In this way, then, the Roman bishops have so far used and carry on using the said plenitude of power, steadily to the worse as they go on. However, they do this to a greater extent against the Roman prince and principate: for one thing, because they are more able to practise this iniquity of theirs (sc. of subjecting the principate to themselves) against him because of the discord which these so-called ‘pastors’ or ‘holy fathers’ have so far fomented, and continue to foment, both between the inhabitants themselves and towards their prince; and for another, because once they have subjected this principate to themselves (so they think) the way will be open for them easily to subjugate all other realms. And this is even though they are more fully and singularly obliged to the Roman prince and principate on account of the benefactions they have received, as is well-known to everyone.

2

Truly (in case what we say is unfamiliar to anyone and needs us to voice it) these Roman bishops, smitten with covetousness or avarice, pride and ambition, worse than wicked because of their ingratitude, seek with all means to prevent the creation and elevation of the Roman prince; seeking ultimately to dissolve his principate, or trying to transfer it to another form more subject to themselves, so that the excesses they have perpetrated against the empire should not be corrected through the power of the said prince and so that they themselves should not be deservedly disciplined as a result. But although they place obstacles on all sides to the above-mentioned prince with the intention we have said, this is nevertheless under a cunning pretence, saying that they do this in order to defend the ‘rights of the bride of Christ’, viz. the church – even if this sophistic piety is laughable, because it is not temporal goods or lust for them, nor ambition for jurisdiction or principate, which is the bride of Christ, nor did Christ ever join this to himself in matrimony; on the contrary he explicitly repudiated it as foreign to him, as shown from divine Scripture in chapters 4 and 5 and 13 and 14 of this discourse.

Now a city, according to Aristotle in Politics I, chapter 1, is: ‘a perfect community possessing every limit of self-sufficiency, as it is consequent to say, having thus come about for the sake of living, but existing for the sake of living well’. Now in saying, ‘having come about for the sake of living, but existing for the sake of living well’, Aristotle signifies its final and perfect cause, for those who live a civil life do not just live – which beasts or slaves do – but live well, sc. having leisure for the liberal activities that result from the virtues both of the practical and of the theoretical soul.

2

Since the city has been defined in this way as being for the sake of living and living well, that being its end, we should first discuss living itself and its modes. For this is, as we have said, that for the sake of which the city was established, as well as the necessary condition of all those things that take place and are brought about by human communication within it. Let us then lay this down as the fundamental principle of everything that we must demonstrate, a principle naturally held and believed and freely conceded by all: sc. that all men not deficient or otherwise impeded naturally desire a sufficient life, and by the same token shun and avoid those things that are harmful to them. Indeed, this principle is not only granted for man, but also for every kind of animal according to Cicero, On Duties I, chapter 3, where he says: ‘From the beginning nature has assigned to every kind of animate being the tendency to preserve itself, its life and body, and to reject anything that seems likely to harm it, seeking and procuring everything necessary for life’. This moreover anyone can gather plainly by inference from the senses.

We now reply to the remaining objections adduced from Scripture in chapter 3 of this discourse, which might seem capable of persuading someone that the Roman pope or any other bishop is a coercive judge, in the third signification, over all clergy or over all others indiscriminately, without being instituted by the human legislator but being instead directly ordained by God. One should say firstly, in reply to the objection that was taken from Matthew 16, when Christ said to Saint Peter: ‘I shall give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven etc.’, that Christ in these words did not give Saint Peter or any other apostle any power apart from that of binding and loosing men from their sins, as Saint Bernard explicitly says To Eugenius, On Consideration, Book I, chapter 5, which we quoted above in chapter 5 of this discourse, section 2, and which we also discussed in detail in chapters 6 and 7 of this discourse; nor any plenitude of power otherwise than as was stated in chapter 23 of this discourse. Hence on the basis of these words, neither the Roman nor any other bishop or priest receives, in the person of an apostle or apostles, coercive authority or jurisdiction in this world over any cleric or layperson. For it was said: ‘I shall give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ differentiating this from worldly kingdom. For Christ signified by his example that each apostle and successor of the apostles, bishop or priest, is excluded from this kind of government, when he said in Luke 12: ‘Man, who hath made me judge?’ (viz. of earthly things). And the same thing from the other words quoted previously in chapters 4 and 5 of this discourse.

We should reply in the same or similar fashion to the authorities taken from the canon, Matthew 18 and John 20, when Christ said to the apostles: ‘Whomsoever ye shall bind on earth etc.’, and: ‘Whose soever sins ye remit etc.’

Since we have determined from the previous discussion, by authorities of canonic scripture as much as by certain other clear quasi-political arguments, that no coercive jurisdiction over anyone in this world belongs to any bishop or priest or other cleric, we now want to make this clearer by manifest signs and testimonies. One obvious sign is that we do not read that Christ or any of his apostles ever or anywhere instituted anyone as a judge or as their vicar for the purpose of carrying out such government or judgement. But it does not seem likely that either he or his apostles could have been ignorant or neglectful of something so necessary to human life together. If they had recognised it as part of their office, and if they had wanted it to belong to their successors, the bishops or priests, they would have handed down some command or counsel concerning this matter. They did hand down the form and procedure for instituting spiritual ministers, bishops, priests and deacons, and we can know well enough that this is part of their office from the opinion of the Apostle in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, and it is also apparent in many other places in Scripture.

2

But Christ separated the office of priests or bishops from that of princes, even though he could himself, if he had wanted, have exercised both the status of a prince and the office of a priest, and could have ordained that the apostles should do likewise. But it was not his will to do this: on the contrary, he, who arranged all things in a way that was better simply speaking, willed that it would be more appropriate for these offices to be distinct both in their individual human subject and in their rationale. For Christ had come to teach humility and contempt of this world, as the way to meriting eternal salvation; and therefore, so that hemight teach humility and the contempt of this world or temporal things more by example than by words, he entered into this world in the utmost humility and contempt of temporal things.

In the first of his letters, in the passage just set down, Cassiodorus gave expression to the advantages and fruits of the tranquillity or peace of civil regimes, in order that he might – by using these, as the best fruits, to explain the greatest of all human goods, viz. the sufficiency of this life, which none can achieve without peace and tranquillity – inspire the wills of men to be at peace with each other, and hence tranquillity. His pronouncement was in harmony with the view of the blessed Job, when he said in chapter 22: ‘be at peace: thereby the best fruits shall come unto thee.’ It was because of this that Christ, the son of God, decreed that peace should be the sign and messenger of his birth, when he willed that the heavenly host should sing in one and the same pronouncement: ‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will.’ And for the same reason over and over again he wished peace upon his disciples. So John: ‘came Jesus and stood in the midst of the disciples, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.’ Warning these same disciples to preserve peace between themselves, he said in Mark: ‘have peace one with another.’ And he did not merely teach them to have it among themselves, but to wish it upon others – hence Matthew: ‘And when ye come into an house, salute it, saying: Peace unto this house.’ This, again, was the inheritance which he left to his disciples by testament, when the time of his passion and death had come, when he said in John 14: ‘Peace I leave you, my peace I give unto you.’

It follows from this to show how and in what matters the Roman bishops have so far used, still do use, and very likely will go on using (unless they are stopped) these modes of plenary power that they have assumed to themselves: and firstly in appointing church officials and in distributing benefices or temporal goods, both to ecclesiastical ministers and to other poor persons, for whose sake also (as said in chapter 14 of this discourse) the temporal goods of the church have been granted and were established for distribution in this way by ministers of the church. Thereafter it will be for us to show how they have so far used, still do use, and will in future use these plenary powers vis-á-vis those who live a civil life, princes as much as subjects.

2

Through the activity that has up until now been permitted the Roman bishops, and still is, in accordance with this plenitude of power, they have infected and – if onemay be allowed to say so – corrupted the entiremystical body of Christ. For they have narrowed, corrupted and finally almost wholly extinguished election, which is the preferable and indeed the only secure means of instituting any official in a way that is good, simply speaking: even though it was by election that the apostles together with themultitude of the faithful effected the institution of deacons, as we find in Acts 6. First they narrowed it by reassigning to the clergy alone what used to take place, and should take place, through the universal multitude of the faithful, as shown in chapter 17 of this discourse. Then they corrupted it, both by this narrowing and by transferring the authority to elect a bishop to certain young men whom they call ‘canons’, inexpert and inexperienced in divine law, excluding the priests of the province (unless perhaps it by chance occurs – which is rare and happens in very few cases – that the same person is both priest and canon); and by limiting the authority to make the election to one single church or temple of clergy in a province, when it ought to be done at least through all the clergy of the province, and especially the priests whose duty it is to be learned doctors of divine law, as we showed above.

It follows from our previous discussion that we should say something of the other causes of the offices or parts of the city. And we shall speak first of the material and formal causes, and then inquire into their motive cause. Now in things that are brought to completion by the human mind, the material exists in actuality prior to the form, and therefore let us speak first of the material cause. And let us say that insofar as ‘offices’ denotes dispositions of the soul, the material that is specific to the different offices is the men who have a tendency from their generation or birth to different arts or disciplines. For nature never fails in necessities, and takes even more care for what is more noble, such as is (among corruptible things) the human race. And since it is from this race, once it has been perfected through the various arts or disciplines, that the city must be constituted as from its material, together with the distinct parts within it that are necessary to attain the sufficient life (as shown in chapters 4 and 5 of this discourse); therefore she herself initiated this differentiation in human generation, producing some who have in their native dispositions a suitability and tendency towards agriculture, others towards soldiering, others to other kinds of crafts and disciplines – but always different people to different pursuits. Neither did she incline just one individual to an art or discipline of any specific type, but several to the same type of craft or discipline, as the needs of sufficiency demanded. Therefore she produced some who were suited to practical reasoning, since the judicial and deliberative part within the city should be constituted out of prudent men, and some who were suited rather to strength and boldness, since it is from such as these that it is appropriate for the military to be constituted.

Now that we have separated out these understandings of law, we wish to show its necessity in terms of ends, when it is taken in its last and most proper signification. The principal necessity is civil justice and the common advantage, but a secondary necessity is a kind of security for those in the position of prince – especially by hereditary succession – and the long duration of their principate. The first necessity, then, is as follows: since it is necessary to institute within a polity that without which civil judgements cannot be made in a way that is simply speaking correct, and also that through which they are passed in due fashion and saved from defect insofar as this is possible for human acts. Law is a thing of this sort, to the extent that the prince has been limited to passing civil judgements in accordance with it. Therefore it is necessary to institute law within a polity. The first proposition of this demonstration is almost self-evident, and very close to being incapable of demonstration. The certainty of it should and can also be understood from chapter 5 of this discourse, section 7. The second proposition will become clear in the following way: since for a judgement to be completely good there is required, on the part of judges, both a righteous affection and a true cognisance of the matters to be judged, the opposites of which corrupt civil judgements. For a perverted affection on the part of the judge, like hate or love or avarice, corrupts his desire. But these things are kept out of the judgement, and it is saved from them, when the judge or prince has been limited to passing judgements in accordance with the laws, because the law lacks all perverted affection. For it has not been made with an eye to friend or foe, help or hurt, but universally with regard to the individual acting well or badly in civil terms.

We have now spoken, therefore, of the productive cause of the primary priestly authority, which we called ‘essential’. But we still have to come to a conclusion on the subject of the secondary authority, sc. that by which some of their number are placed over a certain defined number of priests or a people or both in a certain defined province or place; again, on what grounds it might be appropriate for them to distribute certain temporal goods (called ‘ecclesiastical benefices’ above); yet again, how they or some of them have acquired coercive jurisdictions; and also to whom it might more appropriately belong to determine any doubtful senses of Holy Scripture, and in what manner. Forwhen all of this has become sufficiently clear, what we proposed to make plain from the outset of this work will also become apparent.

2

However, before we pursue each of our proposed questions individually, it will be helpful first to outline the way in which bishops or priests were instituted and allocated in the status and origins of the early church; for it is from here that the other practices were afterwards derived. Now the principle of all these things should be taken from Christ, who is the ‘head’ and the ‘rock’ upon which the catholic church is founded according to what the Apostle says in Ephesians 4 and 5, and I Corinthians 10. And the gloss says the same on that passage of Matthew 16: ‘upon this rock I will build my church.’ This ‘head of the church’, I say, this ‘rock’ and ‘foundation’, sc. Christ, conferred the priesthood upon all the apostles, together with episcopal authority over all nations and peoples, without allocating any of them to a certain defined place or people in such a way that it would be illicit for that apostle to preach wherever he liked; even though by their own mutual arrangement or at the ordinance of the holy spirit, some of them were sent more to the gentiles, others to the circumcision.

So said the pope, Clement VI, in a collatio of 1343 which incidentally also informs us that ‘the heresiarch’ is dead. What had Marsilius written to shock the pope into putting him on a level with the most infamous heretics of the Western church? And why, nearly seven centuries later, has his Defensor pacis come to be seen as one of the canonical texts in Western political thought?

Life and works

Marsilius was born about 1275–80 in the northern Italian city of Padua, in the region south of Venice known as the March of Treviso. He came from the Mainardini, a family of some prominence in the civic administration of Padua: his father was a notary and others of his relatives were also involved in the legal profession. Marsilius did not follow the family trend, however, choosing instead to study medicine. We know that at some point he developed a friendship with the famous Paduan poet and historian Albertino Mussato. But the details of his early life are obscure, and we first find Marsilius for certain in Paris in 1313. Here he is recorded as rector of the University of Paris, a position that was always chosen from among members of the Faculty of Arts. At Paris he formed a close association with another master of arts, John of Jandun. Initial attempts to secure ecclesiastical patronage seem to have been quite successful, as in 1316 he was promised the first vacant benefice in Padua by the newly appointed pope, John XXII. However, it appears that this prize never in fact materialised and Marsilius continued to make his living teaching in Paris.

It remains now to show that Christ's foremost apostles held and taught the same opinion, and first of all Paul in II Timothy 2, warning him (whom he had instituted as priest or bishop) not to involve himself in worldly affairs. Paul says: ‘No man that warreth for God entangleth himself in the affairs of this world.’ Here the gloss according to Ambrose has: ‘Because no man who fights for God in spiritual things enmeshes himself in any kind of secular business, since God cannot be divided between two opposing servants, just as no man can be a servant to two masters.’ And he said ‘any kind’ of secular business, with no exceptions. Since, therefore, the most secular of all business is the office of prince or coercive judgement over contentious acts (because it orders and regulates all secular affairs or human secular and civil acts, as demonstrated in chapter 15 of the first discourse), it is this that the Apostle commands is most of all to be avoided by him who ought to be a soldier for God, sc. in ministering spiritual things: such as any bishop and priest ought to be.

2

The following passage from the Apostle in I Corinthians 6 reveals that this was indeed his view, when he said: ‘If then ye have judgements of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.’ For there the Apostle was talking to all the faithful and to the church most properly so-called, viz. in its final signification. The gloss according to Ambrose and Augustine explains the passage as follows: ‘“If then ye have judgements of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed” i.e. certain men who are wise, but nonetheless of less worth’ (supply: than priests or teachers of the gospel). And as to why not the ministers of the gospel, it gives the reason: ‘For the apostles, who travelled around, had no leisure for such things. Therefore it was wise, faithful and holy men who stayed in their areas that he wanted to examine such matters, not those who journeyed hither and thither in the cause of the gospel.’

What remains for this discussion is to say something of the final cause for the sake of which the true priesthood was instituted in communities of the faithful. For this cause is the tempering of those human acts that result from an imperative of cognition or desire, both immanent and transitive, inasmuch as it is on the basis of them that the human race is ordered towards the best life of the world to come. And on this account one should note that although the first man, viz. Adam, was principally created for the glory of God just like other creatures, his creation was nevertheless singled out from the other species of corruptible creatures: for he was created in the image and likeness of God, so that he would be capable of and a participant in eternal happiness after the life of this present world. He was, furthermore, created in a state of innocence or original justice and even of grace, as some of the saints and certain notable doctors of holy Scripture say with apparent likelihood. And had he remained in this state, the institution or differentiation of civil functions would not have been necessary either to him or to his posterity, in that nature would have brought forth for him in the earthly paradise or pleasure-garden things needful and pleasurable for the sufficiency of this life, without any penalty or demand upon him.

2

But because he destroyed his own innocence or original justice and grace by eating of the tree that had been forbidden him, transgressing in this act the divine command, he fell in an instant into guilt and misery or penalty, the penalty I mean of being deprived of the eternal happiness to which he had ultimately been ordained by the blessing of the God of glory, along with any posterity of his. From the transgression of the command just mentioned he deserved furthermore that all his descendants should be generated in lust, in which and from which every man subsequently is conceived and born, contracting from this the sin that in the Christian religion is called ‘original’.

In chapters 6, 7, 9 and 11 of this discourse we determined the range and nature of the powers that priests have; again, in chapters 15 and 16 we discussed their mutual equality or inequality in power and dignity; and again in the previous chapter we said something of the priority or principality that it is expedient and appropriate for one bishop, church or college of priests and clergy to have over all the others, and its origin and development. But we also said something of its hidden and creeping transfer into a form and species of priority that is inappropriate for it, going as far as the most onerous and insufferable excess of taking over secular powers, as well as a boundless and intolerable desire for principate to which they have already and explicitly given voice.

2

And seeing that not a small element in their past and future occupation of secular powers and principates (for which the Roman bishops strive with all their might, however little it is due to them, as is plain for all to see) was, is and will go on being that sophistic commonplace, viz. by which they ascribe to themselves the title of ‘plenitude of power’ – which is furthermore the source of that piece of misreasoning whereby they try to conclude that kings, princes and individuals are subject to them in coercive jurisdiction – it will be as well to examine thoroughly this plenitude of power. Firstly we need to separate or distinguish its modes; secondly, to inquire whether plenitude of power belongs to the Roman pontiff or any other bishop in one or more of its modes; thirdly, in what signification of the term the Roman bishop first assumed it for himself; and finally how he has slipped from there into assuming other conceptions (or deceptions, unfortunately), prejudicial to all princes and subjects who live a civil life; and how and upon whom this same pontiff has used, does use, and very likely will go on using them if he is not stopped.

There is a familiar doubt about what has been said, viz. whether it is better for those who live a civil life, and who are instituting a monarch over themselves by election, to set this man up as prince together with all his posterity (which is usually called hereditary succession), or to adopt him as prince solely for his own lifetime; and when he dies or is in any other way justly deprived of his principate, always to hold a new election every time round with respect to the future prince. For some have thought that the first manner of institution is preferable, and this for certain apparent reasons. Firstly, because a monarch by hereditary succession will take more care of the commonwealth, as it is in some sense his own and his inheritance; but not so a monarch whose own heir is not agreed upon as the future prince. Hence Aristotle says, Politics II chapter 1, about half-way through: ‘That which is common to many receives little care; for men take greatest care of what is their own, and less of what is common than as much as concerns each.’ Again in the same chapter, towards the end: ‘For there are two things that most of all arouse in men tender care and affection: that which is their own, and that which they love.’ Still further in the second chapter of the same book he says: ‘Yet again in respect of pleasure as well, it is impossible to express how much difference it makes to think that something is one's own.’

Again in respect of the principal question: because the successors of a monarch will apparently tyrannise over their subjects less than those who have just been elected, since they have become accustomed to the position of prince and do not think anything new has come to them, on account of which they should be more exalted and despise their subjects. Whereas those who are always newly elected are, like the newly rich, often prone to arrogance.

We have so far put forward, by way of preliminaries, a global account of the parts of the city; and we have said that it is in their action and perfect mutual intercommunication (not subject to any impediment from outside either) that the tranquillity of the city consists. We now take up the subject of these parts again, so that through a richer elucidation of them (from their activities or ends as well as from the other causes appropriate to them) the causes of tranquillity and its opposite might be further clarified. We shall say, then, that the parts or offices of the city are of six kinds, as Aristotle said in Politics VII, chapter 7: agriculture, manufacture, the military, the financial, the priesthood and the judicial or councillor. Three of these, viz. the priesthood, the military and the judicial, are parts of the city in an unqualified sense, and in civil communities they are usually called the notables. The others are called parts in a broad sense, in that they are functions necessary to the city according to the opinion of Aristotle in Politics VII, chapter 7. And the multitude of these is usually called plebeian. These, then, are the more familiar parts of the city or realm, to which all the others can appropriately be reduced.

2

Even though the necessity of these parts was stated in the previous chapter, we nevertheless wish to affirm it again in a more definitive fashion: taking it as demonstrated earlier, from what is self-evident, that the city is a community established in order that the human beings within it may live and live well. Now we earlier demarcated two modes of this ‘living’: one, the life or living of this world, viz. the earthly; two, the living or life of another or future world. On the basis of these two modes of living, which man desires as ends, we shall identify the necessity of the distinction between the parts of the civil community.

But one might well raise a doubt about what we have said. For if (as shown earlier) jurisdiction over all those who must be constrained in this present life by coercive judgement, and the imposition and exaction of penalties in goods or in person, belongs to the prince alone by the authority of the human legislator, then the coercive judgement of heretics or those who are otherwise infidel or schismatic, as well as the imposition, exaction and allocation of penalties in goods and in person, will belong to this prince. But this seemingly presents itself as a difficulty. For since it apparently belongs to the same authority to recognise, to judge and to correct a misdeed, and it belongs to a priest (i.e. a priest or bishop) to discern the crime of heresy, and no one else: it will certainly seem, then, that the coercive judgement or restraint of this crime and others like it belongs to a priest or bishop alone. Moreover, the judgement and exaction of penalty upon a delinquent apparently belongs to him against whom, or against whose law, the delinquent has sinned. But this is a priest or bishop: for he is the minister and judge of divine law, against which any heretic, schismatic or other infidel inherently sins, whether the sinner be a collective body or an individual person. It remains, therefore, that this judgement will belong to the priest and not to the prince. And this seems to be the explicit opinion of Saint Ambrose in his first Letter to the Emperor Valentinian; but because he is apparently of this opinion throughout almost the entire sequence of that letter, we have omitted to quote it for the sake of brevity.

2

For our part, let us say in accordance with what we decided earlier that anyone who sins against divine law should be judged, corrected and constrained according to that law.

We have just shown in a figurative way, then, that Christ and his apostles on their way through this world taught and observed the status of poverty and humility. Moreover all the faithful should hold as certain that every teaching or counsel of Christ and the apostles was in some way meritorious in respect of eternal life. So it seems in every way appropriate to inquire into their poverty, what it was, of what nature, and how great, so that it should not be concealed from those on the same journey who wish to imitate them in it.

2

Attempting an investigation of this subject, therefore, we shall first say what is this thing called poverty or being poor, and how many variations it has; likewise with being rich. For these seem sometimes to be opposed to each other in the sense of a disposition and its privation, and sometimes as contraries. We shall then distinguish each of these terms into its various modes and give descriptions of them, so that if there is any such thing as meritorious poverty, and any scale of perfection within its various modes, we may be able to see which is the highest or first of them. Now everyone calls a man ‘rich’ if he has licit or rightful power or dominion or possession of temporal things, which are called ‘riches’, either in common or privately or both, while in contrast they call a man ‘poor’ if he lacks such goods. Therefore, to avoid the opinion we want to develop turning out ambiguous because of the variety of usage of some of the terms we have just mentioned (and which we shall need to use for our purpose), let us first distinguish between their significations or modes. These terms are: ‘right’, ‘dominion’, ‘possession’, ‘proper’ and ‘common’, ‘rich’ and ‘poor’.

3

Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the significations of ‘right’, since we shall need them in distinguishing and identifying the other terms, but not the other way round.

The remaining and final matter for this discourse is to resolve the reasons that we introduced, also in chapter 3 of this discourse, in support of the error of those who say that priests or bishops, as such, have coercive jurisdictions, and that the highest of all coercive jurisdictions in this world belongs to the Roman bishop, again as such.

To the first objection, then, when it was said: Just as is the body in relation to the soul, so is the prince of the body to the prince of the soul; this proposition is false taken as having universal application. For although the soul is distinct from the body because the soul is not the body, there is however no prince of the body who is not also in some way a prince of the soul, and vice versa, if we take prince strictly; as is apparent in chapters 8 and 9 of this discourse.

If indeed by ‘the prince of the body’ we are to understand, by way of metaphor, a physician who undertakes the care of it as a doctor in an operative sense and in respect of the acts of its irrational and nutritive part; and if by ‘the prince of the soul’ we are to understand one who is a physician and a learned doctor or instructor in a practical sense with regard to the acts of the rational and appetitive part, both in and for the status of this present world (such as are the doctors of the human sciences or disciplines) and for the status of the future world (such as are pastors and priests); then the proposition just-stated, taken as having nonspecific application, can be conceded – since taken as having universal application it would always be open to many objections. For the soul in relation to the body, and again the rational in relation to the irrational, have many differences which the doctor or carer in respect of the one does not have in relation to the doctor or carer in respect of the other.