In the middle ages 227

The scholastic philosophers of the thirteenth cen-

tury unanimously agree with Aristotle and Augus-

tine that it is a natural necessity for man to live in

society, naturalis necessitas. This social life in-

volves degrees. There are groups, more or less ex-

tensive, which are logically and chronologically an-

terior to the state. Man is of necessity born into a

family (dornus). Several families grouped under

a chief constitute a village — coimnunity, vicus,

whose raison d'etre, says Dante,^ is to facilitate an

exchange of services between men and things. The

city (civitas) , continues Dante, is a wider organi-

zation, which allows one to live with moral and ma-

terial sufficiency, be7ie sufficienterque vivere. But,

whereas Aristotle had stopped with the city,

Thomas considers (in the De Regimine Principujn)

a wider group, the province, — which corresponds to

Dante's kingdom (regnmn) . Perhays we may see

in the province those large feudal fiefs, which were

important units, such as the Duchy of Normandy

or the Duchy of Brabant, with which Thomas was

actually acquainted. As regards states, some were

growing up under his very eyes, notably in Italy,

where the princes of the house of Anjou were gov-

erning the Two Sicilies, while the main European

states, France, England, Spain, and Germany were

taking on their various characteristic features. A

kingdom {regnum particulare) , writes Dante, pro-

vides the same advantages as the city, but gives a

5 De Monarchm, lib. I.

228 PHILOSOPHY AND CIVILIZATION

greater feeling of security, cum majori fiducia suae

tranquilitatis. In this Dante repeats the thomistic

thought that the kingdom, better than the city, re-

sponds to the needs of war, when it is attacked by

enemies/

Now, since the group exists only for the benefit

of its individuals, the good of the group "will not he

of any other kind than that of the individuals.

Thus Thomas says : "The end of the group is

necessarily the end of each individual who com-

poses the group," — oportet eu4idem finem esse mul-

titudinis humanae qui est hominis uniusJ And

Dante, in a similar vein, writes; "Citizens are not

for consuls or kings, but kings and consuls are for

citizens," — non enim cives propter consules nee

gens propter regem, sed e converso.^ The group

would be an absurdity, if the roles were reversed,

and the state or any other group should pursue a

course, which no longer coincided with the happi-

ness of each of its subjects; and if the individual be

treated as a worn-out machine, which one scraps

when it has become useless.

This conception is at once new and mediaeval.

For, while the city or the state appears in Aristotle

as an end in itself, to which the individuals are sub-

ordinated, the scholastic philosophy, on the con-

traiy, conceived of the states as subordinated to the

8 De Regimine Principvm, lib. I, cap. 1. De Monarchia, lib. I.

7 De Regimine Principum, lib. I, cap. 14.

8 De Monarchia, lib. I.