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 5^th 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 IV^th 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 4^th century, as C. Lepelley shows, statues were still erected in the cities32, but in the second half of the 5^th 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 6^th 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.