Comparing Beza's, Bodin's and Lanquet's Views on Tyranny

Religious turmoil and unfavorable monarchies were abound in sixteenth century France. As Protestantism began to spread throughout the land, tensions between the French Huguenots and the Crown, deemed the "most Christian" in all of Europe, began to increase rapidly. Eventually, these tensions would culminate into three civil wars and much more bloodshed. During this time, much thought began to emerge concerning the validity of a ruler and the circumstances under which action should be taken against him. Three Frenchman, Theodore Beza, a Huguenot who would eventually relocate to Geneva and succeed Calvin, Hubert Lanquet, a French Protestant who served diplomatically for the Duke of Saxony, and Jean Bodin, a French jurist and supporter of the monarchy, wrote extensively on the topic. However, because of their different backgrounds, their opinions on the matter differ. While Beza and Lanquet support overthrowing an unjust ruler by certain means, Bodin writes on the contrary, essentially claiming that subjects may never assault their legitimate ruler.

Arguing from the Protestant perspective, both Beza and Lanquet both ultimately deem it necessary to depose unjust rulers. Focusing first on the common people, though, Beza urges the private citizen not to oppose an unjust ruler, but advises him or her rather to flee or take refuge in prayer. His primary concern is that "endless disorder" would arise, which he believes to be "worse even than tyranny itself" (2). Instead, he claims that it is the duty of the magistrates and elected officials, who oversee the private citizens and protect them under the law, to "so far oppose the tyrant and even, if need be, inflict just and deserved punishment upon him" (7). Lanquet voices a similar outlook, also stating that it should be the duty of the officials representative of the people "to restrain the encroachments of sovereignty" (20). However, he is not so direct in demanding that the private citizen not oppose the sovereign. Instead, he claims, "it is lawful for a whole people to resist and oppose tyranny, so likewise the principal persons of the kingdom may, for the good of the people, do the same" (22). Lanquet is thus placing more emphasis on the vigilance of magistrates to uphold a just rule than in discouraging the private individual from taking up arms for him or herself.

In stark contrast from his two Protestant counterparts, Bodin argues that a ruler may not be overthrown, no matter how tyrannical he may be, so long as his rule is legitimate. In his writings, Bodin illustrates the difference he perceives to be between a tyrannical monarch, and a tyrant. The former he defines as one who "tramples underfoot the laws of nature" (34), while the latter he says to be "one who on his own responsibility makes of himself a sovereign prince without election, hereditary claim, just conquest, or special divine commission" (37). As he was a supporter of the French monarchy and in the royal circle all throughout his life, it is no surprise that Bodin considers an assault on a genuine monarchy to be out of the question: "if the prince is an absolute sovereign, as are the true kings of France... whose authority is unquestionably their own... then it is in no circumstances permissible either by any of their subjects in particular, or all in general, to attempt anything against the life and honour 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" (38). Furthermore, instead of combating a sovereign, Bodin, like Beza, suggests that one flee, go into hiding, or even suffer death rather than openly struggle. However, while Beza insists thereupon because he considered the private citizen to be in no position to counteract the sovereign, Bodin thought so for the aforementioned reason, and further supports his argument by claiming "nothing is more insisted on in Holy Writ than the wickedness of compassing the death of the prince..." (39). All things considered, Bodin's view on resistance is nearly opposite to those of his two counterparts, as he does not really take into consideration the actions and character of a ruler, but rather the legitimacy.

All three of these sources set for its own interpretation on how the individual and society could deal with tyrants. While the different backgrounds of the writers led to them each having their own differences, their writings would ultimately serve as some of the first challenges and defenses, of absolute power. The century to follow, that of the Enlightenment and Absolutism, would only further witness this trend and produce much more like thought.

Bibliography

1) Rebels and Rulers, 1500â1660. Perez Zagorin