Horst Steinke
36
bility in human society, in respect to which the Romans were a
case-in-point, as breathlessly narrated in paragraph § 1006:
The commonwealth remained aristocratic as long as the fathers pre-
served the authority of ownership within their reigning orders, and un-
til the plebs […] had obtained from the fathers themselves laws ex-
tending to them the certain ownership of the fields, the right to solemn
nuptials, the sovereign powers, the priesthoods, and thereby the sci-
ence of the laws. But as soon as the plebs […] became numerous and
inured to war, and with force on their side […] began to enact laws
[…], then the commonwealth changed from aristocratic to popular.
[…] In this revolution, in order that the authority of ownership might
retain what it could […], it naturally became the authority of wardship.
[…] In virtue of this authority, the free peoples […] submitted to ad-
ministration by their guardians, the senates. But when […] the free
peoples […] let themselves be seduced by the powerful […], then fac-
tions, seditions, and civil wars […] brought on the monarchical form.
It is at this point that Vico breaks off his reflections on Ro-
man law and governance. What follows is uncharacteristic, a
lengthy polemic against Jean Bodin’s (1530-1596) political theo-
ry
50
. It is true, of course, that throughout
Scienza nuova
, Vico peri-
odically contrasts his views with that of other early modern
thinkers, in particular Grotius, Selden, and Pufendorf
51
, but nev-
er to the extent to which he goes here (§§ 1009-1019). And what
is his main issue and controversy with Bodin? In the very first
paragraph of the section, Vico pinpoints it: «the political theory
of Jean Bodin, which places the successive forms of civil consti-
tutions in this order: they were first monarchies, then […] be-
came free and popular, and finally became aristocratic». This
does not simply represent a disagreement about a secondary as-
pect of speculative historiography, but, in Vico’s view, strikes at
the heart of his overall theoretical edifice, and, if left un-
addressed, places his entire “new science” in doubt; hence his
unusually strong wording: «We might here content ourselves