A History of Political Thought, Vol 1 - Sukhbir Singh
A History of Political Thought, Vol 1 - Sukhbir Singh
A History of Political Thought, Vol 1 - Sukhbir Singh
HISTORY
OF
POLITICAL TH'^'i^ht
VOLUMK ONE
PLATO TO BUF
Dr. SUKHBIR SINGH
Professor & Head
Department of Political Science
B. B. S. (P-G) College, Agra
LITICAL
mOUGHT
VOLUME ONE
PLATO TO BURKE
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
A History of Political Thought Vol. 2
(Bentham to the Present Day)
A
HISTORY
OF
POLITICAL THOUGHT
ity was responsible for the downfall of the Roman Empire. The
controversy between the state and the church for a claim to supre-
macy gave birth to “De Regimine Principum” of St. Thomas
Aquinas, “Defensor Pacis” of Marsilio of Padua and “De Monarchia”
of Dante.
( ii )
we make, and which the ancient Greeks did not make, is somewhat
artificialone ?”’
Anaximender did not confine himself to “theory” alone. He
was the first to attempt to draw a map and to construct a model,
which was intended to illustrate the movements and dimensions of
the heavenly bodies. With regard to these worlds and to the other
heavenly bodies, he had definite ideas. He believed, for instance,
that “the sun was a wheel 28 times the size of the earth, like a
chariot-wheel, full of fiie, showing the fire at a certain point through
an orifice, as through the nozzle of a pair of bellows”. He also
believed that the earth is suspended in space and, for some reason,
that it is shaped like a cylinder. He had explanations for the
phenomena of thunder, lightning and the winds. ‘Altogether he is
a fire example of that particular daring of thought, both in its
penetration and its wide horizons, which Lucretius so much
admired’.®
The third of the philosophers of the school of Miletus was
Anaximenes, who declared that the original matter of the universe
was air. He maintained that the essential dilference between things
consisted merely in the amount of the basic substance they contain.
Air when rarefied becomes fire when condensed it turns successively
;
it was air.
2. From it, he said, the things that are, and nave oeen, and
shall be, the gods and things divine, took their rise, while other things
came from its ojfifsprlag.
3. “Just as,” he said, “one soul, being air, holds us together,
so do breath and air encompass the whole world”.
4. And the form of the air is as follows. Where it is most
even, it is invisible to our sight ; but cold and heat, moisture and
motion, make it visible. It is always in motion for, if it were not,
;
7. Rex Warner, The Greek Philosophers, 1st edition, (New York), 1958,
5. Jbid., p. 16.
9. Op. ci/i, p, 73.
Political Thought Before the Sophists 5
winds, on the other hand, are condensed Air. Cloud is formed from
Air by felting>^ and this, still further condensed, becomes water.
;
Water, condensed still' more, turns too earlier, and when condensed
as much as it can be, to stones.
gical belief of the Greeks about the origin of the world and substituted
in its placea purely rational explanation. It led to the revival afad’
the expansion of the Egyptian idea of the eternity of the universe
and the indestructibility of matter. It suggested the conception of
evolution in the sense of rhythmic change, of continuing creation and
decay. It also helped to prepare the way for atomic conception of
matter.
(2)The Metaphysical School The Greek philosophy dev^
:
loped a metaphysical turn before the end of the 6th centuiy B.C. TTie
founder of the metaphysical school was Pythagoras, who came from
the island of Samos, probably about 531 B.C.-, settled in Southern
Italy and there he founded what is known a Pythagorianjsociety. His
society appears to have had political, religious andiphilosophical
aims. It was -suppressed at some date between 460 and 400 B.C.,
are the actual competitors and the highest class is that of those who
;
theoretical” are derived) This idea of the dignity; even the sanctity,
.
they quickly supplied it. They held, for instance, that 10 is a per-
fect number and embraces all the powers of number. On this view
they asserted that there must be 10 heavenly bodies and as only ;
principle and as that which makes things what they are temporarily
or permanently. They also held (1) that the principles of
number are
the Even (or unlimited or indefinite) and the Odd (or Limited or
produced out of these two numbers ; and (3) that number constitutes
the whole sensible world
It was this metaphysical philosophy of number which influenced
the political ideas of both Plato and Aristotle. Justice according to
the Pythagorians was a number it was a number multiplied into
:
—
the duty of man and the world the “justice” and the truth of
—
both is to cling to fire. For truth resides in the common and
identical substance, which is fire in the natural universe, and fire in
the soul of man. This vitalising fire permeates all things to this :
“the thinker must cling and not to his own wisdom, even as a city
,
should to law”. “All human laws are sustained by the one divine
law, which is infinitely strong, and suifices, and more than suffices,
for them all”. It is in this way that Heraclitus tries to explain the
human laws by the physical law of the world the physical law :
vivifies the laws of the moral world. Laws are emanations of that
one law they are embodiment of the common substance of the
:
soul and the world which is fire. “One man is as good as ten
thousand to me, if he be the best”. He who has kept his soul “dry”
and clung to fire, is the natural ruler of man. Here we see some-
thing of a Platonic character in Heraclitus the one man who has
;
clung to the Cummon (who has seen, as Plato would say, the idea
of the Good) is better than ten thousand others.^^
the Idea did not mean a thought existing in the mind. Such a
thought, he maintains, is as transitory as any event in the outside
world. The Idea in Platonic sense not part of the world of time
is
to this revolutionary spirit are numerous and many. In her early days
Athens was not a great and powerful city, and did not become a
centre of intellectual activity. But it was in the later part of the 5th
century B.C. that she became the leader of Greece on account of
the success with which she defeated the Persian invaders at the battle
of Marathon in 490 B.C. After the Persian War, there- was a great
social and political awakening in Greece in general and in Athens in
particular. The Persian War created both individual and national
consciousness. Commenting on this Aristotle says, “Proud of their
achievements men pushed further afield after the Persian Wars they ;
seeking- wider and wider studies”.^ All this made great changes
inevitable. The political changes,
which took place within Athens
itself, opened a free field for popular diseussion in the Assembly and
Sophists to satisfy these practical demands both for new ideas and
for words through which they were to express those ideas.
3. Who were the Sophists ? : The sophists were for the most
part foreigners who lived in Athens as metics. They, like other
foreigners, enjoyed social equality but were deprived of political
privileges. They were the first professional teachers of ancient
Greece. In most cases they either demanded, or received, fees for
teaching, and their pupils were generally those who hoped to succeed
in public life. They were primarily educators who performed in
their day the great functions, that in the sixteenth to eighteenth
centuries the Jesuits performed. They offered instructions to those
who sought it. They were specially trainers in arguments. As
trainers in arguments, they had a great commercial value among an
argumentative, litigious people in a land of large juries and popular
courts, they became the bagmen of learning, advertising that they
would put a man wise for a few dollars.® They were the contem-
porary popular exponents of the craze for mental efficiency and of
how to begin life at forty. As disputers for any side of any question
4. Politics, 1J41.
5. George Catlin, A History of the Political Philosopher, p. 29.
6. /6/4.,pp. 29-30.
a
16 A History of Political Thought : Vol. /
did not belong to any central establishment, and they did not share
any common outlook which automatically made them members of
a school.® Many were engaged in the day-to-day business of teaching,
but a few tried to work out a consistent social philosophy. Dr.
Barker describes them as ‘half-teachers and thinkers, half dissemina-
tors of things new and strange, paradoxical and astonishing, which
would catch the ear. With something of the charlatan they combined
something of the philosopher.® Some of the Sophists were gram-
marians and they raised the most important question connected with
the origin of language. The question was, “ Whether the language
was of human creation, or a natural thing?” Some of the Sophists
were logicians, and they were mainly occupied with the discussion of
things like “the Same” or “the Different”. Some of them had views
about morals and politics, because everybody was interested in such
things. According to Dummler, the Sophists were “the historical
romancers, the theosophists, the sceptics and the physiologists of
their day”. Dr. Barker calls them as “versatile”. The climax of
sophistic versatility was reached in the personality of Hippias of Elis,
who once appeared at the Olympic games dressed in garments
altogether made by
his own hands, and who was at once poet and
mathematician, my thologist and moralist, student of music and con-
noisseur in art, historian and poKtician, and a valuable writer in eveiy
capacity.
Although the Sophists did not belong to any particular school
of thought, but their importance lies in the fact that they stood for
a new point of view as compared with the hitherto prevailing interest
of philosophy in the discovery of a permanent substratum for phy-
sical change.^® On its pbsitive side this new point of view was simply
humanism — the twisting of knowledge towards man as its centre. On
the negative side it implied a kind of scepticism towards the older
ideal of a detached knowledge of the physical world.^^ The Sophists
abandoned the study of the physical universe, and man becomes the
centre of attraction with them. It is this interest that they aroused
in man, which continues to dominate the entire Greek thought. All
their art', literature, philosophy and reUgion became the representa-
tive of man. That is why the Greeks are known as great humanists.
Cicero was justified in telling his son who was starting for Athens
‘•'You are going to visit men who are supremely man”. In all Greek
literature there is nothing more Greek than Sophocles’ noble line
“A wondrous thing is man none more wondrous”. “Other nations”,
it has been well said, “made gods, kings, spirits the Greeks alone
:
made men”.^^ The start that the Sophists gave to the humanistic
study found its culmination in the writings of Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle.
5. Political ideas The Sophists had ideas
of the Sophists:
about morals and politics. There is hardly a problem or a solution
in our current philosophy of mind and conduct which they did not
realize and discuss. They asked questions about anything: they stood
unafraid in the presence of religious or political taboos and boldly :
and rule the weak. Another school, like Nietsche, claimed that nature
is beyond good and evil that by nature all men are unequal
;
that ;
that of all forms of government the wisest and most natural is aristo-
cracy.^* G. H. Sabine, the Sophists had no
According to Prof.
philosophy; they taught ^vhat well-to-do students were willing to pay
for.^® We, however, do not agree with Prof. Sabine that the Sophists
had no philosophy. Some of them, and specially Protagoras, attempt-
ed to explain the origin and nature of the state. Others had definite
theories of love, justice and morals etc. We shall not be doing any
justice to the Sophists if, like Prof. Sabine, we pass a judgment that
the Sophists did not develop any political philosophy. In order to
decide whether the Sophists had any political philosophy, we examine
the views of some of the Sophists.
1. Protagoras of Abdera {500-430 B.C.) The greatest of :
the Sophists was Protagoras whose famous dictum was “Man is the
measure of all things”.^® It contains the entire essence of the Sophist
philosophy. He subordinated all goodness, truth, justice and beauty
to the needs and interests of man himself. He held that there are no
absolute truths or eternal standards of right and justice. In view of
the fact that sense perception is the exclusive source of knowledge,
there can be only particular truths valid for a given time and place.
Morality similarly varies from one people to another. The Spartans
encouraged adultery in certain cases on the part of wives as well as
husbands ; Athenians secluded their wives and refused
whereas the
even to allow them a normal social life. “Which of these standards
is right he asks. Neither is right in any absolute sense because
there are no absolute canons of right and wrong eternally decreed in
the heavens to fit all cases ; yet both are right in the relative sense
that the judgment of man alone determines what is good. “Expressed
in modern terms, the theory of Protagoras is that moral beliefs
are purely subjective, but that they ^scharge a useful function in
upholding the law and order which are the basis of a civilized society.
I
These will be assured if a coherent set of beliefs is generally accepted
throughout a given society, and if that acceptance is maintained and
strengthened by effective propaganda.^’
It was, in this way, that Protagoras laid twisted all knowledge
towards man and man was made its centre “Let everyman occupy
14. Ibid., p. 3.
find that to him there was no antithesis between Nature and Law.
Law he regarded as a higher thing due to divine sanction, which
rescued man from
a state of Nature in which they were no better
than beasts. Although Protagoras was a great individualist, but
in this particular respect he was definitely a worshipper of the state.
“Sophist as he was, Protagoras was thus an apostle of the state, who
preached the sanctity of its laws and the equality of its members”.^®
2., Antiphon The antithesis between Nature and Law, which
:
and persuading his judge, as the injured party]' In tnis way we lincL
that the conventional law of the Greek city-state receives a ruthless
condemnation at the hands of Antiphon. v
\
Although there seems to be a lot of truth in >.what Antiphon has
said, but the weakness of his theory is that it ignores the in'evifabl^"
which a man must live. The la^s=Torbiddihg
social relationships in
theft and murder may at times stand in the way of what a given
individual would hke to do ; but they also prevent other people from
doing to him what would undoubtedly be to his disadvantage.
Indeed the majority of civil laws are of potential advantage as well as
disadvantage, to an individual. Antiphon’s principle might indeed
have a useful application in a society ruled by a dictator, ready to
sacrifice his- subjects’ interests in pursuing his own, but apart from
such circumstances the principle is fraught with gravd dangers to the
interests of both the individual and society.*^ There is no doubt that
much can be said on both sides of the case. But in spite of the great
flow and frailty of the theory, realism, on the whole, remains the note
of Antiphon’s thought.*^
3. The Sophist Callicles The theory propounded by Callicles
:
in either case the inference from what does happen to what ought to
happen is necessarily fallacious.***
4. Thrasymachus of Chalcedon The theory attributed to
:
Sophists have not been the victims of his attack. Protagoras and
Gorgias seem to have received a special treatment at his hands. He
speaks very highly of them. But on the whole his verdict is very
unfavourable'. He hates them, ridicules them and finally condemns
them. We
quote here some of the lines from Plato’s account of the
Sophists which might be of some interest to students of Greek
political theory. Writing about the Sophist, in his fourth Dialogue
Plato writes,“He who belongs to the dissembling section of the art
of making contradiction, imitator of appearance, and one who has
developed from image making, juggler of words, a creation human
but not divine and any who affirms the real Sophist to be of
one
this blood and lineage says the very truth”.
8. The Importance of the Sophists It can be said with some
justification that there ' was much that was really admirable in the
teachings of the Sophists. They condemned slavery and the false
notion of racial exclusiveness of the Greeks. They came forward as
the champion of liberty, the rights of the common man and the
at home
looking after his family or his vocation, and he took no
thought of the morrow. He ate when his disciples asked him to
honour their tables ; they must have liked his company for his subtle
reasoning and must have seen in the soul of the master images of
fascinating beauty to remind them of the absolute perfection of
God.^ He was not so welcome at home for he neglected his wife
and children, and from Xanthippe’s (his wife) point of view he was
good-for-nothing idler who brought to his family more notoriety
than bread.® Xanthippe liked to talk almost as much as Socrates
did. But Socrates was all the time busy with all sorts of people
soldiers, prostitutes, priests, students and statesmen, discussing with
them all sorts of questions about morals and politics. She, therefore,
could not have the sufficient time to talk to her husband to her
utmost content. This was the main reason of their strained rela-
tions. But both of them seem to have had some dialogues which
Plato failed to record. But in spite of these strained relations, she
loved him, and could not contentedly see him die even after three-
score years and ten.^
2. Socrates as the Godfather of Western Philosophy Socrates :
was— “One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing”. He
regarded it as his duty to reveal to others, by means of his own
particular method of cross-examination, exactly how ignorant the
other people were.
Philosophy according to him begins when one learns to doubt
particularly, to doubt one’s cherished beliefs, one’s dogmas and
one’s axioms. Who knows how these cherished beliefs became
certaintieswith us, and whether same secret wish did not beget
them, clothing desire in the dress of thought ? There is no real
philosophy until the mind turns round and examines itself. “Grothi
Seanton” —
know thyself, was the cry of Socrates.
There had been philosophers before him, of course strong :
men like Thales and Heraclitus, subtle men like Parmenides and
Teno of Elea, seers like Pythagoras and Empedocles but for the
;
most part they had been physical philosophers they had sought
;
for the nature of external things, the laws and constituents of the
material and measurable world. That is very good, said Socrates :
man. The same thing, later on, was perhaps repeated by William
Hamilton in his ‘Logic and Metaphysics’ :
had consisted in putting into the mind of the young the orthodox
ideas about right and wrong, the new philosophy would try|to develop
the individual reason in each man, so that he only accepted those
ideas which he saw to be true and rejected all wickedness, not from
fear of punishment but because he understood its folly. Thus, philo-
sophy, according to Socrates, must be the self-discipline of reason,
and ithad two main tasks : (1) to examine and to reject those
opinions which it found to be false, and (2) to substitute for these
false opinions a new
of principles acceptable to reason.® Thus,
set
Socrates believed that the true task of philosophy was not to define
words but to discover reality. In fact what the scientists and mathe-
maticians were doing for the world of nature, philosophy hiust
accomplish for human society.^® But the philosophical discipline is
never popular. It administers a great torture to which the human
mind can be subjected. It hunts out our dearest prejudices and shows
that they have no rational foundations, and it exposes what we
thought to be a logical theory as a mass of contradictions. Although,
it is directed to the development of the individual, it does not satisfy
10. Ibid.,p.5\.
11. Ibid., p. 51.
The Political Ideas of Socrates 29
method, he is also very well known for his doctrine —which is known
as the doctrine of two knowledges. Knowledge and virtue, according
to Socrates, are identical. That is why he declares that “knowledge
is virtue”. He held that there were two kinds of knowledge one —
was apparent and another was real. He said that it was the duty
of all men to find out true knowledge and they could do so only if
they “knew themselves” — that is to say if they knew how much they
really knew. If knowledge is virtue and are two kinds of there
knowledge, there are two kinds of virtue as well. There is the virtue
which is based on knowledge and there is the virtue which is simply
based on opinion. The virtue based on knowldge is secure, while
conflict instead of healing it. This, in the view of Socrates, was the
disease from which Athenian democracy was suffering. Class-
conflicts and capitalism were the results of a laissez-faire philosophy
of individual licence and if reason could not produce a new self-
discipline, then the belief that might is right would rule in Athens.
The Athens of his day were not governed by laws, which were based
on wisdom, and which could correspond to universal reason. The
reins of administrative machinery had fallen into the hands of
those who had never given any thought to the meanings of politics.
It w'as for these reasons that he made a scathing attack on Athenian
premise of Athenian democracy was that all citizens were equal and
equally qualified to take part in government. He attacked the
democratic theory of equality among men and its choice of officials
by lot, and taught that the state should be governed not by
aristocracy of birth but by aristocracy of intelligence. He objected
to the rule of a sovereign Assembly in which every tinker and tailor,
cobbler and fowler had an equal voice in public affairs with those
who really understood something of the art of politics. He was
even a critic, as we learn from Meno and the Gorgias, of the
Athenian statesmen -who guided the Assembly. He describes them
afe false shepherds, w'ho fill the city with “harbours and docks and
wallsand revenues”, seeking popularity by indulging the populace,
but forgetting the things which belonged to justice and temperance.
In opposition to these things, Socrates taught the need of an expert
knowledge, based on first principles, for the conduct of political
32 A History of Political Thought : Vol. I
accusation. is two-fold. •
One is religious : the other is apparently
based on moral, but is perhaps in reality based on political. grounds.
The real sting of the accusation lies in the latter. “It was the moral
teaching of Socrates, and the political implication of that teaching,
which was the true gravamen of his accusers”.^* His teaching had
inspired the counter-revolution, and his theology had produced not a
puritan revival, but a ruthless and cynical gang of wealthy adventurers.
The fact, that he had denounced their philosophy of force, did not
make any material difference. His disciples had welcomed his attack
on current morality, and disregarded the positive side of his creed.*®
“The responsibilities of the teacher are great. He must consider not
only whether his teachings are true,but what effect they will have on
his pupils. In the eyes of the practical politician it is no justification
of Socrates as a teacher to show that he denounced wickedness, if
his virtuous teachings, in fact, promoted it. However blameless his
life and pure his motives, the effects on Athenian life had been
disastrous.When we remember this, we cannot blame the jury which
found him guilty of corrupting the youth”.*®
the state, and all day long and in all places, am always fastening
upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you”. He
vehemently criticised the characteristics of Athenian democracy—
the use of lot the composition of the Assembly and the ignorance
;
rule of law. This again is a conclusion which, for a time at any rate,
Plato was ready to draw.®* He condemned the government of
ignorance in the interest of selfishness. For the proper guidance of
the state, he said, was necessary that the wise should rule. Politics
it
somewhat shocked to hear from the priestly class which ruled that
land. But nothing so educates as a shock. The memory of these
learned pundits of the Hile, theoretically ruling a static agricultural
people, remained alive in Plato’s thought, and played its part in
writing his Utopia.® He then sailed off to Sicily, and to Italy. There
he joined for a time the school which the great Pythagoras had
founded and once again his susceptible mind was marked with the
;
memory of a small group of men set aside for scholarship and rule,
living a plain life despite the possession of power. For a period of
twelve years he wandered, imbibing wisdom, from every source,
sitting at every shrine, tasting every creed.'* There are some who
believe that he went to Judia and was moulded for a while by the
tradition of the almost socialistic prophets.® Although no authentic
records are available to bear testimony to this fact, but it is also
said that he found his way to the banks of the Ganges, and learned
the mystic meditations of the Hindus.
Whether he paid a visit to
the bank of Ganges or not, it appears as almost certain that
the
his conception of justice and theory of Ideas were very much influenced
2. /6W,pp. 12-13.
3. Ibid, p. 13.
4. Ibid., p. 13.
5. Ibid.,p.\2.
38 A History of Political Thought : Vol. I
by a Byzantine
over the gate of the Academy, as we are
told
ignorant of geometry
grammarian, contained the words, “Let no man
place, was the conversion
enter here”.^^ His philosophy, in the first
service of mankind. Plato
of a soul, and in the second place, the
by any magic device,
was convinced that such a conversion came not
the light through a steady
but by a gradual turning of the eye towards
were
training in science. “The service to which the Platonic disciples
called was not a service of preaching,
or a service w ic oo
social work, but a service i
Plato also
Quoted from Greek Political Theory, v- UO.
E. Barker’s
6.
refers to the Egyptian system of Class
in the Timaeus A).
2nd editio
m (1959),
Crossman, .Plato To-Day, p. 77,
7. R. H. S.
London.
8. Ibid., p- IT-
9. E. Barker, op. c//., p. Ill-
10. lu-
Ibid., p.
Burnet, Greek Philosophy, p. 218.
ll .
Political Philosophy of Plato 39
where subtle policy was possible, were taken off their guard and so
destroyed.^®
But if the class-war was the prime evil of Athenian life, there
were, in Plato’s opinion, two other contributory evils of great impor-
tance. The
first was the idea that government belonged by right to
a particular social class or to the people as a whole. He believed
that it was a whole time job and demanded abilities of a peculiar
kind. The state could only prosper if political power were granted
to men and women who were capable of using it correctly. But the
oligarchs regarded government as the prerequisite of wealth, the
democrats of citizenship, and so under both parties the government
was selected for reasons which had little to do with its capacity for
ruling. The result was that in each case the machinery of state
became the instrument of class-interest law did not rule but was
:
but of the mob-orator, who knew how to cajole the people and to
pander to its worst tastes.-® Under these circumstances Plato came
to the conclusion that people will never escape from this predicament
until they realise that power is in the hands of the ignorant, that
power in thehands of the ignorant is poison, that ignorance and
opinion must give way to knowledge.
Besides the rule of ignorance, there was another defect which
Plato saw in all existing forms of government equally. This was the
political selfishness of the party struggles. Each faction preferred
its own advantage even above that of the state itself. “The harmony
—
which are persistent in Plato the love of truth and the zeal for
human improvement”,^ “The outstanding fact of Plato’s intellec-
tual development was his association as a young man with Socrates,
and from Socrates he derived what was always the controlling
—
thought of his political philosophy the idj^ that virtue is know-
ledge”.^*’ This influenced Plato’s idea of the' Supremacy of reason
which issued forth in the rule of the phiJosopher-king. His dialectical
method of ascertaining reality, his contempt towards democracy
and his advocacy of the rule of law were very much influenced by
Socrates. It is quite true to say that the image of his Plato’s teacher
(Socrates) never faded from his mind while he kept himself busy in
enriching the philosophical treasures by the power of his pen.
4. The Works of Plato : Plato was a prolific writer and he
left a number of philosophical works after his death. Most famous
among them were: (1) Apology, (2) Crito, (3) Phaedo, (4) Symposium,
(5) Republic, (6) The Statesman, and (7) The Laws etc. We shall
describe here briefly the philosophy of these works and shall examine
the philosophy of the Republic and The Laws in greater details in
separate chapters.
Apology
(a) Apology is one of the finest works of Plato.
:
dialogue Socrates realizes that his true enemies are not his
prosecutors but all those who oppose the life of reason and virtue,
who shrink before his conviction that “the unexamined life is not
worth living”.
(b) Crito : This dialogue takes place some time between the
trial and death of Socrates. He is visited in his cell by his old friend
Crito who has come with a plan for his escape. Crito argues
that Socrates would be doing wrong to his friends, his family and
himself by submitting to the sentence imposed by the Athenian Court.
Socrates rejects the proposal. By escaping he would be going against
the public opinion, reversing the conduct of his past life and making
a hypocrisy of his statement at the trial and he would prefer death
set by the Athenian council for his death. He has sent his wife and
child away, and with the friends who have come to visit him, he dis-
courses about the nature of the soul. Towards evening the Jailor
brings the fatal cup of hemlock. His friends are suiprised that he
remains as calm and reasonable as ever in the face of approaching
death, but he argues that the philosopher has nothing to fear.
Philosophy which is always trying to release the soul from the limita-
tions of the body is in effect the study of death. Socrates is urging the
life of the spirit, the pursuit of wisdom and virtue and is attempting
to establish divinity as well as the immortality of the soul. In
this he anticipates Christianity and his influence on St. Paul and the
early Church is immeasurable. Socrates sees man’s life as a journey
from the mortal towards the divine and immutable. The life of the
soul in an afterworld of rewards and punishment becomes a moral
argument for the life of virtue on earth. The Phaedo, therefore,
combines high drama and high philosophy, the death of a great man
and his declaration of faith in the immortality of the human soul.
From this dialogue Socrates emerges out as the chief saint of
classical antiquity.
several stages, to the love of a'bsolute beauty which is also God. The
Political Philosophy of Plato 47
noted that Plato was not original in the use of his dialogue form.
The form in which the Platonic dialogues are written was already in
vogue. Plato had already witnessed the comedies of Aristophanes and
the tragedies of Eurpides at Athens. He had also read the comic dia-
logues of Epicharmis. The Platonic dialogues are politico-philosophical
in nature, are comedies of ideas. They represent the dramatic crisis of the
soul and its inquiries. Through his dramatis personae he sets before us the
philosophical ideas. The characters that are depicted are not pimply
names given to the voices of philosophical notions as they are in the
dialogues of Burkley they are live and picturesque characters.®®
;
One may forget, for the time being, the philosophical concerns and
ideas touched upon in the dialogues but he will remember always the
characters of the dialogues as galleries of unforgettable personalities.®®
Socrates stands out above all, almost one might say, the Hamlet of
Plato, and like Hamlet, too torn, though not so sombrely, by the
insolubl eantinomies and irresolutions to which we are led by passion
and by thought.®^
A particular feature of Platonic method of the
dialogues is his
that, on the analogy of all other ‘artists’, the Statesman shoiUd know
what he practises, lies at the root of the Republic.®^ The same con-
ception of politics led Plato still further. Because the artist ought to
be unfettered in the practice of his art by a body of rules, he holds
that the Statesman should ideally be free from the restraint of law,
and he advocates a theory of absolute monarchy.®® By arguing that
the artist should work for the betterment of the object of his work,
Plato wants to advocate that the Statesman should always work for
the welfare of his subjects.
59. lbid.,v.\\9.
60. Ibid., p. 120.
61. 76/rf,p. 120.
62. Ibid., p. 120.
CHAPTER 5
PLATO—THE REPUBLIC
mbibe truth,
beauty and goodness as the
fundamental virtues in
heir hves According to Prof. Catlin, “The
Republic is an ethical
reatise and, although an
example of Socratic dialectic, is dogmatic
its cone usions,
involves psychological investigations
and contains
an educational prospectus and
apolitical constitution”.^’ It is an
ethical treatise because the
problem that Plato has to tackle is essen-
la y et The aim is to make the life of citizens good and
ical.
which he knew so well, and to ask himself what was wrong with
Athens. When he had discovered this, he could construct a city free
from the evils of Athenian society, and he believed that these evils
were three in number class-war, bad government, and bad educa-
:
.”
serious project of practical reform put forward by an Athenian. .
views about human life are examined, and the problem to which the
Republic offers a solution is also explained. The problem is connected
with the observance of the principles of morality. But the argument
is also advanced side by side for the sake of logic and final conclu-
sion that success in life does not depend upon morality. This creates
half of the book is concerned with the main subject, the capabilities
the foundation of the good life. To know the real in the universe
is to know the valid in the state and in one’s own being, as a
matter of course. To know the truth is inevitably to choose the
good as Socrates had earlier contended. Truth itself is a manifesta-
tion of the supreme and encompassing Idea of the Good. A
virtuous action is a true, valid, just action, the functioning of a soul
according to its unsevering following of a clear vision of eternal
order. It is in this sense that Republic is a treatise on ethical
order as well.
(3) A Treatise on Education ; The major portion of the
Republic is devoted to education. We find a long discussion about
the value of abstract science and the principles of education. “A
modern reader cannot fail to be astonished at the amount of space
devoted to education, at the meticulous care with which the effect
of different studies is discussed, or at the way in which Plato frankly
assumes that the state and foremost an educational institu-
is first
Rousseau said that the “Republic is not a work upon politics, but
the finest treatise on education that ever W’as written”. Plato gave
it a top priority in his Ideal State. He was undoubtedly convinced
that education was a social process which prepared the individual
for his right station in society. It was also a means of learning
truth for its own sake and to realize the Idea of the Good which
transcended all time and place.
{4) A Treatise on Human Psychology The Republic of Plato ;
people are known as the ruling, defending and the producing class.
27. Ibid., p. 39.
28. G. H. Sabine, op. cit., p. 64.
58 A History of Political Thought ; Vol I
and there are more of them. I mean those which are awake when
the reasoning and human and ruling power is asleep then the wild ;
beast within us, gorged with meat or drink, starts up and having
shaken off sleep, goes forth to satisfy his desires and there is no ;
—
conceivable crime not excepting incest or any other unnatural
union, or parricide, or the eating of forbidden food which at such —
a time, when he has parted company with all the shame and sense,
a man may not be ready to commit. But when a man’s impulse
. . .
that “the Middle Ages were not following Plato they were following ;
their own way. That way coincided, at many points, with the
way Plato had trodden before. The curriculum of the medieval
university may correspond to the curriculum of the VII Book of the
Republic but it was the curriculum of the medieval university not
;
3. Ibid., p. 53.
4. Ibid., p. 53.
5. C. L. 'WayptT,PolUicaI Thought,1st edition (1954), London, p. 18.
6. The Works of Plato, edited by Irvin Edman, the Jowett Translation,
p. 35.
7. Ibid., p. 35.
The Keystone of Plato's Thinking 67
where boin the olyects perceived and the mind perceiving them were
in constant change. Heraclitus’s “flux” left the intelligence dizzy
with its lack of grippable permanences ; Parmenides’s changeless one
The Idea of horse will be different from any particular horse. The
Idea of a State is entirely different from any particular state. Although
this idea is entirely different from the objects in which it appears, it
cannot exist without those objects. There could not be an Idea of
horse, had there been no horse. There could not be an Idea of a
state, if no state existed. The Idea, therefore, has no independent
existence of its own. They are, on the contrary, immanent in the
transitory nature of things, as the Idea of a horse is immanent in
horses and the Idea of a State is immanent in states. Although this
Idea is not separate from the object of change, even then it is
eternal. It is in fact the law according to which a thing behaves,
for that is permanent and does not change with the changing thing,
that it is not separate from the thing but is nevertheless distinguish-
able from it.^®
tuting their own order, the true world of authentic being, whose
hierarchy and pattern revolves around and is determined by the Idea
of the Good.
the power which created him before his world began which now pre- ;
thus the source of the common quality that all horses possess. It is
example of ahorse. In some degree or the other aU horses
also a perfect
are imperfect. But in the Idea of a horse there is no imperfection.
Consequently, if we want to know what is a good horse, then we must
try to discover how closely it approximates to the Idea of a horse.
laid up in heaven.
It is to be noted that Plato’s discovery of Idea as the ultimate
reality has led to the development of concept of two worlds. On
the one hand we find that there is a world of objects and on the
other hand there is the world of Ideas. AH objects of the world like
man, state, horse, donkey and monkey and so on, constitute the
world of objectivity. But the Ideas of all these objects which Plato
calls as the essence of all things, constitute the world of Ideas. It is
maintained by Plato that the world of Ideas is real world and the ;
yet there is not really intelligence and truth until the good shines
upon the mind and the world. Secondly, as the sun is the source not
only of light and vision, but also of the actual generation and
growth of the organic world, so the good is the source not only
of truth and knowledge, but actually of the life and being of
the world. The world as it is to sense is the image and the product
of the good, and the world as it is to intelligence is also the image
and the product of the good, so we might say, the whole world,
whether as it is to sense or as it is to intelligence, whether in its more
superficial or in its more profound aspect, reflects the good.*®
It is obvious that to Plato, the Idea of the Good is not
now
merely an abstract conception, nor is it identical with any particular
existing object ;
it reveals itself in everything that truly exists. It is
justice.®*
6. Culmination of Plato's Philosophy in the Attainment of the
Idea of Good The entire philosophy of Plato culminates in the
:
attainment of the Idea of Good. Plato believed that all men wanted
to attain happiness by making a success of their lives in the best
sense of the term. This happiness and success came out of and were
identifiable with goodness. A ‘good’ man is one who “conducts his
2S. R. L. Nettleship, op. cit., p. 235.
29. Ibid., pp. 236-237
30 Ccnstantine Ritter. The Essence of Plato's Philopsohy, p. 158.
3t. Ibid.,p 159.
74 A History of Political Thought : Vol. /
own affairs, those of his household, those of the city well”. Through
success in life, in the best sense of the word, is to possess ‘good’. This
makes Plato primarily an ethical philosopher. The remedy for curing
the ills and promoting goodness in the life of citizens is provided by
political means. Throughout the chief aim of Plato has been the
creation of an ideal state because Plato was convinced that it is only
in an ideal state that the ideal citizens can be found. The chief
purpose of all theories of Plato in the Ideal State whether Justice,
Communism or Education has been to prepare the citizens to do
the duties of their stations and to understand those duties without
any doubt and with alt clearness of vision. It is this understanding
and performance of duties assigned to each, that make them truly
good.
7. Value and Criticism of Plato's Theory of Ideas The great- —
est value of Plato’s Theory of Ideas is, that he gave to an abstract
principle an independent existence. Out of this perishable world he
tried to create something imperishable. “He conceives of truth in
the form of abstract, self-existent ideas, knowable only by an excep-
tionally endowed few”. But his mistake, as Willoughby has pointed
out, consists in exalting the universal into “transcendental entity
instead of an immanent principle”. But whatever might have been
the mystics and metaphysics that surround his theory of Ideas, the
fact,however, remains that it helped him in the exploration of true
knowledge whose only possession makes a man virtuous and good.
—
CHAPTER?
“THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE IDEAL STATE”,
IDEAL STATE— AND ITS “THEORY OF JUSTICE”
where every part of soul does its own business; that life
of the state where each individual and each class performs
Its appropriate function."
•
{Jowett ; The Philosophy of Plato).
Plato many theories of justice were prevalent. The enquiry about justice
goes from the crudest to the most refined interpretation of it. Plato tries
to review a number of traditional theories of justice which represented
successive stages in the growth of nations about morality and justice.
Plato rejects all these theories one by one and he propounds his own
theory of justice. We shall, therefore, examine, first of all, these
theories one by one.
(i) The Traditional Theory of Cephalus The traditional theory
:
real virtue and the true wisdom for all sensible men. Thrasymachus.
in tin’s way, has taken two positions.
(a) that a government governs for its own benefit and
(b) that injustice is better than justice.
These two positions taken by Thrasymachus were met by Plato.
The former stand is met by Plato through Socratic conception of
government as an art. The aim and object of every art is the
deprived of its virtue and the soul cannot discharge its function i
;
—
man is chained a dictate of the weaker many, for the interest of
the weaker many, as against the natural and superior power of the
Stronger few. law and government are against
In short, therefore,
nature, and the so-called of society is really one which is
“justice”
perpetuated by the combined force of the weaker.
the very nature of man when seen in the fulness of his environment.
It is in this way that Plato has
condemned the position taken by
Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to
Plato it is internal as it resides in thehuman soul. “It is now regarded
as an inward grace, and its shown to involve a study
understanding is
therefore, not born of the fear of the weak but of the longing of the
nature.
soul to do a duty according to way
its It is in this
human
exploding all the theories of his day, Plato propounded
that after
his own theory of justice.
Justice is the very foundation
3 Plato’s Theory of Justice :
This is the kingpin upon which the
of Plato’s political philosophy.
whole of his Republic revolved.
To comprehend Plato s conception
mind that Plato strikes an analogy
ofLiict it is to be borne in
on the one hand and roc, at organism
bllween the human organism
p. 161.
12. E. Barker, op. cit.,
13 . p. 161 .
ruling over the people, should acquire more and more knowledge to
guide the ship of the state rightly and properly. They must become
the master of the work which is entrusted to them. Similarly, the
auxiliaries, who are concerned with the defence of the state, should
always be prepared to assist the ruling class in the discharge of its
duties. Likewise the appetitive section of the community, who are
meant to provide essential mercantile goods to the community,
should wholeheartedly devote themselves to the task of production.
Justice, therefore, to Plato is like a manuscript which exists in two
copies,and one of these is larger than the other.
It exists both in
the individualand the state. But it exists on a larger scale and in a
more visible form in the state.^® Individually justice is “the disposi-
tion which makes a man refrain from an act recommended by desire
or by his apparent interest, through obedience to a belief that he
ought not to perform it”. Socially, justice is the self-restraint of a class
or a group not to interfere with the legitimate rights and functions
of the other classes for furthering its own selfish interest. Individually,
justice is a ‘human virtue’ that makes a man self-consistent and good
socially, justice is a political consciousness that makes a state inter-
nally harmonious and good. Individually, “Justice meant... that a
man should do his work in the station of his life to which he was
the product and the image of the whole of the human mind”.^^ Plato’
ideal society is thus a“unity, but not a uniformity : for it contains th
greatest degree of diversity within itself. Each member has a specia
contribution of his own to make in accordance with his natura
capacities, and together they form a society bound together in mutua
friendliness and co-operation”.^^ It channelises the energy of ead
of its members and each of its classes in such a way that they do no
come in to conflict with each other. This justice of Plato, therefore
becomes a regulating principle responsible for the betterment of th(
whole. It discharges that responsibility by delimiting the boundary
for the individual and the class.
upon the individual the fact that it is, by treating him as a factor
and a fraction of itself”.^*
obligation.*'*
{Hi) Plato's justice demands intense devotion to the state on
happiness of all in the state. But Plato’s justice very much fails to
guardians are not happy, who are ? Surely not the artisans, or the
common people”.*®
(v) Platonic conception of justice is based on the principle
“one man one work”. This principle militates against the alt
round development of human personality. It deprives the com-
munity of a full and rich variety of social life. It keeps the individual
strictly within the sphere of his own station. It thus denies him
40. R^H.S. Crossman, P/afo To-day, 2nd edition, 1959, p. 92, George
Alien & Unwin (London).
CHAPTER 8
taken from his parents and his education was entrusted to an official
of the state. In the Spartan system the family had no control over
the education of its members. The state was controlling all aspects
of education. Arranged in ‘houses’ each under its ‘prefect’, the
Spartan youths were trained, something after the manner of a
primitive public school, in the rigours of athletics and in preparation
for war. The training was definitely intended to inculcate the ‘top’
of military quality on which the life of the Spartan community
depended.^ The great purpose of education at Sparta was to
develop courage through test and trials which were sometimes
almost barbarous.® The Spartan youths while receiving education
were invariably flogged at their back in order to harden them for
their war duties. Women as well as men, if in a less degree, were
subjected to the rigours of the same system.® The one great draw-
back of this system of education was that it developed courage and
physique both at the neglect of mind and soul. Plato borrowed
from Sparta the social aspect of education that it must be controlled
by the state with a view to preparing citizens to find their place in
the soul were first, literature, beginning with stories for children and
going on to poetry secondly, music in our sense of the word,
:
playing and singing and thirdly, the plastic arts in general. All
;
these come under the head of arts. What Plato, in fact, wanted
was the regulation of culture which he regarded as a necessary step
towards conditioning the individual mind. “Briefly it embraced all
culture. And, by inquisition and index and spiritual directors, it
was culture that Plato proposed to mould’’.^®
4. Plato's Scheme of Education : Plato’s scheme of education
represents a state controlled systemof compulsory education for
both sexes. Every member of the state has to be prepared for a
particular class either for ruling, fighting or producing class. The
education which imparted in the beginning is equal for all.
is Thus
Plato maintains the principle of equality in education at least in the
beginning of it. From the scheme it, however, appears that edu-
cation in this system was meant for every one. But, in fact, if it is
prize-fighters and weight lifters. The gentler side of life should also
be developed and Plato has recommended the study of music for the
achievement of that object. Through music the sou] learns harmony
and rhythm, and also a disposition of justice because “he who is
harmoniously constituted can never be unjust”. Music also moulds
character, and therefore shares in determining social and political
issues. Music is also valuable because it brings refinement of feeling
and character. It also preserves and restores health. There are some
diseases which can be treated only through the mind, and mind can
be cured through the musical medicine. Music lends grace and
health to the soul and to the body. To be merely an athlete is to
be nearly a savage and to \he merely a musician is to be “melted
;
songs. But even these studies should not be forced upon the mind
of the child, Plato’s approach in imparting instructions, in this
way, is very much psychological. Writing about the libertarian
spirit in education Plato says :
17. The Republic of Plato, Book III, p. 410 (p. 117, Jowett’s Translation).
18. The Republic of Plato, Book VII, p. 536.
94 A History of Political Thought : Vol. 1
we arrive at the age of twenty and face the first great elimination
test of what they have learnt in all these years of equal education.
There shall be a ruthless weeding out and the examination will be
both theoretical and practical. Those who fail in this elimination
test will be assigned the economic work of the community — business-
men, clerks, factory workers and farmers.
Those who pass this elimination test will receive ten more
years of education and training in body and mind. Natural and
mathematical sciences are to be taught. Emphasis is laid on
mathematics, including arithmetic, plane and solid geometry, astro-
nomy and dialectics. At the age of 30 they w'ill face the second
elimination test which will be far severer than the first. Those w’ho
fail in this test will become the auxiliaries and executive aides and
Now at the age of 50, those, who have stayed the course of
this hard and long process of education, are to be introduced to
their final task of governing their country and their fellow-citizens.
They will pass most of their time in philosophical pursuits. “Yet,
each when his turn comes is to devote himself to the hard duties of
public life, and hold office for their country’s sake, not as a desirable
but an unavoidable occupation”.
It is, in this way, after receiving a sort of perfection, as it
were, the rulers will exercise power in. the best interest of the state.
The ideal state, thus, will be realised and its people, balanced in~souI,
will be just and happy
Value of Plato's Theory of Education
5. Plato attaches a :
of age, will not only be expensive but it win also kill initiative in
men at that age. The memory becomes dull and in the words of
1. —
Communism as a handmaid of Justice Like education,
Plato’s communism was handmaid of his justice. If education was a
positiveremedy for the operation of justice in the ideal state, his
communism was a negative remedy. Plato had an excessive distrust
of human nature. In spite of so much education and training Plato
could not be convinced that members of the ruling and military class
stood completely reformed as to work on the altruistic motive. He
could not be convinced that education had accomplished its task.
For the remaining task he advocated communism as a sure remedy.
Plato is also convinced that in the face of C9rrupting influences the
rulers and soldiers will be shaken from acting' according to those
high ideals on which the very success of
the ideal state depended.
These corrupting influences, according to Plato, were family and
property. Their continuance in the case of the ruling and defending
classes, Plato regarded,
as essentially dangerous. So that family and
property may not become
great impediments in the discharge of
their duties, Plato is never
weary of criticising them in the Republic.
Ideal State and its "Theory of Commuhism" 99
nism takes two main forms. The first is the abolition of private
—
property which includes everything house, land or money. The
second was the abolition of family, what Prof. G. H. Sabine has
characterised as the abolition of a permanent mohogamous sexual
relation and the substitution of regulated breeding at the behest of
the rulers for the purpose of securing the best possible offsprings. All
this was done in the name of justice and here again spiritual better-
ment was the ultimate aim.® Plato believed that conditions were
most favourable for the life of spirit under a system of communism.®
Plato’s idea of the “life of the spirit” does not carry any mysticism
with it. It does not mean renunciation in any way. It simply means
that certain important type of individuals should cease to be self-
centered and that they should develop such community of feelings
which will make them the real benefactors of society. They should
treat them as a part o f that social order whose misfortune was their
misfortune and whose advantage was their advantage. The Platonic
system of communism, in this way, invents a new social order, under
which the governing class surrenders both family and private property
and embraces a system of communism.'*
3. Partial Application of Plato's Communism : Plato’s ideal state
consists of three different classes on the basis of their natural capaci-
ties. The rulers and soldiers make the guardian class. The third class
of the ideal state, includes all the rest of the people — the workers,
labourers, artisans and clerks etc. Communism in the Republic is
meant only for the guardians class, that is, for the rulers and soldiers,
while the persons of the third category are left in possession of their
private families, both property and wives. The unity of the state is to
be secured; property and family stand in the way; therefore, property
and marriage must go.® Plato’s communism, therejore has a
strictly political purpose. In connection with Plato’s theory of
communism there is one thing which is to be noted, and it is this.
3. Ibid., y. 201.
4. Ibid., p. 206.
that Plato did not have anything to say about slaves, although the
slatres constituted one- third part of the Athenian population.
This has
rightly led Prof. Constantin Ritter to argue that in the Republic slavery
is “in principle abolished”. Prof. G. H. Sabine does not agree with
the point of view expressed by Constantin Ritter. His thesis is that
it is almost incredible that Plato intended to abolish a universal
institution without mentioning it. It is more probable that he merely
regarded slavery as unimportant.®
4. Character of Community of Property Property although
:
dividing cities, thus, into two classes of the rich and the poor with-
out a common bond to hold them together. Bakunin regarded
private property relating to the lower stage of man’s development
because it was associated with his physical desires. He describes it
as the characteristic expression of the primitive nature of man.
According to his theory, the whole evolution of man is from a condi-
tion in which animal impulses and physical restraints control the
conduct of man towards conditions in which perfect liberty and
ideal happiness prevail. Bakunin says that, according to the natural
laws of human evolution, private property is destined to disappear.
Prince Kropotkin also regarded private property an evil thing. He
thought it to be a great hindrance to the progress of human society.
Proudhon regarded it to be a theft and consequently he recommended
for its abolition. The primary and economic object of these
socialists or communists or anarchists, call them by any name, is the
socialisation of the means of production by the whole community.
But Plato’s communism of property is entirely different from
all these socialists. There is no mention in the Republie of the
socialisation of all the means of production. Plato is only concerned
with the product which is to be partly socialised. The guardians who
live under a system of communism are distinguished
from the rest of
the people by being partners in property. The members of the ruling
classes do not possess any private property. Neither individually nor
collectively do they own a single acre the land and its products are
;
in the hands of the third class of farmers and cultivators. They have
no houses: they live 'encamped’ in common barracks, which are
always open and public.’ Plato deprives them of all gold and silver
and tells them that the “diviner metal is within them, and they have
therefore no need of the dross which is current among men, and
ought not to pollute the divine by any such earthly admixture; for
that commoner metal has been the source of many unholy deeds”.®
They live without house, without land and without money. “But
should they ever acquire homes or lands or money of their own,
they will become housepeople, and husbandmen instead of
guardians, enemies and tyrants instead of allies of the other citizens ;
hating and being hated, plotting and being plotted against, they will
pass their whole life in much greater terror of internal than of external
enemies, and the hour of ruin, both to themselves and to the rest of
the state, will be at hand”.®
But the pertinent question that arises in this connection is, as
to what do they live on ? The answer is that the guardians are to
live on a salary paid to them in kind by the farming classes accord-
only on the best. It exists for the sake of the whole society, but not
for the whole society. It exists only for the governing class. In that
sense it is a political, and not an economic communism which Plato
preaches. Its aim may be said to be the substitution of a trained
and professional government, supported by a system of regular taxa-
tion, for an unprofessional and unpaid government”.’’ According to
Prof. Sabine, “Plato’s order of ideas is exactly the reverse of that
which has mainly animated modern socialist utopias ;
he does not
state in competing for the loyalty of rulers.^^ Plato wished the rulers
of his ideal state to be troubled neither by distractions from their
work, nor by temptations to self-interest. He had deprived them of
property, because the core of it was a distraction, and the desire for
it was a temptation.^* He also deprives them of private families
because, he thinks, that the very coming into existence of families
will introduce the question of ‘mine’ and ‘thine’. It will, thus,
destroy that corporate feeling which is "the very basis of the state.
Plato wants “that the wives of our guardians are to be common,
and their children are to be common, and no parent is to know his
own nor any child his parent”. Plato’s scheme, tterefore, is
child,
a system of communism in the sense of common ownership. No
guardian will be able to say of any wife or child, “She, or he, is
mine” but all guardians will be able to say of all wives and children,
;
and stunted capacities. Pull down the walls, and let the free air of
a common life blow over the place where they have been”. It is in
this way that the home is condemned as a centre of extreme
and exclusiveness. Plato further condemns it as a place
selfishness
where “each man dragging any acquisition which he has made into
a separate house of his own, where he has a separate wife and
children and private pleasures and pains’’.^® It is again condemned
by Plato as a “place of wasted talents and dwarfed powers, where
the mind of the wife is wasted on the service of the tables. ”-'® These-
/homes will also be dominated by such things as “the flattery of the
rich by the poor, and all the pains and pangs which men experience
however, that Plato denies his guardians a normal sexual life. This
leads us to a further discussion as to how the sexual life of the
guardians, and the production of children among them is regulated.
In order to encourage matings between those best fitted to produce
children of the desired quality, the rulers will arrange periodic
hymeneal purposes, and will authorise on each of these
festivals for
occasions such a number of matings as may be necessary to help the
population of the state at just the right figure. These acts of coition
willbe sanctified by impressive and holy ceremonies designed to
emphasize the noble purpose of the union and to eliminate all
elements of lust and obscenity what more powerful urge to excellence
could the ingenuity of man devise
One very pertinent question in this connection needs to be
answered. What about those children who will be born out of such
unions ? Plato’s answer in this connection is very clear. The children
born out of such unions will be the prop6rty of the state. The
children at the time of their birth will be taken to a nursery and will
be cared for in common by- the nurses and mothers of the state.
Thus no parent will lavish affection upon one child to the exclusion
of others, but will love all children as their own and, instead of ;
being concerned only for the welfare of those of their own blood,
will strive for the happiness and welfare of all. The guardians of
the state then will come to be one great family in which each will
regard all others as kinsfolk, and will say of every individual, “It is
have been conceived under auspices very unlike the sacrifices and
prayers, which at each hymeneal priestesses and priests and the whole
city will offer, that the new generation may be better and more
useful than their good and useful parents, whereas his child will be
the offspring of darkness and strange lust.^’ Such is the scheme of
Plato according to which the guardians of the state are to have their
wives and families in common.
6.Bases of Plato's Seheme of Communism What is the ;
men have fully played their part on our stage and made their exit
and now perhaps it would be right to call in the women”. At one
place in the Republic, in this very connection, he says, that there is
fellow in the fullness of his life, and by it she attains the fullness of
her own”.®®
Apart from all this, there is one great purpose that Plato’s
scheme of communism serves. It stands for the transformation and
reformation of the family system through which the antithesis that
exists between the family and the state completely disappears. The
abolition of the family, therefore, was not the goal of the author of
the Republic. “Returning as it were to the old days of the tribal
state, in which citizenship meant kinship, he would make the state
—
or rather the rulers of the state a family,', and the family a state ;
and by fusing the two together he would abolish neither of the two,
but rather the antithesis and the antagonism by which they tend to'
be divided”.®’
Plato’s communism of property and wives carries witli it a great
assumption, “that much can be done to abolish spiritual evils by the
abolition of those material conditions in connection with which they
are found. Spiritual ‘dieting’ is the first and primary cure in
Plato’s therapeutics; but a ruthless surgery of material things is also
one of his means. Because material conditions are concomitant with
spiritual evils, they seem to him largely their cause ; and since to
abolish ' the cause is to abolish the effect, he sets himself to a
thorough reform of the material conditions of life. By compelling
men to live under absolutely different conditions in the material
and external organization of their lives, he hopes to produce a totally
different spirit and an utterly different attitude of mind”.®®
In his scheme of community of wives, we may see multifarious
purposes that it serves. It frees the: guardians from the narrowness
and worries of family life. It allows to them a whole time devotion
35. Plato’s Republic, Book V (4-55), Jowett’s Translation, p. 175.
36. E. Barker, op. c/f., p. 221.
37. Ibid., p. 220.
anxiety such as the poor endure. .They will be rid of all these
.
things... and will live a life of bliss ... (Thus) they themselves and
their children are crowned with free food and free everything else that
life needs alive they receive honourable prizes. .
; and in death a
worthy burial”.^®
7. Hellenism in Plato's Communism : In his advocacy of
community of wives and property Plato is not very original. The
idea of communism was known in Athens even much before him. In
Sparta wives were lent but for state purposes. Husbands whose
health had declined were required to give the use of their wives to
men more robust than
themselves in order to secure the maximum
number of healthy offsprings. Children were taken from their parents
at the time of their birth to be brought up by the state. The ruling
class in Sparta had a common mess and lived, to a certain extent, a
common life. Herodotus, the great ancient historian, tells that the .
family may be said to be more than the state, and the individual than
the family. In attaining such a unity we will be carving out the very
destruction of the state.
Secondly, a state is not made up only of so many men, but of
different kinds of men. It is not like a military alliance. Different
persons possess different natures and exhibit different capacities but ;
all of them contribute in their own way to the common life of the
state. Aristotletoo wants unity, but he wants to see unity in
diversity. Extreme unification to Aristotle is not good because, as ;
many attendants are often less useful than a few. Each citizen will
llO A History of Political Thought . Vol. I
have a thousand sons who will not be his sons individually, but
anybody will be his son individually, but anybody will be equally
the son of anybody, and will therefore be neglected by all alike.
unknown.
Seventhly, after having placed all the children in common, i
but know whom they are giving and transferring, and to whom. Anc
the previously mentioned evils, such as assaults, unlawful loves, homi-
happen more often amongst those who are transferred tc
cides, will
the lower classes, or who have a place assigned to them among the
guardians for they will no longer call the members of the class they
;
have left as brothers, and children, and fathers and mothers, and will
not, therefore, be afraid of committing any crimes by reason ol
kinship.
men will not complain of one another, and they will make more pro-
gress, because everyone will be attending to his own business. It is
clearly better that property should be private, but the use of it
common ;
and the special business of the legislator is to create in men
this benevolent disposition.
Thirdly, how immeasurable greater is the pleasure, when a man
feelsa thing to be his own ; for surely the love of self is a feeling
implanted by nature and not given in vain. And further, there is the
greatest pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends or guests
or companions, which can only be rendered when a man has private
property. No one, when men have all things in common, will any
longer set an example of liberality or do any liberal action ; for
liberality consists in the use which is made of property.
Fourthly, experience of life is against communism. Let us
remember that we should not disregard the experience of ages in the ;
although sometimes they are not put together in other cases men do ;
that he can be said to live for others, he does not lose his indivi-
duality ;
becomes a greater one. In this sense rt
rather his individuality
may be said that what Plato had in view was not the abolition of
individuality, but the raising of it to the highest possible pitch through
esprit de corps”
10. Plato's Communism versus Modern Communism : Plato’s
communism was not designed for the removal of property.. It rather
advocates the philosophy of property. The modern communism is
meant for the removal of property and exposes the poverty of philo-
sophy to reform and to improve the present day world. Plato’s
communism remains what has been called by Prof. Natrop as “half
communism”. It is not an institution of the social whole. It affects
less than half of the person, and much less than half of the goods, of
the society to which it belongs.**^ The modern communism affects the
whole society and is applicable to all. Plato’s communism does not
emphasise the doctrine of equality, whereas modern communism is
based on the principle of equality. Plato’s communism envisages
community of wives and property, whereas the modern communism
is concerned only with the latter aspect of it. Plato’s communism is
to be realised through the agency of the state, whereas modern
communism regards the state as an executive committee serving the
interests of the capitalists’ class and believes in its extinction. The
Platonic communism regards the state as a partnership in all science,
a partnership in all arts, a partnership in all virtue and in all per-
fection. Plato’s communism is realised through a system of classes.
with surprising rapidity, and so, although at first 1 was filled with an
ardent desire to enter politics, when I considered all this and saw
how chaotic the political situation was, I felt completely baffled.
The Union of Political Power and Philosophic Insight 115
alone can real justice both for the state and for the individual be
discovered and enforced. Mankind (f said) will find no cessation
from evil until either the real philosophers gain political control or
else the politicians become by some miracle real philosophers”.^
2. Plato’s faith ift the gentry and contempt for the working
class: Although after the anti-democratic revolution Plato had come
to realize that ‘gentlemen’ behaved worse than the demagogues of
the proletariat, but this did not affect any change in his contempt
for the working class. “Plato remained an aristocrat, convinced
that the peasant, the craftsman, and the shopkeeper were incapable
'
convinced
not come through the normal political channels.* He was
so far that everything could be set aright if the gentlemen of the state
4. Ibid., p. 11.
5. The Republic of Plato, Book V (473), Jowett’s translation, p. 203.
6. E. Barker, Greek Political Theory—Plato and His Predecessor^
p* 203*
7. The Republic of Plato, Book VI (485), Jowett’s translation, p. 215.
8. Ibid. (485), p. 216.
The Union of Peflitical Power and Philosophic Insight 117
whole, and which has its vision set on all time and on all existence.®
His mind is not to be influenced by fear, greed or personal passion
has nothing to make it unjust.^® He also possesses a sort of mental
symmetry or proportion which makes the mind adaptable to the
nature of things. He will be gentle, sociable, a lover of learning
having a good memory and moving spontaneously in the world of
being.”
The philosopher, again, possesses a simple and ideally the
good nature. The philosophic nature, in man, is thus the source of
many different things. It is the source of the love of beauty,
including the literary and the artistic sense. The philosophic element
inman, then, is the essentially human element, it is what makes a
man a man, and therefore in its fullness it implies a perfect humanity,
a fully gifted human nature. For a conception parallel to this we
should turn in modem times to religious thought. It is to be found in
the love of God and man which is represented in the 2Iew Testament
as resulting in all virtues, and making a perfect man.^® We
may find in this conception of philosophy a combination of the
scientific and reh'gious spirit in their highest forms. It represents
“the desire to be at one with the laws of nature, and to live according
to nature and as to Plato the world is emphatically the work of a
;
can sketch the ground plan of the city, because they alone can see
the original, and~can copy_ it, by letting their eyes wander to and
fro, from the model to the picture, and back from the picture to the
model. As a planner of the city, the philosopher is helped by the
light of his goodness and wisdom.^’
6. The Philcsopher-king : In all the philosophical writings
of Plato none of his ideas is so profoundly original and exceedingly
interesting as his doctrine of the philosopher-king. It was, as it
were, a plan carefully devised by Plato to save the society of his day
from death and decay. It was a deliberate attempt on his part to
create a superman, who could become for the citizens of his state a
friend, philosopher and guide at the same time and who, by leading ;
it is the
product
class of convention through use and wont
;
it rises' ;
an institution.
8. Establishment of the RuleofTrained and Scientific Intelli-
gence The philosophic power which is sovereign and supreme in
;
in society are dogmas for most of those who live under them. They
yield them an unreasoning assent, and it may be an implicit obedience.
Here, as elsewhere, it is the task of philosophy to substitute knowl-
edge for belief, to discover the reasons for these rules and to approve
or judge them in the light of reason”.*® In this rule of intelligence
there is no place to that political selfishness and ignorance which had
brought a complete ruin to the Athenian state of his day. To Plato,
it is only through such a rule of knowledge that the real social
progress of a society can be achieved. It led Prof. G. H. Sabine to
observe, “The true romance of the Republic is the romance of free
intelligence, unbounded by customs, untrammelled by human
stupidity and self-will, able to direct the forces even of custom and
stupidity themselves along the road to a rational life. The Republic
is eternally the voice of the scholar, the profession of faith of the
nl'
Jowetl’s translation, p. 131.
Zo. iDia. v4Z3), p. 333.
29. Ibid. (423), pp 133-134.
30. BW. (424),p. 134.
31. E. Barker., op. c//., p. 205.
^32. From the Introduction to The Republic of Plato by B. Jowett,’
122 A History of Political Thought : Vol. I
CHAPTER 1
‘actual’. But it is, however, a fact that even here the ‘ideal’ is not
completely abandoned. The practicality that comes in human life
with the advancement of age is met with resistance. According to
Prof. Maxey, the Statesman was the result of Plato’s personal
disillusionment that he suffered “through the failure of his attempt
to inaugurate the aristocracy of his dreams under the patronage of
Dionysius II of Syracuse, and after he had witnessed the completion
of the cycle of political degeneration in Athens. Disillusionment
coupled with advancing years may have chilled his poetic enthusiasm
and venomed the barbs of his irony, but they did not impair the
clarity of his vision or shake his loyalty to the ideal. He still seeks
the City of Light, hoping, if not believing, that philosophers may be
kings and kings philosophers”.^
1. Change in the Platonic stand : In the Statesman is
(B) The Laws The Laws of Plato is the product of his old
;
definitely a work of his old age, and all critics agree in finding in it
made for the liberties in this regard that the dialogue-form permitted ;
tion alone that Plato derived the plan of the state of the Laws? It
Plato : His Political Ideas — The Statesman & The Laws >29
and arranges marriage. It rules even in death because the very dead
has tobe buried accofding to Jaw. It also regulates the material
interests of the community such as property and every relationship
between man and man that arises from property. He thus realises
the cardinal importance of law, both in the life of citizens and the
state and advocates its supremacy. He says
“Lefnbt Sicily nor any city anywhere be subject to human
-bad both for masters and for subjects, for themselves, for
their children’s children, and for all their posterity”.^^
Post’s translation.
11 . The Laws, 334 c^d. L. A.
Sabine, op. ci(., p. 72.
12 . G. H.
Vol II, The Laws, Book IV (704), p. 477.
13. The Dialogues of Plato,
E. Barker, op. cit., p. 316.
14. Dr.
Jowett’s translation, p. 477.
15. The Laws, Book IV (705),
130 A History of Politico! Thought : Vol. I
because had there been abundance, there might have been agreatexport
trade, and a great return of gold and silver which has the most fatal
results on a state whose aim is the attainment of just and noble
sentiments.^* The state should also be deficient in timber, so that it
of the.^llolmen.t. The houses and the land will be divided in the same
way, so that every man may correspond to a lot.^® According to
Prof. Barker, “The number is in no sense arbitrarily chosen. Plato
had always believed in number; and in the last
the significance of
period of his life the PythagorCTn element grew even stronger, and
Platonic philosophy became still more a philosophy of number’’.”
W riting about number in the Laws Plato says, ‘Every legislator
this ‘
number which contains the greatest and most regular and unbroken
series of divisions. The whole of number has every possible division,
and the number 5040 can be divided by exactly fifty-nine divisors,
and ten of these proceed without interval from one to ten this will ;
furnish numbers for war and peace, and for all contracts and dealings,
including taxes and divisions of the land. These properties of
number should be ascertained at leisure by those who are bound by
law to know them, and should be proclaimed at the foundation of
the city’’.-®
subject of education for the young which has such power, whether
for domestic economy, or for politics, or for the arts and crafts, as
has the study of numbers, which quickens the sluggish and stupid to
a vigour and wit beyond the reach of their natural powers. This is
an echo of the doctrine of the Republic, that by mathematics men
may transcend sense, and rise into the region of pure thought.®^
(d) The System of property and Economics of the In
respect to property Plato concedes that the communism of the
Republic was Hence “the system of property pro-
impracticable.
posed in the Laws marks a departure from the communistic
definite
ideal of the Republic” He has accepted in the Laws the principle
of private property Although Plato in the Laws has accepted the
doctrine of private property but he is fully alive to the various evils
that may arise out of the possession of private property Hence
he has advocated that property must be a combination of private
ownership and public control.*® “The philosopher fully appreciates
the economic basis of political discord. A tranquil state will be one
in which there is neither extreme poverty nor extreme wealth”.*®
That is why he asks the rich citizens, if there are any, to share
voluntarily their wealth with the poor to prevent any civil dissension.
The design of social arrangement, as Dr. Barker says, should be the
reconciliation of economic interests and the blending of social
differences.
In this second best ideal state, lands and houses will be distri-
buted as private property. “But in making the distribution, let the
several possessors feel that their particular lots also belong to the
whole city;
and seeing that the earth is their parent, let them tend
her more carefully than children do their mother. For, she is a
goddess and their queen, and they are her mortal subjects”.” What
Plato is advocating is the private possession with common use. This
advocacy of Plato implies that the “right to property must be
recognised as a socially created right, to be used for the benefit of
society: it must not be regarded as an absolute or inherent right of
the individual, entitling him to do what he likes with his own”.^® In
this state there will be as many
as 5040 original lots enjoyed by the
same number of citizens. These lots will be equal and inalienable.”
In order that there may always be one citizen for each of the lots
the population must be kept stationary at the number of 5040. A
patrimony is always to descend undivided to one son, chosen by his
father, who will keep up the household worship.®® Daughters are to
be provided for by marriage, and to ensure their marriage, there will
be a law against giving or receiving dowries.®^ A man’s remaining
sons will be provided for by encouraging adoption on the part of
the childless or those who have been bereaved of their sons. Plato is
thus aware that his scheme demands that the normal family shall be
of one or two children. Tendency to overpopulation will be counter-
acted by ‘moral suasion’, or in the last resort, by sending out a
colony.®® Apparently no ‘artificial’ methods of birth-control are
contemplated by Plato. Unavoidable depopulation by epidemics and
the like can be met, though reluctantly, by inviting new settlers.
Plato in this connection writes in the Laws, “We ought not to intro-
duce citizens of spurious birth and education, if this can be avoided;
but even God is said not to be able to fight against necessity”.®®
Besides property in land, Plato also makes a mention of posses-
sion of property in wealth. Plato accordingly provides that every
citizen should be permitted to acquire possessions, up.to the value of
four times that of the lot,®* Accumulation will be checked by the
establishment of four economic classes, the poorest possessing
nothing beyond their patrimony, the richest being allowed to possess
no more than four times the yield of the patrimony. The other two
classes are determined by the possession of wealth to the amount of
Plato : His Pofitical Ideas — The Statesman & The Imws 133
two and three times the value of the share of the land ; and property
accumulated by any citizen in excess of the fourfold measure will
be subject to summary confiscation by the state.®®
As of the economic life of the community,
regards the rest
Plato says that the state will be an agricultural community. No
citizen or servant of a citizen can practise any handicraft art.®® In
that state there will not be much opportunity for making money;
no man either ought, or indeed will be allowed, to exercise an
ignoble method of money-making which perverts a free and gentle
nature.®’ Further be decreed by the authority of the state
it will
that no private man shall be allowed to possess gold and silver, but
only coins for daily use, which is almost necessary in dealing with
artisans. There will be a common Hellenic currency, but its money
not circulate abroad.®® No citizen of the state shall lend money
will
upon interest and the borrower should be under no obligation to
;
statement, then, is true, that the very rich are not good, and, if they
are not good, they are not happy”,®* The state which desires good-
npss for its members and unity for its own existence will base itself
exclusively on agriculture andwUl not produce so much which may
it
compel its citizens to neglect that for the sake of which riches exist
i.e., soul and body.®’ Under such an economic system in the life of
the state, the task of the legislator will become very easy. For, he
has nothing to do with laws about shipowners and merchants and
retailers and innkeepers and tax-collectors and mines and money-
lending and compound interest and innumerable other things, bidding
good-bye to these, he gives laws to husbandmen and shepherds
and beekeepers.®®
(e) The institution of family and marriage of the state —
the Republic Plato advocated community of wives and children in
He drags them into the arena of public life and suggests for them a
system of common tables. He allows marriage to be controlled in
that of the Republic. The outlines of the curriculum are exactly like
that of the Republic. He provides a universal compulsory education
for women. The difference is primarily in the organization of educa-
tion —a system of public regulated schools with paid teachers and a
magistrate who is responsible for maintaining the educational institu-
tions of the state. He is considered as chief of the magistrates. Plato
still distrusts poets and and
believes in severe censorship of literature
art. The most important office in the Platonic slate is that of the
minister of education. The well-being of the community depends
directly on the character of the education given to successive genera-
tions, and the overseer of education should therefore be the best and
most illustrious man in the community, as holding its most respon-
sible post. He must be a man of over fifty, with children of his own
and should be elected for a period of five years out of the body of
the guardians of law by the votes of the other magistrates. The
education minister will also be the prime minister of the state.®^
(h) Religion in the Platonic state —Plato
gives a very impor-
tant place to religion the scheme
of his state. Religion, like
in
education, is subjected to the rules and regulations of the state. Plato
forbids private religious exercise. Religious rites will be performed
only in public temples and that too by authorised priests. He also
suggests that a creed of religion must be created by the state. This
makes the Platonic state a theocratic state,
which is contrary to the
principles of secularism. He
proposes penalty for the disbelievers of
reUgion and even imprisonment and death to the atheist.
It is in this way that Plato outlines the plan of his state. He
tries his utmost to be practical and realist, but his idealistic tempera-
ment proves to be too strong for his practicability and realism. But
it does not mean that the plan of the state
not founded on practi- is
cal propositions. “Even the desert tracts are full of practical hints and
suggestions and those who have studied the Laws have seldom gone
;
anything
delete that social science has taught
, 1 IS IS that man
not ‘completely free intelligence’, but he is,
is
in a arge part, a
product of his environment. He is conditioned in
IS eelmgs, his thoughts,
his actions, by the society in which he
happens to live. And the society
itself, in which he lives, is a product
historical process, not
a pattern of life designed and constructed
by rational minds. Wa all,
in fact, am craatnres
of Athens was not an exception
of history. Plato
to this historical fact. His political
p ilosophy was influenced in a very large
measure by the local Hellenic
^ it does not
mean in any way that his
pohtica hinkmg is essentially local
and narrowly dated. In fact,
Plato, like Shakespeare,
not for an age but for all times. His
is
writings contain a good deal which
may be described of universal
validity. No genius, howsoever poetic
he may be, can ever formulate
The Hellenism and Universalisni in Plato 139
its citizens. Like Sparta Plato also sacrificed the interest of indivi-
dual and that of his family for the cause of the state. This subordi-
nation of the individual and his family to the authority of the state
led certai n writers to believe that Plato was a great fascist. In Sparta
weak and deformed children were destroyed through a practice of
‘exposure’. The central idea behind this practice was to have only
..
hedthy children who were to become strong and sturdy soldiers for
maintaining the life of the state. The matrimonial control on eugenic
grounds in the Republic carries the Spirit of Spartan practice with
it. most genuinely Spartan feature was the dedication of
“Its
education exclusively to civic training,”* Plato was again greatly !
but in —
war and in the midst of peace to his leader he shall direct
his eye and follow him faithfully and even in the smallest matter he
;
property as the sole source of evil both would eliminate wealth and
;
from paternal care both regard art and literature only as a means
;
7. Ibid., p. 92.
8. Ibid., p. 92.
9. C. C. lAaxcy, Political Philosophies, 5xb edition (1956), p. 55.
10. Ibid., p. 55.
The Hellenism and Vniversalism in Plato 143
vision of the ideal state was intimately connected with the expecta-
tion of a tyrant —a type of philosophical superman —who would give
body to his idea.”^^
Plato’s reasoning that the ideal sort of life in the society can be
possible only through an ideal scheme of government, that the
individual good consists in promoting the good of all, that the best
life is the life of virtue and that the law is the product of passionless
reason, will make Plato a helpful guide for all generations to come.
His understanding of human nature was remarkable and he looked
on every aspect of human life with a thousand eyes. What keeps him
alive, in fact, is the relationship that he estabhshes between human
(.950,, p. 09.
. H,„ory o„H,
13. Quoted by G. Catlin. p- 71.
CHAPTER 13
Aristotle tell us that Hermias himself invited Aristotle to his court and
rewarded his teacher for past favours by bestowing upon him a sister
or a niece in marriage. One might suspect this as a Greek gift, but
the historians hasten to assure us that Aristotle, despite his genius,
lived happily enough with his wife, and spoke of her most affectionately
in his will”.!^
In the year 342 B.C. he u-as invited to the Macedonian court
by King Philip to take up of the crown prince,
the tutorship
Alexander, who was only thirteen years of age at that time. He
remained there until 336 B.C., when Alexander was called to ascend
the throne of Macedonia after the murder of his father. The
presidency of the Academy, which was occupied by Speusippus, the
nephew of Plato up to this time, was vacant, but Aristotle was not
selected to preside over the affairs of the Academy. “He may have
been offended, for in 335 B.C. he opened a rival school known as
the Lyceum, and he- was followed there by some members of the
Academy; For the next twelve years he was fully occupied by his
work in the Lyceum, and he gradually developed a teaching tradition
of his own, departing from the Platonic tradition of the Academy,
by making biology and history, instead of mathematics, the primary
subjects of study’’.® It was during this period that Aristotle devoted
the city in order, ashe himself said, not to “give the Athenians a
second chance of sinning against philosophy”- He took refuge
under the protection of Antipater, Viceroy to Alexander, in Chalcis
in Euboea, where he died in 322 B.C.
The political atmosphere in v^ich Aristotle lived was not quite
different from that of Plato. He, too, like Plato, lived through
1. Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, 4th edition (1954), pp. 50-51.
2. A. R. M. Murray, An Introductionlo Political Philosophy, 2nd edition,
, (1959), p. 54.
3. Introduction to Aristotle, edited by Richard McKeon, 1947, pp. 9-10.
146 A History of Political Thought : Vol. /
anarchy and war in the Greek city-states. During his life of sixty-
two years he had seen the “most, important and most disastrous
periods of Greek history”. He had witnessed the fall of Sparta and
the establishment of a temporary Theban supremacy in the battle of
Lenctra in 371 B.C. A little before his going to Athens for the
second time, the battle of Chaeronea had been fought in 338 B.C.
inwhich the entire Greek world lost its independence. The great
days of the city-states were plainly over and Aristotle himself laments
the degeneracy of the times. Under these circumstances, to
of unity in the Greek world appeared to be
Aristotle, the prospects
very remote. As to Plato so to Aristotle the unity and stability of
political life became a watchword. His Politics seems clearly to
have been intended by its author primarily as a Statesman’s Manual,
a textbook for constitution-makers, who, through their constitutional
plans, were to provide political unity and stability to the life of the
state by arresting frequent changes. His preliminary political studies
were influenced by the political atmosphere in which he happened to
live. His preliminary studies include a collection and summary
Statement of the political changes that had occurred and of the
political conditions which actually existed in more than one hundred
and fifty of the separate little city-states about the Aegean and
beyond”.^ Through his close study of these little city-states, Aristotle
came to the conclusion that the main reason for their disunity and
political instability was their, defective constitution. It is said that
he studied as many as hundred and fifty-eight constitutions to
prepare a constitution for his own city-state. It has been rightly
interpreted by a number of writers that his Politics, and particularly
its fourth, fifth and sixth books are mere constitutional documentaries
“of the conclusions of Greek history, comprising the results -of the
empiric labour of the last period onthe actual historical constitutions”.
Contemporary political events and social changes left few
marks on his political and moral philosopliy, and the search for
effects of social conditions in his metaphysics and in his contributions
to science has led only to speculative generalizations concerning thb
influence of environmenton thought.® The peace that was .forced
on Athens by the Macedoniamjrulers proved to be a great blessing for
Aristotle. It permitted Aristotle to organize a course of studies
and to initiate a vast scheme of research into the history of political
•
A. CiHr.Mcllwain, Growth of Political Thoueht in the West,\Qth edition
(1957), p. 53.
5. Richard McKeon, op. cit., p. 12.
—
Political Philosophy of Aristotle 147
6. iiW., p..l3.
7. George Catlin, /4 History of the Political Philosophers, (,1950), p. 75 .
the all knowing master in whom the scholastic mind could find
no fault”.^"
3. The Method of Aristotle The method used by Aristotle
:
led the way to the application of that method to the facts of political
life, though, he never thought his task complete as some of our
the horse and not the idea of a horse which was the reality because
it could be known, experienced and seen. Aristotle’s thesis in this
connection was that everything has its own essential substance or
reality, and it is through a careful method of observation and
comparison that this reality may be discovered. This has been often
called as the theory of individual substances as opposed to the theory
of ideas propounded by Plato.
As one who had the training of a physician and loved to limit
his generalizations to the ambit of facts, Aristotle came to the
conclusion that the real scientific method was that which was governed
by a process of collection, observation and examination of particular
facts. Truth, he declared, is concealed in facts and it is only through
their careful analysis that truth may be brought to light. It was
this method which was entirely different from Plato. Where Plato
imagination take flight, Aristotle is factual and dull. Plato
lets his
This formula of Aristotle not only applies to the state, but is also
at some good, but the science of the good for man is politics. Hence
politics and ethics are very much related to each other.
Among his later works are included On Monarchy,
Constitutions, On Colonies and On Philosophy. It is said
that occasionally Alexander the conqueror, in India or the Middle
East, used to remember to send a rock or a mineral, to add
to the natural history collection in which his master, Aristotle, was
interested. In return, the treatise. On Monarchy, was prepared by
Aristotle as a gift to Alexander. His treatise, On Colonies, suggests
152 A History of Political Thought ; Vol. /
the past.
—Benjamin Jowett.
always served as a pillar of light to all those who came after him. It
has been a great source of inspiration to all the political scientists of
the world. Its subject matter is not merely theoretical, but it has a
great practical utility also. For this reason his memory will always
be cherished by political theoreticians and practical statesmen. He
‘based his Politics upon a study of a number of govern-
detailed
ments of his time, especially those of Crete, Carthage, Sparta, and
Athens ; and upon the writings of men who preceded him, such as
Phaleas, Hippodamus, and especially Plato, .The Politics is not a
systematic study .of political philosophy, but rather a treatise on the
art of government. In it Aristotle analyses the evils that were preva-
lent in the Greek cities and the defects in their political systems, and
154 A History of Political Thought : Vol. I
7. Ibid., p. 69.
8. C.H. Mcllwain, Growth of Political Thought in the IVest, 10th edition
(1957), pp. 50-51.
156 A History of Political Thought ; Vol. I
secure justice to all, are things, which will always continue to inspire
the posterity of political scientists.
Another aspect of the controversy is the very authorship of the
work. It is believed by some that the book was not written by
Aristotle himself but they are ‘really notes of Aristotle’s lectures taken
down by his pupils and preserved in the Lyceum’.® There are other
writers who hold that the books of politics are simply the rough notes
prepared by Aristotle himself.^® Some believe that the books were a
several series of lectures delivered at the Lyceum at different times,
and which were put together to constitute the present work.^^
later
Some writers contend that the book was actually produced not by
Aristotle but either by Aristotle’s successors or of their pupils in the
Lyceum.’® Writing in connection with this controversy Prof Mcllwain
has observed, “It seems safe to say that the form of these writings is
somewhat owing to their connection with Aristotle’s actual teaching
in the Lyceum, possibly as students’ notes, but far more likely as the
notes of the master himself and that what we have may be a patch-
;
not that of an editor. But the text belongs to two stages and falls,
therefore, into two main strata. There in the
is, first place, a work
dealing with the ideal state, and with previous theories of it
There is, in the second place, a study of actual states, mainly
democracy and oligarchy, together with the causes of their decay and
the best means of giving them stability”.^® From this conception of
Jaeger it appears that the Politics of Aristotle “was intended to form
a treatise on a single science, but was never subjected to the rewriting
that would have been necessary to bring the parts, written as they
were over a period ofperhaps fifteen years, into a well unified form”.^®
But if this hypothesis of Jaeger is to be taken as correct, the Politics
of Aristotle represents the two stages of his thought. The first stage is
dominated by the influence of Plato where “he still thinks of political
philosophy as the construction of an ideal state upon lines already
laid dOAvn especially in the Statesman and the Law”.^’ The second
stage of thought represents his own line of investigation. It is at this
stage that the scope and purpose of the new science of politics
Dccomes quite larger and general. It deals with both types of state
ideal and as well as actual, and it also teaches the art of governing
ind organizing states of all types. “The whole science of politics,
18. Ibid,p.9Q.
19. Introduction by H. W. C. Davis to Aristotle's Politics, translated by
Jowett, p. 6.
156 A History of Political Thought : Vol. /
(
secure justice to all, are things, which will always continue to inspin
the posterity of political scientists.
Another aspect of the controversy is the very authorship of th
work. It is believed by some that the book was not written b
Aristotle himself but they are ‘really notes of Aristotle’s lectures take
down by his pupils and preserved in the Lyceum’.® There are othe
writers who hold that the books of politics are simply the rough not(
prepared by Aristotle himself.^® Some believe that the books were
several series of lectures delivered at the Lyceum at different time
and which later were put together to constitute the present work.
Some writers contend that the book was actually produced not t
Aristotle but either by Aristotle’s successors or of their pupils in tl
Lyceum.’® Writing in connection with this controversy Prof Mcllwai
has observed, “It seems safe to say that the form of these writings
somewhat owing to their connection with Aristotle’s actual teachir
in the Lyceum, possibly as students’ notes, but far more likely as ll
notes of the master himself and that what we have may be a patd
;
not that of an editor. But the text belongs to two stages and falls,
therefore, into two main strata. There in the
is, first place, a work
dealing with the ideal state, and with previous theories of it
There is, in the second place, a study of actual states, mainly
democracy and oligarchy, together with the causes of their decay and
the best means of giving them stability”.^® From this conception of
Jaeger it appears that the Politics of Aristotle “was intended to form
a treatise on a single science, but was never subjected to the rewriting
[hat would have been necessary to bring the parts, written as they
ivere over a period ofperhaps fifteen years, into a well unified form”.'®
But hypothesis of Jaeger is to be taken as correct, the Politics
if this
Df Aristotle represents the two stages of his thought. The first stage is
secure justice to all, are things, which will always continue to inspire
the posterity of political scientists.
Another aspect of the controversy is the very authorship of the
work. It is believed by some that the book was not written by
Aristotle himself but they are ‘really notes of Aristotle’s lectures taken
down by his pupils and preserved in the Lyceum’.® There are other
writers who hold that the books of politics are simply the rough notes
prepared by Aristotle himself,^® Some believe that the books were a
several series of lectures delivered at the Lyceum at different times,
and which later were put together to constitute the present work.“
Some writers contend that the book was actually produced not by
Aristotle but either by Aristotle’s successors or of their pupils in thr
not that of an editor. But the text belongs to two stages and falls,
therefore, into two main strata. There is, in the first place, a work
dealing with the ideal state, and with previous theories of it ...
There is, in the second place, a study of actual states, mainly
democracy and oligarchy, together with the causes of their decay and
the best means of giving them stability”.^® From this conception
of
Jaeger it appears that the Politics of Aristotle “was intended to form
a treatise on a single science, but was never subjected to the rewriting
that would have been necessary to bring the parts, written as they
were over a period of perhaps fifteen years, into a well unified form”.^®
But if this hypothesis of Jaeger is to be taken as correct, the Politics
of Aristotle represents the two stages of his thought. The first stage is
dominated by the influence of Plato where “he still thinks of political
philosophy as the construction of an ideal state upon lines already
laid down especially in the Statesman and the Law’’.^’ The second
stage of thought represents his own line of investigation. It is at this
stage that the scope and purpose of the new science of politics
becomes quite larger and general. It deals with both types of state
ideal and as well as actual, and it also teaches the art of governing
ind organizing states of all types. “The whole science of politics,
between and the changes within them’ (Book IV, V and VI) and (3)
‘the principles underlying the best state’ (Books VII and VIII)
Prof. G. H. Sabine,^' following Warner Jaeger, a reputed scholai
of Aristotle, puts forward the hypothesis that Books II, III, VII and
VIII, which are mainly concerned with the theories of the ideal state
may take”.**
According to Prof. Catlin, the Politics belongs to Aristotle’
middle period. The four books 11, III, VII and VJII (traditions
numbering, followed by Jowett) belonging to the earlier Platoni
period, AVere occupied with the discussions of the ideal state. Book
IV, V and VI, which comprise the results of the empiric labou
devoted to the study of historical constitutions, represent the mor
mature period of Aristotle’s life. It is, however, agreed by al
thinkers that Book I was added later as an introduction to th
entire work-*®
4. The Theme of the 'Politics’ of Aristotle : In the history o
political philosophy no one has surpassed Aristotle in encyclopedi
interest and accomplishments. His Politics which consists of eigh
parts covers a wide range of subjects, political science, education
ethics, jurisprudence, psychology and economics. He himself describe(
the Politics as a treatise on government. He opens his Politics witl
two important ideas : namely, (1) that the state is a community, an(
(2) that it is the highest of all communities, “which embraces all th(
of the state, have learnt a great deal from Aristotle. His doctrine of
proportionate equality has been accepted by all socialist thinkers,
and champions of economic democracy. "If you take English political
thought and action from Pitt and Fox onwards”, writes Prof.
Gilbert Murray, “it seems to 'me that you will always find present. . •
a sure consciousness that the poor arc the fellow citizens of the rich,
and that statesmen must as a matter of fact consider the welfare of
the whole state”.*®
His classification of states was followed almost by all political
philosophers in all ages. His doctrine that the state must be based on
the rule of law has been one of the most civilizing and liberalizing
political influences in the 19th century. "In England, A. V. Dicey’s
formulation of the rule of law and its specific relations to the British
political system has become a vital contribution to the understanding
of constitutional government. The concept of the rule of law, of the
constitutional state,is perhaps the most important legacy Aristotle
continues to exist for the sake of good life”, explains that theory of
miraculous way in which he has resolved this, tangle, has been duly
recognised and respected by all serious minter^ of political science.
He has no patience with the idea that the state is the handiwork of
God, or the result of a superior physical force or the playwright of
individuals. The instrumentalist view of the state as propounded
by the Sophists that the state was an ‘instrument, a mechanism, a
piece of machinery to be used for purposes and ends higher than
itself,’. had been completely rejected by Aristotle. The theory was,
however, revived in the modern times by such philosophers as Hobbes,
Locke and John Dewey.
While giving his explanation of the origin of the state, Aristotle
makes a searching analysis and comes to conclude that the origin of
the state is to be found in the evolution of human nature. The
state, according to him, is a natural institution. “It is founded no
164 A History of Political Thought : Vol, I
that the race • may continue ; and this is a union which is formed,
not of deliberate purpose ; but because, in common with other
animals and with plants, mankind have a natural desire to leave
behind them an image of themselves”.® The family, thus, automati-
cally comes into existence for the satisfaction of biological needs. It
is an association that satisfies not only the biological needs but also
everyday material wants of human existence.
But the family was not able to satisfy all the needs. “The
association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs”.’
Man’s social sentiment, his desire for companionship and community,
led to the natural extension of the family, and thus, the village came
into existence. The village, according to Aristotle, is the second
stage in the development of the state. And
most natural form the
of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family,
composed of the children and grand-children, who are said to be
“suckled with the same milk”.® The village is a wider society and is
able to satisfy new needs of human life. But the village is not all
important. It is the halfway house on the road of development.
But it makes possible the transition from the household to the state.
In this development of the state. Prof. Ebenstein says, the
family is the first form of association, lowest in the chain of social
evolution, and lowest on the rung of values, because it is established
by nature “for the supply of men’s daily wants”. The village is the
sufficiency and promotes a good life. It does not exist merely for
companionship but for the sake of noble actions. Thus, the state,
natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the (completed)
nature is For what each thing is when fully developed,
the end.
we whether we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a
call its nature,
family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and
to be self-sufficing is the end and the best. Hence, it is evident that
the state is a creation of nature and that man is by nature a political
animal”.^^ It is to be noted here that Aristotle does not make any
distinction between state and society. In his case both the terms
are synonymous and convertible. If it is to be said that man by
nature is a political animal, and at the same time, if it is to be said,
that man by nature is a social animal, it does not make any
difference to Aristotle. Aristotle, again, dpes not recognise any
difference between social and political associations in as much as
they aim at a common good through joint action the state differs;
of the individual and that of the state. If the life of the state is
very nature of man. Man by nature is a social' animal and his instint-,
always herds him into society. He looks towards
tive gregariousness
the society for support because of his lack for self-sufficiency. It,
therefore, follows that the state is natural, as it is inherent in human
nature. Aristotle again gives a very fine argument to illustrate that
the state is natural. His argument is that nature always works for
the best or what is best is the product of nature. State is the best
this end that the state comes into existence. It is in this sense tliat
lance with
^’"Cted
CO m the individualist..
'^'--eep the fascists but
is a
questifnto^whlchthil t
answer in their own way
Aristotle is of sunremp
^ answer given to this
provide an
question by
the development "
of substenrtuSif Thfaanswer
as Itwas in his own times is valid today
The staS according to Aristotle, does
aot exist merely to
satkfJ th w’
^xiststopZl a Se
Aristotle, in this ^^Prality among its citizens,
connection
nto existence
oke of good
^
fclr
m"
ml
sate of
b^
? “
comes
f“ “=
A Tool P I
tee types of goods—
external
'0^5*^?"^
'n*
°
=^“““ In the external
»°ds. Aristotle iwuoes wealth,
inclndefweift 1
slave and leisure
1,
etc. In the
19. Politics, Book 11 , 2 , p. 55
20. AW., Book II, 55.
3.P.
21. Ibid., Book II,
2, p. 57.
170 A History of Political Thought : Vol. /
4. Classification
of the State Aristotle’s classification of
:
explain that the state has come into existence through an evolutionary
process which is nature of man. The
connected with the very
theory, however, has ignored many
which have contributed
factors
to state building. The theory is not only historical but economic
also. It is an economic theoiy because its origin is traced to the
does not mean that by this new approach and attitude he shows a
disregard and disrespect to his teacher who loved him so dearly and
considered him as the intellect of his school. He has his own con-
victions about things which impel him to speak the truth howsoever
bitter. “He sees the root of endless mysticism and scholarly nonsense
i74 A History of Political Thought : Vol. I
man’s rights, duties and rewards should correspond to his merit and
social contribution”. Justice in the state' , therefore, is relative and not
absolute. It is only in an ideal state that justice becomes absolute
and is identified with absolute virtue.
right to receive the cost of his commodity, and keeps something with
the other was weak. They differ in many fundamental respects from
each other. Firstly, Aristotelian justice lays emphasis on a system
of rights, while Platonic justice attaches more importance to duties.
One is a teacher of rights but the other is a preacher of duties. The
Aristotelian justice is based, as it were, on the principle “every
one
should have his own”. The Platonic justice, on the contrary, is based
on the principle “every one should do his own”. The former,
therefore, is a system of rights but the latter is a system of duties.
Secondly, Aristotle’s justice is legal in character. The legal side of
it is represented by his corrective justice,
the Platonic, justice,- on the
—
178 A History of Political Thought : Vol. /
a system to deal with the clash of interests. It docs not issue forth
in any juridical organization. It is based on idealism and, hence, it
is far removed from realities. Thirdly, Aristotelian justice establishes
equality between different members of the state,-while the Platonic
justice establishes a hierarchy of classes. According to this justice,
citizens are divided into three classes, each of which performs a
particular set of functions. Every citizen is bound to do his duties
for which he is called as an organ of the state. Lastly, the Aristotelian
justice is based on a classification of complete and particular justice.
Plato does not attempt any such classification. His justice rests on
three different elements of the human soul reason, spirit and —
appetite.
THEORY OF EDUCATION
1. Introductory: No
government can afford to ignore the
character of its citizens. The
success of a government is not to be
judged by its efficient administration, but by the type of character
that it produces among its citizens. The best
life, both for individuals
and States, is the life of virtue which is so essential for the
performance of good actions. Education is the only agency through
which a life of nobility, discipline and high character can be acquired.
It is only through this agency
that the triumph of the forces of
goodness, beauty and Justice can be secured over
the forces of evil,
ignorance and injustice. Aristotle, like Plato,
does not ignore this
hard fact and devotes sufficient space in his Book
VII and VIII to
the discussion of his theory of education.
2. Purpose of Education : Aristotle does not make any
distinction between the life of the state and its
citizens. Since the
Theory of Education 181
political society”.®
The purpose of education is also to provide training in art of
citizenship. A citizen according to Aristotle is one who Knows how
to rule and be ruled®, and one who actively participates in the affairs
of the state. It is the business of education to prepare a good ruler
and an obedient subject. In this connection, Aristotle has stated
that “if some men same degree in which gods
excelled others in the
and heroes’ are supposed to excel mankind in general, having in the
first place a great advantage even in their bodies, and secondly in
men should “study war with a view to the enslavement of those who
do not desen’e to be enslaved ; but first of all they should provide
against their own enslavement, and in the second place obtain
empire for the good of the governed, and not for the sake of
exercising a general despotism”.^® He suggests that “the legislator
should direct all his military and other measures to the provision of
they can make the fullest use and enjoyment of their leisure.
The purpose of education in an ideal state is to make the life
of citizens virtuous and happy. Since the aim of the ideal state is
also the without education, the aim
same, of the ideal state wilt
always remain unrealised. The state is a manifold diversity. The
‘
which lasts from 7 to 14 years, and (c) the secondary stage beginning
from 14 right up to 21 years.
(a) The Cradle Stage At the cradle stage proper attention
:
education habit must go before reason, and the body before the
mind. The boys, therefore, should be handed over to the trainer,
who creates in them the proper habit of body, and to the wrestling
master, who teachesthem their exercises. The light gymnastic
exercises are thought useful at this stage because they infuse courage
among the boys. The boys at this stage should also be helped to
learn reading, writing and drawing. Aristotle calls the customary
branches of education which he regards are useful for the purposes
of life in a variety of ways."^ Reading and writing are useful because,
through them, many other sorts of knowledge are required. The
study of drawing is also extremely useful for our boys, because “it
makes them judges of the beauty of the human forms”.®® It develops
their aesthetic sense and makes them the lover of bea.uty. Music
also forms a very important part of education at this stage. Music
is considered by Aristotle as one of the very fine and noble arts
which is essential for relaxation and providing necessary comfort to
the tense conditions of human soul. It is again necessary for the
best utilization of leisure. In this connection Aristotle himself
writes in his Politics, “Our fathers admitted music into education,
not on the ground either of its necessity or utility, for it is not
necessary, nor indeed useful in the same manner as reading and
writing, which are useful in money-making, in the management of a
household, in the acquisition of knowledge and in political life, nor,
like drawing, useful for a more correct judgment of the works of
artists, nor again like gymnastic, which gives health and strength
and the banqueters in the hall, sitting in order, hear the voice of the
minstrel”. Music is to be admitted into the scheme of education
not only for the sake of intellectual enjoyment of leisure, but also
to have good iritluence over the character and the soul. Aristotle
in this connection has particularly mentioned the songs of Olympus
is tile first essential of the best state, and the administration of such
a system is the most important function of government”.^®
6. Appreciation and Criticism Aristotle’s theory of education :
from its very inception providing for a rigid regulation of the times
and conditions of marriage and procreation and of the care of the
young. In this way “will be insured the ideal basis for the later
training, the finished product of which will be matured manhood of
physical grace and beauty, combined with a moral and intellectual
fitness for the lofty thought and noble action that are worthy of the
free man’s leisure”. Another very important part of his theory
of education is that where he “stresses the importance of influencing
children by the right kind of stories, pictures and plays”.®® Aristotle
rightly “believes that education should first be directed to the culti-
learnt between the mother’s kiss and father’s caress. It affords them
all opportunities for the development of personality. It inspires
confidence in thein and stimulates themto take mfefestintheir work.
Without it man’s life will dwindle and decay and will become worse
than beasts. The institution of the family, which is so dear to us,
was regarded by Plato .as a cur.se. He subjected it to a vehement
Aristotle's Theory of Communism 191
abolition.
2. Plato's Indignation against the Family. Plato regarded the
institution of the family as a sacred curse. It makes him narrow and
selfish in his outlook. coming into existence in society introduces
Its
the question of ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ which are the challenge to its
very foundation. It makes an individual essentially materialistic and
compels him to forget about that life which is the life of the soul.
It leads to the frustration of personality both on the part of husband
and wife. Dr. E. Barker, in his characteristic fashion, has very
nicely put forward the stand of Plato. Every Englishman’s house
is a castle we say. Pull down the walls Plato would reply for they ;
a conflict either for the noble or for the base. Plato’s conception
of Absolute Unity, therefore, was false.
Again, after attaining absolute unity, the state can no longer
be a state because the very nature of the state is to be a plurality.*
In tending to greater and greater unity, the state, in fact, becomes a
family, and in the continuation of this process the family becomes an
individual. We, ought not to attain this greatest unity
therefore,
because in attaining Such a unity, we would be carving out the very
destruction of the state.*
Again, a state is composed not of several but of unlike members
whose dissimilarity makes possible that mutual exchange of services
for which all associations exist.'* It is the different capacities of
men that draw them together in society. Differentiation is, therefore,
the necessary basis of arly communion-* It is not like a military
alliance, of which the usefulness depends upon its quantity even
where there is no difference in quality. Aristotle also aims at unity
but he wants to see unity in diversity.®
Again, the end of the state cannot be unity. True end is to
be found in the full satisfaction of individual wants. Self-sufflciency,
therefore, is the true end of the state. But if “self-sufficiency is to
be desired, the lesser degree of unity is more desirable than
the greater".’
Again, if It is to be supposed for the time being that it were
best for the epmmunity to have the greatest degree of unity, this
unity is by no means indicated by the fact of all men saying ‘mine'
and ‘not mine’ at the same instant of time.® “There is an obvious
fallacy in the term ‘all’, it is ambiguous and in argument becomes a
source of logical puzzles. That ail persons call the same thing mine
in the sense in which each does so may be a fine thing, but it is
impracticable”.® “And there is another objection to the proposal.
For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care
bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all
noted here that Plato was not an' enemy of private proj)erty in
Aristotle's Theory of Communism 195
that corporate feeling which is the very basis of the state. He, thus,
recommends for the guardians of his ideal state a life of poverty,
asceticism and non-possession.
3. Aristotle's objection to the Platonic stand: Aristotle’s views
The second was the common possession of property and its private
use. The third was the private poS'session and its common use. It
is the third alternative of having private property and making its
sacred and untouchable by society and it does not remain high and
dry above the rising tide of social forces.
But by this justification of private property it should not be
construed to mean that Aristotle was not aware of the evils that
result through a system of private property. But he contends that
they “are due to a very different cause— the wickedness of human
nature”. Things, therefore, cannot be improved through a system
of equality of property, but through the moral improvement of man.
A system of education should train the “nobler sort of natures not
to desire more, and to prevent the lower from getting more; that is
to say, they must be kept down, but not ill treated”. “What seems
most important to Aristotle is not who owns property but how
property is used, and that is an essentially moral question, not one of
political economy”."
5. True Communism is spiritualistic and not materialistic It\ :
ownership”.
6. Aristotle's scheme of property in the ‘Politics ' : Aristotle’s
scheme of property in the Politics resembles very closely with that of
Plato as outlined in The Laws. Like Plato the whole land of the
state is divided into, equal lots. Each citizen will have his own lot
cian’s art but the one aims at victory and the other at health.
;
Nevertheless, some men turn every quality or art into a means of get-
ting wealth ; this they conceive to be the end, and to the proportion
of the end they think all things must contribute”.
What Aristotle wants to emphasise
to have wealth in a
is
of the rich against unjust treatment, of the people against insult and
oppression”. “Aristotle’s deep sympathy for monarchy, as expressed
in the Politics in so many pages, is to be understood in the light of
his relations with the rising Macedonian monarchy. His father had
been ''the royal physician the Macedonian court, and Aristotle
at
himself the tutor of Alexander”.* In aristocracy also merit and
virtue are the distinctive qualities which are considered in selecting
rulers. The only difference between monarchy and aristocracy is
that while in the former virtue is centered in one ‘pre-eminent’ man,
while in the latter virtueis diffused among several men.
But since ideal conditions do not exist for an ideal state, one
should think of the best attainable. In order to do this one should
follow the doctrine of the golden mean in deciding between other
constitutions. According to Aristotle that polity is certainly the
best which avoids the political extremes. Political extremes, to him,
include only those who are members of the state, and who form an
essential part of it. The number of the latter is a proof of the
ideal state, Aristotle gives a very important place to the site and
situation of the city. The best situation of the city will command
both the advantages of sea and land for military as well as for
commercial purposes. "It would, undoubtedly, be better both with
a view to safety and to the provision of necessaries, that the city
and territory should be connected with the sea the defenders of a ;
able to attack by sea and land at once, they will have less difficulty
in doing mischief to their assailants on one element, if they them-
selves can use both”.^"* The city will practise trade and commerce
but only to the of its requirements. “It is necessary
satisfaction
that they should import from abroad what is not found in their own
country, and that they should export what they have in excess, for
a city ought to be a market not indeed for others, but for herself”
The city should have dockyards and harbours placed outside the city,
but not too far off and they should be protected by walls and
other fortifications. Cities thus situated manifestly reap the benefit
of intercourse with their ports ;
and any harm which is likely to
accrue may be easily guarded which will
against by the laws,
pronounce and determine who may hold communication with one
another and who may not”.^® The city should also have a naval
force. The citizens require such a force for their own needs, and
they should also be formidable to their neighbours in certain cases.
“The proper number or magnitude of this naval force is relative to
the character of the state ; for if her function
a leading is to take
part in politics, her naval power should be commensurate with the
scale of her enterprises”.^’ The mariners, according to Aristotle,
should be free citizens and the sailors should belong to the subject,
agricultural class. The city should also be rich in fruits and the supply
of timber. Timber is essential because it is needed for building
a strong naval force.
(d) The character of the citizens Aristotle is very much — .
which is
war ; fifthly, or rather first, there must be a care of religion,
there
commonly called worship sixthly, and most necessarily of all,
;
and
must be a power of deciding what is for the public interest,
what is just in men's dealings with one another”."^ The indispens-
who are absolutely and not merely relatively just men must not
lead the life of mechanics or tradesmen, for such a life is ignoble
and inimical to virtue. Neither must they be husbandmen, since
leisureis necessary both for the development of virtue and the
performance of political duties”.^®
Again, to the question whether the warriors or councillors
be distinguished, or are both functions to be assigned to the same
mechanics or any other class whose art excludes the art of virtue
have no share Since happiness cannot exist without
in the state’’.^^
virtue and virtue without property, it should therefore be in the
hands of citizens who include the members of the military, political
and judicial classes. It should not belong to the husbandmen because
they “will of necessity be slaves or barbarians or Perioeci’’.^®
Regarding the priestly class, Aristotle says that “no husbandman
should be appointed to it for the Gods should receive honour from
;
the citizens only’’.^® And since the citizen body is divided into two
classes, the warriors and the councillors, the priestly functions,
therefore, should be assigned to the old men of these two classes.®®
In the third place, a change may so take place which may simply
of those who create the revolution ? (2) what are the motives of
those who make them ? and (3) whence arise political disturbances
and quarrels The universal and chief cause of this revolutionary
feeling is the desire Democracy, for example, arises
of equality.
out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal
in all respects because men are equally free, they claim to be abso-
;
lutely equal. Oligarchy is based on the notion that those who are
unequal in one respect are in all respects unequal. As for example,
being unequal in property, they suppose themselves to be unequal
absolutely. All these forms of government have a kind of justice,
and when people think that their share in the government does not
accord with their pre-conceived ideas and notions, revolutions take
place." The inferiors revolt in order that they may be equal, and
are also the motives which become responsible for revolutions. The
motives for making the revolutions, according to Aristotle, are the
desire of gain and honour, or the fear of dishonour and loss the ;
conspired against the people through fear of the suits that were
brought against them.^“
Contempt is also a cause of revolution and insurrection. As
for example, in oligarchies, the political power resides in the hands
of a few persons and the majority is left without it. These men of
majority revolt because they think that they are the stronger.^^ What
happens in democracies that the rich despise the disorder and anarchy
of the state and, hence, they create the revolution. Many examples
of revolutions have been cited by Aristotle to establish this cause of
revolution. This shows his extensive reading of the world history
to ascertain the causes of revolutions. Citing the example of
Thebes, he says, that after the battle of Oenophyta, the bad
administration of democracy led to' its ruin. At Megara, the fall of
the democracy was due to a defeat occasioned by disorder and
anarchy, and at Syracuse the democracy was overthrown before the
tyranny of Gelo arose.”
Another cause of revolution is disproportionate increase in any
part of the State}^ As a body is made up of many
parts, and every
part ought to grow in proportion so that symmetry may be
its
hence the curse fell upon Sybaris. At Byzantium the new colonists
were detected in conspiracy, and were expelled by force of arms”.^®
5. Minor causes of Revolution : Trifling things sometimes
become the cause of revolution. “Trifles are most important when
they concern the rulers, as was the case of old at Syracuse” The
Syracusan constitution was once changed by a love-quarrel of two
young men, who were in the service of the government. The story
is told like this that while one of them was away from home, his
beloved was gained over by his companion, and he too in order' to
revenge himself, seduced the wife of another. Consequently, both of
them drew all the members of the ruling class into their quarrel and
made a revolution."- “We learn from this story that we should be
on our guard against the beginnings of such evils, and should put an
end to the quarrels of chiefs and mighty men”.*®
A marriage-quarrel at Delphi was responsible for a revolution.
In this case “the bridegroom, fancying some occurrence to be of evil
omen, came to the and went away without taking her. Where-
bride,
upon her relations, thinking that they were insulted by him, put some
of the sacred treasure (among his offerings) while he was sacrificing,
and then slew him, pretending that he had been robbing the
temple”.*^ Many stories, of this type or that, have been narrated
by Aristotle, which had stirred up a revolution. What Aristotle
suggests in this connection is that an error at the beginning,
howsoever small, should not be allowed to assume disproportionate
dimensions. If it is allowed to continue and enlarge, it becomes a
ripe and fruitful cause of revolution.
6. Causes of revolutions in different kinds of States “These
:
many, or the rich and the poor.”^’ In the sixth place, the govern-
ment of the state should be so organized that its officers may be
prevented from taking bribery. In this connection, Aristotle has
did not care to take advantage of it fell into the ditch of destruc-
tion and disaster. The French Revolution of 1789, and the Russian
Revolution of 1917 are the two great classical e.xamples to demon-
strate the in -stimable worth of his ideas on revolutions. The pages,
which have been devoted to this problem in the Politics, have
made it a handbo ' of the statesmen for all times to come.
38 .
//)/(/,. Uoot; V, riiap. 8, 15 . p. 211.
CHAPTER 21
can live well, or indeed live at all, unless he be provided with necessaries”
And "as in the arts, which have a definite sphere, the workers must
have their own proper instruments for the accomplishment of their
work, so it is in the management of a household”. ^ Now instruments
are of various sorts, some are living, others lifeless the servant or ;
seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear, then, that
some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these
latter slavery is both expedient and right.^^
Again reason proves that a principle of rule and subordination
runs through the world. Such a duality exists not only among living
creatures but also among things which are inanimate. As for
example, even in music there is a dominating chord. In the human
body it is the soul that governs the body despotically. The relationship
of the master and the slave is just like the relationship of the soul
to the body. The slave in relation to his master is a mere body,
and as the body is governed by the soul; in the same way, the slave
should be governed by his master. The differences of moral endow-
ment, which nature had given, were the ultimate arbiters of liberty
and subjection.
Again, according to Aristotle, the scheme of the household is
a union of elements in a single compound. What is essential for
maintaining the scheme of the household that there should be supre-
macy of one element and subordination of another. This combination
8. Book I, 5, 2, p. 32.
/’o/ificA,
of
ofcommand and obedience is very necessary for the attainment
be
any human purpose. TliiS’ command and obedience should
governed by the principle of worthy superiority. Intellectual strength
is the chief characteristic of the master physical strength of the slave.
;
family in which he lives. Within the circle of the family the slave is a
person He is a member of this lesser association sharing in its full
moral life, as a real part, and not as a mere condition. Through his
membership he attains the virtue, in the peculiar ministerial form which
befits his position. He attains self-control of a servant subordinating
himself to his superior”.
5. Justification of slavery in War: Besides giving the moral
justification of slavery, Aristotle also gives the legal justification of
slavery. Just as it is fair and just to hunt against wild animals, so
it is “against men, who. though intended by nature to be governed,
will not submit”. But the determination of the question, as to who
is intended by nature to govern, or to be governed, seems to be a
difficult task. The answer that Aristotle gives to this question is,
that it is “to be decided by the conquerors of a defeated nation rather
than by an impartial, third-party court of appeal”. “Aristotle, in hiS
doctrine of just wars of conquest and enslavement, anticipates
Hegel’s dictum that world history is the world court”.^® This is
sometimes called the legal justification of slavery which is based on
the doctrine of might is right. “In ancient times, the victor was
which makes the Greeks the natural masters, and the rest of the
people of the world as natural slaves, is highly defective.
6. How far has the modern world risen above the position of
Aristotle ? : The modern world has very much risen above the
position of Aristotle. It no longer believes in the inherent inferiority
of men.
But it is also correct to say, at the same time, that even the
modern world is not entirely free from the influence of Aristotle,
^avery in the form of domestic service and racial discrimination
continues to exist even now. To quote Prof. A. R. M. Murray,
“The modern world is not without examples of racial discrimination
which are defended by essentially the same arguments as those -
“The learned apologists for Negro slavery in the old south drew their
others. Having the power to rule, they doubt not that they are
superior beings having a just right to rule”. The world would be
a far better place to live in if it comes to believe that living beings
in this world are born equal, are created by the same Almighty God,
are made of the same stuff. It should believe that every man and
the purpose of nature. But if nature itself has made a certain body of
people as brutes, idiots and damn-fools, the slavery cannot be regarded
as natural, but unnatural, because it will go against the very purpose
of nature. In the second place, the Aristotelian doctrine of natural
superiority and
inferiority sounds very illogical. “Instead of having
two classes of men, the natural masters and the natural slaves, we
shall get various grades of rules, where every individual shall be the
natural slave of his natural superiors and the master of his natural
inferiors. But Aristotle did not deduce such a conclusion”. In the
third place, "it is rather difficult tc see the moral or intellectual
value of a distinction which gives t-c a man the status of a beast
while admitting that he has not ceased to be a man”.i® As Prof.
Barker has rightly put it, “If the slave can be treated as a man in all,
and the admission that he can be regarded as a man destroys that
conception of his wholly slavish and non-rational (one might say
non-human) character, which was the one justification of his being
treated as a slave”.” Lastly, “the utterhollowness of such a theory
as this becomes evident Judged either by the facts of life or by the
if
rules of Aristotle’s own logic, and it is clear from his statements that
some of his contemporaries were far in advance of him on this point
not only in condemning as unjust the actual slavery of the time, but
in rejecting as untrue the whole conception of any such inequality as
could ever warrant a subordination of one man to another to the
extent of making him the mere instrument of the other’s will”.®®
18. C. H. Mcllwain, The Growth of Political Thought in the iVest pp. 70-?J,
10th edition (1957).
19. E. Barker, Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, p. 366 (1906).
20. C. H, Mcllwain, op. c/r., p. 71.
CHAPTER 22
—Aristotle.
1. CONCEPTION OF LAW
1. Introductory Jurisprudence and history have
;
always
gone hand in hand. As
the problems of society have differed from
age to age, so also the legal solutions have
varied from time to time.
This has given to jurisprudence a variety
of character-ethical, legal,
philosophical, sociological and international. It has come to be
interpreted m the light of those social problems,
and has grown with
the growth of societies at different times. Atone time, if it was
interpreted as the dictate of right reason,
at other times, it came to
be interpreted as the command of A
sovereign. If it was interpreted
by some as the expression of general will, it was
interpreted by others
as the outcome of social solidarity. It has today transcended all
national boundaries and has come to
assume an international
character containing rules and principles which
regulate the relations
of the family of nations. It is this difference in the varying problems
of different societies that led the Greek philosophers, Roman Jurists,
Aristotle's Conception of Law and Citizenship 227
there is no power supreme over it. His pure states were law-
. .
2. M. JB. Foster, Masters of. Political Thought, Vol. I, 4th edition (1956),
London, p. 164.
3. Ibid., p. 164.
Aristotle's Conception of Law and Citizenship 229
at the matter from another point of view, great caution would seem
to be required. For the habit of lightly changing the laws is an evil,
from all this that in spite of his advocacy to effect a change in the
old existing laws, Aristotle’s ideas in this field, too, are very largely
conservative. ‘‘Once more”, says Dr. Barker, "Aristotle appears to
be a conservative who tries to justify the existence of existing”.
7. Law as Natural With regard to the nature of law
:
which guaranteed to every man his rights against another, but a posi-
tive counsel of moral perfection. If that be the purpose of law, it
cannot be a set of conventions. It is identical with the eternal and
immutable laws of morality, hence it is natural. The law according
to Aristotle is natural, because it is moral. It is same reasoning
the
by which he tries to prove that family, property and slavery are
natural, because they are moral.
2. CONCEPTION OF CITIZENSHIP
1. Introductory The determination of the question of
citizenship, since the very beginning of political speculation, has been
a very important problem of political theory. Probably no status
has been more highly cherished by man than citizenship. The
individual would, practically, be an outcast without it.® The term
citizenship can be understood both in a narrow or broad sense. When
interpreted in a narrow sense, a citizen is the resident of a city or one
who has the privileges of living in a society. Interpreted in a broad
sense, the term is not restricted to the resident of a city ojily, but to
any resident (except aliens) living within the territorial jurisdiction of
a state. According to the modern conception of citizenship, a citizen
is one who enjoys rights both civil and political in return of allegiance
which he owes to the state. The term was also used by ancient
Greeks, particularly among them, by Aristotle. But the Aristotelian
conception of citizenship was quite different from the practice of
modern times.
2. Aristotle’s conception of a Citizen In explaining his :
the free were excluded from citizenship’’.^® It is clear from this con-
ception of citizenship that Aristotle’s views even on this subject are
essentially dogmatic and conservative.
3. A good Man versus a good Citizen After his definition :
citizens are not the same because they have to perform different
functions in the life of the state, although their object is common
which is the safety and good government of the state. Aristotle
explains his point of view by citing the analogy of sailors. “Like the
sailor, the citizen is a member of a community. Now sailors have
different functions, for one of them is a rower, another a pilot,a
third a look-out man, and a fourth
described by some similar term;
is
of them all. This community is the state the virtue of the citizen
;
quite evident that the virtue of the good citizen cannot be the one
perfect Hence, the virtues of a citizen in democracy will be
virtue.
different from those in an oligarchy. But the Aristotelian position is
“that the virtue of a good citizen cannot be the one perfect virtue and
the good man
he who possesses the perfect virtue”. It, therefore,
is
becomes quite obvious from this reasoning that the virtues of a good
man and a good citizen are not the same.
Again, the virtues of a good citizen and a good man are not
ideikical. “Theelements into which the living being is resolved
first
are soul and body, as the soul is made up of reason and appetite, the
family of husband and wife, property of master and slave; so out of all
these, as well as other dissimilar elements, the state is composed ;
and,
therefore, the virtue of all the citizens cannot possibly be the same. But
Aristotle asks, “Will there not be a case in which the virtue of a good
citizen and the virtue of a good man be identical ?” Aristotle him-
selfanswers that this may be possible only in a perfect or ideal state. As
for example, in a perfect state a good and wise ruler-citizen is a good
and wise man, and when these qualities are said to be identical, “it is
not the virtue of every citizen which is same as that of the good man,
but only the virtue of the statesman and of those who have or may
have, alone or in conjunction with others, the conduct of public
affairs”.’^ The right position, therefore, is that the virtues of a good
citizen and a good man in some states are the same, and in others they
are different.
4. Qualifications for Citizenship : Shifting over to the
qualifications of citizenship, Aristotle observes that only those persons,
who have private property and and who
leisure time at their disposal,
are not dependentupon others for the means of their livelihood, should
enjoy the rights of citizenship. He expects his citizen to play a double
role —
the role of a law-maker and the role of a law-observer. In other
words, he should possess the capacity to rule and be ruled in order
to be virtuous. Besides all these, a citizen should have freedom
from material causes and economic worries to play his proper role of
because, these persons do not have leisure through which men exercise
and perfect their human virtues. Aristotle says, that these are the
people who constantly struggle for a crumb of bread and as such
they cannot find time to perform their duties of citizenship. Since
women are dependent upon others, Aristotle also denies them the
rights of citizenship. Till the time they have not chosen their
•
life-
on many grounds that all citizens alike should take their turn of
governing and being governed”. “It is odd that it never seems to have
occurred to Aristotle that the same argument which he brings against
the proposal to exclude some citizens from rule might have been
turned with equal force against the proposal to exclude some men
from citizenship”.®®
p. 152.'
CHAPTER 23
highest good of its members. Unlike Plato, he admits that the fullest
development of man’s personality cannot be possible through a
complete control on the part of the state. The business of the
state
is to allow its citizens to lead a complete life and for that the state
should give considerable amount of freedom to its individuals.
Although he does not question the absolutism of the state on
grounds
of expediency, yet he is not prepared to sacrifice the
individual at
the altar of the state. Since Aristotle has not treated the individual
as a cog of the state machine, that shows his
considerable liberality.
"Though explicitly conservative, Aristotle’s thinking was suffused
with qualities that characterize the liberal temper, the open mind. In
the twentieth century we have had the opportunity to learn again
that there perhaps no force so destructive, so deadly, to civilized
is
1. Rex Warner, Tfie Greek Philosophers, let edition (1958), New York
(U.S.A.). p. 138.
242 A History of Political Thought : Vol. I
as well a ‘philosophy’.
as The founder of this creed or
philosophy, whatever it is called, was Epicurus (341-270 B.C.). Son
of a schoolmaster, Epicurus was “contemptuous of the productions
of others and of all education other than that which he himself
could afford”. His advice to his pupil Pythocles is “Blest youth, set
sail in your bark and flee from every form of culture”.® For a
period of thirty-six years he carried his instructions in his famous
“school of the Garden” in Athens where Epicurus lived with his
group, and which he purchased for eighty minae (£260). He enjoyed
the devoted affection of his pupils both male as well as female.
He was the first to allow women to become members of his school
of philosophy. Although most of his works have been lost, but an
accurate account of his doctrine can be known from a poem
‘On Nature’ written by the Roman poet Lucretius, a contemporary of
Julius Caesar. To Lucretius Epicurus was the greatest benefactor
that mankind had ever known. This was because he had freed man
—
from fear from fear of the gods and from fear of what may happen
to one after death. He has done this noble work quite simply, by
explaining everything. There is no longer any room for doubt, or
perplexity. The nature of things is known and can be explained to
9. Ibid.,p. 102.
10. Gcorfic Cotlin, op. cit., p. 117.
Posi'^'Aristotelian Thought 245
that of the Stoics. It was Epicurus and not a Stoic who proclaimed
that the wise man could be happy even on the rack”.“ More than
two hundred years after the Master’s death, says Prof. Warner,
“when his ideas had become widely spread in Rome, we find -on the
one hand the ardent convert Lucretius and on the other hand such
characters as Caesar and Cassius, whose notions of a quiet life were
very different from those of Epicurus himself. This is certainly a
signof how wide was the appeal of materialism and of commonsense.
The appeal is equally wide to-day and many of us are, one would
imagine. Epicureans without knowing it’’.^^
4. The Stoics Another school of thought which came into
:
the truth it seizes him as it were by the hair of his head and drags
him with conviction so that he cannot escape.
The work of the Stoics was directed against the Platonic civic
ideal as narrow and ‘conventional’. “Li^ke the Cynics and later the
Puritans, the Stoics were at once equalitarians and aristocrats,
profound spiritual snobs, as is shown by the excesses of the Slave-
philosopher, Epictetus and by the priggery which disfigures the
practical outlook of the admirable, worthy man, cursed with a
criminal wife, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, Slave and Emperor,
the outcome’’.
To the question why a man should act in accordance with
nature, it was answered by the Stoics “that Nature is Reason the —
same Reason which every man recognizes as the highest part of
himself to the further question what reason required him to do, it
,'
was answered that he should play out the part that was assigned to
him whether the outcome was agreeable to him or not, remembering
that everything but virtue is really indifferent, and that everything
that occurs has its place in Nature’s grand design”. “A life according
to nature meant for them resignation to the will of God, co-operation
with all forces of good, a sense of dependence upon a power above
man that makes for righteousness, and the composure of the mind
that comes from faith in the goodness and reasonableness of the
world”.^® The Stoics had immense faith in the rationality of men.
They man was rational and that God was rational. Men
held that
are the sons of God and, therefore, they are brothers to one another.
Since every man is endowed with reason, so every man is equal.
“Hence there is a world state. Both gods and men are citizens of it,
and it has a constitution, which is right reason, teaching men what
must be done and what avoided. Right reason is the law of
nature, the principles, binding on all men, whether ruler or subjects,
the law of God”. According to the Stoics, “There are two laws for
every man the law
: of his city, which is the law of custom and ;
the law of the world-city which is the law of reason. Of the two the
second must have the greater authority, and must provide a norm to
which the statutes and customs of cities should conform. Customs
are various but reason is one, and behind variety of customs, there
ought to be some unity of purpose”. “Stoicism is thus tended to
conceive of a world-wide system of law having endless local branches.
It diminished the importance of social, distinctions between
oppose slavery not because that slavery was in accord with nature but
because, according to them, the man’s inward life was more important
than man’s outward status.**
The Stoic philosophy enjoys a position of great significance in
the history of political thought. It established in very clear. terms
the notion of the equality of men. It set forth the concept of the
law of nature which later on became the basis of Roman jurispru-
dence. The phrase ‘Citizen of the World’ was coined by the Stoics
for the first time. The ideas of universal brotherhood of men, and
world government are definitely the legacy of the Stoics. It laid
emphasis on the acquisition of ethical values which consisted in
living according to the dictates ofright/eason. The special importance
of the Stoic philosophy lies in the fact that it “made a strong appeal
to educated Romans of the second century and thus became the
medium by which Greek philosophy exerted an influence in the
formative stage of Roman jurisprudence”.** The political thought
of Christian, medieval and modern era could not escape its influence.
“Christianity took over and adapted these doctrines, that were
represented both in theory and in fact in the Roman Empire, and
transmitted them, with the profoundest results, to modern times”.**
There is, in fact, something very interesting, appealing and touching
which could become the cause of its universal acceptance. “The length
of its life as a more or les$ organised body of doctrines, the number
of its distinguished adherents in later antiquity, and indeed the
frequent recurrence in all periods of characteristically Stoic attitude,
all imply that Stoicism is able to satisfy some deep and constant
20. C. H. Sabine, op. cit., p. 137.
21. W. A. Dunning, op. cit., pp. 104-105.
22. C. H. Mcllwain, Growth of Political Thought in th' ^est, 10th
edition (1957), p. 98.
23. G. H. Sabine, op. cit , pp. 132-33.
W. A. pupning„np. cit., p. 106.
25. Rex Warner, op. cit., p. 165.
CHAPTER 25
(1957), New
York, The Macmillan Co., pp. 105-6.
2. Mommsen, History of Rome, Vol. IV, pp. 201-4 (quoted by
C, H. Mcllwain).
3. W. A. Dunning, Political Theories, Vol. I, pp. 105-^.
4. Ibid., p. 106.
The Political Legacy of Rome 251
curtailment of the powers of the nobles who up to this time were the
sole expounders and administrators of laws, and who very often
interpreted the laws to serve their own selfish interests. The Plebians
or the common people of Rome, now, came to know of their laws
administered by patrician magistrates. It was not only the customary
laws but also those, which later on were passed in their favour, were
also codified and systematically recorded. Consequently, it lessened
the constant conflict that raged between the patricians and the
plebians. This gave a great solidarity to the Roman constitution
and impetus to the legal thought in Rome. The divine and the
customary laws were now replaced by secular and state-made laws.
Thus, the Twelve Tables came to represent the entire private law of
Rome. The deficiency of the system was, however, made up by
adding new types of laws framed, of course, by the legislature with
the due consent of the public. This process gave birth to the idea
that the Roman laws were the representatives of the will of the state.
besides the of Christ and the teachings of Bible, which has most
life
7. Ibid., p. 128.
said that the Romans have fixed for all time the categories of juristic
thought. .It was established not by the genius of one man but of
.
many, nor for the life of one but for ages. The Greek genius
produced a theory of the state and of law, Rome above all developed
a scientific jurisprudence’’.^®
separated from the Rosian idea that the prince is the agent of tne
people, used as the basis for the theor}' of the sovereign^' oi
v,-as
the national long. The Stoic doctrines of the jurists that by natural
lavT all men are bom free and that all men are equal in natural
into mobocracy or mob rule of force and violence. The excesses of the
mob-rule bring into prominence some bold leader, who secures for
himself autocratic power and gains popular support.. It is in this
way that a cycle of change in the system of government continues
without any check or interruption.
(iv) Mixed form of Governme/Jt—Polybius believed that if the
better elements of all these three forms are combined in the working
of government itwould insure stability and minimise the chances of
instability. It would pacify the antagonism and the whole energy
would be fairly utilized for the betterment of the state. Polybius,
in this connection, cites the example of Lycurgus, how he had done
the same thing for Sparta. He also analyses “the constitution of
Rome, showing that, by combining elements of the various forms of
government and establishing a system of checks and balances among
the different organs, Rome was safeguarded against the decay that
inevitably destroyed the simple type of state. In the Roman
constitution the monarchic principle was represented by the consuls,
the aristocratic element was represented by the senate and the
popular assemblies represented the democratic. Each of these
elements exercised some kind of check or control over the others.
No one was allowed to function independently without the consent
of all. Thus an elaborate system of checks and balances was
260 A History of Political Thought : Vol. I
—
Importance of Polybius In the history of political thought
(v)
the Roman Age. He was the only Rom an native who wrote so extensive*
lyon the questions of political theory. In the history of political thought
he occupies an outstanding position. In his ‘Defence of Constitution’,
John Adams has paid a very glowing tribute to the political geniuses
of Cicero, As all the ages of the world have not produced a greater
statesman and philosopher united than Cicero, his authority should
have greater weight ’. Cicero was a very prolific writer and he wrote
on different branches of knowledge —rhetoric, oratory, ethics and
22. R. G. Gettell, op. cit., pp. 73-74.
23. W. A. Dunning, op. cit., pp. 114-15.
24. W. Ebenstein, op. cit., p. 37.
The Political Legacy of Rome 261
the affairs of the people.- But the state is not merely an assemblage
of men brought together in any fashion whatever. It is, however,
“an assemblage of many, associated by consent to law and by
community of interest”. It exists for the enforcement of law for the
(a) What happens in kingdom the subjects are too much deprived of
from all common counsel and power, (c) If all things are under
popular control, though just and moderate, yet the very equality is
evil since it recognizes no gradation of merit. Alt these three
unmixed, he says, have serious drawbacks. A fourth kind of republic
is the best which is the mixture of all the three elements, the
monarchic, aristocratic and democratic. Of the three, kingship is the
best. But better than kingship is another form which is composed
of all the three elements. “Cicero, therefore, considered a balanced
combination between kingship, aristocracy and democracy, the best
constitution his belief in the virtues of the mixed constitution went
;
28 . 41 .
264 A History of Political Thought : Vol. 1
“There is in
—
fact a true law namely, right reason which is
basis of civilized life. He linked the very idea of this law to positive
laws of the land, “without which existence was impossible for a
household, a city, a nation, the human race, physical nature, and
the Universe itself”. Cicero’s conception of law —a law, which is
enforceable through right reason only and which does not need any
formal authority and compulsion, is of a very high order. In fact,
iie finds (he foundation of this Jaw in “our natural inclination to
love our fellowmen”. This aspect of Cicero’s philosophy
“exercised a profound influence on the early father of the Church.
At the beginning of the Middle Ages he was perhaps more widely
read and quoted than other ancient political writers, as he seemed
to pass on a great deal of the best in classical Greek thinking,
combined with a new attitude that harmonized with the teachings of
Christianity”.®^
(vii) Cicero on the Equality and Liberty of Men On the basis —
of this Jaw of nature, which is based on reason, Cicero preached
the equality of men. Here he breaks the traditional line of Plato
and Aristotle. Writing about this equality of men, Cicero says
that they are not equal in learning, nor is it proper for the state to
equalize their property ;
but in the possession of reason, in their
underlying psychological make-up, and in their general attitude
towards what they believe to be honourable or base. The things
that actually prevent men from being equal are errors, bad habits
and false opinions. Cicero does not admit any racial distinction as
it is done by certain racists of the present century, and as it was
—
done by the great Greek, Aristotle a member of the slave-owning
civilization. According to Cicero, all men and all races of men
possess the same capacity for experience and for the same kind of
experience they are equally capable of discriminating between right
and wrong. In his ‘De Legibus’, at one place, Cicero writes :
—F. J. C, Hearnshaw.
bis mind had encompassed almost all the learning of ancient times,
and through him, to a very large extent, it was transmitted to the
Middle Ages’’.^^ In the elaboration and illustration of the main
themes of the City of God, Augustine blended certain basic ideas of
Greek and Roman authors (particularly Plato and Cicero) with the
emerging Christian ideas on the essential nature and functions of a
political community,^^ To quote Prof. Sabine again, “His writings
were a mine of ideas in which later writers. Catholic and Protestant,
have dug... His most characteristic idea is the conception of a
commonwealth, together with a philosophy of history which
Christian
commonwealth as the culmination of man’s spiritual
presents such a
development. Through his authority this conception became an
ineradicable part of Christian thought, extending not only through
the Middle Ages but far down into modern times’’.^® Writing
perhaps in a similar Dunning has observed that the
strain. Prof.
“De Civitate Dei’ of “though covering substantially
St. Augustine,
the whole realm of human history, theology and philosophy, has for
its central theme the concept of God’s elect as constituting a
commonwealth of the redeemed in the world to come a common- —
wealth of which the Church is a symbol on earth. In developing
this idea, he works consciously on Plato’s lines and formulates from
the political philosophy of that master and of Cicero a system in
which the leading dogmas of the Christian faith assume a
controlling part”.^*
4. Augustine’s Conception of Two Cities : Examined in the
historical context, St. Augustine’s ‘De Civitate Dei’ was conditioned
by the circumstances of his own time. It is thus obvious that
political philosophy and history have always gone hand in hand.
In the ‘De Civitate Dei’, he was led to develop the conception of
two cities, the city of God and the city of the Devil, primarily to
explain the downfall of the Roman Empire. The argument that he
puts forth in his conception is that all earthly cities are bound to
perish. But there is which is eternal and imperishable, and
one city
it is the City of God. Rome, he says, perished away because it was
an earthly city, and all earthly cities meet the same fate. He
attributed the fall of Rome to the vices which paganism bred cruelty, —
11. G. H. S^\ne, A History of Political Theory,
12. F. W. Coker, op. cit., pp. 156-57.
13. G. H. Sabine, op. cit., p. 169.
14. W. A. Dunning, Political Theories —Ancient and Medieval, p. 157.
272 A History of Political Thought : Vol. I
the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The
former glories in itself, the latter in the Lord. For, the one seeks
'
glory from but the greatest glory of the other is God, the
men ;
witness of conscience. The one lifts up its head in its own glory, the
other says to its God, “Thou art my glory and the lifter up of ;
mine head”, [n the one, the princes and the nations it subdues are
ruled by the love of ruling in the other, the princes and the subjects
;
serve one another in love. The one delights in its own strength,
represented in the persons of its rulers ;
the other says to its God,
“I will love Thee, O Lord, my strength”. The one, the Civitas Dei,
had its origin with the creation of the angels ; the other, its rival,
the Civitas Terrena, commenced with the fall of Satan. One was
founded on earth by the pious Abel, the other by the impious Cain.
The one is founded in the hope of heavenly peace and spiritual
salvation, the other is founded on earthly, appetitive and possessive
impulses of the lower human nature. The one was founded on the
love of God and the other on the self-love. The former existed for
the promotion of good and the other pursued evil. The one aimed
at justice and the other at power. The first was the kingdom of
Christ which manifested itself first in the Hebrew nation and later
in the Church and the Christianised state. The second was the
kingdom of Satan whose history began with the disobedience of the
Angels and which manifested itself particularly in pagan empires of
Assyria and Rome. According to St. Augustine, all human history
is a dramatic story of the struggle between these two cities, and he
is convinced that the ultimate victory must fall to the City of God.
It was, in this way, that St. Augustine interpreted the fall of Rome.
According to this interpretation, all earthly empires must pass away.
They must pass away, because they are mortal and unstable, and
whereas in t c
city, the love of self, the lust of power predominate,
Augustine
heavenly city, the love of God is the foundation of order.
therefore divides the human two parts, race into
the other o
-
consisting of those who live according to man,
who live according to God. And these we also
^
the two cities, or the two communities of men,
ofw ic ^ e one
the ot er osu er
is predestined to reign eternally with God, and
St.
Aue»sltn'
eternal punishment with the devil","
some visible agency on earth which may lead him in the right
direction. Such a visible agency, according to Augustine, is the
Church. Augustine considers the Church as a part of the heavenly
city that “sojourns on earth and lives by faith’’. It “lives like
a captive and stranger in the earthly city’’. He regarded it to be
a scheme of human salvation. It is through this social union of all
could be granted only by the state. The orders of the state should
be obeyed because they are meant for the estabishment of peace and a
good social life. But St. Augustine makes it quite clear that if the laws
of the state are in conflict with the laws of religion and morality,
they should not be obeyed. According to St. Augustine, “The life
of the wise man must be social” and that there is no man who “does
not wish to have peace”; To him the state has a great utility because
it provides for the establishment of social peace. He repeats the
Greco-Roman ideas when he says that the state is “in its own kind,
better than all other human good. For it desires earthly peace for
the sake of enjoying earthly goods”. According to Prof. Ebenstein,
the peace that the state provides is not an end in itself, biit only a
means, a condition that makes the service to God possible. The peace
of the state is the temporary tranquillity that enables man to work
for the heavenly city, which is “peace never ending”. What he
actually wants to say is that “the state must be a Christian State,
grasp upon eternal values and the true Christian faith. Where there
there is no peace. St. Augustine has conceived peace in
is no justice,
individuals were assigned by the authority of the state and they were
a man that which is his own, and the needy have a moral right to
what they require”.” St. Augustine, like all other Fathers of the
Church, calls alms giving an act of justice by which he means that
“the man who is in need has a legitimate right to claim for his need
that which is to another man a superfluity”.^^ Dr. A. J. Carlyle has
summarised the stand of all the Christian Fathers including that of
St. Augustine with regard to institute of private property. “All
this
property”, he says, of God and it was His will that the
“is the gift
earth which He created should be the coinmon possession of all men
22. Dr. A. J. Carlyle, Property, its Duties & Rights, 2nd edition, p. 117.
23. Ibid., p. 126.
24. Ibid., p. 124.
278 A History of Political Thought ; Vo}. I
private property. It is therefore just the man, who claims for his
CHAPTER 27
“MEDIEVALJ^OLITICAL THOUGHT :
The above quoted passage of Pope Gelasius does not give rise
to any conflict of jurisdiction between the Church and the state.
conflict between the Church and the state. The difficulty, however,
“arose from the lack of any clear definition as to what was secular
and what was spiritual. The ground on which the great churchmen
attacked princes was that the latter were encroaching upon the
spiritual domain, and the plea of the princes always was that the
churchmen were mingling in secular affairs”.^ Thus, the relations
between the Pope and the emperor became a matter of dispute
and led to that conflict which is better known as the medieval
controversy.
3. Church and state controversy The first controversy
;
between the Church and the state began in the third quarter of the
eleventh century with the deposition of Pope Gregory 'V’ll by
Emperor Henry IV. This act of the emperor very much enraged
the Pope. Shortly after his deposition, the
Pope not only deposed
the emperor but also excommunicated him and relieved his subjects
from their oath of allegiance to the emperor. This conflict between
the Pope and the emperor gave rise to that Church and state
controversy, which, for many hundred years, dominated the theory
and practice of politics in the Middle Ages. The medieval thinkers,
all throughout, were occupied with the controversy whether the
supremacy belonged to the Church or the state. This question of
highly blasphemous and diabolical. The ruler, like all sinners, must
be jugded by the priests, “who are the thrones of God, in whom he
has his seat and through whom he decrees his judgments”. Hincmar
supports his argument by quoting examples from the scriptures.
The Church had the right to sort out the saved from the damned,
for Christ had said to Peter, “And I will give unto thee the keys
and the spiritual, belong to the Church, and that the ‘prince receives
his sword, or authority, from the Church’. In his ‘Policraticus’, he
has described this position as follows :
yet his book is one of the most influential medieval political state-
ments because of the originality with which he combines existing
isolated ideas into a new pattern, and because of his style, which has
freshness, integrity and a sense of humour— the latter a particularly
In this he was not only a true churchman but was keeping alive a
doctrine which secular rulers later were destined to borrow from the
Church and employ to her very great discomfiture."
9. Ibid.,p.U6.
10. Lawrence C. Wanlass, op. cit., p. 119.
called the mediating power of reason. The place of the head is filled
by the Prince, who is subject only to God. The place of the heart by
the Senate, from which proceeds the initiation of good works and ill;
the duties of eyes, ears and tongues are claimed by the judges and
governors of provinces. Officials and soldiers correspond to the hands.
Those who always attend the prince may be likened to the sides,
financial officers and keepers may be compared to the stomach and
the intestines, which, if they become congested through excessive
avidity and retain too tenaciously their accumulations, generate
innumerable and incurable diseases... The husbandmen correspond to
the feat, which always cleave to the soil and need more especially
the care and foresight of the head. They deserve protection all the
more justly since they sustain and move forward the weight of the
entire body.’^^
overeign of the body is the soul, “and the analogue of this in the
14. J. Dickinson, The Statesman’s Book of John of Salisbury, 1927, pp. 64-65.
15 . R. G. Gettell, op. cit., pp. 119-120.
John of Salisbury 295
“In fact, John of Salisbury docs not propose that the Church
should actually take over the temporal government and administer it
through nor does he recommend that a prince submit every
priests,
the truth but for money. For money you can get anything done today,
and without waiting; but you will not get it done even to-morrow
if you do not pay a price,” The Pope w'ith whom he was talking to
was an Englishman and a friend of John, and a person with a sense
—
of humour laughed after John had finished. He congratulated him
for having spoken so frankly, and asked him to report in the future
anything unfavourable about the church. Even while closing his book,
as though not yet satisfied, he returns to the subject of ecclesiastical
vices and abuses, and attacks, above all, the struggle for power and
office within the church; he is shocked by the lack of scruples—even
when it comes to murder— among contenders for the papal office. It
is precisely because of John’s capacity to criticise ruthlessly the
abuses of his church that his defence of ecclesiastical supremacy over
the temporal power proved so effective.^o
4. Nature of Law
According to John, law is the interpreter
:
:-e';rt”Ss”%„tnr.rrr^
ar'‘to'“ca'’ui‘'’^''
““
advantage of the Commonwealth
of Others before his own
and?nartwL‘to
private will.22
T"f ^
The decision^^of^^l
should no. be a. varianee with
eountenanee . says the Lord,
the in.e„."n of e,^
-Let my judgement go
jes look upon equity, for the forth tethtae
uncorrupted judge is one vlnf
decision, from assiduous
contemplation of eouitv i! thl
thereof The prince
interest and
accordingfy
bond-servant of equity, and
flte
is
f t^c
he bears the puMe
person m
the sense that he punishes the
wrongs and injures of aM
and all crimes, with even-handed
equity. His rod nnA rr
administered with wise moderation,
restore irregularities
departures to the straight path and Sfe
of equity, so that
may the Spirit congratulate the power deservedly
of the prince with th^
words, -Thy rod and thy staff have
comforted me.” His
powert
chiefly exercised against those
the law persues guilt without any hatred
who desire to
of persons so th.
do harms to oS A
most justly punishes offenders from no
behest, and in - accordance with the
motivLfwrih butt
decision of ihf.
at T
n't the
from John of Salisbury that this problem received a full and careful
attention. ‘The distinction between prince and tyrant receives from
John a sharper definition than had been formulated during all the
centuries throughout which the ecclesiastics had denounced hostile
rulers as tyrants. He takes up the classical conception on this point
According to Locke,
absolute government “is no form of civil
government and the absolute prince is in a state of nature,
at all”,
outside the realm of law and justice. The true rebels are the arbitrary
and oppressive rulers who violate the law, and resistance to such
rules is the first step toward restoring the law.^s
6. Contribution of John : To a casual reader of political theory
the political ideas of John of Salisbury will appear to be essentially
medieval. But beneath the labyrinth of his ecclesiasticism, there
are ideas which may be marked for their new outlook. His conception
of the prince as a public power, bound by law; of the Commonwealth
as an organic whole; the shrewd assessment of political conduct; a
theortical definition of kingly power, its duties and obligations, are
essentially accepted elements of modern political theory. In teaching
that prince must further justice and righteousness under divine law,
John of Salisbury helped to perpetuate the traditions of Rome and the
early Fathers. He growth of constitutional government
also aided the
from the twelfth century onwards by providing its adherents with a
logical basis for disposing tyranical rulers.” Mr. Janet was probably
right in seeing in John the inspirer of the political doctrine “the
detestable theory which on the one hand pushes the hatred of the
Civil power as far as tyrannicide, and on the other hand exalts the
despotism of priests.” For the birth of modern political liberty is, as
Dr. Figgis, has reminded us, to be found in the somewhat crude
assertions made by dissenting religious bodies of their right to
28. Ibid.
29. L. C. Waalass, op. cit., p. 120.
30. E. F. Jacob, op. cit., p. 82.
300 A History of Political Thought : Vol. 1
said that reason and faith were not contradictory. They were rather
complementary and supplementary to each other. Aristotle stood
for scientific enquiry, and Christianity for divine revelation. What
St. Thomas did was to combine and harmonize the teaching of
divine revelation on the one hand, and the philosophical and scientific
enquiry on the other. The need for such an enquiry was directly
occasioned by the re-discovery of Aristotle’s works in the early
thirteenth century, and the translation of the ‘Politics’ from the
Greek text about the year 1260. Aristotle had proceeded on the
assumption that human reason is the final arbiter of truth and that
the discoveries of the special sciences are co-ordinated and har-
monised in the final synthesis provided by philosophy. St. Thomas did
not dispute the validity of these scientific and philosophical principles
but he argued that they have to be supplemented by divine revela-
tion if the universe is not to remain an ultimate mystery. The
findings of revelation do not, however, conflict with the principles of
science and philosophy. All three sources of knowledge are necessary
for a complete and synoptic understanding of the universe and
man’s place in it.®
Thus, by blending the religious and rational ideas in a single
that politics, with St. Thomas Aquinas, once more enters “into the
circle of the sciences, and assumes a position like that assigned to it
by Aristotle, always subject, however, to that principles which
permeates all —
medieval thought that the dogma of the saint takes
precedence over the reasoned conclusion of the philosopher”.^®
St. Thomas catagorically states that faith is higher than knowledge
9.
relatively certain, whereas theology is absolutely certain, in as much
as it is based on divine authority.
. St. Thomas thus conceives of
faith and knowledge as autonomous, in their respective spheres, yet
does not separate them in tight compartments. Although faith does
not interfere with the ordinary operations of reason, it keeps an
overall watch over it, and gives it guidance and purpose.^^
Thomas, Neapolitan nobleman, Dominican friar, Doctor
St.
as for example, deals with wealth, politics with state, sociology with
society, biology with life and physics with the working of the physical
phenomena. Since they deal with one particular aspect of knowledge,
they may be characterised as more specific and specialized sciences,
Thomas Aquinas considers special reason as the instrument of special
sciences. Above these specific and specialized sciences, there is
about tlie world of nature which are valuable; but they do not
constitute the whole truth and the whole of knowledge. There is
something beyond them which can be revealed to us by faith; it is
found in theology. It is, therefore, wrong to say that there is con-
tradiction between philosophy and theology or that they work at
cross purposes. In fact, “theology completes the system of which
science and philosophy form the beginning, but never destroys its
the ruler cannot rightfully exercise power or take part beyond what is
needed. The ruler should so adjust the activities of each class that
men may happy and virtuous life which is the true end of man
lead a
in society. But Aquinas, like a true Christian, was not satisfied with
the achievement of material happiness alone. His Christian, other-
wordly concern leads him to the view that the Aristotelian doctrine
of the good life is still one step short of the ultimate purpose of
existence, because “through virtuous living man is further ordained
to a higher end, which consists in the enjoyment of God”, Whereas
Aristotle, whose philosophy and ethics were humanistic and this-
wordly, saw the end of man in values that exist within himself.
the supreme value, namely, “final beatitude which is looked for after
death in the enjoyment of God.”^'’’ He concludes his argument by
saying that secular government is subject to the Church, because the
former is concerned with intermediate ends, whereas the latter is
concerned with the ultimate end, the salvation of souls. But it is to
be noted that St. Thomas regarded, “an orderly political life as a
contributing cause even to this ultimate end. More specifically it
Among these four kinds of law, the first and the last are only
the concern of theologicians. But in reviving and repolishing the
reserved field, was the Church whose voice was final, and was the
voice of God himself. It is in this way that Aquinas established
conditions by which
function of secular government was to create
salvation
men may lead virtuous lives for eternal salvation. Eternal
Church, and, therefore,
cannot be achieved without the help of the
Church was the final authority. As the
on all questions of faith the
controlled, and was superior to the body, in the same way, the
spirit
government. The Pope
Pope controUed, and was superior to secular
secular rulers, in every-
must be obeyed by everyone including the
relating to temporal or ecclesiastical
affairs. The
thing whether
but if he defied the authority of
king might be the image of God,
the Church, he could be
excommunicated. Aquinas had an immense
faith in the fundamental
importance of unity disturbed by medieval
suggests the
disorder anarchy. For that end in view, he
and
and all classes in society.
supremacy of the Pope over all persons
that the “ultimate purpose of
St Thomas Aquinas contends
through virtuous living
social life not merely virtuous living, but
is
of God. If man and society could attain
to attain to the possession
tills supreme and
human power, it was the king who could guide
However, St. Thomas argues, the
them in the right direction.
attained only by divine power, and human
possession of God can be
towards this end. This ministry
government is unable to guide men
hands of earthly kings, but of
of the kingdom of God is
not in the
all-“the chief priest, the successor of St. Peter,
priests and above
the Roman Pontiff”, to whom all kings are to
the Vicar of Christ,
himself. Temporal authorities are to be
be subject as to Christ
power is sufficient for the realization
obeved in so far as their limited
but beyond this point papal supremacy is
of the Christian state,
The state and the Church, were not
therefore,
not to be denied. _
Catho]icism. One result of tiie writings of St. Tliomas was that the
Roman Catholics gradually abandoned the theory that religion,
pp. 41-42.
CHAPTER 30
THE SUPPORTERS OF IMPERIAL AUTHORITY
[I] Background
As against the supporters of the ecclesiastical cause, there were
a number of thinkers who had
advocated the supremacy of secular
authority. Among those thinkers who had trenchantly argued the
secular cause, mention may
be made of John of Paris, Pierre Dubois,
316 A History of Political Thought : Vol. /
This idea loomed ever larger in the eyes of such men as Dante,
Dubois, John, Marsilio and Ockham, All of them believed that the
supreme necessity and the primary goal of any effective organization
was the establishment of peace. They regarded the church as the
arch-disturber of European peace. The church was considered as the
destroyer and not the promotor of peace. Distrust of the church
and disappointment in its failure to maintain peace discredited the
ideals with which it had so long dominated society. A new end was
conceived as the most desirable for social effort; peace not salvation
was to be the goal of human organization.^
In the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, the
intellectual development drove men still further away from the
theological concepts of the medieval schoolmen. The school of Paris
quickly accepted an important distinction made between philosophy
and theology. The pursuit of truth and the thirs't for righteousness
were no longer automatically regarded as identical. Truth and God
were not synonyms From the cramping bonds of the theological
doctrines, the release in intellectual life was further promoted by the
4. Quoted from C
C. Maxey, op. at., p. 119.
5. John of Paris, quoted &om G. H. Sabine, op. cit., p. 2?4,
6. G. H- Sabine, op. cit., p. 2B4.
J. he Supporters of
Imperial Authority
3j 9
or Paris
says that clergy may
have
P perty because needed for doing spiritual work.
it is
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
320 A History of Political Thought : Vol. I
makes his book one of the most remarkable treatises of the Middle
Ages, is the temper of his mind, his essentially philosophic outlook,
his scorn of the literal use of Biblical texts to make debating points,
and of the absurd ramifications of the sun and moon argument, above
all his openness to new ideas and his dislike of an unintelligent
Florence. Although he was forced to spend the last third of his life in
2. Be Momrchia' of Dante
‘
The ‘De Monarchia’ of Dante
;
world.”® In this way Dante “proved that thewhole race forms one
community under a single ruler. The government of this ruler
be compared to the government of God over nature. As the latter
is perfect because of its unity, so the former to be perfect must
embrace all men under a single authority. That which has the most
reality has the greatest unity, and that which has the greatest unity is
the best.”^ Dante admits that it is impossible to expect the establish-
ment of peace among mankind without the highest judge who is
altogether free from greed and partiality. He stresses the value of
justice and freedom in the lives of man. Dante says that the greatest
enemy of justice is greed and avarice and the inability to be
disinterested and content. He holds that complete and full justice
can be possible only in a world government which is headed by a
monarch. For such a monarch nothing will be left to desire, “for
the passions cannot exist when their objects have been abolished.”®
Dante considers liberty as “the greatest of God’s gifts to human
nature, since through liberty we are made happy as men here and as
gods elsewhere.”® This liberty can be realized only in a world
monarchy. Liberty is impossible unless there is in the world a
power raised altogether above tyranny and oppression. It is to be
noted that Dante was not advocating universal tyranny. His uni-
versal monarch was like Plato’s philosopher-king who was free from
all sorts of ambitions and presided over the destiny of his state only
for the sake of the state. World-peace was, in fact, the target at
which all his shafts were sped, and it is because in his day he saw
no other approach to the desired consummation, that he so ardently
advocates world-empire and a world-emperor. To him the empire
meant peace, that peace on earth which is the image of the heavenly
peace that passes all understanding.^
10.
What he meant by universal empire was not the
actually
subjection and slavery of other communities. What he intended
was not that the diiferent nations of this world would be obliterated
by the one supreme authority. What he advocated was that parti-
cular characteristics of different communities must be regulated by
different systems of law: and the universal monarch will simply
the will of the unseen power. What Dante, in fact, was advocating,
is the regime of supreme law, a law which is to be administered by
one who always unswayed by passions and personal ambitions. He
is
Dante, through this logic, wants to prove that the possession of the
temporal power in principle was contrary to the nature of the
Church. Again the two critical precedents from secular history, the
Donation of Constantine, and the translation of the Empire to
Charlemagne, were condemned as fantastic by Dante. As for
Constantine and his Donation, Dante argues that no man by virtue
of his office can do that which is counter to that office, otherwise
the office would quickly be null and void. For the Emperor to rend
the Empire is a contradiction in terms. He cannot do it. As to
the translation of the Empire to Charlemagne, Dante says, that it
proves nothing or proves too much. If one Pope conferred the
dignity on Charlemagne, on the other hand the Emperor Otto
deposed another Pope, Benedict, and appointed a Leo in his place.
By condemning these two stories as highly fallacious and absurd,
Dante tries too prove that the Church had no power over secular
rulers. But he suggests at the same time that Caesar must observe
reverence to Peter which a first-born son owes to his father, so that
he may be illuminated by the world. But this should not be
interpreted to mean that Dante assigns to the Pope a position of
superiority. To
medieval controversy of his time, Dante does
the
not provide any solution and he concludes his arguments by saying,
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the
things that are God’s.” By separating the Church and the empire,
and by setting them up
virtually ‘closed systems’, Dante did
as
much more than diminish the temporal authority of the Church.
For this reason he was considered for many years as enemy of the
Church. “The Church was fully aware of the dangerous ideas
contained in ‘De Monarchia’. It was burned as heretical by order of
Pope John XXII in 1329 and put on the Index of Forbidden Books
in 1554, before it was printed in Basle in 1559. ‘De Monarchia’
stayed on the Index until half a century ago, when it was finally
removed as being no longer dangerous.”^®
18. W. Ebenstein, quoted from Introduction to Political Philosophy,
p. 88.
Dante Alighieri 333
Dante was tlie first political philosopher of the Middle Ages who
advocated the theories of international government. But his idea of
universal monarchy is not in keeping with the modern theories of
international politics. And as Prof. Maxey says, “Certain similarities
do existbetween the De Monarchia and some contemporary
doctrines of internationalism, but the evidence of kingship is not too
convincing.”^® Lord Bryce regarded Dante’s De Monarchia rather
an epitaph than a prophecy. Its philosophy was set against the
current streams of subsequent history. “Considered from the
point of his own day and the day that followed, no conclusion
was more thoroughly and utterly disproved by the facts of history
than Dante’s pronouncement for a world-empire and a world-
emperor. Even when he wrote, there were rising, all unseen and
unnoticed even by so acute a thinker and so keen-sighted an observer
as Dante, great forces which were destined to undermine with
increasing rapidity the foundations of the Empire in which he so
devoutly believed and to sweep it finally into nothingness.”®®
In his philosophy, Dante combines both the Augustinian and
the Thomistic elements to evolve a new synthesis. It is, however, a
synthesis that goes contrary to the political theories of St. Augustine
and St. Thomas Aquinas and surpasses them in many respects. By
separating secular from the ecclesiastical authority, Dante, thus,
“declares the independence of philosophy from theology.” Thomas
Aquinas had treated philosophy as the handmaid of theology. But
Dante’s separation of philosophy and theology on a basis of equality
and independence, paved the way for the growing subordination of
theology to philosophy in Humanism and Renaissance.®^ Dante
conceived the whole of Europe as a single unified Christian com-
munity in which both the institutions of the Middle Ages, the state
and the Church, were to play a significant role. By recognizing the
importance of these two institutions, Dante changed the very
conception of Christian life which was completely devoid of worldly
happiness. Ignoring his spirit of narrow nationalism and studying
his ideas from beneath, one may be led to conclude that Dante was
really an internationalist in his politics, which may properly be
organized on the more enduring foundations of international law,
international agreement and international sympathy and goodwill,
3. Ibid, p. 92.
336 A History of Political Thought : Vol. /
book which reverses the process and regards the Church as a depart-
ment of the state in all matters of earthly concern. It is the first
book in the whole long controversy which denies to the clergy
coercive authority of any kind whatsoever, spiritual or the temporal,
direct must, therefore, be regarded as one of the
or indirect. It
real landmarks not alone in the history of the struggle between the
Church and the state, but in the development of political thought as
a whole.”®
The ‘Defensor Pacis’ is divided into three main parts. The first
part of the book is devoted to the general principles of a stateand its
classification based on the fundamental principles of Aristotelian
political philosophy. But it hardly contains “a complete and systematic
discussion of all phases of political philosophy.” The second part of
the book is devoted to an exalted attack on the institution of Papacy
which he regarded as the source of disturbing European peace. In
this he “draws his conclusions regarding the Church, the functions
of priests, their and the evils which arise
relation to civil authority,
from a misunderstanding of these matters.” The third part of the
book is concerned with the brief summary and which he made in the
first two parts.
3. Marsilio' s theory
of the State Marsilio’s theory of the
:
achieve common ends. But all men do not desire the same thing.
Men’s desires not only differ, but in many ways conflict with each
other, by nature is self-seeking, violent and aggressive. He
Man
is in the habit of regarding others as his rivals or enemies. This
perverse nature of men tends to make co-operation inefficient or
even impossible. The government therefore is concerned, first of
all, “with the repression of the perverse will in man. Its primary
business is to force men to act in their own interests.’’ The final
fiscal officials, the priesthood and last and, most important, the judges
and the legislators. It is the business of the government to allot to
each man his proper work and keep him at it. The functions of all
servant entrusted with enormous pov/er, and while the great limita-
tions affect the tenure of this power or a wrongful use of it, they
put scarcely any limits to its legitimate extent.”®
had lost the battle as they could not face the metaphysical,
methodological and axiological premises of the doctrine of Papal
plenitude. Marsilio took up a defeated cause and changed th'e
course of history. Very powerful secular ideas were required to face
the Papal ideology which Marsilio put forward with great scholarly
vehemence and force. His real greatness lies in formulating those
principles which constitute the foundation of medieval secularism.
In his case the Church is definitely and clearly subordinated to the
authority of the state. He goes so far as to say that only the civil
government has the authority to regulate the number of Churches
and temples, priests and ministers. He clearly states that no license
for the piiblic teaching or practice of any art or discipline can be
granted by bishops collectively or individually it is only the civil ;
13. Defensor Pacts, Book II, quoted from Mcllwain, op. cii., p, 310.
CHAPTER 33
THE CONCILIAR MOVEMENT
Popes each claiming his exclusive and rightful jurisdiction over all
Christendom for which he was answerable to God alone. This led
to a Great Schism in the church whicli undermined considerably
the power and prestige of the papacy. Under these circumstances
the institution of the Cliurch was in a state of internal decadence.
It was all the more discredited by the writings of supporters of
secular authority, men like Wycliff and John Huss. There was now
a universal demand for the purification of the Church by means of
the General Church Council. This led to a sort of revolt against
the Church what has been known as the Conciliar Movement.
2. The aims and objects of the Conciliar Movement The ;
4 .
Ibid, pp. 348-349.
348 A History of Political Thought : Vol. 1
less of truth than that of a General Council which reflected the whole
wisdom of the Church.” The Pope was merely an executive head of
the Church and was subject to the control of the General Council
of the Church which could depose him for abusing his delegated
authority. It was only the General Council, which was competent
stration of this truth by Nicholas of Cusa has precisely the form that
became common-place in the 18th century.® That the conceptions of
natural law and the rights of subjects expressed by Nicholas were the
direct ancestors of the later revolutionary theories is not open to
question.®
Movement was that the whole body of the Church, the congregation
of the faithful, was the source of its own law, and that the Pope and
the hierarchy were its organs or servants. The Church exists by
virtue of divine and natural law. The rulers of the Church are
subject to these laws and also to the law of the organization of the
Church. The officials of the Church should be limited by this law
and checked by other organs of the ecclesiastical body. The papal
decrees will not have the force of law unless they
are approved by a
representative body of the Church. If the Pope does not do that
and makes an improper use of his powers, he may justly be deposed.
There was almost a common agreement among
the leaders of the
Conciliar Movement that the General Council of the Church was
competent to depose the Pope. The Pope
was the vicar of the
Church rather than of Christ. The world
could be saved without
the Pope but not without the Church.
“The model of government
which guided the conciliarists was the medieval constitutional
monarchy with its assembly of the estates, or perhaps more definitely,
the organization of the monastic orders, in which
lesser corporations
were combined through their representatives in a synod representing
the whole body.”^°
reform neither the Church nor change its form of government. The
leaders of the Conciliar Movement were trying to lay down a consti-
tution for a Church which will embrace the whole of Europe. It was
impossible to prepare such a constitution in the absence of inter-
national amity and goodwill. The meetings of the councils and
specially that of the Council of Constance was marked by national
feelings. “A council which was itself a prey to every form of national
jealousy was ill-qualified to attack the stupendous mass of vested
England and France, which were the chief participants in the Move-
ment, lost their interests in it as they were occupied by their own
national problems. Besides England and France, most of the nations
of Europe were busy in serving their own interests, and they did not
attach any importance to a strong Church which was to come into
existence after reforms. The immediate work which the Movement
wanted to accomplish was the removal of schism in the Church. After
its removal, its leaders could not put forth any inspiring ideal which
is so essential
for the success of a movement. The leaders of the
movement did not seem to be very enthusiastic about it and their
activities were simply confined to the passing of resolutions. The
medieval mind was essentially ignorant. It was dominated by faith,
failure destroyed for some centuries the belief in the power of the
people to control effectively their own political institutions. The
failure of the movement left Europe disintegrated into a congerie of
separate independent states with only nominal leader and ready to
embark inevitably on the conflict of their several sovereignties
characteristics of modern international politics.” The importance of
the Conciliar Movement in political thought lay in the fact that it
established the fact that the Church was superior Pope and the
to the
Pope was merely its constitutional head. According to this advocacy
the Pope became more and more as an administrator and lost his
powers more and more as legislator. After the failure of the Movement
the institution of the Papacy was re-established and reorganised on
national basis. This led to the growth of nationalistic feelings in
Europe. The failure of the Movement proved to be a blessing in
disguise because it could give to Europe such glittering personalities
as Luther, Calvin and Rousseau.
and a new type of self government.If you look at these things, and
if you see these visions, you will realise that the Middle Ages lived,
and lived abundantly. And anything which has lived, and lived
abundantly, in the past, is still a part of the present— a root of its
3. Ibid., p. 7.
356 A History of Political Thought : Vol. I
6. Ibid.
“Let every soul be subject into the higher powers. For there
is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of
The teaching which the dictum ‘of St. Paul contains marks
the radical opposition between the classical and the Christian
approach to politics. It implies that political values can no more
be conceived or representated as purely human concern. They
involve the deepest religious implications. Obedience has ceased to
be a merely political problem ; authority has assumed a sacred
character. from these
Yet basic assumptions very different
inferences could be and were, in fact, drawn. The Christian notion
of obedience has in time been developed a doctrine of into
passive obedience as well as into
a theory of the religious duty of
resistance ;
the idea of the sacred character of authority has pro-
vided the background both of the divine right of kings and of
limited and responsible government. Medieval political
thought is
deeply involved in these issues. It isthoroughly imbued with the
idea that authority and obedience are at bottom not merely a
political, but also a religious concern.’^®
inheritance of stoic and early Christian ideas on one side, the revival
of Aristotelian philosophy on the other.^® The true character of
the state as a secular institution, embracing all schemes of life was,
however, restored by Marsilio of Padua. It is in his theory that
we may trace the return of the state. He
based his argument upon
Aristotle, the The concept of the state
philosopher of the secular.
as primarily a religious institution in its motive and interests,
received a deadly blow at the hands of Marsilio. He gave to
political theory the concept of a lay state —
a supreme organizer and
regulator of the entire life of the Community. The state as a divine
an organism, the state as a welfare agency,
institution, the state as
the state a system of organised force to deal with human
as
corruption, the state as a conventional but necessary institution,
all these ideas combined together were transmitted to the modem
times. All the modern states whether theocratic, secular or welfare,
in some way or the other, are indebted to medievalism in their
fundamentals.
V Federalism of Medievalism
6. Although Middle Ages had
:
corporation grew into life and once they lived, they acted they
; —
legislated and they did justice —
as if it were a matter of inherent
right. But as time went on this fedualistic construction of medieval
society was more and more exposed to attacks which proceeded
from a tendency towards centralization. We may see it happening
first in the ecclesiastical and then in the temporal sphere. The idea
of the state as an absolute and exclusive concentration of all group
life gradually took shape inside the medieval doctrine, and then, at
first unconsciously but afterwards consciously, began to burst in
since the basis of law was the ‘Common good’, it brought into play
old Roman jus naturale (or the law of
the effective role of the
nature). ‘The Church identified the divine law as revealed to
Moses and declared by Christ, with the pure and undefiled principle
thought, from the 17th to the 19th century was built, in the main,
away of the Middle Ages, and the birth of the modern world with
its reassertion of the humanistic and scientific outlook. This
humanistic and scientific outlook was fostered by the revival of
ancient learning, known as the Renaissance. The Renaissance is
—
found what they cherished an exciting and romantic world, the
image of wliich had guided them on their voyage. Like a child, the
man of Renaissance was overawed by the ancient models to which
he was learning to give attention. He had not discovered that the
way to imitate the Greeks was not to imitate those who themselves
imitated nobodyd And since he did not utter or produce anything
new and took delight in appreciating the old Greek and Roman
ideals, the age of Renaissance is characterized as an unoriginal age.
As Prof. A. North Whitehead says, “In the year 1500 Europe knew
less than Archimedes, who died in 212 B. C.”^
Roughly speaking, the closing decades of the fifteenth and the
firsttwo or three of the sixteenth century constitute the period of
Renaissance. It was during this period that the European mind
once and for all shook itself free from the shackles of Medievalism
and sought inspiration in the great models of Greek and Roman
antiquity.^ The Renaissance, however, was not merely a revival of
ancient learning it was something more than a mere recovery of
;
\vas obscurely based. No one was more clearly aware of the moral
and political corruption that went with the decay of long-accustomed
loyalties and pieties, yet no one, perhaps, felt a keener nostalgia
for a heafthier social life, such as was typifie^l in his mind by ancient
Rome. Certainly no one knew Italy as Machiavelli did”.^^
MACHIAVELLI (1469-1527 A.D.)
(a) The Life and Time of Machiavelli Machiavelli, the son :
made him immortal. Among his works, the most famous are ‘The
Prince’, ‘The Discourses’, ‘The Art of War’, ‘History of Florence’
and ‘Mandragola’.
‘The Prince’ was completed in 1513, and was dedicated to a
member of the ruling Medici family, Lorenzo the Younger. Prudence,
however, delayed its general publication until 1532, after the author’s
death. As Hearnshaw says, “Those who read it should realize
Prof.
that they were not meant to do so”. ‘The Prince’ was followed,
in 1516-1519, by ‘The Discourses’, in which he idealized Swiss and
German institutions. Here he passionately admired the Romans,
23. Ibid.
24. The Discourses, II, 2.
The Death of an Old and the Birth of a New Era 375
to save the State, he can act regardless of these. Let the prince
the maintenance of the State the means will always
then look to ;
there is fear for the life of the State, both monarchs and republics,
It
in a single end, political power, and indifferent to all others”.®®
is, however, quite definite that he was not preaching immorality for
its own sake. His basic attitude is not nihilism and he does not
say that there are no moral values in this world, nor does he
anticipate a worldwhere there would be no such values. It is,
therefore, not indifferentism to morality. According to Prof
Dunning, “Moral judgments in Machiavelli’s philosophy are wholly
subordinate to the exigencies of political existence and welfare. He
is not immoral, but unmoral, in his politics”.®®
they ought to live. His main purpose is “to get back to the actual
truth of things”.
His thesis, in fact, is that in the world a man must behave as
other people, of different walks of life, behave and that if he allows ;
H. Butterfield, The
Side Creft of MackiaveUi %oeioe , 1 ?^.
35.
378 A History of Political Thought : Vol, I
hostilityof those who derive profit from the old order, and by the
indifference of those who have only hope, but no certainty to
benefit from the new. The task for a prince who allows the State
to go on under its old institutions is very easy. But, one who
wants to reform the old constitution undertakes the most doubtful
and dangerous of enterprises. Persuasion is recommended by
Machiavelli for the enforcement and maintenance of a new constitu-
tion. But where persuasion fails, force should be applied. Here,
Machiavelli suggests the maintenance of a strong well-organised
army to defend the new constitution.
According to him, the tendency of extension is found both in
republics and monarchies. The prince is compelled to follow such
a policy by the insatiable craving for power, which is natural to
man, and a republic, if not impelled by choice, is sure to be driven
to it by necessity. In explaining his theory of the extension of
dominion, Machiavelli recommends the techniques and methods
employed by the Roman Republic. The elements .of the Roman
system, as for example, are : Increase the population of the city,
trifling wage, which is not enough to make them ready to die for
you. They are quite willing to be your soldiers so long as you do
not make war, but when war comes, they cither fly or decamp
altogether. I ought to have little trouble in proving this, since the
ruin of Italy is now caused by nothing else but through her having
relied for many
years on mercenary arms’’.^*®
In his Discourses , he devotes a long
chapter to expose the
hollowness of the common saying that money
is the sinews of war.
Accordmg to Machiavelli it is not money, but good
soldiers who are
in reality the essence of strength.
As he says, “Money will not
always procure good soldiers, but good
soldiers will always procure
money”. Realising that the use offeree
without craft is meaningless.
Machiavelh very strongly pleads for the
use of the latter. He
holds it unquestionable truth that
men never rise from insignificance
to greatness without the use of force and craft but while force
;
without craft is never sufiRcient, craft without force will meet
with success.
(f;Machiavelli on the Preservation
of Dominion Even on this, :
He makes the first decisive break with the thought of the Catholic
Middle Ages on political problems. For Machiavclli the State is a
natural entity. It rises out of, and exists in, the midst of a play of
natural forces, which the ruler must understand and make use of, if
he and his State arc to survive in the ruthless competition which is
living. Here Machiavclli lays the foundation for Marx and those
case he retraversed the field, worked over the internal detail, and
examined the various aspects of the proposals. The role and impor-
tance which he ascribed to the new on a
prince, the insistence
national militia and on the military aspect of government, the whole
science which he developed for the preservation and increase of the
reputation of the prince, really represented in him a great practical
wisdom.^-
He was
one of those rare beings who can view human behaviour
as objectively as the zoologist looks upon the behaviour of lower
animals. He must be given credit for being a sincere and ardent
patriot, and one of the forbears of modern nationalism. His passion
for the practical as against the theoretical undoubtedly did much to
rescue political thought from the scholastic obscurantism of the
Middle Ages, and entitles him to recognition as the first, if not the
noblest, of the great pragmatists.
Machiavclli introduced certain new possibilities in political
philosophy. Previous to him political power was considered for
attaining certain higher ends such as justice, law, good and free- life
dom, etc. Machiavclli burnt all these ethical, religious and cultural
ends of the State. He considered political power as an end in itself
and confined his enquiries to the means that suited to acquire, to
retain and to expand pow'er. He separated power from morality,
ethics, religion and metaphysics. He distinguishes sharply between
politics and religious principles. More precisely he treats religious
INTRODUCTORY
outlook fostered by the Renaissance
The scientificandhumanistic the common sense of
fn a limited way by
foreshTdowed
respect
achiavelli with his
386 A History of Political Thought : Vol. I
affairs. But by the 16th century a new point of view is seen affecting
politics. There is a new confidence in reason and organization,
a grasp of realities which had been absent from Europe since
the
days of antiquity.
In political thought this new outlook is reflected by the
the
sometimes, described as
Reformation. The Reformation is,
Protestant Reformation. It was purely a religious movement which
had been started by Martin Luther from Germany for ecclesiastical
reforms and theological interpretations. It may rightly be regarded
as a continuation of the Conciliar Movement. Had the Conciliar
Movement been successful, there would have been no Reformation.
It had nothing to do with But soon it acquired a great
politics.
demand for direct action began to beget violence, Luther took alarm.
Revolting peasants destroying and plundering monasteries and castles
and financial Anabaptists, proposing to sweep away the whole fabric
of institutional religion filled him with apprehension. Vehemently
again he appealed to the nobility, this time urging that they put
down all insurrectionary movements without pity. Which advice
they adopted with alacrity and executed with such ruthless and
summary obedience that in the summer of 1525 alone more than ten
thousand peasants were slain in the holy cause of law and order.*
3. Ibid., V. 215.
4. Account of the suppression of the Peasants’ Revolt, 1525, cited by
Prof. C. C. Maxey, p. 155.
Political Thought of the Reformation 386
8. /Z>W.,pp. 277-278.
9, C. C. Maxcy, op. c!t., p. 157.
Political Thought of the Reformation 391
who adopted Greneva as his home, had a clarity such as the German
Luther never attained.’® He is sometimes described as the lawgiver
of the Reformation. In the words of Professor Phyllis Doyle he
wanted to “discover a substitute for the authority of the Catholic
Church which should be as powerful and as coercive as that living
than the good, for submission is due not to the person but to the
office, and the office has inviolable majesty, “It is true that Calvin,
like practically all sixteenth century advocates of the Divine Right of
kings, expressed strong views on their duty of rulers to the subjects”.^*
(e) Calvin and the Law of Nature — Calvin believed in a law
of nature. To him the moral law represented human knowledge of
the natural. He asserted that the divine purpose for mankind was
to bring some men to the supreme happiness of salvation. How was
this to be achieved ? The answer was to be found in the Bible.
There God had shown to the Israelites the form of government by
which his will could be effective. Moses had received from God
the tables of stone on which was engraved the law of God. The
end of all human
activity was to obey this law, the penalty for
disobedience was eternal damnation. The law was divided into
rules for conduct towards God, and rules of conduct towards man.
The slightest slip in the performance of the smallest of these details
was as grave and consequential as the most formidable sin, for man
could not differentiate between the different orders of
God, each was
equally binding. Conforming to the natural law, there was natural
right. Attached to the natural right, there were natural duties also.
The natural rights which are inalienable are right to law, right to
liberty, and freedom of worship. Non-performance of duty
right to
was regarded to be a sin. A default in one’s duty towards one’s
neighbour was a crime against the community.
A default in one’s
duty towards God or religion was considered to be an unforgivable
crime. A non-performance of duty towards the State, whose
primary function was the maintenance of the whole law of God, was
an inexcusable crime. Everywhere it was agreed that obedience to
the law of God was a religious duty, that human laws were valid
(London), p. 143.
16. W. A. Dunning, Political Theories, from Luther to Montesquieu,
p.24.
396 A History of Political Thought : Vol. /
John Knox
(a) Political ideas —
of John Knox The writings of John Knox
mark the whereby Calvinism worked out to its logical
stages
conclusion and linked up with idea of natural law. The essential
points to be noted in his thinking are that, firstly, he abandoned
Calvin’s belief that resistance
is always wrong and, secondly, that he
and power of the princes. The result of this was that in monarchic
lands the tendency of the Reform was to enhance the hold of the
monarchical principle and in aristocratic governments to confirm the
principle of aristocracy. In both, the effect was to strengthen
absolutism in the political sovereign’’.^® But while strengthening
tyranny
the cause of absolutism, the reformers were not blind to the
Their doctrine
and high-handedness on the part of the monarchs.
in irec y
of passive obedience was given well-defined limits. This
thoug t o
served the cause of popular government. The political
abso utism,
the Reformation, on the one hand, served the cause of
an popu
and, on the other hand, the advocates of democracy
government could also draw very heavily on it.
intellectual seems to have been the Old Testament and the new
lifex
State). This book was published by Bodin in 1576. This work was
occasioned by the Civil Wars, and was written with the avowed
purpose of strenghening the king^. It contains his views on
‘Heptaplomeres’, the nature of political society, general rules of
theory of divine right left it.^ Bodin’s ‘Republica’, in fact, was intended
9. I/'id., p. 272.
proposed reviving the most extreme powers of the pater familias over
his dependents, with complete control over the persons, the property
and even the lives of his children”. Bodin was fully convinced that
much of the chaos in France was due to the decay of the family.
To him, the family supported by private property and absolutely
controlled by was the primary form of government.
its paternal head
He regarded it cell from which the state had grown.
to be a complete
Bodin does not make it clear as to how the isolated and independent
patriarchal groups were converted into communities, composed of
several families and so organized as to substitute control by the
community for paternal control.^- But he suggests that the change
was brought about by conquest Yet he believed that the force is
self-justifying after the foundation of the state. Superior force may
make a band of robbers but not a state. He eliminated the mandate
of God which of Divine Right of Kings offered as a
the theory
foundation for king’s authority. But whatever might have been its
mode of formation, it is a natural extension of the family, and grew
out of the natural impulses and needs of human life. In the light
of this conception and development Bodin defines state as ‘‘a lawful
government of many families and of what is common to them,
together with a supreme sovereignty”. It is thus obvious that a state
is composed of a number of families. If each family be well •governed
and orderly, the state as a whole will be well and peaceably governed.
It is of the importance, therefore, to see to it that family life is
first
lord towards his slaves. Bodin rejects the fourth type of authority
as being immoral and imprudent. Bodin calls the state a
^ oth
a gang of robbers
lawful government in order to distinguish it from
or of pirates. However much such a gang may seem to form a
society, and its members to live in amity among themselves, we ought
a ‘Society’ or ‘State’ because it lacks the principal
not to call it
12 Ibid., p. 145.
404 ,4 History of Politkal Thonyhl : Vol. I
the king of France was sovereign in the full sense of the word, in
fact, was the example par excellence of a sov ereign".^’
Fortunate the
the many causes of internal faction is religion- is
natural where the strong, brutal, rich and ignorant obey the wise,
prudent and humble, poor though they may be. But no one would
deny that to subject wise men to fools, the well-informed to the
ignorant, saints to the sinners is against nature”.” But even after
his agreement with Aristotle, Bodin has condemned slavery in
unequivocal terms.
10. BodifTs Theory of Revolution : The last important phase
in Bodin’s politicalis his ideas on the occurrenee of
philosophy
revolutions. on revolutions resemble very closely with
His ideas
those of Aristotle, and he borrowed from the latter to some extent.
But unlike Aristotle he believes that transformations of states are
inevitable,and that men should direct their attention to the regulation
of the manner of change and not to the prevention of change itself.
States according to Bodin are like human beings.
They grow, mature,
endless changes These
decline and decay. They are subject to
changes are most frequently involuntary,
though they may be
willingly submits to the
voluntary, as when one sovereign prince
sovereignty of an overlord. The changes in the states may be cither
kind of growing
io slow and gradual that one hardly notices it, a
once, as a consequence of a sudden
jid, or it may happen all at
type of ciumge, of course, in which
nol’ent blow. It is the last
.lean Bodiii 41
— John Bowie
Such a wife deserved not only to have a statue to her in the common-
wealth of learning, but also to be canonized. Grotius escaped int i
rnuumPMuat
. —
History of Political Tlioiiylit ^'ol- /
416 /}
:
law- and justice is much greater. Law and Society, consequently, are
inseparable companions and go hand in hand with each other. “Man
is a reasoning animal and human society is the product of reason.
Hence it follows that law. which is an essential and natural corollary
of society, is Wherever there is social
also an outgrowth of reason.
life there is reason, and likewise a natural Jaw". Through this
reasoning process, Grotius reached the conclusion that there was a
—
“body of universal law the universal law of nature or a right reason
which IS uniformly applicable to all peoples, and is as authoritative
and absolute as Supreme Reason itself”. Accordingly, Grotius gave
the following definition of natural law :
is the power of God, nevertheless it can be said that there are certain
things over which that power does not extend Just as even God,
then, cannot cause that two times twq .should not make four, so He
cannot cause that which is intrinsically'evil be not evil. Furthermore
some things belong to the law of nature not through simple relation
Hugo Grotius 417
by regard for their offspring and for others of their species. “The
same thing is to be said of infants in whom previous to all teaching,
of its own tranquillity for future time”. “Alliances are sought even
by the most powerful peoples and kings the force of such alliances
;
^
to apply the laws of any one tribe or people, and the Roman jurists
the hands of Grotius that this branch of law had the privilege
to be developed in a very advanced form. As Prof. W. A. Dunning
has observed, ‘‘Bodin sketched the outlines of the new science to
which Grotius was to give an independent character”.
’
be waged with care and
intcjtf wl e
^^^fher make
war? He makp^ n
it is ever lawful to
was needed for international rights and duties which Grotius found
in his conceptions of the law of nature and the law of nations.
Hugo Grotius 423
not to conclude that without the stimulus and the opportunities which
this connexion gave him Hobbes would have died another ‘mute,
inglorious Milton’ It was through this family that he was
introduced to such prominent and distinguished Englishmen as
Ben Jonson, Bacon and Clarendon. By his association with these
great figures of their time, he first became acquainted with the
philosophical and scientific thought of the Continent, and so learned
that the medieval physics still taught at Oxford was outmoded and
that a whole new world of explanation lay open before him.® In 1610
it became his duty to accompany the son and heir of the family on a
5. Ibid., p. 86. •
I'homas Hobbes 427
practice only”.
Again, the Civil War of England has much to do with the
political thinking of Hobbes. His pessimistic consideration of
human nature which Hobbes held in theory only so far were con-
firmed by the practice of the time. The and
violence, the brutality
the?'appalling waste of life and property which thewar had civil
1. Ibid., p. 88.
and exa °
attitude, pessimistic description of human nature
bric as
the power of the monarch, a non-stop rain of abusive verbal
an
was showered upon him. He was dubbed as blasphemous
wicke ness
described as a scoundrel who had imputed a systematic
to mankind’’.^^
in ful
Soon after the publication of ‘Leviathan’ his critics were
an>-
cry after him sounding the note of horror at his materialism
~
“put all to fire and flame”. Prof.
reduce all to “the conditions of
Muscovite, Prester John, and the
those who live ^"der
Mogul”. Mr. Cowely
'heTu
indignantly
and devastating
But in spite of all those damning
work of Hobbes, in many ways, has
enriched and ^
Po'it“^3* of
t*^/,e%o/itico/ Philosophy of Hobbes: The Leviathan
Hobbes, which Professor F. W. Coker thinks, ‘S
nTan
work in political philosophy from
prehensive , .
.
I
e
as men trou
English race, whose name will endure as long
rationa
minds about matters political. In a scientific and
Some of the
he tried to weave his arguments into a web.
used by him in this process may be discussed as below
:
man is both free and equal, but Hobbes finds this state of nature
to be far from agreeable. Both Aristotle and Bodin had claimed
that man was ess'^ntially a social animal. This Hobbes denies. To
most men and not the least to those of the 17th century, the state
of nature was a state of innocence and, above all, a state of peace.
To Hobbes, on the contrary, it is a state of war; a war of all against
all, “a war in which each was as a revenging beast to his fellows;
homo homini lupus (man is wolf to his fellows). It was, therefore,
a state in which notiiing could be unjust in which the very notions ;
beasts in the jungle. Each takes what he can with impunity, robbing
and murdering the weaker and fleeing in terror from the stronger.
Every man is enemy to every man the same is consequent to the
;
time wherein men live without other security, than what their own
strength and their own intention shall furnish them with all. In
such condition there is no place of industry because the fruit ;
in which (he governing law, was (he law' of the sw'ord. In one word,
the life of man in the state of nature was solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish and short”.
human nature shows that there arc three
An' examination of
instincts w'hich cause man to engage in civil war when left to itself.
One is (he acquisitive instinct as a result of which man uses violence
to make himself master of other men’s persons, wives, children and
cattle. The second is the natural corollary of the acquisitive instinct,
namely the possessive instinct as the result of which man endeavours
to prevent his neighbours from securing those things which he himself
possesses. The third is the love of glory as the resuit of which each
man seeks the praise and the envy of his fellows.^* The existence
of the lawless instincts renders where positive
life in a state of nature,
law and law-enforcing officers are unknown, miserable and unbear-
able. In order to get rid of this state of misery and wretchedness,
the Hobbesian men enter into a social pact for the constitution of
political authority. But before we examine his concept of the law
of n.ature, the nature of the social pact and the resulting authority,
a word by way of criticism of the state of nature will not be out
of place here.
The state of nature does not carry any historicity with it. It is
not a fact, but a fiction. This reduces the entire approach to the
study of political science merely to a grain of speculation and a pure
freak of imagination. The
of nature serves as a basis for the
state
foundation of the later theory. But if the very foundation is base-
less, the superstructure that will be raised
on this will be good for
nothing. But what actually Hobbes wants to emphazise is the
contention that without a common political superior the life of men
willbe worth nothing. Historically examined, Hobbes was altogether
mistaken about the existence of the state of nature because as far back
as we go rmman
history we find evidence of social and communal
in
living. But
may, however, be said to the credit of Hobbes that
it
to break all the chains which society has woven around us. The
same hideous hatred of our kind would still be the recognised guide
of all our actions. We should grieve at the birth of our children
and rejoice at the death of our own brothers. When we found any
man asleep and helpless, our first i.mpulse would be to kill him. The
kindly feeling, which makes us grieve over their sufferings, would be
things unknown to us, and directly contrary to our nature. Pity and
sympathy would be the marks of monster and we should be by
nature all that our depraved surroundings can even now hardly force
us to become”.®®
The anti-social being as represented by Hobbes was never to
be found in the state of nature. The being so pieced together is an
unimaginable monster. Combining in himself all the violence of the
Obligation and Liberty: which in one and the same matter are
inconsistent”.^*’
therefore, no law in the real sense of the term. They are, as Hobbes
himself says, conclusions and theorems that conduceth to the welfare
of man. With Grotius he believed that the so-called natural laws
were the precepts or dictate' of reason. But by dictates of reason
Hobbes meant something far different from what Grotius meant
in using those words. Hugo Grotius held that some actions were
basically good, others intrinsically bad, and it was the function of
reason to tell as to what was right and what was wrong. Hobbes,
on the other hand, believed that reason merely told us as to which
actions tended towards self-preservation and which towards self-
destruction. All natural laws, to him, were really only precepts which
tended in the long run to self-preservation. The basis of judgment
was expediency. Hobbes’s view, in disobeying these laws man is
In
not wicked he is merely foolish. It is, thus, obvious that the laws of
:
nature in the case of Hobbes are not the counsels of moral perfection,
but the> are merely ‘counsels of prudence’. Hobbes, therefore,
thoroughly going materialist as he is, does not appeal to anything
but utility. The Hobbesian man obeys the law of nature not because
he has a moral duty to perform, but merely because it is to his
advantage to do so. The argument is, therefore, utilitarian in^haracter:
it will be to every man’s interest in the long run to follow these rules,
desires — the security which will relieve his fear and the peace which
will enable him to satisfy his various desires.^^
Hobbes mentions fifteen commandments of the
In his Leviathan
law of nature. But for all intents and purposes he was satisfied only
with the first three. The first of these is, “that men seek peace and
ensue it” the second “that men are obliged to transfer to another
;
such rights as, being retained, hinder the peace of mankind” and ;
a moral ideal. And the levity with which he passes from the one
interpretation to its direct opposite is nothing short of astounding.
In fact, the sense which on any given page he puts into words is
that he should make a solemn covenant to this end with his inveterate
enemies above all, that the covenant thus made should for all time
;
be religiously obs^erved”.^”
Again, it leaves a doubt in the mind of the reader as to how
such a law can possibly have run in a world of which the cardinal
virtues are deliberately staled tobe force and fraud how a stale ;
mined to end the sorry state of affairs as was prevalent in the state
of nature. The state of nature being full of dread and uncertainty
of life could not be endured for much time. The instinct of sell-
preservation, supported by the planks of natural law and laws ol
motivation, instructed its inhabitants to advance towards the civil
state by retreating from the state of nature. One of the natural laws
immediately came forward to do the yeoman’s service. It placed
the services of contract at the disposal of those weary, tired and fed
up people, through the using of which they emerged into the civil
state. The contract was concluded between the people themselves.
It appeared as if each man said to the other, “I authorise and give up
my right of governing myself to this or to this assembly of men
man
on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him and authorise
allhis actions in like manner”. It is useful to notice certain features
of this formula of social contract which are peculiarly significant.
In the first place, many of the advocates of the social contract
theory argued that the contract is between the governor and the
governed. The governed or subjects agree to do so and so, but only
on condition that the governor or monarch fulfils his obligations
and treats his subjects justly and
consequence of this
fairly. In
theory it and was held that if the governor acts unjustly,
could be
his subjects can claim that the contract has been broken and are
justified in rebelling. Hobbes would have none of this theory.
According to him, the social contract is not between the governor
and the governed but between each ana every member of the state —
the sovereign, in fact, is not a party to the contract. The parties
to the contract are individual natural men — not groups of any sort,
not the ‘people’ vaguely defined, and not any superior being or
Thomas Hobbes 441
primeval anarchy.
Lastly and should be noted that by the terms of the
finally, it
social pact the sovereign obtains absolute and complete control over
ail the citizens of the state. There has been absolute surrender on
the part of the subjects and absolute despotism on the payt of the
sovereign. The one is the inevitable counterpart of the other.
The social contract formula of Hobbes has been challenged on
many grounds. Firstly, the plain fact is that the natural man, as
that he will give up his vicious habits and nasty living so soon and
almost all of a sudden. How can this monster be expected to
exchange peace for war whose only delight as to cut the throat of •
'his fellow beings. “In all the annals of relig on, in all the fairy tales
of the Kingdom of Darkness, there k -^o conversion so sudden, or so
radical, as this”.^’ Secondly, the ntract is possible only under a
settled order of the state. But to c 'plain tlm contract before the
very existence of the state is simply putting the cart before the horse.
Thirdly, the step taken by the natural men of Hobbes for the consti-
tution of a civil state was perhaps more dangerous than the state of
nature itself. The covenant, as for example has generated a despotic
monarch who has reduced. 'the status of his subjects to the position
of menial staff. The objection is that the natural men of Hobbes
must not have taken that step which was to invite simple destruction
and disaster for them. As Locke pointed out in one of the few
passages where we may suppose him to be writing with direct
reference to Hobbes, “This is to think that men are so foolish that
they take care to avoid what mischief may be done them by polecats
and foxes, but are content, nay think it safely, to be devoured by
lions”. “The society instituted by this contract offers a state of
things stillmore intolerable than the anarchy which it replaces. It is,
in fact, no society at all. It is a herd driven together by sheer panic
and held pen by nothing but the terror of the sword”.
in the Since
the state founded on pure and simple despotism with no rights and
is
(1) Leviathan was written during the great civil war. England was
distracted by the claims of King and Parliament. Only a strong
hand could reintroduce law and order and bring back peace.
(2) Hobbes has a strong feeling for the principle of unity, upon which
the Medieval Ages had so much insisted. To Hobbes unity was
strength. Hence his principal problem was how to make the state
one. A nation to be a state must be animated by a single will.
Somehow it must have a will of its own. Thus the contract was
made so as to achieve a universal surrender of all alienable rights
into the hands of the sovereign. (3) He had a personal preference
for the monarch. Leviathan in fact is essentially an ideal construc-
tion. “It is no picture of any existing state it is rather a model to :
system this
might be a conflict among them- But in the Hobbesian
conflict between civil and natural laws is rendered impossible. Firstly,
the chief purpose of the natural laws is to secure peace through the
erection of an omnipotent state hence the state in using the omiu-
;
a body of rational maxims, only requires the force of true law when
it is interpreted and applied by the sovereign and his judicial agents.^®
rests is nothing but terror.''® His book. Leviathan, is not only useless
as a key to history, it is equally fruitless as a theory of the state.
The ‘society’ called together by the ‘covenant’ is seen, directly we
examine it, to be no society at all- All life is gathered in the ‘one
man’ at the head of it the rest of the body is a dead weight, a mere^
;
mob huddled together by sheer terror, not that organised body which
alone can be called a state. But in spite of all this criticism and
other perversions,“he must take the credit of being the first to see
that the idea of sovereignty lies at the very root of the whole theory
of the state and the hrst to realise the necessity of fixing precisely
;
where it lies, and w'hat are its functions and its limits”.®^
(f) Forms of government The views of Hobbes about the
:
(a) When one man is vested with all the powers ol the
multitude who constitute the society, the state is monarchic.
(b) When this power lies with an assembly to which every one
may belong, this is democratic.
(c) When this assembly men, the state is
is limited to certain
aristocratic. The idea of limited government was an absurdity both
to Bodin and Hobbes. Older writers from Aristotle on sought to
distinguish between monarchy and tyranny, aristocracy and oligarchy,
democracy and mob rule. Hobbes rejected this system of classifica-
tion on the ground that sovereign in all of them possesses the
same attributes, and that such distinctions were subjective rather
than objective.
“They that are dissatisfied with monarchy call it tyranny, they
that are displeased with aristocracy call it oligarchy, so also they
who find themselves grieved under a democracy call it anarchy. But
the lack of government does not mean a new government”.®"
The same government may well be considered a monarchy by
some and a tyranny by others. As to the best form of government,
Hobbes says that that form of government is definitely better wliich
can be adopted to direct the absolute power to the single end of
maintaining peace and security. Viewed in the light of this, according
to him, monarchy is ultimately declared to be the best. He
condemns the democratic rule on the basis of the weakness and
vacillation of democratic assemblies —how the common people are
more likely to be swayed by passions than by reason. More
in assembly are many, and the kindred more numerous than of any
nonarch”.“‘‘ “In a monarchy, in other words, public money may be
vasted on the king’s mistresses, but the sums spent in this way are
lothing compared with the ‘pork barrel’ money and the soldiers’
lonuses which will be voted by a democratic assembly in order to
/in favour with the mob”.®^
(g) State-Church relation —^The predecf?sors of Hobbes were
ery much occupied with the problem of state-Church relationship,
iobbes, too, was not indifferent to this question, if we go through
le pages of Leviathan, we will find that practically half of it is
The corruption in the life of the Church and its complete failure to
strengthen civil life of the people was a great concern of the philoso-
pher. Hobbes rightly felt that one of the principal causes of the
civil religious in origin, Hobbes regarded religious supersti-
war was
tion so powerful a drug that it constituted an appalling menace to
the very fabric of society unless its administration was carefully and
scrupulously supervised. He was justified in thinking that religion,
in the hand of a prudent sovereign, was a powerful instrument for
social cohesion, but an equally powerful divisive force when it
passed out of his control. All throughout, Hobbes is sincere and
conscious to secure the sovereign’s control over ecclesiastical affairs.
The ecclesiastical authority bad failed to pursue a policy of religious
toleration, Hobbes is a strong champion of the policy of religious
toleration on rationalistic grounds, and he thought that such a
toleration could be possible if the sovereign was also supreme in
Thomas Hobbes 451
matters of religion.
In matters of religious worship, Hobbes is stiff
inmaintaining the power of the sovereign. It is in this way that
Hobbes completely subordinates both Church and religion to the
interests of the state. His subordination, however, rests on logical
foundation. “So long as public disorders do not ensue”, says
Hobbes, “the independence of the primitive Christians is perhaps the
best”. But such an independence is neither possible nor desirable
when the state is overtaken by struggle and strife, chaos and
corruption.
“It is way”, says Professor W, A. Dunning, “that
in this
(h) Individualism —
of Hobbes To a casual and superficial
reader, the monarchic absolutism appears to b^ the most important
part of the political philosophy of Hobbes. The reality is something
different. The importance of Hobbes as a political thinker does not
Locke himself”.®’
No doubt he power of the state, but his theory was
exalts the
wholly and
individualistic rested on a recognition of the natural
man and man is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon
claim to himself any which another may not pretend, as
benefit, to
well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength
enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by
confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself.
And as to the faculties of mind, I find yet a greater equality among
men, than that of strength. For prudence is but experience which
equal time, equally bestows on all men, in those things they equally
themselves unto”.®®
Again, there is a contract of individuals with individuals. The
state also comes into existence through this contract and continues
to exist because of this contract. Thus the state becomes the
playwright of the individuals. The basis of the state is consent of
the individuals. Except as there is a tangible superior to whom men
render obedience, and who can in necessity enforce obedience,
there are only individualhuman beings each actuated by his private
interests. There is no middle ground between humanity as a sand-
heap of separate organisms and the state as an outside power holding
them precariously together 'by the sanctions with which it supplements
individual motives”.®®
Though outwardly an enemy nun?ber 1 of individualism,
Hobbes is concerned above all with the individual and the rights
and privileges of the individual, “In contracting into civil society,
the subject does not and cannot grant away “As it all his rights”.®®
is necessary for all men down certain rights of
that seek peace, to lay
nature, that is to say, not to have liberty to do all they list, so is it
necessary for men’s life to retain some as right to govern their own
;
and all things else, without which a man cannot live, or not live
well”.®^ The Civil society, in Hobbes’s view, was not instituted for
its own, but for the subjects sake, and the duties of the sovereign
concern the subject as a beneficiary. “The resulting estimate of
government was wholly secular and quite coolly utilitarian. Its
value consists solely in what it does but since the alternative is
anarchy, there can be no doubt which a utilitarian will choose. The
choice has little sentiment behind it. The advantages of government
de jure monarch as long as the latter can maintain peace and order
but in the event of successful civil war, the de jure monarch loses
his power and the duty of obedience automatically ceases, the subject
is then free to seek peace by serving under the new de facto ruler.
“It was by means of this doctrine that Hobbes, the pillar of royalism,
justified his own actions in accepting the rule of Cromwell after the
execution of Charles 1”.
62. G. H. Sabine, op cil., p. 403.
454 A History of Political Thought : Vol. I
Hobbes might not have much following in his own day, but
the fact remains that in the history of political thought he is assigned
and should be assigned a very high place. He was the first political
philosopher to generalise in details the human nature and to give the
causes of quarrel among them.•
How competition, diffidence and
glory ultimately lead .men to invade each other, he explained very
scientifically. He established a true relationship between psychology
and politics. He, in the real sense, was a forerunner of the
psychological school.
His doctrine of sovereignty is a positive contribution to political
thought. In this field the work which was started by Bodin was
completed by him. He clearly set forth the idea of an absolute
sovereignty. "Not from the sages”, says Hobbes, "philosophers and
.
orators of the pagan past nor from the saints and theologians of the
Christian but from the head of the state alone must a people
era,
that has risen above barbarism seek the decisive judgment on any
question of duty whether political, moral and religious”.
He subordinated the Church to the authority of the State.
Thus the work started by Marsilius of Padua was completed by him.
For a materialist like Hobbes, the spiritual became a mere ghost and
a figment of the imagination. As he writes in his Leviathan, “For
it was with the mysteries of our religion as with wholesome pills
for the sick, which, swallowed whole, have the virtue to cure, but
chewed, are for the most part cast up again without effect”.
He became forerunner of the utilitarians by making th&
the
state the conciliatorof the conflicting interests of the individuals. "It
is no accident that Jeremy Bentham borrowed heavily from him here
— C. C. j\faxcy.
education was begun with tutors in the home. In 1645, he went to-
that period was under the domination of the fanatical and intolerant
left wing of the Puritan party, and Locke found their narrow
discipline little to his taste. Though his repugnance did not carry
him over to the opposition, it dulled his enthusiasm for formal
studies and caused him, as he said, to seek the company of gay and
liberal spirits from whom he gained a great knowledge of things not
taught in books or sanctioned by the University authorities.^
He graduated himself from the Oxford University in 1656 and
stayed there to pass his M.A. examination in 1658. In 1659, he was
appointed as tutor in Greek, rhetoric and philosophy at the Oxford
University. But this unregimented scholar did not like to stay in
the teaching profession. Hence he decided to take up the study of
medicine in 1666 under David Thomas, an eminent physician, who,
at that time, was practising at Oxford. Later he made friends with
Boyle, the physicist, and obtained the patronage of Lord Ashley,
Earl of Shaftesbury. In 1672, he became Secretary of Ecclesiastical
Presentations of Shaftesbury when he was created Chancellor.
Locke profited enormously from his connection and association with
Shaftesbury. Through him he came in close contact with great
personalities of the day in politics, science and literature. In 1673,
he became Secretary to Board of Trade and Foreign Plantations.
Besides carrying the burden of these two offices along with his
medical duties and other responsibilities, he spared time to devote
himself to philosophical studies and took part in the deliberations of
the Royal Society. After the dismissal of Shaftesbury in 1673 by
the monarch whose trend of government he criticised, Locke also
went out of office with his patron. At this time, because of his
suffering from chronic asthama, he decided to go to France for rest
and treatment. After the restoration of Shaftesbury to office in 1679,
Locke immediately returned from France and resumed, his old
position and continued in office until 1681, when Shaftesbury was
arrested and tried for his attempts to secure Protestant succession
in England. After the banishment of Shaftesbury, Locke resigned
from his job in the government and retired to Oxford. Apprehending
action against him in 1683, he sought asylum in Holland, where he.
Masham had read to him from the Psalms, he closed his eyes in 1704
and quietly passed away. No more fitting epitaph for him could be
found than that contained in a letter by Lady Masham, “His
death”, she writes, “was like his life, truly pious, yet natural, easy
and unaffected nor can time, I think, ever produce a more eminent
;
2. Ibid., p. 249.
3. This account of his last days s taken from Fox Bourne's Life of
John Locke, II, 560, quoted by W. T. Je/ncs in his Masters of Political Thought,
Vol. II. p. 154.
460 A History of Political Thought : Vol. 1
published in 1C89 in Latin. The same year the English version w'as
published anonymously. In 1690 his greatest work, the ‘Essay
Concerning Human Understanding’ appeared. In this work, Locke
concludes that knowledge is neither innate nor revealed, but consists
of the perception of relations among ideas. And ideas are all born
of experiences without which they are but empty words. Experience,
however, is such a treacherous jade, presenting herself in s® many
deceptive guises, that we can be sure, not of rational finalities and
and Divine Right, the other against Hobbes. The work exists in
two parts. In the former the false principles and foundations of
Sir Robert Filmer and followers are detected and overthrown.
his
The latter an essay concerning the true original extent and end of
is
thinkers of the liberal traditions, and inspired the leaders of both the
but to him the differences between men afe far less striking and far
less important than their similarities. He was certaiiv that many of
the differences which seem to exist between men and
are arbitrary
artificial rather than natural. It is, thus, Locke was a
clear that
strong environmentalist in the sense that he believed that a man’s
mental and moral ability are largely the result of the experiences,
the sensations, or the education to which he is exposed. When,
therefore, one man appears wise and another stupid, it may well
mean nothing more than that one man has had a better upbringing
than the other.'®
But to Locke, men are not only rational, orderly, decent and
social, they are essentially utilitarian also.
According to Locke, the
object of all human action is to substitute pleasure for pain. “This
is the view of humanwhich was copied by Bentham, which
nature
was worked out more thoroughly and called ‘psychological’
later
egoistic hedonism’’.'’ In the words of Locke, “What has an aptness
to produce pleasure in us is what we call good, and what is apt to
produce pain in us we call evil’’. This pleasure or utility, in the
case of Locke, can be explained as one of the bases of the covenant.
The covenant gives peace and harmony to individuals and ensures
protection of their ^rights which makes their life wort^i living
and worth enjoying.
But the question can be asked as to
why Locke, as opposed to
Hobbes, takes a very optimistic and
bright view of human nature ?
het are the reasons of the essential
humaneness of his view of
uman "^ture ? In this connection we
may mention, firstly, the
m uence o is father. In her account of his life. Lady Masham,
of Locke, wrote that he never
e friend
mentioned (his father) but
wj great respect and affection.
t
His father used a conduct towards
im young that he often spoke of
afterwards with great
approbation. It was the being severe
to him by keeping him in
much awe and at a distance when he was
a boy, but relaxing still
by degrees of that severity as he grew up
to be a man, till, he being
capable of it, he lived perfectly with
him as a friend. And I
remember he has told me that his father, after
he was a man
solemnly asked his pardon for having struck
him once in a passion
Masham place, where he passed the last years of his life happily and
peacefully, surrounded by a circle of devoted friends.^* Since Locke
had the good fortune of enjoying the company of decent, lovable,
amiable, and sympathetic friends, it was natural and inevitable for
him to take a very bright and optimistic view of human nature. The
third factor which influenced his concept of human nature were the
events of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. In this year the people in
effect dismissedone sovereign fot incompetence’and, with a minimum
of disturbance, elected another who, as they believed, would
perform his proper functions efficiently and whom they could trust
to recognize the rights and privileges
which they claimed for them-
selves. The accession of William and Mary was thus a triumph
thesis that sovereigns rule by the consent
for democracy and for the
the benefit of their subjects. It seemed to Locke to vindicate
and for
in the ability of the people to rule themselves. It com-
his belief
pletely disproved Hobbes’s conception of man as blindly irrational
and utterly and narrowly selfish. It
showed men to be possessed of
a social sense which
naturally brings them together, so that the
required to keep them from each other’s
pleasure of force is not
It was correct
evidence of the fact that men are sufficiently
throats.
best interest lies in mutual and peaceful
reasonable to see that their
of the fact that they have a sufficiently rational will
cooperation and
actin accordance with what they see to be good.®® Human
to
thus,appear to be reasonable, cooperative, social
beings to Locke,
and sympathetic.
Human nature, to him, is marked with love,
sympathy, kindness and goodwill. It is with these qualities that
Locke, lived in the state of nature prior, totheir
men, according to
civil society.
entrance into the
ig. This account is taken from The Life of John Locke hy R H Foic
Bourne, quoted by W. T.
Jones, op. cit.,p. 153.
19. Quoted from W. T. Jones, op. cit., pp. 153-154.
20. Quoted from W. T. Jones, op. cit., pp. 154-155.
.
nature
(b) The of nature—Locke's ideas on the state of
state
are to be found in his ‘Second Treatise’. Here he also discusses
his theories of natural rights and the social contract.
The state ol
nature to Locke is entirely different from that of Hobhes.
He
invents a state of nature which is more reminiscent of Eden and the
state of war, with every man’s hand raised against his fellows,
Locke recognised the state of nature as normally peaceful because
of man’s social instinct. The original state of nature, he tells us, wa:
“a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose ol
their persons and possessions as they think fit, bounds o
within the
the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the wil
of any other man”.^^ Futhermore, it was “a state also of equality
wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one havin]
more than another”.'*® In this he is in perfect agreement with Hobbes
The state of nature as defined by Locke is a “state of peace
goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation”. Locke, like Hobbes
makes a mention of the natural rights and natural law in the state o
nature. But in his case both these doctrines are radically changed
and in doing so he went back to a position similar to that occupieu
by Grotius. The state of nature, says Locke, has “a law of nature to
govern it which obliges everyone, and reason which is that law.
teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal
and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health,
liberty or possessions, for men being all the workmanship of one
omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker, all servants of one sovereign
Master, sent into the world by His order and about his business. . .
And that all men may be restrained from invading other’s rights
and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be
observed which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind,
the execution of the law of nature is in that state put into every
man’s hands, whereby everyone has a right to punish the transgressors
of that law to such degree as may hinder its violation”.®*
From this law of nature, which governs the state of nature,
men derive certain of their natural 'rights to life, liberty and property
out from such facts as history has handed down to us, from such
inferences as the observation of modern travellers enable us to draw.
In Locke’s picture, the earliest stage —
of man’s history call it the
state of nature, call it primitive —
anarchy is not merely an age of
innocence. an age of conscious obedience to a divine law which
It is
means rather to assert that they ought to be free and equal. In the
second place, however, the state of nature is not merely a general
description of how men should behave; it is a description of how
men should behave if there were not, as in fact there is today,
political authority.^®
Going back to our original discussion, letus now examine the
Lockean concept of the law of nature which was upholding men in
he state of nature and whose weakness made the state of nature a
tate of inconvenience and misery.
(c) H'S conception of the law of nature~Tht controlling
ink in the chain forged
by Locke is manifestly the law of nature,
which determines the character both of the state of nature
t is that
stances he may find himself placed. And we ask what is the general
nature of this law. Locke is is a law of
at once ready with an answer. It
goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation
in one word, a ‘law :
the state of nature. It is, rather, for the safety and protection of
these rights that the authority is constituted. All that the men agree
but one supreme power which is the legislative. .yet the legislative .
being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, there remains
still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the
legislative,
when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in
them’’.®* The decision of creating a revolution against the king is
to be taken by a majority of legislature; and the decision of making
a revolt against the legislative body is to be taken by the community
as a whole. Thus the creation and recreation of government
entirelydepend upon the consent of the people. Nothing is done
without taking the people into confidence. According to Prof. Laski,
“It gave to the principle of consent a permanent place in English
the view that force can never be the basis of a just and legal govern-
ment. The state has been framed by the people through the social
pact. The state by a majority decision can institute any govern-
mental organs it chooses. In civil society, Locke makes a mention
of the existence of three powers. There is first of all the legislative,
which he calls the ‘supreme power of the commonwealth’. Secondly,
there is the executive, which includes the judicial power. Thirdly,
—
Locke recognizes what he calls the federative the power that makes
treaties, that which is concerned with the state’s external relations.
laws into the hands of a few select men and their heirs or successors
then it is an oligarchy ; if man, then it is a
into the hands of one
monarchy, hereditary or elective. Whatever may be the form of
government, but its chief function is to safeguard the natural rights
of men, life, liberty and property. The doctrine of ‘natural right to
property’ was to have a profound effect upon later generations, and
hence, it deserves a special consideration.
(f) —
Locke's theory of property Political philosophers of all
ages have expressed their views on the question of property. Its
sought. “That which is for the public welfare” he said, “is God’s
will and therein we have the root of that utilitarianism which as
Maine pointed out is the real parent of all 1 9th century change.
His philosophy greatly expanded the psychological explanation of
behaviour, making it depend upon the pursuit of pleasure and the
.avoidance of pain as its sole motives. In place of the rational
standard of inherent good sought by the theory of natural law it
put a utilitarian theory of moral, political and economic value”.*®
He was the first to advocate the theory of separation of powers
which Montesquieu took it for the root of every liberty and Blackstone
repeated the pious words of Frenchman and they went in company
to America to persuade Madison and the supreme court of the
United States that only the separation of powers can prevent the
approach of tyranny. To Locke, the government in substance is a
trustee and trustees abuse their powers let us therefore divide it as
;
He was soon turned out from there. He was engaged for a time as
a domestic servant at Turin and left the job in disgust. He again
appeared at the door of Madame de Warens who again took him in
and decided him an education. He was placed in a nearby
to give
seminary, where he spent a few months learning a little of classics
and music. In 1730, he was sent on a trip to Lyons by Madame de
Warens just to get rid of him. When he came back, he found that
the Madame had gone to Paris without leaving her address. Since
vagabonding was a pleasure for Rousseau, he started again and
roamed the country far and wide in search of his beloved. In 1731,
he found her and the kind lady again took him in. He lived with
her and largely on her bounty until PdO.
Madame Warens was
de a lady who cherished highly
unconventional ideas on morality. In her circle of intimate friends,
there prevailed an intellectual atmosphere. It was here that Rousseau
acquired a weirdly assorted stock of ideas. Madame de Warens
now had accepted another lover and Rousseau was asked to occupy
the position of a second-place lover. Rousseau now came to realize
that he had no longer a place in the life of Madame de Warens,
Through the assistance of Madame de Warens he became a tutor in
3 certain family of Monsieur de Malby. Rousseau proved himself to
.
give myself amusement, but I saw 1 had gone further and had
given myself a companion”.
Though enjoying, out of vanity, the company of the rich and
except with Therese Levasseur, with whom he lived from his early
In 1749 came the event which raised him from obscurity and
transformed him into a world figure. In 1749, the Academy of
Dijon announced a prize for the best essay on the question “Has ;
<l.e
was
other hand, in the tit net, »»
posiiinn
^ eridcht oTT’
political institutions ^ und
of the ancient rto;
”
^
stifled human nature and prevented
men"^fro becoming what they
have itthem, potentially to be ^
in
in „
Of his en„ of natnra. simpiliit';,
Ronssl" " ot
^ '°„T,
Sparta, a republic of enthusiasm for
demi-cods nfh«r
the happy ignorance of its inhabitants
’
eterna” ‘’proof
of science”. By contrast, he deniarates ^
Athens th
doomed to perish because of its
're of vice,
elegance Inv
science : “From Athens we derive th^e a’stl h^’
which will serve as
models to every corrupt Performances
age”"^'"^
Rousseau sees a direct rpi.eni ^ i,-'
constantly expanding needs, luxury,
and the risrof7
which true courage flags and "p
"
the virtues Tsapp
Rousseau holds, supports his
simple she was able to
view as Iona a7 R
command respeef '
;
Pu°r and
^
S t “o';?:
after having developed empire ;
luxury and enoulfed th^' .
was for this purpose that Social Contract was designed covering the.
whole field of political science. Before laying his fingers upon any
social and political problems he familiarised himself with some of
the chief writers on political philosophy—Pufendorf, Locke, and
the influence of his birthplace was clearly manifest over his thoughts
and writings. He writes with a real pride as ‘a citizen of Geneva’
on the title page of the Social Contract. The political system in
Geneva was popular and was in marked contrast to that which
prevailed in France. The political order of Geneva began to appeal
to him with a new force. He liked to think that in that little
republic there was a reign of law to safeguard the rights and privileges
of the citizens and that in a real sense there was freedom for the
Genevans. He also liked to think t.h.at Geneva expected its citizens
to live virtuous lives and that it was glad to reward meritorious
service.® Rousseau himself could write with great pride :
the rank that has been accorded them. Our chiefs, our magistrates,
simple in dress, without luxury or gilding, are not lost to view in
the crowd, but distinguish themselves by their virtues”.
Rousseau’s sensitive emotional and self-conscious temperament
also played a signiflcant part in shaping his political thinking. He
was impatient of control, even of self-control, and was resentful
towards every institution and convention that suggested restriction.
His vain and sensitive spirit was against the restraints of law and
custom which become in his writings the universal truth of human free-
dom. He therefore turned his attention to the religion, morals, manners
and politics of his day. More than most men Rousseau projected
the contradictions and maladjustments of his own nature upon the
society about him and sought an anodyne for his own painful
sensitivity. For' this purpose he adopted the familiar contrast
between the natural and the actual, current in all the appeals to
reason. But Rousseau did no appeal to reason. On the contrary, he
turned the contrast into an attack upon reason. Against intelligence,
the growth of knowledge of science, which the enlightenment
state isbound to die. "If Sparta and Rome have perished what
state can hope to endure for ever”. His philosophy was, therefore,
fundamentally a series of induction from the observation of ordinarily
neglected facts, whichis so clearly evident from his works.
had slowly been widening their orbit of interest to include the people
in their plans of reform. But ‘the people’ meant primarily the
discriminated Third Estate of prosperous and respectable merchants,
lawyers, and intellectuals. Rousseau is the first modern writer on
politics who was of the people : the submerged, inarticulate masses,
the poor and working men, the small peasants, the restless
artisans
and rootless,whom there was no room, and no hope in the
for
existing order of things. After having won the prize from the
Academy of Dijon on the ‘Discourse on the Arts and Sciences’ in
1750, Rousseau proceeded to compete again in a contest of the
Academy the subject was ‘What is the origin of inequality among
j
and the qualities of mind and soul. The second is moral or political
inequality, which owes its existence to social institutions and
consists in privileges of wealth, honour and power. Rousseau finds
that natural inequalities are not substantial, that the problem of
inequality arises with the formation of society. Nature has destined
man to live a healthy, simple life and to satisfy his essential needs.
chains. Many a one believes himself the master of others, and }et
he is a greater slave than they. How has this change come about ?
I believe I can settle this And as everybody knows,
question”.
Rousseau settled this by importing within the domain of
question
political theory his famous doctrine of General Will. Rousseau
realizes that if there was any salvation for Europe, it must be found
in principles of poilitical obligation which would reconcile authority
and liberty, remove inequality, furnish a basis for pure justice,
establish natural rights, and so far as practicable restore to men in
fellows a man in the whole truth of his nature. And that man is
myself. Whosoever doubts his sincerity he deserves the gibbet”.
The following lines may be quoted from his book in support of his
sincerity of confessions and admissions :
Eternal
generous, sublime when I was that’.. .Assemble about me,
.
that man”.
3. of Rousseau
Political philosophy Edmund Burke regarded
the Social Contract of Rousseau as of Tittle or no merit’, and he
thought of Rousseau as an Mnsane Socrates’. Yet few men have
more affected the mind of the modern world than Jean Jacques
Rousseau. And as Bergson tells, he was the most powerful of the
influences which the human mind has experienced since Descartes.
He left the stamp of his strong and original genius on politics,
education, religion, literature, and it is hardly an exaggeration to
say with Lenson that he is to be found at the entrance to all the paths
leading to the present.^^ In his political thinking Rousseau was
greatly indebted to Locke in fact, the greater part of his political
;
cause which was to lead a violent revolution shortly after his death.^^
His contribution to the history of political thought can be studied
under the following heads ;
(a) State of nature —
Like his predecessors, Rousseau uses the
conception of the state of nature and the social contract to explain
his origin of state and the problem of political obligation. Hobbes
had argued that the state of nature was a state of war ;
that the life
of man at this stage w^as “solitarj', poor, brutish, nasty and short”.
In opposition to this view' Locke had insisted that the state of nature
W’as normally peaceful and pleasant. But even Locke had agreed
types. On the shores of the sea they invent the hook and catch fish,
and in the forest they become hunters and invent bows and arrows.
Thus economic progress moves on. Instead of casual caves,
the
rude huts came into existence. Family and property now are at
hand. Evils follow in their train. But at this stage the primitive
society is not intolerable. This period i-e., the middle period is the
best period in the life of humanity
—
“the least subject to revolutions,
the best for man”.
His emergence from the state of nature is due to fatal chance.
The art of agriculture required the aid of one another. It led to the
creation of rich and poor. It led to inequality. Property showed
its pernicious effect. “The first man who after enclosing a piece of
land said to himself ‘this is mine’ and found people simply to believe
him, was the real founder of civil society”.
Now followed war, murder, wretchedness and horrors. Rich
and poor ranged against each other. The evils that were absent in
the savage state now became universal. This inevitable result was
the stage of final inequality and conditions of master and slaves.
The truly natural man i.e. the savage acts on two principles. Firstly,
he acts on a feeling of interest in his own welfare and preservation
Secondly, he acts on a feeling of repugnance towards the sight of
death. But these feelings give way to reason. “By nature man
scarcely thinks. With the growth of the reason the degeneration
goes so far that it necessitated the constitution of civil society”. ‘Back
to nature’ is his cry. This does not mean that society must be
destroyed and the savage resumed but it means that nature
state
must be the rule for men in society. When Rousseau recommends
the rule of nature for man it becomes quite obvious that according
to him reason and philosophy have deluded men and brought them
to ruin.
(b) The social contract — Man inof nature was
the state
join the civil state. This was achieved through the instrument of
social pact.
In the 6th chapter of the ‘Social Contract’ Rousseau writes,
“I assume that men have reached at a point where primitive condi-
tions can no longer subsist and the human race would perish unless
it changed its mode of existence”. In the state of nature each man
pursues his self-interest until he discovers that his power to preserve
himself individually against the threats and hindrances of others is
not strong enough. The purpose of the social pact is thus to combine
security, which comes from collective association, with liberty which
the individual had before entering the social contract. Now the
free men of Rousseau were confronted with the problem of
preservation. They had no force Nor could
to preserve them.
they create any new force.
Rousseau himself writes in the Social
Contract, Men cannot create any new forces but only combine and
direct those that exist. They have no means of self-preservation
than to form by aggregation a sum of forces which make them work
in concert. This sum of forces can be produced only by the
combination ofunany but the strength and freedom of each should
:
person and all his power under the supreme direction of the general
will and in one corporate capacity, we receive each member as an
indivisible part of the whole”.
Thusconstituted a moral body having a life and a will of its
is
just or unjust”.”
It “substituted”, said Rousseau, “justice for instinct and gave
men’s actions the morality that had formerly lacked”. In the state
of the body of the people or only of a part of it. In the first case,
the will, when declared, is an act of sovereignty and constitutes law
in the second, it is merely a particular will, or act of magistracy
at the most a decree. But our political theorists, says Rousseau,
“unable to divide sovereignty in principle, divide it according to its
objects: into force and will, into legislative power, into rights of
taxation, justice and war; into internal administration
and power of
foreign Sometimes they confuse all these sections, and
treaty.
sometimes they distinguish them, they turn the sovereign into a
and t(' taking for parts of it what are only emanations for it.
Rousseau also talks of the infallibility of sovereignty. General
will, as it is clear from what has gone before, is always right and
no longer necessary to ask as to who makes the laws, since they are
the acts of the general will. The prince
is not above the law, since
he a
is member of nor whether
the state the law can be unjust,
;
to all. The first refers to the object of will tiie second, to its origin.
;
latter considers only the common interest, while the former takes
private intere t into account, and no more than a sum of parti-
is
might be, and probably was, more imbued with civil pride and
political sagacity than the much vaunted members of the aristocracy.
The mere ignorance or illiteracy of the worker should not, according
to Rousseau, be a barrier to his participation in political life.^® And
as Josephson says, “He gave impetus, especially during the 18th
and 19th centuries to the tendency of men, in greater numbers than
ever before, to act as members of the sovereignty.^®
His theory of the state as a moral entity filled with a new
regenerating force capable of restoring the downtrodden vitiated
subjects to the full vigour of upright citizenship, expressed in coherent
form the uprising force of popular nationalism just about to sweep
Europe from the old political moorings. The works of Rousseau
p. 218 .
book, the Persian Letters. Though this book was published anony-
mously, the fact that Montesquieu was the author became generally
known. Written with considerable wit and sophistication, the
was a veiled satire on French society. It was a
Persian Letters
philosophic attack on the old order. His judicial and parliamentary
and are often useful because of the spirit of attention they give to
the people. In a word, a free government, that is, one that always
agitated, cannot be maintained if it is not capable of correction
through its own laws”.
The chief work of Montesquieu, on which his reputation is
founded, is his Spirit of the Laws published in 1748. The Spirit of
the Laws is a monument of sound scholarship. In this work
Montesquieu asserts that political inquiry should have an empirical
basis and he combines assertion with the development of a
this
technique of investigation suited specifically to this subject, and not
borrowed from theology, logic or mathematics. Thus Montesquieu
is not so important for the permanent value of his contribution to
political theorizing as he is for his impact on the development of
methodology in political and social studies.® The Spirit of the
Laws was highly successful and was greatly admired both in its
•style and content. Every fact was checked as carefully as possible
with the facilities at his command, every idea was weighed and tested
with all of his intellectual resources, every sentence and every phrase
was generally moderate in the first part of the 18th century, but
grew more radical as the century progressed.® An important part
of the early criticism of the French autocracy in political writing is
found in the contributions of Charles Louis de Secondat, Banon de
Montesquieu. He presents at once the best scientific aspirations of
his age and its unavoidable confusions. Nearly all that he wrote
was written with an eye upon the state of affairs in France. He
neglected the contract and suggested a sociological relativism. He
provided a plan for the study of government in relation to both the
that the bread which he eats is not bread the wine which he drinks
:
yet the latter are poor, while the former live in affluence. Commerce
puts life into all ranks among the Protestants, and celibacy lays its
hand of death upon all interests among the Catholics’’.^'*
Another monumental work of Montesquieu for which he is so
famous in the history of modern political thought is his Spirit of
the Laws. Conflicting opinions have been expressed as to the merit
and value of this work. On the one hand is the opinion expressed
by Professor Maxey who describes it as the foremost prose work of
the 18th century. It has content and it has style, both of superior
quality. It is no exaggeration to pronounce it the most readable
III deal with the definition, nature, and different varieties of law ;
Book XIX^ deals with the influence of custom. Books XX and XXI
are practically observations at large on commerce and money ;
popularity can be gauged from the' fact that it was translated into
and thinkers like Gibbon and Bentham were delighted with it.
Statesmen like Washington and Jefferson, across the Atlantic, were
inspired by it.
Besides his Persian Letters and the Spirit of the Laws, the
book that contributed to the spread of his fame as a scientific and
historical thinker was his Reflections on the Causes of the Greatness
and Decline of the Romans. This book a clear revelation of the
is
Montesquieu 513
people from heaven above, but are the result of natural growth.
They must, therefore, be judged in their historical contexts and
their successive stages of evolution. The proper method, therefore,
for studying them is the comparative and historical method like the
one employed by Aristotle, and to a degree by Machiavelli and
Bodin. Edmund Burke has rightly said of him that he “ .was a . .
and calling into counsel all the speculations which have fatigued the
understandings of profound reasoners in all time.” In a word the
method that he used for the study of political theory is historical
and comparative. His method is that of Aristotle and not that ol
Plato, that of Bodin and not that of Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau.
His other leading political ideas are to be found in his Spirit
of the Laws.
(b) —
Montesquieu s conception of Law In the Spirit of tht
Laws, Montesquieu develops, what is known, a philosophy of law.
The study of historical jurisprudence actually began with hi;
Spirit of the Laws. Montesquieu began his Spirit of the Laws with
a definition of law.
‘‘Laws, in their most general signification, are the necessary
relation arising from the nature of things. In this sense all beings
have their laws : The Deity His laws, the material world its laws,
to man their laws, the beasts their laws,
the intelligence superior
man his laws”.^^
definition, we may conclude that foj
In view of the above
Montesquieu any relation between one
thing and some other thin^
is a law.
Montesquieu thinks that the words ‘relation’ and ‘law'
are synonymous because
he conceives the whole world in all its parts
to' be ordered and regular in its behaviour and this order and
relational
regularity is not merely accidental or arbitrary it is ,
uniformity of all laws, nor does he prescribe a certain set of laws for
particular state. Quite the contrary, people’s circumstances in
uny
various societies are so different ‘that it should be a great chance’
•to the quality of its soil, to its situation and extent, to the principal
^
shepherds; they should have relation to the degree of Hhertj
to
the constitution will bear to the religion of (he inhabitants,
inclinations, riches, numbers, commerce, manners and customs.
^
fine they have relations to each other, as also to their ?
whic
the intent of the legislators and to the order of things on
in
they are established. Hence they ought to be considered
different lights”.^*
e
combined together constitute the spirit of
t
The relations
h>
laws. It is an examination of these factors and their relationship
is to
one another that constitutes Montesquieu's task; his purpose
consider the spirit rather than the substance of the laws. The lans
the
of a society will be appropriate to that society, and the laws and
government which formulates and enforces them will be in accord
with nature, when
proper interrelationship prevails.
the Th®
goodness of a law or government cannot be judged except in this
context. As Montesquieu says, “I do not pretend to treat of la'*'*'S»
but of their spirit and as this spirit consists in the various relations
:
with due-
was that any one could be and they must be adopted
which they
regard to the humour and disposition of the people for
were to be established.
Laws contain a
Books IV and VII of The Spirit of the
and the relationship they bear
consideration of various kinds of law
to each of the governmental forms and principles. Montesquieu
contends that if the proper ‘spirit’ is observed in their formulation
and application, the stability of the society will be preserved. If
(d) —
His theory of liberty It should be impossible to end
Montesquieu’s argument without some reference to his conception
of liberty and of the means by which liberty may be most effectually
secured. “Liberty”, he justly reminds us, “is one of the vaguest
words known to speech”. It has been confined to Monarchies, it
has been confined to Republics. It has been interpreted as the
right to bear arms, as the right to wear a long beard, or a short kilt.
Ithas been used, in short, by a thousand people to describe the
form of government tribal, monarchical, aristocratic, democratic
Montesquieu 519
and the relative liberty implies the equal liberty of all to do all that
is not forbidden by a rational code of law. The first is unqualified
liberty and second
is liberty qualified by a sense of obligation to
of duties accepted by the whole community and clearly
others,
defined by the law which speaks for the v/hole community. These
are the only alternatives which it is worthwhile to consider. The
true concept of liberty, according to Montesquieu, is a right of
doing what the laws permit, and if a citizen could do what they
or democracy.
(e) —
Separation of powers Anticipating Lord Acton’s famous
dictum that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,
Montesquieu says, “Constant experience shows us that every man
invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as
far as it will go”.-® In order to establish and maintain moderate
government, power must be checked with power. In all government
three kinds of power exist : a legislative power by which the laws
29 . Ibid., XI, e.
Montesquieu 521
law which declares that all men are born equal. Slavery, he again
(g)
—
His ideas on religious persecution Even more fiery is
his assault on religious persecution. Speaking in the name of
Portuguese Jew, he pleads with the Inquisitors as follows
“We conjure you, not by the God whom we both serve, but
by Christ who, as you say, took upon him the nature of a man in
order to leave you an example. We conjure you to do by us even
as, were he still upon the earth, he would himself. Y ou wish to
make us Christians, and you will not be Chri .tians yourselves. But
if you will not be Christians, at least consen to be men. Treat
: us
as you would do if, left to the light of natural justice, you had no-
religion to guide you and no revelation to enlighten you .... one-
warning we are bound to give you. It is that, if in future ages, any
man should dare to call this century civilized, you will be cited as
proof that it was barbarous. The records of history will cast shame-
on your century and hold up all the men of your day to the hatred
of mankind”.
Thus according Montesquieu, religious persecution was
to
the very violation of life itself, a violation of the honour of God
and of the truth.
(h) Theory of rights It is to — be noted that before
Montesquieu’s time two famous theories of rights were in vogue.
One, the abstract theory of rights, supported by Locke and Rousseau
and the other, the theory of expediency as propounded by Spinoza
and later on taken by the utilitarians which later on became famous
as the Benthamite theory of rights or utility. Montesquieu rejected
both these theories. The objection against the first was that it
made no allowance for the infinite diversity of man’s political condi-
tions: that it assumed an abstract man, the same at all times, in all
places and under all circumstances whatever. The objection against
the second was that what was expedient or useful to man yesterday
may not be today, or what is useful at one time and under one set
of conditions, may not be tomorrow under all times and under all
sets of conditions.
ofstjlc
gifted by nature with a power of cxposiiion and rna''lcry
predecessors.
which were wholly' beyond (he reach of many of hi'i
that first
If any gathering of educated men were asked who it was
probable
applied the historical method of political philosophy, it is
was
that nine out of ten. of them would answer without hesitation: it
Montesquieu.®^ He stood for history, obsciwation and generalisa-
tion as the method of approach to political, social and econornic
with
truth. Being practical and historical in his outlook, he dealt
the .strict
governments as they were and not as they ought to be in
that
sense of the term. It can also be said with some justification
of the four chief writers who prepared the way for the Revolution in
France, Montesquieu was certainly not the least and that, of all the ;
Inimanity atui tolerance. WJicn he sp-eak'; from the licart. In'; voice
carries tiinsc accents of lihcralistn and hnmanitarianisni which were
soon to sweep over P.iirope in a risinp tide. Thus, for instance, in
one of !iis chapters of tiie Spirit of tfie Laws fie declares, “No
labour is so licavy but it may be brounht to a level with the work-
man’s strength, if it be regulated by ecjuity and not by avarice.” At
another place he observes that the alms given to a naked man in the
street do not fulfil the obligations of the state, which owes to every
citizen a certain subsistence, a proper nourishment, convenient
clothing, and a kind of life not incompatible with hcalth.^^ In
these lines Montesquieu anticipated the idea of welfare state which
is the goal of every modern statesman today.
Montesquieu’s argument.
In his explicit belief there is a curious mixture of hatred of
clericalism and despotism, profound concern for individual liberty,
and a strong sense of aristocratic privilege, property and class.
—E. Burke
was appointed as his Private Secretary. Thus, the keys to open the
doors of politics were with him. He, therefore, decided not to lose
this opportunity. With the support and influence of the ministry,
he succeeded in acquiring the membership of the House of Commons.
As a member of the House of Commons, Burke opposed the efforts
of George HI and his supporters, to throw aside the cams of the
Glorious Revolution. George III wanted to become the king of
England in the real sense of the term and attempted to subvert the
i dominant
figure among those who resisted the policies of the 1 mg.
Company in India.
‘ReilectiG.n
The later events prompted Bur.ke for writing his
being bled and tyrannised by the cruel servants of the East India
Company. So far as the taxation of the American and the affairs
of India are concerned, his opponents had based their policy upon
a claim of right-: ( ) of constitutional right in the first case and
1
(2)of chartered right in the other. Both these rights, i.e., the-
constitutional right of the Home Government to tax the
American
colonies and the chartered right of the East India Company to-
govern the Indian people at its own advantage, have received
a
ruthless condemnation at the hands of the great orator with
the
532 A History of Political Thought : Vol. I
sanction of expediency.
Dealing with the affairs of the American colonics and specially
their taxation without representation in the British Parliament,
but its very nature, which makes it an abstract right, that has been
condemned by Burke. He leaves the question of right impatiently
aside and once more throws himself solely on expediency. As he
writes, “I am not here going into the distinction of rights, nor
attempting to mark their boundaries. I do not enter into these
metaphysical distinctions. I hate the very sound of them. I am
a lawyer tells me I may do, but what humanity, reason and justice
tell me I ought to do”.
Next Burke deals with the affairs of the East India Company
in India. TheEast India Charter, he continues, is framed on principles
the very reverse. It is a charter to establish monopoly and to
create power. What is the sanctity of a charter when it has been
made an instrument of misgovernment and oppression ? It is the
essence of all rights, of all impose duty on the holder.
privileges, to
And when these duties are violated, the Right is shaken in extreme ;
thirdly, that there is not a single prince or state who ever put
any
trust in the Company who is not utterly ruined. And that in a
—
Edmund Burke 533
“not abject and barbarous, but for ages civilized and cultivated
cultivated by all the arts of polished life whilst we were yet in the
woods millions of the most diligent, not the least intelligent, tillers
;
of the earth. And through all that vast extent of territory there is
not a man who eats a mouthful of rice, but by permission of the
East India Company. What use — is the end of his indictment — has
the Company made of their vast powers ? None, far worse than
none. England has created no churches, no places, no schools
Ever}' other conqueror of every description has left some monument,
either of state or beneficence, behind him. Were we to be driven
out of India this day, nothing would remain to tell that it had been
possessed, during the inglorious period of our domination, by
anything better than the tiger”.
Thus we find that Burke deals with the method which is the
appeal to history with the principle which is the appeal to a
;
not only between those who are living, but between those as well
who are dead and those who are to be born”'*.
There is thus a government by consent in the sense that
government is a trust, but this consent does not imply the equality
of all who give it. Consent is given by the whole community in its
established parts, that is, classes and ranlcs of man play an impor-
tant role in giving consent. It is absurd, Burke says, to regard the
consent of an informed and propertied gentleman so far as the
concept of natural rights advocated by Locke is concerned. Burke
was emphatic that there could be nothing more fantastic than this.
Rights are civil and not pre-social They imply a society and a state.
“The only rights men can actually enjoy”, he made clear, “are rights
found not in weakening the social bond but in strengthening it, not
in setting man against the state, but in reconciling men to the state
and working out natural compromises, conferring such liberty as may
be consistent with the welfare of society”. Burke’s vigorous attack
He
politics, heartily suppnrfcfl their free rip'-e'-'i'^n
command.
While discussing the qiicstinn of the he'’-! form e>i
in c.
Burke suggests that it must he dclcnnincM in
stances. “1 reprobate", he states, "no form of po-. crmncnl
that experience is the best guide in the matter of creating and rcforni
ing government. “The science of constructing a commonwealth .
he says, “or renovating it, or reforming it, is, like every experimental
be
science, not to be taught a priori".^® It is a science that can
learned only through long experience, longer than can be achieved
in a single generation. This is why the experience and wisdom of
the ages must be taken into account in any plan involving a change
of governmental structure, operation or tradition. Revolutions,
which undermine and destroy the foundation built over the centuries,
should be a last resort. Only when “abused and deranged” govern-
ments make it apparent that “the prospect of the future” is as
dismal “as the experience of the past” is revolution justified. Then
the remedy should not be supplied by the common herd, but by
those members of the society who are fitted for the task. On thi:
basis, Burke defends the English Revolution of 1688. Burk<
regarded only a few people as competent to guide the destinies o
the country, and therefore favoured aristocracy as the best form o
government.
(c) Burke’s ideas on democracy —Burke was a bitter
opponer
of democracy. Its fundamental of equality and
doctrinesmajorii
rule have been systematically refuted by Burke. People, he assertei
could never be equal from womb to tomb. To talk about equali
and classless society is stupid and impracticable propositio:
Similarly the rule of the majority did not suit his temperamen
He denies the cardinal principle of democracy that only the governi
have the right to determine who is to govern them and that all vot
count equally. Burke was conscious of the oppression of Ic
made b> t ic
what is ten thousand times better than clioicc, it is
themsc ves
civil, and social habitudes of the people, which disclose
only in a long space of time. It is
accommodates
a vestment, which
upon
itself to the body. Nor is prescription to government formed
most
blind, unmeaning prejudices for — man is a most unwise and a
tie
wise being. The individual is foolish: the multitude, for
but
moment, is foolish, when they act without deliberation .
species it
the species is wise, and when time is given to it, as a
always acts right”.^®
On the contrary, Burke writes, contemplate the
“When 1
for those who otherwise w'ould have no hope in a class society and
thereby lessen the possibilities of insurrection. A devout man,
Burke was convinced that history is the working outof God’s will.
What has happened, including the growth of institutions of society,
is attributable to providence. In any case, the state is not a mere-
mechanism designed by men at a given time and for a given
purpose. It has the authority of generations of experience and
fact that Burke did not possess the same flight of imagination as
Plato and other creative thinkers did. But it is true, at the same
time, that he “has been and still continues to be an inexhaustible
fount of inspiration and ideas for conservative thinkers of nineteenth
and twentieth centuries, specially those of the historical and
organismic persuasions. Conspicuously apparent is his influence
on the writings of such outstanding publicists of the conservative
wing as Maine, Freeman, Seeley, Sidgwick, Mallock, Leckey
and Godwin”.
He was on the side of the future on three of the principal
political issues of his time—Ireland, India and the Americaa
conventional,
what makes Burke a defender of what is old, what is
and what is long established. In all this Burke was doubtlessly
contemporary world.
In his general towards institutions, Burke remained
attitude
in general accord with Montesquieu. Because of his emphasis upon
tradition Burke agreed with Montesquieu that it is absurd to try to
impose the governmental organs of one country upon an alie. people,
for it very seldom happens that the traditions of two countries are
the same. “The circumstances and habits of every country, which
it is always perilous to force, are to decide upon the form of
its government”.
His organic concept of state based upon the notion of a
common life is unique in itself and runs counter to the concept of
the state as developed by Locke and Spencer. He conceives society
as an organism its parts held together not as members of a joint-
:
21. Burke, Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs, Works, IV, 109.
Edmund Burke 545
W. T. Jones
Masters of Political
B. Jowett Thought, Vol. I
(1) The Republic of
Plato.
(2) The Politics of
Aristotle
Ewart Lewis Medieval Political Ideas.
R. W. Vol I
Livingstone The Legacy of Greece.
Mackenzie Studies in Roman Law.
H. S. Maine Ancient Law.
C. C. Maxey Political Philosophies.
C. H. Mcllwain CroH'/A of Political Tltouglit in the H esr
A. R. M. Murray An Introduction to Political Philosophy.
Gilbert Murray Fire Stages of Greek Religion.
J. L. Myers The Political Ideas of Greeks.
R. L. Nettleship Lectures on the Republic of Plato
W. L. Newman The Politics of Aristotle.
Whitney J. Oates The Ideal State of Plato and Aristotle.
Modern History.
A. E. Taylor (1) Plato : The Man and His Works. (2) Anitotlc
Political Thought,
C. L. Wayper
Political Theories of the .-Incicnt World
W. W. Willoughby
Alban Dewes Winspcar The Genetics of Plato's Jhpnghi