JOHN OF JANDUN AND THE DEFENSOR PACIS

BY ALAN GEWIRTH

THE purpose of this note is to adduce new evidence with respect to the question
of the authorship of the Defensor Pads. Many students have held that this fa-
mous fourteenth century political treatise is a product not only of Marsilius of
Padua, its nominal author,1 but also of the Averroist philosopher John of Jan-
dun;2 and despite the fact that both its recent editors agree in ascribing it to
Marsilius alone,3 the statement of joint authorship continues to be made.4 Both
external and internal evidence are adduced for this position. The former is that
several contemporaries referred to Marsilius and John together as being the au-
thors of the work.6 The internal evidence consists in the 'Averroist' passages of
the work and the alleged divergences between its first and second discourses
(dictiones), some proponents of this view holding that John wrote the first dis-
course, chapters 2 to 18, while Marsilius wrote the rest.
Comparison of the acknowledged works of John of Jandun with the Defensor
discloses a common attitude toward the relation of reason and faith;6 but since
this attitude is a characteristic of the Averroist position of which Marsilius is
acknowledged to be an exponent as well as John, this is not conclusive.6* On the
other hand, Scholz has stated that there are important differences in style be-
tween John's works and the Defensor,7 although he provides no examples of such
differences.
What, however, of the respective doctrines of John and the Defensor? It is
usually held that since John wrote no specifically political treatises, there is no
way of answering this question. Valois points out, to be sure, that John's Tracta-
tus de Laudibus Parisius briefly indicates a preference for hereditary succession
1
Defensor Pads, I, i, 6 (p. 5): 'Antenorides ego quidam. . . . " Antenor was the legendary founder
of Padua. (Page references are to the edition of C. W. PreviU-Orton, Cambridge, 1928).
* Cf. especially N. Valois, 'Jean de Jandun et Marsile de Padoiie, auteurs du Defensor Pads,' Bis-
toire UttSraire de la France, xxxin (1906), 528ff.;M. J. Tooley, 'The Authorship of the Defensor Pads,'
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Series iv, Vol. ix (1926), 85-106; J. W. Allen, 'Marsilio of
Padua and Mediaeval Secularism,' in P. J. C. Hearnshaw, ed., The Sodal and Political Ideas of Some
Great Mediaeval Thinkers (London, 1923), p. 170.
1
Previte-Orton, op. cit., pp. xxv-xxvi. R. Scholz, Marsilius von Padua, Defensor Pads (Hanover,
1982), pp. li-lxi.
4
Cf. B. Landry, L'IdSe de ChrUienti chez les Scolastiques du xiii' Siicle (Paris, 1929), p. 159; A.
Dempf, Sacrum Imperium (Berlin, 1929), p. 432; C. H. Mcllwain, The Growth of Political Thought in
the West (New York, 1932), pp. 297-299; M. M. Gorce, 'Averrolsme,' Dictionnaire d'Histoire et de
Geographic EccUdastiques, v, 1073; L'Essor de la PensSe au Moyen Age (Paris, 1933), p. 183; V. Mar-
tin, Les Origines du Gallicanisme (Paris, 1939), n, 32; F. Sassen, Geschiedenis der Patrislische en Mid-
deleeuwische Wijsbegeerte (Nijmegen-Utrecht, 1942), p. 293; E. Gilson, La Philosophic au Moyen
Age* (Paris, 1944), p. 692.
6
Cf. the bulls of Pope John XXII, in M.G.E., Constitutiones, vi, 185-186, 477, 687; the 'Examen
Judiciale Francisci Veneti asseclae Marsilii de Padua,' of 20 May, 1828 (in S. Baluze, Miscellanea,
Paris, 1678, i, 318); the anonymous poem, De Bavari Apostana, ed. O. Cartellieri, in News Archiv der
GeseUschaftfur Sltere deutsehe Geschichtskunde, xxv (1900), 712-715.
6
Cf. Valois, op. cit., p. 572; Previte-Orton, op. dt., p. xxvi.
611
Cf. Scholz, op. dt, p. liii. ' Ibid., p. lii and n. 8.
267
268 John of Ja?idun and the Defensor Pacis
over election,8 whereas the Defensor vehemently supports the opposite prefer-
ence,9 but Valois himself explains this away by the consideration that in writing
the Defensor Pacis for Ludwig of Bavaria John adjusted his previous position to
the electoral doctrine of the Holy Roman Empire.9*
In his Questions on the Metaphysics, however, John has some detailed discus-
sions of political and other problems which are also dealt with in the first dis-
course of the Defensor Pads. These discussions, which have not hitherto been
consulted on this question,10 seem to prove as conclusively as such questions will
permit that John wrote neither the first discourse of the Defensor, nor, a fortiori,
the second discourse.100
(1) John, like the other Aristotelians, exalts 'theoretic happiness' over practical,
and views the former as the ultimate this-worldly good of man.11 The author of
the Defensor, on the other hand, exalts 'civil happiness' as the ultimate good,
and at most puts theoretic activity on the same level as practical.12
(2) John divides practical 'habits' into those dealing with action or doing
(activi) and those dealing with production or making (factim); and he distin-
guishes two correspondingly different kinds of operations, 'immanent' (im-
manentes) and 'transient' (transeuntes), the former being those concerned only with
8
In the Tractatus de Laudibus Parisius, n, 10 (ed. Le Roux de Lincy and L. M. Tisserand, Paris et
ses Historiens [Paris, 1867], p. 62), John refers to the 'monarcha Francorum, sub cujus hereditario . . .
regimine subditi. . . gaudent se esse munitos;' and the Vienna manuscript adds the following note to
hereditario: 'Quod multipliciter electiva institutione melius esse monstravi.' We do not now have a
work of John's in which this argument occurs.
8
Def. Pac, i, xvi, 11-25 (pp. 78-89). to Valois, op. cit., p. 572.
10
Indeed, they do not seem to be known to scholars at all. Valois, in his brief review of the Quaes-
tiones (op. cit., pp. 556-558), does not mention these political discussions, despite the light they shed
on his position that John was co-author of the Defensor. M. de Wulf also seems unaware of them; cf.
Hist, de la Philosopkie Miditvale1 (Paris, 1925), n, 217: 'ses theories politiques et anti-papales develop-
pees dans le De Laudibus Parisius l'obligerent a chercher refuge chez le roi Louis de Baviere. Ces
theories politiques forment un chapitre a part dans la doctrine de Jean de Jandun et n'ont pas de lien
logique avec le reste de sa philosophie — l'averrolsme.' There are several errors in this statement:
there are no 'anti-papal' ideas in the De Laudibus Parisius, nor does it contain anything which would
have caused John toflee.Moreover, John's political ideas as expounded in the Questions on the Meta-
physics are integrally connected with his Averroism.
lto
The philosophic bases and implications of the differences herein indicated between the De-
fensor Pacis and the doctrines held by John of Jandun are examined in detail in my forthcoming book,
Marsilius of Padua and Medieval Political Philosophy. Consequently, I have here confined myself
to a summary statement of these differences.
u
Quaestiones in Duodecim Libras Metaphysicae (Venetiis, 1525), I, q. 1 (fol. IF): 'Felicitas est multi-
plex. Quaedam est felicitas politica quae consistit in operatione virtutum moralium . . . Alia est felici-
tas speculativa quae consistit in operatione intellectus speculativi respectu nobilissimi obiecti. Et ista
est nobilior prima felicitate. . . . " Ibid., n, q. 4 (fol. 25F): 'cognitio principiorum abstractorum fit per
adeptionem intellectus agentis cum possibili, et in illo actu consistit felicitas.' Cf. Super Libros Aris-
totelis de Anima Subtilissimae Quaestiones (Venice, 1552), Proemium (fol. l r ): 'ultimus finis hominis
appropriate est felicitas, quae consistit in speculatione secundum primaevam potentiam. . . . "
a
Def. Pac, i, i, 7 (p. 6): 'tranquille vivere . . . necessarium debentibus civili felicitate frui, quae in
hoc saeculo possibilium homini desideratorum optimum videtur et ultimum actuum humanorum.' I,
iv, 1 (p. 12): 'bene vivunt, vacantes scilicet operibus liberalibus qualia sunt virtutum tarn practicae
quam speculativae animae.' Cf. I, v, 3; I, vi, 9 (pp. 16, 24).
 John of Jandun and the Defensor Pacis 269
actions which 'remain within' the agent, while the latter 'cross over' into an
external object made. This is a traditional scholastic distinction found in Thomas
Aquinas and many others.13 The author of the Defensor Pacis, on the other hand,
introduces a quite different interpretation of the distinction between immanent
and transient acts. The former are still actions remaining internal to the agent;
but the latter are now no longer confined to productive operations, but include
all acts which affect some person other than the agent. The distinction thus be-
comes interpreted primarily as between private and public, or individual and
social, which is quite different from its previous confinement to doing and mak-
ing.14 In no scholastic work other than the Defensor have I found this interpreta-
tion of the distinction.
(3) John divides constitutions (politiae) into recta and transgressa, the division
depending upon final causes, i.e. upon whether the government aims at the
common good or at the ruler's private good. This again is a traditional scholastic
distinction, derived from Aristotle.15 The author of the Defensor Pacis, on the
other hand, divides governments into bene temperata and vitiata, and makes the
distinction depend primarily upon whether or not the government is based upon
the consent of the subjects, i.e. upon efficient rather than final causes.16 Here
again there is a variant which is not found elsewhere in the scholastic tradition.
(4) John defines the 'polity' as the constitution in which the 'many good and

u
Quaest. in Metaphys., I, q. 18 (fol. 14J): 'quidam sunt habitus practici factivi et quidam activi.
Factivi habitus sunt quorum operationes recipiuntur in materia extrinseca, ut effectus artis domifac-
tivae. . . . Sed habitus activi sunt quorum operationes immanent et non transeunt in rem extra. . . . "
Cf. Super Lib. de Anima, Proem., where John divides practical philosophy into 'factiva, quae deter-
minat de operibus hominis in materiam exteriorem transeuntibus' and 'activa, quae determinat de ope-
ribus hominis in ipso homine remanentibus.' For Thomas Aquinas on this distinction, cf. S. Theol.,
i, q. 14, a. 2, Resp.; q. 17, a. 3, ad 1; q. 23, a. 2, ad 1. The distinction is ultimately derived from Aris-
totle, Nicomachean Ethics, vi, 4,1140a 1ff.;cf. Thomas, In Deccm Libros Etkicorum Arisiotelis ad Nico-
machum Expositio (ed. A. M. Pirotta, Turin, 1924), I, Lect. 1, n. 13; n, Lect 4, n. 282; vi, Lects. 2, 3,
nn. 1135,1151 (pp. 5, 96-97, 378, 383).
14
Def. Pac., ii, viii, 8 (p. 180): 'Imperatorum vero actuum quidam sunt et dicuntur immanentes, et
alii transeuntes. . . . Transeuntes autem sunt et dicuntur omnes prosecutiones desideralorum, et ip-
sorum omissiones tamquam privationes, et motus facti per aliquod organorum corporis exteriorum,
maxime secundum locum motorum. Rursum transeuntium actuum quidam sunt et fiunt absque
nocumento vel iniuria singtdaris personae, collegii, out communitatis alterius a faciente. . . . Alii vero
transeuntium sunt et fiunt cum opposita circumstantia. . . . ' Cf. i, v, 4 (p. 16), where the distinction
is made in similar terms. Cf. also below, p. 272, n. 41.
15
Quaest. in Metaphys., i, q. 18 (fol. 14K): 'duplex est politia, recta et transgressa. Recta politia est
quae habet principem qui principatur et dominatur propter commune bonum ut propter politiam; sed
transgressa politia est in qua dominatur princeps propter proprium bonum, et hoc patet 3° Polilicae.'
Cf. Aristotle, Pol., in, 5,1239" 29 ff.
18
Def. Pac, i, viii, 2 (p. 28): 'Sunt autem principativae partis seu principatuum genera duo, unum
quidem bene temperatum, reliquum vero vitiatum. Voco autem bene temperatum genus, cum Aris-
totele, m Politicae, capitulo 5°, in quo dominans principatur ad commune conferens secundum volun-
tatem subditorum, vitiatum vero quod ab hoc deficit." Ibid., I, ix, 5 (p. 38): 'Haec igitur duo praedicta
[i.e., consent and common benefit] principatum temperatum et vitiosum separant. . . simpliciter
autem aut magis sulditorum consensus.'
270 John of Jandun and the Defensor Pacis
virtuous' rule.17 The author of the Def ensor defines the 'polity' as the government
in which 'every citizen' participates in ruling.18
(5) John conceives the function of the ruler as that of 'making his citizens
good' by commanding them to have knowledge of God.19 The author of the
Defensor Pacis conceives the ruler primarily as a coercive judge whose purpose
is to preserve the state, not to lead men to any moral or theological goal.20
(6) John emphatically declares both in Questions on the Metaphysics and in the
De Laudibus Parisius that there should be one ruler for the whole world, in the
latter work specifying that this ruler should be the king of France.21 The author
of the Defensor Pacis is notoriously unenthusiastic about one ruler or government
for the whole world, finding much to say against the idea and nothing to say for
it.22
(7) John holds that the positive or 'proper' laws of each state must be based
upon natural law.23 The author of the Defensor Pacis makes no mention of natural
law in his definitions and discussions of law in the first discourse, and holds that
even unjust laws are nonetheless truly laws if they bear coercive sanctions.24 The
brief discussion of natural law in the second discourse declares that human or
positive laws may disagree with natural law.26
(8) John views the 'legislator' as a wise statesman who frames laws to make
his subjects virtuous;26 and he evinces an undemocratic conviction that 'men
for the most part are prone to do evil' and have 'disordered desires.'27 The author
of the Defensor views the 'legislator' as consisting in the whole people;28 he lists
17
Quaest. in Metapkys., i, q. 18 (fol. 14K): 'Tertia est in qua dominantur multi boni et virtuosi prop-
ter commune bonum, et ilia dicitur communi nomine politia vel timocratia.'
18
Def. Pac., i, viii, 8 (p. 29): 'Politia . . . importat speciem quandam principatus temperati, in quo
civis quilibet participat aliqualiter principatu vel consiliativo vicissim iuxta gradum et facultatem seu
conditionem ipsius, ad commune etiam conferens et civium voluntatem sive consensum.'
ls
Quaest. in Metaphys., i, q. 1 (fol. 2A): 'ad hoc quod legislator suos cives faciat bonos, opus quod
habeat cognitionem Dei. . . . ' Ibid., I, q. 18 (fol. 14M): 'felicitas politica consistit in actu prudentiae
quae est in principe, cum virtus principis debeat excellere omnes alios, sed proprius actus principis est
praecipere. . . . Sed inter omnes actus hominis nobilissimus est cognoscere Deum, et in illo actu prae-
cipiendi consistit felicitas politica in principe operand ad cognitionem Dei. . . . ' Cf. ibid., I, q. 22 (fol.
18Q).
!0
Def. Pac., i, v, 7 (p. 17).
21
Quaest. in Metapkys., xn, q. 22 (fol. 144C): 'Unde ad propositum debemus dicere quod in toto
universo unus debet esse princeps.' De Laudibus Parisius, n, 8 (p. 58): 'illustrissimis et precellentissi-
mis Francie regibus monarchicum totius orbis dominium, saltern ex native pronitatis ad melius jure,
debetur.'
22
Def. Pac, i, xvii, 10; cf. n, xxviii, 15 (pp. 94, 446).
23
Quaest. in Metaphys., n, q. 11 (fol. 35C): 'lex propria a lege communi et hire naturali habet or-
tum. . . . Unde lex propria secundum quam scriptam homines vivunt civiliter debet inniti legi com-
muni.'
24
Def. Pac, i, x, 5 (p. 39). " Ibid., n, xii, 8 (p. 217).
26
Quaest. in Metaphys., n, q. 11 (fol. 35G): 'legislator imponit leges, ut faciat suos subditos virtuo-
sos.'
27
Ibid., II, q. 4 (fol. 26B): 'homines ut in pluribus sunt proni ad malum . . . et isti habent appetitum
inordinatum. . . . "
28
Def. Pac, i, xii, 3 (p. 49).
 John of Jandun and the Defensor Pacis 271
as one objection to this position that 'men for the most part seem vicious and
stupid,'29 and he replies that most men have a 'right desire' for the welfare of the
state.30 John's position thus appears as one of the arguments refuted in the De-
fensor.
(9) John treats the canon lawyers and their 'decretals' with great respect, de-
claring that their work is necessary for peace.31 The author of the Defensor Pacis
views the canonists as oligarchs seeking their private benefit instead of the com-
mon benefit.32
These differences between John of Jandun's authentic doctrines and those of
the first discourse of the Defensor Pacis are so great that it seems all but impos-
sible that John could be the author of any part of the Defensor.™ Most of the
points referred to concern matters which are central to the Defensor's whole
position, and figure homogeneously throughout the treatise. For John of Jandun
to have composed the latter work would hence indicate a shift of meaning and
doctrine which his own acknowledged writings do not bear out.34
The usual contention of the proponents of dual authorship is that John wrote
chapters 2 to 18 of the first discourse, while Marsilius wrote the remainder, mak-
ing the necessary adjustments for the consistency of the whole. The internal
evidence upon which this position purports to be based is 'the striking difference
between Book I and Book II in manner of treatment, in provenance, and in
language.'35 That there are differences between the first and second discourses is
undeniable, but they can be explained by the subject-matters with which the
two discourses deal. On the other hand, the agreements between them are far
greater and more fundamental than the differences. To begin with, the second
discourse contains at least seventy explicit references to the first discourse, each
of which is invoked to support a position defended in the later context. More-
over, certain doctrines which, in the form in which they appear in the Defensor,
are peculiar to that work, are found uniformly in both discourses; indeed, they
are unintelligible in the second discourse without their initial statement in the
29
Ibid., i, xiii, 1 (p. 54): "homines enim, ut in pluribus, videntur pravi et stulti. . . . "
80
Ibid., i, xiii, 8 (p. 56): 'omnes enim aut plurimi sanae mentis et rationis sunt et recti appetitus. . . . '
" De Laudibus Parisius, i, 8 (pp. 40-42).
82
Def. Pac, i, xiii, 5 (p. 58).
83
The Questions on the Metaphysics were probably written in the first decade of the fourteenth cen-
tury (cf. Valois, op. cit., pp. 529-530), and the De Laudibus Parisius was completed on 4 Nov. 1323
(cf. the explicit, p. 78) — less than a year before the completion of the Defensor Pacis. In view of the
homogeneity of John's general philosophic views throughout his works, it seems all but impossible
that he could have changed his central political conceptions so drastically from the Metaphysics to the
Defensor. The agreements between the Metaphysics and the De Laudibus make such a change even less
plausible.
34
The only evidence along these lines adduced by Valois to prove John's authorship is that the pe-
culiar expression kabitum est occurs both in John's authentic works and in the Defensor. The same ex-
pression also occurs, however, in William of Moerbeke's translation of Aristotle's Politics; cf., e.g.,
Pol., iv, 12,1299*3 (in Tkomae Aquinatis Opera Omnia [ed. S. E. Frette, Paris, 1875], xxvi, 328: In
Pol., Lib. iv, Lect. 13) where it is used to translate kxoiiivri.
35
Mcllwain, op. cit., p. 298.
272 John of Jandun and the Defensor Pacis
first. Such are the doctrines of the kinds of human acts,88 the two aspects of the
parts of the state,868 the coercive nature of law,87 the unity of the government and
of the state,37a the universitas civium as the source of all political power,88 the
establishment of the parts of the state by the legislator and the ruler,39 the ruler
as the 'executive' of the laws.40 There is a similar homogeneity in the two dis-
courses with regard to the use of terms in meanings peculiar to the Defensor,
such as transiens,a legislator,*2 valentior.iS And finally, the two discourses agree
fully in their conception of the demonstrative method and necessary modality of
political reasoning44 — a conception in which the Defensor likewise stands alone
among mediaeval Aristotelian writings on politics.46
We conclude, therefore, that no substantial part of the Defensor Pacis was
written by John of Jandun. From the external evidence of his close association in
friendship and in political activities with Marsilius, it is highly probable that
John contributed advice and assistance. But the actual composition and doctrine
of the entire treatise are the product of one man, Marsilius of Padua.
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.
t8
Cf.i, v, 4,11 (pp. 16,19);andn,ii, 5;n, viii,8;ii, ix, 11; n, xvii, 8 (pp. 118, 119, 180, 194, 294).
360
Cf. i, vi, 9; i, vii (pp. 25-27); and n, xv, 2; 9, 10 (pp. 264, 271, 272).
37
Cf. i, x, 4 (p. 88); and n, viii, 4; n, ix, 8 (pp. 180,187).
370
Cf. i, xvii, 1-4,11-18 (pp. 89-92, 95); and n, iv, 5 (p. 131); n, viii, 9 (p. 185); II, x, 8 (p. 208); n,
xvii, 14 (p. 300); n, xxiii, 11 (p. 366); n, xxviii, 14 (p. 445).
38
Cf. i, xii-xiii; I, xv, 9 (pp. 48-61, 72); and n, vi, 12; n, xvii, 11; n, xxi, 1, 9; n, xxii, 11 (pp. 169,
296, 827, 335, 850).
39
Cf. i, vii, 3; i, xv, 4, 8 (pp. 27, 68, 71); and n, viii, 9; II, xv, 1; n, xvii, 12 (pp. 185-186, 263, 298).
« Cf. i, xiv, 8; i, xv, 4 (pp. 64, 68); and n, viii, 6 (p. 181).
« Cf. i, v, 4, 7; i, vi, 1, 9 (pp. 16,17, 21, 24); and n, ii, 4, 5, 7; n, viii, 8, 4, 5, 9; H, xvii, 8 (pp. 118,
120, 121, 180, 181, 186). Cf. also above, p. 269.
a
Cf. I, xii, 2, 3 (pp. 48-50); and n, xvii, 9-18 (pp. 294-308).
« Cf. i, xii, 3; i, xiii, 1 (pp. 49,55); and n, xx, 5; n, xxi, 3; n, xxii, 6,15 (pp. 822, 829, 845, 858).
" Cf. i, i, 8; i, xiii, 2; i, xv, 2,3 (pp. 6, 55, 67); and II, i, 4; n, xvii, 11; n, xviii, 8 (pp. 114, 296, 810-
811).
" Aristotle insists that political science deals with a contingent subject-matter and that its modality
is therefore only probable, not necessary; cf. Nic. Ethics, I, 3, 1094b 12 ff.; i, 7, 1098° 26 ff.; II, 1,
1103° 14 ff., 1104" 1 ff.; v, 10, 1137b 18 ff.; vi, 5, 1140" 32 ff. This insistence is repeated by Thomas
Aquinas, S. Tkeol., n, I, q. 91, a. 8; q. 94, aa. 4, 5; q. 105, a. 2, ad. 8; Egidius of Rome, De Regimine
Principum, I, i, 1 (Venice, 1498); Ptolemy of Lucca, De Regimine Principum, iv, 8, 13 (ed. J. Mathis
[Turin, 1924], pp. 90,97); Dante, De Monarchic, n, 2,5; ni, 1,4 (ed. E. Moore [Oxford, 1924], pp. 351,
352, 854, 863, 366); Pierre Dubois, De Recuperatixme Terre Sancte, c. 109 (ed. Ch. V. Langlois [Paris,
1891], pp. 96-97); Id., Summaria Brevis el Compendiosa Doctrina Felids Expedicionis et Abbreviacionis
Qverrarum ac Litium Regni Francorum (ed. H. Kampf [Leipzig and Berlin, 1986], p. 47).