The Christian Structure of Politics: On the De Regno of Thomas Aquinas
By William McCormick, S.J.
The Catholic University of America Press, 2022.
Paperback, 288 pages, $34.95.
Reviewed by Thomas F.X. Varacalli.
In the field of political philosophy, Saint Thomas Aquinas is a towering figure. He provides the definitive articulation of natural law, a comprehensive examination of the cardinal virtues, and an exemplary model of how to integrate faith and reason. Most political philosophers after Aquinas have felt the need to respond to him, either directly or indirectly. Yet Aquinas never wrote an actual political treatise in the manner of Aristotle’s Politics or Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan. Aquinas was a theologian and, since theology studies the whole, a master theologian was expected to write about politics. Most of Aquinas’s political contributions come from the Summa Theologiae and his more minor writings, including his commentaries on Aristotle. There is one work, the De Regno, that is unique because it most approximates a political treatise.
In the first monograph on the De Regno in decades, Fr. William McCormick emphasizes that the work is a speculum principum, a mirror of princes—one of many in the medieval period. When approaching a speculum, a reader needs to avoid two pitfalls. On the one hand, there is the danger of dismissing a speculum as merely a collection of pious instructions, which can cause the reader to miss the theological, philosophical, and political ideas that animate the document. It minimizes the intention of Aquinas and downplays the role of the king in how his office must interpret and implement first principles. On the other hand, there is the danger of assuming that a speculum addresses exhaustively every possible question in political philosophy. The De Regno, after all, is not as extensive as the Summa. McCormick nimbly avoids both pitfalls and provides a balanced and nuanced interpretation of Aquinas’s De Regno.
McCormick provides several justifications for composing a commentary on Aquinas’s De Regno. The most important reason is that Aquinas’s speculum, though not comprehensive, touches upon a variety of theological, philosophical, and political ideas that are more fleshed out and coherent than other leading commentators have previously suggested. The De Regno addresses many great themes, such as the jurisdiction of the spiritual and temporal powers, the teleological structure of creation, the naturalness of political authority, the best regime and the different types of regimes, the differentiation between monarchy and tyranny, and the proper administration of justice, among several other topics. Aquinas expected not just kings, but all educated men, to learn from his work. McCormick argues that Aquinas’s examination of these themes are consistent and intentional. Most importantly, McCormick defends the structure of the De Regno, passionately arguing—against several nineteenth and twentieth century commentators who see the work as glaringly incomplete and/or sporadic—that its unfolding is orderly, logical, and remarkably concise.
One useful example of the unity underlying this speculum is how Aquinas fuses Aristotle and Augustine. Aristotle had taught that man perfects himself through the polis, and that political life is natural (as opposed to merely conventional). The structure of the polis reflects the structure of man, providing man the apparatus to truly become virtuous and free. Politics is an intrinsic good. Augustine had argued that the Earthly City is marred by sin stemming from the Fall. Thus politics is often an avenue for kings—and in republics, the people—for indulging in the libido dominandi, the lust for domination. This begs the question: How can the goodness of the polis be compatible with the Augustinian libido narrative? McCormick argues that Aquinas’s political thought draws upon a synthesis of Aristotelian naturalism and Augustinian sinfulness. In De Regno I.1-2, Aquinas forcefully argues in favor of the naturalness of political authority, but he superimposes the Christian worldview upon Aristotle. Aquinas emphasizes that God had intended for rulers to rule over men, but also that rulers were subject to God. Aquinas expects rulers to integrate faith and reason in order to defend and to serve the common good. Therefore, political life is not fully supreme, insofar as it must abide by the divinely ordained principles of natural law, which also provide a standard by which rulers can be judged. According to McCormick, Aquinas’s Augustinianism manifests itself in the discussion of tyranny found in De Regno 1.3-6. While some commentators viewed Aquinas’s long discussion on tyranny as out-of-place and demonstrative of an incomplete work, McCormick sees it as a logical conclusion of Aquinas’s Augustinianism. The propensity for rulers to sin and act upon the libido dominandi leads to the perennial problem of tyranny. The tyrant abuses creation by acting upon his private good instead of the common good. The severity of the tyranny, however, greatly varies from ruler to ruler. Harsh tyranny is often an exception, though mild tyranny is common. Through this argument, Aquinas is able to maintain the inherent goodness of politics per se (through Aristotle), with the propensity of injustice inherent in politics (through Augustine).
A second useful example underlying the unity of speculum is how Aquinas divides the spiritual power and the political power. Following Pope Gelasius’s two swords theory, Aquinas affirms the superiority of the spiritual power over the temporal power, while acknowledging that they are separate powers. On the one hand, the king is not a vassal of the pope. On the other hand, the king has a responsibility to ensure the protection of the Christian commonwealth from both external enemies (e.g., warring Muslims) and internal enemies (e.g., heretics). The king has a responsibility to ensure the administration of justice, which includes the enforcement of natural law. According to McCormick, Aquinas’s dualism avoids the pitfalls associated with two forms of monism: civil religion (whereby the temporal power uses religion for its benefit, violating the supremacy of the spiritual) and theocracy (the temporalizing of the spiritual power). McCormick emphasizes that Aquinas’s balancing act is a great achievement, but one that later medieval thinkers, such as John of Paris or Giles of Rome, fail to uphold.
McCormick succeeds in providing an informative, insightful, and clear examination of Aquinas’s political thought. He shows that the De Regno is a rich book that invites its readers to contemplate many of the great political questions. He provides excellent textual analysis while engaging the secondary literature. The book should be accessible to anyone who has read De Regno once. It would be of great use to anyone interested in Thomistic politics.
Thomas Varacalli is Assistant Professor of Great Books at Belmont Abbey and co-editor of The Future of the Catholic Church in the American Public Order (Franciscan, 2023).
Support the University Bookman
The Bookman is provided free of charge and without ads to all readers. Would you please consider supporting the work of the Bookman with a gift of $5? Contributions of any amount are needed and appreciated!
