Defensor Pacis

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One page of a manuscript by Defensor Pacis . Tortosa , Arxiu Capitular de la Catedral, Ms. 141, fol. 2r (first half of the 14th century)

The Defensor pacis ("Defender of Peace") is the main work of the late medieval state theorist Marsilius of Padua . The Italian scholastic , who teaches at Paris University , completed the extensive Latin script on June 24, 1324. He dedicated it to the Roman-German King and later Emperor Ludwig the Bavarian . The assumption already expressed in the Middle Ages that it was a joint work by Marsilius and his friend Johannes von Jandun has been refuted by the modern editors. The Paduan is the sole author.

Structure and purpose

The treatise is divided into three "presentations" (dicciones) . Its theme is to expose and describe the main cause of peace and strife within a Christian state, its purpose is to show a way to permanently eliminate discord. In the first diccio , the author presents a theoretical analysis of the nature and origin of the socio-political organization of man. From this he derives principles for the proper functioning of politics. He claims to be able to scientifically prove the correctness of his theses. In the second statement, he substantiates his point of view with statements from recognized authorities and puts forward arguments to refute opposing views. The third diccio offers a set of inferences which Marsilius believes are inevitable and a call to action.

content

First presentation

In the introductory first two chapters of the first diccio , Marsilius describes the safeguarding of peace and quiet as a basic requirement of all human happiness. He describes the cause of the current breakdown as a "wrong opinion" that is deeply hidden and which he does not reveal for the time being. What is meant is the popes' claim to “compelling power” over the church and over all empires of the world and their rulers. By the announced exposure of this cause of discord, the author wants to make possible the eradication of the evil. In the second chapter he defines the terms “empire” and “peace”, comparing the inner peace in the state with the health of a living being. He understands it to be the state in which each individual component of a state community can fully fulfill its due functions.

Marsilius then presents his theory of the state in abstract form in the main part of the first diccio (Chapters 3–19), using the relevant teaching of Aristotle as the starting point for the considerations. His remarks, however, revolve around the relationship between state and church, a problem of which the ancient thinker could not yet have known. The background is the political practice of contemporary Italian city-states, the French Kingdom and the Roman-German Empire. The basic demands raised in these chapters are the emancipation of the state from ecclesiastical tutelage and as a result the unrestricted state sovereignty in legislation, jurisdiction and administration as well as in the election of the government. This also includes the supervision of the government over the church, which must submit to state authority.

First, in the third and fourth chapters, the origin and purpose of civil society are dealt with. A hypothetical development is presented that leads from the domestic community of the first family through the archaic village to the fully developed state. The approach is more historical than analytical. The procedure used to maintain order in social life serves as a distinguishing feature between the various types of community building. In the primordial family this is authoritarian and arbitrary, but in the archaic village community it is necessarily consensual and regulated, since otherwise social cohesion would break. In the presentation given here, the human being appears - unlike in Aristotle - as an originally individualistic being. He is driven by his striving for the complete satisfaction of biological - not social - needs for the formation of associations beyond the family and ultimately for the establishment of a state. Marsilius defines the purpose of the state as securing a satisfactory existence for the citizens. He does not have in mind the education of the citizens to be virtuous, which is important for earlier theorists. The focus is on legal security and the common good, what is useful and beneficial.

In order to fulfill its purpose, the classified state must ensure that its parts, the professions, take over and exercise their assigned functions unhindered. As with Aristotle, the Defensor Pacis distinguishes between six classes: peasants, artisans, moneyers, priests, warriors and the ruling class that directs the state and exercises jurisdiction.

When discussing the forms of government in Chapters 8 and 9, Marsilius adopts the structure of the Aristotelian classification system , the three "good" forms of government - monarchy , aristocracy and " politics " (moderate popular rule) - and three forms of decline arising from them - tyrannical monarchy, oligarchy and “Democracy” - distinguishes, whereby “democracy” is understood to mean mob rule. The main focus of the Paduan is on the sole rule of a monarch, the most common form of government in the late Middle Ages. The most important aspect to him is the procedure for the establishment of the ruler. Marsilius advocates an elective monarchy , which is superior to the hereditary monarchy from the point of view of the common good .

Marsilius then turns to one of his core concerns, the rule of law and the clarification of who is entitled to legislative power (Chapters 10-13). In order for the government not to abuse its authority, it must be bound by the law. Marsilius examines the various meanings of the word "law" in detail, emphasizing coercive force as the essential characteristic of the law in its proper sense. As the product of a pure reason unaffected by affects , which summarizes the experiences of many generations, the law has a high value and with good reason demands the unconditional obedience of all citizens. In principle, the legislative power belongs only to the “people”. By this Marsilius understands the totality of the citizens or the " weightier part" (valencior pars) of the citizenship. He does not generally specify which people should make up this part; He wants to leave details of this to the legislators of the individual cities or empires. In any case, he is convinced that only a vote can give legal force to a legislative decision. A law approved by the people does not need to be endorsed by a ruler, priest, or privileged group. Chapter 14 is devoted to the study of the qualities a good ruler must possess.

In chapters 15–19, Marsilius expands on the results he has arrived at and defends them against possible objections. In particular, he endeavors to refute arguments for the transfer of power through succession. In this part of the first diccio , he is concerned with affirming the sole decisive role of the “human legislator” (legislator humanus) in the state. He distinguishes the legislator humanus , who forms the people, from the divine lawgiver, as whose will executor the Pope claims to be. Not only does the people have the final say in the legislative process, they are also the only authority empowered to set up the government. It can also hold the regent accountable, reprimanded, or deposed at its discretion. The government comprises administration and jurisdiction; the judiciary is not separate from the executive . Marsilius attaches particular importance to the uniformity of government power, because he considers competition between rival centers of power to be fatal. In the final chapter of the first diccio he returns to the starting point of his investigation, the question of how inner peace, the fundamental prerequisite for the happiness of citizens, can be established and secured. Moving on to the subject of the second diccio , he now turns to the cause of the discord in the States and its hoped-for elimination. According to his conviction, the basic evil consists in the abuse of authority by the popes, in their claim to coercive power both in the church and in the state and in the resulting conflicts with secular officials.

Second exposition

With the investigations in the second, much more extensive presentation, Marsilius wants to confirm the result of the first by countering the clergy's claim to power with historical and theological evidence. He believes he can prove that the clergy do not have a privileged special status in the state and, above all, that they are not allowed to pass legally binding judgments. Rather, it must be subject to secular law and the mandatory jurisdiction of the government. In order to make this view plausible, Marsilius first presents the exegetical , philosophical and historical arguments of the other side and then presents in detail a wealth of arguments for his point of view, mainly referring to statements from the New Testament . Christ and the apostles had not claimed any privileges or earthly power for themselves, but rather bowed to state justice. This attitude represents the decisive model for the priesthood. The divine law that punishes sinners is only enforced in the hereafter; earthly jurisprudence was to be guided exclusively by human law.

Chapters 11-14 are dedicated to a special topic, the poverty struggle . This is a conflict that occurred at the time the Defensor Pacis was written between the incumbent Pope John XXII. and a current in the order of the Franciscans raged. The difference of opinion concerned the highly controversial question of how to understand the “evangelical poverty” practiced according to the New Testament accounts of Christ and the apostles. It was disputed in what sense the early Christian poverty should be taken as a guideline, that is, to what extent the “servants of the Gospel” had to live without possessions. Franciscan advocates of a radical interpretation of the ideal of poverty opposed the Pope's teaching that Christ and the apostles had possessions and absolute lack of possessions is in principle impossible. Marsilius used this bitter dispute to launch another attack on the papacy. He took a strong stand for the dissident Franciscan party and claimed that the Pope, who appears as a judge on questions of faith, had adopted a heresy and was therefore a heretic himself . Christ and the apostles would have given up all earthly possessions and thus set an example for their followers. Their material undemanding contrasts with the wealth and greed of the clergy.

Subsequent chapters 15–21 deal with the nature of the priesthood, the exercise of power in the Church, and the question of authority over disputed questions of faith. Marsilius distinguishes between a primary and a secondary priestly authority. The primary authority is the essential one; it concerns the authority to administer the sacraments and is given in the same way to all priests. In this regard, the Pope is no different from a simple priest. The secondary power of attorney is assignment to a specific area of ​​office based on mere convention. Starting from this distinction, Marsilius criticizes the hierarchical structure of the church and justifies his egalitarian understanding of church offices. According to his explanations, the apostles were all equal, the "prince apostle" Peter had no power over the others and no authority to issue instructions. The same therefore applies to the popes and bishops as successors to the apostles. Since no priest is above another in terms of primary authority, no one may appoint or depose another. Rather, the granting of secondary powers, the appointment of offices including the election of the Pope, must be reserved for the totality of the faithful, i.e. the people or a college appointed by the people. However, the people can transfer the authority to appoint the Pope to the emperor. This finding also shows for Marsilius that the Pope is not entitled to make decisions on questions of faith at his discretion. Rather, this right belongs exclusively to a general council .

In the following chapters 22-26 Marsilius deals with the perfection of power ( plenitudo potestatis ) of the popes. He describes the growth of papal power over the course of church history as a process of increasing illegitimate presumption of sovereign rights. Greed and domination are the driving forces behind this malevolent practice, which continues. The author describes in detail the devastating effects of this development and the associated abuse of power on church and state conditions. When presenting the current situation, he attacks the incumbent "so-called" Pope John XXII. with extreme violence and accuse him of heinous crimes. Finally, in chapters 27–30, he addresses possible objections to his theses.

Third statement

In the third, by far the shortest part of the Defensor Pacis , Marsilius summarizes the results of his argument and expresses his expectation that it will not be difficult to eradicate the "plague" of clerical abuse if his proposals are put into practice.

Editions and translations

  • Jürgen Miethke , Horst Kusch (ed.): Marsilius of Padua: The defender of peace. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2017, ISBN 978-3-534-74281-3 (Latin text based on the edition by Richard Scholz without the critical apparatus, translation by Walter Kunzmann and Horst Kusch. Reprint of the 1958 edition with a new introduction by Miethke)
  • Charles William Previté-Orton (Ed.): The Defensor Pacis of Marsilius of Padua. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1928 (critical edition)
  • Richard Scholz (ed.): Marsilius of Padua: Defensor Pacis. Hahn, Hannover 1932 (critical edition; online )

literature

  • Bernardo Bayona Aznar: Religión y poder. Marsilio de Padua: ¿La primera teoría laica del Estado? Biblioteca Nueva, Madrid 2007, ISBN 978-84-9742-736-4 .
  • Heiner Bielefeldt : From universal papal rule to an autonomous civil republic. Aegidius Romanus, Johannes Quidort of Paris, Dante Alighieri and Marsilius of Padua in comparison. In: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History . Canonical Department 73, 1987, pp. 70-130
  • Kurt Flasch : Philosophical Thinking in the Middle Ages. From Augustine to Machiavelli. 3rd, revised and expanded edition. Reclam, Stuttgart 2013, ISBN 978-3-15-010919-9 , pp. 556-567.
  • Alan Gewirth : Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace. Volume 1: Marsilius of Padua and Medieval Political Philosophy. Columbia University Press, New York 1951.
  • Cary J. Nederman: Community and Consent. The Secular Political Theory of Marsiglio of Padua's Defensor Pacis. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham 1995, ISBN 0-8476-7944-6 .
  • Jeannine Quillet: La philosophie politique de Marsile de Padoue. Vrin, Paris 1970.
  • Vasileios Syros: The reception of the Aristotelian political philosophy with Marsilius of Padua. An investigation into the first diction of the Defensor Pacis. Brill, Leiden / Boston 2007, ISBN 978-90-04-16874-9 .

Remarks

  1. ↑ Carlo Dolcini: Introduzione a Marsilio da Padova , Rome / Bari 1995, p 15 f.
  2. ↑ Jürgen Miethke (Ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace , Darmstadt 2017, pp. L – LII.
  3. ↑ Horst Kusch (ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace (Defensor Pacis) , Part 1, Berlin 1958, p. XXVII.
  4. ↑ Horst Kusch (ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace (Defensor Pacis) , Part 1, Berlin 1958, p. XXVIII.
  5. ↑ Horst Kusch (ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace (Defensor Pacis) , Part 1, Berlin 1958, pp. XXVIII f.
  6. ↑ Horst Kusch (ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace (Defensor Pacis) , Part 1, Berlin 1958, p. XXIX.
  7. ↑ Horst Kusch (ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace (Defensor Pacis) , Part 1, Berlin 1958, pp. XXIX f.
  8. ↑ Horst Kusch (Ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace (Defensor Pacis) , Part 1, Berlin 1958, p. XXX.
  9. ↑ Horst Kusch (ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace (Defensor Pacis) , Part 1, Berlin 1958, pp. XXX f.
  10. ↑ Horst Kusch (ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace (Defensor Pacis) , Part 1, Berlin 1958, pp. XXXI f.
  11. ↑ An overview of Marsilius' position in the poverty dispute and the relevant research debate has Roberto Lambertini: Marsilio and the Poverty Controversy in Dictio II. In: (ed.) Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Cary J. Nederman: A Companion to Marsilius of Padua , Leiden 2012, pp. 229-263.
  12. ↑ Horst Kusch (Ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace (Defensor Pacis) , Part 1, Berlin 1958, pp. XXXIII f. See Jeannine Quillet: La philosophie politique de Marsile de Padoue , Paris 1970, pp. 227–236; Bettina Koch: On the discontinuity / continuity of medieval political thought in modern political theory , Berlin 2005, pp. 226–228, 232.
  13. ↑ Horst Kusch (ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace (Defensor Pacis) , Part 1, Berlin 1958, pp. XXXIV f.
  14. ↑ See Gerson Moreno-Riaño: Marsilio of Padua's Forgotten Discourse. In: History of Political Thought 29, 2008, pp. 441-459; Jürgen Miethke (Ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace , Darmstadt 2017, p. LXXXVI – XC.