JOHN OF SALISBURY.
Week
Files
Notes
BACKGROUND.
contributions of Christianity.
autonomy of a spiritual sphere independent of, and even superior to political authority.
before, it had been struggling for institutional survival until it became the official
religion of Rome. at this time, it still had not established its theoretical formulas. not
until the 5th century when it had finally gained a foothold in Roman society.
theory of the relation of church and state.
St. Augustine was too concerned with the theological defense of Christianity against
paganism that he did not sufficiently develop or define the boundaries between
political and ecclesiastical power — the church vs. the state.
dualistic conception of authority.
Pope Gelasius defined the relation between the two authorities.
Christ as both king and priest, knowing the weakness of human nature, divided the
two authorities:
(1) ecclesiastical authority — for the spiritual and religious welfare of men.
(2) political authority — for the care and administration of temporal matters.
both derive their authority from God, thus both are supreme and independent
int heir own spheres.
this implies their mutual dependence — they must bow to each other depending on
the matters at hand. they must recognize the other’s authority at times.
they would cooperate in practical tasks rather than engage in bitter jurisdictional
disputes.
however, he does not indicate how to determine who has jurisdiction over what in
this certain circumstance.
however, many argue that his theory is unsatisfactory, especially in determining the
authorities’ jurisdiction.
whoever had the power to choose whether a matter is ecclesiastical or temporal will
be in effect the sovereign authority.
Gelasius leaned more towards the Church because it hold a heavier burden — it
carries the task of spiritual salvation, this the priest is answerable for the souls of
all..
papalist and antipapalist doctrines.
in the 10th century, the Gelasian doctrine was eventually given up and the cleavage
between both sides only deepened.
the papalists, in favor of the Church’s supreme authority, raised the following arguments:
(1) the church held its authority directly from God.
JOHN OF SALISBURY. 1
the church was originally given all the authority as the intermediary between God
and society and the state only received its power from the Church, exercising it
indirectly.
(2) feudalism and the church as the supreme landowner.
secular authority was only held in tenure by the state with the true title resting in
the Church.
eminent domain — the king holds the ultimate authority to all property in the
land.
(3) post-feudal theocracy.
theocracy — government in which priests rule in both ecclesiastical and secular
matters.
the pope ruled in the political sphere in the sense that he has the power to
control the emperor’s actions from the viewpoint of Christian values and he
has the right to admonish him and even excommunicate him when
necessary.
imperialists were more moderate in their arguments, asserting that neither power was
more supreme than the other.
both were handed down directly from God, reinstating the Gelasian doctrine.
extreme antipapalists, however, suggested that the office of the king was higher and
supreme in both worldly and spiritual matters.
contradictions in authority.
(1) the conflict was not in fact universal — the “state” being only limited to the Holy
Roman Empire which excluded England, France, and Spain, and the “church” only falling
under the jurisdiction of Rome and not of Christianity as a whole.
(2) back to the feudal system.
bishops were both under the church and feudal landowners — meaning they were
also vassals of the king, requiring their profound loyalty for him and allegiance to the
government.
(3) clergy’s monopoly over literacy and learning.
this benefit granted them the trust for administrative positions in the government.
this is only peaceful when the two authorities did not disagree on major polities,
but when they do, the clergymen had to choose their first loyalties.
first great conflict between the Church and the empire.
1076 — Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV deposed Pope Gregory VII, who in turn
excommunicated the emperor.
JOHN OF SALISBURY (1120-1180).
Englishman; considered by many to be the most typical medieval political writer until St.
Thomas Aquinas and Marsilio of Padua.
studied in France for twelve years as the world center of philosophy and theology of the time.
had wide experience and exposure in both public and religious affairs.
became the secretary of Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury at an early age and
acquired both intimate knowledge on the politics of England and the workings of the
Church.
JOHN OF SALISBURY. 2
frequently travelled to the papal court in Rome and became friends with the only English
pope in history — Adrian VI.
became a friend of Thomas Becket who became Archbishop of Canterbury and John
continued as secretary, but this friend was later murdered by the men of Henry II of
England.
became bishop of Chartres in 1176.
POLICRATICUS (The Stateman’s Book).
(1) one of the most influential medieval statements.
due to its originality in combining existing ideas into a new pattern.
(2) championed the supremacy of ecclesiastical power.
John of Salisbury was one of the first and most effective speakers for the papalist
side.
“the prince receives his sword or authority from the Church.”
that said, the Church has the right to depose the prince if he violates the law of
God or disregards the Church’s teachings since the authority that was given to it
can be rightfully taken away.
(3) organic theory.
not the same as Aristotle’s organic conception of the state.
the human body can be compared to Church supremacy over the state:
the state is a reflection of the body, with each group or class representing its
different parts.
feet — farmers and workers.
stomach and intestines — public finance officers.
hands — officials and soldiers.
heart — senate.
head — prince.
but the church and clergy occupy the highest place of all — the soul, which rules
over the entirety of the body.
(4) moral sovereignty of the Church.
does not actually propose that Church actually take over the temporal government,
but the state of ordinance of the prince must conform with the teachings of the
Church.
(5) the struggle between reason and unreason.
human liberty — should the state be the supreme and sole ruling entity or must
there be an opposing body to avoid complete authoritarianism?
in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Church was argued to be the main
impediment to liberal democracy, but this was completely debunked by the events
of fascism and totalitarianism in history — proving the necessity of opposing
institutions to the state to be a necessity in maintaining liberty and avoiding
despotism.
however, it can be argued that the Church alone cannot be a sufficient enough
institution to limit the government’s power.
the concern of the 20th century was then not whether or not the government had too
little power — but too much of it.
JOHN OF SALISBURY. 3
(6) the king vs. the tyrant.
distinction goes back to Aristotle where the king rules in the interest of the rules and
the tyrant rules in his own interest.
but John of Salisbury creates a new nuance — (a) the king rules in accordance
with the law, and (b) the tyrant rules by force.
the latter violates the rule of law, and by doing so, challenges God himself.
(7) justification of tyrannicide.
the most hopeful and safest way of destroying tyrants is praying devoutly.
but when left with no other choice, it is legal — and also just and right — to kill a
tyrant.
the tyrants usurps power, oppresses justice, and enslaves the law. leaving him be
is a sin against the whole community and a violation of the law.
thus, Salisbury’s notion of political authority is based on justice and not absolute
obedience.
(8) criticisms against the Church.
he writes about the ecclesiastical abuses and vices of the Church, even the
struggle for power and office within the institution.
going as far as asserting that the ecclesiastical tyrant is far worse than a political
one.
his objective criticisms simply increased the effectivity of his papalist rhetoric..
THE STATESMAN’S BOOK.
NATURE AND SOURCE OF ROYAL AUTHORITY.
difference between a tyrant and a prince.
the prince rules according to the rule of law, in managing the affairs of state and in
seeking and bringing about the advantage of each citizen individually.
whereas the tyrant rules for his own self advantage.
nature — the best guide for life. it places man as the head and all others into obedience
through which they will all function properly as long as they follow the head’s guidance.
the prince is the likeness of God on earth.
the power that he has is therefore from God, but acknowledges the fact that he is still
bound by law — his authority still depends upon the authority of justice and the law.
he stands on the pinnacle and it is impossible for his will to be opposed to justice,
THE RELATION OF THE PRINCE TO AUTHORITY.
EQUITY — giving to each person what is proportionally right for him by comparing things
rationally,
equity is interpreted by the law.
which extends over all things, whether divine or human, and pulls the state
together as a gift from God.
that said, the prince is also bound by law — this fact should not retract from his
own authority since he is still absolved from obligations of the law, but he is
expected to rule by EQUITY.
JOHN OF SALISBURY. 4
he punishes and rewards not by his own arbitrary justice, but with even-
handed equity in accordance to the law of God.
“legis ictor” — hammer of the law.
duty of his office to strike those who the law adjudges shall be struck. meaning, in
accordance with equity, criminals may be slain if deemed rightful by passionless law
and not by the personal wrath of the prince.
THE PRINCE SUBORDINATE TO THE PRIESTS.
the prince receives the sword from the Church.
granting him the power over temporal matters while the Church focuses on spiritual
affairs. the prince then exercises power which seems unworthy of the hands of
priesthood.
every office — including that of the prince’s — that exercises the sacred laws is a
religious office inferior to that of the priests’.
it was not even permissible for the prince to judge the petitions against priests since
they can be judged only by God alone.
further, whatever power is given to the prince can be taken away if his practices
disaligns with Christian virtues; “he who can lawfully bestow can lawfully take away.”
supervision over all classes of persons is, however, common to both authorities.
JUSTICE AND MERCY.
no one, not even the prince, must seek his own interest, but instead that of others.
affection for his people must be kept in moderation because otherwise, it may prevent
him from inflicting just punishments. the opposite goes as well: the prince’s personal
wrath must not allow him to inflict graver punishments that what is deemed equitable
by law.
the prince still grieves when inflicting punishments, and he does so with a reluctant
hand — because considering the state is one, whole body, who would not be pained to
inflict injury against oneself?
therefore violent punishments should be the last resort, only inflicted to the most
severe of offenses. all means of kindness and mercy must be first employed
before resorting to death sentences.
diseases of any part of the body should be attempted to be healed first before
amputating it.
THE STATE AS AN ORGANISM.
the Church and the clergy occupy the soul of the man, controlling all other bodily
functions as the moderating power of reason.
the state, then, can be compared to the body:
(1) HEAD — prince.
subject only to God and those who exercise His office on earth; meaning. the soul
still governs it.
(2) HEART — senate.
initiation of good works and ill.
(3) EYES, EARS, AND TONGUE — judges and governors of provinces.
(4) HANDS — officials and soldiers.
JOHN OF SALISBURY. 5
(5) STOMACH AND INTENSTINES — financial officers and keepers.
if they become diseases, the rest of the body will also be threatened by illness.
(6) FEET — workers and husbandmen.
need more the care and foresight of the head; sustains and moves the rest of the
body and taking it away would lead to the body’s incapacitation.
THE “FEET” OF THE COMMONWEALTH.
the feet allow all the rest of the parts of the body and commonwealth to walk on the earth.
the number of feet, although not infinite, are many and have more variety than one
could imagine. from mechanics to cloth-makers, farmers to blacksmiths — the feet
consist of all the working class in the state.
varied as they may be, they are regulated by law all the same: (a) they should not
transgress the limits of the law, and (b) they should observe constant reference to public
utility.
this is because inferiors provide their superiors with service, who in turn return it
with resources needed for their protection and success. this is the only way for the
the commonwealth to be healthy, sound, and flourishing.
THE LOVE OF LIBERTY AND FREE SPEECH.
virtue can never be fully attained without liberty.
LIBERTY — judging everything freely in accordance with one’s individual judgement;
does not hesitate to reprove what is opposed to good morals.
although virtue is the highest good of life, without liberty, it is still lacking.
therefore — “man is free in proportion to the measure of his virtues” and the extent of his
freedom determines the what his virtues can accomplish.
adversely, it is vices that bring about slavery.
good laws were introduced for the sake of liberty.
it part of the a good and wise man to accepts with patience the words of free speaking.
if the peace granted to men is advantageous, they will sustain it. but if it is not
advantageous, they will not keep it for long.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TYRANT AND A TRUE PRINCE.
a tyrant is he who oppresses people by ruling by force, and does not rule in
accordance with the law.
he brings the laws to nought and reduces the people to slavery.
the laws is a gift of God, and since the tyrant does not abide by this, it is the same as
assailing his grace and challenging him to battle.
furthermore, the tyrant seeks to be equal with God in authority.
his origin in iniquity.
TYRANNICIDE.
Salisbury gives examples of tyrants and describes how they were dealt with.
the safest way in dealing with tyrants is to spare him and pray over him that he may
return back to the grace of God and repent for his unjust actions.
it is only when they persist in their malice that they may be permitted — and rightfully
— to be slain.
JOHN OF SALISBURY. 6
this punishment is administered by the Lord himself, but through the hands of man.
ECCLESIASTICAL TYRANTS.
he gives an account of the impiety occurring under the disguise of religion when
clergymen and priests fight for power within the Church and amongst themselves — of
which he accounts as worse than the temporal tyrant.
he shares his conversation with the Lord Adrian the Fourth, the pope of Rome of
the time, the misdeeds and sins of the people in the church, which includes:
how they extort nations and plunder church resources, snatch the offices of one
another, collect and rejoice in their ill acclaimed wealth, build up palaces for
themselves, and give judgement not for the truth, but for the money.
of which the Pope responded in delight and encouraged him to report any more
abuse he has witnessed in the Church to him in the future.
JOHN OF SALISBURY. 7
