Los dos cuerpos del rey: Un estudio de Teología Política Medieval

by Ernst H. Kantorowicz

In 1957 Ernst Kantorowicz published a book that would be the guide for generations of scholars through the arcane mysteries of medieval political theology. In The King's Two Bodies, Kantorowicz traces the historical problem posed by the "King's two bodies"--the body politic and the body natural--back to the Middle Ages and demonstrates, by placing the concept in its proper setting of medieval thought and political theory, how the early-modern Western monarchies gradually began to develop a "political theology.?

The king's natural body has physical attributes, suffers, and dies, naturally, as do all humans; but the king's other body, the spiritual body, transcends the earthly and serves as a symbol of his office as majesty with the divine right to rule. The notion of the two bodies allowed for the continuity of monarchy even when the monarch died, as summed up in the formulation "The king is dead. Long live the king."

Bringing together liturgical works, images, and polemical material, The King's Two Bodies explores the long Christian past behind this "political theology." It provides a subtle history of how commonwealths developed symbolic means for establishing their sovereignty and, with such means, began to establish early forms of the nation-state.

Kantorowicz fled Nazi Germany in 1938, after refusing to sign a Nazi loyalty oath, and settled in the United States. While teaching at the University of California, Berkeley, he once again refused to sign an oath of allegiance, this one designed to identify Communist Party sympathizers. He was dismissed as a result of the controversy and moved to the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, where he remained for the rest of his life, and where he wrote The King's Two Bodies.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Medieval, Religion, Medieval History

592 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1957

About the author

Kantorowicz was born in Posen (Polish: Poznań, then in Prussia) to a wealthy, assimilated German-Jewish family and as a young man was groomed to take over the family business (primarily liquor distilleries). He served as an Officer in the German Army for four years in World War I, he decided not to return to the business world, but went instead to study philosophy at the University of Berlin, at one point also joining a right-wing militia that fought against Polish forces in the Greater Poland Uprising (1918-1919) and helped put down the Spartacist uprising in Berlin.[1] The following year, he moved to the prestigious University of Heidelberg to study history with Karl Hampe and Friedrich Baethgen, two noted medievalists. While in Heidelberg, Kantorowicz became involved with the so-called Georgekreis, a group of artists and intellectuals devoted to the German poet and aesthete Stefan George and who shared an interest in art, literature and Romantic mysticism.

His association with the elitist and culturally conservative Georgekreis inspired Kantorowicz's unorthodox, aesthetic-cultural biography of the great Holy Roman emperor Frederick II published in German in 1927 and English in 1931.[2] Instead of offering a more typical treatment of laws, institutions and important political achievements, the book took a decidedly poetic turn, portraying Frederick as an idealized spiritual, as much as political, leader of the German nation. The work elicited a combination of bewilderment and criticism from the mainstream historical academy. Reviewers complained that it was literary mythmaking and not a work of serious historical scholarship. As a result, Kantorowicz published a hefty companion volume (Ergänzungsband) in 1931 which contained detailed historical documentation for the biography.

Despite the furor over the Frederick book, Kantorowicz received an appointment to an academic chair at the University of Frankfurt. In 1933, Kantorowicz had to resign his university position due to Nazi racial policies. Upon leaving, he took up a teaching position for a short time at Oxford before moving to the University of California, Berkeley in 1939. After a controversy prompted by his reaction to McCarthyism (he refused to take a loyalty oath required of all UC employees), he moved to the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. Not long after arriving in Princeton, he published his masterpiece, The King's Two Bodies (1957), which explored, in the words of the volume's subtitle, "medieval political theology." In particular, the book traced the ways theologians, historians and canonists in the Middle Ages and early modern period understood the office and person of the king, as well as the idea of the kingdom, in corporeal and organological terms. The figure of the European monarch was a unique product of religious and legal traditions that eventually produced the notion of a "king" as simultaneously a person and an embodiment of the community of the realm. The book remains a classic in the field.

Kantorowicz was the subject of a controversial biographical sketch in the book Inventing the Middle Ages (1991) by the late Canadian medievalist, Norman F. Cantor. Cantor, who knew Kantorowicz at Princeton, suggested that, but for his Jewish heritage, Kantorowicz (at least as a young scholar in the 1920s and 1930s) could be considered a Nazi in terms of his intellectual temperament and cultural values. Cantor compared Kantorowicz with another contemporary German medievalist, Percy Ernst Schramm, who worked on similar topics and was a member of the Nazi Party. Kantorowicz's defenders (particularly his student Robert L. Benson)[3] responded that although as a younger man Kantorowicz embraced the Romantic ultranationalism of the George-Kreis, he had only disdain for Nazism and was a vocal critic of Hitler's regime.

Reviews

[Katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Citizens United made big news a few years back by declaring - as the slogan went - that corporations were people. It was a phrase that spawned a lot of horror in American politics, because it is a concept that seems so rife with the potential for corruption (and it is). We see our corporations today as big and soulless. They're the enemy of the Common Man, not the common man himself. It seems like such a modern idea, that corporations have gotten so big and so powerful that they're treated as some sort of patched-together & sentient behemoth.

Except for one thing: it's not really a modern idea at all. The associations of corporations and personhood goes back nearly 1,000 years and stem originally from theological studies on the nature of Christ. To be fair, medieval and early-modern political philosophy saw corporations as abstract angel-people (an idea the Supreme Court no doubt had difficulty working into their opinions), and their corporations were not our corporations.

Still, in light of all that, Ernst Kantorowicz's study of the development of 'political theology' during the medieval and early modern periods is really fascinating. He starts with the Tudor idea of the 'king's two bodies' - the separation of the individual, mortal, man, and the deathless, elevated concept of monarchy that allowed 17th century Englishmen to declare that they were beheading King Charles I in the name of the King. How things got to that point is a labyrinth of political, theological, and juridical thought that I'm not even going to try to effectively summarize here. But as a preview: Kantorowicz delves into ideas such as how early medieval Christological writings and concepts of Law & Justice shaped initial ideas of medieval kingship (hint: two bodies; two natures; two sorts of law), how the medieval period's changing concept of time - particularly the emergence of the idea of aevum, an inifinity graced with movement instead of the stillness permeating God's aeternitas - shaped new ideas of immortal, mystical corporations that shared the aevum with the angels, and how the 13th century solidification of Eucharistic theology managed to drift over into the political sphere and introduce the idea of the corpus mysticum that would eventually become the king's eternal, deathless, body.

I wish I could provide a better summary, but it's difficult. The work can be a very difficult read, as it meanders all over the place and gets bogged down in canonical definitions. There would be sections where I would honestly get a bit lost in what he was trying to say (I felt better about this once I read a review of it that equated it to the medieval history equivalent of Infinite Jest) and I didn't totally understand where his argument was going until near the end. But it's worth it. It's the sort of book that dumps information all you - some of slides right off, but enough sticks for things to finally click together. And once it does it's wonderful. In a lot of ways this is the best sort of history book - it takes something that seems inherent, like it had to be that way, and shows that it absolutely didn't have to be like that at all.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ernst Kantorowicz analyzes the development in later medieval political thought by isolating one aspect of it: the King’s Two Bodies. By this phrase he means the conjunction of the king’s own natural body with that of the “body politic” (9). It is not entirely clear exactly what “body politic” denotes, and Kantorowicz’s ambiguity is deliberate: the phrase shifted in meaning throughout the Middle Ages. It is Kantorowicz’s further claim that this shift in meaning had theological roots.

Kantorowicz argues, somewhat counter-intuitively, that “The King’s Two Bodies” is a monophysite construction—while purporting to be an analogy between the King and the divine, it actually takes the form of a heretical Christology (14-15; see also p.18). The charge of monophysitism is somewhat difficult to follow, but Kantorowicz claims it resulted from the indifference (and inability) to properly distinguish the body of the mortal king from the body of his realm (p. 18). As is evident, the medieval jurists were seeking to imitate their constructions of kingship from Christological truths. That is nothing new, nor is there anything wrong with it. The Eastern Romans already were doing that for hundreds of years. The problem arose when other theological currents changed the way the Church in the West did Christology, and thus changed the way it did politics.

In the early middle ages Western Europe was similar to the Eastern Romans in terms of using Christology to shape kingship. Both civilizations shared a common faith and used that common faith to understand politics. They saw the King as imitator of Christ (47). It should be noted, however, that the Eastern Romans did not use the phrase “King’s Two Bodies” as extensively (at all?) as the West did. While the phrase wasn’t heretical, per se, it was always attended by many possible dangers. In either case, both sides saw the King as the representative, not of God the Father, but of Christ. This reflects the ancient reading of the Old Testament as a revelation of God the Son. A moment’s meditation on this point will make it obvious: political theologies are almost always based on the Old Testament simply because it deals with politics more than does the New Testament. Therefore, one’s reading of the Old Testament will shape the way one does political theology.

The West’s grammar changed, though. Previously, kingship was done in the context of liturgy. The King represented Christ’s rule in a mystical way. He was anointed with oil for the sake of the realm. He was, in short, an ikon of popular piety.

The watershed mark demonstrating the transition best is the reign of Otto II, and the best way to illustrate this difference is in the ikonography surrounding Otto. Otto is important for he represents the intersection between the Byzantine East and Frankish West, including the best and worst elements of both. Kantorowicz contrasts two ikonographic paintings which portray rulers: the Aachen miniature over against the Reichenau painting of Otto. The former portrays the Charlemagnic king as the representative of God the Father whereas the Reichenau painting places Otto in the foreground of a Byzantine halo, suggesting he represents Christ (77).

The above is an important point and I suspect the larger part of it is lost upon Kantorowicz. This ikonography reflects a shift in theology, which probably reflects a shift in the way sacred texts are read. It was mentioned earlier that the Old Testament was now read, no longer as a revelation of God the Son, but of God the Father. One could probably take it a step further—it was seen as a revelation of God-in-general.

The Corpus Mysticum
In many ways it is the concept of a “Mystical Body” that contributed to the secularization of Western political thought. One must avoid, however, overly simplistic reductions regarding the phrase. The phrase “Mystical Body” originally connoted the interplay between the Eucharist, the body born of the Virgin Mary, and the Church itself. While the phrase is not Pauline, if left at this stage there is no problem. As Kantorowicz, drawing upon the work of Henri Cardinal de Lubac, notes, the distinctions between the two bodies hardened into oppositions. Therefore, the body of Christ per the Church was separated from the body of Christ the Son of God. While small at first, this opened the door for a secularization of concepts.

The King as Corporation
One suspects that the idea of the “corporation” arrived in the West coterminous with the sharpening of the “King’s Two Bodies.” Indeed, even if not chronologically accurate, it is logically consistent. Jurists were puzzled over the problem of whether the king’s other body—his realm—died when he died. The short answer to this problem was that the king’s other body did not die. The people were in-corporated into this body and outlived the king. The canon lawyers coined a phrase for this: dignitas non moritur—the dignity does not die.

One cannot avoid noticing throughout this work, and if the argument holds then throughout Western history, a progression of concepts regarding political theology. Like its Byzantine cousin, Western political theology began with liturgical roots (59). After the Ottonian period, these liturgical roots were translated into secular terms (115). Therefore, when the King is called a “corpus mysticum,” this cannot be interpreted in early liturgical Christian categories. Rather, it can only reflect the ongoing secularization. Because of the hardening of “the King’s two bodies,” jurists had to account for the fact that the second body, the realm, did not die , and they could only do this by introducing the idea of the corporation. Therefore, one can trace the movement of Western political theology along the following line:
Liturgical Kingship Law-based Kingship Corporate Kingship Corporation The State

Conclusion
This book is a genealogy of political theology. It traces the rhythm of Western politics through the lens of a highly disputed phrase. Further, it traces the nuances later attributed to that phrase, and the earth-shattering consequences. Our only regret is that this was the only book of its kind that Kantorowicz had written.

There are some difficulties with the book, though. Kantorowicz does not always identify his main point in each chapter, or he might wait until some random moment in the middle of the chapter before he informs the reader of his argument. Further, there are some portions of the book which do not seem relevant at all (e.g., his extended discussion on medieval English fiscal rights). On top of all of this is the rather dense style in which he wrote, coupled with the numerous (usually un-translated) sentences and paragraphs in Latin. One suspects that many of these phrases are indeed central to his main argument, but if one’s grasp of Latin is not on a post-graduate level, the argument will be lost on the reader.

EXCURSUS ON MONARCHICAL POLITICAL THEOLOGY
Thirdly, one suspects that a key point in Kantorowicz’s central thesis is likely lost on the average reader, for Kantorowicz mentions it in passing. He notes that the phrase “The King’s Two Bodies” has Monophysite tendencies (e.g., the heresy that Christ has only one nature, which is akin to a divino-human hybrid). For those schooled in church history, this appears counter-intuitive. “Two Bodies” seems to suggest “two persons,” which is Nestorianism (which is indeed the route many thinkers to the phrase when they referred to the ‘twin-personed’ king). Further, Western Christologies often have Nestorian tendencies (and before one accuses me of "bashing the West," I should note that I am simply quoting and alluding to "Western" Christology sources--Fairbairn, etc); therefore, it seems odd that a culture operating on a Nestorian Christological structure would employ a Monophysite structure in its political theology. On the other hand, this might not be too odd. One should recall St John of Damascus’ dictum that all heresies deconstruct on the same point: they confuse person and nature.

Regardless, Kantorowicz rightly notes the connection between theological heresy and political theory. One is reminded, again, of another Patristic father on this matter, St Gregory of Nazianzus. In his Third Theological Oration St Gregory notes the three opinions about God: monarchy, polyarchy, and anarchy. St Gregory notes the latter two opinions deconstruct to the same end—chaos. This leaves monarchy as the only viable option. English-speaking students are going to miss an important point. The suffix arche denotes a principle of order for both social and theological ethics. Therefore, one’s position regarding the Trinity will affect one’s position on politics.

[Illiterate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kantorowicz’s genealogy of medieval kingship focuses on the interplay of theology, law, and corporate identity. Note chaps III, IV, V broadly map to VII:1, VII:2, VII:3.

[Mihai Zodian · Rating 4 out of 5]

”Ernst H. Kantorowicz, Cele două corpuri ale regelui, Polirom, Iași, 2014, 552 p.

Suveranitatea rămâne un concept cheie in studiile istorie, politice și în domeniul relațiilor internaționale. Este prea puțin înțeles deseori, fiind redus la înțelesuri materiale, ca un atribut imuabil unei entități eterne, apărut brusc în 1648, odată cu păcile din Westphalia, cel mult desuet în unele regiuni ale globului, ca în cazul Uniunii Europene. Lucrarea de față are meritul de a atrage atenția asupra naturii procesuale a sensurilor și respectării acestui principiu și a interdependenței dintre formulele de legitimare, instituții și stratificare socială.

Juristii englezi din secolele al XVI-XVII-lea au utilizat o expresie aparent atipică: monarhul are două corpuri, unul muritor și altul etern. De-aici, Ernst Kantorowicz a redactat o explicație de anvergură a dezvoltării statale, bazată pe preluarea unor idei religioase și asimilarea acestora scopurilor politice laice. El trasează transformarea unei concepții familiale și spirituale despre autoritate într-una impersonală și neutră, tipică modernității.

Studiile reunite în Cele două corpuri ale regelui fac apel la o bogăție de surse, documente legale, picturi, scrieri ale contemporanilor, celebrele monologuri din Richard al II-lea sau Divina Comedie. Potrivit lui William Chester Jordan, tocmai acest orizont larg al autorului a menținut lucrarea în autoritate[2]. În orice caz, deși poate distrage atenția la o lectură grăbită, diversitatea izvoarelor la care a recurs Kantorowicz oferă o desfătare intelectuală pentru cititorul modern.

În epocă, ideea celor două corpuri a fost influentă și chiar părea că ține de un anumit simț comun juridic. Un exemplu, într-un caz de drept civil, instanța a argumentat că ”atunci când corpul politic al regelui … este unit cu corpul natural și se formează un nou corp … rangul corpului natural și lucrurile posedate … se schimbă, iar efectele … iau parte la efectele corpului politic”[3]. Similar lui Marc Bloch, Kantorowicz ne invită într-un periplu istoric, urmărind apariția și dezvoltarea instituțiilor moderne din lumea medievală, religioasă, stratificată și dinastică[4].

La început, avem o concepție politică inspirată în principal de creștinism și de mai vechea credință în sacralitatea regilor. Gradual, mentalităților de inspirație religioasă li se adaugă idei laice, influențate din dreptul roman, fără a se produce o ruptură radicală între cele două tipuri de legitimitate[5]. Schimbările nu sunt uniforme în întreaga Europă occidentală, dimpotrivă Kantorowicz încearcă să identifice sursele parlamentarismului modern britanic în acestă viziune politică, specifică Angliei medievale și moderne timpurii.

În acest spațiu, sensul monarhiei se schimbă sub impactul gândirii juridice și al structurilor și proceselor sociale din secolul al XIII-lea. În consolidarea sistemelor de impozitare și tribunalelor se poate regăsi originea concepțiilor impersonale despre autoritate și spațiul public. ”Ceea ce nu este luat de Christos, este luat de Fiscus”, susținea magistratul John Preston într-un proces din secolul al XV-lea, o maximă care evidențiază pentru Ernst Kantorowicz procesul de instituționalizare a puterii seculare[6].

Mai mult, autorul insistă asupra preluării de către politic a unor trăsături caracteristice până atunci Bisericii catolice. Aceasta se definea, într-o bulă papală ca un ”corp mistic, al cărui cap este Christos, iar capul lui Christos este Dumnezeu”[7]. Într-unul dintre cele mai interesante studii, vedem cum valența supranaturală a autorității ecleziastice inspiră gradual, prin intermediul filosofiei scolastice, noul sens impersonal și autonom al brațului secular[8].

În Anglia, corpul ne se va reduce la cap, ci va include și organizarea feudală și reprezentativă medievală în imaginarul politic[9]. Noile formule de legitimare au fost însoțite și de către o modificare a concepțiilor despre timp, tot sub influența scolasticilor. Regele nu trăiește în eternitatea Divinului, dar nici în cea a oamenilor obișnuiți, ci este situat parțial într-o temporabilitate comparabilă cu cea a îngerilor, situați într-un ev infinit, dar creat și supus schimbărilor[10].

Deci, avem de-a face cu un proces de consolidare a autorității seculare, însoțit de preluarea unor idei religioase și de o modificare a concepțiilor despre timp. Specificul englez, care a asigurat impersonalitatea politicului și a condus la ideea celor două corpuri constă în legitimitatea și influența instituțiilor reprezentative. Cu alte cuvinte, structura politică și ordinea socială contribuie decisiv la definirea mentalităților în ceea ce privește putere, o teorie simplă, deseori ignorată.

Un alt moment important al Cele două corpuri se regăsește în interpretarea Divinei Comedii, unde discuția se îndreaptă spre un sens universal și transcendent al politicului și religiei. Demers uneori copleșitor ce-l plimbă pe cititor între secole și tematici diferite, lucrarea uimește prin erudiție și curiozitate intelectuală. Un demers conceptual clasic, în care evoluția graduală a reprezentărilor și instituțiilor politice este tema fundamental, studiile lui Ernst Kantorowicz pot fi utile specialiștilor în relațiile internaționale și tuturor celor interesați de artă, politică sau de istoria ideilor.

[1] William Chester Jordan, ”Prefață”, în Ernst H. Kantorowicz, Cele două corpuri ale regelui, Polirom, Iași, 2014, p. 11.

[2] Ernst H. Kantorowicz, Cele două corpuri ale regelui, Polirom, Iași, 2014, p. 26.

[3] Vezi Marc Bloch, Regii taumaturgi, Polirom, Iași, 1998.

[4] Kantorowicz, op. cit., p. 103-104.

[5] Idem, pp. 163-166.

[6] Bula Unam Sanctum, apud Ernst H. Kantorowicz, op. cit., p. 180.

[7] Kantorowicz, op. cit., p. 185, 191, 204.

[8] Idem, pp. 206-207.
[9] Idem, p. 249.”

semnalesirecenzii.tumblr.com/post/949...

[Victoria · Rating 3 out of 5]

I suspect I would have enjoyed this book a lot more had I not read The King's Body: Sacred Rituals of Power in Medieval and Early Modern Europe first, which is basically this book + 35 years + the cultural turn. This one is primarily based on a close reading of literary texts (primarily Shakespeare and Dante) and medieval jurisprudence (primarily Bracton and Justinian), and completely ignores descriptive texts in favour of a discussion about the ideologies of kingship. Discusses the changeovertime in perceptions of the king's two bodies, but does not at all discuss how this may have affected ruling strategies, or what the rituals of kingship may have meant to kings as individuals or to their subjects as either a corporate mass or individuals themselves. Clearly I should not be blaming Kantorowicz for not writing the book that I wanted to read, but one also wonders how Shakespeare's representation of Richard II can be expected to stand in for actual contemporary sources concerning Richard himself, or how Dante's depiction of "the king" as an embodiment of humanitas came to bear at all on the actual practice of kingship.

[Miriam Cihodariu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anything in the debatable field of the history of mentalities works for me, and if it's about the Middle Ages and political mysticism, then all the more. This was surprisingly good, with a touch of wit here and there.
I don't know if I agree with the end conclusions of the author (speculation is always highly enjoyable but not very verifiable, of course), that this type of theology set the base for the later development of concepts such as the nation-state and patriotism. But I really loved the book, it's informative and serious, and also occasionally funny and with a touch of wit. Still, I wouldn't recommend it to people looking for a lighter kind of historical non-fiction (it works best if you have some scholarly interests). :)

[Ellis Knox · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brilliant study in the development of political theory. Kantorowicz traces how the distinction between the office and the man developed during the Middle Ages. This distinction, seemingly so simple and obvious, in fact took a very long time to be made clear. Understanding the subtleties of how king and kingship were confused will help in understanding the Middle Ages more generally.

[Jim]

This was a re-reading for me. I was even more impressed with the quality and fastidiousness of the scholarship than when I first read it in graduate sschool, 40 years ago! Kantorovicz's work has influenced several generations of scholarship.

[Isaac Sassi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eu não acredito que consegui terminar!
Um livro difícil, denso e, ao mesmo tempo, fascinante e educativo.
A obra é escrita de forma maçante e é tão entupida de conteúdo que por vezes é difícil de acompanhar o pensamento do autor.
Mas por fim, é uma fundamental e um tratado sobre esta entidade da teologia política cristã e que transborda até hoje com consequências políticas absolutamente reais.

[Levi Morrow · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit light on conceptual analysis but chock full of interesting ideas and examples

[Colm Gillis · Rating 4 out of 5]

A delightful and entertaining book that examines the dual nature of monarchy, specifically in England, during the Middle Ages. Brilliantly researched and eclectic, taking in a range of fields such as law, political philosophy, theology, history and art history. The theme is strongly worked on and there is much critical analysis. Downside? Possibly a bit too elaborate and much irrelevant material in the main body that could have included in appendices. Arguably not a very deep and penetrating study because of the vast amount of literature cited.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

"In ancient times, writes Baldus, when the Roman Empire was in its prime, one used to say that the emperor, whose "material and visible" crown consisted of a diadem, had his "invisible Crown imposed by God."

[Aaron Cummings · Rating 5 out of 5]

Profound. Kantorowicz pulls together interpretations of art, law, theology and philosophy to paint an engaging picture of medieval political theology. A must read for any student of the middle ages

[Lyra · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of those rare history books that stays with long after reading.

[Durakov · Rating 5 out of 5]

A magisterial work of study. I picked it up knowing I was in store for an incredibly nerdy experience, and intended to read it as slowly as possible. To my surprise (or horror), I found this completely readable and sped through the arcane mysteries of the middle ages majestically on display.

Kantorowicz offers here an exploration of the theological mythology of the Western state. I would recommend this to anyone interest in the symbology of statecraft, with the same reservations I would offer anyone venturing into the realms of political theology: you will find yourself lurking in close proximity to the reactionary right. Political theology appears broadly conservative in nature as most of its major theorists (Schmidt above all) have been far-right wing, with some major exceptions (Walter Benjamin comes to mind). Kantorowicz is an odd outlier having personally opposed the Spartakist uprising in Berlin (gun in hand) while later having dangerously publicly opposed both the Nazi loyalty oath in Germany and a McCarthy era anti-communist oath upon his arrival in the US.

All that aside, this is one of the most thoroughly researched books I've ever come across in my life. There must be thousands of footnotes in this tome (for just over 500 pages). The basic thrust is an examination of the theme of the King having both a mortal body and an immortal one, though it is so much more than that.

The concept of the King's two bodies is simple and can be grasped in the first few pages, but Kantorowicz consistently surprises with his twists and turns into literature, juristic texts, theological tracts, and much more. Dualistic problems of the crown, halos, dignity, the body, fictitious persons, corporations, and the law are all taken into account in such a degree of detail that you will often forget what this book is supposed to be about, though not to its detriment.

[Ilya · Rating 5 out of 5]

As often, classics are classics for a reason. So, too, here. This is a landmark study of medieval political theology and, in particular, of the phenomenon that the Tudor lawyers referred to as the King’s two bodies: his actual, natural, mortal body and then his immortal or “political” body. The scope is vast: Kantorowicz (a Jewish refugee from the Nazi German who landed at Princeton by way of Berkeley) begins with the Tudor jurisprudence, then moves on to Shakespeare (I will never encounter “Richard II” in the same way), before turning to early-medieval christology and (later) glosses of Roman law and tracing from them the intellectual genealogy of the “two bodies” concept. This is a dense, chewy, sometimes exhausting text, with footnotes occasionally evicting the main text from the page and every term of art unapologetically rendered in Latin. Some of it went over my head. Yet wrestling with this text, living with it, fighting back and, finally, learning from it—it all felt like a milestone, an event I was happy to live through.

[Renato Garín · Rating 5 out of 5]

Publicado por primera vez en 1957, el libro examina las complejas relaciones entre teología y política en la Europa medieval.

El argumento central de Kantorowicz es que el rey medieval poseía "dos cuerpos": un cuerpo natural y mortal, y un cuerpo político y eterno. El primero es el cuerpo físico, sujeto a enfermedades, pasiones y muerte; el segundo es un cuerpo simbólico o místico, que representa la continuidad de la autoridad regia y del Estado, independientemente de la vida o muerte del monarca individual.

Esta distinción fue utilizada para justificar la naturaleza trascendente y divina del poder monárquico. Aun después de la muerte del rey, su "segundo cuerpo", el cuerpo político, seguía vivo en la figura de su sucesor, garantizando así la perpetuidad y estabilidad del reino.

El trabajo de Kantorowicz ha sido fundamental para entender las nociones de poder, realeza y la construcción de la autoridad en el medievo. Además, ha influido en estudios posteriores sobre la representación y simbolismo del poder en otras épocas y contextos.

[Allen Radtke · Rating 4 out of 5]

This for me is a profound work of medieval political theology and historical scholarship. It's a bit all over the place in some chapters, but that impression is probably the result of my having read it only once, so far. I read this to get toward the root of the contemporary problem of understanding the concept of legal personhood of commercial corporations. But the considerable effort to plough through this proved to be immeasurably rewarding in many other dimensions as well. The very substantial Latin footnotes are an education in themselves. There is much to learned in this for any student of political theory, political science or political philosophy. Highly recommended for those with the dedication to work through this with a slow, close reading.

[Jenny Webb · Rating 5 out of 5]

A rich project, undertaken with care. I read this to better prepare for another book on my list to read, and I’m glad I did. Watching the methodology unfold and the argument build was fascinating in its own right, and it was clear why this book has had such an impact on the field. Whether or not you agree with the analysis, the minute disentangling of the religious and the secular via the legal is well worth reading. And for me and my own personal theological projects, this book provided plenty of “aha!” moments and plenty to rethink and re-read in the future.

[k · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a hard text and requires some perseverance by a reader who does not come with the background in theology that Kantorowicz often presumes. But it is very rewarding and insightful — it feels like Kantorowicz is often offering his study of mediaeval theory for comparison with other historical periods. As an example of method, it is fascinating — K takes you on rides that seem pointless, then shows off his skill of synthesis at the close of every theme.

[livexia · Rating 5 out of 5]

草草的读完，作为一个基本毫无基础的读者阅读本书可以说是十分费力，超过一半的内容都是注释，对于我而言注释部分可能更加难以理解。这是一本学术性的著作，对于普罗大众难度略高，很多在我看来可能是缺点的部分，从学术性角度来看反而是优点。即便对于我这样的读者，我还是能从书中看出一些作者的意图，我很希望作者能从对历史的阐述和解读，引申到现代国家中的一些现象与体制，假如是一个较有基础的读者，想必这样的引申是无需作者的。

[Pedro Pascoe · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think I bit off a bit more than I could comfortably chew with this hefty volume of political medieval theology. An important work, by all accounts, and dense with academic notes, but a wee bit rarefied for my tastes.

[Ondřej Šefčík · Rating 5 out of 5]

The masterpiece.

[laurentiu]

0

[Joseph Morgan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Difficult, but brilliant.

[Simon · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredible book. The author's mastery of the primary sources is unbelievable. That chapter on Dante, though ...

[Armando Sousa · Rating 5 out of 5]

el poder político bajomedieval y su construcción simbolica basada en la teologia, en el derecho y el desarollo de ideas corporativas

[Anna · Rating 5 out of 5]

STRA APPASSIONANTE

[Luke Ziegler · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very very very difficult. I only have a summary understanding of this book tbh

[Sol]

eu vou só começar a pôr aqui os livros que tenho de ler para o doutoramento, i might as well