Opuscula Kingship
On Kingship
To the King of Cyprus
Prologue
As I was turning over in my mind what I might present to your majesty as a gift, at once worthy of your royal highness and befitting my profession and office, it seemed to me a highly appropriate offering that, for a king, I should write a book on kingship, in which, so far as my ability permits, I should carefully expound, according to the authority of Scripture and the teachings of the philosophers, as well as the practice of worthy princes, both the origin of kingly government and the things which pertain to the office of a king, relying for the beginning, progress and accomplishment of this work on the help of him who is King of kings and Lord of lords, through whom kings rule, God the mighty Lord, the great king above all gods.
Book 1
Kingship
Chapter 1
What is signified by the name of king
The first step in our undertaking must be to set forth what the name ‘king’ means. In all things which are ordered towards an end, in which this or that course may be adopted, some directive principle is needed through which the due end may be reached by the most direct route. A ship, for example, which moves in different directions according to the impulse of the changing winds, would never reach its destination were it not brought to port by the skill of the pilot. Now, man has an end to which his whole life and all his actions are ordered; for man is an intelligent agent, and it is clearly the part of an intelligent agent to act in view of an end. Men also adopt different methods in proceeding towards their proposed end, as the diversity of men’s pursuits and actions clearly indicates. Consequently, man needs some directive principle to guide him towards his end.
Now the light of reason is placed by nature in every man to guide him in his acts towards his end. And if man were intended to live alone, as many animals do, he would require no other guide to his end. Each man would be a king unto himself, under God the highest king, inasmuch as he would direct himself in his acts by the light of reason given him from on high. Yet it is natural for man, more than for any other animal, to be a social and political animal living in a group. This is clearly a necessity of man’s nature. For all other animals, nature has prepared food, a covering of hair, and means of defense such as teeth, horns, claws, or at least speed in flight. Man alone was made without any natural provisions for these things, yet in their place he was given reason, through which he could procure all these things for himself by the work of his hands. Now, one man alone is not able to procure them all for himself, for one man could not sufficiently provide for life, unassisted. It is therefore natural that man should live in the society of many.
Moreover, all other animals are able to discern, by inborn skill, what is useful and what is injurious (as the sheep naturally regards the wolf as his enemy). Some animals also recognize by natural skill certain medicinal herbs and other things necessary for their life. Man, on the contrary, has a natural knowledge of the things which are essential for his life only in a general fashion, inasmuch as he is able to attain knowledge of the particular things necessary for human life by reasoning from natural principles. But it is not possible for one man to arrive at a knowledge of all these things by his own individual reason. It is therefore necessary for man to live in a multitude so that each one may assist his fellows, and different men may be occupied in seeking to make different discoveries by reason—one, for example, in medicine, one in this and another in that.
This point is further and most plainly evidenced by the fact that the use of speech is proper to man, through which one man is able to fully express his conceptions to others. Other animals, it is true, express their feelings to one another in a general way, as a dog may express anger by barking and other animals give vent to other feelings in various fashions. But man communicates with his kind more completely than any other animal known to be gregarious, such as the crane, the ant or the bee. Considering this, Solomon says: It is better that there be two than one; for they have the advantage of their company (Eccl 4:9).
If, then, it is natural for man to live in the society of many, there must exist among men some means by which the group may be governed. For where there are many men together and each one is looking after his own interest, the multitude would be broken up and scattered unless there were also an agency to take care of what appertains to the commonweal. In like manner, the body of a man or any other animal would disintegrate unless there were a general ruling force within the body which watches over the common good of all members. With this in mind, Solomon says: Where there is no governor, the people shall fall (Prov 11:14).
Indeed, it is reasonable that this should happen, for what is proper and what is common are not identical. Things differ by what is proper to each: they are united by what they have in common. But diversity of effects is due to diversity of causes. Consequently, beyond that which moves toward the proper good of each individual, there must exist something which moves toward the common good of the many. Also on account of this, in all things that are ordained towards one end, one thing is found to rule the rest. Thus, in the corporeal universe, corporeal things are regulated according to the order of Divine Providence by the first body (namely, the celestial body); and all physical creation is ruled by a rational creature. Likewise, in the individual man the soul rules the body, and, among the parts of the soul, the irascible and the concupiscible parts are ruled by reason. Likewise, among the members of a body, one (such as the heart or the head) is the principal and moves all the others. Therefore, in every multitude there must be some governing power.
Now, it happens in certain things which are ordained towards an end that there is both a right and a wrong way to proceed: and for this reason, in the government of a multitude there is a distinction between right and wrong. A thing is rightly directed when it is led towards a fitting end; wrongly, when it is led towards an unfitting end. Now the end which befits a multitude of free men is different from that which befits a multitude of slaves, for the free man is one who exists for his own sake, while the slave, as such, exists for the sake of another. If, therefore, a multitude of free men is ordered by the ruler towards the common good of the multitude, that rulership will be right and just, as is suitable to free men. If, on the other hand, a rulership aims not at the common good of the multitude, but at the private good of the ruler, it will be an unjust and perverted rulership. And hence the Lord threatens such rulers, saying by the mouth of Ezekiel: Woe to the shepherds that feed themselves, as seeking their own interest, should not the flocks be fed by the shepherd? (Ezek 34:2). Shepherds indeed should seek the good of their flocks, and every ruler the good of the multitude subject to him.
If an unjust government is carried on by one man alone, who seeks his own benefit from his rule and not the good of the multitude subject to him, such a ruler is called a ‘tyrant’—a word derived from strength—because he oppresses by might instead of ruling by justice. Thus, among the ancients, all powerful men were called tyrants. If an unjust government is carried on not by one but by several, and if they be few, it is called an ‘oligarchy’—that is, the rule of a few. This occurs when a few, who differ from the tyrant only by the fact that they are more than one, oppress the people by means of their wealth. If the bad government is carried on by the multitude, it is called a ‘democracy’—that is, control by the populace—which comes about when the plebeian people by force of numbers oppress the rich. In this way the whole people will be as one tyrant.
In like manner we must divide just governments. If the government is administered by many, it is given the name ‘polity,’ common to all forms of government: as, for instance, when a group of warriors exercise dominion over a city or province. If it is administered by a few men of virtue, this kind of government is called an ‘aristocracy,’ that is, the best governance, or governance by the best men, who for this reason are called the ‘Optimates.’ And if a just government is in the hands of one man alone, he is properly called a ‘king’. Wherefore the Lord says by the mouth of Ezekiel: My servant, David, shall be king over them and all of them shall have one shepherd (Ezek 37:24). From this it is clearly shown that the idea of king implies that there be one man who is chief, and that he be a shepherd, seeking the common good of the multitude and not his own.
Now, since man must live in a group, because he is not sufficient unto himself to procure the necessities of life if he were to remain solitary, it follows that a society will be the more perfect the more it is sufficient unto itself to procure the necessities of life. There is, to some extent, sufficiency for life in one family of one household: namely, insofar as pertains to the natural acts of nourishment, and the begetting of offspring, and other things of this kind. Self-sufficiency exists, furthermore, in one street with regard to those things which belong to one trade. In a city, which is the perfect community, it exists with regard to all the necessities of life. Still more self-sufficiency is found in a province because of the need of fighting together and of mutual help against enemies. Hence the man ruling a perfect community (which is a city or a province), is antonomastically called the ‘king.’ The ruler of a household is called ‘father,’ not ‘king,’ although he bears a certain resemblance to the king, for which reason kings are sometimes called the fathers of their peoples.
It is plain, therefore, from what has been said, that a king is one who rules the people of one city or province, and rules them for the common good. Hence Solomon says: The king rules over all the land subject to him (Eccl 5:8).