In the middle ages 249

thirteenth century, be it remembered, maintains the

thesis of the sovereign jjeople — at the moment of

the choice of their rulers, inquire into their char-

acter, and find out whether they have a despotic

temperament. "Look out for your king," he says

{providendum de rege).^ Some of these guaran-

tees are intended to last throughout the period of

their rule; for his power must be controlled and

balanced by others, — wheels within wheels, as we

shall show later. Finally, some of these guarantees

are repressive. Resistance is noi? only permitted

to unjust orders of the tyrant, but it is enjoined;

and in extreme cases the people who have chosen

can depose. While John of Salisbury considers

tyrannicide as liciturn, aequurn and justum,^'^

Thomas Aquinas expressly condemns tyrannicide.

He desires that that people should do their best to

endure an unjust ruler; but if the government be-

comes quite unendurable, he allows the right of de-

posing an unworthy ruler, which indeed is tbe nec-

essary corollary of the power of choosing him."

While it is clear that the philosophers of the

thirteenth century were keenly sensitive to the pic-

tures of tyrants, which they found in the Politics

of Aristotle, it is no less clear that the public life

of their own age afforded them actual illustrations

of tyranny, which helped to provide an inspiration

Lib. I, cap. 6. Cf. his Comment Polit. lib. Ill, lectio 14,

10 Poli/craticus III, 15.

11 De Regimine Princ, lib. I, cap. 6.

^

250 PHILOSOPHY AND CIVILIZATION

for their theory. Ptolemy of Lucques, who com-

pleted the De Regimine Pnncij)min begun by

Thomas, poured contempt on the tyrants of the

minor Italian republics of his day {hodie in Italia) ,

who exploited the state for their own personal bene-

fit. Perhaps he had in mind the Podestas, who

were called from abroad to carry on the administra-

tion of the Italian republics, and who, once they

had secured the position, thought only of advanc-

ing their own interests. Thomas Aquinas must

surely have known cases of feudal tyrants, sover-

eigns who abused their power. The thirteenth cen-

tury witnessed more than one royal deposition. It

suffices to recall how the barons of John Lackland

declared against him.

Ill

But their doctrine is self-consistent, no matter

who is entrusted with authority. And this brings

us to the third question, which is the most interest-

ing of all. Where does sovereignty reside, — this

sovereignty which has its origin in divine delega-

tion and its raison d'etre, its delimitation, in the so-

cial good?

While the jurists and canonists are occupied only

with the Roman Empire, the existing monarchies,

and the Papacy,^" the philosophers take a more

general view. The most striking is Thomas Aqui-

12(7/. Gierke, op. cit. (Maitland's transl.), pix 30 and 70, — notes

131 and 174.