For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of his government and of peace
there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time forth and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this (Isaiah 9:6-7).

The Project of these Blogs

This year I began a project that was planned some years ago when I decided that, when I retired from full-time ministry, I would begin a project to write my reflections on what is called, “Political Theology.” The book, if it is ever written, will be a pastor’s look at how Christians can best serve the secular state in which we live and a defense of religious liberty. The idea began long before Donald Trump was elected President (and especially before this difficult election year), but the Trump Presidency and this difficult past year seems to me to validate the underlying notion of the project: We must develop a politics founded on government by wisdom and the nurturing of a deep, communal relational reality. We must step away from the “Politics as War for Power” that dominates our political life in America. In order for our freedoms to survive, we must rebuild our national culture, of which politics is only a part.

If you have been following the blog, you know that, in 2020, there were a series of posts about the issues of our day, and then a look at political philosophy from its Greco-Roman beginnings, through the Renaissance, to the dawn of the Modern Age. In 2021, I hope to move from Hobbes and the dawn of the Modern Era, through the Modern Era, to the emerging Post-Modern Era now emerging. If this pace can be met, by the dawn of 2022, this series of blogs will be nearly complete.

The Hidden Wisdom of Christmas

Christ and the earliest Christians explained the meaning of the incarnation from the texts of the Old Testament, and especially from Isaiah. It was from Isaiah that Jesus and the Apostles taught:

Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke 24:26-27, see also Luke 18:31-34; 22:37; 24:44-47; Acts 28: 23-28; I Peter 1:10-11).

The expectation of the Jews was for a Messiah that would give them a victory over their oppressors within their national history— Messiah who would be a great conqueror, hero and king. Instead, they received a crucified Messiah who ruled in weakness and powerlessness upon a cross, defeating the enemies of evil, division, and death in a way that no one could have imagined. This was the “foolishness of the Cross” of which Paul spoke to the Corinthians:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men (I Corinthians 1:18-25).

Just as the earliest Christians and Jews had difficulty understanding how the Creator God of Wisdom and Might could rule from a Cross, so contemporary Christians have the same problem. We find the tactics of self-giving love hard to understand.

The Moral Energy of Christmas

One great need in contemporary American politics is for those on the left and right to recognize that there can be no perfect society inside of human history. We are finite, imperfect creatures incapable of accomplishing such a task even if it were possible, which it is not because of the nature of human growth and understanding. Furthermore, we are filled with endless hopes and dreams and are never satisfied with any accomplishment, however grand. All we can do is respond to the needs and issues of our own day and try to make things better within the limits of our place in history, avoiding the madness and violence that comes with every attempt to impose a perfect order of things upon others within history.

We can and should long for a “Wonderful Counselor” and “Prince of Peace,” whose shoulders are strong enough to bear the brokenness of the world and the hopes and dreams of a finite and flawed human race, but we should not delude ourselves that such a person can appear within the history of any secular, human society. He came once, and it was not to produce a secular paradise. It was to bear the brokenness of his and every human society.

His next appearance will, instead, mark the end of history as we know it. His coming will not mean a perfect socialist or capitalist world, for whatever world exists at that final moment in time will pass away in the face of the “New Heaven and New Earth” of which Isaiah and Revelation speak. The world we inhabit with all its beauty, glory, uncertainty and violence must pass away when the one who can meet our deepest desires, the Desire of Nations, finally arrives.

Conclusion: The Need for a Politics of Humility

Although a great deal of 2020 was spent in looking at great thinkers of history, it began with a look at a few of my favorite thinkers and their meaning for political thought. The most important of these insights is that the Christian passion for the coming of a New Heaven and New Earth, for the coming of a Righteous King and an end to the wars, poverty, oppression, and the like represented the deepest moral passions of the human race, when cut off from faith that endures and transforms the pain and brokenness of human history with hope and love, results in a moral passion cut off from the roots of morality itself, a passion capable of great evil, as we have seen repeatedly in the 20^th Century.

What can be achieved within history is what I would call a humble politics of wisdom and love, of nurturing slow organic change; of eliminating evils gently, even when working with diligence and speed; of patiently working to end poverty and war and all the other scourges of the human race with a wise understanding that we will ultimately fail, because the creation of a perfect world is a task too great for our limited human moral and spiritual abilities. “The poor will always be with us” and “Only the dead will never now war again.” This is the tragedy of history.

I hope by the end of next year we will all recognize that the Romantic hope of a perfect world within history that gave us the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Communist Chinese Revolution and numerous bad policy decisions in the Western Democracies was based upon a harmful delusion concerning the possibilities and potentials of secular politics. What is needed is not a continuation of the Nietzschean, Marxist, or Laisse Faire Capitalist ideal, but something new and different. When we finally end the period of decadent, Hyper-Modernity we are in, there is hope for a more human future.

Jesus and the Apostles urged us to not look at the worldly wise or the worldly powerful for our salvation. Instead, as we celebrate this week, they suggested that we look at a baby born in a manger and at a broken body nailed to a cross. We do not want to think that our true hope lies in a poor helpless baby in a manger or a dying man, but paradoxically, this is our best and only hope.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Chris

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy in May 1469 and died in June 1527, also in Florence. Machiavelli is the most important Renaissance political philosopher with great influence on contemporary politics. Machiavelli was a lawyer, a diplomat, statesman, and secretary of the Republic of Florence. His most famous work, The Prince, is still a textbook of political pragmatism. [1]

Machiavelli is a good thinker to follow Sir Thomas More. Like More, Machiavelli was not a professional scholar, but a person of practical affairs with an inclination to reflect upon the meaning and purpose, the strategies and tactics, the ultimate principles of his life’s work. Like Cicero, when out of favor, he wrote books, some of which can be seen as a partial defense of his ideas. If More represents the continuity of the Renaissance with the thought and values of the Ancient and Medieval worlds, Machiavelli represents a pragmatic break with previous thought, though how serious a break is a matter of debate. [2] After Machiavelli, political thought begins its journey into the modern world.

The Context of the Prince

Italy at the end of the 15^th and beginning of the 16^th centuries (the boundaries of Machiavelli’s life) was unstable. In fact, what we know as “Italy” did not exist as a unified political entity. Its territory was divided into a series of principalities that were constantly at war with one another and constantly in danger of domination by the great powers of the day. The fact that Rome was the center of the Roman Catholic Church, and the geographic area we know as Italy was in the center of Europe, made control of the area attractive to foreign powers, especially France, Germany and Spain. Machiavelli’s home, Florence, was inevitably caught up in the intrigues and conflict both of the princes of Italy and the kings of Spain and France. In 1494, Pietro Medici made a series of diplomatic and political mistakes, which ended the rule of the Medici and brought into existence the Florentine Republic. In the end, the Florentine Republic backed France, and the result was a disaster in which Florence was aligned alone against all the other principalities of Italy.

The end of the Medici dynasty left Florence without an established constitution and form of government, open to any kind of intrigue. There were those who wished the return of the Medici.  there were those who desired an oligarchy of the best families. Into this cauldron of intrigue, the priest Savonarola took power for a time and pitted the poor against the rich in a time of religious rule. He was eventually deposed and executed as a heretic.

Into the political vacuum thus created came Piero Soderini and his chief secretary, Niccolo Machiavelli. In his new position, Machiavelli was the chief diplomat of Florence and had influence over its military policy. He was a practitioner of what we today would call “real politic,” or the concentration of political life on the acquisition and use of power.

The Roman Catholic Church, which might have made the situation better, unfortunately made the situation worse under a series of popes. [3] In particular, Pope Alexander VI conspired with the French for aid for his son, the ruthless and immoral Cesare Borgia.  Alexander hoped his son could carve out a central Italian principality.  Unfortunately, Cesare made enemies easily and died young, leaving this dream empty.  Alexander’s successor Julius II was just as worldly and conniving as Alexander had been, often taking the field himself against his enemies as he attempted to create his own papal empire.

It was Julius who finally ended the Florentine Republic.  With Florence allied with the French, Julius conspired for his Spanish allies take the city and hand it back to a Medici, a cardinal who soon after became Pope Leo X, and thus ruled both Rome and Florence. This event ended Machiavelli’s political career. He retired in disgrace and fear of imprisonment.

I have taken the time to set out this history so that readers can understand that Machiavelli’s approach to politics was profoundly impacted by the unstable times in which he lived, the mendicity of the Catholic Popes of the day, and the machinations of European politics generally and that of Italy in particular. [4]

The Prince

In 1512, the Medici family regained their power and position in Florence. Machiavelli was dismissed and faced exile from public life. Whether to ingratiate himself with the Medici’s and thereby regain his political standing or from a desire to make amends for the past, Machiavelli The Prince, dedicating it to “the Magnificent Lorenzo de Piero of Medici.” The book a handbook for politicians on the use of ruthless, self-serving cunning, inspiring the term “Machiavellian” and establishing Machiavelli as the “father of modern political theory.”

Unlike other such handbooks for princes of the period, such as Erasmus’ The Education of a Christian Prince,” Machiavelli does not use his treatise to urge Medici to become a model Christian prince, but instead urges dramatic and effective action to eliminate the chaos of the Italian peninsula. In other words, Machiavelli’s expressed motivation is to remedy the difficult situation in the Italy of his day through the efforts of a strong ruler.

This is important in understanding exactly what Machiavelli is about in the book. As mentioned earlier, Machiavelli’s views were formed by his experience as diplomat with both influence over, and some responsibility for, military policy. Most of the writers we have considered thus far focused to at least some degree on the communal aspects of government and the responsibly of political leaders to seek the common good and provide a just society. In Machiavelli, establishment of a sound polity able to achieve the good of a unified and stable Italy is the goal, and Machiavelli assumes this goal to be in the best interests of the people. A good bit of the bitterness of the advice given in the book can be attributed to the political situation of Florence and the other provinces of Italy as Machiavelli perceives it to be in The Prince. [5]

Fortune and Ability in The Prince

There are two concepts that are central to understanding The Prince: Fortune (Luck or Chance) and Virtue (Ability). Leaders come to power in a variety of ways: through their own merit or as a result of the merit of others, through inheritance from their forbearers or through their own abilities and success, yet all of this inevitably involves Fortune.  Political leaders, whatever their ability, arrive in power and remain in power in the face of a chaotic reality, good fortune and bad fortune, which Machiavelli terms “Fortuna.” I want to call this aspect of reality, “Chance.” The opportunity to lead is given to some and denied to others. Once in power, most leaders will experience both undeserved success (or at least success greater than their expectation) and opposition, difficulties, failure, and challenge. These circumstances provide the test of the abilities and character of every leader, political and otherwise.

In the end, however, no leader remains in power without the ability to secure his or her hold on power. This capacity and ability to rule is what Machiavelli terms “Virtue.” Machiavelli’s “Virtue” is what the Greeks termed “Dunamis” or the power to achieve a political end. I will refer to this capacity as “Ability.” The virtues of a Machiavellian leader are those that enable him or her to acquire and retain the power to rule the state.

In this regard, the categories of Machiavelli, Fortune and Virtue bear some resemblance to the categories of chance and order that have been referred to in prior blogs. The world is filled with both principles of order and of chaos, and leaders must use the tools they are given to bring order out of chaos. What is missing in Machiavelli is the third category, what I have called Political Love, and what one in the Augustinian tradition might call the love of Justice and the Common Good. If I am correct in my own reading of Machiavelli, this is related not so much to his underlying beliefs about reality but to the situation in Italy to which he is responding. Justice, order, and love all led Machiavelli to the belief that drastic action was needed, action that would require unusual action.

A Hobbesian View of Human Nature

In order to begin to see Machiavelli from a Christian perspective, one must begin with his view of human nature. Christians view human beings as made in the image of God, of inherent nobility, but flawed by what Christians call, “The Fall’” that is our inherent tendency towards sin, violence, greed, selfishness and other character flaws. In Machiavelli, the nobility of the human race is submerged (as we shall see when we discuss Hobbes) and is replaced by an almost entirely negative view of human character. Thus he says,

For of men it may generally be affirmed that they are ungrateful, fickle, false avoiders of danger, greedy for gain; devoted to while you work for their good, and ready while danger is distant to shed their blood, and sacrifice their property, their lives and their children for you, but in the hour of need they turn against you. [6]

The prince must govern with an eye both to the glory and the infamy of human nature.

The Nihilistic Maxims

I have already said enough to alert a reader that the traditional interpretation of Machiavelli may need reinterpretation in light both of his other writings and the historical context in which he lived. Nevertheless, it is his advice to a Prince that has ensured his place in history. Many politicians and political thinkers have read The Prince. It is said that Adolf Hitler kept a copy at his bedside. Religious leaders have sometimes condemned his thinking. Therefore, it is important to give this aspect of his thinking some consideration.

The first aspect is what I will call the moral limitations upon leaders. Every leader knows that solving institutional problems can and does often require compromise, some of which compromises are moral in character. For Machiavelli, the situation facing Italy was of such a nature, that success in the endeavor of unifying its polity was a supreme value justifying deceit and dissembling in a leader. Those who are familiar with the art of diplomacy know that deceit concerning the objectives of a state, such as the Japanese deceit before attacking Pearl Harbor, is a part of the “Great Game” that nations play. As the example just given illustrates, deceit can backfire, as it did upon the Japanese during World War II. Nevertheless, it is not possible to rule wisely if one’s opponents know of every move in advance and can easily predict what response will be made to a strategy. Political leaders must often use stratagems.

Perhaps more disturbing from a moral perspective is the advice of Machiavelli to a new prince to completely destroy the family of the one he is replacing. [7] This tactic, used to kill millions by various totalitarian regimes, is justified by the danger of the family (or group of leaders) being deposed to create difficulties or even overthrow the new prince. This maxim is only one among many in which Machiavelli seems to justify lying, deceit, subterfuge, violence, and even criminal behavior. There is no getting around this aspect of his thought, though it helps to see his thought in a broader context of the good he seeks for Italy and the character of the powers he faced.

A few of his more famous nihilistic maxims are as follows:

1. A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise
2. A wise ruler ought never to keep faith when by doing so it would be against his interests.
3. If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
4. Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil.
5. It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.
6. A prince also wins prestige for being a true friend or a true enemy.[8]

One can see from these maxims why the name “Machiavelli” is associated with amoral power-seeking.

The Pragmatic Maxims

Often forgotten in both scholarship and in popular writing are the many maxims and advice in The Prince that are simply common sense and also moral in their content. I do not have time to set out all of them in this blog, but here are just a few:

1. A wise leader is careful not to prematurely change laws or impact the freedom, property or rights of the people. [9]
2. The importance of presence: A wise leader is seen and loved by his or her people. [10]
3. Time and fortune govern the actions and fortunes of leaders and territories. [11]
4. The wise leader should study history and emulate successful leaders of the past. [12]
5. Fortune may bring a leader to power, but it is time, ability and merit that brings success in maintaining and using power. [13]
6. A wise leader should cultivate “Fortunate Astuteness” that is an understanding of the accidents of history and wisdom in guiding the state. [14]
7. It is dangerous for a leader to rely upon other powers, mercenaries or paid soldiers from another state. [15]
8. The mainstay of all states are good laws and sufficient defensive power to secure its safety. [16]
9. A wise leader is never idle, being always vigilant in the care of the state. [17]

In these and other of his maxims, there is nothing amoral, only the common sense of the ages.

Christian Faith and Church in Machiavelli

As previously mentioned, the Roman Catholic Church, which might have been an influence for good in Italy of Machiavelli’s day was not. Instead, it was a part of the problem. During the Middle Ages. the church became both rich and deeply involved in the rule of Europe. In addition, various popes attempted to carve out for themselves or their family a secular kingdom in Italy. Thus, instead of being an influence for wisdom and love among the warring powers, the church became one of the warring powers. In so doing, it gave up any semblance of moral authority.

This historic circumstance has a message for religious institutions of our own day: Whenever we curry favor with those in power or seek to have secular power or maintain our positions by means of alliances with secular powers, we open the door to a kind of corruption that can injure our witness and message for a long time. The distaste of the Renaissance and Enlightenment leaders for the corruption of the medieval church is with us today, 500 years after the offenses complained of began to be eliminated.

Conclusion

Machiavelli is a writer well worth reading for both practical and historical reasons. He is of continuing importance to contemporary politics, which is drunk with a concentration on power to the exclusion of morals. A close reading, including a reading of his other works besides The Prince, is a corrective to the amoral purely pragmatic reading which is most commonly given the work. The good and bad uses to which The Prince has been put is both an encouragement and a warning: we cannot go back to a time before the Modern Era and its preoccupations with power and control. We can only transcend it.

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] See, Niccolo Machiavelli in the Britannica Online at https://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government (Downloaded December 9, 2020. Quotations are from The Prince are from Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince tr, N.H. Thomas (New York, NY: Dover Thrift Edition, 1992).

[2] Though The Prince is his most famous book, he also wrote Discourses on Livy (1551) in which the classical elements of his thought are more prominent. As will become clear, my own reading of Machiavelli is more balanced than many. In particular, I do not think that Machiavelli eliminated the moral element in political leadership.

[3] In this part of the blog, I am reliant upon Steve Muhlburger “Italy in the Time of Machiavelli” (Nipsing University, History 2155—Early Modern Europe) https://uts.nipissingu.ca/muhlberger/2155/MACH.HTM (Downloaded December 9, 2020). I have also relied upon Niccolo Machiavelli Biography (1469–1527) at www.biography.com (Downloaded December 13, 2020).

[4] In some ways, the rise of the American empire and the tendency of American political leaders to employ military force to achieve objectives is a similar result of the unstable and dangerous years of the 20^th century, with two world wars, three very dangerous dictatorships (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Chinese Communism), and the emergence of nuclear weapons. America has increasingly become narrowly and simplistically “Machiavellian” in its foreign, domestic and military policies.

[5] Thus, I do not believe that Machiavelli supports the amoral search for and acquisition of power as many if not most of his interpreters and practitioners believe. Instead, the moral elements of power are submerged in the book because of the need that Machiavelli perceives for a strong ruler to unify Italy and end its endless conflicts and wars.

[6] The Prince, 43. See also, Andrew Curry, “Political Morality: Machiavelli Encouraged a Flexible Approach Five Centuries Ag, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/1999/01/13/political-morality-machiavelli-encouraged-a-flexible-approach-five-centuries-ago/9c023e26-a838-4095-a7d4-a6dbfcecf76f/ (Washington Post, January 13, 1999) (Downloaded December 15, 2020). This is an excellent article on Machiavelli’s thought.

[7] The Prince, 3.

[8] I took much of this from a school list because it illustrates what young people are taught about Machiavelli in a simplistic way in our schools. Machiavellian Maxims. I edited the maxims because some of them were not so much Machiavellian as revolutionary maxims, showing the way in which complex matters are presented to young people. http://washington.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_871002/File/hoxiebe/2011-2012/Machiavellian%20Maxims.pdf (downloaded December 16, 2020).

[9] The Prince, 3, 11

[10] The Prince, 4, 11

[11] The Prince, 6

[12] The Prince, 12

[13] The Prince, 13, 15, 39

[14] The Prince, 24. This particular phrase is used in describing the leader who comes to power neither by heredity nor fortune alone, but by service to the state and the favor of the people. In a constitutional system such as ours, this is the kind of leader we should seek.

[15] The Prince, 17

[16] The Prince, 31

[17] The Prince, 39.

When I was in High School a Robert Bolt play, “A Man for All Seasons” was made into a movie. [1] At the time, I was a High School debater and sometimes helped with the drama team competition. The play was one of my favorites, and the character of Sir Thomas More was important in my intellectual development. In my first semester of college, I took an English course entitled, “Utopias and Anti-Utopias,” and More’s book, “Utopia” was on the reading list. [2] This experience only accelerated my admiration for the man and his legacy.

I am including More in this series of blogs for a number of reasons. First, he is both a Renaissance and Reformation writer. Second, he was close friends with Erasmus, who has already been the subject of a blog. Third, because of his character and the fact that he, like Marcus Aurelius, was a practical man of action as well as philosophically minded, he represents a way of reflecting on some of the more abstract thinkers. Fourth, he is a counterpoint to Machiavelli, who will be reviewed next week. Finally, because of his martyrdom by Henry VIII due his refusal to recognize the validity of Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon, he is widely recognized as a martyr for religious freedom and in opposition to the nascent immorality of the secular state.

Brief Biography

Thomas More was born on February 7, 1478, the son of a successful lawyer. [3] He studied at Oxford and qualified as a lawyer. In 1517, More entered the king’s service and became an influential confidant and advisor to Henry VIII. From 1510 until 1518, he was an Under Sherriff of London. He was knighted in 1521. In 1523, he was elected Speaker of the House of Commons, and in 1529 was made Lord Chancellor of England.

Despite a busy professional and legal career, More was a lay-scholar. He became friends with Erasmus and was a figure of importance in the English Renaissance. He wrote a history of Richard III, and in 1516 published his most famous work, “Utopia”. More also published a series of polemics against Martin Luther and the German reformation, while backing the more moderate reformation stance of his king and his friend, Erasmus.

More was opposed to the plan of Henry VII to divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry his mistress, Anne Boleyn. In 1534, Henry declared himself Head of the Church in England, which allowed him to end his marriage to Catherine and marry Anne Boleyn. Unable to compromise further, More resigned his office. More was subsequently arrested after refusing to swear Act of Succession and Oath of Supremacy, which acknowledged Henry’s position as head of the English Church and recognized the annulment of Henry’s marriage and the legitimacy of Mary, his daughter by Anne Boleyn. Because of his refusal, More was tried for treason at Westminster, and on July 6, 1535 was executed at the age of 57. He was made a saint by the Roman Catholic Church in 1935.

At his trial, More made a speech that is widely regarded as one of the greatest of human history related to the relationship of church and state. It reads in part:

Forasmuch, my lord, as this indictment is grounded upon an act of Parliament directly repugnant to the laws of God and his holy church, the supreme government of which, or of any part thereof, may no temporal prince presume by any law to take upon him, as rightfully belonging to the See of Rome, a spiritual preeminence by the mouth of our Savior himself, personally present upon the earth, to Saint Peter and his successors, bishops of the same see, by special prerogative granted; it is therefore in law amongst Christian men, insufficient to charge any Christian man…. More have I not to say, my lords, but that like as the blessed apostle Saint Paul, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, was present and consented to the death of Saint Stephen, and kept their clothes that stoned him to death, and yet be they now twain holy saints in heaven, and shall continue there friends forever: so I verily trust and shall therefore right heartily pray, that though your lordships have now in earth been judges to my condemnation, we may yet hereafter in heaven merrily all meet together to our everlasting salvation. [4]

This defense illustrates More’s character, and especially his refusal to place temporal law above the laws of God and his refusal to acknowledge the power of the king to ignore the spiritual authority of the church. While his position may seem anachronistic to the modern mind, it represents an early expression of the importance of religious freedom and limitations on the secular power of the prince. His willingness to die as a martyr was based upon his firm belief in eternal life and the reward in heaven of the saints.

More and Utopia

More’s most famous writings is Utopia, which literally means “Nowhere.” The book was written in 1516 and remains of interest to readers even today. As with many such works, it is not easy to discern More’s precise relationship to the work. The work clearly suggests Plato’s Republic. Remembering that one characteristic of Renaissance figures is to rediscover and reembrace Greco Roman civilization, it is not surprising that More chose Plato and his Republic as a way of making social commentary upon his own day and time. In the Renaissance, one sees the emergence of a willingness to critique and suggest changes, even radical changes, in society and social institutions, and one sees this as a part of More’s project. More alludes to Plato in thinking about possible changes in his own society.

On the other hand, More as a protagonist in the Utopia, often expresses doubt upon the wisdom and practicability of some of the utopian suggestions made in the dialogue. In other words, it is not clear exactly what More’s position is concerning many of the comments made by his protagonist on the benefits of the way of life recommended. In fact, it is fairly clear that More is dubious about many of the suggestions taken from the Republic.

One example is More’s response in Utopia Book 1 to Plato’s idea of abolishing private property:

“I believe just the opposite,” I said “For men cannot live in harmony where everything is held in common. How can there be an abundance of everything when there is no incentive to work? [5]

In my view, what we see in Utopia is two sides of More’s character: One the one hand, he is a scholar, romantic, and Renaissance figure, willing to consider alternatives to the current social order. On the other hand, he is a lawyer and a man of practical experience, unwilling to embrace the elimination of private property and other suggestions that have not proved workable in human experience. In the end, however, it is the pragmatic orientation of a person of affairs with vast institutional experience that prevails in his thinking.

More and the Reformation

More, like Erasmus, was a devout Catholic, sympathetic with the reformist desire of the Protestant Reformation, but not willing to either leave the Catholic Church nor to abandon its beliefs and practices. He was willing to dispute with Luther and to address weaknesses in his position on Scripture, on the Sacraments, and other areas in which the Reformation was taking positions at odds with the church. On the other hand, his intent was to purify the existing church, not to split the church of his day.

It is this aspect of More’s thought that is most interesting because it is here that he eventually took a stand that cost him his life. It is to be remembered that Henry VIII himself wrote a defense of the Catholic faith and was during More’s lifetime made “Defender of the Faith” by the Pope. More, in fact, read and commented upon Henry’s project as a lawyer, even recommending he tone down passages where he might (and in fact did) eventually end up in opposition to the Pope and to the implications of his own argument. More’s disputations against Luther were not at all at odds with the desires or proclivities of Henry. More, like Erasmus, and Henry were loyal Catholics and held to the historic doctrines and morals of the church. [6]

More’s Arrest, Martyrdom and Death

To modern Americans, where “no fault divorce” is the norm and previously divorced leaders are often elected, the events that resulted in More’s death are hard to understand. It is easy for us to minimize More’s predicament and to make Henry VIII into a complete villain. To understand the reasons for the eventual martyrdom of Thomas More, one needs to give a sympathetic ear to Henry’s predicament. Henry Tudor was not the first son of Henry VII of England. His elder brother was to be king. Catherine of Aragon had first been engaged to Henry’s brother and only became Henry’s wife after his brother’s untimely death. She was older than Henry, and for whatever reason had multiple miscarriages and a son who died shortly after his birth. Thus. she was unable to provide a male heir. [7]

In Henry’s day and time, there were no elections, and if a king died without a male heir there was likely to be conflict until a new clamant to the throne emerged victorious. The Tudor dynasty emerged after just such a period of English history. There was every reason to believe that if Henry failed to provide a male heir, there would be conflict upon his death, a conflict he desired to avoid at all costs.

As a result, Henry was determined to have an heir to his throne. When it became obvious that Catherine was unable to provide such and heir, Henry sought an alternative, which he found in his mistress Anne Boleyn. In order to have an heir by Anne, however, Henry needed to divorce Catherine and marry Anne, having her children declared to be legitimate, which would allow their child to succeed Henry. [8]

Unfortunately, there were obstacles to his plan, not the least of which is that Catherine’s relative, Charles V, was the king of Spain, and the Pope was unwilling to grant Henry’s petition to annul their marriage. [9] In response, Henry declared himself to be the head of the English Church (hence Anglicanism was born) and passed a law through parliament declaring that the child of his marriage to Anne Boleyn, the future Elizabeth I of England, was his legitimate heir. [10]More, as a devout Catholic refused to publicly support Henry.

It is also hard for a contemporary American to fully understand and appreciate the subtlety with which More attempted to avoid martyrdom as a result of his unwillingness to recognize the validity of Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn and the resulting legislation. Fundamentally, his tactic was to remain silent, refusing to give his reasons for resigning is position and refusing to swear a required oath regarding the matters at hand. While refusing to swear and support Henry’s marriage and status has head of the British church, he continually expressed his loyalty to Henry as king. It is difficult in a short blog to express the complexity and subtlety with which he attempted to walk a fine line that would allow Henry to avoid putting him to death for treason. His correspondence and statements reflect a subtle lawyer’s mind attempting to both save his own life, avoid making an oath against his conscience, and continue his loyalty and friendship with the king. In the end, his prominence made it impossible for Henry not to act against him, and he was made a martyr in the cause of religious freedom.

Conclusion

I end this blog with a quote from “A Man for All Seasons” that summarizes the reason why More was made a saint and is a martyr for religious freedom in the political arena:

Since the court has determined to condemn me – God knoweth how – I will now discharge my mind concerning the indictment and the King’s title. The indictment is grounded in an act of Parliament, which is directly repugnant to the law of God and His Holy Church, the supreme government of which no temporal person may, by any law, presume to take upon him. This was granted by the mouth of our Savior, Christ Himself, to St. Peter and the bishops of Rome whilst He lived and was personally present here on earth. It is, therefore, insufficient in law to charge any Christian to obey it. And more than this, the immunity of the Church is promised both in Magna Carta and in the King’s own coronation oath. [11]

More attempted to remain loyal to his faith, to uphold the laws of England from Magna Carta to his own day, and to remain loyal to his king. He succeeded, but it cost him his life. There are some men who cannot be fully understood, only admired. Sir Thomas More is one.

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Zinnemann, Fred. A Man for All Seasons (Columbia Pictures, 1966).

[2] Thomas More, “Utopia” in The Essential Thomas More ed. James J. Greene and John Dolan (New York, NY: Mentor Books, 1967). All quotations in this blog are from this volume of More’s work.

[3] The biographical information herein can be found on the internet in a number of sources, including “Sir Thomas More” in The Ancient History Encyclopedia at https://www.ancient.eu/Sir_Thomas_More/ (downloaded December 3, 2020).

[4] Safire, William, ed. Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History Rev. Ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1997), 328-330, found at http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/moredefense.htm (downloaded December 3, 2020).

[5] The Essential Thomas More, 51.

[6] Henry himself remained a devout, if not very moral, Roman believer for his entire life. His quarrel with the Pope, unlike Luther, was not about the content of doctrine, but about the relative powers of the church and monarchy.

[7] Henry and Catherine of Aragon had one child, Mary, who became Queen for a short time. Her Catholicism made her a poor choice and she was eventually deposed.

[8] Eventually, their child Elizabeth, would be become Queen of England.

[9] Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon were Roman Catholic, and the Church forbade divorce. The Pope at the time, Pope Clement, denied Henry’s request for an annulment for several reasons, one being that Catherine’s nephew, Catherine was the daughter of devout Catholics, Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. Catherine’s nephew was the current Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (also the current King of Spain). At one point, Charles had laid siege to Rome and essentially held Clement prisoner. Henry’s claim that his marriage to Catherine was contrary to God’s will and law because he had been married briefly to his dead brother was seen as fatuous. In any case, perhaps primarily for political reasons, Clement could not or would not grant Henry’s request.

[10] I have neither the time nor the desire to fully set out Henry’s marriages and potential heirs. Eventually, Anne Boleyn was beheaded for infidelity, but she also could not provide Henry with a male heir. Henry eventually married another mistress, Jane Seymour who give him an heir in Edward VI, (born October 12, 1537, London, England died July 6, 1553, London), king 1547 to 1553. He was succeeded first by Edward, then by Mary and finally by Elizabeth. Thus, Catherine’s child became second in line to the throne and Elizabeth third.

[11] A Man for All Seasons, Sentencing Scene. I recommend that all my readers rent this film and watch it.

In writing these blogs, I have tried to alternate those blogs which I regard as abstract and difficult to understand with blogs that are easier for folks to grasp. The difficult blogs are normally blogs on scholars or issues that are complicated and abstract, but which are important for people to try to grasp in order to understand the way forward out of the incipient nihilism of our political culture. This week, I am going to visit and, in some sense, revisit the issue of the reality of universals, specifically Justice.

To some degree, we all believe in the reality of justice. As parents, Kathy and I have raised four children. In each case, there has come a day when each child has said to us, “That is not fair.” It could be about one child getting an extra helping of food at dinner or about a gift given to one child that was larger or more expensive than what was given to another.  It could be about a family decision made by the parents. In each case, the child did not think “I don’t like what my parents have done.” They were saying, “What my parents said or did is not just.” That is to say it was not equitable and fair to the child or children impacted. We are all just like this.

When we say something like a governmental decision is not fair or just, we are not just stating our opinion, we are making a claim about the nature of reality (or at least we think we are). How are we to understand what it means to claim that something is unjust? That is the subject of this blog.

Realism and Nominalism

Let us begin with the notion of universals. There are some words that we apply not to individual material things but to categories of things or to things which are not material. For example, there is no material reality called, “Goodness” or “Truth” or “Beauty.”  There are a lot of such universal ideas, one of which is the notion of Justice. In the history of philosophy there are two basic ways of treating universals: as mere names we give to experiences (nominalism) or as realities that exist independently of our perception of them (realism). There are various schools of thought as to each of these notions, but in the end either universals are real or they are just names.

If we take universals to be mere names, then their reference has to be dealt with reductively in some way. For example, “beautiful” does not mean “You are beautiful and no one can argue with that fact.” It means something like, “I consider you beautiful.”  In the case of morals, “Chastity is a moral good” becomes something like, “I prefer chastity” but it does not refer to a real moral good applicable to all people. In the case of justice, it becomes something like “I approve of this decision because it benefits me or my group.” There is not, however, any ground “in the being of the universe” for opinions about Goodness, Truth, Beauty, and Justice.

Justice and Political Life

These blogs are about political life. If you recall, the ancients believed that the purpose of government was the creation of a just social order. You might remember Augustine’s statement that without justice a government was simply a band of robbers. Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, and most of the tradition of which Christianity is a part thought that justice was something real, that is something that exists independently of what I or anyone else thinks is just. They also felt that government was not simply a matter of getting and using power according to the personal preferences of the ruler or a particular political party. They felt that justice was real and that rulers could be fairly examined from the universal perspective of justice.

Plato, whose thought forms the basis for this blog, thought of Justice as a real thing. He was not, however, unaware that it was not “real” in the sense of being something material or a material force acting upon material things. Instead, for Plato Justice was a form of an invisible reality that existed independently of whatever you or I or anyone else thought was just. Justice was a “form” or a noetic (ideational) reality. This is exactly what Augustine or Aquinas would have thought, with the difference that they would have seen justice as one of those invisible realities that God has created.

What does it mean to be Real?

Plato, in one of his most famous and important passages says the following:

I suggest that everything which possesses any power of any kind, either to produce a change in anything of any nature or to be affected even in the least degree by the slightest cause, though it be only on one occasion, has real existence. For I set up as a definition which defines being, that it is nothing else but power. [1]

In order to understand exactly what Plato is saying, one needs to understand the Greek word translated “power” in English. The word Dunamis” in Greek does mean “power,” but it also means “force,” “strength,” “ability,” or capacity. “Power” can refer to material power, moral power, intellectual, or spiritual power, as it does when referring to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.

We think of power as a material force. This is not at all what Plato or those who followed him would have thought. When Plato says that anything that has power has real being, he is including moral, spiritual, intellectual as well as material, physical power. He is also including ability and capacity as powers which confer reality. Thus, a concept, such as “justice,” that has the ability to shape human activity has a real noetic, intellectual reality. Its content includes but is not limited to the idea of material force as power.

The second thing to notice about this definition is that it does not restrict itself to active power to produce change in another. Things which have the capacity to be changed are also real. Thus, justice is real both because it can change behavior but also because it has the ability to be changed by the thoughts and behavior of human beings. This is another way of saying that justice is a matter of relations. [2] It is a relational concept. Its meaning can and does emerge in the context of human life and human decision-making.

This is where I would like to go back to a point made in prior blogs when discussing the work of the philosophers C. S. Peirce and Josiah Royce. Beginning with Peirce, philosophers began to understand how signs and therefore human thought works in a deeper and more important way. Every claim about reality involves a sign, a signified thing, and an interpreter. If I say, “There is my daughter’s dog” I am using the word “dog” to signify a reality different than the word itself, which is my daughter’s dog. In addition, I am interpreting my complex perception that the object before me is a golden doodle owned by my daughter. Therefore, every communication has a sign, a thing signified and an interpreter.

When I say, “Murder is unjust” I am interpreting with the word “unjust” a complex set of circumstances before me an am claiming that the situation I am describing is not compatible with justice. In the same way, any claim that something is just involves a set of circumstances outside the interpreter, the words that embody the interpretation, and the interpretation of the interpreter. In addition, there is always and must always be a chance that others will look at the same situation and say, “No, this was not murder; it was justifiable homicide.”

More importantly, claims like “This was murder” occur in a particular society with a particular legal system which evolves over time. Over may years of decisions, interpreters have sensed that there are different kinds and degrees of murder. There are some murders that are justified and others that are not. There are defenses to claims of murder. In other words, our justice system is a long, multi-generational conversation about what constitutes justice. Every time a new circumstance arises, every new pattern of facts enriches and grows our notion of justice. This is not true only for our example of murder but for all the myriad kinds of situations in which the phrases “This is just” or “This is unjust” might apply.

The Eternal Conversation

Where a society has ceased to believe in the reality of Justice and in the eternal search to uncover its content and meaning, there are bound to be attempts to impose by power and deceit the conclusions of a particular group or elite. It is only when we recognize that the search for “a just society” involves a conversation concerning emerging situations to which no final answer can be found, but only gradually unfolded during the course of human history, that the wisdom and patience that sustains freedom can be maintained. We see every evidence in our society that the loss of faith in the reality of universals is impacting the honesty and stability of our political and social institutions.

Conclusion for the Week

The status of universals is important. C. S. Peirce thought that the lack of belief in the reality of universals was one of the defining weaknesses of modern thought that undermined, among other things, the search for scientific truth. Science depends upon the critical analysis of a reality that it seeks to understand that exists outside of the mind and emotions of the scientist. In the same way, the search for God, for Truth, for Beauty, for Goodness, and for justice requires that we believe that in some way we are looking for a reality that exists beyond ourselves and the manipulative potential of the human mind. [3]

I am going to be returning to the issue of the reality of universal values before this series is over because I, with Peirce and others, believe that it is of fundamental importance for the modern world and modern societies to recover a belief in their reality. To quote Michael Polanyi:

Those who declare that these ideals have no real substance and that only the interests and power of particular groups are real, inevitably attach their aspirations for equity and brotherhood to the struggle of a particular party for power. Their ultimate reliance and all their love and devotion are attached to this residue of reality, the power of the chosen party. … But if the citizens are dedicated to certain transcendent obligations and particularly to such general ideals as truth, justice, charity, and those are embodied in the tradition of the community to which allegiance is maintained, a great many issues between citizens, and all to some extent, can be left—and are necessarily left—for the individual conscience to decide. The moment, however, a community seeks to be dedicated through its members to transcendent ideals, it can continue to exist undisrupted only be submission to a single centre of unlimited secular power. [4]

As mentioned above, I will return to this theme in the course of these blogs, for it is an important theme for the development and restoration of our democracy. For the time being it is enough to understand that there are real world consequences to our societal loss of faith in the reality of unseen values. As I said in another context: “If there is no such thing as truth and justice, if we are not constrained in our political behavior by a transcendent obligation to seek truth and justice in our political lives with tolerance for other views, then the state can and must dictate these matters. A society which has lost its belief in transcendent ideals has turned onto a road leading to tyranny. If, however, a society believes in the reality of transcendent moral and ethical ideals such as truth, justice, tolerance, and charity, and serves these ideals, the foundation of a free society can be maintained even in the face of conflict and uncertainty.” [5]

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Plato, The Sophist 247e.

[2] This particular notion was suggested to me by, among other persons, Daniel A. Dombrowske, A Platonic Philosophy of Religion: A Process Perspective (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2005).

[3] Charles S. Peirce, The Essential Writings Edward C. Moore, ed. (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1972). For Peirce, the real is that which exists independently of our ideas of it, that is independently of our perceptions, theories, or capacities. Id, at 57. These are noetic realities that exist not in material form but in the human mind. Such general ideas are not infinitely manipulatable but subject to the rules of logic and thought appropriate to the subject matter. Id, at 60.

[4] Michael Polanyi, Science Faith and Society (Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1946), 78-79.

[5] G. Christopher Scruggs, Path of Life: The Way of Wisdom for Christ Followers (Eugene OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014), 160.The term “reality” is used here as referring to intellectual and moral ideals which act as a goal and as an active component of decision-making. These intellectual and moral ideals, such as “Truth” and Justice,” exist independently of our subjective choice and are progressively revealed as we participate in the disciplined attempt to uncover them as part of a community of inquiry and practice.

This week, I decided to do a short Thanksgiving blog on what is known as, “The Mayflower Compact.” Most Americans know something about the journey to America by the Pilgrims and their ship, Mayflower. [1] The Pilgrims initially set sail from England in July 1620 together with its sister ship, Speedwell. Eventually, because of issues with the Speedwell’s seaworthiness, it was left behind, and the Mayflower traveled alone on its long journey across the North Atlantic. The journey was long and difficult. Many people suffered from sea sickness and the close quarters below the Mayflower deck.

After over two months at sea, the Pilgrims arrived at Cape Cod on November 11, 1620. The trip had exposed differences and divisions among the various seafarers. There were differences between the Pilgrims who had left England in search of religious liberty and those who had left only seeking a better life. There were those in the group who desired to enter into the New World without any firm governmental authority.

Originally, the Mayflower was to land in Virginia, an area governed under a Crown Charter given to the Virginia Company. That area was clearly a colony of Great Britain and had a defined form of government. Unfortunately, the Mayflower landed north of the land controlled by the Virginia Company near what is today, Plymouth Massachusetts.  Within this legally uncertain situation, friction arose between the Pilgrims and the rest of the travelers, with some of the latter threatening to leave the group and settle on their own.

There were those who felt that they were free of any agreement or laws that had been imposed upon them in order to travel to Virginia. In order to create some kind of order and avoid chaos, the leaders of the group drafted the Mayflower Compact, which was signed by the travelers before going ashore.

The Mayflower Compact is only 200 words long, and reads as follows:

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

 Having undertaken for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together in a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.

There are aspects of the Mayflower Compact that are interesting to any person with an understanding of what is known as “Puritan Covenant Theology” and anyone familiar with John Locke and the Contract theory of Government.

1. Although the Separatists were not technically Puritans, they had much in common. While the group the Pilgrims represented (“Separatists”) separated entirely from the Church of England, the Puritans felt that they could remain within and reform the English church. Nevertheless, they had certain beliefs in common, one of which was a theological understanding of the term “Covenant” in the Old Testament. The idea of the Bible as characterized by Covenants, agreements and promises between God and human beings, was the central idea of Puritan theology. This Puritan “Covenant” theology was held by many New England colonial leaders.
2. Covenant theology naturally found application in the notion of a “social contract,” which it did. The Pilgrims, Puritans, and others found a connection between the kinds of covenants that God creates with the human race in the Bible and the social covenants that human beings enter into with a lawful governing authority. It was natural, therefore, for the Pilgrims to enter into a social contract to guide their initial entrance into the New World.
3. When the Pilgrims landed, they were not within the boundaries of any established colonies, therefore, they were not within the boundary of an existing or what might be called “naturally evolved” state. Therefore, they had to determine whether to go ashore without any form of political organization or to create one, “for our better ordering and preservation.” They understood, as more romantic contemporary people sometimes do not that a “state of nature” where no authority exists is likely to be a form of social chaos. They chose order over chaos.
4. In creating their social contract, the Pilgrims acknowledged their existing religious and political alignments. They had undertaken the journey for the glory of God and as subjects of the British monarch, whom they acknowledged in the compact. The Mayflower Compact was an evolutionary document, not a revolutionary document. They signers recognized their dependence on the stream of history of which they were a part. They were about do something new, but there was continuity as well as change in the establishment of their new colonial settlement.
5. There is no “iron wall of separation” between church and state in the Mayflower Compact. Religious and political ideas and necessities combine to form one harmonious whole. There is no indication that the Pilgrims intended to form a theocracy. They speak of “such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony” These just and equal laws, ordinances, constitutions, and officers are not described in theocratic terms, but in those terms that acknowledge a sphere of activity in which human reason is left to operate under the guidance of practical wisdom.

As I wish all my readers a Happy Thanksgiving with hopes that my articles might encourage wise and honorable government and some degree of change in the volatile political environment we enjoy today, it is enough to encourage a sense of common destiny among all Americans. We may not be voyaging over the North Atlantic Ocean in a wooden boat, but we are clearly on a voyage into a new era in American political life. We can hope that the end of our journey will be what Lincoln called, “a birth of freedom” in a postmodern age.

Oh, beautiful for pilgrim feet, whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat across the wilderness
America! America! God mend thine every flaw
Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs

[1] The Pilgrims were what are called “Separatists.” The Separatists were a group of English protestants Christians who separated themselves from the worship of the church of England and instead held services in their homes and in other places outside of the official churches of the Church of England. This was not legal under the laws of England at the time. (In this way, England under James I was not unlike Iran and China and other nations today that do not allow house churches not recognized by the state. This seems unusual to Americans, but it is not so unusual in those areas where the state has always regulated religious observances.

Each week, I try to let readers know just a bit about the person I’m reviewing. Last week, I introduced St. Thomas Aquinas to readers. Thomas was born in 1225 at Roccasecca, midway between Rome and Naples. [1] At the age of five, he was entered at the monastery at Montecassino where his studies began. When the monastery became a battle site (as it was in the Second World War), Thomas was sent by his family to the University of Naples. There that he came into contact with Christian interpretations of Aristotle and the Order of Preachers or Dominicans. Aquinas became a Dominican over the protests of his family and eventually went into Northern Europe to study, in t Paris and at Cologne with Albert the Great. Returned to Paris, he completed his studies, became a Master and for three years occupied one of the Dominican chairs in the Faculty of Theology. He spent the next decade in Italy.

Physically, Aquinas was a large man quiet and soft-spoken man, earning him the nickname “the Dumb Ox” by his classmates. The “dumb” part was clearly foolish, as he is one of the most brilliant philosophers and theologians of human history.  In 1274, on his way to the Council of Lyon, he fell ill and died on March 7 in the Cistercian abbey at Fossanova, near Roccasecca where he was born. Before Thomas died, he had a vision, which caused him to remark, “I can write no more. I have seen things which make all my writings like straw.”

Natural Law

Last week, we focused our attention on Aquinas’ notion of “natural law.” The idea of “natural law” is difficult for modern people to grasp. The reason for this is the difference in the way people see reality in the contemporary West and the way in which Thomas would have seen the world. Modern people think of two kinds of laws, mathematical laws, which are deductively certain and scientific laws, which are verified by scientific inquiry. Mathematical laws are certain because they are a matter of mathematical logic. Scientific laws are certain in a different way, they are certain as verified by experiment until disconfirming evidence is discovered, as it sometimes is. To the modern mind, the word “natural” implies “physical and susceptible to scientific analysis. Neither modern idea of certainty involves the kind of reason applicable in natural law theory. Natural law theory is a matter of practical reason.

Practical Wisdom and Government

In order to understand the notion of natural law, it helps to understand a distinction Aquinas makes between theoretical and practical reason. Theoretical reason proceeds from given hypotheses and reaches necessary conclusions. An example of this would be mathematical systems. Practical reason, on the other hand reasons from general principles, but deals with contingent things, like the probable result of some human action (ST I-II, Q 94).

As human reason considers precepts of natural law, it develops the habit of possessing them, so that natural law becomes a matter of character (ST I-II, Q 94, First Article). Thus, natural law is primarily a matter of rule of reason resulting in a habit of action developed by the exercise of practical reason (ST I-II, Q 94, Second Article).

This means that the truth that obtains from practical reason is of a different type altogether from the truth deduced in the process of theoretical or scientific reason. According to Aquinas, in the case of practical reason, its general principles are true for all people, but the conclusions are not. Thus, the certainty of natural law is never the same kind of certainty one has for mathematical or scientific law. The question for practical reason is, “Does this rule of action lead to the attainment of the objective that reason dictates in this situation?”

To make this a bit clearer, let us take a principle like, “It can be dangerous to borrow money.” It is a well-known fact of human existence that people who borrow too much can get into a lot of trouble. In every case, human experience shows that one who borrows money must abide by certain limitations on his or her actions set by the lender. These may be reasonable and achievable or otherwise depending upon he circumstances. It is also true that economic circumstances may change and an inability pay and even bankruptcy may result. On the other hand, in many circumstances, including to build a business or buy a home, it may be necessary to borrow money. The principle is true for all people, but the conclusions differ from person to person.

Government as a Matter of Practical Reason

Government is a practical, not a theoretical enterprise, which is why it should be conducted by persons of significant practical wisdom and experience.  The evolution, design, and conduct of government and law is not, for Aquinas, a theoretical matter. It is practical and requires skill gained by the practical exercise of wisdom. Those that govern must have sufficient practical wisdom that they can apply principles of practical reason to differing circumstances and achieve a just result for the society that they are governing.

The necessity for practical wisdom and experience flows from Aquinas’ observation that truth as to matters of practical reason is only true for human beings as to general principles (like “borrowing money is dangerous”) not as regards particular conclusions (“Our government needs to borrow money to offset the impact of Covid19”). This means that the conclusions of practical reason (unlike mathematics) will always be provisional and subject to change (ST I-II, Q 94, Fourth Article). This is very important for all governments, but perhaps especially important to understand for democratic republics like the United States of America. Without leadership with proven practical wisdom, important and damaging mistakes are bound to be made.

As to practical reason Aquinas concludes “… the truth or rectitude regarding particular conclusions of practical reason is neither the same for all persons or known in equal measure even by those for which it is the same” (ST I-II, Q 94, Fourth Article). The more complex the issue, and the more factors which practical reason must include in its pondering, the more exceptions and differences of opinion that will emerge to any inquirer (ST I-II, Q 94, Fourth Article).

In the case of a wise and well led polity, rules seek the good for the people and avoid laws and policies that are unwise or unjust. They seek the good of the entire society of which they have been made leaders. The laws of the society are not directed towards the good of a single individual (as in tyranny), or a few (as in an oligarchy), or the majority (as in a decadent democracy), but towards ideals of the public good and social peace and good order. That is to say, in a well led polity, the leaders direct their government according to wise precepts of natural law.

The Problem of Unjust Rule

As mentioned above, kings may become tyrants, democratic societies mobs, an elite and oligarchy. If a those in charge of a society make unjust laws, that is laws consistently contrary to nature, they have led their society outside of the boundaries of law and of order towards a common good. For Aquinas, whatever the form of government, the making of unnatural or unjust laws creates a form of tyranny. Tyranny is an unjust form of government, and its laws are not really laws at all (ST I-II, Q 95).

At this point, Aquinas takes a position that would have been nearly unknown and even revolutionary in the Middle Ages, and which anticipates modern developments: In the case of an unjust, tyrannical government, the subjects of such tyranny can, under some circumstances revolt and change their government. Aquinas was not inclined to justify rebellion just because a people felt one or a few proclamations of a lawful authority to be wrong.

As a general matter, however, the subjects of a lawful power owe to their government a duty of loyalty and obedience (ST I-II, Q 104). Thus, “…the order of justice requires that subjects obey their superiors, since stability in human affairs could not be otherwise maintained….”) (ST I-II, Q 104, 183). However, while human beings are morally obligated to obey God in all things, the same is not true of human rulers (ST I-II, Q 104). “Human beings are obligated to obey secular rulers insofar as the order of justice requires. And so, if secular rulers have usurped power, and therefore have no just authority, or if secular rules command unjust things, subjects are not obligated to obey them, except perhaps incidentally in order to avoid scandal or danger.” (ST I-II, Q 104, 183). Thus, an unjust, tyrannical government may be replaced.

The Role of Morality and Virtue in Government

For Aquinas, it is possible to divide the virtues into three main categories: intellectual, moral, and theological. One can easily see that the focus of character development for leaders is upon the second category, which virtues can only be developed by the exercise of practical wisdom. A wise government is oriented towards the achievement of justice and social harmony and has the wisdom and ability to achieve it.

The very use of works like “just” imply that for a government to avoid evil and destructive actions, those that govern must have a set of habits (virtues) that enable them to decide and act wisely. It is not likely that a leader can act justly in the common good without the virtue of Justice. As a result, Aquinas deals with this virtue in his Summa Theologica.

Because of the importance of virtue in leaders, a wise society encourages the development of moral virtue in those who will lead. In this regard, Thomas recovers against the modern world the notion that rulers must be morally prepared by education and the experience of life for the positions that they will have in adulthood. In point of fact, the wisdom to rule wisely is the most complete form of practical wisdom and its wise exercise the pinnacle of the life of practical reason (ST I-II, Q 50 First Article, 201).

Just War

One obvious principle of natural law with which most people agree is that violence and killing are wrong. Thus, war as a human activity is morally and practically suspect as an activity. As, Plato observed, “Every legislator will aim at the greatest good, and the greatest good is not victory in war, whether civil or external, but mutual peace and good-will, as in the body health is preferable to “the purgation of disease. He who makes war his object instead of peace, or who pursues war except for the sake of peace, is not a true statesman” [2]

Despite the universal hatred of war by right thinking humans, it is also a fact of human history and human life. Therefore, one obvious requirement for a wise ruler of practical wisdom is understanding the circumstances that might permit a war to be fought with justice.  War, if it is to be conducted at all, must be conducted with great practical wisdom and a degree of moral restraint. Otherwise, it is injustice on a vast scale.

Aquinas developed the theory of “just war” and gave it its classic form (ST I-II, Q 4, 165). For a war to be just, three conditions must be met:

1. The ruler must have the authority to declare war. There can be no private just war.
2. There must be a just cause for hostilities, that is to say that there must be some wrong that committed or threatened great enough to justify war. The wrong must be real and not just a pretext for going to war on other grounds.
3. Finally, there must be a rightful intention on the part of the one commencing hostilities to promote good or avoid evil. A war designed for gain, such as to control oil fields, would not be just.

This classic statement of the basic conditions for a just war has been much developed but still influences thinkers and actors in the area of war.

Conclusion

As mentioned last week, Aquinas is a most difficult writer for a modern reader who is not trained in philosophy to read. His work is vast and complex. It would take a good deal more time than I have devoted to his work to more than “scratch the surface” of his thought. This week, we have expanded on his thinking about natural law, bringing into the conversation both the nature of the kind of practical reason that a wise governor needs and the characteristic virtues that a leader requires. Finally, we looked briefly at the way in which Aquinas articulates just war theory.

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved.

[1] This is taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/#LifeWork (Downloaded November 9, 2020).

[2] Plato, Laws Tr. Jowett https://books.apple.com/us/book/laws/id501268153 (Downloaded November 12, 2012).

 

Thomas Aquinas (1235-1274) was born into a minor Italian noble family. He entered the Dominican Order early in life. Aquinas attended the University of Naples, where he first encountered the writings of Aristotle, which had been preserved by the Muslims and recently rediscovered in the West. In 1245, Aquinas traveled to the University of Paris where he studied under Albert the Great, who attempted to reconcile Aristotle’s view of the world with that of Christianity. Following Albert, Aquinas spent a good bit of his life working on his master work, The Summa Theologica, in which he created a powerful unification of Aristotle and Christian thought. Eventually, Aquinas became a Dominican teacher at the University of Paris and in Italy. He continued to study the works of Aristotle and the Muslim commentaries on them. Aquinas wrote his own commentaries on Aristotle, including one on Aristotle’s Politics.

Root of Human Government

Like Aristotle and ancient writers generally, Aquinas believed that human beings are by nature social animals and created to live in society with one another as a matter of their innate nature. Human beings also by nature seek both their own good and a common good, both of which require social interaction and some kind of public order. Thus, Aquinas believes that “there can be no good of one’s own apart from the common good, whether the common good of a household or a city or a kingdom.” [1]

Aquinas, like Aristotle, believes human society has an organic or natural origin in human nature in the family and in small villages and communities, not a contractual origin. Human families, communities, kingdoms and empires represent the gradual development of human society and polity over the course of time. Thus, contractual agreements between persons and governments are not a primary but a secondary, emergent phenomenon as regards government.

Given the diversity of human societies, it is not surprising that there are varieties of ways in which human sociality organizes itself. Aquinas, as a student of Aristotle, adopts the same typology has Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero in developing his theory of human government. Aquinas holds that are three basic types of human government, rule by the many, rule by the few, and rule by a single individual. Each of these three typologies have manifestations that reflect human goodness and potential and human sin and failure. Democracy can become mob rule, rule by the wise can become rule by the wealthy or the powerful. Rule by one wise ruler can become a government of tyranny. Although there is some dispute over which form Aquinas prefers, it seems that he, like many ancients, felt that the rule of one with a degree of mixture of the forms is the best and most stable form of government. Thus, Aquinas supports kingship, but with an element of checks and balances.

Nature of Law

The basic institution of society is the rule of law. Without law, it is impossible to organize a peaceful society. Without law, violence would be the only arbiter of disputes. Aquinas outlines four basic categories of law:

1. Eternal lawis God’s divine order, not fully knowable to humans (ST I-II, Q 92, Third Article). This eternal law determines creation, the way things such as animals and planets behave, and how people should The Word of God expresses the Eternal Word (ST I-II, Q 93, First Article). “And so, eternal law is simply the plan of divine wisdom that directs the actions and movement of created things” (ST I-II, Q 93, First Article).
2. Divine law is that divine law promulgated by the Bible, which orders the way in which individuals seek and find a relationship with God and orders their search for ultimate ends (ST I-II, Q 91, Fourth Article). The Divine Law also gives guidance to human beings as to moral matters which human limitations find difficult to observe (ST I-II, Q 91, Fourth Article).
3. Natural law is that law that is implanted in human nature and guides human beings in their day to day activities as they exercise their reason and conscience (ST I-II, Q 94, First Article). This law is related to practical reason, which I will deal with later in this essay.
4. Human lawis very much like what we would call “positive law.”  It is a law promulgated by a lawful authority and varies with time, place, and circumstance. Aquinas defined this last type of law as “an ordinance of reason for the common good” made and enforced by a ruler or government (ST I-II, Q 95, First Article).

The modern world tends to ignore the first three categories and focus only on the final category of law—positive law. What Aquinas calls “eternal law” survives in secular culture only in the form of what we would term “physical law,” and even that category of law has come under attack by post-modern absolute relativists. [2] Divine law no longer has relevance in most secular discourse. For example, the fact that the Bible condemns certain sexual or other actions is not deemed to be relevant for most political discourse. The relevance of natural law is often questioned in the modern world and will be dealt with in an entire section below.

This leaves human or positive law as the only category of law remaining to impact government in its activities, except insofar as physical law might make some laws simply impossible. In addition, “human law” has come increasingly to mean “the preferences of the majority or those powerful enough to impose their will on society.” Once again, in this turn we see the power focus of modernity at work.

Aristotle would not have thought that human or positive law as simply what the majority desired to enact at any particular point in history. Again, a law promulgated by a majority that did not seek the common good, but only the good of a bare majority for the benefit only of the majority would not be a desirable law, for the law was enacted by the action of a mob not of a majority of people seeking the common good. This idea that what legislators do or should do is seek the common good is a good bridge to the idea of natural law.

Natural Law

Natural law as a moral and natural foundation for law is not widely supported by legal theorists or political philosophers. However, there is no element of Aquinas’s system more important than his theory of natural law, which is an important foundation of natural law thinking even today. Understanding Aquinas is foundational to understanding any other proposal for natural law thinking. Therefore, this week’s blog focuses on this aspect of Aquinas’ thought.

As previously indicated, the mere sociability of human beings causes human beings to create governments (ST I-II, Question 95). Human nature inclines human beings to certain kinds of actions and disinclines them from other actions, and the things to which human beings are inclined constitute the natural law (ST I-II, Q 94). Just as human beings seek their own personal good, the sociability of human beings leads human societies to seek some kind of common good, and that common good allows human society to be naturally ordered towards what is best for society as a whole (ST I-II, Q 94). This natural law is a matter of human reason, for human reason properly used seeks a common good that will properly order society towards a common good.

Natural law is not a matter of specific legislation found either in nature or divine revelation. It is a set of general principles that order a society, i.e. general ideas that most human beings would agree upon as natural to organize their society (ST I-II, Q 94, 50). Aquinas realized that not all human beings could or would agree upon these principles, for among other matters, people can simply close their hearts and minds to the natural law, which I would argue our own society has done. By habit, twisted persons do not seek the common good but only their own good or the good only of their particular group. These people have lost the ability to discern the natural law, which requires one be able to seek a common good for everyone. Finally, human beings are finite and can make mistakes and misunderstand what is best for the common good. Thus, what any given human thinks at any given time is not determinative of whether natural law exists or what its precise content might include.

Basic Principle of Natural Law

Aquinas fundamentally sees the natural law as habits of human reason that reflect the rational nature of human beings to seek virtue and goodness (ST I-II, Q 94, First Article). C. S. Lewis describes the ultimate moral and spiritual content of the natural law as follows:

It is Nature, the Way, and the Road. It is the Way in which the universe goes on, the way in which things everlasting emerge, stilly and tranquilly, into space and time. It is also the Way which every human being should tread in imitation of that cosmic and super-cosmic progression, conforming all activities to that great exemplar.” [3]

What Lewis describes in mystical terms as the “Tao” is very much like what in Christian terms we might call “the ultimate content of Natural Law”.

According to Aquinas, the basic principle of natural law is “…that we should do and seek good and shun evil. All the other precepts of that natural law are based on that precept….” (ST I-II, Q 94, Second Article). Thus, Aquinas believes that the basic idea of the natural law is that human beings should seek the common good as well as their own good and avoid those things that impair individual and common good. The kinds of things that can be incorporated into the idea of natural law are (i) actions resulting from the human natural inclination to do good, (ii) natural inclinations leading to actions that humans share with animals, and (iii) inclinations to the good that are part of our reasonable nature (ST I-II, Q 94, Second Article).

Before looking at objections to natural law theory, it is important to ponder its strengths. Most human beings do not think that cold blooded murder, stealing, violence, deceit, failure to pay debts, and a variety of other actions are conducive to their own or the common good. Looking at the categories of governmental types listed earlier, most people do not think that tyranny, rule of the few for their private benefit, or mob rule are conducive to their private or the public good. In some sense it is “natural” for human beings to reject such things as a part of their social order.

In Western societies, we tend to look at the areas of disagreement about natural law and forget that there are a great many matters about which almost everyone does agree. This indicates that there are some things that most people think are right and wrong—a strong indication that there are certain notions of the public good that are universal (or nearly so) among human beings.

Modern thinkers have not been inclined to see the idea of natural law mentioned above to be self-evident. For example, many thinkers, including some Christian thinkers, do not think that there is a “natural good” that humans seek by nature. Our natural inclinations, for example sexual relations between men and women are no longer viewed as “natural” by many people. Finally, while our reason does incline human beings to ordered society, as indicated above, there are vast differences in what people think that rational order might be.

There are no easy answers to these objections. One place to begin is the notion that the fact that a particular aspect of law fails to command universal consent does not mean that it is not something that might well violate natural law. For example, I have many friends that do not think that the activities of some investment banking firms in the mortgage backed bond crisis acted in an improper manner, even when they sold their clients securities that they knew were highly dangerous and unlikely to be paid in full. Under the impact of a kind of radical free market ideal, they see nothing wrong with this kind of behavior. On the other hand, no society can really hold together when investors cannot trust their own financial intermediaries. It is my view that there is something wrong with the views of my friends, something they cannot see because of an ideological prejudice.

For Christians, the notion that all persons are blinded by sin to see the perfect content of truth and some people are blinded by persistent sin explains both the difficulty all people find in perceiving what might be the natural common good for their society and their own personal good as human beings. Finally, the fact that we human beings are finite and often err in what we believe and do, sometimes for long periods of time warns that error can and often does persist for long periods of time until human experience reveals the best content of law.

Conclusion

This is not the end of my time examining Thomas Aquinas. Next week, we are going to look at the role practical reason in this thought and some specific issues, such as his just war theory. This week, we have just covered the surface of his work on politics, the nature of political communities, the nature of law, and the potential of natural law theory to provide a way for human societies to seek the common good.

I want to leave readers with one aspect of Aquinas that we have lost in our society—the idea that human beings are naturally rational and sociable, and therefore are able to discern a good for themselves and a common good for their society. The notion of the common good as something we must seek to the exclusion of power is important to recover in our society.

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Thomas Aquinas, On Law, Morality and Politics Translated by Richard J. Regan, Edited by William P. Baumgarth and Richard J. Regan, Second Edition (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2002), 198. The quote is from the Summa Theologica (hereafter “ST”), ST: Q 47 Tenth Article.

[2] I may return to the potential relevance of this notion of eternal law in a future blog. One interesting proposal in modern physics is the idea of David Bohm that the order we see in the universe (the explicate order) is the “unfolded form” of an “implicate order” that is beyond human perception until and unless it is unfolded” into physical reality. Similarly, one might consider that the eternal order of God, physical, moral, and spiritual, including natural law, is enfolded and implicate in the undivided wholeness of the universe and the transcendent being of God until unfolded by the progress of human society and disciplined philosophical, moral and legal inquiry in response to human contact with an emerging social and intellectual reality. See, David Bohm, Wholeness and Implicate Order (London and New York, NY: Routledge, 1980).

[3] C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York, Collier Books, a division of Macmillan, 1955): 28.

Since we are getting close to Halloween, I decided to go a bit out of sequence and follow the blogs on City of God with one about Luther and his “Two Kingdoms” doctrine, which is a development of Augustine’s position.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) was born in what is today the eastern part of Germany, then a province of the Holy Roman Empire. His father desired him to become a lawyer. As a result of an experience during a thunderstorm, Luther vowed to become a monk, which he did. In 1505, Luther entered an Augustinian Monastery and became a monk. Eventually, he became a professor of theology. As an Augustinian, the work of St. Augustine was important to his formation as a thinker. During his formative years, be became increasingly critical of the theology and practice of the Roman Catholic Church of 16^thCentury Europe.

The Reformation

His intellectual and moral critique of Rome culminated on October 31, 1517 when he posted his famous Ninety-Five Theses on the Wittenberg church door. These theses set out a critique of the Roman Catholic Church. The church immediately opposed Luther’s ideas, and by October 1518, the Protestant Reformation began in earnest. [1]

It is impossible to fully understand either the Reformation or Luther’s political theology without reference to the conditions in Germany at the time. While Luther was critical of the theology and practice of the Roman Catholic Church, the princes and secular leaders of Germany were unhappy with the power of the Roman Catholic Church and the policies of the Holy Roman Empire under which they labored. They tired of the cost of supporting the Roman Church and especially the cost of building St. Peter’s at the Vatican. Many of the German princes backed Luther partly from political motives.

The Two Kingdoms in Luther’s Day

During the Middle Ages, the church and the state formed a kind of unified sovereignty in Europe. Many activities, such as marriage, divorce, family law issues, etc. that we would call secular issues, were not treated as such. The church had earthly governing powers. At the same time, particularly in Germany, tensions had arisen between the princes of Germany, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Roman Catholic Church. One source of tension had to do with the alliance between the leaders of the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church, which the princes of Germany felt was not to their benefit.

Luther’s formulation of the Two Kingdoms Doctrine attempted to carve out two spheres of responsibility, what we would call the “secular” and the “sacred,” and give each its own area of sovereignty and the kind of integrity it needed to accomplish its responsibilities. [2] In so doing, Luther was anxious to allow the church to find the intellectual and moral space to overcome the corruptions he saw in the Medieval Roman Catholic Church. Fundamentally, Luther wanted to separate the activities of the church and princes so that the church might be and become the Bride of Christ it was intended to be without the corruptions of its role in the medieval state. Luther never foresaw nor would he have supported in his own day the modern notion of a “secular state.” The princes of Germany, as he saw it, were simply another set of stewards of God in earthly matters as he was a steward of God in matters of the faith.

If Luther wanted freedom for the church, the German princes had in mind a greater degree of freedom from both Rome and the seat of the empire. They wanted freedom from taxes, indulgences, and other burdens they felt were unjust. In modern terms, their interests were secular. Luther’s formulation of the Two Kingdoms doctrine was not intended to create the modern secular nation state, but in large measure he created a vocabulary and way of thinking that allowed the modern distinction between the secular and the sacred to later on develop. [3]

The Powers of Secular Rulers

It should not surprise anyone that an Augustinian monk would be influenced in his political thinking by  St. Augustine and his distinction between the City of God and the City of Man. Luther adapted the distinction Augustine drew and used it to analyze how God exercises sovereignty through both the church and its leaders and through the state and its leaders. Christians are citizens of two kingdoms, one sacred and the other secular. Luther believed that, under the overall sovereignty of God, each of the church and the state has its own sphere of sovereignty and its own duties within its sphere of responsibility and competence.

In 1523, Luther set out his political views in a tract known as “On Secular Authority.” [4] God rules the City of God through the gospel, the activity of his Spirit in history, and the church. God rules the world through his chosen earthly leaders. God has given earthly rulers the power of the sword to maintain social order and justice. According to Luther’s own thought, the citizens of the kingdom of God would need no secular authority because if the world were composed of all devout Christians, no secular authority would be needed. [5] However, because of human sin and the fact that the world cannot be ruled by grace, the power of secular government is necessary and those who rule must rule with force. [6]

The best way to think about the Two Kingdoms doctrine is to begin with the notion that God is the Lord of All. Christ was sent to save the world through the Gospel, and the church is God’s chosen vehicle for the task of redeeming humankind. This is the first kingdom, what Jesus called, “The Kingdom of God.” In addition to the task of inviting people into the Kingdom of God, their remains the task of ordering concrete human life in an imperfect world. The family, communities, and earthly kingdoms exist to order human life on this earth. God has ordained earthly government in order to maintain peace and basic justice in the world, just as God ordained spiritual government by the word and Spirit to gather men and women into Christ’s kingdom.

I think a pause for analysis at this point might be required. In my view, as indicated in the previous blogs on City of God, the hard distinction between the two cities in both Augustine and Luther, with the resulting separation of law and grace, is the fount of many problems. Had the Fall never occurred, there would still have been the need for secular laws and regulations. Society would still have to determine safe speeds for travel, how safely to design and manage cities, and a host of other problems requiring secular power. This is a part of what is entailed in “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:28). The idea that human beings might have lived in a society without political organization is flawed.

Furthermore, in today’s world, the fundamental principle that underlies the doctrine: that the Christian God is Lord of All and rules the world in two orders is impossible to maintain. The fact is that large numbers of people in Europe and the United States do not recognize any god, and if they do it is not the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the assumption that “God is LORD of all” in the sense that Luther would have understood it  is no longer operative in Western culture. The  secularization of our society and culture requires a reconsideration of what the distinction between the City/ Kingdom of God and City/Kingdom of Man makes for contemporary politics.

Finally, as indicated above, there are many aspects of earthly life that impact human life that cannot be determined solely on the basis of Christian faith. To complicate matters, in our culture there are many people who consider it wrong for the church to even consider that it is responsible for the spiritual or public life of people, even in majority Christian nations.

These factors are why I prefer to think of their being One Earthly City to which all people belong and a group of persons within that Earthly City who follow the Way of Christ and serve their neighbors in self-giving love. These people are not the only members of the Earthly City, but have been set apart by God in a special way to serve the their families, communities, and state  with wisdom and Christ-like love.

The Two Kingdoms and Public Disorder

As the Reformation gained force, rebellion and violence began to spread throughout Germany. The leaders of the revolts were revolutionary and utopian, as well as, in some cases, pretty clearly mentally unhinged. [7] The result was social chaos. Luther was disturbed by this, both because it cast into doubt his own work (some of the worst offenders had been disciples of his) and because of the chaos that ensued. He wrote to the princes of the area encouraging them to act. In his Letter to the Princes of Saxony Concerning the Rebellious Spirit, he said:

Although I expect that Your Princely Graces will know better than I can advise you how to deal with this, it is nevertheless my duty to apply my submissive energies to make a contribution, and I ask Your Princely Graces most humbly to take a serious view of this, and from your responsibility and duty to exercise reasonable force to defend yourselves against such mischief and prevent rebellion. For Your Princely Graces know well that your power and worldly sovereignty are given to you by God with the command that they should be used to keep the peace and punish the unruly, as St Paul taught in Romans 13. So Your Princely Graces should neither slumber nor miss this opportunity. God will demand an answer of you if you neglect to use the sword which has solemnly been entrusted to you. And the people and the world would not forgive it if Your Princely Graces were to tolerate and suffer such rebellious and outrageous violence. [8]

Here we see at work Luther’s vision. The Princes of Germany had been appointed by God to create peace and justice within their domains. It was their duty to act to restore order, and it was Luther’s duty to point out the necessity for action. The two kingdoms were both working in tandem to secure the blessings of peace on the people of Germany. It was not long before the princes did act and violently squelched the rebellion. Before it was over 80,000 people died. Luther himself did not urge the violence, but his name has been associated with it ever since.

The Reformation is, in some ways, responsible for the revolutionary rhetoric and activity that we find present in our society today. Cut off from tradition and faith in historic institutions, a certain number of people respond with revolutionary violence, which eventually must be put down in order to restore public order and peace. Luther (and many like him today) wanted a change in his society, but he also recognized, again drawing on his Augustinian tradition, that governments exist to maintain public peace and justice—and when they fail to do so the entire society suffers.

Bonhoeffer and the Two Kingdom’s Doctrine

During the period before and during the Second World War, the German state church was complicit in the activities of the Nazi regime, eventually being effectively controlled by the Nazi regime. Some thinkers concluded that the radical separation of the roles of earthly and spiritual rulers recommended by Luther was at the root of the problem. [9] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, pastor and martyr, was one of the first to see that the Nazi regime was evil and must be opposed by the church. One writer puts his views like this:

Bonhoeffer’s primary concern with the two kingdoms doctrine as it was being used in his own time was that it allowed for a kind of radical independence of the world from the church, the former understood as secular and the latter as sacred. As Bonhoeffer writes, “This division of the whole of reality into sacred and profane, or Christian and worldly, sectors create the possibility of existence in only one of these sectors: for instance, a spiritual existence that takes no part in worldly existence, and a worldly existence that can make good its claim to autonomy over against the sacred sector.” Bonhoeffer finds this division to be deeply antithetical to the biblical faith and the central insights of the Reformation: “There are not two realities, but only one reality, and that is God’s reality revealed in Christ in the reality of the world.” [10]

The quote from Bonhoeffer included above summarizes my concerns with both the approaches of Augustine and Luther: they create an artificial separation of the one reality of the world created by God, and such a dramatic separation between the sacred and the secular that it is difficult to create a theology or practice that recognizes the either the ultimate goodness of creation and human created powers or the capacity of the Word of God to work a gradual sanctification of the structures of human life. In its secular form it deprives the church and its leaders of the capacity to speak to political matters in ways that encourage secular justice and social peace.

Bonhoeffer believed that the Two Kingdom’s doctrine as it was understood by the German church resulted in its inability to stand and speak against Hitler in a unified and effective way. This failure of the German church can be present in the contemporary church, but in a different way: too close an alliance between religious and secular leaders can result in the cooption of the church and its failure to see and confront sin and evil. This capacity is seen on the right and the left of contemporary religious life and among Christians, Jews, Muslims and other religious groups. On the other hand, a complete division denies the secular order the views of its religious citizens, including Christians.

Conclusion

As these series of blogs continue, we will return again and again to the complex relationship between churches and religious believers and secular authorities. At this point, it is enough to point out that my evolving belief is something like the following:

1. It is a mistake to think of religious faith and political action as separate spheres without recognizing that they interpenetrate one another. Just as we live in one relational world physically, we live in one relational world politically. It is not possible to separate one’s religious beliefs and roles (or lack thereof) and secular beliefs and roles. We all should live one integrated and whole life.
2. Religious people, including Christians, should be free to speak into the secular arena and to participate in the secular arena without artificial or secular imposed limitations.
3. The Vision of the Heavenly City is both a vision and a transcendental ideal that Christian believers serve and seek. (This does not mean that there is no heaven or after-life, nor does it mean that there is no “Heavenly City.” It just means that, so far as our life on earth is concerned, the vision of a perfect city of peace and justice is an ideal towards which we strive, not a reality in which we can now live.) This vision of a society of peace and justice, where the wisdom and love of God rules, is a deposit of faith given to the church to guide its public activities.
4. The Heavenly City becomes part of the Earthly City as believers conduct their public life with practical wisdom and self-giving love for the Earthly City to which we belong, including those with little or no faith or a very different faith than ours.

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] This is not the place to outline the long history of unrest with the medieval Roman Catholic Church that preceded the Reformation. For a long time, many people had criticized the lack of Biblical fidelity and corruption of the church. Luther’s 95 Theses were a match lit on already dry straw.

[2] The very terms “Secular” and “Sacred” would never have occurred to Martin Luther. He was a fully medieval person in which the distinction we find to obvious was both unknown and impossible. His concern was to empower the church to reform itself, not to reform the Holy Roman Empire.

[3] This is not the place to engage in this line of thought, which I will develop further in future posts. The secular state is a creation of the Enlightenment and Modern World. Its gradual development was given impetus by the religious wars in Europe after the Reformation, which caused many people to lose faith and to desire some kind of separation between secular and religious leaders. Their goal was to allow for social peace in the face of religious diversity—a problem we face today.

[4] See, Martin Luther, Secular Authority: To What Extent Should It Be Followed, trans. C. M. Jacobs, in Works of Martin Luther, vol. 3 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1930).

[5] Id at 225-273.

[6] Id.

[7] I am basing some of this analysis on Eric Metaxas, Martin Luther: The Man who Rediscovered God and Changed the World (New York, NY: Viking Press, 2017), see Chapter 16: Fanaticism and Violence, pp 311-336.

[8] Martin Luther, Letter to the Princes of Saxony Concerning the Rebellious Spirit (June 1524), https://andydrummond.net/muentzer/PDFs/luther_letter_princes.pdf (downloaded October 14, 2020)

[9] I will return to this point before these blogs are over. Not all scholars, and especially Lutheran scholars agree with this analysis. They would hold that those who were corrupted by the Nazi regime misread Luther.

[10] Jordan J. Ballor, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “The Two Kingdoms, And Protestant Social Thought  Today” La Revue Farel Vol. 6/7 (2011-12), 67. The citations are from Deitrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics trans. Reinhard Krauss, Charles C. West, and Douglas W. Scott, ed. Clifford J. Green (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 57-58 (https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=367099102068003121066067095127027107038049048023079045090090084025028117024113026112053049038042059099045107068071098103118028020036071089003016114009124107088092052093054079118024104019087121000000123123118016094066078024077107074108087067123067117&EXT=pdfdownloaded October 21, 2020).

 

 

 

St. Augustine (Aurelius Augustine or Augustine of Hippo) lived from 354-430 A.D. He was born in North Africa, educated in Rome, studied philosophy, and became a Christian in the year 388 at the age of thirty-one. Three years later, he was made Bishop of Hippo in what is today Algeria in North Africa, where he spent the rest of his life. He is recognized as a thinker foundational to Roman Catholic thought and Doctor of the Church.

In the year 410, when Augustine was 54 years old, Aleric the Visigoth entered Rome, and for three days his barbarian troops sacked the Eternal City. This was an event of profound importance for the Roman Empire and Western Civilization. Many histories date the decline of Rome from this event. Almost immediately, pagan writers complained that the Christian faith was responsible for the terrible event. To writers such as Volsianus, the event signaled that Christianity, with its crucified God and preference for peace, was responsible for the event. Augustine spent almost the remainder of his life writing City of God (circa 426). [1] The book is addressed to his friend, Marcellinus, who first brought the need for a response to the attacks of the pagans to Augustine’s attention.

The Two Cities

Augustine begins his analysis with his most basic and most famous distinction—a distinction between the “City of God” and the “City of Man.” The first is the city of Christ founded by love and entered by faith. The second is the earthly city founded by violence and conquest. The City of God is the Heavenly City made up of those who believe in Christ and worship him alone as its King and Founder. The Earthly City is founded on the lust for domination that has motivated the actions of human empires since the beginning of time. [2] This radical dichotomy between the City of God and the City of Man sits at the basis of the analysis Augustine offers of the Roman Empire and its decline.

Let’s begin with a short look at the notion of the church as the Heavenly City and some of the distinctions that Augustine makes in his analysis of the two cities. In Revelation, John sees a vision of the church coming down from heaven:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people,and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away” (Revelation 21:1-4).

The heavenly city which John saw descending from heaven is the New Jerusalem made up of those who worship God in “Spirit and in Truth.” [3] It is the Bride of Christ, dressed as a bride make ready for her new husband, which is Christ (v. 2). It is the church. This is where another distinction Augustine makes is important: He distinguishes between the church in heaven that rests from its labors (the church triumphant), and the church on earth that continues to witness to Christ in history (the church militant). At the end of history, these two churches will become one Church Triumphant.

Here is a point that is not clearly dealt with in City of God: The Heavenly City is present in and a part of the Earthly City. The decent of the Heavenly City is the church present and active in human history. Believers in Christ are not some separate tribe or nation, one of many religions and people in the world. It is present and active among all the nations and peoples of the world. Augustine often draws too great a distinction between the two cities. The human race is one people within which those who follow Christ are to be found. If one sees Israel as the church present in the Old Testament this is also clear. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the other patriarchs until the founding of the Kingdom of Israel were believers in the LORD God while sojourning and residing as aliens in other nations. The same is true during the captivity and when Israel was part of the Babylonian, Greek, and Roman empires: the people of God were part of two cities, one their city of faith and the other their city of residence.

Augustine, in my view unfortunately, draws and almost irreconcilable distinction and opposition to the character and destiny of his two cities. There were those in Augustine’s day, and there are those in our own day, who did and do not believe that secular life and the life of faith can be reconciled. This is not the case. While the Heavenly City seeks a peace that can only be found by faith, it accepts and even uses the peace of the Earthy City. [4]

The Peace of the Two Cities

The Earthy City seeks an earthly peace that is important for all people on earth, including Christians:

So, too the earthly city which does not live by faith seeks only an earthly peace, and limits to goal of its peace, of its harmony of authority and obedience among its citizens, to the voluntary and collective attainment of objectives necessary to human existence. The heavenly city, meanwhile—or rather that part that is on pilgrimage in mortal life and lives by faith must use this earthly peace until such times as our mortality, which needs such peace has passed away. [5]

The Earthly City seeks a human good when it seeks social harmony and peace through the means at its disposal. Christians, while they are on earth, seek the same kinds of peace in their human life, and so make use of these human goods for heavenly purposes. Human existence is made better and more livable by the attainment of its earthly ends. The Church seeks the good of every earthly city of which it is a part and, in many respects, the same earthly peace non-Christians seek. In other words, within any concrete society, Christians and non-Christians are often seeking the same thing: that social peace that can only be found when there is justice and a fair social order.

Because the City of Man is founded on the discipline of human striving, it is dependent upon the ceaseless vigilance of its members to retain those virtues, martial and otherwise, upon which it depends for its existence. For Augustine, the rise of Rome was an earthly blessing caused by its form of government, warlike society, and discipline. [6]The Fall of Rome, likewise is the inevitable result of the decline of those virtues that made Rome great.

This is no less true today in America than it was in ancient Rome. Christians are not only responsible to maintain Christian virtues, but responsible to be Christians while supporting those virtues that make for social peace within the society in which they are found.

The Tolerance of the Heavenly City

In Augustine’s day, as in our own, there were those who complained about the exclusiveness and the difference Augustine draws between the earthly and heavenly cities. The Heavenly City is not a closed and exclusive society. The Heavenly City is a universal city, and is held together by a common faith, not by common customs, laws, traditions and the like:

So long, then, as the heavenly City is wayfaring on earth, she invites citizens from all nations and all tongues, and unites them into a single pilgrim band. She takes no issue with diversity of customs, laws and traditions whereby human peace is sought and maintained. Instead of nullifying or tearing down, she preserves and appropriates whatever in the diversity of diverse races is aimed at one and the same objective of human peace, provided only that they do not stand in the way of faith and worship of the one supreme and true God. Thus, the heavenly City, so long as it is wayfaring on earth, not only makes use of earthly peace but fosters and actively pursues along with other human beings a common platform in regard to all that concerns our purely human life and does not interfere with faith and worship. [7]

There could not be a more eloquent defense of religious tolerance and the willingness of Christians to cooperate with all people of good intentions than this quotation sets out. Christians are drawn together not by racial or cultural ties, but by their common faith. The invitation to become citizens of the Heavenly City is not limited to those of one race, nation, or set of customs. The diversity of human customs, laws and traditions are human goods, part of the Earthly City.  Christian faith makes no judgement about these things so long as they are religiously neutral and not against notions of justice. Furthermore, the Heavenly City not only tolerates but works for the same human goods as does the earthly city, so long as its worship and internal customs are not at stake.

As Western society continues its process of secularization and a sometimes aggressively pagan culture emerges, Christians have much to learn from Augustine’s attitude. As members of a nation and community, we have the same desire for social peace as to non-Christians. We desire the same level of justice as do other groups. We should not only tolerate but actually celebrate the differences of custom and tradition that compose post-modern society. The only “red line” for Christians is the protection of our own freedoms to live according to Christian morality and worship God according to the customs of the Christian faith.

Conclusion

Next week, I will continue with Augustine’s City of God. The focus next week will be on the notion of Justice and how the idea of Peace, which lies at the foundation of Augustine’s political theology supports his notion of the kind of justice that the two cities seek for their citizens. I want to continue to analyze the way in which Augustine’s radical separation of the earthly and heavenly cities can have unhealthy implications for the way in which Christians relate to others in a secular society such as ours.

[1] St. Augustine, City of God tr. Gerald G. Walsh, S.J. et all, abridged ed. (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1958), hereinafter “Image Edition.” Unless otherwise specified, all quotes come from this edition. When noted, quotes may come from St. Augustine, City of God tr. Henry Bettenson (London, ENG: Penguin Books, 1984), hereinafter “Penguin Edition.”

[2] Image Edition, at 40-41.

[3] In John 4, when Jesus meets the woman at the well, she tells him that the Samaritans worship God on Mount Gerazim and the Jews on the Mount in Jerusalem. In response, Jesus says, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:21-23). This indicates that the “New Jerusalem” will be the human heart and not a physical place.

[4] In his last communication with his disciples, Jesus tells them that he gives them peace, but not a peace that is identical to that peace that the world gives: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid” John 14:27).

[5] Id, at 464.

[6]

[7] Id, at 465.

Marcus Aurelius (121-180 A.D.) succeeded his adoptive father, Antoninus Pius, as Emperor of Rome in 161, reigning until his death in 180. As a young man, he was interested in sports and other activities, but was attracted to Stoic philosophers at an early age. He is the author of one of the most famous books of ancient wisdom, the Meditations.[1] At least a part of his Meditations was written during the last years of Marcus’ life, a period of almost constant military activity. He died in Austria during a military campaign in March 180 at the age of 58. He probably never dreamed that his little book of sayings, written for his own edification, would become a classic of ancient literature. As with Cicero, in Marcus Aurelius we experience the reflections of a person who is active in public life.

The Meditations are difficult to summarize because they consist a series of not always interconnected passages written over a long period of time. I am going to emphasize a few aspects of the thought of Marcus Aurelius important for political philosophy. Before launching into that task, it is important to begin by noting the humility of the writer. Marcus begins his Medications with a series of attributions, giving thanks for his parents, grandparents, teachers, friends, and others for all the gifts and the example they set for him. In particular, he gives thanks to his father for his character and to his brother Severus, from whom he learned that classics and “received the idea of a state in which there is the same law for all, a state administered with regard for the equal rights and equal freedom of speech, the idea of kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed.” [2] Here we see the view that freedom is not only to be protected in democracies but in all wise forms of government.

A Rational World

For Marcus, as for Stoics generally, there is a rational order to the world. The world embodies a “universal nature,” and everything in the world exhibits and reflects that nature, “…for the universal nature is the nature of all things that are; and all things that are have a relation to all things that come into existence. And, further, this universal nature is named truth, and is the prime cause of all things that are true.” [3] The universe embodies a created rationality that is, and should be, reflected in both nature and society.

The universal nature has both moral and social significance. Those who act contrary to universal nature or reason act with impiety and irrationally, which is bound to be destructive either of the world or of human society, which participate in this universal nature. This aspect of Stoic thought was much criticized by Cynics, since there is a great diversity both in physical nature and in the human societies built upon that nature. However, to Marcus, the universe displays a kind of order that should not be violated, and the one who violates it “fights against the nature of the universe.” [4]

A World of Relationality

There are aspects of Marcus’ thought that are surprisingly “post-modern,” contrasting starkly with the mechanical world view of the modern era. Marcus sees that all things are related and part of a whole that cannot be dissected without loss. Thus:

This you must always bear in mind: what is the nature of the whole, and what is my nature, and how this is related to that, and what kind of part it is of what kind of whole, and there is no one who can hinder you from always doing and saying the things that are in accord with the whole of which you are a part. [5]

In this quotation we see much of the wisdom and understanding of the writer: First, there is an order to “nature,” defined as the system of being in which every individual is immersed. This nature is both physical and social. Second, the wise person has to understand the environment he or she is in, what makes up that environment, and what is his or her relationship to the whole.

Based on this insight, Aurelius urges his readers to;

Consider frequently the connection of all things in the universe and their relations to one another. For things are somehow implicated with one another, and all in a way friendly to one another, for one thing follows in order after another and this is by virtue of their active movement and mutual agreement and the unity of their substance. [6]

Our world is a world in which all things are related to one another, and the wise person constantly considers the nature and implications of these relationships. In addition, what will be is implicit in what already is. Present reality is constantly passing away into what will be and is implicit in the new reality to follow. Finally, there is a religious dimension to this, for “All parts of the world are interwoven with one another, and the bond is sacred.” [7] This notion that the world is relational and sacred is a part of the stoic belief that God is a part of all the entire universe.

A World of Constant Change

Another of Aurelius’ foundational ideas is found in the previous quote: the world is constantly changing. The universe and any society in which an individual finds his or herself is one of constant change. In this respect, Aurelius is an organic and process thinker as opposed to a mechanical thinker. Thus, he says:

Observe constantly that all things come about by change; accustom yourself to reflect that nature of the universe loves nothing so much as changing things that are and making new things from them. [8]

No one, not even an emperor, can be successful or wise without an awareness of the reality of constant change. One might say that for Aurelius, like modern process thinkers, the fundamental reality is change. The attempt, so common in the modern world, to achieve “an end to history,” i.e. some perfect state of political and social organization, is doomed. All that can be done is to live and govern faithfully within the boundaries of the circumstances in which one finds oneself.

For every individual, there is an arrow of time in this constant change—an arrow that leads from birth, through maturity, and onwards towards death. Just as the Psalmist urges God to “teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom” (Psalm 90:12), Aurelius urges his readers to recognize their mortality. The arrow of time for all men, Alexander the Great and the lowliest slave, is the same—an arrow of time that leads from birth to death.

A Social World

This infinitely complex and delicately interwoven world is designed for social relationships and cooperation as much as for conflict. This is true of nature and of society:

As it is with members of unified bodies, so it is with the rational beings that exist separate, but are designed for co-operation. You will realize this more if you say to yourself: ‘I am a member of a system of rational beings.” [9]

Marcus Aurelius would agree with Aristotle that human beings are by nature social. Thus, “The primary principle then in men’s constitution is the social.” [10] This insight is much different from the modern notion that the individual is primary, that society is made up of autonomous individuals, and that social life is fundamentally a constant conflict for power. Rational cooperation, not conflict, lies at the foundation of a sound social order.

The social order of the world is one of the foundations of wisdom and of morality. The wise and good person recognizes that all of his or her actions are a part of the order of the world and influence the world for good or ill:

As you yourself are a component part of the social system, so let every act of yours be a component part of social life. Whatever act of ours then has no reference either immediately or remotely to a social end, this tears asunder your life. [11]

Here is a relational principle that strikes at the root of the problem of the individualistic ethos of the modern era in which people see themselves as self-seeking and independent. The entire idea of the detached individual is irrational because we are all component parts of a social whole which involves our family, friends, co-workers, neighbors and fellow citizens. It is not enough to think of myself or my own advantage, for every act has a social impact and therefore a social end. The idea that I can seek my personal best interests and have a society that is stable, is simply wrong.

Universal Commonwealth of Humanity.

Marcus’ subscribes to the Stoic ideal of a universal commonwealth.  He expounds on this idea as follows:

If the faculty of understanding is common to us all, the reason also, through which we are rational beings, is common. If this is so, common also is that reason which tells us what to do and what not to do. If this is so, there is a law common to all men also. If this is so, we are fellow citizens and members of some political community, and thus the world is in a way one commonwealth. [12]

This is an important stoic principle that illustrates a difference between the thought of Cicero and Marcus Aurelius from Plato and Aristotle.  The world is not fundamentally divided into Greeks and Barbarians or Jews and Gentiles. There is a common humanity, bound together by one common nature that causes us to be part of one commonwealth, whatever commonwealth we happen to be a part of at any one time. In this, Marcus and Stoic thought in general is similar to the Christian notion of the brotherhood of the human race. In this insight we see a break with tribalism as the primary form of political organization.

Marcus does not identify this universal commonwealth with the Roman Empire, which as Emperor one might think he would. Instead, Marcus is aware that though we are a part of one human race and a commonwealth of rational people, we find ourselves as part of a local political unit to which we owe loyalty.

Serenity in a World of Constant Change

A world of constant change, the way to achieve wisdom and serenity begins with accepting what comes. The wise person is satisfied with their place in life and does not hurry from place to place or activity to activity. [13] There are limits to human striving, and the wise person respects those limits. As a general matter, Marcus urges human beings to do those things that it is their social duty to do and to avoid things that are not necessary, and which lie outside their social duties.

The serene person does not think too seriously or often about what others think, especially critics. “How much trouble he avoids who does not look to what his neighbor says or does or thinks, but only what he does himself that he may be just and pure.” [14] Instead of constantly desiring more and different things, true serenity is found in retiring into one’s self and being happy with the circumstances in which one finds oneself: “Remember then to retire into this little realm of your own, above all do not distract or strain yourself, but be free and look at things as a man and as a citizen and as a mortal.”  [15]

Too often, we consider striving, success, and personal accomplishment as central to social life. Our political system is based on the notion that good policy decisions are made in an essentially conflictual process dominated by irreconcilable alternatives. The nature of the process created out such a notion traps politicians and political leaders in a process and life-style that excludes the search for serenity and personal wholeness. If anyone might be trapped in such a situation, it would be an emperor of Rome. Nevertheless, by embracing an essentially rational, relational, and social notion of political life, Aurelius seems to have found serenity and personal wholeness in the midst of a busy life.

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Marcus Aurelius, “Meditations” in Marcus Aurelius and his Times; The Transition from Paganism to Christianity, tr. George Long (New York, NY: Walther J. Black, 1945), pp 11-133). All quotations are from this edition of the work.

[2] Id, at 14.

[3] Id, at 91.

[4] Id. I believe that this idea of a rational order to the universe and to a well-founded and ordered society is an important part of any project of reconstructing a wise and moral society.

[5] Id, at 22-23.

[6] Id, at 63.

[7] Id, at 69.

[8] Id, at 40.

[9] Id, at 69.

[10] Id, at 71.

[11] Id, at 96.

[12] Id, at 34.

[13] Id, at 58-9. This is the hardest part of this blog to write. The nature of Marcus’ work means that it is filled with many aphorisms that are applicable to everyday life.

[14] Id, at 38.

[15] Id, at 34.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-53 BC) was a Roman statesman, lawyer, and scholar who played an active role in the politics of the late Roman Republic, including during the period of the First Triumvirate (Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus) and the Second Triumvirate (Marc Anthony, Octavian, and Lepidus), both of which he resisted hoping to restore the Roman Republic. He was killed by supporters of Mark Anthony. Thus, Cicero was the most prominent defender republican principles during the series of crises that led to the establishment of the Roman Empire.

Cicero is included in this series because of his status as the foremost Roman philosophical and legal theorist. Having lived prior to the emergence of Christianity, he forms a bridge between the classical and Christian aspects of this series of blogs. Finally, Cicero is included because he was not only a theorist but an active politician, whose views are informed by practical experience. He attained high positions in the Roman Republic and was successful in his endeavors until the emergence of Caesar and the end of the Republic.

Cicero’s “On the Commonwealth” (hereinafter, “Commonwealth”) is a dialogue between Roman political intellectuals and leaders, all practical people of the world with strong intellectual qualities. [1] The Commonwealth is characterized by its organic look at the evolution of the Roman constitution through the time of Cicero, and its defense of this historical approach. In many ways, The Commonwealth shows that it is the reflection of a lawyer. This is seen in the sometimes tedious (to the modern reader) description of the intricacies of Roman law. Nevertheless, its approach reflects the methods of a practical lawyer, who meticulously builds his case with the evidence at hand, in this case Roman Constitutional history, as well as a person with philosophical training and capacity.

The Value of the Practical Man of Affairs

As might be expected in a book by a stateman, Cicero begins by a defense of the man of practical accomplishment. The art of politics is a practical art, and theoretical knowledge is of limited value if not put into practice. A statesman is greater than a teacher because he or she puts into practice in the affairs of a commonwealth the ideas of those who have only theoretical knowledge. This is a matter of risk, for in desperate times the people of a commonwealth will sometimes turn against the statesman, and the potential for failure and tragedy is ever-present. Cicero experienced this very fate.

In defending the art of the statesman, Cicero returns to a metaphor used by Plato in the Statesman: that of a pilot. The knowledge that a statesman needs is not the intricate knowledge of philosophy that a scholar must possess, but that level of knowledge that the pilot of a ship has as to the sciences involved in sailing, i.e. sufficient knowledge to guide the ship safely to its destination. In this regard, those with purely theoretical understanding may sometimes think that they are better qualified to guide the ship of state in a crisis than the person of practical experience. This is untrue, because:

You cannot aid a state in moment’s notice or when you wish, although she is faced with great danger, unless you are in a position to do so. It has always seemed especially strange to me in the discourses of the learned, that men who admit that they cannot pilot the ship when the sea is calm, because they have never learned how nor troubled about such knowledge, nevertheless declare that they will take the helm when the waves are highest. [2]

Thus, the statesman is a practical workman with the special skills of understanding the structure and functions of government as well as the means by which it can be maintained. In order to be successful, the statesman requires both knowledge and experience such that when the opportunity for leadership arises, the statesman is ready to serve the commonwealth.

The Nature of a Commonwealth

According to Cicero, a true commonwealth is not just a gathering of human beings, but a voluntary union of a great number of people as a result of a common understanding of how they might be governed. Commonwealths are formed because of the natural instinct of human beings to seek social bonds and intercourse with other human beings. In other words, Cicero agrees with Aristotle that human beings are social animals. [3] Government does not fundamentally arise as matter of the gaining of power over human beings with an eye to defense, but out of the natural human desire for social connection with others.

For a commonwealth to exist, it must have institutions of government that reflect the will of those who brought the commonwealth into existence. Some form of appropriate deliberative authority relevant to the people and circumstances that brought the commonwealth into existence in the first place must be created. The precise nature of this form of government can, and has throughout history, been different in different historical and cultural circumstances.

This leads Cicero to the adoption of the three-fold category of governments adopted by Plato and Aristotle: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy with their three decadent forms, tyranny, oligarchy, and mob rule. So long as capable and just persons rule, each of these forms can be successful, though all are unstable. Thus, there is a natural tendency for monarchy to become tyranny, aristocracy oligarchy, and democracy mob rule.

The Mixed Form of Government

This leads Cicero to the recommendation that the best form of government is mixed in its form, having appropriate elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Any other form is inherently unstable and degenerates into its own negative form. It is the mixed form in which the benefits of each primary form can be maximized, and the negative attributes of each form minimized, to the benefit of all citizens. Near the end of the dialogue, Cicero observes:

For you should master the principle that I set out at the beginning: Unless there is in the state such an equal distribution of legal rights, functions, and duties that the magistrates possess an adequate power, the council of the chief men an adequate influence, and the people an adequate measure of liberty, the balance of the commonwealth cannot be preserved unchanged. [4]

In other words, because all the primary forms of the state are essentially unstable, their needs to be a “fourth form of organization” (mixed government). Returning to the image of “statesman as ship pilot,” it is the business of the statesmen to for see the weaknesses of the constitution of the state and to remedy any weaknesses before they can become fatal:

It is the business of the philosopher to understand the order in which these changes occur; but to foresee the impending modifications, and at the same time to pilot the state, to direct its course, and to keep it under control, is the part of a great statesman and a man of all but godlike powers. [5]

The mixed state is the fourth form that can assist in maintaining the stability of the commonwealth.

In setting out the basis of a well-designed mixed form of government, Cicero begins in the place one might least expect of a Roman—with the consent of the people. There must be some representative function in the well-formed commonwealth because if the people have no say in their government it will be inherently unstable, vulnerable to tyranny and revolution. What makes monarchy and aristocracy so susceptible to corruption and ultimate revolution is the absence of real power in the hands of the common people.

Thus, a mixed form of government begins with some kind of representative democracy, because if the populace is involved in the choice of leaders and the development of policy, the state will be more stable than if the people have no say in the government—which is a form of tyranny. From this perspective, Cicero understands that democracy, with all its faults, is the foundation of any stable form of government. [6]

Despite its advantages, the democratic element cannot survive alone. For stable and wise government to exist, there needs to be a level of experience in those chosen to actively lead the state. There can be no haphazard or random choice of leaders. Those chosen must not be inexperienced or incompetent pilots, they must be capable and experienced. [7] There must be some level of experience, practical wisdom and moderation of conduct for leaders to wisely lead a commonwealth through the perils of history. While a monarchy is capable of providing such an executive function, Cicero believes that some kind of aristocracy is the best practical alternative for the wisest leaders to be chosen with the least danger of error. [8]

Times of danger are the most demanding and call for leadership of a different character than that which is necessary in normal times. In this situation, Cicero defends the practice of a constitutional dictator and the centralization of power in times of danger:

For you may play the fool as long as you have nothing to fear, as on a ship in calm weather and often in disease when it is not critical. But the passenger calls for a single skilled pilot when the seas begin suddenly to rise; and the invalid calls for a single doctor when his illness takes a turn for the worse. [9]

Democracy, in and of itself, is not stable and can and does degenerate into the worst form of government—the violent rule of the mob which has no respect for person or property. One is here reminded of the French revolution and its horrible excesses. [10] In the United States, from Lincoln through George W. Bush, wartime Presidents have often been “granted” powers that would not be given to a leader in other times. [11]

No form of government, not even a benevolent monarchy of the wise and just ruler, can provide the kind of balance and adaptability that a mixed form of government is capable of producing. Thus, Cicero concludes:

For I hold first that there should be a dominant and royal element in the commonwealth; second that some powers should be granted and assigned to the aristocracy; and third that certain matters should be reserved to the people for decision and judgement. Such a government insures at once an element of equality, without which the people can hardly be free, and an element of strength. [12]

A mixed form of government, wisely-formed under these principles has the best chance to remain strong and survive the fortunes of history. There is, however, once circumstance under which no form of government can survive: the degeneration of its leadership.

The Leadership of the Sound Commonwealth

As indicated at the beginning, one of the most attractive features of Cicero is his practical experience and lack of sympathy with some of Plato’s utopian and unworkable suggestions, such as the holding of all women and property in common, which he views as ridiculous. The best governments are not the creation of a single person, however gifted, but of the cooperative efforts and the experience of many capable people. [13] The slow generational evolution of Roman law and polity is one good example of this notion of generational cooperation. Cicero is suspicious of the innovations of a single person and inclined to trust the slow, organic evolution of governmental institutions.

Rome was made great not by individual genius but by the wisdom, discipline and cooperation of many people over a long period of time. This is a message that we, living in a “revolutionary cultural era” where the history and traditions of our own commonwealth are often denigrated in schools, in academia and in the popular media might well consider the value of the slow adaptation of fundamentally sound institutions over a long period of time. This cannot happen if we are led by the inexperienced in life, the unfaithful to our history and tradition, and the uninterested in the past and its lessons. This week, one of the major parties has been busily suggesting that massive changes might be needed in the form of our government if they do not win a particular political battle. [14]

Role of Justice in the Commonwealth

Finally, it would not be right to end this blog without emphasizing the role that justice plays in Cicero’s thought. He was well aware of the arguments of the sophists who did not think that any transcendent ideal such as justice exists. He was aware of those who thought that the ideal if justice was incompatible with the wise exercise of power by a leader to achieve goals. He was aware of the tendency to see justice as simply the utilitarian result of the balance of interests. Nevertheless, Cicero believes that justice is an important value. Because human beings are sociable, they are inevitably interested in being treated fairly, and a society based on injustice would be impossible to maintain. Self-interest is not a guarantee of a sound society. Indeed, if nothing but self-interest exists it is impossible to envision how a sound society can exist. Justice forms the basis of a sound society and is the basis upon which any sound polity is formed. [15]

Conclusion

It is impossible to summarize the depth and ingenuity of Cicero’s thought. He is one of the most important constitutional thinkers of world history and important to our founding fathers and to thinkers like John Locke who were important to the formation of the American democracy. His practical approach is a true “bottom up” approach to political thought.

Cicero is best remembered for his ultimately doomed attempt to save the Roman Republic from its demise under the pressure of the greed and lust for power of men like Julius Caesar, Mark Anthony, Octavian and the like. He was unsuccessful in his struggle against historical and political forces beyond the control of a single voice. Perhaps he simply could not see beyond the history and traditions of the Roman Republic, which he so loved, into a new era characterized by some kind of new political organization that would preserve the best of the old republican form of government while adjusting the political reality of Rome to the existence of its new empire. Nevertheless, he was one of the most important statesmen of history and a model for our day. Therefore, I will give him the last word in the explanation of his life and thought:

The pilots aim is a successful voyage; a doctor’s health; a general’s victory. Similarly, the goal set before the ideal ruler of the commonwealth is the happiness of his citizens; and he strives to make them secure in their resources, rich in wealth, great in renown, distinguished in virtue. This is the task—the greatest and noblest in human life—that I would have the governor carry through to completion. [16]

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Cicero, On the Commonwealth tr. George Holland Sabine & Stanley Barney Library of the Liberal Arts, ed. (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1929). All quotes are from this edition.

[2] Id, at 111.

[3] Id, at 129.

[4] Id, at 185. This is the chief principle of the mixed state and of the separation of powers.

[5] Id, at 134.

[6] Id, at 135-6.

[7] Id, at 137.

[8] Id, at 139.

[9] Id, at 140. In the case of Rome, they obeyed their magistrates in times of danger and even appointed a single ruler I times of great emergency. One is reminded of the singular powers that Lincoln adopted during the American Civil War when the union was in mortal danger. At the time, he was even called a “dictator.”

[10] Id, at 148-149.

[11] The alleged misuse of the national security apparatus at the end of the Obama administration against an incoming President seems to have marked the end of the willingness of the public to grant the administrative state the relatively unlimited use certain powers which arose out of the aftermath of “9-11”. One can see in the way in which the Bush Presidency ended the historical antipathy of Americans to any kind of security apparatus that interferes with personal liberty. The recent changes in FBI and other agency policies with respect to “unmasking” citizens is a positive movement back towards some kind of “Pre 9-11” norm.

[12] Id, at 151.

[13] Id, at 155. He critiques Plato’s “arbitrary” creation of an “imaginary state.”

[14] Recently people like Nancy Pelosi, Alexandra Octavia-Cortez and others have used anti-democratic, revolutionary rhetoric in response to perceived political setbacks. The threat to impeach the President or pack the Supreme Court if the Democratic Party does not get to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice after the election  is a good example of  immature and dangerous speech and behavior. by elected officials in response to a potential political setback. The media is also responsible for this kind of immature behavior, as in Don Lemon’s recent comments on “Blowing up the entire elite” on CNN. For a stable society to exist there must be some agreed upon boundaries, especially among political contenders, that acts as a moral barrier against ultimately harmful speech and behavior. in a free society, this cannot be mandated, but it can be demanded by the public which desires to maintain free, democratic institutions.

[15] Id at 219.

[16] Id at 247.

This week, I want to share a few thoughts derived from Plato’s Statesman. [1] The Statesman is one of Plato’s later dialogues. Those who study the dialogue sometimes believe it reflects a decline in Plato’s dialogical style and intellectual capacity due to age. Nevertheless, the Statesman represents the fully-developed thought of Plato on matters of political philosophy. One explanation for the character of the Statesman is that it represents a mature Plato, disinclined to restate the utopian idealism of the Republic and perhaps disillusioned by the bitter experience of a long life.

Who is the Statesman?

The Greek title of the dialogue is, “Politikos,” which we might accurately translate “Politician,” except that the term as used by Plato is better translated, “Statesman,” for Plato does not mean by his analysis to talk about the technique of the politician but of the qualities of the experienced, practical and moral leader of a polity. Plato wants to talk about the ideal leader not about the run-of-the-mill politician.

In English, the term “politician” refers to anyone who is active in political life. In English, the term “politician” often has a derogatory connotation. A politician is frequently described as someone who is solely concerned with gaining public office without reference to political or moral principles. It can even mean one who in any kind of organization gains advancement in ways that are morally questionable.

The role of rhetoric in the character of the mere politician is dealt with by Plato:

STRANGER: The members of all these States, with the exception of the one which has knowledge, may be set aside as being not Statesmen but partisans, —upholders of the most monstrous idols, and themselves idols; and, being the greatest imitators and magicians, they are also the greatest of Sophists.

YOUNG SOCRATES: The name of Sophist after many windings in the argument appears to have been most justly fixed upon the politicians, as they are termed. [2]

The term “sophist” refers to a person who uses the art of rhetoric in a deceptive or misleading way without concern for the truth or accuracy of what is being said. Much of modern political thought is pure sophistry, made worse by the lack of concern for truth in the media and other institutions of society.

On the other hand, in English the term “statesman” refers to a politician who is also accomplished in matters of the state—someone with a particular kind of practical and theoretical wisdom, knowledge, ability and expertise in directing political affairs, and especially where important policy issues are concerned. For example, Abraham Lincoln was a politician with the ability to be elected President, but also demonstrated the capacities of a stateman in directing the United states though the American Civil War. A statesman is concerned with advancing the public good regardless of short-term political gain or loss. In the Statesman, Plato is concerned with the qualities that mark a true “statesman,” not a mere “politician.”

Qualities of the Statesman

As indicated above, for Plato, as for us, the defining quality of a statesman is practical wisdom in the achievement of the end of a political unit, an end which for Plato is assumed to be what we would call a well-constructed and led political unit that is able to achieve for its citizens the safety, affluence, and order that is the goal of a wise leader.

For Plato, the art of the statesman is the art of the architect and builder, that is the art of envisioning and constructing a good society. This metaphor of builder is not, however, the only metaphor Plato uses, for the statesman is also like a ship’s pilot guiding it safely through a long voyage, or like a physician that prescribes a cure for a sick patient, or like a weaver who weaves a piece of clothing. Each of these examples involve practical occupations requiring knowledge, skill and experience for their accomplishment. Thus, for Plato, the statesman is one who has the required understanding, technical ability to govern, and experience to wisely lead the state. [3]

Of the moral qualities of a statesman, Plato outlines two contrasting qualities that must find a balance in the life of a statesman: Courage and Temperance. Thus, Plato remarks:

In like manner, the royal science appears to me to be the mistress of all lawful educators and instructors, and having this queenly power, will not permit them to train men in what will produce characters unsuited to the political constitution which she desires to create, but only in what will produce such as are suitable. Those which have no share of manliness (active courage) and temperance (wise calmness in action), or any other virtuous inclination, and, from the necessity of an evil nature, are violently carried away to godlessness and insolence and injustice, she gets rid of by death and exile, and punishes them with the greatest of disgraces.[4]

The wise stateman has the capacity for courageous action and the ability to moderate action in order to achieve the harmonious goal of society. Going back to my earlier example of Lincoln, Carl Sandburg described Lincoln as a man of “steel and velvet,” a reference to his moral, intellectual, and political will and strength, as well as his compassion for those who he led.

The most famous metaphor used by Plato to describe the Greek statesmen is the metaphor of the “statesman as weaver.” This particular metaphor is developed by Plato as a way of showing the contrasting qualities of the statesman:

The rest of the citizens, out of whom, if they have education, something noble may be made, and who are capable of being united by the statesman, the kingly art blends and weaves together; taking on the one hand those whose natures tend rather to courage, which is the stronger element and may be regarded as the warp, and on the other hand those which incline to order and gentleness, and which are represented in the figure as spun thick and soft, after the manner of the woof—these, which are naturally opposed, she seeks to bind and weave together in the following manner:…” (emphasis added). [5]

According to Plato, this spinning and weaving is the activity of the divine muse in human nature guiding the statesman in his activity for the common good. [6]

The education of the stateman is fundamentally concerned with creating the proper character so that the state will be in good hands. Educators will seek to moderate in their pupils the active and the passive virtues:

I said that there would be no difficulty in creating them, if only both classes originally held the same opinion about the honorable and good;—indeed, in this single work, the whole process of royal weaving is comprised—never to allow temperate natures to be separated from the brave, but to weave them together, like the warp and the woof, by common sentiments and honors and reputation, and by the giving of pledges to one another; and out of them forming one smooth and even web, to entrust to them the offices of State. [7]

The Status of Law and the Statesman

There is no area of the Statesman in which the weaknesses of the Greek notion of the relationship between law and politics is more evident than in the critique that Plato makes of the relative importance of law and the political leader. It is this weakness that may underlie the end of the city/state and the inability of the unified Hellenist Empire to survive the death of Alexander. The Greek ideal of leaders and leadership undermined the role of law and of the maintenance of constitutional order in Greek thinking, a deficiency that was only remedied by the emergence of Roman leadership and Roman law.

Plato’s lack of sympathy for the rule of law is boldly stated in more than one place. For Example, in one interchange between the Stranger (who I take to be Plato) and Socrates it is plainly said:

“STRANGER: And any individual or any number of men, having fixed laws, in acting contrary to them with a view to something better, would only be acting, as far as they are able, like the true Statesman?

YOUNG SOCRATES: Certainly.” [8]

The ideal of the statesman who acts contrary to law is was a danger to Greek polity—and it is a danger in contemporary America.  It is no coincidence that the emergence of what is sometimes called the “Imperial Presidency” in the years after Roosevelt, and what is often called the “Activist” Supreme Court coordinates with the emergence of a willingness on the part of elites to ignore the plain wording of the Constitution and of the law to gain an advantage or address an issue. The willingness to be governed by the will of an elite as opposed to law was a threat to Athenian democracy and it is a danger to our own.

I have had other opportunities to critique the “great man” theory of history and the tendency of modern politics to revolve around a discussion of the qualities of a leader as opposed to policy matters. [9] Both the moral qualities of a leader and his or her commitment to the rule of law and the order of the political system are important. It is a mistake to think that a good leader can overcome systemic issues without great sacrifice and the constant danger of failure.

Types of Polity

Plato, like Aristotle, divides the forms of government into three types, with each type having a counter-type. The three main types are monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, with each type having a degenerate from: tyranny, oligarchy (plutocracy), and mob rule. Plato, like Aristotle, is tempted to seek the best form of government as the mean (aristocracy):

The government of the few, which is intermediate between that of the one and many, is also intermediate in good and evil; but the government of the many is in every respect weak and unable to do either any great good or any great evil, when compared with the others, because the offices are too minutely subdivided and too many hold them. [10]

Plato in the Statesman is still too tied to the ideal of a “philosopher king” that we will see when we look at the Republic, some time from now. This leads him to prefer an aristocratic form of government, ignoring the practical wisdom that is often not found in those born to privilege.

Limits of the Platonic Vision

The vision of Plato and Aristotle, as previously noted, was deeply formed by the Greek City/State and by the Greek ideal of the perfect “warrior king” exemplified in the Iliad. By the time of Aristotle, that ideal had simply come to an end, for by that time the city/state was a political form passing from history with the emergence of the Macedonian and then Alexandrian empires. The limitations of the Greek city/state as envisioned by Plato and Aristotle are a particular challenge for one who, like the author, is inclined towards a communitarian, “bottom up” polity. The fate of the city/state is a warning that local governmental units, as important as they may be, are not the only important units.  The proper construction and leadership of a nation such as the United States of America, which has a world-wide economy and a web of political and economic alliances that stretch around the world, is also a matter of supreme importance.

Just as the polity of the Greek city/state had to bend before the power of Rome, Macedonia, and the example of the great Eastern empires of the Middle East, local and regional governments must be adjusted for the reality of the post-modern world and the existence of the modern state. In the attempt to emphasize the importance of the family, neighborhood, city, region, state and national government does not mean that larger political unites are not important nor does it mean that international arrangements are unimportant. The point is that their health cannot be divorced from the health of smaller units of society.

I am not going directly on to deal with the Republic at this moment in time, but will return to it later on in this series of blogs. The next blog will be on Cicero.

Copyright 2020, G, Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Plato, Statesman tr. Jowett (Apple Books. https://books.apple.com/us/book/statesman/id498684133, downloaded on September 16, 2020). All references to Statesman in this blog are to this edition.

[2] Plato. “Statesman” previously cited.

[3] This is a place where I think Plato can become confused, for he emphasizes the mental qualities of the statesman in the beginning of his dialogue, sometimes to the detriment of a focus on practical wisdom.

[4] Plato. “Statesman.” Apple Books. https://books.apple.com/us/book/statesman/id498684133 (downloaded September 16, 2020). I have added the parentheticals “courage” and “gentleness” which are in my mind better words to describe the qualities desired.

[5] Plato, “Statesman” Apple Books. Previously cited. I do not have the time to go into detail concerning this metaphor and how it is used by Plato, but it is one of the unique features of the dialogue and unique to the Greek weaving industry.

[6] “The meaning is, that the opinion about the honorable and the just and good and their opposites, which is true and confirmed by reason, is a divine principle, and when implanted in the soul, is implanted, as I maintain, in a nature of heavenly birth.” Plato, “Statesman” Apple Books. https://books.apple.com/us/book/statesman/id498684133

[7] Plato, “Statesman” Jowett tr. Apple Books. https://books.apple.com/us/book/statesman/id498684133 (downloaded September 17, 2020).

[8] Plato, “Stateman” previously cited.

[9] See, G. Christopher Scruggs, Centered Leading/Centered Living: The Way of Light and Love (The Tao Te Ching for Christ-Followers) rev. ed. (Cordova, TN: Booksurge, 2016), xxvi-xxvix, 114-119.

[10] Plato, “Statesman” previously cited.

 

This week, I am looking at Aristotle’s Politics, probably the most important book on political philosophy from the ancient world. Aristotle’s views are important, not only in their own right, but because they profoundly influenced the greatest of the Middle Age philosophers, St. Thomas Aquinas, through which Aristotle has continuing influence in Roman Catholic and other intellectual circles today. Pragmatists have appreciated Aristotle’s approach to politics when compared with the idealism of Plato. A generation of contemporary ethicists and political philosophers, such as Alister McIntyre, have been influenced by Aristotle’s virtue approach to politics and ethics in attempting to address modern nihilism. In other words, Aristotle is worth reading.

Aristotle was born in Macedonia. His father was a court physician for Alexander the Great’s father, Philip II of Macedonia. Aristotle lived beyond the reign of Alexander, who was his pupil for a time. When Alexander died, his empire was divided, and the parts were eventually incorporated into the Roman Empire. As a result of repercussions of Alexander’s death in Athens, Aristotle was forced to flee in order to avoid the same fate that overtook Socrates—an untimely death.

Aristotle’s work is the concluding achievement of Classical Greek civilization. Aristotle, unlike Plato, does not begin by attempting to outline a perfect society but by describing the various kinds and types of polities with which he is familiar. In this sense, Aristotle is a “bottom up” inductive thinker. His reasoning is careful and his recommendations measured. As a result of his approach, his politics is easier to follow than that of Plato.

A modern reader will find aspects of Aristotle’s thought troubling. He defends the institution of slavery, despite misgivings. His notion of the family places males in control of family life. He is dismissive about the capacities of women. Like Plato, Aristotle inherits the ancient martial Greek ideal from the Iliad that forms part of his understanding of politics differently than that of a modern person. Nevertheless, his work is illuminating and important.

Types of Governments

The most famous observation in Aristotle’s Politics is his division of governments into three basic types: the rule of one (monarchy), the rule of the few (oligarchy), and the rule of the many (democracy). Each of these types have a corresponding decadent form: tyranny for monarchy, oligarchy for aristocracy, and mob rule for democracy. Each form in its positive embodiment tends to deteriorate into its negative form. Historically, each of the six governments has existed and continues in some form to exist today.

Graphically, one might picture Aristotle’s description as follows: [1]

Good Form	Decadent form	Comment
Monarchy	Tyranny	Rule by one
Aristocracy	Oligarchy	Rule by the able
Moderate Democracy	Mob Rule	Rule by the many

The American founders, and especially Madison and the most important framers of our Constitution, were familiar with Aristotle and with his concerns for Tyranny, Oligarchy, and Mob Rule. One reason why the notion of Separation of Powers was important to them was the desire to block the emergence of tyranny, oligarchy, or mob rule.

On the other hand, the framers of the Constitution were aware of the need for a strong executive, wise and experienced counsel, and representation of all. Their initial way of assuring the positive aspects of Aristotle’s categories was the Presidency (strong executive), the Senate (wise counsel chosen by local leadership), and the House of Representatives (democratic representation). One might add that a wise federal court system is an aristocratic feature of almost every system of government, since all governments must have laws.

The Social Foundation of Government

Aristotle understood that the development of political structures is contextual and the precise nature of a sound polity will differ from city/state to city/state. Like Plato, Aristotle sees the family as the original political unit of society. After the family, small villages composed of the descendants of a single family evolved. In Aristotle’s mind, when villages gather together to form a single society, one has the best possible form of government. Such a society is on a human scale. In addition, such a society protects the family as the foundation of all healthy human society. The city/state and empires evolve from the smaller units that preceded them.

According to Aristotle, the family is the fundamental unit of any sound society. He thinks that natural parents are the best persons, indeed the only citizens who can and will properly raise their children. He thinks that those philosophers that advocate that all children in a society being in common are engaged in foolishness. As Aristotle aptly observes: “Let each citizen then in the state have a thousand children, but let none of them be considered as the children of that individual, but let the relation of father and child be common to them all, and they will all be neglected.” [2]

Aristotle believes that the evolution of the city/state was a natural result of the human social impulse. Human beings are by nature social animals. [3] Aristotle quotes Homer for the view that a human being who is without a society, without a social surrounding, without a family, is really not fully human. People who grow up without a healthy family influence are inevitably at least somewhat antisocial, quarrelsome, and socially  irrational. Those who grow up without a family or in seriously dysfunctional families lack the fundamental emotional and moral qualities needed for a sound society. Thus, it is important for to protect and properly structure human family relations. We might not agree with the precise way in which Aristotle suggests that families be structured, but his insight remains valid.

The Importance of the Middle Class

Although Aristotle appears to prefer a form of aristocracy, he actually speaks favorably about a mixed form of government containing elements of all three of his basic types. He recognizes that this kind of government is difficult to achieve without a strong, vibrant middle-class. Without a strong middle class, there is a tendency for governments to degenerate into either oligarchy or mob rule.

This is a feature of Aristotle’s thinking that contemporary Americans also need to consider carefully. Over recent decades, the American middle class has consistently shrunk as a percentage of the population. During this same period, American society has developed attributes of a kind of oligarchical rule. Under these circumstances, a vibrant democracy is difficult to maintain.

Moral Foundation of the City/State

Another feature of Aristotle’s thinking that deserves consideration is the importance of moral qualities in leaders and in society as a whole. Aristotle does not believe any form of government can succeed unless its leaders and citizens are properly educated and have the requisite skills to make wise decisions. Without literacy, judgment, and understanding of public policy, and a respect for the foundations of a society, a stable government is impossible to sustain.

Aristotle is a realist concerning human nature and human weaknesses. Human beings are flawed; and therefore, all human endeavors are flawed, including human governments. Therefore, it is not enough for those who would have a good government to concentrate of human potential. There must also be a dispassionate examination of the reality of the human situation.

Aristotle’s views of politics are related to his ethics in a fundamental way: ethics is related to politics, and politics related to ethics. Aristotle did not separate, as modern thinkers are inclined to do, the practical art of governing (“real politik”) and morality (“idealism”). Because human beings are social, there can be no division between politics and morality. As indicated earlier, the state exists because families gathered together to provide a kind of secure life impossible without social intercourse. Sound morals can only arise in sound families and societies, and sound government, can only arise where there are sound human beings. Governments, when they are good, make a good life possible for individuals. No government can endure if it is led by the violent, the immoral, or the unjust.

This is yet another aspect of Aristotle with contemporary relevance. As I have mentioned before, modern politics, and especially since Marx, has been dominated by the hope of an earthly paradise in which all the problems of human society and history are solved and a just society achieved once and for all. In this sense, modernity is platonic. Wisdom and attention to the reality of the human situation argues for another approach, embodied in Aristotle’s thought: slow, wise progress founded in an appreciation of human weaknesses as well as human potential.

The Role of Education in the Good Society

It logically flows from Aristotle’s views of the family, raising children, and the importance of character, that the education of citizens and leaders cannot be ignored. Aristotle does not believe, as moderns often do, that education is the be all and end all of human advancement. Education alone cannot create neither good citizens nor wise legislators. Thus, “…whosoever shall introduce any education, and think thereby to make his city excellent and respectable, will be absurd, while he expects to form it by such regulations, and not by manners, philosophy, and laws.” [4] Aristotle understood the limits of education, but nevertheless recognized its importance, especially for a functioning republic. [5]

The problem with relying upon education for the stability of society is that education alone cannot form character. This is particularly true for modern “value free” education. Unfortunately, our American system of education not only does a poor job of transmitting the history, traditions, and moral values of our society, it too frequently consciously or unconsciously undermines them. The problem of political violence in our culture is exacerbated by a kind of nihilist education, particularly prevalent in the liberal arts, that undermines all belief in the reality of love, beauty, truth, justice, goodness, courage and the other virtues. Aristotle, however, recognized that a stable state of whatever kind required leadership and citizenry educated in the history, traditions, virtues, and values of the society.

A Political System as Evolutionary and Adaptive

Plato, as mentioned in a previous blog, has a static view of the good society. His search is for an unchanging ideal. Aristotle has an “evolutionary” notion of society. He recognizes that change and adaptation is inevitable and necessary. Thus,

Nor is it, moreover, right to permit written laws always to remain without alteration; for as in all other sciences, so in politics, it is impossible to express everything in writing with perfect exactness; for when we commit anything to writing we must use general terms, but in every action there is something particular to itself, “which these may not comprehend; from whence it is evident, that certain laws will at certain times admit of alterations. [6]

Despite this acknowledgement of the need for laws to change because of changing circumstances, Aristotle does not think it wise to change existing laws without good cause:

“For a law derives all its strength from custom, and this requires long time to establish; so that, to make it an easy matter to pass from the established laws to other new ones, is to weaken the power of laws.” [7]

The wise legislator is both willing to change laws when necessary and reluctant to do so without good cause.

There is a balance to be drawn between the conservative impulse to maintain the status quo and the liberal impulse to change things. A wise leader and government manages the pace and degree of change with the goal of adapting the system to change as well as creating necessary and important change.

Teleology and Political Ideals

This aspect of Aristotle’s thought coordinates with his teleology. Aristotle believed that things tend towards their proper end, including human society. Modern thought tends to be interested only in material causes, powered by a kind of evolutionary faith that those who succeed are those favored by the path of survival of the fittest. Both ideas are important to consider and combine in one’s thinking.

However true in the arena of biological evolution, is a flawed approach to politics and human life. As I like to observe, “If the human race destroys itself in a nuclear holocaust, it will turn out that cockroaches and sharks are the fittest because they might survive.” Because we are conscious beings, created in the image of God, human beings have the capacity to create and form a future inspired by faith, hope, love, fortitude, truth, justice, and temperance. Thus, no purely mechanistic or evolutionary approach to human society can succeed—in fact it is doomed to create foolishness and suffering, as Communist and “Social Darwinist” regimes clearly show.

Aristotle’s approach to government begins with the “teleological” goal of a society in which people can achieve the ends for which they were naturally created—the good life. This aspect of his thought needs to be recovered in a post-modern form. Going back to an observation of a couple of weeks ago, C.S. Peirce divided evolutionary growth into three kinds: chance, order, and love. This love part he called, “agapistic” evolution. The notion that a kind of self-giving, justice-loving, truth-seeking, preserving and adapting, love may be part of the evolution of the world allows the observation that human societal evolution needs to be guided by a kind of agapistic search for a good society in which all can achieve their potential. This, however, is the subject of a future blog.

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] I have chosen “Moderate Democracy” for the good form of democracy that Aristotle calls, “Polity” and “Mob Rule” for the decadent form Democracy, because Aristotle’s language is so much different than modern language. He uses “Democracy” for the unbridled rule of the masses, often irrational, moved easily to violence, and imprudent. He uses “Polity” for the form of government we would call “Republican Democracy”

[2] Aristotle, Politics: A Treatise on Government Apple Books. https://books.apple.com/us/book/politics-a-treatise-on-government/id395545349(downloaded September 7, 2020). Aritotle is dismissive of Plato’s radical and unworkable ideas concerning marriage, family, and child-raising. The parts of the Politics in which this is discussed contains some of his most acerbic comments.

[3] If Aristotle’s most famous idea is the division of kinds of political systems, his most famous quote is, “Man is a social animal.”

[4] Aristotle, “Politics: A Treatise on Government.” Apple Books. https://books.apple.com/us/book/politics-a-treatise-on-government/id395545349(downloaded September 7, 2020).

[5] This aspect of Aristotle’s thinking is also relevant to the modern “regulatory state.” Regulations are necessary as a part of government, but they cannot by themselves create the character and circumstances in which a good society develops and endures.

[6] Aristotle, “Politics: A Treatise on Government.” Apple Books. https://books.apple.com/us/book/politics-a-treatise-on-government/id395545349(downloaded September 7, 2020).

[7] Excerpt From: Aristoteles. “Politics: A Treatise on Government.” Apple Books. https://books.apple.com/us/book/politics-a-treatise-on-government/id395545349 (downloaded September 7, 2020).

This week, I am taking a trip into history to look at Plato’s Laws, Plato’s last work in the area of political philosophy, which may have been incomplete at his death. I am leaving his more famous work, “The Republic,” until later in this series. The Laws is not considered one of Plato’s best works, perhaps as a result of age and declining powers of concentration. (I can relate.) It is set as a dialogue between three men, a Spartan, a Cretan, and an Athenian walking from Cnosis to the Temple of Zeus on a hot summer day. As with a reading of any ancient writer, while there is much in the book to ignore or object to, there are also insights as applicable today as in the time of Plato.

Virtues and the State

As a result of the Enlightenment and the development of modern “Political Science,” there has been a tendency to ignore or push to the sidelines the moral basis of a sound political system. If one were to write a book of”scientific” political philosophy today, one would not spend  time listing virtues, and especially not on the virtues of war. However, in Plato’s day, the development of physical and emotional skills for the conduct of war and the maintenances of a state were necessary to be discussed.

We are probably very near the end of the period of history. in which the moral qualities of leaders (as opposed to development of a  “politically correct character”) of leaders can be ignored.  The decline of Western democracies, accompanied by the decline of the societies that have adopted a “morally neutral” approach to education and politics, gives every indication that the secular project is coming to its end.

The Spartan state was designed to endure a perpetual state of war. In the dialogue, the Cretan state is similarly focused. The Athenian city/state, on the other hand, was concerned with all the virtues, and not just with the virtues of war. Peace and the virtues of human society rank first in the Athenian hope for political life. Thus,

Every legislator will aim at the greatest good, and the greatest good is not victory in war, whether civil or external, but mutual peace and good-will, as in the body health is preferable to “the purgation of disease.” He who makes war his object instead of peace, or who pursues war except for the sake of peace, is not a true statesman. [1]

The modern ideal of “moral free” education, in which children choose their own “lifestyles” is far from Plato’s ideal. For Plato, the first duty of the state is to provide an education and environment in which children honor God, their parents, and the laws of their society. Education is not to create radicals inclined to defy laws and tradition, but to nurture citizens who “naturally” follow the laws, support society, and upheld the traditions of their city/sate. Moral education, together with reading, writing, music, mathematics, and gymnastics are all part of the education of a good Greek citizen. The ultimate goal of the education of the future leadership of a nation was, in Plato’s mind, the cultivation of wisdom, temperance, justice and courage, without which no state can endure.

We might make a pause to contemplate the difference between the Platonic ideal and American reality. We tend to think that education should create “independent individuals.” Often public schools, colleges, universities, and graduate schools do not consider it their responsibility to form the character of their students.  Plato, however, regards the first and primary duty of educators to be the creation of good citizens. Plato’s vision, to which I will return in analyzing The Republic, emphasizes the social and moral aspect of education in the development of the individual as a citizen, and thereby places less emphasis on individual development of the private “self,” modern education may not pay enough attention to an education that develops a good citizen.

Perhaps the there is a balance to be found between individual self-development and social cohesion. Modern “value free” education is unlikely to create citizens with the virtues of wisdom, temperance, a sense of justice, and courage. We need a new and different, “constructive post-modern” theory of education. This is also a theme to which I intend to return.

The Community of the Polis

A second aspect of the Laws that immediately interests a contemporary reader has to do with the kind of overt social engineering in which Plato engages. Once again, a critique of this method will come later when I look at The Republic, but for now, it is enough to observe that a good deal of the Laws concerns a detailed description of an ideal state in which everything is regulated by law and law provides an order for property allocation, marriage, holidays, social intercourse, public and private property, education, music, drama, and all of cultural life—and all of it regulated with a view towards creating a society that is stable, unchanging, and healthy for its human inhabitants. Plato does not give enough emphasis to freedom, change, the evolution of social institutions and the adaptation of such institutions to changing reality. [2]

While the Laws does not have the same focus on the creation of an ideal state as does The Republic, Plato is still trying to logically outline a completely structured society from first principles. This is very much unlike Aristotle, whose Politics is more oriented towards the observation of actual human societies and commentary on them. It is this part of Plato that one finds most irritating, unless one is inclined towards social engineering by elites, which I am not.

Some of Plato’s ideas were ludicrous when developed, as Aristotle observes. Others have been seen to be foolish over the long history of the human race since Plato. Most surprisingly, Plato often fails to see the value of the slow, incremental evolution of a society and polity. He is often seeking a “once forever” organization of society, which is a fool’s pursuit. This is surprising, because as is seen below, he is well aware of the gradual evolution of Greek political systems.

The Origin of the State

Plato understood that human history extends far back into time and political organizations have changed and differed from place to place and time to time. Unlike modern Americans, who tend to think of democracy as a given, Plato understands that there have been various forms of government throughout human history. Democracy is only one, and not the most common.

The first governments were those of familial, usually patriarchal rule. Plato understood that all of the splendor of Hellenist politics evolved from the family, which is the first form of human government. Generally, their laws were the customs of their ancestors, but adaptation to changing circumstances required chieftains and laws. The original, small local political units s arose out of the union of single families, who survived into larger and larger units.

As people increased in number, and agriculture developed, families joined together against danger, human and animal. Out of this primitive organization, the city/state gradually emerged. In other words, unlike the modern mind that sees a social contract and individual assent at the foundation of political entities, Plato sees that governments are organic. They have evolved from the demands of circumstances and human necessity. Although he fails to see that they will continue to evolve beyond what he sees as the best Greek model, he does see that what is has an antecedent that must be understood. Here too, Americans may have a lot to learn from Plato.

In the earliest states there was both an element of compulsion (parents, the strong and the militarily gifted ruled) and democracy (good parents are never tyrants and kings were subject to being over thrown). Thus, the fundamental forms of government are rule by the one and rule by the many, monarchy and democracy. [3] No actual government has been fully one or the other, and the attempt to create a pure form of one of the primary forms of government is unwise due to human flaws.

Interestingly, the Founders debated the issue of how much democracy and how much monarchy they desired for the new nation they were forming. Many thought Washington should, or inevitably would, become their king. Washington, however, was committed to the republican ideals of English thinkers such as Locke. At the constitutional convention, he supported, and the delegates adopted, an executive branch with a strong President, having independent powers. The President would be both the head of state and the chief executive of the nation, with all the powers of the executive branch of government, while the legislative power belonged to Congress. In this way, the Founders hoped to overcome the weaknesses of both democracy and monarchy. [4]

A Balanced Polity

Having said that there is and excessive idealistic quality about Plato’s Laws, he does have insight into the human condition and the problems of human society. Plato is aware of the defects of human nature. He outlines a theory of balance of powers based upon the tendencies he sees in human nature and in those who have access to political power. While Plato is not a democrat, or fond of democracy, he sees the need for the common people to have a say in their own destiny. On the other hand, like Aristotle (and the Founding Fathers), he is concerned about the tendency of democracy to deteriorate into mob rule and the oppression of the minority.

This is a warning we can easily apply to contemporary politics. In America, there is nothing more popular than the notion that the majority should rule. However, those who drafted our Constitution were careful to create structural impediments to the tyranny of a majority. The founders lived close to the experience of the French Revolution, and they were concerned that American not follow its example. They had read deeply in history and in political philosophy and understood that democratic majorities could often be moved by emotion and fear with terrible consequences.

One interesting facet of contemporary American political life is the emergence of a group of people who did not live through the Second World War, what is called the “Cold War,” and who have no memory of the deaths of millions and millions of people under Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot Pol, and others. In each of these cases, a majority came to power and simply obliterated anyone who stood in their way. Unfortunately, the rhetoric far-left politicians and groups today is identical to the rhetoric that brought misery and death to millions upon millions of people.

Balanced Leadership

Plato was the inheritor of the virtues of the Iliad, where the courage of the martial life was an assumed good. Nevertheless, the virtues of an Achilles were not the sole goal of Plato in the creation of a leader. Plato believed that to be a good statesman requires sober prudence, and a depth of understanding, with the goal of maintaining the peace of society. Such a person does not automatically emerge. A sound education is necessary to create the kind of character fit to lead a sound polity. The goal is “a perfect citizen who knows how to rule and how to obey” not “wealth or strength or mere cleverness.” [5] Such a person embodies the virtues necessary for a sound polity.

As becomes clearer in The Republic, Plato is inclined to see a kind of monarchy as the best form of government, in his case a “tyranny of the wise.” The problem, which Plato sees, is that power easily corrupts the virtues of prudence, practical wisdom, courage, teachability, temperance, love of justice, and the other virtues good leaders need, even among the wise and well-educated. Plato recognizes that no human leader embodies the virtues of the perfect leader—only God, he says can rule wisely and finally cleanse the human race of the evil of bad government. In this, Plato anticipates a Christian view of the secular state.

Plato also warns against a danger to which all forms of government, but particularly democracy, are subject (which is why he desires power to be separated and appropriately limited): If a faction or small group gains a monopoly on power, and refuses to share power with those they rule, there is no check up on what such a group of people can do. In Nazi Germany, in Soviet Russia, and communist China, and in other places we’ve seen the consequences of “factional rule.” According to Plato, such a government is not a polity at all, and the laws or not for the benefit of all people, instead it’s a kind of class or mob rule.

Religion and the State

Plato understands that  religion is essential to the state. It is religion that creates the virtues upon which a stable state must rest. It is only in the service of the gods, for Plato assumes the existence of many guards, that’s a good can be found for society. Thus,

God holds in His hand the beginning, middle, and end of all things, and He moves in a straight line towards the accomplishment of His will. Justice always bears Him company, and punishes those who fall short of His laws. He who would be happy follows humbly in her train; but he who is lifted up with pride, or wealth, or honor, or beauty, is soon deserted by God, and, being deserted, he lives in confusion and disorder. [6]

While no serious American thinker would want a kind of state established religion designed solely for the maintenance of the state, Plato’s ideas support the notion that religion has a place to play in the modern state—not as ruler but as a servant of the society (not necessarily the state) in nurturing the virtues of humility, love of truth, goodness and beauty, and the creation of a meaningful life. This is a matter to which I will return in a later blog.

Copyright 2020, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved

[1] Plato, Laws tr. Jowett, https://books.apple.com/us/book/laws/id501268153 (downloaded August 28, 2020).

[2] I am preparing a blog on Aristotle’s Politics, in which he critiques this aspect of Plato and has a great deal less patience with social engineering as even potentially successful. In addition, when I discuss The Republic I intend to also look at Carl Poppers, “The Free Society and Its Enemies,” which is a critique of Plato.

[3] By the end of the  Laws, Plato has recognized the Aristotelean outline of the kinds of polities as monarchy, tyranny, democracy oligarchy, and aristocracy, though he does not develop his thought in the way Aristotle does.

[4] In an interesting aside, Plato, after discussing the figure of Cyrus of Persia and the way in which his government deteriorated into tyranny in the hands of those who followed him, says “The Persians have lost their liberty in absolute slavery and we in absolute freedom.”

[5] Laws, previously cited.

[6] Laws, previously cited.