The right embodied in a statue
Reflections on the prosopopeia of the statue in piece V of the Romulea of Dracontius
p. 87-102
Résumés
We will be commenting on the four-line speech given by the statue of a rich citizen of Carthage, saddened by the behaviour of his model: “If images spoke, your statue would beseech you, and grief would dictate to him these words, this dreadful complaints: ‘Tell me, rich young man, tell me, brave patriot, if the poor man is guilty, what fault has your statue, the monument to your exploits, committed? Why despise the witness to your honours and sully the walls of our motherland?’ These are the words of the statue...” (Dracontius, Romulea V, 288-295) These lines wich are a prosopopoeia are taken from a fairly short text, a controversia of 329 lines, entitled « Controversia on the statue of the courageous man ». This traditional rhetorical exercise was written at the end of the 5th century AD by a Christian author, Dracontius. This member of the cultured elite of Africa under the Vandals remained profoundly Roman, as is shown by this little-studied text. It presents several interesting aspects: it is a text which has been read by critics as a banal, fictitious rhetorical exercise, but it has, without any doubt, political value in Vandal Africa; and it is original because of the subject it addresses: the misappropriation of the legal use of an image, the asylum normally reserved for statues of emperors.
Notre réflexion prend appui sur le discours en quatre vers prononcé par la statue d’un riche citoyen de Carthage, attristée par le comportement de son modèle: « Si les images parlaient, ta statue te supplierait, et la douleur lui dicterait ces mots, ces plaintes lamentables: ‘‘Dis-moi, jeune homme riche, dis-moi, courageux patriote, si le pauvre est coupable, quelle faute ta statue, monument de tes exploits, a-t-elle commise ? Pourquoi mépriser le témoin de tes honneurs et souiller les murs de notre patrie ?’’ Voilà les paroles de la statue… » (Dracontius, Romulea V, 288-295). Ces vers qui constituent une prosopopée sont extraits d’un texte assez court, une controverse de 329 vers, intitulée « La controverse sur la statue de l’homme courageux ». Cet exercice rhétorique traditionnel a été écrit par un auteur chrétien de la fin du Ve siècle ap. J-C, Dracontius. Membre de l’élite cultivée de l’Afrique vandale, il reste profondément romain, comme ce texte peu étudié l’illustre. Or il présente plusieurs aspects intéressants: c’est un texte que la critique lit comme un banal exercice rhétorique et fictif, mais nous montrons qu'il a sans aucun doute une valeur politique dans la Carthage vandale ; il est aussi original en raison du thème abordé : le détournement de l'usage juridique d'une image, le droit d'asile réservé aux statues d'empereur.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : Afrique vandale, Dracontius, controverse, prosopopée, statue, discours voilé ou figuré
Keywords : Vandal Africa, Dracontius, controversia, prosopopeia, statue, veiled or figurative speech
Note de l’auteur
This text was translated by Rosemary Masters whom we thank warmly.
Texte intégral
Si uocem simulacra darent, tua signa rogassent
et dolor ista daret deflendis uerba querelis:
“Dic, iuuenis diues, patriae, dic, fortis amator,
si pauper reus est, tua quid peccauit imago,
uirtutis monumenta tuae? Quid testis honorum
temnitur et patriae foedantur moenia nostrae?”
Haec simulacrorum uox est. Patriaeque gementis
audi uerba tuae […]1
If images spoke (si uocem simulacra darent), your statue would beseech you and grief would dictate these words, these dreadful complaints (deflendis uerba querelis): “Tell me, rich young man, tell me, courageous patriot, if the poor man is guilty, what fault has your statue (imago),
the monument (monumenta) to your exploits, committed? Why despise the witness (testis) to your honours and sully the walls of our motherland?” Those are the words of the statue (simulacrorum uox). But listen to the words of your groaning Motherland […].
1These words of a statue (v. 290-293) are part of a fairly short text, a controversia of 329 lines,2 entitled “Controversia on the statue of the courageous man” (Controversia de statua uiri fortis), written by a Christian author from the end of the 5th century AD, Blossius Aemilius Dracontius (born about 450 AD, date of death unknown).3 Dracontius was a member of the cultivated elite in the Vandal Kingdom in North Africa, deeply attached to Roman culture,4 and recognised by his contemporaries as an important poet.5 Whilst pursuing a legal career in Carthage, probably as a lawyer, he composed numerous poems, several of which are preserved. His reputation stems from this rich collection, unique in Vandal Africa, as well as from a text which remains unidentified and which apparently displeased the king of the Vandals, Gunthamund (who reigned from 484 to 496), and provoked his imprisonment in Carthage.
2The lines studied here, part of piece V of Romulea (Controversia on the statue of the courageous man), have not attracted the attention of historians or philologists.6 Indeed the controversia has long been ignored by critics,7 and reduced to a scholarly and fictitious rhetorical exercise.8 But the subscriptio after the poem in the manuscript,9 the strength of the theme, its treatment10 and the coherence with Dracontius’ other two rhetorical exercises,11 indicate to us that this demonstration of virtuosity and erudition masks a political speech.12 The poem is in fact constructed on the double, antithetical portrait of the rich man and the poor man:13 the rich man is presented as a potentior criminal abusing his power, and the poor man as a powerless victim. Dracontius, who declaimed this controversia in Carthage as is stated in the subscriptio after the text in the manuscript,14 seems to play the role – in a literal sense – of the defender of the poor man. Elsewhere in his work, the poet-lawyer also presents himself as a defensor, one who protects the humiliores against the abuses of the potentiores.15 Against all expectations the statue, though embodying the rich man, also intervenes in the controversia in favour of the poor man, and his speech reveals a concern to restore its moral and legal function. The intervention of the statue, as though echoing the words of the lawyer-poet, allows us to question the use of the prosopopeia in Dracontius’ text and the real effectiveness of the sculpted image in the city under Vandal domination.
From the controversia on the statue to the prosopopeia of the statue: image and law
3As in any controversia, the thema presents the people in conflict (a rich man and a poor man),16 and the law and the problem that it poses: the hero has the right to ask for whatever he wants as a reward, but he abuses this. The demands of the rich citizen become contradictory:
Thema: Vir fortis optet praemium quod uolet. Pauper et diues inimici. Bellum incidit ciuitati. Diues fortiter fecit: reuersus praemii nomine statuam petiit et meruit. Secundo fortiter egit: reuersus petiit praemii nomine asylum fieri statuam suam et meruit. Tertio fortiter fecit: reuersus petiit praemii nomine caput pauperis inimici. Pauper ad statuam diuitis confugit. Contradicit.
Let the hero ask for whatever reward he wants. A poor man and a rich man are enemies. A war breaks out. The rich man carries out a brave action; on his return, he asks for a statue as his reward and this is granted. He carries out a second act of bravery: on his return, he asks as his reward that his statue become an asylum and this is granted. He carries out a third act of bravery: on his return he asks for the head of the poor man, his enemy, as his reward. The poor man takes refuge at the foot of the statue of the rich man. He defends himself.
4Thus the rich man is given a statue in his likeness and its role as an asylum is granted. And when that same citizen asks for the death of his enemy, the poor man, the latter flees – supreme irony – to the foot of the statue of the rich man and asks for his life to be saved. The debate begins and the declamation reports the plea of an anonymous orator in favour of the poor man, who should normally be protected by the rich man. The statue, a likeness of the rich man, intervenes at the end of the poem, in the peroration. This, following rhetorical tradition, is the place for an appeal to feelings, in which the orator calls on pathos, emotion.17 In the course of the poem the orator repeats how barbaric and impious is the rich man who wants to kill the poor man – a public enemy.18 Then he builds the peroration on three successive speeches: the speech of the poor man when he sees the rich man appear (l. 267-278), that of the rich man’s statue (l. 290-293), then that of the Motherland (l. 295-329). Thus the poem ends on two prosopopeiae, and on the words of the Motherland. We might expect a gradation in the length of each speech and in the emotions they are designed to arouse, but the statue’s prosopopeia breaks this organisation. It is brief (4 l.) and is written in a more prosaic style than the other two speeches: the statue speaks frankly, calling on the rich man directly (l. 290 Dic, iuuenis diues, patriae, dic, fortis amator, “Tell me, rich young man, tell me, courageous patriot”), he shows his astonishment and his anger (l. 291-293 tua quid peccauit imago, / uirtutis monumenta tuae ? Quid testis honorum / temnitur et patriae foedantur moenia nostrae?: “What fault has your statue, a monument to your exploits, committed ? Why despise the witness to your honours and sully the walls of our motherland?”) and he askes him to justify himself by a series of questions.
5
6The prosopopeia echoes very ancient texts. Dracontius was certainly playing on famous speeches by Cicero against Catiline who attempted a coup in 63 BC. In fact, as a consul, Cicero used a prosopopeia of the Motherland to persuade the Senate to act against Catiline.19 Later, in the third speech against Catiline, the consul stated that for this act of courage he did not ask for an honorary reward – such as a statue, for example.20 The rich man in our declamation, on the other hand, demanded a statue as a monument to his glory as the statue pointed out in his speech. The orator is here posing as a new Cicero, defender of rights and legality, invoking the Motherland but also, a major innovation, the statue: the civil war provoked by Catiline is here provoked by the rich man. And wanting the death of the poor man is a good example of this. It is the prelude to other injustices.
7Dracontius mixes ancient references such as this to Cicero with formulae borrowed from Christian authors.21 Thus the orator skilfully introduces the statue’s speech with a subjunctive condition and uses the lexicon of expression (l. 288: si uocem darent: “if [it] spoke”; rogassent:”would beseech”; l. 289: ista daret deflendis uerba querelis: “would dictate these words, these dreadful complaints”). The expression uerba querelis (in the clausula of l. 289) is borrowed from Paulinus of Nola who used it to describe the tears and supplications of an unhappy man whose cattle had been stolen. Dracontius borrows this idea of tears and introduces the words of the statue with the same clausula uerba querellis as that which precedes the prayer of the unhappy man to Saint Felix: …miscetque precantia uerba querellis22, “and he mingles begging words with complaints”. The two prayers then begin with praise for the person invoked, the rich man as amator patriae (l. 290) and Felix as protector of the poor, with a play on words on felix, the name of the blessed saint, and a series of oxymorons (e. g. diues egenis) to stimulate the memory.23 There is here an opposition between Felix, a real protector, and the rich man who ought to defend the poor and respect the right to sanctuary.
8Latin literature offers few prosopopeiae by a statue24 and Dracontius thus creates an original speech which is worthy of attention. The rare occurrences of talking statues involve texts of a historical nature in which the statues of foreign goddesses speak about accepting to join Rome;25 and there are texts in the style of a parody: the wooden statue of the god Priapus in Horace (Satires, I, 8), Tibullus (I, 4, 9-72)26 and in the Carmina Priapea;27 and finally the divine statues or allegorical statues in Ausonius in the IVth century.28 Like Ausonius, Dracontius plays with the critical reception given to statues in Late Antiquity, in particular in Christian authors.29 Moreover, in Dracontius the term simulacrum, which traditionally indicates a cult statue, has here the sense of a sham if it is not respected: “Either the helpful statue (venialis imago) has power, or it is merely a sham (simulacrum)”.30 The statue, the figure of the rich man – it is his imago, that is, his reflection – speaks to the person it embodies: tua imago, “your statue”. The orator plays with the following paradox: it is the image which bears the truth and the law, while the rich man flouts them and is merely the appearance of the law. Thus the statue denounces the rich man for stating the law clearly: his image has the right to be respected and what it has obtained (the right of asylum) cannot be flouted with impunity. This prosopopeia is far from being simply a stylistic device: not only is it part of the strategy of the veiled (or figurative) speech of this poem, it also poses the question of the legality of the image.
The rights of the statue – legality of the image and its effectiveness
9From the first lines of the text of the Controversia, in the thema, the rights and functions granted to the statue of the rich man are given: the reward and the asylum. Yet these uses seem out-dated or incongruous in Dracontius’ time.31
10For the first function of the statue, the comparison with lived reality suggests that the orator is invoking an ancient tradition which is no more followed. Erecting a statue to honour a city notable who acted benevolently towards the community had become rare.
11In the 4th century, as C. Lepelley shows, statues were still erected in the cities32, but in the second half of the 5th century this act was no longer as common – especially in Vandal Africa.33 It disappeared with a moral judgement criticising this display of merit. Thus Symmachus, then proconsul of Africa (from 373 to 374), consoled himself when his successors, jealous of his success, refused to erect a statue in his honour, by regarding statues as an object of vanity. Referring to a moralising tradition illustrated for example by Cicero,34 Symmachus states that “The benefit and justification of virtue lie in conscience alone” (Epistulae, IX, 115 In sola conscientia est fructus et ratio uirtutis). Indeed the absence of inscriptions and objects from this period, in Africa as elsewhere in the Western Roman Empire35 confirm this evolution.
12Yet in Romul. V, the rich man has a statue erected and his effigy is granted a right which is above all the privilege of imperial images.36 Several legal and literary texts mention this particular, very Roman function of imperial statues. According to R. Gamauf, it appeared in the time of Augustus and was clearly upheld from the time of Tiberius. The necessary condition for benefiting from this legal protection was the dedicatio or consecratio of the representation of the emperor. This right initially concerned all forms of representation of the emperor, on medallions or on sculptures in the round, then seems to have become concentrated on images in the round. Slaves and then perhaps freemen, according to a development noted by R. Gamauf, could take refuge there, whether they were innocent or guilty which, moreover, worried the Ancients. A decree pronounced in 386 reaffirmed this right as belonging to imperial statues, but also settled the procedure and the problems of the legality of the request: if the asylym applied for was justified, nine days of protection could be granted.37
13Thus on July 6th 386, Theodosius submitted a law called Confugere ad statuas Principis to the Western praetorian prefect, Cynegius,38 but although it was issued in Constantinople, this no doubt applied generally: 39
Imppp. Val(entini)anus, Theod(osius) et Arcad(ius) AAA. Cynegio praefecto praetorio. Eos qui ad statuas uel euitandi metus uel creandae inuidiae causa confugerint, ante diem decimum neque auferri ab aliquo neque discedere sponte perpetimur; ita tamen, ut, si certas habuerint causas, quibus confugere ad imperatoria simulacra debuerint, iure ac legibus uindicentur; sin uero proditi fuerint artibus suis invidiam inimicis creare uoluisse, ultrix in eos sententia proferatur. Dat. prid. non. iul. Constantinop(oli) Honor(io) n. p. et Euod(io) v. c. cons.40
The Emperors Valentinian, Theodosius and Arcadius to Cynegius, Praetorian Prefect. Those who take refuge by statues either to avoid danger or to create hostility, we judge that they should not be taken away, nor should they themselves leave before the tenth day. Thus, if they had good reason for taking refuge by imperial statues, they should be defended by law; but if it is shown that they wanted to create hostility towards their enemies by artifice, then a vengeful sentence should be pronounced against them. Given at Constantinople on the eve of the ides of July during the consulate of the most noble child Honorius and of Evodius, clarissime.
14There are several points to note in this law which make it distinctive: In the first place, no information is given as to the people seeking sanctuary, whereas previous constitutions mentioned only the rules for slaves, which makes R. Gamauf think that the right concerned freemen.41 For A.D. Manfredini, the essential point is the insistence with which the law condemns those who seek refuge only to discredit and slander their persecutor.42 Another essential aspect of the text is the detail given in relation to the procedure. So that the request could be considered as being addressed directly to the emperor, the person had to stand near the statue.
15Through his legal functions, Dracontius probably knew this decree from Roman law since he uses the legal expressions ad statuam confugere, “take refuge by the statue” and asylum.43 Furthermore, at the start of the peroration, in order to arouse the listeners’ pathos, he restates the precise actions that had to be taken at the time of asking for protection:
Vidimus, o ciues, fugientis pauperis ora
cum manibus quaesisset opem sine uoce rogantis.
Diximus: “Hostis adest. Veniat uir fortis et adsit,
cuius inops simulacra tenet, cui crura lacertis
cinxit et ad plantas prostratus plangit egenus
belligerum ceu numen habens”. Dum pronus adhaeret
diuitis optata praesentia turbida rostris
apparet. Conclamat inops: “Succurrite ciues,
ciuis adest uiolentus, atrox, mea fata requirens,
quem nihil offendi, nisi quod sum pauper honestus […]”.44
We have seen, citizens, the face of a poor man who was fleeing,
asking for help by his actions, without saying a word.
We said: “The enemy is here. May help come from the hero
whose statue the poor man is holding on to, the legs held in his arms,
while he lies helpless at its feet, considering it almost as a divinity of war (… plangit egenus/ belligerum ceu numen habens…)”.
While he leans towards the statue, holding on to it, the rich man, whose presence is called for,
appears noisily on the rostra. The poor man cries out: “Help, citizens,
this violent, cruel citizen wants my death while I have done nothing
against him, other than being a poor, honest man [...]”.
16The fugitive puts his arms round the statue and asks for the protection of the person it represents. His appeal for help is public and the people present are duty bound to support him. Having recourse to the statue is effective, as anyone failing to respect this request can be accused of the crime of lèse-majesté.45 Only one other text mentions such actions, but more imprecisely: in the anonymous short 3rd century novella The Story of Apollonius, King of Tyre, a young girl in danger is advised to hold onto the statue of her father and to tell her story in order to be saved: remembering the good works carried out by him, the citizens will free her and punish the injustice.46
17Dracontius is here caught between two opposing approaches to the object and he uses them skilfully to show how a dives, a rich man, can behave like a real tyrant in the city, exceed his rights and flout the law. And his listeners can thus appreciate the excesses of the dignitary who violates the law.
Conclusion
18The statue’s speech thus suggests a climate of politico-religious tension in the city dominated by the Vandals, as do other passages by Dracontius: accusing the rich man of wanting to sacrifice a man in Romulea V, 138-15147 could serve as a reminder of anti-Catholic persecutions; Achilles’ refusal to give Hector a burial (Romul. IX) could subtly denounce a conflict over the right to a Catholic burial.48 In the statue’s prosopopeia it is the flouted right which itself speaks49 as a reminder that taking refuge by a statue confers protection. It is difficult to know how this text was received and we may wonder whether this reality could be transferred by Dracontius’ compatriots to another, rival form of sanctuary (asylum), the sanctuary of churches.50 Indeed, several decades earlier, Theodosius had looked favourably on the sanctuary given by imperial statues and almost simultaneously had encouraged sanctuary in churches. Given the importance of the law relating to the asylum granted to statues, it is very possible that the former was given greater weight. The only ancient author who engaged in a comparison of pagan and Christian sanctuary was African: Augustine wanted to show the inefficacity of the former and to reinforce the power of the latter.51 As documentation is scarce and incomplete, it is difficult to evaluate the relevance and effectiveness of these two rival types of asylum in Vandal Carthage. Nevertheless, Dracontius’ poem clearly concerns the poor, who are precisely those at stake in the religious war between Vandals and Romans, as Yves Modéran has shown.52 In that respect, the statue’s speech, reinforcing that of the lawyer, is definitely politico-religious advocacy.
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Primary Sources
Bornecque 1926 = Cicéron, Discours tome X, Les Catilinaires, texte établi par H. Bornecque, traduit par É. Bailly, (1st ed.), Paris, Les Belles Lettres,1926.
Bouquet 1995 = Dracontius, Œuvres 3, Tragédie d’Oreste. Poèmes profanes 1-5, texte établi, traduit et commenté par J. Bouquet, introduction par J. Bouquet et É. Wolff, Paris, Les Belles Lettres,1995.
Callebat 2012 = Priapées, ed. L. Callebat, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2012.
Díaz de Bustamante 1978 = Draconcio y sus Carmina profana, ed. M. Díaz de Bustamante, Monograph. de l’Univ. de Santiago de Compostela 44 , Santiago de Compostela, 1978.
Dodds 2014 = Augustine, The City of God, Volume I, ed. M. Dodds, EBook, 2014, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/45304/45304-h/45304-h.htm.
Håkanson 1978 = Calpurnii Flacci Declamationum excerpta, ed. L. Håkanson, Stuttgart, Teubner,1978.
Håkanson 1982 = Declamationes XIX maiores Quintiliano falso ascriptae, ed. L. Håkanson, Stuttgart, Teubner, 1982.
Håkanson 1989 = L. Annaeus Seneca Maior, Oratorum et rhetorum sententiae, divisiones, colores, Leipzig, Teubner,1989.
Moussy 1985 = Dracontius, Œuvres 1, Louanges de Dieu, Livres 1 et 2, introduction par Cl. Moussy, texte établi, traduit et commenté par C. Camus (livre 1) et C. Moussy (livre 2), Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1985.
Shackleton-Bailey 1989 = M. Fabii Quintiliani Declamationes Minores, ed. D.R. Shackleton-Bailey, Stuttgart, 1989.
Shackleton-Bailey 2006 = [Quintilian], The Lesser Declamations, Cambridge, Mass.-London, Teubner, 2006.
Sussman 1994 = The Declamations of Calpurnius Flaccus. Text, Translation and Commentary by L.A. Sussman, Leyde-New York-Köln, Brill, 1994 (Suppl. to Mnemosyne).
Winterbottom 1974 = The Elder Seneca, Declamations, transl. M. Winterbottom, 2 vol., t. 1 Controuersiae books 1-7, t. 2, Controuersiae books 8-10 and Suasoires, Cambridge-London, Harvard University Press, 1974.
Winterbottom 1984= The Minor Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian, ed. M. Winterbottom, Berlin-New York, De Gruyter, 1984.
Wolff 1996 = Histoire du roi Apollonius de Tyr, Anonyme latin, traduit et annoté par É. Wolff, Paris, Libella-Anatolia, 1996.
Secondary sources
Bauer – Witschel 2007 = F.A. Bauer, C. Witschel, Statuen in der Spätantike, Wiesbaden, 2007.
Bureau 2006 = B. Bureau, Les pièces profanes de Dracontius. Mécanismes de transfert et métamorphoses génériques, in Ars scribendi-Interférences, 4, 2006, en ligne.
De Gaetano 2009 = M. De Gaetano, Scuola e potere in Draconzio, Alessandria, 2009 (Coll. Quaderni 4).
Delmaire – Lepelley 1983 = R. Delmaire, Cl. Lepelley, Du nouveau sur Carthage : le témoignage des Lettres de saint Augustin découvertes par Johannes Divjak, in OPVS. Rivista internazionale per la storia economica, 2, 1983, p. 473-487.
Desbordes (1993) = Fr. Desbordes, Le texte caché : problèmes figurés dans la déclamation latine, in Revue des études latines, 71, 1993, p. 73-86; reedited in G. Clerico, J. Soubiran (ed.), Scripta uaria. Rhétorique antique et littérature latine, Louvain, 2006, p. 93-108.
Ducloux 1994 = A. Ducloux, Ad ecclesiam confugere. Naissance du droit d’asile dans les églises, IVe-milieu du Ve siècle, Paris, 1994.
Fabre-Serris 2004 = J. Fabre-Serris, Tibulle I, 4 : L’élégie et la tradition poétique du discours poétique, in Dictynna 1, 2004, p. 29-43.
Gamauf 1999 = R. Gamauf, ‘‘Ad statuam licet confugere’’. Untersuchungen zum Asylrecht im römischen Prinzipat, Frankfurt a. M.-Berlin-Bern-New York-Paris-Vienne, 1999 (Wiener Studien zu Geschichte, Recht und Geselschaft).
Gioffredi 1946 = C. Gioffredi, “Ad statuas confugere”, in SDHI 12, 1946, p. 188-191.
Icard-Gianolo 2004 = N. Icard-Gianolo, L’image cultuelle manifestation de prodiges, in ThesCRA, t. 2, 2004, p. 463-468.
Janvier 1969 = Y. Janvier, La législation du Bas-Empire romain sur les édifices publics, Aix-en-Provence, 1969 (Publications des Annales de la Faculté des Lettres. Série Travaux et mémoires 56).
Lepelley 1979 = C. Lepelley, Cités de l’Afrique romaine au Bas-Empire I, Paris, 1979 (Collection des études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité).
Lepelley 1983 = C. Lepelley, “Quot curiales, tot tyranni”. L’image du décurion oppresseur au Bas-Empire, in E. Frézouls (ed.), Crise et redressement dans les provinces de l’empire, Actes du colloque de Strasbourg décembre 1981, Strasbourg, 1983, p. 143-156.
Manfredini 1986 = A.D. Manfredini, “Ad ecclesiam confugere, ad statuas confugere” nell’età di Teodosio I, in G. Grifo (dir.), Atti dell’Accademia romanistica costantiniana, VIe Colloque international, Pérouse, Accademia romanistica costantiniana, 1983, Perugia, 1986, p. 39-58.
Michel d’Annoville 2009 = C. Michel d’Annoville, Recherches sur les statues et leurs fonctions dans le monde romain occidental (IVe-VIe s. ap. J.-C.), Thèse de doctorat, Tours, 2009.
Michel d’Annoville 2014 = C. Michel d’Annoville, Penser les images des dieux païens au tournant du IIIe siècle. Les réflexions d’Arnobe sur les statues divines (Adversus nationes, Livre VI, 8-26), in S. Estienne, V. Huet, F. Lissarague, F. Prost (éd.), Figures de dieux : construire le divin en images, Rennes, 2014, p. 223- 240.
Michel d’Annoville 2016 = C. Michel d’Annoville, Les épigrammes d’Ausone ou quand un poète fait parler les statues, in C. Michel d’Annoville, Y. Rivière (ed.), Faire parler et faire taire les statues : de l’invention de l'écriture à l’usage de l’explosif, Rome, 2016, p. 373-390.
Michel d’Annoville 2017 = C. Michel d’Annoville, Les statues divines dans les cités de l’Afrique romaine tardive, in L. Canetti (ed.), Statue. Rituali, scienza e magia dalla Tarda Antichità al Rinascimento, Florence, 2017, p. 87-103.
Michel d’Annoville – Stoehr-Monjou 2008 = C. Michel d’Annoville, A. Stoehr-Monjou, Fidélité à la tradition et détournements dans la controverse de Dracontius (Romul. 5) : un poème à double sens, in C. Sotinel, M. Sartre (ed.), L’usage du passé. Entre Antiquité tardive et Haut Moyen Âge. Hommage à Brigitte Beaujard, Tours le 23 octobre 2006, Rennes, 2008, p. 29-45.
Modéran 2003= Y. Modéran, Une guerre de religion : les deux églises d’Afrique à l’époque vandale, in Antiquité tardive, 11, 2003, p. 21-44.
PLRE I = A.H.M. Jones, LLD., DD., J.R. Martindale, J.R. Morris, The Prosoprography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. I (260-395), Cambridge, 1971.
Poignault – Schneider 2015 = R. Poignault, C. Schneider (ed.), Présence de la déclamation antique (Controverses et suasoires), Clermont-Ferrand, 2015 (Collection Caesarodunum XLVI-XLVII bis).
Poignault – Schneider 2016 = R. Poignault, C. Schneider (ed.), Fabrique de la déclamation antique. Controverses et suasoires, Lyon, 2016 (CMO – Série littéraire et philosophique, 55).
Radicke 2006 = J. Radicke, Priapus, ein rätselhafter Liebeslehrer, in Hermes, 134, 2, 2006, p. 195-210.
Russell 1983 = D.A. Russell, Greek Declamation, Cambridge, 1983.
10.1017/CBO9780511897887 :Santini 2006 = G. Santini, ‘‘Inter iura poeta’’. Ricerche sul lessico giuridico in Draconzio, Rome, 2006 (Studi e Testi TardoAntichi 4).
Smith – Ward-Perkins (ed.) 2016 = R.R.R. Smith, B. Ward-Perkins (ed.), The Last Statues of Antiquity, Oxford, 2016.
Stoehr-Monjou 2007 = A. Stoehr-Monjou, Poétique de Dracontius dans ses œuvres profanes (Romulea, Orestis tragoedia), thèse de doctorat sous la direction de J.-L. Charlet, Univ. Aix-Marseille I, 2007.
Stoehr-Monjou 2015a = A. Stoehr-Monjou, L’âme et le corps dans la suasoire de Dracontius : Rom. IX, un hommage à Homère, in Vita Latina, 191-192, 2015, p. 154-175.
Stoehr-Monjou 2015b = A. Stoehr-Monjou, Dracontius, Poèmes profanes, VI-X; fragments, Silves latines 2015-2016, Neuilly-sur-Seine, 2015.
Stoehr-Monjou 2015c = A. Stoehr-Monjou, L’Afrique vandale, conservatoire et laboratoire de la déclamation latine entre Orient et Occident. Signification et enjeux de trois déclamations versifiées (AL 21 Riese; Dracontius, Romul. 5 et 9), in Poignault – Schneider 2015, p. 101-126.
Stoehr-Monjou 2015d = A. Stoehr-Monjou, Le rôle du poète dans la Carthage vandale d'après les épithalames de Dracontius (Romulea 7-6), in É. Wolff (ed.), Littérature, politique et religion en Afrique vandale, Paris, 2015 (Collection des études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité 200), p. 259-274.
Stoehr-Monjou 2016 = A. Stoehr-Monjou, Erictho dans la controverse de Dracontius (Romul. 5, 126-137): puissance du nomen, sacrifice humain et cannibalisme, in F. Galtier, R. Poignault (ed.), Présence de Lucain, Clermont-Ferrand, 2016 (Caesarodunum XLVIII-XLIX bis), p. 359‑383.
Stoehr-Monjou 2019 = A. Stoehr-Monjou, Die Götter in der Ethopoiie des Dracontius (Romul. 4). Doppelbödigkeit in der “Sprache des Romulus?“, in K. Pohl (ed.), Dichtung zwischen Römern und Vandalen: Tradition, Transformation und Innovation in den Werken des Dracontius, Stuttgart, 2019 (Klassische Philologie Palingenesia 118), p. 97-107.
Stoehr-Monjou 2021 = A. Stoehr-Monjou, L’image de Carthage dans l’œuvre du poète Dracontius, in X. Dupuis, V. Fauvinet-Ranson, Chr. J. Goddard et H. Inglebert (dir.), L’Automne de l’Afrique romaine. Hommages à Claude Lepelley, Paris, 2021 (Histoire et archéologie), p. 73-88.
Stoehr-Monjou (to be published) = A. Stoehr-Monjou, Poétique de Dracontius dans ses œuvres profanes. Écrire une poésie « digne de Romulus » en Afrique vandale, Leyden, to be published.
Stramaglia 2009 = A. Stramaglia, An international Project on the Pseudo-Quintilianic Declamationes Maiores, in Rhetorica, 27, 2009, p. 237-239.
Ward-Perkins 2016 = B. Ward-Perkins, The end of the statue habit, AD 284-620, in Smith – Ward-Perkins 2016, p. 295-308.
Wolff 2017 = É. Wolff, Un vers centon programmatique : le vers initial de la pièce 5 des Romulea de Dracontius, in F. Garambois, D. Vallat (ed.), ‘‘Varium et Mutabile’’. Mémoires et métamorphoses du centon dans l'Antiquité, Saint-Étienne, 2017, p. 39-45.
Notes de bas de page
1 Dracontius, Romulea, V, 288-295. Text of the edition of Bouquet 1995, translation in English by Rosemary Masters.
2 On the declamation (suasoriae and controversiae) in verse, cf. Stoehr-Monjou 2015c, especially p. 101-107.
3 Cf. Moussy 1985, p. 7-55; Stoehr-Monjou 2015b, p. 87-108.
4 Cf. Bureau 2006, p. 24-30; thesis developed in Stoehr-Monjou 2007; cf. Ead. 2015d, p. 259 and Stoehr-Monjou (to be published).
5 Stoehr-Monjou 2015d, p. 260-266.
6 Díaz de Bustamante 1978, p. 154-169 studied rhetorical composition; Bureau 2006, p. 2-24 ; Stoehr-Monjou 2007, p. 243-353; De Gaetano 2009, p. 230-240.
7 Interest in these declamations is recent with the pioneering work of Russell 1983, many editions of the Elder Seneca (Winterbottom 1974; Håkanson 1989), Calpurnius Flaccus (Håkanson 1978, Sussman 1994), of minor declamations ascribed to Quintilian (Winterbottom 1984; Shackleton-Bailey 1989; 2006), of Ps-Quintilian’s major declamations (Håkanson 1982 and in the collection of the Univ. of Cassino directed by Antonio Stramaglia, cf. Stramaglia 2009) and collective books, e.g. Poignault – Schneider 2015 and 2016.
8 Bureau 2006, p. 24 notes the political strength of the words, but sees here a scholarly exercise declaimed for young people; this controversia is an exercise “in political responsibility for young citizens which may one day make them the voice that will put an end to civil discord.” “elle exerce les jeunes citoyens à une responsabilité politique qui peut faire d’eux un jour la voix qui saura arrêter la discorde civile.” Bureau makes no mention of the subscription.
9 On the question of the subscriptio, it is useful here to summarize the contribution made by our article Michel d’Annoville – Stoehr-Monjou 2008: the subscriptio shows that the reception of this poem was in no way normal. It tells us that Dracontius declaimed it before the proconsul in a well-known place in Carthage, the Baths of Gargilius. The presence of this representative of the Vandal authorities clearly indicates that this was not a scholarly setting. Furthermore, the clues as to the situation in which the piece was declaimed show the coincidences between Dracontius’ real speech and the fictional speech of the anonymous orator: this speech concerned the whole city of Carthage.
10 Bureau 2006, p. 14-20 analyses in particular the union of prose/poetry, the colores and the influence of Lucan; Michel d’Annoville – Stoehr-Monjou 2008 the dimension of figurative speech; Wolff 2017 the first line of the poem with Vergil’s and Lucan’s influence; the figure of the witch Erictho is, for example, very significant, cf. Bureau 2006, p. 17-20 and Stoehr-Monjou 2016; De Gaetano 2009, p. 230-240 studied Lucan’s imitation and Stoehr-Monjou (2015c, p. 112-116) the figure of the poor man. For the opposition between the rich and the poor man, see Stoehr-Monjou 2007, p. 288-341.
11 Cf. Stoehr-Monjou 2015a (about the suasoria) and Stoehr-Monjou 2019 (the ethopoeia).
12 This practice of figurative speech is well documented, cf. Desbordes 1993; in the case of Dracontius, cf. Michel d’Annoville – Stoehr-Monjou 2008; Stoehr-Monjou 2015a; Ead. 2019. For Bureau 2006, p. 24-26 the poem Romul. V remains a scholarly exercise which Dracontius uses to pay homage to his magister Felicianus and save the Roman legacy.
13 Cf. Stoehr-Monjou 2007, p. 288-341; Stoehr-Monjou 2015c, p. 111-114; Stoehr-Monjou to be published, chapter II, third part devoted to Romul. V.
14 See note 9 for the subscriptio.
15 Cf. Dracontius, Laudes Dei III, 655-656: …patrimonia nudis / diuitias mea lingua dedit…, “My tongue has given means and wealth to those who were without ressources”; l. 658 he calls himself a defensor. Claude Moussy (Moussy 1985, p. 16-17) put forward the hypothesis that this oration was a ceremonial speech (“discours d’apparat”) given when taking on an office, perhaps that of defensor ciuitatis which Dracontius held perhaps but Moussy rejected it, deciding that the role of defensor civitatis was not common in Africa. He based this on Lepelley 1979, p. 194 who subsequently developed the question, cf. Delmaire – Lepelley 1983 and Lepelley 1983.
16 The coupling of rich and poor as enemies is a topos of Latin controversia but there is also a Greek influence here: see Michel d’Annoville – Stoehr-Monjou 2008, p. 36 and Stoehr-Monjou 2015c, p. 105-107.
17 Cf. Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, VI, 1.
18 Stoehr-Monjou 2007, p. 290-300; Stoehr-Monjou 2016, p. 366-371: impietas through the witch Erictho by Lucan and the death of Rufinus by Claudian.
19 Cicero, Orationes in Catilinam, I, vii, 18 and xi, 27-29.
20 Cicero, Orationes in Catilinam, III, xi, 26: Quibus pro tantis rebus, Quirites, nullum ego a uobis praemium uirtutis, nullum insigne honoris, nullum monumentum laudis postulo praeterquam huius diei memoriam sempiternam. In animis ego uestris omnes triumphos meos, omnia ornamenta honoris, monumenta gloriae, laudis insignia condi et collocaui uolo, “But for all these great services, I ask of you, Quirites, none of the rewards due to courage, no mark of honour, no monument to commemorate my fame, other than that this day be forever remembered. It is in your hearts that I wish to see all my triumphs, all distinctions of honour, all the monuments to my fame, all marks of respect”.
21 See supra notes 10 and 18 on Lucan, Vergil and Claudian.
22 Cf. Paulinus of Nola, Carmina, XVIII, 253.
23 Paulinus of Nola, Carmina, XVIII, 254-5: Sancte deo Felix, inopum substantia, semper / pro miseris felix et semper diues egenis, “Felix, saint of God, wealth of the needy, always blessing the unfortunate, always rich for the poor”. The oxymoron diues egent(em) seen in Romulea, V, 172 and 286, is reminiscent of the clausula diues egenis of Paulinus of Nola.
24 Prosopopeia is a Latin word (Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, VI, 1, 25) via the Greek prosôpopoiia. The term refers to a figure of speech in which the orator makes an inanimate being, or an absent or dead person, speak.
25 Cf. Icard-Gianolo 2004, p. 466: she cites historical sources for examples of talking statues, as in the Roman Antiquities (VIII, 56) of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. For Christians, it is demons speaking.
26 Cf. Fabre-Serris 2004, p. 29-43; Radicke 2006, p. 195-210.
27 Priapus is the one who most often is the speaker in these eighty-four epigrams, cf. Callebat 2012, p. XXII-XXV.
28 See the numerous poems of Ausonius, epigr. 12, 21, 30, 31, 32, 33, 51, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 117. Cf. Michel d’Annoville 2016.
29 Michel d'Annoville 2009; Michel d'Annoville 2014; Michel d'Annoville 2016. Dracontius introduces the speech with the classical terms for statues, simulacra and signa (l. 288) and the subjunctive condition describing circumstances that are opposite to fact present. He thus expresses the idea that statues do not speak but that were this the case, this statue would denounce the rich man; the words are so strong that the conditional is forgotten and becomes secondary.
30 Dracontius, Romulea, V, 227-228: uenialis imago / aut ualet aut certe simulacrum.
31 Ward-Perkins 2016; Michel d’Annoville 2017.
32 Lepelley 1979.
33 See the summary by Ward-Perkins 2016, p. 295-308.
34 As we saw previously in Cicero, Orationes in Catilinam, III, xi, 26. See note 20.
35 Ward-Perkins 2016.
36 We can cite two other late examples of the right of asylum awarded to the statue of a dignitary: a Greek controversia (ANON. Probl. Rhet. 60 in Rhetores Graeci VIII, p. 412, 6-12 ed. Waltz, cf. Stoehr-Monjou 2015c, p. 106-107 and notes 54-57) and the Life of the King Apollonius of Tyre, chap. 29 – see infra note 46.
37 See Gamauf 1999 and Gamauf’s contribution in this book.
38 See PLRE I, Maternus Cynegius 3: he was responsible for the demolition of several temples, amongst which was the temple of Osroene.
39 See January 1969, p. 311. Dracontius’ text suggests that it was known in the West.
40 Codex Theodosianus IX, 44, 1 = Codex Iustinianus I, 25, 1.
41 See Gamauf 1999 and Gamauf’s contribution in this book.
42 Manfredini 1986.
43 Cf. Santini 2006, p. 110 on asylum – nothing about ad statuam confugere.
44 Dracontius, Romulea, V, 260-269.
45 See Gamauf 1999 and Gamauf’s contribution in this book.
46 Cf. Historia Apollonii regis Tyri. Version RA, 29 (Wolff 1996): apprehende statuam et proclama : “ipsius sum filia, cuius est haec statua”. Ciues uero memores beneficiorum patris tui Apollonii liberabunt te, “hold onto the statue and proclaim: ‘I am the daughter of the man whose statue this is’. All the citizens will then save you in memory of the good works of your father”; ibid. RB 29: ascende, statuam ipsius comprehende et casus tuos omnes expone. Ciues uero memores patris tui beneficiorum iniuriam tuam uindicabunt, “Climb up, hold onto the statue and tell your whole story. In memory of the good works of your father, the citizens will punish the injustice”.
47 Stoehr-Monjou 2016 and 2021.
48 Stoehr-Monjou 2015a, 169-171. For a political lecture of Romul. IV, see Stoehr-Monjou 2019.
49 See in this volume Goedert – Maillard.
50 Ducloux 1994.
51 Augustine, Civitas Dei, I, 1: Testantur hoc martyrum loca et basilicae Apostolorum quae in illa uastatione Vrbis ad se confugientes suos alienosque receperunt, “The reliquaries of the martyrs and the churches of the apostles bear witness to this; for in the sack of the city they were open sanctuary for all who fled to them, whether Christian or Pagan” (Dodds 2014).
52 Modéran 2003.
Auteurs
Sorbonne Université- UMR Orient et Méditerranée - caroline.michel_dannoville@sorbonne-universite.fr
Université Clermont Auvergne - Annick.Stoehr-Monjou@uca.fr
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Le Thermalisme en Toscane à la fin du Moyen Âge
Les bains siennois de la fin du XIIIe siècle au début du XVIe siècle
Didier Boisseuil
2002
Rome et la Révolution française
La théologie politique et la politique du Saint-Siège devant la Révolution française (1789-1799)
Gérard Pelletier
2004
Sainte-Marie-Majeure
Une basilique de Rome dans l’histoire de la ville et de son église (Ve-XIIIe siècle)
Victor Saxer
2001
Offices et papauté (XIVe-XVIIe siècle)
Charges, hommes, destins
Armand Jamme et Olivier Poncet (dir.)
2005
La politique au naturel
Comportement des hommes politiques et représentations publiques en France et en Italie du XIXe au XXIe siècle
Fabrice D’Almeida
2007
La Réforme en France et en Italie
Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes
Philip Benedict, Silvana Seidel Menchi et Alain Tallon (dir.)
2007
Pratiques sociales et politiques judiciaires dans les villes de l’Occident à la fin du Moyen Âge
Jacques Chiffoleau, Claude Gauvard et Andrea Zorzi (dir.)
2007
Souverain et pontife
Recherches prosopographiques sur la Curie Romaine à l’âge de la Restauration (1814-1846)
Philippe Bountry
2002