Medieval Life and Thought

‘Medieval philosophy’ refers to philosophy in Western Europe during the “medieval” period, the
so called “Middle Ages.” The notion of a “Middle Age” (or plural “Middle Ages”) was introduced
in the fifteenth century for the period between the decline of classical pagan culture in Western
Europe and what was taken to be its rediscovery during the Renaissance. The first known
documented use of the expression (in the form ‘media tempestas’) is from 1469.

At the end of this chapter, the students will be able to:

1. Define who a ‘Prince’ is according to John Salisbury.

JOHN OF SALISBURY: THE STATEMAN’S

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PRINCE AND A TYRANT AND OF WHAT IS MEANT BY A

Between a tyrant and a prince there is this single or chief difference, that the latter obeys the
law and rules the people by its dictates, accounting himself as but their servant. It is by virtue of
the law that he makes good his claim to the foremost and chief place in the management of the
affairs of the commonwealth and in the bearing of its burdens; and his elevation over others
consists in this, that whereas private men are held responsible only for their private affairs, on
the prince fall the burdens of the whole community. Wherefore deservedly there is conferred on
him, and gathered together in his hands, the power of all his subjects, to the end that he may
be sufficient unto himself in seeking and bringing about the advantage of each individually, and
of all; and to the end that the state of the human commonwealth may be ordered in the best
possible manner, seeing that each and all are members one of another. Wherein we indeed but
follow nature, the best guide of life; for nature has gathered together all the senses of her
microcosm or little world, which is man, into the head, and has subjected all the members in
obedience to it in such wise that they will all function properly so long as they follow the
guidance of the head, and the head remains sane. Therefore the prince stands on a pinnacle
which is exalted and made splendid with all the great and high privileges which he deems
necessary for himself. And rightly so, because nothing is more advantageous to the people
than that the needs of the prince should be fully satisfied; since it is impossible that his will
should be found opposed to justice.

1
Therefore, according to the usual definition, the prince is the public power, and a kind of
likeness on earth of the divine majesty.

Beyond doubt a large share of the divine power is shown to be in princes by the fact that at
their nod men bow their necks and for the most part offer up their heads to the axe to be struck
off, and, as by a divine impulse, the prince is feared by each of those over whom he is set as
an object of fear. And this I do not think could be, except as a result of the will of God. For all
power is from the Lord God, and has been with Him always, and is from everlasting. The power
which the prince has is therefore from God, for the power of God is never lost, nor severed from
Him, but He merely exercises it through a subordinate hand, making all things teach His mercy
or justice. "Who, therefore, resists the ruling power, resists the ordinance of God," [Romans
13:2] in whose hand is the authority of conferring that power, and when He so desires, of
withdrawing it again, or diminishing it. For it is not the ruler's own act when his will is turned to
cruelty against his subjects, but it is rather the dispensation of God for His good pleasure to
punish or chasten them.

If good men thus regard power as worthy of veneration even when it comes as a plague upon
the elect, who should not venerate that power which is instituted by God for the punishment of
evil-doers and for the reward of good men, and which is promptest in devotion and obedience
to the laws? To quote the words of the Emperor, "it is indeed a saying worthy of the majesty of
royalty that the prince acknowledges himself bound by the Laws." For the authority of the
prince depends upon the authority of justice and law; and truly it is a greater thing than imperial
power for the prince to place his government under the laws, so as to deem himself entitled to
do naught
which is at variance with the equity of justice.

THAT THE PRINCE IS THE MINISTER OF THE PRIESTS AND INFERIOR TO THEM; AND
OF WHAT AMOUNTS TO FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF THE PRINCE'S MINISTRY.

This sword, then, the prince receives from the hand of the Church, although she herself has no
sword of blood at all. Nevertheless she has this sword, but she uses it by the hand of the
prince, upon whom she confers the power of bodily coercion, retaining to herself authority over
spiritual things in the person of the pontiffs. The prince is, then, as it were, a minister of the
priestly power, and one who exercises that side of the sacred offices which seems unworthy of
the hands of the priesthood. For every office existing under, and concerned with the execution
of, the sacred laws is really a religious office, but that is inferior which consists in punishing
crimes, and which therefore seems to be typified in the person of the hangman. Wherefore
Constantine, most faithful emperor of the Romans, when he had convoked the council of
priests at Nicaea, neither dared to take the chief place for himself nor even to sit among the
presbyters, but chose the hindmost seat.

Wherefore Melchisedech, the earliest whom the Scripture introduces as both king and priest (to
say nought at present concerning the mystery wherein he prefigures Christ, who was born in
heaven without a mother and on earth without a father); of him, I say, we read that he had
neither father nor mother, not because he was in fact without either, but because in the eyes of
reason the kingly power and the priestly power are not born of flesh and blood, Since in
bestowing either, regard for ancestry ought not to prevail over merits and virtues, but only the
wholesome wishes of faithful subjects should prevail; and when anyone has ascended to the
supreme exercise of either power, he ought wholly to forget the affections of flesh and blood,
and do only that which is demanded by the safety and welfare of his subjects. And so let him be

2
both father and husband to his subjects, or, if he has known some affection more tender still, let
him employ that; let him desire to be loved rather than feared, and show himself to them as
such a man that they will out of devotion prefer his life to their own, and regard his preservation
and safety as a kind of public life; and then all things will prosper well for him, and a small
bodyguard will, in case of need, prevail by their loyalty against innumerable adversaries. For
love is strong as death; and the wedge [a military formation] which is held together by strands of
love is not easily broken. These examples employed more willingly because Apostle Paul also
used them in preaching to the Athenians. That excellent preacher sought to win entrance for
Jesus Christ and Him crucified into their minds by showing from the example of many gentiles
that deliverance had come through the ignominy of a cross. And he argued that this was not
wont to happen save by the blood of just men and of those who bear the magistracy of a
people. Carrying forward this line of thought, there could be found none sufficient to deliver all
nations, to wit both Jews and gentiles, save One to whom all nations were given for His
inheritance, and all the earth foreordained to be His possession. But this, he asserted, could be
none other than the Son of the all-powerful Father, since none except God holds sway over all
nations and all lands. While he preached in this manner the ignominy of the cross to the end
that the folly of the gentiles might gradually be removed, he little by little bore upward the word
of faith and the tongue of his preaching till it rose to the word of God, and God's wisdom, and
finally to the very throne of the divine majesty, and then, lest the virtue of the gospel, because
it has revealed itself under the infirmity of the flesh, might be held cheap by the obstinacy of the
Jews and the folly of the gentiles, he explained to them the works of the Crucified One, which
were further confirmed by the testimony of fame; since it was agreed among all that they could
be done by none save God.

ASSESSMENT

Instructions: Answer the following questions/problems. Upload your answer in the

1. Give at least 3 definitions of a Prince according to John of Salisbury. Discuss each identified
definition.

2. Discuss the role of the Church in the State? Is there a separation of state and church during
the medieval era?

3. What is the difference between the Prince and the Tyrant?

4. What is the rationale of the separation of church and state in the 1987 Constitution. Discuss
briefly.

References

3
Curtis, M. (2008). Great Political Theories:From the Greeks to the Enlightenment. Harper
Perennial Modern Classics.

ASSESSMENT

Instructions: Answer the following questions. Upload your answer in the Google Classroom.

1. What are the political legacies of the Roman Empire that we can still observe today?
3. What do you think is/are the best political theory in the Roman period that can be utilized to
solve some of our country’s problem?

Reference:

Curtis, M. (2008). Great Political Theories:From the Greeks to the