V. DANTE (1265-1321)

INTRODUCTION

The next important work in political theory is from the hand of Dante, the first learned layman of the middle ages. Dante's renown rests chiefly upon his literary productions. But the experiences of his life were such as to lead him to careful and original thinking upon certain questions of civil government.

It is not practicable to give here anything approaching a clear picture of the complicated political history of Italy in Dante's time. We may briefly indicate the main facts. The habitual antagonism between imperial and papal authority assumed a special phase in Italian politics in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The German Emperor claimed political supremacy over the Italian cities; the broader conflict thus became involved in Italy with the resistance offered by these cities, and their defenders, to the Emperor's designs. Furthermore, family feuds and rivalries among political factions divided upon local issues, were common in Italy in that period; and these local strifes became entangled in the more far-reaching combat.

Dante was born in Florence at the time when these contentions were at their worst; and throughout his life he was implicated in the many-sided conflict. His family was of the Guelf party, which was anti-imperial. After the decisive triumph of this party over the Ghibelline, or pro-imperial, party, in 1289, Dante served several times in the councils of Florence. He subsequently aligned himself with a new faction, which, though an offshoot from the Guelf party, was, nevertheless, inclined to Ghibelline opinions. The defeat of this branch by the dominant Guelfs brought about the banishment of Dante from Florence. In exile he wrote his political work-the De Monarchia.

Dante believed that the success of the efforts of the Emperor, Henry VII., to bring the Italian cities under his sway was essential to peace in Italy; and the inspiration of the De Monarchia was the author's desire to find a power that would be competent to

secure for Italy permanent deliverance from the rivalries and strifes among communities, classes, and families. He established his plea for peace upon a broad foundation. He held that for the complete development of man's characteristic faculties a life of repose was indispensable, and that lasting peace could be maintained only under a universal empire. By universal empire he meant the rule of a single head controlling the whole human race in all temporal relations and interests. He developed this main thesis from a priori principles; but he drew confirmation for his conclusions from analogies in nature, from scriptural parallels, and from the history of Rome. The argument is in three stages, which form the subjects, respectively, of the three books of the volume. The first proposition is that universal monarchy is essential to human welfare; the direct action of this common sovereignty is to be principally as mediator and as preserver of peace, national autonomy and individual liberty being maintained in so far as compatible with the primary end of the universal state. Secondly, the preeminent historical type of the universal state is the Roman Empire, which attained its extensive sway with divine sanctionevidenced in the continued success accorded by divine justice to Roman arms. Thirdly, imperial authority comes directly from God, and not through any vicar; in other words, the imperial power is independent of the papal power in all secular affairs.

READINGS FROM THE DE MONARCHIA 1

1. The End of Civil Order. The State?

I. It very greatly concerns all men on whom a higher nature has impressed the love of truth, that, as they have been enriched by the labor of those before them, so they also should labor for those that are to come after them, to the end that posterity may receive from them an addition to its wealth. For he is far astray from his duty-let him not doubt it—who, having been trained in the lessons of public business, cares not himself to contribute aught to the public good. He is no "tree planted by

1 The selections are taken from the De Monarchia, translated by F. J. Church. London, 1879. (Bound with Dante, an Essay, by R. W. Church.) The Macmillan Co.

A few of the translator's notes are reproduced. 2 Bk. I, i-v.

the water-side, that bringeth forth his fruit in due season." He is rather the devouring whirlpool, ever engulfing, but restoring nothing. Pondering, therefore, often on these things, lest some day I should have to answer the charge of the talent buried in the earth, I desire not only to show the budding promise, but also to bear fruit for the general good, and to set forth truths by others unattempted. For what fruit can he be said to bear who should go about to demonstrate again some theorem of Euclid? or when Aristotle has shown us what happiness is, should show it to us once more? or when Cicero has been the apologist of old age, should a second time undertake its defence? Such squandering of labor would only engender weariness and not profit.

But seeing that among other truths, ill-understood yet profitable, the knowledge touching temporal monarchy is at once most profitable and most obscure, and that because it has no immediate reference to worldly gain it is left unexplored by all, therefore it is my purpose to draw it forth from its hiding-places, as well that I may spend my toil for the benefit of the world, as that I may be the first to win the prize of so great an achievement to my own glory. The work indeed is difficult, and I am attempting what is beyond my strength; but I trust not in my own powers, but in the light of that Bountiful Giver, "Who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not."

II. First, therefore, we must see what is it that is called Temporal Monarchy, in its idea, so to speak, and according to its purpose. Temporal Monarchy, then, or, as men call it, the Empire, is the government of one prince above all men in time, or in those things and over those things which are measured by time. Three great questions are asked concerning it. First, there is the doubt and the question, is it necessary for the welfare of the world? Secondly, did the Roman people take to itself by right the office of Monarchy? And thirdly, does the authority of Monarchy come from God directly, or only from some other minister or vicar of God?

Now, since every truth, which is not itself a first principle, becomes manifest from the truth of some first principle, it is therefore necessary in every inquiry to have a knowledge of the first principle involved, to which by analysis we may go back for the certainty of all the propositions which are afterwards accepted. And since this treatise is an inquiry, we must begin by examining the first principle on the strength of which deductions are to rest. It must be understood then that there are certain things which, since they are not subject to our power, are matters of speculation,

but not of action: such are Mathematics and Physics, and things divine. But there are some things which, since they are subject to our power, are matters of action as well as of speculation, and in them we do not act for the sake of speculation, but contrariwise: for in such things action is the end. Now, since the matter which we have in hand has to do with states, nay, with the very origin and principle of good forms of government, and since all that concerns states is subject to our power, it is manifest that our subject is not in the first place speculation, but action. And again, since in matters of action the end sought is the first principle and cause of all (for that it is which first moves the agent to act), it follows that all our method concerning the means which are set to gain the end must be taken from the end. For there will be one way of cutting wood to build a house, and another to build a ship. That therefore, if it exists, which is the ultimate end for the universal civil order of mankind, will be the first principle from which all the truth of our future deductions will be sufficiently manifest. But it is folly to think that there is an end for this and for that particular civil order, and yet not one end for all.

III. Now, therefore, we must see what is the end of the whole civil order of men; and when we have found this, then, as the Philosopher says in his book of Nicomachus, the half of our labor will have been accomplished. And to render the question clearer, we must observe that as there is a certain end for which nature makes the thumb, and another, different from this, for which she makes the whole hand, and again another for which she makes the arm, and another different from all for which she makes the whole man; so there is one end for which she orders the individual man, and another for which she orders the family, and another end for the city, and another for the kingdom, and finally an ultimate one for which the Everlasting God, by His art which is nature, brings into being the whole human race. And this is what we seek as a first principle to guide our whole inquiry.

Let it then be understood that God and nature make nothing to be idle. Whatever comes into being, exists for some operation or working. For no created essence is an ultimate end in the creator's purpose, so far as he is a creator, but rather the proper operation of that essence. Therefore it follows that the operation does not exist for the sake of the essence, but the essence for the sake of the operation.

There is therefore a certain proper operation of the whole body of human kind, for which this whole body of men in all its multi