Homo sum – amicus sum, sive de Terentio Christiano Hrotsvithae Gandeshemensis

The most famous line from Terence, homo sum etc. (Heautontimoroumenos 77), has been interpreted in different ways under different circumstances by authors ranging from Cicero and Seneca in antiquity and Erasmus at the beginning of the modern age to figures of the 19th and 20th centuries, such as Friedrich Nietzsche, George Bataille, and Thomas Mann. Augustine of Hippo was the first to refer to Terence within a broader Christian context, and in the 12th century John of Salisbury equated the presumed philanthropic attitude of the Roman comedian and imitator of Menander with charity, the ultimate Christian virtue. Whereas most of the testimonia to the reception of Heautontimoroumenos 77 have already been identified and in part analyzed, a refined indirect ῾quotation᾿ of the line in question has been neglected: In a sort of réécriture of the initial scene of Terence’s drama, Roswita (Hrotsvit) of Gandersheim (10th century), in her hagiographic comedy ῾Abraham᾿, interpreted the even then proverbial sentence by introducing for the attitude of ῾humanity towards one’s neighbour᾿ both the Aristotelian definition of friendship (῾one soul in two bodies᾿) and a reference to the ideal of a Christian society with ‘one heart and one soul᾿ (Acts 4, 32). Thus the Terentian humanum is bothparaphrased by and identified with both an other classical and a Christian concept of mutual human affection.

The Establishment of Theoretical Bases for the Rule of the People in the Medieval Theological Tradition: Genealogy of the Constitutional Law Doctrine

The proposed article makes an attempt at a study of the processes of the origination and development of theoretical bases for the idea of the rule of the people in the medieval theological tradition. The author systematically analyzes the systems of ideas of Aurelius Augustinus, Thomas Aquinas, Manegold of Lautenbach, John of Salisbury and other thinkers. The paper notes that the development of the rule of the people doctrine in the medieval theological tradition has secured the establishment of a theoretical framework. The idea of the rule of the people is developed during the studied period taking into account two interdependent tendencies. On the one hand, it is drawn up as the main argument in justification of derivativeness and limitation of the monarch’s secular authorities. On the other hand, it is established as a theoretical basis of a new legitimate ground for the king’s rule.

Polykoiranie III (John of Salisbury, Aquinas, Dante, Marsilius of Padua)

Although John of Salisbury does not quote the Homer-Aristotle line Scatter 2 is following, his Policraticus does contain complex reflections on reading that resonate with a deconstructive approach. After the thirteenth-century Latin translations of Aristotle, the line reappears in influential but tendential accounts of the supposed superiority of monarchy in Aquinas and Dante, and in the more complex reflections of Marsilius of Padua.

Power, society, body: the anthropomorphous paradigm in political thought of medieval West Europe

The article based on the research of medieval West European political thought’s texts and mainly on the basic treatise “Policraticus” of John of Salisbury and works by other authors in XII century is devoted to analysis of concepts concerning power and society in light of “body politic” metaphor. The most representative and influential sources (and first of them is “Policraticus”) transmitting the idea of “body politic” in Latin intellectual culture are researched, the metaphor usage logic and ways of its usage in polemical tradition are identified. The “body hierarchy” considered in the article focuses in medieval authors opinion not only on mystical but real social and political arrangement, it underwent definite transformations connected with power and its welder’s figure reception through ages.

“Neque declinet in partem dextram vel sinistram”: duality of power in 12th century English political thought

The article is devoted to examination of the basic opposition “prince/tyrant” in the context of the doctrine concerning the monarch’s supreme power which was defined on the pages of the treatise “Policraticus” by outstanding English intellectual, diplomat and polemist John of Salisbury in 1159. The thinker’s arguments on nature, functions and purposes of power are analysed, virtues that God-fearing monarch has and tyrant vices are considered. Studying John of Salisbury’s concepts of the prince’s and tyrant’s power, the article affords approaches to understanding scholastic’s doctrine of political power as whole which unites Hellenistic and Roman and Christian (patristic and scholastic) traditions.

Tyrant and His Power According to John of Salisbury

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to attempt to define tyranny in the concept of the medieval philosopher John of Salisbury. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: Salisbury is one of the most interesting political thinkers of the Middle Ages. His book entitled “Policraticus” became one of the most important political texts of the Middle Ages, which analyzes, among others, the problem of political authority, the separation of secular and spiritual powers, the problem of the relationship of the ruler with his subjects, as well as the issue of civil obedience and the transformation of legal power into unlawful power. The author tries to show the mechanisms leading to tyrannical power. THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: The text analyzes all aspects of the tyrannical political power, comparing it to that of a legitimate prince. The tyrant is shown against the background of theological and political assumptions, also in the context of social justice and citizens' rights. RESEARCH RESULTS: The tyrannical authority is, by its very nature, wrong and does not lead to social harmony and peace. The tyrant is an usurper and his power is immoral and unlawful. As an unjust ruler, the tyrant stands against the divine order and must take into account the inevitability of punishment. At the same time, this punishment for a tyrant falls within the moral and theological contexts, that is, it is a punishment which God sets. CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS: Salisbury' thought seems to be valid because it is a part of the eternal problem of the dependence of political authority on morality, as well as the tendency to abuse political power over subjects.