장 보 딘 (c. 1529-1596)

이 매 마니아 철학자와 주리 세인트 장 보 딘은 16 세기의 가장 저명한 정치적 사상가 중 하나 였다. 그의 명성은 주로 그가 연방의 여섯 권의 책에서 공식화 주권의 자신의 계정에 기초한 다. bodin은 큰 격변의 시기에 살고 있었고, 그 때 프랑스는 가톨릭 신자들과 휴 구 노 사이의 종교의 전쟁으로 황폐 했다. 그는 군주 영주가 국가의 절대적이 고 불가분 힘을 받은 경우에만 평안이 회복 될 수 있다고 확신 했다. bodin은 다른 종교가 연방 내 공존 할 수 있다고 믿 었습니다. 종교적 문제에 대 한 그의 관용은 종종 강조 되었다. 그는 또한 노예를 반대 하는 첫 번째 남자 중 하나 였다.

bodin은 극도로에 르의 일 이었고, 그의 작품은 자연 철학 및 종교에서 교육, 정치 경제, 역사적 방법론으로 확장 되는 다양 한 주제에 대해 논의 합니다. 자연 철학 및 종교 보 딘에 대 한 밀접 하 게 상관. 또한, 그는 프랑스의 사법 제도를 개혁 하고자 했다, 그는 돈의 양적 이론의 초기 버전 중 하나를 공식화. 보 딘은 천사와 악마의 존재에 대 한 미신 적인 믿음을 가졌다. 그의 작품은 악마와 마술과 같은 주제를 다루고, 점성술과 수비학에 대 한 광범위 한 구절을 포함 한다.

1. 삶과 직업

장 보 딘의 마지막 유언과 증거는 1596 년 6 월 7 일, 그가 사망 했을 때 66 세 였다는 것을 명시 하 고 있습니다. 따라서 그는 1529 또는 1530 중에서 태어난 일곱 자녀 중 막내 였 고, 그 중 네 명은 여자 였다. bodin의 아버지, 기아우 메 보 딘은 부유 한 상인 이었고, 앙제의 부르주아 지 일원 이었다. 그녀의 이름이 캐서린 dutertre 이었고, 그녀가 1561 년 전에 사망 한 것을 넘어 그의 어머니의 거의 알려져 있다.

보 딘은 어릴 때 카멜 리 트 형제에 합류 했다. 살아남은 문서는 그가 몇 년 후에 그의 서 약에서 석방 되었다는 것을 우리에 게 알려줍니다. 그는 공부 하는 것으로 알려져, 나중에, 15 년대 동안 툴루즈 대학에서 법률을가 르 쳤 다. bodin은 대학에서 교수직을 얻을 수 없습니다,이 툴루즈와 학문적 인 생활에서 그를 구동 할 수 있다. 1560s 동안, 그는 파리의 파 수에 대 한 변호 자로 일했다..

bodin의 첫 번째 주요 작업, 역사의 쉬운 이해를 위한 방법 (메톡 스 광고부 대 역사 cognitionem)는 그의 아버지의 죽음을 보았다 같은 해 1566에 출판 되었다. bodin의 가장 유명한 작품은 10 년 후에 1576에 발표 된 연방 6 권의 책 (6 개의 얻으세요 드 라 레퓌블리크). 1570에서 bodin은 프랑스 국왕 찰스 IX에 의해 노르망디에서 숲 시제의 개혁을 의뢰 했다. 그는 15 년대에 프랑스 정치 권력의 중심에 있었다-첫 번째 찰스 IX의 통치 기간 동안 또한, 그의 동생의 통치 기간 동안, 1574, 헨리 III의 지배 하는 동안. 1576, bodin 그는 반대 후 왕 헨리 III의 호의를 잃 었, 다른 것 들 사이, 왕의 재정 정책에는 블루아의 국가 일반 동안 bodin 세의 세 번째 부동산에 대 한 대표를 역임.

보 딘은 평생 지난 20 년 동안 랑에 정착 했습니다. 그는 1576에 있는 랑 공식의과 부와 결혼 한 직후에, Françoise 트루 야 드 (또는 트 라 가드)에 옮겨 갔다. 보 딘은 왕의 막내 동생 알 랑 송 공작을 찾았다. 듀크 아 스 피 레드는 영국의 엘리자베스 여왕을 결혼 했다. 듀크가 런던으로 여행 하는 동안, 보 딘은 그와 동행 했다. 1582에서 보 딘은 알 랑 송을 따라 앤트 워프로가 서, 알 렌 송은 스페인에 대항하는 낮은 나라와 함께 있었다. bodin은 1583에 있는 듀크 에 게 요청과 카 운 슬 러를 임명 했습니다. 그는 1584에서 알 렌 스 온의 갑작스런 죽음 후 국가 정치에서 은퇴. 그의 동생의 죽음에 따라, bodin은 procureur du roi 로 사무실에서 그를 성공, 또는 최고 검찰, 1587에 랑에 대 한.

bodin은 그의 삶의 끝을 향해 두 개의 주목할 만한 작품을 썼다; 숭 고 한 것의 비밀에 관한 일곱 가지의 그의 대가 (대 한 헵 타 클로 메 르 드 리는 abditis)는 종교적 관용에 찬성 하 여 매력적인 대화 이다. 자연 철학의 분야에서 bodin의 주요 공헌, 자연의 극장 (보편성 자연사박물관) 처음에 출판 했다 1596, 같은 년 보 딘은 전염병으로 사망. 랑 프란체스코 교회에 가톨릭 매장을 받았다.

2. 역사의 쉬운 이해를 위한 방법

bodin의 메 톡 스 광고 (cognitionem 역사의 쉬운 이해를 위한 방법)는 1566에 처음 출판 및 1572에서 개정 되었다. 그것 은 bodin의 첫 번째 중요 한 작업 이며, 그의 다른 주요 체계적인 작품에서 추가로 개발 된 아이디어의 많은 포함 되어 있습니다. 그들 중 일부는 인류 역사, 자연사 및 신성한 역사 이며, 나중에는 레퓌블리크, 극장, 헵 타로 메 르에 각각 정교 하 게 있습니다. bodin의 목적은 역사의 연구 에 사용 되는 당해 방법과 방법을 노출 시키는 것 이었다. 시스템을 정교 하 고 기존의 모든 지식을 합성 하는 그의 욕망은 쉽게 methodus 에서 감지 할 수 있습니다.

감리교 의 처음 네 장은 대체로 방법론에 관한 토론 이다. 기록 및 다른 범주는 1 장에 정의 되어 있습니다. II 장과 III 장은 과거의 거래처를 읽는 순서와 모든 자료를 정렬 하는 올바른 순서에 대해 논의 합니다. 제 4 장 역사학자 들의 선택을 밝혀 준다. 그것은 역사의 중요 한 연구 bodin의 방법의 박람회로 간주 될 수 있습니다., 역사의 학생이 더 자세한 이야기에 일반화 된 계정에서 이동 해야. 읽기는 기록 된 기록의 가장 빠른 시간부터 시작 해야 하며 독자는 자연스럽 게 더 최근의 시간으로 진행 해야 합니다. 코스 모 그래피, 지리, 맥락, 지형 및 기하학 등 전체를 철저히 이해 하기 위해서는 역사 연구와 연관 되어야 합니다. 모든 자료는 비판적으로 평가 되어야 한다; 역사의 배경과 교육을 고려해 야 하며 자격을 갖추어야 합니다.

순서 대로, 그 문제의 진실은 기록에서 수집 될 수 있다, 뿐만 아니라 개별 저자의 선택에 뿐만 아니라 우리는 우리 아리스토텔레스가 말한 것을 기억 해야한다 그들을 읽고, 독서 역사에서 너무 많이 믿지 또는 믿지 않는 것이 필요 하다 평 두어 (...) 우리는 모든 면에서 모든 것에 동의 하는 경우, 종종 우리는 거짓에 대 한 진정한 일을 하 고 주를 관리 심각 하 게 실수 한다. 그러나 우리가 역사상 전혀 신앙이 없다면, 우리는 그것 으로부터 도움을 받을 수 없습니다. (보 딘 1945, 42)

감리교을 구성 하는 10 개 장 중, 여섯 장은 지금까지 그 보다 더 많은 것을 포함 하 고 있으며,이 책의 세 번째를 덮고 있는 것은 레퓌블리크의 청사진 이라고 할 수 있다. VII ~ IX 장은 역사에 대 한 잘못 된 해석을 반박 하 려 한다. bodin의 첫 번째 반박은 많은 독일 개신교 신학자 들이 강조 했던 네 가지 군주제 또는 제국의 예언을 토대로 한 신화에 관한 것입니다. bodin의 두 번째 비평은 황금 시대의 아이디어 (현대화에 비해 고 대 인의 우수성)에 관한 것입니다. 또한, bodin은 종족의 독립적인 기원을 주장 하는 사람들의 오류를 반박 합니다. 감리교 의 마지막 장은 보편적 역사의 참고 문헌을 담고 있다.

a. 역사 연구 방법론

기록의 세 가지 종류가 있습니다, bodin 쓰기; 신성, 자연 및 인간. methodus 는 세 번째 유형, 즉 인간의 행동과이를 규율 하는 규칙에 대 한 조사입니다. 과학은 세부 사항에 관한 것이 아니라 보편성을가지고 있습니다. 따라서 bodin은 로마 법령에서 보편적 법학의 원리를 확립 하기 위해 jurisconsults 시도를 터무니 없는 것으로 간주 하거나, 더 일반적으로는 로마의 법에서, 따라서 하나의 법적 전통에 우선 순위를 부여. 로마 법은 한 특정 국가의 입법에 관한 것 이며, 특정 국가의 법은 민법의 대상이 되며 단기간 내에 변경 됩니다. 법에 대 한 올바른 연구는 이미 플라톤에 의해 설명 된 다른 접근법을 필요로 합니다: 법을 확립 하 고 상태를 관리 하는 올바른 방법은 함께 모여 존재 하는 모든 국가의 법적 프레임 워크를 비교 하는 것입니다, 그리고 최고의 컴파일 . budé, Alciat, 코 네와 같은 다른 소위 법적 휴 매 주의자 들과 함께, bodin은 역사와 법에 대 한 연구를 결합 하 여 보편적 인 법에 대 한 적절 한 이해가만 얻을 수 있다고 했다.

사실, 역사에서 보편적 인 율법의 가장 좋은 부분은 숨겨져 있다; 그리고 모든 국가의 시작, 성장, 조건, 변화 및 쇠퇴 –이 법안의 가장 좋은 평가에 대 한 큰 무게와 중요성은 무엇 인가, 즉 민족의 관습은 그것 으로부터 얻습니다. 역사의 어떤 보상은 일반적으로 국가의 정부 형태 주위에 모여 보다 더 충분 하지 않기 때문에이 방법 의 주요 주제는 이러한 사실로 구성 되어 있습니다. (보 딘 1945, 8)

bodin은 4 종류의 법 통역사가 있다는 것을 씁니다. 그 중 가장 숙련 된 사람들은

... 전 수와 법의학 실습 뿐만 아니라, 정의의 본질을 파악 하 고, 인간의 희망에 따라 변하지 않고, 영원한 율법에 의해 마련 된 가장 안정 된 철학을 통해 훈련을 받았다. 누가 능숙 하 게 자본의 표준을 결정 한다. 누가 궁극의 원리 로부터 법학 기원을 추적 한다. 모든 고대의 지식을 주의 깊게 통과 하는 자; 물론 황제, 상원, 백성, 그리고 로마인 들의 치안 판사의 능력과 지배력을 아는 사람은 누구 인가. 누가 율법과 국가에 관한 철학자 들의 토론을 입법 해석에 가져온다. 누가 잘 알고 있는 그리스어와 라틴어 언어, 법령에 명시 된; 한계 내에서 학습의 전체 부문을 회피 하 고, 형식으로 분류 하 고, 부분으로 나누고, 단어를 지적 하 고, 예를 들어 설명 하는 사람. (보 딘 1945, 4-6)

b. 기후의 이론

기후의 이론은 bodin의 가장 잘 알려진 아이디어 중 하나입니다. bodin 주제를 논의 하기 위해 첫 번째 아니었다; 그는 bodin 자신이 참조 하는 livy, 히포크라테스, 아리스토텔레스 및 타키투스와 같은 고전적인 저자에 게 많은 빚을 지 고 있습니다. 그는 또한 특히 역사가 들, 여행자 들, 외교관 들, 그리고 콩 민, 마 키 아벨 리, 코페르니쿠스 및 장 카 르 단과 같은 그의 동시 대 들을 둘러 볼 수 있다. bodin의 기후에 대 한 관측은 그의 중세 전임자 들의 것과는 달랐다, 보 딘은 이론의 실질적인 의미에 가장 먼저 관심이 있기 때문에, 환경의 법칙에 대 한 정확한 이해는 출발점으로 생각 되어야 합니다. 모든 정책, 법률 및 기관에 대 한 (tooley 1953, 83). bodin은 기후와 다른 지리적 요인이 영향을 준다고 믿 었지만, 주어진 사람들의 기질을 반드시 결정 하는 것은 아닙니다. 따라서, 국가 및 입법의 양식은 사람들의 기질, 그리고 그것을 점유 하는 영토에 적응 될 필요가 있습니다.

기후 이론의 세 가지 다른 계정 bodin의 기록에서 발견 된다. 가장 초기 버전은 methodus의 5 장에 있습니다. 이 구절 에는 이론의 일반적인 원칙이 있지만 bodin은이를 현대 정치와 관련이 없습니다. 그것은 기후에 대 한 이론이 더 증폭 되 고, 현대 정치와의 관계를 확립 한 레퓌블리크 의 다섯째 책의 첫 번째 장에서입니다. 또한, 공화국 의 라틴어 번역은 이론에 몇 가지 주목할 만한 추가가 포함 되어 있습니다.

bodin에 따르면, 상태에 대해 작성 한 사람은 어느 누구도 (바다 또는 산 등 근처) 위치 하는 영토에 상태의 형태를 적응 하는 방법의 질문을 고려 하지 않았거나, 사람들의 자연적인 위도에. bodin은 인류 역사의 불확실성과 혼돈 속에서 자연의 영향이 우리에 게 역사적 일반화에 대 한 확실 한 기준을 제공 합니다. 이러한 안정적이 고 변하지 않는 자연의 영향은 사람들의 성격, 체격 및 역사적 특성 (갈색 1969, 87-88)을 성형 하는 지배적인 역할을 합니다. 이 자연주의 접근은 어느 정도, 점성술과 수비학에 bodin의 신념에 의해 가려진. 종족의 특수성, 행 성과 피타고라스 번호의 영향력은 모두 르네상스 플라톤 주의의 일부 였다. bodin은 밀접 하 게 히포크라테스와 strabo의 이론을 따라 지리적 결정성과 이러한 아이디어를 결합. (보 딘 1945, 13 세)

프 톨 레미는 북극, 온대, 트로픽 영역으로 세계를 분할. 프톨레마이오스 영역을 채택 하는 bodin 적도에서 30도의 영역으로 지구를 분할 노스 워드. 다른 사람들은 자신의 능력과 약점을가지고 있다. 남부 사람들은 자연에 의해 관상 고 종교적 이다. 그들은 현명 하지만 에너지가 부족 합니다. 반면에 북부 사람들은 활발 하 고 큰 키가 있지만, 그것은 부족 합니다. 남쪽 사람들은 지적으로 재능이 있으며, 따라서 북부 사람들은, 그들의 육체적 인 자질 때문에, 젊음을 생각나 게 하는 동안에는 옛 남자를 닮 았습니다. 이 두 지역 사이에 사는 사람들 ― 온대 지 대의 사람들 ―은 더 나은 자질을 부여 받은 반면에, 이전 두 사람의 과잉이 부족 하다. 따라서 그들은 중간 생활에서 남자로 설명 될 수 있다 — 신중 하 고 따라서 임원 및 정치가 될 재능. 그들은 두 극단 사이의 아리스토텔레스 의미. 이 세 번째 그룹의 우수성은 그의 저술에 걸쳐 bodin에 의해 강조 된다.

3. 커먼 빌의 여섯 부 대

bodin의 정치적 철학 분야에서 가장 두드러진 기여는 1576, 그리고 그의 자신의 라틴어 번역에서 10 년 후에 처음으로 출판 되었다. 텍스트의 프랑스어 버전과 라틴어 버전 사이에는 상당한 차이점이 있습니다. 다른 언어로 번역 곧: 이탈리아어 (1588), 스페인어 (1592) 및 영어 (1606) 레퓌블리크 는 16 세기에 프랑스에서 가장 중요 한 정치적 위기에 대 한 bodin의 응답으로 적어도 부분적으로 고려해 야 합니다: 종교의 프랑스 전쟁 (1562-1598). 그것은 소위 monarchomach 작가에 대 한 프랑스 군주제의 방어로 작성 되었습니다, 그 중 프랑수아 hotman (1524-1590), 시 어 도어 beza (1519-1605) 및 vindiciae의 저자는 콘트라이 스. monarchomach에 대 한 호출 작가는 통치자의 주권 힘을 제한 하는 치안 판사와 재산의 역할을 고려 하 고,이 힘은 처음에 사람들 로부터 파생 될 것을.

bodin은 레퓌블리크에 세 가지 다른 프리 페이스를 출판 했다. 첫 번째는 모든 프랑스어 버전에서 발견 된 소개입니다. 두 번째는 1578 이후 프랑스어 버전에 나타나는 라틴어의 prefatory 편지입니다. 세 번째 서 문은 라틴어 판에 대 한 소개입니다. 이 세 가지 예비 얼굴은 bodin이 그것을 공격 한 작가에 대 한 자신의 작품을 방어 할 수 있는 기회 였다. 그들은 우리에 게 어떻게 bodin의 의견은 레퓌블리크의 출판을 따라 년 동안 개발의 계정을 제공 합니다. 1580에서 bodin은 그의 비방에 대 한 권리를 사과 드 르네 herpin을 부 어 라 레퓌블리크 드 장 보 딘에 게 대답 했다. 르네 herpin은 보 딘에 의해 사용 되는가 명 이었다.

레퓌블리크 의 첫 번째 책은 주, 국가의 다른 요소, 자연과 주권의 마크를 정의의 주요 끝과 목표를 설명 합니다. 두 번째 책에서 bodin은 다양 한 유형의 국가 (민주주의, 귀족 및 군주제)에 대해 논의 하 고 혼합 된 상태가 존재할 수 없다고 결론 지었습니다. 5 장에서, bodin은 폭군, 즉, 주권 권력을 소유 하지 않는 불법 통치자가 정당 하 게 살해 될 수 있는 조건을 검사 합니다. 반면에 합법적인 군주는 그가 압제 적인 방식으로 행동 해야 하는 경우에도 그의 과목에 의해 저항 되지 않을 수 있습니다.

상원과 그 역할, 치안 판사의 역할과 주권 권력과의 관계, 치안 판사 들 간의 다른 권위와 같은 국가의 여러 부분에 대해 논의 합니다. 대학, 기업 및 대학교도 정의 되 고 고려 됩니다. 국가의 기원, 번영 및 쇠퇴, 그리고 이러한 변화에 영향을 미치는 이유는 4 책의 주제입니다. 5 책은 기후 이론의 박람회로 시작: 국가의 법률과 정부의 형태는 각 사람의 본질에 적응 해야 합니다. Bodin는 다음 남과 북 사이의 기후 변화 그리고 이러한 유사 인간의 기질에 미치는 영향을 설명 합니다. 리 퍼블 리 크 의 마지막 책 cencus 질문은 검열, 그것에서 파생 될 수 있는 장점과 각 개인의 소지품의 평가 함께 열립니다. 챕터 2와 3 토론 국가의 재정, 그리고는 주 화의 저하의 문제. 제 4는 상태;의 세 가지 형태의 비교 Bodin 로얄, 또는 유전 (과목) 반대로 군주제 국가의 최고 형태 이다 주장 하고있다. 살리카 법, 또는 왕위에 승계의 법률 설명: 여자의 규칙은 신, 자연, 그리고 인간의 율법에 대 한 보유 Bodin. 살리카 법 Methodus (Bodin 1945 년, p. 253), 농업 법 이라고 공개의 소외를 금지 하는 법 함께 두 가지 기본 법칙, 또는 leges imperii (구조 loix royales), 법률 부과 중 하나입니다. 주권 왕자의 대리권 제한입니다. 기본 법칙의 상태를 염려 하 고 왕관, 합병 주권 왕자 따라서 그들 로부터 떨어지 다 수 없습니다.

The concluding chapter of the République is a discussion concerning the principle of justice in the government of the state. Geometric, arithmetic, and harmonic justice are explained, as well as their relation to the different forms of state. A strong Platonic influence may be detected in the final chapter of the work: a wise ruler establishes harmony within the commonwealth, just as God has established harmony in the universe he has created. Every individual has their proper place and purpose in the commonwealth.

a. Concept of Sovereignty

The République opens with the following definition of a commonwealth: “A Commonweale is a lawfull government of many families, and of that which unto them in common belongeth, with a puissant soveraigntie.” (Bodin 1962, 1) (Fr. “République est un droit gouvernement de plusieurs ménages, et de ce qui leur est commun, avec puissance souveraine.” (Bodin 1583, 1) Lat.“Respublica est familiarum rerumque inter ipsas communium summa potestate ac ratione moderata multitude.” (Bodin 1586, 1)) The meaning of sovereign power is further clarified in Chapter Eight of the first book:

Maiestie or Soveraigntie is the most high, absolute, and perpetuall power over the citisens and subiects in a Commonweale: which the Latins cal Maiestatem, the Greeks akra exousia, kurion arche, and kurion politeuma; the Italians Segnoria, and the Hebrewes tomech shévet, that is to say, The greatest power to command. (Bodin 1962, 84)

Having defined sovereignty, Bodin then defines the meaning of the terms “perpetual” and “absolute”. A person to whom sovereignty is given for a certain period of time, upon the expiration of which they once again become private citizens, cannot be called sovereign. When sovereign power is given to someone for a certain period of time, the person or persons receiving it are but the trustees and custodians of that power, and the sovereign power can be removed from them by the person or persons that are truly sovereign. Sovereignty, therefore, Bodin writes, “is not limited either in power, charge, or time certaine.” Absolute power is the power of overriding ordinary law, and it has no other condition than that which is commanded by the law of God and of nature:

But it behoveth him that is a soveraigne not to be in any sort subiect to the commaund of another … whose office it is to give laws unto his subiects, to abrogat laws unprofitable, and in their stead to establish other: which hee cannot do that is himselfe subiect unto laws, or to others which have commaund over him. And that is it for which the law saith, That the prince is acquitted from the power of the laws[.] (Bodin 1962, 91)

From this and similar passages Bodin derives the first prerogative of a sovereign prince of which he gives the following definition: “Let this be the first and chiefe marke of a soveraigne prince, to bee of power to give laws to all his subiects in generall and to everie one of them in particular ... without consent of any other greater, equall, or lesser than himselfe” (Bodin 1962, 159). All other rights and prerogatives of sovereignty are included in the power of making and repealing laws, Bodin writes, and continues, “so that (to speak properly) a man may say, that there is but this only mark of soveraigne power considering that all other the rights thereof are contained in this”. The other prerogatives include declaring war and making peace, hearing appeals in the last instance, instituting and removing the highest officers, imposing taxes on subjects or exempting them, granting pardons and dispensations, determining the name, value, and measure of the coinage, and finally, requiring subjects to swear their loyalty to their sovereign prince.

Sovereignty and its defining marks or attributes are indivisible, and supreme power within the commonwealth must necessarily be concentrated on a single person or group of persons. Bodin argues that the first prerogative of a sovereign ruler is to give law to subjects without the consent of any other individual. It is from this definition that he derives the logical impossibility of dividing sovereignty, as well as the impossibility of the existence of a mixed state: if sovereignty, in other words, the power to give law, within the state were divided, for example, between the prince, the nobility, and the people, there would exist in the commonwealth not one, but several agents that possess the power to give law. In such a case, Bodin argues, no one can be called a subject, since all have power to make law. Additionally, no one would be able to give laws to others, since law-givers would be forced to receive law from those upon whom they wish to impose laws. The state would, therefore, be popular or democratic. In the revised Latin edition of the République the outcome of divided sovereignty is described as a state of anarchy since no one would be willing to obey laws.

b. Definition of Law

Bodin writes that there is a great difference between law (Lat. lex; Fr. loi) and right (Lat. jus; Fr. droit). Law is the command of a sovereign prince, that makes use of his power, while right implies that which is equitable. A right connotes something with a normative content; law, on the other hand, has no moral content or normative implications. Bodin writes:

We must presuppose that this word Law, without any other addition, signifieth The right command of him or them, which have soveraigne power above others, without exception of person: be it that such commaundement concerne the subiects in generall, or in particular: except him or them which have given the law. Howbeit to speake more properly, A law is the command of a Soveraigne concerning all his subiects in generall: or els concerning generall things, as saith Festus Pompeius, as a privilege concerneth some one, or some few[.] (Bodin 1962, 156)

c. Limitations upon the Authority of the Sovereign Prince

Although the sovereign prince is not bound by civil law—neither by the laws of his predecessors, which have force only as long as their maker is alive, unless ratified by the new ruler, nor by his own laws—he is not free to do as he pleases, for all earthly princes have the obligation to follow the law of God and of nature. Absolute power is power to override ordinary law, but all earthly princes are subject to divine and natural laws, Bodin writes. To contravene the laws of God, “under the greatnesse of whome all monarches of the world ought to beare the yoke, and to bow their heads in all feare and reverence”, and nature mean treason and rebellion.

Contracts with Subjects and with Foreigners

Bodin mentions a few other things - besides the laws of God and of nature - that limit the sovereign prince’s authority. These include the prince’s contracts with his subjects and foreign princes, property rights of the citizens, and constitutional laws (leges imperii) of the realm. Regarding the difference between contracts and laws, Bodin writes that the sovereign prince is subject to the just and reasonable contracts that he has made, and in the observation of which his subjects have an interest, whilst laws obligate all subjects but not the prince. A contract between a sovereign prince and his subjects is mutually binding and it obligates both parties reciprocally. The prince, therefore, has no advantage over the subject on this matter. The prince must honor is contracts for three reasons: 1) Natural equity, which requires that agreements and promises be kept; 2) The prince’s honor and his good faith, since there is “no more detestable crime in a prince, than to bee false of his oath and promise”; and 3) The prince is the guarantor of the conventions and obligations that his subjects have with each other – it is therefore all the more important that the sovereign prince should render justice for his own act.

Fundamental Laws

Two fundamental laws (leges imperii) are discussed in the République. The first one is the Salic law, or the law of succession to the throne. The Salic law guarantees the continuity of the crown, and determines the legitimate successor (see Franklin 1973, Chapter 5). The other fundamental law is the law against alienation of the royal domain, which Bodin calls “Agrarian law” in the Methodus. As Franklin has observed, “The domain was supposed to have been set aside in order to provide a king with a source of annual income normally sufficient to defray the costs of government” (1973, 73). If the domain is alienated, this signifies lesser income to the crown, and possibly increased taxation upon the citizens. Fundamental laws are annexed and united to the crown, and therefore the sovereign ruler cannot infringe them. But should the prince decide to do so, his successor can always annul that which has been done in prejudice of the fundamental laws of the realm.

Inviolability of Private Property

Finally, Bodin derives from both natural law and the Old Testament that the sovereign prince may not take the private property of his subjects without their consent since this would mean violating the law of God and of nature. He writes: “Now then if a soveraigne prince may not remove the bounds which almightie God (of whom he is the living & breathing image) hath prefined unto the everlasting lawes of nature: neither may he take from another man that which is his, without iust cause” (Bodin 1962, 109; 110). The only exception to the rule, the just causes that Bodin refers to in this passage, concern situations where the very existence of the commonwealth is threatened. In such cases, public interest must be preferred over the private, and citizens must give up their private property in order to guarantee the safety and continuing existence of the commonwealth.

The preceding passage is one among many where the sovereign prince is described by Bodin as the “earthly image of God,” “God’s lieutenant for commanding other men,” or the person “to whom God has given power over us”. It is from this principle regarding the inviolability of private property that Bodin derives that new taxes may not be imposed upon citizens without their consent.

d. Difference between Form of State and Form of Government

Bodin holds that sovereignty cannot be divided – it must necessarily reside in one person or group of persons. Having shown that sovereignty is indivisible, Bodin moves on to refute the widely accepted political myth of the Renaissance that the Polybian model of a mixed state was the optimal form of state. Contrary to the opinions of Polybius, Aristotle, and Cicero, Bodin writes that there are only three types of state or commonwealth: monarchy, where sovereignty is vested with one person, aristocracy, where sovereignty is vested with a minority, and democracy, where sovereignty is vested in all of the people or a majority among them. Bodin’s denial of the possibility of dividing sovereignty directly results in the impossibility of a mixed state in the form that most Renaissance political theorists conceived it. It is with the help of historical and modern examples, most notably of Rome and Venice, that Bodin shows that the states that were generally believed to possess a mixed regime were not really so.

Even though Bodin refuses the idea that there be more than three types of commonwealth, he is willing to accept that there is a variety of governments - that is, different ways to govern the state. The way that the state is governed in no way alters its form nor its structure. Discussion concerning the difference between the form of state and government is found in Book Two. Bodin remarks that despite the importance of the question, no one before him has ever addressed it. All monarchies, aristocracies and popular states are either tyrannical, despotic, or legitimate (i.e. royal). These are not different species of commonwealth, Bodin observes, but diverse ways of governing the state. Tyrannical monarchy is one in which the sovereign ruler violates the laws of God, oppresses his subjects and treats their private property as his own. Tyrannical monarchy must not be confused with despotic monarchy, Bodin writes. Despotic, or lordly, monarchy “is that where the prince is become lord of the goods and persons of his subiects, by law of arms and lawfull warre; governing them as the master of a familie doth his slaves.” Bodin holds that there is nothing unfitting in a prince who has defeated his enemies in a just war, and who governs them under the laws of war and the law of nations. Finally, royal or legitimate monarchy is one in which the subjects obey the laws of the sovereign prince, and the prince in his turn obeys the laws of God and of nature; natural liberty and the right to private property are secured to all citizens.

Although most of Bodin’s examples concern monarchy, he writes that “The same difference is also found in the Aristocratique and popular estate: for both the one and the other may be lawful, lordly, and tirannicall, in such sort as I have said” (Bodin 1962, 200). Bodin qualifies as “absurd” and “treasonable” opinions according to which the constitution of France is a mixture of the three types of state—the Parlement representing aristocracy, the Estates General democracy, and the King representing monarchy.

e. The Question of Slavery

The question of slavery is addressed in Book one, Chapter Five of the République. Bodin is recognized today as one of the earliest advocates of the abolition of slavery. For him, slavery was a universal phenomenon in the sense that slaves exist in all parts of the world, and slavery was widely accepted by the droit des gens. Bodin writes that there are difficulties concerning slavery that have never been resolved. He wishes to answer the following question: “Is slavery natural and useful, or contrary to nature?”

Bodin opposes Aristotle’s opinion (Politics 1254a) according to which slavery is something natural – some people are born to govern and command, while it is the role of others to serve and obey. Bodin admits that “there is certain plausibility in the argument that slavery is natural and useful in the commonwealth.” After all, Bodin continues, the institution of slavery has existed in all commonwealths, and in all ages wise and good men have owned slaves. But if we are to consider the question according to commonly received opinions, thus allowing ourselves to be less concerned with philosophical arguments, we will soon understand that slavery is unnatural and contrary to human dignity.

Bodin’s opposition to slavery is manifold. First of all, he considers slavery in most cases to be unnatural, as the following passage attests: “I confesse that servitude is well agreeing unto nature, when a strong man, rich and ignorant, yeeldeth his obedience and service unto a wise, discreet and feeble poore man: but for wise men to serve fools, men of understanding to serve the ignorant, and the good to serve the bad; what can bee more contrarie unto nature?” (Bodin 1962, 34) Secondly, slavery is an affront to religion since the law of God forbids making any man a slave against their good will and consent. Thirdly, slavery is against human dignity, because of the countless indescribable humiliations that slaves have been forced to suffer. According to one interpretation, Bodin’s opposition to slavery must above all be understood within the context of his opinions concerning the commonwealth in that slavery poses a permanent threat to the stability of the state. Bodin relies on a historical narrative to prove that slavery is incompatible with a stable commonwealth (Herrel 1994, 56). Thus, in the following passage, he states:

Wherefore seeing it is proved by the examples of so many worlds of years, so many inconveniences of rebellions, servile warres, conspiracies eversions and changes to have happened unto Commonweals by slaves; so many murthers, cruelties, and detestable villanies to have bene committed upon the persons of slaves by their lords and masters: who can doubt to affirme it to be a thing most pernitious and daungerous to have brought them into a Commonweale; or having cast them off, to receive them againe? (Bodin 1962, 44)

4. Bodin’s Economic Thought

Bodin’s main economic ideas are expressed in two works: initially, in his Response to the Paradoxes of Malestroit, first published in 1568, then in a revised second version, in 1578. The Response is an analysis of the reasons for the significant and continuous price rises that afflicted sixteenth century Europe. It is in this work that Bodin is said to have given one of the earliest formulations of the Quantity Theory of Money. In its most elementary form, the Quantity Theory of Money is the affirmation that money supply directly affects price levels. Chapter Two of the sixth book of the République is a lengthy discussion of the possible resources of the state. There is a partial overlap between the two works since Bodin included certain passages of the Response in his République, and then incorporated them again in a revised form into the second edition of the Response.

a. Quantitative Theory of Money

High inflation was rampant in sixteenth century Europe. It began in Spain, and soon spread to its neighboring states. This was mainly due to the increase in the quantity of precious metals, namely silver and gold, that were brought by boat to Europe from the Spanish colonies in the New World. In 1563, the Chambre des Comptes de Paris decided to investigate the reasons for inflation, and the results of the investigation were published in 1566 in a study entitled The Paradoxes of the Seigneur de Malestroit on the Matter of Money. The author of the study was a man called Jean Cherruies “Seigneur de Malestroit”, of whom we know only fairly little. It was these “paradoxes” that Jean Bodin sought to refute in his work.

Malestroit held that the price rises are simply changes in the unit of account that have been occasioned by debasement, and that prices of precious metals have remained constant for three hundred years.

Bodin refuted Malestroit’s analysis on two counts. First, he was able to show that Malestroit’s use of data was incorrect: Malestroit’s central claim to back up his thesis was the unchanging price of velvet since the fourteenth century. Bodin, however, cast doubt on the fact whether velvet was even known in France at such an early period. Secondly, Bodin was able to demonstrate that debasement alone did not explain the reasons for such major and significant price rises; while debasement was one of the factors that had occasioned such inflation, it was far from being the principal cause.

Bodin lists five major factors as contributory causes for such widespread inflation: (1) The sudden abundance of precious metals, namely silver and gold, throughout Europe; (2) Monopolies; (3) Scarcity, caused by excessive export trade, quasi non-existing import trade, and waste; (4) Fashionable demand by rich people for certain luxury products; and, finally, (5) Debasement.

Of these five causes, Bodin considered the abundance of precious metals to be the most important.

b. The State’s Finances and the Question of Taxation and Property Rights

In Chapter Two of the final book of the République Bodin discusses the question of the commonwealth securing its finances. Seven possible sources of income are listed. These are: (1) Public domain; (2) Profits of conquests; (3) Gifts from friends; (4) Tributes from allies; (5) Profits of trading ventures; (6) Customs on exports and imports; and, finally, (7) Taxes on the subject. Bodin considers the public domain to be the most honest and the most reliable source of income for the commonwealth. He writes that throughout history sovereign princes and their citizens have taken it as a universal rule that the public domain should be holy, inviolable and inalienable. The inalienability of the public domain is of the utmost importance, Bodin writes, in order that “princes should not bee forced to overcharge their subiects with imposts, or to seeke any unlawfull meanes to forfeit their goods”. The seventh method of raising revenue on Bodin’s list is by levying taxes on the subject, but it may be used only when all other measures have failed and the preservation of the commonwealth demands it.

Bodin considers the inalienability of the public domain, together with the Salic law, to be one of the fundamental laws (Lat. leges imperii; Fr. loix royales) of the state. Like many of his contemporaries, Bodin held that the levying of new taxes without consent was a violation of the property rights of the individual, and, as such, contrary to the law of God and nature. He was particularly firm in opposing new taxation without proper consent and sought confirmation for his opinion in French and European history. one of the main differences between a legitimate ruler and an illegitimate one concerns the question of how each treats the private property of their subjects. Property rights are protected by the law of God and of nature, and therefore, violation of the private property of citizens is a violation of the law of God and of nature. A tyrant makes his subjects into his slaves, and treats their private property as if it were his own.

5. Writings Concerning Religion

The 16th and 17th centuries witnessed fierce internal conflict and power struggles at the heart of Christianity. The country most seriously ravaged by the combat between the Catholics and the Huguenots was France. Furthermore, a world of hugely diverse religious beliefs had been recently unveiled beyond the walls of Christendom, and the question of knowing which religion was the true religion (vera religio), or that which God wanted humanity to follow, needed to be addressed. Bodin’s main contributions concerning religion are Démonomanie, Colloquium heptaplomeres and the Universae naturae theatrum. Additionally, the République contains passages that discuss religion and the stability of the state.

a. Colloquium heptaplomeres and the Question of Religious Tolerance

Bodin’s Colloquium of the Seven about Secrets of the Sublime (Colloquium heptaplomeres de rerum sublimium arcanis abditis) is often described as one of the earliest works of comparative religion. It is believed to have been written sometime during the 1580s, although it was circulated in manuscript for nearly three centuries before it was published in its entirety in 1857. The Colloquium is a discussion between seven men of different religions or convictions that have gathered in the home of Coronaeus, a Catholic living in Venice, Italy. The participants are Salomon, a Jew, Octavius, a convert from Catholicism to Islam, Toralba, a natural philosopher, Senamus a skeptic, Fridericus, a Lutheran, and Curtius a Calvinist. The men engage in listening to music, reading, gastronomical delights, and discussions concerning religion.

The Colloquium begins with a story that is told by Octavius. A ship leaves the port of Alexandria as gentle winds blow, but an intensive tempest soon arises. The ship’s captain, terrified by the situation, is forced to drop the anchors, and urges everyone to pray to God. The crewmen, being from many different places and of various confessions, all pray for the one God that they have faith in. The storm calms down eventually and the ship is brought safely to port. When Octavius had finished his story, Coronaeus asked the following question: “Finally, with such a variety of religions represented [on the ship], whose prayers did God heed in bringing the ship safely to port?”

The matter of true religion is discussed in the final three books of the Colloquium heptaplomeres. True religion, Bodin holds, is tolerant of all religions, and accepts different ways to approach God. Leathers Kuntz has observed that “no religion is true whose point of view is not universal, whose ｅxpression is not free, whose center does not reflect the intimate harmony of God and nature” (Bodin 2008, xliii). The same opinion is expressed in the Démonomanie and in Bodin’s letter to one Jean Bautru des Matras, an advocate working in Paris. In the latter, Bodin writes that “different opinions concerning religion must not lead you astray, as long as you understand that true religion is nothing else than the turning of a purged soul toward true God”.

b. The Question of True Religion and Bodin’s Personal Faith

Leathers Kuntz has detected three stages in the development of Bodin’s religious thinking. She has argued that Bodin’s religious views became more liberal as he grew older (Bodin 2008, xliii-xliv). In 1559, when he wrote the Discours au Senate et au peuple de Toulouse, Bodin held that people should be brought up publicly in one religion. This he considered as an indispensable element in the cohesiveness of the state. Religious unity should be preserved, and religion should not be debated, since disputations damage religion and cast doubt upon it. When writing the République, Bodin’s main concern was the political stability of the French state. He considered religion to provide for the unity of the state, and as supporting the king’s power. Furthermore, religion strengthened the subjects’ obedience toward their sovereign prince and their respect for the execution of laws. Uniformity of worship must be enforced within the commonwealth when it is possible, but tolerance should become the norm when religious minorities become influential enough to no longer be repressed. The final and most liberal stage of Bodin’s religious opinions becomes most apparent in the Colloquium heptaplomeres, “in which his religious opinions seem to have developed into a kind of theism which leaves each man’s religion, provided he has some, to his own personal conscience” (ibid.).

It is impossible to say anything definitive concerning Bodin’s religious views. We may observe that Bodin’s faith seems less loyal to a particular established church than to a deep sense of honoring God. Bodin’s public religious opinions fluctuated throughout his life. As a consequence, he was accused of many things, including of being a Jew, a Calvinist, a heretical Catholic, and an atheist during his lifetime and after his death. Some scholars have even suggested that there are traces of Nicodemism, or religious dissimulation, in both his works and actions.

Scholars have debated for many years the question of knowing which of the opinions expressed in the Colloquium heptaplomeres should be regarded as Bodin’s personal beliefs. Considering that so many, often contradictory, opinions have been advanced, it may be wise to remark that perhaps “all the speakers represent Bodin’s thinking at one time or another. No one represents his thinking exclusively, but Bodin is sympathetic to some views of each as the dialogue develops. The point seems to be, however, that regardless of Bodin’s approval or disapproval of the religious views represented in the dialogue, he constantly stresses the need for toleration of all religions” (Bodin 2008, xliv). It has also been suggested that Bodin’s opinions and views regarding religious faith are so full of compromise that they ultimately amount to a sort of natural religion. Finally, it has been suggested that Bodin’s writings on the topic of religion “transcended the narrow bounds of confessional religion” (Bodin 1980, 1).

Although Bodin’s understanding of true religion as something profoundly personal, for which no church was required, made him an unorthodox believer in the eyes of many, it seems inconceivable that he should be considered an atheist (Bodin 2008, xxix). In fact, he considered atheism to be extremely dangerous to the commonwealth, as the following passage from the République (4, VII), discussing the difference between atheism and superstition, proves:

And truely they (in mine opinion) offend much, which thinke that the same punishment is to be appointed for them that make many gods, and them that would have none at all: or that the infinitie of gods admitted, the almightie and everliving God is thereby taken away. For that superstition how great soever it be, doth yet hold men in feare and awe, both of the laws and of the magistrats; as also in mutuall duties and offices one of them towards another: whereas mere Atheisme doth utterly root out of mens minds all the feare of doing evill. (Bodin 1962, 539)

Bodin’s reasons for combating atheism in this passage concern the stability of the state: atheists must not be tolerated in the commonwealth since they hold neither moral nor ethical issues regarding breaking the laws of the state. But Bodin had another reason to detest atheism: atheists are blasphemous because they deny the existence of God.

6. on Witchcraft

Bodin’s De la démonomanie des sorciers (On the Demon-Mania of Witches) was first published in 1580 in French, and soon translated into Latin (1581), German (1581) and Italian (1587). Because of its wide distribution and numerous editions, historians have held it accountable for prosecutions of witches during the years that followed its publication. Many readers have been perplexed by the intolerant character of the Démonomanie. Bodin had a strong belief in the existence of angels and demons, and believed that they served as intermediaries between God and human beings; God intervenes directly in the world through the activity of angels and demons. Demonism, together with atheism and any attempt to manipulate demonic forces through witchcraft or natural magic, was treason against God and to be punished with extreme severity. The principal reason, therefore, to punish someone of witchcraft is “to appease the anger of God, especially if the crime is directly against the majesty of God, as this one is”.

Bodin was given the incentive to write the Démonomanie after he took part in the proceedings against a witch in April 1578. His objective in writing the Démonomanie was to “throw some light on the subject of witches, which seems marvelously strange to everyone and unbelievable to many.” Furthermore, the work was to serve as “a warning to all those who read it, in order to make it clearly known that there are no crimes which are nearly so vile as this one, or which deserve more serious penalties.” Finally, he wished to “respond to those who in printed books try to save witches by every means, so that it seems Satan has inspired them and drawn them to his line in order to publish these fine books” (Bodin 2001, 35-7). Among these “protectors of witches,” as Bodin qualified them, was a German Protestant by the name of Johann Weyer, who considered witches to be delusional and excessively melancholic, and recommended physical healing and religious instruction as a remedy to their condition, rather than corporal or capital punishment. Bodin feared that this might lead judges to consider witches as mentally ill, and, as a consequence, permit them to go without punishment.

The Démonomanie is divided into four books. Book one begins with a set of definitions. Bodin then discusses to what extent men may engage in the occult, and the differences between lawful and unlawful means to accomplish things. He also discusses the powers of witches and their practices: whether witches are able to transform men into beasts, induce or inspire in them illnesses, or perhaps even bring about their death. The final book is a discussion concerning ways to investigate and prosecute witches. Bodin’s severity and his rigorousness in condemning witches and witchcraft is largely based on the contents of the final book of the Démonomanie.

Bodin lists three necessary and indisputable proofs upon which a sentence can be based: (1) Truth of the acknowledged and concrete fact; (2) Testimony of several sound witnesses; and (3) Voluntary confession of the person who is charged and convicted of the crime. Certain other types of evidence, such as public reputation or forced confession, are not regarded by Bodin as indisputable proofs, but simply as “presumptions”, or circumstantial evidence, concerning the guilty nature of the person being charged. Presumptions may serve in the conviction and sentencing of witches in cases where clear proof is lacking.

There are fifteen “detestable crimes” that witches may be guilty of, and even the least of them, Bodin affirms, merits painful death. The death penalty, however, must only be sentenced by a competent judge and based on solid proof that eliminates all possibility of error. In cases where sufficient proof is wanting, where there are neither witnesses, nor confession, nor factual evidence, and where only mere presumptions, even strong ones, exist, Bodin is opposed to a death sentence: “I do not recommend that because of strong presumptions one pass sentence of death – but any other penalty except death...One must be very sure of the truth to impose the death sentence.” Bodin may have considered witchcraft an insult against God, and as such meriting the penalty of death, but he nevertheless believed in the rule of law, as in this other passage where he unequivocally states that “it is better to acquit the guilty than to condemn the innocent” (Bodin 2001, 209-210).

7. Natural Philosophy

The Universae naturae theatrum, which was published in the year of his death in 1596, may be considered as the most systematic exposition of Bodin’s vision of the world. It remains the least studied of his works and has never been translated into English. Bodin himself informs us that the Theatrum was written in 1590. The French translation of the work (Le Théâtre de la nature universelle) was published in 1597.

Ever since the beginning of his career Bodin sought to methodologically study all things, human and divine. He writes:

Of history, that is, the true narration of things, there are three kinds: human, natural, and divine. The first concerns man; the second, nature; the third, the Father of nature. /…/ So it shall come about that from thinking first about ourselves, then about our family, then about our society we are led to examine nature and finally to the true history of Immortal God, that is, to contemplation. (Bodin 1945, 15-16)

The Theatrum is the culmination point of Bodin’s systematic examination of things, and as such it is a deeply religious work. Bodin turns to the study of nature in order to better know God:

And indeed the Theater of Nature is nothing other than the contemplation of those things founded by the immortal God as if a certain tablet were placed under the eyes of every single one so that we may embrace and love the majesty of that very author, his goodness, wisdom, and remarkable care in the greatest matters, in moderate affairs, in matters of the least importance” (Bodin 2008, xxx)

Bodin believed that the French civil wars were occasioned, at least partly, by God’s dissatisfaction – God was punishing the French for their growing irreligious sentiment. The Theatrum has been described as an attack against those arrogant and ungodly philosophers, or naturalists, who wish to explain everything without reference to the creator and father of all things that is God. God is the author of all existing things, and the contemplation of nature brings us closer to Him. Furthermore, contemplating nature makes us love God for the care and goodness that he shows us.

The Theatrum has been written in a pseudo-dialogue form; it is a discussion between an informant, Mystagogus, and his questioner Theorus. The work opens with a short overview of the text, in which Bodin stresses the importance of order for the study of things. This gives him the opportunity to criticize Aristotle, who failed to discuss things in the right order; simpler things must be discussed before more complex ones, and therefore matters of physics should have been discussed after metaphysical things. Arranging all the material that is being considered in a convenient order – simplest notions to be studied first, and difficult ones later – is one of the distinctive characteristics of the Ramist framework of knowledge, as McRae has observed (McRae 1955, 8). McRae considers that, together with the Juris universi distributio, Bodin’s Theatrum “is perhaps the most thoroughly Ramist of any of his works.” Bodin’s two main objectives in the first book of the Theatrum are to prove that there is only one principle in nature, that is, God, and, that it is He who has created this world and He who governs it.

Other topics that Bodin discusses in Book one include matter, form and the causes of things. Furthermore, movement, generation, corruption and growth are considered, as well as things related to them: time and place, void, finitude and infinitude. In Book Two, Bodin examines elements, meteorites, rocks, metals and minerals. Book Three is a discussion on the subjects of the nature of plants and animals. The fourth book contains Bodin’s doctrine concerning soul; angels are also discussed in Book Four. The final book of the Theatrum discusses celestial bodies – their natural movement, the admirable harmony that exists between them, and the structure of the heavens. The final book attests of Bodin’s enmity toward Copernicus’ heliocentric system (Bodin 1596, 554 and especially 574-583); Bodin relies on the writings of Ptolemy, Aristotle, and the Holy Scripture in combating Copernicus. He dismisses Copernicus’ hypothesis concerning the heliocentric system on the grounds that it is “contrary to the evidence of the senses, to the authority of the Scriptures, and incompatible with Aristotelian physics.”

According to a recent interpretation by Blair, Bodin’s objective in writing the Theatrum was first and foremost to combat three impious propositions of ancient philosophy: (1) The eternity of the world; (2) The necessity of the laws of nature; and (3) The mortality of the soul.

Against the Eternity of the World

One solution to the conflict between Aristotelian philosophy of the eternity of the world and the Judeo-Christian account of creation—God has created the world, therefore it is not eternal, had been proposed by Thomas Aquinas. He argued that human reason alone cannot establish whether the world is eternal or not; the problem can be solved only by an appeal to faith and to biblical authority. Bodin’s argument differs from that of Aquinas. Bodin offers a rational demonstration based on “arguments for an all-powerful God, who knows no necessity and has complete free will”. Several scholars have observed that Bodin’s emphasis on divine free will is “characteristic of Christian nominalists like Duns Scotus and of Jewish philosophers like Maimonides” (Blair 1997, 118) The concluding syllogism for the “voluntary first cause” that is God is as follows: “Nothing can be eternal by nature whose first cause is voluntary; but the first cause of the world is voluntary; therefore the world cannot be eternal by nature, since its state and condition depend on the decision and free will of another.” (Blair 1997, 118)

Against Natural Necessity

The second conclusion is drawn from the unlimited freedom of God’s will: not only is it impossible that the world should be eternal, but furthermore it is arranged according to a divine plan. According to Bodin, providential divine governance is twofold: ordinary providence, where laws that govern nature under so-called normal circumstances are chosen by God, and extraordinary providence, where God is able to suspend those laws at will at any time he chooses, in order to intervene in the world (Blair 1997, 120). Bodin offers the following explanation for the existence of apparently useless or evil features of nature. He begins by claiming that everything in creation is good, and evil is simply the absence of good; this same idea is repeated in the Paradoxon. Then he attempts to illustrate, through various examples, that even things that are apparently evil in nature serve a “useful purpose in God’s good and wise plan” (Blair 1997, 122).

Immortality of the Soul

Bodin’s demonstration concerning the immortality of the soul is based on the soul’s intermediate nature: the soul is both corporeal and immortal. Blair defines this particular demonstration as “possibly Bodin’s most noteworthy innovation” and as a “significant departure from the standard or orthodox accounts [concerning the soul]” (Blair 1997, 137; 142). In combating the mortality of the soul, Blair writes, Bodin is reacting against all forms of impious philosophizing: against Averroes for denying the personal immortality of the soul; against Pomponazzi for claiming that philosophy shows the soul to be mortal; and against all those, like Pomponazzi or even Duns Scotus, who deny the rational demonstrability of this central doctrine. But Bodin calls his opponents only “Epicureans,” using the term to designate at first, generally, those who doubt the immortality of the soul, then more specifically those who, barely above the level of brutes, take pleasure and pain as the measure of good and evil and believe in the random distribution of atoms. (Blair 1997, 138)

Bodin’s first argument in favor of the immortality of the soul is based on empirical evidence concerning the ability of the soul to function independently of the body: during ecstatic experiences, as these have been conveyed by many learned men, it has been reported that the soul is able to hear, feel and understand while being temporarily transported outside the living body. Two further demonstrations follow. First, Bodin affirms that extremes are always joined by intermediates; passing from one extreme to another always necessitates passing through a 'middle' being and that there exists only two extremes in the world; (1) Form completely separated from matter, meaning angels and demons, and (2) Form entirely concrete, inseparable from matter, except by destruction, that is, natural bodies. Between these two extremes there must necessarily exist some intermediate which joins the two. This intermediate is form separable from matter, or, as Bodin states it, the soul. He concludes: “if therefore the human soul [mens] is separable from the dead body, it follows necessarily that it survives and carries out its actions without the operation of the senses” (Blair 1997, 139). Bodin’s final demonstration is as follows:

Given the extremes, of which one is totally corruptible (natural elements or bodies) and one is totally incorruptible (angels and demons), there must be an intermediate, which is corrupted in one part of itself, but free from corruption in the other; but this is nothing other than man, who participates in both natures: brute elements, plants, stones are far inferior to man in worth and dignity, and since man alone associates with angels and demons, he alone can link the celestial to the terrestrial, superior to inferior, immortal to mortal. (Blair 1997, 139)

Humans participate in both extremes and yet form an entity that is distinct from them. According to the standard view, the corporeal body is connected with the incorporeal soul, but Bodin’s demonstration is not built on this distinction because, for him, the soul is both immortal and corporeal. As Blair has observed, “for Bodin the human hypostasis mediates between form separated from matter (disembodied souls and angels) and form fully embedded in matter (as in all natural bodies), by virtue of its soul, which is corporeal, yet separable from the material body” (Blair 1997, 139-40). The following passage elucidates Bodin’s rather peculiar demonstration:

The body of the soul is not material, but spiritual – yet corporeal nonetheless: “from which it follows that human souls, angels and demons consist of the same corporeal nature, but not of bone, nor of flesh, but of an invisible essence. Like air, or fire, or both, or of a celestial essence, surpassing with its fineness the most subtle bodies: thus, even if we grant it is a spiritual body, it is a body nonetheless.” (Blair 1997, 140)

According to Blair, Bodin constructs a new type of natural philosophy that seeks to combine religion with philosophy, a combination of philosophical research concerning causes with a pious recognition of divine providence and the greatness of God.

Although Bodin often refers to Holy Scripture, he also constantly reminds us of the importance of reason and reasoning – so long as we do not infringe upon the limits of reason. Bodin uses physics to serve religious ends and the fundamental principle behind Bodin’s strategy is the Augustinian precept, later adopted by Aquinas in his synthesis of reason and faith, that truth is one and that there is, indeed, unity of knowledge: a necessary agreement between philosophy and religion exists, and therefore “natural philosophy as a reasoned investigation can never contradict true religion” (Blair 1997, 143).

8. Other Works

a. Juris universi distributio

The Juris universi distributio (Fr. Exposé du droit universel) was first published in 1578, but, as the Dedicatory Epistle of the Methodus informs us, it already existed in manuscript form twelve years earlier. Unlike later editions of the work that were published as books, the first edition of the Distributio was in the form of a poster, measuring approximately 40 by 180 cm, to be hung on the walls of universities.

Bodin’s objective in writing the Juris universi distributio was to arrive at a systematization of universal law. He sought to realize this by the study of history, paired with a comparative method which analyzes the different legal systems that either currently exist or have existed in the past. Bodin uses the same method in his main political works, (République and Methodus), in which comparative public law and its historical study permit Bodin to erect a theory of the state. Bodin is interested in “universal history”, of which his Methodus is an example, in the same way that he is interested in “universal law”, and it seems that the same type of historical and comparative method may be used in discovering them.

According to Bodin, law is divided into two categories: natural (ius naturale) and human (ius humanum). Bodin thus rejects the common threefold division based on the Digest – natural law, law of peoples and civil law – because he considers dichotomy more convenient. The two principal divisions of human law are ius civile (civil law) and ius gentium (law of peoples). Bodin strongly criticizes law professors, or Romanists, for he writes that they have concentrated almost exclusively on ius civile – particularly the civil law of the Romans - and that, as a consequence, the ius gentium has not been properly studied, and, therefore, has no proper methodology. Bodin’s personal interest lies precisely in the ius gentium because it is concerned with the universal laws that are common to all peoples. The methods of the Romanists are inadequate for the study of ius gentium because the ius civile varies from state to state and no universally valid truths can be derived from it; in this sense it is not even part of legal science. A new critical method is therefore required; a method that is both historical and comparative.

Bodin’s system of universal law is a drastic rupture with the exegetical methods of the Middle Ages. Medieval jurists applied Roman law to their own societies and saw no problem in doing so. It is with the arrival of the so-called humanist scholars, in the sixteenth century, and their use of the methods of classical philology, that the internal coherence and authority of the Corpus juris civilis were challenged.

b. Moral Philosophy

Bodin’s Paradoxon quod nec virtus ulla in mediocritate nec summum hominis bonum in virtutis actione consistere possit (Fr. Paradoxe de Jean Bodin qu’il n’y a pas de vertu en médiocrité ni au milieu de deux vices) was first published in Latin in 1596, although Bodin had completed the text in 1591. Two French translations were later published. Bodin’s own translation dates from 1596, but it remained unpublished until 1598. Bodin’s translation may be considered as a revised version of the Latin text, rather than its simple translation. The Latin edition includes a preface that does not exist in the French version.

The Paradoxon has been written in dialogue form, and is a discussion between a father and a son. During the course of the dialogue, the son repeatedly refers to the authority of Aristotle. His opinions are often refuted by the father, who refers to the writings of Plato and to the Holy Scripture. The term “paradox” in the title refers to the fact that Bodin acknowledges his views to be in contradiction with the moral opinions that were generally accepted in his day – especially concerning the Aristotelian doctrine of the mean.

The work opens with a discussion concerning the question of good and evil and that of divine justice. This is followed by an outline of the basic structure of Bodin’s moral philosophy: God is the sovereign good, or, “that which is the most useful and the most necessary to every imaginable creature”. He is also the source of all other things that are good. Evil is defined as the privation of good – a definition that Bodin traces to St. Augustine. The same definition is found in the Theatrum, where it is used to support the argument that everything in Creation is good – God has not created anything evil (Blair 1997, 122). The good of man and a contented life are discussed, followed by a discussion concerning particular virtues and vices, as well as their origins. Bodin refutes Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean. Discussion concerning moral and intellectual virtues follows. Bodin then examines prudence; he then claims that prudence alone helps us choose between good and evil. The final section discusses wisdom and the love of God. The father affirms that wisdom is found in the fear of offending God. Fear of God is inseparable from love of God – together they form the basis of wisdom.

c. Writings on Education

Bodin wrote or compiled four works where he discusses the education of children: The Address to the Senate and People of Toulouse on the Education of Youth in the Commonwealth, Epître à son neveu, Sapientia moralis epitome, and Consilium de institutione principis aut alius nobilioris ingenii. The earliest of them, the Oratio, is a discourse that was given in Toulouse in 1559, and published the same year. The three other works date from a later period; the Epître is a letter written to Bodin’s nephew, dated November 1586, and the Epitome was first published in 1588. Evidence within the Consilia suggests that it was written sometime between 1574 and 1586, although it remained unpublished until 1602.

Address to the Senate and People of Toulouse on the Education of Youth in the Commonwealth

Bodin’s Oratio de instituenda in repub. juventute ad senatum populumque tolosatem (Fr. Le discours au sénat et au peuple de Toulouse sur l’éducation à donner aux jeunes gens dans la république) is the most valuable single document that informs us of Bodin’s stay in Toulouse in the 1550's. Furthermore, it is Bodin’s earliest surviving work on education and contains a detailed portrayal of the humanist ideal that Bodin embraced during this period.

Nothing is more salutary to a city than to have those who shall one day rule the nation be educated according to virtue and science. It is only by providing youth with proper education and intellectual and moral culture that the glory of France, and that of its cities could be preserved. Art and science are the auxiliaries of virtue, and one cannot conceive of living – much less leading a happy life – without them. Bodin urges the people of Toulouse to participate in the movement of the Renaissance. The town is well-known for its faculty of law, and he argues that the study of humanities and belles-lettres should also be appended to the study of law.

In Bodin's time, the children of Toulouse were either given a public education – in which case they were most often sent to Paris – or taught privately, in domicile. While both systems have their inconveniences, Bodin considers that public schooling must be favored. In order to prevent children from being sent to Paris to be educated, however, a collège must be built in Toulouse and the children of Toulouse should be educated in their own hometown. Bodin proposes that all children – including gifted children belonging to the poorest classes – be sent to public schools where they shall be taught according to the official method.

Epître de Jean Bodin touchant l’institution de ses enfants à son neveu

This short work is Bodin’s response in the form of a letter dated November 9, 1586, to his nephew’s enquiry concerning the education of children. Bodin’s nephew had welcomed a newborn son to his family, and had turned to Bodin for advice on how to give him a proper education. Bodin’s advice came in the form of a description of how he taught his own children when they were three and four years old.

Bodin began by teaching his children the Latin names of things. Having observed that they have a good memory and necessary mental capacities, Bodin asked them to repeat more abstract words, and began informing them about such things as how old the world is (5,534 years), how many planets there are, and the names of these planets. He taught them the names of body parts, what senses we have, the virtues and vices, and so forth. Knowledge of different things was acquired by a continuous daily exercise. Soon after, Bodin had his children interrogate each other, thus allowing himself to retire from this task. The study of Latin grammar soon followed, as well as the study of moral sentences in both French and Latin. The children would then begin the study of arithmetic and geometry. This was followed by the translation of Cicero’s writings from Latin to French.

Sapientia moralis epitome

The Sapientia moralis epitome was published in Paris in 1588. It consists of 210 moral maxims that have been arranged into groups of seven sentences. Each group is a discussion upon a common topic: youth and education, nature, truth and opinion, virtue, war, liberty, marriage, etc. The majority of the maxims are Bodin’s own formulations of ideas expressed by Ovid, Horace, Juvenale and Lucretius.

Consilium de institutione principis

Bodin’s Consilium de institutione principis was first published in 1602 as part of a compilation entitled Consilia Iohannis Bodini Galli et Fausti Longiani Itali de principe recte instituendo. Although the determination of a precise date seems impossible, evidence within the work suggests that Bodin composed it sometime between 1574 and 1586.

The Consilium is a collection of precepts for the young princes of the Saxon court. The content of the Consilium is in many ways identical to the views that were expressed in the Epître, although the Consilium is more detailed. Young princes are to be taught in small groups, and their eating and sleeping habits are to be observed, so that they remain alert and in good health.

Bodin particularly recommends the study of two texts: Peter Ramus’ Dialectica, and Pibrac du Faur’s Quatrains. The education of the princes is to be completed by the study of law and the art of government. Knowledge of practical matters should be acquired by studying “the state of the republica and its offices and the laws, customs and natures of various peoples.” Knowledge in practical matters is necessary in order to acquire prudence. According to Bodin, only a prudent prince is worthy of his people (Rose 1980, 57-58).

d. Bodin’s Surviving Correspondence

Several letters from Bodin’s personal correspondence have survived to the present day; (for the complete list, see Couzinet 2001, 32-36). Chauviré published a series of letters as an Appendix to his Jean Bodin, auteur de la République. The most important among them are Bodin’s letter, written in Latin, to one Jean Bautru des Matras, as well as Bodin’s account from January 1583, addressed to his brother-in-law, regarding the events that took place in Antwerp when the Duke of Alençon was trying to help the Low Countries in their efforts to drive out the Spanish.

Later, Moreau-Reibel made a discovery in France’s Bibliothèque Nationale, recueil manuscrit 4897 of the library’s fonds français, and published a series of five letters that had been brought together by a certain Philippe Hardouyn. These letters were written between 1589-93. Together they complete our understanding of the possible reasons that made Bodin a ligueur. A sixth letter from this same period is Bodin’s notorious letter of 20 January 1590, in which he explains the reasons that made him a supporter of the Catholic League. A couple of letters from the correspondence between Bodin and Walsingham, dating from 1582, have also survived.

9. Influence

As the work’s numerous editions and translations attest, Bodin’s République was widely read in Europe after its publication, up until the mid-seventeenth century. It was subsequently forgotten, however, and Bodin’s influence during the eighteenth century was only marginal. It was not until the twentieth century that his works, slowly, but decisively, began to interest scholars again. Growing interest in his works has assured Bodin the place he deserves among the most important political thinkers of the sixteenth century. New translations and modern editions of his works have made his ideas accessible to wider audiences.

Among Bodin’s best-known ideas is the Theory of Climate that is currently most often associated with another French philosopher, Montesquieu (1689-1755). Bodin’s comparative and empirical approach in the fields of historical methodology, jurisprudence, and religion represented a break with medieval traditions. He was among the most influential legal philosophers of his time, and his Colloquium heptaplomeres is one of the earliest works of comparative religious studies. Bodin’s ideas concerning religious tolerance and the abolition of slavery found an echo among European writers of both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Although the Colloquium heptaplomeres remained unpublished until the 1840s, scholars were familiar with its ideas due to manuscript copies that circulated in Europe. The numerous editions of his Démonomanie, on the other hand, testify to an interest previously demonstrated toward his ideas regarding witchcraft. Finally, Bodin’s Response to the Paradoxes of Malestroit includes one of the earliest formulations of the Quantity Theory of Money.

In political theory, Bodin’s most influential contribution remains his Theory of Sovereignty, and the conceptualization of sovereign power. A majority of scholars have labeled Bodin as an absolutist. For others, he favored a type of constitutionalism. Still others have observed that he shifted from the perceived constitutionalism of his early writings toward a more absolutist theory in the République. His writings were received in various ways in different parts of Europe, and interpretations regarding them were often contradictory – depending on the country. His Theory of Sovereignty was used by royalists and parliamentarians alike to defend their widely differing opinions. In France, for example, his political theory was largely absorbed into the absolutist movement and the doctrine of the divine right of kings that became highly influential soon after Bodin’s death; one needs only to think of Cardinal Richelieu and Louis XIV. For example, Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627-1704), who was tutor to the oldest son of Louis XIV, argued in favor of an absolute hereditary monarchy from Scriptural sources in his Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture (Politique tirée des propres paroles de l'Écriture sainte). Other French writers who incorporated absolutist elements from Bodin’s theory in their own writings are Pierre Grégoire de Toulouse (c. 1540-1597), Charles Loyseau (1566-1627), and Cardin Le Bret (1558-1655).

The term “monarchomachs” (Fr., monarchomaques) denotes the writers – Protestants or Catholics – who opposed the powers of the monarch. The term was first coined by the Scottish jurist and royalist William Barclay (1546-1608) in his De Regno et Regali Potestate (1600). Similar to what Bodin had done in his République, Barclay defended the rights of kings. Giovanni Botero (1544-1617) was one of the earliest writers to have used the ｅxpression “reason of state” (Fr., Raison d’état) in his work Della ragion di Stato (1589). Bodin’s political writings may have been one of the sources used by Botero and his followers.

In Germany, Johannes Althusius (1557-1638) adopted Bodin’s theory of sovereignty in his Politica methodice digesta (1603), but argued that the community is always sovereign. In this sense, every commonwealth – no matter what its form may be – is popular. Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius published his renowned De jure belli ac pacis in 1625; Grotius does not conceal his admiration for Bodin, nor for the method used by French writers that consisted of combining the study of history with the study of law.

Bodin’s République was among the works that introduced the idea of legislative sovereignty in England. His considerable influence upon Elizabethan and Jacobean political thought in England, one scholar has observed, was largely due to his precise definition of sovereignty. Among the political writers who defended the powers of the king, Sir Robert Filmer (c. 1588-1653) drew heavily upon Bodin’s writings. one shorter text, in particular, The Necessity of the Absolute Power of all Kings and in particular of the King of England, published in 1648, is hardly anything more than a collection of ideas expressed in the République. John Locke’s First Treatise of Government (1689) may, therefore, be considered not only a refutation of Filmer’s political ideas, but also a critical commentary upon Bodin’s political theory. Thomas Hobbes, in his The Elements of Law (1640), cites Bodin by name and approves Bodin’s opinion according to which sovereign power in the commonwealth may not be divided (II.8.7. “Of the Causes of Rebellion”). This principle of indivisible sovereign power is also expressed in Hobbes’ later political works De cive (1642) and Leviathan (1651).

10. References and Further Reading

a. Primary Sources

Oppiani De venatione (1555)
Oratio de instituenda iuventute… (1559)
Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem (1566)
La réponse aux paradoxes de Malestroit (1568)
La harangue de Messire Charles des Cars (1573)
Les Six Livres de la République (1576; all references in this article are to the edition of 1583)
Apologie de Réne Herpin pour la République (before 1581)
Recueil de tout ce qui s’est négocié en la compagnie du tiers état… (1577)
Juris universi distributio (1578)
De la démonomanie des sorciers (1580)
De republica libri sex (1586)
Sapientiae moralis epitome (1588)
Paradoxon (1596)
Universae naturae theatrum (1596)
Consilia de principe recte instituendo (1602)
Colloquium heptaplomeres (1841)
Epître de Jean Bodin touchant l’institution de ses Enfans de 1586 (1841)

i. Modern Editions of Bodin’s works

1. Collected Works

Bodin, Jean. Oeuvres philosophiques de Jean Bodin. Ed. Pierre Mesnard. Trans. Pierre Mesnard. Paris: PUF, 1951.
- Includes the following Latin works, together with their French translations: Oratio de instituenda in repub. juventute ad senatum populumque tolosatem, Juris universi distributio, and Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem.
Bodin, Jean. Selected Writings on Philosophy, Religion and Politics. Ed. Paul L. Rose. Genève: Droz, 1980.
- Includes the following seven works: Bodin’s letter to his nephew (1586), Consilium de institutione principis (1574-86), Sapientia moralis epitome (1588), Latin dedicatory letter to the Paradoxon quod nec virtus ulla in mediocritate nec summum hominis bonum in virtutis actione consistere possit (1596) and the French translation of the text, Le Paradoxe de Jean Bodin Angevin (1598), Bodin’s letter to Jean Bautru des Matras (1560s), as well as a letter to a friend in which he gives reasons for supporting the Catholic League (1590).

2. Individual Works

Bodin, Jean. Method for the Easy Comprehension of History. Trans. Beatrice Reynolds. New York: Columbia University Press, 1945.
- Includes an introduction by Reynolds.
Bodin, Jean. Six Books of the Commonwealth. Abr. ed. Trans. Marian J. Tooley. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955.
- An abridgment of Bodin’s major work, together with an introduction.
Bodin, Jean. The Six Bookes of a Commonweal. Trans. Richard Knolles. Ed. Kenneth Douglas McRae. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962.
- This is the only existing full English translation of the work; facsimile reprint of Knolles’ English translation of 1606 that compares the French and Latin versions of the text. McRae’s introductory material discusses Bodin’s life, his career and his influence.
Bodin, Jean. Address to the Senate and People of Toulouse on Education of Youth in the Commonwealth. Trans. George Albert Moore. Chevy Chase, Md: Country Dollar Press, 1965.
- Moore’s translation of an important and interesting early text by Bodin.
Bodin, Jean. Colloquium of the Seven about Secrets of the Sublime. Trans. Marion Leathers Kuntz. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1975. Second edition. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008.
- First complete modern translation of the work, together with highly informative introductory material.
Bodin, Jean. On Sovereignty. Trans. Julian H. Franklin. Ed. Julian H. Franklin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
- Contains chapters 8 and 10 of the First book, and chapters 1 and 5 of the Second book of the République. Concentrates on Bodin’s analysis of sovereignty. Franklin’s textual notes are informative.
Bodin, Jean. Response to the Paradoxes of Malestroit. Trans. Henry Tudor. Eds. Henry Tudor and R. W. Dyson. Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum, 1997.
- Most recent English translation of the text, it is based on the first edition of the work, but also included are the major changes that occurred between the first (1568) and second (1578) editions. Includes a concise and useful introduction.
Bodin, Jean. On the Demon-Mania of Witches. Abr. ed. Trans. Randy A. Scott and Jonathan L. Pearl. Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 2001.
- Abridged translation of Bodin’s Démonomanie that contains about two-thirds of the original text and informative notes.

b. Secondary Sources

Blair, Ann. The Theater of Nature. Jean Bodin and Renaissance Science. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1997.
- Indispensable study concerning the methods and practices of Renaissance science in the light of Bodin’s Theatrum.
Brown, John L. The Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem of Jean Bodin. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1939. Reprint. New York: AMS Press, 1969.
- Central study that analyses the background and influence of Bodin’s Methodus. Brown establishes that Bodin’s earlier work contains many of the political and legal principles that were further developed in the République.
Franklin, Julian H. Jean Bodin and the Rise of Absolutist Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
- An influential study on the topic of the formation of Bodin’s absolutist view, as it is expressed in the République.
Heller, Henry. “Bodin on Slavery and Primitive Accumulation.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 25.1 (1994): 53-65.
- Argues that Bodin conceived of slavery not only as something irrational and unnatural, but as a permanent threat to the stability of the state.
McRae, Kenneth D. “Ramist Tendencies in the Thought of Jean Bodin.” Journal of the History of Ideas 16.3 (1955): 306-323.
- Argues that several of Bodin’s writings reveal the influence of Ramist concepts; even the République (in which the Ramist influence is less evident) can be described as Ramist in its structure.
O’Brien, Denis P. “Bodin’s Analysis of Inflation.” History of Political Economy 32.2 (2000): 267-292.
- A longer version of the introduction that O’Brien wrote to the 1997 edition of Bodin’s Response. Argues that Bodin should be regarded as the pioneer formulator of the quantity theory of money.
Pearl, Jonathan L. “Humanism and Satanism: Jean Bodin’s Contribution to the Witchcraft Crisis.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 19.4 (1982): 541-548.
- On Bodin’s influence on the “witchcraft crisis”. Pearl reminds us that the Renaissance witnessed, not only a revival of the arts and the birth of modern science, but also the re-appearance of the occult: magic, astrology and witchcraft.
Remer, Gary. “Dialogues of Toleration: Erasmus and Bodin.” Review of Politics 56.2 (1994): 305-336.
- Examines two different types of dialogues of toleration; Erasmus' common truth and Bodin's subjective. Erasmus’ traditional conception aims at the discovery of truth in religious questions; Bodin’s conception, on the contrary, does not presuppose that a common truth may be discovered, since every opinion is one part of the truth.
Rose, Paul Lawrence. Bodin and the Great God of Nature. The Moral and Religious Universe of a Judaiser. Genève: Droz, 1980.
- A valuable study concerning Bodin’s ideas on religion and ethics; many of Bodin’s less-known works are considered. Rose argues that Bodin went through three religious conversions in his lifetime.
Salmon, John Hearsey McMillan. “The Legacy of Jean Bodin: Absolutism, Populism or Constitutionalism?” The History of Political Thought 17. Thorverton (1996): 500-522.
- Discusses the ways in which Bodin’s ideas were understood and transformed in France’s neighboring countries during the seventeenth century.
Tooley, Marian J. “Bodin and the Mediaeval Theory of Climate.” Speculum 28.1 (1953): 64-83.
- A scholarly investigation of Bodin’s medieval predecessors regarding the theory of climates. Argues that contrary to his predecessors, Bodin was more interested in the practical implications of the things he observed.
Ulph, Owen. “Jean Bodin and the Estates-General of 1576.” Journal of Modern History 19.4 (1947): 289-296.
- Examines Bodin’s role, as deputy from the bailiwick of Vermandois, during the estates-general at Blois in 1576.
Wolfe, Martin. “Jean Bodin on Taxes: The Sovereignty-Taxes Paradox.” Political Science Quarterly 83.2 (1968): 268-284.
- Argues that Bodin’s main objective in writing about taxes was to push for reform in France’s fiscal system.

i. Bibliography

Couzinet, Marie-Dominique, ed. Jean Bodin. Roma: Memini, 2001.
- Indispensable for conducting serious research on Bodin. Contains references to over 1,500 articles, books and other documents.

ii. Conference proceedings and Article Collections

Denzer, Horst, ed. Jean Bodin – Proceedings of the International Conference on Bodin in Munich. München: C.H. Beck, 1973.
- Fine collection of twenty-four articles (in English, French and German) by the foremost Bodin scholars. Part II contains discussions, and part III an exhaustive bibliography on Bodin from the year 1800 onwards.
Franklin, Julian H., ed. Jean Bodin. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006.
- Collection of twenty previously published articles or book chapters (in English).

Author Information

Tommi Lindfors
Email: tommi.lindfors@helsinki.fi
University of Helsinki
Finland

전문 철학자 들이 쓴 철학 기사의 백과 사전.

'사회학' 카테고리의 다른 글

나치 강제 수용소 목록 (0)	2019.02.17
홀로코스트 -Holocaust (0)	2019.02.17
열린사회와 그 적들 1 (0)	2019.02.16
동성애 (0)	2019.02.15
여성 범죄자를 연구 하는 가이드 (0)	2019.02.15

장 보 딘 (c. 1529-1596)

장 보 딘 (c. 1529-1596)

목차

1. 삶과 직업

2. 역사의 쉬운 이해를 위한 방법

a. 역사 연구 방법론

b. 기후의 이론

3. 커먼 빌의 여섯 부 대

a. Concept of Sovereignty

b. Definition of Law

c. Limitations upon the Authority of the Sovereign Prince

d. Difference between Form of State and Form of Government

e. The Question of Slavery

4. Bodin’s Economic Thought

a. Quantitative Theory of Money

b. The State’s Finances and the Question of Taxation and Property Rights

5. Writings Concerning Religion

a. Colloquium heptaplomeres and the Question of Religious Tolerance

b. The Question of True Religion and Bodin’s Personal Faith

6. on Witchcraft

7. Natural Philosophy

8. Other Works

a. Juris universi distributio

b. Moral Philosophy

c. Writings on Education

d. Bodin’s Surviving Correspondence

9. Influence

10. References and Further Reading

a. Primary Sources

i. Modern Editions of Bodin’s works

1. Collected Works

2. Individual Works

b. Secondary Sources

i. Bibliography

ii. Conference proceedings and Article Collections

Author Information

전문 철학자 들이 쓴 철학 기사의 백과 사전.

'사회학' 카테고리의 다른 글

관련글

티스토리툴바