Ideal Government and the Mixed Constitution of the Middle Ages (review)

BOOK RZVXZWS 667 scholarship on Avicenna. Certainly ~man's book is one of the most truly philosophiCal thus far in the Rout.ledge series: the concerns and the tone are philosophical, but not at the expense of historical sensitivity. Unfortunately, truly philosophical studies of the major medieval Islamic philosophers are still all too rare, and it is to Goodman's credit that he has provided both specialist and general readers with such a philosophical appreciation of Avicenna's thought. DEBORAH L. BLACK Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto James M. Blythe. Ideal Government and the Mixed Constitution of the Middle Ages. Princeton : Princeton University Press, 1992. Pp. xvi + 343. Cloth, $45.oo. In a wide-sweeping survey of political writings from Aquinas to Machiavelli, Guicciardini and Gianotti, Robert Blythe convincingly demonstrates the continuing influence of the theory of mixed government as the best political arrangement for human society. Drawing on the research of medievalists such as the Carlyles, McIlwain and Tierney, as well as on that of scholars of early modern political thought such as Pocock and Skinner, Blythe develops an original thesis through the examination of original sources. Although it comes as no surprise that, while favoring monarchy as the best form of government, individual medieval thinkers espoused monarchical exercise of power within the framework of a mixed constitution, Biythe's thorough analysis of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century political thought reveals a strikingly wide consensus on that position. At the same time the author sees in the medieval Aristotelian tradition the primary source of ideas on which Machiavelli and his contemporaries based their own theories of mixed government. Consequently, acknowledging that these sixteenth-century thinkers articulated their theories in Polybian terminology, he rejects the current view that they took it directly from the ancient Greek historian. Blythe is quick to point out that, if basically using Aristotle, medieval proponents of government commingling monarchical, aristocratic and democratic elements varied widely in their understanding of its composition and the functioning of its different parts. Indeed, the response of each writer reflected the results of a reciprocal relationship between Aristotle's text and the individual's approach to previous interpretations and his own needs and experiences. Subtle differences in vocabulary and meaning relate intimately to political and intellectual milieux. If at times Blythe's analysis of an author's position comes perilously close to burying the reader in detail, the basic theme of the medieval adaptation of the classical tradition of mixed government and its effect on early modern thought provides coherence throughout. After a brief discussion of the doctrine of mixed constitutionalism in Plato, Aris.toile , and Polybius, and the disappearance of the terminology in the early Middle Ages, Biythe devotes the second portion of the book to tracing the reformulation of the concept by Scholastic thinkers following the translation of Aristotle's Politics in the 126os. At the very outset, a profound "disjunction" (3o2) in interpreting Aristotle 668 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 32:4 OCTOBER 1994 became embedded in the famous commentary on the Politics partially written by Aquinas and continued by his disciple, Peter of Auvergne. Thomas read Aristotle as favoring a "political" king tempered by the power of the wise few and of the body of citizens. Each cidzen would be loyal to the government because each had a stake in its success in attaining the common good. With its checks and balances this government was best for any people, because it prevented tyranny of the one, few, and/or many. By contrast, Peter saw a mixed constitution as best only for a virtuous people because its essence depended on uniting the virtues of each element in society: the king provided unity, the few, wisdom, and the many, power. The confusion of positions within this one commentary generally ascribed to Aquinas provided a broad range of options for subsequent thinkers, most of whom agreed with Peter in allowing only the virtuous to participate in government. Some of these same men, however, were attracted to Aquinas's concept of a balance of power. Torn between his allegiance to Augustine and the attraction of Aristode, Giles of Rome confusingly endorsed both absolute monarchy and a mixed re#me...