Marsilius of Padua
Marsilius of Padua (Italian Marsilio da Padova , originally Marsiglio de 'Mainardini , medieval Latin Latinized Marsilio Paduanus; * to 1285/1290 in Padua ; † 1342/1343 in Munich ) was an Italian political theorist , politician and publicist .
Marsilius studied Aristotelian philosophy , medicine and theology at the University of Paris , where he then took up a teaching position. In Paris he wrote his extensive main work on state theory, the Defensor pacis (Defender of Peace) , completed in 1324 , in which he sharply criticized the papacy's claim to political power and the incumbent Pope John XXII. sharp attack. Around the middle of the 1320s he moved to Bavaria to put himself in the service of the Roman-German King Ludwig IV , who with Johannes XXII. was in dispute. After the ideas of the Defensor Pacis became known, he was excommunicated by the Pope and condemned as a heretic . Marsilius accompanied Ludwig on his journey to Rome 1327-1328 as a consultant and took on political assignments. After returning from Italy, he spent the rest of his life in Munich, where he continued his struggle against the secular power of the Roman Church.
In his political theory, Marsilius outlined the model of an autonomous state free from ecclesiastical tutelage, in which state power ultimately emanates from the people and the government is entrusted with the execution of the will of the people and is subject to control by the people or their elected representatives. Such a state can conceptually be a republic or a monarchy ; in the latter case, the royal dignity should not be inherited, but acquired through election , with the electoral body being legitimized by a people's mandate. The electorate's decision-making power over legislation and the appointment of offices is in principle not subject to any restrictions, but the people can delegate individual functions at will. In the event of a disagreement among the citizens, the “heavier part” should decide.
With recourse to Aristotle 's theory of the state , Marsilius substantiated his theses in detail using the means of scholastic argumentation. He saw the purpose of the state community in ensuring satisfactory living conditions and thus enabling prosperity and "civil happiness". The prerequisite for this is internal peace in the citizenry based on legal certainty . This is mainly threatened by the privilege of the priesthood, because the greed for power of the clergy, especially the popes, caused the worst disputes and battles, undermined the rule of law and plunged Italy into misery. The church's special justice system must therefore be abolished and the clergy must be subject to state jurisdiction without restriction. For the Church, Marsilius called for the abolition of the hierarchical structure of rule, election of officials by the parishes or by committees set up by the people, equal rights for the bishops with one another and the limitation of papal powers to executive functions. Controversial questions of faith are to be clarified by a general council .
The effect of the new political doctrine remained modest during the lifetime of its originator and in the following decades. In the early modern period , the Defensor Pacis provided Protestant publicists with arguments against the papacy. A new interest arose in the modern age; Marsilius was often praised as a forerunner of modern achievements, advocating popular sovereignty , representative democracy and secularism . Historians, however, warn against an unreflective transfer of modern terms to late medieval conditions. Regardless of this, the Defensor Pacis is now considered a classic of political thought.
Life
Origin, education and teaching activity
Marsilius was originally called Marsilio or Marsiglio de 'Mainardini, because he came from the Mainardini family, who belonged to the upper class of the autonomous city-republic of Padua . His father Bonmatteo and his uncle Corrado were notaries, his brother Giovanni was a judge. Approaches to dating his birth vary between 1275 and about 1290; some probability suggests a narrowing to the time around 1285/1290.
Nothing is known about the childhood of Marsilius. He received his academic training at the University of Paris, possibly following an initial degree in Padua. First he studied the "Artes", the " Free Arts ", which included Aristotelian logic , ethics, metaphysics and natural philosophy . After obtaining his master’s degree , he taught at the artist faculty . In December 1312 he was elected rector for three months by the Paris magisters. From the pre-humanist Albertino Mussato , who valued and admired him as a friend, he was introduced to classical Latin poetry on the basis of Seneca's tragedies . First and foremost, he dealt with philosophical topics . In addition, he turned to the study of medicine, apparently without attaining a degree; after all, he later practiced as a doctor.
Marsilius received important suggestions from two important scientists, the doctor Pietro d'Abano and the philosopher Johannes von Jandun . Both were independent thinkers and, in the course of their philosophical development, came to views that were heretical from the church's point of view. Pietro, who came from the Padua area, belonged to an older generation and was probably a teacher of Marsilius. He lived and taught partly in Paris, partly in his homeland. Marsilius was close friends with Jandun, a French Magister of about the same age.
Marsilius studied theology in Paris in the early twenties. He must have been busy with this in June 1324, because at that time he lived in a house intended for theology students.
Efforts for a living and political partisanship
During the period of his teaching activity in Paris, which was interrupted by at least one stay in his home country, Marsilius dealt intensively with questions of state theory. The tensions of his conflicted present formed the current background. At first he was not anti-papal, but rather hoped for papal favor. After the French Jacques Duèze was elected Pope in August 1316 and the name Johannes XXII. had accepted, which ended a two-year vacancy , Marsilius went to Avignon , where the new shepherd resided . The purpose of the trip was to apply for a benefice that would secure the Magister's livelihood. Thanks to a helpful network built up in Paris, he was able to obtain the intercession of two Italian cardinals , Giacomo Gaetani de 'Stefaneschi and Francesco Gaetani. Francesco Gaetani was a nephew of Pope Boniface VIII , who died in 1303 , a controversial ecclesiastical prince who had given the popes' secular claim to power in the harshest possible way. The project was successful: On October 14, 1316, Marsilius received the right to a canonical in the diocese of Padua through papal commission . A year and a half later, John XXII responded. again benevolently in response to a further request from the Paduan petitioner: on April 5, 1318, he held out the prospect of the first benefice to become available in his home diocese. Such papal commissions were a common way of providing economic supplies to university teachers. However, the entitlements were not binding, only a few of them led to an actual transfer of the intended benefices. You didn't have to be a clergyman to be a candidate.
In the period that followed, however, there was an alienation between the Pope and the state theorist, the cause of which is unclear. Marsilius may have experienced evils at the Curia during his stay in Avignon , which made him an adversary of the papacy. In any case, the Paduan became politically active and emerged as an opponent of papal interests in northern Italy. At that time, numerous conflicts raged in the states of Imperial Italy in which, among other things, ecclesiastical and secular claims to power collided. Since the epochal struggle of Emperor Frederick II against the Roman Curia in the 13th century, the Guelphs , who - with exceptions - supported papal positions, and the Ghibellines, who advocated the primacy of the empire, fought each other . Again and again the hatred blew up violently between them; Followers of the losing side were banished. Padua was traditionally Guelf, but Marsilius sided with the Ghibellines. He placed himself in the service of two well-known northern Italian Ghibelline leaders, Cangrande della Scala from Verona and Matteo Visconti from Milan , both of whom had been excommunicated by the Pope in April 1318. On their behalf, in the spring of 1319, he sought an alliance of forces hostile to the Pope. He tried to persuade Count Karl von La Marche, the future French King Charles IV , to intervene in Italy; the count was to take command of the Ghibelline troops. This project was unsuccessful, but the Pope took the danger very seriously. Marsilius was now a traitor in his eyes.
Moved to Germany and sentenced
In the early 1320s, Marsilius worked in Paris on his major work on state theory, the Defensor pacis (Defender of Peace) , in which he sharply opposed the papal claim to secular power. The sources do not reveal when the Defensor Pacis , completed on June 24, 1324 , the anti-clerical polemics and violent abuse against John XXII. contains, came into circulation. In any case, if Marsilius identified himself as the author of the polemic, he had to leave the sphere of influence of the papal jurisdiction. In 1326 at the latest, he and his like-minded friend Jandun moved to Germany. Until recently, research has assumed that after the completion of the Defensor pacis he initially remained undisturbed in Paris for two years. It was only in the summer of 1326 that the Parisian episcopal inquisition became aware of the anti-papal pamphlet. Marsilius and Jandun then evaded a summons from the Inquisitor by hastily escaping to Bavaria. However, Frank Godthardt contradicted this common reconstruction of the events in a detailed investigation in 2011. He was able to show that at the time of departure the Inquisition did not yet know anything about the explosive theses of the Defensor Pacis and that there is no evidence to support the assumption that the change of residence should be interpreted as an escape from an inquisition trial. Rather, according to Godthardt's results, the two scholars went to Germany of their own accord in the period 1324-1326 to enter the service of King Ludwig of Bavaria , because they could assume that his political goals largely coincided with their intentions. Ludwig was a fierce opponent of the Pope, who did not acknowledge his election as Roman-German king, and has been held since March 1324 for heresy in excommunication . He denied the Pope the power to rule on the validity of a king's election and accused him of wanting to destroy the kingdom. In order to clarify the dispute, the Bavarian demanded that a general council be convened before which he would justify himself. In May 1324 he declared that he could now John XXII. no longer recognize him as a legitimate Pope, since the pastor himself is a heretic. With this insistence on the autonomy of secular power, Ludwig took a position that corresponded to the conviction of Marsilius.
When the church authorities investigated Marsilius and Jandun in 1327, they were safe from persecution, because they were under the protection of the king, who had welcomed them benevolently. However, from now on the two scholars were completely dependent on Ludwig's favor. Although they were allowed to express their views publicly and had patrons at court, there were also advisors in the king's vicinity who had advised against accepting dissidents , and papal-minded circles kept the Pope informed. John XXII. excommunicated the two "ungrateful" critics on April 9, 1327 and asked them to meet in Avignon at the seat of the Curia. On the following October 23, he issued the bull Licet iuxta doctrinam , in which he condemned five theses of the Defensor Pacis as heretical and prohibited the book from being distributed. At the same time, the Pope, who considered the anticurial script to be a joint effort by Marsilius and Jandun, demanded the capture of the two critics, whom he now called heretics , and their delivery to the church authorities. He did not have the full original text of the essay; instead, according to his statements, he relied only on communications that he had received from his informants. By being banned from reading, the Curia secured a monopoly on the representation of Marsilius' position in its sphere of influence and thus the authority to interpret his political theory.
Participation in the Rome procession of Ludwig of Bavaria (1327-1330)
At the turn of the year from 1326 to 1327, Ludwig set out for Italy. After lengthy preparations in Trento , he began his Rome march in March 1327 with the intention of using the Ghibellines to assert himself militarily against the Pope's partisans. Marsilius and Jandun participated in the company. The army stayed in Milan for months, where the king deposed the absent archbishop . He appointed Marsilius administrator of the vacant archbishopric, giving him the highest level of jurisdiction over the clergy and the administration of the archdiocese's property, but not the responsibility for the liturgical and sacred duties of the archbishop. The state theorist was supposed to exercise the functions assigned to him as a representative of the royal power (pro regia maiestate) . Thus Ludwig claimed the right to assign church offices and to dispose of church goods for secular power. In doing so, he was responding to a demand made by Marsilius in the Defensor Pacis . In November 1327, when the king had long since moved on towards Rome, Marsilius was still in Milan. He used his position as administrator to propagate his teachings on a large scale by disseminating anti-papal pamphlets . Apparently he had achieved a significant position of trust with the king. Later he made his way to Rome.
After his troops entered Rome, Ludwig was crowned emperor there on January 17, 1328 by representatives of the city-Roman people , thereby disregarding the conventional papal coronation privilege. The autonomous coronation corresponded to the principles of the political theory of Marsilius, according to which only the worldly authority should be responsible for all worldly affairs and the clergy are not entitled to a say in the filling of state offices. To what extent Ludwig was influenced by the ideas of the Defensor Pacis is unknown. Whether he followed the advice of the Paduan in the political development of the coronation is disputed in research. Marsilius' share in the deposition of the Pope, which Ludwig announced in Rome on April 18, 1328, is also unclear . According to the report by the historian Albertino Mussato, Marsilius was involved in the drafting of the deposition judgment. In terms of content, this shows the influence of the teaching of the Defensor Pacis , but it is difficult to determine to what extent the state theorist actually contributed to the formulation.
On May 12th, the Franciscan Pietro Rainalducci was installed by the Emperor as antipope after a popular assembly had approved it by acclamation . The new incumbent took the name of Nicholas V in. Marsilius apparently played an essential part in this decision by Ludwig and in the definition of the completely untraditional mode of election and appointment. He also had an imperial power of attorney of "deputy" (vicariatus) , which could not be specified in more detail . His tasks included the discipline of clergy loyal to the Pope, which he forced, despite the of John XXII. to read interdict masses imposed on Rome and administer the sacraments .
In view of a precarious military situation and dwindling funds, Ludwig was forced to leave Rome at the beginning of August 1328. When the force withdrew north, Jandun died on the way. In Pisa the emperor was joined by dissident Franciscans who had opposed the pope in the poverty struggle . Among them was the well-known philosopher Wilhelm von Ockham , a bitter opponent of Johannes XXII. It was not until 1330 that Ludwig and his entourage arrived in Munich. Marsilius had separated from the army on his way back to Germany; it is attested that he went to Como in order to develop propaganda activities against the Pope.
Life in Munich (1330–1342 / 43)
Marsilius spent the remaining years of his life in Munich. He is said to have acted as the emperor's personal physician , but this assumption is inadequate. Apparently his ideas retained some influence in the circles of the consistent opponents of the Pope; addressed to Ludwig anonymously passed memorandum Quoniam scriptura from 1331, which prior to an understanding with Johannes XXII. warns, contains eight quotations from the Defensor Pacis as well as passages from the works of Ockham. However, the relationship between the Franciscan dissidents around Ockham and Marsilius was generally distant and characterized by differences of opinion.
It is unclear and controversial in research how the relationship between Ludwig and Marsilius developed. The Kaiser did not reside permanently in Munich, he was often on the road. From 1330 he tried to find a reconciliation with the curia, which required a distance from the harsh demeanor of his protégé. After the death of the unyielding Pope John XXII. in December 1334 the prospect of an understanding seemed to improve, but the role of Marsilius remained a delicate problem in the negotiations. In October 1336 Ludwig admitted to the new Pope Benedict XII. one that it was a mistake to show favor to Marsilius and Jandun, claiming that he never believed their "heresies"; but he needed the two scholars as legal experts. In his words, he wanted to involve Marsilius in the planned reconciliation with the Curia and to bring him back to the grace of the Church. An agreement on this point of contention was unnecessary as the negotiations failed.
In the last years of his life, Marsilius wrote another treatise on the theory of the state , the Defensor minor . In this "smaller defender" he reaffirmed the core ideas of his main work in a streamlined presentation.
Marsilius died in 1342 or in the first few months of the following year. On April 10, 1343, the new Pope Clement VI. the death of the state theorist in a speech, in which he branded more than 240 theses from the Defensor Pacis as heretical and remarked that he knew of no worse heretic than the author of this work.
Fonts
With the exception of the works intended only for university teaching, all of Marsilius' writings deal with topics of political theory and related legal issues.
Defensor Pacis
The Defensor Pacis is a polemical text, but at the same time a scientific treatise according to the rules of the scholastic method of argumentation. On June 24, 1324 Marsilius, after years of work, completed the extensive, carefully structured work that he dedicated to Ludwig the Bavarian. The assumption that Jandun was involved as a co-author has been refuted by research. Marsilius is established as the sole author. His Latin is characterized by the desire for clarity, the clarity of the content is often bought with clumsiness and awkwardness of expression. A striving for literary elegance is not recognizable.
Structure and procedure
At the beginning Marsilius explains the topic, the occasion, the purpose and the structure of his treatise. It is divided into three parts ( dicciones , "presentations"). In the first part he wants to prove the correctness of what is to be shown with “certain methods found by the human mind”, on the basis of fixed sentences which, according to his words, every thinking person whose mind is not by nature or absurd Habit or inclination is corrupted immediately. For the second part he announces statements from recognized authorities that serve to confirm his theses. There "wrong opinions" are to be combated and the "fallacies of the opponents" are to be exposed. Marsilius dedicates the third part to conclusions which he considers to be inevitable.
Starting point, task and goal
The starting point is the question of the “best for people” (humanum optimum) , the ideal of life. Marsilius defines the best as a satisfactory state of living (sufficiencia vite) . This consists in "civil happiness" (civilis felicitas) , which appears to be the best of all the possible goals in this world and is the ultimate goal of human actions. As Cassiodorus had already established, this optimum can be achieved through calm (tranquillitas) and peace in the state. Only when this indispensable condition is fulfilled can the peoples flourish, only then will the benefits of the people be preserved, prosperity generated, education made possible and civilization refined. The opposite, discord, leads to the worst damage. This can be seen in the example of Italy, where the dispute between the inhabitants led to various hardships and hated foreign rule. Because of the quarrels of the Italians, any powerful intruder could now march in at will and establish his rule. Discord is to a country what disease is to a living being.
Regarding the reasons for the destructive disputes, Marsilius remarks that Aristotle recognized and described almost all of them. There is, however, another, very important cause that was unknown to this philosopher and the earlier ancient thinkers, since it did not exist then. Even later, when it already existed, no one discovered it. It is unique, deeply hidden and highly contagious. It had been causing serious harm to the Roman (that is, Roman-German ) empire for a long time, and it sought to creep into all other communities and empires. This source of discord could only arise after the appearance of Christ and the Christianization of the world of states. Outwardly it wears the face of the honorable and useful, but it will bring ruin to mankind and will destroy every country if it is not stopped. The epidemic is an absurd opinion (opinionio perversa) that should be eradicated. Only by eliminating them can real peace be realized and preserved. Education about it and the fight against this plague is the duty of every responsible citizen who thinks about the common good. By the mysterious cause of the calamity, the author means, as he will only reveal later in his presentation, the claim of the clergy to worldly power and to a privileged position in the community.
Origin, Development and Purpose of the State Community
Marsilius compares the state with a living natural being. The desired ideal state of the community, the "calm", which is equated with peace in the Defensor pacis , corresponds from the medical perspective of the author to the health of a living being. In both cases, according to his presentation, the good of the whole is based on the fact that the relationship between the individual components or organs is well ordered and sensibly arranged so that each part can optimally exercise its natural functions. Calm or health is the state in which no part is hindered in the performance of its tasks.
In order to understand the nature of states, forms of government, and forms of life, one must - according to Marsilius - consider the origin of community formation, the imperfect preliminary stages from which people have advanced to fully developed communities. The course of nature and its imitator, human creativity, always leads from the less perfect to the more perfect. From the first and smallest unit, a couple, the increase in people first formed the domestic, then the village and finally an overarching state community. As Marsilius observes after Aristotle, the state emerged for the purpose of the mere preservation of life, but now, after development has progressed, it also exists for another purpose: the good life. Marsilius defines this as a life that is satisfactory for the individual.
In a self-sufficient house, the father of the family could still make arbitrary decisions, but as soon as a village was built, that was no longer possible. A fixed, binding, generally transparent legal system had to be created, otherwise chaos and disintegration would have occurred. This is how the formation of states began. This brought the advantages of the increasing division of labor, which is always a characteristic of higher culture, to bear. This is how the professions had to emerge, which then became basic components of the state community. There are six classes: peasants, artisans, warriors, moneyers, priests and the ruling class that directs the state and exercises jurisdiction. Among them, the priests represent a special case because they are the only ones whose necessity can neither be logically proven nor immediately evident. In Christianity religion assigns them a specific task: teaching about faith and religious and moral norms and guiding people with regard to the attainment of salvation in the hereafter. That is what the purpose of the clergy is limited to.
The establishment of a government
After discussing the class structure, Marsilius turned to the forms of state and government. He refrains from examining the models of monarchy , aristocracy and " politics " (moderate popular rule) examined by Aristotle with regard to their general suitability. In this regard, he does not want to make a generally valid statement, because one must take into account the respective attitude of the people; for example, before Caesar's time , the Romans could not have endured sole rulers.
Instead, Marsilius focuses on the procedures used to establish the “governing component”, which he compares and evaluates from the point of view of their usefulness for the general public. In doing so, he examines the monarchy in order to gain knowledge that should then enable clarification for the other types of government. The starting point is Aristotle's doctrine of the state, according to which a government is the more perfect the more it corresponds to the will of its subjects and follows a law that serves the common benefit. The more she deviates from it, the more she smells of tyranny . Of the two characteristics mentioned, Marsilius is convinced that the consent of the subjects is absolutely decisive, or at least the more important. He further explains: Both an elected and a non-elected monarch can rule in consensus with the people, but an elected monarch is more likely to be followed voluntarily and to rule for the benefit of the community. In addition, the superiority of the choice results from the fact that one sometimes has to pass over from the line of succession to it, namely when an Hereditary King has failed and the rule of his sex has become unbearable or when an heir to the throne is missing. On the other hand, the opposite case, that one is forced to switch from voting to another procedure, cannot occur because there will always be candidates, and among these the voters will expediently choose the best one, since this is in their interest.
The importance of legislation
In the following, tenth chapter of the first part, Marsilius turns to legislation. First, a definition of the term “law” is required. Whatever one thinks to be just or unjust, useful or harmful, a law in the strict sense can only be described as a regulation, compliance with which is enforced under threat of punishment. Such a law is always based on human authority, not divine. So this authority is to be asked.
One possible solution is to leave the ruler to legislate, trusting in his efficiency and justice , or to allow him to rule without law as he sees fit. Marsilius considers this to be a mistake. He wants to show that every ruler, especially a hereditary monarch, must be bound by the law. He justifies the necessity of the law with its purpose. He argues: the main purpose consists in what is just for the citizens (civile iustum) and in the common good, the secondary purpose in the stability of the government. A free decision by an individual cannot fulfill the main purpose, because judgments that someone makes as a regent or as a judge are usually influenced by questionable subjective interests and inclinations. The law excludes these factors because of its objective nature and general validity. In addition: The laws can be optimized over time through collective experience and knowledge, analogous to the progressive perfection of techniques and sciences through empirical science . Such legislation is then based on the accumulated knowledge of generations. This inevitably makes it superior to the judgments of an individual, however astute that individual may be, just as science, as the result of collaborative efforts over long periods of time, is more than the knowledge of an individual researcher.
A lack of long-term stability in the alternative model is also significant: even if, as an exception, an ideal ruler is found who is free from ignorance and prejudice, one cannot assume that this also applies to his successor. From the point of view of the secondary purpose, the stability of the government, the rule of law is also superior, because it protects the monarch from wrong decisions that could endanger his rule.
The legislative power
The next step is to clarify the question of the authority to which the legislative power belongs. For Marsilius, only “the people” (populus) can be the lawgiver in the sense of the “first and specific causing cause ” (prima et propria causa efficiens) . By this he understands the totality of the citizens or the " weightier part" (valencior pars) of the citizenship. The author does not generally specify who should make up this part; He wants to leave details of this to the legislators of the individual cities or empires. To justify his demand, he relies on his thesis of the superiority of a collective finding of what is just and useful over individual research, the results of which, moreover, even if they should be better, have no prospect of general acceptance. According to this doctrine, only one vote can give legal effect to a legislative decision. The voting result must be binding; its validity must not be made dependent on confirmation by another authority or on formal acts such as ceremonies or celebrations.
The expression of will of the people has to take place in the general assembly of the citizens after a debate. Citizens are free to legislate themselves or to set up a committee for it and to grant it a power of attorney for a limited time and content. The resolutions of such a body must then, as Marsilius emphatically emphasizes, be submitted to a referendum, as must all future additions, deletions or other changes. When defining the citizenship entitled to vote, Marsilius, following the guidelines of Aristotle, excludes minors, slaves, foreigners and women.
To justify his view, Marsilius also argues that a larger number of participants is more likely than a smaller number to recognize deficiencies in a legislative proposal and to object to biases to the advantage of individuals or interest groups. Moreover, every citizen will obey a law better if he thinks he has imposed it on himself than if he attributes it to the will of a tyrant or a ruling minority. It should also be noted that the purpose of the state is to enable citizens to have a "satisfactory existence". Therefore, every citizen has the right to be involved in decisions that are relevant to them.
Marsilius then turns to the refutation of possible objections. These include the thesis that the majority of people are evil, unreasonable and ignorant and that in every state there are only a few wise and educated people. Marsilius admits that most people are not in a position to come up with good ideas for legislation on their own, but claims that they are nevertheless capable of judging other people's suggestions and recognizing the need for improvement. It is like in art and technology: only a few could paint or be architects, but many judge the quality of a painting or house.
Election of regents and state order
Like the scholastics, Marsilius wants to prove logically (per demonstracionem) that only the citizenry is authorized to choose the “ruling element” of the state. In doing so, he makes use of the Aristotelian concept, according to which things are to be understood as compositions of form and matter . His train of thought is: He who has to create the shape of something must also determine the matter that has to take up this shape. So it is in all crafts and techniques; for example, the builder is also responsible for the building materials. In the state, the law is the form and the executive is the matter. Thus, legislation and elections are to be transferred to the same authority.
Marsilius pays special attention to the handling of physical power. To maintain law and order, the ruler must have a certain number of armed men for the duration of his government, but the legislature has to limit this. The people's assembly also had the right to reprimand or remove the ruler if this was necessary for the common good.
The duties of the legislature belongs to Marsilio also the regulation of the feudal order of society and the profession being. Here, too, the Aristotelian state theorist is concerned with the right connection between form - class and occupation - with matter, the person who is suitable for the respective occupation. He does not want to leave the choice of career to the discretion of the young people, rather it should be guided by the state according to social needs and individual talents. The prevalence of a class - such as too many priests or soldiers - should be prevented as it undermines the state.
Marsilius then discusses in great detail the advantages and disadvantages of hereditary and elective monarchy, trying to refute a number of arguments in favor of succession. From his point of view, the most weighty objection to a new election at every change of ruler is the discord that arises in the case of combat candidates and can lead to a split in the citizenship or even to civil war, while inheritance law clearly regulates the succession. Here the author is thinking of the struggles after the double election of Ludwig the Bavarian and Frederick the Fair in the Roman-German Empire in 1314. Against this argument, he argues that the people should entrust a committee of "clever and capable" with the choice of ruler, from which a responsible behavior can be expected.
Marsilius sees a grave danger in competing centers of power within a state. Therefore he calls for a uniform order; the competencies must be clearly regulated and all state organs should be subordinate to the supreme government. In doing so, he has - without already mentioning it - his main concern in mind, the criticism of interference by the clergy in the area of responsibility of the secular authorities.
Marsilius pays special attention to the question of how to react to an abuse of power by the ruler in a state established according to his ideas. According to him, responsibility for this lies with the people, but they can delegate it to a committee set up for this purpose. If legal proceedings are pending against the regent, his authority should be suspended for that time. He then faces the judges as a simple citizen, and as such he is subject to any penalties. Public reprimand is a possible punishment, but restraint is recommended; Public reprimand is only possible in the case of serious or frequent misconduct, otherwise the office will be damaged. Here weighing of interests is necessary.
At the end of the first part of the Defensor Pacis , the author turns back to the starting point, the contrast between calm and unrest in the state. He is primarily concerned with the misery of Italy, which results from the ongoing quarrels and struggles in the Italian states. He primarily blames a factor for this that will occupy him in the second part of the treatise, the claim of the “Roman bishops” to secular power.
Rejection of clerical claims to power
In the second part of the Defensor Pacis , Marsilius deals with what, from his point of view, is contrary to the realization of his concept and thus to peace and the common good. According to his words, he expects persecution by the "violent power" of the Roman bishops and their accomplices, who hold fast to their worldly claims out of "ardent lust for power". In order to remove the ground from opposition, he thoroughly examines the biblical passages that serve to justify the papal claim to worldly power and judicial power in the world of states. He analyzes the conventional interpretations of these passages in order to prove them to be erroneous and, in turn, cites quotes from the Bible that speak in favor of his view. In this context, Marsilius also examines the argumentation that derives the clerics' claim to superiority over the laity through analogy from the primacy of the spiritual and the spiritual over the material. He brusquely opposes church doctrine with his conviction to the contrary, according to which the clergy are not entitled to any government or jurisdiction in disputes. Rather, a priest, following the advice and example of Christ, has to reject such a position of power even if it is legitimately offered to him.
Furthermore, Marsilius presents and justifies a number of theses: No priest should force the observance of religious commandments with threat of punishment, because one should not force people to do so. The claim that a priest has the authority to release the subjects of a king from the oath of allegiance that binds them to the ruler is obviously contrary to faith. It could also not be true that someone who parted with the unity with the Roman bishop would thereby leave the community of orthodox believers and thus be condemned, because several Roman bishops themselves had strayed from orthodoxy. God forgive repentant sins without the priestly official act of absolution .
A special problem for Marsilius is the excommunication , which is reserved for priests . He claims that the danger of misuse of this harsh punitive measure also affects the state, because the consequences for civil life are very serious: A person wrongly banned from the church gets caught Disreputable and could no longer associate with his fellow citizens. That is why such a serious decision should not be left to a potentially biased bishop, priest or college of clergy. Rather, the entire community of believers in charge or a general council should appoint a judge who should have the last word. Not a priest who may be biased, but the whole community has the power to decide whether someone should be cast out. In addition, an orderly procedure with the gathering of evidence and hearing of witnesses is required for such a step .
Marsilius emphatically opposes the privileges of the clergy in criminal law. He demands that every clergyman must be subject to state jurisdiction just like all other citizens. If a bishop or priest is accused of a criminal offense, he is not allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of a church special justice and thus claim a privileged status. Offenses by priests are to be judged more strictly by the state judiciary and punished more severely than offenses by other citizens, since one can expect better legal knowledge and insight from clergy. Anyone who enjoys the peace and protection that the state grants its citizens should not arbitrarily evade the burdens associated with citizenship and state jurisdiction.
Another topic is dealing with heretics. Marsilius considers final convictions for heresy by church authorities to be inadmissible. He thinks that misconduct against the faith should only be punished if the legitimate state legislature has declared them to be punishable. If the legislature did not make such provisions, heretics and unbelievers should also be allowed to stay in the country, as was already the case with the Jews.
Opinion on the poverty struggle and church property
Marsilius examines the highly controversial question of how the "evangelical poverty", which was practiced according to the biblical accounts of Christ and the apostles , is to be understood, which was highly controversial at the time . The background is the dispute about the sense in which the alleged lack of property of Christ and the early Christians should be taken as a guideline for the “servants of the Gospel”, that is, to what extent they have to live in poverty. In the poverty dispute between Pope John XXII. and the Franciscan representatives of a radical interpretation of the poverty law, Marsilius emphatically takes the Franciscan side. He tries to show that the Pope's teaching that property is inevitable is contrary to faith. Thus, not the religious who advocate complete lack of property have fallen away from the right faith, rather the Pope himself is a heretic. Christ and the apostles would have consistently renounced earthly possessions and thus given the priesthood a model. In particular, property owned by the church is not permitted; this must be sold. A tax like the church tithe is only legitimate on a voluntary basis and only if its purpose is to meet the needs of the ministers of the gospel for food and clothing. Marsilius contrasts the evangelical ideal of poverty with the greed of the clergy, who, according to his account, enrich themselves at the expense of the poor and then waste the collected goods or give them to their blood relatives or other favorites. Furthermore, he declares the tax exemption of church goods to be unfounded. These had come into the possession of the church through donations or bequests and were not previously free from public burdens; therefore there is no reason to treat them differently for tax purposes after the transfer of ownership.
The ecclesiastical offices
Another issue that has been extensively discussed is the church hierarchy. Marsilius is concerned here with justifying his egalitarian understanding of church offices. According to his explanations, the apostles were all equal, Peter had no power over the others and no authority. The same must therefore apply to all bishops as successors to the apostles. The Roman bishop cannot claim that he is entitled to rule in the church as the successor to the “Prince of the Apostles” Peter. In addition, as Marsilius tries to show, it was not Peter but Paul who was the first bishop of Rome. The appointment and dismissal of bishops and other ecclesiastical officials is therefore in no way the responsibility of the Pope. Rather, the appointment of offices, including the election of the Pope, must be reserved for the entirety 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.
In the 18th chapter of the second part, the author goes into the origin of the papal primacy . According to his description, the most educated Christians lived in the imperial capital Rome in the first centuries of church history. Therefore, the Roman bishops were distinguished by a special theological competence, which gave them national reputation. That is why they were also consulted by Christians who lived outside their diocese on questions of doubt about faith and rite . In fact, a priority and thus a position of power for the Bishop of Rome developed. The advice he gave increasingly turned into decrees and ordinances for the whole Church. As Marsilius assumes, a fundamental change was brought about by the Donation of Constantine the Great , the first Christian emperor , under Constantine the Great , an edict with which the emperor granted the Pope significant privileges. According to this decree, Constantine took the priesthood out of the mandatory jurisdiction of the rulers and gave the Roman bishop powers over the other bishops and over all churches. With the act of donation, he even gave the Pope secular rule over part of the empire. - In the Defensor Pacis, as in the late Middle Ages, the Donation of Constantine, which is actually a forged imperial certificate, is treated as an authentic document. However, there is clear doubt in the words of Marsilius: He notes that “some claim” that Constantine made the donation through “a certain edict”.
Ecclesiastical prerogatives of the legislature and general councils
On the basis of his ideas about early Christianity and early church history, Marsilius determined the competences of the legislature, empowered by the will of the people, and of the general councils in questions of faith and church affairs. Chapters 20 and 21 of the second part are dedicated to this topic. First the author examines the question of who is authorized to interpret the Bible in an authoritative manner. According to his result, this authority belongs exclusively to a general council. Its convening and the selection of participants should follow the same principles as the establishment of a government. Under no circumstances should the convening be left to the discretion of the Pope or the College of Cardinals, for it may be that the purpose of the Council is precisely to accuse these dignitaries. The general church assembly should represent the totality of Christians as far as possible, so it must be willed and authorized by it. This means that in every state community an authority legitimized by the will of the people decides which persons the country sends to the council. Even lay people have a say as a council participants and co-decide. The venue should be determined by majority vote. Only the council is authorized to excommunicate a ruler or to impose an interdict .
The role of the papacy
In the 22nd chapter of the second part, the question is discussed in what sense the Pope is entitled to a leadership role. The papacy is granted the right to exist as a coordinating and executive body because the universal church represents a unity and the general council needs a chairman. The Pope is supposed to lead the meetings of the council and carry out its decisions, but without having his own force to enforce them. In all serious steps, he must comply with the will of committees that are legitimized by a popular mandate. Since he is not above the other bishops, he is not allowed to excommunicate any of them.
In chapters 22-26, the author deals with the full power ( plenitudo potestatis ) of the popes. He describes the growth of papal power as a process of increasing illegitimate presumption of power over the course of church history. In doing so, he imputes malice to the popes; He names the desire for profit and greed for power as motives. He accuses them of assuming the right to revoke imperial orders. Moreover, they raise a claim to supreme power over all rulers and considered themselves authorized to install and remove all rulers and governments of the world at their discretion. In particular, Marsilius is indignant about the demand that the Roman-German king swear allegiance to the Pope and about the papal right to exercise imperial power during the interregnum , when the empire lacks a ruler. He also denounces the right of the popes to make decisions at their discretion, on which the souls of the individual believers supposedly depend. With regard to the exercise of power within the church, he finds it particularly reprehensible that the popes, when filling church offices, restricted, falsified and finally eliminated almost completely the right to vote, which actually belongs to the whole of the faithful, in order to reserve the right to decide for themselves. They would have made it a habit to appoint their favorites as bishops. Among them are completely ignorant young people and even children as well as fools and criminals. In addition, there is further disaster caused by the misuse of the proceeds of church goods.
In the 26th chapter the author turns to the current situation and attacks the incumbent "so-called" Pope John XXII. with extreme violence. He passionately accuses him of heinous crimes. Finally, in chapters 27–30, he addresses possible objections to his theses. In chapter 28 he rejects the universal monarchy propagated by some late medieval authors - including Dante - : There is no convincing argument that world domination is better than the independence of individual countries.
Final conclusions
In the third, by far shortest part of the Defensor Pacis , Marsilius puts together 41 results of his argumentation, with which he outlines a reform plan. Relying on the persuasiveness of his argument, he expressed his expectation that it would not be difficult to eradicate the "plague" everywhere if his suggestions were put into practice.
De translatione imperii
After the completion of the Defensor Pacis and probably before the death of John XXII, between 1324 and 1334, Marsilius wrote the short treatise De translatione imperii (On the transfer of the empire) . A relevant treatise by canonist Landolfo Colonna, whose position was opposite to his, served as a formal model . The concern of the state theorist was to clarify the legal basis of the Western Empire. At that time, its creation was viewed as a “ transfer ”, because it was assumed that the ancient Roman Empire would continue to exist legally after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century. The doctrine of transference, which is widespread in different versions, states that the legal successors of the Roman emperors were initially the Byzantine ones, but then with the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 a renewal of imperial rule in the west took place. The Roman imperial dignity was transferred to the Carolingians and later to the Roman-German emperors. Marsilius' treatise is based on this legal conception. His representation of the transfers is based on conventional ideas, with the Donation of Constantine, viewed as a historical reality, forming the starting point. The Paduan describes the processes from the perspective of his conception of constitutional legitimacy. He puts great emphasis on a fundamental change that occurred after the Otton dynasty died out. At that time it was recognized that such a great power as the imperial one did not belong to an heir to the throne, but to the most worthy, and therefore one went over to the electoral empire. Since then, the right to vote has only been available to the seven electors . The coronation of the chosen by the Pope is only an unnecessary formality and not an expression of the church's right to have a say.
Defensor minor and marriage law texts
During the last years of Marsilius' life, he wrote the Defensor minor , the "lesser defender" of peace. In this treatise he went back to the subject of the second part of the Defensor Pacis , focusing on the conditions in the Roman-German Empire. In doing so, he responded to criticism of his main work that had been loud since its completion. Among other things, he dealt with two central aspects of clerical power: the remission of otherworldly penalties for sin and the dissolution of oaths by priestly, especially papal authority. According to the current church doctrine, it was at the discretion of the clergy to make the remission of penalties for sins committed in purgatory dependent on the sinners paying for it or performing a special service, such as a pilgrimage or participation in a crusade . Marsilius saw this as an abuse of power by the clergy, as well as the annulment of the validity of oaths at the Pope's discretion. At the pilgrimages he remarked that it was a hundred times more meritorious to donate the money needed for social purposes or for national defense.
The Orthodox Church has for the Defensor minor be at a general council involved, so that it is sufficiently representative. Marsilius considered the dogmatic opposition between the Roman Church and Orthodoxy to be an insignificant dispute over words, for which he held the papal side responsible. He believed that the general council should settle this superfluous conflict and thus end the church separation that had existed since the Eastern Schism .
In the last four of the sixteen chapters of the Defensor Minor , Marsilius examined the law of marriage and dissolution . He stated that final decisions under marriage law should not be made by priests, but fell within the competence of secular authority. The current reason for this statement was an affair that caused a stir in the early 1340s. Margarete "Maultasch" , the heiress of the County of Tyrol , separated from her husband Johann Heinrich von Luxemburg and married Ludwig , the son of Ludwig of Bavaria , in February 1342 . Thus Tyrol fell to the Wittelsbach family, the emperor's family. However, this marriage was carried out without church permission. The annulment of Margaret's first marriage would have required the approval of the Pope under canon law. In addition, the relationship between Ludwig and Margarete represented an obstacle to marriage that, according to current church law, could only be removed with a special papal permit. Such a dispensation could not be obtained, however: the antipope Nicholas V had already abdicated, and no concession was to be expected from the Pope, who was residing in Avignon, especially since the emperor was still excommunicated. In these circumstances, disregard for canon law was inevitable. For this the emperor needed journalistic support, which he received from both Marsilius and Wilhelm von Ockham.
With his general investigation of the problems of marriage law in the defensor minor , Marsilius wanted to support the imperial legal conception. In addition, he wrote an expert opinion on the Tyrolean divorce, the Tractatus consultationis . In addition, two of his drafts for imperial documentary texts on marriage matters have survived: the forma divorcii for divorce and the forma dispensacionis for exemption from obstacles to marriage.
Works from the university
A commentary on the first six books of Aristotle's Metaphysics in the form of a quaestion has survived in only one manuscript . The Codex names Marsilius as the author, but the extensive agreement with a metaphysics commentary written by Jandun makes this statement appear doubtful. The attribution is controversial in research. It may be due to a typing mistake.
Two Sophismata are also ascribed to Marsilius in the handwritten tradition. One of them begins with the words “Omne factum habet principium” and deals with the question of the number of universals . The author concludes that there are only two universals: the genus (genus) and the type (species) . This sophism is considered genuine today, while the authenticity of the other is doubtful.
Historical classification of the theory of the state
The influence of traditional thought
As a scholastic master's degree, Marsilius was primarily influenced by the teachings of Aristotle, whom he held in high regard and used to quote with approval. From the ancient philosopher he took over the basic principles of the theory of forms of government and ideas for structuring the political community. However, he deviated from Aristotelian doctrines on important points. For the support of the theses of the Defensor Pacis , the most productive Aristotelian writings were politics and the Nicomachean ethics . Marsilius also used medieval commentaries on politics . He cited other works of Aristotle less often. He also received important impulses from Cicero , whose writing De officiis shaped his understanding of duties. In particular, he relied on Cicero's principle that injustice consists not only in wrongdoing, but also in failing to resist injustice done to others. With this he justified his fight against the papacy. He only consulted other ancient classics such as Sallust and Seneca occasionally.
Marsilius very often referred to passages in the Bible, in the interpretation of which he preferred the literal understanding to the allegorical modes of interpretation. He also often referred to statements made by the Church Fathers . He owed his knowledge of history mainly to the Chronicon pontificum et imperatorum Martins von Troppau , a papal and imperial story from the late 13th century, which was a common reference work in the late Middle Ages. However, he mistrusted Martin's portrayal, as he considered him to be a biased adherent of papal doctrine.
The question of the extent to which the ideas of the high medieval Arab Aristotle interpreter Averroes and the movement named after him, Averroism , influenced the Paduan scholar is highly controversial . Both his teacher Pietro d'Abano and his friend and colleague Johannes von Jandun were Averroists. The sharp distinction made by Marsilius between the content of divine revelation that cannot be reasonably justified and the knowledge of human reason stems from the ideas of this direction. A smaller indication of averroistic sentiment is the designation of Aristotle as "divine", with which the authority of the ancient teacher is underlined in the Defensor Pacis . However, much of the political philosophy of Averroes was not yet known to Latin-speaking scholars in the 14th century. The earlier common idea that Marsilius was a typical representative of "political averroism" has been abandoned by more recent research.
Marsilius received important impulses from the legal understanding of the "Legists", the medieval jurists who interpreted Roman law . The principle that the laws owe their binding force to the consent of the people was already anchored in the late antique Corpus iuris civilis and was taken up by the legislators in the Middle Ages.
The political context
When developing his concepts, Marsilius used not only a wealth of historical material but also experiences from his own time. He was passionately committed to the cause of Ludwig the Bavarian in his fight against Pope John XXII. Against this background, he assessed the centuries-long history of disputes and alliances between state and church rulers. The French ecclesiastical policy of the last decades offered him inspiration. Gallicanism , which had emerged vigorously since 1294 , the French striving for national church autonomy and curbing papal power, met his efforts. In his youth, Marsilius had witnessed the dramatic struggle between the Gallican-minded King Philip IV of France and Pope Boniface VIII, who was harshly insisting on his claim to power . In the Defensor Pacis he praised Philip as the glorious Catholic king who had resisted a papal attack. It was about the bull Unam sanctam , in which Boniface VIII had sharply formulated his universal claim to rule and proclaimed it as a binding doctrine of faith. This bull had met with decided opposition in France. For Marsilius it was a particularly extreme expression of monstrous presumption.
The Paduan commented mockingly that the Curia gave way to Philip IV after the death of Boniface, who died in 1303. He recalled the course of the conflict: First Boniface had made the doctrine of Unam sanctam into a dogma, the truth of which no Christian should doubt. He claimed that anyone who did not believe in it would lose his eternal salvation. Later, however, under the indulgent Pope Clement V , the Curia deviated from its own teaching by exempting the King of France and his subjects from the obligation to believe in dogma. Out of fear, Clemens had granted this monarch an autonomous special position, but held on to his claim to supremacy over the other regents. With this obvious inconsistency he made the papacy ridiculous.
Marsilius praised Emperor Henry VII , who stood out uniquely among all rulers, and reviled Pope Clement V, who had the cheek to claim that Heinrich was obliged to him by an oath of loyalty.
One difficulty for the state theorist was that, on the one hand, he always advocated the secular side when assessing the struggles between secular and spiritual power, but on the other hand, he could not be a loyal party member of the ruler in every respect. His criticism of the hereditary monarchy was hardly applauded at the courts, and his demand for control of the rulers by the people or their mandated representatives contradicted the interests of the rulers and current government practice. This ambivalence in his position was shown, among other things, in the fact that, although he praised Philip IV for fighting the Pope, he attacked a domestic political decision by this king as illegal. It was a special tax that Philip had introduced on his own initiative because of the war in Flanders . Marsilius found the kingdom to be shaken by this illegal move. He threatened that many rulers had already perished due to a lack of compliance with laws. In fact, fierce opposition had forced Philip IV to withdraw the financial measure, and the operation had damaged his reputation.
It is difficult to answer the question of the extent to which Marsilius could regard monarchs like Henry VII or Ludwig the Bavarians as state leaders legitimized by the will of the people without tacitly renouncing the strict requirements of the Defensor Pacis . It is possible that he changed his position in the course of time in the sense of a greater acceptance of the factual and less emphasis on the rights of the people, because his primary goal was the fight against the papacy. In any case, he found himself ready to see the electors who elected the king as legitimate representatives of the people and demanded obedience to the respective government. This pragmatism pushed his ideal of people's power into the background. The legitimation of the electoral college was only possible within the framework of its doctrine through the acceptance of fictitious delegation acts.
The municipal institutions of Italian cities form an important part of the contemporary political background. For the government concept of the Defensor Pacis , the author's hometown served as a model in various ways. In Padua the “Greater Council” (concilium maius) , which consisted of a thousand citizens , traditionally acted as the legislative body. The office of Podestà , the head of the city administration elected by the Greater Council, corresponded roughly to the position that Marsilius assigned to the "ruling element" of his ideal state. The Podestà was strictly bound by the legal norms (statute) and accountable. To prevent abuse of office, the Paduans limited the Podestà's term of office to one year and prohibited re-election before five years. However, this state order in Padua was already a thing of the past when the Defensor pacis was created, because in 1318 a signoria , a model of autocracy, was introduced under the pressure of external threats .
The title of Defensor Pacis probably comes from this context, because the preservation or “defense” of the “peaceful” or “calm” state of citizenship was a central national goal in Italian republics. “Peace” (status pacificus) was a broad term that not only meant the absence of unrest and civil war. This also meant legal security , the maintenance of political order and the prosperity resulting from such stability.
The militant anti-clerical attitude of Marsilius also had a local historical background. The clergy's immunity from municipal jurisdiction had led to a multitude of clergy crimes in Padua. This malady had ultimately triggered a violent backlash from the citizens, which resulted in the abolition of objectionable clerical privileges in the judiciary. In this matter Marsilius could therefore consider himself the spokesman for his fellow citizens.
Innovative aspects
The originality of Marsilius' political theory lies partly in the fact that he broke with some traditional notions in an extraordinarily consistent manner, but mainly in the fact that he united scattered ideas of his predecessors under a guiding point of view, put them together into a coherent concept and derived revolutionary consequences from them. Most of his ideas can be found, at least in part, in older literature. What was new was the continuation of the approaches and the bundling of the impulses in a reform project that questioned established ways of thinking and social structures for centuries. An upheaval of great importance was the detachment of philosophy from theology, which Marsilius undertook, on the one hand noting that philosophy was completely unsuitable for solving theological problems, but on the other hand he found that philosophers had the necessary conditions for earthly existence and a good life in practice fully understood. In doing so, he assigned philosophy the responsibility for a scientifically founded solution to concrete questions of life, and theology the clarification of questions of faith.
The idea of the origin of the political community
A significant deviation of the Defensor Pacis from the previously dominant doctrines can be seen in the description of the emergence of the first political communities. According to the idea of Aristotle and the ancient and medieval tradition that followed him, the founding acts of city-states were at the beginning. A single sage took the initiative, founded a polis and given it a constitution. It was believed that this leader could use his authority to exert the necessary force. The state theory thus followed the common founding myths of the individual cities. Marsilius, on the other hand, considered another aspect, an earlier phase of political community formation: the regulation of living together in the first village community. He considered this step to be the fruit of collective reflection and insight: the order of common concerns through norms had been initiated by a group of clever men, and then the fathers involved voluntarily decided by consensus to implement the proposal. According to this model, the first regulations had a treaty-like character; they should prevent the arbitrariness that would have led to the struggle and dissolution of the community. Managerial responsibilities and dispute settlement a village elder was (senior) has been entrusted. This hypothesis was not entirely new, because the scholastics Johannes Quidort († 1306) and Johannes Duns Scotus († 1308) had already assumed an originally consensual community formation . In contrast to Marsilius, however, they did not derive the legitimacy of the exercise of state power from an ongoing consensus between rulers and rulers, but from natural law or divine law. Marsilius rejected the idea that a natural law founded in the nature of reason is "found" by the legislature. From his point of view, the law is not taken from a transcendent or natural source of law, but is set by the political community. This position is often referred to as legal positivism in research , but the question of whether this term is appropriate to Marsilius' legal understanding is controversial.
An important difference to the Aristotelian tradition is the doctrine of the original drive to form social associations. Aristotle and the Aristotelians emphasized the importance of the impulse for socialization, which is innate in man as a being by nature social and destined to form states ( zoon politikon ) . Marsilius, on the other hand, did not see the basis of community formation in a social need, but in the biological need of naturally naked and defenseless people. Only by working together in larger groups was he able to develop and practice the skills he needed to assert himself in a dangerous environment despite his frailty and vulnerability.
The purpose of state and government
Marsilius' view of the purpose of the state is very different from the relevant Aristotelian doctrine, which the late medieval masters used to orientate themselves on. This is shown, among other things, in his divergent understanding of the corporate order. The Aristotelian tradition emphasized the qualitative difference between higher and lower classes and thus the inherently hierarchical character of the social structure. She assigned different purposes to the classes, and consequently different values. She saw the highest purpose of the state in enabling a scientifically trained elite to enjoy a life devoted to research and contemplation . On the other hand, Marsilius did not commit himself to a certain ideal of life as a national goal and did not give priority to the well-being of an individual class. Rather, for him, the purpose of the state community was to guarantee satisfactory living conditions for all citizens. By this he meant legal security and prosperity as the prerequisites for a successful life. Instead of the hierarchical social structure, he emphasized the close connection and interdependence of the classes.
In addition, the concept of Marsilius differs from conventional state thinking of ancient origins in that the Paduan limited the competence of the government to the protection of the material interests of the citizens and did not assign it the task of educating the people morally. Nor did he accept Aristotle's demand that the legislature should specifically promote friendship among citizens in order to strengthen the cohesion of society. This reluctance to privacy, the renunciation of a hierarchy of values and the prominent role of the utility point of view give the proposed state order a functional character.
Evaluation criteria in state theory
An essential peculiarity of the teaching of Marsilius is his yardstick for the evaluation of constitutions and governments. He adopted the traditional Aristotelian scheme of the three "good" forms of government - royal monarchy, aristocracy and " politics " (functioning popular rule) - and their three "bad" modifications - tyrannical monarchy, oligarchy and "democracy" - with one under "democracy" Mob rule was understood as a form of decay of popular rule. The Aristotelians used the orientation of the ruling authority on the common good as an evaluation criterion. In contrast to the Aristotelian tradition, Marsilius did not choose the good or bad attitudes of those in power as the standard. Instead, he made the citizens' consensus the absolutely decisive or at least the most important criterion for the suitability of a constitution. For him, what counted more than the nature of a state order was the procedure by which it was established and changed if necessary. According to the conventional understanding, it was only a matter of finding the optimal laws and then introducing them in whatever way and bringing the most able to power. Marsilius, on the other hand, considered the legislative procedure and the mode of government establishment to be the most essential. With that he made a fundamental change of perspective. Accordingly, he preferred an inadequate law, which was approved by the citizens, over a better one, which was introduced by an unauthorized authority.
For Marsilius, an important criterion for judging a government was the unrestricted rule of law, to which he attached great importance. In doing so, he deviated from the Aristotelian tradition by ruling out any alternative in principle. Aristotle had discussed the question of whether there could be a person or group in the citizenry who so dominated all other citizens that it was appropriate to grant them absolute power and to regard their will as law. Aristotle considered this unlikely, but in principle possible. He believed that the decisions of such an ideal government were superior to following written law. Marsilius disagreed, because he was convinced that every person is subject to the influence of harmful passions and therefore, in principle, no one should be above the law. In addition, he asserted that in a model with absolute power, even with an ideal government, the succession problem would arise.
The determination of the qualifications of a good ruler was innovative. According to the defensor pacis , a good ruler only needs two virtues: cleverness and a "moral competence", which shows itself mainly as justice and a sense of balance or fairness ( equitas ) . These two virtues are intended to compensate for the inevitable inadequacy of legislation, which cannot adequately regulate every individual case, and to allow the necessary flexibility in government practice. Marsilius thus renounced the conventional ideal of an absolutely exemplary ruler equipped with all the virtues. He prevented the papal claim that after the election of a Roman-German king the church had to check his moral qualifications and could then refuse to consent to his assumption of power or to the coronation of emperor. In the Martian state model it is not necessary for the ruler to be far superior to the citizens in virtue. Virtue is not of interest as a personal trait, but only from the point of view of its concrete benefit for the general public.
Special rights as a cause of discord and calamity
A fundamental innovation of Marsilius was his departure from the Aristotelian doctrine, according to which the disruption of communities is primarily due to the antagonism between the wealthy and the poor. The Paduan claimed that the basic evil in the Christian states was the church's striving for power. The devastating discord was a result of the endowment of the clergy - especially the popes - with special rights, and the calamity had been brought about systematically over the centuries by the machinations of the Curia, which had pursued a consistently malicious policy. The existence of an independent ecclesiastical power center in the state undermined the unified control of the community that was absolutely necessary. Marsilius saw his main achievement in the fact that he had uncovered this previously hidden general cause of the misfortune of the states. Church criticism was very widespread in the late Middle Ages, but the introduction of such a relentless system analysis into the state-theoretical discourse represented a revolutionary approach. In addition, there were the disruptive conclusions that were drawn from it. The demand for a complete abolition of the ecclesiastical penal powers was quite unique.
As a special consequence, the new approach gave rise to a fundamental criticism of the fundamentals of canon law . Marsilius cited the decretals of the Pseudoisidor , a standard canonical work, but he did not argue within the framework of the premises of canonical law . Since he rejected the basic requirements of the applicable canon law, he did not approve of canonology as a science.
On the one hand, Marsilius consistently rejected a privileged special status for the clergy in the state, but on the other hand he did not strive for a solution in the sense of a separation of state and church, rather he adhered to the then self-evident strong interweaving of state and church issues. As a result, in the Martian state model, the legislature and the government also had functions that affected the inner workings of the church. In the Roman-German Empire this had to result in a very strong position of the king in relation to the church, as Ludwig the Bavarian claimed on his Italian campaign. Therefore the concept of Marsilius is sometimes referred to as Caesaropapism in research . It differs from this, however, in the lack of a sacred exaltation of the ruler.
The citizenry and its "weightier part"
Marsilius stipulated that if there was a lack of unanimity, the “ heavier part” (valencior pars) of the citizens had to make the decisions. He took the term from the Latin translation of Aristotle's politics , but transferred it to a medieval context. The question of how the state theorist envisaged the implementation of this principle in political practice is an intensely discussed research topic on which no agreement has yet been reached. One direction of interpretation simply equates the more important part with the respective majority, another asserts that it is not a matter of a pure majority principle, rather the term also shows a qualitative aspect in the sense of “more important in terms of value” and allows for differences in competencies to be taken into account . According to another interpretation, the more important part is to be understood as a college to which the citizenship has given a mandate. In any case, Marsilius refrained from attempting to deal with this complex problem with a universal rigid rule. He only wanted to provide general principles and leave the specific design to the individual countries and citizenships.
The problem of demagogy and destructive tendencies in the ruling people, which Aristotle had already discussed, and which endanger the welfare of the state, was known to Marsilius. With reference to Aristotle, he remarked that the state could only continue to exist if that part of the citizenry that wanted it was stronger than the destructive part. However, he was very optimistic about this, believing that the masses always wanted to keep their peace and prosperity. It is therefore to be expected that the majority of the people will always decide to keep a good constitution. Human nature is geared towards what is beneficial and does not allow the majority of a state people to fall victim to a self-destructive tendency. Thus, the constitutional part of the electorate always outweighs the subversive and destructive part in quantitative terms.
In addition, Marsilius was convinced that, thanks to the summation of the contributions of their members, the competence of collectives was generally greater than that of the individual individuals of which they were composed. This “ summation thesis ” in favor of collective intelligence had already been put forward by Aristotle, but he had not drawn as far-reaching conclusions from it as the Paduan. For the Greek thinker, the summation thesis was only valid for a relatively educated class; he doubted the collective intelligence of the farmers and artisans. He considered the uneducated masses, the majority of the people, to be bad. He also wanted to apply the summation thesis to elections, but not to the legislation from which he excluded the crowd. Marsilius deviated from the Aristotelian tradition on these important points. He believed manual workers were more sensible than the ancient philosopher and therefore not only granted them the right to vote, but also regarded them as part of the people endowed with legislative power. In justifying the superiority of large collectives over smaller groups or individual individuals, Marsilius argued with the general principle that a whole is always superior to each of its parts. Therefore the judgment of the whole of the citizens exceeds that of individual groups or persons.
The concept of the defensor pacis differs from a modern representative democracy in that all bodies to which the people as legislators delegate certain tasks should be strictly bound by instructions. In an ideal state established according to Marsilius' ideas, elected bodies only function as instruments of citizenship with voting rights in the legislative process. Unlike a modern parliament, you are not empowered to make your own discretionary decisions. If the citizenry delegates its prerogative to decide on legislation in the last instance to representatives, from the perspective of the Paduan, a decline is already underway that leads to the destruction of freedom. According to this view, he regards active participation in the political opinion-forming and decision-making process primarily as a duty of every citizen and not as a mere right.
Dealing with authorities
Marsilius showed an extraordinary impartiality in dealing with the writings of the Church Fathers. The obvious contradictions between their assertions had not escaped the medieval scholars, but the contradictions were usually presented as only apparent, and the scholastics endeavored to resolve them. Marsilius, on the other hand, saw this as proof of the general human susceptibility to error, from which even the highest-ranking authorities such as St. Augustine were not spared. He therefore unhesitatingly rejected the views of the most respected saints - including Bernard of Clairvaux - if they were inconsistent with his interpretation of the Bible.
reception
middle Ages
Wilhelm von Ockham dealt critically with the theses of Marsilius in the third part of his dialogue in the 1340s, harshly rejecting individual arguments as foolish or absurd. He quoted the Defensor Pacis verbatim without ever giving the author's name. Ockham defended the leadership of the apostle Peter and the popes in the universal church.
In the late Middle Ages, only the Defensor pacis and De translatione imperii of the works of Marsilius received some attention; the rest were almost entirely lost. The Defensor minor, which has been handed down anonymously, is preserved in a single manuscript.
A French translation of the Defensor Pacis , now lost, served as the basis for an Italian one made in Florence in 1363. Only one textual witness is known of this, while the Latin text, which is provided with additions and corrections by the author in part of the handwritten tradition, is available in a total of 36 manuscripts, most of which date from the late 14th and 15th centuries. The papal judgment of condemnation inhibited its dissemination, and the anti-clerical position of the author impaired its usability in the context of internal church conflicts. In the second and third quarters of the 14th century it was difficult to get a copy. Around 1350, the scholar Konrad von Megenberg announced that despite his best efforts, he had not managed to get the book. However, this did not prevent him from dealing with Marsilius in a polemical manner. Several authors of statements in favor of the Curia also attacked the Defensor Pacis without knowing the original text, the reading of which was forbidden. They were satisfied with the knowledge of six selected theses, which the church denounced as false doctrines.
In 1375 the Paris University was searched for months in vain for an anonymous scholar who had translated the “heretical” script of the Paduan into French. All members of the theological faculty had to testify under oath whether they knew anything about it. At the French royal court, on the other hand, the anticurial ideas met with approval: the Paris royal councilor Évrart de Trémaugon added passages of the Defensor pacis to its state-theoretical dialogue Somnium Viridarii , completed in 1376 , which was widely used in the French version, Le Songe du Vergier . This work was commissioned by King Charles V , who probably approved the content.
The great occidental schism (1378-1417) and the reform councils of the 15th century generated a new interest in the ideas of Marsilius. In the context of the controversy about conciliarism , the doctrine of the primacy of a general council over the Pope, the argument of the Paduan could be used. But since he was considered a heretic and had also criticized the hereditary monarchy, his ideas were only hesitantly received and in some cases rejected. Conciliarist and reformist circles also kept their distance. Among the conciliarists, Johannes Gerson emerged as an opponent of Marsilius' understanding of the church, while Dietrich von Nieheim referred to him as a "great theologian", but did not dare to name the excommunicated church critic. In 1433/34, Nikolaus von Kues , in his De concordantia catholica , which he wrote from a conciliarist perspective, took over numerous passages from the Defensor pacis , withholding the source; he only mentioned Marsilius where he criticized him. The extent of the influence of the Defensor Pacis in the 15th century is difficult to determine, since such sources were often used without citing them.
Defenders of the traditional ecclesiastical conditions tried to discredit their opponents by accusing them of representing the heretical teachings of Marsilius. When Pope Gregory XI. Condemned the theses of John Wyclif in 1377 , he claimed that the unpopular reformer was propagating the anti-clerical ideas of the Defensor Pacis . The theologian Juan de Torquemada , who vehemently advocated the papal primacy, tried to bring the conciliarists into disrepute by reproaching in his Summa de ecclesia, completed in 1453 , that the Council of Basel had implemented the view of Marsilius and Ockhams with its resolutions.
Early modern age
In the 16th century Protestants took up the anti-papal argument of Marsilius. Even before the Reformation was introduced in Basel, the first edition of Defensor pacis appeared there in the printing works of Valentin Curio in 1522 . The contributors, including the author of the introduction, preferred anonymity or hid behind pseudonyms . The well-known humanists Beatus Rhenanus , Konrad Pellikan and Hermann von dem Busche were involved , the artist Hans Holbein the Younger contributed the artistic equipment . The later editions of the 16th and 17th centuries were published in the Reformed area, mostly in Frankfurt am Main.
The first edition of De translatione imperii appeared in Basel in 1555. Its editor, the Lutheran journalist Matthias Flacius Illyricus , honored Marsilius in detail in his Catalogus testium veritatis in the following year . In 1614, the late humanist Melchior Goldast included the Defensor pacis and De translatione imperii in his collection of sources, Monarchia Sancti Romani Imperii , which were widely used. In this collection, Goldast also published Marsilius' marriage law report.
In the Catholic world, Marsilius was regarded as the forerunner of the Reformation. Albertus Pighius (Albert Pigge) dedicated one of the five books of his treatise Hierarchiae ecclesiasticae assertio, printed in 1538, to the refutation of the teachings of the Paduan. Defenders of Catholicism such as Pighius claimed that Martin Luther was inspired by the Defensor Pacis . In reality there is no evidence of this; Luther never mentioned Marsilius, and it is unclear whether he knew the main work of the medieval state theorist. From the age of the Counter-Reformation , Catholics were forbidden to read the Defensor Pacis ; from 1559 it was listed in the index of forbidden books . In the Catholic polemics against the Reformation, Marsilius was often mentioned as the originator of false doctrines that were taken up by the Protestants. A staunch opponent was the philosopher Tommaso Campanella († 1639), whose theocratic utopia was the radical opposite of the state propagated in the Defensor Pacis . The Martian ideas on the relationship between state and church found attention in the 16th and early 17th centuries in Gallican-minded circles of French Catholicism. The Catholic lawyer Heinrich Canisius responded in 1600 to the first edition of the three marriage law texts by Marsilius, which had been published by Marquard Freher in Heidelberg in 1598 , with a refutation, which was also directed against Ockham's report on the Maultasch affair.
In England, the main work of Marsilius supplied the supporters of the Reformation with ammunition. The printer and translator William Marshall made an English translation for Thomas Cromwell , which was published in London in 1535. In the previous year, King Henry VIII broke with the Roman Church. From the point of view of his court, the Paduan's polemic against the papacy was helpful. However, the content of the English version had to be revised so that the statements about the choice of ruler and the rights of the people did not appear to be an impairment of royal power. Therefore, Marshall identified the "heavier part" of the people with parliament and left out the precedence of the legislature commissioned by the people over the ruler. An increased interest in Marsilius then became noticeable in the context of the religious conflicts under Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) and her successors from the House of Stuart . The medieval thinker was valued as a spokesman for resistance to papal arrogance and as a proponent of subordination of the church to state power, as has been practiced in England since the Reformation. Among the authors who expressed themselves in this way, were John Foxe († 1587) and Richard Baxter (1615-1691).
In the German-speaking world, the ideas of the Defensor Pacis were partially made accessible to a wider reading public when a heavily abbreviated, partly paraphrasing German version was published in Neuburg an der Donau in 1545 . The client was the Lutheran Count Palatine Ottheinrich . The influential Lutheran constitutional lawyer Dietrich Reinkingk quoted Marsilius extensively in his main work Tractatus de regimine seculari et ecclesiastico , published in 1619 , which subsequently became an authoritative textbook on imperial constitutional law. As a result, generations of Lutheran jurists became acquainted with the ideas of Marsilius.
In the Netherlands, Hugo Grotius used his theological-political work Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae pietas , published in 1613, and in the treatise De imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra, thoughts of Marsilius on the relationship between state and church, completed in 1617 .
An influence of the Paduan on John Calvin is not demonstrable, but his ideas found favor with the well-known Calvinist monarchomache François Hotman . Hotman used De translatione imperii in his treatise Francogallia (1573) and the Defensor pacis in the pamphlet Brutum fulmen (1585). The statesman, Calvinist theologian and Huguenot leader Philippe Duplessis-Mornay (1549–1623) was an admirer of Marsilius and received significant suggestions from his main work.
Around the middle of the 17th century, interest in the theory of the state of Marsilius waned sharply; in the 18th century, his oeuvre received little attention.
Modern
Marsilius is very interested in modern history. Particular attention is paid to his pioneering role in the development process of the principle of popular sovereignty and to his doctrine of the secularized state, which was utopian for the conditions at the time . The history of philosophy discussions mainly revolve around the tension between roots in medieval scholastic thinking and the will to break with tradition. A central theme is the question of the originality of the theory of the state presented by Marsilius. Numerous historians have portrayed him as a bold pioneer of modern achievements. However, the continued intensive study of its teachings has also led to more cautious assessments of its innovative potential. In research, the dividing line runs between a direction that emphasizes its embedding in the late medieval environment and one that honors him as an innovator ahead of his time and as a revolutionary forerunner of modern state theorists in line with them. The researchers, who rate his own contribution highly, often give him great, sometimes exuberant praise. Proponents of the contrary opinion warn against unhistorical idealization from the perspective of today's evaluation criteria.
Research debates until the middle of the 20th century
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, enthusiasm for the originator of promising ideas, the pioneer, in whom modern assessors could see a kindred spirit, dominated Marsilius research. This way of looking at things was attacked by critics, but it had a lasting impact on the discourse in wide circles. Among the historians who emphasized the future-oriented potential of the new theory of the state were both Marsilius specialists and many authors of reference works on the history of ideas. Herbert Brook Workman (1911) and Raymond G. Gettell (1924) called the main work of the Paduan the most original political treatise of the Middle Ages. Ephraim Emerton noted in 1920 that the Defensor pacis had often been described as the most notable literary product of the Middle Ages, and that he himself was inclined to agree with this judgment. Harold Laski wrote in Cambridge Medieval History in 1936 that in the entire history of medieval philosophy there is hardly a thinker to be found who has gained a deeper insight into the conditions of human community formation than Marsilius.
Proponents of this interpretation emphasized that Marsilius anticipated fundamental modern ideas. Sigmund Riezler remarked in 1874: “Perhaps no spirit of its time has ever advanced further than this Italian.” According to the assessment of Emil Albert Friedberg (1874), the system that the “most daring thinker” of the 14th century had constructed for a Keeping 16th century work. Reginald Lane Poole (1920) thought that the Defensor pacis already contained all the essentials of political and religious theorization that characterize modern thinking and distinguish it from medieval thought; therefore, in retrospect, one could call the author a prophet. Charles William Previté-Orton (1923) also described Marsilius as a prophet; only after the French Revolution had his theories found general approval. It was widely believed that the Paduan had developed a concept of representative democracy .
In this sense, Marsilius was often portrayed as the forerunner of individual modern philosophers or theologians, without it being possible to clarify whether his ideas were actually known to these people and influenced them or whether some similarities and similarities can only be ascertained from a systematic point of view. Considerable commonalities with the teachings of Niccolò Machiavelli , Martin Luther, Jean Bodin , Richard Hooker , Thomas Hobbes , John Locke , Montesquieu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were pointed out, as well as the general anticipation of the ideas of the Reformers , the French Revolution and the socialists 19th century.
Some historians' judgments show how the interpretation of the defensor pacis worked in the context of political and ideological disputes of modernity. In the late 19th century, Friedrich von Bezold (1876) and Carl von Noorden (1884) presented Bismarck's Kulturkampf as a modern version of Marsilius' campaign against the political power of the church. A Marsilius monograph by Baldassere Labanca published in 1882 reflects the anti-clerical thrust in the Italian church conflict after the victory of the Risorgimento . Here the medieval philosopher appears as the theoretician of universal suffrage, who has granted the people the right to equate both with the state and with the church. The anti-Marxist sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found in 1928 that Marsilius had anticipated Karl Marx's theory of ideology . He interpreted the role of religion and the contradiction between objective reality and its distorted reflection in beliefs and ideologies in a quasi-materialist manner. Against the background of modern French secularism, Georges de Lagarde presented the Defensor Pacis as an early manifesto of secularism, with which the curia had been unmasked. In 1929, Johannes Haller described Marsilius as an abstract theorist who “failed in life”. The idea of seeing the purpose of the state in peace is unworldly, because reality shows "in all countries and at all times the struggle as the element of public life". As a motive for the conflict with John XXII. Haller identified a "hatred of the patriot for the enemy of his fatherland". The latter assessment was shared by scholars in Fascist Italy : the law faculty of the University of Padua published an anthology in 1942 on the occasion of the 600th anniversary of the death of Marsilius, in which he was represented in several articles as an Italian patriot. In National Socialist Germany, the medieval opponent of the Pope was considered to be the originator of an impulse that National Socialist church politics had picked up and implemented.
The totalitarianism discourse in the thirties and forties of the 20th century represents a special case of lighting from a modern point of view . In characterizations from this period, Marsilius appears partly as a pioneer of resistance against "papal totalitarianism", and partly as a totalitarian state philosopher.
In the first half of the 20th century, however, there was also a contradiction to the portrayal of the late medieval scholastic as quasi modern or "modern" and as a forerunner of later upheavals. The critics protested against the transfer of modern ideas, concepts and evaluations to the conditions of the 14th century. Charles H. McIlwain (1932) expressed the view that most of the errors in the interpretation of the Defensor pacis are due to the fact that one introduces a meaning into the text that is alien to it. Neither democracy nor majority rule nor separation of powers are part of the content of the work. Robert W. Carlyle and Alexander J. Carlyle (1936) suggested that Marsilius by no means created a new and revolutionary democratic doctrine, but rather based himself on traditional principles.
The Marxist Discourse
From a Marxist point of view, Marsilius was perceived as a thinker who was way ahead of his time. Hermann Ley (1971) found that the demands of the Defensor Pacis had already exceeded the goals set and achieved by the Reformation. The relationship between state and church is treated more radically "than the victorious bourgeois society will later shape it". However, Ernst Bloch (1977) noted that the teaching of the Defensor Pacis was "essentially an ideology of the principality vis-à-vis the Pope".
Newer contributions to the interpretation of the state theory
In the research debates since the middle of the 20th century, the weighting of the traditional medieval aspects and those aspects of the Martian state theory that point to the modern era continue to be a central, controversial topic. The perspective of the direction that emphasizes the new is summarized in a groundbreaking monograph by Alan Gewirth published in 1951 . Gewirth sees a revolutionary innovation in the fact that Marsilius renounced the theological or metaphysical justification of imperial compulsion and appealed to absolute normative values. He has only granted political relevance to moral and religious values if they are the goals of the natural needs of all people or a means of achieving such goals. He had ruled out the possibility of a conflict between majority decisions and moral imperatives, and the will of the people was the only decisive authority for him. Another characteristic of his thinking is the central role of the citizens' need for security, the satisfaction of which he has made the primary goal of the state. With this attitude characteristic of the bourgeoisie, Marsilius became the first consistent theoretician of the bourgeois state. Gewirth's interpretation met with approval from Horst Kusch (1958), among others.
Up to the present day, many other voices have been heard that put the innovative element in the foreground. For Mario Grignaschi (1955) the originality of the Defensor Pacis consists mainly in the contract theory which was developed there. Peter Graf Kielmansegg (1977) found that the Paduan had radically brought the “emancipation of reason” to an end. The modernity of his thought structure is striking. For the first time in medieval intellectual history one encounters the attempt “to design a complete model of the organization of human coexistence not as an interpretation of a given order, but as a systematic construction of the human spirit”. Dolf Sternberger (1985) sees the “whole great achievement” of Marsilius in the fact that he was the first to “dared to leap from the city to the empire”. He understood, described and reconstructed the empire in the manner of the city; to a certain extent he had "asked the empire to be a kind of city". According to Jürgen Miethke's balance sheet (1989), the peculiarity of the late medieval thinker is, on the one hand, the independence of his judgment and, on the other hand, the fact that he “independently and consistently summarizes many different ingredients, each overbidding and transforming traditions, to form a closed and rousing theory and was able to increase ”. His radical reversal of the papal theses made his writing appear "startlingly modern" at times. Kurt Flasch (2013) states that the Paduan had painted a revolutionary new image of state and society and revolutionized the relationship between state and church. It has been declared a forerunner instead of revising the common notion of the early 14th century based on its text. Otfried Höffe (2016) honors Marsilius as the creator of the first theory of the state, which in a comprehensive sense is modern in character. Thomas Leinkauf (2017) particularly emphasizes the originality of the new teaching. He describes the Defensor Pacis as a “main text not only of the medieval political discussion, but of European political theory in general” and emphasizes the “unusual mental independence” of Marsilius. No other author since Aristotle and the ancient Stoics has made the purely natural conditions of man beyond religion and ethics in such a direct form the foundation of the state. With his conception of the individual religious being of the individual independent of any "ecclesiastical-clerical tutelage", he anticipated the position of the reformers. Other researchers who emphasize the novel character of the concept and its precursor role are Carlo Pincin (1967), Otto Prinz (1976), Antonio Toscano (1981), Marino Damiata (1983), Vasileios Syros (2012) and Pier Paolo Portinaro (2013 ).
However, some historians who do not see a serious break in tradition protest against the prevailing image of the revolutionary new approach. They emphasize the continuity and the embedding in the world of the late medieval scholastic reception of Aristotle and consider the idea that Marsilius was ahead of his time to be erroneous. It is asserted that his work is only a synthesis of thoughts already expressed before him. This point of view is specifically represented by Jeannine Quillet (1970), Hasso Hofmann (1974) and George Garnett (2006).
Other researchers do not deny the Defensor pacis an innovative quality, but warn against the use of anachronistic terminology and consider some comparisons with modern thinkers and trends to be questionable. The term “popular sovereignty” is particularly controversial. Hermann Segall takes a sharp stance against the “modernizing” terms and interpretations, violently attacking the conception of Gewirth and Kusch. Cary J. Nederman (1995) suggests that Marsilius put forward innovative ideas but presented them in conventional language and reasoning. He also adapted his discourse to the mindset of the respective target audience. In contrast to modern liberalism , which is based only on individual interests, its concept is aimed at strengthening both the individual and the community. Bernardo Bayona Aznar (2007) judges similarly: With his advocacy of the autonomy of secular power, Marsilius is in a certain sense a “modern” thinker, but his problem and argumentation is traditional, and he has no secularism in the current sense and no ideal of individual freedom represented in the spirit of liberalism. Arthur P. Monahan (1987), Henning Ottmann (2004), Ernst-Wolfgang are further assessors who consider an interpretation of the Martian doctrine as a modernization of thought and the description as a forerunner to be permissible to a limited extent, but who value weighty restrictions Böckenförde (2006) and Didier Ottaviani (2018).
Great differences of opinion exist with regard to “ republicanism ”, which has traditionally been regarded as one of the main forward-looking features of Marsilius' theory of the state. In the second part of the Defensor Pacis, and above all in the Defensor Minor , the author shows a pronounced need for a strong state power controlled by a powerful executive that has the means to efficiently counter clerical opponents. A ruler like Ludwig the Bavarian is allowed to act in this regard in the sense of the people's will and the common good. In contrast, the demand for an explicit popular mandate and public control of power takes a back seat. From this finding, some researchers, especially Jeannine Quillet in her Marsilius monograph published in 1970, conclude that in reality Marsilius was not a republican, but a propagandist for the restoration of a glamorous, unrestricted imperial power. The advocates of this direction emphasize the connection to the ideas of constitutional law of the ancient Roman imperial period , their interpretation is therefore called the "Romanistic". Nicolai Rubinstein (1965), Quentin Skinner (1978) and Alan Gewirth (1979) have a completely different opinion . They emphasize the inalienable right of the people to establish government and control government power as a central aspect of the Martian state model. Mary Elizabeth Sullivan (2010) points out that the Paduan presented the arguments for democracy, which were discussed and rejected in the politics of Aristotle, as valid in contrast to the ancient philosopher. Therefore, he was to be regarded as a democrat, although he did not want to call himself that. Kurt Flasch (2013) thinks that Marsilius needed the prince, but never gave up his republican values. Thomas Leinkauf (2017) is also of the opinion that Marsilius saw "the non-monarchical form of government the actually forward-looking mode of political self-organization of man". Authors such as Cary J. Nederman (2009) and Gianluca Briguglia (2014), who point to the complexity of Marsilius' explanations, occupy a middle position. The Magister did not believe that the Empire was superior to other forms of government, but that it was compatible with its goals. Briguglia praises Marsilius' ability to understand the extraordinary complexity of the institutional conditions of his time and, in view of this challenge, to equip his theory with the necessary elasticity.
Conal Condren has put forward a different opinion. According to his interpretation, Marsilius did not have the systematic elaboration of a coherent theory of the state in mind, but only his political struggle against the papacy, for which he wanted to gain the broadest possible support. That is why he deliberately avoided a clear definition of the delicate question of the relationship between the will of the people and the ruler's power. This interpretation has met with opposition.
Marsilius is sometimes referred to as a nominalist or a philosopher influenced by nominalism. Bernardo Bayona Aznar (2004) contradicts this in a study specially devoted to this question.
Different assessments of political weight
Opinions differ about the importance of Marsilius as advisor to the emperor after 1329. There is a contrast between those who see him as an important thought leader, advisor and source of inspiration in Ludwig the Bavarian's circle, and the skeptics who consider his political weight to be low or diminishing. One research suggests that there was an estrangement between the ruler and his guest during the 1330s. The latter had rivaled German advisers who were trying to find a compromise with the Curia, and with the dissident Franciscans for Ludwig's favor and had lost out. As an indication of little influence, it is cited that the Italian scholar did not appear on court days and in the journalistic disputes with the curia. Michael Menzel (2010) thinks that Marsilius lived in Munich as a persecuted person under oppressive conditions in a quiet exile, without students and cut off from the university environment. The often absent emperor did not listen to him; Ludwig by no means wanted to be a ruler by the grace of the people. Frank Godthardt (2011) gives a detailed justification for the contrary view. According to his account, the influence of Marsilius on the emperor can be proven up to 1331 and also likely for the following years.
Until the 21st century, the doctrine dominated, according to which Ludwig accepted the imperial crown due to an expression of will by the Roman people, i.e. in accordance with the ideal of popular rule propagated by Marsilius. From the 1980s, however, doubts arose, and finally Frank Godthardt was able to show in 2011 that the people of the city of Rome did not have a constitutive function when the emperor was raised. The coronation without a Pope took place - according to Godthardt - in accordance with the principles of Marsilius, and the new theory of the state was an important impetus for the ceremony. According to the assessment of this historian, Marsilius was also the intellectual author of the justification for the deposition of John XXII. and played a decisive role in the uprising of the antipope Nicholas V. Godthardt's overall balance is that the theory of the Paduan had "in several fields of action and partly determined" had an impact on the political actions of Ludwig the Bavarian on the Rome train.
Editions and translations
- Colette Jeudy, Jeannine Quillet (eds.): Marsile de Padoue: Œuvres Mineures. Defensor minor, De translatione Imperii. Éditions du CNRS, Paris 1979, ISBN 2-222-01926-5 (critical edition with French translation).
- 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).
- Cary J. Nederman (translator): Marsiglio of Padua: Writings on the Empire. Defensor minor and De translatione Imperii. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1993, ISBN 0-521-40846-6 (English translation).
- Carlo Pincin (ed.): Marsilio da Padova: Defensor pacis nella traduzione in volgare fiorentino del 1363. Einaudi, Turin 1966 (critical edition).
- Carlo Pincin: Marsilio. Giappichelli, Turin 1967 (contains pp. 261–283 a critical edition of the three writings on marriage law).
- 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 1933 (critical edition; online ).
literature
Overview representations
- Francisco Bertelloni: Marsilius of Padua. In: Jorge JE Gracia, Timothy B. Noone (Eds.): A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages. Blackwell, Malden 2002, ISBN 0-631-21672-3 , pp. 413-420.
- Carlo Dolcini, Roberto Lambertini: Mainardini, Marsilio. In: Mario Caravale (ed.): Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (DBI). Volume 67: Macchi – Malaspina. Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, Rome 2006, pp. 569-576.
- 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.
- Jürgen Miethke: Marsilius of Padua . In: Theological Real Encyclopedia . Volume 22. De Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1992, ISBN 3-11-013463-2 , pp. 183-190.
- Vasileios Syros: Marsilius of Padua. In: Henrik Lagerlund (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy. Volume 2, Springer, Dordrecht et al. 2011, ISBN 978-1-4020-9728-7 , pp. 717-720.
- Manfred Weitlauff : Marsilius of Padua. In: New German Biography (NDB). Volume 16, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1990, ISBN 3-428-00197-4 , pp. 261-266 ( digitized version ).
Overall representations
- 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 .
- Carlo Dolcini: Introduzione a Marsilio da Padova. Laterza, Rome / Bari 1995, ISBN 88-420-4626-4
- Carlo Pincin: Marsilio. Giappichelli, Turin 1967.
Collections of articles
- Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Cary J. Nederman (Eds.): A Companion to Marsilius of Padua. Brill, Leiden / Boston 2012, ISBN 978-90-04-18348-3 .
- Gerson Moreno-Riaño (Ed.): The World of Marsilius of Padua. Brepols, Turnhout 2006, ISBN 2-503-51515-0 .
- Marsilio da Padova. Convegno internazionale (Padova, September 18-20, 1980) (= Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medievale , Volumes 5 [1979] and 6 [1980]). Antenore, Padua 1982.
Political philosophy
- Alan Gewirth : Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace. Volume 1: Marsilius of Padua and Medieval Political Philosophy. Columbia University Press, New York 1951.
- Jürgen Miethke : Marsilius of Padua. The political philosophy of a Latin Aristotelian of the 14th century. In: Hartmut Boockmann, Bernd Moeller , Karl Stackmann (eds.): Life lessons and world designs in the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern age. Politics - Education - Natural History - Theology. Report on colloquia of the commission to research the culture of the late Middle Ages 1983 to 1987 (= treatises of the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen: philological-historical class. Volume III, No. 179). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1989, ISBN 3-525-82463-7 , pp. 52-76.
- 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 .
Political activity
- Frank Godthardt: Marsilius of Padua and the Romzug Ludwigs of Bavaria. Political theory and political action (= Nova mediaevalia. Sources and studies on the European Middle Ages. Vol. 6). V&R unipress, Göttingen 2011, ISBN 978-3-89971-563-7 .
reception
- Gregorio Piaia: Marsilio da Padova nella Riforma e nella Controriforma. Fortuna ed interpretations. Antenore, Padua 1977.
- Stefano Simonetta: Marsilio in Inghilterra. Stato e chiesa nel pensiero politico inglese fra XIV e XVII secolo. LED, Milan 2000, ISBN 88-7916-138-5 .
Web links
- Literature by and about Marsilius of Padua in the catalog of the German National Library
- Works by and about Marsilius von Padua in the German Digital Library
- Marsilius Mainardinus de Padua in the repertory "Historical Sources of the German Middle Ages"
Remarks
- ↑ Carlo Dolcini: Qualche osservazione su la biografia di Marsilio. In: Pensiero Politico Medievale 6, 2008, pp. 89-102, here: 100-102; Carlo Pincin: Marsilio , Turin 1967, p. 21 f. On the Jeannine Quillet family (transl.): Marsile de Padoue: Le Défenseur de la paix , Paris 1968, pp. 12–15.
- ^ William J. Courtenay: Marsilius of Padua at Paris. In: Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Cary J. Nederman (eds.): A Companion to Marsilius of Padua , Leiden 2012, pp. 57–70, here: 58–61; Jürgen Miethke (Ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace , Darmstadt 2017, pp. XVI – XXI; Carlo Pincin: Marsilio , Turin 1967, pp. 21 f., 24-28; Frank Godthardt: Marsilius von Padua and Ludwigs des Bayern's Romzug , Göttingen 2011, pp. 41–43, 48–51, 68.
- ↑ Ludwig Schmugge : Johannes von Jandun (1285 / 89-1328) , Stuttgart 1966, pp. 26-28; Jürgen Miethke (Ed.): Marsilius von Padua: Der Defender des Friedens , Darmstadt 2017, pp. XVI f., XIX.
- ↑ Frank Godthardt: Marsilio of Padua and the journey to Rome of Ludwig of Bavaria , Göttingen 2011, p 69-71.
- ↑ Frank Godthardt: Marsilio of Padua and the journey to Rome of Ludwig of Bavaria , Göttingen 2011, p 42-46; Carlo Pincin: Marsilio , Turin 1967, p. 29 f .; William J. Courtenay: University Masters and Political Power: The Parisian Years of Marsilius of Padua. In: Martin Kaufhold (ed.): Political reflection in the world of the late Middle Ages , Leiden 2004, pp. 209–223, here: 215–218.
- ↑ Frank Godthardt: Marsilio of Padua and the journey to Rome of Ludwig of Bavaria , Göttingen 2011, p 46-52; Carlo Pincin: Marsilio , Turin 1967, pp. 30-36, 40-45; William J. Courtenay: University Masters and Political Power: The Parisian Years of Marsilius of Padua. In: Martin Kaufhold (ed.): Political Reflection in the World of the Late Middle Ages , Leiden 2004, pp. 209–223, here: 218–221.
- ↑ Frank Godthardt: Marsilio of Padua and the journey to Rome of Ludwig of Bavaria , Göttingen 2011, p 52-78; partially agreeing Jürgen Miethke (ed.): Marsilius von Padua: Der Defender des Friedens , Darmstadt 2017, p. XXV f.
- ↑ Hans-Jürgen Becker : The Appellation from the Pope to a general council , Cologne / Vienna 1988, pp. 84–94; Heinz Thomas : Ludwig der Bayer (1282-1347) , Regensburg 1993, pp. 159-164; Frank Godthardt: Marsilius von Padua and Ludwigs des Bayern's Romzug , Göttingen 2011, pp. 75–78.
- ↑ Bernardo Bayona Aznar: Religión y poder , Madrid 2007, p. 83 f .; Jürgen Miethke (Ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace , Darmstadt 2017, p. XXIX f .; Frank Godthardt: Marsilius of Padua as a political challenge for John XXII. In: Hans-Joachim Schmidt, Martin Rohde (ed.): Pope Johannes XXII. , Berlin 2014, pp. 75–116, here: 100–107; Frank Godthardt: The Papal Condemnation of Marsilius of Padua's Defensor Pacis: Its Preparation and Political Use. In: Karen Bollermann et al. (Ed.): Religion, Power, and Resistance from the Eleventh to the Sixteenth Centuries , New York 2014, pp. 127–138; Frank Godthardt: Marsilius von Padua and the Romzug Ludwigs of Bavaria , Göttingen 2011, pp. 79–87, 200–211.
- ↑ Frank Godthardt: Marsilio of Padua and the journey to Rome of Ludwig of Bavaria , Göttingen 2011, p 214-221, 302; Alberto Cadili: Marsilio da Padova amministratore della Chiesa ambrosiana. In: Pensiero Politico Medievale 3/4, 2005/2006, pp. 193–225, here: 201–206, 220.
- ↑ Frank Godthardt: Marsilius von Padua and the Romzug Ludwigs des Bayern , Göttingen 2011, pp. 301–311, 324–331, 336–343.
- ↑ Jürgen Miethke (ed.): Marsilius von Padua: Der Defender des Friedens , Darmstadt 2017, p. XL f .; Frank Godthardt: Marsilius von Padua and the Romzug Ludwigs des Bayern , Göttingen 2011, pp. 313-320, 349-353, 377-385, 417-419.
- ↑ Frank Godthardt: Marsilio of Padua and the journey to Rome of Ludwig of Bavaria , Göttingen 2011, p 411-414.
- ↑ Frank Godthardt: Marsilio of Padua and the journey to Rome of Ludwig of Bavaria , Göttingen 2011, p 443 f.
- ^ Matthias Kaufmann: Wilhelm von Ockham and Marsilius von Padua. In: Silvia Glaser, Andrea M. Kluxen (eds.): Musis et Litteris , Munich 1993, pp. 569-580, here: 569 f .; Carlo Dolcini: Introduzione a Marsilio da Padova , Rome / Bari 1995, pp. 45-48; Colette Jeudy, Jeannine Quillet (eds.): Marsile de Padoue: Œuvres Mineures. Defensor minor, De translatione Imperii , Paris 1979, pp. 157-161.
- ^ Hermann Otto Schwöbel: The diplomatic struggle between Ludwig the Bavarian and the Roman Curia in the context of the canonical graduation process 1330-1346 , Weimar 1968, pp. 18-22, 79 f.
- ↑ Frank Godthardt: Marsilius von Padua and the Romzug Ludwigs des Bayern , Göttingen 2011, pp. 430–446.
- ↑ See on this work Colette Jeudy, Jeannine Quillet (ed.): Marsile de Padoue: Œuvres Mineures. Defensor minor, De translatione Imperii , Paris 1979, pp. 154-168.
- ↑ Carlo Dolcini: Introduzione a Marsilio da Padova , Rome / Bari 1995, p 69 f.
- ↑ Horst Kusch (ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace (Defensor Pacis) , Part 1, Berlin 1958, pp. XVI, XXXIX f.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1,1,8. Cf. Jürgen Miethke (ed.): Marsilius von Padua: Der Defender des Friedens , Darmstadt 2017, pp. L – LII.
- ↑ See on this term Riccardo Battocchio: Ecclesiologia e politica in Marsilio da Padova , Padova 2005, pp. 96-105.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1, 1, 1–3; 1,1.7. Cf. Jörg Pannier: On the peace teaching of Marsilius of Padua after Dolf Sternberger. In: Zeitschrift für Politik 48, 2001, pp. 189–217, here: 205–212.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1, 1, 3–5; 1,1.7. Cf. Jörg Pannier: On the peace teaching of Marsilius of Padua after Dolf Sternberger. In: Zeitschrift für Politik 48, 2001, pp. 189–217, here: 212–214.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1,2,3. See Thomas Leinkauf: Grundriss Philosophy des Humanism and the Renaissance (1350–1600) , Vol. 1, Hamburg 2017, pp. 830–833.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1, 3, 2–4; 1,4.1 f. Cf. Arne Moritz: Politics as the artificial perfection of human nature. In: Arne Moritz (Ed.): Ars imitatur naturam , Münster 2010, pp. 229–249, here: 232–234.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1, 3, 4 f .; 1,4,4 f .; 1.5.1; 1,5,5-10; 1,6,7-10. Cf. Georges de Lagarde: La naissance de l'esprit laïque au déclin du Moyen Age , Vol. 3, Louvain / Paris 1970, pp. 98–112; Arne Moritz: Politics as the artificial perfection of human nature. In: Arne Moritz (ed.): Ars imitatur naturam , Münster 2010, pp. 229–249, here: 236–238.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1, 8, 2–4; 1.9.9 f. Cf. Georges de Lagarde: La naissance de l'esprit laïque au déclin du Moyen Âge , Vol. 3, Louvain / Paris 1970, pp. 123–125.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1,9,1; 1,9,4-7; 1,9.11. Cf. Georges de Lagarde: La naissance de l'esprit laïque au déclin du Moyen Âge , Vol. 3, Louvain / Paris 1970, pp. 126–129.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1,10. See David R. Carr: Marsilius of Padua and the Role of Law. In: Italian Quarterly 108, 1987, pp. 5-25, here: 10 f.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1, 11, 1-5. Cf. Christoph Flüeler: Reception and Interpretation of the Aristotelian Politica in the Late Middle Ages , Part 1, Amsterdam 1992, pp. 127-131.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1, 11, 6-8. See Renée Baernstein: Corporatism and Organicism in Discourse 1 of Marsilius of Padua's Defensor Pacis. In: The Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 26, 1996, pp. 113-138, here: 126.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor Pacis 1:12. Cf. Georges de Lagarde: La naissance de l'esprit laïque au déclin du Moyen Âge , vol. 3, Louvain / Paris 1970, pp. 133–155 as well as the analysis by Bernardo Bayona Aznar: La laicidad de la valentior pars en la filosofía de Marsilio de Padua. In: Patristica et Mediaevalia 26, 2005, pp. 65-87.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1,12,3 f. Cf. Tilman Struve : The role of the law in the "Defensor pacis" of Marsilius of Padua. In: Tilman Struve: State and Society in the Middle Ages , Berlin 2004, pp. 185–203, here: 190 f. (First published in 1982); Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, p. 176 f.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1, 12, 5-7. Cf. Tilman Struve: The role of the law in the "Defensor pacis" of Marsilius of Padua. In: Tilman Struve: State and Society in the Middle Ages , Berlin 2004, pp. 185–203, here: 189 f. (First published in 1982).
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1,13,1; 1.13.3. See Bernardo Bayona Aznar: Religión y poder , Madrid 2007, pp. 142–146.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1,14,1; 1.15.1-3. Cf. Tilman Struve: The development of the organological conception of the state in the Middle Ages , Stuttgart 1978, p. 273 f.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1,14,8; 1.15.1 f. Cf. Bettina Koch: On the discontinuity / continuity of medieval political thought in modern political theory , Berlin 2005, p. 297 f .; Tilman Struve: The development of the organological conception of the state in the Middle Ages , Stuttgart 1978, p. 275 f.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1, 15, 4–10. Cf. Tilman Struve: The development of the organological conception of the state in the Middle Ages , Stuttgart 1978, p. 279; Bettina Koch: On the discontinuity / continuity of medieval political thought in modern political theory , Berlin 2005, pp. 105 f., 297; Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, p. 112 f.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor Pacis 1:16. Cf. Christoph Flüeler: Reception and Interpretation of the Aristotelian Politica in the Late Middle Ages , Part 1, Amsterdam 1992, pp. 121–127.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1,17. See Carlo Pincin: Marsilio , Turin 1967, pp. 86-88; Tilman Struve: The development of the organological conception of the state in the Middle Ages , Stuttgart 1978, pp. 276-278.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor Pacis 1:18. Cf. Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, pp. 238 f., 245 f .; Jeannine Quillet: La philosophie politique de Marsile de Padoue , Paris 1970, pp. 122–124.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1,19. Cf. Jeannine Quillet: La philosophie politique de Marsile de Padoue , Paris 1970, pp. 165 f .; Carlo Pincin: Marsilio , Turin 1967, pp. 88-90.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor Pacis 2,1,1. Cf. Frank Godthardt: Marsilius von Padua and the Romzug Ludwigs des Bayern , Göttingen 2011, p. 61 f.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2, 1, 3–5; 2,3,10 f .; 2.4 (heading); 2,4,1-8; 2,4,13; see. 2.30.1 f. and Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, pp. 298-300.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,5,6; 2.9.7.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,5,8.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,6,3.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor Pacis 2,6,9. See Stephen F. Torraco: Priests as Physicians of Souls in Marsilius of Padua's Defensor Pacis , San Francisco 1992, pp. 210-223.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2, 6, 11-13. See George Garnett: Marsilius of Padua and 'the Truth of History' , Oxford 2006, pp. 81–84.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2, 8, 7-9. Cf. Tilman Struve: The role of the law in the "Defensor pacis" of Marsilius of Padua. In: Tilman Struve: State and Society in the Middle Ages , Berlin 2004, pp. 185–203, here: 192 f. (First published in 1982).
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2.10. Cf. Bettina Koch: On the discontinuity / continuity of medieval political thought in modern political theory , Berlin 2005, p. 104 f .; Jeannine Quillet: La philosophie politique de Marsile de Padoue , Paris 1970, p. 197 f.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,13,6; 2.20.7.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,14,14.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,14,6; 2,14,12 f.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2, 11, 3-6.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,17,18. Roberto Lambertini: Marsilius and the Poverty Controversy in Dictio II. In: Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Cary J. Nederman (ed.): A Companion to Marsilius of Padua , Leiden, for an overview of Marsilius' position on the poverty dispute and the relevant research debates 2012, pp. 229-263.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor Pacis 2,16. See George Garnett: Marsilius of Padua and 'the Truth of History' , Oxford 2006, pp. 93-99; Riccardo Battocchio: Ecclesiologia e politica in Marsilio da Padova , Padova 2005, pp. 180-187.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,17,1-15; 2.21.5; 2,21,11; 2.25.8. 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.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2, 18, 1 f .; 2.18.5-7. Cf. Francisco Bertelloni: "Constitutum Constantini" y "Romgedanke". In: Patristica et Mediaevalia 4/5, 1983/84, pp. 67-99.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1,19,8. Cf. Carlo Pincin: Marsilio , Turin 1967, p. 89 and note 29; Cary J. Nederman (transl.): Marsiglio of Padua: Writings on the Empire , Cambridge 1993, pp. XI f.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,20,1 f .; 2.20.4. Cf. Jürgen Miethke (Ed.): Marsilius von Padua: Der Defender des Friedens , Darmstadt 2017, p. LXXXII f.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,21,1; 2.21.3. Cf. Michaelöffelberger: Marsilius von Padua , Berlin 1992, pp. 217-219.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,20,2; 2,20,13 f. Cf. Michaelöffelberger: Marsilius von Padua , Berlin 1992, pp. 212-214.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,21,9. Cf. on Marsilius Vincenzo Omaggio's understanding of the Council: Marsilio da Padova , Naples 1995, pp. 172–180; Hermann Josef Sieben : The council idea of the Latin Middle Ages (847-1378) , Paderborn 1984, pp. 370-409.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2, 22, 4-7. See Hermann Josef Sieben: The council idea of the Latin Middle Ages (847-1378) , Paderborn 1984, pp. 383-386, 391 f.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,23,1 f .; 2.23.6; 2.25.7; 2.26.1.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2, 25, 16-18.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,25,20; 2.26.7 f.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,23,6.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,24,2.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2, 24, 2–6; 2.24.10 f.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2, 24, 14. For the argumentation in chapters 22–26, see Jeannine Quillet: La philosophie politique de Marsile de Padoue , Paris 1970, pp. 247–257.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2, 28, 15. Cf. Frank Godthardt: Marsilius von Padua and the Romzug Ludwigs des Bayern , Göttingen 2011, pp. 137–140.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 3, 1–2. Cf. 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.
- ↑ Cary J. Nederman (trans.): Marsiglio of Padua: Writings on the Empire , Cambridge 1993, p XII f .; Colette Jeudy, Jeannine Quillet (eds.): Marsile de Padoue: Œuvres Mineures. Defensor minor, De translatione Imperii , Paris 1979, p. 35.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, De translatione imperii 11 f. See Cary J. Nederman: Lineages of European Political Thought , Washington (DC) 2009, pp. 179-182; Gianluca Briguglia: Marsile de Padoue , Paris 2014, pp. 163-181; Jürgen Miethke: Political Theory in the Middle Ages , Tübingen 2008, pp. 235–238.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor minor 7–9. See Cary J. Nederman: Lineages of European Political Thought , Washington (DC) 2009, pp. 161-163, 169-176.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor minor 12.4. See Hermann Josef Sieben: The Council Idea of the Latin Middle Ages (847-1378) , Paderborn 1984, p. 398 f.
- ↑ See on this matter Jürgen Miethke: The marriage affair of Margarete "Maultasch", Countess of Tyrol (1341/1342). In: Andreas Meyer and others: Päpste, Pilger, Pönitentiarie , Tübingen 2004, pp. 353–391, here: 376–379.
- ↑ See Hermann Nehlsen : Bavarian legal history from the early Middle Ages to the 20th century , Frankfurt 2011, pp. 66–76; Jürgen Miethke: The marriage affair of Margarete "Maultasch", Countess of Tyrol (1341/1342). In: Andreas Meyer et al: Päpste, Pilger, Pönitentiarie , Tübingen 2004, pp. 353–391, here: 378–382.
- ^ Roberto Lambertini: Felicitas politica and speculatio. In: Jan A. Aertsen , Andreas Speer (ed.): What is philosophy in the Middle Ages? , Berlin 1998, pp. 984-990, here: 984 f .; Jeannine Quillet: L'aristotélisme de Marsile de Padoue et ses rapports avec l'averroïsme. In: Medioevo 5, 1979, pp. 81–142, here: 124 f .; Carlo Dolcini: Introduzione a Marsilio da Padova , Rome / Bari 1995, p. 4, 14 f .; Ludwig Schmugge: Johannes von Jandun (1285 / 89–1328) , Stuttgart 1966, pp. 96–107.
- ^ Roberto Lambertini: The 'Sophismata' attributed to Marsilius of Padua. In: Stephen Read (ed.): Sophisms in Medieval Logic and Grammar , Dordrecht 1993, pp. 86-102, here: 94-99.
- ↑ Elvio Ancona, Franco Todescan: Marsilio da Padova , Padua 2007, pp 8-12; Horst Kusch (Ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace (Defensor Pacis) , Part 1, Berlin 1958, p. XXI; Christoph Flüeler: The reception of Aristotle's “Politica” at the Parisian faculty of artists in the 13th and 14th centuries. In: Jürgen Miethke (Ed.): The audience of political theory in the 14th century , Munich 1992, pp. 127–138, here: 137 f .; Cary J. Nederman: Nature, Justice, and Duty in the Defensor Pacis. In: Political Theory 18, 1990, pp. 615-637.
- ↑ Horst Kusch (Ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace (Defensor Pacis) , Part 1, Berlin 1958, pp. XXII f .; Gianluca Briguglia: Marsile de Padoue , Paris 2014, p. 153.
- ↑ See Francisco Bertelloni: La filosofía explica la revelación. In: Patristica et Mediaevalia 33, 2012, pp. 17–35.
- ↑ Elvio Ancona, Franco Todescan: Marsilio da Padova , Padua 2007, pp 14-20; Vasileios Syros: The reception of the Aristotelian political philosophy in Marsilius of Padua , Leiden 2007, p. 8 f .; Francisco Bertelloni: Philosophy accounts for Revelation. In: Gerhard Krieger (ed.): Challenge through religion? , Würzburg 2011, pp. 357-373; Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, pp. 39-44; Horst Kusch (ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace (Defensor Pacis) , Part 1, Berlin 1958, p. XXIII.
- ^ Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, pp. 248 f .; Carlo Pincin: Marsilio , Turin 1967, pp. 137-140.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1,19,10; 2.21.9. Cf. Jürgen Miethke: Marsilius von Padua. In: Hartmut Boockmann et al. (Ed.): Life teachings and world designs in the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern age , Göttingen 1989, pp. 52–76, here: 69–72.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,20,8-12. See James Muldoon: The Avignon Papacy and the frontiers of Christendom: The evidence of Vatican Register 62. In: Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 17, 1979, pp. 125-195, here: 135-142; Sophia Menache: Clement V , Cambridge 1998, p. 179; Joseph R. Strayer: The Reign of Philip the Fair , Princeton 1980, p. 285.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 2,23,11 f. For the background, see Malte Heidemann: Heinrich VII. (1308–1313) , Warendorf 2008, pp. 55 f., 316–319, 326.
- ^ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1,11,8. Cf. Vasileios Syros: The reception of the Aristotelian political philosophy in Marsilius von Padua , Leiden 2007, p. 167 f.
- ^ Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, pp. 248-256.
- ↑ See also Jacques Ménard: L'aventure historiographique du “Defense de la paix” de Marsile de Padoue. In: Science et Esprit 41, 1989, pp. 287-322, here: 315-319.
- ^ John K. Hyde: Padua in the Age of Dante , New York 1966, pp. 210 f., 307 f .; Vasileios Syros: The Reception of Aristotelian Political Philosophy by Marsilius von Padua , Leiden 2007, pp. 216–219; Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, p. 23 f.
- ^ Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, p. 30 note 47.
- ^ Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, p. 24 f.
- ^ Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, pp. 26-28; Jeannine Quillet: La philosophie politique de Marsile de Padoue , Paris 1970, pp. 26-29.
- ↑ See Gregorio Piaia: Marsilio e dintorni , Padua 1999, pp. 75–78; Carlo Dolcini: Introduzione a Marsilio da Padova , Rome / Bari 1995, pp. 35-38; Jeannine Quillet: La philosophie politique de Marsile de Padoue , Paris 1970, pp. 16-20; Jürgen Miethke: Marsilius of Padua. In: Hartmut Boockmann et al. (Ed.): Life lessons and world designs in the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern age , Göttingen 1989, pp. 52–76, here: 62, 75 f .; Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Cary J. Nederman: Marsilius of Padua's Principles of Secular Politics. In: Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Cary J. Nederman (ed.): A Companion to Marsilius of Padua , Leiden 2012, pp. 117-138, here: 121 f.
- ^ Heiner Bielefeldt : From papal universal rule to an autonomous citizen's republic. In: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History . Canonical Department 73, 1987, pp. 70-130, here: 110 f.
- ↑ On the principle of consensus, see Cary J. Nederman: Community and Consent , Lanham 1995, pp. 30-48.
- ↑ Martín Oliveira: El «positivismo jurídico» en el Defensor Pacis de Marsilio de Padua. In: Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval 19, 2012, pp. 159–170; Peter Schulthess, Ruedi Imbach : Philosophy in the Latin Middle Ages , Zurich 1996, p. 218; Elvio Ancona, Franco Todescan: Marsilio da Padova , Padua 2007, pp. 38-47, 61-73; Heiner Bielefeldt: From universal papal rule to an autonomous civil republic. In: Journal of the Savigny Foundation for Legal History. Canonical Department 73, 1987, pp. 70-130, here: 111-119; Vasileios Syros: The reception of Aristotelian political philosophy in Marsilius von Padua , Leiden 2007, pp. 63–74, 98.
- ↑ Jürgen Lutz: On the structure of the theory of the state of Marsilius of Padua in the first part of the Defensor Pacis. In: Journal for historical research 22, 1995, pp. 371–386, here: 372–374; Jürgen Miethke: Marsilius of Padua. In: Hartmut Boockmann et al. (Ed.): Life teachings and world designs in the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern age , Göttingen 1989, pp. 52–76, here: 55 f .; Cary J. Nederman: Community and Consent , Lanham 1995, p. 30 f.
- ^ Vasileios Syros: The reception of the Aristotelian political philosophy in Marsilius of Padua , Leiden 2007, pp. 81–99, 130–136; Tilman Struve: The Significance of Aristotelian “Politics” for the Natural Establishment of State Community. In: Tilman Struve: State and Society in the Middle Ages , Berlin 2004, pp. 72–91, here: 85–88 (first published in 1992).
- ↑ Georg Wieland : Politics and Religion. The peace concept of Marsilius of Padua. In: Gerhard Beestermöller , Heinz-Gerhard Justenhoven (eds.): Friedensethik im Spätmittelalter , Stuttgart 1999, pp. 79–94, here: 90–92; Vasileios Syros: The reception of the Aristotelian political philosophy in Marsilius von Padua , Leiden 2007, p. 182, 258 f., 262–265, 279; Cary J. Nederman: Community and Consent , Lanham 1995, pp. 30, 53-58.
- ↑ Vasileios Syros: The reception of the Aristotelian political philosophy in Marsilius von Padua , Leiden 2007, pp. 143–151, 169, 174 f., 211 f.
- ↑ Vasileios Syros: The reception of the Aristotelian political philosophy in Marsilius von Padua , Leiden 2007, pp. 165–170, 183 f.
- ↑ Marsilius of Padua, Defensor pacis 1, 14, 1-7; 1.15.1. Cf. Karl Ubl : The scholar with Marsilius of Padua and Wilhelm von Ockham. In: Das Mittelalter 17, 2012, pp. 16–33, here: 21 f.
- ^ Vasileios Syros: The reception of the Aristotelian political philosophy in Marsilius von Padua , Leiden 2007, pp. 92–99; Alexander Dordett : The spiritual character of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction , Vienna 1954, p. 77 f.
- ^ Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, p. 73; Jürgen Miethke (Ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace , Darmstadt 2017, pp. LXXIII – LXXV.
- ↑ Elvio Ancona, Franco Todescan: Marsilio da Padova , Padua 2007, pp. 79-83.
- ^ Dolf Sternberger: Die Stadt als Urbild , Frankfurt 1985, pp. 94 f., 124–126, 135–137.
- ^ Vasileios Syros: The reception of the Aristotelian political philosophy in Marsilius von Padua , Leiden 2007, pp. 193-198, 220; Elvio Ancona, Franco Todescan: Marsilio da Padova , Padua 2007, pp. 57-61; Felice Battaglia: Marsilio da Padova e la filosofia politica del medio evo , Florence 1928, pp. 81-87.
- ↑ Jürgen Lutz: On the structure of the theory of the state of Marsilius of Padua in the first part of the Defensor Pacis. In: Journal for historical research 22, 1995, pp. 371–386, here: 379 f .; Vasileios Syros: The reception of the Aristotelian political philosophy in Marsilius of Padua , Leiden 2007, p. 195 f.
- ↑ Renée Baernstein: Corporatism and Organicism in Discourse 1 of Marsilius of Padua's Defensor Pacis. In: The Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 26, 1996, pp. 113–138, here: 117–123; Vasileios Syros: The reception of the Aristotelian political philosophy in Marsilius of Padua , Leiden 2007, pp. 199-207.
- ↑ See on this principle Piero Di Vona: I principi del Defensor Pacis , Naples 1974, pp. 273-340.
- ↑ Cary J. Nederman: Community and Consent , Lanham 1995, pp. 87 f., 91-93.
- ^ Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, pp. 73-75.
- ↑ Jürgen Miethke: Ockham's criticism of Marsilius of Padua. In: Celia López Alcalde et al. (Ed.): Legitimation of Political Power in Medieval Thought , Turnhout 2018, pp. 253–279, here: 261–264, 268–274.
- ↑ Thomas M. Izbicki: The Reception of Marsilio. In: Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Cary J. Nederman (ed.): A Companion to Marsilius of Padua , Leiden 2012, pp. 305–333, here: 307 f.
- ^ Lorenza Tromboni: Looking for Peace in Fourteenth-Century Florence. In: Nicholas Scott Baker, Brian J. Maxson (eds.): After Civic Humanism: Learning and Politics in Renaissance Italy , Toronto 2015, pp. 91–111, here: 91 f.
- ^ Jürgen Miethke: Marsilius and Ockham. In: Medioevo 6, 1980, pp. 543-567, here: 548-550; Jürgen Miethke (Ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace , Darmstadt 2017, pp. XLIII – XLVII; Thomas M. Izbicki: The Reception of Marsilius. In: Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Cary J. Nederman (ed.): A Companion to Marsilius of Padua , Leiden 2012, pp. 305–333, here: 306 f. A detailed study of the writings defending the papal standpoint is offered by Donato Del Prete: La confutazione del Defensor Pacis di Marsilio da Padova. In: Università degli Studi di Lecce: Annali del Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche e Sociali 1, 1982, pp. 213-283.
- ↑ George Garnett: Marsilius of Padua and 'the Truth of History' , Oxford 2006, p. 42 f.
- ^ Jeannine Quillet: La philosophie politique du Songe du Vergier (1378) , Paris 1977, pp. 51-60; George Garnett: Marsilius of Padua and 'the Truth of History' , Oxford 2006, p. 44 f.
- ^ Paul E. Sigmund: The Influence of Marsilius of Padua on XVth-Century Conciliarism. In: Journal of the History of Ideas 23, 1962, pp. 392-402; Jürgen Miethke: Marsilius and Ockham. In: Medioevo 6, 1980, pp. 543-567, here: 550, 564 f .; Thomas M. Izbicki: The Reception of Marsilius. In: Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Cary J. Nederman (ed.): A Companion to Marsilius of Padua , Leiden 2012, pp. 305–333, here: 305, 312–315.
- ↑ Thomas M. Izbicki: The Reception of Marsilio. In: Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Cary J. Nederman (ed.): A Companion to Marsilius of Padua , Leiden 2012, pp. 305–333, here: pp. 306 f. and note 13, pp. 314-316.
- ^ Gregorio Piaia: Marsilio da Padova nella Riforma e nella Controriforma , Padua 1977, pp. 22-30; Thomas M. Izbicki: The Reception of Marsilius. In: Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Cary J. Nederman (eds.): A Companion to Marsilius of Padua , Leiden 2012, pp. 305–333, here: 308.
- ^ Gregorio Piaia: Marsilio da Padova nella Riforma e nella Controriforma , Padua 1977, pp. 92-96, 101-106; Thomas M. Izbicki: The Reception of Marsilius. In: Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Cary J. Nederman (eds.): A Companion to Marsilius of Padua , Leiden 2012, pp. 305–333, here: 308, 322.
- ^ Gregorio Piaia: Marsilio da Padova nella Riforma e nella Controriforma , Padua 1977, pp. 16-18, 100 f., 289-324, 346-363; Thomas M. Izbicki: The Reception of Marsilius. In: Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Cary J. Nederman (eds.): A Companion to Marsilius of Padua , Leiden 2012, pp. 305–333, here: 309, 320–322, 330–332.
- ↑ Bernardo Bayona Aznar: Religión y poder , Madrid 2007, pp. 292–294.
- ↑ Colette Jeudy, Jeannine Quillet (ed.): Marsile de Padoue: Œuvres Mineures , Paris 1979, pp. 73-75.
- ^ Shelley Lockwood: Marsilius of Padua and the case for the Royal Ecclesiastical Supremacy. In: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Series 6, Vol. 1, 1991, pp. 89-119, here: 89-91, 95-100.
- ↑ Thomas M. Izbicki: The Reception of Marsilio. In: Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Cary J. Nederman (eds.): A Companion to Marsilius of Padua , Leiden 2012, pp. 305–333, here: 309 f., 323–330; Gregorio Piaia: Marsilio da Padova nella Riforma e nella Controriforma , Padua 1977, p. 210.
- ^ Gregorio Piaia: Marsilio da Padova nella Riforma e nella Controriforma , Padua 1977, pp. 87-91.
- ^ Gregorio Piaia: Marsilio da Padova nella Riforma e nella Controriforma , Padua 1977, pp. 111-119.
- ^ Gregorio Piaia: Marsilio da Padova nella Riforma e nella Controriforma , Padua 1977, pp. 261-267.
- ^ Gregorio Piaia: Marsilio da Padova nella Riforma e nella Controriforma , Padua 1977, pp. 241-247.
- ↑ See Jean Céard: L'influence de Marsile de Padoue sur la pensée calviniste française de la fin du XVI e siècle: du Plessis-Mornay, lecteur du “Defensor Pacis”. In: Medioevo 6, 1980, pp. 577-594.
- ↑ Thomas M. Izbicki: The Reception of Marsilio. In: Gerson Moreno-Riaño, Cary J. Nederman (ed.): A Companion to Marsilius of Padua , Leiden 2012, pp. 305–333, here: 333.
- ↑ Francesco Maiolo: Medieval Sovereignty , Delft 2007, pp. 173–175, provides a brief overview, and George Garnett: Marsilius of Padua and 'the Truth of History' , Oxford 2006, pp. 1–14. Hermann Segall gives an overview of the older controversies: The “Defensor Pacis” by Marsilius von Padua , Wiesbaden 1959, pp. 2–16.
- ↑ See the overviews by Hermann Segall: Der "Defensor pacis" by Marsilius von Padua , Wiesbaden 1959, pp. 2–6; Georges de Lagarde: La naissance de l'esprit laïque au déclin du Moyen Age , vol. 3, Louvain / Paris 1970, pp. 11-20; Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, pp. 3-6.
- ^ Herbert Brook Workman: Christian Thought to the Reformation , London 1911, p. 218; Raymond G. Gettell: History of Political Thought , London 1924, p. 120.
- ^ Ephraim Emerton: The Defensor Pacis of Marsiglio of Padua , Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1920, p. 1.
- ↑ Harold J. Laski: Political theory in the later Middle Ages. In: The Cambridge Medieval History , Vol. 8, Cambridge 1936, pp. 620-645, here: 630.
- ^ Sigmund Riezler: The literary opponents of the popes at the time of Ludwig des Baiers , Leipzig 1874, p. 227.
- ^ Emil Friedberg: The Medieval Teachings on the Relationship between State and Church , Part 2, Leipzig 1874, p. 49.
- ^ Reginald Lane Poole: Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought and Learning , 2nd revised edition, London 1920, p. 240.
- ↑ Charles William Previte Orton: Marsiglio of Padua. Part II. Doctrines. In: The English Historical Review 38, 1923, pp. 1-18, here: 2.
- ↑ Evidence from Hasso Hofmann: Representation , 4th edition, Berlin 2003, pp. 191–193.
- ^ Evidence from Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, pp. 3–5.
- ^ Friedrich von Bezold: The doctrine of popular sovereignty during the Middle Ages. In: Historische Zeitschrift 36, 1876, pp. 313–367, here: 346 f.
- ^ Carl von Noorden: Historical lectures , Leipzig 1884, p. 275 f.
- ↑ Baldassare Labanca: Marsilio da Padova. Riformatore politico e religioso del secolo XIV , Padua 1882, p. 153. See Gianluca Briguglia: Marsile de Padoue , Paris 2014, p. 8.
- ^ Pitirim Sorokin: Contemporary Sociological Theories , New York 1928, p. 544.
- ↑ Georges de Lagarde: La naissance de l'esprit laïque au déclin du Moyen Âge , vol. 2, Saint-Paul-Trois-Châteaux / Vienna 1934, pp. 40-55. See Gianluca Briguglia: Marsile de Padoue , Paris 2014, pp. 10–12.
- ↑ Johannes Haller: On the life story of Marsilius of Padua. In: Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 48 (= New Series 11), 1929, pp. 166–197, here: 190–194.
- ↑ Aldo Checchini, Norberto Bobbio (ed.): Marsilio da Padova. Studi raccolti nel VI centenario della morte , Padua 1942, pp. 33, 140 f., 166.
- ^ Evidence from Hermann Segall: The "Defensor pacis" of Marsilius von Padua , Wiesbaden 1959, p. 14.
- ^ Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, pp. 6, 304 f., 311 f .; Wilhelm Kölmel: Regimen Christianum , Berlin 1970, p. 521.
- ↑ See Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, pp. 5 f.
- ^ Charles H. McIlwain: The Growth of Political Thought in the West , New York 1932, p. 307.
- ^ Robert W. Carlyle, Alexander J. Carlyle: A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West , Vol. 6, Edinburgh 1936, p. 9.
- ↑ Hermann Ley: History of the Enlightenment and Atheism , Vol. 2/2, Berlin 1971, p. 305.
- ↑ Ernst Bloch: Zwischenwelten in der Philosophiegeschichte , Frankfurt 1977, p. 279.
- ^ Alan Gewirth: Marsilius of Padua, The Defender of Peace , Vol. 1, New York 1951, pp. 305-313.
- ↑ Horst Kusch (ed.): Marsilius von Padua: The Defender of Peace (Defensor Pacis) , Part 1, Berlin 1958, SX
- ^ Mario Grignaschi: Le rôle de l'aristotélisme dans le "Defensor Pacis" de Marsile de Padoue. In: Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses 35, 1955, pp. 301–340, here: 340.
- Jump up ↑ Peter Graf Kielmansegg: People's sovereignty , Stuttgart 1977, pp. 59, 61.
- ^ Dolf Sternberger: Die Stadt als Urbild , Frankfurt 1985, p. 96 f.
- ^ Jürgen Miethke: Marsilius of Padua. In: Hartmut Boockmann et al. (Hrsg.): Life lessons and world designs in the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern age , Göttingen 1989, pp. 52–76, here: 75 f.
- ↑ Kurt Flasch: The philosophical thinking in the Middle Ages , 3rd, revised edition, Stuttgart 2013, pp. 557, 566.
- ↑ Otfried Höffe: History of Political Thought , Munich 2016, p. 174.
- ↑ Thomas Leinkauf: Grundriss Philosophy of Humanism and the Renaissance (1350–1600) , Vol. 1, Hamburg 2017, pp. 825, 830.
- ↑ Carlo Pincin: Marsilio , Turin 1967, p 235-239.
- ^ Otto Prinz: Marsilius of Padua. In: Otto Prinz: Mönchtum, Kultur und Gesellschaft , Munich 1989, pp. 137–175, here: 137–139, 169–172 (first published in 1976).
- ^ Antonio Toscano: Marsilio da Padova e Niccolò Machiavelli , Ravenna 1981, pp. 163-167.
- ↑ Marino Damiata: Plenitudo potestatis e universitas civium in Marsilio da Padova , Florence 1983, pp. 231 f., 235-237, 259.
- ↑ Vasileios Syros: Marsilius of Padua at the Intersection of Ancient and Medieval Traditions of Political Thought , Toronto 2012, pp. 3 f., 115 f.
- ^ Pier Paolo Portinaro: At the medieval beginning of secularization and democratization: Marsilius of Padua. In: Stefano Saracino, Manuel Knoll (eds.): The state thinking of the Renaissance - From the thought to the experienced state , Baden-Baden 2013, pp. 69–89, here: 69 f.
- ^ Jeannine Quillet: La philosophie politique de Marsile de Padoue , Paris 1970, p. 17.
- ^ Hasso Hofmann: Representation , 4th edition, Berlin 2003 (1st edition 1974), pp. 191–201.
- ↑ George Garnett: Marsilius of Padua and 'the Truth of History' , Oxford 2006, p. 3.
- ↑ For example Gregorio Piaia: Marsilio e dintorni , Padua 1999, pp. 54 f., 74-78; Diego Quaglioni: Aux origines de l'état laïque? In: Gian Mario Cazzaniga, Yves Charles Zarka (eds.): Penser la souveraineté à l'époque modern et contemporaine , Pisa / Paris 2001, pp. 11–25, here: 12–17, 24 f.
- ↑ On the debate on popular sovereignty, see Vasileios Syros: The Sovereignty of the multitude in the Works of Marsilius of Padua, Peter of Auvergne, and Some Other Aristotelian Commentators. In: Gerson Moreno-Riaño (ed.): The World of Marsilius of Padua , Turnhout 2006, p. 237 f. and note 44.
- ↑ Hermann Segall: The “Defensor Pacis” of Marsilius von Padua , Wiesbaden 1959, pp. 7–15, 58–60, 73–77.
- ↑ Cary J. Nederman: Community and Consent , Lanham 1995, pp 143, 146 f.
- ↑ Bernardo Bayona Aznar: Religión y poder , Madrid 2007, pp. 336 f., 345 f.
- ↑ Arthur P. Monahan: Consent, Coercion, and Limit , Leiden 1987, pp. 210-216.
- ↑ Henning Ottmann: History of political thinking , Vol. 2/2, Stuttgart / Weimar 2004, pp. 261 f., 269 f.
- ^ Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde: History of the legal and state philosophy. Antike und Mittelalter , 2nd, revised edition, Tübingen 2006, pp. 321 f., 336 f.
- ↑ Didier Ottaviani: La Naissance de la science politique , Paris 2018, pp. 359 f., 367 f.
- ↑ Michael Wilks: The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages , Cambridge 1963, pp. 109-117; Georges de Lagarde: La naissance de l'esprit laïque au déclin du Moyen Age , Vol. 3, Louvain / Paris 1970, pp. 93, 153–155, 268; Jeannine Quillet: La philosophie politique de Marsile de Padoue , Paris 1970, p. 17 f.
- ^ Nicolai Rubinstein: Marsilius of Padua and Italian Political Thought of His Time. In: John R. Hale et al. (Ed.): Europe in the Late Middle Ages , Evanston 1965, pp. 44-75, here: 75.
- ↑ Quentin Skinner: The foundations of modern political thought , Vol. 1, Cambridge 1978, pp. 60-65.
- ^ Alan Gewirth: Republicanism and Absolutism in the Thought of Marsilius of Padua. In: Medioevo 5, 1979, pp. 23-48.
- ^ Mary Elizabeth Sullivan: Democracy and the Defensor Pacis Revisited: Marsiglio of Padua's Democratic Arguments. In: Viator 41/2, 2010, pp. 257-269.
- ↑ Kurt Flasch: The philosophical thinking in the Middle Ages , 3rd, revised edition, Stuttgart 2013, p. 564. Cf. Kurt Flasch: Introduction to the Philosophy of the Middle Ages , Darmstadt 1987, p. 146 f.
- ↑ Thomas Leinkauf: Grundriss Philosophy of Humanism and the Renaissance (1350–1600) , Vol. 1, Hamburg 2017, p. 828.
- ↑ Cary J. Nederman: Lineages of European Political Thought , Washington (DC) 2009, p. 175 f.
- ↑ Gianluca Briguglia: Marsile de Padoue , Paris 2014, pp. 17-20.
- ↑ See also Joseph Canning: Ideas of Power in the Late Middle Ages 1296–1417 , Cambridge 2011, pp. 84–90; Elvio Ancona, Franco Todescan: Marsilio da Padova , Padua 2007, pp. 50–53. Riccardo Battocchio provides a research overview: Ecclesiologia e politica in Marsilio da Padova , Padova 2005, pp. 87–96.
- ↑ Conal Condren: The Status and Appraisal of Classic Texts , Princeton 1985, pp. 189-197.
- ↑ Cary J. Nederman: Marsiglio of Padua Studies Today - and Tomorrow. In: Gerson Moreno-Riaño (ed.): The World of Marsilius of Padua , Turnhout 2006, pp. 11–25, here: 18 f.
- ↑ Relevant statements are compiled by Bernardo Bayona Aznar: Precisiones sobre la interpretación nominalista de la civitas en Marsilio de Padua. In: Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval 11, 2004, pp. 287–298, here: pp. 289 f. and note 11, 13, 16, 17. See also Ernst Bloch: Naturrecht und Menschen Würde , Frankfurt 1961, p. 60.
- ↑ Bernardo Bayona Aznar: Precisiones sobre la interpretación nominalista de la civitas en Marsilio de Padua. In: Revista Española de Filosofía Medieval 11, 2004, pp. 287-298.
- ↑ Michael Menzel: Cosmopolitan city with a spirit? In: Hans-Michael Körner , Florian Schuller (eds.): Bayern und Italien , Lindenberg 2010, pp. 88–102, here: 96–101. Carlo Dolcini judges similarly in: Carlo Dolcini, Roberto Lambertini: Mainardini, Marsilio. In: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani , Vol. 67, Rome 2006, pp. 569–576, here: 572. Cf. Hermann Otto Schwöbel: The diplomatic struggle between Ludwig the Bavarian and the Roman Curia in the context of the canonical process of absolving 1330–1346 , Weimar 1968, pp. 18-21.
- ↑ Frank Godthardt: Marsilius von Padua and the Romzug Ludwigs des Bayern , Göttingen 2011, pp. 430–446.
- ↑ See the research history overview in Frank Godthardt: Marsilius von Padua and the Romzug Ludwigs des Bayern , Göttingen 2011, p. 308.
- ↑ Frank Godthardt: Marsilio of Padua and the journey to Rome of Ludwig of Bavaria , Göttingen 2011, p 308-311.
- ↑ Frank Godthardt: Marsilio of Padua and the journey to Rome of Ludwig of Bavaria , Göttingen 2011, p 416-419, 447th
| personal data | |
|---|---|
| SURNAME | Marsilius of Padua |
| ALTERNATIVE NAMES | Marsiglio de 'Mainardini; Marsilius Paduanus |
| BRIEF DESCRIPTION | State theorist and politician |
| DATE OF BIRTH | around 1285 or around 1290 |
| PLACE OF BIRTH | Padua |
| DATE OF DEATH | 1342 or 1343 |
| Place of death | Munich |
