopraeestsimpliciter quando illequicivitatipraeest habetplenariampotestatem.Politicumautemregimen estquandoillequipraeest 77 76 75 74 how political rule differs fromdespoticrule.Hemaintains that thedifference betweenthetwo plenary, unrestrained political power. Later in thesamecommentary Thomas alsoexplains in accordancewiththelawsofstate),whileregalgovernmentrulerisallocated one theruler’s authority is constitutionally limited (i.e., the ruler onlyhascoercive power slaves”, and these differ not in the number of their subjects, but “in kind,” “in but subjects, their of number the in not differ these and slaves”, of master a and household, a of ruler a king, a statesman, “a rulers, of types four are there economic, regal, and despotic rule. constitutionally limited. while intheregalgovernmentrulerhasfullpower, inpolitical government his poweris political government: governing freeandnon-freesubjects,hedoesdescribethemaindistinctionsbetweenregal Ibid.,I.1.3-4.Civitasautemdupliciregimine regitur: scilicetpoliticoetregali. Regalequidemestregimen, LP, I.1.3. Pol.1252a8-11. Blythe,“TheMixedConstitution,”549. Thus, themain difference between political and regal government is that in the political Aristotle already outlined this classification, namely, the distinction between political, between namely, distinction classification, the this outlined already Aristotle ruled, insofarasheissubjecttothelaw. partially rules, namely, regarding things subject to his power, and is partially established by political science), the regime is political. That is to say, the ruler laws to according (i.e., rulers scientific to according rules ruler the when And the when For … ruler rulesabsoluteandregardingeverything, we call theregime monarchical. community political the of laws particular the with accord power, andapolitical regime is onein which the ruler has coercive power in the monarchical. A monarchical regime isoneinwhichtherulerhascomplete And the political community has twokinds of regime, namely, the political and 76 Although at this point Thomas does notyet elaborate on the differences between 74 At the very beginning of hisPolitics 19 77 75 i.e.inthekindof Politics he states that , Aquinas , CEU eTD Collection of politicalgovernmentdohavethisright. notes that slaves “do not have the means to resist the control of the master,” while the subjects over slaves,political government is overfreepeople. This aspectisfurtherelaborated when he principatus servorum. 81 80 praecepta regis velprincipis. sicut reges etprincipescivitatum dominanturliberis,quihabentius et facultatem repugnandi quantumadaliqua aliquo imperiodomini;ratio vero dominaturinferioribusanimaepartibusregali etpoliticoprincipatu,idest anima dominaturcorporidispoticoprincipatu,sicutdominus servo,quinonhabetfacultatemresistendi in www.corpusthomisticum.org/qdw103.html 79 78 of thekingorruler.” rulers ofstates governfreepeople who have the right andmeans to somewhat resist the order inferior parts of the soul bya monarchic and political governance, that is, in the way kingsand the rules “reason following: the states Thomas form. its to other the government, of mode the to referring one government, of aspects different two are “monarchical” and “political” that thatgovernments. affirms believes monarchical section Aquinas this Aof examination careful his statement in the commentary on the interconnected aspects in which despotic and political governments differ. Namely, inline with soul ispoliticalandmonarchicalrule. the ruleofsouloverbodyisdespotic,whilereasonotherparts political government, referring to Aristotle’ Politics relation between thesoul,humanreason,andbodybyparalleling it withdifferent typesof Thomas inhisQuaestionesdisputataedevirtutibus free bynature,anddespoticruleisoverslaves.” persons over rule is rule “political since subjects, their to according is government of modes Seetherelevantsectionhere:“Corpusthomisticum:Quaestiones Disputataede Ibid.,I.5.1.Politicaenimestprincipatuseorumquisuntliberisecundum naturam,despotiaautemest Ibid.,Ratiovero dominaturinferioribusanimaepartibusregali etpolitico principatu, idestsicutreges et Ibid.,Nonhabetfacultatemresistendi inaliquoimperiodomini. The differences between despotic and political governments arefurtherexamined by The other significant implication of the text is the clear distinction between political and liststwo Aquinas here because First, tworespects. in valuable text this find I 81 . Lastaccessed April 8,2014.Aristotelesdicitinpoliticasua,quod 79 Politics 80 20 , hestates that while despotic government is . Hestatesthat according to thePhilosopher 78 . InQ.1.a.4.heattempts to explain the Virtutibus.” Q.1. Art.4. http:// CEU eTD Collection while regalgovernmentisplenary. See:Blythe,“TheMixed Constitution,”553. namely, theirrelationtolaw. The essentialqualitythatmarkspoliticalgovernment isthatitlimitedbythelaw, contradiction, andtheyareover freemen,nevertheless,addsBlythe,thereisacrucialdistinction betweenthem, regal andpoliticalgovernments. While both regalandpoliticalgovernmentsaccommodatesomedegree of 84 83 82 regis velprincipis. principes civitatumdominanturliberis,quihabentiusetfacultatem repugnandi quantumadaliquapraecepta the issue, ifit both accordswiththe ideas he expressed intheDeRegnoandwith section of government. The notion that Thomas consistently supported a political monarchy might solve since it could shed some light on the apparent inconsistency of his thought on the best form of is onehead of the community whose powerisconstitutionally limited, is aclear possibility reason intworespects,bothbyitsformandmodeidentifiesitasapoliticalmonarchy Consequently,power). political holding people of section this in of rule the describes Aquinas rule (whichcanbemonarchy, aristocracy, democracy, oramixture,accordingtothenumber governmental power, can be despotic, regal or political), while the latter is linked with political The former is apparently connected with monarchical rule (which, according to the extent of strengthened by the differentiation between kings (reges ) andrulers(principesinhisexample. subjects according to the mode of itsgovernment (i.e., political rule). This distinction is further subjects, according totheformofgovernment (i.e., monarchical rule); anditrulesoverfree established rulesofmatrimony. the husband(soit is monarchy), but hisrule overhiswifeisnotplenary; it is restricted by the that thehusband’s ruleoverhiswifeisapolitical monarchy. Inthiscasethereisonlyoneruler, taken fromapolitical context, butfromthesmall-scale community of ahousehold.Heasserts not is it although example, well-known a presents Aquinas monarchy political of case a As LP, I. 10.1. Blytheinhisworksabout Aquinas’ politicalthoughtdevotesagooddealof attention tothedifference between Aquinas outlinespractically thesameargument in Thus, it is important to note that Thomas finds political monarchy a possible arrangement, This argument supports thenotion that for Thomas apolitical monarchy, inwhichthere In this section Aquinas makes two distinct claims: that reason is the sole ruler of its of ruler sole the is reason that claims: distinct two makes Aquinas section this In 84 ST, I-II.58.2. 21 . 82 83 . CEU eTD Collection 56. 85 for theexcellence of kingship. Thomas outlinesthis concept intheDeRegno,declaring that governmental form thatcorresponds besttothegeneral orderoftheuniverse,astrongargument the is monarchy that states He theologian. the Aquinas by supported evidently was which monarchy is theChristian notion ongoverningthe universe,theabsolute monarchy ofGod, Pure MonarchyandItsDangers government. Ithinkthat Thomas consistentlysupportedakindofpoliticalmonarchy. whose poweris limited by the admixture of the elements ofaristocracy and democracy in the can be interpreted as a kind of limited monarchy, in which there is one head of the community this powerbegiventotherulersofactualhumancommunities. Finally, mixedgovernment that ideally, recommend best God’s not the finds might monarchy though Thomas he absolute rulers arenotcompletely virtuous beings,buttoperfect government by God. That is, even section of Summaon God’s government does not refer to human communities, in which the monarchy. limited a the be Also, should this that implies and statements his qualifies Thomas depth, they appear less controversial. In theDeRegno,whilearguing infavorofmonarchy, government, aconstitutionthatmixestheelementsofmonarchy, aristocracy, andpolity. (in this section he does not refer to human governments) and elsewhere, that the best is mixed he bothnotesthatthebestgovernmentismonarchy, sinceitisthewayGodrulesuniverse since in the inconsistent, be to appear glance first a at statements his However, communities. human for the Summaonmixedgovernment. Blytheproposedthissolution fortheproblem,see:Blythe, Aquinas in his political writings repeatedly refers to the problem of the best government The BestGovernment A strongpiece of evidence against the statement that Thomas supported political I think these inconsistencies must be taken seriously, but when examined in greater De Regno he declares that the best government is monarchy, while in the 85 22 Ideal GovernmentandtheMixed Constitution, Summa 51- CEU eTD Collection laws (the only limitation he mentions elsewhere is God’s voluntary self-limitation), some share in God’s government or that this rule is limited by any prior and autonomous is organized into a kingdom with God as king. Thomas never suggests that other persons have chief, namely, the reason. Among bees there is one king bee.” king one is there bees Among reason. the namely, chief, principal mover, namely,of thesoulonepowerpresidesas theheart;andamongpowers the is which one is there members bodily of multitude the “in that declares He government. He statesthatbasedonhumanexperience the cities andstateswhicharenotruledbyone references toactual political societies, although hedoes notmentionanyparticular examples, una visprincipaliterpraesidet, scilicetratio.Estetiamapibusunusrex. 91 90 89 88 87 86 with nature,and“whateverisinaccordnaturethebest.” monarchy, theright government by oneruler, isthe form ofpolitical governance most inaccord things.” isthe government oftheuniverse. ideal monarchical significant most the male), a “king”, a but queen female a be to human organism andthe society of bees(it is noteworthythat the chief animal is notconsidered for humanpoliticalsocietiesaswell. the besttypeofgovernment. is monarchy extent, possible greatest the to nature resemble should things artificial since that, unlikely that heconsideredGod’s monarchytobeconstitutionally limited. Thomas concludes Ibid.,I.2.19.Inmembrorum enimmultitudineunum estquodomniamovet,scilicetcor;etinpartibusanimae DR,I.2.19.Ea,quaesuntadnaturam,optimesehabent. Ibid.,I.3.20.Hocetiamexperimentisapparet. DR,I.2.19. ST, I.25.2-3. Ibid.,IntotouniversounusDeusfactor omniumetrector. o neln ti saeet qia mnin tre rdtoa eape o natural of examples traditional three mentions Aquinas statement, this underline To Aquinas notes that, “in the whole universe there is One God, Maker and Ruler of all of Ruler and Maker God, One is there universe whole the “in that, notes Aquinas He also proposes that this maxim is “evident from experience” from “evident is maxim this that proposes also He 88 That is, he argues, nature manifests the highest form of monarchy; the whole world 90 This statement might imply that monarchy isthebestgovernment 23 86 87 . Apart from the examples of 91 now making evident 89 thus,it is CEU eTD Collection affluentia rerum laetantur. fluctuant. sive pax.Unitatisautemcausa perseestunum...Undemultitudomeliusgubernatur unumquamperplures. autem pertinetadrationembonitatis. …Etideoidadquodtenditintentiomultitudinem gubernantis,estunitas ratio est,quiagubernationihil aliudestquamdirectio gubernatorumadfinem,quiestaliquodbonum.Unitas optimum, necesseestquodmundi gubernatiositoptima.Optimaautemestquae fitperunum.Cuius 94 93 92 Thus, concludes Aquinas, a multitude is more effectively governed by one ruler than by many. rulers there is alwaysthe threat of dissension,while with one ruler no suchissuecould emerge. that monarchyisthemostapttoensureunity.on kingship,is This isbecauseinthecaseofmore that thisishowtheuniversegoverned.Hissecondreason,similarly discussed inthetreatise offers several reasonsforthisclaim. First hemaintains, similarly to histheoryintheDeRegno, of theuniverse,hedoesconcludethatmonarchyisbestgovernment(unconditionally). He from the point of view of actual human communities since he is writing about the governance as follows: of theSumma.Inthisimportantgoverningworldandconcludes section heagaindiscusses or iftheirmonarchyistobelimitedinsomeway. section it is not clear if he supports unlimited monarchical power also be given to human rulers for kingshipisthat it isbestsuitedformaintaining order, unity, andpeace. However, fromthis person are “torn with dissensions and tossed about without peace,” under monarchical rule are peaceful and flourishing. and peaceful are rule monarchical under Ibid.,Econtrariovero provinciae etcivitatesquaesubunorege reguntur, pacegaudent,iustitiaflorent, et Ibid.,Namprovinciae vel civitatesquaenonreguntur abuno,dissensionibuslaborantetabsquepace ST, I.103.3.Ergo mundus gubernaturabuno....Cumenimfinisgubernationis mundi sit...quodest Although in this section Aquinas does not touch upon the notion of the best government governed byonethanseveral. better is multitude a Therefore … one is unity of cause proper the Now peace. of goodness... Therefore the intention of a ruler over a multitude is unity, or governed totheend;whichconsistsinsomegood.Butunitybelongsidea The reason ofthisisthat government is nothing but the directing of the things best kindofgovernment.Nowthegovernmentis by one. of theworldis...greatest good;thegovernment of theworldmustbe Therefore the world is governed by one … For since the end of the government part first the in monarchy of favor argumentin of line similar a quite presents Thomas 94 24 93 Consequently, Thomas’practical reason 92 whileprovincesandcities CEU eTD Collection 95 clearly theworstregime: monarchy, he devotes a goodpart of the work tothe issue oftyranny, andexplains why it is declares that tyranny is the worst political government. In the ruler. However, monarchy has its deviation, tyranny, the unjust rule by one person, and Aquinas government ofoneperson,monarchybeingthejustpolitical government practiced by one Aristotelian governmental typology. Aristotle distinguishes between the correct and corrupt best governmentempirically. that even though pure monarchy is the best government normatively, it is not necessarily the societies. This is probably the reason why, as Voegelin outlines, in some of his texts he suggests reconsider the effectiveness ofan unlimited, purely monarchic government for actual political societies, wheretherulersaremorallyimperfecthumans. sole holderofpolitical authority, doesnotsupportthesamegovernment for actual human of instantiating theideally best government, that is, monarchyinwhichheistheabsolute and possible that Aquinas, although he believes that God, who is the most perfect being, is capable or limited government.Itexplicitly refers tothegovernmentofuniverse,ruledbyGod.Itis undoubtedly states that monarchic government is the best, it does not explain if this is absolute other statements and different texts are taken into account, the issue becomes more complicated. However,when societies. human for government political best the be to – monarchy absolute Voegelin, benefit. Therefore, for the same reason that, in a just government, the government the multitude, in that he diverts the common good ofthe multitude to his own divided. Now, the power of one who rules unjustly works to the detriment of A forceoperating for evilismoreharmful when itisonethan Thomas deriveshisstrongestargument forthedangersofunlimited monarchy fromthe Considering these texts it seems that Aquinas proposes monarchy – possibly unlimited, paety hmn alblt ws h ms iprat atr ht ae Aquinas made that factor important most the was fallibility human Apparently, Regarding the paragraph from theSumma History ofPoliticalIdeas 95 , 222. 25 (ST I. q.103. a.3.) cited above, although it although above, cited a.3.) q.103. I. (ST De Regno,after commending CEU eTD Collection from falling into the hands of a tyrant.” king a by ruled multitude the prevent would which out worked carefully be should scheme “a note: inordertopreventthedevelopment of theworstkindgovernment,thatis,tyranny, Mixed Governmentasan Alternative effort ismanifested intheideaofmixedgovernment. power ofthemonarchwouldbelimited, as itis,counter-balanced, bysomemeasures. This unification) with measures to ensure avoiding the danger of tyranny. In such a government the for force its (mainly kingship of qualities good the combines which government a be would beings arenotwhollyvirtuous. on the abuses ofthe ruler, and such misuse of powerwouldhappen sooner orlater, since human the ruleofasingleindividual isthatifnooneelsesharesinthegovernmenttherecheck held inonehand,withoutanycounter-balance.that for Itseems Thomas thegreatestdangerof converso eritetininiustoregimine, utvidelicetquantoregens estmagisunum,tantositnocivum. retorquet. Sicutigitur inregimine iusto,quantoregens estmagisunum,tantoutiliusregimen, ...itae praesidentis operaturadmalummultitudinis,dumcommune bonummultitudinisinsuiipsiustantum tyrannum. 98 Politics,” 220.Fortheoriginal textby Aquinas seeSent.II.44.2.cf.DR,I.7. nature ofindividualtrannycide, thoughlaterheexpressedamorecautiousopinion.See: Sigmund,“Lawand 97 96 the misuse of governmental power allocation of all political power toonepersondangerous. That is, heisawareofthedanger there arenolimitations, no checksonhisauthority. itand This iswhat,implies Thomas, makesthe abuses and power allpolitical holds tyrant The unification. for power the abuses it DR,I.3.23.Magisestnocivumsivirtusoperansmalumsituna,quam divisa. Virtus auteminiuste DR,I.6.41.Laborandumestdiligentistudio utsicmultitudiniprovideatur derege, utnonincidantin Inhisearlywork,ScriptumSuperLibros Sententiarum,heevenargued for thejustifiableandpraiseworthy In the societies human actual for rule of form best the Aquinas for that seems it Therefore, A tyrannical regime perverts the same quality that makes monarchy the best government: proportion asitismoreunitary. of anunjustgovernment,namely, thattherulingpowerwillbemoreharmfulin true be will contrary the so … one is power ruling the as proportion in better is De Regno Aquinas ends his discussion about monarchical rule with the following 97 , and realizes that it is even worse when all the authority is 98 96 He briefly proposes three distinct measures to achieve 26 CEU eTD Collection all, bothbecauseallareeligibletogovern,and therulesarechosenbyall.” under him are othershavinggoverning powers: and yet a government of thiskindissharedby identifies mixed government as one in which “one is given the power to preside over all; while from all the good simple forms of government, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. Aquinas ordered governmentasakindofmixedconstitution, that is,aregimecontained elements was well ordered, established directly by God forhischosenpeople. He describes thiswell- the I-II.105.1, hedeals with Mosaiclawanddeclares that the government of ancient Israel restrained bycertainconstitutionalmeasures. of apolitical government (asopposedtoregalgovernment),inwhichtheruler’s authority is monarchy thepolitical power ofthekingshouldberestricted. This notionmightevoketheidea the sudden dismissal of the topic, it seemsthat in the in tyrannidemdefacilideclinare nonpossit. 103 102 101 100 99 tempering the ruler’s powerisnotexplicated. way astate’s government is tobeorganized. In theDeRegno,however, theexact method of some limitations on theking’s powerbyestablished governmental institutions. but king, the depose to multitude’spower the only not is here mind in has what Aquinas that tyranny.” removed” and in which the ruler’s “power should be so tempered that he cannot easily fall into is tyrannize to opportunity “the which in government a such of establishment the suggests this end.First,hestatesthattherulershouldbecarefullychosenandeducated. Moreover, he king, despitealltheseefforts, becomesatyrant. Ibid.,I.6.42.Utregi iaminstitutotyrannidissubtrahaturoccasio.Simuletiamsiceiustemperetur potestas,ut ST, I-II.105.1.Unuspraeficitursecundumvirtutem quiomnibus praesit;etsubipsosuntaliquiprincipantes Blythe,“MixedConstitution,” 556. See: Voegelin, Ibid.,I.6.43. Aquinas again takes up the issue of limiting governmental power in the in power governmental limiting of issue the up takes again Aquinas For thisdiscussionthesecondprovisionismostpromising,sinceitconcerns 99 Finally, Thomas alsostates that there must beprovisionsforthe situation when the History ofPoliticalIdeas , 221.and Tierney, “FreedomandtheMedievalChurch,” 89. 101 27 Nevertheless, Blythe argues quite convincingly 100 De Regno Thomas subtly implies that in 102 That is, despite Summa. In 103 CEU eTD Collection principum quamlexinstituit. eligebat; undediciturDeut.I, dateexvobisviros sapientes,etcetera.Undepatetquodoptima fuitordinatio eligebantur; diciturenimExod. XVIII,provide deomniplebeviros sapientes,etc.,etetiamquodpopuluseos nobiles, etconstituieosprincipes, ethocerataristocraticum.Seddemocraticumquod istideomnipopulo septuaginta duoseniores secundumvirtutem,dicitur enimDeut.I,tulidevestristribubusviros sapienteset populum quasisingulariteromnibusprincipantes,quodest quaedamspeciesregni. Eligebanturautem 105 104 etiam abomnibuseliguntur. secundum virtutem;ettamentalisprincipatusadomnespertinet, tumquiaexomnibuseligipossunt, Himself.” to this reserved but people; the to king a of choice the leave not did Lord “the king the of case to Thomas, popularelection only concernedthearistocratic group oftheelders,whilein from all is identified as the element of democracy. It is important to emphasize that, according chosen fortheir virtue manifested the element of aristocracy, andelection of theeldersbyand his successors,ruledoverall, representing the element ofmonarchy, theseventy-twoelders government ofancientIsraelasamixedconstitution,observing: Accordingly, he notes that mixed government “is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom Regno supporting monarchy, Aquinas makes quite clear his preference for a mixed constitution. was anissueofgreatimportance. after God agreed to doso,hestill reserved the right to choosethe king forhimself because it reluctantly gave thepeopleofIsraelaking, mostlikely whathewantstoemphasize here isthat, Ibid.,Etideoetiamelectionemregis noncommisitdominus populo,sedsibireservavit. ST, Ibid.,Ethocfuitinstitutumsecundumlegemdivinam.Nam Moyseseteiussuccessores gubernabant Thomas identifies all three simple forms of government: a king, namely, Moses, and Moses, namely, king, a government: of forms simple three all identifies Thomas Aquinas, after identifying the core features of mixed government, describes the Mosaic the orderingofrulerswaswellprovidedforbyLaw. that evident is Consequently,men,’it etc. wise you among from have me ‘Let they were chosen by the people;wherefore it is written in Deuteronomy 1:13: 18:21: ‘Provide outofall the people wise men,’ etc.; and, again, in sofaras in sofarastherulerswerechosenfromall the people; for itiswritten in Exodus that therewasanelement of aristocracy. Butitwasademocratical government so rulers”: them appointed and honorable, and wise tribes your of out took “I were chosen,whoeldersinvirtue:foritiswrittenDeuteronomy1:15: a kindofkingdom.Moreover,ruler overall;that therewas so seventy-twomen and his successorsgovernedthe people in such a way that each of them was Such wastheformofgovernmentestablishedbyDivineLaw. ForMoses In thissectionoftheSumma,apparently in acontradiction withhisstatements in theDe 105 Although Thomas isawareofthefact, expressed inother sections, that God only 28 104 CEU eTD Collection talem ordinationem amantetcustodiunt. dominetur populus,inaliquo potentes,inaliquorex. alterius, etminusdaturseditionis materia,siomneshabeantparteminprincipatucivitatis; putasiinaliquo commixtum exomnibuspraedictis regiminibus. Ethuiusratioest,quia unumregimen temperaturexadmixtione democratic elementofmixedgovernmentguarantees stabilityandconcurrence. 109 108 107 106 enduring.” most is and all, to itself commends some shareinthegovernment: for thisformofconstitution ensures peace among thepeople, take should “all that secure to ability its to due partially best, the is government mixed that examined above. Still,intheSummahetakesafurtherstep,andcommits to thestatement popular participation. This is similar to the idea that he maintains in the section of the that ifitisthebestgovernmental form, itisthebestbecausecanensurestability and peaceby government is thebest.Nevertheless, he doesinterpret Aristotle’s text in amannersuggesting a government made up of many forms is better.” consider thebestformasbeingablendofmanyforms,however, speakbetter[thanPlato];for who “those that noting government, mixed for preference a expresses he notions, Platonic the Aristotle’s great deal on popular participation in the government. Here he refers to one of the sections of resistance against corruption.Heargues that the stability of apolitical community depends a ... partlyaristocracydemocracy.” interprets thissection: ST, I-II.105.1.Omnesaliquampartemhabeant inprincipatu, perhocenimconservatur paxpopuli,etomnes LP, II. 7.3.Dicitergo primo,quodquidamdicuntoptimum regimen civitatis estquodquasi Pol.1266a4-5.βέλτιονοὖνλέγουσινοἱπλείουςμιγνύντες: ἡγὰρἐκπλειόνωνσυγκειμένηπολιτεία βελτίων. Ibid., Talisenimestoptimapolitia,benecommixtaexregno ...etaristocratia…exdemocratia. qia gvs w raos o peern a ie cnttto: t saiiy n its and stability its constitution: mixed a preferring for reasons two gives Aquinas In thiscommentary Thomas doesnotyetexplicitly identify with thenotionthat mixed another). if thepeople should ruleinsomething, the powerfulinanother, andthekingin for rebellionifallthecitizens shareintheruleofpolitical community (i.e. because the admixture of one regime moderates another, and there is lessreason is onethat is amixture, as itwere,ofall the aforementioned regimes. And this is Therefore, he says first that some say that the best regime of a political community Politics 108 where Aristotle discusses the ideas outlined in Plato’s Laws.Contrary to 106 29 107 109 Thomas, inhiscommentary on the ht s qia ws ovne ta the that convinced was Aquinas is, That Politics Summa , CEU eTD Collection indignatus, concessit. plena potestate,sediudicemet gubernatorem ineorumcustodiam.Sed postearegem adpetitionempopuli,quasi per quaevitiamaximehomines intyrannidemdecidunt.Etideodominusaprincipioeis regem noninstituitcum conceditur ...Perfectaautem virtusinpaucisinvenitur, etpraecipueIudaei crudeleserantetadavaritiamproni, quae regi conceditur, defaciliregnum degeneratintyrannidem,nisi sitperfectavirtuseiuscuitalispotestas 110 the powerofkingisnolongerplenary. Although neverexplicitly stated inthe DeRegno, be preserved, but by the involvement of the tempering effects of aristocracy and democracy, form ofmonarchy, namely, tyranny. wholly virtuous. In this case, observes Aquinas, such government would become the corrupted ruler. However, inthecaseofhumansocietiesthereisagoodchancethatrulerwouldnotbe universe is not at all problematic for him: God, its king, is a perfect and absolutely virtuous safely byaperfectly virtuous person.Probablythisiswhythemonarchical government ofthe as the best form of political government is that plenary political power can only be exercised seems that his conclusions apply moregenerally. The reasonforrejecting unlimited monarchy makes hisanthropologicalrealismquiteclear, noting: serious that kings should not be given plenary power. This is the part of the text where Aquinas is because the political power granted to aking is toogreat, and the danger of tyranny is so would bethebesttypeofgovernment, it isnotwellsuitedforactual human societies. This best is its resistance to corruption. His theory is that, even though abstractly pure monarchy ST, Ibid.,Regnumestoptimumregimen populi,sinoncorrumpatur. Sedpropter magnampotestatem In a mixed constitution the beneficial aspects of monarchy (like its power to unify) can Even thoughinthissection Thomas mentions the government of Israelasanexample, it Besides theaspectofstability, theotherreasonforoptingmixed government as the king. asked Himtodoso,being indignant with them, so tospeak,Hegranted them a gave them judges and governors to rule them. But afterwards when the people but power, full with authority kingly the up set not did Lord the first very the to crueltyandavarice,whichvicesaboveallturnmenintotyrants.Hencefrom Now perfect virtue is tobe found in few: andespecially werethe Jews inclined into tyranny, unless he to whom this power is given be a very virtuous man ... corrupt. Butsincethepowergrantedtoakingissogreat,iteasilydegenerates A kingdomisthebestformofgovernment of thepeople,solongasitisnot 110 30 CEU eTD Collection Theory oftheThirteenthCentury 113 112 111 for actual humancommunities. Although hementions repeatedly that apuremonarchyis claim that Aquinas consistently supported a kind of political monarchy as the best government of thepoliticalcommunity. constitutional (that is, political) monarchy where the ruler devotes himself to the common good of kind a is government best the Aquinas for that concludes also he Thus, tyrant. a become element of monarchy ensures unity but is limited by a constitution so that the king cannot He concludesthat: power. king’s the tempering understood kingship, on treatise unfinished his in Thomas, how interpreted asonesuchgovernmentalarrangement,aimedattemperingtheking’s power. removed.” is tyrannize to opportunity the that arranged so be must kingdom the of government “the power, although there isahintinDeRegnothatoneoftheprovisionsagainsttyranny single headwhosepowerisconstrainedsomerespect. monarchy in the the powerofamonarch. Thus, itisprobablethat Thomas doesnotsupportunlimited plenary tempering demanded obscurely somewhat maybe he when that like something meant Aquinas DR,I.6.42.Utintyrannidemdefacilideclinare nonpossit. F. C.Copleston,Aquinas(London:PenguinBooks,1955), 232-33. R.W. Carlyleand A.J. Carlyle, A HistoryofMedievalPolitical TheoryIntheWest.Vol. V. ThePolitical Consequently, it seems that there is evidence in the Thomistic texts that supports the supports that texts Thomistic the in evidence is there that seems it Consequently, Similarly, Coplestonmaintains that Thomas supportedmixed government in whichthe may bepreventedfrombecomingatyrant.” and it is bymeans of the restraints belonging to suchconstitution that the king government, then,inthejudgmentofSt Thomas, isaconstitutional monarchy, St Thomas clearly preferred a mixed or constitutional state … The best form of Carlyle interpreted the passageinSumma,arguingThis ishow thatthistextexplains tl, t s o cer o qia pcue te okns f hcs n governmental on checks of workings the pictured Aquinas how clear not is it Still, 111 Based on the De Regno,but also argues fora political monarchy, that is, a government by a 113 Summa, the admixture of the simple governmental forms can be (Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1928),94-95. 31 112 CEU eTD Collection Francis, thefatherof Franciscanswas,ontheonehand,aninspiringand intensecharacter, differences originally stemmed from thediffering personalitiesandattitudesofthefounders. Franciscans and the Dominicans, who exemplified quite different notions of organization. The monarchy asthebestgovernment. theory, whichcouldfurther strengthentheclaim that Thomas consistentlysupportedpolitical actual circumstances), there arestrongparallelsbetweentheDominicanpractice and Thomas’ any to refers rarely (he texts political Aquinas’ in directly the detected be of cannot influence Dominicans the Although limited. constitutionally was power whose head one with monarchy,political similar quite a manifested government Dominican the that argue I Below organization that served asthe context of Thomas’ whole adultlife: the Dominican order. the rulerspowerislimitedbyverysetupofgovernment. about thesamething:political monarchy, agovernmentinwhichthereisonehead,butwhere Regno, andstates that a mixed constitution is thebestin government. That is, when Thomas argues that a tempered monarchy is the best in the where hispowerislimited by the admixture of elements of aristocracy and democracy in the also considersthemainadvantageofmonarchy:ithasagreatcohesiveforce. realizes the dangerthatisentailed by vesting allpolitical power intoasingleperson.Still, he the bestideally, considering the fact that human beingsarenotcompletely virtuous, Thomas THE MIXEDGOVERNMENT OF THE DOMINICAN The early thirteenth century sawthe rise oftwo mendicant religious orders, the This claim can befurther strengthened when it is paralleled with the governmental His solutionisalimited monarchy inwhichthereisoneheadofthecommunity, but ORDER 32 Summa, heisprobably speaking De CEU eTD Collection ordinis fratrumPraedicatorumsecundumredactionem sanctiRaimundidePenafort by providing a bodyofeducated and trained preachers. the Constitutionoforder, Iusethisversion,published inthe Order. OriginsandGrowth to1500, Vol. 1,(New York: Alba House,1965),172,219,224. Whenreferring to presented inamorelogicaland betterjuridicalform. William A. Hinnebusch,TheHistoryoftheDominican opcentral.org/blog/the-growth-of-the-order-1221-1303/. Lastaccessed15May, 2014. Dominicans. SelectedWritings, ed.Simon Tugwell (New York: PaulistPress,1982),1-37. 119 118 117 116 115 114 moreover, it is easily accessible. Dominican constitutions quite close to the time Thomas was working on his political ideas and, composed underRaymondofPeñafort,avariantthe of them, the1241Constitutionwas Cohesion intheorderwasensured,mostofall,byorder’s remarkablegovernance. manifested an effectively centralized and unified, but also adaptable and mobile, body of friars. strong andwell-organized order which met the most acute needs ofthe Church, his magnetic personality ortheatrical deeds, butrather byhisingeniouswayofconstructing a popularly acclaimed miracles. Dominic, on theotherhand,didnotgainandkeepfollowerswith of peoplebyhispersonalmagnetism. He wascanonizedshortlyafter his death based onhis quite popular among the people. He was believed to be an in Aquinas’ lifetime,Johnof Vercelli (1264-1283). 1263 generalchapter, inwhich Thomas participated. There wasonlyonemoremastergeneral the at request, own his by absolved, was who (1254-1263), Romans of Humbert was general master next The John’smastership. under Order Dominican the joined (1241-1252). Aquinas of theFriarsPreachersinamoreorderlymanner. HewasfollowedbyJohnof Wildeshausen (1222-1237), followedbyRaymondofPeñafort(1238-1240),whorecomposedtheConstitution the mastergeneralsofDominicans.Dominic’s immediate successor wasJordanofSaxony Hinnebuschargues thatRaymond’s versionremainedcloseto theprimitiveconstitutions, butitwas William A. Hinnebusch,“TheGrowthoftheOrder, 1221-1303,”InTheDominicans: A ShortHistory.http:// Galbraith,Ibid.,36. Galbraith, Tugwell, “Introduction”, 10. ForacomparisonoftheFranciscanandDominicanattitudes see Simon Tugwell, “Introduction,”in From thesourcesofDominicangovernmental ideas Irefertotwobodiesoftext.One The first head of the Order was Dominic until his death in 1221. The ConstitutionoftheDominicanOrder, 4-7. 119 Besides, I use the available material of the acts of the general 33 118 Acta FratrumPraedicatorum 115 alter Christus andmobilized groups Moreover, theDominican Order , ed.R.Creytens“Les 117 Hissuccessorswere : Constitutiones 114 forinstance, Early 116 CEU eTD Collection Latin original. 124 123 122 121 120 18 (1948):5-68. constitutions desfrèresPrêcheursdanslarédactiondes.Raymond dePeñafort,” mixed government, it canserveasaneffective tool. restriction of governingpowers(acentral issue inpolitical rule) isnotanessential element of democracy. and monarchy, aristocracy of benefits the merges that one as government mixed understands Order, andasaresult,declares that the government of the Friars Preacherswasmixed. Finnis Dominican the of constitution the and government mixed of Aquinas’notion between link a establishes philosophy, political Aquinas’on book his in Finnis, Still it. with connection in mention rarely is Dominicans the of government the and varied, quite is century thirteenth the the powerofruler. governance, furthermore,itisaneffective toolforavoidingthedangeroftyranny, bylimiting most stablegovernment,sinceeverymemberofthepolitical community can participate in For him the best actual government is akindofmixedconstitution for tworeasons:it is the does emphasize the importance of boththebalance of powerandconstitutional limitations. above, even though it also includes the notion of mixing the three simple forms ofgovernment, chapters. member oftheOrder, sincehewaspresumablyfamiliarwiththose. (Rome: Typographia Polyglotta, 1898). Praedicatorum. Vol. 1,”ed.B. M.Reichert, ST, I-II.105.1. Blythe, Finnis,Aquinas,7-8. All theEnglishversionsofdirectquotesfromthese two sources aretranslated bytheauthorfrom The actsofthegeneralchapterhasalsobeenpublished,see: The definition scholars attempted to give of the mixed government as conceived in conceived as government mixed the of give to attempted scholars definition The Elements ofMixedGovernmentintheDominicanOrder To clearly demonstrate that Dominican Order hadamixedgovernment in the Thomistic Blythe, in hisessential book onthetopic maintains that, although the balance and Ideal GovernmentandtheMixed Constitution 120 I only refer to acts from chapters between 1244-1274, the period when Aquinas was 122 124 Monumenta ordinis fratrumPraedicatorumhistorica,Vol. III. 34 , 10. 123 Acta Capitulorumgeneraliumordinis Aquinas’ mixed constitution, discussed Aquinas’constitution, mixed 121 Acta FratrumPraedicatorum

CEU eTD Collection community control.” balanced between the monarchical elements of administration and the democratic elements of boast a completely developed system of government. It was well integrated and exactly could Order the therefore 1228, “By follows: as argues He discussion. his in mentioned not of Preachersasonemanifesting bothmonarchic and democratic elements. Still, aristocracy is history oftheOrderoffers amoredetailed examination of theearlygovernment of theOrder aristocracy both as the form of government where “a number of persons are set in authority” on thearistocratic element ofmixed government. In theSummaTheologiae 129 128 127 126 125 element ofthegovernment, the conventual priors).Hinnebuschalsoexplainsthat thechaptersconstituted the democratic the master general of the Order (and possibly, to a lesser degree, with that of the provincial and respects mixed”, respects all “in was constitution Dominican the that states also Blythe Finnis, Besides scholarship. of democratic, aristocratic and monarchic elements has already been mentioned in relevant constitutional checksandbalancesonthepowerofofficialshavetobeidentified. amixtureof of democratic, aristocratic and monarchic elements. Secondly, the limitations of authority,consisted the order ofthe thegovernment that beshown must it first, sense, This correspondstothegeneral description of aristocracy(forinstance, as putbyBlythe), few”. a in vested is government of power the where best, the by “government the as and ST, Ibid. ST, I-II.105.1. Hinnebusch,Ibid.,176. Hinnebusch,TheHistoryoftheDominican Order, 171. Blythe, This omission can easily be mended by focusing on the definition that Aquinas gives Aquinas that definition the on focusing by mended be easily can omission This For Hinnebusch “administration” clearly equates with the supreme executive power of Hinnebusch “administration”thesupremeexecutivepower clearly equateswith For The statement thatthegovernment of theDominican Order manifested a mixture Ideal GovernmentandtheMixed Constitution, 125 thoughhedoesnotelaborate this notion any further. Hinnebuschinhis 126 127 whilehestillfailstoaccount fortheelementofaristocracy. 35 41-42. hedescribes 129 128

CEU eTD Collection 131 130 allthe “from elected people.” tobe is group this that He adds virtue. unspecified an to according aristocratic element of government. He connects it to the notion of election, that is, to election the constitute who ones the choosing of method the to refers also Aquinas rule, aristocratic When talking about the Biblical mixed government, with the seventy-two elders representing was theessentially democratic element of thegovernment of theorder. That is, themembers of Dominican government. considered as constituting the aristocratic elements (in the sense Aquinas understands it) of the be can chapters general the and provincial the Consequently, electors. own their represented of thegeneralchapter were elected by the provincial chapter that is, fromandbyfriarsthat the members were indeed elected by and from the whole community, while the members purposes weretheprovincial and thegeneral chapters. Inthecaseofprovincial chapter, governmental specific fulfill to order in elected were that groups government. The Dominican community,the all by representatives the electing century thirteenth in present definitely were and community; the of body broader the from friars) fellow his represent adequately to ability were chosen,accordingtovirtue.” elders “seventy-two Israel: ancient of government Mosaic the in that states He post. the for Aquinas states that the rulers should manifest some virtue which could qualify them as suitable typology ofgovernmental forms. To ensurethattherulerswouldgoverninrightway, be oligarchy(wheretherulingeliteabusesitspolitical power) accordingtothe Aristotelian where aristocracy is referred to as the rule by the few. However, rule by the few could also Ibid. Ibid.Eligebanturautemseptuaginta duoseniores secundumvirtutem. Moreover, in the same section Aquinas identifies an additional feature of aristocracy. of feature additional an identifies Aquinas section same the in Moreover, The notions ofelecting a representative (who manifests some special virtue, i.e., the In contrast,theconventual chapter did notdisplaythearistocratic element. Rather, it 131

130 36 CEU eTD Collection ad populumpertinetelectioprincipum. Dominican Order,” TheCatholicHistoricalReview 133 132 rulers.” in sofarastherulerscanbechosenfrompeople, anditisuptothepeoplechoosetheir people, the by government “democracy,i.e., of element the contains government, Mosaic the example specific this in government, a him, For government. mixed of element democratic and theDominicanconstitutionoffered ampleopportunityfortheexerciseofbothtalents.” be fully competent either to elect the officers of the community or to serve as an officer himself, would (…) founder the by imagined as Dominican ideal “The that: notes Showalter on. early from present was it) understands Aquinas sense the (in element democratic the government an interesting description of theideal Dominican friar. ItdemonstratesthatintheDominican The DemocraticElement element ofmixedgovernment. conventual chapter (thatis,thecongregation of thefriarsconvent)formeddemocratic monarchy. The general and the provincial chapters manifested the element of aristocracy. The consisting ofseveralelements. The mastergeneraloftheOrderrepresentedelement of the aristocraticgroupoffewwhowouldrepresentthem. obtained this right solely by belonging to the specific community, but they were the electors of later). They hadnotbeenelected previously tobemembersoftheconventual chapter; they to participate in theelection oftheirownrepresentatives (withsomerestrictions, to beexplained the conventual chapter were constituted of allthefriarsconvent. The friarshadtheright example Tunmore argues thatoneofthegreatinnovationsDominicanorganization was ST, I-II.105.1.etexdemocratia,idestpotestate populi,inquantum expopularibus possunt eligiprincipes,et DennisE.Showalter, “TheBusiness ofSalvation: Authority and Representationin the Thirteenth-Century 133 hs ecito crepns efcl t te ecito ta qia ofr o the on offers Aquinas that description the to perfectly corresponds description This Showalter inhispaperonrepresentation in thethirteenth centuryDominican Order gives In summary, Dominicangovernmentcanbeseenasaformofmixedgovernment, Election was acentral procedure in theDominican government, so muchthat for 58.no.4(1973):561. 37 132 CEU eTD Collection general chapter have plenapotestastocorrect, and ifneedbe,remove, the master general. vel deeopenitusremovendo. 1988), 433-34. of MedievalPoliticalThoughtc.350-c.1450 Pennington, “Law, Legislative Authority and Theories ofGovernment,1150-1300,” in.TheCambridgeHistory Church DuringtheThirteenthCentury Representation,” of theOrderbetween 1238 and1240. version isattributed to Raymond of Peñafort, an excellent canonist and the third master general of 139 138 137 136 135 134 constituents.” their consulting without them to possessing it were not only empowered, but required to make decisions on any subject presented assemblies and “delegates as: it describes and system ofrepresentatives with plenapotestas, plenary power. by thefriarswerenotonlydelegates,buttheyrealrepresentatives, since theypossessed democracy with elected and free representatives. His main argument is that the officers elected that theOrderwasruledbyelectedrepresentatives. further explicitconsentnecessary. directly obliged bythe unrestricted authority of the representative’s decisions, without any was usually not solelyappointed by an individual, but byacorporate group. The groupwas in such negotiations. The element of obligation was preserved in canon law, but there the agent agent to representhim in dealings with athird party, andwasobliged by the decisions reached Roman law(whereitformedapartofprivatelaw)meantthatanindividual appointed an in Romanlaw;thethirteenth century ithadalready beenwelladoptedintocanonlaw. In Ibid.,57.Istiautemdiffinitores habebuntplenariampotestatem superexcessummagistriordinis corrigendo Constitutiones, Showalter, “The BusinessofSalvation,”561 See,forinstance: Tierney, Religion,Law, andtheGrowth ofConstitutionalThought ErnestBarker, TheDominicanOrder andConvocation. A StudyoftheGrowth ofRepresentation inthe HarryP. Tunmore, “TheDominicanOrderandtheParliament: An UnsolvedProblemInthe Historyof plena potestascanbefoundinthe1241versionofConstitution oftheOrder. This Barker maintains that the organization of the Order resembled a representative Showalter describes the Dominican government as one that was characterized by a The CatholicHistoricalReview 135 5-68.

Plena potestas (meaning full power orauthority) is a legal term that originated (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1913),17-18. 136 138 , ed.byJ.H.Burns(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, Inthe Constitution it is stated that the 26.no.4(1941):483. 38 137 An exampleoftheapplication of theconcept 134 , 23-24.andK. diffinitores of the 139

CEU eTD Collection diffinitor conventual prior andthe Order wastoimposedeterrentpunishmentsonthe offenders. conventual prior, thatis,thehouse’s immediatesuperior. involved the relations of theconvent as awholebodywiththeouterworld.Italsoelected the summarizes that the broad aim of the conventual chapter was to discuss and settle matters that 143 142 141 140 The integrity of theelection washighlyesteemed, and protected by seriousmeasures. decided byeitherthemajority voteoftheelectorspresentorbyacclamation or compromise. these principles: Itwasexpected to conform to the provisions ofcanon law andthe result was years. for thosewhoattempt such athing: they could not exercise voting rights foraperiod of three the Besides, elections. the of outcome the influence to try to not special emphasis on the priors, who could be supposed to have greater influence in such matters, instance, intheacta of the 1276 general chapter there is a strong warning to all friars, with a purposes, but its main end was probably the election of the representatives of the house. held bythefriarsliving in thesameconvent. The conventual chapter assembled for varied chapter any as chapter conventual the identifies Preachers of Order the of constitution the on best expressedintheworkingsofconventual chapters. Galbraith, in herstill-essential book the friars. The system of representation clearly manifests the order’s strongly democratic spirit. Thus, even an issue of such great importance was decided by the representatives of the body of electionibus faciendis.quivero contrafecissedeprehensi fuerint.pertrienniumvoceinomni electionepriventur. Acta Capitulorum generalium Hinnebusch,TheHistoryoftheDominican Order, 217. Galbraith,Ibid.,44-45. Galbraith, 143 One ofthemostimportant tasksoftheconventual chapter was the election of the In general,asHinnebuschexplains,theelection of theOrder’ssuperiors followed Moreover, the element of popular election in the government of the Dominican Order is Thus, apparently while there were compromised elections, the general strategy of the The ConstitutionoftheDominican Order, 40-41. , 186.Item.Inhibemusprioribuset fratribus universis.nefaciantinductiones in who represented theconventatprovincial chapter. 39 141 acta outlinesapunishment 140 142 She For CEU eTD Collection stated thatonlyfriarswhohadtakentheirprofessionsatleasttwoyearsearlier were eligible. and it modified but chapters, two previous the of decision the confirmed chapter general 1259 duos annos.deleatur. post duosannos.etdicatur. -iiii-annos. autem postannumaprofessione sua.deleatur. postannum.etdicatur. postduosannos. convent: to ensure that a diffinitor 148 147 146 145 144 this byemphasis onmajority vote. the diffinitor informed wish of the majority, since they would all have to abide by the decisions made by them intheworldoutsideconvent(especiallyatprovincialchapter). working oftheconvent had the right to choosethe most eligible person whowouldrepresent by ensuringthat all the professed members of the Order with the necessary insight into the the life of the convent. With that, the Dominicans maintained a clearly democratic measure from voting were probably meant to ensure a certain measure of insight for all the electors into only stated that the conventual prior was to beelected only statedthattheconventualpriorwasbyhisconvent. members oftheelective conventual chapter. SaintDominicdidnotelaborate on thematter, he During the course of the thirteenth century the order changed its ordinances regarding the one yearpriortotheelection wereeligible to become members oftheelectoral body. generalissimus chapter it was stated that only friars who had made their profession at least Finally, the1271generalchapterchangedtwoyearsforfouryears. diffinitoribus capituliprovincialis debitadomus.Ponentesnichilominuscausasdebitorum. Galbraith, Ibid.,156.Confirmamushasconstituciones. Incapitulodeelectioni prioris conventualis.ubidicitur. post Ibid.,94.Confirmamushasconstituciones. Incapitulodeelectioni priorisconventualis. ubidicitur. fratres Acta Capitulorumgeneralium Galbraith, where it is said:‘someonefromthemoresuitable ones maybeelected by the diffinitors ofthe general and the provincial chapters, About the election of the Besides, it was quite important that the result of the election should conform to the to conform should election the of result the that important quite was it Besides, Although itwasneverspecified,thechangesrestraining thenewmembersoforder The ConstitutionoftheDominican Order, 62. The ConstitutionoftheDominicanOrder, 45. withplenapotestaattheprovincial chapter. The Dominicans attempted to ensure could only be legally elected by at least half of the electors in the , 7.Quilibetpriorcumconventu scribatsingulis annispriorisuoprovinciali et 148 The 1259generalchapter decided on achangethatmeant 40 147 144 However, inthe1236 145 The 146

CEU eTD Collection were notitsrulers,rather, theyweremeant to servethegeneral body offriars. order the rulers. of the officers of the tyranny it, the puts against Barker safeguard As efficient after hewaselected,representedalltheconventwithoutrestrictions. prior, the of office the to person certain that of election the to consented who clear quite made 152 151 150 149 province.” of that or convent that of prior the for this elect present, the first case it should be said: “I myself so much on the behalf of myself and on all the electors outcome, the election of the prior wastobeannounced according to twodifferent formulae. In decision ofthemajority), or thatthematter was decidedbythemajority. Dependingonthe of the election are presented: that all could agree (that is, the minority could consent to the suggests thattheresultdependedonmajority of voters.Heretwoalternative outcomes The Aristocratic Element The Aristocratic of theorder. control of all the friars overthe ones that represented them in the higher governmental levels conventual chapter by all the friarsbelonging to theconvent ensured theelement of democratic and on behalf of those who agree with me, elect this etc.” this elect me, with agree who those of behalf on and myself of behalf on that and this myself “I pronounced: be to was formula following the case, eligatur quisitgeneraliscapituli diffinitor. quod sequiturusque.eiussocius etc.etdicatursic.aliquisdemagisydoneisamaioriparte provincialis capituli et provincialis. ubi dicitur. aliquisdemagisydoneisacapituloeligatur. Deleatur. acapituloeligatur. ettotum Barker, TheDominicanOrder andConvocation Ibid.,egotalispro me.etpro illis mecum consenciunt.eligotalem N.etc. Ibid.,124.egotalisvicemea.etomnium electorumpresencium. eligotalem. N.inpriorem talisconventus. Acta Capitulorumgeneralium The democratic measure that all the important officials of the order were elected was an The decisionofthe1264general chapter on theelection of theconventual prior also The aristocratic element in theDominican government wasconstituted by thechapters chapter, whocouldbethe elected, from amongthemoresuitable ones, bythemajorpartofprovincial follow afterwards, hissocius etc. And let it be said thus: ‘someone may be Let ‘may be elected by the chapter’chapter’. be deleted, and all the things that , 95.Approbamus has.Incapitulodeelectionediffinitorumcapituli generalis diffinitor , 17. ofthegeneralchapter’. 41 149 151 Even though it had been 152 150 Election in the In the second CEU eTD Collection the wholebodyoffriars. order, whereelected representatives with fullpowerdealt with avariety of issuesconcerning however, andespecially the general chapter, wereessential driving forcesintheoperation of the that ofdemocracy, asitsmemberswerenotelected. The provincial and thegeneralchapters, mentioned above,theconventualchapterdidnotoperateonprincipleofaristocracy, buton with electedmembers:theprovincial,generalandgeneralissimuschapters. was As 42 CEU eTD Collection 43 CEU eTD Collection period. was demanded bythe rapidly expanding size and spread of the Order of Preachers in the early governmental unit with elected representatives, was an innovation of Saint Dominic which predicatores generales. Dominican Order, 173. but thenumberwasconstantlygrowingduringthirteenth century. See:Hinnebusch, 156 155 154 153 and the provincial priors wasappointed (they most likely were elected at an informal meeting, not conducted bythewholebodyofitsmembers. A committee consisting offourdiffinitors was solarge that for the sake ofeffective administration the actual work ofthe chapter was would beelectedbythemajorityoffriars,aswasmentionedabove. friars. Hewasalsotoreportonthepriorofhouse. This iswhyitwassoimportant that he individual by or convent the of totality the by him to raised issues specific the mention to was the while house, the of view official the represented prior conventual chapter.The the generals.” chapter the conventual priors with a single provincial the to call we “And Constitution: 1241 the in enforced was chapter provincial the the province had the right to participate in the workings ofthe chapter. This composition of convent (thesocius)totheordinaryprovincial chapter. Besides,thepreacher-generals of century. Each convent delegated its conventual prior and one elected representative of the provinces oftheorder. the friars (and their congregations in the convents) and the general chapter- It governed the Galbraith, Constitutiones Galbraith, The firstprovinceswereestablishedatthe1221generalchapter. Atthatpointthereweretwelveprovinces, 154 h cmoiin f h poica catr a qie osat uig h thirteenth the during constant quite was chapter provincial the of composition The Although itdependedonthenumberofhousesinprovince,provincial chapter Galbraith claimsthatthiscompositionensureddiverseopinionswouldbeheardat The provincial chapter was anintermediary organ ofgovernment, situated between 155 The ConstitutionoftheDominican Order, 61-62. The ConstitutionoftheDominican Order, 61-62. , 55-56.Capitulumautemprovinciale appellamus priores conventualescum singulis sociisa 153 Galbraithexplicates that theprovincial chapter, anintermediary socius 44 the preacher- 156 The Historyofthe socius CEU eTD Collection into the categories of legislative, administrative, spiritual, judicial and taxational matters. presens extiterit. et eademsibireverentia etobedientia aprovincialibus ex[h]ibeatur, que magistro ex[h]ibeatur, nisimagister fratres de quolibetconventuadhocidemelectos 161 160 159 158 157 the power ofthe provincial was limited (as will be discussed below) by the provincial chapter them agreatdealofauthority. They werethemainrepresentativesofprovince. However, of theconventualpriorsandtworepresentatives from eachconventoftheprovince. ordinary provincial chapter. According to the 1241 Constitution, the electoral college consisted prior. The elective provincial chapter had aslightly different composition from thatofthe by thetotalityofrepresentativesthatwereelectedfriars. chapter. solved the various matters that the chapter had to deal withandthey drew upthe argues Galbraith), who did the substantial work of the chapter. They were the ones who form intheofficeofmatergeneral. Asisstatedintheconstitution: the monarchic element in theorganization of theorder, whichismanifested in afull-blown foreshadowed office this to attributed power The important. quite was prior provincial the of of petitions to besubmitted to thegeneral chapter. these were theelection of thevisitorsand Nevertheless, therewerealsosometasksthatcouldonlybeperformedbythewholechapter; Ibid.,51.Provincialis autemeandemhabeat Constitutiones Ibid.,71. Ibid.,76. Galbraith,Ibid.,69-71. The idea that the provincial is to be considered a “smaller-scale master general” gave general” master “smaller-scale a considered be to is provincial the that idea The The provincial chapterelected the immediate superior oftheprovince,provincial if themasteristhereinperson. obedience should be shown to the provincials as isshownto the master, unless as themaster of theOrder[hasover Order], andthe same reverence and And theprovincial prior mayhavethesamepowerinhisprovince or domain 157 Galbraith states that they dealt with a variety of issues,which could be divided , 50.Volumus autemquodelectio predicta spectet tantumadpriores conventualesetduos 161

potestatem insua provincia velregno quametmagisterordinis, diffinitors 45 159 Thus, theseimportant issues weresettled for the general chapter and the outlining 160 The person The acta ofthe 158

CEU eTD Collection constitutionum factegenerali capitulononhabeantvimconstitutionis,nisipertriacapitula approbentur. provinciales siveperaliosdiffinitores, ubicumqueilludtertiumcapitulumcelebretur. Interpretationes regule vel approbatum, ettuncintertiocapituloimmediate sequente,poteritconfirmariveldeleri,siveperpriores summons required. summons it wasdecided thatthechaptermustassembleineachandeveryyear, withoutanyfurther 166 165 164 163 162 this built-in mechanism that allowed the friars to change their constitution in an effective and achieved through the approval of three successive general chapters. Galbraith maintains that the followingprocedure. A changecouldonlybemadeif: 1241 Constitution, which forbadechanginganything intheconstitution, except accordingto had theauthoritytochange theconstitutions. This restraintisincludedintotheprologueof chapter held the supreme legislative power inthe order. Namely, onlythe general chapters and bythegeneralchaptermastergeneral. previous one,whilebeforethatitalternatedbetweenParisandBologna. to constitutional regulations. decided bythe After 1244theplaceofeachgeneralchapterwas second general chapters (in1220and1221). the and first the convoked himself Dominic Saint Preachers, of Order the In orders. religious It haditsrootsinCistercian government, and thefourthLateran Council imposed itonall government. Still,asHinnebuschexplains,thegeneral chapterwasnotaDominicaninnovation. Constitutiones Hinnebusch,TheHistoryoftheDominican Order, 176-77. Galbraith, Hinnebusch,Ibid.,80-81. Hinnebusch,TheHistoryoftheDominicanOrder, 205-07. Thus, legislation for the order, that is, any changes in the constitution, could only be through threechapters. confirmed being if except constitution, the of power the have not may chapter celebrated. The explanations of the rule or the constitution done by the general the provincial priors orbyotherdiffinitores, whereverthatthirdchaptermaybe that would immediately follow, it could be confirmed or be terminated, either by It couldbeapprovedbytwosuccessivechapters, and theninthethirdchapter, The generalchapter’s great importance originated from theremarkable fact thatthis The general chapter was the most important aristocratic constituent of the Order’s The ConstitutionoftheDominicanOrder, 85. , 29.prohibemus nedecetero aliquidstatuatur, nisiper duocapitula continua fuerit 164 Thus, quite soon the convocation of the general chapter was subjected was chapter general the of convocation the soon quite Thus, 166 46 163 However,already at the first general chapter general first the at However,already 162

165 CEU eTD Collection representatives, who formed anevervarying representatives, who were alsoelected. As aresult,thesolelegislative power intheorderwasmade up ofelected from eachprovince) to represent the province in thegeneral chapter. The provincial priors See: Constitutiones provinciales tertianno,cummagistro ordinis omniadiffinientetconstituent ettractabunt. things.” on the third year, withthe master of the order, will decide and constitute and manage all declared that the twelve provincial is it “And members: following the of consisted chapter general legislative the Constitution, two typesofgeneral chapters weremade up ofdifferent members. According to the 1241 recent needs anddevelopments; theelective general chapter elected the mastergeneral. The and elective general chapters. The legislative general chapter’s main concern was tocopewith decisions werefinal,andtherewasnoplaceforappeals. in thegeneralchapterweredecidedbyvotingandwillofmajority prevailed. The to copewithnovelneedsandissues.Similarly to theconventualandprovincial chapter, issues 170 169 168 167 safe waygreatlycontributedtothesuccessofOrder. A sheputsit: by theprovincial chapters and amongprovincial priors whowerepresentforthesakeoftheir legislation. The sameperson was noallowedtoparticipateintheworkof thegeneralchapterfortwosuccessiveyears. Constitutiones Galbraith, Hinnebusch,TheHistoryoftheDominican Order, 179. Also see: It isapparentthatthissystemoflegislation allowed forawell-balanced and safeway There were two main types of general chapters, according to their functions, legislative Likewise astheyearswentbynewneedsarose. though, owningtohumanfallibility, hehadfailedtoallowforallcontingencies. to theconstitutiones, carried out whathadbeeninthemindoffounder, alternations confirming and approving, introducing, by chapters, general The Galbraith adds that the fact that the office of office the that fact the that adds Galbraith 169 The The ConstitutionoftheDominicanOrder, 39. , 57.Predicti autem duodecimprovinciarum diffinitores duobusannisetduodecim priores diffinitors, aswasmentioned above, wereelected by theprovincialchapter(one , 54. diffinitors fortwoyears,andthetwelve provincial priors 170 47 aristocratic body establishedforthepurposeof diffinitors alternated among friars elected 167 168 Constitutiones, 57. CEU eTD Collection tale capitulumcelebrabunt. the members of the third general chapter in each cycle. two successiveyears. Third, alltheprovincial priors werepresent,whonormallyconstituted province, and thenumber was doubled because normally two suchchapters were convoked in arrangement corresponded totheschemeofgeneralchapterwithonediffinitor at all general chapters. Second, there were twodiffinitors the workdonebythreegeneralchapters.First,itcontained the mastergeneral, who waspresent 175 174 173 172 171 three to successive generalchaptersheldatthesametime. equivalent was it because binding, instantly were decisions its but constitution, between theworksofsuccessivechapters. the master general presided over the chapters every year. Hispersonwasthe constant link the legislative generalchaptersvariedfromyeartoyear. There wasonlyoneconstantelement; elective general chapter was different from the legislative chapter. Itconsisted of the provincial master general, who was the first and most important official of the order. The composition of the here inanygreaterdetail. generalissimus chapterwassimilartothatofthegeneralchapter;thus,itwillnotbepresented of viewtheorderwasrepresented. office, ensured that in every third year, when the chapter consisted of the priors, the official point chapters composed of the priors andofthat of elected Hinnebusch, whohighlights that in practice there was little difference between the actaof Constitutiones Galbraith,Ibid.,109-110. Galbraith, Hinnebusch,TheHistoryoftheDominican Order, 177-78. Galbraith, The Besides legislation, the otheressential task ofthegeneral chapter was theelection of the The ConstitutionoftheDominican Order, 96. The ConstitutionoftheDominicanOrder, 39. generalissimus chapter(onlyheldtwice,in1228and1236)wasofasimilar , 61.Priores autem provinciales singulicumdoubus sociisacapitulo suoprovinciali electis, 171 This statement issomewhatcontrary to theopinionof 173 48 174 Its composition reflected the idea of merging diffinitors. 175 present from each province. This Otherwise, the working ofthe 172 Anyhow, the composition of fromeach CEU eTD Collection mortem. Augustini [et]institutionesordinis fratrumpredicatorum, quodero obediens tibituisquesuccessoribususquead Deo etbeateMarietibiN. magistro ordinis predicatorum etsuccessoribustuissecundum regulam beati responsible tothegeneralchapter. a Dominicaninnovationtomakehim not anoveltyinthehistoryofreligiousorders,itwas was supervised by the general chapter. As Tunmore states, although the office of the master general (which belonged to the aristocratic body ofthe general chapter), and also,hewaselected and of the government of the Dominican Order. Still, he didnot have the power oflegislation The MonarchicElement 176 established a strong link between them, and contributed to the unified and centralized character oath This successors. his to also and order, the of general master present the VirginMary,to by eachnovice,accordingtothe1241Constitution,ranasfollows: kind ofoathfealtydirectly tothemastergeneral. The textoftheoathtakenatprofession due to his high office. For one thing, all the novices who entered the Dominican Order swore a 180 179 178 177 also settled by a vote of the majority, in thiswaythenewmastergeneralwasappointedby“aquasi-unanimouselection”. a sufficient majority was reached, the rest of the electors agreed to the majority’s decision, and priors andtwoelected Constitutiones Tunmore, “TheDominicanOrderandtheParliament,” 483. Galbraith, See:Constitutiones Hinnebusch,TheHistoryoftheDominicanOrder, 178. The mastergeneral,elected bythegeneralchapter, constitutedthemonarchicelement According to thisoath each and every friar promised obedience, besides to God andthe Still, the mastergeneral maintained a greatdeal of power, especially executive power, that Iwillbeobeyingyouandyoursuccessors,continuouslyuntilmydeath. of the blessed Augustine and the institutions of the Order of the Friars Preachers, master of theOrderPreachers,andtoyoursuccessors,according to therule I promise obedience to God, and to the blessed Mary, and to you, , the The mannerofmakingtheprofessionissuch:I, makeaprofession,and The ConstitutionoftheDominicanOrder, 103. , 41.Modusfaciendiprofessionem talisest:Ego N.facioprofessionem etpromitto obedientiam , 57.Sivero inpartesinequales,obtinebit sententia plurium. diffinitors fromeachprovince. 179 177 although Galbraith adds that it was a custom that after 49 176 The election of themastergeneral was 178 180 CEU eTD Collection principantes, quodestquaedam speciesregni. only he could confirm the election of the provincial prior (besides, the master general’s election mentions anumberofexamples.Onlythemaster generalcouldappointabastardtobeprior, but hecould also perform functions that no oneelse in the Order had the power todo.Galbraith individual. She notesthat not onlydidthemaster have alltheauthority that the provincials had, but hewasthemostpowerfulindividualingovernmentoforder. Preachers, of Order the of ruler sovereign sole the not was general master Consequently,the were othermechanisms that restricted the master general’s power(tobediscussedbelow). instance, the legislative power in the order resided solely in the general chapter. Besides, there community. Still, it must be noted that his rule did not resemble an absolute monarchy. For of executive power bestowedonlyonhim,whichenabledhimtocentralize and unifythe manifested the monarchic element of mixed government. He hadaconsiderable amount 182 181 kingdom.” of kind a was there that so all; over ruler was them of each that way a such in people the governed successors his and Moses “For manner: states that the monarchic element was manifested in the Mosaic government in the following to him resembles Aquinas’ description of the monarchic element of the mixed government. He could onlyorderthingsthatdidnotcontradictthesepreviouslyestablishedlimits. master’s controlovertheindividual friars wasrestricted bytheseconstitutional checks, andhe only accordingtothe Augustinian ruleandtheinstitutions oftheorder. Itisnoteworthythatthe master general’s poweroverthe individual friars wasnotabsolute. The friars owedhim obedience of theDominicanOrder. ST, I-II.105.1.NamMoyseseteiussuccessores gubernabantpopulumquasisingulariteromnibus Hinnebusch,TheHistoryoftheDominican Order, 196. Galbraith concurswiththenotionthatmastergeneralwasmostimportant single Still, the fact that he was the superior ofall the friars who sworeallegiance immediately Nevertheless, asitisattested by thisformula, and asismentioned by Hinnebusch,the 50 182 The power ofthe master general 181 CEU eTD Collection University Press,1964),17. 183 an effective waytomaintainthedivision andseparationofpoliticalpower. balances, and checks of system a of application the by ensured frequently is aim this that adds He power.” political exercise who those upon imposed restraints regularized of system a of means the “by many), or few one, it (be rulers his of interference undue the against individual prime functionofanyconstitutional government is tomaintain a kindofsafeguardthe constrained byconstitutionalchecksandbalances. no means beperceived as anabsolute monarchy. Itrather resembled a limited monarchy However, the monarchy of the master general was limited by several factors and could by of the order inall its administrative functions, manifesting a monarchic rule over the order. 186 185 184 actual governmentoftheorder: was not confirmed by anyone, as there was no single higher authority in the order to do so) do to order the in authority higher single no was there as anyone, by confirmed not was the callingofa Furthermore, as is attested by the 1236 provinciarum pecierit.velmagistro visumfueritexpedire. CarlJ.Friedrich, Hinnebusch,TheHistoryoftheDominican Order, 199. Acta Capitulorum generalium, Galbraith, Friedrich, inhisremarkable book onChristianconstitutionalism, maintains thatthe Constitutional ChecksintheDominicanGovernment head true a was He power. executive decisive had general master the Consequently, Hinnebusch alsoemphasizes and explains the amount of themaster’s authority over the was weak,theOrderweak;whenhestrong,strong. letters. He had the power toissue licenses, ordinances and precepts ... When he powers. Hewasconstantly active, in touchwiththewholeOrderbyvisitsand These executive functions offered a vastrange for personal use ofdiscretionary years. At othertimesalldecisions,administrative responsibilities werehis. enjoyed alarge libertyofaction. The chaptersmetforonlyafewdayseach far beyondtheactual powers heheld.Despitethelimits to hisauthority, he [There was]atremendousmoralauthorityofthemastergeneral,aneminence The ConstitutionoftheDominicanOrder, 133-35. generalissimus chapter. Transcendent Justice. Thereligious Dimension ofConstitutionalism (Durham:Duke 7.Generalissimumcapitulumnon convocetur. nisiquandomaiorpars 184 generalissimus 51 chapter, only the master could permit 186 185 183 . CEU eTD Collection 190 189 188 187 offices. higher accept to them enable to order in absolved were officials sometimes mentions, Hinnebusch life. As for office the hold not did they that believed universally was it but specified, not was chapter (thethatelected him), bythegeneralchapter, andbythemastergeneral. at the same time had his power limited by various means. He wassupervised by the provincial authorities. The provincial prior, even if he was venerated as a “smaller-scale master general”, effective waystotemperandlimitthepowerofsuperiorofficials. representation, and alsothesupremelegislative power allocated to thegeneral chapter were with adescendingamountofauthority).Headdsthatthedemocratic element of electionsand conventual priors). These superiors were responsible for the administrative functions (also of eachunit(themaster general as thesupremeheadofOrder;provincial priors; the of theorder;provinces; the houses)withadescendingorderofcommand by thesuperiors the verybeginnings.Fromearlyonorderwasdividedintogovernmental units (thetotality constitutional checks and balances. He states that this intricate system functioned from almost three disciplinesandmasses.” prior oftheHolyLand,andweimposeonhimthreedaysbreadwater, threepsalters, attested in theacta One example of thepunishmentandabsolutionaprovincial prior bythegeneralchapteris pane etaqua-iii-psalteria disciplinaset-iii-missas. 1267 the by explicit made was as year, same the in office same the resume not could person Hinnebusch,TheHistoryoftheDominican Order, 220. Acta Capitulorum generalium Hinnebusch,Ibid.,205-07. Hinnebusch,TheHistoryoftheDominican Order, 170. The chapters did not always absolve priors of punishment. The term of their offices their of term The punishment. of priors absolve always not did chapters The Clearly, the conventual and the provincial priors wereclosely supervised by higher Hinnebusch argues that the government of theDominican Order manifested such 190 However, there was onelimitation to thispractice: once removed, the same of the 1251 general chapter, where it is stated: “Westated: provincial is the chapter,it absolve general where 1251 the of , 59.Absolvimuspriorem provincialem Terre sancte.etiniungimus eitres diesin 189 52 187 188

CEU eTD Collection a petitiontotheproperauthority, askinghimtohandlethematter. send should he suggested, Order the of general master fifth the Romans, of Humbert as cases, which, although hecouldsolvethem,laywithinthecompetence of lesserauthorities. In such customary normtoberespectedbythemastergeneral wasthatheshouldnotinterfere in issues by anylegal means; he was supposedto restrict his ownexercise of power. Moreprecisely, the an expectation, based solelyoncustomandnotsanctioned and foremost,therewas which was corrected or absolved. Special attention was focused on the limitation of hisauthority. First punishment forsomekindofomissionorabuse. the involvement ofadditional punishment suggeststhatthechapter absolved thepriorasa reasons, suchasforcareer advancement, in thiscaseoftheprovincialpriorJerusalem Order, 197. 192 191 explains Dominic’s decision: self-control over his ownpower, andthat of themaster generals to follow. As Hinnebusch submitting themastergeneralstochapter’spower, Dominicexercisedagreatamountof legislation). However, byestablishing the institution ofgeneral chapters and voluntarily At thebeginning, Dominic had supreme authority over all matters of theorder(including or convent.” or the provincial chapter may not be resumed to the same office in that year in the same province general chapter: “The provincial and conventual priors having been absolved by the general or provinciale capitulum.nonresumantur adeademofficiailloanno.incademprovincia velconventu. Galbraith, Acta Capitulorum generalium Even the highest officer in the order, the master general, was supervised and, if needed, as general was thereby limited and restricted by the necessity of governing the otherbrethren. The chapterwouldmakethelaws.Hisownexecutive power step down,limit hisownauthorityasFounder, andsubjecthimselftolawall to imposethelaw.continued torulealone,buthedidnotwish willing to Hewas The mereactofcallingachaptervestedlegislative power init.Hemight have The example for the master’s voluntary self-restraint was set by Saint Dominic himself. The ConstitutionoftheDominican Order, 136.andHinnebusch,TheHistoryoftheDominican 191 In spite of the fact that the Dominicans did absolve officers for several neutral several for officers absolve did Dominicans the that fact the of spite In , 138.Priores provinciales etconventuales absolutipergenerale.vel 53 192 CEU eTD Collection inutilis etremissus, quiordinis dissolutionemetdestructioneminducat. scandalo ordinis tolerari,dequoetiamsilegitimeconvictusfueritvel confessus,velsiadeofueritnegligens; corrigendo veldeeopenitus removendo. 197 196 195 194 193 was unhappy with this development. master general to the of office the from resignation voluntary his submitted Peñafort of Raymond chapter, general 1241 Constitution: the in stated is it As solution. extreme an as office his from master the absolve only chapter absolve themastergeneral. as one.Moreover, theconstitutions bestowed authority on thegeneral chapter to punishand immediate superior. Although hepresidedoverthegeneralchapter, hisvoteonlycounted which, ultimately, representedthewilloffriarsorder. and restricted bythelegal systemoftheorder, andbythedecisionsofgeneralchapter, from thatposition.” over the digression ofthe mater general in order to correct him or to completely remove him diffinitors those “And general: master the supervise to chapter general Galbraith, Ibid.,58.Etnondeponatur, nisipro criminevelpro aliocriminalipeccato, quodnonpossitsinemagno Constitutiones, Galbraith, Hinnebusch,Ibid.,81-82. Briefly, the master generals’ power was limited by constitutional checks; it was limited As Galbraith outlines,thematter got morecomplicatedAs fortheorderwhenat1240 and destructionontheorder. he wassomuchnegligent, uselessandremiss,that he might bring dissolution for theorder, besides,ifhewaslegallyconvicted of itorifheconfessedit, another criminal sin that could notbeenduredwithoutagreat cause of offense And heshouldnotberesignedunlessonbehalf of acriminal act or onbehalf of As a precaution, the constitution attempted to ensure that the The generalchapter, thesupremelegislative authority oftheorder, wasthemaster’s according totheConstitutions. The ConstitutionoftheDominican Order, 137-38. The ConstitutionoftheDominicanOrder, 136. 57. Istiautemdiffinitores habebuntplenariam potestatemsuperexcessum magistriordinis 195 diffinitors, whoaccordingly accepted it. Galbraith states that the order 194 The 1241Constitutionexplicitly authorizes thediffinitorsof 196 197 193 This is attested by the act of the 1241 general chapter, 54 diffinitors of the general will havefullpower CEU eTD Collection 200 199 198 is limitedbytheadmixtureofelementsaristocracy anddemocracyinthegovernment. the Thomistic sense, in which there is one head of the community unifying it, but whose power in government mixed a manifested Order Dominican power. the his Thus, restricts efficiently monarchy, where the ruler issubjected to the previously established legal order, which who hadtogovernwiththegoodoforderconstantlyinmind. general was no sovereign. At the same time, he was the highest official of the Dominican Order, chapter makes itclear that thepowerofmasteroverorderwasnotabsolute. The master general chapter didhavethepowertoremovemaster. That powerbestowed onthegeneral when hiserroneousconductputthestability, oreventheexistence,oforderindanger), digressions ofthemastergeneralandtoremovehimonlyinmostextremecases(i.e., Humbert ofRomans,themastergeneral. the last to do soin the thirteenth century. The 1263 general chapter accepted the resignation of where aninchoatio absolved fromtheofficeofmaster.” being is He us. begged humbly Who order. the of master the of resignation the accept “We ipsum abofficiomagistratus absolventes. officii magistratusperpetuoimpediret. Ethecprecipimus firmiterobservari. diffinitoribus nisispropter aliquid premissorum aut propter defectumvelimpotanciem.queipsumabexecucione resignation, exceptasanextrememeasure: Acta Capitulorum generalium Hinnebusch,TheHistoryoftheDominican Order, 224. Acta Capitulorumgeneralium Even if Raymond of Peñafort was the first master general to resign willingly, he was not His rule over the order manifested many of the traits of a constitutional or political Although the observed. firmly be shall to order master we the this of And office the of execution the in previously orbecauseofafailinginability that mayconstantlyhinderhim not beadmitted by the We begin with thisinaddition. That [the master general’s] surrendering let 198 expresslystatesthatthediffinitors diffinitors werewarnedtoapply extreme caution and patience tothe , 121.Admittimuscessionemmagistri ordinis. quamhumiliteranobis peciit. , 20.Inchoamushancaddicionem. quodcessioeiusnonadmittatur a diffinitors, unlessbecause of something announced 200 199 Itisattested in theactaofchapter as follows: 55 should notaccept the mastergeneral’s CEU eTD Collection instance, Finnis,Ibid.,5-7. Co., 1928),2. chapters of the Roman province and he wasalso obliged to participate in all the general Dominican government; as a preacher-general hewasexpected to attend all the provincial the in involvement deeper his of beginning the meant office This province. Roman order’s 204 203 202 201 his family. of hopes the against went Preachers, However,of Order the join to decision his with Aquinas, between 1268 and 1272. time second a for and 1259 and 1256 between first twice: Paris of University the of faculty of thefriars. Accordingly,appointed fortheprestigiousDominican chairatthetheology hewas opposed. heavily and difficult decision a of result the but chance, by simply not was Order the joining abbot of the influential monastery only ten miles from the family’s castle, Monte Cassino. Monte castle, family’s the from miles ten only monastery influential the of abbot should climb highintheecclesiastical hierarchy, sothathewouldeventually become the seen himbecome a Benedictine monk. Their intention was, asFinnisexplains, that Thomas family,although theydidsupporthischoiceofanecclesiastical who, career, wouldhaverather DOMINICAN INFLUENCESIN AQUINAS’ NOTIONOF Ibid.,8-9,15. Foradescriptionofthereaction of Thomas’ familyonhisentrance intotheOrderofPreachers,see, for Finnis,Aquinas,5. M.Grabmannand V. Michel, Thomas joinedtheDominican Order in1244, Aquinas’ RoleintheDominicanGovernment The Orderrecognized and dulyvalued the talent of Thomas, andutilized it tothegood 203 His decision makes it evident that Aquinas sympathized with the Dominicans; his 204 MIXED GOVERNMENT In addition, in 1260 he was appointed a preacher-general in the Thomas Aquinas: HisPersonalityandThought 56 201 against theexpresswishesofhisnoble (London:Longmans,Greenand 202

CEU eTD Collection Aquinas participated was to draw up a curriculum which contained the contained which curriculum a up draw to was participated Aquinas to jointhemhadnotreceived the necessarytraining. Thus, thetaskofcommissioninwhich found in:ActaCapitulorumgeneralium of-study-in-the-ideal-of-st-dominic/. Lastaccessed April 19,2014. The actsofthe1259generalchaptercanbe Angelic Doctor s te ie criuu o suis use i te oiia generalschools. theDominican in pursued of studies curriculum fixed the is, the Great. Their task was,asPlacid Conway explains, tooutline the master, Albert his with along studies for commission the of part was Valenciennes,he where chapters, thesupremegovernmental unit. First,heattended the 1259generalchapterin monastery, butalsowiththegranderscaleorganization oftheprovince. a of governance the with only not acquainted friar, ordinary an than governance order’s the Naples between 1239 and1244 entered the orderafterpropertraining in theliberal arts (Thomasstudiedthe liberal arts in these schools, Weisheipl explains that although men like Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas 209 208 207 206 205 representatives, holding plenapotestaauthority, beasacceptable to theirelectors as possible. by at least half of the electors present). This was a measure to ensure that the decisions of the diffinitors ofthe general and provincial chapters could onlybeelected by the majority (i.e., chapters heldinRome. definitely familiar. was it, approved that chapter the in participated he as which Aquinas, with notion a was This Dominican Order, 168-70. serving asanalternativeforthetrainingreceivedatartsfacultiesofuniversities. Acta Capitulorum generalium James A. Weisheipl, “ThePlaceofStudyIntheIdealSt.Dominic,” http://opcentral.org/blog/the-place- Finnis,Aquinas,15. P. Conway, SaintThomas Aquinas oftheOrder ofPreachers (1225-1274). A BibliographicalStudyofthe Ibid.,7.OntherightsanddutiesofDominicanpreacher-general, seeGailbraith, Moreover, healsoparticipated repeatedly in theworkingsofDominicangeneral Interestingly, another topic discussed in the 1259 chapter was the notion that the (London: Longmans,Green,1911), 50. 205 Consequently, his office ensured that Thomas was more familiar with , 95. 207 , 94-101. ), by1259theorderhadtoconsiderthat young menwishing 57 Norma Studiorum,that The Constitutionofthe studia philosophiae 206 Regarding 208 209 ,

CEU eTD Collection Tugwell, “Introduction,”33-34. the extensive,predominantly literary, workhedidafterthe yearsofhisabsolution,untildeathin1277.See: Tugwell suggeststhatthereasonofHumbert’s resignationwashisfailinghealth, althoughhelikewisedetails of thediffinitorstoacceptitareunclear. See:Hinnebusch, a goodmanyyearsquiteactively afterhisresignation,thus,reasonsfortheresignation andthemotivation alluding tohisillhealthasafactorthatwouldhinderhim in hiswork.Still,addsHinnebusch,Humbertlived constitution andthe of rotationofficialsholdinggovernmentalpower. the order, HumbertofRomans,asisattested by theactaofchapter. of general master fifth the of resignation the accepted that one the was it because noteworthy should onlybeallowedasasolutionunderextremecircumstances. Thomas was mostlikely familiar with the notion that the removal of the head of the community resignation of Raymond, the diffinitorscalled for strict observance of thisrule. Therefore, of themaster generalwasamostextreme measure. At the1241generalchapter, afterthe so theyappointed Albert theGreat,whowasalsopresent,asvicarofmastergeneral. surprised byHumbert’s decision,still, they allowed him toresign. The chapter was notelective, 216 215 214 213 212 211 210 year. same the in office same had beenabsolved by the general or the provincial chapter (for whatever reason) resuming the the decisionsofthischapter wastheprohibitionagainst provincial and conventual priors who chapter Presumably, he,withtheotherdiffinitors,discussedrelevant official. highest the even remove to authorized was it government: Dominican the in held developed in the 1241 Constitution by Raymond of Peñafort, Acta Capitulorumgeneralium Acta Capitulorum generalium Still,itisafactthattheremovalofHumbertdidnothappen under theextremecircumstancesdescribedin Constitutiones, Acta Capitulorumgeneralium Conway, SaintThomas Aquinas oftheOrder ofPreachers, 57-58. Conway, SaintThomas Aquinas oftheOrder ofPreachers, 57-58. 213 This is evidence that Thomas had first-hand knowledge of the power the general chapter Finally, Thomas was also a member of the 1267 general chapter in Bologna. One of Thomas alsoattended the 1263general chapter in London,Holborn, whiletheywereevaluating Humbert’s appeal. It emphasized the notionalready 58. acta.ItwasonlyduetoHumbert’s request,who,accordingtoHinnebusch, wasmostlikely , 121. , 138. , 20. 216 This suggests that Thomas had actual experience of the notion 58 The HistoryoftheDominican Order, 224.Similarly, 214 inchoatio stressingthat the absolution 215 211 The participants were ofthe1241general 210 whichis 212 CEU eTD Collection included in Thomas’ commentary, thus,itis hardtodecideifhewasfamiliarwithitornot. μὴ μόνονπλουτίνδηνἀλλὰκαὶ ἀριστίνδηναἱροῦνταιτὰςἀρχάς, This statementisinapartofthe stating that:“inthosegovernments theofficialsareelected…accordingtomerit.”Pol. 1293b1 in hisPolitics people. democratic element of mixed government in whichthe rulers are chosen byall and fromall the part of government. This concept is applied by Thomas in the of thecommunity areenabledtochoosetheir rulers and,inthisindirect way, toconstitute a Election manifests the democratic element of government. By practicing election, members Elections In thefollowingsomeofthesepossibleinfluencesareexamined. influenced his ideas, and are at least indirectly attested in his political and governmental notions. 219 218 217 Friars Preachers arenotdirectlyattested. just likeotherhistorical developments ofhistime,experiences with thegovernmentof basic Dominican governmental ideas andtheirpractical application as well.Still,inhisworks, order, uptothehighest levels oforganization. This wouldhaveensuredhisfamiliarity with the constituted by theseventy-twoelders,chosenaccording tovirtue by thepeople. Thomas intheSummastatesthat the aristocratic element in theMosaic government was government. mixed of Aquinas’ in description to referred explicitly is officials governmental of governmentwereelected. Election of individualsconstitutingthearistocratic group of had atleastindirectinfluenceandcontroloverthewayorderwasgoverned. the democratic element of government.Duetotheintricate system ofrepresentation each friar Although Thomas atthispointmakesadirectreferencetothe Bible(Deutronomy1:13and1:15), Aristotle ST, I-II.105.1. Finnis,Aquinas,3,7-8. 218 Election is a central concept in Aquinas’ theory and in the Dominican government. Dominican the in and theory Aquinas’in concept central a is Election These instances suggest that Thomas was stronglyinvolved in the government of his Dominican Practice, Thomistic Notions For both Thomas andtheDominicansaristocratic and themonarchic elements Inasimilar manner, election was acentral procedure for theDominicans, manifesting alsobrieflymentionsthenotion thatgovernmentofficialsinaristocraticgovernments areelected, 217 Nevertheless, itcanbeargued thattheseobservations 59 , when he identifies the identifies he when Summa, 1-12. ὅπουγὰρ Politics 219 Inthe not CEU eTD Collection monarchic element in the order’s government, was elected by the electoral general chapter. and provincial priors, chosenbutalsothe head of the order. The master general, representing the element ofmixedgovernment. the Dominican system ofelection as hisinspiration for thenotionofchoosingaristocratic to refers directly never he though even Aquinas, by described one the of parallel exact an is 223 222 221 220 house, andtheyhadtobemembers of the convent that theywererepresenting. prior and one elected representative of the house. Both officials were elected by the friars of the conventual its chapter provincial the to sent house Each province”. the of “people the by is, case oftheprovincial chapter’s members,whowereelected and delegated by theirhouses,that Dominican government the rulers were elected by all and from all the people, especially in the government, theonlypossiblewayinwhichaking canbechosen.Itisonlyaparticular, and the in outlined situation the find not power other than God’s direct appointment of the ruler. This suggests, then, that Thomas does contrary toDominicanpractice,isnotelectedbythepeoplebutappointedGod. notes that rulers arechosenbythe people, election of theking,whorepresentsmonarchic element inmixedgovernment. Although he In thesection ofthe appointed by God. were chosendirectlyand and hissuccessors Mosaic government.HeestablishesthatMoses the kingaswell,oronlytomembersofaristocraticgroup. ST, Ibid. ST, I-II.105.1. Hinnebusch,TheHistoryoftheDominican Order, 178. Constitutiones In the government of the Friars Preachers not only were the Contrastingly, inthe In this passage he only mentions the origin of the king’s power in connection with the , 55-56. 223 Summa onmixed government Thomas doesnotmake any allusions to the It appears, then, that Thomas maintains that the head of the community, De Regnohementions several possible sources oftheking’s Summa, 222 it is notobviouswhether this statement refers to 60 when God directly assigned the head of mixed diffinitors, the conventual 220 This system This 221

CEU eTD Collection quod eipactumasubditisnon reservetur. se antesubiecerat:quiahocipse meruit,inmultitudinisregimine senon fidelitergerens ut exigit regis officium, Archelaus, ofhistitle.DR,I. 6. 50. that oftheRomanemperor, Augustus, whowieldedtheauthoritytodeprivetyrannicalkingofJerusalem, refers tothepopeasahigherauthoritywhocanbestowpolitical poweronkings.Heonlycitesoneexample, power bestowedonhim.Heputsitasfollows: fails to fulfill his side of the contract, his subjects have the right to take back the governmental the multitude for acertain purpose (presumably, the attainment of common good), then, if he of acontractual relationship betweenthekingandhissubjects;ifwereelected by 226 225 224 attached tohisoffice. requirements the to according limited is and consent popular from stems authority whose has to face serious consequences. The monarch is pictured as the highest governmental official, he so this do to he fails if and task, a specific fulfill to subjects his by appointed officer, is an then onlythisauthority has theright to take the powerback. He declares that if the power ofthekingwasbestowedonhim by ahigherhuman authority, monarch’sthe of power.source the on depends question this to answer the that states Thomas tyrant. a becomes he if monarch the remove to right the have subjects whether of question the Israel, whenGoddirectlyconcernedhimselfwiththeselectionofheadcommunity. probably not very general, example, relevant in the special case of the government of ancient king belongs to the right of a given multitude.” given a of right the to belongs king a with itself provide “to if him remove and monarch their against rise to right the have only DR,Ibid.Necputandaesttalismultitudo infideliteragere tyrannum destituens,etiamsieideminperpetuo DR,I.6.49.27pAdiusmultitudinisalicuiuspertineat sibiprovidere derege. Itisinterestingthat Thomas apparently onlyconsiderspolitical authoritiesinthisrespect,whilehenever king demands. be held, since, in ruling the multitude, he did not act faithfully as the office of a because hehimselfhasdeservedthatthecovenant with hissubjectsshouldnot the tyrant,eventhoughithaspreviouslysubjected itself tohiminperpetuity, It mustnotbethoughtthatsuchamultitude is acting unfaithfully in deposing In this passage Aquinas suggests that it is possible that in some cases the king, just like The contextofhisdiscussiononthesourcesking’spower intheDeRegnois 226 61 225 Thomas in this case pictures the possibility 224 Headdsthat the tyrant’s subjects CEU eTD Collection to bepraisedandrewarded.” aid. Thus, concludes Thomas, “in such a case he who delivers his country by slaying a tyrant is case withCaesarthatthere wasnohigherauthority towhichthepeoplecouldhaveturnedfor according to Thomas, the subjects are not bound toobey the ruler. Hestates that it was also the which therulerseizedpowerbyviolenceagainstwishesofsubjects.Insuchacase, in government a for example an as reign his identifies and Cicero), by described (as Caesar 229 228 227 he also mentions a way the tyrant can be justly removed. that they are not obliged to follow the orders ofa ruler whoabuseshisauthority. Inthis section whether thetyrant’sIn thecommentary he discusses subjectsareboundtoobeyhimand states a different stance on the removal of tyrants than the one proposed in his more mature works. Removal ofRulers Still, Thomas, just like the friars, is cautious when it comes to deposing the community’s ruler. of rulersassuresthat the subjects have a kind of safeguard against the tyranny of their superiors. election the that assume to seems practice, Dominican the to manner similar be. a in Aquinas, need if office this withdraw to right the retain subjects the that practice Dominican the in and his authoritycouldbesuspendedbythecommunity(oritsrepresentatives). order. Also, the master general’s power was not unlimited; just like the case of Aquinas’ tyrant, were elected by theprovincialchapter, withdiffinitorsdelegated by theindividualfriarsof Dominican Order. The master was popularly elected by the general chapter, whose members K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, Turnhout: Brepols,1993. is similartotheonefamous maintainedbyJohnofSalisbury. SeeJohnofSalisbury, Policraticus, Ibid.Tunc enimquiad liberationempatriaetyrannumoccidit, laudatur, etpraemiumaccipit. Sent.II.44.2. Galbraith, That is, popularelection of the head of the community implies both in Thomas’ theory That is to say, in this section Aquinas maintains that even individuals have the right the have individuals even that maintains Aquinas section this in say, to is That In hisearlywriting,thecommentary on PeterLombard’s Sentences This picture of the head ofcommunity recalls the master general’s positioninthe The ConstitutionoftheDominican Order, 136.,Constitutiones, 229 62 228 Heusesthe example of Julius 57. 227 , Thomas declares , Thomas This view ed.by CEU eTD Collection attentarent praesidentiumnecem,etiamtyrannorum …Videtur autemmagiscontratyrannorumsaevitiamnon pro liberationemultitudinisexponere periculismortis. excessus tyrannidis,quibusdam visumfuitutadfortiumvirorum virtutempertineattyrannum interimere, seque contra tyrannumagendomultis implicaripericulis,quaesuntgravioraipsatyrannide… 231 230 quite different from this. He declares that it is not right for an individual to commit tyrannicide: the risks, slaysthe tyrant and frees the community. His attitude in the commentary on the excessive misuseofpower. he does emphasize that a criterion which renders the removal of the tyrant acceptable is the does notmake clear what theexact difference between a tolerable and intolerable tyranny is, taking measuresagainstthetyrantifhisruleis absolutelyintolerable. suggests Although he the case of milder tyranny, since this action might result in a worsen situation. That is, he only In thisworkhemanifestsamorecautiousviewanddeclares: quite aradicalstance,noticeablydifferent fromtheonethathelaterdeveloped. presents here Thomas mentioned. not is abuse the of quality or quantity the while power, his authorities who could solve the issue. The tyrant here is simply identified as a ruler who abuses to kill tyrants, providing that they do not owe obedience to them, and there are no higher Ibid.,6.47-48.Essetautemhocmultitudinipericulosum eteius rectoribus, siprivata praesumptione aliqui DR,6.44-45.Sinonfueritexcessustyrannidis, utiliusestremissam tyrannidemtolerare adtempus,quam by publicauthority. action to beundertaken, not throughthe private presumption of afew, butrather an is tyrants of cruelty the against proceed to that seems it … rulers their for as rulers, even though tyrants,this would bedangerous for the multitude as well Should private persons attempt on their own private presumption to kill the in the In thesecondpartofthispassageheoutlinesanopinionsimilartohisown Here Thomas notes that in commonsense it is not advisable for subjects to revolt in the multitudefree. to slaythe tyrant and toexposethemselves to thedangerofdeath in ordertoset some havebeenoftheopinionthat it wouldbeanactofvirtue for strongmen unbearable, is tyranny of excess the If … itself tyranny the than grievous more for a while then, by acting against the tyrant, to become involved in many perils If therebenotanexcessoftyrannyitismoreexpedient to tolerate milder tyranny Aquinas also discusses at some length the right of the tyrant’s subjects in the Sentences, namely, that it is avirtuousact if aprivate person, despite all 230 231 63 De Regno, however, is

Et sisitintolerabilis De Regno. CEU eTD Collection provision included in the 1241 Constitution. 235 234 233 232 privata praesumptionealiquorum, sedauctoritatepublicaprocedendum. solely if the master manifests such a fault that it absolutely excludes him retaining his office. that themaster general’s resignation must onlybeaccepted as anextreme measure, applicable acceptance of RaymondPeñafort’s resignation by thepreviousgeneral chapter. Itstressed chapter’s authority, whichcouldsupervise,punishandremove the headoforder, the head ofthe order could be deposed. His absolution belonged in the scope of the general authority. especially considering thenotionsonintolerable misuse ofpowerandtheapplication for public his earlier one, itdoesaccordwellwiththeDominican practice concerning similarmatters, rightfully proceed againstatyrant. Although hisopinionexpressedhereisinclearcontrastto The members of the 1263 general chapter, Thomas Aquinas being one of them, were faced were them, of one being Aquinas Thomas chapter, general 1263 the of members The transgressions ofthemasterunlessitbrings“dissolutionanddestructiononorder longer without great harm tothe order. The Constitution declares that it is better to tolerate the of the master shouldonlybe implemented if his transgressioncould not beendured any deposal the cases those in even than further, stating it, qualifies Constitution the Still, option. master: When themastercommitsacriminal act oranothergravesin,hisremovalbecomesan examples for extreme situations in which there is noother remedy than the removal of the general was only applied as a most extreme measure. It outlines a list of cases serving as that manifested by Thomas in the Acta Capitulorum generalium Ibid.,58.Ordinis dissolutionemetdestructionem inducat. Constitutiones, Galbraith, The 1241 general chapter further emphasized this stance, especially fueled by the That is, in his treatise on kingship Thomas argues that only a public authority can As described intherelevant section onDominicangovernment, themastergeneral, As The ConstitutionoftheDominican Order, 136. 57. , 20. De Regno,attempted to ensure that the removal of the master 233 64 Still, the Constitution, in asimilar manner to .” 234 232 a 235

CEU eTD Collection 236 in his commentary on the that itcouldhavedoneso. There isastrikingdifference between Thomas’ stanceasoutlined of removing atyrant? Although direct evidence is lacking, several indications may suggest evidence thatthesituationcouldhavebeenconsideredinanywayextremeorintolerable. the chapter accepted Humbert’s resignation and allowed him to resign, although there is no the chapter. DespiteallthewarningsinConstitutionandactsofpreviouschapters, with theissuewhenmastergeneral,HumbertofRomans,handedinhisresignationfor practice on Thomas’ theory cannot be identified directly, there are strong indications for the for indications strong are there directly, identified be cannot theory Thomas’on practice chapter, apublic authority representing the order asawhole. Although theimpact of Dominican to theDominican practice, where therighttoabsolvemastergeneral belonged tothegeneral then the community has theright to take it back if necessary. This process isstrikingly similar adds, aswasdescribedabove,thatifthecommunity grants thepowertorulemonarch, not lie within the sphere of authority of individuals, it only concerns public authority. He also misuse of power is no longer tolerable. Secondly, Thomas states that to deposing a tyrant does he claimsthatsubjectsmustsuffer theruleoftyrantsaslongpossibleandonlyrevoltif This premise was made explicit in the Dominican Constitution, and isapplied by Thomas when established bytheDominicans. on theconditionsunderwhichremovaloftyrantispermissiblelistscriteria like those stance later Aquinas’resignation. general’s master the of admissibility the debated probably general’s absolution before, familiarized himself with them at the 1263 general chapter, which Thomas, ifhehadnotbeenfamiliar with theDominican notionontheconditionsofmaster 1267, acoupleofyearsafterthegeneral chapter thatabsolvedHumbert.Itislikely that Ibid.,121. Did the stance of the Dominicans influence Aquinas in the formation of thenotion of formation the in Aquinas influence Dominicans the of stance the Did First, arulerwhomisuseshisauthority can onlyberemoved as anextreme measure. Sentences and in De Regno. The latter work waswritten in about 65 236 CEU eTD Collection secundum partemsitsubiectus, quantumadeainquibussubiiciturlegi. πολιτικόν. 239 238 237 law.”to subject is he as insofar ruled, partially is rules,power,and his to namely, subject things regarding partially ruler “the regime inapolitical that He states way. specific a in it rules andisruledinturnaccordingtothetruthsofpoliticalscience.” rulers of regal and political states is that “the first is the sole authority of the state but the second between onedifference that notes he where government, political of definitions Aristotle’s an importantfeature of political government. This notionwasmostlikely inspired byoneof government and in Thomas’ theory, heconsidered the constant rotation of the rulers andruled Rotation ofOffices possibility ofsuchaninfluence. be ruled,inturn.” state consists of citizens in virtue of their equality and similarity, the citizens expect to rule, and comments onthefollowingsectionofPolitics rule inthemorestrictly temporal meaning suggested by Aristotle. This isclear when he subject totheauthorityofruler, butatthesametimeheisasubjectaswell. are things some government political in opinion his in limitations; qualitative but temporal about not talks Aquinas time, of period limited a for only held are offices governmental that laws ofpolitical community. Moreprecisely, while in Aristotle’s analysis political rule entails authority, butinanotherrespecttheruleris a subject; thatis,heissubjecttotheestablished hasfull respect some in ruler the that emphasizes rather he offices), political hold people Apparently, hismain focus isnotwhat Aristotle suggested (that in different periods different Pol.1279A10-12.διὸκαὶ τὰςπολιτικὰς ἀρχάς, ὅτανᾖκατ᾽ ἰσότητατῶνπολιτῶν συνεστηκυῖακαὶ καθ᾽ LP, I. 1.4.Quasisecundumpartemprincipetur, quantumadeascilicetquae eiuspotestatemsubsunt; et Pol.1252a15-17.δὲκατὰ τοὺςλόγουςτῆςἐπιστήμηςτοιαύτης κατὰ μέροςἄρχων καὶ ἀρχόμενος, Thomas, inhiscommentary on thePolitics While theforcefulremovalofrulersisamostextrememeasurebothinDominican Nevertheless, political of feature a as offices of rotation the of aware also was Aquinas 239 Aquinas’ commentary runsasfollows: 66 : “So in the political rule, too, whenever the whenever too, rule, political the in “So : dealswiththeideaofrotation,butexplains 237 238

CEU eTD Collection domesticam familiam,quamad regendum seipsum, multoquemaioradregimen civitatisetregni. Estigitur alios inbonitate:tuncenimdignum esset,utillisemperprinciparentur. parte temporisquidamprincipentur, inaliavero alii.Secusautemesset,siquidamciviummultumexcederent quando fuerintinstitutisecundumaequalitatemetsimilitudinem civium.Tunc enimdignumvideturquodinuna 242 241 240 ὁμοιότητα, κατὰ μέροςἀξιοῦσινἄρχειν virtue.” extraordinary of work a therefore is king a of office the well household thantoruleone’s self,andmuchgreatertorule acityandkingdom. To discharge follows: “the more persons he rules the greater his virtue … Greater virtue is required to rule a the king isdueagreater degree of happinessbecause of hisgreater virtue. His reasoning is as of thebook Thomas states that the rewardofvirtue isheavenly happiness, andargues that not handtheirofficesovertolessvirtuousmembersofthecommunity should and virtue, supreme their to due elevated naturally are they since fixed, are group this with his notion outlined in excel invirtue, sincethisisexactly the criterion by whichtheyarechosen. Thus, inaccordance that he deals with in this passage are those of the elders and the king. He declares that the elders offices governmental The offices. of rotation the mention explicitly not does regime, Aquinas supreme virtue,theyshouldruleuninterruptedly. do so.However, declares Thomas, ifsomecitizens are, sotospeak,naturally elevated by their virtue). In thiscase,argues Aquinas, all citizens are equally capable of ruling, and they should temporal sense) is only part of political rule if the citizens are equal (especially regarding their DR,I.9.68.Tanto magis,quantopluriumestregitiva …Sicigitur maiorvirtusrequiritur adregendum ST, I-II.105.1. LP, III,6.5.Ideodignumreputatur quodparticulariterprincipentur civessecundum principatuspoliticos, Following the notion of Aristotle, Thomas claims that rotation of offices (in the actual the (in offices of rotation that of claims notion Thomas Aristotle, the Following The office of the king is described in a similar manner in the in manner similar a in described is king the of office The On theother hand, inthe would berightthattheformeralwaysrule. otherwise ifsomecitizens were fartoexceed others ingoodness,sincethenit right that some citizens rule at one time, and others at other times It would be seems then it For citizens. of likeness and equality of basis the on established deemed right that citizens in turn hold political offices when the latter have been Since the rule over free persons is chiefly directed to the benefit of subjects, it is Libri Politicorum Summa, whentalking about the mixed constitution as the best , it is reasonable to assume that the members of 67 240 De Regno.Inonesection 242 . Although at first sight first at Although 241 CEU eTD Collection supreme virtue. Rotation of offices is only incorporated in the theory as a solution for deviation community. Forhim the best situation would beonewith natural rulers, governing due totheir friars are equally capable of ruling, Thomas did not make this assumption regarding a political 244 243 excellentis virtutisbeneregium officiumexercere. they were equally eligible and capable of governing. is what made them all eligible for holding offices in the government of the order. Normatively, the necessary capabilities to elect their representatives or serve as officials themselves. officials as serve or representatives their elect to capabilities necessary the of theseofficesarenotthatvirtuous. posts naturally. Nevertheless, rotation of offices is retained for the less ideal cases when holders of governmentareconstitutedare elevated byexceptionally individuals whotothese virtuous constitution. He implies that inanideal case both the monarchical and the aristocratic elements be an integral factor of political government, is not an essential part of the system of mixed worthy personifthekingfailstoconducthisofficeproperly. as thekingrespectsboundariesofhisrule,butcanbetakenbackandgiventoamore long as fixed is king the to Consequently, of removed. office be the can that Aquinas, seems it tyrant, he might become disposable and his office be given to another, since tyrants, according a into turns he when as so, do not does correctly. he office If his exercises king the as long as rejected is office kingly the of rotation the that implies again remark virtue. This excellent his the oneswhoexerciseofficeofkinginagoodway. kings, good of true only is it that declares and statement this qualifies eventually he subjects, it appears that Thomas universally states that all kings naturally have greater virtue than their LP, III. 6.5 Showalter, “The BusinessofSalvation,”561. In the Dominican government, as Showalter maintains, ideally all Dominican friars had to stated generally offices, of rotation the Thomas for that assumed be can it Thus, Nevertheless, he does argue that a good king holds his office somewhat naturally due to 68 244 While the Dominicans presumedthatall 243 This CEU eTD Collection http://opcentral.org/blog/lives-of-the-brethren-part-iv/ majority “fromamongthemoresuitableones.” of theprovincial and general chapters, it is stated that the the order. Forinstance, in theactaof1259general chapter, ontheelection of thediffinitors suitable fortheofficeofmastergeneral. considered Jordantobeanexceptional man, who,basedon Thomas’ theory,naturally was 248 247 246 245 and Dominicans the of practice actual the that appears Consequently,it them. among rotated from the more talented ones, who were in some way superior to the others, and then the offices for instance, that Jordan was “a pattern of every virtue.” stating, contemporaries, his of most to superior definitely be to him considered friars the that master, includes thelegend of JordanSaxony, thesecondmaster general. Excerpts suggest persons. The exceptional Thomas’ conception. Still, if weconsidertheactual situation in theorder, thegapmight shrink. in thesystem. Thus, apparently, thereisagapbetweentheideal Dominican situation and God fell from his mouth with such spirit and fervour that his equal could hardly be found.” be hardly could equal his that fervour and spirit such with mouth his from fell God of word “the preacher,and excellent Dominicans, an the was for he important most capacity a he did to the Order of Preachers.” of Order the to did he religious OrdersnooneeverdrewsomanymenoflettersandclericsnotetoanyOrderas the of rise the since that belief all of worthy and fact established an is “it order,that declaring But, most importantly, the text emphasizes Jordan’s fundamental role in the expansion of the Acta Capitulorum generalium Ibid.,Part4.Ch.10. LivesoftheBrethren, Part4.Ch10 GerarddeFrachet, This criterion ofsuperiority wasnotonlyappliedinthecaseofmastergeneral Even though nominally all friars were eligible to hold offices, officials were picked were officials offices, hold to eligible were friars all nominally though Even For instance,theearlymastergeneralsoforderwereevidently deemed tobe Lives oftheBrethren, Part4.Ch.2. Lives of the Brethren, compiled when Humbert of Romans was the , 95.Aliquisdemagisydoneis. 247 Basedonthesestatements, it is clear that the Dominicans . Lastaccessed:May15,2014. 69 248 245 Itisalsomentioned in hislegend that diffinitors mustbeelected by the 246

CEU eTD Collection uniti. Undemultitudomelius gubernatur perunumquamplures. modo uniantur. Illudautemquodestperseunum,potestconvenientius etmeliusessecausaunitatis,quammulti causa perseestunum.Manifestum estenimquodplures multaunire etconcordare non possunt,nisiipsialiquo est regimen unius,quamplurium. Manifestum estautemquodunitatem magisefficere potestquodestperseunum,quamplures …Utiliusigitur government oftheworld,hestatesfollowing: 250 249 to thisaspect ofit:inmonarchythereisonehead ofthecommunity who isabletounitehis mixed of constitution in theSumma, identifies description the monarchic element of his government exactly by referring in Aquinas, Actually, present. also is monarchy of element the his manysubjects,governingthemtowardsacommonend. him thebestcharacteristicFor ofmonarchyisthattheking,headcommunity, unites hn h rl o many.” of rule the than useful more is man one of rule the Therefore … several than unity about bring more efficaciously can one itself is what … be will it useful more the peace, of unity the keeping in is a government efficacious efficiently. more most “the community that political declares the He Unity inMonarchy showing rotationofgovernmentalofficialsinpractice. for Thomas asanactual, familiar illustration of Aristotle’s theory of political government, persons shouldhave some part in the government. The Dominican practice could have served eligibility, eligible of equally criterion that a so to politically according limited are offices and Thomas’ theoryarenotthatdifferent afterall.Bothassumethatrepresentatives are chosen ST, I.103.3.Etideoidadquodtenditintentio multitudinemgubernantis, estunitassivepax.Unitatisautem DR,1.2.17.Quantoigiturregimen efficaciusfueritadunitatem pacisservandam, tantoeritutilius… multitude isbettergovernedbyonethanseveral. a moreaptandbettercauseofunitythanseveralthingsunited. Therefore a concord, exceptsofarasthey are united. Furthermore, whatisoneinitself is cause ofunityisone.Foritclearthatseveralcannotbetheor The intention ofaruler overamultitude is unity, orpeace. Now theproper In mixed government, although more than one personsharesthe governmental power, Thomas argues thatonerulercanensuretheunityofcommunity better than several. Thomas’ main argument for the excellence of monarchy isthat it secures the unity of 249 A similar view is expressedinthe 70 250 Summa, wherediscussingthe CEU eTD Collection omnibus principantes,quodest quaedamspeciesregni. ex regno, inquantumunuspraeest…Moyseset eius successores gubernabantpopulumquasisingulariter Thomas’ notion on the monarchic element of mixed government, each individual member of 253 252 251 to the master general, thus submitting himself to themaster’s authority. in the 1241 Constitution, reveals that each new member of the order swore obedience directly codified as oath, the of formulation The novices. Dominican the by taken fealty of oath the in no singlepersonwieldedmorepowerthanthemaster. master, since there was nosingle individual in the order who had the authority to do so, since the of initiation the confirm to had one no Moreover, perform. could order the in else one no important single individual. As wasdiscussed above, the master was assigned functions that a similarorganization. be clarified by a reference to the organization of the Dominican government, which manifested share inthegovernment.Mayberelationsbetweenthosesharingpolitical government can is asupreme ruler, there are also other people (i.e., the members of the aristocratic group) who individual. Still, itisnotclearhow Thomas conceived thatwhileinmixedgovernment there of monarchy; there is onehead of the community who hasauthority over each and every a waythateachofthemwasruleroverall;sotherekindkingdom.” the Mosaicmixedgovernmentinthat:“Mosesandhissuccessorsgovernedpeoplesuch kingdom, since there is one at the head of all.” Similarly, he identifies the monarchic element in partly [is] polity of form “best the that and all.” over preside to power the given is “one that subjects. Hestatesthat monarchic element is presentinmixedgovernment in thepeculiarity Constitutiones Galbraith, ST, I-II.105.1.Unuspraeficitursecundumvirtutem quiomnibus praesit…estoptimapolitia,benecommixta Thus, the monarchic element of mixed government is manifested by the greatest strength The master general was the symbol of the order’s unity, which was well exemplified well was which unity,order’s the of symbol the was general master The In theDominican government, asGalbraith notes, themastergeneral was the most The ConstitutionoftheDominican Order, 133-35. , 41. 71 252 253 That is, justasin 251 CEU eTD Collection and correct,punishorevenremovehim,ifnecessary. chapter collectively were giventheauthority by the1241Constitution to supervisethemaster, 255 254 his notionontemperingtheruler’s power. of with government accordance Aquinas’ the in fitting also order,while is interpretation, This together they wielded a power with which they were able to constraint his power, if necessary. Dominican generalchapter inmind. While itsmemberswereindividually subjected totheking, members of the aristocratic groupsharing in political government can be interpreted with the the of role the it, specifies never Aquinas Although absolute. not was power political his but that of the master general: He was the single greatest individual member of the community, to role similar a fulfilling was individuals, all community,ruling the of head the government the community’s government. governing power. Thus, although the Order hadoneheadtounite it, others alsohadasharein the in directly shared chapter, general the group”, “aristocratic Dominican the of members power single-handedly. All friarssharedinthegovernmentindirectly, andtheever-changing wield not did order, who diverse but otherwise the centralized and unified who person, one of friars constituting the chapter were subjected to him individually. authority of thegeneral chapter over him. The chapter was themaster’s superior, althoughthe of the order, his authority was in many ways tempered, the most important limitation being the the community, thus contributing to the centralized and unified nature of the Order of Preachers. the Dominican Order was directly subject to the rule of the master general, the supreme head of Constitutiones Galbraith, Accordingly, itispossibletointerpret Thomas’ notion assuggestingthatinmixed Thus, the Dominican government manifested an intricate system consisting of the rule However, eventhoughtheDominicanmastergeneral was thegreatest individual member The ConstitutionoftheDominican Order, 136. , 57. 72 255 254 Still, the diffinitors ofthe CEU eTD Collection and heonlysetupakingwithplenapotestaswhenthepeople of Israelbeggedhimtodoso. government, mixed Mosaic the Jews the gave rather but power,” full with authority kingly the up set not “did God originally that stating one, regal a not political, a be to constitution sovereign. is ruler the is, that life, of fields all over authority has ruler the where government, regal in authority, andthe sphere ofthingsthat are not subject to him. This division is notpresent in political government there are two spheres;the sphere ofthingsoverwhichthe ruler has are other areas over which he does notwield authority. That is, according to this arrangement only governs regarding specific things, namely, things that are subject to his authority, but there gubernatorem ineorumcustodiam.Sedpostearegem adpetitionempopuli,quasiindignatus,concessit. 258 257 256 ruler’s powerisnotexplicated there. would nothavethe chance to deviate into a tyrant. Still, the exact method of tempering the Legal Limitations sphere ofhispower. namely, somethingsare subject to the ruler’s authority, while other things areoutside the community does notwieldfullpower, plenapotestas,andthegovernmentisratherpolitical, the of head the which in one is government mixed Aquinas’that suggests section this Thus, insofar as he is subject to law.”to subject is he as insofar ruled, partially is power,and his to subject namely,things rules, regarding partially ruler “the outlines onekindoflimitationontheruler’s powerinpoliticalgovernments. ST, I-II.105.1.Etideodominusaprincipioeis regem noninstituitcumplenapotestate, sediudicemet LP, I. 1.4. DR,I.6.41-43. The section of the Thomas intheDeRegnomentionsthatking’s powermustbetempered, so thathe In the Aquinas states in the Libri Politicorum Thomas explains that the division between the things that Summa on mixed government suggests that Thomas considers this Libri Politicorumthatinpolitical, incontrasttoregal,government: 257 This section suggests that in political government the ruler 256 Inhiscommentary on Aristotle’s Politics 73 , however, he 258

CEU eTD Collection si expediensfuerit,potestlegem mutare, etineadispensare, pro locoettempore. Translation slightlymodified. ad vimdirectivam legis,princepssubditurlegipropria voluntate…Est etiamprincepssupralegem,inquantum, solutus alege,quianullusin ipsum potestiudiciumcondemnationisferre, sicontralegemagat…Sedquantum cogitur aseipso;lexautemnon habetvimcoactivamnisiexprincipispotestate.Sicigitur princepsdicituresse subject tothelaw. he rulesthethingsthataresubjectedtohispower, butisalsopartially ruled, insofarasheis further qualified by Thomas, when he declares that in political rule the ruler partially rules, i.e., 261 260 259 on theDominicangovernment,wasthat the master general of theorderhadacustomary, butnot well. Humbert of Romans,forinstance, formulated this thesis. The idea, outlined in thechapter i.e., to willingly limit his ownauthority, waspresent in the Dominican governmental theory as can passjudgmentonhim. the rulerfailstoact according tothe laws onlyGodcancharge him with this,butnooneelse subject himself to the laws, but he is not subjected to them “legally”. That is, he suggests that if i.e., according to laws established by political science.” political by established laws to according i.e., rules, “scientific by regulated are not do that things the and authority ruler’s the to pertain laws, andargues asfollows: this section whether therulerofacommunityissubjecttocommunity’sThomas discusses community issubjecttothelawsofcommunity. ST, I-II.96.5.Princepsdicituressesolutus a lege,quantumad vim coactivam legis, nullusenimproprie LP, Ibid. LP, I.1.4.Secundumsermonesdisciplinales,idestsecundum leges positasperdisciplinampoliticam. This notion of the ruler’s moral obligation to subject himself to the community’s laws, In thispassageheargues that the rulerofcommunity only hasamoral obligation to place. is expedient,hecanchangethelaw,it anddispenseinitaccordingtotime when as, far so in law, the above is ruler the Again … will own his by law the law ...But as tothe directive force of law, the sovereign is subject to the the law, because none iscompetent to pass sentence on him, if he acts against save fromtheauthority of theruler. Thus thenistherulersaidtobeexempt from properly speaking,nomaniscoerced by himself, and lawhasnocoercive power since, power; coercive its to law,”as the from “exempt be to said is ruler The This statement isinapparent contradiction with oneofthepassagesSumma.In 261 260 Briefly, here Aquinas argues that in political government the head of the of head the government political in that argues Briefly, here Aquinas 74 259 This somewhatobscurestatement is CEU eTD Collection Order, 197. 263 262 relevant authority who has therighttohandlematter,relevant authoritywho andrefrainfromsolvingithimself. states that if the master becomes aware of an issue ofthiskind, he should senda petition to the be handledcorrectlyandinaccordance with theorder’s lawsbythepriorhimself.Humbert the mastercouldnotmeddleininternalaffairsthat could ofaconventualpriorinissues officials in the order, even if he was legally authorized to solve such issues. Thus, for instance, was thatthemasterwouldnotinterfere in issuesthatfellwithinthescopeofauthority of other legally binding, obligation to voluntarily restrict the exerciseofhisauthority. The expectation master general aswell. were bindingonthewholecommunity; all thefriars, theactualdiffinitorsofchapterand there reached decisions the and equals, among one was master the chapter general legislative in thischapter, hisvote, just like that of the chapter’s diffinitors,counted only asone.Inthe of thecommunity), but the general chapter. Although the master general held a permanent seat Order ofPreachers the supreme legislative authority was not the master general (i.e., the head pass sentenceonhim. that thereisnoauthority higher inthecommunity than theruler, thus, thereisnoonewhocould since those lawsoriginate from him, and thus, they are not binding on him. Second, he adds First ofall,thecore Thomas’ argument isthattherulercouldnotbesubjectedtolaw, in this moral, non-legal manner. This is definitely in stark contrast with the Dominican practice. legal obligation, butinboththe proper conduct is initiated by amoral and customary obligation. ruler shouldsubject himself voluntarily to thelawsofcommunity; in neither case isthere a The Dominican practice of themaster’s self-limitation is similar to Thomas’ notionthat the Constitutiones Galbraith, The Dominican practice was quite dissimilar. As was discussed in detail above, in the in above, detail in dissimilar.discussed quite was was As practice Dominican The Still, Thomas inthatsection oftheSummastatesthatrulerisonlysubjectedtolaw The ConstitutionoftheDominican Order, 136.andHinnebusch,TheHistoryoftheDominican , 57.andGalbraith, 263 differentquite is arrangement This by outlined one the from Thomas The ConstitutionoftheDominican Order, 96. 75 262

CEU eTD Collection constitution, and hispolitical government the rulerisindeed subject to the laws ofthecommunity. does nothavefullofpower. about mixed constitution or monarchy in the totality of political power. Butthisisnotthekindofmonarchy thatheoutlineswhentalks voluntarily. Ifhefailstodoso,thereisnoonewhocouldsupervisehim,sinceholdsthe the onlyobligationhehasregardinglawsofcommunity is tosubjecthimselfthem that it is thiskindofgovernment in whichthe ruler is thesolelegislative authority, andinwhich likely quite is It God. by universe’sgovernment the of case the in as dominion, his in power 264 and regarding everything.” regarding and this sectionoftheSumma Thomas refers to regal monarchy, in which “the ruler rules absolutely distinct conceptions of monarchy into his theory and these passages refertoseparate notions. In authority, combinedwithhisdispensationfrom theobligationtoobeycommunity’s laws? power into a single person than the arrangement that he shouldholdthe totality of legislative single ruler, aconcernof histhathasalreadybeenamplydiscussed.Butwhatcouldvestmore by thelaw).Moreover, heevidently had seriousreluctance in bestowingtoomuchpowerona a way in which there can be a single head of the community who isat the same time limited political government therulerisboundbylawsofcommunity (i.e., headmitsthereis in that state does he first, since, striking especially authority.community’sis legislative the It of Preachers,inthissection oftheSumma bound bythelawsheestablishes. in whichthereisasinglerulerwhoholdsthetotality oflegislative authority and whoisnot LP, I. 1.4.Ipsehomopraeestsimpliciter etsecundumomnia, dicitur regimen regale. It ismostlikely thatfor Thomas mixedgovernmentwasapolitical rather thanaregal A possible,andinmyopinion,quiteprobableanswer, isthat Thomas incorporatestwo It is remarkable that Aquinas, who was definitely familiar with this structure of the Order 264 This isthe rule of asovereign, in whichthe ruler has plenary did not reflect on the possibility of a group being group a of possibility the on reflect not did 76 De Regno;both passages suggestthat the king CEU eTD Collection by thehigher- andlower-born members of thesociety alike. plebibus aliquidsanxerunt. lex, quammaiores natusimulcumplebibussanxerunt, utIsidorusdicit. represented “the common” members of the order. The legislative activity of the general chapter binding for allmembers of the community and they were carefully chosen so that they indeed they were representing their fellow friars with and commons. As wasdiscussedabove, the might bereached. The FriarPreachers,inaway, establishedlawssanctionedbythelords of asovereignalone. Nevertheless, thetextclearly suggests thatlaw-givinginamixedgovernment is notthework of legislation, oronlyabout wide popular consent that laws receive in amixed government. as well).Still,basedonthissectionitisnotclearwhetherhespeakingabouttheactual act that it wassanctioned by theheadofcommunity, thearistocratic group andthepopulace is alawthathasbeensanctionedbypractically all membersofsociety(mostlikelymeaning Isidor’s more universal definition to the specific law of mixed government. He suggests that this major work, the 266 265 by the‘LordsandCommons,’ asstatedbyIsidore, to each governmental form. He declares that the law of mixed government is a “law sanctioned to someofitsfeatures. legal arrangementsinamixedgovernment,onesectionoftheSummahemakesreferences the powertosupervise,correct,andpunishhim. Although Thomas doesnotspecifytheexact master wasclearly subject tothecommunity’s established laws,andthegeneralchapter held This isparallel to theDominican government, which hadanintricate organization, where the IsidoreofSeville, ST, I-II.95.4.Estetiamaliquodregimen ex istis commixtum, quodestoptimum,etsecundumhocsumitur However, with a look at the Dominican government a more definite interpretation definite more a government Dominican the at look a with However, Here hedealswiththetypesofhumanlaw, statingthatthereisatypical law corresponding Etymologies. Etymolgiae , 5.10.Quidsitlex.Lexestconstitutio populi,quamaiores natusimulcum He identifies law as the constitution of the populace, sanctioned populace, the of constitution the as law identifies He diffinitors attending the chapters were elected and 77 plena potestas. That is, all their decisions were 265 referring to Isidor’s definition of law in his 266 Interestingly, Thomas applies CEU eTD Collection power isconstitutionally limited. plenary power, wherethe rulers are prone toabusetheir powers, andthus,it is better if their that political monarchy ismoresuitableforactualhumancommunities than theruleofonewith a kingwithplenapotestas,whichactually had disastrous results. This interpretation enforces did not have full power. It was just due to the insistence of the people that he later gave them them human governance, intended them to have a kindofpolitical monarchy, inwhichthe ruler Israel. As it was discussed above, he declares that God, after being forced by his people to give more suitableforactualcommunities. in political monarchytheking’s poweristempered. Thus, itseemsthatpolitical monarchy is can easilydegenerate into tyrannywhennotpracticed byawhollyvirtuousindividual, while in government. As inregalmonarchytherearenochecksontheruler’s abusesofhispower;it monarchy the ruler’s powerislimited by the admixture ofaristocratic and democratic elements and onlyhasamoralobligation to submithimselfthelawsofcommunity. Inpolitical and regal monarchies. Regal monarchy is describes as one in which the king has full power sometimes confusingobservations. mixed government parallels that of the Dominicans, and offers a good explanation of Aquinas’ group andwiththe,atleastindirect, approval ofall. This interpretation of thelegal system of for allmembersofthecommunity, sincelawsarenotenactedbyasingleindividual, but bya legislative work, butdoesnotwieldthisrightalone. Decisions reached in thiswayarebinding ideally theyrepresenttheinterestoftheirelectors. The headofthecommunitysharesin something likethisinmind. As thearistocratic group ofgovernment is supposedtobeelected, resulted inlawsthatruledallfriarsuptothemastergeneral. This stanceisalsosupportedbytheway Thomas presentsthegovernmentofancient political monarchy: of types distinct two outlines that Aquinas summary,appears In it had Thomas government, mixed of laws the of speaking when that possible quite is It 78 CEU eTD Collection except iftherulerisacompletely virtuousbybeinglikeGod. community who wieldsunlimited power andwherethedangerof tyrannyismorethreatening human communities) and regal monarchy, aconstitutional formwherethereisoneheadofthe Aquinas doesnotmakeitclearwhenheisdealing withpolitical monarchy (thebestforactual government, inwhichelementsofaristocracyand democracyaremixed. government with onehead of the community whose power islimited by the very structure of political constitution, and I interpreted mixed government as an equal of political monarchy; a In mythesisIargue that Thomas consistently supported mixed government as thebest interpretations. diverse generated and scholars challenged has that difficulty a government, theory. There isanapparentcontradiction in thepassagesdealing with the issueofbesthuman communities. that mixed government, that is,political monarchy, isthebestconstitution for real human an unchecked ruler would abuse his power. As a consequence, Thomas in the form moresuitableforactualhumancommunities, where thereisaneverpresentdangerthat of thepowercommunity’s headisincorporated. This iswhatmakesthisgovernmental the Dominican government and Thomas’ theory of political kingship a constitutional limitation his power;thedifference is that in thecaseofplenary kingship thisisthesoleobligation. In both and in Thomas’ theoryofregalmonarchy, therulerhasamoralobligation to limit the exerciseof Order, it also resembles political monarchy a great degree. Still, both inthe friars’ government I alsoargued that one reasonfortheconfusingaspectof the Thomistic texts isthat political his of segment puzzling a is government best the Thomas Aquinas’of theory Both theoriesofkingshipsharesomesimilarities with thegovernment of theDominican CONCLUSION 79 Summa maintains CEU eTD Collection (the mostextensivelydiscussed istheeffect of Aristotle’s political ideas), theaim ofthethesis that accordswellandwaspossiblyinfluencedby thegovernmentofDominicans. notions, and indicates that he consistently supported limited monarchy as the best, a government and Aquinas’ theory on best government offers a solution of the problematic aspects of Thomas’ notions. The examination of thesimilarities between themixedgovernmentofDominicans includes some elements that suggest a possible influence of the government of his order on his levels, was definitely familiar with the Dominican governmental ideas, and his political theory these elementsservedasacheckonmisusesofgovernmentalpower. intricate representative system andelectoral practice of thefriars), wheretheadmixture of (the master general), aristocracy (the provincial and the general chapters), and democracy (the interpreted as a mixed government in the Thomistic sense, manifesting elements of monarchy be can Preachers Friars the of government The life. adult his all of member a was Aquinas theory andthegovernmental practice of theDominican Order, thereligious organization monarchy ormixedgovernmentasthebestforactualhumancommunities. I argue that Aquinas, being aware of the dangers of kingship with full power, proposes political he suggests constitutional limitations on it in both theDeRegnoand the misuse their authority. Thus, healsoemphasizes that theking’s powermustbetempered and that if the ruler’s powerisunchecked the result can bedisastrous,ashumansare prone to individuals into anactual, peaceful, and strongsociety. Still, Thomas is aware of the danger the excellence ofmonarchy, sinceitisthegovernmentwhichbestsuitedforunitingdiverse government forhumancommunitieshefocusesprimarilyontwothings.First,emphasizes The analysis of Aquinas’ relevant passages suggests that when he deals with the best the with deals he when that suggests passages Aquinas’of relevant analysis The Although in this thesis I have mentioned some theoretical influences on Thomas’ theory Aquinas, who was actively participating in the governance of the order up to the highest This stance is further supported by somesuggestivesimilarities between Thomas’ 80 Summa. Accordingly, CEU eTD Collection Aquinas, Thomas. Aquinas, Acta Capitulorum generalium ordinisVol. Praedicatorum. Reichert, B.M. Ed. I. notions. mixed constitution, and its potential influence can be traced in several aspects of the Thomistic present. The Dominican government could have served asa real-life example of anactual where thedangerthatamonarchwithunlimited authority wouldabusehispowerisever humancommunities, actual of case in monarchy apolitical as defined government, mixed analysis of Thomas’ textsonthebestgovernment,indicates that heconsistentlysupported government, althoughIthinkfurtherresearchcouldidentifymoreinstances. of research to those that underlined that Thomas proposed political monarchy as the best scope the limited I influences, potential the of number limited a of posing the for allowed by somescholars,hasnotyetbeenexpansively discussed. Sincethescopeofthisthesisonly mentioned briefly Aquinas’theory on impact order’s the that fact the to due Dominicans the of influence possible the was focus main My research. extensive more require would which theory, governmental his on influences real-life or theoretical possible all explore to not was ———. ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum historica, Primary sources: the against set theory, Aquinas’ with practice Dominican the of comparison The org/snp2044.html#7359 obedire potestatibus saecularibus, et maxime tyrannis. University Press,2002. Political Writings , ed.andtrans.byR. W. Dyson,72-75.Cambridge:Cambridge Are BoundtoObeytheSecularPowers,and Tyrants inParticular.Thomas Aquinas InSt Corpus Thomisticum:Scriptum Super Sententiis Scripta SuperLibros Sententiarum . LastaccessedMay15, 2014. BIBLIOGRAPHY 81 Vol. III. Rome: Typographia Polyglotta, 1898. , II, d. 44. q. 2. a. 2: Whether Christians Whether 2: a. 2. q. 44. d. II, , , II. 44. 2. 2. UtrumChristiani teneantur http://www.corpusthomisticum. Monumenta CEU eTD Collection Blythe, JamesM.IdealGovernmentandthe MixedConstitutionintheMiddle Ages . Princeton: Black, Antony. Barker, Ernest.TheDominicanOrder andConvocation. A StudyoftheGrowth ofRepresentation ———. ———. ———. ———. ———. ———. John ofSalisbury. Policraticus Isidore ofSeville. Gerard de Frachet. Constitutiones ordinis fratrumPraedicatorumsecundumredactionem sanctiRaimundide Augustin. Aristotle. ———. Princeton UniversityPress, 1992. Press, 1992. in theChurch DuringtheThirteenthCentury Secondary sources: orp.html Toronto: The PontificalInstituteofMedievalStudies,1982. org/cpo.html Publishing, 2007. Isidore/5*.html#4 introduction/ s. RaymonddePeñafort.” Penafort. Penguin Books,1984. 1986. corpusthomisticum.org/qdw103.html html Corpus Thomisticum: De Regno ad Regem Cypri. Summa Theologica. Corpus Thomisticum:SummaTheologiae On Kingship.To the King of Cyprus. Trans. ByG.B.Phelan, rev. I. TH. Eschmann, Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics. Corpus Thomisticum: Sententia libri Politicorum Concerning theCityofGod Against thePagans. Trans. H.Bettenson.Harmondsworth: Politics Corpus Thomisticum: Quaestiones Disputatae de Virtutibus . . LastaccessedMay15,2014. . LastaccessedMay15,2014. Political Thought in Europe 1250-1450. Cambridge: Cambridge University ” Ed. R. Creytens. “Les constitutions des frères Prêcheurs dans la rédaction de . Trans. H.G. Apostle, andL.P. Gerson,Grinnell: The Peripatetic Press, . LastaccessedMay15,2014. . LastaccessedMay9,2014. Lives of the Brethren. . Lastaccessed:May15,2014. Etymologiae http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ . Ed.K.S.B.Keats-Rohan. Turnhout: Brepols,1993. Archivum FratrumPraedicatorum18(1948):5-68. .http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/ . Lastaccessed April 8,2014. 82 Trans. byR.J.Regan. Indianapolis: Hackett http://opcentral.org/blog/lives-of-the-brethren- . http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/iopera. . Oxford:ClarendonPress,1913. http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/ . http://www.corpusthomisticum. . LastaccessedMay15,2014. http://www. CEU eTD Collection ———. “The Growth of the Order, 1221-1303.” In 1221-1303.” Order, the of Growth “The ———. WilliamHinnebusch, A. Grabmann, Martin and Michel, Virgil. Galbraith, G. R.TheConstitution of theDominicanOrder:. Manchester:Manchester 1216-1360 Friedrich, Carl J.Transcendent Justice. The Religious Dimension ofConstitutionalism Finnis, John.Aquinas.Moral,Political and LegalTheory.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press, Dyson, R. W. “Introduction,” In. of Interpretation and Reception Aristotle’s“The ———. In Schools.” the in “Aristotle Jean. Dunbabin, Dod, Bernard G. “Aristoteles Latinus.” In Copleston, F.C. Aquinas.London:PenguinBooks,1955. Conway, Placid. Carlyle, R. W. and A. J.Carlyle.A HistoryofMedieval Political Theory IntheWest. Vol. V. ———. “The Mixed Constitution and the Distinction between Regal and Political Power in the Luscombe, D.E. “The State of Nature and the Origin of State.” In. State.” of Origin the and Nature of State “The D.E. Luscombe, Kempshall, Matthew. TheCommonGoodin Late Medieval Political Thought . Oxford:Oxford Volume I.New York: Alba House,1965. Longmans, GreenandCo.,1928. University Press,1925. Duke UniversityPress,1964. 1998. Dyson, xvii-xxxvii.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002. Cambridge UniversityPress,1982. of Scholasticism 1100-1600, ed. N. Kretzmann, and A. Kenny, of Later Medieval Philosophy: From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Disintegration Smalley, 65-85.Oxford,Blackwell,1965. N. Kretzmann,and A. Kenny,45-79.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1982. From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Disintegration of Scholasticism 1100-1600, ed. Study ofthe Angelic Doctor Political TheoryoftheThirteenthCentury Work of Thomas Aquinas.” JournaloftheHistoryIdeas opcentral.org/blog/the-growth-of-the-order-1221-1303/ of Scholasticism 1100-1600, ed. N. Kretzmann and A. Kenny, Later Medieval Philosophy: From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Disintegration University Press,1999. Saint Thomas Aquinas of the Order of Preachers (1225-1274). A Bibliographical The Historyof the Dominican Order. OriginsandGrowth to 1500, St Thomas Aquinas. Political Writings, ed.andtrans.byR. W. . London:Longmans,Green,1911. Thomas Aquinas: HisPersonality and Thought.London: The CambridgeHistoryofLaterMedieval Philosophy: 83 Trends in Medieval Political Thought, ed. B. . Edinburgh: Blackwood,1928. The Dominicans: A Short History. . Lastaccessed15May, 2014. Politics. ” In ” 47(1986):547-565. The CambridgeHistory of The CambridgeHistory 757-770. Cambridge: 723-737. Cambridge: . Durham: http:// The CEU eTD Collection Weisheipl, James A. “The Place of Study In the Ideal of St. Dominic.” http://opcentral.org/ Dominic.” St. of Ideal the In Study of Place “The A. James Weisheipl, Voegelin,Eric. the In Problem Unsolved An Parliament: the and Order Dominican P.“The Harry Tunmore, Tugwell, Simon. “Introduction.” In. ———. In. Church.” Medieval the and Tierney,“Freedom Brian. R. W.Southern, In. Politics.” and “Law Paul. Sigmund, the in Representation and Authority Salvation: of Business “The E. Dennis Showalter, “Law,K. Pennington, Legislative 1150-1300.”and Government, Authority of Theories In Morrall, J.B.PoliticalThoughtinMedievalTimes. London:Hutchinson,1971. McIlwain, Charles Howard. The Growth of Political Thought In the West. From the Greeks to Cambridge UniversityPress,1982. blog/the-place-of-study-in-the-ideal-of-st-dominic/. Lastaccessed April 19,2014. Sivers, Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,1997. History of Representation.” 1-48. New York: PaulistPress,1982. Cambridge UniversityPress,1982. the West, ed.R. W. Davis. 64-100.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1995. 1990. Kretzmann, andE.Stump,217-231.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1993. (1973): 556-574. Order.” Dominican Thirteenth-Century 453. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988. Cambridge HistoryofMedieval Political Thought c.350-c.1450,ed.J.H.Burns,424- the EndofMiddle Ages. New York: The MacmillanCompany, 1932. Religion, Law, andthe Growth ofConstitutional Thought, 1150-1160. Cambridge: VolumeHistory ofPolitical Ideas. II. Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages. London: Penguin Books, The Catholic Historical Review Early Dominicans.Selected Writings, ed.Simon Tugwell, The CambridgeCompanionto Aquinas, ed.N. 84 The Catholic Historical Review The Middle Ages to Aquinas.Ed.P.Middle Ages The von The OriginsofModernFreedom in 26, no. 4 (1941): 479-489. 58, no. 4 The