On Sovereignty: Four Chapters from The Six Books of the Commonwealth

by Jean Bodin, Julian H. Franklin (Editor)

Bodin's Les six livres de la république is a vast synthesis of comparative public law and politics, the theoretical core of which is formed by the four chapters translated in this volume. These four chapters contain his celebrated theory of sovereignty, which informed his thinking on the state and made his République a landmark in the development of European political thought.

This theory, however, also contained a seductive but erroneous thesis that was of great importance for the development of royalist ideology: the idea that sovereignty is indivisible, that the entire power of the state has to be vested in a single individual or group.

This thesis, together with the crisis of authority in the French religious wars, led Bodin to a systematically absolutist interpretation of the French and other contemporary monarchies. His primary aim was to exclude any legal ground of forcible resistance. A king of France, he hoped, would continue to adhere to moral and prudential limitations, but a proper king could not be lawfully constrained.

This is the first complete translation of these chapters into English since 1606. It is accompanied by a lucid introduction, a chronology, and a bibliography. [from the back cover]

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Law, Nonfiction, International Relations, History, European History

194 pages, Perfect Paperback

First published January 1, 1576

About the author

Jean Bodin (1530–1596) was a French jurist and political philosopher, member of the Parlement of Paris and professor of law in Toulouse. He is best known for his theory of sovereignty; he was also an influential writer on demonology.
Bodin lived during the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation and wrote against the background of religious conflict in France. He remained a nominal Catholic throughout his life but was critical of papal authority over governments, favouring the strong central control of a national monarchy as an antidote to factional strife. Toward the end of his life he wrote, but did not publish, a dialogue among different religions, including representatives of Judaism, Islam and natural theology, in which all agreed to coexist in concord.

Jean Bodin (1530-1596) était un juriste et philosophe politique français, membre du Parlement de Paris et professeur de droit à Toulouse. Il est surtout connu pour sa théorie de la souveraineté; il était également un écrivain influent sur la démonologie.
Bodin a vécu au lendemain de la Réforme protestante et a écrit dans le contexte du conflit religieux en France. Il resta un catholique nominal tout au long de sa vie mais critiqua l'autorité papale sur les gouvernements, favorisant le contrôle central fort d'une monarchie nationale comme antidote aux conflits entre factions. Vers la fin de sa vie, il a écrit, mais n'a pas publié, un dialogue entre différentes religions, y compris des représentants du judaïsme, de l'islam et de la théologie naturelle, dans lequel tous ont accepté de coexister dans la concorde.

Reviews

[Gurjot · Rating 1 out of 5]

don’t read it. mans just simping for the monarchy for 192 pages.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Leaving aside all other political ideas of Bodin, his concept of sovereignty has a lot of confusion. He himself assumes an air of pardonable pride that neither philosopher nor jurist has ever before propounded any theory of sovereignty. The close analysis of his definition and other allied ideas of Bodin reveal that sovereignty possesses the following characteristics:

(i) It is perpetual: - The authority in order to be truly sovereign must be perpetual in the sense that it should be without limit of time. In other words it should not be "limited to a specific period of time", sovereignty must be permanent; it can suffer no limitation in time. Any dictatorship, say Roman dictatorship in past, however absolute, could not be regarded as Sovereign. if it was limited in time.

(ii) It is absolute:- The authority of a sovereign, in its specific territory, is really supreme over its citizens and subjects. No person in the state can question its authority. Not only from within, it is free from outside control also. He rules and governs "without the consent of a superior, an equal or on inferior”.

(iii) It is undelegated: - The sovereign power is original in the sense that it is not derived or delegated from either God or Pop. If at all there is any source of sovereign's power it is the people. It can have no source outside the community.

(iv) It is inalienable, inseparable and invisible: - It is inalienable in the sense that it is not subject to prescription. Sovereignty cannot be separated and it cannot be divided. The moment it is divided or separated, it will die. The Sovereign to his subordinates can delegate some powers, but that does not amount to division or separation. In practice, the sovereign being unable to perform all the functions of the state, has to delegate powers to the subordinates. All other bodies in the state derive power from the Sovereign, who according to Bodin, should be a king. As we already know that to Bodin the best form of state is monarchy.

(v) It is unrestrained by law: - The chief attribute of the sovereign is to enact laws for the citizens and subjects, collectively and severally. Sovereignty, to Bodin, is a recognized and unlimited authority to make laws. The unlimited authority to make laws involves and includes all other powers e.g., the power to declare war and treat for peace, to commission magistrates to act as a court of last resort, to grant dispensations to coin money, to tax, to grant pardon etc. All these powers are the consequences of the sovereign's position as legal bead of the state.

As the preface of this book tells us, Bodin "never quite clearly separated the conception of sovereignty from the idea of a group of legal prerogatives." But be very emphatically asserts that law is nothing else than the command of the sovereign. The Sovereign is the source of law.

As Sabine points out that Bodin was careful enough to emphasize that customary law also derives authority, from the sovereign. He sanctions. it by permitting it to exist. Customary law has its sway only so long as it pleases the Sovereign to treat it as law. Law, being the creature of the sovereign, naturally cannot, put any restrictions on him. It is impossible to conceive of a Sovereign bound by his own law or in other words by his own will.

If Sovereign is bound by his own law or will, he cannot be said to be absolute or supreme. Sovereign is above law both statutory or customary, as be can change them, any moment be likes. The law of the land is nothing but the command of the sovereign hence limitation on the power to command, if any, can only be extra-legal. He cannot bind himself or his successor.

From the aforesaid account, we should not be misled to conclude that Bodin's concept of Sovereignty is something imaginary, which exists in the air. Nor is to Bodin an abstruse and nebulous thing, but is absolutely capable of being defined and bestowed in quantum.

A good academic discourse overall.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Only four chapters from Six Books on the Commonwealth with a critical introduction that even on the back of the book refers to Bodin’s theory of sovereignty as ‘erroneous’ which is pretty biased. However the chapters themselves were worth reading as Bodin is considered the most important political philosopher since Aristotle-between the renaissance thought of Machiavelli when interest in the ancients was revived, and the early modern thought of Hobbes. Hobbes himself essentially repeats much of Bodin’s theory of sovereignty and even more so his theory of three governments monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Bodin like Hobbes seems to have been inspired by the religious wars of his time when both catholics and protestant monarchomachs argued for the right of people to depose rulers although we shall see Bodin differed in important ways. Bodin also influenced Sir Robert Filmer, who refers to Bodin in Patriarcha to dispute that a commonwealth is several households rather than one, but like Hobbes largely repeats his theory of sovereignty.

Sovereignty is the ‘absolute and perpetual power of a commonwealth’ which like Aristotle is composed of several households (at least three) with a common purpose, but unlike Aristotle is inherently a unitary body of one will. Sovereigns have the sole authority to make laws which are one way coercive commands to all subjects in a territory. Sovereignty cannot be alienated or shared, having no equal and not bound by its own commands from below. Sovereigns are not bound by oaths or laws of predecessors unless in accord with natural justice or prudence, including hereditary succession in monarchies. This would become the basis for legal positivism, some versions maintaining the sovereign as a person others in legal norms. However Bodin unlike Hobbes thinks sovereigns are bound by just contracts and cannot tax or take the property of subjects without their consent or necessity as rulers are bound by natural and divine law which Hobbes placed in self-preservation the former and individual conscience the latter. Contracts are not laws as they are mutual agreements that cannot be abrogated unilaterally and condition consequences for all parties. This may seem to suggest a social contract theory of government but keeping of contracts was part of a larger natural justice scheme which Hobbes made into an entire system but his usage was closer to covenants, a indefinite promise for the future rather than mutual exchange, establishing sovereignty and that contracts enforced by the sovereign were binding but do not bind the sovereign.

The marks of sovereignty are deliberating, taking counsel, confirming officers, and rendering justice with subsidiary powers of war and peace, coining money, weights and measures, and collecting taxes. In practice sovereignty can be defined negatively as exemption from laws and taxation and ability to veto, which makes it easier to understand who is actually sovereign. Sovereigns may delegate the enforcement of laws to magistrates but these edicts are not laws if not derived from the sovereign or if expressly overruled which anticpates the doctrine of separation of powers as both Locke and Montesquieu were influenced by Bodin but more faithfully Rousseau’s separation of sovereign and government. Thus Bodin’s opposition to mixed government is not in the division of labor in regard to administration of laws as even in a monarchy he acknowledges parliament and an independent judiciary but who cannot make laws independently or serve in abject opposition to a king. Bodin sees the idea of mixed government from Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero as stemming either from discussion of ideal states or a misunderstanding of history. This was how five or six forms of government could be reduced to three, removing ideal, mixed, or bad versions of the same government rather than counting the number of sovereigns. Herodotus and Tacitus are cited as ancient sources for three forms of government as they were primarily historians not philosophers. However in Bodin’s time authority was more distributed in patrimonial institutions by lords and clergy who laid claims to political authority without making a formal state and was to these the theory of sovereignty was addressed but itself evolved away from the identity of natural and legal personhood.

The three forms of government are laid out more in the rest of the book but monarchy means rule of one, aristocracy rule of a few, and democracy rule of a majority. Bodin’s notion of democracy is very different than today’s as the people would be the greater number of free male heads of households not including women children or slaves/servants. Some would call this a republic but republic is used by Bodin to refer to all commonwealths and republic was used by Plato and Aristotle to refer to the kind of ideal or mixed regimes he did not think feasible. Bodin thinks that a monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy mixed together means democracy if the people are required to approve the laws it is a democracy, although it could be said all three together are monarchy or aristocracy depending how dominant these elements are. An elective monarchy is not a monarchy but an aristocracy or democracy if for a limited duration or if they don’t decide their own successors by heredity or appointment, which I don’t quite agree with if only their mode of selection is elective like the pope who is effectively an absolute elective monarch. This leads to complications of how to describe even the same government which can evolve as Rome did from what Bodin considered a democracy to a de facto tyrannical monarchy. I think there is a tendency towards one element exercising sovereignty rather than strict de jure authority as one cannot serve two masters and a house divided cannot stand, and who makes the decisions important than if legal.

It is simpler to follow Machiavelli that there are two forms of government, principalities and republics, depending whether the sovereign is a natural person/sole proprietor or an assembly/corporate body so there are hereditary and despotic monarchies and democratic and aristocratic republics. But in Bodin’s time most states were either hereditary monarchies like France or the Holy Roman Empire and Poland which elected kings, or aristocratic republics like Venice which was ruled by a great council and a Duke. Constitutional governments weren’t really a thing yet but the law is still sovereign even if this authority is delegated to several offices but derived from consent of the sovereign whether the people, nobility, or a king. To make sense of this we have to distinguish the origin of sovereignty and the exercise of it in their normative and positive senses.

Bodin’s chapter on deposing rulers concludes that only in monarchies is it totally unlawful to depose the government because the king is the sovereign, otherwise if an aristocracy or democracy then that people or part of a people may remove magistrates at will or according to their laws. A monarchy differs because the legal person of the sovereign is identical to a natural person and the magistracy dependent on his/her will. As regarding usurpation Bodin thinks tyrants can become legitimate if they enforce just laws or by adverse possession after a long period of time like a century where there is no active resistance and with passive consent of the governed. Foreign rulers however may decide to depose usurpers as in war if in accordance with natural justice but ought to follow the law of land or seek approval of the people out of prudence. Hobbes was more resolute that the people form a unitary body whether in an individual or assembly which they cannot lawfully depose but the duty of allegiance lapses when enforcement ceases, possibly including whether a significant number no longer obey.

My reading of Bodin is that he is not quite the reactionary authoritarian I thought and not of antiquarian historical interest but still remains relevant for both the positive and normative content of law which he distinguished and for his influence on early modern thinkers such as Filmer, Hobbes, Locke and Montesquieu. Where Bodin differs from the moderns is in placing households not individuals as the basis of society and deriving law and rights from natural/divine law not from the rights and passions of individuals as he assumed a patrimonial order. Modern theories of states differ in their constitutional nature rather than being an outgrowth of private patrimonial authority of lords and clergy, thus making the state an artificial person governed by norms recognized by individuals which makes mixed government more of a possibility in theory but disguises the nature of sovereignty. Bodin was right about the positive nature of state sovereignty but leaves room for natural law in executive prerogative. Such a broad theory of sovereignty applies as much to democratic states and monarchies which he preferred and were more common in his time, and his statements on the deposition of democratic government may undermine the security of the state whereas Hobbes was much more stringent about no right of rebellion in any regime, dependence of property on the sovereign, and a duty of obedience even to usurpers. This was because Hobbes’ theory of the social contract could justify submission of the people to any government as if obeying their own will and securing their own rights.

[Maxwell Thornton · Rating 4 out of 5]

It reminded me a lot of Thomas Hobbes' 'Leviathan'.

[diariesofmimi · Rating 2 out of 5]

bro’s conception of sovereignty does not make an ounce of sense, and thats not my opinion its HIS: half of the book is him refuting his own words

[W. Littlejohn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was very disappointed in the editing of this volume, a slim 150-page paperback for which I shelled out the equivalent of 30 bucks. Of course, Bodin's entire "Six Books on the Commonwealth" is quite a ponderous volume, but abridging it down to just four of its 42 chapters seems a little extreme, especially when they aren't necessarily the four chapters you're most interested in. And the introduction (in contrast to the general trend of great introductions in this series), instead of giving a good general sketch of Bodin's project, seems more interested just on arguing and nitpicking with him, which is hardly helpful for the neophyte.

Not that there's not plenty to argue with in here. I was frustrated by Bodin's stark centralizing impulse, in which all political power descends from a central national authority, and local authority exists only by permission from the higher sovereign. Not only do I think this is a bad idea, but it seems to me simply unhistorical, downright mythical, as the centralized sovereign authorities in places like England and France in fact arrived quite late on the scene, long after many of the regional and local authorities. I don't know; perhaps Bodin's argument could be theoretically true without being historically true, but it was hard to tell from these selections. Indeed, at many points, his theory seemed to consist of interesting assertions, which I could accept as an interesting hypothetical model of political authority, but which never offered any compelling reason to accept them as true and normative. Indeed, the standard authorities that other political treatises of the period appeal to--Scripture and natural law--seemed to play very little role in his account, at least in the chapters presented here.

[Jesse · Rating 3 out of 5]

As Bodin says, "Somebody may object". No kidding, all he does is list examples which contradict him and explain why they don't count on what often feels like a technicality he just invented. I did think it was interesting how, despite his unwavering absolutism, he insists that sovereigns were not allowed to break contracts, tax arbitrarily, or create laws that (financially?) benefit one group over another without some justification in terms of the public good. For the sovereign to do otherwise would be "against the laws of God and nature". I'm left wondering if this understanding of natural law is coming from Aquinas, or from some other source? I don't think he actually references Aquinas, though he does try to find evidence and testimonies for it in ancient Greek/Roman sources.

[dean · Rating 3 out of 5]

i don’t know if this was anybody else’s experience but reading this at 2am on my ipad highlighting every second sentence gave me a vision that Bodin and Queen Elizabeth were narrating this book to me.

[Mehmet · Rating 4 out of 5]

Egemenlik Üzerine adıyla Timaş Yayınları'ndan çevirisini okudum, burada bulamadığımdan bu versiyonunu ekledim. Kitap 16. yüzyılda kendisine teorik bir temel arayan mutlakiyetçi krallara kaynak olmuştur. Modern devletin temellerini atmıştır diyebiliriz. Önemli bir eser.

[Daniel Schotman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unfortunately not the complete book.

[Janice]

White boys say dumb shit about sovereignty always drives me crazy.

[Megan Chia · Rating 3 out of 5]

BORING but necessary.

[Jacob Winter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like Hobbes is he was worse (french)

[Gareth · Rating 4 out of 5]

A seminal text on the topic of sovereignty, this edition brings together some of the most informative aspects of Bodin's much larger original text. Considering the signs and sources of sovereignty Bodin takes us through a consideration of where political legitimacy comes from the perspective of a 16th Century French monarchist. Excellent provocation for thought.