The Rise of Modern Political Science
Part I
Abstract: L’articolo analizza l’evoluzione del pensiero politico moderno a partire dalle guerre di religione in Europa, che hanno segnato il XVI e XVII secolo. Conflitti tra cattolici e protestanti, come la Ribellione olandese e la Guerra dei Trent’anni, hanno condizionato la formazione degli Stati moderni e portato alla Pace di Westfalia (1648), che sancì il principio di tolleranza religiosa. Successivamente, viene esaminato l’impatto del pensiero di Niccolò Machiavelli, la cui visione pragmatica della politica fu oggetto di critiche sia da parte dei fautori del neo-machiavellismo, che la interpretarono in senso utilitaristico, sia dagli anti-machiavelliani, come Innocent Gentillet, che sostenevano una monarchia costituzionale basata su princìpi morali. Infine, il testo approfondisce il contributo di Jean Bodin, autore della prima teoria sistematica dello Stato e del concetto moderno di sovranità. Bodin affermava che l’autorità sovrana dovesse essere assoluta ma limitata dalle leggi naturali e divine, ponendo le basi per il modello dello Stato moderno. La sua visione, pur giustificando il potere monarchico, introduceva princìpi di stabilità istituzionale e tolleranza religiosa, influenzando lo sviluppo della teoria politica europea.
Wars of Religion in Europe
During the latter half of the 16th century, Europe was engulfed in religious wars. Emperor Charles V of Habsburg (1500–1558) had attempted to consolidate Europe under a new Holy Roman Empire, but his ambitions were thwarted by the fierce conflict between Catholics and Protestants, leading to significant political consequences. His son and successor, King Philip II of Spain (1527–1598), who ruled over Spain, The Netherlands, and various territories in Italy and the Americas, saw his reign as divinely ordained, positioning himself as a staunch defender of Catholicism.
Philip’s uncompromising religious stance incited rebellion in the northern provinces of The Netherlands. After a series of uprisings, these provinces declared their independence in 1581, forming the “Republic of the Seven United Netherlands” and breaking away from the Catholic southern provinces.
In Germany, the Peace of Augsburg (1555) sought to address the religious divide by establishing a principle known as cuius regio, eius religio, which allowed rulers to determine the religion of their territories. However, this meant that individuals had little personal religious freedom, as subjects were required to follow the faith of their prince, or face emigration if they could not comply.
In France, Calvinism, known locally as Huguenotism, had gained significant traction, leading to intense conflict with the Catholic forces, backed by the Crown. This culminated in the brutal St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of 1572, when thousands of Huguenots were slaughtered in Paris. It wasn’t until the Edict of Nantes in 1598 that religious equality was officially recognized, granting subjects equal rights regardless of their faith. This shift toward tolerance was largely driven by King Henry IV, once the leader of the Huguenot faction, who strategically converted to Catholicism in 1594 in order to unify the kingdom and bring stability.
The broader religious strife that had plagued Europe for decades erupted on an international scale during the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648). Initially sparked by internal conflicts within individual nations, these disputes expanded into a continental struggle. Catholic powers—Spain, Austria, and the League of German Catholic States—clashed with Protestant forces, including France, Holland, England, Sweden, and the Protestant states of Germany. While religious differences fueled the war, underlying political ambitions, such as France and Spain’s fight for dominance in Europe and the Habsburgs’ desire to control the German states, played a significant role.
The conflict finally concluded with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. The treaty reaffirmed the principles of the Peace of Augsburg, extending religious tolerance to Calvinists and mandating that sovereigns respect religious minorities. Furthermore, it was decreed that ecclesiastical properties held by Protestants since 1624 would not be returned to the Catholic Church, marking a significant resolution to both religious and territorial disputes.
Niccolò Machiavelli’s Legacy: Machiavellism and Anti-Machiavellism
The rise of principalities and monarchies in Italy and across Europe led to a reevaluation of Machiavelli’s doctrines, rendering them outdated in the context of changing political landscapes. Neo-Machiavellian thinkers viewed The Prince as a manual for governing techniques, missing the deeper philosophical implications at its core. On the other hand, anti-Machiavellian thinkers, particularly Reginald Pole (1500–1558), sought to reassert the primacy of natural law and to restore the ethical and religious foundations of Christian politics. For Pole, politics, nature, reason, and faith were inseparably linked, and any political philosophy that neglected these elements, as Machiavelli’s did, was inherently immoral and dangerous, ultimately leading to the destruction of the state and its people.
The decline of Machiavellianism became irreversible during the French Wars of Religion (1560–1570), as Machiavelli’s ideas increasingly came to be associated with tyranny. In this context, Huguenot thinker Innocent Gentillet (1532–1588) emerged as a prominent critic of Machiavelli, advocating for a monarchy guided by prudence and rooted in constitutional principles. Gentillet argued for the enhancement of the role of Councils to steer the monarchy away from absolutism. Central to his vision was the revival of the States-General, a body representing the corporate structure of French society, which would impose limits on the sovereign’s absolute power and promote governance in line with constitutionalism.
This movement toward checks on monarchical power reflected a broader resistance to Machiavellianism, highlighting a shift toward a more ethically grounded and constitutionally restrained form of governance.
Jean Bodin and the “Doctrine of the State”
In the history of political thought, Jean Bodin (1529–1596) holds a pivotal role. His work Six Books of the Republic (1576) represents the first systematic formulation of state doctrine, introducing the groundbreaking concept of sovereignty as an inherent and exclusive attribute of the State, independent of divine influence. Bodin’s treatise is both comprehensive and innovative, redefining the term “republic” to signify the State as the locus of political sovereignty, regardless of the governing structure—be it monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy.
Bodin’s significance extends beyond merely conceptualizing sovereignty. He meticulously identified the factors that drive the rise and prosperity of states, as well as those that contribute to their decline. Central to his theory is the idea that a state thrives when it fosters a strong middle class, capable of mediating between the interests of the populace and the ruling elite. This middle class serves to moderate political tensions and prevent rebellions by establishing a balanced institutional framework that ensures social and political harmony.
At the core of Bodin’s political theory lies the assertion that a state can only be considered legitimate if it possesses absolute sovereignty, meaning it is fully recognized—both domestically and internationally—as the sole authority. This sovereignty is crucial for maintaining internal order and providing its citizens with the benefits of equity, security, and overall well-being.
In Bodin’s political philosophy, the general interest of the state must always take precedence over individual or particular interests. The governing power is tasked with resolving potential social conflicts arising from political actions, and Bodin likens the ruler to a ship’s captain, entrusted with steering society through its complexities. The State (or cité) only truly exists when it is founded upon an inseparable union of law and faith, transforming a mere urban settlement (ville) into a cohesive political entity.
Bodin’s vision of political authority transcends personal attributes and circumstances, treating power as an impersonal, timeless force. It matters not who holds power, how, when, or where they govern. This abstraction of authority is most fully realized in the institution of monarchy, where power is concentrated in a single person—the monarch—not as an individual, but as the living symbol of the state itself. The monarch serves as a transient embodiment of a political office, responsible for a wide range of functions: legislating, making decisions on war and peace, appointing officials, and serving as the final arbiter of justice.
While this power is vast, it is not arbitrary. It is bound by the immutable principles of natural law, which safeguard human dignity by recognizing individuals as rational beings, and divine law, which reflects supreme religious and moral values. The monarch, although divinely ordained and directly answerable to God (with the crime of “lese majesty” being equivalent to an offense against the divine), must not allow his rule to slip into despotism or tyranny.
The ultimate goal of the state and its leaders, according to Bodin, is the pursuit of collective happiness through the proper management of both tangible public goods (roads, churches, monuments) and intangible ones (customs, traditions, and societal norms). This balanced governance, rooted in both temporal and spiritual law, seeks to ensure the well-being and harmonious coexistence of its people.
The modernity of Jean Bodin’s thought lies in two fundamental aspects: his emphasis on the stability and strength of institutions and his advocacy for religious tolerance. Bodin believed that a state must uphold the freedom of conscience and worship for its citizens, rejecting the notion that the state should revoke these liberties. This progressive view laid the groundwork for the legitimacy of absolute states, and Bodin’s ideas became a cornerstone for the development of European political theory.
Bodin argued that the only path to lasting social peace and the protection of individual lives lies in the establishment of a single, supreme power. This authority must be capable of enforcing order, even through force if necessary, and Bodin denied the right of resistance against such a power. Sovereignty, in Bodin’s conception, is characterized by its absoluteness, constrained only by the natural law, rather than by contracts or agreements with the populace or social classes.
Moreover, the sovereign (or the monarch, who personifies state sovereignty) is not obligated to adhere to ordinary laws. The sovereign’s only binding responsibility is to uphold fundamental laws, without which the state itself would collapse. Thus, while Bodin endorses absolute rule, he also acknowledges certain inherent limits, ensuring that the monarchy’s power is not unchecked but is rooted in the preservation of the state’s essential structure.
This statement underscores the revolutionary nature of Jean Bodin’s political theory. In contrast to the medieval ruler, whose legitimacy was derived from upholding established laws and equity—the “natural” order of things—Bodin proposed a radically different conception of sovereignty. The medieval principle, exemplified by the Magna Carta, required rulers to respect the traditional rights of various social classes and operate within the bounds of established law.
Bodin, however, argued that the sovereign’s respect for existing laws should be limited to a select few fundamental laws. The sovereign’s primary function of maintaining social peace and ensuring the security of the people necessitates broad legislative authority. For Bodin, law becomes the primary instrument through which the sovereign’s will is expressed, enabling a far greater degree of freedom in governance than medieval rulers enjoyed.
One of the most revolutionary aspects of Bodin’s thought is his assertion that sovereign power is superior to all other authorities, including the Church. The legitimacy of sovereignty, according to Bodin, stems not from any ecclesiastical or feudal power, but directly from God. This sovereign authority is independent of, and above, the various fragmented powers that had defined the medieval system.
Moreover, Bodin emphasizes several essential characteristics of sovereignty: it must be perpetual, as it cannot be time-bound; indivisible, since only a single authority can wield it fully, with any delegation being merely temporary; non-transferable, because transferring sovereignty results in its permanent loss; and imprescriptible, meaning it cannot be lost even if some of its functions remain unexercised for a prolonged period, so long as they align with natural law.
Although Bodin assigns the sovereign absolute and indivisible power, his framework does not promote tyranny. Rather, it envisions a constitutional state where sovereignty is exercised within the boundaries of law and aimed at securing the well-being of the people. His vision, therefore, is not a defense of despotism, but a structured and law-based model of governance, where the sovereign authority is both empowered and constrained by its foundational purpose.
There are indeed significant limits to the absolute power of the sovereign in Bodin’s framework. Firstly, certain fundamental laws of the Kingdom of France remain beyond the reach of even the monarch. The most prominent of these is the Salic Law, which prohibits women from inheriting the throne, ensuring that the French Crown passes exclusively through the male line. Additionally, the inalienability of state territory is another key restriction, preventing the king from transferring or ceding any part of the kingdom’s land.
Another crucial limitation pertains to property rights. According to Bodin, the king cannot arbitrarily deprive his subjects of their property. Any confiscation must follow legally prescribed procedures, and property itself is regarded as an absolute right grounded in divine and natural law, not as a privilege granted by the sovereign. This view of property rights serves as a safeguard against the potential abuses of power.
These legal and natural limits on royal authority distinguish absolute monarchy from tyranny. Tyranny, by contrast, is characterized by arbitrary, unchecked power, often exercised through violence and devoid of any respect for law or rights. While Bodin grants the sovereign extensive powers, he is clear that sovereignty must operate within these fundamental constraints. Notably, in extreme cases where tyranny prevails, Bodin even acknowledges the possibility of subjects having a right to resist.
Thus, Bodin’s vision of monarchy, though absolute, is carefully balanced by legal principles and respect for individual rights, preventing the descent into despotism.
