Περί Μοναρχίας

by Dante Alighieri

Το "Περί Μοναρχίας" βασίζεται στην πεποίθηση του Δάντη ότι ο αυτοκράτορας-μονάρχης πρέπει να κατέχει και να ασκεί οικουμενική εξουσία για να πραγματωθεί επί γης η θεϊκή τάξη. Στο έργο του αυτό, το οποίο περιλαμβάνει τρία βιβλία, ο Δάντης εργάζεται με βάση την αριστοτελική μέθοδο και στρέφεται με σφοδρότητα εναντίον της παπικής διεκδίκησης απόκτησης της κοσμικής εξουσίας. Παρότι έχει συχνά κατηγορηθεί ως αναχρονιστικό και αφελές, το έργο αντανακλά τις μεσαιωνικές αντιλήψεις για την οικουμενική ισχύ της αυτοκρατορίας.

Περιεχόμενα
ΤΟ ΕΡΓΟ
ΒΙΒΛΙΟ Ι - ΑΝ Η ΚΟΣΜΙΚΗ ΜΟΝΑΡΧΙΑ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΑΠΑΡΑΙΤΗΤΗ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΕΥΗΜΕΡΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΚΟΣΜΟΥ
Εισαγωγή
Για ποιο λόγο έχουν οι άνθρωποι κυβέρνηση;
Να πραγματώσουμε την ικανότητα της νοημοσύνης στην θεωρία και στην πράξη
Για να επιτύχει αυτό τον τελικό σκοπό η ανθρωπότητα χρειάζεται παγκόσμια ειρήνη
Όταν ένας σκοπός επιβάλλει πολλά πράγματα, ένα πρέπει να κυριαρχεί και τα άλλα να υπακούν
Η τάξη που υπάρχει στα μέλη της ανθρώπινης φυλής πρέπει να υπάρχει στη φυλή στο σύνολό της
Η σχέση των βασιλείων και των εθνών με τον μονάρχη πρέπει να είναι όπως η σχέση της ανθρωπότητας με τον Θεό
Οι άνθρωποι είναι φτιαγμένοι κατ' εικόνα του Θεού αλλά ο Θεός είναι ένας
Οι άνθρωποι, ως γιοι του Ουρανού, πρέπει να ακολουθούν τα βήματα του Ουρανού
Για την διευθέτηση όλων των διαφορών είναι απαραίτητος ένας υπέρτατος δικαστής
Ο κόσμος έχει την άριστη τάξη όταν υπερισχύει σε αυτόν η Δικαιοσύνη
Η ανθρωπότητα έχει την καλύτερη δυνατή τάξη όταν είναι πιο ελεύθερη
Αυτός που είναι καλύτερα προσαρμοσμένος για την διακυβέρνηση είναι ο καλύτερος κυβερνήτης των άλλων ανθρώπων
Αυτό που μπορεί να κάνει ένας γίνεται καλύτερα από έναν παρά από πολλούς
Σε κάθε πράγμα είναι καλύτερο εκείνο που πλησιάζει περισσότερο να είναι ένα
Ο Χριστός θέλησε να γεννηθεί στο πλήρωμα του χρόνου όταν ήταν Μονάρχης ο Αύγουστος
ΒΙΒΛΙΟ ΙΙ - ΑΝ Ο ΡΩΜΑΪΚΟΣ ΛΑΟΣ ΣΩΣΤΑ ΑΠΕΚΤΗΣΕ ΤΟ ΑΞΙΩΜΑ ΤΗΣ ΜΟΝΑΡΧΙΑΣ
Εισαγωγή
Αυτό που θέλει ο Θεός στην ανθρώπινη κοινωνία πρέπει να θεωρηθεί ορθό
Οι Ρωμαίοι ως ο ευγενέστερος λαός άξιζαν το προβάδισμα έναντι των άλλων
Επειδή η Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία βοηθήθηκε από θαύματα δημιουργήθηκε με θέλημα Θεού
Ο ρωμαϊκός λαός υπέταξε τον κόσμο αποβλέποντας στο καλό του κράτους και επομένως και στο σκοπό του Δικαίου
Αυτός που αποσκοπεί στο Δίκαιο προχωρεί σύμφωνα με το Δίκαιο
Ο ρωμαϊκός λαός είχε οριστεί από τη φύση του για την Αυτοκρατορία
Η εντολή του Θεού έδειξε ότι η Αυτοκρατορία ανήκε στον ρωμαϊκό λαό
Οι Ρωμαίοι νίκησαν όλους όσους τους ανταγωνίζονταν για την Αυτοκρατορία
Αυτό που αποκτιέται με μονομαχία αποκτιέται δίκαια
Οι μονομαχίες του ρωμαϊκού λαού
Ο Χριστός με τη γέννησή Του απέδειξε ότι η εξουσία της Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας ήταν δίκαιη
Ο Χριστός πεθαίνοντας επιβεβαίωσε τη δικαιοδοσία της Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας σε όλη την ανθρωπότητα
ΒΙΒΛΙΟ ΙΙΙ - ΑΝ Η ΕΞΟΥΣΙΑ ΤΗΣ ΡΩΜΑΪΚΗΣ ΜΟΝΑΡΧΙΑΣ ΑΠΟΡΡΕΕΙ ΑΜΕΣΑ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΝ ΘΕΟ Ή ΕΚΠΡΟΣΩΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ
Εισαγωγή
Ο Θεός δεν βούλεται αυτό που είναι ενάντια στην πρόθεση της φύσης
Για τις τρεις τάξεις των αντιπάλων μας και την υπερβολικά μεγάλη αυθεντία που αποδίδουν πολλοί στην παράδοση
Το επιχείρημα των αντιπάλων που βασίζεται στον ήλιο και τη σελήνη
Επιχείρημα για το προβάδισμα του Λευί έναντι του Ιούδα
Επιχείρημα από την εκλογή και καθαίρεση του Σαούλ από τον Σαμουήλ
Επιχείρημα από την προσφορά των Μάγων
Επιχείρημα από το προνόμιο των κλειδιών που δόθηκε στον Πέτρο
Επιχείρημα από τα δύο ξίφη
Επιχείρημα από τη δωρεά του Κωνσταντίνου
Επιχείρημα από την κλήση του Καρλομάγνου από τον Πάπα Αδριανό
Επιχείρημα λογικής
Η εξουσία της Εκκλησίας δεν είναι η πηγή της Αυτοκρατορικής εξουσίας
Η Εκκλησία δεν έλαβε δύναμη μεταβίβασης ούτε από τον Θεό, ούτε από τον εαυτό της, ούτε από τον Αυτοκράτορα
Το προνόμιο της απόδοσης εξουσίας στην Αυτοκρατορία είναι ενάντιο στην φύση της Εκκλησίας
Η εξουσία της Αυτοκρατορίας απορρέει απευθείας από τον Θεό
Ο ΣΥΓΓΡΑΦΕΑΣ

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Classics, Nonfiction, Italian Literature, Medieval, History

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1313

About the author

Dante Alighieri, or simply Dante (May 14/June 13 1265 – September 13/14, 1321), is one of the greatest poets in the Italian language; with the story-teller, Boccaccio, and the poet, Petrarch, he forms the classic trio of Italian authors. Dante Alighieri was born in the city-state Florence in 1265. He first saw the woman, or rather the child, who was to become the poetic love of his life when he was almost nine years old and she was some months younger. In fact, Beatrice married another man, Simone di' Bardi, and died when Dante was 25, so their relationship existed almost entirely in Dante's imagination, but she nonetheless plays an extremely important role in his poetry. Dante attributed all the heavenly virtues to her soul and imagined, in his masterpiece The Divine Comedy, that she was his guardian angel who alternately berated and encouraged him on his search for salvation.

Politics as well as love deeply influenced Dante's literary and emotional life. Renaissance Florence was a thriving, but not a peaceful city: different opposing factions continually struggled for dominance there. The Guelfs and the Ghibellines were the two major factions, and in fact that division was important in all of Italy and other countries as well. The Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor were political rivals for much of this time period, and in general the Guelfs were in favor of the Pope, while the Ghibellines supported Imperial power. By 1289 in the battle of Campaldino the Ghibellines largely disappeared from Florence. Peace, however, did not insue. Instead, the Guelf party divided between the Whites and the Blacks (Dante was a White Guelf). The Whites were more opposed to Papal power than the Blacks, and tended to favor the emperor, so in fact the preoccupations of the White Guelfs were much like those of the defeated Ghibellines. In this divisive atmosphere Dante rose to a position of leadership. in 1302, while he was in Rome on a diplomatic mission to the Pope, the Blacks in Florence seized power with the help of the French (and pro-Pope) Charles of Valois. The Blacks exiled Dante, confiscating his goods and condemning him to be burned if he should return to Florence.

Dante never returned to Florence. He wandered from city to city, depending on noble patrons there. Between 1302 and 1304 some attempts were made by the exiled Whites to retrieve their position in Florence, but none of these succeeded and Dante contented himself with hoping for the appearance of a new powerful Holy Roman Emperor who would unite the country and banish strife. Henry VII was elected Emperor in 1308, and indeed laid seige to Florence in 1312, but was defeated, and he died a year later, destroying Dante's hopes. Dante passed from court to court, writing passionate political and moral epistles and finishing his Divine Comedy, which contains the Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. He finally died in Ravenna in 1321.

Reviews

[Vatikanska Milosnica · Rating 4 out of 5]

no first-rate scholastician, dante performs several sleights of hand in this slim volume, and sophisms, omissions, and arbitrary equations abound: beware!

[sologdin · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's a case that this is an early example of Poe's Law in action: it is really difficult for me to tell if this is serious or satirical. The arguments in favor of the central thesis are very bad--so inept that one should suspect intentional sabotage: sophistries, creative misuse of underlying materials (such as citing Augustine or Aristotle or Aquinas for a proposition but drawing a different conclusion than the source), dogmatism, fallacies (ad consequentiam very prominently), and so on. Consider this cross-eyed dogmatism, so bare it could plausibly be thought of as a joke:

when the craftsman is perfect and his instrument is in excellent order, if a flaw occurs in the work of art it is to be imputed exclusively to the material; in the same way, since God attains the highest perfection and his instrument (i.e. the heavens) cannot fall short of the perfection appropriate to it (as is clear from those things philosophy teaches us about the heavens), our conclusion is this: whatever flaws there are in earthly things are flaws due to the material of which they are constituted, and are no part of the intention of God the creator and the heavens; and whatever good there is in earthly things, since it cannot come from the material (which exists only as a potentiality), comes primarily from God the maker and secondarily from the heavens, which are the instrument of God's handiwork, which is commonly called 'nature.' II.ii

Any aristotelian can see that this argument addresses the material cause and the efficient cause, but doesn't mention the formal or final causes, either of which could be independently flawed, and irrespective of any other problems with this passage (e.g., if humans are flawed material, how is that flawed status outside the intention of the creator, who concluded that their creation was good in Genesis? Have they deviated from God's intention? Is this like in the Iliad (q.v.) wherein characters routinely threaten to exceed their allotted portion? What is regular for paganism strikes me as heretical for orthodoxy.)

The potential for satire here makes biographical sense. Dante turned to Boethius after Beatrice died, for consolation. Boethius is himself not straightforward serious, but rather writes menippean satire. We know further that the Divine Comedy mixes high seriousness with low humor and austere abstraction with topical references in the manner of the menippeans. I find the inference of satire to be very strong from passages such as II.iv, wherein Dante argues that God willed the Roman empire to ascendency as shown by pagan supernatural events that are actually Christian miracles. I laughed and laughed when I read this, and am still laughing about it:

That God performed miracles so that the Roman empire might be supreme is confirmed by the testimony of illustrious authors. For Livy tells in the first part of his work that in the time of Numa Pompilius, the second king of the Romans, a shield fell from heaven into God's chosen city as he was sacrificing according to the pagan rite.

He follows this extraordinary moment--wherein Christianity allegedly ratifies a pagan sacrifice--with further tall tales from virtuous pagans Lucan and Virgil. I love it, but not because it proves anything other than Dante seems to skewer orthodoxy. In the Commedia, recall, the virtuous pagans end up in Limbo, which is told in Inferno, whereas other pagans (such as Odysseus, the epicureans, and Caesar's assassins) end up in torment within the Inferno proper. Thereafter Dante carves out humorous intellectually dishonest exceptions to place Cato in Purgatorio (to reward his otherwise damnable suicide as an example of stoic liberty, perhaps--an interest in political freedom as against a universal monarch, say) and Trajan in Paradiso (placing this text's favored universal monarch in heaven).

And there's a certain sly subversion in the Commedia when we read this text's definition of freedom back into the epic:

Now the human race is in its ideal state when it is completely free. [...] free will is free judgment in matters of volition. [...] judgment is the link between perception and appetition: for first a thing is perceived then it is judged to be good or evil, and finally the person who judges pursues it or shuns it. Now if judgment controls desire completely and is in no way pre-empted by it, it is free; but if judgment is in any way at all pre-empted and thus controlled by desire, it cannot be free, because it does not act under its own power, but is dragged along in the power of something else. (I.xii)

Okay, not invulnerable, but fair enough to kick around as an assumption. But push this idea back into the poem, and we start to see how the text becomes a sledgehammer to bring the whole edifice down in ruin. Consider Paradiso III, "As to the King, who makes his will our will. / And his will is our peace," or XXXIII, the finale, "but my / desire and will were moved already—like / a wheel revolving uniformly—by / the Love that moves the sun and the other stars." There is no freedom here, at least according to Dante's own terms--Beatrice and others explain to him that thought and desire are surveilled and made to conform in heaven.

We can contrast the situation in Paradise with Inferno XIV, Capaneus' famous assertion of freedom: "What I was alive, such am I dead." Despite his torment, he retains his signature belief, however hubristic some may believe it, and his will is not controlled at all. Thus, the Inferno is barely a prison, controlling only the body--whereas Dante's heaven is a perfect carceral system, breaking the will and making even one's desires conform to external power. This strikes me less as a glowing recommendation than as catastrophic critique. Perhaps it was too subtle for the medieval religious mind, which likely accepted that substituting divine will for one's own judgment is perfectly acceptable. Hence, it brings us to the applicability of Poe's Law.

Within that undecidable threshold of ambiguity about whether Dante seriously advances an entirely compromised and repellent orthodoxy or if he is instead a closet radical, soliciting the foundation of doctrine from within by presenting the abject weakness of orthodoxy by means of its approved recitation, we might seek a way out. We can suspend the question of Dante's intention as unknowable--but we can see that if heaven is a perfect prison because its 'peace' subordinates all freedom, then it follows inexorably that the universal monarch for which Dante argues in this text on the basis that it will create universal peace (because a universal monarch, already possessing the whole world, will not succumb to greed precisely because there is nothing left to steal--seriously--that's the argument) likewise creates a perfect earthly prison.

Interestingly, the argument relies on a standard ethics/aesthetics conflation in declaring that "it is clear that universal peace is the best of those things which are ordained for our human happiness," which of course is not exactly an argument for the notion that there should be a universal monarch--or that the god of Christianity is ethically defensible or politically just (my position is that it is neither). Ultimately, that may be the point: ethical independence of judgment is routinely sacrificed in order to achieve a desirable aesthetic end in both politics and theology.

[Luís · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author chooses as an aim of his arguments the concept that political authority emanated from the pope's figure. Thus seeking to justify his desire for an Italian empire where, despite the Providential duality (happiness on earth and eternal happiness), the two authorities - spiritual and political - are not confused, but act in parallel, that is, the spirit illuminates the governmental action.

[Calandrino_Tozzetti · Rating 5 out of 5]

Se il latino è Grammatica e il volgare è lingua naturale, il De vulgari eloquentia è una Bibbia ancora illibata, immune ai germi del protestantesimo; scritta in latino per i cattedratici comuni mortali, esalta il volgare come lingua del corpo e dello spirito, eleggendola a idioma dominante delle italiche genti da lì in avanti, pur inconsapevolmente.

Sarà poi motore della Commedia che, sebbene sia un testo minore dell'Alighieri, ha formato il mio spirito critico-letterario e quello di migliaia di - all'epoca - giovani spiriti, gettando qualcuno, me compreso, tra le braccia grassocce dell'ermeneutica.

Mi accingo alla quattordicesima rilettura della Commedia e alla ventesima ripresa (al contrario) del De Vulgari.
Poi, sotto con la Vita Nova.

[max theodore]

literally the first paragraph of the introduction to this said it was sometimes viewed as "needlessly pedantic and repetitive" and "alienating," so clearly i was psyched. but the joke's on whoever wrote the intro, because i just spent a week and a half reading augustine, so this was light shit. did it convince me of dante's points? not really. but i was pleasantly surprised at how readable it was; i genuinely think the psuedo-geometric-proof format was good for this. someday i will have to read the divine comedy huh

[Sára Zemanová · Rating 4 out of 5]

i am Thoroughly exhausted but full of thoughts. do i agree? absolutely Not. but it was surprisingly very readable and his points were well crafted (aside from the antisemitism). and im blown away by the sun&moon metaphor

[Ønoffo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Increíble como sin estar yo de acuerdo con prácticamente nada de la teoría política dantesca me ha flipado el libro. Se ve como Dante había llegado a su peak filosófico y poético.

[Richard Wu · Rating 2 out of 5]

On offer is a dearth of poetic and rhetorical value speckled with false etymologies, category errors, double standards, motivated reasoning, and misquotations aplenty. That aside, the Achilles heel of syllogistic reasoning is that any swarm of far-fetched premises may be deployed to force a logical conclusion; they need not correspond to the actual state of things—indeed they rarely are able—and where they do, their rhetorical power resides solely in the mind of the one making the argument, as opponents may ignore, dismiss, or censor even the most airtight of these syllogisms without giving them one molecule of oxygen (much to philosophers’ chagrin).

Since we’re here, we might as well ask the measure by which soundness is evaluated. De Monarchia nourishes its premises with verses from Scripture, thus introducing (at least) two further hidden assumptions: that Scripture is a valid basis for assessing statements, and more crucially that he who is interpreting Scripture can do a proper job of it. Hermeneutics being of course a far cry from mathematics, even those who grant the first of these will almost invariably dispute the second:

In reply to this, I accept the literal meaning of Matthew and their interpretation of it, but I reject what they try to infer from it. [p.75]

It devolves into a he-said-she-said. In fact, another axiom of Matthew’s, 26:52, is quite appropriate: “Live by the sword, die by the sword.” Dante who proposed trial by combat as a surefire method of determining the divine logic of Right has no problem embiggening the analogical scope of “combat” beyond duels between men and physical bouts writ large:

It therefore remains to argue the case only with those who, motivated by some zealous concern for Mother Church, are unaware of that truth which we seek; and so it is with them… that I engage in battle in this book in the cause of truth. [p.68]

So he should’ve been fine with his expulsion from Florence in the same way he would’ve had the Jews and Persians accede to their Roman subjugation, though none of these parties fought, legally or physically, “by free agreement of both sides… solely out of a passionate concern for justice”; some phantasy is required to contort these terms to the events concerned. Other propositions, a moment’s thought suffices to falsify:

And what can be brought about by a single agent is better done by a single agent than by more than one. [p.23]

Obviously not if more people can do it faster or better, but the real calamity is how no qualifiers are supplied; the statement stands absolute as an obelisk, ripe for jeers. On the other hand, to say that that which is best brought about by a single agent is better done by a single agent than by more would be correct—correct and tautological, and meaningless. But can a meaningful set of qualities possessed by the generality of events best manifested by singletons be produced? I challenge you thus.

As for monarchy, the myriad reasons why it should be a desirable form of governance have been so thoroughly invalidated by both theory and practice that those now hearkening for the return of history they’ve never lived belong wrapped more securely in straightjackets than the most psychotic of mental ward inpatients (who at least cannot be actively malicious). Sure, with a perfect king in a perfect kingdom in a perfect world, but Dante still pushing this tripe after Constantine’s donation dashed yet another of his ideals into pieces… Ne puero gladium:

[T]hose who have never studied philosophy acquire the habit of philosophical truth more easily and perfectly than those who have studied for a long time and become familiar with false notions. [p.23]

[Fernando Borretti · Rating 5 out of 5]

The whole thing is structured like a logical proof, with modus ponens, proof by contradiction, proof by case analysis, etc. The theorem being proved is that there should be a world-state run by the Holy Roman Emperor.

But the axioms are Dante's interpretation of scripture, and bits from Virgil, Plato, Livy, Cicero, and Thomas Aquinas. By our standards it is bizarre.

A fun project would be to try to formalize the whole argument in Lean.

[Jim MacKinnon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dante’s views on politics were no doubt shaped by the tumultuous months he served as a Prior (a kind of executive-level city councillor) in the Florentine government. During this period, he witnessed violent factionalism (i.e. the division of the Guelphs into moderate White and papal-supporting Black parties), corrupt local politics, papal meddling in city affairs, and the weakness of the small, independent Italian city-states. Dante, a White Guelph, would be exiled from his beloved Florence when the radical Black Guelphs took over the city in 1302. He would spend the last twenty years of his life wandering various Italian cities like Verona, Lucca, and Belogna, where he was received by noble families. It is likely Dante wrote this political treatise, ‘Monarchy,’ among other works, sometime between the years 1310 and 1313, coinciding with Holy Roman Emperor Henry VIII’s move to Italy in the hopes that Henry VIII could bring peace and unite the country. Dante’s ‘Monarchy’ argues two main theses: 1) that the best form of political organization for the world should consist of one overarching empire ruled by a single monarch; and 2) the need for the separation of church and state. First, as Dante argues a pro-imperial stance, that is, that the world should form, one single empire to be governed by a single world ruler or monarch. There is one Pope who rules over the church (the ‘eternal’ church world) so why not, by analogy, one monarch who rules over the people (the ‘temporal’ world). This is not to say there can’t be individual countries, regions, and cultures within the empire that are governed by lesser local or regional rulers, but, as Dante suggests there ought to be one ruler, an overarching or absolute ruler or monarch who has authority as the supreme law of the land who is able to quash internal rivalries and conflicts that arise between local and regional rulers who often find themselves competing over territory and power. The absolute monarch acts, therefore, as a final arbiter to ensure justice across the vast empire. Such a monarch must be a selfless, just, impartial ruler, someone who eschews greed and who pursues justice as an end in itself rather than as a means to an end, such as material gain or tyrannical rule. This monarch acts from a stance whereby humanity can achieve its purpose, that, for Dante, was a state in which people are most free and happy and can achieve their intellectual potential. The prerequisite for such a state is peace, a lasting peace that can only be guaranteed, Dante argues, by such a single ruler. Dante looks to the Roman Empire and its continuation in the Holy Roman Empire as models that history would suggest were sanctioned by God. For example, Dante cites the time of Christ’s birth under Emperor Augustus as a time when the world experienced universal peace as an example of his ideal empire.

While carefully argued, there is much to criticize in Dante’s idea of the single world leader. While curious as a thought experiment, it is unrealistic in practice to think these monarchs will govern from a place of selflessness with the interests of the people at heart. History as proven all too many times that such rulers, vested with unchecked power, most often act from a position of ambition and self-interest. Such rulers falling into authoritarian or tyrannical rule is historically the norm rather than the exception. These leaders tend to create internal conflict rather than resolve it. Indeed, all the great Empires of the world have fallen and people over the centuries have chosen, it seems, to be governed at levels that respect local autonomy, individual cultures, and national boundaries in which democratic institutions uphold the rule of law and hold leaders accountable rather than giving one individual supreme authority. While today we might look to the success of some supranational organizations such as the European Union as a sort of ‘empire’ whereby certain powers are vested in a higher authority. In the EU’s case, transnational laws ensure the free movement of people and goods across a wide array of national boundaries. However, even organizations such as these are governed by many individuals through democratic institution and not one single individual. Additionally, Dante didn’t live to see the Reformation, and, therefore, could not witness the possibility that Christendom could be divided, so the analogy with one ruler over the Church, as in the Pope, soon breaks down. The movement of people’s, cultures, and religions across the entire globe in the ensuing centuries created a world of diversity Dante could not have envisaged. The world has simply become too diverse to form any one empire to be led by one monarch, just as there could likely never be one religious leader to represent all religions. Dante’s view of such a pro-imperial form of political organization is highly impractical and probably impossible today.

Second, Dante’s much stronger and lasting argument is the idea of the separation of church and state. As Dante argues, the Pope should represent the spiritual (sacred) or eternal world, guiding the population to eternal salvation through faith and the Church; the Monarch should represent the worldly (secular) or temporal world, guiding the population to worldly happiness through the exercise of moral virtue and intellectual achievement. Both having their authority bestowed by God, the paths of Pope and Monarch should not cross; each should remain autonomous. This was a radical idea for Dante’s day and it led to the book’s banning by the Vatican for several centuries. It had long been accepted that the Pope and Church held authority over the emperor and state. Dante attacks in a virtuosic command of syllogistic logic several long-held arguments based on scripture, history, and reason that seemed to support the primacy of papal authority.

As Dante witnessed in his time, the church was becoming an increasingly corrupt organization as Popes, such the infamous Boniface VIII sought wealth, power, and political gain causing the Church to lose its moral compass. Furthermore such meddling in state affairs only led to conflict between leaders and political instability. Therefore, Dante argues for the clear division of powers between the spiritual and earthly realms.

This idea of the separation or church and state has become enshrined in many modern constitutions today for many practical and legal reasons. Some of which are: People can practice whatever religion they wish without fear of persecution as the state can’t impose any single official religion; As many countries are highly multicultural today, separation ensures one religious group of people aren’t favoured over another politically and many religions can coexist peacefully; Laws are based on reason and public interest, not religious doctrine; Churches avoid corruption and the loss of credibility when they avoid political ambition and involvement in everyday politics. The separation of church and state was surely a forward idea from a 14th-century poet.

[Derek Osbourne · Rating 1 out of 5]

I feel a little cheated by this book. I had hoped to find a book with the latest academic thought on Dante's political theory and a good translation with plenty of notes to expand and explain the context and sources of the work.

Well HARD LUCK, Derek.

Although this work was published in 2012 and that is what it will tell you in Amazon and Goodreads it is actually a republishing - and therefore re-copyrighting of a translation published in 1904 - by Veritatis Splendor Publications which exists to publish out of print and uncopyrighted works of Catholic theology. The preface, introduction and bibliography are therefore nearly 120 years out of date. Very disappointing.

Even more disappointing are the Notes which are badly laid out and impossible - without a great deal of work - to identify which notes relate to which chapter. This negates a reader's ability to explore references, sources and context.

The translation is from Italian into English - PLEASE NOTE GOODREADS THIS BOOK IS NOT IN LATIN AS YOU SAY - is in a style more suited to 1904 academia than to the 21st Century. The first book which has the most religious aspects reads as though it has been translated in the style of the King James Bible. The language certainly gets in the way.

As to the philosophy. Although I might like the idea of a universal world state I would certainly not follow the notion that there should be a supreme Emperor whose authority comes from God. This political philosophy is very much within the context of the times of the struggle between the power of the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor at the opening of the fourteenth century. In its historical context it is interesting although it has little to inform modern political thought unless you believe in an anti-democratic world Reich.

All in all I can NOT recommend this work to anyone who wants to read the Dante and explore its context and relevance to the period in which it was written.

[Athanaric · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderful work of Christian political philosophy, which, oddly enough, reflects the reality of "symphonia" among Orthodox Christian monarchies of the time (that is, the agreement and cooperation of emperor/king and patriarch/archbishop as the twin "pillars" of the state).

Within the first couple of pages, the influences of Aristotle/Aristotelianism and Scholasticism are immediately evident. The arguments are, for the most part, logical, though some of them are needlessly contorted.

It is impossible to study this book without having, at least, an open mind, if not a good amount of respect and understanding for Christianity as a religion. Furthermore, there is no reason to read it if one is just going to dismiss Dante's axioms or first principles out of hand.

On that note though, it is truly refreshing to read a philosophical book which clearly lists the axioms it takes for granted. So few people nowadays can even identify the things they take for granted when the argue, let alone list them openly and honestly. That is one of my favorite things about the book.

All in all, if you are interested in understanding the argument in favor of global or all-Christian imperial rule, this the best exploration of it!

[Katherine · Rating 5 out of 5]

¡QUÉ PERFECCIÓN!
Maravilla, el ejercicio silogístico es perfecto. Sueño aprender a disertar con esto,
¡DIEZ DE CINCO!

[Benji]

So the highest faculty in a human being is not simply to exist, because the elements too share in the simple fact of existence; nor is it to exist in compound form, for that is found in minerals; nor is it to exist as a living thing, for plants too share in that; nor is it to exist as a creature with sense perception, for that is also shared by the lower animals; but it is to exist as a creature who apprehends by means of the potential intellect; this mode of existence belongs to no creature (whether higher or lower) other than human beings. For while there are indeed other beings who like us are endowed with intellect, nonetheless their intellect is not potential in the way a human being's is, since such beings exist only as intelligences and nothing else, an their very being is simply the act of understanding that their own nature exists; and they are engaged in this without discontinuity, otherwise they would not be eternal. It is thus clear that the highest potential of humankind is its intellectual potential or faculty. And since that potentiality cannot be fully actualized all at once in any one individual or in any of the particular social groupings, there must needs be a multitude in the human race, through whom the whole of this potential can be actualized ... [T]he activity proper to humankind considered as a whole is to constantly actualize the full intellectual potential of humanity, primarily through thought and secondarily through action.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first heard of this work from James Burnham’s book The Machiavellians where he gives it as an example of the futility of philosophical arguments in politics and came across it again recently in Taming of the Prince by Harvey Mansfield in the context of Aristotle’s concept of pambasileia (kingship over all) as one of the good forms of government. As a work of political philosophy De Monarchia is important to adapt Aristotle to the needs of christian monarchy where the pambasileia could be more achievable as a vicar of god like the pope rather than of his own virtue, divine right accomplishing what reason alone could not. However Dante’s reasoning for kingly authority is naturalistic, infered by reason from secondary causes, whereas divine law is by grace but strengthens political authority as both offices are human in nature.

The work is three books, the first on why universal monarchy is necessary for the good of the world which is happiness in this life, the second that the Roman empire was authorized by divine right and did achieve for a time as close to universal order as possible, and the third chapter on the independence of temporal from the spiritual power of the church as expressed by the sun and moon theory, that the moon (kingship) receives its light from the sun (the church).

Book one uses Aristotelian reasoning that there is an end for all things in nature including humanity and there is greater perfection in one than in many, in unity rather than diversity just as there is one god and truth so by analogy it is better there is one head of a household, one ruler of a kingdom, and so there ought to be one ruler of the earth for the end of peace. The ruler must be the freest man, in wealth and power, to be free of self-interest and partiality in order to will justice for humanity based on the principle that necessitous men are not free men. This follows Aristotle’s pambasileia as the king exemplifies humanly virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance) in the highest degree, the most free man in democracy and the richest man in oligarchy. But the temporal monarch exemplifies these by virtue of the office not personal merit as Dante describes the king as supreme magistrate for the people, an executive of nature law rather than ruling of his own will which is liable to tyranny.

Book two demonstrates Dante’s humanism counter to St Augustine’s city of god that Rome failed to establish justice on earth without divine providence. The Roman empire alone among the ancients achieved the closest to a world empire in the three continents known by Dante Africa, Asia and Europe and Dante quotes Virgil as to the tricontinental origin of the founders of Rome and examples of divine intervention and superior virtues in Roman history. Dante blames the voluntary partitions of the later emperors for the eventual dissolution of the empire. Dante gives the example of the justice of duels in which all parties enter freely and the right of conquest for the greater to rule the lesser by natural or willing submission. Finally, Christ’s beginning and end were justified by Roman authority in the census and punishment by crucifixion, if these were not legal then His sacrifice would be for naught. Christ’s coming at the height of the empire also demonstrates the auspicion of the Roman imperium as to the spread of Christianity.

Book three concludes that because humanity is of two natures, body and soul, there must be two kinds of authority over each to guide humanity towards the best which is god’s intention. The analogy of the sun and moon does not apply because the moon’s entire being does not depend on the light of sun although it is enlightened by it, so does temporal authority reign independently but is strengthened by the spiritual power which both have the same source in god who is one. The role of the church is effectively in educating and organizing believers as to their duties for unlike a temporal leader the pope does not have the authority to change fundamental doctrines as civil law is a human not divine creation. The Caesar owes Peter the same deference a firstborn son owes his father, which is a curious analogy given his sustained case that both offices are of the same human matter but perhaps the spiritual power has priority in being rather than time which is accidental as to the relation of man to man.

Dante intended these arguments for the Holy Roman Empire, the much weakened successor to the Roman empire. But Dante’s arguments are relevant historically as to the relation of religion and state. The divine right of kings was originally a challenge to the authority of the church in worldly affairs rather than often thought a call for theocracy, rather it is religion to have a subordinate or separate role in politics which is strikingly modern.

Aside from the theological aspect, the Aristotelian arguments alone are useful as a philosophical justification of monarchy with analogical and teleological reasoning by way of syllogism. But as Taming the Prince argues, the temporal monarchy develops the idea of the executive who rules on behalf of another, but for Dante as well as for Bodin and the absolutists not for another human but a superior divine and natural right. Dante even reduces the role of Holy Roman electors to declarers and announcers rather than freely choosing the sovereign. We get the idea of law as command rather than deliberation as the sovereign is formally strong but practically weaker as the functions of law are delegated. The strength of the theologico-politico executive relies on popular opinion and Machiavellian prudence rather than innate goodness of character which is also strikingly modern.

[Mark Mateo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lodged in here is a very distinct and comprehensive conception of the self, which is very interesting seeing as he is a medievalist. Otherwise this felt inaccessibly limited to 14th century Church politics. Also much more boring than the Commedia......sorry

[Sol]

ter de ler isto para uma cadeira devia ser considerado um atentado à minha humanitas civilitas

[Bregoli Francesco · Rating 5 out of 5]

Contra toda auctorida... excepto mi mama

[Adam Carnehl · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a fascinating religio-political tract by the most brilliant poet of the last 2,000 years, Dante Alighieri.

In De Monarchia, Dante makes the bold argument for a single world-emperor who should assume political authority over the entire civilized world. Under him the governments of individual states would be subsumed, and he would rule as a divinely-authorized philosopher king over all people.

To support his argument, Dante points out that the reason state and city governments wage destructive wars with each other or succumb to interior struggles is due to human greed. Greed, as a result of sin, tears the fabric of society apart and destabilizes politics. A world emperor would have no greed and therefore would have no need of waging wars or staging coups; only he could provide lasting peace and stability for all people. This is a very interesting argument, indeed!

Next, Dante argues that the Roman Empire had divine sanction. God through Jesus Christ approved of Rome's authority and confirmed its power. This is an interesting section to see what exegetical moves Dante makes. For example, he argues that the Roman census was incorporated into the divine plan which brought Mary to Bethlehem, and so is a confirmation of Rome itself. If Rome, which ruled the entire "world" in its day had divine license, then a new Rome today (for Dante, in the 14th century), would also have divine license to rule the world justly.

Finally, in the work's closing section, Dante sets out to prove why the papacy has overstepped its role. He presents all of the arguments the "decretalists" in his day were advancing that supported papal power in the military/political realm, and he dismantles them.

On the heels of reading his "Comedy" and his "Vita Nuova," this was a surprisingly different work to read, but it was fascinating.

[jessica isnt cool · Rating 4 out of 5]

cannot wait to read (particularly, but not exclusively) paradiso with this in mind. and the valley of kings in purgatory makes infinitely more sense to me now.
the eagle imagery also i feel i understand more acutely.

also made me giggle a lot that he kept on calling virgil ‘our’ poet he truly adores him so much shoutout that.

i enjoyed the qua reason first and then qua theology since i am not as intimate with the bible, especially NT, as i probably should be.
i found them unsound, of course, but! the idea we must have one ruler i presumed i would hate, but for the idea of peace and distributing unclouded judgement is fascinating. dante neglects that perhaps our state of sin may always cloud judgement- else more often we would know if we had been given grace. that, or either god is not real or i have never made a graceful decision.

see you guys with the epicureans in circle 6 i guess.

[Ben | The Immersion Library · Rating 3 out of 5]

💫Immerse Yourself in The De Monarchia💫
🎶Listen | Classical Focus: Italian Renaissance 🕯️

And he, together with other thinkers of that period, longed for unity among men, for unity that seemed never to be made a reality. Yet Dante believed and proclaimed that such a unity could come about, but in one way only, through a regeneration of society and a uniting of political interests under one head independent of the Church.

In The De Monarchia, Dante embarks on a philosophical journey to prove, without reasonable doubt and by laws of logic, the validity of a global monarchy. In modern times, most thinkers would immediately cringe at the idea; imagining a dictator razing the earth to ashes and enslaving her people without mercy. Perhaps they would sacrifice their own principles against freedom and book-burning finding exception with this treatise.

More importantly, they might ask how a genius like Dante, author of The Divine Comedy, one who argues by secular law of philosophy and logic for the existence and authority of God and the Christian faith, could profess such political sacrilege? Let him explain...

Dante organizes his argument into three books: the necessity of temporal monarchy for the good of the world, the validity of Rome as the seat of that temporal monarchy and lastly whether such a right derives from God or His vicar on earth. One ought to consider the political juxtaposition of Dante's society; the ongoing conflict between Guelf (those defending papal supremacy in ruling the world) and Ghibellines (those defending the supremacy of the Emperor in ruling the world). One can argue how Dante proports the Ghibelline perspective and yet, as in all great things, gray rules their nature rather than definitive black and white. Ultimately, the timeless element of this treatise is its defense of separating Church and State; both with their functions in elevating human society and soul to its grandest heights.

Strangely, I found myself following Dante's logic defending universal monarchy as the best political construct to support both human freedom and happiness. I will not regurgitate each argument here. But I did find myself asking whether Dante might alter his arguments in the modern day. Would he maintain that his science of reason still leads people to attain his goal of universal monarchy? He might; and say that the failure of dictatorships and communist governments derive from our inability to fully realize his universal government. However, he might say, as so many have, that the loftiest and most well-reasoned principles simply have no capacity for realistic application.

Dante begins to lose me in his second book defending Rome as the divinely ordained empire appropriated for universal rule. Within his arguments, one can find roots of just about any western "ism" and incomplete arguments formed to defend his point. I did not find that Dante spoke as confidently to this point though he leaned heavily on Logic and his reasoning.

In the last book, Dante flourishes in his defense of separating Church and State and outlining how both lack jurisdiction of power over the other, despite the many examples provided by Guelfs to the contrary. In these arguments and syllogisms, we find that timeless element of this treatise where mankind can continually return in defending this separation.

Ultimately, a fine treatise for those appreciative of Dante's ability to apply logic to the divine; like a scientist illustrating art. It not only provides defenses for concepts applicable to modern times but may inspire others to continue the search for temporal constructs which enable his ultimate goal which, in Dante's day, both Guelf and Ghibelline could agree - a state of human happiness.

[Rich · Rating 1 out of 5]

Even though Dante Alighieri claims that the ultimate goal is peace by means of a single and absolute temporal monarchy (empire), I figured, while reading Book I, that Book II would have assertions like

"Proof enough has been given that the Romans were by nature ordained for sovereignty. Therefore the Roman people, in subjecting to itself the world, attained the Empire by Right."

"Hence piety accepts the contradictory, that the Roman Empire gained its perfection with the approval of miracles, that it was therefore willed of God, and consequently that it was and is by Right."

"The Roman people were by nature ordained for Empire, as may be proved in this wise."

"That in subduing the world the Roman people had in view the aforesaid good, their deeds declare. We behold them as a nation holy, pious, and full of glory, putting aside all avarice, which is ever adverse to the general welfare, cherishing universal peace and liberty, and disregarding private profit to guard the public weal of humanity. Rightly was it written, then, that “The Roman Empire takes its rise in the fountain of pity.”"

, which rest on no real evidence. Apparently, Rome was the best example we have of what a good temporal monarchy would be. Dante is prone to incredibly false and biased views of Roman history, Roman mythology, and even Cicero. The book is not just about Rome. There is uninteresting philosophy too.

Look at this chapter progression:
Book II Ch. XI The single combats of the Roman people.
Book II Ch. XII: Christ in being born proved that the authority of the Roman Empire was just.

[Javier · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is sad to think that this sober and astonishing critique on the foundations of the Church was included in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum; for Dante, with sublime and shrewd power of analysis, takes to task the perennial questions on the real power and role of the Roman Catholic Church in the affairs of mankind. Interpreting from scripture, he dissects the meaning behind the "two keys" and the misinterpretation by which the powers at the time, may have placed in the gospels to validate their mission on earth.

Valiant and even risky, considering the time when it was written, Dante goes forward with an exceptional and visionary prediction that, in the end, all Europe must become one single nation, which indeed today has come to pass (albeit not under the head of a King, but a club named the EU)

Fantastic to all those that seek a strong and compelling case in the redefinition of the Roman Catholic Church and its role; written 600 years before Vatican II, it still makes us wonder about the real meaning behind the Nazarene's words to Peter on that shore, two centuries ago. A must.

[Ray Johns · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first read Dante's 'De Monarchia' back in a University of Delaware international relations theory class . Dante's short classic treatise is an apology for the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire and an inquiry into what might be the necessary conditions to rebuild an international political order of the same size and magnitude of the old empire for modern times. Dante has inspired the political ambitions of such great conquerers as Napoleon I (his Napoleonic codes ) and his Congress of Vienna enemies (Castlereagh, Tallyrand, Metternich and Bismarck), moral philosophers like Immanuel Kant (Perpetual Peace), Liberal-Internationalists Woodrow Wilson's 'League of Nations(Fourteen Points) and V. I. Lenin's Communist Internationale of friendly socialist states(Comintern) . 'De Monarchia' deserves to be still read today .

[Davis Smith · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is not a very eloquently argued or even intellectually profound essay - if nothing else we can discover, without a shadow of a doubt, that Dante’s gifts lay in imaginative presentation of his philosophy rather than mere exposition - but it is a valuable companion to the delightfully stubborn, all-pervasive worldview espoused in the “Comedy.” There is also not much original thinking on display here, with pedantic Aristotelian arguments and the classic medieval interpretations of Augustine and Boethius. But it is not a bad read. It’s just so far removed from modern political ideals that it requires a major adjustment of mindset. And that is always a positive thing for the enrichment that good reading inherently demands. Part III, however, may be of more contemporary interest for many.

[OSCAR · Rating 3 out of 5]

El libro es difícil de comprender. El primer capítulo es casi ininteligible (en mejores épocas estaría más abierto a a filosofía escolástica) el Segundo estéril debido a que ignoro los clásicos y sus argumentos, igual juzgados bajo una lente moderna, son irrelevantes, por no decir, absurdos.

El tercer capítulo es el más substancioso; tal vez el único tratado relevante del libro. En sí es un excelente trabajo de filosofía política, y sus razonamientos son claros, hasta nítidos,a pesar de que no convencen del todo.

El libro está perfecto para un análisis del pensamiento político medieval pero es áspero para una lectura por deleite. Realmente yo esperab más de este tratado.

[Larita (taylor's version) · Rating 2 out of 5]

Política y religión simplemente no son mis temas favoritos de lectura. El libro es muy tedioso de leer con tantas vueltas y repeticiones; en base a mis gustos de lectura, es un rotundo no.
(Cabe aclarar que lo leí para la carrera)

[Benjamin Stahl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dante makes a very interesting and fairly convincing argument for the establishment of a global monarchy. It's basically pretty much a Christian dictatorship he envisions (albeit with church and state clearly separated; the former given spiritual, the latter temporal supremacy), which sounds alright to me. Pity it never happened. Though I'm sure a lot of people would disagree.

[Christopher · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have this vision of Dante stepping up to a diving board, waving his arms, yelling "Look at Me-e-e-e-e-e!" and then face-planting into the pool. Right, it would have been cute if you were six, but you aren't. Go home, Dante. Go home.

[Lia N. · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love Dante, but this... is... dry.