Chapter 9
A Dialogue, Part mi, Tract 3 the best or not the best, whether they are rich or poor, so that "constitution" is distinguished from aristocracy essentially by multitude. Another opinion is that "constitution" is that in which some poor virtuous men rule for the common geod. Another is that "constitution" is that in which some, neither best nor bad but middling, rule for the sake of virtue and the common good, so that it is distinguished from aristocracy by a falling short in virtue and goodness. But whatever constitution should be called timocracy or, by the common name, "constitution," the defective and perverted constitution is called democracy: namely, when the people rule, or determine and appoint the ruler, not for the sake of the common good. This includes several kinds. Just as the best of all the tempered constitutions is kingship, and after it aristocracy, and last of all timocracy, so the worst of the untempered and defective constitutions is tyranny, and after it oligarchy; but the least perversion is found in democracy, according to Aristotle, Ethics, Book vin?
Chapter 9 Student You have explained, | think, according to the opinion of some, the meanings of the foreign terms that occur more often in the texts of Aristotle quoted and to be quoted, so do not explain any further, but go back to the main inquiry. Bestir yourseif and describe how the arguments advanced above in the first and second chapters of this second book in favor of the various conflicting opinions can be answered in accordance with those opinions. But before you relate answers to them, I ask you to bring forward some arguments to prove that it is more beneficial to the whole community of the faithful to be ruled by one than by many."
Master What you ask for can be understood in two ways, because it is possible for many to rule their subjects in two ways: in one way, so that the many have different persons subject to them, so that the government of many does not extend to the same persons, as several archbishops rule all who live in some extensive region,
™Micomachean Ethics, vil.10, 1160 bap.
* This was already argued in chapter 1. The case is now made again with fuller use of Aristotle, as am argument for monarchy in preference to aristocracy. This occupies chapters g and 10.
Wilkam of Ockham and different kingdoms are ruled by different kings none of whom is under another (and sometimes no one is over them).
In the other way many mule over their subjects in such a way that they all have the same persons as subjects, whom they rule by common counsel, as is found in aristocracy and "cotistitution" in the narrow sense and in the defective and perverse constitutions opposed to these, namely chgarchy and demecracy. Whether you mean it in the first way or in the second, you can find some arguments for what you ask above, in the first chapter of this second book. Some of those not only prove thar it is beneficial for the community of the faithful to be ruled by one and not by many in the first way, but also seem to show that it is beneficial for it to be governed by one and not by many in the second way. it therefore does not seem necessary to bring forward many arguments in relation to your question.
Student Although some of the arguments brought forward above can be advanced in reiation to my question (and there are also some concerning a similar matter stated in this dialogue, [Part mm],
Tract u, Book m, from which I will be able ta perceive more things concerning this question), nevertheless, I would like you to bring forward some specific arguments to prove that it is more beneficial for the community of the faithful to be ruled by one than by many in the second way."
Master This seems provable as follows. It is more beneficial for the community of the faithful to be ruled by the government that is more like natural government and rule; for just as art, if it is right, imitates nature, so rule, if it is right, imitates and is like natural rule; and consequently the rule that is more like natural rule is more right and more perfect, and consequently more beneficial. But the government or rule of one person, namely when one alone governs many and presides over them, is more like natural rule than the government or rule of many. For such a government is like royal rule, which is rule of one, and royal rule is more like natural rule than aristocratic rule or "constitutional" rule in the narrow sense, and it is more like the household, in which one head of household rules; and thus the rulc of the head of the household seems in a way to be royal, as Aristotle testifies.
* On the first, see below, chapter 28.
A Dialogue, Part 1, Tract 1 In Politics, Book 1, chapter 10,7? he says that the head of the household rufes the offspring royally, and in the same chapter™* he says, "Rule over the children is royal, for because he begot them he rules by virtue of both love and age, which is indeed a royal kind of rule." From these words we gather that royal government is like the household community, in which one rules and not many
(either in the first way or in the second). And the household community is natural, according to Aristotle. In Politics, Book
1, in the prologue,** he says, "The household, therefore, is the community established according to nature for everyday life." These words establish that the household community is in accordance with nature and natural. Royal government, therefore, is more like natural government than aristocracy and "constitution" in the narrow sense, and consequently the government that is more like royal, namely that in which one rules and not many, is more like natural government, and consequently more perfect and better and more beneficial. From this it follows that it is more beneficial for the community of the faithful to be ruled by one than by many, even in the second way.
Student It seems that that argument is not conclusive, because royal government does not more resemble the household community than does constitutional government in which many rule. According to Aristotle, Politic, Book 1, chapters 2 and 10, the household community, which is the "economic" community, has three parts, of which one is despotic, another marital, and the third paternal; and therefore there are in the household three rulerships of different kinds, namely despotic, by which the head of the household rules the slaves, constitutional, by which the head of the household rules the wife, and royal, by which the head of the household rules the children or offspring. Aristotle says: "There were three parts of the economic, one indeed despotic, which we have spoken of above, and one paternal, and the third marital. For he also ruies over the wife and offspring as free persons; but he does not rule both in the same way, but the wife 'constitutionally' and the offspring royally."2* From these words we gather the things that have been
William of Ockham said, and it follows that royal government is not more similar than "constitutional" government is to the household community, because just as royal government is like one part, so is "constitutional" government like the other part. Therefore, it seems, royal government is not more like natural government than is "constitutional" government, since the rule by which the head of the household rules his wife in the household, which "constitutional" government resembles, is natural, just as the rule is by which he rules the offspring, which royal government resembles. As Aristotle testifies in the same chapter, "By mature the male is more ruler-like than the female, unless there is something out of the ordinary course of nature, and the elder and fully developed is" — is, namely, more ruler-like - "than the younger and less developed."*' This implies that the male naturally rules the wife and the father the offspring. Aristotle plainly says this of the male in respect of the wife in Politics, Book 1, chapter 3: "And again, the male and the female, the one is sy nature better and the other worse, the one tuling and the other ruled."'* These [passages] imply that from the fact that royal government is like natural government it cannot be proved that it is better and more perfect than aristocratic government and "constitutional" government in the narrow sense.
Master Some try to void that answer, saying that although both royal and "constitutional" government, and also aristocratic and indeed every right rule, is similar in some way to natural government, royal government is, nevertheless, more like the more perfect and better natural government than is "constitutional" government in the narrow sense. For the rule of the head of a household over the offspring is more rule-like, and more perfect and better, than the rule by which he rules his wife: First, because rule over children is better than rule over a wife, for among the children there are males, who are better than females, as has been proved above from Aristotle, and rule of better subjects is always better, according to Aristotle, Politics, Book i, chapter 3. Also, because the rule by which the head of the household rules his wife is for the sake of the rule by which he rules his offspring, for a wife should be married mainly for having children. Also, because the father naturally loves
™Chapter 5, 1254 biz.
A Dialogue, Part i, Tract + his children more than his wife, because they are joined to him by natural conjunction and more perfectly than is his wife. And thus in the community of the household the most rule-like and most suitable and most natura! rule is that by which the head of the household rules the offspring, and royal government resembles this; royal government is therefore more perfect than the other rulerships in the community of the household.
Further, royal government is more like the natural rule by which the head of the household rules his offspring than "constirutional" rule is like the rule by which the head of the household rules his wife. Royal rule is like paternal rule both as to the unity of the ruler and as to fullness of power, because in each regime there is one ruler with fullness of power over his subjects. But although
"constitutional" government is like the rule by which the head of the household rules his wife in that neither ruler has fullness of power, they differ in that the ruler in "constitutional" government is not one but many, whereas in the natural rule by which the head of a household rules his wife the ruler is one, whether he has several wives or one. And so royal government is more like natural government than is the rule of the head of a household over his wife. From this it follows that it is more beneficial for the community of the faithful to be ruled by one than by many.
Chapter ro Student Here we could examine many things about royal government and fullness of power, both the father's over offspring and the king's over subjects. But these will perhaps have their place later; so, passing over them, bring forward another argument to prove that it is more beneficial for the community of the faithful to be ruled by one than by many.
Master Again, some prove this as follows. That form of government is most of all beneficial to the community of the faithful dy which friendship and harmony are most of all preserved and sedition, which is the corruption of any community, warded off, as 4ristotic testifies. In Polite, Book nm, chapter 3,°° he says, "We believe that friendship is the greatest of goods for cities, for thus
~* Chapter 4, 1262 67.