Melancholy of Power

Front matter

GESCHICHTE - ERINNERUNG - POLITIK 41

Igor Kakolewski

Melancholy of Power

Table of Contents

Foreword toi A i AWA A BOA een nern 11

Introduction: From Word to Concept and Antinomy: The Critique of

Tyranny as a Problem and Element of Discourse in the Twentieth In the Beginning Was the Word... trente ns 15 Tyranny in Antiquity: From Word to Systematic Concept een 17

Chapter I. The Machiavellian Paradox: Machiavellian ‘Paradoxes’ and Bof cd ———Mr— 39

Il Principe Nuovo: Moses or Cesare Borgia? In Search of a Positive Model 42

Il Principe Nuovo and Negative Models: The Rhetoric and Dialectics of Machiavelli's Arguments nisinsin onian a 60

Machiavelli - A Republican by Conviction or a Monarchist by Necessity? 87

Chapter II. The Machiavellian Moment and the Political Correctness of Erasmus: The Times of Machiavelli, Guicciardini and WOOT saa zi E dd e add

Machiavelli versus Erasmus and the Principles of Renaissance-era Political Correctness „ii eter corti dA Gwda

Institutio Principis Christiani as a Masterpiece of Renaissance Hümanısm nannten een anne

First Major Theme: The Rule ofa True Prince as a Reflection of Divine Power Versus Tyrannical Rule as a Reflection of the Devils | O ARETY OCE

Second Major Theme: Contrasting Catalogues of a True Prince and a Iyrant €

Third Major Theme: The True Prince as the Father of the Family Versus thé Tyrant aS'a Beast... anna

Fourth Major Theme: The Ruler as an Actor on Stage, i.e. Criticism of Feigning Appearances: oua epe rece Ue HERR CA ACO

Minor Theme: It is Better to Abdicate than to Stain Ones Rule with Bloodshed:.... ui rain PE CR UR Vs eee

Conclusion: Dialogue Between the “True Prince’ and the New Prince ...

Chapter III. Thomas More and Niccoló Machiavelli: Tyrannical

The Opposition of King - Tyrant: The Examples of Edward IV and IST

Tyrannical Readings: Castruccio Castracani - A Psychological Portrait of the New Prince E —

A Renaissance Metaphor in the Works of More, Erasmus, and

Chapter IV. Callimachus' Advice: Machiavellian or Anti-Machiavellian la nr————————— 169

The Tuscościta and. his Advice... ue tette eee dione 169 Callimachus’ Advice: A Political Testament or Propaganda Pamphlet? .... 175

Part Two: The Anti-Machiavellian Moment: The Tyrant Restored. The Tyrant as Other During the Era of Rebellion and Religious Wars in Europe

Chapter I. The Reformation: from Obedience to the Right of

The Latter Half of the Sixteenth Century: The Era of Abdications,

The Reformation: from Obedience to the Right of Resistance - the chui e EE 209

Chapter II. The Birth of Anti-Machiavellism: Innocent Gentillet

France in the 1570s: Innocent Gentillet - The Paradigm of Tyranny as FOTeIGnness sooo omin ane eite DO a Qo npn GR auda 230

Jean Bodin and His Doctrine of Absolute Power „nun 243

The Problem of Tyranny and the Right of Resistance in Six Books of the Commonwealth m €————— À 250

Between Royal and Tyrannical Authority: Despotic Monarchy as an Intermediate Category d —————— 257

Chapter IV. Tyrants, Our Own and Foreign, in Propaganda Literature of the First Interregnum (1572-1574) in the Polish-

The Ideal of Monarchia Mixta and Vestiges of Machiavelli in Poland-

BUMP a O SO AO R dO AO wd 263 The Vicissitudes of the Muscovite Candidacy During the First

Opposition: ‘Open’ Muscovite Tyranny and the ‘Hidden’ Tyranny of the West - Relativizing the Problem of Tyranny in Pro-Muscovite Propaganda karsciui ainnean a a etudes ieiuniis cds 285

Familiarity as an Intermediate Category in the Opposition 'Ours Versus OKET wawie C —————M 289

Part Three: The Humanized Tyrant on the Stage of Theatre and Life: Images of Rulers in the Era of Abdication and Deposition

Chapter I: The Tyrant as Madman: Albrecht Frederick of Prussia and Eric XIV of Sweden... no Hesse 297

Albrecht Frederick of Prussia - A Healthy Upbringing for the Heir to the Trone u am e mesure er tn tre teres rid 297

Children of Nebuchadnezzar: Albrecht Frederick’s Disease - Melancholy Or Tyranny? sivsscccecsssecisssessnseonssonsersecesstusassossvenvestovessonsesvecesstuacees 304

Metaphors of Power: The Body and Head of the Ruler and the Health Of HE State nun. EA A A a Ayn 334

Chapter II: The Tyrant as a Man: Anti-Machiavellism in England and

Chapter III: The Woman as Tyrant: Mary, Queen of Scots, versus George Buchanan - Monarchomachism and the Problem of Female

Tyranny d ——— 388 The Phenomenon of “Two Queens on One Island'- the Image of the

Good and Bad Queen aa O ERR 395

Epilogue: Womens Rule as Naturally Tyrannical and the Place of

Afterword: Relativization of Tyranny in the Political Culture of the Sixteenth: Century... o iGO RGG oi 425

Freedom, Tyranny and the “Triple Fear Syndrome... 425

The Sixteenth-Century Media Revolution, the Image of Power and the Circulation of Social Energy «asian AW AA nennen 429

Bibliography RM 453

Foreword

Ihe present book is an English translation of my essays on the perception of tyranny in the 16" century that were published in Polish in 2007. My considerations refer to a limited number of selected primary and secondary sources on the subject and a somewhat narrow geographical scope. As a result, many important European sources and literature, including those from early modern Spain, were not analyzed and presented in this book. The essayistic form allowed me to merely touch upon some general aspects related to the political culture of the early modern era as far as they seem to be important for our contemporary perception of politics and history. The pressure of time and difficulties posed by the pandemic, during which the book was translated, also made it impossible for me to update my considerations based on the state of art and literature published after 2007. Due to lockdown restrictions in Germany, my access to book collections that included English translations and critical editions of the primary sources was extremely limited.

I would like to express my gratitude to those who contributed to the publication of this text. Publishing a book is often difficult in the best of circumstances, and as I mentioned previously, doing so during a worldwide pandemic was particularly challenging. Above all, I would like to thank my wife, Rebecca Denton, for her help and understanding. Without her support, I would not be able to complete this work. I also would like to express my acknowledgments to Mr. Thomas Anessi, for his translation of my essays and his suggestions of corrections of the original text, and to the editors Mr. Jan Burzyński, Mr. Łukasz Gałecki, Mr. Adam Gorlikowski, and Mr. Rafał Szklarski from the Peter Lang Verlag for their work, support and patience with me.

Introduction: From Word to Concept and Antinomy: The Critique of Tyranny and Praise of Monarchy in Antiquity and the Middle Ages

Just as the government of a king is the best, so the government of a tyrant is the worst.

Thomas Aquinas, De regno (On Kingship)'

Tyranny as a Problem and Element of Discourse in the Twentieth Century and the Present Day

In the first decades of the twenty-first century, use of the terms ‘tyranny’ and ‘tyrannical’ has become increasingly common in political science and public discourse on politics, taking a place alongside such terms as ‘authoritaria and ‘authoritarianism. Not long ago, the term ‘tyranny, related to a monocratic degenerate form of government, would have seemed outdated. Since the early twentieth century, as republican forms of government in Europe began to replace monarchies, it has ceased to be frequently used as a systemic concept in textbooks on political philosophy in which mainly the notion of collective ‘tyranny of majority; a warning against excesses of democracy, has remained relevant. However, the emergence of new forms of dictatorship also fostered the development of new concepts such as ‘authoritarianism and ‘totalitarianism? The latter was precisely defined and analysed following the rise and expansion of various forms of fascism and communism in the first half of the twentieth century and during the Cold War era. After the Second World War, a profound discussion of different symptoms of ‘tyranny, based on his research of the ancient Greek political thought,’ was initiated by a German-American political philosopher Leo Strauss, who critically distanced himself from both fascists and communists regimes*. However, in Western political discourse, shaped by the development of mass ideologies and new mass media, the concept of ‘totalitarianism’ in the postwar era acquired a much more sinister and relevant connotation: it was perceived as a modern form of degenerate political system, which had previously been referred to as ‘tyranny’ for more

1 T. Aquinas, De regno. (On Kingship), trans. G.B. Phelan, Belmont, N.C. 2014, 15.

2 L. Strauss, On Tyranny: An Interpretation of Xenophons Hiero, New York 1948.

3 Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss: German Émigrés and American Political Thought After World War II, ed. P. Graf Kielmansegg, H. Mewes, E. Glaser-Schmidt, Cambridge 1997.

than 2,000 years.* In The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), Hannah Arendt argues that totalitarianism was a ‘novel form of government that ‘differs essentially from other forms of political oppression known to us such as despotism, tyranny and dictatorship.” In another classic work, Arendt states that tyranny stands in direct contradiction to the essence of power, understood in the Aristotelian tradition as a structure that functions according to laws and norms that protect the community from chaos. In her opinion, ‘while violence can destroy power, it can never become a substitute for it? Thus, tyranny is tantamount to the powerlessness of the ruler, which is why, sooner or later, it destroys all power.° Despite the prevalence of the concept of totalitarianism in the public discourse in the latter half or the twentieh century the classic Aristotelian model of tyranny was still applied for analyzes of various symptoms of the totalitarian regimes.”

Francis Fukuyama, the famed advocate of liberal democracy, analysed tyranny in a similar vein in the late twentieth century. Whether it referred to a classic ancient form, such as autocracy, or twentieth-century forms of government, such as totalitarianism and authoritarianism, Fukuyama saw tyranny as a pathology - a dead end or a side road - and a discontinuity in a linear historical process that was to lead humanity to liberal democracy, culminating in the ‘end of history’ He emphasized the antinomy between tyranny and freedom. In its violation of basic human rights (including property rights), tyranny embodies the most extreme violation of freedom. He also argued that people’s natural preference to define themselves as equal and free, rather than as slaves, stands in direct contradiction to tyranny.* A similar assessment of tyranny can be recently found in Timothy Snyder’s short collection of essays, On Tyranny. However, Snyder presents a much more pessimistic approach to the political reality of the 2000s, encouraging the reader to draw conclusions from the sad ‘history lesson’ of the 1920s and 1930s?

4 In the first years after the Second World War, the word ‘tyranny’ was still used in the historiography to describe totalitarian dictatorship, for example, in the first comprehensive biography of Adolf Hitler published by Allan Bullock first in 1952, A. Bullock, Hitler. A Study in Tyranny, New York, 1991.

5 H. Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, New York 1976, 460.

6 H. Arendt, The Human Condition, Chicago 2018, 202.

7 A. Heuss, Aristoteles als Theoretiker des Totalitarismus, Antike und Abendland, 17 1971, 1-44.

8 F. Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, New York, 1992,

9 See T. Snyder, On Tyranny. Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, New York 2017, 9-11.: ‘History does not repeat, but it does instruct. [...] History can familiarize, and it can warn. In the late nineteenth century, just as in the late twentieth century, the expansion of global trade generated expectations of progress. In the early twentieth

Tyranny as a Problem and Element of Discourse in the Twentieth Century 15

By the end of the twentieth century, the notion ‘tyranny’ had already begun to be used again more frequently as a systematizing concept, mainly as a defining element of contemporary dictatorships. In his book Modern Tyrants, Daniel Chirot made a distinction between classic tyranny exercised by the individual for selfish purposes (old-fashioned tyranny) and modern ideological tyranny. Contemporary nationalism and scientific doctrines in the spirit of social Neo- Darwinism gave rise to the latter. This is why Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot were the most sinister ‘ideological’ tyrants of the twentieth century." However, a sad ‘history lesson’ may be that the contemporary crisis caused by the return of nationalism, xenophobic resentments, and populism, let alone the economic and political chaos caused by the current coronavirus pandemic, can feed new forms both of the monocratic tyranny and multi-headed tyrannies of ‘majority’ (related to majoritarianism) or ‘minority’ (related to minoritarianism) in the twenty-first century.

In the Beginning Was the Word...

The ancient Greek word ‘tyrant’ (tyrannos) is most likely a borrowing from the Lydian language, once spoken in Asia Minor. Perhaps, it was used in Greek already in the times of Homer and Hesiod, who, however, never employed it in their works. The term ‘tyranny’ (Greek: tyrannis) first appeared in the seventh century BCE to describe the reign of Gyges (ca. 685-657 BCE) - a historical ruler of Lydia in Asia Minor, who is also mentioned in Greek mythology in which his name was associated with political murder and usurpation. In the fifth century BCE, Herodotus claimed that Gyges seized power after murdering a descendant of Heracles, the Lydian King Candaules."

century, as in the early twenty-first, these hopes were challenged by new visions of mass politics in which a leader or a party claimed to directly represent the will of the people. European democracies collapsed into right-wing authoritarianism and fascism in the 1920s and ‘30s?

10 D. Chirot, Modern Tyrants. The Power and Prevalence ofEvil in Our Age, Princeton 1996, esp. 14 ff., 16-23, 167-173 and 427. Cf. also G. Besier, Das Europa der Diktaturen. Eine neue Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts, Munchen 2006.

11 Onthe etymology and the original meanings ofthe words tyrant and tyranny, see esp. H. Mandt, “Tyrannis, Despotie, in: Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, ed. O. Brunner, W. Conze, R. Koselleck, vol. 6, Klett-Cotta 1990, 651-706, here esp. 652 ff.

Ihe word tyrant originally did not have a pejorative connotation. It probably meant ‘lord’ or 'ruler:'* It was only at the end of the sixth century BCE - which is to say, when Peisistratos and others seized power in the Greek poleis - that it began to be associated with power gained by force. However, the original morally neutral meaning of the word in the sense of ‘lord or ‘ruler’ did not disappear, neither in Antiquity nor later. * The archaic Greek aesymnetae, or ‘elective tyranny, mentioned in Aristotles Politics, referred to a situation when an autocrat ruled with the consent of ‘willing’ subjects, and his rule was not hereditary.'* Earlier on, Herodotus had presented Peisistratos tyranny in Athens in a rather positive light, and mentioned that his rule in the city followed its established laws. In turn, in the dialogue Hiero Xenophon presented the tyrant of Syracuse, Hiero I, though with critical overtones, as a leader who struggled for the common good of his subjects. Despite his own failure to convert another tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysus II, Plato argued in the Laws that, in order to create the best state and legal system, a wise legislator should cooperate with a ‘virtous’ tyrant. Sophocles, besides his critisicism of tyrannical rule in Antigone, also used the term ‘tyrant’ without a negative connotation in the title of one of his most famous tragedies, Oidopous tyrannos (better known as Oedipus Rex). ” However, we might wonder whether his use of the word ‘tyrant’ in reference to the main character was not meant to signal the destruction of moral norms and the human psyche, or even the political schizophrenia, associated with power as such - especially when exercised by a king whose rule is both legitimate and illegitimate, an usurper and heir to the throne in one person.

The archaic and neutral, or ethically indifferent, connotation of the word ‘tyrant; in the sense of a ruler who seizes power thanks to military genius and personal strength, survived to the early Middle Ages.!5 Such ‘tyrants’ can be found

12 Ibid., 651. Cf. also H. G. Schmidt-Lilienberg, Die Lehre vom Tyrannenmord, Tübingen 1901 (reprint 1964), 1.

13 F. Schoenstedt, Der Tyrannenmord im Spätmittelalter. Studien zur Geschichte des Tyrannen-begriffs und der Tyrannenmordtheorie insbesondere in Frankreich, Berlin 1938, 26.

14 Cf. Aristotle, The Politics, trans. C. Lord, Chicago 1984, Book 3, Chapter 9, 97-100, and Book 4, Chapter 8, 129-131.

16 This is reflected in St Augustine's The City of God, in which he contrasts a tyrant - a bad monarch and an archaic tyrant - to a ‘brave man, in his commentary on a fragment of the Old Testament (Proverbs 8:15): ‘“By me kings reign, and tyrants possess the land.” But, that it may not be thought} writes Augustine, ‘that by “tyrants” is meant, not wicked and impious kings, but brave men, in accordance with the ancient use of the word, as when Virgil says, “For now that treaty may not stand Where king greets

Tyranny as a Problem and Element of Discourse in the Twentieth Century 17 in England in the fifth and sixth centuries - during the times of the legendary King Arthur.” In the early thirteenth century, the Polish chronicler, Wincenty Kadłubek, also wrote about legendary tyrants, including the Alemanni [i.e. German - I.K.] tyrant’ rejected by Princess Wanda, the daughter of Krakus, the legendary founder of Kraków.'?

Tyranny in Antiquity: From Word to Systematic Concept

The difference between words and terms consists in the systematization and normalization of words and the contexts in which they are used, including philosophical and scientific concepts and legal norms. The processes of appreciation, relativization, ethical neutralization, and objectification all play a role in how a given term is used. Words, like terms and concepts, are subject to interpretation — their meaning thus changes over time. Words and terms can become taboo, or, just the opposite — they can regain popularity.

Such a conceptual evolution of the word 'tyrant can be seen in Greece in the the fifth and fourth century BCE. In his Histories, Herodotus discussed three basic proper forms of government in the Greek poleis: democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. Apart from his description of Peisistratos tyrannical rule, he mainly associated tyranny with the transgression of traditional laws by a single ruler, using the word tyrannos interchangeably with a more neutral term ‘king’ (basileus, monarchos), and stated that freedom, justice, and equality - the fundamental values of democracy - are the opposites of tyrannical government.” In a similar vein, Xenophon, despite his rather critical approach to the Atenian democracy, argued in Hellenica that tyranny is a synonym for the ultimate bad monocratic or collective government, where the laws and the rights of the people are violated, like during the rule of Thirty Tyrants in Athens (404-403 BCE), imposed by Sparta after the Peloponnesian War. In the Republic and the Statesman, Plato discussed the opposition between monarchy and tyranny in king and joins not hand,’ in another place it is most unambiguously said of God, that He “maketh the man who is an hypocrite to reign on account of the perversity of the people.” ; A. Augustine, The City of God, Volume I, trans. M. Dods, Edinburgh, 1871, Book V, Chapter 19, 122.

17 CA. Snyder, An Age of Tyrants. Britain and Britons, A.D. 400-600, University Park 1998.

18 J. Banaszkiewicz, Riidiger von Bechelaren, którego nie chciała Wanda. Przyczynek do kontaktu niemieckiej Heldenepik z polskimi dziejami bajecznymi, Przegląd Historyczny 75, 1984, 239-247 k.

more detail, claiming that tyrannical governments, which may also frequently arise out of the excesses of corruptible democracy, were disastrous for their subjects. He identified tyranny with an extensive catalogue of moral and political abuses, which later became a topos in classic Greek political philosophy.”

A fundamental contribution to the systematization of the concept of tyranny was made by Aristotle in Politics. Apart from the above-mentioned archaic neutral meaning (aesymnetae), the notion tyrannis has here at least three additional meanings. First, it is a degenerate form of kingdom (basileia), that is, a proper monarchical system. Second, it is a form of political autocracy in the Greek poleis - unlike despotism (despoteia), which mainly referred to political systems, but only in the ‘barbarian’ world. Third, it is a usurpation of power by leaders of the people (e.g. in democratic systems) or due to factional strife (e.g. in oligarchic governments) through a coup.” Moreover, the phenomenon, which we would define as a ‘many-headed tyranny, could emerge from oligarchic, but especially democratic governments, which, in Aristotles argument, are by themselves degenerate forms of the proper governments, i.e. aristocracy and politeia, the latter being a mixture of oligarchic and democratic elements, and recommended by him as the best form of government. The many-headed tyranny in the democratic systems, in a form of the mob rule’ (ochlocracy), disregarding the rule of law, usually becomes a breeding ground for monocratic tyranny of the demagogues.”

In the context of the antinomy between the kingdom and tyranny, Aristotle characterized the tyrant, first, as a ruler who disregards the good of the people, the essence and purpose of every state, to fulfil his selfish interests. Second, as a ruler who, unlike a king, does not want to achieve moral qualities but

20 Ibid., 655 and a more extensive discussion on the use of this term by Xenophon and Plato; cf. also H. Mandt, Tyrannislehre und Widerstandsrecht. Studien zur deutschen politischen Theorie des 19. Jahrhunderts, Darmstadt-Neuwied 1974, 23-27.

21 In reference to democracy, Aristotle (The Politics, Book 5, Chapter 5, 156) emphasizes that most of the ancient [Greek - I.K.] tyrants arose from popular leaders?

22 Ibid., 126: ‘At any rate, such a people, being a sort of a monarch, seek to rule monarchically on account of their not being ruled by law, and become like a master: flatterers are held in honor, and this sort of [rule of] the people bears comparison with tyranny among the forms of monarchy. Hence their character is the same as well: both are like the masters with respect to the better persons: Cf. also ibid., 127 ff. An overview of this problem can be found in H. Mandt, “Tyrannis, Despotie, 656 ff. and in more detail in her, Tyrannislehre und Widerstandsrecht..., 17-40.

Tyranny as a Problem and Element of Discourse in the Twentieth Century 19 only ‘use’ different goods.” In an extensive list that was adopted a few centuries later by political philosophers of the Middle Ages and early modern times, followed by eighteenth-century theorists of revolution in Europe and America, Aristotle presented the most important flaws of ‘traditional’ tyrannical governments. In his view, they encourage political murders, especially those of outstanding individuals, and thereby limit the freedom of association and assembly, as well as educational opportunities. Out of the ruler's fear of conspiracies and coups, the people are subjected to extensive control and invigilation. They are deprived and divided so that they can be easily manipulated. The tyrant strives to obtain funds to finance mercenaries as his guards, composed of foreigners and not native citizens, and remains in a state of permanent war with its neighbours, in order to divert attention from internal problems of the state and strengthen the need for a strong ruler.**

Indeed, tyranny destroys freedom and interpersonal relations (friendship), and is the main cause of the corruption of political life.” Hence, because of its destructive nature, it is doomed to fail, collapse in confrontation with the ruled and their desire to live in a community whose natural goal is common good and the happiness of the community. Tyrants are usually overthrown when conflicts arise within the group supporting them or as a result of attacks by oppressed subjects, who are driven by fear, contempt, ambition or honour.” At the same time, however, Aristotle discusses a more optimistic scenario, which can be described as ‘tyranny therapy’ (Hela Mandt), where the ruler tries to mitigate the effects of his tyrannical regime by creating appearances and pretending to be a real king."

Moreover, Aristotle also used the term ‘despotism (despoteia) as a systemic concept in his political philosophy. The word ‘despot’ (despotes) most likely

23 Aristotle, The Politics, Book 5, Chapter 8, 164-165.

24 Ibid., Chapter IX, 163 ff. See also the analysis by H. Mandt, Tyrannislehre und Widerstandsrecht..., 37 ff. Cf. a more extensive discussion on the medieval reception of Artistotle’s list of tyrants’ flaws in Part One, Chapter 1 of the present book (sections on Aegidius Romanus and Bartolus de Saxoferrato).

25 Animportant supplement to elaborate arguments in Politics are reflections on friendship’ in different political systems, included in: Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. D. Ross, 154-157.

26 H. Mandt, Tyrannislehre und Widerstandsrecht..., 36.

27 Aristotle, The Politics, Book 5, Chapter 9. 165-167. See the analysis in H. Mandt, Tyrannislehre und Widerstandsrecht..., 38 ff. Cf. also a more extensive discussion on this subject in Part One, Chapter I ofthe present book.

has Indo-European roots. In the fifth century BCE in Greek, it already had two meanings. It referred to the private power’ exercised by the head of a family in a given ‘household’ (oikos) and the absolute unlimited power of the gods.?* For Aristotle, the terms ‘despotism and ‘despotic’ had also two meanings. In the traditional, narrow sense, he used them to define the power of the master of the house and the father of a family in the private sphere, i.e. as in the art of household management (oikonomia). It takes different forms: the husband’s power over his wife, the father’s power over his children, and the master’s power over his slaves. Despotic rule understood in this way is the opposite of political power, that is, governing free individuals who comprise the state. Second, following earlier authors and a popular opinion in ancient Greece, Aristotle concludes that this ‘private’ and arbitrary despotic power, based as a rule on the hereditary right of succession to the throne, and the consent of the subjects, was widespread in barbarian and Asian states. According to him, unlike the Greeks, the barbarian peoples were slaves by nature, hence they were less able and inclined to rise up in a revolt.” Thus, despotic rule can be described as semi-tyrannical - because it is exercised only according to the will of the ruler - and semi-monarchical - because it is derived from ‘tradition and law’ and therefore has a legal basis. Finally, Aristotle sometimes used the adjective despotikon in the sense of ‘tyrannical’ to describe any degenerate form of power: tyranny, oligarchy, or democracy, and the situation in which the ruler treats his subjects as slaves.”

The division between the king, despot and the tyrant thoroughly systematized by Aristotle became the basic topos in discourses on power and the political literature of late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and early modern era.*' However, in the literature of Latin Antiquity and in the Roman empire, the term dominus (master, owner) mainly began to be associated with the Greek tyrannos, but also with

28 H. Mandt, "Tyrannis, Despotie; 654. On the subject of the different meanings and contexts for the use of this word and notion, cf. also: R. Koebner, ‘Despot and Despotism. Vicissitudes of a Political Term; Journal of the Warburg and Courtland Institutes 13, 1950, 275-302.

29 Aristotle, The Politics, Book 3, Chapter 9, 97-99.

30 Cf. an analysis of various meanings of the words despotia and ‘despotic’ as used by Aristotle in his Politics in H. Mandt, "Tyrannis, Despotie, 656 and R. Koebner, Despot and Despotism. Vicissitudes of a Political Term; 276 ff.

31 H. Dreitzel, Monarchiebegriffe in der Fürstengesellschaft. Semantik und Theorie der Einherrschaft in Deutschland von der Reformation bis zum Vormärz, vol. 1: Semantik der Monarchie, Kóln- Weimar- Wien 1991, esp. chapter Der normative Aspekt: König, Tyrann, Despot, 139 ff.

Tyranny as a Problem and Element of Discourse in the Twentieth Century 21 despotes (lord). Finally, dominus was recognized in the official title of the Roman Emperors under Diocletian, whereas the Greek term despotes in Byzantium was occasionaly used as a part of the imperial title, and later in the Middle Ages was bestowed on the high ranked courtiers and sons or sons-in-law of reigning emperors. The Latin medieval translation of Aristotles Politics in the thirteenth century made the term popular (in a Latinized form: despoticum, despoticus, despotice, despotizare) in Western Europe. Since the fourteenth century, it even appeared in national languages, mainly in relation to oriental states.’

The Latin terms tyrannus and tyrannia, borrowed from Greek, became important notions in the political culture of ancient Rome. In the period of the Republic, they were rather not used in the context of the antinomy between king and tyrant, largely due to a common antipathy towards ancient Roman kings, accused of the most serious abuses of power. Cicero described politicians seeking domination and destroying the freedom of citizens, using the term tyrannus as a synonym both for dominus, and ‘unjust king’ (rex iniustus). Because of these connotations, Augustus decided to assume the title princeps at the beginning of his imperial rule. In the early Principate period the term 'tyranny' was still oft associated with the politicians who, like Julius Cesar, were accussed of overthrowing the republican constitution of Rom. Besides, it was applied for moral judgment of cruel emperors, like, e.g. Caligula, Neron, Domitian, or Diokletian. During the final three centuries of the Roman empire, a time of widespread conspiracies and coups, the 'tyrant meant not only a ruler who ruled by force and violated the law but also a usurper who gained power without the legal title to exercise it. At the same time, usurpers who took power through coups often accused their overthrown predecessors of tyranny However, the antinomy between 'tyranny' and ‘civil freedom’ considered by Latin authors from the perspective of the idealized republican Rome as a perfect ‘mixed’ (Polybius, Cicero) form of government, combining elements of monarchical, aristocratical and democratical sytems?, in the Middle Ages and Renaissance era still dominated both among advocates of the idealized liberties of the Roman Republic, praising those, like Brutus, who murdered the 'tyrant' Cesar, as well as supporters of the "limited monarchy' or monarchia mixta, in which the influence of the monarch and the ruling etates were balanced.

32 H. Mandt, "Tyrannis, Despotie, 660, 664; R. Koebner, ‘Despot and Despotism. Vicissitudes of a Political Term; 278-281. Cf. also Part Two, Chapter III of the present book.