Opuscula Kingship
Chapter 2
Whether it is more expedient for a city or province to be ruled by one man or by many
Having set forth these preliminary points we must now inquire whether it is better for a province or a city to be ruled by one man or by many.
This question may be considered first from the viewpoint of the purpose of government. The aim of any ruler should be directed towards securing the welfare of that which he undertakes to rule. The duty of the pilot, for instance, is to preserve his ship amidst the perils of the sea, and to bring it unharmed to the port of safety. Now the welfare and safety of a multitude formed into a society lies in the preservation of its unity, which is called peace. If this is removed, the benefit of social life is lost; moreover, a dissenting multitude becomes a burden to itself.
The chief concern of the ruler of a multitude, therefore, is to procure the unity of peace. It is not even legitimate for him to deliberate whether he shall establish peace in the multitude subject to him, just as a physician does not deliberate whether he shall heal the sick man encharged to him, for no one should deliberate about an end which he is obliged to seek, but only about the means to attain that end. Therefore, the Apostle, having commended the unity of the faithful people, says: Be eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:3). Thus, the more efficacious a government is in keeping the unity of peace, the more useful it will be. For we call that more useful which leads more directly to the end. Now it is manifest that what is itself one can more efficaciously bring about unity than several—just as the most efficacious cause of heat is that which is by its nature hot. Therefore, the rule of one man is more useful than the rule of many.
Furthermore, it is evident that several persons could by no means preserve the stability of the community if they totally disagreed. For union is necessary among them if they are to rule at all: several men, for instance, could not pull a ship in one direction unless joined together in some fashion. Now, several are said to be ‘united’ according as they come closer to being one. So one man rules better than several who come near being one.
Again, whatever is in accord with nature is best, for nature does what is best in each thing. Now, every natural governance is governance by one. In the multitude of bodily members there is one which is the principal mover (namely, the heart); and among the powers of the soul one power presides as chief (namely, the reason). Among bees there is one king bee, and in the whole universe there is one God, Maker and Ruler of all. And this is reasonable, for every multitude is derived from unity. Therefore, if artificial things are an imitation of natural things, and a work of art is better according as it attains a closer likeness to what is in nature, it follows that it is best for a human multitude to be ruled by one person.
This is also evident from experience. For provinces or cities which are not ruled by one person are torn with dissensions and tossed about without peace, so that the complaint seems to be fulfilled which the Lord uttered through the prophet: Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard (Jer 12:10). On the other hand, provinces and cities which are ruled under one king enjoy peace, flourish in justice, and delight in prosperity. Hence, the Lord by his prophets promises to his people as a great reward that he will give them one head and that one prince will be in the midst of them (Ezek 34:24; Jer 30:21).
Chapter 3
That the dominion of a tyrant is the worst
Just as the government of a king is the best, so the government of a tyrant is the worst. For democracy is the opposite of polity, since both are governments carried on by many persons, as is clear from what has already been said; while oligarchy is the opposite of aristocracy, since both are governments carried on by a few persons; and kingship is the opposite of tyranny, since both are carried on by one person. Now, as has been shown above, monarchy is the best government. If, therefore, the best is the opposite of the worst, it follows that tyranny is the worst kind of government.
Further, a united force is more efficacious in producing its effect than a force which is scattered or divided. Many persons together can pull a load which could not be pulled by each one taking his part separately and acting individually. Therefore, just as it is more useful for a force operating for a good to be more united, in order that it may work good more effectively, so a force operating for evil is more harmful when it is one than when it is divided. Now, the power of one who rules unjustly works to the detriment of the multitude in that he diverts the common good of the multitude to his own benefit. Therefore, for the same reason that, in a just government, the government is better in proportion as the ruling power is one—thus monarchy is better than aristocracy, and aristocracy better than polity—so the contrary will be true of an unjust government: namely, the ruling power will be more harmful in proportion as it is more one. Consequently, tyranny is more harmful than oligarchy, and oligarchy more harmful than democracy.
Moreover, a government becomes unjust by the fact that the ruler, paying no heed to the common good, seeks his own private good. Therefore, the further he departs from the common good, the more unjust will his government be. But there is a greater departure from the common good in an oligarchy, in which the advantage of a few is sought, than in a democracy, in which the advantage of many is sought; and there is a still greater departure from the common good in a tyranny, where the advantage of only one man is sought. For a large number is closer to the totality than a small number, and a small number than only one. Thus, the government of a tyrant is the most unjust.
The same conclusion is made clear to those who consider the order of divine providence, which disposes everything in the best way. In all things, good ensues from one perfect cause (as from the totality of the conditions favorable to the production of the effect), while evil results from any one partial defect. There is beauty in a body when all its members are fittingly disposed; ugliness, on the other hand, arises when any one member is not fittingly disposed. Thus ugliness results in different ways from many causes; beauty in one way from one perfect cause. It is thus with all good and evil things, as if God so provided that good, arising from one cause, be stronger, and evil, arising from many causes, be weaker. It is expedient, therefore, that a just government be that of one man only in order that it may be stronger. However, if the government should turn away from justice, it is more expedient that it be a government by many, so that it may be weaker, and the many may mutually hinder one another. Among unjust governments, therefore, democracy is the most tolerable, but the worst is tyranny.
This same conclusion is also apparent if one considers the evils which come from tyrants. Since a tyrant, despising the common good, seeks his private interest, it follows that he will oppress his subjects in different ways according as he is dominated by different passions to acquire certain goods. The one who is enthralled by the passion of cupidity seizes the goods of his subjects; hence Solomon says: A just king sets up the land; a covetous man shall destroy it (Prov 29:4). If he is dominated by the passion of anger, he sheds blood for nothing; whence it is said by Ezekiel: Her princes in the midst of her are like wolves tearing the prey, shedding blood (Ezek 22:27). Therefore, this kind of government is to be avoided, as the wise man admonishes: Keep far from a man who has the power to kill (Sir 9:13), because he kills not for justice’s sake but by his power, for the lust of his will. Thus there can be no safety. Everything is uncertain when there is a departure from justice. Nobody will be able firmly to state, this thing is such and such, when it depends upon the will of another, not to say upon his caprice.
Nor does the tyrant merely oppress his subjects in corporal things but he also hinders their spiritual good. Those who seek more to use, than to be of use to, their subjects prevent all progress, suspecting all excellence in their subjects to be prejudicial to their own evil domination. For tyrants hold the good in greater suspicion than the wicked, and to them the valour of others is always fraught with danger. So, the above-mentioned tyrants strive to prevent those of their subjects who have become virtuous from acquiring valour and high spirit in order that they may not want to cast off their iniquitous domination. They also see to it that there be no friendly relations among these so that they may not enjoy the benefits resulting from being on good terms with one another, for as long as one has no confidence in the other, no plot will be set up against the tyrant’s domination. Wherefore they sow discords among the people, foster any that have arisen, and forbid anything which furthers society and co-operation among men, such as marriage, banquets, and anything of like character, through which familiarity and confidence are engendered among men. They moreover strive to prevent their subjects from becoming powerful and rich, since, suspecting these to be as wicked as themselves, they fear their power and wealth; for the subjects might become harmful to them even as they are accustomed to use power and wealth to harm others. Hence Job 15:21 says of the tyrant: The sound of dread is always in his ears and when there is peace, that is, when there is no one to harm him, he always suspects treason.
It thus results that when rulers, who ought to induce their subjects to virtue, are wickedly jealous of the virtue of their subjects and hinder it as much as they can, few virtuous men are found under the rule of tyrants. For, according to Aristotle’s sentence, brave men are found where brave men are honoured. And as Cicero says: Those who are despised by everybody are disheartened and flourish but little. It is also natural that men, brought up in fear, should become small-spirited and discouraged in the face of any strenuous and manly task. This is shown by experience in provinces that have long been under tyrants. Hence the Apostle says to the Colossians: Fathers, do not provoke your children to indignation, lest they become discouraged (Col 3:21).
So, considering these evil effects of tyranny, King Solomon says: When the wicked reign, men are ruined (Prov 28:12), because, through the wickedness of tyrants, subjects fall away from the perfection of virtue. And again he says: When the wicked rule, the people groan (Prov 29:2), as though led into slavery. And again: When the wicked rise, men hide themselves (Prov 28:28), that they may escape the cruelty of the tyrant. It is no wonder, for a man governing without reason, following the lust of his soul, differs in no way from the beast. Hence Solomon says: Like a roaring lion or a charging bear is a wicked ruler over a poor people (Prov 28:15). Therefore, men hide from tyrants as from cruel beasts, and it seems that to be subject to a tyrant is the same thing as to lie prostrate beneath a raging beast.