In classical political thought, the concept of a tyrant is used (simplified) to refer to an autocrat who has betrayed his monarchical mission to manage the state and lead it towards the common good. Contrary to this mission, however, the tyrant oppresses the state’s residents and asserts his personal desires contrary to the general good, using violence whether brutal or less cruel. However, the defining feature of tyranny is not violence, which is legitimate in the interest of the public in every form of government, but rather the focus on purely personal gain at the expense of the general welfare, and the use of violence precisely for personal gain. (Of course, it should be noted that, in ancient times, the term ‘tyrant’ was not always perceived negatively, either theoretically or practically.)
Therefore, a tyrant is not a monarch who suppresses a bloody and decaying revolution by equally bloody means to preserve the communal good; rather, it is a ruler who uses similar means to satisfy their own selfish desires and gain personal profit at the expense of the general welfare. Similarly, according to this definition, a representative of a secular totalitarian regime based on a particular ideology should not be called a tyrant. He does not have to act for his own personal gain, and he may, of course, have the impression that he is working for the common good since he is an unbeliever. His removal usually has no effect because the secular ideology of gratitude to its metaphysical background endures, even after the death of the leading official.
For a Christian, an anti-Christian secular regime (or any anti-Christian mode) is basically a tyrannical system. In this case, the classic division into monarchy, aristocracy, and politea loses its meaning, because it is irrelevant whether Christians will be persecuted by an autocrat, an elite, or elected people’s representatives. The problem lies outside the political system. For a Christian, any form of suppression of Christianity is automatically tyrannical.
All scholastic thinkers assume a political situation within the Christian state. A monarch who strives to suppress Christianity or harm the natural good of the Christian state is seen as a tyrant who has abused his position. However, a global non-Christian or anti-Christian regime or state (e.g. Islamic or pagan) is generally perceived as unacceptable. Essentially, their vision of the state can be described as a dichotomy: Christian states versus missionary states (non-Christian states that consciously or unconsciously prevent people from knowing the Gospel).
This vision of reality is found in St. Augustine’s concept of two states: the spiritual and the secular. Whether they want to or not, all orthodox Christian concepts of politics must appeal to St. Augustine, unless they serve some modern-day ideology. The notion of a pluralistic, multi-religious state would have seemed absurd to the scholastics. The political conceptions of St Thomas Aquinas and John of Salisbury are only feasible within a Christian state that participates in Civitas Dei.
Whether an individual in a Christian state or a general in an anti-Christian state, tyranny is undoubtedly perceived as evil. Christian thinkers have questioned how Christians should respond to this evil. A fundamental problem for Christians is whether a tyrant can be removed by force, i.e., by killing them, either collectively or individually. Some Christian thinkers rejected such a practice (Tertullian and Lactations), while others did not exclude it (St. Augustine), but neither group dealt with the issue in much detail.
John of Salisbury (1115–1180)
Was the first scholastic to deal with the problem of the tyrant in detail in his writing Polycrates. He was an English priest and later bishop of Chartres, as well as a diplomat and secretary to St Thomas Becket. As a direct participant in Thomas Becket’s dispute with King Henry II. Plantagenet, who initiated the murder of St Thomas Becket, had ample incentive to think about tyrants. The result was the work above.
John determined that the fundamental difference between a monarch and a tyrant is that the former obeys the law, while the latter does not. However, we must also consider that the monarchical system assumes the possibility of a monarch creating statutes, not just complying with them. This means that he can pass a law against natural law, observe it, and still be tyrannical. Therefore, it is perhaps better to stick to the definition of a tyrant as someone who acts against the general welfare, as the criterion of compliance with the law is not authoritative.
Moreover, laws can be anti-Christian, as we know today. Therefore, their observance by the ruler will not necessarily be beneficial for a Christian state. This confirms the assumption that the scholastics did not consider systems or laws other than those based on Christian principles. By ‘general welfare’, they understood a state of public affairs that corresponded to Church teaching within the framework of a Christian state, rather than primarily to some natural and material goods. The first Christians who perceived emperors such as Diocletian as tyrants can serve as an example. They achieved success in economic, organisational, and military terms, supporting the general well-being in the pagan sense. They were tyrants to the Christians because they persecuted them.
Emperor Nero and the execution of Christians, with Rome burning in the background. Image source: Wikimedia Commons
John of Salisbury writes about the qualities of a good Christian monarch:
The monarch is a servant of the Church and a helper of the priestly status, performing those duties that are not fit for consecrated hands. ‘The monarch receives the sword from the Church.’
The monarch is subject to the law of justice.
The monarch should be morally blameless and must not be greedy.
The monarch must be pious and educated.
The monarch must be humble.
The monarch must never think of himself, but of others.
A monarch who lacks these qualities opposes the laws of God and the world, and may be considered a tyrant. John distinguishes between two types of tyrant: the tyrant-ruler and the tyrant-usurper. The former came to power through legitimate means, while the latter did so through illegitimate means. In the second case: ‘It is not only permissible to kill a tyrant, but also just and right. Whoever usurps power belittles the law and subjects it to his will. The situation with the legitimate monarch is more complicated, but John of Salisbury does not consider this to be an obstacle. He agrees that it is permissible to kill a legitimate monarch, and even considers it a ‘blessed’ act. He only adds that an oath against the tyrant should not bind the perpetrator and, if the tyrant is a priest, he must be suspended before execution. He supports his arguments with examples from the Old Testament and adds: ‘Tyranny is therefore not only a public crime, but something more. The tyrant, this embodiment of perversion, is undoubtedly to be killed in most cases.’
However, John of Salisbury’s radical approach was not widely understood. In the following centuries, especially when queens became more common, the horrified Church officially rejected this theory, and the attitude of St. Thomas Aquinas remained prevalent.
St. John’s attitude. However, Thomas is not clear. In theory, he admits to the removal of a tyrant, but makes several reservations. He fundamentally rejects individual action by ordinary people in this regard. He reserves the right to execute the tyrant for a legitimate authority, specifically a lower branch such as the monarch’s family, successors, the council of ministers, or another body involved in state administration.
St. Thomas Aquinas left us with several instructions for resolving this situation in his theological and philosophical works, as well as in works directly addressing forms and methods of governance, such as ‘De regimine principum’. It seems that, over time, St. Thomas abandoned more radical positions on this issue and leaned towards moderation.
In his comments on Peter Lombard’s statements, he asks himself the question: ‘Are Christians supposed to obey worldly power, especially tyrants?’ Here, however, St. Thomas does not cite the answer as his own, but invokes Cicero: ‘Cicero talks about the case when someone appropriates power by force, against the will of the subjects, or by forcing their consent, and when there is no possibility of turning to a superior power that could judge the usurper.’ Then, he who kills a tyrant to rid his country of the yoke is praised and rewarded.’
Despite this potentially positive opinion, there is a difference with John of Salisbury: St. Thomas only discusses a tyrannical usurper who seizes power by force. When considering the removal of a legitimate ruler who has become a tyrant, St. Thomas cites the first Christian martyrs and their relationship with the emperor as an example to follow: they submitted and did not rebel.
Visitors counter: 196
