Nobility and the Pre-modern Moral Psychology: A Question of Framework

Nobility constitutes one of the main themes of medieval philosophy—not simply from the perspective of political practice, civic life, and social theory, but I contend, of philosophy itself. An impressive number of writings deal with the question of nobility, written between the twelfth and eighteenth centuries, with different accents and modulations, albeit with unequal philosophical commitment and an array of arguments that, over time, impoverish and, following the turn of the ages, become mostly stereotypical. It is thus not surprising that Paul Oskar Kristeller, from the heights of his extensive perusal of manuscript collections, had incidentally emphasized this aspect. It is surprising, however, that other scholars struggled to take note of it. Between 1300–1650 (according to a broad periodization, which Kristeller himself had pointed out), the theme of ‘nobility’ stands out as one of the two major topics of philosophical reflection. In this first place, a rather large number of manuscripts attest to the theme of nobility. Next to nobility—and connected to it in various ways—arises the theme of the soul, de anima. Kristeller’s observation may constitute our initial motivation to examine more carefully the role of nobility in the conceptualization of the human soul and pre-modern psychology. A second motivation, which should be obvious to any reader of the scholastic writings devoted to the faculties of the human soul and their interplay, may refer to the metaphor of political governance often introduced to explain the way in which a potency of the soul might rule over the other potencies. While asking the question, “what moves the will?” for instance, Thomas Aquinas replies to an objection concerning the relation between the rational appetite and the emotions and refers to the 'nobility' of the potencies of the soul: the ‘regal rule’ is the one which recognizes distinct orders of dignities and respects their prerogatives out of its liberality.It is the rule of a gentleman-king and is defined in contrast to the tyrannical rule which cannot be the rule of free people—and why not? Because it is unworthy of their dignity and does not recognize their self-determination and sphere of autonomy. Nobility, when understood in relation to the rational human being and the fabric of human society, therefore entails an essential reference to the use of the senses (esp. imagination), intellect, and rational appetite which constitute requirements for the human dignity.