From Aquina's ciuitas perfecta to Quidort's perfecta multitudo. A 'Slight' Shift in Meaning

Abstract

According to Arendt and Habermas, the reinterpretation of Aristotle made by Thomas Aquinas, identifying politicus and socialis, has weakened the nature of classical Aristotelian politics by introducing in the polis (now regnum / monarchy) relations and private interests that the Greeks had reserved for domestic space (oikos). Moreover, being the concept of societas in this context naturally Christian, the purpose of society is no longer self-sufficiency and acquisition of natural virtue, which allow us to live together in order to the good life, but requires supernatural virtue given by God in order to achieve the true supreme good. Therefore, the possibility of happiness (eudaimonia) now refers to eschatology (communio sanctorum), reason because kings are to be subject to priests, especially the pope, Christ’s representative, whose role is to take care of the highest aim of our existence (visio et fruitio Dei). However, the application of a pyramidal and hierarchical scheme of spiritual power over the temporal realm is subverted by Juan Quidort of Paris, introducing a «small» shift: the kingdom understood as perfecta multitudo. In this perfect multitude an upward causality is the basis for distinction and non-subordination of the temporal power by the spiritual; at the same time freedom of individuals to choose their leaders is essential. This view undermines the dynastic transmission’s model of power in a kingdom (from father to son) as well as, at the ecclesial level, points to superiority of the General Council in relation to the pope.