Engelbert of Admont's De Regimine
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENGELBERT OF ADMONT’S DE REGIMINE PRINCIPUM AND LEX ANIMATA: A STUDY IN THE ECLECTICISM OF THE MEDIEVAL ARISTOTELIAN POLITICAL TRADITION Landon B. Crouse Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in the Department of History, Indiana University May 2018 Accepted by the Graduate Faculty, Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. Master’s Thesis Committee _________________________ Eric L. Saak, Ph.D., Chair ––––––––––––––––––––––––– Kevin Cramer, Ph.D. _________________________ Elizabeth W. Thill, Ph.D. ii Table of Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Chapter I: Engelbert of Admont Historiography .................................................................................................................9 Life .................................................................................................................................13 Works .............................................................................................................................20 The Text .........................................................................................................................21 Key Terms ......................................................................................................................23 Chapter II: De regimine principum ....................................................................................26 Chapter III: Sources and Concepts ....................................................................................67 Chapter IV: Tradition .........................................................................................................89 St. Thomas Aquinas .......................................................................................................92 Giles of Rome ................................................................................................................99 Marsilius of Padua .......................................................................................................105 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................115 Tables ...............................................................................................................................119 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................120 Curriculum Vitae iii Introduction Engelbert of Admont was one of the first medieval scholars to incorporate Aristotle’s political concepts into a major political treatise, his De regimine principum, completed in 1290. With the newly available Latin translations by William of Moerbeke of Aristotle’s Politics (c. 1260), Nicomachean Ethics (c. 1260), and Rhetoric (c. 1270) the great minds of the High and later Middle Ages began to utilize Aristotelian ethico-political thought in their own political treatises.1 Following the rediscovery of Aristotle’s ethico-political works, an ‘Aristotelian [political] revolution’ followed, in which intellectuals in the various universities of the Latin West began to receive and explore the translations of Aristotle’s works and compile commentaries and expositions.2 An Aristotelian political tradition soon followed the revolution. This tradition is the adaption and application of Aristotle’s political ideas as found in his ethico-political works—e.g., ‘man as a political animal’ and the natural origin argument for the genesis of the ‘state’; the terminology, schemata and hierarchies of forms of government; and the concepts of principia and lex animata and their function in said 1 Cf. Bernard G. Dod, “Aristoteles latinus,” The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy: From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Disintegration of Scholasticism, 1100-1600, ed. Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 45-79, esp. pp. 77-78. For a much more in-depth analysis of the development of Latin Aristotelianism and the surge in use of Aristotle’s works in the High and later Middle Ages, cf. F. van Steenberghen, Aristotle in the West: The Origins of Latin Aristotelianism, trans. Leonard Johnston (Louvain: E. Nauwelaerts, 1955). This work is essential to understanding the growth of Aristotelian thought (in general) in the Latin West during this time period. 2 For more on this ‘revolution’, cf. James M. Blythe, Ideal Government and the Mixed Constitution of the Middle Ages (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), p. 32 1 hierarchies—and accords with F. van Steenberghens’s ‘renascence’ of Greek thought in the thirteenth century.3 Van Steenberghen, in creating the parameters of this tradition, posits ‘three periods of absorption’ of Greek thought in the High Middle Ages, beginning at the end of the twelfth-century with what he refers to as ‘assimilation’, followed by a period of ‘receptivity’ in the early to mid-thirteenth century, and the final period of ‘eclecticism’ in the latter half of the thirteenth-century. ‘Assimilation’ is the period in which the works of the Arabic and Jewish philosophers, primarily translations and commentaries on Aristotle’s natural philosophy, were absorbed into the Latin West; ‘receptivity’ suggests a period of time when the philosophers and theorists of the Latin West, predominantly at the University of Paris, began to translate and study these works and compile their own commentaries and expositions on Aristotle’s works; and ‘eclecticism’ denotes the stage in which intellectuals of the Latin West began to form their own philosophies based on these translations.4 Van Steenberghen discusses the absorption of Greek thought in general. However, I wish to further refine this tradition, by focusing on Greek political thought, namely Aristotle’s ethico-political works, with respect to van Steenberghen’s last stage of absorption (or ‘renascence’): eclecticism.5 It is in this stage that I believe the absorption of Greco-political thought has come full circle in that the theorists, utilizing Aristotle’s ethico-political works and the concepts found therein, begin to craft their own distinct 3 Van Steenberghen, Aristotle in the West (1955), pp. 24-25. 4 Ibid., pp. 39-40. 5 Ibid., pp. 24-40. Van Steenberghen does not specifically discuss the ‘absorption’ of Aristotle’s Politics, however, and focuses instead on his works on natural philosophy and metaphysics. 2 political philosophies based in large part by their use of Aristotelian political sources and concepts.6 It is also in this stage that the Aristotelian political tradition is more fully realized. This tradition, for the duration of this inquest, will refer to the medieval application of Aristotelian political concepts and arguments as taken from his ethico- political works in the milieu (c.1265-1324) following the rediscovery of Aristotle’s ethico- political works and the Aristotelian political revolution that followed this rediscovery. This tradition is characterized by an eclecticism of unique political philosophies which were dominated by Aristotelian sources and political concepts. It is in this context that I will examine Engelbert’s De regimine principum. By examining the entirety of Tract I and the first three chapters of Tract II of De regimine principum, I will show that Engelbert relied primarily on Aristotle’s ethico- political works—primarily his Politics—in creating his own unique political philosophy that was more original, practical, and thoroughly Aristotelian than that of St. Thomas. This uniqueness, originality, and practicality springs from Engelbert’s schemata and hierarchies of forms of government (good and corrupt), as well as the functions of principia and lex animata in his schemata and hierarchies—all taken from Aristotle’s political works. He is also unique in his examination of mixed polities, or ‘states’ governed by the combination of multiple simple and natural forms of government, which in turn also creates a much 6 This ‘tradition’ will exclude expositions and commentaries on Aristotle’s ethico-political works. These commentaries and expositions belong to the second stage of van Steenberghen’s renascence: receptivity. For the present study, only ‘original’ treatises will be studied, i.e., those works of medieval theorists in which they form their own political philosophy based off of Aristotle’s ethico-political treatises and the concepts found therein. This originality will be shown through the various way in which they incorporate Aristotle’s various political concepts, or the ‘eclecticism’ of van Steenberghen. 3 more practical approach to governance and political philosophy. These concepts and their use (or disuse) will be the metrics for which I measure Engelbert’s eclecticism within the Aristotelian political tradition. This uniqueness, originality, and practicality will more easily be proven when compared with Engelbert’s contemporary political theorists’ treatises, namely Thomas Aquinas’ De regno, Ad regem Cypri (c. 1265), Giles of Rome’s De regimine principum (c. 1280), and Marsilius of Padua’s Defensor Pacis (c. 1324). While there are certainly common concepts among these theorists, specifically the ‘natural origin’ argument as taken from Aristotle’s Politics—i.e., man as a political animal and this maxim’s role