Marsilius of Padua

Though St. Thomas Aquinas is by far the most famous Christian Aristotelian, he was by no means the only one as there were also many others such as Marsilius of Padua, whose essay in History of Political Philosophy was written by Leo Strauss. Though they were both Christians and heavily influenced by Aristotle, it is not the case that Aquinas had a major impact on Marsilius’ thought as Marsilius only references Aquinas once in his Defender of the Peace. So as he was a Christian and a Aristotelian, but not a Thomist, Marsilius ended up coming to a far different conception of the proper Christian application of Aristotle’s philosophy than Aquinas did. For one thing, while Marsilius accepts the idea of the priesthood being divinely established, and separated from the rest of the believers, he denies that the Church hierarchy is. Thus, for Marsilius, the priesthood must be seen as equal. He also takes any other ideas more directly from Aristotle, as he sees the purpose of what he calls the “commonwealth” which is roughly equal to the Aristotelian conception of the City, as being to enable me to live the good life. Furthermore, Marsilius also sees the commonwealth as the grounding for other kinds of causes. This is not to say that Marsilius was simply regurgitating Aristotle, as he did have some major disagreements with him. The biggest and most obvious of these would be on the Christian revelation for while Aristotle had no conception of such an idea, Marsilius saw it as being able to cure the diseases of the commonwealth. Though there was a major disparity from their teachings, it should be remembered that in Marsilius’ mind, he was not contradicting Aristotle as much as he was bringing up a point that Aristotle simply overlooked. For Marsilius, Aristotle’s problem was that as a pagan, he lacked a proper conception of the divine.

Though Marsilius accepts the idea that the priesthood is to be above the rest of the believers, it should not be inferred from this that they are to rule over the body of believers, but rather should act more like teachers or judges. Hos the commonwealth is to be ruled though is important as Marsilius is highly focused on the unity of the commonwealth, as for him unity is the very thing the disease of the commonwealth seeks to destroy, which will then bring about anarchy and thereby harm the good life. This fear of anarchy Marsilius has is important as for him any regime, even an unjust regime is still ultimately better than no regime. This sort of notion ultimately leads to Marsilius being more concerned with mere law than the best law and mere government than the best government. Despite this fear of no government, Marsilius displays a surprisingly democratic streak for a man of his time as he sees political authority as ultimately relying upon the whole of the body of citizens, what he calls the Human Legislator. Perhaps not surprisingly considering his admiration of Aristotle and his democratic streak, Marsilius sees Aristotle as being far more democratic than he is typically seen as being.

So powerful is the Human Legislator for Marsilius, it has the power to elect and dispose of priests, thus reversing the traditional distinction between the people and the priests in favor of the people. In order to justify such a radical move towards democracy, Marsilius gives four proofs in order to justify placing so much power in the hands of the Human Legislator. Ultimately though, his fourth proof is just a summation of the first three, so only the first three proofs will be mentioned here. They are as follows: 1) Legislative power ought from those whom the best human laws can emerge, and as no man would willingly vote to do harm to himself, the Human Legislator will be able to produce the best laws. 2) Each man will be able to assure the laws are observed. 3) Each man will be able to better know what benefits or harms each. Though the Human Legislator is to rule the commonwealth, and while it is to be made up of the entire body of the citizens, it is not an egalitarian program as those that are to rule the Human Legislator are its most able part. Though doing this, Marsilius has, in a way, produced a synthesis between oligarchy and democracy. By creating his divide between the Human Legislator and the most able members of the Human Legislator, Marsilius returns to Aristotle’s view that the Human Legislator (the sovereign) is identical with the ruling part (the government). Furthermore, Marsilius also sees the ruler as part of the legislator.

Marsilius’ conception of law, order, and government ultimately leads him to the conclusion that the supremacy of the law is not absolute as it may be necessary to act illegally in order to save the commonwealth. Still, he still displays a surprising commitment to democracy, at least in its majoritarian form, for a man of his day as he draws a parallel between the “the whole body of the citizens” of his Human Legislator to “The Whole Body of the Faithful” of the New Testament, thus giving his radical new system a Christian justification. Marsilius also takes his dedication of democracy all the way to the monarchy as while he favors monarchy, he untimely wants for it to be an elected monarchy. It may be surprising to some to hear that he ultimately favored monarchy, considering how radical his commitment to democracy is elsewhere. Marsilius ultimately does have justification for this as he believes that above all else the king/ ruler must have prudence, and therefor needs whatever system allows him to have the most prudence. For Marsilius, this system was most likely elective monarchy. Still though, Marsilius keeps the idea that unity is essential for a commonwealth, but contra many others, he does not think the rule of many will harm the unity of the commonwealth. In fact, for Marsilius the rule of many is the best way to bring about unity as the Human Legislator can more easily produce laws that people are likely to obey. In a way then, Marsilius here produces a synthesis between populism and absolute monarchy.

Marsilius, to be sure still sees the priesthood as being highly important, but ultimately he does not want them to rule as he sees the spirit of the priesthood as being incompatible with the qualities that are needed to rule. Such an idea can be seen as being rooted in the Christian duty to obey as well as the Christian call to poverty. The idea that the priests are not meant to rule eventually produces some other highly interesting ideas in Marsilius’ thought. For one, while divine law has no coercive element in and of itself; human can be coercive in its dealings with those that violate divine law. Also, Marsilius allows for the Human Legislator to pass laws enforcing religions orthodoxy as if people were permitted to disobey divine law, eventually divine law would lose its power. This leads him to a highly interesting conclusion, particularly for someone that claimed to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church, as Marsilius sees a universal prince as being more important than a universal bishop, as a universal prince can make people keep the faith. Ultimately though, Marsilius sees a universal prince as being unnecessary. Two more things to keep in mind is that while Marsilius uses the term “divine law”, divine law should not be equated with natural law as for Marsilius, there is no such thing as natural law. It should also be kept in mind that Marsilius can be seen as setting the state for the rise of Machiavelli, as both saw that there was no enforceable law other than what humans made.

Perhaps the most obscure philosopher to be included in History of Political Philosophy, Leo Strauss does a fine job of shedding light on another version of Christian Aristotelian philosophy apart from the dominant Thomist tradition. This essay shows while interpretation is generally considered to be Strauss’s best quality and is well worth reading for anyone interested in the thought of Marsilius of Padua. Marsilius, for as obscure as he is personally serves as a major influence for one of the most important political theorists to ever live and thus deserves to be studied. This essay will hopefully be able to encourage further study of Marsilius of Padua’s thought.