Marsilius the author of Defensor Pacis - Factum subjectiones
Biography of Marsilius
Marsilius of Padua lived 1270-1340.
Marsilius was one of the greatest figures of the nominalist school of philosophy, together with his colleague William Occam who lived from 1280-1317.
Thus their attitude is that special things are of high value, while general things are only an abstraction rather than a thought.
For them the state is considered a world power, replaced by the state as a permanent center of power, which stands on its own, independent from relations with a higher power, such as the church.
Their attitude like this arose as a result of the dispute between the emperor Louis Bavaria and Pope Johannes XXII.
Marsilius Defensor Pacis book
Marsilius was an expert thinker on the French state and law, Marsilius circa 1324 published his very famous book, which was named "Defensor Pacis" (Defender of Peace).
Defensor Pacis is the most amazing book of all the books that existed in the Middle Ages.
This Pacis defensor, although the creation of a scholar in the Middle Ages, still causes admiration for anyone who is just starting to learn about the state and the law.
This is due to his courage and modern thoughts which are contained in the book Defensor Pacis.
Defensor Pacis' book consists of three sections called dictiones.
The first book describes the basics of the state. The second book outlines the fundamentals of the church and the nature of the relationship between the state and the church.
While the third book contains only conclusions. Regarding his teachings on statehood, Marsilius was greatly influenced by Aristotle's teachings.
The state is a body or organism which has the principles of life and has the highest objective, namely to organize and maintain peace.
Marsilius and Dante
Thus Marsilius together with Dante are the first to give their own goals to the country.
The teachings of Marsilius were subsequently very different from those of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Because in the teachings of Marsilius, it appears that the role of people or individuals in the formation of a state or society.
Country according to Marsilius
According to Marsilius, the formation of the state was not solely due to God's will, or because of God's nature, but the state occurred because of the agreement of the people, who lived together to carry out peace.
Meanwhile, according to Augustine God is the starting point of everything, so it is also about the existence of a state, and according to the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, although it is still based on God, a new factor has begun to emerge, namely human beings, whose nature is still vague. .
So from the teachings of Marsilius about the existence of the state have seen the basics of the community agreement, which is a continuation of the teachings of Epicurus who laid its seeds.
In the agreement, according to Marsilius, the people appointed someone who was entrusted with maintaining peace.
And to this person whom they appointed they bowed to one another.
So they not only entered into an agreement to form a state, but also made an agreement to submit themselves.
This is called Factum subjectiones.
Factum subjections (the nature of the submission)
What is the nature of that submission? Are they completely subject to everything ordered by the authorities, or the government, or the person they appoint; or are they only subject to the exercise of power that they give it?
According to Marsilius factum, there are two kinds of subjectiones, namely :
- If the submission is limited to what the people want, then the power of the ruler, or king, is only to carry out or exercise the power of the people, so it is only the executive.
The king may not and is not authorized to determine regulations or laws. It is the people who create or make the rules and laws. This transfer of power or the nature of submission is called concessio. - Whereas if the people are absolutely subject to the ruler or king they choose, and the right to make the rule or law rests in the hands of the king, then the power they give to the king is not only executive but also constitutive. This surrender of power is called translatio.
The latter is embraced by the Glossatorents, namely those who insert and add to the old law with the new law.
Because then the law can develop and can be adapted to the needs of the times.
So for the sake of law, according to the Glossatorents, factum subjectiones must be translatio in nature.
State Power according to Marsilius
Meanwhile, according to Marsilius, the highest state power rests with the people, so that sovereignty rests with the people, because the people have the right to make legal regulations or laws.
This is because the country is a unit of people who are free, who are free, so it is impossible for one person to control others absolutely.
So the balance between people's power and the power of the king is the sovereign people, the king who exercises the people's sovereignty.
Thus, what Marsilius adheres to is factum subjectiones which is Concessio in nature.
Divinity in the teachings of Marsilius
It was as if in the teaching of Marsilius the divine element had been released. But in later descriptions his teaching still has a theocratic character.
That is, even though he said that the existence of the country was due to a treaty, with factum subjectiones those people formed a government, but people could carry out such actions because of the encouragement or inspiration of God, so as if God was from afar to have influence, and it is this influence that causes these people to enter into a covenant.
So according to Marsilius God is a distant cause or causa remota rather than the formation of the state.
Now how is the relationship between the state and the church according to the teachings of Marsilius.
Countries according to Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Marsilius
If Augustine says that what is desired is the Kingdom of God, and the state is only a tool rather than the church to eradicate the enemies of the church for the realization of these ideals, and if according to Thomas Aquinas's view, the state and the church have the same position, and here there is cooperation between the state and the church, it's just that the field is different, the state is in the worldly field, the church is in the spiritual field; so Marsilius has established a strict separation between the state and the church.
And it is clearly said that the state has a higher status than the church.
Because based on the agreement between these people a country has been formed to carry out peace.
So the state existed before the church.
Moreover, the state can make legal regulations or laws that are based on people's power, which are binding, and can impose sanctions on anyone who violates them.
Whereas the church cannot do that.
So strictly speaking, it is the state that is higher in position and more powerful than the church.
Marsilius's teachings about the state and law, put forward in the eighteenth century, is of great interest in many ways.
Due to the absence of the slightest great aspiration of the medieval era, namely not knowing the existence of a world empire at all.
So instead of the idealistic view, a realism view was created, which later had much in common with Rousseau's view in the XVIII century, and a constitutional monarchy in the XIX century.
Even more interesting is Marsilius' courage and independence, not only towards the church, but also towards the power of his superior, the emperor Louis.
Marsilius doesn't talk about the power of the emperor at all. Because Marsilius' stance on the state is like Aristotle's view, namely the Republic-Democracy state.
However, as a result of Marsilius's teachings, especially his view of the relationship between the state and the church and all its consequences, it can give rise to absolute kingship power, in the sense that in this world nothing can overcome, and this power can include anything.
So its absolute nature is both in degree and in extent.
Then there are systems of government that are absolute in nature.
The absoluteness of this can be such that if in the past, in medieval times, the king was bound by religious regulations, or ethical matters, then now it is the king who determines which religion his people should follow.
So, freedom of religion can be said to no longer exist.
With the emergence of absolute kings' power, for which the king was not responsible to anyone, except to God, then there was abuse of power, including restraint in matters of belief.
So it is not surprising that then new movements emerged against it, but this school or movement did not intend to abolish kings, so it was not anti-king.
They are only anti-king power which is absolute, because this must always cause excess.
So it is this excess that they are questioned.
Monarchomaken
This stream is called monarkomacons. If according to the actual meaning of the word monarkomaken means anti-king.
But actually what these monarchomons mean is not anti-king, but anti-king power which is absolute, and especially its excess.
Monarkomaken school which later will limit the power of the king, by recounting the origins of the king's power.
If the theocracy theory in medieval times said that the king's power came from God, because the king was considered God's representative in the world, while God's power was absolute, so the king's power had to be absolute.
So this monarkomaken flow then looked for new foundations for the king's power.
However, before discussing this monarchomaken school further, it is better to discuss the next era, namely the renaissance era.
Because the consequences of the teachings that existed during the renaissance era would be the same as those of Marsilius's teachings, namely the formation of a central and absolute government system in the country which also resulted in the emergence of absolute power in the king.
So, strictly speaking, the consequences of Marsilius' teachings and the consequences of the teachings of scholars during the renaissance period were parallel, namely the emergence of absolutism, and this later led to monarchomacons and reformaties.
