Content provided in partnership with
Donatello's bronze David and Judith as Metaphors of Medici rule in Florence - Bibliography
Art Bulletin, The, March, 2001 by Sarah Blake McHam
Not surprisingly, the numerous assassinations of contemporary political leaders in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Europe and the tenuous hold on power of many more kept attention focused on the Policraticus's justifications of tyrannicide. In 1407 the murder of Louis, duke of Orleans, brother of Charles VI, king of France, by John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy, thrust John of Salisbury's theories again into the spotlight. In a move that galvanized all of Europe, the duke of Burgundy denied that he had committed any crime, thereby skirting the obvious charge that the killing enhanced his own chance of succeeding to the throne of France. He contended that, as a loyal servant of the crown, he had been honor-bound to rid the country of a detestable tyrant who had perverted French royal institutions. His stance had grave theoretical consequences for rulers anywhere in Europe and direct ramifications not only for France and Burgundy but also for England and Italy. Henry V of England soon thereafter married Cath erine, the daughter of the French king, and the duke of Orleans left as his widow Valentina Visconti, the daughter of the duke of Milan.
- More Articles of Interest
- Donatello
- Donatello and His World: Sculpture of the Italian Renaissance. - book reviews
- Cosimo De'Medici and the Florentine Renaissance: The Patron's Oeuvre
- Cultural Politics of Duke Cosimo I de' Medici, The
- Renaissance Self-Portraiture: The Visual Construction of Identity and the...
To argue his case, the duke of Burgundy hired Jean Petit, a distinguished theologian at the University of Paris, who argued on the duke's behalf that the murder of a tyrant was the praiseworthy obligation of a good Christian citizen. To buttress his stance that the Church sanctioned such assassinations, Petit drew on Thomas Aquinas and other theologians, but the defense rested on John of Salisbury's explicit theories about the legitimacy of tyrannicide. Petit presented the position in a series of tracts entitled Justificatio Ducis Burgundiae. (63)
The outraged son of the assassinated duke of Orleans demanded that their validity be judged by a Council of the Faith, attended by doctors and masters of the University of Paris. This distinguished group vehemently debated the issues throughout 1413 and 1414. The eminent theologian Jean Gerson represented the duke of Orleans's position that his father had been unjustly murdered. (64) In 1414, the synod condemned the ideas of Jean Petit and required that all copies of the Justificatio be burned. (65) Nevertheless, at the Burgundian court it was preserved as a precious document, recopied, and over the course of the century incorporated into the manuscript and ultimately the printed histories of Burgundy and of France. (66)
In response to the synod's decision, the duke of Burgundy brought his case before John XXIII, the claimant to the papacy not supported by the king of France. John first assigned a committee of Italian cardinals to make a ruling; he named them because of their experience, as Italians, with political assassinations. (67) John XXIII subsequently decided that the matter should be put before the full-scale church council at Constance. There it was debated at great length, with Gerson again representing the position of the family of Louis of Orleans. (68) Nevertheless, the Council of Constance broke up in 1418 without ruling against the duke of Burgundy. (69)
