I insert here certain remarkable passages from St. Thomas and Suarez,
in which these authors explain the opinions to which I have alluded in
the text, respecting the differences which may arise between governors
and the governed. I refer to what I have already pointed out in another
place; we are not about to examine so much whether such or such
doctrines are true, as to discover what were the doctrines at the time
we are speaking of, and what opinion the most distinguished doctors
formed on the delicate questions of which we are treating.
D. THOMAS.
(2. 2. Q. 42. art. 2^o ad tertium.--Utrum seditio sit semper peccatum
mortale?)
3. Arg. Laudantur qui multitudinem a potestate tyrannica liberant, sed
hoc non de facili potest fieri sine aliqua dissensione multitudinis,
dum una pars multitudinis nititur retinere tyrannum, alia vero nititur
eum abjicere, ergo seditio potest fieri sine peccato.
Ad tertium dicendum; quod regimen tyrannicum non est justum quia
non ordinatur ad bonum commune, sed ad bonum privatum regentis ut
patet per Philosophum; et ideo perturbatio hujus regiminis non habet
rationem seditionis, nisi forte quando sic inordinate perturbatur
tyranni regimen, quod multitudo subjecta majus detrimentum patitur
ex perturbatione consequenti quam ex tyranni regimine; magis autem
tyrannus seditiosus est, qui in populo sibi subjecto discordias et
seditiones nutrit, ut tutius dominari possit; hoc enim tyrannicum est,
cum sit ordinatum ad bonum proprium præsidentis cum multitudinis
nocumento.
Cardinalis Cayetanus in hunc textum. "Quis sit autem modus ordinatus
perturbandi tyrannum et qualem tyrannum, puta secundum regimen tantum,
vel secundum regimen et titulum, non est præsentis intentionis: sat est
nunc, quod utrumque tyrannum licet ordinate perturbare absque seditione
quandoque; illum ut bono reipublicæ vacet, istum ut expellatur."
LIB. I.
_De Regimine Principum._ (Cap. x.)
Quod rex et princeps studere debet ad bonum regimen propter bonum sui
ipsius, et utile quod inde sequitur, cujus contrarium sequitur regimen
tyrannicum.
Tyrannorum vero dominium diuturnum esse non potest, cum sit multitudini
odiosum. Non potest enim diu conservari, quod votis multorum repugnat.
Vix enim a quoquam præsens vita transigitur quin aliquas adversitates
patiatur. Adversitatis autem tempore occasio deesse non potest
contra tyrannum insurgendi; et ubi adsit occasio, non deerit ex
multis vel unus qui occasione non utatur. Insurgentem autem populus
votive prosequitur: nec de facili carebit effectu, quod cum favore
multitudinis attentatur. Vix ergo potest contingere, quod tyranni
dominium protendatur in longum. Hoc etiam manifeste patet, si quis
consideret unde tyranni dominium conservatur. Non n. conservatur amore,
cum parva, vel nulla sit amicitia subjectæ multitudinis ad tyrannum
ut ex præhabitis patet: de subditorum autem fide tyrannis confidendum
non est. Non n. invenitur tanta virtus in multis, ut fidelitatis
virtute reprimantur, ne indebitæ servitutis jugum, si possint,
excutiant. Fortassis autem nec fidelitati contrarium reputabitur
secundum opinionem multorum, si tyrannicæ nequitiæ qualitercumque
obvietur. Restat ergo ut solo timore tyranni regimen sustentetur; unde
et timeri se a subditis tota intentione procurant. Timor autem est
debile fundamentum. Nam qui timore subduntur, si occurrat occasio qua
possint impunitatem sperare, contra præsidentes insurgunt eo ardentius,
quo magis contra voluntatem ex solo timore cohibebantur. Sicut si
aqua per violentiam includatur, cum aditum invenerit, impetuosius
fluit. Sed nec ipse timor caret periculo, cum ex nimio timore plerique
in desperationem inciderint. Salutis autem desperatio audacter ad
quælibet attentanda præcipitat. Non potest igitur tyranni dominium esse
diuturnum. Hoc etiam non minus exemplis, quam rationibus apparet.
LIB. I. CAP. VI.
Conclusio; quod regimen unius simpliciter sit optimum; ostendit
qualiter multitudo se debet habere circa ipsum, quia auferenda est ei
occasio ne tyrannizet, ei quod etiam in hoc est tolerandus propter
majus malum vitandum.
Quia ergo unius regimen præ eligendum est, quod est optimum, et
contingit ipsum in tyrannidem converti, quod est pessimum, ut ex dictis
patet, laborandum est diligenti studio, ut sic multitudini provideatur
de rege, ut non incidat in tyrannum. Primum autem est necessarium,
ut talis conditionis homo ab illis ad quos hoc spectat officium,
promoveatur in regem, quod non sit probabile in tyrannidem declinare.
Unde Samuel Dei providentiam erga institutionem regis commendans, ait,
1 Regum xiii.: Quæsivit sibi Dominus, virum secundum cor suum: deinde
sic disponenda est regni gubernatio, ut regi jam instituto tyrannidis
subtrahatur occasio. Simul etiam sic ejus temperetur potestas, ut
in tyrannidem de facili declinare non possit. Quæ quidem ut fiant,
insequentibus considerandum erit. Demum vero curandum est, si rex
in tyrannidem diverteret, qualiter posset occuri. Et quidem si non
fuerit excessus tyrannidis, utilius est remissam tyrannidem tolerare
ad tempus, quam tyrannum agendo multis implicari periculis, quæ sunt
graviora ipsa tyrannide. Potest, n. contingere ut qui contra tyrannum
agunt prævalere non possint, et sic provocatus tyrannus magis desæviat.
Quod si prævalere quis possit adversus tyrannum, ex hoc ipso proveniunt
multoties gravissimæ dissensiones in populo, sive dum in tyrannum
insurgitur, sive post dejectionem tyranni erga ordinationem regiminis
multitudo separatur in partes. Contingit etiam ut interdum dum
alicujus auxilio multitudo expellit tyrannum, ille potestate accepta
tyrannidem arripiat, et timens pati ab alio quod ipse in alium fecit,
graviori servitute subditos opprimat. Sic enim in tyrannide solet
contingere, ut posterior gravior fiat quam præcedens, dum præcedentia
gravamina non deserit, et ipse ex sui cordis malitia nova excogitat:
unde Syracusis quondam Dyonisii mortem omnibus desiderantibus, anus
quædem ut incolumnis et sibi superstes esset, continue orabat: quod
ut tyrannus cognovit, cur hoc faceret interrogavit. Tum illa, puella,
inquit, existens cum gravem tyrannum haberemus, mortem ejus cupiebam,
quo interfecto, aliquantulum durior successit; ejus quoque dominationem
finiri magnum existimabam, tertium te importuniorem habere cœpimus
rectorem; itaque si tu fueris absumptus, deterior in locum tuum
succedet. Et si sit intolerabilis excessus tyrannidis, quibusdam visum
fuit, ut ad fortium virorum virtutem pertineat tyrannum interimere,
seque pro liberatione multitudinis exponere periculis mortis: cujus
rei exemplum etiam in veteri Testamento habetur. Nam Ajoth quidam
Eglon regem Moab, qui gravi servitute populum Dei premebat, sica
infixa in ejus femore interemit, et factus est populi judex. Sed hoc
Apostolicæ doctrinæ non congruit. Docet n. nos Petrus, non bonis
tantum et modestis, verum etiam discolis Dominis reverenter subditos
esse. 2 Petr. ii. Hæc est enim gratia, si propter conscientiam Dei
sustineat quis tristitias patiens injuste: unde cum multi Romani
Imperatores fidem Christi persequerentur tyrannice, magnaque multitudo
tam nobilium, quam populi esset ad fidem conversa, non resistendo, sed
mortem patienter et armati sustinentes pro Christo laudantur, ut in
sacra Thebæorum legione manifeste apparet; magisque Ajoth judicandus
est hostem interemisse, quam populi rectorem, licet tyrannum; unde
et in veteri Testamento leguntur occisi fuisse hi qui occiderunt
Joas regem Juda, quamvis a cultu Dei recedentem, eorumque filiis
reservatis secundum legis præceptum. Esset autem hoc multitudini
periculosum et ejus rectoribus, si privata præsumptione aliqui
attentarent præsidentium necem etiam tyrannorum. Plerumque enim
hujusmodi periculis magis exponunt se mali quam boni. Malis autem solet
esse grave dominium non minus regum quam tyrannorum, quia secundum
sententiam Salomonis: Dissipat impios rex sapiens. Magis igitur ex
hujus præsumptione immineret periculum multitudini de amissione regis,
quam remedium de subtractione tyranni. Videtur autem magis contra
tyrannorum sævitiam non privata præsumptione aliquorum, sed auctoritate
publica procedendum. Primo quidem, si ad jus multitudinis alicujus
pertineat sibi providere de rege, non injuste ab eadem rex institutus
potest destitui, vel refrænari ejus potestas, si potestate regia
tyrannice abutatur. Nec putanda est talis multitudo infideliter agere
tyrannum destituens, etiamsi eidem in perpetuo se ante subjecerat:
quia hoc ipse meruit in multitudinis regimine se non fideliter gerens,
ut exigit regis officium, quod ei pactum a subditis non reservetur.
Sic Romani Tarquinium superbum quem in regem susceperant, propter
ejus et filiorum tyrannidem a regno ejecerunt substituta minori,
scilicet consularia potestate. Sic etiam Domitianus, qui modestissimis
Imperatoribus Vespasiano patri, et Tito fratri ejus successerat, dum
tyrannidem exercet, a senatu Romano interemptus est, omnibus quæ
perverse Romanis fecerat per Senatusconsultum juste et salubriter
in irritum revocatis. Quo factum est, ut beatus Joannes Evangelista
dilectus Dei discipulus, qui per ipsum Domitianum in Pathmos insulam
fuerat exilio relegatus, ad Ephesum per Senatusconsultum remitteretur.
Si vero ad jus alicujus superioris pertineat multitudini providere
de rege, spectandum est ab eo remedium contra tyranni nequitiam. Sic
Archelai, qui in Judæa pro Herode patre suo regnare jam cœperat,
paternam malitiam imitantis, Judæis contra eum querimoniam ad Cesarem
Augustum deferentibus, primo quidem potestas diminuitur, ablato sibi
regio nomine, et medietate regni sui inter duos fratres suos divisa:
deinde cum nec sic a tyrannide compesceretur a Tiberio Cesare relegatus
est in exilium apud Lugdunum Galliæ civitatem. Quod si omnino contra
tyrannum auxilium humanum haberi non potest, recurrendum est ad regem
omnium Deum, quid est adjutor in opportunitatibus in tribulatione.
Ejus enim potentiæ subest, ut cor tyranni crudele convertat in
mansuetudinem, secundum Salomonis sententiam. Proverb. xii. Cor regis
in manu Dei quocumque voluerit inclinavit illud. Ipse enim regis
Assueri crudelitatem, qui Judæis mortem parabat, in mansuetudinem
vertit. Ipse est qui ita Nabuchodonosor, crudelem regem convertit,
quod factus est divinæ potentiæ prædicator. Nunc igitur, inquit, ego
Nabuchodonosor laudo, et magnifico, et glorifico regem cœli, quia
opera ejus vera et viæ ejus judicia, et gradientes in superbia potest
humiliare. Dan. iv. Tyrannos vero quos reputat conversione indignos,
potest auferre de medio vel ad infimum statum reducere, secundum
illud Sapientes Eccles. x. Sedem ducum superborum destruxit Deus, et
sedere fecit mites pro eis. Ipse enim qui videns afflictionem populi
sui in Ægypto, et audiens eorum clamorem Pharaonem tyrannum dejecit
cum exercitu suo in mare; ipse est qui memoratum Nabuchodonosor prius
superbientem non solum ejectum de regni solio, sed etiam de hominum
consortio, in similitudinem bestiæ commutavit. Nec enim abreviata manus
ejus est, ut populum suum a tyrannis liberare non possit. Promittit
enim populo suo per Isaiam, requiem se daturum a labore et confusione,
ac servitute dura, qua ante servierat, et per Ezech. xxxiv. dicit:
Liberabo meum gregem de ore eorum pastorum, qui pascunt seipsos. Sed
ut, hoc beneficium populus a Deo consequi mereatur, debet a peccatis
cessare, quia in ultionem peccati divina permissione impii accipiunt
principatum, dicente Domino per Osee xiii.: Dabo tibi regem in furore
meo, et in Job. xxxiv. dicitur, quod regnare facit hominem hypocritam
propter peccata populi. Tollenda est igitur culpa, ut cesset a
tyrannorum plaga.
SUAREZ.
(Disp. 13. De Bello. sect. 8.--Utrum seditio sit intrinsece mala?)
Seditio dicitur bellum commune intra eamdem Rempublicam, quod geri
potest, vel inter duas partes ejus, vel inter Principem et Rempublicam.
Dico primo: Seditio inter duas partes Reipublicæ semper est mala ex
parte aggressoris: ex parte vero defendentis se justa est. Hoc secundum
per se est notum. Primum ostenditur: quia nulla cernitur ibi legitima
auctoritas ad indicendum bellum; hæc enim residet in supremo Principe,
ut vidimus sect. 2. Dices, interdum poterit Princeps eam auctoritatem
concedere, si magna necessitas publica urgeat. At tunc jam non censetur
aggredi pars Reipublicæ, sed Princeps ipse; sicque nulla erit seditio
de qua loquimur. Sed, quid si illa Reipublicæ pars sit vere offensa ab
alia neque possit per Principem jus suum obtinere? Respondeo, non posse
plus efficere, quam possit persona privata, ut ex superioribus constare
facile potest.
Dico secundo: Bellum Reipublicæ contra Principem, etiamsi aggressivum,
non est intrinsece malum; habere tamen debet conditiones justi alias
belli, ut honestetur. Conclusio solum habet locum, quando Princeps
est tyrannus; quod duobus modis contingit, ut Cajet. not. 2. 2. q. 64
articulo primo ad tertium: primo si tyrannus sit quoad dominium, et
potestatem: secundo solum quoad regimen. Quando priori modo accidit
tyrannus, tota Respublica, et quodlibet ejus membrum jus habet
contra illum; unde quilibet potest se ac Rempublicam a tyrannide
vindicare. Ratio est; quia tyrannus ille aggressor est, et inique
bellum movet contra Rempublicam, et singula membra; unde omnibus
competit jus defensionis. Ita Cajetanus eo loco, sumique potest ex
D. Thom. in secundo, distinctione 44, quæstione secunda, articulo
secundo. De posteriori tyranno idem docuit Joann. Hus, imo de omni
iniquo superiore; quod damnatum est in Concilio Constant. Sessione
8 et 15. Unde certa veritas est, contra hujusmodi tyrannum nullam
privatam personam, aut potestatem imperfectam posse juste movere bellum
aggressivum, atque illud esset propie seditio. Probatur, quoniam ille,
ut supponitur, verus est Dominus: inferiores autem jus non habent
indicendi bellum, sed defendendi se tantum; quod non habet locum in
hoc tyranno: namque ille non semper singulis facit injuriam, atque
si invaderent, id solum possent efficere, quod ad suam defensionem
sufficeret. At vero tota Respublica posset bello insurgere contra
ejusmodi tyrannum, neque tunc excitaretur propia seditio (hoc siquidem
nomen in malam partem sumi consuevit). Ratio est: quia tunc tota
Respublica superior est Rege: nam, cum ipsa dederit illi potestatem,
ea conditione dedisse censetur, ut politice, non tyrannice regeret,
alias ab ipsa posset deponi. Est tamen observandum, ut ille vere, et
manifeste tyrannice agat; concurrantque aliæ conditiones ad honestatem
belli positas. Lege Divum Thomum 1 de regimine Principum, cap. 6.
Dico tertio: Bellum Reipublicæ contra Regem neutro modo tyrannum, est
propiissime seditio, et intrinsece malum. Est certa, et inde constat:
quia deest tunc et causa justa, et potestas. Ex quo etiam e contrario
constat, bellum Principis contra Rempublicam sibi subditam, ex parte
potestatis posse esse justum, si adsint aliæ conditiones; si vero
desint, injustum omnino esse.[E]
[E] An extract from Bellarmine de Romano Pont. is here omitted.
* * * * *
Listen to the language of P. Marquez in Spain, in the so-called
despotic times: it is well known that his work intituled _El Gobernador
Cristiano_ was not one of those obscure books which are never widely
circulated; it met with such success that it went through several
editions, as well in Spain as in foreign countries. I will give the
title at length, and I will add, at the same time, a note of the
editions published at different epochs, in different countries, in
different languages,--a note which is to be found in the edition of
Madrid in 1773.
"The Christian Magistrate (_El Gobernador Cristiano_), according to
the Life of Moses, the Ruler of the People of God, by the R. P. M. J.
R. John Marquez, O. S. A., preacher to his Majesty King Philip III.,
Examiner of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, and Evening Professor
of Theology at the University of Salamanca. New and sixth edition, with
permission. Madrid, 1773."
"The Christian Magistrate, composed at the request and in honor of His
Excellency the Duke of Feria, first published at Salamanca, in the year
1612; a second edition in the same town in 1619; a third edition at
Alcala in 1634, and a fourth at Madrid in 1640; the fifth edition was
published out of Spain, at Brussels, in 1664. This is the masterpiece
among works of this nature which have been written among us.
"Father Martin of St. Bernard, of the Order of Cîteaux, translated
this work into Italian, and had it printed at Naples, in 1646. It was
also translated into French by M. de Virion, counsellor to the Duke of
Lorraine, and it was printed at Nancy in 1621."
BOOK I. CHAP. 8.
"We have now to answer the contrary objections. We maintain that
neither the divine nor the natural law has given to states the power
of arresting the progress of tyranny by means so violent as that of
shedding the blood of princes, they being the vicars of God, divinely
invested with the right of life and death over other men. But so far
as resisting their cruelty is concerned, it is incontestable that
it may and ought to be done. They are not to be obeyed in any thing
opposed to the law of God; we must, therefore, escape from their wicked
commands, and prevent their blows, as Jonathan did with regard to Saul,
his father, when he saw him take his spear to smite David, and when,
rising from the table, he went in search of the latter, and warned
him of his danger. It is also sometimes allowable to resist princes
by force of arms, in order to prevent them from executing notoriously
rash and cruel determinations; for, according to the words of St.
Thomas, this is not to excite sedition, but to stop and prevent it.
Tertullian affirms the same thing when he says: 'Illis nomen factionis
accommodandum est, qui in odium bonorum et proborum conspirant, cum
boni, cum pii congregantur, non est factio dicenda, sed curia.'
"This is the reason why the blessed St. Hermenegildus, a glorious
Spanish martyr, took up arms and entered the field against King
Leovigildus, an Arian, to resist the great persecution directed
by this prince against the Catholics. This fact is related by the
contemporary historians. True, St. Gregory of Tours condemns this act
of our king-martyr, not for having resisted his sovereign, but because
the former was both his king and his father: and he maintains that
although he was a heretic, his son ought not to have resisted him. This
reply, however, is not well founded, as Baronius observes. Moreover,
the authority of this Gregory was combated by another Gregory, greater
than he, St. Gregory the Great, who, in the preface to his book of
_Morales_, approves of the embassy of Leander, sent to Constantinople
by St. Hermenegildus, to solicit the aid of Tiberius against
Leovigildus, his father. It is indubitable that however strong may be
the obligation of filial piety, that of religion is still stronger. The
latter obliges us to sacrifice every thing if it be necessary; and it
is on account of cases of this nature, that it is written of the tribe
of Levi: 'Qui dixerunt patri suo et matri suæ, nescio vos, et fratribus
suis ignoro vos, nescierunt filios suos.' Such was the conduct of the
Levites when they took up arms, by the command of Moses, to punish
their relations for the sin of idolatry.
"If the prince should go so far as personally to make an attempt upon
the life of the subject who has no other means of defending himself
than killing him,--as when Nero, parading the streets of Rome, followed
by a troop of armed men, attacked the quiet and unsuspecting citizens;
I say, that in such a case it would be allowable to kill him; for
if it is true, as Fr. Dominic de Soto observes, that the subject in
this extremity is to suffer himself to be killed, and so prefer the
monarch's life to his own, it is solely in the case when the death of
the monarch would give rise to great troubles and civil wars in the
state; in any other case it would be monstrously inhuman to force men
to a thing so insupportable. But when the subject's property is merely
to be defended against the cupidity of the monarch, it should not be
allowable to lay hands on him; for it is a privilege granted to princes
by divine and human laws, that their blood shall not be spilt for any
outrage which, committed by any other violator of private property,
would be a sufficient motive for taking away his life. The reason of
this is, that the life of the king is the soul and bond of the state;
that it is of more importance than the property of individuals; that it
is better to tolerate grievances of this nature, than to destroy the
head of the state."
NOTE 34, p. 348.
In order to give an idea of the means employed at this epoch to limit
the power of the monarch, by forming associations, whether among the
people themselves, or between the people, the grandees, and the clergy,
I insert here the letter, or _Charter of Fraternity_ (_Hermandad_),
which the kingdoms of Leon and Galicia made with Castile. I have
extracted this piece literally from the collection intituled _Bullarium
ordinis militiæ sancti Jacobi Gloriosissimi Hispaniarum patroni_, p.
223. It will prove to us the existence already, at a remote epoch of
our history, of a lively instinct for liberty, although ideas were
still limited to a secondary order.
"1. In the name of God and of the blessed Virgin. Amen.
"Be it known to all those who shall read this letter, that on account
of the innumerable acts of injustice, injuries, deeds of violence,
murders, imprisonments, insolent refusals of audience, opprobriums,
and other outrages without measure, committed against us by the king
D. Alphonso, to the contempt of God, of justice, of right, and to the
great detriment of all these kingdoms; we, the infantes, the prelates,
the rich men, the councils, the orders, the knights of the kingdoms
of Leon and Galicia, seeing ourselves overwhelmed with injustice and
ill-treatment, as we have stated above, and finding it insupportable;
our lord the infante Don Sancho has thought good and appointed that we
should be of one mind and of one heart, he with us and we with him, to
maintain our laws, our privileges, and our charters, in our usages,
our manners, our liberties, and franchises, which we enjoyed under
king Don Alphonso, his great-grandfather, the conqueror at the battle
of Merida, and under king Don Ferdinand, his grandfather; under the
emperor and all the other kings of Spain, their predecessors; and under
the king Don Alphonso, his father,--all princes who have best merited
our gratitude; and our said lord the infante Don Sancho has bound us to
this effect by oath and promise, as it is certain by letters between
him and us. Considering that it is agreeable to the service of God, of
the blessed Virgin, of the court of Heaven, to the defence and honor
of the holy Church, of the infante Don Sancho, and of the kings who
shall succeed him, in fine, to the advantage of the whole country, we
ordain and establish fraternity (_hermandad_), now and for ever, we the
whole of the kingdoms above named, with the councils of the kingdom of
Castile, with the infantes, the rich men, the hidalgos, the prelates,
the orders, the knights, and all others who are in this kingdom, and
who are willing to be with us, as it has just been said.
"2. Be it known to them, that we will insure to our lord the infante
Don Sancho, and to all other kings who shall succeed him, all their
rights, all their suzerainty, wholly and entirely, as we have
promised, and as they are contained in the privilege which he has
given us to this effect. Justice shall continue to be decreed by the
suzerainty. The Martiniega[F] shall be paid in the place and in the
manner in which it was customary to pay it, according to right, to Don
Alphonso, the conqueror at the battle of Merida. The money[G] shall be
paid at the end of seven years in the usual place and manner, the kings
not enjoining the coining of money. The repast (_yantar_)[H] shall be
taken in the place in which it was usual for the kings to take it,
according to the _fuero_, once a year, while visiting the very place,
as it was given to the king Don Alphonso, his great-grandfather, and to
the king Don Ferdinand, his grandfather. The _fonsadera_,[I] when the
king is with the army, in the customary place, according to the _fuero_
and right in the days of the above-named kings, guaranteeing to each
the privileges, charters, liberties, and franchises appertaining to us.
[F] Tribute that was paid on St. Martin's day.
[G] Another tribute.
[H] A tribute for the king's repast during his journeys.
[I] Tribute for maintaining the ditches of the castles in Castile, and
the armies.
"3. Be it known to them moreover, that we will maintain all our
rights, usages, customs, privileges, charters, all our liberties and
franchises, always and in such a manner, that should the king, the
infante Don Sancho, or the kings who shall succeed them, or any of the
lords, alcades, merinos, or any other persons, attempt to infringe upon
them, in whole or in part, in any way or at any time, we will unite
into one entire whole, and inform the king, the infante Don Sancho, or
those who shall succeed them, of the nature of our complaint, and ask
them if they are willing to reform; and if not, we will unite into one
entire body to defend and protect ourselves, as it is ordained in the
charter granted us by the infante Don Sancho.
"4. Moreover, be it known to them that no member of this _hermandad_
shall be chastised, and nothing shall be taken from him contrary
to right and the custom of the place, in the councils of the said
_hermandad_; and it shall not be allowable to take from him more than
is demanded by the _fuero_, in the place in which he shall be.
"5. We protest, that if an alcade, a merino, or any other person, on
the authority of a letter of the king, of the infante Don Sancho, by
his command, or that of the kings who shall succeed him, shall kill a
man of our _hermandad_ without hearing him and judging him according
to law, that we, the _hermandad_, will take away his life for such an
act. And if we cannot arrest him, he shall be declared an enemy to the
_hermandad_; every member of the _hermandad_ who shall have concealed
him shall fall under the penalty of perjury and felony, and shall be
treated in his turn as an enemy to this _hermandad_.
"6. We declare, moreover, that the port-duties shall be paid by us only
in conformity to the rights and usages of the times of Don Alphonso, or
the king Don Ferdinand, and the councils of the _hermandad_ will not
permit any person to receive them beyond this measure.
"7. Moreover, no infante or rich man shall be a merino or grand bailiff
in the kingdoms of Leon and Galicia. Neither can these functions be
exercised by an infançon, or a knight having notoriously a great number
of knights or other men of the country in vassalage; neither can they
be exercised by a stranger to the country. And we so will it, because
such was the custom in the days of the king Don Alphonso and of the
king Don Ferdinand.
"8. All those who may wish to appeal from the judgment of the king, or
of Don Sancho, or of other kings who shall succeed him, may do so; they
shall have recourse to the book of the _Fuero Juzgo_, in the kingdom of
Leon, as was usual in the days of the kings who preceded this. That if
the right of appeal be refused to any who may wish to invoke it, we,
on our part, will act according to the injunctions contained in the
charters granted us by Don Sancho.
"9. That we may guarantee and execute all the acts of this _hermandad_,
we make a seal of two plates, bearing the following impressions: upon
one of the plates, the figure of a lion; and upon the other, the figure
of St. James on horseback, with a sword in his right hand; in his left,
a standard with a cross at the top, and shells. The inscription shall
be thus expressed: '_The Seal of the Hermandad of the Kingdoms of Leon
and Galicia._' This seal shall be affixed to the documents which shall
be required by this _hermandad_.
"10. We the whole _hermandad_ of Castile, make a promise and render
homage to all the _hermandad_ of the kingdoms of Leon and Galicia,
that we will assist each other well and loyally to keep and maintain
every one of the above-named things. That if we fail to do so, we are
traitors for this alone, like him who slays his lord or surrenders a
castle; and may we never in that case have either hands, or tongues, or
arms to protect ourselves.
"11. But lest there should be any doubt about the pact we are now
making, in order that this pact may be for ever inviolate, we seal this
letter with the two seals of the _hermandad_ of Castile, Leon, and
Galicia, and place it in the hands of D. Pedro Nunez, and the Order of
the Knights of St. John, who are united with us in this _hermandad_.
Given at Valladolid, the 8th day of July, in the year one thousand
three hundred and twenty."
Spain had passed through many centuries without knowing of any other
religion than the Catholic. She still preserved in all its force and
vigor, the idea that the king should be the first to observe the
laws; that he could not rule the people according to his caprice;
that he ought to govern by principles of justice and views of public
expediency. Saavedra, in his _Devises_, thus expressed himself:--
"1st. Laws are vain when the prince who promulgates them does not
confirm and uphold them by his own life and example. A law will appear
lenient to the people when observed by its author.
"In commune jubes si quid, censesve tenendum,
Primus jussa sibi, tunc observantior æqui
Fit populus, nec ferre vetat, cum videri ipsum
Auctorem parere sibi.
"The laws promulgated by Servius Tullius were not only intended for
the people, but also for kings. The disputes between the monarch
and his subjects were to be settled in conformity with these laws,
as Tacitus relates of Tiberius: 'Although we are not subject to the
laws,' said the emperors Severus and Antonius, 'let us conform our
lives to these laws.' The monarch is bound by the law not merely from
the fact of its being a law, but from the very reason upon which it is
founded, when it is natural and common to all, and not particular and
exclusively destined to the right government of subjects; for in this
case the observance of the law merely concerns the subject, although
the monarch, if it should so happen, is bound to obey it, in order to
render it tolerable to others. Such appears to have been the meaning of
the mysterious command given by God to Ezechiel, _to eat the volume_,
that others seeing him the first to taste the laws and declare them
good, might be induced to imitate him. The kings of Spain are so far
subject to the laws, that the Treasury, in causes relating to the royal
patrimony, is absolutely subject to the same laws as the least of his
subjects; and in doubtful cases, the Treasury is condemned. Philip
II. thus ordained it; and on an occasion in which his grandson Philip
IV., the glorious father of V. A., was personally brought to judgment
in an important trial of the Chamber, before the royal council, the
judges had the noble determination to condemn him, and his majesty had
the rectitude to hear the sentence without expressing any indignation.
Happy empire, in which the cause of the monarch is always the least
favored!"
NOTE 35, p. 356.
Sufficient attention has not perhaps been paid to the merit of the
industrial organization introduced into Europe from the earliest
ages, and which became more and more diffused after the twelfth
century. I allude to the trades-unions, and other associations, which,
established under the influence of the Catholic religion, commonly
placed themselves under the patronage of some Saint, and had pious
foundations for the celebration of their feasts, and for assisting each
other in their necessities. Our celebrated Capmany, in his _Historical
memoirs on the Marine, Commerce, and the Arts of the ancient City of
Barcelona_, has published a collection of documents, very valuable for
the history of the working classes and of the development of their
influence on politics. Few works have appeared in foreign countries,
in the latter part of the last century, of such great merit as that of
our fellow-countryman, published in 1779. One very interesting chapter
of this work is devoted to the institution of trades-corporations. I
give here a copy of the chapter, which I particularly recommend to the
perusal of those persons who imagine that nothing had been thought of
in Europe for the benefit of the laboring classes, of those who are so
foolish as to look upon that as a means of slavery and exclusivism,
which was in reality a means of encouragement and of mutual support.
It also appears to me that, by reading the philosophical remarks of
Capmany, every sensible man will be convinced that Europe, from the
earliest ages, has possessed systems adapted to the encouragement of
industry, to the preservation of it from the fatal agitations of those
times, to secure esteem for it, and to the legitimate and salutary
development of the popular element. It will be no less useful to
present this sketch to certain foreign writers, continually occupied
with social and political economy, and who, nevertheless, in compiling
the history of that science, have not even been acquainted with a work
so important for every thing connected with the middle ages of Europe,
from the eleventh to the eighteenth century.
_"Of the institution of the Trades-Corporations and other Associations
of Artisans at Barcelona._
"No memoir has hitherto been discovered which might serve to
enlighten and guide us in fixing the exact epoch of the institution
of the trades-associations at Barcelona.[J] But according to all
the conjectures furnished by ancient monuments, it is very probable
that the political erection or formation of the bodies of laborers
took place in the time of Don Jaime I., under whose glorious reign
the arts were developed under a favorable influence; whilst commerce
and navigation took a higher flight, owing to the expeditions of the
Aragonese arms beyond the seas. Increased facilities in the means
of transport have given an impetus to industry; and an increasing
population, the natural result of labor, by its reaction upon labor,
augmented the demand for it. At Barcelona, as every where else,
trades-corporations naturally arose when the wants and the tastes of
society had, of necessity, grown so multifarious, that artisans were
forced, with a view to secure protection to their industry, to form
themselves into communities. Luxury, and the tastes of society, like
every other object of commerce, are subject to continual change; hence,
new branches of trade are continually springing up and displacing
others; so that at one period each separate art runs into various
branches, whilst at another, several arts are combined into one. At
Barcelona, corporate industry has passed through all these vicissitudes
in the course of five centuries. The hardware trade has comprised at
different periods eleven or twelve branches, and consequently afforded
subsistence to as many classes of families, whilst at the present time
these same branches are reduced to eight, in consequence of certain
changes in fashions and customs.
[J] "It is extremely difficult to ascertain the origin of the
trades-corporations, even in those towns which have been the longest
and the best disciplined.--Sandi, in his _Civil History of Venice_
(t. ii. part 1, lib. iv. p. 767), after having reckoned sixty-one
trades-corporations existing in that capital at the beginning of
his century, declares that it is impossible to assign to each of
these corporations the date of its origin, or that of its first
statutes. This historian nevertheless consulted all the archives of
the republic; he contents himself with observing, that none of the
corporations are anterior to the fourteenth century." (_The notes
which accompany this chapter are those of Capmany himself._)
"In accordance with the social system which generally prevailed at
that time in most European countries, it was found necessary to bestow
liberty and privileges upon an industrious and mercantile people, who
thus became a great source of strength and support to kings; and this
could not be effected without classifying the citizens. But these
lines of demarcation could not be maintained distinct and inviolate
without a political division of the various corporations in which both
men and their occupations were classified. This division was the more
necessary in a city like Barcelona, which, ever since the middle of the
thirteenth century, had assumed a sort of democratic independence in
its mode of government. Thus, in Italy, the first country in the West
that re-established the name and the influence of the people, after
these had been effaced in the iron ages by Gothic rule, the industrial
classes had already been formed into corporations, which gave stability
to the arts and trades, and conferred great honors upon them in
those free cities, where, amidst the flux and reflux of invasions,
the artisan became a senator, and the senator an artisan. Wars and
factions, endemic evils in that delightful country at the time of which
we are speaking, could not, in spite of all their ravages, effect the
destruction of the associated trades, whose political existence, when
once their members were admitted to a share in the government, formed
the very basis of the constitution of both nations, inasmuch as both
were industrial and mercantile. At Barcelona the trades were well
regulated, prosperous, and flourishing, under that municipal system,
and that consular jurisprudence, of which commerce, and its invariable
concomitant, industry, have always stood in need. It was thus that this
capital became one of the most celebrated centres of the manufacturing
industry of the middle ages--a reputation which it has maintained and
increased up to the present time. In like manner, it was under the name
and rule of corporations and brotherhoods that trades were established
in Flanders, in France, and in England, countries in which the arts
have been carried to their highest degree of perfection and renown.
The trades-corporations of Barcelona, even when viewed merely as a
necessary institution for the due regulation of the primitive form of
municipal government, should be regarded as most important, whether for
the preservation of the arts, or as forming the basis of the influence
of the artisans themselves. It is at once evident, from the experience
of five centuries, that trades-unions have effected unspeakable good
in Barcelona, were it only by preserving, as an imperishable deposit,
the love, the tradition, and the memory of the arts. They have formed
so many rallying points, so many banners, as it were, under which more
than once the shattered forces of industry have found refuge; and
have thus been enabled to recover their energy and activity, and to
perpetuate their existence to our own days, in spite of pestilence,
wars, factions, and a multitude of other calamities, which exhaust
men's energies, overthrow their habitations, and change their manners.
If Barcelona, so often visited by these physical and political plagues,
had possessed no community, no bond, no common interest among its
artisans, it would certainly have witnessed the destruction of their
skill, their economy, and their activity, as is the case with beavers,
when their communities have been broken up and dispersed by the
hunters.[K]
[K] We here recognise many ideas taken from a work which saw the
light in 1774, from the press of Sancha, under the title of _Discours
économique-politique pour la defense du travail mécanique des
ouvriers, par D. Ramon Miguel Palacio_. The author of these memoirs,
fearing to be accused of a gross plagiarism, observes that, being
obliged here to treat of this same matter, he was forced to adopt many
of the ideas contained in this work, which at that time he thought it
proper to publish without affixing his real name.
"By a happy effect of the security enjoyed by families in their
different trades, and thanks to the aid, or _mont-de-piété_,
established in the very bosom of the corporation for its necessitous
members, who, without this assistance, might have been plunged into
misery, these economical establishments at Barcelona have directly
contributed to maintain the prosperity of the arts, by shutting out
misery from the workshop, and preserving the operatives from indigence.
Without this corporate police, by which each trade is surrounded, the
property and the fortune of the artisan would have been exposed to
the greatest risks; moreover, the credit and stability of the trades
themselves would have been perilled; for then the quack, the unskilled
operative, and the obscure adventurer, might have imposed upon the
public with impunity, and a pernicious latitude might have taken the
place of liberty. On the other hand, the trades-corporations being
powerful associations, each one by itself being governed by a unanimity
of intelligence and a community of interests, could purchase their
stocks of raw materials seasonably and advantageously. They supplied
the wants of the masters; they made advances, or stood security, for
those of their members who lacked either time or funds for making
great preliminary disbursements of capital at their own cost. Besides,
these corporations, comprehending and representing the industry of
the nation, and consequently feeling an interest in its maintenance,
addressed from time to time memorials to the Municipal Council, or
to the Cortes, relative to the injuries they were sustaining, or
the approach of which they, as it often happened, foresaw from the
introduction of counterfeit goods, or of foreign productions, which
is a cause of ruin to our industry. In fine, without the institution
of trades-corporations, instruction would have been void of order
and fixed rules; for where there are no masters duly authorized and
permanently established, neither will there be any disciples; and all
regulations, in default of an executive power to see them observed,
will be disregarded and trodden under foot. Trades-corporations
are so necessary to the preservation of the arts, that the various
trades known at the present day in this capital have derived their
appellations and their origin from the economical divisions, and from
the arts established by these corporations. When the blacksmith in his
shop made ploughshares, nails, keys, knives, swords, &c., the names of
the trades of the blacksmith, the nailer, the cutler, the armorer, &c.
were unknown; and as there was no special and particular instruction
in each of these branches of labor, the separation of which afterwards
formed so many new arts maintained by their respective communities,
these trades were unknown.
"The second political advantage resulting from the institution of
trades-corporations at Barcelona was, the esteem and consideration
in which at all times these establishments caused both the artisans
and the arts to be held. This wise institution won respect for the
operative classes, by constituting them a visible and permanent order
in the state. Hence it is that the conduct and the mode of life of the
Barcelonians have ever been such as are to be found only amongst an
honorable people. Never having been confounded with any exempted and
privileged body (for the trades-corporations draw a circle around their
members, and let them know what they are, and what they are worth),
these people learned that there was honor and virtue within their own
sphere, and labored to preserve these qualities; so certain is it that
social distinctions in a nation have more influence than is sometimes
believed in upholding the spirit of each social class.
"Another view of this question shows us that trades-corporations form
communities, governed by an economic code, which assigns to each
corporation certain employments and certain honors, to which every
individual member may aspire. Even men's prejudices, when wisely
directed, sometimes produce admirable effects. Thus the government, the
administration of these bodies, in which the artisan always enjoyed
the prerogative of managing the resources and the interests of his
trade and of his fellow-members, with the title of Counsellor, or Elder
(_Prohombre_), won for the mechanical arts of Barcelona public and
general esteem; whilst the pre-eminence in a festival or an assembly
serves with these men to soften the rigors of manual labor, and the
disadvantages of their inferior condition. At the same time that the
trades of Barcelona, formed into well-organized bodies, fixed and
preserved the arts in that capital, they had the further credit, by
acting as political bodies of the most numerous class of the people, of
gaining a high esteem for their members. The obscure artisan, without
matriculation, or a common bond, continues isolated and wandering;
he dies, and with him perishes his art; or at the first reverse of
fortune, he emigrates and abandons his craft. What consideration can
wretched wandering followers of any trade obtain in a country? Just
such as knife-grinders and tinkers possess in the provinces of Spain.
At Barcelona, all the trades have constantly enjoyed the same general
esteem, because all have been established and governed upon a system
which has rendered them fixed, respectable, and prosperous.
"The esteem in which the trades of Barcelona were held from the
time when the municipal government had formed them into national
corporations, the agents of public economy, gave rise to the laudable
and useful custom of perpetuating trades in the same families. In fact
the people having learned that, without quitting the class to which
they belonged, they could preserve the respect and consideration due
to useful and honorable citizens, no longer desired to quit it, and
were no longer ashamed of their condition. When trades are held in
honor, which is the consequence of the stability and civil properties
of corporations, they naturally become hereditary. Now, the advantages
both to the artisan and the arts, resulting from this transmission
of trades, are so real and so well known, that it is needless to
specify them here, or to dwell upon their salutary effects. This
demarcation and classification of trades caused many of the arts to
become sure possessions for those who adopted them. Hence fathers aimed
at transmitting their trade to their sons; and thus was formed an
indestructible mass of national industry, which made labor honorable,
by implanting steady and homogeneous manners, if we may so speak, in
the bosom of the class of artisans.
"Another circumstance contributed still more to render the exercise
of the mechanical arts honorable at Barcelona, not only more than in
most other parts of Spain, but more than in any other state, ancient
or modern. This was the admission of the trades-corporations upon the
register of municipal offices in this city, which enjoyed so many
royal grants and extraordinary privileges of independence. Thus the
nobility--that Gothic nobility--with their great domains, sought to be
incorporated with the operatives in the _Ayuntamiento_, there to fill
the offices and supreme stations in the political government, which,
during more than five hundred years, continued in Barcelona under a
form and in a spirit truly democratic.[L] All mechanical offices,
without any odious distinction or exclusion, were held worthy to be
declared qualified for the consistorial council of magistrates; all had
a voice and a vote among the conscript fathers who represented this
city, the most highly privileged perhaps that ever existed; one of the
most renowned for its laws, its power, and its influence; one of the
most respected in the middle ages amongst all the states and monarchies
of Europe, Asia, and Africa.[M]
[L] "Consult the Appendix of Notes, Nos. 28 and 30. You will there
see what respect and power the town of Barcelona enjoyed at another
period, by means of the municipal magistrates, who represented it
under the ordinary name of councillors."
[M] "In the diplomatic collection of these memoirs, we find a
multitude of letters and other documents proving the direct and mutual
relations which existed between the city of Barcelona and the emperors
of the East, of Germany, the sultans of Egypt, the kings of Tunis, of
Morocco, and various monarchs and states, or other great powers of
Europe."
"This political system, and this municipal form of government,
resembled that which prevailed in the middle ages amongst all the
principal towns of Italy, whence Catalonia borrowed many of its
customs and usages. Genoa, Pisa, Milan, Pavia, Florence, Sienna, and
other towns, had a municipal government composed of the leading men
in commerce, and the arts, under the name of consuls, counsellors,
&c. _Priores Artium_--such was the name of a popular form of elective
government, distributed among the different classes of citizens,
without excluding the artisans, who, in the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries, were in their most flourishing condition, forming the most
respectable part of the population, and consequently the richest, the
most powerful, and the most independent. This democratic liberty,
besides giving stability and permanency to industry in the towns
of Italy, conferred a singular degree of honor on the mechanical
professions. The grand council of these towns was summoned by the
tolling of the bell, when the artisans arranged themselves under the
banners or gonfalons of their respective trades. Such was also the
political constitution of Barcelona from the middle of the thirteenth
to the commencement of the present century. With these facts before
us, need we feel surprise that, in our own days, arts and artisans in
Barcelona still retain undiminished esteem and consideration; that a
love for mechanical professions has become hereditary; that the dignity
and self-respect of the artisan class have become traditional, even to
the last generations, in which the customs of their ancestors have been
transmitted by the succession of example, even after the extinction of
the political reasons in which these customs had their origin? Several
trades-corporations still preserve in the halls of their _juntas_ the
portraits of those of their members who formerly obtained the first
employments in the state. Must not this laudable practice have engraven
on the memory of the members of the corporation all the ideas of honor
and dignity consistent with the condition of an artisan? Assuredly
the popular form of the ancient government of Barcelona could not
fail to imprint itself generally and forcibly on the manners of the
people; indeed, where all the citizens were equal in the participation
of honors, it is easy to see that no one would willingly remain
inferior to another in virtue or in merit, although inferior, in
other respects, by his condition and fortune. This noble emulation,
which must naturally have been awakened to activity in the concourse
of all orders in the state, gave birth to the dignity, the lofty and
inviolate probity of the artisans of Barcelona; and this character they
have maintained to our own times, to the admiration of Spain and of
foreign nations. Such has been the negligence of our national authors,
that this narrative will have the appearance of a discovery: up to
the present time Barcelona and the Principality had not attracted the
scrutinizing notice of the political historian, so that a dark shadow
still concealed the real principles (always unknown to the crowd) from
which in all times, have sprung the virtues and the vices of nations.
"To these causes may be attributed, in great part, the esteem which
the artisans have acquired. Nothing could be more salutary than this
obligation they were always under of comporting themselves with dignity
and distinction in public employments, whether in the corporation or
the municipal government. Moreover the constant example of the master
of the house, who, up to the present time, has always lived in common
with his apprentices in a praiseworthy manner, has confirmed the
children in ideas of order and dignity; for the manners and habits
of a people, which are as powerful as law, must be inculcated from
the tenderest age. Thus, in Barcelona, the operative has never been
confounded by the slovenliness of his dress with the mendicant, whose
idle and dissipated habits, says an illustrious writer, are easily
contracted when the dress of the man of respectability is in no way
distinguished from that of the rabble. Nor are the laboring population
ever seen wearing those cumbersome garments which, serving as a cover
for rags and a cloak for idleness, cramp the movements and activity
of the body, and invite to a life of indolent ease. The people have
not contracted a habit of frequenting taverns, where example leads to
drunkenness and moral disorders. Their amusements, so necessary for
working people to render their daily toils supportable, have always
been innocent recreations, which either afforded them repose from their
fatigues or varied them. The games formerly permitted were either the
ring (_la bague_), nine pins, bowls, ball, shooting at a mark, fencing,
and public dancing, authorized and watched over by the authorities;
an amusement which from time immemorial has been general amongst the
Catalans, in certain seasons and on certain festivals of the year.
"The respect for the artisan of Barcelona has never been diminished
on account of the material on which his art was exercised, whether
it was silver, steel, iron, copper, wood, or wool. We have seen that
all the trades were equally eligible to the municipal offices of the
state; none were excluded--not even butchers. Ancient Barcelona did not
commit the political error of establishing preferences that might have
produced some odious distinctions of trades. The inhabitants considered
that all the citizens were in themselves worthy of esteem, since all
contributed to the growth and maintenance of the property of a capital
whose opulence and power were founded upon the industry of the artisan
and the merchant. In fact, Barcelona has ever been free from that
idea, so generally entertained, that every mechanical profession is
low and vulgar--a mischievous and very common prejudice, which, in the
provinces of Spain, has made an irreparable breach in the progress of
the arts. At Barcelona, admission into certain trades-corporations
has never been refused to the members of other trades: in this city
all the trades are held in the same estimation. In a word, neither
Barcelona nor any other town in Catalonia has ever entertained those
vulgar prejudices that are enough to prevent honorable men from
devoting themselves to the arts, or to cause the son to forsake the art
practised by the father."[N]
[N] See the remarks of his Excellency M. Campomanes on these abuses
and false principles of policy, in his _Discourse on the Popular
Education of Artisans_, from page 119 to 160.
NOTE 36, p. 361.
I have spoken of the numerous Councils held by the Church at different
epochs; why, it will be asked, does she not hold them more frequently
now? I will answer this question by quoting a judicious passage from
Count de Maistre, in his work _On the Pope_, book i. chap. 2:--
"In the first ages of Christianity," says he, "it was more easy to
assemble Councils, because the Church was not so numerous as now, and
because the emperors possessed powers that enabled a sufficient number
of Bishops to assemble, so that their decisions needed only the assent
of other Bishops. Yet these Councils were not assembled without much
difficulty and embarrassment. But in modern times, since the civilized
world has been divided into so many sovereignties, and immeasurably
increased by our intrepid navigators, an Œcumenical Council has become
a chimera.[O] Simply to convoke all the Bishops, and to bring legally
together such a convocation, five or six years would not suffice."
[O] We ordinarily call a chimera, or an impossibility, that which
offers great difficulties. On this occasion we cannot help observing
to sincere persons, that, from these great difficulties, they may
judge of the lawfulness and sincerity of the desires manifested by the
_soi-disant_ reformers and appellants to Councils. They do not wish
for Councils; but, under the shadow of this word, they wish to escape
the authority of their legitimate superiors. (Note by the authors of
the _Bibliothèque de Religion_, published in Spain.)
NOTE 37, p. 369.
That my readers may be convinced of the truth and accuracy of what I
here affirm, I invite them to read the history of the heresies that
have afflicted the Church since the first ages, but particularly from
the tenth century down to our own days.
NOTE 38, p. 373.
It was not, I have said, without prejudice to the liberty of the people
that the influence of the clergy was withdrawn from the working of the
political machine. In order to ascertain how far this is true, it may
be well to remark, that a great number of theologians were favorable to
tolerably liberal doctrines in political matters, and that it was the
clergy who exercised the greatest freedom in speaking to kings, even
after the people had almost entirely lost the right of intervention in
political affairs. Observe what opinions St. Thomas held on forms of
government.
(Quest. cv. 1^a 2^æ.)
_De ratione judicialium præceptorum art._ 1. Respondeo dicendum, quod
circa bonam ordinationem principum in aliqua civitate, vel gente, duo
sunt attendenda, quorum unum est, ut omnes aliquam partem habeant
in principatu; per hoc enim conservatur pax populi et omnes talem
ordinationem amant et custodiunt ut dicitur (II. _Polit._, cap. i.);
aliud est quod attenditur secundum speciem regiminis vel ordinationis
principatum, cujus cum sint diversæ species, ut philosophus tradit
in III. _Polit._ cap. v., præcipue tamen unum regimen est, in quo
unus principatur secundum virtutem: et aristocratia, id est potestas
optimorum, in qua aliqui pauci principantur secundum virtutem. Unde
optima ordinatio principum est in aliqua civitate vel regno, in quo
unus præficitur secundum virtutem qui omnibus præsit et sub ipso sunt
aliqui principantes secundum virtutem, et tamen talis principatus ad
omnes pertinet, tum quia ex omnibus eligi possunt, tum quia etiam ab
omnibus eliguntur. Talis vero est omnis politia bene commixta ex regno
in quantam unus præest, et aristocratia in quantum multi principantur
secundum virtutem, et ex democratia, id est potestate populi in quantum
ex popularibus possunt eligi principes, et ad populum pertinet electio
principum, et hoc fuit institutum secundum legem divinam.
Divus Thomas. (1^a 2^æ Q. 90, art. 4^o.)
Et sic ex quatuor prædictis potest colligi definitio legis quæ nihil
est aliud quam quædam rationis ordinatio ad bonum commune ab eo qui
curam communitatis habet promulgata. Q. 95, art. 4.
Tertio est de ratione legis humanæ ut instituatur a gubernante
communitatem civitatis: sicut supra dictum est. (Quest. 90, art. 3.)
Et secundum hoc distinguuntur leges humanæ secundum diversa regimina
civitatum, quorum unum, secundum philosophum in III. _Polit._, cap.
xi., est regnum, quando scilicet civitas gubernatur ab uno, et secundum
hoc accipiuntur constitutiones principum; aliud vero regimen est
aristocratia, id est principatus optimorum vel optimatum, et secundum
hoc sumuntur responsa prudentum et etiam senatusconsulta. Aliud regimen
est oligarchia, id est principatus paucorum divitum et potentum; et
secundum hoc sumitur jus prætorium, quod etiam honorarium dicitur.
Aliud autem regimen est populi, quod nominatur democratia; et secundum
hoc sumuntur plebiscita. Aliud autem est tyrannicum, quod est omnino
corruptum unde ex hoc non sumitur aliqua lex. Est etiam et aliquod
regimen ex istis commixtum, quod est optimum, et secundum hoc sumitur
lex quam majores natu simul cum plebibus sanxerunt, ut Isidorus dicit
lib. 5, _Etym. O._ cap. x.
If certain declaimers are to be believed, it would seem that the
principle, that it is the law which governs, and not the will of
man, is quite a recent discovery. But observe with what solidity and
perspicuity the angelic doctor expounds this doctrine.
(1^a 2^æ Q. 93, art. 1.)
Utrum fuerit utile aliquas leges poni ab hominibus.
Ad 2^m dicendum, quod sicut Philosophus dicit. 1. Rhetor. Melius est
omnia ordinari lege, quam dimittere judicum arbitrio, et hoc propter
tria. Primo quidem, quia facilius est invenire paucos sapientes, qui
sufficiant ad rectas leges ponendas, quam multos; qui requirerentur
ad recte judicandum de singulis. Secundo, quia illi qui leges ponunt,
ex multo tempore considerant quid lege ferendum sit: sed judicia de
singularibus factis fiunt ex casibus subito exortis. Facilius autem ex
multis consideratis potest homo videre quid rectum sit, quam solum ex
aliquo uno facto. Tertio, quia legislatores judicant in universali, et
de futuris: sed homines judiciis præsidentes judicant de præsentibus;
ad quæ afficientur amore vel odio, aut aliqua cupiditate; et sic
eorum depravatur judicium. Quia ergo justitia animata judicis non
invenitur in multis, et quia flexibilis est: ideo necessarium fuit in
quibuscumque est possibile, legem determinare quid judicandum sit, et
paucissima arbitrio hominum committere.
In Spain, the _Procuradores_ of the Cortes dared not raise their voices
against the excesses of power; and their timidity drew down the keen
reproaches of P. Mariana. In the examination to which he was subjected
in the celebrated suit commenced against him on the subject of the
_seven treatises_, he confesses having applied to the _Procuradores_
the epithets of _vile, superficial, and utterly venal_, only striving
to obtain the favor of the prince, and their own particular interests,
without solicitude for the public good. He added, that such was the
public cry, the general complaint, at least at Toledo, where he was
residing.
I will leave unnoticed his work intituled _De Rege et Regis
institutione_, of which I have spoken elsewhere. Confining myself
to his _History of Spain_, I will observe with what liberty he
expresses himself on the most delicate points, without meeting with any
opposition, either from the civil or from the ecclesiastical authority.
In his 1st book, chap. 4, speaking of the Aragonese, in his usual grave
and severe tone, he says: "The Aragonese possess and enjoy laws and
_fueros_ very different from those of the other people of Spain; they
possess every thing most adapted for preserving liberty against the
excessive power of kings, for preventing this power from degenerating
and changing, by its natural tendency, into tyranny; for they are not
ignorant of this truth, that the right of liberty is generally lost by
degrees."
It was precisely at this epoch that the clergy expressed themselves
with the greatest freedom on the most delicate of all subjects, that
of contributions. The venerable Palafox, in his memorial or petition
to the king for ecclesiastical immunity, said: "According to St.
Augustine, to the great Tostat, and other weighty authors, the Son
of God appointed that the children of God--that is the ministers of
the Church, his priests--should not pay tribute to the pagan princes.
In fact, he addressed to St. Peter the following question, already
resolved by the eternal wisdom of the Father: _Reges gentium a quibus
accipiunt tributum, a filiis, an ab alienis?_ St. Peter answered, _Ab
alienis_; and our Lord concluded with these words: _Ergo liberi sunt
filii_. I may be allowed, sire, to make this delicate observation,
that the Divine Majesty does not say, _Reges gentium a quibus capiunt
tributum_, but _a quibus accipiunt_. By this word accipiunt, we
understand the mildness and mansuetude with which the payment of a
tribute should always be exacted, in order to diminish the bitterness
and repugnance accompanying a tribute.
"46. It is doubtless useful for the preservation of the state, that,
in the first place, subjects should give, in order that princes may
then receive. It is proper that kings should receive, and employ the
tribute paid them, for on this depends the safety of crowns; but it is
well that subjects should first give it voluntarily. It is doubtless
from this passage of Scripture, from this expression of the Eternal
Word, that the Catholic Crown, always so pious, has received the holy
doctrine, by virtue of which neither your majesty nor your illustrious
predecessors have ever permitted a tribute to be levied without its
having first received the consent of the kingdoms themselves, and been
offered by them; and your majesty is incomparably more exalted by
limiting and moderating your power, than by exercising it to its utmost
extent.
"47. Sire, if laymen, who have no exemption in matters of tribute,
enjoy that which the kindness of your majesty and of the most Catholic
kings grant them; if they do not pay till they choose to make a
voluntary offering; if nothing is received from them except on this
condition, will religion, your majesty's renowned piety, and the
devoted zeal of the Council, allow the clergy--the sons, the ministers
of God, the privileged, those who are exempt by divine and human law in
all the nations of the world, and among the very pagans--to enjoy less
favor than strangers, who are not, like them, either ministers of the
Church or priests of God? Is the word _capiunt_, sire, to be applied
exclusively to the ministers of God, and the word _accipiunt_ to men of
the world?"
In his work intituled _Historia Real Sagrada_, the same writer raises
his voice against tyranny with extreme severity:
"12. _Such_," says he, "_is the law which the king whom you wish
for will maintain in your regard_. The word law is here employed
ironically, as if God should say: 'You imagine, without doubt, that
this king of yours would govern according to law; on this supposition
you asked for him, since you complained that my tribunal did not govern
you. Now, the law which this king will exercise towards you will be, to
disregard all law; and his law will eventually be tyranny respected.'
The politician who, relying upon this passage, should attribute as a
right to the monarch a power which is merely pointed out by God to the
people as a chastisement, would be an uncivilized being, unworthy of
being treated as a rational creature. The Lord, in this instance, does
not define what is the best; he does not say what he is giving them;
these words are no appreciation of power; he merely declares what would
be the case, and what he condemns. Who shall dare to found the origin
of tyranny on justice itself? God says, that he whom they desire for a
king will be a tyrant--not a tyrant approved of by him, but a tyrant
that he reprobates and chastises. And subsequent events clearly shewed
it, since there were in Israel wicked kings, by whom the prophecy was
fulfilled, and Saints who obtained on the throne the mercy of God.
The wicked kings literally accomplished the divine threat, by doing
what they were forbidden; the good ones established their dignity upon
propriety and justice within prescribed limits."
Father Marquez, in his _Christian Prince or Magistrate_ (_Gobernador
Cristiano_), also enlarges on the same question; he expounds his
opinion both theoretically and practically.
(Chapter xvi. 53.)
"Thus far we have heard the words of Philo, writing on this event. As
these words afforded me an opportunity of reasoning on the obligations
of Christian kings, I have taken care to quote them at length. I
will not expect these kings to act like Moses; for they have not the
miraculous aid which the Hebrew legislator received for the relief of
the people, nor the rod which God gave him to make water flow from the
rock at need. But I will recommend them to reflect maturely on the
additional services they shall attempt to exact from their subjects,
and the burdens they shall impose on them. Let them reflect that they
are bound to justify the motive of their request in all truth, and
without any false coloring; always and constantly aware that they are
in the presence of God, that the eyes of God are fixed on their hands,
that He will require from them a strict account of their actions. For,
as the holy doctor of Nazianzen says, the Son of God came designedly
into the world at the taking of a census and a resettlement of the
imposts, in order to confound kings who would have appointed them
through caprice; so that kings may now know that the Son of God takes
account of every item, and weighs in the balance of his strict justice
things which we should account of little moment.
"The above reflection will serve to dispel the false ideas of certain
flatterers, who, to obtain the favor of princes, persuade them that
they are perfectly independent and the masters of the lives and
property of their subjects, free to dispose of them as they may think
proper. In support of this pretended maxim, they allege, as we have
seen, the history of Samuel, who answered the people on the part of
God, when they were demanding a king, 'You shall have one, but on
terrible conditions.' This king was to take from them their fields,
their vineyards, their olive-yards, to give them to his servants; he
was to take their daughters for slaves, 'to make him ointments, and
to be his cooks and bakers.' And they have not observed that, as John
Bodin says, this is the interpretation of Philip Melancthon, which
alone is sufficient to render it suspicious. Moreover, as St. Gregory,
and after him other doctors, have observed, this passage of Scripture
does not establish the just right of kings, but rather announces
beforehand the tyranny of a great number of princes; in fine, these
words do not explain what good princes might do, but merely what bad
ones would usually do. Hence, when Achab seized upon the vineyard of
Naboth, God was angry with him, and we know how He treated him. When
David, the elect of God, demanded a spot whereon to set up the altar of
Jebusee, he only asked it on condition of paying the value of the land.
"For this reason princes should examine with scrupulous attention
whether contributions are just; for if they are not, doctors decide
that they cannot, without manifest injustice, thus more or less
infringe on the rights of their subjects. This doctrine is so Catholic
and certain, that men holding sound doctrine affirm that, in this case,
princes cannot impose fresh tributes, even though necessary, without
the consent of the nation. For, say they, the prince not being (which
he certainly is not) the master of his subjects' property, cannot make
use of it without the consent of those from whom he is to receive it.
This custom has been long in practice in the kingdom of Castile, where
the laws of royalty prohibit the levying of any new impost without
the intervention of the Cortes: after having received the sanction
of the Cortes, the impost is submitted to the vote of the towns; and
the prince does not consider his demand granted till it has received
the sanction of the majority of the towns. Edward I. of England made
a similar law, according to many authors of weight; and Philip of
Commines says, that it was the same in France till the time of Charles
VII., who, urged by an extreme necessity, suppressed these formalities,
and levied a tax without waiting for the consent of the States, and
this inflicted on the kingdom so deep a wound, that it will long
continue unhealed. If we may credit certain affirmations, this author
reports, that it was then asserted that the king had escaped from the
guardianship exercised by the kingdom; but that his own opinion is,
that kings cannot, without the consent of their people, exact a single
farthing; princes acting otherwise, says he, fall under the Pope's
excommunication; no doubt that of the bull _In Cœna Domini_. For my
own part, I ought to confess that I do not find this in Philip de
Commines.... With respect to this second point, it is evident, that
the prince cannot, on his own authority, impose new tributes without
the consent of the nation, whenever this nation shall have acquired by
any of the reasons mentioned a contrary right, which I consider to be
the case in Castile. No one, in fact, will deny that kingdoms at their
commencement have a right to choose their kings on this condition, or
render them such services as to obtain in return that no new imposts
shall be laid on them without their consent. Now, in either case, there
will be a compact made, from which kings cannot depart; and it is of
no consequence, as some imagine it to be, whether they have obtained
their kingdoms through the election of their subjects, or by mere
force of arms. Although it is probable, indeed, that a State yielding
itself of its own accord, will obtain greater privileges and better
conditions than those acquired by a just war, it would not, however,
be impossible for a State, in choosing a king, to confer upon him all
its power in an absolute manner, and without this restriction, with
a view to lay him under greater obligations, and to testify to him a
greater degree of devotedness; and, on the other hand, a king, who had
subjected a kingdom by force of arms, might nevertheless voluntarily
grant it this privilege, with a view to obtain its gratitude, and more
affectionate obedience on its part. The positive rule, therefore, for
this particular right, will be the contract made, whether virtually or
expressly, between the State and the prince; a contract which should be
inviolable, especially if it is sealed by an oath."
_The Prince, or Christian Magistrate._
(Liv. ii. ch. xxxix. § 2.)
"Princes, it is said, may compel their subjects to sell at half-price,
or to give gratuitously, a part of their property. This opinion is
generally founded on the law which ordains that, when a ship in a
tempest has been saved by throwing overboard a part of the cargo, the
proprietors of the remaining part are obliged to make a proportionate
contribution to indemnify the sufferers for the loss they have
sustained. Bartholus and other authors have inferred from this, that
in a time of necessity and famine the monarch may require his subjects
to give gratuitously, and _a fortiori_ to sell at a lower price, a
portion of their property to those in need. The monarch, say they,
might, without any doubt, render property common, as it was before the
establishment of social rights; he may consequently take it from one of
his subjects and give it to another.
"It is certainly said in the laws of the kings of Israel, that he who
should be chosen by God might seize upon the vineyards and property of
his subjects, to confer them on his own servants; but the doctors do
not support their arguments on this text. In fact, as we have said in
chapter 16th, book i., the question does not concern the rights of a
good prince, but the tyrannical acts of a bad one. Now, a careful study
of the Scriptures will shew, that this passage must be favourable to
one or other of the two opinions; for, if it were intended to establish
that kings would possess in conscience the authority set forth in this
passage, they would certainly have the right of seizing the property of
one of their subjects to give it to another. If this passage is merely
meant as a declaration of the injustices, of the extortions, and the
tyrannies of wicked monarchs, it is no less certain that in Scripture
the deed is considered unjust; for this deed is alleged as an example
of what tyrants would do; now if it had been permitted to a good
king, it would not have been quoted as an example of tyranny, as the
Scriptures suppose it.
"Thus, this text alone, even were there no other in support of this
doctrine, would satisfy me, that kings cannot lawfully compel their
subjects to relinquish their property for less than its value, not even
under pretext of the public good. In fact, were this pretext valid, it
would not have been difficult for the kings of Israel to find an excuse
for their tyranny; they might have alleged, that it was important to
the public good to reward servants whose fidelity was so advantageous
to the interests of the kingdom. Further, King Achab might have urged,
that the amusements of the prince formed a part of the public good,
since the people are so much interested in the health of the prince;
and under this pretext might have deprived Naboth of his vineyard in
order to enlarge his gardens. We find, however, that this pretext did
not justify him in compelling Naboth even to sell his vineyard; the
king, although grieved, was not offended by this man's refusal, neither
was it his intention to seize the vineyard, had not the impious Jezabel
furnished him with the means of doing so.
"Reason is evidently in favour of this opinion. Kings are the ministers
of justice, and have been appointed to administer and uphold justice
among the people. As St. Thomas teaches, the contract in buying and
selling is only just in proportion as the price is equivalent to the
thing purchased. Public, it is true, should be preferred to individual
interest; in case, therefore, that a State is in danger of dissolution,
the monarch might demand property at a less price, or even for nothing,
just as he might compel the citizen to expose his life, which is of
still greater value, in defending the common cause in a just war. This
case, however, as P. Molina observes, is impossible, since the monarch
would always be able to indemnify the individual for the loss he
sustained, by levying for this purpose a general tax, a just tribute,
and one that the State would be bound to pay. To prove this still more
clearly, let us imagine the most urgent case possible; let us suppose
that the king is besieged in his capital by a tyrant; the tyrant is
about to enter sword and torch in hand; he offers to raise the siege on
condition of receiving a statue of gold of great value, formerly the
property of his ancestors, which a subject of the besieged king, the
commander-in-chief of his armies, had taken in the plunder of a town,
and made the inalienable property of the eldest son of his family. To
render the case still more pressing, let us suppose that the tyrant has
a dearly-cherished relation in the service of the besieged king, and
that he will be satisfied if a rich lord of the kingdom, possessing
a great number of estates, be despoiled, and his property conferred
on his relation. It cannot be doubted that, in order to purchase the
lives of all, this arrangement might be entered into; and that the king
would be justified in acceding to the demand, in taking the statue, or
even the whole of this property, to confer it on the tyrant's relation.
But no one will assert that the lord should suffer the whole loss. The
State would be under the obligation of indemnifying him for the loss,
by taking upon itself the indemnification, the lord merely contributing
his quota; for this reason, that it would be opposed to natural justice
for the burdens of the whole body to fall upon a single member, which
would be the case according to the law proposed by the opponents. If,
in a case of shipwreck, all the cargo were thrown overboard to save the
ship and the lives and fortunes of all, the obligation being common
to all, it would not be just that it should fall exclusively upon the
owners; because the cargo could best be thrown overboard and most
endangered the ship's safety: the loss should be borne by all, even
by those who had with them things only of little weight, as jewels or
diamonds, for instance; since neither these latter proprietors nor
the vessel herself could be saved without lightening her by throwing
overboard the heavier portion of the cargo.
"The law decrees also that the owner of the vessel shall pay his quota.
Not that he is obliged to indemnify the owners of the merchandise
lost, because he sees them in need; it may be supposed, indeed, that
these parties are rich, and, although their present loss is extreme,
they will nevertheless be under the obligation of returning what would
then have been lent to them; for, as the doctors decide, there is no
obligation of giving to the rich man when he suffers a heavy loss, when
a loan will answer the same end. But it is said that the obligation of
the master of a ship is founded on the fact, that all the passengers
and the proprietors being interested in saving their lives and their
property, the risk and the loss of what was thrown overboard ought to
fall on all, and not exclusively on the owners of what was lost. As a
proof that this is the correct interpretation, it will be sufficient to
notice the summary of the title, and the very words of the law, which
are: _Eo quod id tributum servatæ mercedes deberent_.
"But, except in this case, or in others equally pressing, if the ruin
of the State would not result from the mere fact of an individual
refusing to yield up his house to the prince, the latter could not
compel the proprietor to give it up for a less price than its just
value, and still less for nothing; for so long as the persons and
the property of the State are safe, it is of no importance to the
body corporate whether such or such persons are rich or poor; no
one, in fact, in the general community possesses a fixed degree from
which he can neither descend nor rise. This instability observable
among the members of the same State, some losing what others gain,
and _vice versâ_, is inseparable from the state of society, such is
the instability of temporal affairs; and the public good, generally
speaking, neither loses nor gains by it."
NOTE 39, p. 382.
Some persons imagine, that in speaking of the loss of liberty in Spain,
the question may be readily reduced to one point of view, as if the
kingdom had always possessed the unity which it only acquired in the
eighteenth century, and only then in an incomplete manner. A perusal
of history, and especially of the codes of the different provinces of
which the monarchy was composed, will convince us that the central
power has been created and fortified among us very slowly; and that
at the time when this difficult task was nearly accomplished in
Castile, much still remained to be done in Aragon and Catalonia. Our
constitutions, our customs, our manners, in the seventeenth century,
evidently prove that the monarchy of Philip II., such as we conceive
it, strong and irresistible, was not yet established in the crown of
Aragon. I will abstain from adducing here documents and quoting facts
with which every one is acquainted; the dimensions of this volume
require me to be brief.
NOTE 40, p. 388.
The immortal work of Count de Maistre, in which he so ably refutes
the calumnies of the enemies of the Apostolic See, is well known.
Among so many and such profound observations, there is one deserving
of particular attention: that on the moderation of the Popes in
every thing relating to the extension of their dominions, when he
points out the difference between the Roman and the other European
Courts. "It is," says he, "a very remarkable circumstance, but either
disregarded or not sufficiently attended to, that the Popes have
never taken advantage of the great power in their possession for the
aggrandisement of their States. What could have been more natural, for
instance, or more tempting to human nature, than to reserve a portion
of the provinces conquered from the Saracens, and which they gave up
to the first occupant, to repel the Turkish ascendency, always on the
increase? But this, however, they never did, not even with regard to
the adjacent countries, as in the instance of the Two Sicilies, to
which they had incontestable rights, at least according to the ideas
then prevailing, and over which they were nevertheless contented with
an empty sovereignty, which soon ended in the _haquenée_, a slight
tribute, and merely nominal, which the bad taste of the age still
disputes with them.
"The Popes may have made too much, at the time, of this universal
sovereignty, which an opinion equally universal allowed them. They may
have exacted homage; may indeed, if you will, have too arbitrarily
imposed taxes. I do not wish to enter into these points here, but it
still remains certain that they have never sought to increase their
dominions at the expense of justice, whilst all other governments
fell under this anathema; and, at the present time even, with all
our philosophy, our civilization, and our fine books, there is not
perhaps one of the European powers in a condition to justify all its
possessions before God and reason." (_Du Pape_, book ii. chap. 6.)
NOTE 41, p. 350.
I will here insert some passages in which St. Anselm explains the
motives that induced him to write, and the method which he intended to
follow in his writings.
_Præfatio beati Anselmi Episcopi Cantuariensis in Monologuium._
Quidam fratres sæpe me studioseque precati sunt, ut quædam de illis,
quæ de meditanda divinitatis essentia, et quibusdam aliis hujus
meditationi cohærentibus, usitato sermone colloquendo protuleram,
sub quodam eis meditationis exemplo describerem. Cujus scilicet
scribendæ meditationis magis secundum suam voluntatem quam secundum rei
facilitatem aut meam possibilitatem hanc mihi formam præstituerunt:
quatenus auctoritate scripturæ penitus nihil in ea persuaderetur.
Sed quidquid per singulas investigationes finis assereret, id ita
esse plano stylo et vulgaribus argumentis simplicique disputatione,
et rationis necessitas breviter cogeret, et veritatis claritas
patenter ostenderet. Voluerunt etiam ut nec simplicibus peneque fatuis
objectionibus mihi occurrentibus obviare contemnerem, quod quidem diu
tentare recusavi, atque me cum re ipsa comparans, multis me rationibus
excusare tentavi. Quanto enim id quod petebant, usu sibi optabant
facilius: tanto mihi illud actu injungebant difficilius. Tandem
tamen victus, tum precum modesta importunitate, tum studii eorum non
contemnenda honestate, invitus quidem propter rei difficultatem, et
ingenii mei imbecillitatem, quod precabantur incæpi, sed libenter
propter eorum caritatem, quantum potui secundum ipsorum definitionem
effeci. Ad quod cum ea spe sim adductus, ut quidquid facerem illis
solis a quibus exigebatur, esset notum, et paulo post idipsum ut vilem
rem fastidientibus, contemptu esset obruendum, scio enim me in eo non
tam precantibus satisfacere potuisse, quam precibus me prosequentibus
finem posuisse. Nescio tamen quomodo sic præter spem evenit, ut non
solum prædicti fratres sed et plures alii scripturam ipsam, quisque
eam sibi transcribendo in longum memoriæ commendare satagerent, quam
ego sæpe tractans nihil potui invenire me in ea dixisse, quod non
catholicorum patrum, et maxime beati Augustini scriptis cohæreat.
Idem. _Quod hoc licet inexplicabile sit, tamen credendum sit._ (Cap.
lxii.)
Videtur mihi hujus tam sublimis rei secretum transcendere omnem
intellectus aciem humani: et idcirco conatum explicandi qualiter
hoc sit, continendum puto. Sufficere namque debere existimo rem
incomprehensibilem indaganti si ad hoc rationando pervenerit, ut eam
certissime esse cognoscat, etiamsi penetrare nequeat intellectu quomodo
ita sit, nec idcirco minus his adhibendam fidei certitudinem, quæ
probationibus necessariis nulla alia repugnante ratione asseruntur,
si suæ naturalis altitudinis incomprehensibilitate explicari non
patiantur. Quid autem tam incomprehensibile, quam id quod supra
omnia est? Quapropter si ea quæ de sua essentia hactenus disputata
sunt necessariis rationibus sunt asserta, quamvis sic intellectu
penetrari non possint ut quæ verbis valeant explicari: nullatenus
tamen certitudinis eorum nutat soliditas. Nam si superior consideratio
rationabiliter comprehendit incomprehensibile esse, quomodo eadem summa
sapientia sciat ea quæ fecit de quibus tam multa non scire necesse est;
quis explicet quomodo sciat aut dicat se ipsam, de qua aut nihil, aut
vix aliquid homini sciri possibile est?
Incipit proœmium in Prosologuion librum Anselmi, Abbatis Beccensis, et
Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis.
Postquam opusculum quoddam velut exemplum meditandi de ratione fidei,
cogentibus me precibus quorumdam fratrum in persona alicujus tacite
secum ratiocinando quæ nesciat investigantis edidi, considerans illud
esse multorum concathenatione contextum argumentorum, cœpi mecum
quærere: si forte posset invenire unum argumentum, quod nullo alio
ad se probandum, quam se solo indigeret, et solum ad astruendum quia
Deus vere est; et quia est summum bonum nullo alio indigens, et quo
omnia indigent ut sint et bene sint, et quæcumque credimus de divina
substantia sufficeret. Ad quod cum sæpe studioseque cogitationes
converterem, atque aliquando mihi videretur jam capi posse quod
quærebam, aliquando mentis aciem omnino fugeret: tandem desperans volui
cessare, velut ab inquisitione rei quam inveniri esset impossibile.
Sed cum illam cogitationem, ne mentem meam frustra occupando ab aliis
in quibus proficere possem impediret, penitus a me vellem excludere,
tunc magis ac magis nolenti et defendenti, se cœpit cum importunitate
quadam ingerere. Quadam igitur die cum vehementer ejus importunitati
resistendo fatigarer, in ipso cogitationum conflictu sic se obtulit
quod desperabam, ut studiose cogitationem amplecterer, quam sollicitus
repellebam. Æstimans igitur quod me gaudebam invenisse, si scriptum
esset alicui, legenti placiturum. De hoc ipso et quibusdam aliis
sub persona conantis erigere mentem suam ad contemplandum Deum,
et quærentis intelligere quod credit, subditum scripsi opusculum.
Et quoniam nec istud nec illud cujus supra memini, dignum libri
nomine, aut cui auctoris præponeretur nomen judicabam: nec tamen sine
aliquo titulo, quo aliquem in cujus manus venirent, quodammodo ad
se legendum invitarent, dimittenda putabam, unicuique dedi titulum:
ut prius exemplum meditandi de ratione fidei, et sequens fides
quærens intellectum diceretur. Sed cum jam a pluribus et his titulis
utrumque transumptum esset, coegerunt me plures et maxime reverendus
Archiepiscopus Lugdunensis Hugo nomine, fungens in Gallia legatione
apostolica, prœcepit auctoritate, ut nomen meum illis præscriberem.
Quod ut aptius fieret illud quidem Monologuium, id est Soliloquium,
istud vero Prosologuion, id est Alloquium nominavi.
* * * * *
I have said that St. Anselm excelled Descartes in his manner of proving
the existence of God: let the reader, indeed, peruse the following
passages. I do not, however, intend to pronounce an opinion on the
merits of this demonstration; my business is, to notice the progress of
the human mind, and not to resolve philosophical questions.
PROSOLOGUIUM D. ANSELMI.
_Quod Deus non possit cogitari non esse._
Quod utique sic vere est, ut nec cogitari possit non esse. Nam potest
cogitari esse aliquid, quod non possit cogitari non esse, quod majus
est quam quod non esse cogitari potest. Quare si id, quo majus nequit
cogitari, potest cogitari non esse: id ipsum, quo majus cogitari
nequit, non est id quo majus cogitari nequit; quod convenire non
potest. Sic ergo vere est aliquid, quo majus cogitari non potest,
ut nec cogitari possit non esse. Et hoc es tu, Domine Deus noster.
Sic ergo vere es, Domine Deus meus, ut nec cogitari possis non esse.
Et merito. Si enim aliqua mens posset cogitare aliquid melius te,
ascenderet creatura super Creatorem; et judicaret de Creatore, quod
valde est absurdum. Et quidem quidquid est aliud præter solum te,
potest cogitari non esse. Solus igitur verissime omnium, et ideo maxime
omnium habes esse, quia quidquid aliud est non sic vere est, et idcirco
minus habet esse. Cur itaque, _dixit insipiens in corde suo non est
Deus?_ Cum causa in promptu sit rationali menti, te maxime omnium esse?
Cur, nisi stultus et insipiens?
_Quomodo insipiens dixit in corde suo quod cogitari non potest._ (Cap.
iv.)
Verum quomodo dixit insipiens in corde suo quod cogitare non potuit,
aut quomodo cogitare non potuit quod dixit in corde, cum idem sit
dicere in corde, et cogitare. Quod si vere, imo quia vere, et
cogitavit: quia dixit in corde et non dixit in corde, quia cogitare non
potuit; non uno tantum modo dicitur aliquid in corde vel cogitatur.
Aliter enim cogitatur res, cum vox eam significans cogitatur: aliter
cum idipsum, quod res est, intelligitur. Illo itaque modo, potest
cogitari Deus non esse: isto vero, minime. Nullus quippe intelligens id
quod Deus est, potest cogitare quia Deus non est; licet hæc verba dicat
in corde, aut sine ulla, aut cum aliqua extranea significatione. Deus
enim, est id quo majus cogitari non potest. Quod qui bene intelligit,
utique intelligit id ipsum sic esse, ut nec cogitatione queat non
esse. Qui ergo intelligit sic esse Deum, nequit eum non esse cogitare.
Gratias tibi, bone Domine, gratias tibi, quia quod prius credidi te
donante, jam sic intelligo te illuminante; ut si te esse nolim credere,
non possim non intelligere.
_Ejusdem beati Anselmi liber pro insipiente incipit._
Dubitanti, utrum sit; vel neganti quod sit aliqua talis natura, qua
nihil majus cogitari possit; tamen esse illam, huic dicitur primo
probari; quod ipse negans vel ambigens de illa, jam habeat eam in
intellectu, cum audiens illam dici, id quod dicitur intelligit: deinde,
quia quod intelligit necesse est, ut non in solo intellectu, sed etiam
in re sit. Et hoc ita probatur; quia majus est esse in intellectu et in
re, quam in solo intellectu. Et si illud in solo est intellectu, majus
illo erit quidquid etiam fuerit in re, at si majus omnibus, minus erit
aliquo, et non erit majus omnibus quod utique repugnat. Et ideo necesse
est ut, majus omnibus, quod est jam probatum esse in intellectu, et
in re sit; quoniam aliter majus omnibus esse non poterit. Responderi
potest, quod hoc jam esse dicitur in intellectu meo, non ob aliud, nisi
quia id quod dicitur intelligo.
* * * * *
The passages I have just quoted will have shewn to my readers that
thought was not oppressed in the Catholic Church. The most eminent
doctors were accustomed to reason on the most important subjects
with a just and reasonable independence; and although with profound
respect for the teaching of the Catholic Church, they nevertheless
surveyed, as well as Abelard and better, the field of true philosophy.
We cannot expect from human intelligence at this epoch more than is
to be found in St. Anselm. How is it, therefore, that such eulogiums
have been passed upon Roscelin and Abelard, without ever mentioning
this holy doctor? Why present a picture of the intellectual movement so
incomplete, and not insert in it so noble and beautiful a figure?
If you would know how incorrect it is that Abelard, as M. Guizot
affirms, abstained from attacking the doctrines of the Church--how
incorrect M. Guizot is in his statement of the causes which excited the
zeal of the pastors of the Church against Abelard, read the letter of
the Bishops of Gaul to Pope Innocent, in which you will find a complete
recital of the origin and cause of this important affair. Here is the
letter:
EPISTOLA CCCLXX.
_Reverendissimo Patri et Domino, INNOCENTIO, Dei gratia summo
Pontifici, Henricus Senonensium Archiepiscopus, Carnotensis Episcopus,
Sanctæ Sedis Apostolicæ famulus, Aurelianensis, Antissiodorensis,
Trecensis, Meldensis Episcopi, devotas orationes et debitam
obedientiam._
Nulli dubium est quod ea quæ Apostolica firmantur auctoritate, rata
semper existunt; nec alicujus possunt deinceps mutilari cavillatione,
vel invidia depravari. Ea propter ad vestram Apostolicam Sedem,
Beatissime Pater, referre dignum censuimus quædam quæ nuper in
nostra contigit tractari præsentia. Quæ quoniam et nobis, et multis
religiosis ac sapientibus viris rationabiliter acta visa sunt, vestræ
serenitatis expectant comprobari judicio, simul et auctoritate perpetuo
roborari. Itaque cum per totam fere Galliam in civitatibus, vicis, et
castellis, a Scholaribus non solum intra Scholas, sed etiam triviatim:
nec a litteratis, aut provectis tantum, sed a pueris et simplicibus,
aut certe stultis, de Sancta Trinitate, quæ Deus est, disputaretur:
insuper alia multa ab eisdem, absona prorsus et absurda, et plane fidei
catholicæ, sanctorumque Patrum auctoritatibus obviantia proferrentur;
cumque ab his qui sane sentiebant, et eas ineptias rejiciendas esse
censebant, sæpius admoniti corriperentur, vehementius convalescebant,
et auctoritate magistri sui Petri Abailardi, et cujusdam ipsius libri,
cui _Theologiæ_ indiderat nomen; nec non et aliorum ejusdem opusculorum
freti ad astruendas profanas adinventiones illas, non sine multarum
animarum dispendio, sese magis ac magis armabant. Quæ enim et nos, et
alios plures non parum moverant ac læserant; inde tamen quæstionem
facere verebantur.
Verum Dominus Abbas Claræ-vallis, his a diversis et sæpius auditis,
immo certe in prætaxato magistri Petri _Theologiæ_ libro, nec non et
aliis ejusdem libris, in quorum forte lectionem inciderat, diligenter
inspectis; secreto prius; ac deinde secum duobus aut tribus adhibitis
testibus, juxta Evangelicum præceptum, hominem convenit: Et ut
auditores suos a talibus compesceret, librosque suos corrigeret,
amicabiliter satis ac familiariter illum admonuit. Plures etiam
Scholarium adhortatus est, ut et libros venenis plenos repudiarent
et rejicerent: et a doctrina, quæ fidem lædebat Catholicam, caverent
et abstinerent. Quod magister Petrus minus patienter et nimium ægre
ferens, crebro nos pulsare cœpit, nec ante voluit desistere, quoad
Dominum Clara-vellensem Abbatem super hoc scribentes, assignato die,
scilicet octavo Pentecostes, Senonis ante nostram submonuimus venire
præsentiam: quo se vocabat et offerebat paratum magister Petrus ad
probandas et defendendas de quibus illum Dominus Abbas Clara-vallensis,
quomodo prætaxatum est, reprehenderat sententias. Cæterum Dominus
Abbas, nec ad assignatum diem se venturum, nec contra Petrum sese
disceptaturum nobis remandavit. Sed quia magister Petrus interim suos
nihilominus cœpit undequaque convocare discipulos; et obsecrare, ut ad
futuram inter se, Dominumque Abbatem Clara-vallensem disputationem,
una cum illo suam sententiam simul et scientiam defensuri venirent; Et
hoc Dominum Clara-vallensem minime lateret; veritus ipse, ne propter
occasionem absentiæ suæ tot profanæ, non sententiæ sed insaniæ, tam
apud minus intelligentes, quam earumdem defensores majore dignæ
viderentur auctoritate, prædicto quem sibi designaveramus die, licet
eum minime suscepisset, tactus zelo pii fervoris, imo certe Sancti
Spiritus igne succensus, sese nobis ultro Senonis præsentavit. Illa
vero die, scilicet octava Pentecostes, convenerant ad nos Senonis
Fratres et Suffraganei nostri Episcopi, ob honorem et reverentiam
sanctarum, quas in Ecclesia nostra populo revelaturos nos indixeramus,
Reliquiarum.
Itaque præsente glorioso Rege Francorum Ludovico cum Wilhelmo religioso
Nivernis Comite, Domino quoque Rhemensi Archiepiscopo, cum quibusdam
suis suffraganeis Episcopis nobis etiam, et suffraganeis nostris,
exceptis Parisiis et Nivernis, Episcopis præsentibus, cum multis
religiosis Abbatibus et sapientibus, valdeque litteratis clericis
adfuit Dominus Abbas Clara-vallensis; adfuit magister Petrus cum
fautoribus suis. Quid multa? Dominus Abbas cum librum Theologiæ
magistri Petri proferret in medium, et quæ annotaverat absurda, imo
hæretica plane capitula de libro eodem proponeret, ut ea magister
Petrus vel a se scripta negaret, vel si sua fateretur, aut probaret,
aut corrigeret: visus est diffidere magister Petrus Abailardus, et
subterfugere, respondere noluit, sed quamvis libera sibi daretur
audientia, tutumque locum, et æquos haberet judices, ad vestram tamen,
sanctissime Pater, appellans præsentiam, cum suis a conventu discessit.
Nos autem licet appellatio ista, minus Canonica videretur, Sedi tamen
Apostolicæ deferentes, in personam hominis nullam voluimus proferre
sententiam: Cæterum sententias pravi dogmatis ipsius, quia multo
infecerant, et sui contagione adusque cordium intima penetraverant,
sæpe in audientia publica lectas et relectas, et tam verissimis
rationibus, quam Beati Augustini, aliorumque Sanctorum Patrum inductis
a Domino Clara-vallensi auctoritatibus, non solum falsas, sed et
hæreticas esse evidentissime comprobatas, pridie ante factam ad vos
appellationem damnavimus. Et quia multos in errorem perniciosissimum
et plane damnabilem pertrahunt, eas auctoritate vestra, dilectissime
Domine, perpetua damnatione notari; et omnes qui pervicaciter et
contentiose illas defenderint, a vobis, æquissime Pater, juxta pœna
mulctari unanimiter et multa precum instantia postulamus.
Sæpe dicto vero Petro, si Reverentia vestra silentium imponeret, et tam
legendi, quam scribendi prorsus interrumperet facultatem, et libros
ejus perverso sine dubio dogmate respersos condemnaret, avulsis spinis
et tribulis ab Ecclesia Dei, prevaleret adhuc læta Christi seges
succrescere, florere, fructificare. Quædam autem de condemnatis a nobis
capitulis vobis, Reverende Pater, conscripta transmisimus, ut per hæc
audita reliqui corpus operis facilius æstimetis.
Observe how St Bernard explains the system and errors of the celebrated
Abelard. In chapter 1 of the treatise which he wrote, _De erroribus
Petri Abailardi_, he says:
"Habemus in Francia novum de veteri magistro Theologum, qui ab ineunte
ætate sua in arte dialectica lusit; et nunc in scripturis sanctis
insanit. Olim damnata et sopita dogmata, tam sua videlicet quam aliena
suscitare conatur, insuper et nova addit. Qui dum omnium quæ sunt cœlo
sursum, et quæ in terra deorsum, nihil præter solum Nescio nescire
dignatur; ponit in cœlum os suum, et scrutatur alta Dei, rediensque
ad nos refert verba ineffabilia, quæ non licet homini loqui. Et
dum paratus est de omnibus reddere rationem, etiam quæ sunt supra
rationem, et contra rationem præsumit, et contra fidem. Quid enim magis
contra rationem, quam ratione rationem conari transcendere? Et quid
magis contra fidem; quam credere nolle, quidquid non possit ratione
attingere?"
In chapter 4, he sums up, in a few words, the aberrations of the
dialectician:
"Sed advertite cætera. Omitto quod dicit spiritum timoris Domini
non fuisse in Domino: timorem Domini castum in future seculo non
futurum: post consecrationem panis et calicis priora accidentia quæ
remanent pendere in aere: dæmonum in nobis suggestiones contactu
fieri lapidum et herbarum, prout illorum sagax malitia novit; harum
rerum vires diversas, diversis incitandis et incendendis vitiis,
convenire: Spiritum Sanctum esse animam mundi: mundum juxta Platonem
tanto excellentius animal esse, quanto meliorem animam habet Spiritum
Sanctum. Ubi dum multum sudat quomodo Platonem faciat Christianum, se
probat ethnicum. Hæc inquam omnia, aliasque istiusmodi nænias ejus
non paucas prætereo, venio ad graviora. Non quod vel ad ipsa cuncta
respondeam, magnis enim opus voluminibus esset. Illa loquor quæ tacere
non possum.
"Cum de Trinitate loquitur," says he in his letter 192, "sapit Arium,
cum de Gratia sapit Pelagium, cum de persona Christi sapit Nestorium."
Pope Innocent, condemning the doctrines of Abelard, says: "In Petri
Abailardi perniciosa doctrina, et prædictorum hæreses, et alia perversa
dogmata catholicæ fidei obviantia pullulare cœperunt."
APPENDIX.
NOTE (a), p. 289.
Quod necesse est homines simul viventes ab aliquo diligenter regi.
Et siquidem homini conveniret singulariter vivere, sicut multis
animalium, nullo alio dirigente indigeret ad finem, sed ipse sibi
unusquisque esset rex sub Deo summo rege, in quantum per lumen rationis
divinitus datum sibi, in suis actibus seipsum dirigeret. Naturale
autem est homini ut sit animal sociale, et politicum, in multitudine
vivens, magis etiam quam omnia alia animalia; quod quidem naturalis
necessitas declarat. Aliis enim animalibus natura præparavit cibum,
tegumenta pilorum, defensionem, ut dentes, cornua, ungues, vel saltem
velocitatem ad fugam. Homo autem institutus est nullo horum sibi a
natura præparato, sed loco omnium data est ei ratio, per quam sibi hæc
omnia officio manuum posset præparare, ad quæ omnia præparanda unus
homo non sufficit. Nam unus homo per se sufficienter vitam transigere
non posset. Est igitur homini naturale, quod in societate multorum
vivat. Amplius, aliis animalibus insita est naturalis industria ad
omnia ea quæ sunt eis utilia vel nociva, sicut ovis naturaliter extimet
lupum inimicum. Quædam etiam animalia ex naturali industria cognoscunt
aliquas herbas medicinales, et alia eorum vitæ necessaria. Homo autem
horum, quæ sunt suæ vitæ necessaria, naturalem cognitionem habet solum
in communi, quasi eo per rationem valente ex universalibus principiis
ad cognitionem singulorum, quæ necessaria sunt humanæ vitæ, pervenire.
Non est autem possibile, quod unus homo ad omnia hujusmodi per suam
rationem pertingat. Est igitur necessarium homini, quod in multitudine
vivat, et unus ab alio adjuvetur, et diversi diversis inveniendis
per rationem occuparentur, puta, unus in medicina, alius in hoc,
alius in alio. Hoc etiam evidentissime declaratur per hoc, quod est
proprium hominis locutione uti, per quam unus homo aliis suum conceptum
totaliter potest exprimere. Alia quidem animalia exprimunt mutuo
passiones suas, in communi, ut canis in latratu iram, et alia animalia
passiones suas diversis modis. Magis igitur homo est communicativus
alteri, quam quodcumque aliud animal, quod gregale videtur, ut grus,
formica, et apis. Hoc ergo considerans Salomon in Ecclesiaste ait:
"Melius est esse duos, quam unum. Habent enim emolumentum mutuæ
societatis." Si ergo naturale est homini quod in societate multorum
vivat, necesse est in hominibus esse, per quod multitudo regatur.
Multis enim existentibus hominibus et uno quoque id quod est sibi
congruum providente, multitudo in diversa dispergeretur, nisi etiam
esset aliquis de eo quod ad bonum multitudinis pertinet, curam habens,
sicut et corpus hominis, et cujuslibet animalis deflueret, nisi esset
aliqua vis regitiva communis in corpore, quæ ad bonum commune omnium
membrorum intenderet. Quod considerans Salomon dicit: "Ubi non est
gubernator, dissipabitur populus." Hoc autem rationabiliter accidit:
non enim idem est quod proprium, et quod commune. Secundum propria
quidem differunt, secundum autem commune uniuntur: diversorum autem
diversæ sunt causæ. Oportet igitur præter id quod movet ad proprium
bonum uniuscujusque, esse aliquid, quod movet ad bonum commune
multorum. Propter quod et in omnibus quæ in unum ordinantur, aliquid
invenitur alterius regitivum. In universitate enim corporum, per primum
corpus, scilicet celeste, alia corpora ordine quodam divinæ providentiæ
reguntur, omniaque corpora, per creaturam rationalem. In uno etiam
homine anima regit corpus, atque inter animæ partes irascibilis et
concupiscibilis ratione reguntur. Itemque inter membra corporis unum
est principale, quod omnia movet, ut cor, aut caput. Oportet igitur
esse in omni multitudine aliquod regitivum. (D. Th., Opusc. de Regimine
Principum, l. i. cap. 1.)
NOTE (b), p. 290.
Ubi considerandum est, quod dominium, vel prælatio introducta sunt
ex jure humano: distinctio autem fidelium et infidelium est ex jure
divino. Jus autem divinum quod est ex gratia, non tollit jus humanum
quod est ex naturali ratione; ideo distinctio fidelium et infidelium
secundum se considerata, non tollit dominium, et prælationem infidelium
supra fideles. (2. 2. quest. 10, art. 10.)
NOTE (c), p. 290.
Respondeo dicendum quod sicut supra dictum est (quest. 10, art. 10),
infidelitas secundum se ipsam non repugnat dominio, eo quod dominium
introductum est de jure gentium, quod est jus humanum. Distinctio autem
fidelium et infidelium est secundum jus divinum, per quod non tollitur
jus humanum. (2. 2. quest. 12, art. 2.)
NOTE (d), p. 290.
Respondeo dicendum quod sicut actiones rerum naturalium procedunt ex
potentiis naturalibus: ita etiam operationes humanæ procedunt ex humana
voluntate. Oportuit autem in rebus naturalibus, ut superiora moverent
inferiora ad suas actiones per excellentiam naturalis virtutis collatæ
divinitus. Unde et oportet in rebus humanis, quod superiores moveant
inferiores per suam voluntatem ex vi auctoritatis divinitus ordinatæ.
Movere autem per rationem et voluntatem est præcipere; et ideo sicut ex
ipso ordine naturali divinitus instituto inferiora in rebus naturalibus
necesse habent subjici motioni superiorum, ita etiam in rebus humanis
ex ordine juris naturalis et divini, tenentur inferiores suis
superioribus obedire. (2. 2. quest. 105, art. 1.)
NOTE (e), p. 291.