What do you think?
Rate this book
De Regno
In the De regno, ad regem Cypri, an unfinished work, Thomas Aquinas planned to discuss two topics: the origin of kingly government and the things which pertain to the office of a king. In other words, it was to be both theoretical and practical.
The idea of the origin of kingly government was not to be a historical discussion; rather it encompasses the problem of the rational "origin" of monarchy. Thomas' intention is to answer the question, "Why should one man in a given society be set over all other men." The theoretical section of the treatise also contains a long "digression" on the reward of a king who performs his duty well and, correspondingly, on the punishment of a tyrant who fails to do so.
In Book Two, Aquinas starts by noting that the right practice of royal government is to be discovered by studying the model of God's foundation of the universe. But he also turns to the ecclesiastico-political teaching on the relations between the two powers; it becomes a treatise on how a king in Christendom should govern by being subject in spiritual matters to the "divine government administered by priests." The final section of Book Two deals with the monarch's duty particularly in regard to the foundation of a kingdom.
The original printed Latin editions have proved too deficient to be the sole basis of this translation. Fr. Eschmann made a minute revision of the first translation against the readings of the manuscripts. The result is a reliable English version of Aquinas' own synopsis of his political notions, with a sufficient introduction, a list of relevant variants in the manuscripts, an appendix of parallel texts from other writings of Aquinas, and a useful bibliography.
The idea of the origin of kingly government was not to be a historical discussion; rather it encompasses the problem of the rational "origin" of monarchy. Thomas' intention is to answer the question, "Why should one man in a given society be set over all other men." The theoretical section of the treatise also contains a long "digression" on the reward of a king who performs his duty well and, correspondingly, on the punishment of a tyrant who fails to do so.
In Book Two, Aquinas starts by noting that the right practice of royal government is to be discovered by studying the model of God's foundation of the universe. But he also turns to the ecclesiastico-political teaching on the relations between the two powers; it becomes a treatise on how a king in Christendom should govern by being subject in spiritual matters to the "divine government administered by priests." The final section of Book Two deals with the monarch's duty particularly in regard to the foundation of a kingdom.
The original printed Latin editions have proved too deficient to be the sole basis of this translation. Fr. Eschmann made a minute revision of the first translation against the readings of the manuscripts. The result is a reliable English version of Aquinas' own synopsis of his political notions, with a sufficient introduction, a list of relevant variants in the manuscripts, an appendix of parallel texts from other writings of Aquinas, and a useful bibliography.
96 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1265
36 people are currently reading
426 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Aquinas
2,666 books1,140 followersPhilosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar and theologian of Italy and the most influential thinker of the medieval period, combined doctrine of Aristotle and elements of Neoplatonism, a system that Plotinus and his successors developed and based on that of Plato, within a context of Christian thought; his works include the
Summa contra gentiles
(1259-1264) and the
Summa theologiae
or theologica (1266-1273).
Saint Albertus Magnus taught Saint Thomas Aquinas.
People ably note this priest, sometimes styled of Aquin or Aquino, as a scholastic. The Roman Catholic tradition honors him as a "doctor of the Church."
Aquinas lived at a critical juncture of western culture when the arrival of the Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of the relation between faith and reason, calling into question the modus vivendi that obtained for centuries. This crisis flared just as people founded universities. Thomas after early studies at Montecassino moved to the University of Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican order. At Naples too, Thomas first extended contact with the new learning. He joined the Dominican order and then went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a paraphrase of the Aristotelian corpus. Thomas completed his studies at the University of Paris, formed out the monastic schools on the left bank and the cathedral school at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master, Thomas defended the mendicant orders and of greater historical importance countered both the interpretations of Averroës of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result, a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy, survived until the rise of the new physics. The Catholic Church over the centuries regularly and consistently reaffirmed the central importance of work of Thomas for understanding its teachings concerning the Christian revelation, and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource, now receiving increased recognition.
Saint Albertus Magnus taught Saint Thomas Aquinas.
People ably note this priest, sometimes styled of Aquin or Aquino, as a scholastic. The Roman Catholic tradition honors him as a "doctor of the Church."
Aquinas lived at a critical juncture of western culture when the arrival of the Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of the relation between faith and reason, calling into question the modus vivendi that obtained for centuries. This crisis flared just as people founded universities. Thomas after early studies at Montecassino moved to the University of Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican order. At Naples too, Thomas first extended contact with the new learning. He joined the Dominican order and then went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a paraphrase of the Aristotelian corpus. Thomas completed his studies at the University of Paris, formed out the monastic schools on the left bank and the cathedral school at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master, Thomas defended the mendicant orders and of greater historical importance countered both the interpretations of Averroës of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result, a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy, survived until the rise of the new physics. The Catholic Church over the centuries regularly and consistently reaffirmed the central importance of work of Thomas for understanding its teachings concerning the Christian revelation, and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource, now receiving increased recognition.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
August 18, 2013
Quite good. From the outset with its dedicatory note, this book reminded me of Machiavelli's "The Prince." I think that Machiavelli may have been making a bit of a parody of Aquinas. The two books could be read together to examine the differences between classical and contemporary political philosophy. Aquinas does a good job discussing politics based on his observations of the politics of his day and citing historical examples making it much less metaphysical and more enjoyable than similarly themed sections of the Summa.
January 18, 2013
This is a short treatise on the optimal rule of the state consisting in that of a virtuous Catholic monarchy by St. Thomas Aquinas. Although being that of a political work, it still contains many philosophical gems that can benefit everyone.
March 29, 2021
This is certainly one of St. Thomas' shorter works, basically a cliffs notes version of his political philosophy, which is more fully expounded in the Summa Theologiæ, Secunda Secundæ. The short prologue introduces this as a work composed as a gift for the King of Cyprus, presumably to help him in his duties as a ruler.
The first several chapters are concerned with defining good government and, as St. Thomas discusses the different types of government, it is easy to see Aristotle's Politics, especially since St. Thomas borrows Aristotle's names for the different expressions of government. Where he goes beyond Aristotle is discussing the advantages and disadvantages of different governmental types. The title of Book I, Chapter 4 is, "That the Dominion of a Tyrant Is the Worst." But what brought my attention to this pamphlet was a citation from I.6.
Now, in my personal politics I am a staunch republican of the American stripe, but at the same time I am not one who calls for the abolition of all monarchy on principle. However, given recent events here in the US, St. Thomas appears to have a real point. He continues a few paragraphs later, "...in point of fact, a polyarchy deviates into tyranny not less but perhaps more frequently than a monarchy. When, on account of there being many rulers, dissensions arise in such a government, it often happens that the power of one preponderates and he then usurps the government of the multitude for himself." Again, this sounds eerily familiar to an American in 2021 and I presume that it is the reason that our system has one of checks and balances which are supposed to keep these kinds of impulses in check.
St. Thomas goes on to discuss what a king should seek after for himself in terms of his reward for being a good king, and concludes in I.9, "It is proper that the king look to God for his reward, for a servant looks to his master for the reward of his service. The king is indeed the minister of God in governing the people, as the Apostle says: 'All power is from the Lord God' and God's minister is 'an avenger to execute wrath upon him who does evil.'" This continues on, but the basic conclusion that the king needs to keep in mind that he is not the final arbiter of what constitutes good rule is something that modern rulers could quite often use a reminder of. The bulk of the rest of the treatise is devoted to understanding the duties of a ruler and how we know them.
I think that this would be a good text to go over in a politics and government course. It's a lot shorter than Aristotle's treatment and it taps directly into the European philosophical tradition which forms the basis for most modern governmental systems. The fact that it is also much more concise than a lot of St. Thomas' writings is a big bonus.
The first several chapters are concerned with defining good government and, as St. Thomas discusses the different types of government, it is easy to see Aristotle's Politics, especially since St. Thomas borrows Aristotle's names for the different expressions of government. Where he goes beyond Aristotle is discussing the advantages and disadvantages of different governmental types. The title of Book I, Chapter 4 is, "That the Dominion of a Tyrant Is the Worst." But what brought my attention to this pamphlet was a citation from I.6.
When a choice is to be made between two things, from both of which danger impends, surely that one should be chosen from which the lesser evil follows. Now, lesser evil follows from the corruption of a monarchy (which is tyranny) than from the corruption of an aristocracy.
Group government [polyarchy] most frequently breeds dissension. This dissension runs counter to the good of peace which is the principal social good. A tyrant, on the other hand, does not destroy this good, rather he obstructs one or the other individual interest of his subjects- unless, of course, there be an excess of tyranny and the tyrant rages against the whole community. Monarchy is therefore to be preferred to polyarchy, although either form of government might become dangerous.
Now, in my personal politics I am a staunch republican of the American stripe, but at the same time I am not one who calls for the abolition of all monarchy on principle. However, given recent events here in the US, St. Thomas appears to have a real point. He continues a few paragraphs later, "...in point of fact, a polyarchy deviates into tyranny not less but perhaps more frequently than a monarchy. When, on account of there being many rulers, dissensions arise in such a government, it often happens that the power of one preponderates and he then usurps the government of the multitude for himself." Again, this sounds eerily familiar to an American in 2021 and I presume that it is the reason that our system has one of checks and balances which are supposed to keep these kinds of impulses in check.
St. Thomas goes on to discuss what a king should seek after for himself in terms of his reward for being a good king, and concludes in I.9, "It is proper that the king look to God for his reward, for a servant looks to his master for the reward of his service. The king is indeed the minister of God in governing the people, as the Apostle says: 'All power is from the Lord God' and God's minister is 'an avenger to execute wrath upon him who does evil.'" This continues on, but the basic conclusion that the king needs to keep in mind that he is not the final arbiter of what constitutes good rule is something that modern rulers could quite often use a reminder of. The bulk of the rest of the treatise is devoted to understanding the duties of a ruler and how we know them.
I think that this would be a good text to go over in a politics and government course. It's a lot shorter than Aristotle's treatment and it taps directly into the European philosophical tradition which forms the basis for most modern governmental systems. The fact that it is also much more concise than a lot of St. Thomas' writings is a big bonus.
July 19, 2021
Un court écrit (en français, le titre est "La royauté, au roi de Chypre") très accessible où Thomas d'Aquin parle de manière générale de philosophie politique. Voici les sujets qu'il aborde :
1) Les différents régimes politiques
2) Pourquoi la royauté est le meilleur (une royauté bien sûr limitée et contrôlée par le peuple et où le roi est bon, fait vraiment tout pour le bien du peuple !)
3) Pourquoi l'oligarchie (une aristocratie ou gouvernement avec plusieurs dirigeants qui dégénère) est pire qu'une royauté mauvaise (régime de tyran)
4) Les missions du roi
5) Les dangers du tyran (un roi qui ne sert plus les intérêts de son peuple mais qui est prêt à tout pour satisfaire ses désirs égoïstes)
6) Comment faire pour résister au tyran
7) Pourquoi le règne d'un tyran ne dure pas longtemps
8) La récompense que Dieu réserve aux bons rois
9) La punition éternelle que Dieu réserve aux tyrans
10) Quelques conseils de base sur l'économie/le commerce, où construire une ville (climat tempéré), le plaisir des citoyens
1) Les différents régimes politiques
2) Pourquoi la royauté est le meilleur (une royauté bien sûr limitée et contrôlée par le peuple et où le roi est bon, fait vraiment tout pour le bien du peuple !)
3) Pourquoi l'oligarchie (une aristocratie ou gouvernement avec plusieurs dirigeants qui dégénère) est pire qu'une royauté mauvaise (régime de tyran)
4) Les missions du roi
5) Les dangers du tyran (un roi qui ne sert plus les intérêts de son peuple mais qui est prêt à tout pour satisfaire ses désirs égoïstes)
6) Comment faire pour résister au tyran
7) Pourquoi le règne d'un tyran ne dure pas longtemps
8) La récompense que Dieu réserve aux bons rois
9) La punition éternelle que Dieu réserve aux tyrans
10) Quelques conseils de base sur l'économie/le commerce, où construire une ville (climat tempéré), le plaisir des citoyens
Read
November 21, 2009None
August 31, 2016
There is no substitute for Aquinas. This is a great example of the power of his mind.
November 16, 2021
Not the best book on monarchy I've read. My first encounter with Aquinas and I can't say I'm super impressed. Bit of a simplistic bore.
December 5, 2023
ეს კაცი ამბობს, ცუდი დირექტიის მქონე საზოგადოებას სჯობს ბევრი მმართველი ჰყავდეს ვიდრე ერთიო(უფრო ნელა გადაიჩეხებიან,ვიდრე მალეო და მაგიტომოო) და ახლა ვხვდები რატომ გვყავს 150+ დეპუტატი პარლამენტში. <33
April 30, 2019
Really enjoyed this text, with all it’s hidden messages and phraseology. Perhaps it was just Escalante that I enjoyed, but the book too.
Although Book 2 is ignored by most scholars, I found it to be delightful. Sort of a “Cityfounding 101.”
Here’s the basics:
Build somewhere with good air. Not too near a swamp.
Build somewhere with natural resources. You don’t want to be trading too much. Traders are sketch.
Build somewhere pretty, so that people will want to live there and defend it, but not so pretty that they’ll turn into Waldens.
Build somewhere defendable. Up high.
Although Book 2 is ignored by most scholars, I found it to be delightful. Sort of a “Cityfounding 101.”
Here’s the basics:
Build somewhere with good air. Not too near a swamp.
Build somewhere with natural resources. You don’t want to be trading too much. Traders are sketch.
Build somewhere pretty, so that people will want to live there and defend it, but not so pretty that they’ll turn into Waldens.
Build somewhere defendable. Up high.
April 22, 2021
There is nothing more opposed to tyranny than true kingship. Our Constitutional Republic works, when it works, because we the baptized draw on the charism of kingship in our souls and take the responsibilities of self-rule seriously. It works when we elect leaders in whom we recognize the charism of kingship shining with extraordinary glory. Read this right after The Art of Deal. Dynamite!
July 2, 2024
I’ve enjoyed reading the book. It’s brief and easy to read.
February 12, 2025
An interesting book, to say the least.
The book is separated into two books. The first book answers the question "Why is monarchy the best form of governance?" The second is on city building. Aquinas appeals to religious belief to back up his claims, which I found refreshing. However, his limited knowledge shows in the second book. He appeals to 13th century science, which we know is incorrect.
The main ideas of the first book are:
1.) It is better to be ruled by one, rather than many.
2.) A king is the best form of governance, while a tyrant is the worst.
3.) The payment of the king is happiness given by God.
4.) Rulers guide their subjects to virtue, secure peace and enforce laws which criminalize unvirtuous things and incentivize virtuous things.
I won't give his specific arguments. However, the idea is that God governs as a king, therefore kings are the best way society is governed. This first book was worth the read, and I'll probably reread it.
The second book determines where to put a city. He also discusses some of the ways society ought to be. I was not particularly impressed with this part, and would recommend that it be skipped unless you are curious about 13th century science.
To summarize, I enjoyed the first book and its ideas. I would recommend this to those interested in a medieval Catholic perspective on monarchy. The second book can be skipped, although it is quaint to see the scientific knowledge of that time.
The book is separated into two books. The first book answers the question "Why is monarchy the best form of governance?" The second is on city building. Aquinas appeals to religious belief to back up his claims, which I found refreshing. However, his limited knowledge shows in the second book. He appeals to 13th century science, which we know is incorrect.
The main ideas of the first book are:
1.) It is better to be ruled by one, rather than many.
2.) A king is the best form of governance, while a tyrant is the worst.
3.) The payment of the king is happiness given by God.
4.) Rulers guide their subjects to virtue, secure peace and enforce laws which criminalize unvirtuous things and incentivize virtuous things.
I won't give his specific arguments. However, the idea is that God governs as a king, therefore kings are the best way society is governed. This first book was worth the read, and I'll probably reread it.
The second book determines where to put a city. He also discusses some of the ways society ought to be. I was not particularly impressed with this part, and would recommend that it be skipped unless you are curious about 13th century science.
To summarize, I enjoyed the first book and its ideas. I would recommend this to those interested in a medieval Catholic perspective on monarchy. The second book can be skipped, although it is quaint to see the scientific knowledge of that time.
June 27, 2025
I read about De Regno in Harvey Mansfield’s Taming the Prince chapter on the Medieval theologico-politico executive, which centered on Aquinas Dante and Marsilius as to differing views on the relation of regal and ecclesiastical authority, but in common utilized Aristotelian reasoning and assumed a monarchical government could achieve an ideal pambasileia-kingship over all- which Aristotle described as the best form of government but most liable to become tyranny. Aquinas is the most amenable to papal authority of the three, making kingly power subject to church authority but his arguments for doing so are voluntarist, that a king ought to willingly do so to pursue the highest good as opposed to being mere executive of the pope.
I have benefitted enormously reading tracts like these to see how one can retain a classical frame of thought and depart from certain views of ancients like Aristotle and Cicero, such as their republican inclinations and hostility towards both populism and monarchy. In some ways a partiality toward princely government motivates interest in Machiavelli (as means) and Hobbes (as an end), although their philosophies ended up being more subversive by presenting themselves as dispassionate political scientists rather than forthright advocates of their own cause or more openly critiquing the ancients.
Aquinas begins in a similar way to Aristotle, defining a political community as comprised of free men oriented to the common good as opposed to personal interest or safety, which would be a relation fit for traders or slaves, being conditional on profit or fear. The political community is governed by reason just like the body as opposed to the animal kingdom which is ruled by instinct, although Aquinas believes nature all ruled by a highest power-god and the church over the spiritual aspect of man’s nature. It is the task of a ruler to guide subjects towards the highest good which begins in safety and material needs as in the order of creation but in its highest form moral virtue found in Christ.
Aquinas also agrees with Aristotle that monarchy is potentially the best form of government but tyranny the worst form of government, because unity is more expedient both towards the good and the bad and monarchy depends the most on the quality of the individual. However Aquinas departs from Aristotle in that tyranny is worse in a multitude than from an individual and tyranny more likely to result from a multitude due to factionalism and conflict, given the fractious history of republics. Aquinas argues that it is worse to depose tyrants in hopes of a better ruler as an individual is mortal and people are more jealous of their lives and goods under monarchy than in a government comprised of themselves (which can also be a chief advantage of republics if the people are virtuous but is a greater check on a king or tyrant). Aquinas provides means to reign in bad rulers, chiefly if they are elected or subject to a higher power can be legally sanctioned or deposed. Ultimately all rulers are subject to god the highest power, but the people must not be sinful themselves lest they get the government they deserve. Tyrants however do not have a secure rule because they rule by fear and expose themselves to the same dangers they exploit to obtain power. Aquinas hints at a right to not obey unjust authority but is a passive disobedience or martyrdom not a right to revolution.
As to positive rewards for virtue, Aquinas argues contrary to Aristotle and Cicero that worldly glory/honor is insufficient because it is dependent on the opinions of men who are fickle and liable to corruption and can induce rash behavior. Better it is to attain glory and honor without seeking it as a result not a motive of good behavior by doing what is virtuous, akin to the paradox of hedonism, and worst of all to pursue the appearance of it-hypocrisy to others and vanity to oneself. All worldly glory is insufficient compared to the promise of eternal life however which alone can induce even flawed men to virtue. However Aquinas does concede the pursuit of glory something more appropriate for kings than money or pleasure which can induce rulers to control their actions for approval of good men. This motive is strongest in monarchy where responsibility is greater than in any other government and thereby the promise of glory greatest but also damnation of the wicked.
Aside from the defense of monarchy the other main contention of Aquinas is the relation of government to church mainly in chapters 15 and 16 which Aquinas submits the Caesar to the vicar of Christ, the seat of St Peter in Rome, just as God rules nature. However this relationship is described as being voluntary, a ruler who has accepted the christian faith ought to rule by its teachings. Aquinas in the appendices taken from other works describes the relation of church and ruler not as total subordination but both subordinate to a supreme power god and the temporal subject to the spiritual but only in certain domains and so is an area of inherent tension.
Aquinas leaves open worldly questions of church government, property, and administration of sacraments such as marriage which led to the medieval and early modern conflicts between kings and popes although this work was unfinished and continues on about temporal goods such as location, mirroring the progress of creation mentioned earlier in the book. This ranges between ultramontanism where the pope is sovereign over secular rulers to the point of deposing them which Aquinas does not appear to advocate to the opposites Anglicanism, where the king becomes head of the church while retaining episcopal structure and doctrines, or Erastianism where civil authorities have authority over sacraments and excommunication, and somewhere in the middle Gallicanism where the pontiff of Rome has a privileged theological position but the king retains liberty in temporal matters affecting the church in his lands. The notion of a totally secular state separate from religion was a foreign concept back then but in practice makes religion subordinate to the law.
I have benefitted enormously reading tracts like these to see how one can retain a classical frame of thought and depart from certain views of ancients like Aristotle and Cicero, such as their republican inclinations and hostility towards both populism and monarchy. In some ways a partiality toward princely government motivates interest in Machiavelli (as means) and Hobbes (as an end), although their philosophies ended up being more subversive by presenting themselves as dispassionate political scientists rather than forthright advocates of their own cause or more openly critiquing the ancients.
Aquinas begins in a similar way to Aristotle, defining a political community as comprised of free men oriented to the common good as opposed to personal interest or safety, which would be a relation fit for traders or slaves, being conditional on profit or fear. The political community is governed by reason just like the body as opposed to the animal kingdom which is ruled by instinct, although Aquinas believes nature all ruled by a highest power-god and the church over the spiritual aspect of man’s nature. It is the task of a ruler to guide subjects towards the highest good which begins in safety and material needs as in the order of creation but in its highest form moral virtue found in Christ.
Aquinas also agrees with Aristotle that monarchy is potentially the best form of government but tyranny the worst form of government, because unity is more expedient both towards the good and the bad and monarchy depends the most on the quality of the individual. However Aquinas departs from Aristotle in that tyranny is worse in a multitude than from an individual and tyranny more likely to result from a multitude due to factionalism and conflict, given the fractious history of republics. Aquinas argues that it is worse to depose tyrants in hopes of a better ruler as an individual is mortal and people are more jealous of their lives and goods under monarchy than in a government comprised of themselves (which can also be a chief advantage of republics if the people are virtuous but is a greater check on a king or tyrant). Aquinas provides means to reign in bad rulers, chiefly if they are elected or subject to a higher power can be legally sanctioned or deposed. Ultimately all rulers are subject to god the highest power, but the people must not be sinful themselves lest they get the government they deserve. Tyrants however do not have a secure rule because they rule by fear and expose themselves to the same dangers they exploit to obtain power. Aquinas hints at a right to not obey unjust authority but is a passive disobedience or martyrdom not a right to revolution.
As to positive rewards for virtue, Aquinas argues contrary to Aristotle and Cicero that worldly glory/honor is insufficient because it is dependent on the opinions of men who are fickle and liable to corruption and can induce rash behavior. Better it is to attain glory and honor without seeking it as a result not a motive of good behavior by doing what is virtuous, akin to the paradox of hedonism, and worst of all to pursue the appearance of it-hypocrisy to others and vanity to oneself. All worldly glory is insufficient compared to the promise of eternal life however which alone can induce even flawed men to virtue. However Aquinas does concede the pursuit of glory something more appropriate for kings than money or pleasure which can induce rulers to control their actions for approval of good men. This motive is strongest in monarchy where responsibility is greater than in any other government and thereby the promise of glory greatest but also damnation of the wicked.
Aside from the defense of monarchy the other main contention of Aquinas is the relation of government to church mainly in chapters 15 and 16 which Aquinas submits the Caesar to the vicar of Christ, the seat of St Peter in Rome, just as God rules nature. However this relationship is described as being voluntary, a ruler who has accepted the christian faith ought to rule by its teachings. Aquinas in the appendices taken from other works describes the relation of church and ruler not as total subordination but both subordinate to a supreme power god and the temporal subject to the spiritual but only in certain domains and so is an area of inherent tension.
Aquinas leaves open worldly questions of church government, property, and administration of sacraments such as marriage which led to the medieval and early modern conflicts between kings and popes although this work was unfinished and continues on about temporal goods such as location, mirroring the progress of creation mentioned earlier in the book. This ranges between ultramontanism where the pope is sovereign over secular rulers to the point of deposing them which Aquinas does not appear to advocate to the opposites Anglicanism, where the king becomes head of the church while retaining episcopal structure and doctrines, or Erastianism where civil authorities have authority over sacraments and excommunication, and somewhere in the middle Gallicanism where the pontiff of Rome has a privileged theological position but the king retains liberty in temporal matters affecting the church in his lands. The notion of a totally secular state separate from religion was a foreign concept back then but in practice makes religion subordinate to the law.
March 22, 2022
I thought that St. Thomas' work of political philosophy was interesting, but I am glad that he is known for his Summa rather than De Regno. The most valuable part of this work is his description of the various types of virtuous rule and their opposites, namely:
⋀ King (most noble)
| Aristocracy
| Polity
--
| Democracy
| Oligarchy
⋁ Tyrant (most unjust)
Also interesting was St. Thomas' discussion on biology and the things necessary for human sustenance in the last few chapters. This work presents to me a good defense of St. Thomas as an integralist, but I'd ultimately recommend sticking to the Angelic Doctor's works on theology.
⋀ King (most noble)
| Aristocracy
| Polity
--
| Democracy
| Oligarchy
⋁ Tyrant (most unjust)
Also interesting was St. Thomas' discussion on biology and the things necessary for human sustenance in the last few chapters. This work presents to me a good defense of St. Thomas as an integralist, but I'd ultimately recommend sticking to the Angelic Doctor's works on theology.
March 11, 2025
საუკეთესო ქრისტიანი თეოლოგი -
Saint Thomas Aquinas. მაკიაველის მთავარის ვაიბები მოაქვს და საკმაოდ გავს მაგრამ ამ შემთხვევაში თომა მეფეებს მოუწოდებს რომ განა პირფერობით, სისასტიკითა და ა.შ-თი შეინარჩუნონ-მოიპოვონ ძალაუფლება, არამედ იმით რომ იყვნენ კეთილები, იზრუნონ შემდეგი ცხოვრების ნეტარებისთვის და ხალხისთვის.
მაკიაველის აზრით- ჯობია შენი ეშინოდეთ (კითხვაზე ჯობია უყვარდე თუ შენი ეშინოდეთ)
აქვანელის აზრით- ჯობია უყვარდე.
მე თომას ვამჯობინებ.
Saint Thomas Aquinas. მაკიაველის მთავარის ვაიბები მოაქვს და საკმაოდ გავს მაგრამ ამ შემთხვევაში თომა მეფეებს მოუწოდებს რომ განა პირფერობით, სისასტიკითა და ა.შ-თი შეინარჩუნონ-მოიპოვონ ძალაუფლება, არამედ იმით რომ იყვნენ კეთილები, იზრუნონ შემდეგი ცხოვრების ნეტარებისთვის და ხალხისთვის.
მაკიაველის აზრით- ჯობია შენი ეშინოდეთ (კითხვაზე ჯობია უყვარდე თუ შენი ეშინოდეთ)
აქვანელის აზრით- ჯობია უყვარდე.
მე თომას ვამჯობინებ.
March 9, 2021
Excellent and succinct argument for monarchy and how to prevent tyranny through a strong hierarchical Church body. The monarch is accountable to Christ and must abide by the holy canons of the Church.
December 29, 2019
Not my favorite political theory book. Read for my classical political theory class.
Read
March 29, 2020writing about dominicans rules because there's always some convenient aquinas text that backs up your argument perfectly. thanks for looking out, big bro
March 12, 2021
Incomplete?
Is this the whole thing? It seems to end rather abruptly. A a a a a a a a a
Is this the whole thing? It seems to end rather abruptly. A a a a a a a a a
November 6, 2021
3.5 stars!
August 31, 2023
Pretty solid, I had to read this for Gregorian Fellows and it wasn't too terrible. First time reading Aquinas and I feel like such an intellectual now.
December 31, 2025
In this sadly unfinished work, Thomas presents his political philosophy, drawn largely on Aristotle, in its most explicit and practical form. Despite its brevity, it remains an interesting read.
January 1, 2020
Thomas interestingly finds a reconciliation between Aristotle’s political thought and Augustine’s who both proceeded him. His fundamental motivation was that one can both be a Christian and agree with large parts of Aristotle’s theories, and he is regarded as one of the first ‘Christian Aristotelians’. Despite Sicily, the society in which this text was written, having major religious influence, especially of Christianity, Thomas’ appeal to an atheist philosopher was controversial at the time. Reading this text with this knowledge in mind makes the experience a lot more interesting.
In many ways, the comparison to Aristotle’s theory could have been made because of the striking similarities of Sicily with the Greek polis. Aristotle’s theory, can be briefly summarised as describing human beings to be autonomous beings who strive to lead the good life (be eudaimon - someone who lives a happy, fulfilled life). As we make choices and these choices can, via repetition, turn into habit, politics should be utilised for ensuring human potential is maximised and people are helped to achieve this state of life. Augustine, by stark contrast, argued that though we technically have free will, we are corrupted due to Adam’s seed to always sin. Hence, happiness can only be achieved in the form of salvation which could only be granted by God. Thus, nothing that we do is good because of us but is due to the grace of God. Therefore, Augustine seriously devalued politics and argued that only complete submission to papal authority could truly redeem one from sin.
In De Regine principal, Thomas argues that human action is an actualisation of human potential, based solely on our rationality and is voluntary, not infused by God. This is because God has created laws in nature which, once created, operate independent from him. This argument from autonomy is definitely more in line with Aristotle’s views. Where there is similarity with Augustine comes where Thomas claims that, unlike the ‘chief good’ (summon bonum) for humans to reach being an internally accessible state of eudaimonia (as with Aristotle), Thomas argues that this is external and dependent on God; salvation. Also, internal moral excellence is not enough to reach salvation - an external spiritual aspect is required. He argues that there are two distinct orders to the world. In one, there is the order of nature - also created by God but is self-moving, includes human nature but does not coerce us in any way. We could choose to not comply with nature if we like, although it would be immoral and sinful. On the other, there is the order of grace. This is a higher order than the former but also penetrates it. So theological virtues such as faith, salvation and so on help one to perfect their moral virtues and natural state.
Interestingly, Thomas does not believe that one has to be a Christian to be morally virtuous, whereas Augustine of course did. Thomas argues that our degree of morality is judged based on our compliance with laws of nature, which can be achieved without being a Christian. The state is formed because human nature dictates, due to our reason, that we want to help ourselves and maintain our life. As this is much more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve individually, we form groups and develop moral dispositions which are in everybody’s interests to eventually create and then use to protect a civil society. Therefore the civil order, with a justice system, administration and so on, provides a legal unity and ensures, or should try to ensure a moral excellence. Politics in this society deals with practical matters - the law oversees things such as crime. This is not necessarily related to one securing their salvation or not. The church within society, then, provides for the spiritual excellence. Importantly, it is to be separate from the administrative and legal system because its role is to only fulfil the supernatural needs of people and belongs to the order of grace. Its power is completely separate from the civil order. What makes this fascinating is how we can see the impact that Thomas must have had on the gradual secularisation of Western society.
By nature, the people must have a good leader and ruler to best keep the legal order in tact. This is best provided by a monarch. This person can be elected by the people to ensure that there is still free action, alongside just rule and civil law; hence there is a constitutional monarchy in the system. Since civil order is so important and must not contravene natural law, the people have a right to bring down their ruler if he is not respecting their rights or is not properly maintaining the civil order. Overall, Thomas argues a connection of the divine, natural and civil law.
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in the history of political thought in the West, especially the preceding major thinkers of Aristotle and St. Augustine, because Thomas presents an interesting harmonisation of both of their arguments.
In many ways, the comparison to Aristotle’s theory could have been made because of the striking similarities of Sicily with the Greek polis. Aristotle’s theory, can be briefly summarised as describing human beings to be autonomous beings who strive to lead the good life (be eudaimon - someone who lives a happy, fulfilled life). As we make choices and these choices can, via repetition, turn into habit, politics should be utilised for ensuring human potential is maximised and people are helped to achieve this state of life. Augustine, by stark contrast, argued that though we technically have free will, we are corrupted due to Adam’s seed to always sin. Hence, happiness can only be achieved in the form of salvation which could only be granted by God. Thus, nothing that we do is good because of us but is due to the grace of God. Therefore, Augustine seriously devalued politics and argued that only complete submission to papal authority could truly redeem one from sin.
In De Regine principal, Thomas argues that human action is an actualisation of human potential, based solely on our rationality and is voluntary, not infused by God. This is because God has created laws in nature which, once created, operate independent from him. This argument from autonomy is definitely more in line with Aristotle’s views. Where there is similarity with Augustine comes where Thomas claims that, unlike the ‘chief good’ (summon bonum) for humans to reach being an internally accessible state of eudaimonia (as with Aristotle), Thomas argues that this is external and dependent on God; salvation. Also, internal moral excellence is not enough to reach salvation - an external spiritual aspect is required. He argues that there are two distinct orders to the world. In one, there is the order of nature - also created by God but is self-moving, includes human nature but does not coerce us in any way. We could choose to not comply with nature if we like, although it would be immoral and sinful. On the other, there is the order of grace. This is a higher order than the former but also penetrates it. So theological virtues such as faith, salvation and so on help one to perfect their moral virtues and natural state.
Interestingly, Thomas does not believe that one has to be a Christian to be morally virtuous, whereas Augustine of course did. Thomas argues that our degree of morality is judged based on our compliance with laws of nature, which can be achieved without being a Christian. The state is formed because human nature dictates, due to our reason, that we want to help ourselves and maintain our life. As this is much more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve individually, we form groups and develop moral dispositions which are in everybody’s interests to eventually create and then use to protect a civil society. Therefore the civil order, with a justice system, administration and so on, provides a legal unity and ensures, or should try to ensure a moral excellence. Politics in this society deals with practical matters - the law oversees things such as crime. This is not necessarily related to one securing their salvation or not. The church within society, then, provides for the spiritual excellence. Importantly, it is to be separate from the administrative and legal system because its role is to only fulfil the supernatural needs of people and belongs to the order of grace. Its power is completely separate from the civil order. What makes this fascinating is how we can see the impact that Thomas must have had on the gradual secularisation of Western society.
By nature, the people must have a good leader and ruler to best keep the legal order in tact. This is best provided by a monarch. This person can be elected by the people to ensure that there is still free action, alongside just rule and civil law; hence there is a constitutional monarchy in the system. Since civil order is so important and must not contravene natural law, the people have a right to bring down their ruler if he is not respecting their rights or is not properly maintaining the civil order. Overall, Thomas argues a connection of the divine, natural and civil law.
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in the history of political thought in the West, especially the preceding major thinkers of Aristotle and St. Augustine, because Thomas presents an interesting harmonisation of both of their arguments.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews