Medieval political philosophy is a part of the intellectual legacy of Western Europe in the middle ages. “Middle ages” might be started with the decline of the Western Roman Empire (476 AD) and ended up with the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans (1453 AD) when general history of civilisation is the case. However, as regards the history of philosophy and/or history of thought in general, even the specalists of medival thought disagree on the beginning and the end of the middle ages. Concerning Western European medieval thought, it will be used to note that “scholasticism” or the “scholastic age” are widely known and common names to refer to this tradition. It is a presuppositon without any further discussion, too, that the medieval thought includes the “prescholastic”, “scholastic” and “late scholastic” periods.

Western European thought in the middle ages is characterised by the teachings of Christianity. Because Christianity is too deep an ocean to dive in, we will limit ourselves with the political implications of some major concepts in The Holy Bible, which will provide us with the necessary material to relate Christian
teaching with the medieval political thought.

The Bible consists of two major parts/books: The Old Testament and The New Testament. In general, The Bible is used to refer to the whole legacy, The Old Testament refers uniquely to Judaism and the New Testament to Christianity. Therefore, references to each book will be made through verses and numbers.

Political ideas in the Bible concerning obedience might be summarised as follows:

1. The human beings are usually ruled by kings or emperors. There are very few traces of republican institutions in the Bible (There is one exception: 1 Machabees 8: 14–16 is an admiring description of Roman republican government.)

2. Kings are quite often evil; and are tyrants and enemies of God. The ruled often share the bad deeds of the rulers.

3. The kingship of King David is a model (although David also often sinned).

4. Subjects must obey rulers, even the wicked. It is wrong to disobey, and especially to make any attack on the person of the ruler (2 Samuel 1:14–16).

5. But obedience to rulers is always limited by obedience to the commands of God. That means, the supremacy and the sovereignty of God is thought as superior to any worldly rule or ruler.

Christianity is agreed to be indifferent to matters of slavery; which is also compatible with the Ancient Greek thought. The following quotations from the different parts of The New Testament show that slavery is not considered a big social problem in the eyes of Christianity. Moreover, Christianity advises slaves to be obedient to their masters, regardless of whether they are good or evil: “…Let every man abide in the same calling in which he was called. Wast thou called, being a bondman? care not for it … For he that is called in the Lord, being a bondman, is the freeman of the Lord. Likewise he that is called, being free, is the bondman of Christ…” (Corinthians 7: 20–22).

However, there are also verses that refer to the equality and unity of all human beings-around the personality of Jesus Christ, which leads us to thinking that the social order making room for slavery is only a worldly illusion.

It is a good idea to start our elaboration of property with saying that Christianity-as the New Testament of The Bible-continued the ethical codes of Judaism, especially the ultimate ten commandments revealed to Moses, one of which is “thou shalt not steal” (Exodus 20: 15). Despite the fact that Christianity did not condemn any property holding, and that medieval political writers had seen property as natural and
right and demanded respect for it, Christianity seemed to suggest a type of voluntary poverty, and a type of sharing goods which might be related with communism. The early Christian community in Jerusalem seemed to be united towards this as a social ideal, which made them share a single heart and a soul.

Following the ideals of early Christianity on voluntary poverty, the leading institutions of medieval Europe included monasticism and other forms of religious life, which praise poverty and communal living, instead of saving and claiming property.

It is a common belief among the Medieval Christians that Jesus Christ was a king. However, Jesus himself is believed to have said: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18: 36), and he seemed to recommend obedience to the Roman Emperor: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s;
and to God, the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22: 21). These all lead us to thinking that none of Christ’s followers would have power over the others.

Despite these texts, the clergy accepted titles of honour and claimed authority and power. Worse than that, the Church saw itself as Christ’s kingdom on earth, and claimed a share in Christ’s power. Paul’s writings, in some sense, might be claimed to serve as a justification for the Church to do so: “…For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? For them that are without, God will judge, … (1 Corinthians 5: 12-13)”, was usually taken to imply that the Church has no jurisdiction over non-Christians (“them that are without” means outside the Church).

However, the general history of civilisations is full of counter examples whereas the history of thought provides us with the opportunity to observe the gradual increase in the reference to the fullness of Papal power in the later medieval political writings. Therefore, it is possible to argue that The Church-as the fundamental institution-had characterised Christianity in a way that Jesus himself was unable to foresee.

The Christian theologians of late antiquity are referred to as the Fathers of the Church. The most influential of them in medieval Europe was Augustine; others included Ambrose, Cyprian, and Gregory. Many of the Fathers were influenced by the Platonism and Stoicism, as every educated person became acquainted with in the ancient world. Augustine, who was particularly influenced by Neoplatonism, especially by Plotinus, could be seen as a milestone on the path from The Fathers of the Church to early scholastics (ibid). Augustine’s major work, The City of God (De Civitate Dei) will be the object of focus under this title because it is a work whose influence is not limited to that of medieval political thought.

Eschaton is a theological term, meaning the final event in the divine plan; the end of the world. It stems from the Greek word eskhatos, meaning “the last”.

The work of Augustine’s most likely to be known to modern students of political thought is The City of God. Although this work was often copied in the middle ages (382 manuscripts are said to survive), a reading of the whole work was never part of the university curriculum; nevertheless, extracts from it were included in influential anthologies.

Two cities, the city of God and the earthly city, are distinguished by two loves, love of God and (misdirected) love of self, which are destined to end up in heaven and hell, respectively. Augustine’s most famous contribution to theology had been the doctrine of predestination, a position that only became pronounced later in life (ibid). God has decreed from all eternity that to some he will give the grace (special help) needed to attain eternal salvation, while the rest of mankind (the majority) will go to eternal damnation-the massa damnata (The City of God, XXI.12: 1070).

Although the members of the two cities have different ultimate values, they may have intermediate ends in common-for instance, they all desire peace on earth. Insofar as any particular state serves such common ends it will have the cooperation of members of the city of God. As a Neoplatonist, Augustine thought in terms of a hierarchy of levels of reality, in which lower levels imitate or reflect the higher levels. Within such a perspective, then, it would be misleading to attribute an absoluteness for evil; because according to Augustine the evil something/someone consists in disorder or misdirection, in its failing to attain all the goodness appropriate to it.

Massa damnata means “mass of perdition, condemned crowd”; Augustine uses this to remind us of the original sin (Adam’s sin), which is transmitted by concupiscence, or “hurtful desire”, resulting in humanity becoming massa damnata, with much restricted-but not fully destroyed freedom of will. When Adam sinned, human nature was transformed accordingly.

The goods and evils of government stated by Augustine in The City of God might be summarised as follows:

1. Government may be, and must be, rule by the ideal Christian ruler; such a ruler would lead his people in obedience to God.

2. Government may simply be a tyranny-as a realisation of evil and/or love of self, which is an expression of the “earthly city” (civitas terrana/diaboli).

3. Government exists to organise the cooperation of “men of good will” (speaking in modern terms), i.e., citizens of the two cities united by an interest in earthly peace and other earthly goods, valued by both
Christians and non- Christians.

The revival in the study of civil law, i.e., the Roman law as codified and digested by Justinian and his officials (the Corpus iuris civilis, 533/4), and the stimulation and influence of this on the study of canon law (ius canonicum), beginning with Gratian’s Decretum might be pointed out as “the renaissance of the twelfth century”.

Ideas taken by the medieval thinkers from the law texts might be listed thus:

1. A distinction among kinds of laws, namely natural law (ius naturale), law of nations (ius gentium), and civil law (i.e., the law of a particular community).

2. A notion of rights, including natural rights (currently, “human rights”), which may be attributed to individuals. It is noteworthy that the language of rights, without which many people these days would not know how to talk about politics, did not fully enter political philosophy until the fourteenth century as a borrowing from the law,

3. “The one liberty of all men”, i.e., the idea that human beings are basically equal and that slavery is contrary to natural law, though in accordance with the law of nations,

4. The origin of property: according to some Roman law texts, property originated by natural law; according to others by the law of nations. According to canon law, property exists by human law (which includes the law of nations and the civil law); compare Augustine’s statement that property exists by the laws of the emperors,

5. The doctrine that the source of political authority is the people, who have, however, entrusted their power to the emperor or some other ruler,

6. The doctrine that either the pope or emperor (or both) has a “fullness of power”,

7. The doctrine that natural law permits an individual to resist force by force; which would provide a premise for arguments for the right to disobey a tyrannical government, used later by John Locke (1632-1704),

8. A distinction between Church and Statemore exactly, between the priesthood and the power of the emperor, each independent in its own sphere, though the priesthood has the higher function.

Complex reflections on natural law were prompted by a text of Isidore of Seville. According to Isidore, natural law includes the common possession of all things, the one liberty of all, and the acquisition of what is taken from air, land and sea; also, the restitution of a thing or money left for safekeeping. The “one liberty of all men” and “common possession of all things” belong to the “indications”. Since the indications do not impose strict obligations, human laws can for good reasons set them aside. To do so, they may even serve the recommended ideals, under some circumstances.

In the Policraticus, John of Salisbury argues that what nature provides as foundation for human capabilities are only potentialities. “The beginning of each thing is from nature”, says John of salisbury, but people may (and should) develop their natural capacities by means of practice until they master their art, a principle that “obtains in liberal and mechanical occupations” alike. While nature offers a model for human conduct and association, the natural scheme for living well may only be realised via the cooperation of people who partake in it. In short, John of Salisbury is aware of the difference between potentiality and actuality, and pushes forward voluntariness as the precondition for a potential provided by nature to become actual, as regards the social issues.

John of Paris brings the traditional distinction between ownership and rulership (dominium) to the agenda again. The fact that a ruler having right to judge on how to use property disputes does not make him the supreme owner of the property, on his view. A community (a state, or the Church, or particular communities) acquires property only from individuals, and the head of the community is the administrator of the community’s property, not its owner.

John of Paris’ assumption that original appropriation is by individuals, and his idea that individuals acquire property by “labour and industry”, seem to have a lot in common with Locke’s theory of property. However, John of Paris indicates that individuals acquire property under human law, which is the traditional view among medieval theologians, following Augustine. Though property is acquired under human law, it is acquired by individuals, not directly by rulers.

In John of Paris’ thought, the basis of the distinction between the two powers is not subject matter or ends, but only a means: Each power is limited to its own appropriate means of action; the secular power uses natural means, the Church uses supernatural means. This reminds us of Thomas Aquinas’s picture of two powers leading mankind toward the goals of human life in an ordered hierarchy, one using supernatural means while the other natural.

Last but not least, John of Paris is strictly in opposition with Aquinas’ inference that the pope ought to direct the secular ruler, from the fact that the Church is concerned with the highest end.

Canon law (ius canonicum) refers to the body of laws made within certain Christian churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, independent churches of Eastern Christianity, and the Anglican Communion)
by lawful ecclesiastical authority for the government of both the whole church and parts thereof and of the behaviour and actions of individuals. In a wider sense, the term includes precepts of divine law, natural or positive, incorporated in the canonical collections and codes.

Civil law (ius civile) was used in ancient Rome to distinguish the law found exclusively in the city of Rome from the ius gentium, the law of all nations, found throughout the empire. Generally, in the philosophy of law, it is used as a term standing for positive law, that is, law made and legitimised by the approval of the members of a community/society.

Ratione peccati means “due to sins”, and refers to the situation when popes intervene in political affairs because of the injustice of the secular rulers-which they consider a “sin”.

The papal claim to “fullness of power” had been a point of controversy among the medieval political thinkers. Originally, the claim meant that the pope-holding the highest position and representing the authority of the Church-could intervene by full right in any Church affair. Besides the historical arguments, there are theological or philosophical arguments, too. If “there is no power but from God” and the pope is God’s representative on earth, then it seems that power comes to Christian kings through the pope.

The popes in general claimed that, while ruling was normally the business of secular rulers, the pope could intervene in governmental matters as well, whenever he saw any good reason. Canon lawyers had been busy with drawing up lists of circumstances in which the pope might intervene but some items in the list were so comprehensive, which paved the path for the popes to intervene any time. For example, intervention ratione peccati, “by reason of sin”, meant that if a secular ruler commits an injustice (which is a sin) ,then the pope might intervene.

However, most of the political writers of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries were involved in controversy about the extent and limits (or absence of limits) of papal authority; and, this situation made room for the distinction between secular and sacred authorities as well as for the quest for a secular order; the examples of which are to be found in the texts of Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham.