¹ See Moreau-Reibel, J., ‘Bodin et la Ligue d'après des lettres inédites’, Humanisme et Renaissance, II (1935), pp. 422–40.Google ScholarBaldwin, S., ‘Jean Bodin and the League’, Catholic Historical Review, XXIII (1937), 160–84.Google ScholarChauviré, R., Jean Bodin, auteur de la République (Paris, 1914), pp. 76 ff.Google Scholar For recent bibliography see Jean Bodin. Verhandlungen der internationalen Bodin-Tagung, ed. Denzer, H. (Munich, 1973).Google Scholar I believe too that Bodin's alleged ‘change of sides’ occurred in 1586, not in 1589 as usually said. See my forthcoming article ‘Bodin and the Bourbon succession to the French throne’, Sixteenth Century Journal.

² See, for example, Rose, P. L., ‘Two problems of Bodin's religious biography: the lette to Jean Bautru des Matras and the imprisonment of 1569’, Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, XXXVIII (1976), 459–65.Google Scholar

³ The best account to date is Moreau-Reibel, ‘Bodin et la Ligue’. See also Baldwin, , ‘Jean Bodin and the League’.Google ScholarChauviré, , Bodin, pp. 76 ff.Google ScholarBodin, Jean, The six bookes of a Commonweale, ed. McRae, K. D. (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), introduction, p. A11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Richart, A., Mémoires sur la Ligue dans le Laonnois (Laon, 1869).Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid. p. 66. Bodin had already postponed the taking of the oath.

⁶ Richart, , Mémoires, p. 83.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid. pp. 228 ff. (mispaginated).

⁸ Ibid. p. 415.

⁹ Printed by Moreau-Reibel, ‘Bodin’. Also cited by Baldwin, ‘Bodin’. Although grouped together in the manuscript (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, MS Français 4897) it is most unlikely that all these letters were addressed to the same person. For discussion of the various recipients see below.

¹⁰ I hope to add something to the earlier analyses by Moreau-Reibel and Baldwin who did not attempt to trace the evolution of Bodin's feelings about the succession and war during these years.

¹¹ Issued by the same publisher as Advis d'un lieutenant-général…, 1589. See Lindsay, R. O. and Neu, J., French collections in American libraries (Madison, Wise., 1969), no. 1551.Google ScholarPallier, D., Recherches sur l'imprimerie à Paris pendant la Ligue (1585–1504) (Geneva, 1976), no. 411.Google Scholar The Lettre is reprinted with variants by Moreau-Reibel, , ‘Bodin’, pp. 425–30.Google Scholar Dated April by a later hand in the manuscript but probably written before 26 March to judge from the references to the receipt of orders for the oath ‘Dimanche dernier dix neufiesme de Mars’ (p. 1). Its inclusion in this manuscript series of letters is external evidence of the letter's authenticity. Taken together three remarks in the letter may serve as internal evidence. ‘J'ay veu un Ambassadeur Polaque qui estoit Huguenot (p. 5)… en ceste ville (Laon) (p. 8)… que j'ay estimé et publié par escript aussi bien climatérique aux monarchies (p. 8).…’

¹² Chauviré, , Bodin, p. 82Google Scholar (following J.-A. de Thou) accepts the Lettre de M. Bodin (1590) as a reflexion of Bodin's speech of 1589, thus losing sight of any evolution of feeling between the two dates. There are in fact key differences between the letters of 1589 and 1590.

¹³ Brisson is suggested by Moreau-Reibel, , ‘Bodin’, p. 430.Google Scholar Cf. the concluding phrases at p. 9 of the Lettre: ‘… il y a tantost trente ans pour amy et collègue et maintenant que la dignité vous est donnée illustre et grande’, referring to Brisson's presidency of the Leaguer Parlement de Paris.

¹⁴ There is some doubt about Brisson's sincerity. He had covered himself with a secret deposition that he was acting under duress. See Gambier, P., Au temps des guerres de religion. Le président Barnabé Brisson, Ligueur (1531–1591) (Paris, 1957).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Bodin always had serious reservations about the legality of rebellion though once successful it might be accepted as a fait accompli. (See below, notes 49, 58, 76, 83 for other comments on this difficult topic.) The important point is that Bodin did not justify the rebellion but rather saw in its success a sign of divine will and displeasure with Henri III. (This is not to say that Bodin felt that the rebels could lay claim to being divinely inspired. See below, notes 82 and 83.)

For tyrannicide in contemporary thought see Mousnier, R., The assassination of Henry IV (trs. London, 1973), pp. 98 ff., 214.Google ScholarCameron, K., ‘Henri III, the anti-Christian King’, Journal of European Studies, IV (1974), 152–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarYardeni, M., La conscience nationale en France pendant les guerres de religion (1559–1598) (Paris-Louvain, 1971), eh. vii.Google Scholar

¹⁶ In a crisis of state ‘ceste maxime générale… ne souffre point d'exception. Salus populi suprema lex esto’, République (Paris, 1583 edn), iv, 3, p. 576.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Richart, , Mémoires, p. 66.Google ScholarChauviré, , Bodin, pp. 78 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Richart, , Mémoires, p. 83.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Chauviré, , Bodin, pp. 78–9Google Scholar, believes Bodin yielded only momentarily to the League out of prudence and fear. This does not take into account the bitterness of Bodin's attack on the king. Nevertheless from the beginning Bodin must have had severe misgivings about the demagoguery of some of the more extreme Leaguers in the city. Following the attempted lynching of the royalists in March Innocent la Biche proscribed a list of suspected royalists and more than 200 suspects were obliged to take flight in May. See Fleury, E., Cinquante ans de l'histoire du chapître de Notre-Dame de Laon… 1541… 1594 (Laon-Paris, 1875), pp. 319 ff.Google Scholar

²⁰ Vair, Guillaume Du, Traité de la constance (Lyons, 1595 edn), pp. 335, 338.Google Scholar Cf. Radouant, R., Guillaume Du Vair. L'homme et l'orateur jusqu'à la fin des troubles de la Ligue (1556–1596) (Paris, 1907), p. 403.Google Scholar

²¹ For the ‘traffic in silver’ cf. Lettre de M. Bodin (1590), p. 18.

²² Bodin had been saved at the journée des barricades (May 1588) by his friend the advocate Dauger (D'Ogier). See also the letter of 1590–1 discussed below.

²³ Bodin's vision of divine retribution becomes increasingly collective and universal in contrast to the inflamed pamphlet literature of 1589 which concentrated on the individual vilification of Henri III, ‘that Judas, that Nero’. Henri's crimes reawakened a prophetic spirit long present in Bodin's mind that had earlier appeared, slightly muted, in the République's praise of the prophets who had brought low the house of Ahab. See also the articles by Baxter, C. R., ‘Problems of the religious wars’, in French literature and its background, ed. Cruickshank, J. (Oxford, 1968), I, 166–85.Google Scholar‘Jean Bodin's Daemon and his conversion to Judaism’, in Jean Bodin, ed. Denzer, , pp. 1–21.Google Scholar

²⁴ Bodin, , République (1583), IV, 3, p. 567.Google Scholar Cf. Lettre (1590), p. 17. Chauviré, , Bodin, pp. 85 ff.Google Scholar

²⁵ République, iv, 3, p. 572, speaking of astrology as an example of naturalistic prophecy.

²⁶ The religious dimension of Bodin's politics is often missed. See for example Franklin, J. H., Jean Bodin and the rise of absolutist theory (Cambridge, 1973), p. 98Google Scholar note, where in considering in exclusively political terms Bodin's justifications of revolution he misses the religious foundation of these views. At this point should be mentioned an awkward piece of evidence. According to documents published by Ponthieux, A., ‘Quelques documents inédits sur Jean Bodin’, Revue du Seizième Siècle, XV (1928), pp. 56–99Google Scholar, at pp. 61 ff., it seems that from November 1587 until April 1589 Bodin was receiving payments ‘pour estre du conseil du Roy de Navarre’. I have no way of accounting for this except to say that the pension seems to have been owed for past legal services rendered. I doubt if Bodin were a secret agent of Navarre in the period 1589–90. Certainly as long as the cardinal de Bourbon was alive Bodin was a genuine member of the League. For a man of Bodin's intricate conscience advice and legal representation of Navarre might not have been incompatible with criticism of his patron.

²⁷ See below, note 49.

²⁸ Printed by Moreau-Reibel, , ‘Bodin’, pp. 431–3.Google Scholar Although the editor (p. 429, n. 5) appears to regard this as addressed to the same recipient as the succeeding letters it seems much closer in spirit to that of March 1589 and is clearly addressed to a fellow sympathizer with the League, perhaps Brisson again. (‘J'ay eu peur que vostre ville (Paris) ne fut contrainte par faute de vivres de capituler à dures conditions (to Henri III)…’). For Jacques Clément as deliverer see Mousnier, , Assassination, p. 214.Google Scholar

²⁹ For other participants in this mood see Baxter, ‘Problems’.

³⁰ Moreau-Reibel, , ‘Bodin’, p. 432.Google Scholar A letter to the Chevalier de la Mauvissière (printed by Chauviré, , Bodin, pp. 529 ff.Google Scholar), dated 30 September 1585, remarks ‘pas ung de toutz ceux que les hommes ont élu, choisi et nommé ne touchera ny sceptre ny couronne de France’. But this may be simply a repudiation of elective monarchy, rather than a religious expression.

³¹ For the League's conception of religious war see, e.g. the anonymous Le martel en teste des catholiques françois (Paris, 1590)Google Scholar: ‘Oú il s'agist de la religion contre les hérétiques, il n'y a père, mère, frère, soeur, parens ny amis, qui doivent nous retenir’ (quoted by Schnur, R., Die französischen Juristen im konfessionellen Bürgerkrieg des 16. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1962), pp. 14 ff.).Google Scholar

³² In so doing Bodin departed from a view earlier expressed in the République, vi, 5, p. 994. For a detailed explanation of this change of mind (evident in the Latin De Republica of 1586) see my forthcoming article ‘Bodin and the Bourbon succession’. Cf. Giesey, R., The juristic basis of dynastic right to the French throne (Transactions of the A merican Philosophical Society, N.S., LI, v) (Philadelphia, 1961), p. 31.Google ScholarBaumgartner, F. J., ‘The case for Charles X’, Sixteenth Century Journal, IV (1973), 87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 96. Id. Radical reactionaries. The political thought of the French Catholic League (Geneva, 1976), p. 166.Google Scholar Neither author has tried to understand the complexity of Bodin's thought on this topic.

³³ Moreau-Reibel, , ‘Bodin’, p. 433.Google Scholar

³⁴ Curiously enough representation was also rejected by such protagonists as François Hotman on the Protestant side (Giesey, , Juristic basis, p. 35Google Scholar) and the foremost advocate of the League, Louis D'Orleans. The latter's Second avertissement des catholiques anglois aux français catholiques (Lyons, 1590)Google Scholar argued that Roman law lacks validity in France and consequently the device of representation which was based on the private Roman law of intestate inheritance (Institutes, III, 2, 5) was inadmissible.

³⁵ Cf. Baumgartner, ‘Case of Charles X’, who does not, however, examine Bodin's views very closely.

The cardinal himself is said to have recognized the rights of his nephew and to have protested that he agreed to the League's acclamation in order to protect the rights of the Bourbons. Gambier, , Brisson, p. 78Google Scholar, quotes Charles’ remark that ‘le roi de Navarre, mon neveu, cependant fera fortune, ce que je fais n'est que pour la conservation du droit de mon neveu’. See de Villeroy, Nicholas, Mémoires d'état 1574–7594, in Nouvelle collection des mémoires sur l'histoire de France depuis le XlIIe siècle (Paris, 1836–1854), XI, 141.Google Scholar In November 1589 Charles had sent a messenger to his nephew to recognize Navarre as king of France and exhort him to convert. See Saulnier, E., Le rôle politique du cardinal de Bourbon (Charles X) 1523–1590 (Paris, 1912), pp. 226 ff.Google Scholar

Some Leaguers such as Matteo Zampini (De la succession du droict et prérogative du premier prince du sang de France (Paris, 1588)Google Scholar) might adopt degree of consanguinity as the principle of succession but at the same time exclude Navarre from the throne without saying who should in fact succeed the cardinal. Cf. Baumgartner, , Radical reactionaries, pp. 62 ff.Google Scholar

³⁶ Moreau-Reibel, , ‘Bodin’, p. 432.Google Scholar The possible right of duc François de Montpensier is based on the fact that he stands in the same degree of consanguinity as the cardinal. The cardinal had first right over the crown being the elder (and not because he was descended from the senior house of Bourbon). If the crown had not entered the house of Bourbon-Vendôme via the cardinal then it would have been contested anew between François and Navarre and the former, being senior by one degree, would have prevailed. For this somewhat peculiar argument – but one that is consistent with Bodin's views on the laws of succession – see my ‘Bodin and the Bourbon succession’. (The case of François’ father the late duke Louis II comes up for discussion in the Lettre of 1590, pp. 13 ff.)

The argument here, it should be noted, is purely hypothetical since once Charles de Bourbon had accepted the crown it could not be repudiated. Cf. the Lettre (1590), p. 15: ‘Un droit souverain impérial… qui se peut bien répudier, mais estant une fois accepter il ne se peut donner, quitter, céder ny transporter.’ The crown is not a private inheritance at the disposal of the testator. See below, note 50.

³⁷ See previous note.

³⁸ Moreau-Reibel, , ‘Bodin’, p. 433.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid. p. 433.

⁴⁰ Richart, , Mémoires, p. 68.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid. pp. 228 ff. Chauviré, , Bodin, pp. 80 ff.Google Scholar Bodin had previously been arrested in 1587 but that seems to have been the result of a purge of suspected Huguenot officials in royal service rather than because of his interests in magic or sorcery as Chauviré (p. 77) believed. See McRae, , Bodin… six bookes, introduction, p. A11.Google Scholar

⁴² Lindsay and Neu, French political pamphlets, no 1674. Pallier, Recherches sur l'imprimerie, no. 654. Published by Chaudière, Paris; Pillehotte, Lyons; Moreau, Troyes; Colomiez, Toulouse; Velpius, Brussels. (All in 1590.) Manuscript versions, none autograph, are in Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, MSS Français 4897, fos. 36–7v; Français 20153, fos. 459 ff.; suppl. Français 4255; Dupuy 744, fos. 104–9.

Hauser, H., Sources de l'histoire de France. XVIe siècle (4 vols., Paris, 1906–1915), iv, 139 f.Google Scholar, doubted the authenticity of the bulk of the letter. While we have no way of knowing precisely how the League might have tampered with particular passages the text as a whole is in keeping with the mood, tone and opinions of Bodin's authentic correspondence.

I have not yet been able to undertake a full collation of the variants in the manuscript and printed versions, but the most significant seems to be the text in Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, MS suppl. Français 4255 (ex-15222), printed by de Barthélémy, E., Etude sur Jean Bodin. Sa vie et ses travaux (repr. Paris, 1876Google Scholar, from the Annales de la Société Académique de Saint-Quentin, ser. 3, t. XIII), pp. 47–52. This appears to conflate the various letters of 1589 and 1590 adding many new phrases and omitting several passages. Among the most important variants are: (1) The placing of the cardinal and Navarre respectively in the twenty-first and twenty-second degree of consanguinity (to Henri III?) as opposed to the thirteen and fourteen degrees in which they stand to Louis IX in the Lettre. (2) A variation of the passage on the Montpensier claim to the throne in which the duc (François) de Montpensier is now correctly stated to be younger than and in the same degree as the cardinal. On this claim see Appendix I to my ‘Bodin and the Bourbon succession’. (3) The introduction of a passage, very similar to one in the letter of August 1589 (see above, note 36), on the need for Navarre first to acknowledge the cardinal if he intends to establish his own subsequent right to the throne.

⁴³ McRae, K. D., ‘The political thought of Jean Bodin’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Harvard, 1954), pp. 124 ff.Google Scholar, suggests that his enemies arranged the publication. Chauviré, , Bodin, p. 82Google Scholar, thinks Bodin had to publish the Lettre to clear himself with the League. But it is clear from his private correspondence that it was published without his consent. ‘Toutefois je me plains que l'on a publié des lettres à Paris sous mon nom sans que je sçay qu'elles portent…’, letter of 1590–1, in Moreau-Reibel, , ‘Bodin’, p. 434.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Its admission of the right of Navarre to succeed the cardinal would scarcely have seemed good publicity for the League after the cardinal's death in May 1590.

⁴⁵ Not to Brisson, , pace McRae, ‘Political thought of Bodin’, p. 124Google Scholar, who seems to be following a note on the manuscript copy MS Dupuy 744, to. 108 v. Cf. Chauviré, Bodin, p. 83.

Note the reference at p. 5 to the unpublished book which Bodin hoped to show his correspondent. This was most likely the Theatrum Naturae. Cf. the mention of another unpublished book in a letter of 1595 to Roland Bignon, printed by Chauviré, , Bodin, p. 534.Google Scholar (It is unlikely that Bignon was the recipient of the Lettre of 1590; he was a supporter of the League at that time.)

⁴⁶ Note the similarity of these phrases to the concluding paragraph of the letter of 15 August 1589.

⁴⁷ For details see my forthcoming article.

⁴⁸ Lettre de M. Bodin, p. 13: ‘Car comme princes descendus de la maison de de France, toute leur parenté qui estoit de l'estoc paternel passoit le dixiesme degré.…’ (Referring to the Roman law of intestate inheritance, Institutes of Justinian, III, 2, 5; III, 5, 5.) Giesey, Juristic basis, pp. 24 ff., points out that in collateral lines representation was limited to three degrees of consanguinity. This certainly seems to be the case with French law as Bodin saw it. both the letter of August 1589 and the Lettre of 1590 Bodin limits representation to the sole case of a nephew succeeding an uncle. The relationship here, counting from the nephew through his father to the grandfather and thence to the uncle, is in the third degree.

It should be noted that Bodin counts his degrees of consanguinity from the ancestral king or genearch to the claimant (‘à prendre de père à fils’, p. 10). Thus, between Louis IX and Navarre Bodin reckons fourteen degrees. On the other hand Roman civil law counts the degrees between the immediately deceased king and the claimant. If applied to the present case this would place more than twenty degrees between Henri III and Navarre.

⁴⁹ So convincing was Bodin's advocacy of the fundamental law of succession that Chauviré, (Bodin, p. 86)Google Scholar regarded this letter as evidence that Bodin was an unrepentant politique and took it merely as an oblique encouragement of Navarre's claim to the throne (‘une apologie hypocrite de la Ligue’). In truth Bodin was still a faithful, though circumscribed, adherent of the League. Indeed after the death of Henri III the League's cause became better founded in his mind by virtue of the fact that it was no longer a revolt against the king but rather a movement fighting in support of the new legitimate king Charles X. See the Lettre of 1590, p. 16: ‘Vous voyez donc maintenant, Monsieur, que la cause de l'union est mieux fondée que vous ne pensiez, encores qu'on vueille dire que de commencement elle estoit malfondée à cause de la rebellion pretendue contre son Roy.…’ See below, notes 58, 72 and 83.

⁵⁰ A repudiated inheritance might have gone not to Navarre but to the house of Bourbon-Montpensier. However, Bodin was speaking hypothetically about the late duke Louis II de Montpensier as the heir of the cardinal (pp. 13 ff.). (See above, note 36.)

⁵¹ Introduction des gens des troys estats (Blois, 1577). The basis of this view was the promise in the coronation oath to protect the Church. Cf. Baumgartner, , Radical reactionaries, pp. 56 ff., 67 ff.Google Scholar

⁵² Isambert, F., Recueil général des anciennes lois françaises depuis l'an 420 jusqu'à la revolution de 1789 (20 vols, Paris, 1821–1833), xiv, 618, 630.Google Scholar

⁵³ Jean Bodin, Recueil de tout ce qui s'est negotié en la compagnie du Tiers Estate de France… Blois… 1576 (s. i., 1577).

⁵⁴ République, 1, 8. Cf. Lemaire, A., Les lois fondamentales de la monarchie française d'après les théoriciens de l'ancien régime (Paris, 1907), pp. 114 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ I am unable to agree with Baumgartner, , Radical reactionaries, pp. 165 ff.Google Scholar, when he claims that ‘it is clear that Bodin was persuaded to join the League largely on the basis of the fundamental law of Catholicity. He accepted the necessity of the League to defend Catholicism’. There is no evidence that Bodin regarded Catholicity as a fundamental law whereas he certainly agreed with the League's support of Charles X on the ground that this was in keeping with the fundamental law of succession. The legitimacy of Charles X seems to have been the critical factor in Bodin's committing himself to the League in good conscience.

⁵⁶ Exhortation à la paix adressée à ceux de la Ligue, in Vair, Guillaume Du, Actions et traictez oratoires, ed. Radouant, R. (Paris, 1911), pp. 63 ff.Google Scholar Cf. Radouant, , Guillaume Du Vair, pp. 282 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ayrault, Pierre, Supplication et advis au roy de se faire catholique (Angers, 1591).Google Scholar (Bibl. Nat., MS Dupuy 317). Cf. Radouant, , Du Vair, pp. 292 ff.Google ScholarCioranesco, A., Bibliographie de la littérature française du seizième siècle (Paris, 1959), p. 98.Google Scholar A letter of 1595 from Bodin to Ayrault is printed by Chauviré, , Bodin, pp. 532 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Lettre of 1590, p. 16. See above note 49 for quotation.

⁵⁹ Cf. Lettre d'un ‘Lt. Général, p. 8. Chauviré, , Bodin, pp. 85 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ I am aware that this silence may be accidental. Unlike the two printed letters none of these manuscript letters is intended to give an extensive account of Bodin's thinking.

⁶¹ Moreau-Reibel, , ‘Bodin’, p. 434.Google Scholar

⁶² Printed by Moreau-Reibel, , ‘Bodin’, pp. 433 ff.Google Scholar and datable to after February 1590 by the reference to letters of Bodin's (presumably the Lettre de M. Bodin) recently published without authorization at Paris.

Addressed to a fellow-Leaguer, to judge from the sentence ‘Vray est que nous avons les trois principaux avec nous, à sçavoir le Pape, l'Empereur et le Roi d'Espagne’.

The letter is signed ‘Frère et amy.…’ Could this be addressing Brisson?

Moreau-Reibel was unable to identify the ‘Mr. d'Ogier’ to whom Bodin asks his correspondent to convey his greetings. One may suggest that it was in fact Dauger, the Paris advocate, who had saved Bodin at the barricades in May 1588 by affirming that he was a good Catholic. See de l'Estoile, Pierre, Journal pour le règne de Henri IV (1589–1611) (3 vols., Paris, 1948–1960), i, 235.Google Scholar

⁶³ Moreau-Reibel, , ‘Bodin’, p. 434.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Bodin stands by his earlier predictions of a seven-year war. ‘Nous en avons eschappé un an, qui n'est que jeu. Car les quattre ans qui restent à mon avis serait(sic) bien plus fascheux à passer’, in Moreau-Reibel, , ‘Bodin’, p. 434.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ For the Lex Solonis see below.

⁶⁶ Moreau-Reibel, , ‘Bodin’, pp. 435 f.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ For the foreign threat see Yardeni, Conscience nationale en France.

⁶⁸ Moreau-Reibel, , ‘Bodin’, p. 436.Google Scholar Cf. Vivanti, C., Lotta politica e pace religiosa in Francia fra cinque e seicento (Turin, 1963)Google Scholar on hopes for a king of peace. In discussing Bodin Vivanti (pp. 64 ff.) concentrates on the Heptaplomeres and does not consider the problem of Bodin's membership of the League.

⁶⁹ de Thou, Jacques-Auguste, Historiarum sui temporis libri CXX (1543–1607) (7 vols., London, 1733), iv, 641 f., 698.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Quoted by Chauviré, , Bodin, p. 88.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Baudrillart, H., Jean Bodin et son temps (Paris, 1853), PP. 131–5.Google Scholar

⁷² Chauviré, , Bodin, pp. 78 ff., 85–8.Google Scholar Thus the Lettre of 1590 becomes ‘une apologie hypocrite de la Ligue’ published by Bodin to save himself. See above, note 49. Chauviré considerably softens the strictures of Richart. Most modern writers seem to accept the argument from fear, e.g. Allen, J. W., A history of political thought in the sixteenth century (repr. London, 1957), p. 397.Google ScholarFranklin, , Bodin and absolutist theory, p. 97 n. See below.Google Scholar

⁷³ Recent attempts by Baldwin (‘Bodin and the League’, loc. cit.), Giesey, (Juristic basis, pp. 30 ff.)Google Scholar and Baumgartner, (Radical reactionaries, pp. 165 ff.)Google Scholar to argue that Bodin's Catholicism made him a sincere supporter of the League seem to be as simplistic as efforts to argue from expediency. The only account which seems to sense the complexity of the issue is that of Moreau-Reibel (‘Bodin et la Ligue’) although he does not closely analyse the correspondence.

⁷⁴ Richart, , Mémoires, p. 230Google Scholar (the second p. 230 in the mispagination), remarks:‘… il luy eust mieux par son honneur sortir la ville au commencement de ces guerres comme feirent beaucoup d'aultres de sa qualité sans nager entre deux eaues comme il penssoit faire où il a perdu tout l'honneur et la réputation qu'il s'estoit acquis de longemps…’.

Richart was convinced that Bodin had gone against his conscience (p. 68): ‘De Bodin il demeura seul sans fréquentation de personne, combien qu'en sa harangue il se fust efforcé de monstrer son affection à la Ligue en foullant aux piedz devant tous vraiz françois les droictz et auctoritez des estatz de France, mais en vain, car il estoit bien congneu en la ville pour ung politicque et dangereux catholicque, dont c'est un chose très vraie que les hommes saiges n'ont pas tousjours une discrétion ou jugement parfaict. De quoy il est nécessaire que souvent se demonstrèrent des signes de la faiblesse de l'entendement humain tel qu'il feit à ceste église cathédralle où il uza des parolles assez mal sonnantes que je ne veulx réciter. Cest acte lui donna une grande tâche entre les gens d'honneur, il luy sembla ses parolles estre propres pour se rendre (contre sa conscience) plus agréable aux ligueurs à s'estendre ainsy par trop en sa harangue au mespris de son Roy, et comme depuis il feit encores à une response qu'il signa en ung exploit d'un huissier ainsy qu'il sera dict cy apres, mais pour tout cela Bodin non fut davantage emploié aux affaires publicques, les ligueurs se servans de lui seullement comme d'un baston à ruer aux noix. Voila doncq Bodin demeure seul à faire comme on dict des chasteaux en Espagne.’

⁷⁵ Lettre (1590), p. 3. Allen, , History, p. 397Google Scholar, comments that ‘there is little need to search for other reasons for his unheroic and very excusable conduct’.

⁷⁶ République, iv, 7. The Latin version greatly elaborates the remarks at pp. 655 f. of the French edition of 1583. For an English translation of the Latin text of 1586 see Bodin, , Six bookes of a Commonweale, pp. 536–40Google Scholar: ‘By this means the conscience of an honest man is forced to take either the one or other part, when perhaps he thinks both naught, and that they are both in the wrong.… In brief, the law of God (Deuteronomy) forbids him that knows the truth to follow the common opinion of them which are out of the way, whereunto Solon's law seems to repugn in forcing a man to take either the one part or the other, although that they both be naught.’ Bodin seems to let the antinomy stand. But he does assert that religious conscience is not a sufficient reason for rebellion (Six bookes, pp. 539 f., quoted below at note 87). It should be emphasized that Bodin's advocacy of the Lex Solonis did not mean that he encouraged civil war; in fact at the beginning of the chapter he had denounced civil war and factions (Six bookes, p. 519). But once war had broken out then sides must be taken. His views in this respect parallel those on rebellion and revolution; once a rebellion became a successful revolution it should be accepted as a fait accompli. See above, note 15.

⁷⁷ Du Vair, Constance, bk. III. Cf. Radouant, , Guillaume Du Vair, pp. 196 ff., 266 f.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See above, note 20.

⁷⁹ Suasion pour la loi salique, in Du Vair, Actions et traictez, ed. Radouant.

⁸⁰ Chauviré, , Bodin, p. 88.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Even if he did abandon his ties with Navarre – a connexion which scarcely amounted to a matter of principle – he did so with the principle of the Lex Solonis in mind.

⁸² République (1583 edn), 11, 5, pp. 305 f.: ‘Théologiens tiennent qu'il n'est jamais licite, non pas seulement de tuer, ains de se rebeller contre son prince souverain, si ce n'est qu'il y eust mandement spécial de Dieu, et indubitable: comme nous avons de lehu, lequel fut eslu de Dieu, et sacré Roy par le Prophète avec mandement exprès de faire mourir la race d'Achab… Mais il ne faut pas parangonner ce mandement spécial de Dieu aux coniurations et rébellions des subjects mutins contre le Prince souverain.’

⁸³ Bodin was always cautious about his opinion of the post hoc legitimacy of a successful revolt. See Lemaire, , Lois fondamentales, pp. 113 f.Google Scholar

For his caution even in March 1589 see above, note 15; and for the admission in the Lettre of 1590 that the initial revolt had perhaps been ‘mal fondée’ see above, notes 49 and 58. Franklin, , Bodin and absolutist theory, p. 97 nGoogle Scholar, thinks Bodin's resistance to the king in 1589 curious though he was ‘not guilty of violating his principles’. Bodin ‘did not justify the act of rebellion. He merely treated it as a fait accompli which Henry had brought upon himself’. I hope I may have elucidated Mr Franklin's perceptive remarks here. (Incidentally Bodin supported the claim of Charles – not Antoine – de Bourbon and he did not recognize Mayenne as next in line in 1590.)

⁸⁴ See above, notes 32 ff. Also my forthcoming article ‘Bodin and the Bourbon succession’. I am not entirely convinced that Bodin intended to support Navarre's claim in 1583.

Franklin, , Bodin and absolutist theory, p. 97Google Scholar, notes, but does not explain, the switch from the nephew to the uncle's side. Giesey, , Juristic basis, pp. 30Google Scholar f., does not consider any juristic reason for the change and seems to attribute it solely to the ‘changed religious atmosphere’. McRae, ‘Political thought of Bodin’, p. 130, and in his introduction to Six bookes of a Commonweale, p. A11, asserts that ‘Bodin's new views on the succession cannot be accepted as sincere’, though he admits that Bodin's argument would establish Navarre as the cardinal's successor. The République's maintenance of the prior right of the nephew is taken as Bodin's ‘genuine’ view. This is too simple.

⁸⁵ Moreau-Reibel, , ‘Bodin et la Ligue’, pp. 437 f.Google Scholar, rightly points out that Bodin did not support the democratic and religious programme of the League.

⁸⁶ Pace Giesey, Baumgartner and Baldwin (above, note 73). For the République on fundamental law, see above note 54.

⁸⁷ In two early writings Bodin had apparently favoured war in the interests of vera religio. The first is in the Methodus of 1566 (‘Ego vero impius judicarem nisi quancumque religionem veram judicaret, non eam quoque tueri et contrarias evertere conaretur’, in Oeuvres philosophiques de Jean Bodin, ed. Mesnard, P. (Paris, 1951), I, 135A.Google Scholar However, de Caprariis, V., Propaganda e pensiero politico in Francia durante le guerre di religione (Naples, 1959), 1, 329Google Scholar, has suggested that this is more an avowal of sincerity than advocacy of religious war. The second source is the famous letter to Bautru which I would date to 1568–9. For this see Rose, ‘Two problems of Bodin's religious biography’, no. 12.

These remarks should be contrasted with Bodin's position in the Latin version of the République issued in 1586, quoted here after the Knolles translation (Six bookes, pp. 539 f.): ‘Yet when we may not publicly use the true religion, which still consists in the worshipping of one almighty and everlasting God, lest by contemning of the religion which is publicly received we should seem to allure or stir the subjects unto impiety or sedition, it is better to come unto the public service, so that the mind still rest in the honour and reverence of one almighty and ever living God’ (Cf. Republica (Paris, 1586), pp. 485 f.

⁸⁸ République, iv, 7, pp. 652 ff. in the French edition of 1583; extended in the Six bookes of the Commonweale, pp. 539 f., which follows for the most part the Latin text of 1586 (pp. 485 f.).

⁸⁹ See above, note 30. There may be a parallel between this and Francis Bacon's, comment (Considerations touching a warre with Spain, 1624, in Certaine miscellany works (London, 1629), p. 3)Google Scholar that ‘warres are suits of appeale to the tribunall of God's justice, where there are no superiours on Earth to determine the cause’. In the Lettre of 1590 Bodin had devoted several pages (pp. 6–9) to proving that since the sides were so evenly and powerfully matched only God could determine the issue.

⁹⁰ External war may have intensified Bodin's search for inner religious peace as it did with other such spirituals as Abraham Ortelius. Cf. Yates, Frances, The Valois tapestries (London, 1959), p. 106.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Bodin was fond of quoting Jeremiah. See the letter of 1590–1 in Moreau-Reibel, , ‘Bodin et la Ligue’, p. 435.Google Scholar (‘Ulciscar inimicos meos per inimicos meos’), earlier cited in the 1583 edition of the République, iv, 7, p. 657, ‘Ie me vengeray (parlant en la bouche de Hieremie) de mes ennemis, par mes ennemis’. He would have certainly known the distinction between prophets of war and of peace in Jeremiah, xxviii, 8–9: ‘The prophets that have been before me… of old prophesied… of war, and of evil, and of pestilence. The prophet which prophesieth of peace… the Lord hath truly sent him.…’