Chapter 6
Hlham of Ockham the imposer of it, and third it signifies the order itself that is imposed, which is the constitution.
In one meaning policernia is thus the same as the lord and ruler in the city.'
Chapter 6 There are two primary kinds of constitutions, just as there are two primary kinds of governments or prelacies and of rulers or prelates ot rectors.
Every government is either ordered chiefly to the common good or benefit (i.e. the good of the ruler or rulers and also of the subjects} or not ordered to the common good. If it is ordered to the common good the regime is tempered and right; if it is not ordered to the common good the regime is defective and perverted, because it is a corruption and perversion of a regime that is tempered and right and just. Every constitution, therefore, is either tempered and right, or defective and perverted.
There are three principal and unmixed kinds of tempered and right constitutions. The first is when the ruler is one person; this is called royal monarchy, in which one alone rules for the sake of the common good, and not principally on account of his own will and benefit." According to Aristotle, Ethic, Book vit, such a constitution is the best, when it takes its best form. It has several forms, according to Aristotle, Politics, Book mm, chapter 16. [1] Its most powerful form seems to be when someone reigns and rules in the kingdom not according to law but according to his will.
Some understand this as follows. Someone is said to rule and reign according to his will and not according to law if he reigns for the common good of all and is not bound by any purely positive human Jaws or customs but is above all such laws, though he is
* The English word "government" has a comparable range of meanings. Poltcernia seems to be a corruption of poliiewma. See Aristotle, Politics 01.6, 1278 bg—12, and 11.7, 1279 224.
" It should be remembered that in the middle ages kings were not always hereditary, sometimes they were elected, though not by the whole population. The medieval
Roman emperor and the pope were elected monarchs. "Monarchy" means simply "nile by one," however that one is selected and for whatever term of office.
Prime-ministerial goverment, even in a republic, is a form of monarchy (one of the "less powerful" forms). The gvannical or despotic rule of one person is also monarchy in this sense, but is not kingship. Kingship and tyranny are opposed species of monarchy.
A Dialogue, Part ui, Tract 1 bound by the namral laws. And therefore such a king does not have to swear or even promise that he will observe any laws or customs whatever introduced by human beings, though it is beneficial for him to swear that he will observe the natural laws for the commen benefit and that in all things relating to the government he has undertaken he will aim at the common good, not at private good. Such a king can be said to have fullness of power, namely in respect of things relating to the common good and not private good, Such government differs from tyrannical rule because it exists for the common good, whereas tyrannical rule does not exist for the common good. It differs also from despotic rule because despotic rule is chiefly for the ruler's own good, in the same way as lordship over beasts and other temporal things is for the good of the possessor, whereas royal government is for the common good; and therefore it is not properly called despotic rule. Yet such a king is, in a way, the lord of all, but in another way than in a despotic regime. For in a despotic regime the ruler has so great a lordship that he can use his slaves and any ether property whatever that belongs to his rulership of this kind not only for the sake of the common good but also for his own good, as long as he attempts nothing contrary to divine or natural law; but the ruler in the royal government mentioned above can use subjects and their property however he pleases for the common good but cannot use them however he pleases for his own good, and they are therefore not his slaves but enjoy natural liberty.
It belongs to natural liberty that no one can use free persons for the user's advantage, but it is not contrary to natural liberty that someone should use free persons reasonably for the sake of the common good, since everyone is obliged to prefer common to private good.
Student According to these [ideas] a despotic rulership would be greater and more perfect than such royal rulership, since it would include greater power. For one who rules despotically can use slaves and their goods for both common and private advantage and a king only for the common advantage; therefore it is greater and more perfect.
Master It is answered that despotic rule is in a way greater, because in a way it extends to more things; but by this very fact it is more imperfect, either because the good of many is better than the good of one ar because detriment to the good of many
Wiliam of Ockham implies no perfection, but rather imperfection.
In despotic rule there is detriment to the many from the very fact that the despot can use his subjects and their goods for his own advantage, and therefore such greater power includes the imperfection of a better good, namely of the good of the many. Accordingly despotic rule not only of a father in a household, but of a king in a kingdom, and consequently of an emperor in the whole world - would be
; simply more imperfect than such royal rule.
[2] Besides that roval rule'* there are other royal rulerships that fall short of it in various ways but agree in being kinds of monarchy.
Por a certain rulership of one monarch falls short of that one in respect of aiming af the common good, namely because it was not established wholly on account of the common good but also for the ruler's own good. Such royal government has something of tyrannical or despotic rule and is in some way a mixture of despotic, tyrannical, and royal rule. For inasmuch as in certain respects it aims at the ruler's own good and not the common good it has something of tyranny or despotic rule, but inasmuch as in many things it aims at the common good it has something of tempered and right government — and therefore, since one man rules by himself, it has something of royal government, and therefore it is in a way a mixture of those kinds of rule. And thus some royai rule is called tyrannical by Aristotle. And [3] rule by one man sometimes falls short of the oft-mentioned royal government in respect of power, namely because it does not have the fullness of power that the above-mentioned royal government has. Such royal government is said to be "according to law," because, although one man rules, he does not rule according to his will but is bound by certain laws and customs introduced by human beings, which he is obliged to observe, and he is obliged to swear or promise that he will observe them; and the more he is obliged to observe many such laws and customs the more he recedes from the abovementioned royal government — perhaps these days such royal government does not exist m the whole world.
According to Aristotle no one is worthy of such kingship unless he excels in wisdom and virtue and all good things both of bady and soul, and also in external goods, namely in friends and wealth.
"™"Phat is, the most powerful form.
A Dialogue, Part rm, Tract 1 Otherwise it is to be feared that he may turn to tyranny. And thus he should have his own property, either from himself or by an allocation made by those he is over, so that he will never appropriate to himself the property of free persons or even accept it in any way, unless cvident benefit or manifest necessiry demands it.
To this royal government is opposed - even in the highest degree — tyranny, which is its perversion and corruption; this is the first kind, and the worst, of defective constitutions. Tyranny does not aim at the good of subjects except accidentally, but aims chiefly at the tyrant's own good, whether his own good is also the good of others or their ill. According te Aristotle, Pofitics, Book v, chapter §," tyrants often develop from demagogues. (Demagogues are those who lead the people according to their own will by the people's favor, not as kings or lords or tyrants or as having a right to rule the people or command them; but they urge the people, as agents or speakers or advisers, to the things that please the people - ie., the things the people believe in; and therefore Aristotle, in Politics, Book ", chapter 3,*° calis them flatterers.)
After they have united the people to themselves, such men, because of their power, often begin ta tyrannize and to dominate even the unwilling. Tyrants also develop sometimes from kings; as Aristotle says, Ethie, Book vi,'' a bad king becomes a tyrant. Whether someone is at first a king according to his will, or according w law, if he begins to rule the unwilling for the sake of his own good he becomes a tyrant. If he begins to rule willing subjects for his own good he becomes properly speaking a despot, whosc rule
Aristotle sometimes calls tyranny because of its great similarity to despotism, though tyranny is not properly despotism. as can be made clear from what is said above.
From the above it can be gathered that royal government, especially the most powerful, is opposed in some way not only to tyranny in the proper sense, but also to despotic rule — or they are regimes so disparate that no one government can be both royal and despotic with respect to the same persons (though it does not seem inconsistent that ane government should rule over some royalty and others despotically).
"" Chapter 5, ©3053 aia: chapter ro. 1310 bry.
*! Chapter 4, 1292 a17 # Chapter 10, 1160 hro-et; ef. Politica, Book v, chapter (0, 7360 bi8. oe 7uRGotnCIPO RAE Rae Sinn Ti .
1 ee oR RS | Wilham af Ockham Chapter 7 The second kind of tempered, right, and just constitution is called aristocracy, namely that in which some few men, and the best, rule for the common good of the multitude, and not for their own good. It has several kinds, as Aristotle teaches, Politics, Book 1, chapter 5. The first and best kind is when, in appointing some to aristocratic ruie, only the virtucs, namely the intellectual and moral virtues, can be considered and are considered, and not wealth, power, friends, or anything else whatever that covid be found without goodness and wisdom. The untempered, defective, and perverted constitution directly opposite to aristocracy is called oligarchy: when some, namely rich or powerful men, or men remarkable in whatever way, rule for their own good —- indeed, if even the best men ruled for their own good and did not rule for the good of the multitude, they would have to be said to rule oligarchically, and their government would have to be regarded as an oligarchy. And therefore whatever is done in the choice or appointment of rulers in view of some prerogative besides wisdom and virtue (for example, wealth, power, family, friends, office, rank, age, following, or any other way of excelling at all) must be regarded as oligarchical.
However, this need not always be regarded as reprehensible, since in such matrers it is permissible, for-a reason, for the sake of a good end, to have regard to some other prerogative or way of excelling. Both aristocracy and oligarchy are of various kinds, which are not to be discussed at present.
Chapter 8 The third kind of tempered, right and just constitution is called by various names. By one name it is called by the common name
"constitution." In one meaning this name is common to every constitution, right and not right. In another meaning it means a certain kind of constitution only, which by another name is called timocracy." About this there are various opinions. One is that timocracy — or, called by the commen name, "constitution" — is that in which many rule for the common good, whether they are
** See Politics, Book 1v, chapter 7, 1293 b14-21.
2" See Nicomackean Ethics, 1160 035, Politics 1289 a37.