Marsilius of Padua - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Marsilius of Padua

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Marsilius of Padua

One. Biography

The information on Marsilius' life is scarce, as are the dates of his birth and death. His birth can likely be placed between twelve seventy-five and twelve eighty, and his death in or before twelve forty-three. Marsilius' earliest training took place in a rich and lively cultural environment in Padua between the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. Starting in the thirteenth century, Padua had emerged as a significant intellectual center, witnessing the rise of two major developments. First, figures such as Lovato Lovati and Albertino Mussato-the latter being very close to Marsilius-had initiated a pre-humanist literary movement that placed the relationship between the present and classical antiquity at the forefront. Second, there was a growing engagement with Aristotelian natural philosophy, which, from the thirteenth century onward, shaped significant studies in medicine, astrology, and natural philosophy at the University of Padua. A significant representative of this tradition was Peter of Abano, who was likely one of Marsilius' teachers and whose medical ideas would later exert a profound influence.

Albertino Mussato reports that, for some time, Marsilius had sought his advice, uncertain whether to pursue the study of medicine or law; he ultimately chose medicine. It is likely that Marsilius began his studies-perhaps in medicine-in Padua, and subsequently continued them in Paris, although scholars disagree on the exact date of his relocation. The first reliable evidence of Marsilius's presence in Paris is his tenure as rector of the Faculty of Arts, held between December thirteen twelve and March thirteen thirteen. This position suggests that he may have already been in Paris earlier, first as a student and later as a master, most likely between thirteen ten and thirteen fifteen-and possibly even as early as the beginning of the fourteenth century, according to Courtenay. It is worth noting that during this period, the University of Paris was one of the most prominent intellectual and cultural centers in Western Europe, exposing Marsilius to a wide range of traditions and influential figures teaching there at the time.

In the years following his rectorate, Marsilius travelled repeatedly between Paris and Padua. There is evidence that he was in Padua in thirteen fifteen, where he served as a witness to the orthodoxy of Peter of Abano during his trial for heresy. Similarly, in March thirteen nineteen, Marsilius acted as an envoy and ambassador for the pro-imperial Ghibelline league led by Cangrande della Scala and Matteo Visconti, a coalition formed in Northern Italy in opposition to papal authority. At some point prior to thirteen twenty-one, Marsilius appears to have returned to Paris. According to John of Jandun-an Averroist philosopher and close associate -Marsilius brought with him from Padua a manuscript of Peter of Abano's encyclopedic Expositio on the Pseudo-Aristotle Problemata, which Jandun is known to have consulted.

Perhaps after returning to Paris in thirteen twenty-one, Marsilius started working on his masterpiece, the Defender of Peace, which, as several manuscripts of this text indicate, must have been completed on twenty-four June thirteen twenty-four. At some point after the composition of this work, Marsilius left Paris with John of Jandun (though scholars are divided on whether he left immediately, in thirteen twenty-five, or in thirteen twenty-six) and went to the court of Ludwig the Bavarian in Munich to seek protection. From that moment onwards, Marsilius' fate became intertwined with that of Ludwig. He accompanied him on his expedition to Italy, during which Ludwig was to be crowned Holy Roman Emperor in Rome in thirteen twenty-eight by Sciarra Colonna, a prominent member of the Roman aristocracy, and by Nicholas V, an anti-pope created by Ludwig himself. For his authorship of the Defender, Marsilius was excommunicated by John XXII in thirteen twenty-seven along with John of Jandun. In the final part of his life, evidence regarding Marsilius becomes even more fragmented, and we only know that he died at some point before or in thirteen forty-three in Munich.

It is well established that Marsilius composed three principal writings: Defensor Pacis (his magnum opus and by far his most extensive work), Defensor Minor (a more concise reiteration of many ideas from the former, with a stronger pro-imperial stance, likely written in thirteen forty), and De translatione imperii (which reproduces Landolfo Colonna's treatise Tractatus de statu et mutatione imperii, with some minor yet meaningful modifications). His involvement in a few additional texts, mostly unrelated to political matters, remains disputed in most cases.

Two. The Defender of Peace

The Defender of Peace is Marsilius' most important work and the one that has received the most attention among modern scholars. At the very outset, Marsilius clearly explains the purpose of his work. As he states, he wrote the Defender because the peace and political tranquillity of all human communities were threatened by a "perverted opinion" upheld by certain Roman pontiffs. This opinion-the idea of the plenitude of power-is the true guiding theme of all of Marsilius' work: the belief that the legitimacy of all temporal rulers' power on earth should depend on the papacy. Marsilius describes this erroneous and condemnable view as a "singular cause of strife", which leads to division and factionalism in every political community and must therefore be rejected.

The Defender is a lengthy work divided into three Discourses, each based on the type of sources or knowledge that, as Marsilius states, will be used to support his main arguments. In the first part, he argues against the plenitude of power based on "sure methods discovered by human rationality"; in the second, he writes that he will "corroborate what I shall take myself to have demonstrated with testimonies of the truth founded upon eternity, and also with authoritative passages of the saints, its interpreters, and other approved doctors of the Christian faith, so that this book should stand by itself, needing no extrinsic proof". In the third, he summarizes the arguments presented in the previous two sections drawing "a number of conclusions or lessons of the utmost utility", to "all citizens - those in the position of prince as much as those who are subject". Given that Marsilius states in the first Discourse that he will rely more on arguments grounded in human reason, whereas in the second he will draw upon the language of Revelation, scholars have long debated how this distinction aligns with the overarching argument of the Defender. In the scholarly literature, there has been a prevailing tendency to characterize the first Discourse of the Defender as predominantly philosophical, while the second Discourse is generally seen as more theologically and ecclesiologically oriented. Broadly speaking, contemporary scholars have devoted greater attention to Marsilius' philosophical-political ideas in the first Discourse, with a particular focus on his concepts of republicanism, representation, and the role of the people.

By contrast, early modern readers were primarily engaged with the ecclesiological and political-theological arguments of the second Discourse, especially during the Protestant Reformation and the era of religious wars, when Marsilius' anti-papal views attracted significant interest among Protestant authors. Some contemporary researchers have also undertaken specific studies on the ecclesiological arguments of the second Discourse, such as the notions of the Church and the Council. More recently, the specific practical role of the third Discourse in the overall structure of Marsilius' work has also been underlined. Surely, in the first Discourse, Marsilius explains how it is possible to institute a perfect secular polity in which there is no room for papal interference, whereas in the second Discourse, he rejects the key principles of the monarchical theory of the papacy in order to present his own original conciliar theory of ecclesiology. However, there is a certain consensus among contemporary scholars that the distinction between the different Discourses should not be overstated, as Marsilius' goal remains the same throughout: rejecting the "perverted" idea of the plenitude of power. In a manner that closely reflects a characteristic pattern of medieval political disputation, all three Discourses of the Defender consistently integrate philosophical, theological, and ecclesiological ideas.