## 1. Bodin's Life in Politics and Religion: Concord or Tolerance?


Jean Bodin was born near Angers between June 1529 and June 1530 to
Guillaume Bodin, a wealthy "master tailor," and Catherine
Dutertre. Bodin studied in his hometown and while still young, took
the habit of the Carmelites and lived in the monastery of
Notre-Dames-des-Carmes. In 1545 he traveled to Paris with some of his
religious brothers to study philosophy under the tutelage of the
Carmelite Guillaume Prevost. The two years Bodin spent in
capital city were rich in intellectual and spiritual
experiences. In 1550 he
studied at the respected law faculty of the University of Toulouse
under the direction of Arnaud du Ferrier. 


At the end of his studies in Toulouse, Bodin became the scientific
editor for the Latin translation (*Oppiani De venatione*, 1555)
from the Greek of Oppian of Apamea's third-century treatise on
hunting. In this work Bodin included a warm dedication to his
protector, Gabriel Bouvery, Bishop of Angers. In 1559, he published in Latin an
*Address to the Senate and People of Toulouse on the Education of
Youth in the Commonwealth* (*Oratio de instituenda in republica
juventute ad senatum populumque Tolosatem*, 1559). Here Bodin
praises humanism and calls for it to be taught in the public schools.
According to Bodin, if humanism were included in the cultural
education the youth received, the political and religious harmony of
the State would be strengthened (*Oratio* 25):



> 
>  I maintain that there may be no law so sacred and divine that could
> better reinforce the social ties of the city than a common and
> identical education for all children. Even in spiritual matters, it
> enables the realization of the most perfect harmony of convictions
> between all citizens (*summa conspiratione civium*). However,
> if the role of ecclesiastical leaders is to ensure that the true
> religion (*religo vera*) is not stained by superstition or
> impiety, it is also the role of the magistrates, who hold the reins of
> the State, to ensure that the youth do not forsake the one, unchanging
> religion to follow other, diverse beliefs (*ab una et eadem
> religione in varias distrahatur*). In this manner we may conserve
> the semblance of a State. [trans. by the 
>  author][1]
> 



 One education for all citizens and one religion for all the faithful
were Bodin's conditions for civil agreement and cooperation within a
State. Cultural and religious diversity were to be avoided. These
ideas remained important themes throughout his life.


In 1560 Bodin returned to Paris where he was received by the
Parlement as "Counsel to the king." In 1562 he signed the
oath of Catholicity that was required by the Chapter of Notre Dame of
Paris as of November 15, 1561. At the beginning of the civil wars,
Bodin wrote a letter to Jean Bautru of Matras, a counselor in the
Parlement of Paris who was also attracted to evangelical ideas. In the
letter, Bodin believed that the "true faith" was the cause of the
civil conflict that afflicted France. Nevertheless he added that there
was no better proof of Christianity's truth than that "human
forces conspire against it. If religion can be considered as the
grounds and cause of wars, then those wars may be like a caring doctor
who cannot heal a deep-seated disease without causing great pain or
provoking much moaning from the patient." Thus, Constantine
struggled against the tyrants for the "Christian
religion," and before him Moses and Judas Macchabee fought
against superstition (*Lettre Bautru*, [Ro] 79-80). Bodin's
opinion on this subject is contained in a brief document in which he
is less concerned to discuss the causes of the current war than he is
to describe the distinguishing characteristics of his faith. The
sages of antiquity and the Christian era, he recalls, all
distinguished themselves through their high morals and piety.


In 1566 Bodin published *Method for the Easy Comprehension
of History* (*Methodus*). In this work Bodin developed
his conception of universal, historical knowledge. Not only did
historical and juridical knowledge enable the proper management and
government of the State, but also rendered the State's forms and
changes (*conversiones*) intelligible.


Bodin continually surprises readers with the wide range of his
knowledge. For example in his *Response to the Paradoxes of
Monsieur de Malestroit* (*Response*, 1568), he explains
his views on economic and financial matters. His theses on free trade,
the benefits of exportation, and the error of establishing the value
of money through royal decree regardless of the laws of the market,
were unexpected by his contemporaries. His reputation grew along with
his interest in public life and the problems of the realm. Also in
1568, he attended the Estates of Narbonne, possibly as an envoy for
the central government. In 1570, he became the *gruyer* and
prosecutor for the king in a commission for the forests of
Normandy. During a debate on the ancient, royal right to collect
tithes on the sale of forests, Bodin opposed the tithes and the
sale. He considered both as forms of alienation; the king was only a
common user of forests that actually belonged to the people. King
Charles IX ignored Bodin's objections and issued an edict in 1571
alienating his rights. Regardless of this tension with the king, Bodin
became the "master of petitions" and counselor to the
king's youngest brother, Francois-Hercule, who was then the
Duke of Alencon. On August 8, 1573, Bodin was in Metz as a
member of the delegation that received the ambassadors of Poland, who
came to offer their country's crown to the king's brother Henry, Duke
of Anjou. The Bishop and Duke of Langres, Charles des Cars, welcomed
the ambassadors in a speech delivered in Latin. Bodin immediately
translated the speech into French (*La Harangue*, 1573). On
this occasion, Bodin contacted the negotiators who favored Henry's
election to the Polish throne, including the Bishop of Valence, Jean
de Monluc, and the State Counselor, Guy Du Faur de Pibrac. Bodin had
known de Pibrac for many years, and Bodin later dedicated his
*Commonwealth* to him. These contacts favored Bodin's entry
into the court of Henry, King of Poland, who also became King of
France in 1574. In the meantime, Bodin's social situation improved
thanks to his marriage to Francoise Trouilliart on February 25,
1576. After the marriage, he succeeded his recently deceased
brother-in-law, Nicolas Trouilliart to the position of the king's
prosecutor at the *presidial* of Laon. 



 The year 1576 was central in Bodin's life; in that year he published
his *Six Books of the Commonwealth*
(*Republique*). In this monumental work Bodin tries to
restore the institutional bases of the French kingdom, which the
on-going war threatened to undermine on account of, among other
things, the Reformers' doctrine concerning tyranny and tyrannicide.
For example, Bodin writes (*Republique* I, 8)
about certain authors of slander and treatises:



> 
> 
> ...those who have written on the duties of
>  magistrates[2] 
>  and other similar
>  books[3] 
>  are wrong to support the idea that the Estates of the People [Estates
> General] are more important than the prince. Such ideas make obedient
> subjects revolt when they should obey their sovereign prince
> [...] These notions are absurd (*absurdes*) and incompatible
> (*incompatibles*). [trans. by the author; cf.[Mc] 95] 
> 
> 



 In describing these doctrines as "absurd and
incompatible," Bodin levels a harsh critique and lays the basis
for his response in his *Six Books of the Commonwealth*. Bodin
supported the right of resistance in general, but he opposed the right
"to take up arms." Armed resistance was a tactic that the
"Huguenots" claimed as a right, especially after the
ravages of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. But 1576 was equally
important in the history of France: after the king issued the Edict of
Beaulieu (Paix de Monsieur) on May 6 and convened the Estates General
in Blois, the wars of religion briefly subsided. In the royal edict,
next to the words "those followers of the so-called Reformed
Religion," a distinction is made between "United"
Catholics or the "Union of Catholics," and the
"associated" Catholics. The associated Catholics comprised
the Duke of Montmorency and other supporters of
Francois-Hercule, the current Duke of Anjou and Alencon,
as well as the Catholics who had signed the *Act of
Association* in 1575 with a party of moderate
 Huguenots.[4] 
 The United Catholics was an association of Catholic nobles that allied
with Duke Henry of Guise, advocated the reunification of the faith,
and strove towards religious concord in
France.[5] Leagues
and associations formed on both sides of the religious and political
spectrum until France became more and more divided.


At the same time, Bodin's authority as an expert in affairs of
State was growing. By the end of November 1576, he was received at
court and sometimes dined with the king in order to discuss the most
current events. Elected as the deputy of Vermandois, Bodin was sent
officially to the Estates General of Blois. He recorded the
proceedings of the meeting in his journal (*Recueil*, 1577).
After attaining the presidency of the deputies of the Third Estate,
Bodin revealed his unbending support for the interests of the
"people." Beginning with the meetings held in the middle
of February 1577 in Blois, he refused to compromise with the clergy
and nobility who desired to review the *Cahiers des
Etats* in order to render the Third Estate the
minority. Bodin's haughty remarks jeopardized his position in the eyes
of the king. Moreover he was firmly opposed to two royal petitions for
subsidies as well as the perpetual alienation of crown territory,
which he considered the "property of the people." This
resistance to royal power in matters of financial politics went hand
in hand with his resistance in matters of religious politics. Bodin
wanted to see an end to the religious wars. Totally convinced of the
need for religious concord in order to facilitate political
unification, he was willing to accept temporary measures of toleration
until religious reunification could be achieved through the meeting of
"a national or general council to resolve matters of
religion" which was slated to be held "two years
later." In opposition to propositions made by Versoris (Pierre
Le Tourneur), a fierce member of the League who supported violent
means, Bodin was in agreement with the majority of the Third Estate
whose deputies concluded that "the majority of voices will
implore the king by written request, to unite his subjects in a
Catholic, apostolic, and Roman religion by all holy and legitimate
means without war." Here, in two lines, was the essence of
Bodin's program of concord--not permanent religious
tolerance. In the meantime, on January 6, 1577, Henry III had revoked
the recent Edict of Beaulieu, and declared that he would no longer
tolerate the "so-called Reformed religion" in his realm.
Instead he would allow only the Catholic religion in France. At the
same time, he took charge of the League or the Catholic Union.


The tensions with the sovereign did not advance Bodin's career. He
had to content himself for the time being as the royal prosecutor at
the *presidial* of Laon, where he planned to retire. His
studies and intellectual work increased and in 1578 he published
*Exposition of Universal Law* (*Juris*), a small
methodic textbook in which his theory of universal rights completes
his vision of universal history that he had developed earlier in the
*Method*. His work on judicial and historical research received
not only praise, but also criticism, often harsh, which malicious
readers heaped on him. For example, Michel of La Serre published a
*Remonstrance au Roi sur les pernicieux discours contenus au livre
de la Republique de Bodin* in 1579 that accused Bodin of
attempting to diminish the sovereignty of the king and of defending,
without being explicit, the Huguenots. This was exactly the opposite
of what Bodin was trying to accomplish in his published works. On the
other hand, the second accusation--the secretive membership in
the Reformed religion--has found favor today amongst some modern
biographers who attribute this membership to Bodin as a badge of
honor. Bodin, knowing well that these two accusations were unfounded
did not deem it necessary to respond to his slanderer, *le sieur de
La Serre*, who in the meantime had been imprisoned on orders of
the king. But serious and reasoned opposition to Bodin's work was also
not lacking. Professor Andreas Franckenberger did not accept the
arguments that Bodin leveled against the ideas of Sleidan and
Melanchthon concerning the Old Testament book of 
Daniel.[6] 
They had posited that
according to Daniel's theory of the "four monarchies" the
monarchy following Holy Roman Empire was destined to rule the
world. Pierre de l'Hostal disputed Bodin's effort to reduce, through
mathematic formulae, the number of government 
types.[7] 
As for Bodin's friend,
the medical doctor Augier Ferrier of Toulouse, he also challenged the
numerology with which Bodin attempted to forecast governmental
change.[8] In
response to Ferrier and other detractors, Bodin took up the pen not
only to defend himself but also to attack his critics in his work
*Defense of Jean Bodin by Rene Herpin*
(*Apologie*, 1581).



Bodin's critics became more serious and dangerous with regard to
his *On the Demon-mania of Witches* that was published in 1581
(*Demonomanie*). In his letter of dedication (December
20, 1579) to Christophle de Thou, the first president of the Parlement
of Paris, Bodin explains why he write the work and the meaning of its
title. First, he hoped to denounce the mania, the spiritual errors,
and distraction, as well as the "fury" that sorcerers
possess as they "chase after the devil." He wrote this
treaty with two purposes in mind: on the one hand, "to use it as
a warning to all who will see him [the devil]," and on the other
hand, "to alert readers that there is no crime that could be
more atrocious or deserve more serious punishment." Bodin wished
to speak out against those who "try by all means to rescue the
sorcerers through printed books." He reminded all that
"Satan has men in his grasp who write, publish, and speak
claiming that nothing that is said about sorcerers is true." It
was essential to provide the tools to magistrates and judges, who were
confronted by the accused sorcerers, in order to face this formidable
problem. The work was bold and perilous for its author. Many wondered
if Bodin, so curious about this topic, such an expert, so convinced of
the devil's existence, may not himself have been involved with
witchcraft. These suspicions alarmed the authorities, and on June 3,
1587, the general prosecutor to the Parlement of Paris ordered the
general lieutenant of the baillage of Laon to proceed with a search of
Bodin's home, on suspicion of witchcraft. This inspection brought no
results due to the intervention of eight prominent citizens and two
priests who registered their support of Bodin.


In the 1580s, Bodin's diplomatic responsibilities were reduced at
the same time that the prestige of the Duke of Alencon and
Anjou, whom Bodin had accompanied on a voyage to England and Flanders,
diminished. After the Duke's unsuccessful attempt to seize Antwerp,
Bodin wrote to his brother-in-law, Nicolaus Trouilliart, on January
22, 1583 and explained his useless efforts to dissuade the duke from
such an undertaking. The death of Duke Francois-Hercule, the
youngest brother of the king, raised dynastic problems: the
presumptive heir, Henry of Navarre, was the leader of the Huguenots,
and he was related to Henri III to the 22nd degree. Facing
the eventuality of a "heretic" king, the League took the
upper hand, and the Catholics strengthened their Holy Union. The
"perpetual and irrevocable" Edict of Paris (called the
Peace of Nemour) on July 7, 1585 prohibited the exercise of the
reformed cult, and effectively revoked the Edict of Poitiers of the
September 17, 1577 (also "perpetual and irrevocable"),
which had conceded a slight, provisory measure of tolerance. The edict
of 1585 was confirmed by the Edict of Rouen of July 1588 and was
moreover defined as the "inviolable and fundamental law."
In other words, religious concord, in this case "forced"
concord, represented the highest priority for the lawmakers. There are
two sorts of religious edicts that alternate during the wars: edicts
of pacification and provisional tolerance, and edicts of concord and
union. In the "edicts of pacification," which Bodin
believed were the best means to avoid war, temporary tolerance takes
precedence while final peace is delayed until a time when "God
will grant us the grace to unite the nation in the same fold."
"Edicts of Union" or "Uniformity" (this was
the word preferred by the Kings of England in their *Acts of
Uniformity*) imposed peace through force and thereby implied that
war could begin again. The Estates General of Blois sanctioned, on
October 18, 1588, The Edict of Rouen as "the fundamental and
irrevocable law of this kingdom." The crisis reached its peak
during a quick succession of events that shook the kingdom. First, on
December 23 and 24, 1588, the leader of the Catholics, Henry of
Lorraine [third Duke of Guise], and his younger brother, Louis de
Lorraine, Cardinal of Guise and Archbishop of Reims, were assassinated
on the orders Henry III. Second, in January 1589, the Parlement of
Paris denounced this "massacre," and the theology faculty
of the Sorbonne freed subjects from their oath of faithfulness and
obedience to the king. Finally on August 1, 1589, Jacques
Clement, believing that he was killing a tyrant, assassinated
the king. On August 4, 1589, Henry of Navarre claimed that he was
willing to "be instructed" in order to return to the
Catholic faith. The reality was such that, while the parties fought to
claim the throne, the kingdom was without a king and the royalist
party, which included Bodin, without a leader. During this period,
Bodin, as a public figure, as the man responsible for the city of
Laon, as a well-known authority on constitutional rights, and as a
private citizen, was obligated to define publicly his political
positions.


The *Letter by Jean Bodin in which he discuss the reasons why he
became a member of the League* (*Lettre Bodin*), of January
20, 1590, published in Paris, Lyons, Toulouse, and Brussels, is
clearly a masterpiece of political analysis once it is properly framed
within its historical context. The work continues to be discussed and
disparaged by historians and biographers of Bodin. Bodin explains why
"the inhabitants or most of them" of Laon, including
himself, became members of the "League." Three factors
played a role: first, article 9 of the 1588 Edict of the Union order
all subjects to "join the current union" under the threat
of being judged guilty of
*lese majeste*; second was the fear that
"a regiment of Captain Bourg" would loot the town; third,
assassination attempts had been launched against him [Bodin], from
which he had barely escaped. Some would say that Bodin was forced to
change his political position, but this is not the case; rather, great
changes had occurred in the historical reality. Many, but not
all, of the royalists ("regalists") found themselves
without a king or a party, turned toward the League as the group with
the most similar agenda--the program of concord. In effect, the
royalists and the League had had similar views regarding concord, the
survival of political institutions, and the Gallic State. They
disagreed however about the means to achieve their objectives, most
notably how quickly to go to war against the Huguenots, the excessive
power of the Duke de Guise (which diminished the authority of the
king) and the interference of the pope and Spain. On these points
Bodin, as a loyal officer of the king, kept his distance from the
League. At that time the changes were so distressing that Bodin
believed it was necessary to explain publicly the new circumstances in
which France and the French found themselves. Only with these new
circumstances in mind should Bodin's response be evaluated. He himself
did not question the changes because all that mattered for him was
that he continued to serve the people whose well-being was "the
supreme law." Bodin's continuing loyal service reveals his
position. He had considered all of the matters carefully because he
believed he would face "the judgment of God," concerning
his own actions as well as those of France. If the town should fall
"into the hands of enemy [clearly the Huguenots]," Bodin
wrote that he would worry neither for his life nor his goods,
"as long as I [he] could serve the public." 


Examining the general situation of the warring factions, Bodin
expresses himself frankly. He knew how to judge one of the most
complex moments in French history clearly and without partisanship. By
analyzing how he reaches his opinions, we can better understand his
ideas. The prospects for a peace agreement were small because
"the leaders and the partisans were, whether in the State or the
Church, at odds in their morals, behavior, and inclinations. They
absolutely cannot agree by speaking together." Besides, the two
parties were powerful internally and externally. The Marechaux
of France, the main officers of the crown, the second estate of the
nobility all of the Huguenots, "politiques" and atheists
and nearly all of the princes of the blood belonged to the party of
the King of Navarre. Thus, in Bodin's view, the "politiques and
atheists" were linked to the reformed, which he considered the
enemy. Outside of the kingdom, they were even more powerful and
counted in their alliance: England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, the
four Swiss cantons, and the Protestant princes of Germany. Addressing
the party of the Holy Union, Bodin eulogized its leader, the Duke of
Mayenne [Charles of Lorraine, the third son of Duke Francois de
Guise and brother of the deceased Duke Henry], "whom it seems
that God has appointed to be the Protector of Religion and the
State." In this circumstance, "this good leader, in
addition to the public interest, can rightly pursue vengeance for his
two brothers. Unfortunately he received bad advice from those who
today carry arms and who belong to the opposing party." This
clause reveals much about Bodin's opinion regarding the assassination
of the Guises by Henry III, whom, Bodin believed, had been ill advised
by the Huguenots. The Catholic party was strong in France, having on
its side all of the clergy, all of the capital cities (except for
Bordeaux), nearly all of the provinces, and 150 "good
towns." Abroad, the Catholics could call on the assistance of
the "Pope and the Holy See, Chief of the Union," the
emperor and Catholic King "whom we can call, without flattery,
the greatest prince carrying the title of king in Christendom over the
past 150 years." This list does not count other Catholic powers
including the Dukes of Savoy, Florence, Ferrara, and Mantua, the
Catholic Princes of Germany, and the three Elector Archbishops. As far
as the right of succession, according to his calculations, forecasts,
the study of numbers, and degrees of relationship (to the thirteenth
degree for the Cardinal of Bourbon, Charles, brother of Antoine of
Bourbon--King of Navarre, father of Henry--and to the
fourteenth degree for the present King of Navarre, Henry) Bodin had no
doubt that the Cardinal of Bourbon had a better claim than the King of
Navarre. "Therefore, the King of Navarre, however good and
clever the advice he may have, is, in my judgment, ill-advised when he
does not recognize Monseigneur the Cardinal of Bourbon as king."
Had he been better advised, Henry should have freed his uncle, whom he
was keeping in captivity, and allowed him to govern until succeeding
him. Therefore, "he should stop this belligerence and contract
an alliance with the House of Lorraine, by freeing the innocent Duke
of Guise, [Charles of Lorraine, fourth Duke of Guise and eldest son of
the deceased] and the Duke of Elbeuf, [Charles of Lorraine, count of
Harcourt] who is being punished unjustly." Bodin demonstrates
his political acumen here not so much concerning the forecasts he
makes based on numerology ( he repeats "I foresee," three
or four times) but for the recommendations he makes to the King of
Navarre before ascending the throne. First he writes that the King of
Navarre should be reconciled with the Catholic Church, which Navarre
had already announced. Second, he should give the throne to his uncle,
Charles de Bourbon, which given that Charles was sixty-seven at the
time and died in May 1590, would have been a temporary arrangement.
Henry did not do this. Third, he should have sought an agreement
between the Lorraines or the Guises and the other Catholic princes.
Navarre does this before and after he is crowned Henry IV. These
recommendations prove Bodin's clear political judgment. 


Here we see a relatively little-known side to Bodin which
nevertheless is consistent with the principles he had outlined in his
*Six Books of the Commonwealth*. His advice is perceptive and
objective; however, historians have glossed over this fact in order to
depict Bodin as a man who should have been ashamed of joining the Holy
Union. Yet Bodin was secure in his judgment, when he wrote 
(*Lettre Bodin*):




> 
>  You now see, sir, that the Union's case is better founded than you
> thought [...] I see that everywhere men are making great efforts
> to assist it. I beg God to give you grace. ([Ro] 92-93; trans. by the author).
>  


 The victory of the Union would assure religious concord and the
re-establishment of the institutions of the kingdom. This was Bodin's
wish and this is precisely what the Catholic and "very Christian
King," Henry IV, later brought to fruition through the Edict of
Nantes of 1598. Nowadays, the generally accepted opinion that regards
the Edict of Nantes as a "perpetual and irrevocable" law
of permanent tolerance (or coexistence of two religions) is erroneous.
This judicial measure was intended to restore the social and political
cohesion of the realm in the short term. In the long term it was
aimed at religious reunification in the one sole faith--that of
the king. That is why the Edict was defined as a "law of
concord," through temporary tolerance. This was the
authoritative judgment of Pierre de Beloy, the sole contemporary
jurist and commentator of the
 Edict.[9]
 Bodin did not live to see it. He died of the plague between June and
September 1596, after having declared in his testament that he wished
to be buried in the church of the Franciscans of Laon.


In his last years, Bodin occupied himself with two projects. The
first, *Colloquium of the Seven about Secrets of the Sublime*,
concerned the essence of religion. If indeed it was from Bodin's hand
(and its attribution to him has as many partisans as it has its
critics, as we shall see), it would have been written in these final
years of his life. The work would be published long after his death
(*Heptaplomeres*, 1683). The other, *Theater of Universal
Nature* (*Theatrum*, 1596), dealt with natural philosophy.
He had just enough time to add a dedicatory letter to Jacques Mitte,
Count of Miolins on March 1, 1596. 


## 2. Bodin's Methodology of History and Law


When he began his research, Bodin was drawn to analysis and
systematics as methods for organizing knowledge. In titling his work
"Method", he gave a new and definitive meaning to a word
which previous authors had used to signify both "division"
and "*ratio*" or "the procedure" for
learning a
 discipline.[10] 
 In *Method*, Bodin encourages his readers to use analysis,
which he calls "that pre-eminent guide to the teaching of the
arts [...] in order that understanding of history
(*historiarum scientia*) shall be complete and facile"
(*Methodus*, [Re] 20; Latin [Me] 116). According to Bodin, it
is through analysis that one is able to divide universals into parts,
and to divide each part into subsections without losing the coherence
of the whole. Therefore synthesis, he states, is no longer necessary
because the individual episodes of nearly all historical accounts are
already well adapted to each other*,* and the best historians
have carefully reconstructed these partial and regional accounts into
the tableau of universal history. Bodin writes (*Methodus* [Me]
116):



> 
> I call that history universal which embraces the affairs of all, or of
> the most famous peoples, or of those whose deeds in war and in peace
> have been handed down to us from an early stage of their national
> growth ([Re] 21).
>  



 Bodin ascribes a unique role to political
knowledge, thereby distinguishing his writings from many similar
treatments of the *ars historica* which were published at the
end of the fifteenth
 century.[11] 
 The masterpieces of this genre were produced in Italy such as
Francesco Patrizi, *Della historia dialoghi dece*, 1560; and in
France by Francois Bauduin, *De institutione historiae
universae et ejus cum jurisprudentia conjunctione*, Paris
1561. Although he does not cite Bauduin, Bodin was indebted to this
French author who was the first to describe in a scientific manner the
multiple connections between law and universal history. The chapter
headings include: 



> 
> 1. What History is and of How Many Categories
> 2. The Order of Reading Historical Treatises
> 3. The Proper Arrangement of Historical Material
> 4. The Choice of Historians
> 5. The Correct Evaluation of Histories
> 6. The Type of Government in States
> 7. Refutation of those who Postulate Four Monarchies and the Golden Age
> 8. A System of Universal Time
> 9. Criteria by which to Test the Origins of Peoples
> 10. The Order and Collection of
>  Historians[12]
> 
> 
> 


For Bodin, methodologies were visual representations of systems of
knowledge. He makes this point in his work *Exposition*, where
he states that the concept of "division," which Plato had
called divine, is the "universal rule of the sciences" (See also
*Juris*, 1578). If history is divided into divine history,
natural history, and human history, then law can be divided into
natural law, human law, the laws of nations, public law, and civil
law. From there, Bodin briefly describes and defines legal matters
including: contracts, crimes, property, obligation, authority,
jurisdiction, etc. Here more than in the *Method*, the reader
sees Bodin's pedagogical preoccupation with brevity and
conciseness. The work is also illustrated with a number of schematic
tables. In the private sphere, Bodin demonstrated his talent for
teaching in *A Letter to his Nephew*
(*Epitre*, 1585), and in the short *Advice on
the Education of a Prince* (*Conseil*, 1574-1586),
which had limited circulation.


## 3. Bodin's religiosity: Did He Believe or Not?


During his youth, Bodin received a Catholic education and he
remained loyal to the Church until his death. Demonstrating his
religious convictions, in a testament from June 7, 1596, he requested
to be buried in a Catholic Church. Nevertheless, during his middle
years, he was critical of the church hierarchy and occasionally
expressed antipapal sentiments. On the basis of this evidence, his
biographers have quickly labeled him a Protestant. Yet in his
*Lettre a Jean Bautru des Matras*, a text based on his
youthful religious ideas, it is clear that Bodin was not a pure
Protestant, but rather a critic of the Roman Catholic clergy, its
hierarchy, and some of its doubtful religious practices. Bodin was a
fervent believer in the "true religion" which he
considered "nothing other than looking to God with a purified
 spirit."[13] 
 These words reveal less a reformed Calvinist than an adherent of a
belief system, whose orthodoxy was unclear, but which could be
described as natural religion. Bodin possessed an expansive view of
religion and a sincere belief in an all-powerful God. If he did agree
with some Protestants who criticized the traditional Catholic
teachings on such matters as the "veneration of images of the
saints, the adoration of the Eucharist, and the belief in the fires of
purgatory," Bodin did not hold God responsible for these errors
as certain sects did (e.g., the Epicureans, although the allusion is
not clear).



>  This would be the equivalent to calling God a trickster
> (*sceleratum*) for allowing, during the millennia before
> Christ, all men, except the seven thousand (as stated by the divine
> Word), to live in the most despicable evilness. This would be
>  absurd. (*Lettre Bautru*, [Ro] 81).
>  



 In this letter Bodin refrained from all commentary on the doctrine of
the sacraments and dogma. Instead he considered the religion of
Christ, to which he himself belonged (*mea vel potius Christi
religio*), as accessible to all men of good will. This included
the luminaries of the ancient world, most notably the Platonists, whom
Bodin considered "close to being Christians." His words,
although far from being those of an adherent of the Reformation, are
no less those of a critic of the papal curia an advocate of reform
within the Catholic Church who was calling for a return to the
essential, pure message of the Gospels. On the other hand, amongst
fervent Catholics, Bodin's views on the freedom of
 conscience[14] 
 caused him to be suspect, even though his opinions on the freedom of
the conscience was distinct from his theory of religious tolerance
(the first was a matter for the private individual, the second for
civil and public life). According to one contemporary in Bodin's city
of Laon, Antoine Richart, Bodin was "a politique and a dangerous
Catholic" (Richart 1869, 68; cited in Chauvire 1914, 80). A
later writer, Traiano Boccalini, labeled Bodin a "notorious
atheist" because he had recommended the "the freedom of
conscience" (Boccalini 1618, I, 64, p. 195).



The *Heptaplomeres*, written around 1593, appeared
posthumously (Kiel, 1683). Here the author gives us evidence of his
religious beliefs (presuming, for the moment, that Bodin was, in fact,
the author). The seven speakers in the work represent as many
different religions, confessions, and philosophical schools of
thought: Coroni, Catholicism; Salomon, Judaism; Senamy, Skepticism;
Octavus, a renegade turned Muslim; Friedrich, Lutheranism; Curtius,
Calvinism; and Toralbe, natural religion. Toralbe often, but not
always, seems to represent the author's personal beliefs. Despite
their diversity, the seven agree with the prohibition against publicly
disputing the fundamentals of religion since "all matters that
are disputed are immediately called into doubt." They also agree
that the freedom of conscience should be respected, because "one
should not be constrained in matters of religion, and beliefs should
be voluntarily embraced, not imposed" as Tertullian stated. On
the other hand, the speakers differ on the freedom of worship. Even
Curtius, the Calvinist, admits that "the desire to allow several
religions to practice openly in the same city seems to me to be one of
the most problematic issues in the world." Although the author
deliberately leaves this discussion open and without a definite
conclusion, the dialogue hinges on the thoughts of Toralbe who states
that "the laws of Nature and natural religion, which nature
inspires in the heart, are sufficient for salvation." The
theologian Johann Diecmann refuted Bodin's *Heptaplomeres* in
his thesis, *De naturalismo tum aliorum, tum maxime*
*J. Bodini* (Diecmann 1683). But beginning with Leibniz, the
*Heptaplomeres* has not ceased to attract the attention of
scholars on account of its outstanding erudition and the depth of the
questions it addresses.


His antipapal sentiments, interspersed throughout his writings,
have provided historians with evidence to label Bodin a
Protestant. Nevertheless, his criticisms of the Catholic Church should
not be taken as signs of Bodin's adherence to the Reformed creed since
the same views were expressed by a number of important jurists,
theologians, and writers of the period; many of whom held an active
interest in the new evangelical ideas. Some would later return to
traditional Christianity. Their Catholicism may not have conformed to
the orthodoxy of Rome, but it was similar to the reformist program of
the Erasmian School (see, for example, the cases of Charles Du Moulin,
Francois Bauduin, Claude d'Espence, George Cassander, Jean de
Monluc, and others). Moreover, Bodin's attacks on the papal curia did
not escape the scrutiny of the ecclesiastical authorities. The
official censure of the Church placed the *Methodus* (1583,
1591), *Republique* (1591), *Demonomanie*
(1594), and the *Theatrum* (1628), on the Index of prohibited
books.


## 4. Bodin's Politics: Sovereignty or Absolutism?


Bodin's major work, the *Six Books of the Commonwealth*, is
a treatment of "political science," a term which Bodin
justly claimed he has coined. The books are titled:



> 
> 1. The Final End of the Well-ordered Commonwealth
> 2. Of the Different Kinds of Commonwealth
> 3. The Council
> 4. The Rise and Fall of Commonwealths
> 5. The Order to be Observed in Adapting the Form of the
>  Commonwealth to the Diverse Condition of Men and the Means of
> Determining their Dispositions
> 6. The Census and the Censorship.
> 
> 
> 



 Bodin's primary contribution to political science of his day is his
definition of sovereignty. Sovereignty, he contends, has an impact
upon both the internal affairs of the State (such as in its exercise
of full political power) as well as its external affairs (such as in
its conduct of war and international relations). "Majesty or
sovereignty is the most high, absolute, and perpetual power over the
citizens and subjects in a Commonwealth, which the Latins call
*Majestas*" (Republique, I, 8 [Mc] 84). Bodin's
discussion of tyrannicide is consistent with his political theory. For
instance, while he states that there are instances when tyrannicide is
justified (for example against tyrannical usurpers), killing a prince
presumed to be a tyrant is forbidden if "the prince is an
absolute sovereign." Bodin explains (*Republique*
II, 5): 



> 
>  If the prince is an absolute sovereign, as are the true kings of
> France, Spain, England, Scotland, Ethiopia, Turkey, Persia and
> Muscovy, whose authority is unquestionably their own, and not shared
> with any of their subjects, then it is in no circumstances permissible
> either by any of their subjects in particular, or in general, to
> attempt anything against the life and honor of their king, either
> by process of law or force of arms, even though he has committed all
> the evil, impious and cruel deeds imaginable. (see [To] and [Mc] 222)
>  




Bodin paid particular attention to differentiating between the forms
of State and the forms of government. For instance he defined a
monarchy as the rule of one; aristocracy as the rule of a few; and
democracy as the rule by all people. Yet monarchies might still be
democracies according to Bodin, if the prince allows all of the people
to have access to magistracies and State offices without regard for
nobility, wealth, or virtue. Otherwise, a monarchy can be a form of
aristocracy if the prince bestows State responsibilities only to the
most noble, the richest, or the most virtuous. The same observations
hold true for aristocratic and popular regimes. 




The distinctions between the forms of State and the forms of
government are essential for understanding the differences between
royal monarchies, despotic monarchies, and tyrannical monarchies. The
last two are easily confused. Bodin writes
(*Republique* II, 2): 



>  
>  Despotic monarchy must not be confused with tyranny. There is nothing
> unfitting in a prince who has defeated his enemies in a good and just
> war, assuming an absolute right to their possessions and their persons
> under the laws of war, and thereafter governing them as his slaves;
> just as the head of a household is the master of his slaves and their
> goods, and disposes of them as he thinks fit, under the law of
> nations. But the prince who by an unjust war, or any other means,
> enslaves a free people and seizes their property is not a despot but a
> tyrant. (see [To]; cf. [Mc] 201)
>  




The difference between despotism and tyranny is crucial. Despotism
is legitimate and sometimes legal. Tyranny, on the other hand, is
always illegitimate, illegal, and contrary to natural and divine laws.
Therefore Bodin demonstrates that he is in process of constructing his
theory of sovereignty not that of despotism. The same can be observed
concerning absolute monarchies. When Bodin used the adjective
"absolute" to define a sovereign, he did so as a Romanist,
and as an historian of Roman law for whom the word *absolutus*
was linked to *legibus solutus*--the prerogative of the
one who is sovereign. One must pay close attention to Bodin's writing
to understand his concept of "absolute." For Bodin a
sovereign is "not bound" (*absolutus*) by the civil
or positive laws which he or his predecessors had
promulgated. Nevertheless a sovereign is always bound to natural and
divine law. Sovereignty, according to Bodin, is as supreme as one
wishes, but is also limited by natural and divine law. The Kings of
France were glorious because their sovereignty was limited by divine
and natural law (cf. *Methodus*, [Me] 208-209). Unfortunately,
with the introduction of the word "absolutism" in the
nineteenth century, historians of political philosophy began to
consider Bodin as a theoretician of absolutism. This is a tendency
that continues even today. In so doing, some historians have ascribed
a doctrine to Bodin that was foreign to him. Instead Bodin
systematized and defined a theory of sovereignty. But this problem
of historical interpretation depends on the methodology and on the
synchronic and diachronic perspective: when historians do not compare
Bodin to Machiavelli, they study often Bodin in comparison to those
who came after him: Grotius, Althusius, Locke, and particularly
Hobbes, Montesquieu and Rousseau. Nothing should stop the historian
from making such comparisons as long as it is not his or her sole
method of analysis. As all historians understand, in order to fully
and accurately understand an author, it is necessary to place his work
squarely within the context and debates of his historical
period. Therefore one should judge and interpret Bodin based on the
works, sources, and documents current in his century rather than on
those that would appear in the future.


## 5. Culture of a Renaissance Man: Economics, Sorcery, Naturalism


### 5.1 Bodin's theories on economics and finances


In 1566, M. de Malestroict, master of accounts on the making of
money, published his work, *Paradoxes*, to demonstrate that
contrary to popular opinion in France, real prices had not risen over
the past three centuries. In other words, the value of money had
remained proportional to the amount of gold and silver it
contained. For example, concerning inflation, Malestroict posited that
although the price of land and property may have increased since the
reign of St. Louis IX, inflation was not the culprit. Instead he
believed that it was the decreasing amount of gold and silver which
the money contained that caused prices to rise. Malestroict was
convinced, following the opinions of the time, that gold and silver
were representative values that were not influenced by the
fluctuations of world markets. Also, while the price of various items
might increase, the items were worth a constant amount of gold or
silver which did not fluctuate. Because wealth is judged by the
quantity of money, "the metals are the true and fair judges of
market value or the price of items."


Bodin refuted this argument and concentrated on the question of the
abundance of gold and silver which he considered the principal and
singular cause for the high prices of his era. "Previously no
one had offered such an argument," he says. In this matter he
added two other secondary causes for high prices: the monopolies of
merchants and craftsmen, who gathered in guilds and confraternities to
establish the price of goods according to their own whims, as well as
the scarcity of luxury goods. According to Bodin, war was another
cause of rising prices: it creates shortages and therefore causes
goods to become more expensive. Bodin posited that the solution to
this lay in ending conflicts, since then the parties could occupy
themselves with trade amongst themselves rather than waging war. In
his opinion on the relationship between money and the price of goods,
Bodin advocated an exchange, "which must be honest and free for
the wealth and the grandeur of the realm." He was opposed to the
dominant opinion of his day, which was that of Malestroict, and which
held that the solution to inflation was to attribute legal values to
money by royal edict. For Bodin, the price of gold and silver should
be set by the laws of the market, in other words by supply and
demand. Hoping to advance these new ideas, Bodin was worried for
people overwhelmed by inflation. According to Bodin a ruler
"who changes the price of gold and silver ruins his people,
country and himself."


### 5.2 Theories on Demons


His treatment of demonism is written as an antidote to the outbreak
of sorcery. This contagion was spreading at an alarming rate, thanks
also to the society's growing yet harmful indifference. Bodin trained
his sights on Johann Wier (or Weyer; Piscinarius) the former servant
of the famous master of occult Cornelius Agrippa and tutor to the
children of Jeanne d'Albret (mother of Henry of Navarre, the future
Henry IV). The work is divided into four books. The first introduces
the reader to his basic ideas: the definition of a sorcerer; the
association of demons with men; the difference between good and bad
spirits; the human and divine means of understanding the mysteries of
the occult, and the illicit means for influencing human events. The
second book initiates the reader to magic in general and to silent and
spoken invocations of evil spirits. Then he comes to the most debated
questions, are those who renounce God bodily possessed by demons?
What is lycanthropy? Can one change humans into animals? Can
sorcerers cause illness, sterility, hail, storms, the death of men and
animals? Book III proposes licit remedies against charms and
incantations, and considers whether it is true that sorcerers have the
power to heal. Here Bodin also addresses whether sorcerers have the
ability to influence the finding of favor with the powerful, beauty,
honors, riches, knowledge, and fertility. He discusses illicit means
to prevent and heal evil spells, and the method for driving out evil
spirits. The fourth book concludes the work by tackling the issues of
magical practice and most importantly, the inquisition of
sorcerers. He examines the methods for proceeding against them, the
proof required, and the penalties to be inflicted. In most cases Bodin
recommends the death penalty by burning.


### 5.3 Naturalism


In the last years of his life Bodin dedicated himself ambitiously
to his work, with which he hoped to penetrate the secrets of the
universe. His *Theater of Universal Nature* (*Theatrum*)
is a treatment of the science of nature, or natural philosophy.
According to the title, the work addresses "in five books the
efficient and final causes of all things of the world." It is a
well-organized encyclopedia of universal knowledge in the form of a
dialogue between Theorus, a curious theoretician who observers the
world and Mystagogus, a master and guide. The first book examines the
principals of nature and the origin and decline of the world. The
second book addresses the natural elements of meteors, of rocks,
metals and fossils. The third books explores types of animals; the
fourth addresses the spirit, and the fifth book concerns the number,
movement, and grandeur of the heavens respectively. This is an example
of those works of natural philosophy, which wished to be exhaustive,
and were typical of the Renaissance. The accusations of naturalism and
atheism, which his *Colloquium of the Seven About the Secrets of
the Sublime* (*Heptaplomeres*) had provoked, were only
reignited and expanded by the *Theatrum*, regardless of the
fact that he repeatedly refers to an all-powerful creator who admires
the "order" in all things.


## 6. Justice for Bodin: Open and Closed Questions


Biographies have attributed religious, political, and philosophical
doctrines to Bodin that he may have held. These historians have even
used the word "conversion"--a strong word in the
sixteenth century--to make their point. Rose writes of Bodin's
"conversion to Judaism"; Moreau-Reibel and Rose of his
"conversion to the League," which according to Rose is an
"act of apostasy" too. Bayle, Naef and Bouchez describe
his "conversion to Protestantism," and Franklin of his
"conversion to absolutism." Likewise Bayle and Quaglioni
describe Bodin's tendency towards religious dissimulation or
nicodemism. Within the confines of a biography, we are limited to
address only the most important aspects of Bodin's character as a
political actor including his adhesion to the League and his
abandonment of the "politiques." Concerning the first
point, his adhesion to the League, we have examined the Bodin's
position based on his own writings. The second point, Bodin's
relationship to the "politiques," is based on suppositions
which have become nearly a tradition in Bodin scholarship, and has
been perpetuated and reinforced by generation after generation of
historians. Unfortunately these historians have not sought sources on
which to base this claim. In fact, there are no sources that support
this argument. Indeed, Bodin never said that he was a
"politique." Briefly addressing the heart of the matter,
historians have sought to make Bodin a convinced partisan of religious
tolerance. During Bodin's lifetime however, religious tolerance,
defined as civil tolerance and a legal admission of confessional
diversity within a country or city, was not the ideal it would later
become after the eighteenth century. In the sixteenth
century, it was men like Sebastian Castellion who extolled the
co-existence of many religions, with which the reformed camp
disagreed. The struggle of the Huguenots from the beginning of the
civil wars, was to convert the king and realm to the true religion.
Tolerance was not an ideal since one cannot tolerate what one cannot
possibly accept. For example how could one allow Christ to coexist
with Belial, or a false religion to coexist with the one and only true
religion? No further proof of this conviction is needed than the
fierce struggle both Calvin and Beza waged against Castellion. This
example causes one to ask the question: if Castellion supported
freedom of religion, why did the leaders of the Reformation, who
professed the same desire, denounce him so fervently? Because, in the
reality, the French Reformers did not want freedom of religion which
could have "opened the door to all manner of sects and
heresies," as Calvin said. At the beginning of the wars of
religion, they wanted to obtain the recognition of the reformed
religion as the sole religion in the realm. Yet, after thirty-six
years of war, and after the conversion of Henry of Navarre, they
understood that their project was too ambitious and had to be
limited. Only through true religious tolerance could they convert the
remainder of the kingdom at a later time. The unity of faith, and
Calvinist religious concord were the ideal of Reformers
too. Concerning the "politiques," we only have
descriptions of them from their adversaries who considered them
atheists and heathens. For instance they were accused of having no
religion because they were inclined to admit the definitive
coexistence of different forms of worship in the interest of civil
peace. Nevertheless, why have modern historians, placed men, who they
considered the "most liberal and sympathetic," such as
Bodin, Etienne Pasquier, Duplessis-Mornay, Pierre de Beloy and many
others in the party of the "politiques." These historians
have projected their modern ideals of tolerance, religious freedom,
pluralism, and diversity on to the period of the Wars of
Religion. Thus these scholars believed they had done a great service
to the men of the past by presenting them as forerunners of the later
values. But, as we have seen, Bodin viewed confessional concord as
the means capable of returning religious, civil and political unity to
the kingdom. It should be recalled however that the problem was not
that of "liberty of conscience," which the French
government had already guaranteed by edicts in 1563, but the liberty
to worship. The freedom to worship is also at the heart of the
question of tolerance. When Bodin and many of his contemporaries
thought about tolerance, it was only as provisional tolerance with the
hope of achieving civil peace and religious reunification in the
future. For Bodin, concord was essential since it formed the
foundation of sovereignty and was necessary for the full exercise of
power. 


To be fair to Bodin, the offenses poured out against him by his
malicious contemporaries at the time of his adhesion to the League
should be analyzed and understood historically. The same goes for the
accusations of treason, turn-coating, trickery, opportunism,
"the charge of his reversal of his belief on religious
tolerance," "his slipperiness and lack of principle in
joining the League," all of which we find today in his
biographies. Bodin's program of concord and unity was in opposition to
permanent tolerance and established diversity in juridical, political,
and theological questions, as we already seen. 


### 6.1 Particular Questions


(1) A Judaising Catholic. Did Bodin's passion for studying Judaic
texts arise principally from the influence of his Jewish mother? The
trail is a false one since his mother was not Jewish. (2) Another
false trail concerns how he had miraculously escaped the
St. Bartholomew massacre in Paris by seeking refuge with Christophle
de Thou, the president of the Parlement of Paris -- the story being
"late and unverifiable"according to Jacquelin Boucher
(1983). Paul Collinet, who maintained initially that Bodin was not in
Paris but in the county of Rethelois at the time (Collinet 1908,
752), later revised his ideas: he had confused J. Bodin de Saint-Amand
(our J. Bodin) with another, J. B. de Montguichet (Collinet
1910). This was in accordance with the study of Paul Cornu (Cornu
1907) about "two J. Bodins". Nevertheless, Cornu himself
cannot say where our Bodin was at that
 time.[15]
 In fact, we know nothing for certain about Bodin on the famous night
of August 24, 1572, nor is it not a matter of central historical
importance. (3) Belief in Witchcraft. Bodin, like the majority of
people in the sixteenth century, believed in the devil and the power
of Satan. These beliefs made his biographers, especially those of the
nineteenth century, uneasy. They felt that such
superstitions tarnished Bodin's image. Baudrillart criticized Bodin's
work *Demonomanie* and wrote that "Absurd fanaticism,
ridiculous and obnoxious should be written in the margins of each page
of this unfortunate book" (Baudrillart 1853, 184, 188-189).
Such vain preoccupations and a lack historical sense are two faults,
among others, that distort the historical analysis of Bodin by those
who wish to make him a man of their time rather than allowing
him to be a man of his day.


### 6.2 Open Questions


Some recent studies of the *Heptaplomeres* have tended to
cast some doubt on Bodin's authorship of this work. Even if the issue
of his authorship has not been decisively resolved, one of the
secondary but beneficial consequences of these studies is that they
have increased our understanding of the on sources which the author of
this anonymous text drew -- including not only
the *Daemonomania* as well as the other works by Bodin, but
also the writings of Johan Wier (1515-1588; Wier 1579). The
most important studies questioninig Bodin's authorship of the treatise
are those by Karl F. Faltenbacher (2002, 2009) and David Wootton
(2002), Jean Ceard (2009) and Isabelle Pantin
(2009). Refutations of this thesis, on the other hand, have been
published by Jean Letrouit (1995), Andrea Suggi (2005, 2006, 2007) and
Noel Malcom (2006).


### 6.3 Closed questions


Sometimes historical research progresses by leaps and bounds
instead of a gradual and steady evolution. Thanks to new research
(Fontana 2009) we are now in a position to settle on certain issues in
Bodin's life that have remained matters of conjecture until quite
recently, such as his supposed visit to Geneva in 1552 (on which, see
below). Biographers have been faced with a series of problems
because, throughout his life, he was regularly confused with other
individuals also called Jean Bodin, not least within his own family:
he was the fourth of seven children, the second of whome was also
called Jean (Levron 1950, 14). For this reason, he has often been
assigned roles by historians which he may not have played. He has
been conflated, for instance, with a certain Jean Bodin arrested in
two trials for heresy in Paris, one in 1547 and the other in 1548
(Weiss 1889, 17-8; Naef; Droz; but see Levron 1948). He has
also been confused with Jean Bodin de La Bodiniere or
Montguichet who, like our Jean Bodin, was an Angevin and a
commissioner for the reformation of forests in Normandy, as well as a
member of the household of the duke d'Alencon
(cf. Chauvire, 33-4; Cornu 1907, 109-111 ; Holt 1986,
41). Among the *avocats* of the Parlement of Paris who swore
an oath to uphold Catholism in 1562, there were two Jean Bodins, one
of whom was ours (Delachenal 1885, 405-6). Someone called Jean Bodin
was arrested at the priory of Saint-Denis-de-la-Chatre, rue
Saint-Barthelemy in Paris on March 6, 1569, accused of being of
the new opinion'. He was released on August 23, 1570 following the
edict of pacification of Saint-Germain (Weiss 1923, 87-9; Droz 1948,
79; Boucher 1983). But this cannot be our Jean Bodin (De Caprariis
1959, 325). None of the various Jean Bodins of whom we have knowledge
around 1569 -- the student at Angers, the priest at Bourgueil in
the parish of Saint-Aubin du Pavoil near Segre, or the merchant
at St-Maurice -- correspond to the Jean Bodin in whom we are
interested (Levron 1948, 73-4). Nor ashould we identify Jean Bodin
the philosopher with his various namesakes (Couzinet 1996, 240) who
were implicated in the trial of La Mole and Coconnas in 1574
(Holt 1986, 41) or accompanied Brisson on a mission in 1581
(Moreau-Reibel 1933, 258), or got mixed up in the Champvallon affair
of the following year (Radouant 1970, 45) or were suspected of having
participated in the Babington Plot against Elizabeth I of England
(Rose 1980, 215-6).


Equally, there is no tangible or demonstrable proof to support the
supposed Protestant leanings of Bodin. Roger Chauvire (1914,
24) speculated, on the basis of his hypothetical stay in Geneva in
1552, that he had perhaps converted to the new faith. This particular
supposition is linked to another, more general one, that Bodin had a
truly reformed religiosity, coexisting with his other judaising
tendencies and inclinations towards natural religion. This is why
there is a persistent tendency among certain historians to perceive
him as a dissimulating Protestant and 'Nicodemite'.
Following Naef and Droz, they believe that Bodin can be identified
with 'Jehan Bodin de Sainct-Amand diocese de Bourges'
(following Bordier, who, however, provides no references to Jean
Bodin, author of the *Republic*) who spent time in Geneva in
1552, asking to be received as inhabitant there, who married
Typhene Renault and had an argument with Jerome
Bolsec (Naef and Droz, 83) and who even became a minister of the Holy
Word (Weiss, contradicted by Naef, 153; but see Droz, 83). All these
hypotheses, however, have been undermined now that Letizia Fontana
(2009) has demonstrated that the Jean Bodin who was present in Geneva
in 1552 cannot possibly have been the philosopher. That said, it still
remains possible that Bodin occasionally felt sympathy, on the
religious grounds, towards Protestantism and Protestants in general,
though this stopped short of adherence to the confession of the
Reformed faith. Such an attitude could often be found among moderate
Catholics, men of letters, jurists, writers and even theologians and
was not in conflict with Bodin's severely negative assessment --
on a purely political level -- of the Huguenots as a result of
their raising arms against their sovereign.


## 7. Publications, Conferences and Projects, 2013-2018



In 2013 two important Bodin editions appeared. Sara 
Miglietti published her doctoral dissertation (Scuola Normale
Superiore, Pisa): Jean Bodin, *Methodus ad facilem historiarum
congnitione*, edizione, introduzione e commento di S. Miglietti,
Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, with an accompanying Italian translation.
In addition, Mario Turchetti published a critical edition of the first
book of the French text of *La Republique* with a
parallel Latin edition of *De*
*Republica*, translated by Bodin and published in 1586 (see
Cotroneo 2014 'Il ritorno di Bodin'); N. de Araujo is
responsible for the text, and the preface is by Q. Skinner. This
volume, the first of a projected six volume edition, is now available
online from
Classiques Garnier.



Its publication was the occasion for an international conference at
the University of Fribourg (4-5 October 2013); and another is
planned for 5 March 2015, organized by the Universities of Paris-IV
Sorbonne (Denis Crouzet) and Paris-VI Descartes (Yves Charles
Zarka).



An international conference was held in Oxford in June 2014 (St
Anne's College): 'Community, Government and Territoriality in the
Political Thought of Jean Bodin', organised by Sophie Nicholls
and Anne Becker.



*The Reception of Bodin*, edited by Howell A. Lloyd, was
published in Leiden by Brill in 2013. The volume presents the
sixteenth-century jurist as a "prismatic agent" through
whose works a vast inherited juridical, philosophical, religious,
political and anthropological fabric of learning of the West was
disseminated in a revitalised form into world ripe for modernity.




At Tufts University (Boston, USA), a 'Bodin Project' has
now been launched by Ioannis Evrigenis, the aim of which is to make
available online the French, Latin and English (*Six Bookes of a
Commonweale* in Richard Knolly's 1606 translation) texts of Bodin's
*Republic*. The digitized editions produced by the 'Bodin
Project' will, in due course, become part of the vast range of
works consultable online from the 
 (Perseus Digital Library).



Another 
 Bodin Project
 was originally based at the
University of Hull and is now based at Harvard.




The 'Bodin Sources Project', directed by Professor Kenneth
D. McRae, aims to list the sources mentioned in five of Bodin's major
works - *Methodus*, *Republique*,
*Demonomanie*, *Theatrum* and the commentary on
Oppian - in machine-readable form. For further information,
contact: K. D. McRae, Department of Political Science, Carleton
University, 1125 Colonel by Drive, Ottawa ON K1S 5B6 Canada.



The hectic pace of Bodin studies has not let up in recent years; for
brevity's sake, however, only the most important contributions
will be singled out here. Anna Di Bello (2014) traces in detail the
way in which the Latin translation of *La Republique*
was made, providing a new understanding of Bodin's elaboration
of his masterpiece. The parallels between the French and Latin
versions, the collation of the two texts, and the comparisons between
them provide the opportunity to evaluate Bodin's preoccupations
at two distinct moments in time. Those preoccupations include his
conceptions of the State and the optimal structure for the realization
of a polity which, beyond the good ordering and right administration
of society, ensures the exercise of a sovereignty that preserves
'harmonic justice' in a royal monarchy such as
France. Daniel Lee (2016) explores the Roman Law sources that underlie
the emergence, and rise to prominence, of the theory of popular
sovereignty in the early modern period. In two chapters, he seeks to
undermine the traditional idea that Bodin is an
'absolutist' and tries to present him in a more authentic
light. Howell A. Lloyd (2017) reconstructs the intellectual biography
of Bodin in a novel way. Finally, Turchetti (2018) examines the
distinction between despotism and tyranny, which was essential to
Bodin as the juridico-political foundation of the right of resistance,
but which was progressively forgotten in later centuries.



Despite this welcome resurgence of interest in Bodin, a remaining
deisderatum is a new English translation of Bodin's
*Republic*, one which meets the needs of twenty-first-century
researchers.