Stefan Young Brutus (nickname)

In addition to hiding true authorship, the pseudonym has a symbolic meaning. Lucius Junius Brutus was the legendary opposition leader to the Roman king Tarquinius the Proud . Brutus' revolt led to the creation of the Roman Republic . Mark Junius Brutus (85–42 BC), a direct descendant of Lucius, joined the plot to kill Julius Caesar because he was afraid that Julius wanted to overthrow the Republic and establish personal rule. The name "Stefan" means "crowned." This name was one of the murderers of the Roman emperor Domitian (51-96). Thus, the author of the treatise wanted to emphasize his tyrannical aspirations: the treatise was supposed to kill the idea of ​​an unlimited monarchy on a symbolic level - just like Kruty and Stefan killed real tyrants.

The treatise sequentially examines four issues relating to the relationship of the king and his subjects. The first question is whether people should obey the king in any case, or whether they have the right to disobey if the king violates the law of God and loves that which is contrary to God. The answer is obvious and supported by the authority of the Bible (the story of Saul), as well as the usual feudal practice, according to which the vassal must obey a higher, rather than a lower overlord, if their orders contradict each other.

The second question is no longer devoted to the right to disobey, but to the right to resist: is it legal to resist a ruler who opposes divine institutions and attacks the church. As an answer, the theory of a treaty is put forward between God, the ruler and the people. An example of such an agreement is the relationship between the Old Testament Israel and Jehovah. The establishment of the monarchy entailed a change in the treaty, which became threefold: God and the people (together with the king) support the old treaty (cult in exchange for patronage), and an agreement is concluded between the king and the people: the people are obliged to obey, and the king is to rule fairly. Violation of the contract on either side will invalidate the contract, and the unjust king should be removed.

The first treaty establishes piety, and the second - justice. In the first, the king undertakes to serve God, in the second - to rule the people fairly, in the first - to establish the will of God, in the second - to maintain the welfare of the people. The condition of the first is to observe the will of God, the condition of the second is to protect the property of everyone. A violation of the first is punished by God, a violation of the second by the people.

The third question (which is the main content of the treatise) is whether people have the right to rebel against the king, if by his actions he destroys social harmony. The answer is also positive.

No one is born a king, no king exists on his own and cannot rule if there is no people. On the contrary, the people exist on their own and precede the king.

However, under the "people" the author of the treatise does not mean all people in general, and in no case is not the common people. People have the right to take up arms only if they are led by a lower magistrate ^[2] , that is, a meeting of representatives of the upper classes, on whom the care of the state and the church lies:

When we talk about all people, we mean by this only those who have power from the people, that is, magistrates who oppose the king, and whom people replace or elect ... to restrain the attacks on sovereignty and represent the whole people. ^[3]

The fourth question is whether foreign rulers have the right to legally support a people’s rebellion against the king on the conditions outlined in the first three questions (that is, if the king opposes the Christian faith or rules unjustly). The answer in both cases is positive - on the basis of the unity of the Christian church and on the basis of the unity of mankind: we have obligations to God and to our neighbors. This justified the help of the Protestant sovereigns and England fighting Huguenots ..

The most likely author is Philippe du Plessis Morne . Some call the author Hubert Lange . In 1931, Gerardin Tiabert van Iselstein suggested that this treatise was the result of a collaboration between Langet and de Morne.