Marsilius of Padua

April 27, 2014

Marsilius of Padua

Why do we study writings from the past in political

science and we do not study those past writings in other

fields? Some might answer that those writings are the

foundation of this field. This answer might be right but

incomplete. The answer for this question as addressed by

Steven Smith of Yale University, is that these works

leads us to questions that we might have never faced.

Their writings do not give us an answer; rather they

create more questions that we need to investigate. By

knowing their view of the world and their view of human

beings we open questions that let us to the arena of more

comprehensive view of the world.

One of those writers of medieval ages that we find

valuable views from is Marsilius of Padua. Marsilius was

form Italy born in 1280 in Italy and was one of the

opponents of Pope John XXII (Britannica, n.d.). After

opposing pope he fled from Italy and was “condemned of

heretic” in Italy (Britannica, n.d.). He was in favor of

establishing a secular state. Marsilius is one of the

privileged writers whose writings are taken as the base

for the study of political science. In the medieval ages,

the power to rule was shared between the religious

authority, pope, and the emperor. The reason Marsilius

became an opponent was that he insisted to give the power

to the people but not to one person. He rejected the

religious authority as the sole source of power and he

asserted that people are the soul source of power.

The current paper is dedicated to explaining

briefly the life of Marsilius of Padua. It will explain

his main views regarding the regime he was living in.

Marsilius had very effective writing that has always been

taken to consideration and this essay will pay some

paragraphs on his writings and arguments. And at the end,

it will give its view of the philosopher in the light of

studying all different philosophers.

Defender of the Public Peace:

The book authored by Marsilius focused on

separation of the state form religion.

Marislius rejected the doctrine of power in the

hand of religious authority. Stead he claimed the power

to approve the emperor shall be given to the people.

Marislius laid the foundation of believe that the power

to debate laws is in the hand of people as well as they

are the soul source of power.

According to Marsilius the supreme ruler is not the

supreme ruler of religion. Maislius laid the foundation

of sufficient life. He believed that people are

interdependent to economic, political and social life.

They have to come together and interact with each other

in all aspects of life to survive. Therefore there is a

need to community. People would live a life sufficiently

when they share their interests with their neighbors.

Hence, there is a desire to maintain, extend and preserve

the human life that can only and only be achieved through

forming a community (Britannica, n.d.). As Marsilius

says, community is the product of reason”.

Magnum Opus:

Marsilius believed that people are the soul source

of power. The coercive power comes from people and they

shall be the ones to elect who should rule them. The term

Magnum Opus as explained by Marsilis means that people

are legislators that create the laws for themselves.

Since they execute the law, and the government is the

regulator and executor of the laws (Stanford, 2006).

The religious clergy in the medieval ages was in

charge of approval of laws as well as approval of the

emperor. Basically the emperor and the pope shared the

power. The pope in the regime was the shadow of god and

is in charge of disciplining all who disobey. The people

should confess their sins to the pope and have total

compliance with his teachings. People were the servants

of god and servants of the pope. The very first opponent

of this type of regime was Marsilius who believed that

the only barrier on the way to development of human

society is Papacy. He saw evil in giving the power to the

hands of clergy. Marsilus believed that the religious

clergy should not be in charge of state affairs

(Britannica, n.d.). So Marsilius became a founder of idea

of a secular state that totally rejects the power of

religious clergy in the affairs of state.

Marsilius believes that Jesus Christ appointed the

pope as the head of church, not as head of state to keep

him and the state away from evil. Giving the power to the

pope will bring new desires to the mind of pope that will

definitely lead to evil. The pope should always stay in

the church and shall not have power in jurisdiction,

legislation or any other affair of state; this is what

Christ intended for the clergy (Koeller, 2005). At the

final stage, they are not even allowed to coerce anyone

without approval of the people (legislators).

The religious authority only has the power to

question those laws that do not comply with the teachings

of Jesus. Furthermore, there should be no punishment for

any doubt or ambiguity in the legislated law. No other

entity other than the General Council of Christians has

the authority to question those laws legislated. The law

legislated by people and reviewed by the religious

authority will be applicable to all including the

religious entity. So this means that the religious entity

should form a council for Christians that is responsibly

for the matters of worship and review of the laws

legislated by the legislators, which are the people

(Koeller, 2005).

Marsilius appoints the priests and other members of

religion as the highest authorities of religion and no

one else is preferred on them. They are the only and only

supreme in rulings in relevant to religion of

Christianity. Would it make the priests and or the bishop

happy to be given preference than anyone, even preferred

the king but excluded from the state affairs? Definitely

no! Marsilius again would respond that this would be the

only way to avoid corruption caused by priests, bishops

and pope.

However there are still counter-arguments to

Marsilius’s argument. Why would Marsilius take authority

form one entity and hand it to another authority?

Marsilius claimed the power to be in the hand of people

and that they are legislators of laws. He takes off the

power of the church, by not allowing him decide the

matrimonial, legal, executive and state affairs. But then

gives the whole power to one supreme king. For instance,

he claimed that the final decision on matrimonial goes to

the king that limits people’s freedom to decide on their

marriage. Coming to answer the question, the king or the

prince of the time might have influenced him; or he might

want a centralized government that is more efficient and

effective. Delegating authority, according to Marsilius

bring corruption in the state; however, he delegated some

of authorities back to the church.

Marsilius was critical to people’s freedom to

choose what to do. He favored people’s authority to

author the laws but then he limits people. Mentioning

this in different parts of this peace of writing might

bring confusion, but the main purpose of insisting in the

same issue is to give birth to other new questions that

we do with all philosophers’ writings. Philosophers,

especially Marsilius were so talented in generating ideas

that would facilitate or would contribute to ease

people’s life. Yet, Marsilius’s and those of other

“talented” philosophers’ ideas were not sufficient to

ease our life. We the later readers study them and

criticize them based on the questions we found on these

writings.

To conclude this peace of writing, Marsilius was

one of the most well recognized philosopher who

contributed to build the idea of creating secular state.

Marsilius became known for creating the state that is

sufficient and effective and is willing to facilitate the

citizens’ life. Marsilius, by limiting the power of

religious powers in the state and centralizing the power

in the one hand was willing to “avoid corruption caused

by religious bureaucrats”. Marsilius was backed and

supported by the emperor of the regime that allowed him

express and generate his ideas without fear, as it was

easy for the pope to execute him.

Bibliography

Britannica, E. o. (n.d.). Marsilius of Padua. Retrieved April

26, 2014, from Britannica:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/366702/Marsiliu

s-Of-Padua

Koeller, D. W. (2005). ThenAgain. Retrieved April 26,

2014, from ThenAgain:

http://www.thenagain.info/Classes/Sources/MarsiliusPadua.

html

Stanford. (2006, July 14). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved April 26, 2014, from Stanford :

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-political/#Mar

Pad