ON KINGSHIP TO THE KING OF CYPRUS
What the Name King Signifies
We need, at the outset of our work, to explain what one should understand by the word king. And regarding all things ordained for an end, in which there may be this or that way of proceeding, something needs to give the direction whereby they arrive straightaway to the requisite end. For example, ships, which the force of various winds may toss in different directions, would not arrive at their destination unless the efforts of pilots were to guide the ships to port. And human beings have an end for the attainment of which their whole lives and actions are ordained, since those who act intelligently evidently act for the sake of an end. But human beings may advance in different ways toward their intended end, which the very diversity of human endeavors and activities makes clear. Therefore, human beings need something that directs them to their end.
And nature implants in each human being the light of reason, which directs them in their activities toward their end. And if it were appropriate for human beings to live solitarily, like many animals, they would indeed need no other direction to their end. Rather, each would be king unto self under God, the supreme king, since the light of reason divinely bestowed on each would direct individual human beings themselves in their actions. But human beings are, by their nature, social and political, living in community more than every other animal. And natural necessity indeed makes this evident. For nature has, in the case of other animals, provided food, fur covering, or means of defense (for example, teeth, horns, claws, or at least fleetness for flight). But human beings have been constituted with none of these things provided by nature. Rather, human beings have instead been provided with reason, which enables them to provide all these things for themselves by the work of their hands. And a single human being does not suffice to provide all these things, since single human beings by themselves could not adequately make their way through life. Therefore, it is natural for human beings to live in community with many.
Moreover, nature has implanted in other animals indigenous structures regarding everything useful or harmful for them. For example, sheep, by nature, esteem wolves as enemies. Some animals by their naturally indigenous structure even recognize the medicinal plants and other things necessary to sustain their life. But human beings by nature know only in a general way the things necessary to sustain their life, so that they can arrive at knowledge of particular necessary things for human life by their power to reason from the first principles of nature. And individual human beings cannot attain all such things by their own reason. Therefore, human beings need to live in community, so that they can assist one another, with different human beings engaged in discovering different things by reason (for example, one in medicine, others in this or that).
This is made most clearly evident by the fact that human beings have the characteristic ability to use speech, whereby human beings can completely express their ideas to one another. Other animals indeed communicate their emotions in a general way (for example, dogs express their anger by barking, and other animals their emotions in different ways). Therefore, human beings can communicate with one another more than any other animals can that we see living communally, such as cranes and ants and bees. Therefore, Solomon, contemplating this, says in Eccl. 4:9: “Two human beings are better than one, since they have the enrichment of mutual association.”
Therefore, if human beings by nature live in association with many others, all of them need to have some power to govern them. For if there are many human beings, and they provide for their own individual interests, the people would split into different factions unless there were also to exist a power to provide for what belongs to the common good. Just so, even the body of a human being or any animal would disintegrate unless there were to exist a general regulative power in the body to strive for the common good of all the body’s members. And Solomon, contemplating this, said in Prov. 11:14: “The people will be destroyed if there is no ruler.”
And this happens in accord with reason. For what belongs to individuals, and what is common to all, are not the same. Human beings indeed differ by what is proper to each one, and are united by what is common to all. But there are different causes of different things. Therefore, besides what causes individual human beings to act for their own good, there needs to be a power that causes them to act for the common good of the community. And so also regarding all things ordained for one thing, we find a power that governs other things. For example, in the universe of material substances, a primary material substance, namely, the heavenly body, governs other material substances by an ordination of God’s providence, and rational creatures by his ordination govern the use of all material substances. Also, in each human being, the soul governs the body, and reason governs the irascible and concupiscible parts of the soul. And likewise, one chief bodily member, whether the heart or the head, moves all the others. Therefore, every people needs to have a power that rules.
And regarding some things ordained for an end, there may be a right or wrong way of proceeding. And so also a people may be governed rightly or wrongly. And a people is governed rightly when it is guided to a suitable end, and wrongly when it is guided to an unsuitable end. And the end suitable to a community of free persons is different from the end suitable for a community of slaves, since free persons are their own agents, and slaves belong to others. Therefore, if a ruler should direct a community of free persons for the common good of the people, there will be a right and just regime, as befits free persons. And if the governance of a ruler be ordained for the private good of the ruler and not for the common good of the people, there will be an unjust and wicked regime. And so also the Lord, speaking through Ezechiel, threatens such rulers in Ez. 34:2: “Woe to the shepherds of Israel who have fed themselves” so as to gain their own advantage. “Are not shepherds to feed their flock?” Shepherds of the flock should indeed seek the good of their flock, and every ruler, the good of the people subject to him.
Therefore, if there be an unjust regime in the hands of only one person who seeks from the regime his own advantage, not the good of the people subject to him, we call such a ruler a tyrant, a name derived from strength, namely, in that he crushes by his power and does not rule justly. And so also the ancients called all powerful persons tyrants. And if there be an unjust regime in the hands of several persons, not one, we call it oligarchy (that is, rule by the few) if it is indeed in the hands of a few persons. This is a case where a few persons crush the people for the sake of riches, and differs from tyranny only by the plurality of rulers. And if a wicked regime is in the hands of many, we call it democracy (that is, rule of the people). This is a case where the mass of common citizens crush the rich by the power of their number. For then even the whole people will be as if a single tyrant.
And likewise, we also need to distinguish just regimes. For if a just regime is in the hands of many people, we call it by the general name polity (for example, when a large number of warriors rule in a city or province). And if a just regime is in the hands of a few persons, who are also virtuous, we call it aristocracy (that is, the best rule or rule by the best, whom we call aristocrats for that reason). And if a just regime is in the hands of only one person, we properly call that person king. And so the Lord says through Ezechiel in Ez. 37:24: “My servant David will be king over them, and there will be one shepherd of all of them.” And this evidently shows that it belongs to the nature of kingship that there is one person who rules, and that he is a shepherd who seeks the common good of the people and not his own individual good.
And because it belongs to human beings to live in a community, since they are insufficient to secure the necessities of life for themselves if they should remain solitary, the unity of the people is necessarily more complete the more intrinsically self-sufficient it will be to provide the necessities of life. There is indeed a sufficiency of life in one family comprising one household, namely, regarding natural acts of nutrition and procreation and such like. And there is a sufficiency of life in a district, namely, regarding things proper to one occupation. And there is a sufficiency of life in a city, that is, a perfect community, namely, regarding all the necessities of life, but still more in a province because of the need to wage war and afford mutual assistance against enemies. And so we refer to those who rule perfect communities, that is, cities or provinces, as the kings. And we call those who rule households fathers of families, not kings, although fathers are analogous to kings, and for that reason we sometimes call kings fathers of their peoples.
Therefore, it is clear from what I have said that a king is a single person who governs the people of a city or province for the common good. And so Solomon says in Eccl. 5:8: “The king
rules all the territory subject to him.”
From Aquinas, On Law, Morality, and Politics, second edition, translated by Richard J. Regan, edited by William P. Baumgarth and Richard J. Regan (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2002). Copyright © 2002. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.