PopularDissent,HumanAgencyandGlobalPoliticsRolandBleiker - PDF document

PopularDissent,HumanAgencyandGlobalPoliticsRolandBleiker PUBLISHEDBYTHEPRESSSYNDICATEOFTHEUNIVERSITYOFCAMBRIDGEThePittBuilding,TrumpingtonStreet,Cambridge,UnitedKingdomCAMBRIDGEUNIVERSITYPRESSTheEdinburghBuilding,CambridgeCB22RU,UK40West20thStreet,NewYork,NY10011-4211,USAhttp://www.cup.org10StamfordRoad,Oakleigh,Melbourne3166,AustraliaRolandBleiker2000Thisbookisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.Firstpublished2000PrintedintheUnitedKingdomattheUniversityPress,CambridgeTypesetinPalatino10/12.5pt.[AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibraryLibraryofCongresscataloguinginpublicationdataBleiker,RolandPopulardissent,humanagency,andglobalpolitics/RolandBleikerp.cm.±(Cambridgestudiesininternationalrelations;70)ISBN0521770998(hardback)ISBN0521778298(paperback)1.Government,Resistanceto.2.Civildisobedience.3.Demonstrations.4.Dissenters.5.Internationalrelations.I.Series.JC328.3.8532000303.6'1±dc2199-26115CIPISBN0521770998hardbackISBN0521778298paperback AcknowledgementspagePrologue:Theorisingtransversaldissent1Introduction:WritinghumanagencyafterthedeathofGod23PartIAgenealogyofpopulardissent511RhetoricsofdissentinRenaissanceHumanism532Romanticismandthedisseminationofradicalresistance743Globallegaciesofpopulardissent96PartIIReadingandrereadingtransversalstruggles1174Fromessentialisttodiscursiveconceptionofpower120Firstinterlude:Confrontingincommensurability1395Of`men',`women'anddiscursivedomination1466Ofgreateventsandwhatmakesthemgreat173PartIIIDiscursiveterrainsofdissent1857Mappingeverydayglobalresistance187Secondinterlude:Towardsadiscursiveunderstandingofhumanagency2088Resistanceattheedgeoflanguagegames215 9Politicalboundaries,poetictransgressions244Conclusion:Thetransitionalcontingenciesoftransversalpolitics273 RhetoricsofdissentinRenaissanceQuoniamDominusexcelsus,terribilis:rexmagnussuperomnemterram.Subiecitpopulosnobis:etgentessubpedibusnostris.[FortheLordishigh,terrible;agreatkingoveralltheearth.Hehathsubduedthepeopleunderus;andthenationsunderourfeet]AfteracelebratoryspreeinancientGreece,particularlyamongtheSophists,theconceptofhumanagencyallbutvanishedintheMiddleAges.Lifewassaidtobegovernedbylawsthatliebeyondhumanin¯uence.Themedievalworld-viewrevolvedaroundanundisputedtheologicalcorethatleftlittleroomforprivilegesassociatedwithsub-jecthood.Commonpeoplewerereducedtospectators,impotentonlookersinaunfoldinghumandrama.Theywerecaughtinanimmensemeshoffateandsacri®ce,spunbythehandsofGodandhisquasi-divineearthlyembodiments.Orsoatleastresonatesacommonimageofthemedievalperiod.Somewhatcorrect,butoversimpli®ed.Blackandwhite,withblackprevailingmostofthetime.Buttherewas,ofcourse,muchmoretotheMiddleAgesthananomnipotentGod.Thetheocentricvisionwasonlytheframewithinwhichawholerangeofcomplexandhighlydiversedynamicstookplace.EveninthePsalm46,11th±12thcenturyversion,GregorianChantGaudete,SungbytheBenedic-tineNunsofStCecilia'sAbbey,Ryde,IsleofWight(Farnham,Surrey:HeraldAVPublications,1992),p.7. Agenealogyofpopulardissentpre-modernperiodstrongideasaboutpopularsovereigntyexisted.Thetransitionfromthemedievaltotheearlymodernperiodisequallycomplex.Itisalongandgradualevolutionthatcannotbegraspedsatisfactorilybyrehearsingafewkeyeventsdeemedcrucialbysub-sequenthistoricalinterpretations.Indeed,somearguethattherespectforandinterestintheindividual,akeythemeofmodernthought,haditsoriginasfarbackasthesecondhalfofthetwelfthcentury.Despitethisblurringimageonecanidentifyanumberofshiftsthatoccurredinthetransitionfromthemedievaltothemodernperiod.WiththeriseofHumanismduringtheItalianRenaissance,inthefour-teenthand®fteenthcenturies,theprevalenttheocentricvisionoftheworldcameunderincreasingchallenge.Agoodcenturylater,thenewhumanistmessagegraduallypenetratedtheremainingpartsofEurope.ItresurrectedthenotionofhumanagencyandchallengedGod'smonopolytoanchorallaspectsofhumanexistence.Humanismplacedthesubjectatthecentreofhistoryandexpressedaprofoundbeliefinpeople'sdignity,intheirownabilitytosolveproblems.Thepresentchapterdemonstrateshowtheseemerginghumanistideasprovidedthefoundationsforatraditionofpopulardissentthatespousesastrongbeliefinhumanagency.Turntheclockbackto1552.WeareinearlymodernFrance.WritingisEtiennedelaBoetie,ayoungstudentwhoexpressesprofounddisgustwithallformsofgov-erningthatentailsomepeopledominatingothers.Heprotestsagainstdivineauthority,againstroyalabsolutismand,maybemostimport-antly,againstthedeprivationofsubjecthood:Isthisahappylife?Canthisbecalledliving?...Whatconditionismoremiserablethantolivesuchthatnothingisone'sown,suchthatonederivesfromsomeoneelseone'sentirewell-being,one'sfree-dom,one'sbody&one'slife?LaBoetie'swork®rstlingeredinobscurity.Buttherhetoricalre¯ectionsthatfollowedhisinitialfuryeventuallyin¯uencedtheemergenceofatraditionofdissentthatdealswithradicalresistancetoauthoritarianism.SeeWalterUllmann,AHistoryofPoliticalThought:TheMiddleAgesPenguinBooks,1965),pp.200±228.ColinMorris,TheDiscoveryoftheIndividual:1050±1200(London:SPCK,1972).tiennedelaBoeDiscoursdelaServitudeVolontaire,ed.P.Bonnefoninve:SlatkineReprints,1967/1552),p.49.`Celaeftceviureheureufe-ment?celaf'appelleilviure?...Quelleconditioneftplusmiferablequedeviureain®,qu'onn'aierienafoy,tenantd'autruifonaife,faliberte,foncorps&favie?' RhetoricsofdissentinRenaissanceHumanismInsubsequentcenturies,laBoetieanassumptionsaboutpower,dominationandresistancewillplayasigni®cant,albeitoftenunreco-gnisedroleinshapingpracticesofpopulardissent.WhileMachiav-ThePrincehelpedtode®nesovereignty,statepowerandtheensuinginternationalorder,laBoecontributedtotheemergenceofforcesthatcametocircumventandunderminethespa-tialandpoliticallogicofthisorder.Thepresentchaptertakesthe®rststepinretracingtheensuingtraditionofdissent.BecauselaBoetie,andearlymodernthoughtingeneral,providedthefoundationforvarioustransversaldissidentdynamicsthatareoperativetoday,mygenealogicalinquiryengagesinarelativelyextensivereadingoftheanditsrelationshiptoideasandpoliticalpracticesinsixteenth-centuryFrance.PlacinglaBoetieinthecontextoflargerdiscursivetrendsentailssearchingforunpronouncedassumptionsthatareentailedinhiswork,assumptionsaboutsociety,power,thesubjectand,aboveall,humanagency.Butanalysesofsocialdynamics,especiallyiftheydateasfarbackasthesixteenthcentury,canneverbeauthenticrepresentationsofevents.Myrecon-structionofthecontextwithinwhichlaBoetie'sworkunfoldedisinevitablycolouredbymyviewsofhistory,bythesourcesIhavechosentoinvestigate,andbythemotivationsthatliebehindmyefforttocometotermswiththem.Hence,areconstructionofhistoricaldynamicsmustbesensitivetomultiplevoicesfromthepastandcom-parevarioussubsequentinterpretationsofthem.Fromheaventoearth:thenewhumanistvisiontiennedelaBoetiewasbornin1530inSarlat,asmalltowninthesouth-westofFrance.Hegrewupinawell-placedaristocraticfamily.LaBoeÂtiewrotehismainpoliticaltextasastudentattheUniversityThetextthatcomesclosesttoaseriousbiographyoflaBoetieremainsPaulBonne-fon'sintroductiontothe1892editionoflaBoeOeuvrescomple,pp.xi±lxxxv.InresearchingthecontextoflaBoetie'slifeIalsodrewuponJacquesJosephDesplat,tie:lemagistratauxnombreuxmyste(LeBugue:PLBEditeur,1992);Jean-MichelEtq'unseul-soitl'ami:laBoe(Paris:Gallimard,1985)andseveralintro-ductionstoFrenchandEnglisheditionsoflaBoetie'swritings,especiallySimonGoyard-Fabre,`Introduction',DiscoursdelaServitudeVolontaire(Paris:Flammarion,1983),pp.17±127;NadiaGontarbert,`PreDelaServitudeVolontaireouCon-(Paris:Gallimard,1993),pp.12±45;andMurrayN.Rothbard,`ThePoliticalThoughtofEtiennedelaBoeThePoliticsofObedience:TheDiscourseofVoluntary,tr.H.Kurz(NewYork:FreeLifeEditions,1975),pp.9±35. AgenealogyofpopulardissentofOrleans.Itisarelativelyshortpolemicaltreatise,of®ciallyentitledDiscoursdelaServitudeVolontaire.Iwillrefertoitswidelyusedandmoreadequatealternativetitle,orLaBoeÂtieaddresseshismainthemewithouthesitation.The'sopeninglinesrevealtheauthor'sprofoundabhorrenceofallformsofgoverningthatarebasedonsomepeoplerulingoverothers:[I]tmustbesaidthatthedominationofseveralcouldnotbegoodforthepowerofonealone,assoonasheacquiresthetitleofmaster,isharsh&unreasonable...itisextremelyunfortunatetobesubjectedtoonemaster,whosekindnessonecanneverbeassuredof,sinceitisalwaysinhispowertobecruelwheneverhedesires;&asforhavingseveralmasters,themoreonehas,themoreextremelyunfor-tunateitis.WhatpreciselyistheobjectoflaBoetie'srage?Weare,asmentioned,inthesouth-westofFrance,inthemiddleofacenturythatischarac-terisedbyrapidchange,radicalturmoil,andbloodycivilwars.AllpowerisclaimedbytheKing,buthedoesnothavetheabilitytoenforceit.Theregionalgentryisseekingtopro®tfromthepowervacuum,theCatholicChurchdesperatelyattemptstoholdontoatleastsomeofitsfadingstrength,peasantsrebelandreligiousstrifeissoontobringtheentirecountrytoastandstill.Ashewaswriting,laBoetiemayhavehadtherebellionofGuyenneinmind,whichdominatedpoliticsintheregionatthetime.In1548,whenlaBoetiewaseighteenyearsold,thousandsofrepressedpeas-antsoftheGuyenneregionopposedthe,asalttax,andstartedtorebel.InAugusttheinsurgentsenteredBordeaux.Meetingupwithsympatheticcommoners,theysoontookcontrolofthecity.Itsauthor-ities®rstenteredintoadialoguewiththeprotestingpopulationandForanon-specialistinmedievalFrenchlanguage,thesubtletiesofthissixteenth-centurytextarenoteasytodecipher.Besidesusingspecialiseddictionaries,Icon-trastedtheoriginaltext(orwhatcomesclosesttoit,theso-calledmanuscriptofdeMesmes),withvariousversionstranscribedintomodernFrench.IalsocomparedmytranslationswiththeonesbyHarryKurzinlaBoeThePoliticsofObedienceLaBoeDiscoursdelaServitudeVolontaire,pp.1±2.`[I]lfalloitdirequeladominationdeplu®eursnepouuoiteftrebonne,puifquelapuiffanced'vnfeul,de¯orsqu'ilprendcetiltredemaiftre,eftdure&defraifonnable...c'eftvnextrememalheurd'eftrefubiectavnmaiftre,duquelonnefepeutiamaisaffeurerqu'ilfoitbon,puifqu'ilefttou®oursenfapuiffanced'eftremauuaisquandilvoudra;&d'auoirplu®eursmaiftres,c'eft,autantqu'onena,autantdefoiseftreextremementmalheu-SeeJulesJolly,HistoireduMouvementIntellectuelauXVIeScie,vol.I.(Geneve:Slat-kineReprints,1969),pp.35±6. RhetoricsofdissentinRenaissanceHumanismactuallyrevokedthe,butthisconciliatoryapproachwassoonreplacedbyanextremelybrutalcrackdown.LocalauthoritiescalleduponHenriII,theKingofFrance,whosearmythencrushedtherebel-lionandestablishedanextendedreignofterror.Theleadersoftheuprisingwereexecutedinvarioustortuousways±decapitated,burned,broken,impaledortornapartbyhorses±aspartofacarefullyorchestratedpublicdisplayofvengeanceandintimidationthatlastedforweeks.IflaBoetieindeedwroteaboutthe1548uprising,the®rstofaseriesofbigpeasantrevoltsinFrance,thenhediditwithoutdirectreferencetotheevents.Buteveninitsabstractionthemessageofthewasclear.Itsdescriptionofservitude,violenceandsufferingunderatyrantre¯ectedthefrustrationsofawholegenerationofcommonersandcapturedthespiritofpopularprotestthatsoonwastotakeholdofFrance.WithorwithouttherepressiveregimeofKingHenriIIinmind,laBoetie'sessaywasadevastatingcritiqueofexistingpracticesofgovernance.Itscondemnationofonemanrulefundamentallyopposedtheprevailingabsolutisttheoryofmonarchy,whichrestedontheideaofa,arulerwhohasadivinemissionandtowhomunlimitedobedienceisdue.ConsiderCharlesdeGrassaille'sRegaliumFranciae,publishedin1538.ItportraystheKingofFranceas`imperatorinsuoregno',as`quidemcorporalisDeus':aprinceofdivineappointment,arulerwhosepowerextendstovirtu-allyalldomainsexceptthelawofhisownsuccession.HereignsasanearthlyembodimentofGod,entirelyindependentofpopularcon-LaBoeÂtieattackedtheverycoreofthesedoctrinalfoundationsofroyalabsolutismbylinkingpowerandconsent:Theonewhocontrolsyousomuchhasonlytwoeyes,hasonlytwohands,hasonlyonebody&hasnothingmorethanwhatthelargeandin®nitenumberofmeninyourvillageshave.Allhehasisthemeansthatyougivehimtodestroyyou.Fromwheredoeshegetalltheseeyestospyuponyou,ifyoudonotgivethemtohim?Howcanhehavesomanyhandstohityouwithifhedoesnottakethemfromyou?Thefeetthattrampledownyourcities,wheredoeshegetHenryHeller,IronandBlood:CivilWarsinSixteenth-CenturyFrance(Montreal:McGill-Queen'sUniversityPress,1991),p.40.J.W.Allen,AHistoryofPoliticalThoughtintheSixteenthCentury(London:Methuen,1941/1928),pp.283±4,xiii±xxii. Agenealogyofpopulardissentthemifnotfromamongyou?Howcanhehaveanypoweroveryouexceptthroughyou?LaBoetie'scontentionthatanyformofruleisdependentuponpop-ularconsentisbothradicalandsubversiveinthecontextofsixteenth-centuryFrance.Aclearconceptofhumanagencyisimpliedintheselines,forlaBoetiedarestospeakofsubjectsand,evenmorecourage-ously,ofsubjectswhoactindependentlyofadivinewill.Justifyingthisradicalstancepurelyonseculargrounds,particularlyonthepowerofreason,logicandanaturalrighttofreedom,hearguesthatsovereigntybelongstothepeople,andnottotheKingortoGod.Beforediscussingtheconsequencesoftheseclaimsinmoredetailitisnecessarytoplacetheagaininthecontextoflargerdiscurs-ivestrugglesthatwerewagedatthetime.SomeelementsoflaBoetie'swritingsre¯ecttheideasandassump-tionsofthehumanistmovementthatstartedtotakeholdofFranceatthetime.Humanismwasanticipatedbyseveralmedievalpoets±Dante,BoccaccioandPetrarchamongthem±anditreacheditsheydayin®fteenth-centuryItaly.Initsbroadestmeaning,Humanismreferstoan`interestinLatinandGreekliteraturewhichsetsahighvalueonthelessonstobedrawnfromit'.Itisthegazebacktotheclassicalperiod,theattempttorevivealongpastculture,thatgavethecorres-pondingperiod,theRenaissance,itsname.Therevivalofclassicalculturetookonaspeci®cform.SomecommentatorsemphasisethattherereadingofHellenisticphilosophyviaCicero,whichwasthemostpopularapproachatthetime,amountedtoarevivalofscepti-cism±thebeliefthat`man'iscaughtinawebofillusoryperceptions,unabletogainsecureknowledgeofthephysicalworld.insteadofsearchingforaPlatonictruth,humanistswereusuallymoreconcernedwithrhetoric,withpractisingtheartofconvincingothersbydrawingonthepowerofpersuasion.ItisinthepassionforrhetoricLaBoeDiscoursdelaServitudeVolontaire,pp.12±13.`Celuiquivousmaiftrifetantn'aquedeusyeulx,n'aquedeusmains,n'aqu'vncorps,&n'aautrechofequecequ'alemoindrehommedugrand&in®ninombredevosvilles,®nonquel'auantagequevousluyfaitespourvousdeftruire.D'ouailpristantd'yeulx,dontilvousefpie,®vousnelesluybailles?commentailtantdemainspourvousfraper,f'ilnelesprenddevous?Lespiedsdontilfoulevoscites,d'oulesail,f'ilsnefontdesvoftres?Commentailaucunpouuoirfurvous,queparvous?'GeorgeHolmes,`HumanisminItaly',inA.GoodmanandA.MacKay(eds.),ImpactofHumanismonWesternEurope(London:Longman,1990),p.118.RichardTuck,`HumanismandPoliticalThought',inGoodmanandMacKay(eds.)TheImpactofHumanism,pp.43±4. RhetoricsofdissentinRenaissanceHumanismthattheygroundedtheirbasicintellectualidentity.Butthesocietyatthetimedidnotlenditselfeasilytosuchendeavours.Humanists®rstneededtocarveoutinstitutionalandpoliticalspacesthatallowedthemtoengageinrhetoricalinteractions.Universitiesprovidedthesespaces.ItisthroughthemthatHumanismgraduallymovednorthandpenetratedFrancetowardstheendofthe®fteenthcentury.WhenlaBoetiecommencedhisstudies,inthelate1540s,HumanismhadalreadyspreadthroughoutmostofWesternEurope.TheUniver-sityofOrleans,oneofthemostprestigiousuniversitiesinFrance,enjoyedanunusuallywiderangeofintellectualfreedom.Studentsreadclassicalphilosophyandwageddebatesaboutit.Criticismwasencouraged.Withinthecon®nesofuniversitylife,ageneralatmo-sphereoffreeinquiryanddiscussionprevailed.Notsurprisingly,la,composedduringhisstudentdaysinOrleans,borethemarkofthishumanistenvironment.Hisopeningargument,thecondemnationofalltyranny,ispresentedasacriticaldialoguewithUlysses,asnarratedinHomer'sIliad.HecontinuestodrawuponGreekphilosophy,ruminatesaboutthepoliticsofBrutusorNero,andillustrateshispointsbyreferencetoancienthistoryandmythology.Hisstyleisabstract,theoretical,polemical.ThisiswhymanyportraylaBoetie'sworkasatypicalRenaissanceexerciseinclassicalrhetoric.Therewas,ofcourse,moretoRenaissanceHumanismthanrhetoric,aspiritoffreeinquiry,andaninterestinclassicalliterature.Rhetoricwasonlythemeanstoamuchmoreambitiouspoliticalend:Human-ismwasarevoltagainstalongtraditionofgroundingtruthandauthorityinreligion.Itfundamentallyrestructuredtherelationshipamongtheindividual,thechurchandtheemergingstate.Thefocusofattentionmovedfromheaventoearth,fromthetruthprescribedbytheholyscriptstothepowerofreasonandpersuasion,fromthechurch'sdoctrinalmoralitytoalooseningofnormsandasecularis-ationofvalues.LaBoewasdeeplyembeddedinthishumanistattempttocreateavisionforthefuture,avisionthatresteduponhumandignity,tobefoughtforwithrhetoricalmeans.AtthecentreJerroldE.Seigel,RhetoricandPhilosophyinRenaissanceHumanism(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1968).C.A.Sainte-Beuve,CauseriesduLundi,vol.XI(Paris:GarnierFreres,1858/1856),p.144;PaulBonnefon,MontaigneetsesAmis,vol.I,(Paris:ArmandColin:1898),p.150;PierreMesnard,L'EssordelaPhilosophiePolitiqueauXVIeSie(Paris:J.Vrin,1951/1935),p.405. AgenealogyofpopulardissentofthistraditionwasRenaissance`man',penetratingnature'ssecrets,venturingoutintotheseatodiscovernewworlds,producingstun-ningworksofartthatcelebratethehumanbody.Anunprecedentedsenseofoptimismarose.People,unchainedfromthecon®nesofGod'swill,becamemastersoftheirowndestiny.Nothingseemedoutoftheirreach.Therewasnohesitation.Thesubjectwasbornandtookresponsibility.Withitappearedanunlimitedfaithinhumanagencyandintheabilitytosolvetheworld'sproblems.Paradoxically,likesomuchintheRenaissance,thisprocessofsecularisationwasaccom-paniedbyanewglori®cationofthechurch,alastresurrectionbeforethisinstitutionfacedtheReformationandembarkeduponajourneythatledtowardswhatNietzschelatercallednihilism,orthedeathofTherhetoricaloriginsofpopulardissentTheparticularwayinwhichlaBoetiesoughttoconfronttheproblemoffreedomandhumanagencymadetheamuch-disputedessayinthecenturiestocome.Hisideaoffreedomentailsthatnogovernmentcansurvivewithoutthesupportofthepopulation.Hearguesthatthereisnotevenaneedto®ghtatyrant,for`he'isdefeatedassoonasthepopulationrefusestoconsenttoitsenslave-Numerouspassagesinthedealwiththispossibilityofwithdrawingconsent.Theylaterbecametheconceptualfounda-tionsofanentireliteratureonpopulardissent.HereareitsRenais-sanceroots,expressedinlaBoetie'srhetoricalHumanism:Ifoneconcedesnothingtothem[thetyrants],ifonerefusestoobeythem,thenwithout®ghting,withoutstriking,theybecomenaked&defeated&arenomore,justaswhentherootisdeprivedofwaterandnourishment,thebranchwithersanddies.Beresolvedtoservenomore&youwillbefree.IdonotwantyouThisnewindividualismandthetrustinmoralautonomywas,tosimplifythings,theessenceofJacobBurckhardt'sin¯uentialDieKulturderRenaissanceinItalienKnauer,1928).ForoneoftherecentlyproliferatingrevisionistaccountsoftheperiodseeLisaJardine,WorldlyGoods:ANewHistoryoftheRenaissance(London:Macmillan,LaBoeDiscoursdelaServitudeVolontaire,p.9..,pp.10±11.`[F]ionneleurbaillerien[lestirans],®onneleurobeitpoint,fanscombattre,fansfrapper,ilsdemeurentnuds&deffaits&nefontplusrien,®nonquecommelaracine,n'aiansplusd'humeuroualiment,labranchedeuientfeche& RhetoricsofdissentinRenaissanceHumanismtohurtorunsettlethetyrant,butsimplythatyouservehimnomore,&youwillseehowhecollapsesunderhisownweightandbreaksintopieces,justlikealargeColossuswhosebasehasbeensnatchedaway.Bylinkinganyformofgovernmenttopopularconsentandruminat-ingaboutthepossibilitiesthatcouldarisewhenthisconsentiswith-drawn,laBoetieadvancesafundamentalpropositionaboutthenatureofpower.Contrarytotheprevalentviewofthetime,hedoesnotperceivepowerassomethingstableandrestraining,aprivilegethatsomehaveandothersdonot.Poweremergesfrompopularconsentanditisrelational,aconstantlychangingforce®eldlocatedintheinteractivedynamicsbetweenrulerandruled.Perhapsmostimport-antly,powerisenabling,itprovidescommonpeoplewiththechancetocreateopportunitiesforsocialchange.LaBoetiewas,ofcourse,nottheonlyearlymodernvoicethatopposeddomination.AlreadyintheearlyItalianRenaissance,variousauthors,suchasMarsiglioofPaduaandBartolusofSaxoferrato,hadopenlycondemnedtyrannyandadvocatedgovernmentbythepeople.Butmostoftheseandsubsequentwritersdidnotquestionthefounda-tionsofexistingregimes.Instead,theywereconcernedwiththeproperfunctioningofthemachineryofgovernment.Outofthiscon-cernemergedalong-lastinghumanisttraditionofgivingadvicetoprinces,kingsandmagistrates.HumanistsfromNiccolotoJustusLipsiuscounselledtheirrulersonhowtobevirtuous,howtogovernbest,orhowtoretainapositionofpowerinadversecircum-LaBoetie'sclearlywentfurtherthantheseconcernswithpropergovernment,politicalstabilityandthefunctioningofpowerpolitics.wasmoreradicalnotbecauseofitsclaimthatanyformofruleisorshouldbedependentuponpopularconsent.Thisrela-tionalperspectiveonpowerwasimpliedinmostoftheadvicegiventotheprincesofRenaissanceItalyandFrance.Wherethedifferedsharplyfromtheadvice-booktraditionwasinitsclaimthatpopularconsentcanbewithdrawnatanytimeandthatthisactdisem-powerseventhemostruthlessdictator.Itwasthisidenti®cationwithIbid.,p.14.`Soiesrefolusdenotferuirplus,&vousvoilalibres.Ieneveuxpasquevouslepouf®esoul'esbran¯ies,maisfeulementnelefouftenesplus,&vousleverres,commevngrandcoloffeaquionadefrobelabafe,defonpoismefmefondreenbas&ferompre.' Agenealogyofpopulardissentthepeopleandtheirclaimtosovereigntythatmadethestandapartfrommoreimmediatecontemporaryconcernswiththemachineryofthenewlyemergingmodernstate.radicalismisbestexempli®edinitsoppositiontoThePrince,whichwaspublishedinRometwodecadesbeforelaBoetie'sstudentdaysinOrleans.ItislikelythatlaBoeThePrincesinceitwasavailableinFranceatthattimeandcon-stitutednormalreadingmaterialforstudents.ParallelsbetweenlatieandMachiavelliareclearlyvisible,albeitnotat®rstsight.Bothsituatepowerintherelationshipbetweenrulerandruled,anideathatwasalientotheprecedingmedievalperiod.PierreMesnard,inhisclassicalstudyofRenaissancepoliticaltheory,detectsthiscommonhumanisttraitbutalsodrawsattentiontotheabove-mentionedimportantdifference:ForlaBoetieaswellasforMachiavelli,authoritycanonlyemergethroughacceptancebythesubjects:exceptthatoneteachestheprincehowtoenforcetheiracquiescencewhiletheotherrevealstothepeoplethepowerentailedinrefusingit.Inotherwords,theremedyofthe,whosepoliticaleffectivenessweknowtoday,ispass-iveresistance,civildisobedience,therefusaltocollaboratewithanorderonedisapprovesof.Mesnard'ssummarymakesclearthatMachiavelli,atleastinhisbest-knownpassages,wasprimarilyoperatingwithinaframeworkofreal-istpowerpolitics.Viewingtheworldasaplacewherethestruggleforpowerandthesurvivalofthe®ttestdeterminestheoutcomeofevents,headvisedtheprincetoabandonallpreceptsofmoralityifheistoretainhisrule.LaBoetie,ofcourse,positionedhimselfattheothersideofthesocialspectrum.Hisfocusonwithdrawingpopularconsentsuggeststhatthewaswrittenforthepeopleandtheirquestforfreedom,ratherthanfortheprinceandhisattemptstocementauthoritarianrule.LaBoetie'sworkrepresentstheradicalelementoftheemerginghumanistmovement.Hedarestospeakofasubject,places`man'atthecentreofattention,anddisplaysanunboundedoptimismin`his'abilitytoexerthumanagencyandchangethecourseofhistory.Buthasotherfacestoo,facesthatcannotbeclassi®edeasily,facesthatdonot®tneatlyintopreconceivedintellectualspaces,atL'EssordelaPhilosophiePolitiqueauXVIeSie,p.400. RhetoricsofdissentinRenaissanceHumanismleastnottheonesthatexistedinRenaissanceFrance.Thesearetheaspectsofthethatmostsubsequentinterpretationsneglect.Theyarethepluralitiesofatext,thefacesthatgrimace,mock,pro-voke;theonesthatcontradict,disturbandrebel.Ashortelucidationofthemisnecessaryatthispoint.LaBoetietriedtoopenuppossibilitiestoresisttyranny.Buthewasequallyifnotmoreconcernedwithexplainingthepuzzlinglackofsuchresistance.Whyisitthatsomanypeopleserveatyrantwho,ifthepremisesofthearecorrect,theyneednotfearatall?AperplexedlaBoeÂtieexclaims:Iftwo,ifthree,iffourdonotdefendthemselvesagainstone,thisisstrangebutneverthelessconceivable;...butathousand,butamil-lion,butathousandcities,iftheydonotdefendthemselvesagainstone,thenthisisnotcowardice,forcowardicedoesnotsinktosuchalowpointWhatmonstrousviceisthisthenthatdoesnotevendeservetobecalledcowardice?Thevicehasaname:voluntaryservitude.LaBoetieexplainsitsexist-enceintwoways,onedealswiththeforceofcustoms,theotherwithasystemofpositiveandnegativeprivileges.Bothofthementail,inessence,clearlimitstohumanagency.The®rstislinkedtoatyrant'sabilitytodeprivehissubjectsoftheirmemoryoffreedom:Itisthis,thatmenbornundertheyoke&thereafternourished&broughtupinservitudearecontent,withoutsearchinganyfurther,toliveliketheyareusedto,¬beingawareatallofanyothersituationorrightthantheonetheyknow,theyacceptasnaturaltheconditionintowhichtheywereborn.LaBoetie'sargumentthattheemergenceofaquestforfreedomrequiresapriorexperienceofitdepartsquiteradicallyfromhisearlierpolemicsaboutanaturalrighttofreedom.Facingthepoliticalrealityofthetime,henowadmitsthatnaturehaslesspoweroverusthancustomsdo.Nomatterhowbenevolentnaturewantedustobe,ourLaBoeDiscoursdelaServitudeVolontaire,pp.5±6.`Sideux,®trois,®quatrenefedefendentd'vn,celaefteftrange,maistoutesfoispof®ble...maismille,maisvnmil-lion,maismillevilles,®ellesnefedefendentd'vn,celan'eftpascouardife,ellenevapointiufquesla...Doncquesquelmonftredeviceeftcecyquinemeritepasancoreletiltredecouardife...?'Ibid.,p.22.`C'eftcela,queleshommesnaiffansfoubsleioug,&puisnourris&e¯euesdansleferuage,fansregarderplusauant,fecontententdeviurecommeilsfontnes,&nepenfanspointauoirautrebienniautredroictquecequ'ilsonttrouueilsprennentpourleurnaturell'eftatdeleurnaiffance.' Agenealogyofpopulardissentenvironmentshapesustothepointthat,againstourowndisposition,welearn`howtoswallow,¬®ndbitteratall,thevenomofservit-WhenCyrustooktheLydiancityofSardis,laBoetieillustrates,itscitizensrebelledagainsttheoccupation.Butinsteadofsimplyrepressingtheuprising,whichwouldhaveentailedtheproblematicandcontinuousemploymentofanexpensivearmy,Cyrusoptedforamuchmoresubtleandpowerfulformofdomination:heestablishedbrothels,taverns,publicgamesandthenencouragedthepeopletogoandenjoythem.ThiskindofgarrisonprovedtobesoeffectivethatCyrushenceforthcouldsubjugatetheLydianswithouttheleastuseofforce.LaBoetiementionsasecondreasonfortheexistenceofvoluntaryservitude.Itrevolvesaroundpyramidicallystructuredsystemsofthreatsandprivileges.Indeed,thisisthesecretofdomination,heclaims.Thekeytosuchasystemliesinatyrant'sabilitytocorrupthispeople,particularlythosewhostriveforpowerandwealth.Latieexplainshoweachrulerisdependentonhisclosestadvisers,halfadozenmen,atmost.Theyareaccomplicesin`his'crueltiesandsharethepro®tsof`his'plunderingsprees.Inthisway,thesystemreplicatesitselfendlessly,because:Thosesixhavesixhundredwhopro®tunderthem&theyproceedwiththesesixhundredastheydowiththetyrant.Thesesixhundredhavesixthousandunderthem,theypromotetheminrankandgivethemtheprovincestogovernorthe®nancestomanage,sothattheytoobecomeentangledinavariceandcruelty...Devastatingaretheconsequencesofallthis,&whoeveriswillingtofollowthistracewillrealisethatnotsixthousand,buthundredthousand,evenmil-lionsaretiedtothetyrantbythisonecord.Impliedintheselinesisthesuggestionthatarulercanonlymaintain`his'positionifalargenumberofpeoplepro®tfromtheexistingsystemandthushaveaninterestinmaintainingthestatusquo.Thetyrant,wholacksindependentfoundationalsourcesofpower,isableIbid,p.23.Ibid.,pp.35±6.Ibid.,p.45±6.`Ces®xont®xcentquiprou®tentfouseus,&fontdeleurs®xcentcequeles®xfontautiran.Ces®xcententiennentfouseus®xmille,qu'ilsonte¯eueeneftat,aufquelsilsfontdonneroulegouuernementdesprouinces,oulemaniementdesdeniers,a®nqu'ilstiennentlamainaleurauarice&cruaute...Grandeeftlafuittequivientaprescela,&quivoudraf'amuferadeuiderce®let,ilverraque,nonpasles®xmille,maislescentmille,maislesmillions,parceftecorde,fetiennentautiran...' RhetoricsofdissentinRenaissanceHumanismtosubjugatethepeopleonlythroughthem.`He'isprotectedbythosewhocouldeasilyendthecharadeiftheyhadthecouragetoresist.Despiteitsmultiplefaces,theneverlosessightofitsrad-icalhumanistmessage.Evenwhileelaboratingonsubtlesystemsofexclusion,laBoetie'smaininterestisnotinanalysingdominationassuch,butindemonstratinghowitcanbeovercome.Inperfecthuman-istrhetoric,hereassertshisfaithinagency,practisestheartofpersua-sion,triestoincitepeopletoovercomevoluntaryservitude.Hecon-stantlyremindsthereaderthatsystemsofdominationarefragileanddependentuponpopularconsent.Aslongastherearethinkingsub-jectsatyrant'spositionisindanger.Andtherewillalwaysbethinkingminds,peoplewhocannotbefooledeasily,whosensetheweightoftheyoke,peoplewhoopentheireyesandreclaimtheirnaturalrighttofreedom.Renaissance`man'loomsaroundthecorner,abletoseeitall,equippedwiththevision,thewill,andthestrengthtochangetheworld.Will`he'succeed?ProtestantismandtheproblemoffreewillWhatwastheimmediateimpactoflaBoetie'swritings?Howweretheyreceived?Howdidtheyshapepracticesofdissentandpercep-tionsofhumanagency?ItisimportanttodistinguishbetweenlaBoetieasanauthorandasatext.Afteritscomposition,atexttakesoffinmultipledirectionsandbecomesanobjectofappropriationoverwhichtheauthorinevitablylosescontrol.InMichelFoucault'swords,`writingunfoldslikeagamethatinvariablygoesbeyonditsownrulesandtransgressesitslimits'.Onemustthenlocateandexplorethespacesthatareleftbytheauthor'sdisappearance.Atextisreadinmanydifferentways,itbecomesapoliticaltoolthatcontinuouslychangesshapeandcontent.Areaderofatextisthus,asRolandBarthesemphasises,anactiveproducer,ratherthansimplyapassivecon-Readersconstantlyreinventtexts,viewtheminthelightofparticularexperiences,notesomepassagesandneglectothers.Read-ingbecomesappropriation.Appropriationbecomespolitics.Politicsshapesourlives.Ibid.,p.30.MichelFoucault,`WhatisanAuthor',inP.Rabinow(ed.),TheFoucaultReader,tr.J.V.Harari,(NewYork:PantheonBooks,1984),p.102.RolandBarthes,(Paris:EditionsduSeuil,1970),pp.9±23. AgenealogyofpopulardissentViewingtheasanobjectofappropriationisnecessarytounderstandhowitsintellectuallegacyhasin¯uencedtheemergenceofatraditionofpopulardissentthatlatercametooperateinthegreyzonesbetweendomesticandinternationalpolitics.Notlongafteritscompositioninthe1550s,theanditsauthorpartedcompany.LaBoetieturnedintoaconservativediplomatconcernedwithlawandorderwhilehistextbecamepartofalongcrusadetopromotethehumanistconceptoffreewill.Theremainingsectionsofthischapterjointhejourneyinitsinitialphase,thesecondhalfofthesixteenthcentury.Weareinaperiodthatisdominatedbyonekeyphenomenon,theReformation.LikeHumanism,theReformationisacomplexsetofideasandevents,susceptibletomanydifferentinterpretations.Atitsmostuncontestedsite,theReformationwasamovementthatques-tionedthePope'smonopolyovertheinterpretationoftheBible.IttriedtoliberateChristianityfromcorruptpracticesthattheRomanCatholicChurchhadsuperimposedonit.Itwasareturntowhatwasclaimedtobetheonlyauthenticsourceofknowledge,theBible.TheReformationwasasecondRenaissance,directednotatrevivingclas-sicalGreekphilosophy,butatreassertingtheoriginalfaith,athaltingthedecayofChristianity.TheReformation'sprotagonistwastheAug-ustinianmonkMartinLuther,preachingandwritingintheSaxoncityofWittenberg.Luther'sfamouspostingofninety®vethesestothedoorofhischurch,ontheeveofAllSaintsin1517,markedthebegin-ningofaturbulentperiodthatunderminedmostoftheCatholicChurch'sspiritual,jurisdictionalandpoliticalpower.ButtheReformationwasmorethanjusta®ghtagainstthecorrup-tionoftheCatholicChurch.Atitscore,theReformationwas,asonecommentatorputsit,`alife-or-deathattackonHumanism'.Fromthisperspective,themainbattlewaswagedin1524/5betweenLutherandErasmus,aChristianhumanistwritinginBasel.ThefocusofattackwasnotthePapacy,butRenaissance`man',thesecularisationoflife,thefaithinreasonandfreewill,theveryconceptofhumanagency.LutheropposedErasmusbyarguingthattruefreedomcannotbereachedbyassertinghumanindependence.Ourownactionscannotleadtofreedomorsalvationbecausewearecorrupt,helplessandentirelydependentuponGod'sgrace.Luther'sconcernre¯ectsakeyJohnCarroll,Humanism:TheWreckofWesternCulture(London:FontanaPress,1993),p.47. RhetoricsofdissentinRenaissanceHumanismdilemmathatpermeatedRenaissancethought.EversincePicodellaMirandola'scelebrationofthedignityof`man',adouble-edgedmess-agehauntedtherisinghumanistmovement.Itwasdouble-edged,`fortobeuniquelyprivilegedmanwasalsouniquelyburdened'.wasnolongeranomnipotentGodthatcouldtakeovertheresponsibil-ityforhumanity'sfate.Renaissance`man'hadput`himself'intoastateofsuspense,havingtakenovercommand,butnotyetassumedresponsibilityforit.Lutherrecognisedthisdilemma.Freewill,forhim,wasanillusionthatrobbedusofallfoundationsforlife.`Man'wasleftwithnothingtostandon,no®xedworld-view,nocertainty;onlydespairandsin.Truefreedom,hehailed,canonlyarisefromfaith,fromobediencetoGod'swill.ThetensionssurroundingthisdisputeoverreligionandfreewillstartedtotakeholdofFranceataboutthetimewhenlaBoetierumin-atedaboutwithdrawingconsentattheUniversityofOrleans.Protest-antreformers,theHuguenots,weretryingtopractisetheirsubversiveformofChristianity.TheCatholicChurchanditssecularrepresentat-ive,thedei®edFrenchmonarch,increasinglysawtheirauthorityunderminedandstartedtoadoptmorehostilepositions.FrancewasabouttoturnintoabattlegroundbetweenadherentsoftheCatholicstatusquoanditsHuguenotopponent.LaBoeÂtie®nishedhisstudiesandwasadmittedtotheParliamentofBordeauxin1554.Bythenreligiousstrifehadalreadycometodom-inatepoliticalissues.Sixyearslater,inthemidstofvariouscontrover-siestriggeredbythepersecutionofProtestants,laBoetiewasentrustedwithadelicatediplomaticmission.HewasaskedtomediatebetweenhisownparliamentinBordeauxandthecourtofKingCharlesIX,whohadjustsucceededhisfatherHenryII.Catherinededici,whohadtakenovertheregencyforhertenyearoldsonCharlesIX,initiatedapoliticsofappeasementandgavelaBoetiethetaskofreturningtohisParliament,knownforanin¯exibleCatholicstance,toexplainthisnew,moretolerantapproachtowardstheHug-uenots.DeMedici'®rstattemptatappeasementfailed.Violentcon-frontationsbetweenCatholicsandProtestantsincreasedandin1562shesignedtheEditdeJanvier,whichwasintendedtoprotecttheHug-uenotsfrompersecution.Alongreport,a,thatlaBoetiewroteaboutthisedictJohnHale,TheCivilizationofEuropeintheRenaissance(London:FontanaPress,1993),p.208. Agenealogyofpopulardissentrevealshowmuchhisopinionschangedincomparisontothe,composedadecadeearlierinhisstudentdays.LaBoetie'srhet-oricisgone,andsoisthequestforfreedombeyondthecon®nesofthenewlyemergingstate.Hislanguageisnolongeroneofanger,ofde®ance;itisthelanguageoforder,ofdisciplineandofdiplomaticmanoeuvring.LaBoetiedefendstheKingandsanctionstheuseofforcetorestorepeaceandorder.Whiletheaimedatunchainingthepeople,theprovidedinstructionsabouthowtofurtherenslavethem.LaBoetiethestudentangrilyandpassion-atelycondemnedtheforcesofHenryIIthatcrushedtherevoltagainst,whereaslaBoetiethediplomatdefendedandreveredtheseverysameinstrumentsofrepression.ButlaBoetiecouldnotcontrolthefateofhisearlier,radicaltext.Thewasabouttoembarkonadifferentroutethanitsauthor.Itwastoleaveitsassignedplaceandturnintoanunpredictableinstrumentofrebellion.Rage,rebellionandthevoiceofthescepticAfterlaBoetie'sdeathattheageofthirty-two(mostlikelyoftheplague),hisintellectuallegacy,includingtheradical,wasentrustedtohisclosefriend,thefamousessayistMicheldeMon-WithoutMontaigne'sprotectionandleverage,themighthaveremainedanunknownandobscureRenaissancetext.LaÂtieneversawhisrhetoricaltreatisepublished.Itonlycirculatedasamanuscriptamongasmallgroupofpersonalfriends.InAugust1570,sevenyearsafterlaBoetie'sdeath,MontaignetravelledtoParistoarrangethepublicationofsomeofhisfriend'swritings,particularlypoemsandtranslationsofclassicalLatintexts.ButhedecidedagainstpublishinglaBoetie'smorepolitical.Montaignedefendedhiseditorialchoicebyarguingthatthispieceofwritingwassimply`toodelicateandsubtletobeabandonedtotheroughanddensecli-mateofsuchamischievousseason'.Theearly1570swereindeeda`mischievousseason',andthisevenbythestandardsofacenturythatwasdominatedbyinsecurity,civiltiennedeLaBoemoiretouchantl'EditdeJanvier1562(Paris:EditionsBossard,1922),pp.103±180.OntherelationshipbetweenlaBoetieandMontaigneseeBonnefon,Montaigneetses,vol.I,pp.210±224andGeraldAllard,LaBoetieetMontaignesurleslienshumainsbec:LeGriffond'Argile,1994).Montaigne,`AdvertissementavLectevr',inlaBoeOeuvrescomple,p.62. RhetoricsofdissentinRenaissanceHumanismwars,revoltsandbrutalrepression.Thetensionbetweentheentrenched,defensiveCatholicismandthenew,dissidentProtest-antismwasatitspeak.Reactingtoanumberofintricatedomesticandforeignpolicyissues,KingCharlesIXwaspersuadedthattheHuguenotsweretryingtooverthrowhim.OnSaintBartholomew'sDay1572heorderedtheexecutionofProtestantleaders.Eventsescal-ateddramaticallywhentheParisianmilitiaprecipitatedalargeandsystematicmassacreofProtestants,aslaughterthatlastedforsixdaysinParisandevenlongerinsomeprovincialtowns.Anestimated16,000Protestantswereslain.TheSaintBartholomewmassacre,publiclycelebratedbyPopeGre-goryXIII,wasanimportantturningpointintermsofbothpoliticalstrugglesandthehistoryofideas.ThecivilwarinFranceintensi®edagain.CatherinedeMedici,whohadpreviouslyarguedstronglyforapoliticsofreligiouscompromise,sanctionedthekillingofProtestantleadersandadaptedamuchmorecombativestance.Huguenotactiv-iststooabandonedtoleranceandmovedtowardsanuncompromisingde®anceofallRoyalauthority.ThisconstitutedadramaticshiftawayfromearlierProtestantpositionsthatadvocatedastrictdoctrineofnon-resistancetotyranny.TheoldpositionclaimedthatsinceGodinstitutedprinces,politicalauthoritywasunquestionableandobedi-encetoitwasdueasanactofreligiousfaith.Calvinsummarisedthispositionperfectlywhenclaimingthat`therecanbenotyrannywhichinsomerespectisnotadefencetoconservethesocietyofmen'.ButLutherhadalreadyabandonedthisdoctrineofnon-resistanceandarguedthatitismoralandlawfultoopposeforciblyarulerwhoturnsEvenCalvineventuallyabandonedhisconservativepositionandadaptedwhatcouldbecalledaHobbesianpositionthatclaimedarulermustonlybeobeyedaslongashehasthepowertoimposethisobedience.TheSaintBartholomewmassacreclearlyfuelledthisSeeJ.H.M.Salmon,SocietyinCrisis:FranceintheSixteenthCentury(London:ErnestBenn,1975),pp.183±195.BenedictAnderson,forexample,arguesthattheselectiveforgettingandmythicalrepresentationoftheSaintBartholomewmassacreplayedanimportantroleinthecreationofFrenchnationalidentity:ImaginedCommunities:Re¯ectionsontheOriginandSpreadofNationalism(London:Verso,1991/1983),pp.199±201.CalvincitedinMichaelWalzer,TheRevolutionoftheSaints:AStudyintheOriginsofRadicalPolitics(NewYork:Athenaeum,1968/1965),p.37.QuentinSkinner,TheFoundationsofModernPoliticalThought,vol.II(Cambridge:Cam-bridgeUniversityPress,1978),pp.16±9,74.TheRevolutionoftheSaints,p.38. AgenealogyofpopulardissentmoresubversiveandradicalstrandofProtestantism,whicheventu-allyturneditintoarevolutionarypoliticalideology.Pamphletsadvoc-atingradicalformsofresistancestartedtoemergealloverFrance:oisHotman's(1573),TheÂodoredeBeÁze'sDeiuremagistratuuminsubditos(1574)andDuPlessis-Mornay'scontraTyrannosTheReformation,initiallyaconservativereligiousreaction,nowbegantolooklikearadicalpoliticalmovement.Whiletryingtoreas-sertChristianfaith,itunderminedtheonlytheologicalauthorityandthuscontributedtoafurthersecularisationofEurope,totheeventualdeathofGod.ThemostparadoxicalaspectofthisevolutionwasthatLuther'sdoctrines,whichwereprimarilyaimedatunderminingthehumanistconceptsoffreewill,turnedouttobeHumanism'smostimportantcatalyst.TheReformationbecametheultimateaf®rmationofrebelliousindividualism.LiberatedfromthedogmatismoftheCatholicChurch,`man'nowstoodaloneinfrontofGod.Outofthesetheoreticalfoundationsemergedanunprecedentedrevolutionarymovementthattransformedtheentirecontinent.Theconceptofhumanagencywasnolongersimplyarhetoricalposition.Itwasbynowaradicalpoliticalpractice.LaBoetie'spoliticalwritingsmadetheirpublicdebutinthecontextofthisemergingHuguenotradicalism.Thewas®rstpub-lishedin1574,inFrenchandinaLatintranslation.Bothwereanonymousandruthlesslymutilatedversionsoftheoriginaltext.ThepiratedextractswerepublishedaspartofamilitantProtestantpamphlet,theveille-MatindesFranc.ItcontainedadetailedaccountoftheSaintBartholomewmassacreand,directedpersonallyagainsttheKingandhisRegent,CatherinedeMeÂdici,calledforthe`revoltofthemanyagainstthetyrannyofone-manrule'.Theactualtextofthewasreducedtoadozenpagesthatincludedallrhetoricalcondemnationsoftyranny,butnoneofthemoresubtledis-cussionsonsystemsofdominationandtheengineeringofconsent.Twoyearslater,thewasprintedagaininasimilarlycombat-ivecollectionofessays,LesMemoirsdel'EstatdeFrancesousCharles,editedbySimonGoulart,aProtestantpastorfromGeneva.SeeWalzer,TheRevolutionoftheSaints,pp.1±21andinRichardTarnas,ThePassionoftheWesternMind(NewYork:BallantineBooks,1991),pp.237±43.veille±MatindesFranc,withcommentsbyP.BonnefoninlaBoeOeuvrescom-,pp.402±7. RhetoricsofdissentinRenaissanceHumanismThispublication,reprintedtwiceinHolland,notonlycondemnedonemanruleandfeudalhierarchy,butalsoprovidedamuchmoresweep-ingcriticismofcontemporarysocietyingeneral.Bythemid1570sthewasrelativelywidelyknownandassociatedwithradicalHuguenotpositions.However,thisoriginallycomplexrhetoricaltextwasbynowreducedtoananonymouspolit-icalpamphlet,abattlecryforradicalpoliticalaction.Theconceptofhumanagency,whichhademergedonlyrecentlyinthetransitionfromtheMiddleAgestotheRenaissance,becamehelplesslyentangledinthereligiousstrifeoftheReformation.MontaignewasclearlyupsetbythismyopicusageoflaBoework.Heinitiallyintendedtogivetheaprominentplaceinhisown,butgivenitsentanglementinpoliticalbattlesthiswasnottohappen.Whenthe®rsteditionoftheappeared,in1580,MontaigneagainrefusedtopublishlaBoetie'scontroversialtext.protectthefrombeingmisusedasatoolforradicalpoliticalaction,Montaignedownplayeditsimportance.Heclaimedthatlatiewrotethisessay`inhisinfancy,bywayofexercise,asacommonsubjectthathadalreadybeentreatedinathousandbooks'.ItislikelythatMontaigne'spositionwasinformedbymorethanaconservativehostilitytochange.Hisworkembodiesthescepticalele-mentofRenaissanceHumanism.Forhim,theworldisaplaceofdiversitiesandidiosyncrasies,ofuniqueeventsthatcannotbeassessedthroughaPlatonicsearchfortruth.Therehaveneverbeentwoopinionsalike,heclaims,notanymorethantwohairsortwograinsarealike.`Theirmostuniversalqualityisdiversity'.ledgeoftheworldcanneverbeabsolute.Peoplearedeceivedbyappearancesandhencecannotjudgethingsobjectively.Montaigne'sphilosophicalscepticismquestionspeople'sabilitiestoreachacon-sensusaboutwhatisgoodforthem.IronandBlood,p.75±6.SeeMontaigne,(Paris:Gallimard,1950),bookI,chapter28,pp.231±2.Ibid,pp.219,231±2.ForfurthercommentsonMontaigne'sstrategytotrivialisetheseeBonnefon,MontaigneetsesAmis,vol.I,pp.143±5;Mesnard,L'EssordelaPhilosophiePolitiqueauXVIeSie,pp.390±1.,bookII,chapterXXXVII,p.881.ChapterXII(pp.481±683),whichisentitled`ApologyofRaymondSebond',containsMontaigne'smostexplicitengage-mentwithscepticism.SeealsoMaxHorkheimer,`MontaigneunddieFunktionderKritischeTheorie,vol.II(Frankfurt:FischerVerlag,1968/1938),pp.201±59;andPauldeMan,`MontaigneandTranscendence',inCriticalWritings,1953±1978(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1989). AgenealogyofpopulardissentThedisputebetweenMontaigneandradicalHuguenotsovertheinterpretationofthesettheframeworkformanysubsequentdebatesabouthumanagency.HuguenotsemployedlaBoetie'smess-ageasabattlecrytosupporttheirrebelliousindividualism.Mon-taigne,bycontrast,drewattentiontotheauthoritarianaspectsoftheHuguenotrevolution.Hisviewimpliesthatdogmaticpoliticalactions,eveniftheyseekmorefreedom,arelikelytocreatenewformsofoppression.HindsightclearlyvindicatedMontaigne.Butinthelatesixteenthcenturyhiscriticalvoicedrownedintheroaringofmyopicpoliticalbattles.Thischapterconstitutedthe®rststepofaninquiryintotheemergenceandconstitutionofpopulardissent.IthasobservedhowrhetoricalideasaboutdissenthavecometoshapeRenaissanceperceptionsofhumanagency.Suchaninvestigationisofdirectrelevancetoanunderstandingofcontemporarytransversaldissent,fortheassump-tionsaboutpowerandagencythatwereformedintheearlymodernperiodcontinuetoin¯uencepoliticaldynamicstoday.Inasixteenth-centuryworldwherethesubjectandtheverynotionofhumanagencybarelyexisted,EtiennedelaBoearadicaltext.Theprevailingsenseofauthorityatthetimeconsistedof`arighttodemandobedienceasadutytoGod'.LaBoeÂtiebrokeradicallywiththisdeeplyentrencheddiscourse.Hecondemnedunequivocallyallformsofgoverningthatentailsomepeopledominat-ingothers.Theclaimedthatpeopleholdthekeytosocialchange,thatanyformofgovernment,nomatterhowdespotic,isdependentuponpopularconsent.Becausepeoplecanwithdrawthisconsent,theycanprecipitatethedownfallofeventhemosttyrannicalLaBoetie'srhetoricalpositionwaspartofanemerginghumanistchallengethatsymbolisedthetransitionfromthemedievaltothemodernperiod.Humanismde®edtheprevalenceofGodandplacedhumanityatthecentreofattention.Withitre-emergedthelonglostnotionofhumanagency,theideathatpeoplearetheirownmasters,equippedwiththeabilitytochangeboththeworldandthemselves.subversivemessageenteredthepublicrealmintheAHistoryofPoliticalThoughtintheSixteenthCentury,pp.xiv±xv. RhetoricsofdissentinRenaissanceHumanismcontextofthecivilwarbetweenrebelliousHuguenotsanddefensiveCatholicauthorities.ButlaBoetie'stextwasimmediatelyappropri-ated.Itwasbent,cut,mutilated.Virtuallyallofitsrhetoricalcomplex-itiesvanished.Leftwereonlythepassionatecondemnationsoftyr-anny,whichwerethenusedtopromotepopularuprisingsagainsttheKingofFrance.ThehadturnedintoapoliticalweaponforradicalHuguenots,aninstrumentofresistanceandrevolution,anobjectofcontemptandabhorrence.Bytheendofthesixteenthcen-tury,thewasreducedtoamerepoliticalpamphletthatdidlittlemorethanin¯ateanddogmatisetheconceptofhumanagency.Thepublicappropriationofthesymboliseshowdissentandhumanagencywereconstitutedatthetime.TheReformation,whichchallengedthenewlyemerginghumanistconceptoffreewill,paradoxicallyprovideditwithunprecedentedmomentum.LutherpassionatelybelievedthatfreedomcanonlyariseoutofobediencetoGod'swill.Ifhumanityisdeprivedofthisfoundation,itwillinevit-ablyplungeintoamoralandspiritualabyss.ButbytryingtopurifyChristiandoctrines,theProtestantreformersunderminedtheonlytheologicalauthority,thePapacy.TheReformationbecameanexpres-sionofrebelliousindividualismthateventuallyledtoasecularisationofEurope.Humanismemergedvictorious.SovictoriousthatitwastotransformtheentireWesternworldinthecenturiestocome.ButoneofHumanism'skeycomponents,therhetoricalconceptofhumanagency,hadbecomeimpoverishedtoanarrowanddogmaticpoliticaltool,adangerouslyrepressiveaf®rmationofthenewlygainedinde-pendencefromGodand`his'earthlyembodiments.