Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Jean Bodin
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
PL
Celem artykułu jest analiza dwóch istotnych dzieł dotyczących struktury konstytucyjnej XVI-wiecznej monarchii francuskiej – Sześciu ksiąg o Rzeczpospolitej Jeana Bodina oraz Vindiciae, contra tyrannos anonimowego Brutusa – jako odpowiedzi na kryzys instytucjonalny królestwa, zwłaszcza w perspektywie ściśle ze sobą powiązanych kwestii decentralizacji i słabości królewskiego aparatu administracyjnego. Ukazano, w jaki sposób napięcie między administracją monarszą a lokalnymi ośrodkami władzy zmusiło Bodina i Brutusa do opowiedzenia się po jednej ze stron oraz jak to wpłynęło na kształt ich teorii. Analiza ujęcia przez Bodina i Brutusa skomplikowanych realiów instytucjonalnych monarchii francuskiej w swoich teoriach rzuca światło na ich stosunek do funkcjonowania w państwie lokalnych ośrodków władzy, ich teoretycznego unieszkodliwiania bądź celowego wykorzystywania, jak również wskazuje, jak bardzo faktyczna decentralizacja państwa wpływała na kształt teorii obu autorów.
EN
The purpose of this paper is to analyze two significant treatises concerning the constitutional structure of the 16th century French monarchy, namely Jean Bodin’s Les Six livres de la République and Vindiciae, contra tyrannos written under the pseudonym of Brutus. The texts were answers to an ongoing institutional crisis of the monarchy, especially in light of the strictly connected issues of decentralization and the weakness of the royal administrative apparatus. The paper portrays how the tension between the royal administration and the complicated structure of the local networks of power not only rendered it impossible for both Bodin and Brutus not to take a stance on the matter but also how it influenced the shape of their theories. An analysis of how Brutus and Bodin tried to incorporate the complex institutional realities of the French kingdom into their own theories sheds some light on the authors’ attitude towards the functioning of the local centres of power, their theoretical disabling or using them on purpose; it also points to how much the actual decentralization of the state influenced the shape of the theories of both authors.
EN
Colloquial representations link the establishment of the political-legal category of sovereignty with the activity of Jean Bodin. The very notion itself appeared earlier, though. The paper, which provides exclusively an initial framework of the problem area, recollects how the shaping of the understanding of sovereignty was progressing in the Middle Ages: from the appearance of the word superanus, through the concept of dispersed sovereignty represented by Philip de Beaumanoir, into the medieval sources of formation of J. Bodin’s monistic concept. The author also points to the differences in the Weltanschauung, which characterized that epoch in relation to modern times. Moreover, he wonders which of the meanings of the notion of sovereignty is better adjusted to fit contemporary times: primeval, the pluralistic framework proposed by Philip de Beaumanoir, which is characterized by acknowledgement of dispersion of competence and network-like system of power, or maybe the framework offered by Bodin and Hobbes, one that is modern, monistic, exclusivism-oriented and based on the law of excluded centre. In conclusion, the author expresses the conviction that in view of the need to protect natural human rights, the concept of dispersed sovereignty should be returned to.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.