French humanists, the king and the tyrant. Debates on tyrannicide in the French humanist milieu, 1st half of the 15th century

Abstract

On November 23, 1407, the premeditated murder of king Charles’ brother Louis d’Orléans by the henchmen of their cousin John of Burgundy puts the question of the tyrant and tyrannicide at the center of intellectual debates. Indeed, having confessed to ordering the crime, Jean sans Peur goes back on his statement and asks a team of theologians led by the Norman Jean Petit to prepare his defense. This justification is exposed to the public in 1408 and is based upon an argument taken to the jurist Cassius: vim vi repellere licet. Louis was a would-be tyrant, so his murder was both lawful and good. This assertion seems to be an echo of the debates surrounding tyranicide raging amoung the Italian humanists for half a century. Due to the refusal of confession, the royal justice is paralized; therefore the Justification by Jean Petit is all the more shocking. Faced with the inability of justice, Louis’ family is left with no choice but vengeance. The French humanists milieu, which brings together acknowledged and famous humanists such as Nicolas de Clamanges, Laurent de Premierfait and Alain Chartier, and academics tempted by this new intellectual movement, such as Pierre d’Ailly and Jean Gerson, revive the controversy by adapting it to the context: who can be call a tyrant? What is the difference between a tyrant and a legitimate king? Is it lawfull to kill the tyrant as to save the king? The most appropriate answer to these questions must be found because what is at stake is no less than the French kingdom survival.