The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. The specific issue is: Mostly Eurocentric, no coverage of Russian or Chinese philosophers or political theorists; no coverage of Russian, Chinese, or Japanese tyrannicides. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate.(July 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Look up tyrannicide in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Tyrannicide or tyrannomachia is the killing or assassination of a tyrant or unjust ruler, purportedly for the common good,[1] and usually by one of the tyrant's subjects.[2] Tyrannicide was legally permitted and encouraged in Classical Athens. Often, the term "tyrant" was a justification for political murders by rivals, but in some exceptional cases students of Platonic philosophy risked their lives against tyrants. The killing of Clearchus of Heraclea in 353 BC by a cohort led by his own court philosopher is considered a sincere tyrannicide. A person who carries out a tyrannicide is also called a "tyrannicide".[3]
The term originally denoted the action of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, who are often called the Tyrannicides, in killing Hipparchus of Athens in 514 BC.[4] In modern terms, carrying out a tyrannicide, as in taking life of another person, is a criminal act, and lawbreakers are liable to police arrest and trial by a court.
Tyrannicide can also be a political theory and, as an allegedly justified form of the crime of murder, a dilemmatic case in the philosophy of law, and as such dates from antiquity.[5]
Classical antiquity
Plato describes a violent tyrant as the opposite of a good and "true king" in the Statesman,[6] and while Aristotle in the Politics sees it as opposed to all other beneficial forms of government, he also described tyrannicide mainly as an act by those wishing to gain personally from the tyrant's death, while those who act without hope of personal gain or to make a name for themselves are rare.[7]
Support for tyrannicide can be found in Cicero's De Officiis.[8] Cicero presents a philosophical stance that in certain extreme circumstances, tyrannicide can be considered a moral duty. Cicero argues that when a ruler becomes a tyrant, violating the laws and oppressing the people, it is the duty of citizens to protect the state and restore justice, even if it means taking drastic measures such as killing the tyrant. He believed that the welfare of the state and the protection of its citizens should take precedence over the life of a tyrant who endangers these principles.[9][10]
Support for tyrannicide can also be found in Seneca's Hercules Furens,[6] Seneca delves into the complex and often tragic nature of resisting tyranny. Through his dramatic narratives, Seneca portrays the psychological and ethical struggles faced by those who stand against oppressive rulers. In Hercules Furens, the titular hero grapples with madness and the burdens of his immense strength, ultimately exploring themes of resistance against unjust authority. Seneca uses his characters to illustrate the moral complexities and the potential justifications for tyrannicide, highlighting the internal and external conflicts that arise when confronting tyranny.[11][12]
Plutarch, in his biographical works, notably in Parallel Lives, presented tyrannicide as a defense of liberty and justice. He highlighted the moral dimensions of such acts through figures like Brutus, who assassinated Julius Caesar to protect the Roman Republic, and Timoleon of Corinth, who killed his tyrannical brother to save Corinth. Plutarch praised these actions as noble sacrifices made for the greater good, underscoring the idea that tyrannicide, when motivated by a selfless commitment to civic virtue, can be a legitimate and necessary act to preserve collective freedom and justice.[13] This perspective aligns with earlier philosophical views, such as Aristotle's, which justified the removal of a tyrant if it served the common good.[14][15]
Medieval thought
Augustine of Hippo debated the moral and ethical implications of tyrannicide within a Christian framework. Augustine argued that while resisting tyranny could be morally justified, it was essential to weigh such actions against the broader principles of Christian ethics and the potential for violence and disorder. His writings reflect a nuanced view, acknowledging the tension between the necessity of opposing unjust rulers and the dangers of inciting greater harm through violent resistance.[16] As R. A. Markus notes, Augustine’s approach to tyrannicide was heavily influenced by his overarching concern for maintaining social order and preventing anarchy, even while recognizing the moral repugnance of tyranny.[17] In contrast, Gregory of Nazianzus[18] and John Chrysostom[19] framed the death of Emperor Julian the Apostate as a divine judgment rather than explicitly addressing the concept of tyrannicide. They emphasized Julian's demise as evidence of the triumph of Christianity over paganism.[20]
During the Middle Ages, most theologians were influenced on the subject by Augustine's The City of God, which said that Christians should obey secular authority.[21] The scholastic philosopher John of Salisbury was the first medieval Christian scholar to defend tyrannicide,[22] under specific conditions, in the Policraticus, circa 1159.[23] His theory was derived from his idea of the state as a political organism in which all the members cooperate actively in the realization of the common utility and justice. He held that when the ruler of this body politic behaves tyrannically, failing to perform his characteristic responsibilities, the other limbs and organs are bound by their duty to the public welfare and God to correct and, ultimately, to slay the tyrant.[24]
In Thomas Aquinas's commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, Aquinas gave a defense not only of disobedience to an unjust authority, using as an example Christian martyrs in the Roman Empire, but also of "one who liberates his country by killing a tyrant." For Aquinas, "when what is ordered by an authority is opposed to the object for which that authority was constituted ... not only is there no obligation to obey the authority, but one is obliged to disobey it, as did the holy martyrs who suffered death rather than obey the impious commands of tyrants."[25]
Renaissance to Enlightenment
In 1408, the theologian Jean Petit used biblical examples to justify tyrannicide following the murder of Louis I, Duke of Orleans, by Petit's patron John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy. Petit argued that tyrannicide was not only permissible but commendable when the ruler in question posed a threat to the public good. This justification was based on interpretations of biblical figures who had acted against tyrants in defense of divine and moral laws. Petit's thesis sparked significant controversy and was extensively discussed in ecclesiastical and political circles. Ultimately, the Church anathematized Petit's views at the Council of Constance, condemning them as contrary to Christian teachings on legitimate authority and the sanctity of rulers.[26][27]
A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power, written by John Ponet in 1556, argued that the people are custodians of natural and divine law, and that if governors and kings violated their trust, then they forfeited their power, whether they relinquished their positions voluntarily or whether they had to be removed forcefully.[28] The Monarchomachs in particular developed a theory of tyrannicide, with Juan de Mariana describing their views in the 1598 work De rege et regis institutione,[29] in which he wrote, "[B]oth the philosophers and theologians agree, that the prince who seizes the state with force and arms, and with no legal right, no public, civic approval, may be killed by anyone and deprived of his life..."[8] The Jesuisticcasuistry developed a similar theory, criticized by Blaise Pascal in the Provincial Letters.[30]The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates by John Milton in 1649 also described the history of tyrannicide, and a defense of it when appropriate.[31]
In his book Leviathan (1651), Thomas Hobbes identified the idea that tyrannicide is justified and praiseworthy as one of several harmful doctrines that must be suppressed for the good of civil society. In Hobbes's view, this doctrine was equivalent to asserting that men may kill their rulers as long as they label them as tyrants first.[32]
John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government (1689), argued that people have the right to overthrow a government that fails to protect their natural rights, which includes tyrannicide as a form of legitimate resistance. Locke posited that a tyrant, by definition, acts against the interest of the people and forfeits the right to rule. In such cases, it becomes the moral duty of the citizens to remove the tyrant to restore natural law and order. Locke's political theory profoundly influenced the development of modern democratic thought, emphasizing the protection of life, liberty, and property as fundamental rights.[33][34]
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in The Social Contract (1762), touches on the idea of the general will and the right of the people to overthrow a tyrant who acts against it. Rousseau argued that sovereignty belongs to the people, and any government that does not act in accordance with the general will is illegitimate. This perspective supports the notion that the people have the right to depose a tyrant who violates the social contract. Rousseau's work laid the philosophical foundation for the French Revolution and continues to be a critical text in discussions of political legitimacy and popular sovereignty.[35][36]
Abraham Lincoln believed that assassinating a leader is morally justified when a people has suffered under a tyrant for an extended period of time and has exhausted all legal and peaceful means of ouster.[37] He saw tyrannicide as a necessary last resort to protect liberty and justice. Lincoln's views, shaped by the American Civil War, reflect the ethical debate on violent resistance against tyranny, emphasizing that removing a despot can be a moral imperative to restore democratic governance and human rights.[38][39] Lincoln was himself assassinated in 1865—with the assailant shouting "sic semper tyrannis" ("thus always to tyrants") during the act—as part of an unsuccessful conspiracy to overthrow the government.[40]
Carl Schmitt, in Political Theology (1922) and The Concept of the Political (1932), addresses the nature of sovereignty and the state of exception. Schmitt argues that in extreme situations, the normal legal order can be suspended to address existential threats, which can include justifications for extreme measures like tyrannicide. His ideas have been influential and controversial in discussions about the limits of legal and political authority.[41][42]
Leo Strauss, in On Tyranny (1956), engages deeply with classical and modern discussions on tyranny. Strauss analyzes the philosophical implications of opposing tyrannical rule and the potential justification for tyrannicide, drawing on historical examples and philosophical arguments to explore the moral complexities of resisting despotism.[43][44]
Hannah Arendt, in her work On Violence (1970), explores the nature of power, violence, and authority. Arendt argues that violence can be justified in certain circumstances, particularly when it is used to combat oppressive regimes and restore political freedom. While she does not focus exclusively on tyrannicide, her analysis provides a framework for understanding the ethical justifications for violent resistance against tyranny.[45][46]
John Rawls, although primarily known for his theories of justice, touches on the conditions under which civil disobedience and resistance to unjust authority can be morally justified in A Theory of Justice (1971). Rawls argues that when a government acts tyrannically, violating the principles of justice and fairness, citizens have the right to resist, which may include tyrannicide under extreme circumstances.[47][48]
Michael Walzer, in Just and Unjust Wars (1977), examines the ethics of war and resistance, including the moral considerations surrounding the assassination of tyrants. Walzer discusses tyrannicide within the broader context of just war theory, arguing that in some cases, killing a tyrant may be necessary to protect innocent lives and restore justice.[49][50]
David George, in Distinguishing Classical Tyrannicide from Modern Terrorism (1988), has argued that terrorism is a form of tyranny of which tyrannicide is a negation.[51] He posits that tyrannicide serves as a countermeasure to terrorism, which uses fear and violence to subjugate populations. In George's view, the assassination of tyrants can be an act of liberation, dismantling oppressive structures and restoring autonomy. This situates tyrannicide within a broader discourse on the ethics of political violence, suggesting it aims to eliminate tyranny and restore justice.[52]
Aoife O'Donoghue explores the concept of tyranny and tyrannicide within the broader context of the global legal order in her book On Tyranny and the Global Legal Order (2021). O'Donoghue delves into the historical and philosophical foundations of tyrannicide, examining its evolution and relevance in contemporary political thought. Her analysis highlights the intersection of tyrannicide with issues of global justice, sovereignty, and international law, providing a nuanced understanding of how the act of resisting tyranny through violence is viewed in modern legal and ethical frameworks.[53]
Throughout history, many leaders have died under the pretext of tyrannicide. Hipparchus, one of the last Greek leaders to use the title of "tyrant", was assassinated in 514 BC by Harmodius and Aristogeiton, the original tyrannicides.[54][4] Since then "tyrant" has been a pejorative term lacking objective criteria. Many rulers and heads of state have been considered tyrannical by their enemies but they have not been considered tyrannical by their supporters. For example, when John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln in 1865, he wrote that he considered Lincoln a tyrant and he compared himself to Marcus Junius Brutus,[55] who stabbed the Roman dictator Julius Caesar in 44 BC.[56] Booth famously shouted "sic semper tyrannis" during the assassination.
Tyrannicides have a poor record of achieving their intended outcome. Caesar's death, for example, failed to bring a return to republican power, and instead led to the Roman Empire, but it galvanized later assassins. Several of Caesar's successors came to their demise by assassinations, including Caligula, who was stabbed in 41 by Cassius Chaerea and other Praetorian Guards,[57] and Domitian, stabbed in 96 by a steward of Flavia Domitilla named Stephanus.[58] Many attempts on Commodus's life in the late 2nd century failed, including the one instigated by his own sister Lucilla, but he ultimately fell victim to his own excess by a successful murderous coup.[59] Other emperors assassinated from within include Claudius, Caracalla, Elagabalus, Marcus Aurelius Marius, and Severus Alexander. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, tyrannicide continued in the Eastern Roman Empire when Emperor Andronikos I Komnenos was tied to a pillar, beaten, and dismembered by a mob in 1185.[57]
^Fine, Jonathan (2010). "Political and Philological Origins of the Term 'Terrorism' from the Ancient Near East to Our Times". Middle Eastern Studies. 46 (2): 271–288. doi:10.1080/00263201003619927. JSTOR20720662. S2CID143268246.
^Nederman, Cary J. (1988), "A Duty to Kill: John of Salisbury's Theory of Tyrannicide", The Review of Politics, 50 (3), Cambridge University Press: 365–389, doi:10.1017/S0034670500036305, S2CID145277381
^Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, trans. J.G. Dawson (Oxford, 1959), 44, 2 in O’Donovan, pp. 329–330.
^Rollo-Koster, Joëlle. "The Great Western Schism, Legitimacy, and Tyrannicide: The Murder of Louis of Orléans (1407)". Inventing Modernity in Medieval European Thought, ca. 1100–ca. 1550, edited by Cary J. Nedermann and Bettina Koch, Berlin, Boston: Medieval Institute Publications, 2019, pp. 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781580443500-012
^Provvidente, S. (2019). Stylus theologicus et iuridicus : la causa Jean Petit à Constance (1414-1418) et les débats sur le tyrannicide. Médiévales, 77, 129-151. https://doi.org/10.4000/medievales.10527
^Berns, Laurence (1987) [First ed. published 1963]. "Thomas Hobbes". In Strauss, Leo; Cropsey, Joseph (eds.). History of Political Philosophy (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. 414–415. ISBN9780226924717.
^Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Edited by Peter Laslett, Cambridge University Press, 1988.
^Dunn, John. Locke: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2003.
^Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Translated by Maurice Cranston, Penguin Books, 1968.
^Bertram, Christopher. Rousseau and The Social Contract. Routledge, 2004.
^Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Basic Books, 2006.
^Bellamy, Alex J. Just Wars: From Cicero to Iraq. Polity Press, 2006.
^George, David (1988). "Distinguishing Classical Tyrannicide from Modern Terrorism". The Review of Politics. 50 (3). Cambridge University Press: 390–419. doi:10.1017/S0034670500036317. S2CID146523905.
^Coady, C. A. J. (2008). Morality and Political Violence. Cambridge University Press.
^O'Donoghue, Aoife. On Tyranny and the Global Legal Order. Cambridge University Press, 2021.
