On Kingship, to the King of Cyprus I, 6: How to Prevent Kings Lapsing into Tyranny
We need at the outset of our work to explain what one should understand by the word king. And regarding all things ordered to an end, in {204} which things there may be this or that way of proceeding, something needs to give the direction whereby they arrive straightaway to the requisite end. For example, ships, which the force of various winds may toss in different directions, would not arrive at their destination unless the efforts of pilots were to guide the ships to port. And human beings have an end to the attainment of which their whole lives and actions are ordered, since those who act intelligently evidently act for the sake of an end. But human beings may advance in different ways toward their intended end, which the very diversity of human endeavors and activities makes clear. Therefore, human beings need something that directs them to their end.
And nature implants in all human beings the light of reason, which directs them in their activities toward their end. And if it were appropriate for human beings to live solitary, like many animals, they would indeed need no other direction to their end. Rather, each would be king unto self under God, the supreme king, since the light of reason divinely bestowed on each would direct individual human beings themselves in their actions. But human beings are by their nature social and political, living in community even more than every other animal. And natural necessity indeed makes this evident. For nature has in the case of other animals provided food, fur covering, means of defense (e.g., teeth, horns, claws, or at least fleetness for flight). But human beings have been constituted with none of these things provided by nature. Rather, human beings have instead been provided with reason, which enables them to provide all these things for themselves by the work of their hands. But a single human being does not suffice to provide all these things, since single human beings by themselves could not adequately make their way through life. Therefore, it is natural for human beings to live in community with many.
Moreover, nature has implanted in other animals indigenous structures regarding everything useful or harmful for them. For example, sheep by nature recognize wolves as enemies. Some animals by their naturally indigenous structure even recognize the medicinal plants and other things necessary to sustain their lives. But human beings by nature know only in a general way the things necessary to sustain their lives, so that they can arrive at knowledge of particular necessary things for human life by their power to reason from the first principles of nature. And individual human beings cannot attain all such things by their own reason. Therefore, human beings need to live in community, so that they assist one another, with different human beings engaged in discovering different things by reason (e.g., one in medicine, others in this or that).
This is made most clearly evident by the fact that human beings have the characteristic ability to use speech, whereby human beings can completely express their ideas to one another. Other animals indeed {205} communicate their emotions in a general way (e.g., dogs express their anger by barking, and other animals their emotions in different ways). Therefore, human beings can communicate with one another more than any other animals we see living communally, such as cranes and ants and bees, can. Therefore, Solomon, contemplating this, says in Eccl. 4:9: “Two human beings are better than one, since they have the enrichment of mutual association.”
Therefore, if human beings by nature live in association with many others, all of them need to have some power to govern them. For if there are many human beings, and they provide for their own individual interests, the people would split into different factions unless there were also to exist a power to provide for what belongs to the common good. Just so, even the body of a human being or any animal would disintegrate unless there were to exist a general regulative power in the body to strive for the common good of all the body’s members. And Solomon, contemplating this, said in Prov. 11:14: “The people will be destroyed if there is no ruler.”
And this happens in accord with reason. For what belongs to individuals, and what is common to all, are not the same. Human beings indeed differ by what is proper to each one and are united by what is common to all. But there are different causes of different things. Therefore, besides what causes individual human beings to act for their own good, there needs to be a power that causes them to act for the common good of the community. And so also regarding all things ordered to one thing, we find a power that governs other things. For example, in the universe of material substances, primary material substances, namely, heavenly bodies, govern other material substances by an order of God’s providence,1 and rational creatures by his order govern the use of all material substances. Also, in each human being, the soul governs the body, and reason governs the irascible and concupiscible parts of the soul. And likewise, one chief bodily member, whether the heart or the head, moves all the others. Therefore, every people needs to have a power that rules.
And regarding some things ordered to an end, there may be a right or wrong way of proceeding. And so also a people may be governed rightly or wrongly. And a people is governed rightly when it is guided to a suitable end, and wrongly when it is guided to an unsuitable end. And the end suitable to a community of free persons is different from the end suitable for a community of slaves, since free persons are their own agents, and slaves belong to others. Therefore, if a ruler should direct a community of {206} free persons for the common good of the people, there will be a right and just regime, as befits free persons. And if the governance of a ruler be ordered to the private good of the ruler and not for the common good of the people, there will be an unjust and wicked regime. And so also the Lord, speaking through Ezekiel, threatens such rulers in Ez. 34:2: “Woe to the shepherds of Israel who have fed themselves” so as to gain their own advantage. “Are not shepherds to feed their flock?” Shepherds of the flock should indeed seek the good of their flock, and every ruler the good of the people subject to him.
Therefore, if there be an unjust regime in the hands of only one person who seeks from the regime his own advantage, not the good of the people subject to him, we call such a ruler a tyrant, a name derived from strength, namely, in that he crushes by his power and does not rule by justice. And so also the ancients called all powerful persons tyrants. And if there be an unjust regime in the hands of several persons, not one, we call it oligarchy (i.e., rule by the few) if it is indeed in the hands of a few persons. This is a case where a few persons crush the people for the sake of riches, and it differs from tyranny only by the plurality of rulers. And if a wicked regime is in the hands of many, we call it democracy (i.e., rule of the people). This is a case where the mass of common citizens crush the rich by the power of their number. For then even the whole people will be as if a single tyrant.
And likewise, we also need to distinguish just regimes. For if a just regime is in the hands of many people, we call it by the general name polity (e.g., when a large number of warriors rule in a city or province). And if a just regime is in the hands of a few persons, who are also virtuous, we call it aristocracy (i.e., the best rule or rule by the best, whom we call aristocrats for that reason). And if a just regime is in the hands of only one person, we properly call that person king. And so the Lord says through Ezekiel in Ez. 37:24: “My servant David will be king over them, and there will be one shepherd of all of them.” And this clearly shows that it belongs to the idea of a king that there is one person who rules, and that he is a shepherd who seeks the common good of the people and not his own individual good.
And because it belongs to human beings to live in a community, since they are insufficient to secure the necessities of life for themselves if they should remain solitary, the unity of the people is necessarily more complete the more intrinsically self-sufficient it will be to provide the necessities of life. There is indeed a sufficiency of life in one family comprising one household, namely, regarding natural acts of nutrition and procreation and such like. And there is a sufficiency of life in a district, namely, regarding things proper to one occupation. And there is a sufficiency of {207} life in a city, that is, a perfect community, namely, regarding all the necessities of life, but still more in a province because of the need to wage war and afford mutual assistance against enemies. And so we refer to those who rule perfect communities, that is, cities or provinces, as kings in the fullest sense. And we call those who rule households fathers of families, not kings, although fathers are analogous to kings, and we for that reason sometimes call kings fathers of their peoples.
Therefore, it is clear from what I have said that a king is a single person who governs the people of a city or province for the sake of the common good. And so Solomon says in Eccl. 5:8: “The king rules all the territory subject to him.”
Therefore, since we should choose a regime under one ruler, which is the best regime, and he may lapse into tyranny, which is the worst regime, as is clear from what I have said before,2 we should work diligently to protect the people from kings lapsing into tyranny.
And first of all, it is necessary that those responsible elevate to kingship men of such character that makes it unlikely that they will lapse into tyranny. And so Samuel, commending God’s providence regarding the establishment of a king [of Israel], says in 1 Sam. 13:14: “The Lord sought for himself a man after his own heart, and the Lord commanded him to be the leader of his people.” Second, governance of the kingdom should be so arranged that there is no opportunity for a king in power to become a tyrant. At the same time that a king is installed, his power should be so moderated that he cannot easily lapse into tyranny. And we indeed will need to consider subsequently how such things are accomplished. And third, provision should be made for how to be able to deal with tyranny if a king were to lapse into it.
And it is indeed more advantageous to tolerate a lesser tyranny for a time, if there has been no excessive tyranny, than by undertaking action against the tyrant to bring on many worse dangers than the tyranny itself. For example, it may be that those who undertake action against the tyrant cannot prevail, and then the enraged tyrant may become more cruel. And if one could prevail against the tyrant, the worst kind of disagreements among the people very often arises, whether during the insurrection against the tyrant or after his deposition, when the people divide into factions regarding the constitution of the regime. It also sometimes happens {208} that after the people expel the tyrant with someone’s assistance, the latter, once in power, becomes a tyrant. And fearing to suffer from a third party what he himself did to the first tyrant, the second tyrant crushes his subjects with still worse slavery. For it regularly so happens in the case of tyranny that a subsequent tyrant becomes worse than his predecessor when the subsequent tyrant does not abandon the previous wrongs and himself even plans new severities out of the malice of his heart. And so at the time when everyone in Syracuse desired the death of Dionysius, an elderly woman prayed over and over that he would be unharmed and outlive her. And after the tyrant learned about this, he asked her why she did so. Then the woman said: “When I was a girl, we had an oppressive tyrant, and I wished for another ruler. And after the tyrant was killed, a harsher one succeeded the latter shortly afterwards, and I thought that it would be a great blessing if the successor’s rule would also be terminated. We then had a still harsher ruler, yourself. And so if you were removed, a worse tyrant will replace you.”3
And if an excessive tyranny should be intolerable, some thought that it was for virtuous, courageous men to kill the tyrant and expose themselves to the danger of death in order to liberate the people. And we also have an example of this in the Old Testament. For Jgs. 3:15–5 relates how a certain Ehud killed Eglon, king of Moab, who was oppressing the people of God with a harsh slavery, by thrusting a dagger into the king’s thigh,4 and Ehud was made a judge of the people. But such conduct is not in accord with apostolic teaching. For Peter teaches us in 1 Pet. 2: 18–9 “to be reverently submissive both to good and gentle rulers and to those who are overbearing. For it is a favor if one unjustly suffering misfortunes should undergo them out of regard for God.” And so when many Roman emperors were tyrannically persecuting the Christian faith, and a large number of both nobles and commoners were being converted to the faith, the faithful are praised for not resisting and for patiently undergoing death for Christ, although they were equipped to resist. This is clearly evident in the case of the dedicated Theban legion.5And we should judge that Ehud killed an enemy rather than a ruler of the people, although a tyrant. And so also we read in the Old Testament (2 Kgs. 14:5–6) that the killers of Joash, king of Judah, were put to death, although Joash had departed from worship of God, but that their children were spared according to the Law’s prescription.
{209} And it would be dangerous to the people and its rulers if individuals on their own authority were to attempt to kill their rulers, even tyrants. For evil persons expose themselves to such dangers more often than good persons do. And evil persons usually find the rule of kings no better than the rule of tyrants. This is because, as Solomon says in Prov. 20:26, “the wise king puts the wicked to flight.” Therefore, such presumption by individuals would risk greater danger to the people by losing good kings than any relief by removing tyrants.
And it seems that public authority rather than individuals’ private initiative should take action against the severity of tyrants. First, indeed, if a people should have the right to provide itself with a king, the same people can justly depose the king it has installed, or curtail his power if he should abuse the power tyrannically. Nor should we think that such a people in deposing a tyrant acts unfaithfully, even if it had previously subjected itself to him in perpetuity. For the tyrant himself deserved this, since he acted unfaithfully in not governing the people as the duty of kingship requires, and subjects need not keep their pact with him. Thus the Romans deposed Tarquin the Proud, whom they had accepted as king, because of his tyranny and that of his sons, and substituted a lesser power, namely, that of consuls. So also the Roman Senate killed Domitian, who was the successor of the most gentle emperors Vespatian, his father, and Titus, his brother, when Domitian practiced tyranny. And a decree of the Senate justly and beneficially nullified every wicked deed of his. As a result, a decree of the Senate returned to Ephesus Saint John the Evangelist,6 whom the same Domitian had exiled to the island of Patmos.
And if a higher power has the right to provide a people with its king, the people should seek relief from the wickedness of a tyrant from the higher power. Thus when the Jews lodged a complaint with Emperor Augustus against Archelaus, who had now come to the throne in Judea after the death of Herod, his father, and was imitating his father’s wickedness, Augustus indeed initially diminished Archelaus’ power by taking away his title and giving half of his kingdom to his two brothers. Later, when Archelaus was not restrained from tyranny in this way, Emperor Tiberius exiled him to Lyons, a city in Gaul.7
But if the people should be altogether unable to obtain human help against a tyrant, it should have recourse to the universal king, God, who is “a helper in times of oppression and distress.”8 For it lies in his power to {210} turn the cruel heart of a tyrant to gentleness, as Solomon says in Prov. 21:1: “The heart of the king is in the hands of God; God will turn it howsoever he wishes.” For example, he turned the cruelty of the king Assuerus, who was planning the death of the Jews, to gentleness.9 He so turned the cruel king Nebuchadnezzar to such piety that the king became a herald of divine power: “Now, therefore,” he said, “I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt, and glorify the king of heaven, since all his works are true, and all his ways judgments, and he can lay low those who walk arrogantly.”10
And he can remove those he deems unworthy of conversion from our midst or reduce them to a lower position, as Sir. 10:7 says: “God has destroyed the thrones of proud leaders and raised the meek to sit in their place.” For example, he, seeing the plight of his people in Egypt and hearing its cries, cast down the tyranny of Pharoah and Pharoah’s army into the sea.11 He deposed the aforementioned Nebuchadnezzar from the royal throne because of prior arrogance, cast him out of human society, and transformed him into the likeness of a beast.12 Nor do his hands have so short a reach that he cannot liberate his people from tyrants. For he promises his people through Isaiah in Is. 14:3 that it will be given rest “from the toil and the beatings and the harsh slavery” under which it had previously served. And he says through Ezekiel in Ez. 34:10: “I shall free my flock from their jaws,” namely, the jaws of shepherds who feed themselves rather than the flock. But the people, in order to merit to gain this benefit from God, should stop sinning, since he allows the wicked to rule as a punishment of sin, as the Lord says through Hosea in Hos. 13:11: “I shall in my anger against you give you kings.” And Job 34:30 says that “he causes hypocrites to rule because of the people’s sins.” Therefore, we should eliminate sin if we wish to eliminate the scourge of tyrants.
1Thomas is alluding to the Aristotelian theory that heavenly bodies like the sun and the moon cause the activity of earthly material things.
2On Kingship I, 3.
3On this story, cf. Valerius Maximus, Memorable Deeds and SayingsVI, 2.
4In the biblical text, Ehud hid the dagger on his thigh and thrust it into Eglon’s belly.
5Cf. Acts of the Saints (September) VI:308.
6Cf. Eusebius, Chronicles II (PG 19:551); Jerome, On Illustrious Men 9 (PL 23:625).
7According to Jerome, Commentary on 7the Gospel of Matthew II, 22 (PL 26:28).
8Ps. 9:9.
9Est. 15:11.
10Dan. 4:34.
11Ex. 14:23–8.
12Dan. 4:30.