In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Preface WHEN I WAS WORKING ON MY BOOK, Ideal Government and the Mixed Constitution in the Middle Ages, I was especially drawn to Ptolemy of Lucca (c.1236-c.1327), whose radical ideas were remarkable for his time, but about whom very little has been written, and I devoted a chapter to him.' I felt that a translation of his work was long overdue, considering its originality and the fact that it influenced much of the political thought of the later Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the early modern period. Only a few professional medievalists have read Ptolemy's work in its scholastic Latin, but if it were available in English it could benefit all historians of political thought as well as many others interested in political theory, the history of ideas, and the history of constitutionalism. It could also be used in courses in political thought and in the medieval and early modern intellectual tradition. I have already used it in a graduate readings course in medieval history with excellent results. It might also begin to redress the serious undervaluation of Ptolemy'S position in the history of ideas, reflected in what has been at best cursory treatment in general histories of political thought. More than anyone else, Ptolemy combined the principles of northern Italian government with scholastic Aristotelian political theory. He was also the first of his time, or among the first, to state many ideas that were later to become commonplace. He is the first medieval political theorist not to endorse kingship as the best form of government . In fact, he attacks it as the moral equivalent of despotism, totally inappropriate for a virtuous and freedom-loving people. Believing this, he obviously cannot subscribe to the dominant medieval appreciation for the Roman Empire. Instead he glorifies Republican Rome and brands Julius Caesar as a tyrant and the Roman Empire as tyranny. These are remarkable assertions for someone writing around 1300, 1. James Blythe, Ideal Government and the Mixed Constitution in the Middle Ages (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992), 92-II7. viii Preface and the harbinger of a commonplace humanist view of the fifteenth century. Although he defends republicanism vigorously, he nevertheless believes that different circumstances, climates, and national characters may require different forms of government and that most are not suited to the best government, which includes the representation of the few and the many in a mixed constitution . Ptolemy was also the first to equate the standard Greek models of mixed constitution-Sparta, Crete, and Carthage-with the Roman Republic , biblical rule, the Church, and medieval government. Again anticipating the humanists, he was the first to suggest that the perfect republic could be so inwardly harmonious that it could transcend the normal imperatives of decay and ultimate destruction. He also began a debate on whether women should serve in the military. One of the most remarkable things about Ptolemy's book is its wealth of examples, unique in scholastic works of his time. Almost everything he writes suggests some new example to him. Many of these come from the ancient or patristic classics, and these are unusual only in their number, their variety, and the use to which Ptolemy puts them. But he also makes many references to the history, customs, and attitudes of the Middle Ages. For example , mentioning that a king should be wealthy inspires him to discuss how coins are minted. After stating that climate determines national character, he demonstrates this with German immigrants to Sicily who soon became like the Sicilians. He analyzes northern Italian city-states and the struggles between popes and emperors and touches on such diverse topics as Totila the Ostrogoth, Tuscan battle formations, the hunting habits of the French and English kings, the procedure for secret ballots in Florence, and the exchange between Pope Innocent III and the king of Aragon over debased money. I am convinced that Ptolemy today stands in much the same position Marsilius of Padua once did. He was mentioned briefly in some general works and a few scholars pointed out that several later writers referred to him, but even those who noticed him did not accord him any major importance. This all changed in the 1950S, when Alan Gewirth translated Marsilius's major work and wrote a book-length introduction to his thought.' Today, Marsilius is considered to be the great radical political thinker of the fourteenth century , and excerpts of his work appear in every historical anthology of western political...

Share