MARSILIUS OF PADUA. - Political writer, b. in Padua in 1275-80 to Bonmatteo dei Mainardini, notary of the University, d. in 1342-43 at the imperial court of Munich. Until 1312 he lived in his native city, obtaining the title of physician and taking part in the political struggles aroused by the descent of Henry VII into Italy and by the ambitious conquests of Cangrande della Scala. He certainly came under the influence of Pietro d'Abano and was a friend of the historian and poet Albertino Mussato, to whom we owe the few biographical notices about his Paduan residence.
Between Sept. 1312 and May 1313 he was a master and then rector at the University of Paris (H. Denifle, Chart. Univers. Paris, II, Paris 1892, p. 158), where he formed a close friendship with John of Jandun. He subsequently went to the University of Orléans (Defensor pacis, II, ch. 18, § 6) and to the papal Curia at Avignon (ibid., ch. 24, § 17). Having returned to his homeland, he obtained from John XXII two ecclesiastical benefices, by bulls of 16 Oct. 1316 and 3 Apr. 1318. But this did not prevent him from giving his full cooperation to the anti-papal struggle of the Ghibelline party, led by Matteo Visconti: and perhaps it was to him that the Pontiff's lament referred, contained in the Breve ad Jordanum de Insula of 29 Apr. 1319 (L. Guérard, Archives de la Guascogne, 2nd series, fasc. II, p. 135). It is probable that in this year he outlined the fundamental features of his political-ecclesiastical system, which is so strongly marked by the living experience of the free Italian communes, above all of nearby Venice. After the failure of Matteo Visconti's policy, he thought it more prudent to return to Paris, where he divided his time between the practice of medicine and theological studies. John of Jandun was of the greatest help to him, for a more complete knowledge of the new French political tendencies, for a more precise formulation of his thought and finally for the collection of that vast theological and scriptural material which the polemic of the Franciscan Spirituals had already abundantly elaborated. It was therefore not difficult for M. to draft rapidly in a very few months, as soon as he learned of the papal condemnation of Louis the Bavarian, the definitive text of the Defensor pacis (M. Goldast, Monarchia S. Romani Imperii, II, Hanover and Frankfurt 1610, pp. 154-312; C. W. Previté-Orton, Cambridge 1928; R. Scholz, in MGH, Fontes iuris Germanici antiqui in usum schol., VIII, Hanover 1932-33: critical edition). The manuscript was finished on 24 June 1324 (Defensor pacis, III, ch. 3, end): the author's name was barely hinted at under the appellation Anthenorides (ibid., I, ch. 1, § 6), indicating his Paduan origin (cf. Virgil, Aeneid, I, 242). The title was meant to indicate the purpose and the content of the book: « since in it are set forth the causes on which depends the preservation of the peace and tranquillity of the State and the reasons for which conflicts arise, are prevented and are removed » (Defensor pacis, III, ch. 3, beginning). The work, divided into three Dictiones, besides being an exposition of the philosophical doctrine of the State, presented itself as a violent polemic against the thesis of papal supremacy. It nevertheless passed unnoticed for about two years, so much so that M. was able in 1326 to hold a course on Holy Scripture. But in the summer of the same year M., together with Jandun, accused of being himself also an author of the book, was forced to flee. The two took refuge in Nuremberg to ask protection of Louis, to whom the work had been dedicated. The King, after some prudent reservation, received them as counsellors, and wished them with him on his Italian expedition (1327-28). At Rome M. was appointed ecclesiastical vicar of the city, and had the satisfaction of seeing the principles of the Defensor pacis applied in the popular election of the Emperor, in the deposition of John XXII and in the appointment of the antipope. The report of his appointment as archbishop of Milan is unfounded.
After the unhappy conclusion of the Italian campaign, M. lived until his death at the imperial court of Munich, as counsellor and physician. In 1341-42 he took part in the polemic on imperial jurisdiction in matrimonial causes, occasioned by the marriage of the Emperor's son. His death must have followed immediately afterwards, if Pope Clement VI spoke of him as a person already deceased, in a speech of 10 April 1343. M. suffered various ecclesiastical condemnations as a heretic, both before and after death (Denz-U, 495 ff.).
M. also wrote: De translatione Romani Imperii (M. Goldast, op. cit., II, pp. 147-53), immediately subsequent to the Defensor pacis which announces it (II, ch. 30, § 7): it is nothing but a reworking in an anti-papal sense of the homonymous little treatise of Landolfo Colonna; De iurisdictione Imperatoris in causis matrimonialibus (M. Goldast, op. cit., II, pp. 1286-91): it is a simple memorial concerning the controversy over the marriage of the Emperor's son, written in 1341-42; Defensor minor (N. Valois, Comptes rendus de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres, Paris 1903, pp. 601 ff.; C. K. Brampton, Birmingham 1922): it reaffirms with great energy the principles of the Defensor, clarifying certain particular points, among them jurisdiction in matrimonial matters, which suggests that it was drafted in 1342, perhaps using earlier material.
The fundamental idea of the Defensor pacis is that the Church and the State belong to two entirely different worlds: of pure spirituality and interiority in relation to the eternal end, and of natural and external interests in relation to the earthly end (I, ch. 19; II, ch. 2). Theoretically, therefore, a clear and essential separation; but in fact a complete subordination of the Church to the State, insofar as the Church must carry out its spiritual mission within the sphere of earthly life. Before Christianity, the pagan priesthood was a simple function of the State, arising from the necessity of feigning a divine authority that would ensure a more complete obedience to the laws of the State (I, ch. 5, §§ 10-13). After Christ, the priesthood continues to represent this function of the State, but rendered more effective by the divine Revelation that determines it (I, ch. 6). The claim, on the part of the Church, to be arbiter of the earthly life of States is the cause of all the grave social disorder (I, ch. 19).
The State is an organism which, in the harmonious cooperation of its functional parts, is capable of giving citizens the full self-sufficiency of a perfect human life on this earth (I, ch. 4). The social matter has gradually differentiated itself, under the impulse of natural needs; the formal cause, on the other hand, derives from reason, which unifies all the wills of determined social matters in relation to the common good (I, chs. 7 and 17, § 8-11). This unitary will expresses itself concretely in a public assembly, composed of the citizens or of their « pars valentior », and becomes law, which is the form or soul of the organism of the State (I, ch. 15, § 6-7). Since law is essentially coercive (I, ch. 11), the assembly must also elect an absolutely unitary power that executes and defends it (potestas coattiva seu iudicialis). Thus arises the figure of the principans or monarch, as the first and fundamental functional part of the organism of the State: his authority comes from the people and is always under the judgment of the people (I, ch. 14-18). His first task is to bring into being the other functional parts necessary for the self-sufficiency of the State and then to supervise their harmonious cooperation for the good of the whole (I, ch. 15, § 8-10). These are: the military, the financial and the sacerdotal (liberal works), the agricultural and the artisanal (servile works; I, ch. 5). The doctores, on the other hand, constitute the essential element or « pars valentior » of the social body.
The Church is the society of all Christians, who through the interior observance of the revealed divine law tend toward the eternal end (II, ch. 2). Jesus Christ instituted the priesthood, giving it the mandate to teach this law, to perform the eucharistic transubstantiation and to exercise the « potestas clavium » (II, ch. 6): he did not, however, confer on it any coercive power over the faithful (II, chs. 3-4), and he demands of it perfect evangelical poverty (II, chs. 11-14). All priests are essentially equal, without any real difference between bishops and priests and without territorial limits to their ministry (II, chs. 15-17). St. Peter had no primacy over the other Apostles, and it is very doubtful that he ever came to Rome (II, ch. 16). Since, however, the Church must live on earth, it has necessarily had to give itself an organization or economy. Not having been established by Christ, this must be implemented according to the norms of reason. It is therefore to the assembly of all Christians or general council that there belongs the authentic interpretation of the revealed law, and also the establishment of the fundamental norms of the ecclesiastical economy (II, chs. 20-21). Thus arose the division into particular Churches and, in view of special merits, the conferral of a pastoral primacy on the Roman Church (II, ch. 18, § 22). The local council of the individual Churches appoints the bishop, who likewise has a purely pastoral primacy (II, ch. 17, § 22, § 6).
As for the relations between Church and State, all Christians, and particularly priests, are subject, in their external acts, to the coercive power of the principantes of the State, even if unbelievers (II, chs. 4-5). Since the Church has received no coercive power even over its own members, it must, in order to live, lean upon the State. The principans of the State has the duty of convoking councils, directing their work and executing their deliberations; furthermore, the task of administering the benefices that serve for the sustenance of the Churches and of the poor (II, ch. 22). His coercive power concerns only external acts, and therefore he cannot persecute unbelievers and heretics except when they represent a harm to public tranquillity (II, ch. 8, 10); he must, on the other hand, extend his control over all priests, determining who, how many and how they must exercise the ministry, so that this may always remain in perfect equilibrium with the other functions of the State (II, chs. 15-17).
In the doctrines set forth, M. claims to see a benefit for the spiritual liberty of the Church. The Church in fact, through its doctores, influences the very elaboration of the law of the State; and the legislative body, composed of Christians (more grave is the situation of the Church in non-Christian regions) always has the right to watch over the work of the principans. The ecclesiastical council and the earthly legislative body composed of the faithful come in fact to identify with one another (II, chs. 171, 187, 21). The doctrine of the « plenitudo potestatis papalis » represents the culmination of the usurpation of the clergy against the State, begun from the time of Constantine: it is necessary that the Church return subject to the State, so that the latter may have peace (the meaning of the Defensor pacis) and the former may represent a true instrument of the spiritual elevation of men in relation to the eternal end (II, chs. 22-30; III, chs. 1-3).
One cannot fully understand the thought of M. without setting it within its historical environment. With the definitive disappearance of the unitary political conception of the Middle Ages, of which Dante, a few years earlier, had been the last and anachronistic upholder, the individual States were arising, tending to find in themselves their full self-sufficiency, and therefore to subordinate to their own control the Church and its spiritual, political and economic force. M. was able to delineate the physiognomy of this new organism of the State that was asserting itself and thus to become a precursor of the lay conception of the State. Even if in him the Aristotelian and earlier medieval sources are evident, his political theory has entirely new emphases, which prelude modern positions.
His ecclesiological doctrines fall within the sphere of true heresy, and, although not very original, they had great resonance because of their systematic force, influencing directly Occam (v.), Wycliffe, Hus and the development of conciliar theories.