Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Marsilius of Padua
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Controversy over the Power Between the Papacy and the Empire in the light of Marsilius’ of Padua Defensor pacis

100%
Białas A.
Peitho. Examina Antiqua
|
2010
|
vol. 1
|
issue 1
145-159
EN
The most famous medieval controversy over the power and the temporal dominion took place between the papacy and the empire. One of the greatest advocates of the imperial domination was Marsilius of Padua, the author of an original work that demonstrated the advantage of acknowledging the emperor’s superiority over the Pope’s. The Defensor pacis, written between 1319 and 1324, was devoted to the dispute on such sovereignty issues as proving that the Pope should be subordinate to the Emperor, and not vice versa. The Defensor pacis takes issue with numerous arguments and views uttered by the papal camp and uses the appropriate quotations from the Bible and Aristotle to show their weakness and inconsistency. The work comprises three parts. The first part is a description of the ideal system, i.e., an elective monarchy, with the specified role of a ruler and a clear indication of the sovereignty of the people. The second and third parts present a challenge to the arguments of the papal camp (including the famous argument of the “power keys”) and analyze the general situation of the Church, suggesting the necessary reforms. Thus, the whole work becomes a compendium of knowledge on appropriate governance.
PL
The most famous medieval controversy over the power and the tempo‑ ral dominion took place between the papacy and the empire. One of the greatest advocates of the imperial domination was Marsilius of Padua, the author of an original work that demonstrated the advantage of acknowledging the emperor’s superiority over the Pope’s. The Defensor pacis, written between 1319 and 1324, was devoted to the dispute on such sovereignty issues as proving that the Pope should be subordinate to the Emperor, and not vice versa. The Defensor pacis takes issue with numerous arguments and views uttered by the papal camp and uses the appropriate quotations from the Bible and Aristotle to show their weak‑ ness and inconsistency. The work comprises three parts. The first part is a description of the ideal system, i.e., an elective monarchy, with the specified role of a ruler and a clear indication of the sovereignty of the people. The second and third parts present a challenge to the arguments of the papal camp (including the famous argument of the “power keys”) and analyze the general situation of the Church, suggesting the neces‑ sary reforms. Thus, the whole work becomes a compendium of knowl‑ edge on appropriate governance.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Państwo i Kościół w myśli św. Tomasza z Akwinu i Marsyliusza z Padwy

58%
Pawlak M.
Rocznik Tomistyczny
|
2015
|
vol. 4
163-189
EN
The article is devoted to the issue of the relationship between the secular power of the State and the spiritual power of the Church in the thought of two eminent scholars of the late medieval period – St. Thomas Aquinas and Marsilius of Padua. The author analyzes these generally opposite theories, paying special attention to the concept of grace and its relation to nature as the basis of the political thought of these thinkers, as well as the significant influence of Aristotle's ideas on both Aquinas and Marsilius.
3
Content available remote

Přirozená subjektivní práva mezi středověkem a novověkem

37%
Šejvl M.
Právník. Teoretický časopis pro otázky státu a práva (The Lawyer - Scientific Review for Problems of State and Law)
|
2017
|
vol. 156
|
issue 5
416-452
EN
This article focuses on different conceptions of natural rights in scholars of the high Middle Ages (Henry of Ghent,Duns Scotus, Ockham,Marsilius of Padua,Gerson, Summenhart) and of early Modernity (Vitoria, Suárez,Grotius). First the opinions of these scholars’ on natural law are presented, then their „definitions“ of ius as right, their use of permissive natural law and finally their conceptions of natural rights are analysed (natural right to private property is used to demonstrate the last point). Instead of the „dividing line“ between medieval and modern ideas on natural rights the paper argues for the continuity that lies in the fact that the same or similar concepts are reinterpreted and used to build new theoretical constructions. It tries to show that various natural „rights“ (in Henry of Ghent, Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham) are in fact Hohfeldian liberties and not Hohfeldian claims and in this sense they are not rights. It criticizes the thesis which is still common (at least in the Czech and Slovak literature) that natural rights theories were triggered by the development of metaphysical nominalism and voluntarism in the high Middle Ages. Instead it tries to find reasons for the development of particular natural rights theories in various ways the scholars reacted on the particular problems of their times.
CS
Tento článek se pokouší zmapovat různé názory na přirozená práva myslitelů vrcholného středověku (Jindřich z Gentu, Duns Scotus, Ockham, Marsilius z Padovy, Gerson, Summenhart) a raného novověku (Vitoria, Suárez,Grotius) tak, že nejdříve představí jejich názory na přirozené objektivní právo, jejich vymezení ius jakožto subjektivního práva, operace s permisivním přirozeným objektivním právem a konečně jejich koncepce přirozených práv (k jejichž demonstraci používá především právo na soukromé vlastnictví). Místo někdy postulovaného předělu mezi středověkem a novověkem ukazuje naopak kontinuitu v názorech, která podle autora spočívá v tom, že často stejné či podobné koncepty jsou různými autory reinterpretovány a použity v nových kontextech. Ukazuje, že přirozená „práva“ u některých myslitelů (Jindřich z Gentu,Marsilius, Ockham) nejsou hohfeldovskými nároky (claims), a tedy subjektivními právy, ale hohfeldovskými volnostmi (liberties). Kritizuje také (minimálně v tuzemské literatuře převládající) tradiční přístup hledající spojitost mezi koncepcemi přirozených práv a nástupem metafyzického nominalismu či voluntarismu. Naopak hledá důvody pro partikulární rozvinutí koncepce přirozených práv v tom, jak zde představení myslitelé reagují na problémy, které před ně postavila doba, v níž žili.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.