Medieval Academy of America

John of Salisbury and the Doctrine of Tyrannicide

Author(s): Richard H. Rouse and Mary A. Rouse
Source: Speculum, Vol. 42, No. 4 (Oct., 1967), pp. 693-709
Published by: Medieval Academy of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2851099 .
Accessed: 26/06/2014 21:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Medieval Academy of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Speculum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JOHN OF SALISBURY AND THE DOCTRINE
OF TYRANNICIDE'
BY RICHARD H. AND MARY A. ROUSE
THE: doctrineof tyrannicideis a well-knownelement of John of Salisbury's
Policraticus.AlthoughJohnwas not the firstWesternthinkerto propose the
legitimacyoftyrannicide, the factthat he was the firstto expoundthe idea fully
and explicitlyentitleshim to be called the "author" of the doctrineinsofaras
concernstwelfth-century Europe.2At various times fromthe thirteenthto the
sixteenthcenturyJohnis citedas authorityby actual and would-betyrannicides,
and is condemnedas such by theiropponents.3
The fact,then,thatJohnofSalisburydefendedtyrannicide is undeniablytrue;
however,it is notthe wholetruth.John'sexpositionoftyrannicidecontainsmany
reservations,qualifications, and outrightcontradictions, includinghis reiteration
of the traditionalview that a Christianowes submissionto the powersthat be.
Unfortunately most of the writerson this subject,whetherstudentsof Johnin
particularor of mediaeval politicaltheoryin general,ignorethe contradictions
and regardJohnas an unequivocaladvocate oftyrannicide.This assessmentap-
pears in studies of Johnof Salisburyrangingfromthe full-scalebiographyby
Schaarschmidtto Huizinga's briefessay.4As one would expect,the treatmentof
Johnas a straightforward proponentof politicalassassinationis emphasizedin
studiesdevoted to the history of the rightof resistance;5 and by means of more
general surveys of politicaltheory, includingsuch standardworksas Mcllwain,

I We wishto thankProfessor R. D. Face ofWisconsinState College,StevensPoint,and Professor

BrianTierneyofCornellUniversitywho read thisarticlein an earlierstate and made suggestionsfor
its improvement.
2 C. R. McIlwain, The Growth ofPoliticalThought in theWest(New York, 19389),p. 323.
8 For referenceto specificinstances,see J. Dickinson,trans.,The Stateman'sBook ofJohnofSalis-
bury(Books 4-6, selectionsfrom7 and 8 of the Policraticus;New York, 1927), pp. lxxiv-lxxv;E. P.
Jacob,"JohnofSalisburyand the Policraticus"(pp. 53-84 in The Social and PoliticalIdeas ofSome
GreatMediaevalThinkers,ed. F. J. C. Hearnshaw,New York, 1923), pp. 81 f; W. Ullmann,"The In-
fluenceofJohnofSalisburyon Medieval Italian Jurists,"EHR, 59 (1944), 387.
4 C. Schaarschmidt, JohannesSaresberiensis... (Leipzig, 1862), pp. 160, 349; J. Huizinga, "John
ofSalisbury:A Pre-GothicMind" (pp. 159-177 in his Men and Ideas, trans.J. S. Holmes and H. van
Marle,New York, 1959),pp. 172 f.In additionsee M. Demimuid,Jeande Salisbury(Paris, 1873), pp.
102-107; Jacob,p. 69; D. D. McGarry,trans., The MetalogiconofJohnofSalisbury(Berkeleyand
Los Angeles,1955), p. xviii; R. L. Poole, IllustrationsoftheHistoryofMedievalThought and Learning
(2nd ed. rev.,London,1920),pp. 208 f.;Dorotea C. Macedo de Steffens, "La Doctrinadel Tiranicidio,
Juande Salisbury(1115-1180) y Juande Mariana (1535-1621)", Anales de HiitoriaAntiguay Medi-
eval 1957-1958 (Buenos Aires,1959), pp. 123-133, esp. p. 129; M. A. Brown,"John of Salisbury",
Franci8canStudies,19 (1959), 241-297, esp. p. 289. See also M. Chibnall,trans.,JohnofSali8bury's
Memoir8ofthePapal Court(London,1956), p. xv, whereit is erroneously assertedthat"to Johnonlya
usurperwas to be regardedas a tyrant."
8 See JohannesSporl, "Gedanken um Widerstandsrecht und Tyrannenmordim Mittelalter"(pp.
11-32 in Bernard Pfisterand GerhardtHlildmann,Widerdtan&rechl und Grenzender Staat*gewalt,
Berlin, 1956), pp. 21-26; Peter Meinhold, "Revolution im Namen Christi,"Saeculum, 10 (1959),
890 f.
093

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
694 The Doctrineof Tyrannicide
Sabine,and the Carlyles,thisoversimplification ofJohn'spositionhas been given
wide currency.6
Those writerswho do take cognizanceofthe contradictions are in disagreement
when they attemptto explain why John'sstatementof the principleof tyran-
nicidecontainstheseinconsistencies. Dunning,forexample,says thatJohn"fully
[commits]himselfto the pagan principle"oftyrannicide, and thenrecurs"to the
primitiveChristianidea" of submissiveness;whichis to say, John'scontradic-
tionsare explainedby the factthat theyare contradictory. Dickinsonis at least
frankin admittingthat,forhim,the entirePolicraticus,includingthe doctrineof
tyrannicide,is composedofa "moreor less confusedmass ofcontradictory ideas."
Dal Pra notes that Johnplaces certainlimitationsupon the methodto be em-
ployed,but statesthathe maintainsthe legitimacyand the obligationofkillinga
tyrant.On the otherhand, takinga passage of John'sout of context,Ullmann
even concludesthat Johnat last "cancelledhis previousremarkson the justness
of murderinga tyrant."7
It seemsreasonableto suppose that the problemof John'sinconsistenttreat-
mentof tyrannicideto a largedegreehingesupon the explanationof his motive
forincludingthe doctrineof tyrannicidein the Policraticus;since this doctrine
was not,afterall, a commonplaceoftwelfth-century politicaltheory,theremust
surelybe a reasonwhyJohntook the troubleto raise the issue. Again,thosefew
writerswho deal withthe subject presentdivergentviews. For Webb, the ques-
tionofmotiveis easilyanswered:the doctrineoftyrannicideis merely"a natural
developmentof the republicanrhetoricwhich[John]foundin classical writers."
Liebeschtitzfeelsratherthat Johnwas impelledby recentevents,that the doc-
trineoftyrannicideis an expressionofretrospective indignationat thetyrannical
behaviorof certainnoblesand mercenariesduringStephen'sreign.Wieruszowski
agreesthat Johnwas moved by recentevents; but she suggeststhat it was the
ecclesiasticalpolicy of Roger II of Sicily which"may have dictatedto him the
passionate terms"in whichhe deals withtyrantsand tyrannicide.Sptirlstates
thatJohnwas motivatedin largepart by bitterresentment againstthe "Teutonic
tyrant"FrederickBarbarossa as a resultof the latter's stand in the disputed
papal electionof 1159; but thisidea can surelybe dismissedas a chronologicalim-
possibility.8
I McIlwain, pp. 322 f.; G. H. Sabine, A HistoryofPoliticalTheory(3d ed., New York, 1961), p. 247;

R. W. and A. J. Carlyle,A Historyof MediaevalPolitical Theoryin theWest,vol. III (New York,

1916), pp. 142-146. In additionsee, forexample,J. B. Morrall,Political Thought in Medieval Times
(2nd ed., London, 1960), p. 44; F. Kern, Kingshipand Law in theMiddle Ages (trans.S. B. Chrimes,
Oxford,1939),pp. 108 f.; J. Bowle, Western PoliticalThought(London,1954 [1947]),p. 192.
7 W. A. Dunning,A History ofPolitical Theories(New York, 1923), pp. 187 f.; Dickinson,pp. lxvi-
lxxxii;M. Dal Pra, Giovannidi Salisbury(Milan, 1951), pp. 140-142; Ullmann,p. 388. Hans Lie-
beschtitz,MediaevalHumanismin theLife and WritingsofJohnof Salisbury(London,1950),pp. 50-
52, presentsprobablythemoststraightforward descriptionofthesecontradictions.
8 C. C. J. Webb, Johnof Salisbury(London, 1939.),p. 66; Liebeschutz,op. cit., pp. 592f.; idem,
"Englischeund europaiische Elementein der Erfahrungswelt des Johannesvon Salisbury",Die Welt
als Geschichte,11 (1951), 88-45, esp. p. 41; H. Wieruszowski,"Roger II of Sicily,Rex-Tyrannu8, in
Twelfth-Century Political Thought",Speculum,38 (1963), 46-78, esp. pp. 68-70; Spdrl,op. cit.,pp.
921f.; idem,"La Teoria del Tirannicidionel Medioevo", Humanitaw:RivistaMensie di Cultura,8

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Doctrineof Tyrannicide 695
The main question,then,is why Johnproposedthe principleof tyrannicide;
and its corollary,whyhis statementof that principlewas inconsistent.Through
an examinationof John'sdefinition of tyrant,of John'sattitudespro and con on
tyrannicide, and ofthe significanceofthe tyrantin John'sconceptionofthe com-
monwealth;and throughan evaluationof the politicalrealitiesof AngevinEng-
land, it can be shownthat John'sdoctrineof tyrannicidewas writtenas pure
theorywith a practicalpurpose; and that John'sself-contradictions have their
reasons.
Firstofall, ifJohnis to advocate tyrannicide,he mustdistinguish betweenthe
tyrantand the legitimateruler,the prince:"Betweena tyrantand a princethere
is this singleor chiefdifference,
that the latterobeys the law" whilethe former
"bringsthe laws to nought."9While Johnon one occasion suggeststhat only a
usurpercan properlybe termedtyrant,' 0 he elsewheremakesit plain that a legiti-
mate princecan turnintoa tyrantifhe uses his powerto contravenethelaw." So
the distinctionis clear-cut:a princeobeys the law, a tyrantdoes not. But John
mustbe pushedfora furtherdefinition of terms:what does he mean by thelaw?
AlthoughJohnwas nevera formalstudentoflaw, his writingsdisplaya wide ac-
quaintancewithbothRoman law and canonlaw.12The formerhe is presumedto
have learned from the Bolognese master Vacarius, brought to England by
Theobald,Archbishopof Canterbury;and the lattereitherat the papal Curia or
duringhis yearsin Theobald's service."3 However,it is neitherthe CorpusJuris
Civilisnor the DecretumspecificallywhichJohnhas in mindwhen he says that
thetyrantbreaks"the law." Rather,Johndescribeslaw witha rhetoricalflourish
as "the giftof God, the model of equity,a standardof justice,a likenessof the
divinewill,the guardianof well-being,a bond of union and solidaritybetween
peoples, a rule definingduties, a barrieragainst the vices and the destroyer
thereof,a punishmentofviolenceand all wrong-doing."'14 More succinctly,he de-

(1953), 1013. The Policraticuswas completedJuly-Sept.1159; Johndoes use the term"Teutonicus

tyrannus"withreference to Frederick,but onlyin letterswrittensevenor eightyearsafterthisdate;
cf.epp. 9218,92925,Migne, PL, cxcix.
9 Unless otherwiseindicated,the notesforJohn'swordsand ideas referto book and chapterofthe
Policraticus.The authoritativeeditionis that of C. C. J. Webb, Policraticisivede nugiscurialiumet
vestigiisphilosophorum libriviii (92vol., Oxford,1909). The translationsused are those ofDickinson,
citedabove, note 3; and J. B. Pike, FrivolitiesofCourtiersand Footprints ofPhilosophers(Books 1-3,
selectionsfrom7 and 8 of the Policraticus[Minneapolis,1938]). IV, 1: "Est ergo tiranniet principis
haec differentia sola uel maxima,quod hic legiobtemperat...." Webb,I, 9235;Dickinson,p. 3; VIII,
17: ". . . tirannusnil actumputatnisilegeseuacuet. . ." Webb,II, 345; Dickinson,p. 335.
'? III, 15: Webb, I, 2392;Pike, p. 9211.
11VIII, 18, 920:Webb, II, 359 f.,373; Dickinson,pp. 3592, 367 f.
12 Webb has compiledan impressive list ofcitationsin the Policraticusfromboth the CorpusJuria
Civilisand the Decretum(II, 4892f., 486 f.). There are occasional citationsfromthe formerin the
Metalogicon,and fromboth in lettersJohnwroteduringthisperiod (Johnof SalisburyLetters...,
vol. 1, ed. W. J.MillorandiH. E. Butler,revisedby C. N. L. Brooke [London,1955]).
13Letters,pp. Xx-xXiii.
14 VIII, 17: "Porrolex donumDei est, aequitatisforma,normaiustitiae,diuinae uoluntatisimago,

salutiscustodia,unio et consolidatiopopulorum,regulaofficiorum, exclusioet exterminatio

uitiorum,
uiolentiaeet totiusiniuriaepena." Webb, II, 345; Dickinson,p. 835.

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 696 The Doctrineof Tyrannicide
finesit as "the justiceofGod ... [Whose]law is equity,"equitybeing"a certain
fitnessof things. . . allottingto each that whichbelongsto him."15While this
definition, as withall attemptsat definitionofthe "higherlaw," obviouslyinvited
disputeover interpretation and applicationin specificcases, it was nonetheless
meaningfulas a general concept. For in equating justice with equity- that
"certainfitnessof things"whichconsistsof the prince'srulingimpartiallyand
renderingto each his due - John,forall his classical and biblical allusions,is
essentiallyidentifying justicewithcustom.WhenJohnwritesthat a tyrantrules
contraryto the law, his readersunderstandhim; he means a tyrantis a kingwho
arrogatesto himselfpowers,prerogatives,or possessionswhichhave not tradi-
tionallybelongedto theking.Johndoes notuse thewords"customsoftherealm"
or "natural law" of course; rather,in the mannertraditionalfor a Christian
politicaltheorist,he says that the law is "the giftofGod." These, too, are words
his readersunderstand.
Giventheforegoing thatthe law is fromGod and thatthe tyrantis
definitions,
a rulerwho floutsthe law, it logicallyfollowsthat "it is the graceofGod whichis
beingassailed,and thatit is God himselfwho in a senseis challengedto battle."'16
What thenmusta Christiando ifhis ruleris a tyrantassailingGod? Johnreplies,
in the same passage, "the tyrant,the likenessof wickedness,is generallyto be
even killed."17John maintainsthe legalityof tyrannicide"accordingto both
temporaland divinelaw.""8In additionto its basis on authority,the legalityof
tyrannicideis demonstrableby syllogism:a tyrantis judged an enemyof the
humanrace; it is lawfulto killa condemnedenemy;therefore, it is lawfulto killa
tyrant.19Not only is tyrannicidelegal and logical, but it has a long-standing
precedentin both secular and sacred history.Johncatalogs,firstfromRoman
history,thenfromthe Old Testament,the tyrantsin turnand the violentend of
each.20He has also, he says,writtena book specifically "Of theEnds ofTyrants",
a worknot extantbut seeminglyan elaborationofthe chapterofthe Policraticus
devoted to Roman tyrants.21Besides being legal, logical,and historical,tyran-
nicide is even a pious act, and one is justifiedin deceiving,flattering, and dis-
obeyinga tyrant,practiceswhich constitutetreacheryif employedin dealing
witha trueprince.22 "It is not merelylawfulto slay a tyrantbut even rightand
15 IV, 2: "Nec in eo sibi principesdetrahiarbitrentur, nisi iustitiaesuae statuta praeferendaere-
diderintiustitiaeDei, cuiusiustitiaiustitiain euumest,et lex eius aequitas. Porroaequitas ... rerum
conuenientiaest ... tribuensunicuiquequod suumest." Webb,I, 9.37;Dickinsonp. 6. The sourcesof
thisdefinition ofequityare discussedby Brooke,Letters, pp. xxi-xxii.
16 VIII, 17: ". . . planum est gratiamoppugnariet Deum quodammodoprouocariad praelium."
Webb, II, 345; Dickinson,p. 885.
17 VIII, 17: ". .. tirannus,prauitatisimago,plerumqueetiamoccidendus."Webb, II, 345; Dickin-
son, p. 336.
18 VIII, 17: "... tirannussecularisiurediuinoet humanoperimitur...." Webb, II, 357; Dickin-
son,p. 349.
19VIII, 19: Webb, II, 871; Dickinson,p. 864.
20 VIII, 19 and 920:Webb, II, 864-379; Dickinsonpp. 358-374.
21 VIII, 20: Webb, II, 373; Dickinson,p. 867. Webb (Johnof Sali8bury,p. 68) doubts that John

evergot aroundto writingthe book.

22VIII, 20: Webb, II, 876 f.; Dickinson,pp. 870-872; III, 15: Webb, I, 232, Pike, p. 211; VI, 9:
Webb, II, 28 f.; Dickinson,p. 201; VI, 12: Webb, II, 32 f.; Dickinson,pp. 212 f.

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Doctrineof Tyrannicide 697
just," and, this is John'smost extremestatement,he who does not take action
againsta tyrant"sins againsthimselfand againstthe wholebody of the secular
state."23
This,in brief,is John'scase fortyrannicide. If thiswereall he had to say on the
subject,his doctrinewouldbe trulyanarchical,leavingeveryprivatecitizenwith
thepermission, indeedtheencouragement, to be his ownjudge and executionerof
any rulerwho in his own opinionfitsthe descriptionofa tyrant.But it is impos-
sibleto conceiveofJohnofSalisburyas beingin any sensea fanatic.To say that
hismoderationand lack ofdogmatismare everywhere manifestin his writings,is
scarcelytoo broad a generalization.Johnbelievesthat moderationis the essence
ofvirtue,whereasexcessis a faultalwaysto be avoided; and, in short,"noughtis
so splendidor so magnificent that it does not need to be temperedby modera-
tion."24This policy of moderationmightin a sense be called his philosophy;he
proclaimshimselfto be an Academic25(afterthe fashionof Ciceroand the Later
Academy)- i.e., one who suspends judgment "in regard to thingsthat are
doubtfulto a wiseman."26But Johncannotbringhimselfto be doctrinaireeven
in supportofskepticism.He criticizesthoseAcademicswhowereso skepticalas to
doubteverything, even theirsensesand theirmemory;it is all rightto "question
as longas a matterremainsobscure,"but "as truthon the bases ofprobability"
appears, a man should acquiesce.27Johnevincesthis same moderationvis-a-vis
manyofthe conventionalbeliefsofhis day: Huntingis a frivolouspracticewhich
is to be condemned; "the activity,however,is laudable when moderationis
shown."28Gamblingis shameful;"thereare, however,timeswhen ... games of
chanceare permissible."29 The makingofpromisesis riskybusiness,and "not con-
duciveto virtue"; "it may be, however,not merelypermissiblebut even desira-
ble to make a promise."30Concernwith one's dress and appearance is vanity;
"however,if moderationis displayed.... "I And on and on, concerninguse of
foodand drink,concerning frugality, education,the permissibility ofsuicide,the
commendability of self-castration,the "universals" controversy, astrology,the
worthofAristotle- fromtopicto topicJohnproceedsto expoundat lengththe
traditionalview of the Church (or of the schoolmen,whicheveris applicable to
23 III, 15: "Porro tirannumocciderenon modo licitumest sed aequum et iustum.... et quisquis

eum [tirannum]non persequitur,in seipsumet in totumrei publicae mundanae corpusdelinquit."

Webb, I, 92392 f.; Pike, pp. 9211f.
24IV, 9: Webb,I, 9266f.; Dickinson,p. 43; VIII, 920:.. . nichiltam praeclarumest aut tam magni-
ficumquod non moderationedesiderettemperari."Webb,II, 373; Dickinson,p. 367.
25 Prologus:Webb,I, 17; Pike, p. 10; Metalogicon, ed. C. C. J. Webb (Oxford,19929),Prologus,p. 4;
McGarry,p. 6; Letters,p. 9214.
28 Metalogicon II, 20, repeatedIV, 31: "... in his que sunt dubitabiliasapienti...." Webb, pp.
106, 199; McGarry,pp. 128, 251.
27 VII, 2: Webb, II, 95-98; Pike, pp. 219-21; VII, 7: "...dum res obscuraest,quaerat; dum pro-
babiliterelucescitueritas,adquiescat." Webb, II, 117; Pike, p. 239.
28 I, 4: "Is uero moduslaudabilis est, cum moderatione adhibita... ." Webb, I, 33; Pike, p. 25.
29 I, 5: "Est tamencum in aliqua speciesui
[alea] licenteradmittitur...." Webb, I, 37; Pike, p. 28.
80 III, 11 (entitled,"De. . .-promissariis, et quod promitterenon expediat ad virtutem"): "Fit
tamenut non modo licitumsit promittere sed et conducibile."Webb, I, 209; Pike, p. 190.
31 VIII, 12: "Verum,si moderatioadhibeatur,in his interdum sensuumuoluptateuersarisapienti
non arbitrorindecorum...." Webb, II, 315; Pike, p. 373.

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
698 The Doctrineof Tyrannicide
the giventopic), and thento concludeabruptly,oftenin the most startlingnon
sequiturfashion,witha briefpassage in whichJohnthe Academicappears and
greatlymodifiesthe overwhelmingargumentsassembled by Johnthe Dialec-
tician. As he himselfsays, the Academic "will not presumeto state definitely
whatis truein each and everycase."32
This non-dogmatic, orbetteranti-dogmatic, temperament is ofcourseapparent
in John'sdoctrineof tyrannicidejust as in the restof his writings.He does not
presenthis case fortyrannicidein any consistent,integratedwhole,as has been
attemptedabove forthe sake of demonstration. Instead, his remarkson tyran-
nicideare scatteredin variouspartsofthe Policraticus;and scatteredwiththem
are statementswhich soften,modify,or even contradictthis doctrine."None
shouldundertakethe death ofa tyrantwho is bound to himby an oath or by the
obligationoffealty;use ofpoisonas theinstrument ofdeathis unlawful;tyranni-
cide is to be effected"without loss of religionand honor."33The stipulation
about "oath" and "fealty"rathereffectively nullifiesthe legalityof killingany
tyrantexcepttherulerofa countryotherthanone's own!Particularlywouldthis
be true in England, John'sown country,wherein theoryeveryfreeman owed
primaryfealtyto the king,be he tyrantor saint. But to continue,ignoringthis
technicality, as Johnhimselfdoes, "it is notwellto overthrow[tyrants] utterlyat
once,but ratherto rebukeinjusticewithpatientreproofuntilfinallyit becomes
obviousthattheyare stiff-necked in evil-doing."34
So citizensare to wait untilthe
last strawis added to theirburden,and even thentheyare to killtyrantsonly"if
theycan be curbedin no otherway."35For thereis anotherway in whichtyrants
can get their due; "wickednessis always punished by the Lord," sometimes
througha humaninstrument, but sometimeswithHis own hand. Thus God has
taken directaction in the case of such infamousrulersas the Egyptianpharaoh
and Nebuchadnezzarand the emperorJulian,and others"whose very names
would filla book."36If God is goingto see to it that tyrantsare punished,why
does He botherto permittheirexistencein thefirstplace? John'sanswerto thisis
the traditionalone: tyrantsare visitedas punishmentupon a sinfulpeople, and
onlywhenthe people repentare theypermittedto "cast offthe yokefromtheir
necksby the slaughterof theirtyrants."37 Indeed, "tyrantsare the ministersof
God" whowillcause the wickedto be punishedand the good to be chastenedand

82 Metalogicon IV, 31: "Academicusuerofluctuat,et quid in singulisuerumsit diffinire

non audet."
WVebb, p. 199; McGarry,p. 251.
33VIII, 20: "Hoc tamencauendumdocenthistoriae,ne quis illiusmoliaturinteritumcui fideiaut
sacramentireligioneteneturastrictus... Sed nec ueneni,licetuideam ab infidelibus aliquando usur-
patam, ullo umquam iure indultamlego licentiam.Non quod tirannosde medio tollendosesse non
credamsed sine religionishonestatisquedispendio."Webb, II, 377 f.; Dickinson,pp. 372 f.
34V, 6: ". . . non statim usquequaque deiciuntur,sed patientercorripituriniustitia,donec fiat
conspicuumeos pertinacesesse in malo." Webb, I, 300; Dickinson,p. 85.
3 VIII, 18: ". . . honestumfuitoccidere,si tamen aliter cohercerinon poterat." Webb, II, 364;
Dickinson,p. 356.
1"And evenas it is,Johnhas filleda chapter- VIII, 21: Webb,II, 379-396; Dickinson,pp. 375-393.
37 VIII, 20: "Licebatque finitotemporedispensationis nece tirannorumexcutereiugumde ceruici-
bus suis......" Webb, II, 374; Dickinson,pp. 868 f.

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Doctrineof Tyrannicide 699
exercised.38 All poweris good,sinceall poweris fromGod; hencepoweris "worthy
of venerationeven whenit comesas a plague upon the elect." Johnquotes ap-
provingly, "Who,therefore, resiststherulingpower,resiststhe ordinanceofGod"
(Romans xiii 2)9.3 Surely,anyoneattemptingto put into practiceJohn'sadvice
regardingtyrannicidewould,in the lightofthislast admonition,have qualms as
to the safetyof his immortalsoul. Caught betweenthe shame of sinningagainst
himselfand the state if he does not take directaction against a tyrant,and the
spiritualdisasterof resistingthe ordinanceof God if he does, this hypothetical
Christiancitizenmightwell sigh with reliefupon readingthat "the methodof
destroyingtyrantswhichis the most usefuland the safest,is forthose who are
oppressedto take refugehumblyin theprotectionof God's mercy,and liftingup
undefiledhands to the Lord, to pray devoutlythat the scourgewherewiththey
are afflictedmay be turnedaside fromthem."40
Seen in the contextofthe wholeofJohn'sconceptof the correctChristianbe-
havior toward tyrants,the doctrineof tyrannicideassumes a more cautious
character,to say the least. And his entirediscussionof behaviortowardtyrants
achievesits ownproperperspectiveonlywhenit is seen as merelya partofJohn's
viewson rulersin general.For the main literaryfunctionservedby the tyrantin
the Polieraticusis as a foilto the prince;he is the "horribleexample" of every-
thingthe princeis not. As to positiveadvice on what a princeshould be, John
citestwo mainauthorities,one sacred,one secular.The firstof theseis Deuteron-
omy xvii 14-20, which John explains and elaborates in Book IV, chapters4
through12. The principalcontentof this discussionconcernsitselfwith what
mightbest be termedthe privatemoralityof the prince (thoughJohn himself
wouldundoubtedlyobjectto any distinction between"private" and "public" in a
figureso essentiallypublicas theprince).It consistsofa seriesofadmonitions:the
princeshouldnot be proud,noradulterous,noravaricious,nortoo sternnortoo
lax; and he mustknowthe laws in orderto learnto fearGod and keep His word.
Curiouslyenough,however,Johndoes not mentiontyrants,the opposite of
princes,in thismatterof individualspiritualdevelopment.Rather,the contrast
between tyrantand prince is revealed when the relationshipof the ruler to
society- the princein the commonwealth - is considered. John'sexpositionof
thisrelationshipis taken,he says,fromthe InstitutioTrajani writtenby Plutarch
forthe edificationofthe emperorTrajan.4' The idea put forthby John's"second
authority"is the well-knownconceptofthe commonwealth as a body "endowed
withlifeby the benefitof divinefavor,"acting"at the promptingofthe highest
equity,"and ruledby "the moderatingpowerofreason." The head ofthe bodyis
38 VIII, 18; Webb, II, 358; Dickinson,p. 350.
39 VIII, 18; Webb, II, 359; Dickinson,p. 351; IV, 1: "Si itaque adeo uenerabilisest bonis potestas
etiam in plaga electorum,quis eam non ueneretur,quae a Domino institutaest..... ." Webb, I, 236;
Dickinson,pp. 4 f.
40 VIII, 20: "Et hic quidemmodusdelenditirannosutilissimus et tutissimusest, si qui premuntur
ad patrociniumclementiaeDei humiliaticonfugiantet puras manus leuantes ad Dominum deuotis
precibusflagellumquo affliguntur auertant."Webb, II, 378; Dickinson,p. 373.
41 The discussionof the InstitutioTrajani is, in general,the basis ofBooks V and VI, and it is fre-
quentlyreferred to in the two concludingbooks. VII and VIII.

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
700 The Doctrineof Tyrannicide
theprince;the soul,the clergy;theheart,the Senate (theprince'smaturecounse-
lors); theeyes,ears and tongue,thejudgesand governorsofprovinces;thehands,
the officialsand soldiers;the sides,the prince'sattendan'tsor courtiers;the stom-
ach and intestines,the financialofficers and keepersof the privychest (and to
extendthe analogy,Johnremarkswitha twinklein his eye that theseorgansare
subject to indigestionand constipation);and the feet,the husbandmen.4A Cer-
tainlythe microcosm-to-macrocosm analogy was not new in descriptionsof the
commonwealth; but "it is JohnofSalisburywhofirstattemptsto applyand work
out the comparisonin detail."43The centralityof this conceptto John'sentire
politicaltheoryhas always been recognizedby studentsof the Policraticus;but
theimportanceofthe InstitutioTrajani has been further enhanced,withinrecent
decades. The nineteenthand earlytwentiethcenturyscholarsof John'swritings
have realizedthat the Institutiowas not writtenby Plutarch,but by someone
considerablylater- whom,it was impossibleto say, since thereis no extant
copy ofthe work.In 1943,however,Hans Liebeschiitzarguedconvincingly that
the "treatise" was an inventionof Johnhimself,a disguisedonned to give the
weightofclassicalantiquityto his own ideas. SaverioDesiderihas contestedthis
view, presentinga plausible case forfourth-or fifth-century authorshipof the
work;but even so, he concedesthat John'suse of it constituteda "rifacimento
libero."44Therefore,here,in the truestpossiblesense,is Johnof Salisbury'sown
descriptionof the state: The commonwealthis an integrated,organicwhole,as
muchso as thehumanbodyitself;and thewell-beingoftheentirecommonwealth
dependsupon the properperformance by each part of its own properfunction,
just as thebodydependsupon all itsorgansto stayin theirplaces and perform the
tasks forwhichtheywerecreated.
Great is the responsibilityof the head in John'scommonwealth, forit has the
d V, 2: Webb,I, 282 f.; Dickinson,pp. 64 f.
43 Jacob,p. 64.
44H. LiebeschUtz,"JohnofSalisburyand Pseudo-Plutarch,"JournaloftheWarburgand Courtauld
Institutes,6 (1943), 33-89, arguesthus: (1) that the plan of the pseudo-PlutarchfitsJohn'sschema
just too perfectly;(2) thatthatwhichJohnclaimsto be Plutarchsoundsno different fromthatwhich
he admitsto be John; (3) that no one else seems ever to have seen thismysteriousdocument,since
all who cite it quote it fromJohn;and (4) that the ideas of the pseudo-Plutarchbear unmistakable
similarityto thoseJohnlearnedfromRobert Pullen, his formermaster.A. Momigliano,"Notes on
Petrarch,Johnof Salisburyand the InstitutioTraiani," Journalof theWarburgand CourtauldIn-
stitutes,12 (1949), 189 f. questionsthese conclusions,but Liebeschutz'sreply (ibid., p. 190) seems
satisfactory.Liebeschtitz'sargumentshave convincedE. H. Kantorowicz,The King's Two Bodies
(Princeton,1957), p. 94, note 20, and theyare acceptedwithoutquestionby Chibnall,p. xv, and by
Brown,p. 287. S. Desideri,La "InstitutioTraiani" (Genoa, 1958), feelsthat Liebeschtitz'shypothesis
is a sluron John'sbonafides.He, too, citesthe Petrarchreference, but admitsthat this externalevi-
dence is not conclusive(p. 28). His argumentrestsinstead upon textual criticismof the fragments
reproducedin the Policraticus;and on thisbasis he has concludedthat the treatisedid indeedexist,
that it was writtenin the fourthor fifthcenturyby a pagan author,was extensivelyreworkedby a
Christianwriterofthe post-Carolingian period,and was thenfreelyredoneby JohnofSalisbury.The
questionofwhetherthe treatisedid exist,but underwenta "rifacimento libero"by John,as Desideri
maintains(p. 47); or whetherinsteadJohncombinedgenuineancientexempla,drawnfromvarious
sources,to composethe "treatise"himself,as Liebeschutzcontends(loc. cit.),is largelya questionof
degreeinsofaras thepresentdiscussionis concerned.

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Doctrineof Tyrannicide 701

task of constraining the otherparts of the body to behave properly.With great

responsibility, of course,comes greatpower. "On the princefall the burdensof
thewholecommunity.Wherefore deservedlythereis [divinely]conferred on him,
and gatheredtogetherin his hands, the power of all his subjects. . . ."4 The
princeis the representative ofthe commonwealth, "in whoseplace he stands."46
He is "representative"not in the democraticsenseofthe word,but ratherin the
sensethat a guardianis the representative ofhis ward.47Since he "bears the pub-
lic person,"the princealso bearsa swordand shedsblood blamelesslyin protect-
ingthe commonwealth fromevil-doers.48 Indeed, in all publicmatters"his willis
to have theforceofa judgment;and mostproperlythatwhichpleaseshimtherein
has the forceof law."49
Thus the powersofthe princeare vast. In connectionwiththisfact,muchhas
been made of the point that, nevertheless,Johnplaces the princein a position
subordinateto that ofthe Church.50 Undeniablyhe does so. For the clergyare the
soul ofthecommonwealth, and Johnsays (blithelymixinghis analogy),"the soul
is, as it were,theprinceofthebody." The princeis subject"to thosewhoexercise
[God's] officeand representHim on earth," whereas,as Johnhas stated else-
where,the Roman Church"is subject onlyto the judgmentof God."'" He takes
the position,unusualforhis time,52 that all authoritybelongsto the Church;she
confersthetemporalswordon the prince,or ratheremploysit by his hand,since
it is "unworthyof the hands of the priesthood,"while she herselfwields the
spiritualauthority.53 Also in the troublesomequestionof interpretation of "the
law", Johngivesthe clericsthe dominantposition.The princeis to read the law
"throughthe mediumof the priest'stongue," and "in accordance with their
preachingshouldthe rulingpowerguidethe government."54 It is a mistake,how-
ever,to judge fromthese statementsthat Johnconceivesof the princeas being
forciblyheld in line by ecclesiasticalauthority.For the prince,by definition,
voluntarilyrulesaccordingto law, accordingto thedivineprincipleofequity;and
theclergy,throughmakingthelaw clearand intelligible to him,are merelyaiding

4 IV, 1: "... . principioneraimminent uniuersa.Vnde meritoin eum omniumsubditorumpotestas

confertur... Webb,1,235; Dickinson,p. 3.
4 V, 2: "... cuiusuice fruatur...." Webb, I, 282; Dickinson,p. 64.
47 V, 7: Webb, I, 308; Dickinson,p. 95.

48 IV, 2: "... in eo personampublicamgerit...." Webb, I, 238 f.; Dickinson,pp. 7 f.

49 IV, 2: "Eius namque uoluntasin his uim debethabereiudicii;et rectissime quod ei placet in tali-
bus legis habet uigorem...." Webb, I, 238; Dickinson,p. 7.
bOSee, forexample,W. Ullmann,The Growth ofPapal Government in theMiddleAges (2nd ed., New
York, 1962), pp. 420-26; Webb, JohnofSalisbury,pp. 170-178.
5' V, 2: "... . anima totiushabet corporisprincipatum.... Princepsuero ... uni subiectusDeo et
his qui uicesilliusaguntinterris...." Webb,1, 282f.; Dickinsonpp. 64 f.; Letter124: "... [Romana
ecclesialquae soliusDei reseruaturexamini.... Letters,p. 206.
52 The onlyotherdefinite claim"that all authority,ecclesiasticalor secular,belongsto the spiritual
power"priorto John,is in.theSummaGloriaofHonoriusofAutun (Jacob,p. 79).
58IV, 8: "Est ergo princepssacerdotiiquidem ministeret qui sacrorumofficiorum iUam partem
exercetquae sacerdotiimanibusuideturindigna."Webb,I, 289; Dickinson,p. 9.
54IV, 6: "Legat itaque mens principisin lingua sacerdotis... quia praedicationeeorum debet
potestascommissimagistratusgubernaculamoderari."Webb,I, 255; Dickinson,p. 28.

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 702 The Doctrineof Tyrannicide
theprinceto do thatwhichhe wishesto do. Elsewhere,Johnevenimpliesthatthe
princehimselfcan understandthe law, and can govern"guided solely by the
judgmentof his own mind."55Afterall, in a properly-functioning body politic,
the head and the soul are in concert,not at crosspurposes.And the parts ofthe
body shallcertainly"functionproperlyso longas theyfollowthe guidanceofthe
head, and theheadremainssane.""6
Upon thisbasic premise,the "sanityofthe head," reststhe logicofJohn'sen-
tireconceptofa Christiancommonwealth; thispremisedenied,his theoryofcom-
monwealthbecomesutterlyunworkable.Hereinliesthe significance ofthetyrant.
Since Johnconceivesof the princeas having great,and in a sense unlimited,
power,it logicallyfollowsthat the tyranthas, in directproportion,greatoppor-
tunityforevil-doing.A tyrantas head corruptsall partsofthe body; and the re-
sult is a "commonwealthofthe ungodly"aping the "civil institutions of a legiti-
mate commonwealth," witha sacrilegiouspriesthoodas its soul,and "its heartof
unrighteouscounselors";"its eyes, ears, tongue,and unarmedhand are unjust
judges, laws, and officials;its armed hand consistsof soldiersof violencewhom
Ciecro calls brigands"; and its feet are rebelliousand disloyal husbandmen.57
(Tohnhas been an eye-witnessof the moral disintegration of a commonwealth
afflictedwith "insanity"; the reignof Stephen of Blois, which ended just five
years beforeJohnis writing,can serve onlytoo well as model forthe sketchof
theungodlycommonwealth.)The tyrant,using,orrather,abusing,thepowerofa
prince,disregardsrightand justice.58He rulesby force,not by law; and he is not
satisfieduntilhe has reducedthe people to slavery.59 As ward of the prince,the
commonwealth is underhis protection;but ifthe guardianbe a tyrant,the com-
monwealthis at his mercy.The tyrant"willbe the ruinofhis people."60
What resolutionforthis state of affairsdoes John'sconceptof the common-
wealth offer?In simplefact,it offersnone. The commonwealthis a body with
each part assignedits properfunction;and Johnnowheresuggeststhat it would
be "proper"forany presumptuousextremities or visceralorgansto take it upon
themselvesto disciplinethe head. Such an idea is diametricallyopposed to his
politicalphilosophy.Logically,ifany partofthebodywereto disciplinethehead,
it wouldbe the soul,the Church.Johnhas set up all thepremises,but he does not
bb V, 6: "Dictum est autemprincipem locumobtinerecapitis,et qui soliusmentisregaturarbitrio."
Webb, I, 298; Dickinson,p. 83; cf.IV, 6: Webb, I, 250 f.; Dickinson,p. 24.
16 IV, I: ". . . ut omnia rectemoueantur,dum sani capitis sequunturarbitrium."Webb, I, 235;
Dickinson, p. 3; italics added.
17 VIII, 17: "Habet enimet respublica impiorum caput et membrasua, et quasi ciuilibusinstitutis
legittimaereipublicaenitituresse conformis. Caput ergoeius tirannusest imagodiaboli; anima here-
tici scismaticisacrilegisacerdotes. . .; cor consiliariiimpii,quasi senatus iniquitatis;oculi, aures,
lingua,manus inermis,iudiceset leges,officiales iniusti;manus armata,militesuiolenti,quos Cicero
latronesappellat; pedes qui in ipsis humilioribusnegotiispraeceptisDomini et legittimisinstitutis
aduersantur."Webb, II, 348 f.; Dickinson,p. 339.
58 VIII, 17: Webb, II, 347; Dickinson,p. 338.
59VIII, 17: Webb, II, 345; Dickinson,p. 335.
60 V, 7: "Rex insipiensperdetpopulumsuum ... Cum in subiectospotestassaeuit,idem est ac si
tutorpupillumpersequatur,uel eum suo mucroneiugules,ob cuius defensionemab eodem traditum
tibi gladiumaccepisti." Webb, I, 308; Dickinson,pp. 94 f.

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Doctrineof Tyrannicide 703
drawthe expectedconclusion,eitherexplicitlyor implicitly.The closesthe comes
to doingso, is in his statementthattheprincereceiveshis swordfromthe Church,
and that "he who can lawfullybestowcan lawfullytake away."61But withthis
quotationfromRoman law, Johnlets the matterdrop.He does not suggestany
means by whichthe Churchmighteffectthe depositionof a tyrant;thereis no
plan forthe takingaway ofthetemporalsword,however"lawful"suchactionbe
forthe Church.He certainlydoes not implythatthe priesthoodis commissioned,
nor even permitted,to executetyrants;wieldingthe bloodyswordis "unworthy
ofthehandsofthepriesthood."62 The explanationofthefactthatJohnmakesno
claimthatthe clergymay disciplinethetyrantseemsto be this:that "the head is
quickenedand governedby the soul"63only in the legitimate,godly common-
wealth,not in the topsy-turvy commonwealthof the tyrant.64 It is the proper
functionofthe soul to governthe head; but ifthe head is not sane, no part ofthe
body functionsproperly.
Since a "sane head" is the sine qua non to the viabilityof John'sconceptof
commonwealthas macrocosm;and since thereis no provision,indeed no possi-
bility,forthe restorationof that sanity,once lost, fromwithinthe common-
wealth; it followstherefore that the solutionmust come fromwithout.To drop
the analogy: God, and God only,punishestyrants."All poweris fromthe Lord
God" ;65 and tyrants,even non-Christian tyrants,are frequently
the ministersof
God.66In the lightofthisstatement,who but God can possiblyhave the author-
ityto punishtyrants?God is inexorablythoroughin givingtyrantstheirdeserts.
But He takes actionthroughvariedmeans; sometimesHe makesuse oftheforces
of nature,sometimesHe sends an angel to do the task, sometimesHe strikesa
tyrantwith disease, sometimesHe even permitsa tyrantto live long and die
naturally,onlyto findthathis soul is damnedto eternalpunishment;67 and some-
times He uses a human hand. Here is the doctrineof tyrannicidereduced to
its propersize; it is one weapon fromthe entirearmoryat God's disposal.When
the doctrineis seen in this perspective,the reason forJohn'sself-contradictory
statementof it becomesobvious. Citizensare not empoweredto slay tyrantsat
theirown discretion;that poweris God's. Johntakes pains to provethat tyran-
nicideis permissibleand even,at times,an unavoidableduty;but God, not man,
willsay whether and whenand how.Johnthe Academic,who "willnot presumeto
state definitelywhat is truein each and everycase"68forany givensubject,cer-

61 IV, potest." Webb I, 241; Dickinson,p. 10.

3: ". . . eius est auferrequi de iureconferre
62 IV, 3: Hunc ergo gladium [sanguinis]de manu Ecclesiae accipit princeps,... qui sacrorum
officiorum illampartemexercetquae sacerdotiimanibusuideturindigna."Webb,1, 239; Dickinson,p.
9.
63 V, 2: ".... ab anima uegetaturcaput et regitur."Webb,I, 283; Dickinson,p. 65.

6 See forexample,theincidentofpriestly submissionto Attila;IV, 1: Webb,1, 236; Dickinson,p. 4.

65 IV, 1: "Omnis etenimpotestasa Domino Deo est...."Webb, I, 236; Dickinson,p. 4.
66
VIII, 18: Webb, II, 359; Dickinson,p. 351.
67
VIII, 21: Webb, II, 380-82; Dickinson,pp. 377 f.; VIII, 19: Webb, II, 362 f.,371 f.; Dickinson,
pp. 355 f., 365 f.
68 Metalogicon non audet." Webb, p. 199; McGarry,
IV, 31: .... quid in singulisuerumsit diffinire
p. 251.

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
704 The Doctrineof Tyrannicide
tainlyis not goingto attemptto state definitely thewillofGod in each and every
case of rule by tyrant.
In summary,thereare threebasic factorsin the relationshipof the tyrantto
John'sconceptofcommonwealth:(1) thatthecommonwealth as an organismcan
operateproperlyonlyprovideditshead be a trueprince;(2) thatshouldthehead,
on the contrary,be a tyrant,an impasseresultsfromthe lack of any authority
withinthe commonwealth qualifiedto removehim; and (3) that thisconflictcan
be resolvedonlyby God, Who may or may not chooseto workthrougha human
hand.
Finally,whatwas John'spurposein includinga discussionoftyrannicidein the
Policraticu8?ObviouslyJohnhad not the slightestintentionthat someonewould
read his book, be inspiredthereby,and kill HenryII of England; aside fromthe
factthat thiswouldbe a foolishand foolhardynotionforany subjectof Henry's
to propound,Johnstillat thistime(1159) had hopesthat Henry,withtheproper
guidance,wouldproveto be the trueprincethat Stephenhad so miserablyfailed
to be. It is equally importantto realizethat Johndid not intendto suggest,even
hypothetically, that assassinationis the normalrecourseagainsta wickedking;
nor did he suppose that any such radical interpretation would be placed on his
wordsby readersofthe Policraticu8.Afterall, Johnwrotethe book forthe royal
chancellorThomas Becket, Henry's closest and most trustedcompanion.And
whileJohnintendedthe Policraticu8forBecket's personaledification,he hoped
thathisbook wouldinfluence the kingas well.As Liebeschuitzsays,John"desired
that whenthe chancellorhad beenenlightened by studyofhis book,he wouldtry
to lead the youthfulKing back to the rightpath. . . ,"69Moreover,Johnevi-
dentlyintendedthat the Polieraticusshould influencethe kingdirectly.This is
suggestedin the Entheticu,the prefatory poem in whichJohninstructshis book
on itsduties.For one thing,theformof theEntheticu8 is modeledon Ovid's intro-
ductionto the Tristia,whichhe was sendingto Rome to plead his cause with
Augustus;the analogywould seemto be that Johnhoped the Policraticu8would
reachhis "Augustus,"HenryII.J0Strongerevidenceis the factthat one passage
in the EntheticuumistakablyrevealsJohnadvisinghis book on how to behave
in the king'spresence:"Do not display what may the prince'seye affront, on
whom alone thy lifeand welfarehang; ... what he forbidsis wrong,what he
enjoinsis right;laws stand by him or fall. 'Tis virtueonlypleases himand so by
virtueonly shalt thou please.. ."71 Mere prudencewould dictate that John
shouldnotappear to thekingas theproponentofa revolutionary doctrine;on the
contrary, Johnwas eagerthathis book shouldnot offendat court.His dedication
69Liebeschtitz,MediaevalHumanism, p. 17.
70The Entheticwuis describedand discussedbrieflyin Liebeschtitz,op. cit.,pp. 19 f., and Webb,
JohnofSalibury,pp. 22-24.
71 "Non tamen ostendas,oculos quod principisurat, /A quo tota tibi uita salusque datur. /...

Quod prohibetfieri,scelus est; quod praecipit,aequum: / luraque pro placito stantque caduntque
suo. / Huic quia sola placet,sola uirtuteplacebis... ." Webb, I, 3, lines3-9; Pike, p. 417. There is an
abruptshiftherein John'snarrative,forin thelinesimmediatelyprecedinghe has instructedthebook
to findBecket; however,the only conceivableinterpretation of the terminologyused in the lines
quoted hereand in thoseimmediatelyfollowingis thattheyreferto the kinghimself.

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Doctrineof Tyrannicide 705
ofthebooktoThomas,andthepassagesintheEntheticu nominating thechancel-
loras thebook's"guardian"againstcriticsat court,72
suggestthatJohnwanted
Becketto seeto itthatthePolicraticuwasfavorably received.As an addedpre-
caution,beforedispatching
thePolicraticus to Becket,Johnsentit to hisclosest
friendPeterofCelleforPeterto removepassageswhichmightgiveoffense: "I
shouldnotlikeitto makemean enemyto thecourtiers. I begyouto startonits
improvement without delay,andas soonas ithasreceived yourcastigation,send
itbacktoyourexpectant friend."73
Thesefactors - thebook'sintended "reading
public",andJohn'sdesireto avoidoffending-clearlyprovethatJohnwasnot,
evenin hypothesis,propounding thedoctrine oftyrannicide as a planofaction.
The book'sdiscussionoftyrannicideshouldnotdistract attention fromtheobvi-
ousfactthatthePolicraticew
is,afterall,a princemanual,as scholarshavereadily
recognized.74
It is whatitspseudo-Greektitleproclaimsit: The Statesman'sBook.
Themainportion ofthepoliticaltheory ofthePolicraticus is positivein tone,
intendedto describeto thekingand hischancellor thekindof commonwealth
Johnhopedtheywouldgovernand thekindofprincehe hopedHenrywouldbe.
Butthereis alwaysthepossibility, onthenegative side,thatanytrueprincemay
becomea tyrant bydeciding torulecontrary to thelawofequity.Unfortunately,
thispossibilitywas disquietinglyapparentin John'sownparticular trueprince;
Johnwasdefinitely apprehensive concerning HenryII's future intentions toward
theChurch.In orderto explainthesefears,it is necessary to examinebriefly the
relationshipbetween theChurchandtheCrownduring thefirst yearsofHenry's
reign, andtonotetheprospects forthefuture.
Atthetimeofthecompletion ofthePolieraticw (latesummer 1159)Johnwas
secretary to Theobald,Archbishop ofCanterbury. Johnhad heldthispostfora
numberofyears(since1154at least,and possiblysinceas earlyat 1148),75 and
wasa staunchsupporter ofthearchbishop and oftherights oftheSee ofCanter-
bury.Fromtheverybeginning ofthereign,Theobald,whohad usedhis quite
considerable influenceto promotetheAngevin succession, had claimsonHenry's
gratitude. As addedinsurance oftheking'sgoodwillTheobaldsecuredtheap-
pointment of royalchancellor forhis protege,the Archdeacon of Canterbury
ThomasBecket.Thereseemedto be goodprospects fora periodofamicablerela-
tionsbetweenChurchand State;buttheactualityproveddisappointing to the
Church.
Foronething,Becket'sbehavior disillusioned
bothTheobaldand John.There
is no needto detailoncemorethefamiliar storyofBecket'sshiftofallegiance to
hisnewroyalmaster.His eageradoptionofthemoreextravagant modesofcourt
lifeseemsto have dismayedhis old friendJohnof Salisbury;forsurelymany
72 Webb, I, 2, lines 1-6; Pike, pp. 415 f.
78 Letter 111: "Nollem tamen quod me curialibusfaceretinimicum.Precorut eum incunctanter
erudiatis,eumque expectantiamico remittitecastigatum ...." Letter.,p. 182.
74 See, forexample,W. Berges,Die Ffiratenapiegel deehohenundsapMenMittelaltera,
M.G.H. Schrif-
tenII (Stuttgart,1938); W. Kleineke,Engli8cheFiir8tenspiegel von Policratiew.JohannsvonSalibury
bi8zumBasilikonDoronKonig.JakobU I. (Halle, 1937).
76 C.N.L. Brooke presentsthe most convincingchronology of John'searlyyears; Letter.,pp. xii-
xxiv.

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
706 The Doctrineof Tyrannicide
parts of the Policraticusdealingwith "the frivolitiesof courtiers"are friendly
barbs aimed at Thomas.76The very elaboratenesswith which John exempts
Becket fromhis criticismindicatesa gentleirony:"I am not endeavoringto re-
strainyoufromclothingyourselfgailyin goldembroidered raiment;fromfeasting
sumptuouslyeveryday; fromholdinghighoffice;. .. fromhumoringthe times
and even perversemorals,uprightas you personallyare in all matters;and from
mockinga worldwhichmocks its own cajolery.Though it has already caught
many,you are too greatto allow yourselfto be caught by its snares."77As for
Theobald, his sentimentstowardBecket were those of a fatherfora wayward
son; the depthofhis feelingis revealedin his last letterto Thomas,asking,com-
manding,pleading (in vain) that Becket come to see him once more beforehe
dies.78But moreseriousthanthesepurelypersonalconsiderations is the factthat
Becket proved a disappointmentto Theobald and John in their endeavor to
maintainecclesiasticalliberties.Theobald's intentwhenhe obtainedthe chancel-
lorshipforBecketwas that Becket shouldguardthe interestsofthe Church;but
withThomas now secondingthe king'sopinionin all things,he obviouslycould
not be dependedupon to oppose any royalencroachment on ecclesiasticalrights.
The See of Canterbury,then,wouldhave to dependupon its own efforts to re-
sist royalinterference.AssuredlyTheobald had provedcompetentto protectthe
Church's interestseven duringthe uncertaintiesof Stephen's last years; but
Theobald had been ill continuouslysince 1156,and by summer1159 he knewhe
was dying.79At the time when he was completingthe PolicraticusJohndoubt-
less had this questionweighingon his mind: who will protectthe churchonce
Theobald is gone, if Henry should determineto violate the law of equity? In
John'sletters,whetherwrittenin his own or in Theobald's name,80he clearlyre-
veals his anxietyforthe future- his fearsthat the kingmay "bringthe laws to
nought,"tyrant-fashion, withregardto the Church.
In one letterto Henrythereis a reference, witha vaguenessno doubt deliber-
ate, to unspecifiedpersons"who,as is wellknown,are plotting"againstTheobald
and the Church;Johngoes on to say that Theobald, whose "days willbe brief,"
is anxiousabout the churchof Canterburyand that it would be mostlaudable if
the king would "preservethat churchunscathed."'" A slightlylater letterto
76 E.g., the discussionof hunting(I, 4), gaming(I, 5), indulgencein feasting(VIII, 10), extrava-

gance in dress (VIII, 12).

77VIII, 25: "Nec inhibeoquin uestibusniteasdeauratiscircumdatus uarietate,quin epuleriscotidie
splendide,quin primoshonoreshabeas; ... quin temporised et peruersismoribus,rectustamenut es
ipse,in omnibusmoremgeraset suis lenociniisirridentem irrideasmundum.Maior enimes quam ut
debeas aut possis (licetiam sic ceperitmultos)capi tendiculiseius." Webb, II, 423 f.; Pike, p. 410.
78 Letter129, Abp. Theobald to Thomas Becket (c. Sept. 1160), Letters, pp. 224 f.; cf.A. Saltman,
TheobaldArchbishop ofCanterbury (London,1956), pp. 45, 168f.
79 Letter 22, Abp. Theobald to Thomas Becket (late 1156), containsmany phrasesshowingthat

Theobald is alreadyexpectingdeath; Letters,pp. 35 f. and n. 2.

80 See Letters, p. xxxviii,fora discussionofJohn'srolein the writingoflettersostensiblyby Theo-
bald.
81 Letter116,Abp. Theobald to King HenryII (early1160): "Et suntnonnullieorum,sicutcelebre
est, in insidiispersonaeaut ecclesiaenostrae.... Amodo enimiam breueseruntdies nostri.... Nec
est quod uestrammagis deceat excellentiam,quam ut eam [ecclesiamCantuariensem]seruetisin-
dempnem."Letters, p. 191.

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Doctrineof Tyrannicide 707
Henryis morepointedin its expressionof fearsforthe futureand of hopes that
the fearswill prove groundless:"If you desire,or rather,since you desirethat
Christshould be propitiousto you," seek the favorof the Church,forhe who
lacks the Church'sfavor"has the wholeTrinity,his creator,forhis foe." Johnis
especiallyoutspokenin thepassage whichfollows:"The sonsofthisworldcounsel
you to lessentheauthorityofthe Churchthatyourroyalpowermaybe increased.
But assuredlytheywrongyourmajestyand, whoevertheymay be, bringdown
... theindignationofGod ... It is utterlyiniquitousthatyou shouldimpairthe
gloryof yourBenefactorand Lord. It is a sin that deservespunishmentand as-
suredlyits punishmentshall be very bitter; or ratherby God's blessing,the
penaltyshall be averted,sinceby God's blessingthe crimeshall be averted."82It
is clear that Johnis not censuringHenryfora past breachof equity,but rather
that he and Theobald are fearfulforthe future.Evidentlytheyfeltthat Henry
had designsupon the Churchand was awaitingthe propermomentto effecthis
plans - that he was, perhaps,simplybidinghis time until Theobald's death.
(Modernscholarship,withthe advantageofhindsight,would supporttheirdiag-
nosis.)83In fact,Johnexplicitlysuggeststhis to be the case, withregardto one
specificmatter:In a letterto Becket concerningan electionto the vacant See of
Exeter,Johnsays,"If you delayto giveeffectto thispetitionuntilthekingcomes
home,[thearchbishop]will thinkthat you are seekingto delay the matteruntil
hisdeath."M4
An attemptto connecttheviewsquoted above withthe doctrineoftyrannicide
in the Policraticusmay seem to be weakenedby the factthat theseletterspost-
date 1159. However,they are all writtenwithinthe twelve monthsfollowing
John'scompletionofthe Policraticus,and it seemsunlikelythattherehad been a
sudden changein Church-Staterelationsduringthis period.85Much rather,the
opinionsexpressedin the lettersrepresenta sentimentof disquietand distrustof
the Crownwhichhad been growingat Canterburyforthreeor fouryears.86This
sense of forebodingeven appears in the Policraticusitself,in a crypticpassage
whichconstitutesone ofthe veryfewtopicalreferences in that work:At the end

82 Letter 127, Abp. Theobald to King Henry II (June-July 1160): "Si uultis,immo quia uultis
Christumhaberepropitium,sponsameius (quae est ecclesia. . .) studeatishaberepropitiam.Nam cui
deestgratiaecclesiaetota creatrixTrinitasaduersatur.Suggeruntuobis filiisaeculihuiusut ecclesiae
minuatisauctoritatemut uobis regia dignitasaugeatur. Certe uestraminpugnantmaiestatemet
indignationem Dei procurantquicumquesuntilli ...; poena dignumest et proculdubiopoena acerbis-
sima punietur,immoDeo propitionon punieturquia ipso propitiantenon fiet."Letters,p. 220. We
knowfromJohn'sown testimonythat the languageemployedin thiscase is his own; see Letter 128,
Johnto Thomas Becket (c. September1160),Letters, p. 9221.
83Cf. Z. N. Brooke,TheEnglishChurch& thePapacy (Cambridge,1952), p. 189.
84 Letter 128: "Noueritis autem quia, si distuleritisusque ad aduentumdomini regispetitionis
effectum, eo ipso putabit quod in mortemeius dilatio quaeratur." Letters,p. 223. In this particular
case John'ssuspicionwas unfounded;Theobald's candidatereceivedroyal approval just beforethe
archbishop'sdeath.
85 Of course,thereis the papal schismdatingfrom the doubleelectionin September1159; whilethe
concernsevidencedin the quoted passages referspecifically to the problemsof the English Church,
surelythe anxietyat Canterburymusthave been increasedby the lack of a recognizedhead of the
universalchurch.
88 That is to say, at least sincethetimeofJohn'sdisgracein 1156,discussedbelow.

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 708 The Doctrineof Tyrannicide
ofa chapterdevotedto praisingthepast deeds oftheyoungking,Johnconcludes
thathis owntalentswillbe unequal to describingHenry'sgreatness,"ifhisfuture
courseshall be longand prosperousaccordingto the m'easureof the gracewhich
has been bestowedon himin the past. However,the periodwhichmarksthe end
ofa man's youthis lookeduponby somewithsuspicion,and mayit provethatthe
fearsofthe good are groundless!"87
The precisereasonsforthesefearsare hard to determine.Perhaps theyrepre-
sent in largemeasuremeresurmiseon John'spart,based on his realizationthat
HenryII, especiallywhencomparedwithStephen,was a strongking- strong,
and thuspotentiallydifficult,fromthe Church'sstandpoint.However,thereare
certainactionsof Henry'spriorto the completionof the Policraticuswhichmay
have seemedto Johnindicativeoftyrannicaltendencies.For one thing,Johnwas
in seriousdisfavorwiththe kingfromautumn1156 untilEaster 1157; whilethe
exact cause of Henry's angeris unknown,Johnindicatesin his correspondence
that the kingwas indignantover John'sdefenseof ecclesiasticalliberties.88 In
describinghis plight,Johnimpliesthat Henry constantlyinterferedwith the
freedomof canonicalelectionsand withthe functioning of ecclesiasticalcourts:
"If the English Churchventuresto claim even the shadow of libertyin making
electionsor in the trial of ecclesiasticalcauses, it is imputed to me....989
(While scholarstoday may disputethe validityof this accusation,particularly
whenapplied to the firstyearsof Henry'sreign,90 the onlyfactwhichis relevant
for our purposesis that Johnbelieved the accusationto be true.) Besides the
questionsof Churchelectionsand ecclesiasticaljurisdiction,Johnwas also con-
cernedwithHenry'sinfringement of the Church'sfinancialrights,as exemplified
by the levy of 1159. For the purposeof his Toulouse campaignHenryassessed
not onlythe ordinarytax, the scutage,whichthe Churchhad paid previouslyin
1156 (withperhapssome minorgrumbling) ;91 he also, "contraryto ancientcus-
tomand due liberty,"leviedan arbitrary"contribution, or ratherexaction"from
the Church,whichtotaledfourtimesthe amountofthe scutageproper.As John
complained,the Churchhad not even the slimconsolationof sharingthisburden
withthe lay lords;the arbitrarytax fellon churchfeesonly.92Certainlyifequity
87 VI, 18: "... si iuxta praecedentisgratiae cursumsibi diu successerintprospera.... Ceterum
adolescentiaeexitusaliquibussuspectusest,et utinamfrustraa bonistimeatur."Webb, II, 54; Dick-
inson,p. 237.
88 Letter19, Johnto Peter abbot of Celle (autumn1156), Letters, pp. 31-32. The datingofthisfall
fromgrace,a major revisionin the chronologyofJohn'slifeand writings,was accomplishedby Giles
Constable,"The AllegedDisgrace ofJohnofSalisburyin 1159,' EHR, 69 (1954), 67-76; Constable's
findings are summarizedby Brooke,Letters, Append.II, pp. 257 f.
89 Letter 19: "Quod in electionibuscelebrandis,in causis ecclesiasticisexaminandisuel umbram

libertatisaudet sibi Anglorumecclesiauendicare,michiinputatur...." Letters,p. 32.

90 Cf. Z. N. Brooke,pp. 189, 198 f.; H. G. Richardsonand G. 0. Sayles, TheGovernance ofMediaeval
England(Edinburgh,1963),Ch. XVI, "Churchand State in theTwelfthCentury,"especiallypp. 302 f.
91Letter13, Johnto WilliambishopofNorwich(spring-summer 1156), indicatessome sortofmild
protestto the kingon thisoccasion;Letters, pp. 21 f.
92 Ep. 145,Johnto Bartholomew bishopofExeter (1166): "...Tolosam belloaggressurus, omnibus
contra antiquum moremet debitam libertatemindixitecclesiis,ut pro arbitrioeius, satraparum
suorumconferrent in censum,nec permisitut ecclesiaesaltemproceribuscoaequarenturin hac con-

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Doctrineof Tyrannicide 709
consistsof "allottingto each that whichbelongsto him,"thenJohnas a church-
man consideredHenry'sactionin levyingthistax a breachofequity.Knowledge
of these previousroyal transgressions undoubtedlycontributedto John'spre-
monitionoffutureroyalassaults upon ecclesiasticalrights.
Therefore,in writingthe Policraticus,Johnfeltit his duty to informrulersin
general,but obviouslyHenryII in particular,thatprincesdo notbreakthelaw of
God withimpunity;that God alwayspunisheswickedness,withoutfail.As it has
been shownabove, tyrannicideis but one of God's weapons. However,Johnis
beingrealisticwhenhe choosesthisparticularweapon to emphasize.Henrywas
no Louis VII, to be panickedeasilyintopenitence.He was not one to quiverwith
terrorover the threatof divinethunderboltsor the distantprospectof eternal
damnation.But tyrannicideis somethingelse again; to speak of God's directing
possiblehumanactionagainsthimwas to speak in termsthat Henryunderstood.
Thus, Johnof Salisbury'sdoctrineof tyrannicideis boththeoreticaland prac-
tical.The doctrineoftyrannicideis purelytheoretical, in the sensethatJohnwas
not proposingit as a plan of action. But it is theorywiththispracticalpurpose,
that Johnhoped therebyto convinceHenrythat,forhis own good,he mustrule
in accordancewiththelaw. The doctrineoftyrannicideis a symbol(not the only
one,but theone mosteasilyunderstoodin humanterms)ofthe factthat,though
God acts in mysteriousways- ways so mysteriousthat Johncannotgivea con-
sistent,uncontradictory statementof them- He invariablydoes act against
tyrants.
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

tributioneuel magis exactionetam indebita quam iniusta." Migne, PL, cxcix, 134. It should be
noted that Johnis writingherewiththe advantageofseven years'hindsight;however,Liebeschtitz,
MediaevalHumanism,p. 14,believesthat "thisjudgmentis certainlynot a projectionintothepast of
experiencesin the period of Becket's struggleswith the king." The details of the levy of 1159 are
workedout by J. H. Round, Feudal England(London, 1909), pp. 275-79.

This content downloaded from 149.149.5.134 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions