Development

On the most important points of Aristotelian political philosophy (Horn 2008:1-19) medieval commentators and authors generally follow Aristotle, though they might set new accents or pose new questions that go beyond the scope of Aristotle’s position. The question of the epistemological status of the study of political science is explicitly treated, in order to distinguish this field of study from others in terms of its subject matter, goal, and intended purpose. Issues of nature and the basis of lordship are more thoroughly examined than in Aristotle’s own works, with the earliest receptions in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries relying more on metaphysical models (e. g., Peter of Auvergne, Thomas

Aquinas, Dante). These methodological questions are based mainly on the first book of the Politics and discuss the general nature of lordship and servitude in connection with Aristotle’s arguments concerning slavery. Monarchy is considered the best form of rule by most authors, who therefore generally misunderstand Aristotle’s carefully nuanced opinions on the subject (Lambertini 2001; Ubl, in Flueler 2002).

Aristotle’s Politics influenced political discourse and political language far beyond the scope of the commentaries, as demonstrated by Thomas Aquinas. Not only did Aquinas treat the Politics explicitly in his commentary on the work (1269-1271), but his mirror for princes, De regno (1271-1273), written at the same time as the commentary or slightly later, also could not have been written without a knowledge of the Politics. The strength of the link between the tradition of mirrors of princes and the reception of the Politics is also demonstrateD by the De regimine principum by Giles of Rome, which was famous for Presenting the fundamentals of Aristotelian political thought in an understandable way. Even Dante still considered political science a new field of study (Mon 1.1.5). However, Dante’s main point of reference is not Aristotle’s Politics, with which he was also familiar, but rather the radical Aristotelians’ theory of the Intellect and Happiness, which he attempted to translate into political theory. Marsilius of Padua also utilized contemporary political Aristotelianism (Defensor pacis I.16) in order to address central questions of the time that could not have been addressed by Aristotle (Defensor pacis I.1.3). The question of the relationship between worldly and spiritual power was never discussed by Aristotle but could still be answered in a variety of ways using an Aristotelian model.

See also: > Dante Alighieri > Giles of Rome > Marsilius of Padua > Mirrors for Princes > Peter of Auvergne > PolitIcal Philosophy > Thomas Aquinas, Political Thought