Augustus Through the Ages: Receptions, Readings and Appropriations of the Historical Figure of the First Roman Emperor (Collection Latomus, 366) 9042949627, 9789042949621

Citation preview

COLLECTION LATOMUS VOLUME 366

Augustus through the Ages Receptions, Readings and Appropriations of the Historical Figure of the First Roman Emperor Marco CAVALIERI, Pierre ASSENMAKER, Mattia CAVAGNA and David ENGELS (eds.)

SOCIÉTÉ D’ÉTUDES LATINES DE BRUXELLES – LATOMUS 2022

COLLECTION LATOMUS

VOL. 366

AUGUSTUS THROUGH THE AGES

LATOMUS www.latomus.be La Revue Latomus, ainsi que la Collection Latomus, sont publiées par la « Société d’études latines de Bruxelles – Latomus », A.S.B.L. La Collection publie depuis 1939 des volumes consacrés aux différentes disciplines qui composent les études latines : littérature, histoire, linguistique, épigraphie, archéologie, éditions et commentaires de textes ; elle comporte à l’heure actuelle plus de 360 volumes. Président honoraire de la Société : Carl Deroux. Conseil d’Administration de la Société : Philippe Desy, Marc Dominicy, Emmanuel Dupraz, Alain Martin (trésorier), Benoît Sans (secrétaire), Sylvie Vanséveren (présidente), Ghislaine Viré. Membres de la Société : La liste complète des membres effectifs et adhérents figure sur le site internet : www.latomus.be/membres. Comité de rédaction de la Collection : Emmanuel Dupraz (responsable), Alain Martin, Marc Vandersmissen, Sylvie Vanséveren, Ghislaine Viré, Arjan Zuiderhoek. Présentation des manuscrits : Nous invitons les auteurs à se conformer aux consignes énoncées dans le document « Recommandations aux auteurs », accessible sur le site internet de Latomus. Les monographies et volumes collectifs seront soumis à un processus d’expertise anonyme effectuée par des pairs (« peer review »). Contacts par courriel : Les auteurs sont priés d’envoyer une version électronique de leurs monographies ou volumes collectifs au Prof. Emmanuel Dupraz . Commandes : Éditions Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgique ; site internet : www.peeters-leuven.be. Droits de reproduction, de traduction et d’adaptation réservés pour tous pays. © Société d’études latines de Bruxelles – Latomus, 2022

COLLECTION LATOMUS VOLUME 366

Marco CAVALIERI, Pierre ASSENMAKER, Mattia CAVAGNA and David ENGELS (eds.)

Augustus through the Ages Receptions, Readings and Appropriations of the Historical Figure of the First Roman Emperor

SOCIÉTÉ D’ÉTUDES LATINES DE BRUXELLES — LATOMUS 2022

ISBN 978-90-429-4962-1 eISBN 978-90-429-4963-8 D/2022/0602/135

Droits de traduction, de reproduction et d’adaptation réservés pour tous pays. Toute reproduction d’un extrait quelconque, par quelque procédé que ce soit et notamment par photocopie ou microfilm, de même que la diffusion sur Internet ou tout autre réseau semblable sont strictement interdites.

Foreword

In 2014, numerous academic institutions and museums celebrated the bimillenium of the death of Augustus with colloquiums, exhibitions and publications. The life, the political deeds and the general historical context of the founder of the Roman Empire had not been honoured or discussed to such an extent since 1937-1938, when an exhibition, the Mostra Augustea della Romanità, celebrated the two-thousandth anniversary of the birth of the Emperor at the instigation of the Fascist regime. Yet the outcome of these scholarly reexaminations of Augustus and his era will not be complete if emphasis is not put on the long-term fame and fortune he enjoyed in the Western civilisation. This is why we as editors of the present volume organised an international conference taking place from 6th-8th November 2014 at the Royal Library of Belgium in Brussels in order to underline the enduring importance of Augustus throughout our recorded cultural history by adopting a multidisciplinary approach. Specialits of various fields – history, cultural history, literature, art history, etc. – brought together their skills and knowledges to retrace the multiple interpretations and appropriations of Augustus from his death to the present days. We are extremely grateful to the numerous colleagues from various countries who responded favourably to our call for papers and contributed towards shedding light on the most diverse aspects of Augustus’ posthumous history. The book, as it was already the case for the conference, is divided into five sections that broadly follow the chronological sequence: Antiquity – Middle Ages – Early Modern and Modern period – the era of Totalitarianism – Contemporary history. Within these various sections, the objective was to establish a dialogue between disciplines ranging from history, philology and archaeology to history of architecture or popular culture studies. By so doing, we also tried to shed light on some aspects of Augustus’ reception that are still less studied, for instance, the treatment of the first emperor’s figure in the medieval literature or in the field of contemporary literature and popular culture. Given the thematic breadth of these numerous contributions, the publication of the proceedings took longer than expected, although the contributions generally refer to a bibliographic context that does not go much beyond 2016. The publication of the present volume required, in fact, a considerable amount of time, and the reasons behind this unfortunate delay are manifold, with none standing out above the others. It is well known that publications bringing together several authors, particularly when they belong to different domains,

2

FOREWORD

have frequently to deal with numerous issues of complex scholarly co-ordination (made even more difficult by the usual problems of deadlines and punctuality). Moreover, in order to ensure the quality of the project, we had recourse to a double-blind peer review procedure involving numerous excellent scholars of the most diverse disciplines. This process generated a series of delicate, so to say “stichomythic” exchanges between the editors, the reviewers and the authors and involved numerous revisions. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that, following a suggestion of the peer-reviewers, we identified a series of lacunae in the disciplinary scope of our volume and also had to replace a series of contributions that, unfortunately, could not make it through the reviewing process. This is why we decided to invite several additional scholars to complement the papers already given at the Brussels conference – launching thus new rounds of coordination, peer reviews and discussions. We are thus very grateful to the colleagues who accepted to join the project Augustus through the Ages in this second stage and allowed us to offer a truly wide-ranging survey by far exceeding the initial scope of the proceedings. Finally, several personal and general circumstances played a role in delaying this publication: part of the scientific editors went through changes in their academic appointment, and it is easy to see how COVID-19 completed the picture of the delay. Nevertheless, we are all more than happy that our project has now been brought to a satisfactory conclusion and we wish the public a nice reading. We are particularly pleased that these proceedings are housed in the “Collection Latomus” after an independent peer-review evaluation of the diverse manuscripts, and we sincerely thank the peer-reviewers for their precious comments and suggestions as well as the editors for their kind support. Our thanks also go to the Royal Library of Belgium for graciously hosting our conference, as well as to the ‘Institute for the Study of Civilisations, Arts and Letters’ (INCAL) at the University of Louvain (UCLouvain) for helping us finalise the project. Marco Cavalieri Pierre Assenmaker Mattia Cavagna David Engels

Augustus through the Ages Introduction MARCO CAVALIERI(a) / PIERRE ASSENMAKER(b) / MATTIA CAVAGNA(a) / DAVID ENGELS(c) ((a) UCLouvain / (b) UNamur / (c) ULB)

1. Augustus’ Reception History and the Augustan Bimillenary of 2014: A New Impetus As everybody knows, the bimillenary of Augustus’ death on the 19th of August 14 AD in Nola was commemorated in 2014 all around the world with conferences, exhibitions and publications. 1 Many scholars already have contributed with books and papers to this spectacular profusion of publications and scientific events about Augustus in 2014. Let us mention one of the most remarkable of these cultural and scientific events: the exhibition which took place first in Rome, then in Paris, and which was entitled ‘Augusto’ (devised by Eugenio La Rocca), or ‘Moi, Auguste, empereur de Rome…’. In the catalogue of this exhibition, the very beginning of the introduction consists of a reference to another ‘Augustan exhibition’ organised in Rome: the Mostra Augustea della Romanità of 1937-38, which commemorated another Augustan bimillenary – the bimillenary of the birth of the first emperor. It is well known that this Mostra Augustea, which was visited by hundreds of thousands of people, was designed as a display for the Fascist regime and his leader, the ‘Duce’. So, commemorating Augustus in 2014 inevitably implied to think about the distance between the commemoration of the Thirties and the present one. What did the figure of Augustus mean in the context of the Fascist Rome? And what does it mean in the present world? More generally speaking, the year 2014 strongly invited to examine the evolution of the perception of Augustus through the ages. It is well-known that Italian philosopher and historian Benedetto Croce held a rather intransigent opinion on research carried out on the reception of historical figures into the arts: devoid of usefulness, it thus lacked scientific interest. 2 1 See the list of the events of the year 2014 drawn up online by Penelope J. Goodman on the website Commemorating Augustus Project: https://augustus2014.com/2014events/. 2 CROCE (1904): ‘Comprendo bene quel certo interesse storico che spinge a ricercare la fortuna avuta, nella letteratura e nell’arte, da personaggi e avvenimenti, storie o leggende

4

M. CAVALIERI / P. ASSENMAKER / M. CAVAGNA / D. ENGELS

History and art and – as a consequence – also literature and architecture, according to Croce’s aesthetic principles, are unable to communicate, for there is no consistency between them, and one always prevails on the others. For this reason, Croce would have judged the principles underlying the following pages as a-critical, if not useless. A study discussing in detail how Augustus had been perceived through time would have been seen as rhetorical, thus lacking hermeneutic substance. Far from Croce’s trenchant judgement, modern interdisciplinary research is commonly praised and encouraged, for it holds the unique capability of approaching this and other topics from a variety of viewpoints – something not achievable without the competences and knowledge specific to different and yet complementary disciplines. This miscellaneous volume aims at building a bridge between different research fields that – using a variety of theoretical approaches – analyse a specific theme: the reception of the model of Augustus in a long-term perspective. The reception of Augustus’ historical figure is not a new topic in the now well-established field of the ‘reception studies’. Many scholars devoted studies of various extents to several episodes of the first emperor’s ‘posthumous history’. Among the episodes which have drawn the most attention, we can certainly mention the Carolingian reference to Augustus and the Augustan Age developed in the aftermath of Charlemagne’s imperial coronation on Christmas Day 800, and the famous legend of Augustus and the Sibyl, whose Christianised version was popularised in the 12th century by the Mirabilia Vrbis Romae, as well as the appropriation of Augustus’ figure by Mussolini and the fascist regime during the Ventennio. Scholars of various disciplines have dedicated a great number of punctual and isolated studies to these topics and many other aspects of the reception of Augustus and ‘his’ century across Western history. Yet, at the time of the Augustan commemorations of 2014, a broad and comprehensive treatment of this topic was still lacking. To the best of our knowledge, with the exception of a couple of pages in the article ‘Herrscher’ in the Neue Pauly’s volume over Rezeptions- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 3 the only overview over the long-term history of Augustus’ reception was given in a short monograph (64 pages) by the German philologist and historian Karl Hönn (1883-1956) entitled Augustus im Wandel zweier Jahrtausende. This is the publication of a lecture given at the Bibliotheca Hertziana (whose official designation was then Kaiser Wilhelm-Institut für Kunst- und Kulturwissenschaft che sieno. E, quantunque tali indagini restino di qua da ogni problema di vera critica letteraria, comprendo anche la curiosità che si desta innanzi a un’opera importante o nuova, di ricercare come la stessa materia, storica o leggendaria, sia stata trattata da altri autori. […] Ma, ripeto, l’istituzione di siffatti confronti non è la critica e non serve alla critica, tranne che in modo secondario ed incidentale’. 3 STROTHMANN (2000), col. 396-400. We could also mention a short paper published in a popularising journal: CARTER (1983).

AUGUSTUS THROUGH THE AGES – INTRODUCTION

5

Bibliotheca Hertziana) in Rome on 25th April 1938 – that is in the very year in which was held the Mostra Augustea della Romanità. The synchronism is, of course, not fortuitous, as it immediately appears in the introductory sentence: “Was ist alle Geschichte anderes als das Lob Roms?”… dieser oft zitierte Satz Petrarcas 4 gilt auch für das Problem, das in dem Jahr der zweitausendsten Wiederkehr des Geburtstages des Augustus sich aufdrängt: wie vollzog sich in den zwei Jahrtausenden, die seit seiner Erscheinung und seinem Wirken vergangen sind, Gestaltwerdung und Gestaltwandel des Namens und Mannes, mit dem Rom und die Welt für alle Zeiten den Begriff römischen Glanzes, römischer Größe und römischer Macht verknüpft?

Unsurprisingly, these words express a vision of Augustus as embodiment of Roman glory and power which fits perfectly with the ‘official’ image of the Princeps conveyed by the Fascist regime, especially in the year of the Mostra Augustea (see the contribution by Jan Nelis in this volume). In this respect, it is worth stressing that Karl Hönn chose to conclude his lecture, whose last part makes an inventory, country by country, of the major contributions to the Augustan research from the 19th century onwards, by praising with admiration and enthusiasm the many contributions of the ‘new Italy’ (das neue Italien) to the posthumous glory of Augustus, the culmination of which being in his eyes the great exhibition of 1937-1938. In a way, the present volume can be seen as a contribution to the necessary update, critical revision and deepening of the survey briefly sketched by Karl Hönn. In retrospect, it appears that the ‘second bimillenary’ of 2014 gave the impetus to a large-scale development of what we could now call the field of ‘Augustan reception studies’. Indeed, in the bibliographical boom generated by the numerous conferences and events of 2014, 5 at least two volumes (published in 2018) focus exclusively on the reception of Augustus. The first one, edited by Penelope J. Goodman under the title Afterlives of Augustus AD 14-2014, originated in the ‘Commemorating Augustus’ conference held at the University of Leeds in August 2014. 6 It contains 19 studies embracing the two millennia of the first emperor’s posthumous history, one of the papers even dealing with the exhibition held in Rome and subsequently in Paris, which we already mentioned, and analysing its differentiated receptions. 7 The second volume, L’empereur Auguste et la mémoire des siècles, contains the proceedings of two conferences held in Dijon and Arras under the direction of Anne Daguet-Gagey and

4

Quid est enim aliud omnis historia quam Romana laus? (Invectiva contra eum qui maledixit Italie 15). 5 On several important publications over Augustus and his time that appeared already in 2014, see the Forschungsbericht by BORGNA (2015). 6 GOODMAN (2018). 7 CLAREBORN (2018), in particular p. 333-335.

6

M. CAVALIERI / P. ASSENMAKER / M. CAVAGNA / D. ENGELS

Sabine Lefebvre. 8 It shows a narrower scope than the former one, since out of its 13 contributions, only 4 deal with the post-classical era, from the Middle Ages to the 19th century. Other collective volumes that originated in the bimillennary’s celebrations of 2014, even though not focused on ‘Augustus after Augustus’, contain several studies about the reception history. 9 However, the growing importance of the history of reception in the field of the Augustan studies – at least in French scholarship – is shown most clearly by the fact that two recent biographies of Augustus include substantial chapters on the ‘posthumous life’ of the emperor. Thus, in his monograph Auguste. Les ambiguïtés du pouvoir published in 2015, Frédéric Hurlet dedicated the third part – the longest – to the ‘transformations of the Augustan myth’. In his preface, the author explicitly states that this unusual approach was dictated by the ‘spirit’ of the collection in which the book was to appear (‘Nouvelles biographies historiques’, at Armand Colin). 10 One wonders if Hurlet’s book has not opened up a new way for the biographical treatment of Augustus’ figure since the most recent (2020) Auguste. Prince républicain by Philippe Le Doze – a pupil of Hurlet – ends with a chapter on ‘Augustus’ legend’. 11 The present volume intends to be part of this dynamic historiographical trend initiated in 2014. It should be said at once that this book does not purport to be a complete history of Augustus’ reception from Antiquity onwards. Convinced that exhaustiveness is anyway unreachable in such a topic, the organisers of the 2014 Brussels conference and editors of this volume aspired to provide, through a collection of specific insights, as varied an overview as possible of the different interpretative dynamics at work throughout the posthumous history of Augustus. Even more than the usual term of ‘reception’ alone, the combined concepts of ‘reception’, ‘reading’, and ‘appropriation’ used in the subtitle of this book (there in the plural) seemed to us likely to reflect the various contents and functions of the references to Augustus’ figure across diverse media, cultures and political regimes. 12 In the following, we will provide a short overview over a series of central formal aspects defining key elements of the reception of the ‘Augustan age’ in the later Western civilisation in order to provide a framework through which the following papers can be better contextualised and understood. We will focus on DAGUET-GAGEY / LEFEBVRE (2018). See in particular BALTRUSCH / WENDT (eds.) (2016); FLECKER et al. (eds.) (2017); SEGENNI (ed.) (2018). 10 HURLET (2015), in particular p. 5 and 17; the third part runs from p. 153 to p. 257. 11 LE DOZE (2020), p. 407-448. 12 On the extraordinary diversity in the range of classical receptions, which requires a varied vocabulary to describe “how the reception in question and its context relate to the classical source and its context”, see HARDWICK (2003), in particular the first chapter: ‘From the Classical Tradition to Reception Studies’, p. 1-11 (quote at p. 9). 8 9

AUGUSTUS THROUGH THE AGES – INTRODUCTION

7

architectural memories, the long shadow of Caesar, and Augustus’ place in literary and textual history. 2. Building a Reference Model: The Language of Augustan Architecture Aside from historical continuities, the memory of an Augustan saeculum aureum was also conveyed through changes, and tangible ones: in architecture and in the urbanistic layout Vrbis et Orbis quoque. Such changes set out parameters against which all following ‘renaissances’ were to be measured: the time of Constantine, the Carolingian and the Ottonian ‘renaissance’, even up to the Italian Renaissance and the modern concept of the ‘Classical’. Thus, a study of Augustan architecture in Rome is a study of visual communication media, an enquiry into a communication structure based on a series of reference models which are applicable to other periods in history. Hence, to understand them means not only to get a better insight into cultural and social issues during Antiquity, but also into how Antiquity was perceived and assimilated during the following centuries. As Tonio Hölscher 13 suggested, architecture during the reign of Augustus can be seen as a ‘system’ where Classicism was both a model and the most perfect expression of the Roman imperial civilisation. Thus, reading the ‘language’ of architecture through a functional and historical lens will shed more light on the concept of ‘Classicism’, especially if taking into consideration all its inner components. Most prominently, the adoption of Classicism in its double significance of parameter of style and ideological reference: by recalling the looks of Athens under Pericles, the architects also meant to nudge at the ideals of that time – ‘democracy’ and imperialism. Strictly, ‘Classicism’ signifies any revival of Greek ‘classical’ art (5th-4th centuries BC), with special reference to the decades of Phidias and Polycleitus, taken as a reference model. In this respect, Classicism refers (with varied degrees of agency) to a-temporal elements – such as order and measure – complying with strict rules and often driven by pedagogical aims. It is well-known that this concept underlies the official representations of the emperor, as evident from the sculpture known as Augustus of Prima Porta, which could be considered the first example where such classical and formal language, dating to the 5th century AD, and with reference to Polycleitus, was used. 2.1. A Counterpoint Between Literary Sources and Archaeology The Vitruvian idea of auctoritas, 14 with its related concept of magnificentia, lay behind the stylistic choices of Augustan Classicism: the extraordinary prestige 13 14

HÖLSCHER (1987). VITR., Praef. 1.2.

8

M. CAVALIERI / P. ASSENMAKER / M. CAVAGNA / D. ENGELS

of public buildings (egregiae auctoritates) being a reflection of the prominent role of the empire (maiestas imperii 15). The choice of appropriate architectural models is as important in politics as the style of rhetorical expression: if one applies what Cicero states about Asianism 16 to the appropriateness of public buildings (opportunitas publicorum aedificiorum), we can see how Classicism (and the architecture inspired by it) reflected a political choice – to show order in the state organisation. This is to say that Augustan architecture is the expression of both grauitas and auctoritas emanating from all Roman magistrates, and especially from Augustus. Livy 17 underlines that grauitas was the key-idea in the construction of an Augustan ideology: originally regarded as a patricianonly virtue, by the time the civil wars were over, it could be seen as belonging to the whole of the Roman population as opposed to non-Romans, who lacked it completely. People gifted with grauitas are worth of dignity and respect, while the opposite tumultus – that is excitement – was commonly associated with the plebs and, later, to non-Roman peoples living within the Roman Empire. For this reason, the grauitas of public buildings was meant to convey a feeling (suspectus) of respect and admiration, not only towards the buildings, but also towards those who had erected them. The narrative of forms set up during the late reign of Augustus created a new style of representation which was to become the model for Classicism up to the 20th century. This patrimony of architectural images provided the appropriate backdrop for all official State functions – ‘appropriate’ as it displayed the right degree of decorum (dignitas). For example, the temple of Mars Vltor was where magistrates with imperium started their journey for the provinces they were meant to run; there, winning generals symbolically left standards, sceptres and crowns. 18 However, this style developed gradually and embodied ideals and symbols laid out after the late republican time, that is, the time of the triumvirate. Whereas then the temple of Apollo in Circo was one of the most representative buildings, 19 the new style aimed at conveying a cosmic ideal of serenity and calm through the buildings’ maiestas (an overarching regal tone), the regular rhythm of the columns, the choice of materials and their disposition (pondus). 20 Such sense of tranquillity became the leitmotiv for contemporary narratives too. While the purpose is still to surprise the audience – as it happened in Asianic rhetoric, Hellenistic and late-republican architecture as well as in pre-Augustan coinage –, there is also the will to convince, to reassure the onlookers. We can talk about ‘intellectual architecture’ as opposed to the mainly 15 16 17 18 19 20

CAVALIERI (2002), in particular p. 17-29. Most recently also, CAVALIERI (2020). CIC., Brutus 95.327. LIV. 5.41.7 s. SUET., Aug. 29.2 VISCOGLIOSI (1996). QUINT., Inst. 5.12.20.

AUGUSTUS THROUGH THE AGES – INTRODUCTION

9

‘emotional’ one of earlier times, when elegance and sobriety of the forms are the norm, albeit with exceptions of some relevance. Different methods were put in place to express this set of ideas: decorative patterns were repeated, their lines neatly carved by using a technique which – while formally correct and precise – resulted somehow algid and lacking the freshness of nature. Aside from the choice of colours and the images portrayed, surfaces were worked so to convey a more or less clearly defined idea of ‘classic’, and – in so doing – pass on the taste and ideological stand of the princeps. Carrara marble, still very much unusual up to Caesar’s times, became a typical architectural feature under Augustus, for it combined the characteristics of a versatile construction material with those of lautitia. It was this combination which, translated from the material to the object, gave also religious significance to architectures and ornaments, and played a relevant role even later, in further expressions of ‘Classicisms’. The leaves of acanthus, almost omnipresent as an ornament during the Augustan era, conveyed a sense or vitality and force to Corinthian columns, to modillions and to the cornice. 21 This plant became the symbol of the Golden Age, as theorised by Virgil: it brought it to life in architectural buildings, and set up a canon of style which was to last into the following centuries. The connection between symbols and the ideals from which they stemmed can be seen in the external peristasis of the temple dedicated to Mars Vltor or in the ara Pacis, where they are inextricably connected with the marmor lunense. The presence of the divine, a warranty of power, was thus somehow materialised through the extensive use of the Corinthian order, carved in blocks of marble: all elements referred to a semantic system which was accessible to, and understandable by everyone. In so doing, the marmorea Vrbs described by Suetonius 22 became in fact the carrier of deeper meaning and significance, 23 and Augustan architectural features became per se an unequalled, ideal model that was to last in times to come. Augustan architecture, however, not only took on Greek models, but also experimented with new features which were then made into models for public Roman architecture: alongside imitation there was creativity, too. During the monumental and long-lasting building of the Forum Augustum (42-2 BC), the Corinthian order was shaped, that is, a fixed succession of architectural elements where, among the most prominent features, was the Corinthian capital. This capital, as shown in the pronaos of the temple dedicated to Mars Vltor, was mainly employed in its most standardised and plain version. This is important: it seems in fact that a standardisation of the Corinthian style into an order did not happen in Greece itself, where – although the earliest occurrence of a marble kalathos decorated with acanthus foliage dates back to the 5th century BC, 21 22 23

SAURON (1993). SUET., Aug. 28. GROS (2016).

10

M. CAVALIERI / P. ASSENMAKER / M. CAVAGNA / D. ENGELS

in Arcadia – this style should be regarded as not more than a variation of the Ionic order. All in all, therefore, architectural decorative features found in the Forum Augustum would turn into the paradigm and last through the centuries, becoming also the architectural canon against which later ‘renaissances’ were measured and to which they referred. 2.2. The Genotype of Augustan Architecture through the Ages Among them, the Humanistic ‘renaissance’: during the second half of the 15th century, architects such as Giuliano da Sangallo, truly fascinated by Roman Antiquity, systematically studied and copied Roman Augustan buildings, striving to provide consistency to the city’s architecture, while not always being able to cross-reference them with the norms stated by Vitruvius. In this light, while the very concept of ‘Classicism’ applied to Augustan architecture is formally correct, it is not so from an ideal point of view. Greek aesthetic models from the classical period were in fact employed in a context that was different from the one where they saw the light: in Rome, in fact, they were meant to convey grauitas, and dignitas, both typically Roman values. By using these models, Roman architects did not mean to bring back the ancient Athens and Greece. Their choice was deliberately made, and in the knowledge that Rome was living a pivotal time of its history; their purpose was to shape visually the contents and language of Augustus’ ideology of power. Besides showing historical awareness, Augustan architecture became in itself a ‘system’ for visual communication, a codified and therefore easily understandable set of universal parameters applied first in Rome, then in the provinces, and lastly during the later centuries. Within the Roman Empire – a huge and heterogeneous organisation –, such communication ‘system’ responded to urgent practical needs, first of all being easily understandable by so many people with different cultural backgrounds. Later on, however, as this ‘system’ survived in time, it became in itself ‘classical’, helping the identification of the formal and ideological message it conveyed. For instance, while the architectural model of the temple of Mars Vltor became a rule thanks to its diffusion, it nevertheless changed its significance through time, by acquiring a wider range of nuances according to the ideologies it was meant to serve. Among them, for example, the medieval ‘renaissances’ – when it embodied the rebirth of an ‘ancient Rome’; or the 15th century architectural treatises – where it was indicated as the theoretical paradigm of uenustas; 24 up to Mussolini times, when the architectures of the regime were inspired by Roman classical times. At least from 1937 onwards, by conjuring up buildings ‘in the style of Augustus’, Fascism meant to evoke a bright imperial future to come.

24

ALBERTI (1485).

AUGUSTUS THROUGH THE AGES – INTRODUCTION

11

The general atmosphere of renouatio Vrbis of the 1st century BC was the springboard for a new architectural language used to express new ideas. This in turn was the result of centuries of assimilations, rejections or re-adjustments of other styles, according to different needs and occasions. This style peaked in the mid-Augustan era, when single buildings or monumental complexes (i.e. Forum Augustum, theatres, and Campus Martius) provided a huge architectural portfolio of models and norms to be exported to the whole of the Empire. It can be defined a ‘deliberate architecture’, for it recalls classical Greece, while being intrinsically and ideologically Roman – there is a degree of awareness of the importance of monumental buildings to convey a message of power and organisation. The Fascist period was a crucial moment marking the reception of Augustan models into the 20th century: one can talk about a true beginning for Rome’s architectural development, for better, for worse. As Augustus embellished the city, turning it into the capital of the Empire, Mussolini tried to do the same through urban renovation. His planning program was clearly set out and announced from the very early months of the regime. ‘Il Duce’ stated that Rome was to look beautiful again, admired all over the world: ‘Vasta, ordinata, potente, come era stata ai tempi del primo impero di Augusto’. 25 1937 represented the climax for the Fascist Saturnia regna: in the bimillenary of Augustus’ birth on the Palatine hill (23 September 63 BC), an exhibition on Romanitas was inaugurated (Mostra Augustea della Romanità), celebrating the ideals of Augustan times, and enjoying enormous success, with nearly a million visitors crowding the pavilions. During this important event, Augustus was looked at from many different viewpoints, with particular emphasis on the architecture and building strategies of his empire, which were seen as the essential backdrop for arts and enterprises. Within this cultural climate, Rationalism – the typically Fascist style which was meant to embody the revolutionary soul of the Fascist message – started losing ground among the regime’s leaders. With its decline, a new type of architecture was taking over: one that could recall explicitly the classical Roman ancestry from a stylistic, aesthetic and ideological point of view. The most forceful proof of this trend is provided by the winning entries to the 1942 architectural competition for the building of E.U.R. 2.3. The Reception of the Augustan Ideal and Modernity What were the origins of this contemporary Classicism which – as we shall see later on – can reasonably be defined as ‘international’? Post-unification Italy is certainly where it saw the light: as the 50th anniversary of the birth of a national 25 ‘Vast, organised and powerful, as it had been at the time of the early Augustan empire’. B. Mussolini, Speech given in Campidoglio (Capitoline Hill) to mark the inauguration of the first Governor of Rome (31 December 1925).

12

M. CAVALIERI / P. ASSENMAKER / M. CAVAGNA / D. ENGELS

state was celebrated, the eclectic style marking the end of the 19th century was abandoned. Architecture went back to neo-classical formulas, as shown in the Vittoriano or in the Vittorio Emanuele II bridge in Rome, both inaugurated in 1911, but planned as early as the 1880s. As had previously happened during the Renaissance (when archaeological discoveries were followed by a revival of Antiquity) and during the 18th century (when Herculaneum and Pompeii were discovered), a wave of archaeological finds is always followed by a ‘renaissance’ of Classicism. In this specific case we are referring to the excavation of Olympia in 1875: when the metopes and the sculptures of the pediment of the temple to Zeus became widely known, a general change in academic taste followed. The earliest example of this shift in fashion, applied on a large scale, is represented by the buildings and monuments erected in Rome in 1911. The following stage – the assimilation of classical models into fascist aesthetic – followed quite naturally from here, and for two main reasons. First, as Rome was the natural scenario for this shift: it all was happening there. Second, because from the very earliest years of the Fascist era, Mussolini rejected 1920s Rationalist architecture with its ‘revolutionary’ message. With a clear ideological and political turn, he opted for the most classic of all classical styles: the Augustan one. As a consequence, this neoclassical wave spread all over Italy. The Foro Italico, the E.U.R. district in Rome, the Augusto Imperatore square, as well as palaces, renovated areas and ‘sanitised’ ones saw the light in the capital (see the contribution by Klaus Tragbar in this volume). In Milan, Piazza San Babila, Piazza Affari or the Palazzo di Giustizia followed the same pattern. A new generation of architects dominated the scene: Vittorio Morpurgo and Marcello Piacentini were amongst the most prominent ones, and their work influenced and inspired followers in years to come. And yet, Fascism was not the sole responsible for this revival of Augustan Antiquity: Fascist propaganda, following a deliberate aesthetic and stylistic choice of the regime, joined in fact a widespread trend spanning, between the 1930s and 1940s, from America to Europe. Clear examples can be seen in the Federal Reserve building and the Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC, and in Paris, with the Palais de Tokyo (1936-7) and the Faculté de Médecine in Rue des Saints-Pères. Augustus, who tamed the chaos of late-republican times through rules and regulations, the ambiguous emperor who sent out a message of peace while concurrently restricting republican libertas, appears to our modern common imagination the one who advertised a ‘new Rome’ made out of marble, light and ratio. The city he left in inheritance to his successors and to the world was in fact like that. However, the ambiguities found in this historical character match those in the architecture he promoted, as it was perceived throughout history. Whereas its ideological implications were progressively neglected, Roman Augustan architecture established itself as the paradigm of Classic, particularly as long as Greek culture was far from being rediscovered. The alleged shadow cast by Augustan Classicism upon Classical Greece and its architecture

AUGUSTUS THROUGH THE AGES – INTRODUCTION

13

founded on Ideas persisted in some scientific approaches, even after the Winckelmann ‘revolution’, or the discovery of Pompeii and German postRomantic archaeology. For this reason, Augustan Classicism was seen as the foundation of Fascist architecture of the second half of the 1930s. Yet another ‘Golden Age’, whose origins will be discussed hereafter, in this volume of studies… 3. Augustus and the ‘Long Shadow’ of Caesar It is an irony of history that Augustus, to put it simply, spent such huge efforts in distancing himself from the image of his adoptive father and tried by all means to blur the memory of his actual political aims and measures, only to find himself thoroughly occulted by the long shadow of Caesar at least since the late Middle Ages. Indeed, it is not Augustus, but Caesar who entered posterity as the ‘first’ Roman emperor, who gave his name to the highest political office in Western civilisation, and whose writings are used to initiate school children to classical Latin literature, whereas Augustus, whom historians consider as one of the great empire builders of Antiquity, as the inventor of an imperial constitution that was to last for centuries, and as the spiritus rector of Latin Classicism, is generally much less remembered as a historical figure than as mere political ‘background’ of the age that bears his name. The reasons for this evolution, which is paradoxical only at first view, are multiple, but their impact upon our knowledge of Augustus tremendous, and it seems inevitable that any serious treatment of the reception history of Augustus is tributary to at least a short reflection on the question not only of the why and the how, but also of the consequences of Caesar’s and Augustus’ ‘competition’ for the place of the most remembered Roman ruler in posterity. The problem is doubly complex, as we do not only have to deal with a very long period of time, reaching from Antiquity through the Middle Ages and Early Modernity up to today and thus dependent on numerous changes of cultural paradigm in memory history, but also have to take into account the intimate relationship between the evolution of memory and the conservation of sources, as it is not only the state of sources that conditions historical memory, but also the evolution of memory that triggers the selection and thus the conservation of sources. Let us have a short look at some chosen examples illustrating to some extent the complex situation sketched above. 3.1. Literary Memories Probably the first and most obvious factor in the slow occultation of the memory of Augustus by the remembrance of Caesar seems to be – not surprisingly, given the primordial importance of written sources in our knowledge of the past – a literary one: Caesar has been remembered for two millennia not the

14

M. CAVALIERI / P. ASSENMAKER / M. CAVAGNA / D. ENGELS

least because of the important corpus of historical writings associated with his name (despite the fact that they have been for long attributed to other authors during the Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages), whereas the much shorter and drearier Augustan Res gestae are not only much shorter, but have also only been discovered in the 16th century (see below). However, such an assertion would be not only simplistic, but also utterly false for a series of reasons. First of course, we very well know that Augustus, too, left the contemporaries with a non-negligible number of writings – most importantly, beside his Anticato, the autobiographical De uita sua – which might, under other conditions, have become as crucial to the conservation of his memory as were Caesar’s Commentarii. However, we would be also wrong in attributing the loss of Augustus’ writings and thus an important factor in his potential reception history purely to the hazard of manuscript transmissions, as it could be said, not without a certain degree of probability, that posterity would never have stopped re-copying Augustus’ autobiography if the demand for the text would not have been quite limited. Of course, we know that the selection criteria of manuscripts throughout the imperial, late antique and medieval period were not only subject to rational factors, but also, to a certain extent, to exterior elements such as the material destruction of libraries. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the fact of Caesar being already considered by his contemporaries as a perfect example of a style as well simple and clear as elegant (Cic., Brut. 262: nudi enim sunt, recti et uenusti, omni ornatu orationis tamquam ueste detracta), and of the centuries-long usefulness of the commentarii as a brilliant handbook for any general up to the 19th century, must have been an important factor in their conservation, even more so as no such praise has been attached to Augustus’ autobiography which, even in Antiquity, seems to have been used rather as a more or less anonymous quarry for historical facts than as a shining example of exemplary Latinity, and whose practical usefulness for later generations must also have been quite reduced. Put in other words: Caesar has been re-copied for centuries because he had gained very early the status of a canonical writer so that his writings were scarcely ever menaced by material extinction, while Augustus’ De uita sua might indeed have enjoyed a greater prestige than we know, but never really acceded to the same status, the severing of the manuscript link becoming thus a threat much more probable and, indeed, and very unfortunately, actual. At the same time, we may also wonder to what extent this fact does not only reflect a difference in literary style, but rather the result of a chosen policy, where Augustus did not even endeavor to compete with Caesar in stylistic brilliancy or in the singling-out of his own individual acts, but rather took a point of honour in consciously and conscientiously shaping his own persona after the classical stereotypes of moderation and balance instead of Hellenistic heroic and generally tragic individualism. Thus, Augustus would have considered as contrary to his self-stylisation to endeavor to enter the pantheon of Roman

AUGUSTUS THROUGH THE AGES – INTRODUCTION

15

literature with a description of his own military or political successes or – contrarily to Nero – even with a series of poetical works such as his epos Sicilia or his tragedy Aiax, as he was rather so keen in making forget the late Republican past and to confer a mysterious aura of un- or super-temporality to his own period. Even the De uita sua, after all only covering the years from his political debuts up to the Cantabrian War and probably first composed as an apology of his political career, must have been considered by himself, once firmly settled in his power after the settlement of 23 BC, an unnecessary reminder of his not very convincing claim to power, so that we can quite confidently suppose that the missing sequel to the autobiography was not due to mere reasons of time or talent, but rather to a conscious decision to shift the attention of his public from his past, scarcely decorous performances during the terrible Civil Wars, to the new era of peace, prosperity, stability and extemporal Classicism. 3.2. Military Feats A further and obviously equally important factor in the evolution of reception history is the consideration traditionally attributed, at least in Western culture, to military feats and strategic talent. Once again, at first view, it seems quite obvious why it was Caesar and not Augustus who was remembered for his prowess, the first being generally associated with his systematic conquest of Gaul, whereas the latter is generally only remembered for his victory in the Civil Wars, his alleged decision to put an end to the Roman world-conquest even at the price of an amiable settlement with the Parthians (considered as iniquitous even by the contemporaries), and finally the ultimate defeat of his endeavor to include Germany into the empire. However, once again, such a view would be simplistic and reductionist (though we could scarcely deny the fact that, at least to the French audience so important in shaping the 17th and 18th century view of Roman history, the conquest of Gaul had, for obvious reasons, an identitary appeal never to be equaled by any potentially lost commentarius dealing with the conquest of Iberia or the Danube region). On the one hand, we have to insist on the fact that the conquest of Gaul by the technically highly superior Roman forces did not only take nearly a decade, but proved also very unstable in the light of the efforts Augustus and his lieutenants had to undergo in order to re-include these territories into the empire again. On the other hand, it is generally forgotten that Augustus, far from limiting his military aims to the mere victory over his Roman competitors, was the driving force behind the conquest of foreign territories much larger than the mere Tres Galliae, as he not only consolidated Roman power over Gaul, but finalised also the conquest of Iberia, added the numerous mountainous territories up to the Danube to the Roman empire, conquered Egypt and led expeditions into Nubia and Arabia. Of course, it will be said that Caesar led his military campaigns himself, whereas Augustus is rather associated with the military talents of his second in

16

M. CAVALIERI / P. ASSENMAKER / M. CAVAGNA / D. ENGELS

command, Agrippa. However, it should not be forgotten that Caesar, too, had the benefit of being surrounded by excellent military commanders and that the everyday-life hardships he underwent as well as the (sometimes dangerously deficient) strategic talents he claimed are essentially the result of his own literary stylisation. Of course, it would be exaggerated and most certainly erroneous to pretend that Augustus, as his uncle, was a military genius and an exemplary soldier, as most sources concord in insisting on the fact that his capabilities were rather on the propagandistic, diplomatic and political than the military field; however, Augustus might have had ample opportunities during his long life to create for himself the nimbus of an invincible strategist had he wished to. That he did not do so seems less a result of our sources than of Augustus’ own self-stylisation: even on the armour he wore on the Prima Porta statue, whose symbolism’s importance is also mirrored by the contemporary coins, he did not represent his successes in conquering the large Barbarian territories reaching from the Gulf of Biskaya through Gaul, the Alps and the Danube up to the Black Sea, but rather the diplomatic settlement he reached with the Parthian Empire, resulting in decades of peaceful coexistence of the two world-empires rather than in (yet another) dangerous attempt of emulating Alexander the Great. Hence, if posterity remembers essentially about Augustus as the founder of the pax Augusta, the dedicatee of the ara Pacis and the third person in Roman history to have closed the Arch of Ianus, this is not the result of the hazard of transmission, but rather of a deliberate aim to pass on a message of peace, order and prosperity, even if to the detriment of military uirtus. 3.3. War and Peace A last crucial figure in the slow displacement of the memory of Augustus by the memory of Caesar is the simple biographical fact that the actual vita of Caesar seems, at first view, a spectacular succession of political agitation, military prowess, a splendid victory over a host of foes, and, finally, a tragic death by the hand of his own friends, whereas the history of Augustus has essentially left the memory of a more or less surreptitious rise to power, followed by half a century of calm stagnation. Indeed, everything in Caesar’s life seems the consequence of his allegedly greater-than-life character and leading up to his final apotheosis: his descent from Venus, his popular politics, his brilliant campaigns, his alleged treason by Pompey, his conquest of large parts of the Mediterranean from the hands of Pompeian governors, his legendary love-affair with Cleopatra, his high-strung magnanimity towards his former enemies, his building-projects, his gigantic plans of imperial expansion to the East and North, his assassination by those who had benefitted from his clemency, and finally, his apotheosis confirmed by divine prodigies: everything seems extraordinary and inimitable. Augustus, however, has been considered already

AUGUSTUS THROUGH THE AGES – INTRODUCTION

17

early on as a young schemer of obscure descent and conceited nature, who managed only by betraying multiple times as well his Caesarian followers as his Republican allegiance to rise to power and, after being directly or indirectly responsible for the death of a large part of the Roman aristocracy, forced his contemporaries by essentially military means to take parts in the charade of the res publica restituta, while at the same time tinkering continuously with his own monarchical succession. Once again however, such a biographical explanation of Caesar’s popularity over Augustus would be too short-sighted. On the one hand, one should not forget that Caesar, at least until his informal alliance with Pompey and Crassus, was not much more than an average Roman politician whose ruthlessness was only matched by his debts, and whose real career, beginning with the Gallic Wars, started at a moment when Augustus had long become first man of Rome, and that, when it comes to enumerate tragic or surprising reversions of fortune, Rome’s first princeps certainly more than stands his ground. If history has tended to leave a wholly different memory of Caesar than of Augustus, it is not due to reality or even the sources, but mainly to a self-representation initiated by the historical actors themselves. As outlined above, whereas Caesar was keen in basing his political success on a systematic super-elevation of his own character and abilities, closely following the example of the theios aner set by Alexander the Great and his successors whom it seems he wanted to emulate by the adoption of the title of ‘king’, Augustus, to the contrary, tried to make forget, during the years between 31 and 23, his stellar rise to power through deceit, ruthlessness, betrayal, mass-murder and war, and imposed a clear symbolic break unto the memory of his contemporaries. Decades of war were to be replaced by a durable pax Romana, the constitutional irregularities by a return to the precepts of the old Republic, and the moral and biographic horrors of the declining Republic by the strengthening of the mos maiorum, so that Augustus himself reshaped his own image in order to stylise his own, disrupted biography into a sequence of classical exempla, as summarised by his own Res gestae: multa exempla maiorum exolescentia iam ex nostro saeculo reduxi et ipse multarum rerum exempla imitanda posteris tradidi. 3.4. The Aftermath We could conclude in claiming that the eclipsing of Augustus by the memory of his adoptive father in terms of literary, military, and biographical fame was less a result of an actual reality than rather a paradoxical and somewhat ironic consequence of the self-representation of Augustus himself. Learning from Caesar’s tragic death that his own power could only be consolidated by sharing it, at least partially, with the Roman senatorial and equestrian aristocracy and by insisting, however fictitiously, on his equality with the other nobles, he had to put such an emphasis on his own depersonalisation that, as a result, his fame

18

M. CAVALIERI / P. ASSENMAKER / M. CAVAGNA / D. ENGELS

became overshadowed, in the long run, by the memory of the historical Caesar he so desperately tried to ban from his construction of legitimacy. Nevertheless, the shifting of memories and thus the construction of the general image of Augustus in the present-day Western World is not only a direct result of his own self-presentation, it is also tributary to subsequent evolutions linked to cultural paradigms quite disconnected with Roman history. Thus, already the consolidation of imperial power in the aftermath of Augustus decease and the gradual weakening of the Republican façade of the new regime contributed to a shift in public attention, as Augustus’ respect for the senatorial order seemed, with the hindsight of the anti-senatorial stance taken by emperors such as Caligula, Nero, or Domitian, increasingly deceptive and calculating, with the consequence that the opposition between Caesar’s overt military grasp for power and Augustus’ diplomatic elaboration of a prudent compromise transformed gradually into a comparison between Caesar’s honest militarism and clemency and Augustus’ scheming hypocrisy, as expressed in Seneca’s De clementia. Another factor in the evolution of memorial history is constituted by the impact of Christianism; an impact defining not only the presentation and comparison of both rulers in Late Antiquity, but also during large parts of the Middle Ages. Of course, for obvious chronological reasons, neither Caesar nor Augustus had any material relationships whatever to the rise of Christianity or even the biography of Christ, but the vague temporal coincidence between the establishment of the principate and the birth of Christ, immortalised by Luke’s famous factum est autem in diebus illis exiit edictum a Caesare Augusto ut describeretur uniuersus orbis (Lk 2.1), led to the fact that Augustus came to occupy a central role in the political theology of Christianity. Thus, already quite early, the Christians, willing to express their loyalty to the Roman empire while condemning their persecutions by diverse emperors, stylised Augustus into an earthly avatar of the Christ himself, first as unwilling tool of God, then increasingly as a conscious believer as described in the legends around Augustus’ alleged conversion to Christianism (as e.g. in the Legenda aurea; see below) and thus his status as ‘first Christian’. This instrumentalisation of Augustus as common forefather of the imperial idea as well as of Christianity assured the emperor an important status within the Church for centuries, but also paradoxically resulted in his ultimate supersession by the memory of Caesar. Indeed, as the Augustus Christianus was so closely linked to the idea of the emperor’s submission to the faith, the deep conflict between Pope and Emperor motivated the latter and his followers to gradually invest the memory of Caesar whose memory remained free from any associations with Christianity, positive or negative. It is thus no wonder if Caesar appears as well amidst the nine ‘preux’, the canonical mediaeval list of the chivalric heroes of the past (with Hector and Alexander), as well as in Dante’s Inferno as the immediate earthly equivalent of the Christ, as the Devil

AUGUSTUS THROUGH THE AGES – INTRODUCTION

19

is said to torture in his own mouth not only Judas Iscariot because of his treason of the Christ, but also Brutus and Cassius, the murderers of Caesar (c. 34.61-67): Quell’anima là sù c’ ha maggior pena’, disse ’l maestro, ‘è Giuda Scarïotto, che ’l capo ha dentro e fuor le gambe mena. De li altri due c’ hanno il capo di sotto, quel che pende dal nero ceffo è Bruto: vedi come si storce, e non fa motto!; e l’altro è Cassio, che par sì membruto.

This attitude should also be prevalent during the Renaissance, when the ‘pagan Caesar’ seemed in intense political as well as literary competition with the ‘Christian’ Augustus, until the moment when the rise to power of Napoleon definitely changed the balance in favor of Caesar, explicitly considered by the first French emperor as his favourite role-model when he rejected the title ‘Augustus’ proposed for an inscription on a triumphal arch after the victory of Wagram by curtly explaining: ‘Auguste n’a eu que la bataille d’Actium’ and explaining, that: Le seul homme, et il n’était pas empereur, qui s’illustra par caractère et par tant d’illustres actions, c’est César. S’il était un titre que l’Empereur pût désirer, ce serait celui de César. Mais tant de petits princes ont tellement déshonoré ce titre (si cela était possible), que cela ne se rapproche plus de la mémoire du grand César, mais de celle de ce tas de princes allemands aussi faibles qu’ignorants et dont aucun n’a laissé de souvenirs parmi les hommes. (Note sur des inscriptions proposées pour l’arc de triomphe, 3 octobre 1809)

There are still some augustan motifs in Napoleon’s public image: see the contribution of Agnieszka Fulińska in this volume; it is not surprising that the vision the 19th century entertained about the historical place of Caesar and Augustus was deeply conditioned by their vision on contemporary issues such as the place of Modernism and the Ancien régime, the curious blending between Republicanism and ‘progressive’ military dictatorship becoming known as Caesarism and celebrating its most important victory with the rise to power of Napoleon III who, incidentally, decided on exploiting, in the preface to his (unfinished) biography of Caesar, the analogies between himself and his uncle on the one hand and Augustus and Caesar on the other in order to legitimate his own rule. The curious association of Caesar with a ‘modern’, progressive society, as opposed to the allegedly ‘boring’ academism and Classicism of Augustus also explains the obvious sympathy with which the late 19th century Classical Studies have treated Caesar and the loathing for the ‘backward’ nature, the ‘Advokatentum’ of Cicero, prominently expressed by Theodor Mommsen as well as Andreas Alföldi. Only since the 20th century, when the focus shifted, once again, from

20

M. CAVALIERI / P. ASSENMAKER / M. CAVAGNA / D. ENGELS

Caesar to Augustus, this time under the influence of the longing for stability and order as opposed to the threat of communism, the potential of Augustus as the ‘real’ revolutionary force of the Late Republic has been fully rediscovered, as is shown not only by the place of Augustus in fascist propaganda, but also by his re-interpretation in historiography, most notably by Ronald Syme. The end of fascism brought a sudden end to the idealisation of Augustus as well as Caesar and a return of a more de-politicised reception, mostly confined to the domain of general fiction. However, the sudden rise and fall not only of the Third Reich, the fascist Impero or the Soviet Union, but also the impending decline of the USA in particular and the Western World in general in the early 21st century has once again put Augustus upon a broader agenda, though less as historical person than rather as a typical aspect in the transformation of expansionist states into stabilised empires. Thus, Spengler, followed by Toynbee, were amidst the first to identify Augustus not only as an individual, but as a morphological ‘type’ recurrent in all major civilisations, and recent research, focusing essentially on the analogies between ancient Rome and pre-imperial China, has coined the notion of the ‘Augustan threshold’ in order to define this crucial period in the creation of an universal world-empire 26 – a transformation from the individual into the typological which, paradoxically, fits quite neatly the self-stylisation of Augustus himself and has led the evolution of his reception history full circle. 4. The Sources of the Varied Images of Augustus in the Middle Ages and the Modern Period The complex process of formation and evolution of the posthumous image of an historical figure depends to a large extent on the sources that are available (or preferred) at different periods of time, so that a brief insight into the tradition and reception of the various authors who inform us about Augustus’ life and deeds appears as a necessary prerequisite for further investigations. We will first focus on the main classical and post-classical texts that formed the medieval image of Augustus before highlighting the transformation of this image brought about by the humanist renouatio studiorum. Then, we will survey the sources that were progressively rediscovered in the humanist period and contributed to a renewed image of the princeps in early modern literature as well as to the ‘scientific’ approach developed by the Altertumswissenschaft from the 19th century onwards.

26

Cf., e.g., ENGELS (2017) and ENGELS (2020).

AUGUSTUS THROUGH THE AGES – INTRODUCTION

21

4.1. The Sources of the Medieval, ‘Christian’ Augustus Much has been written about the reception of Suetonius’ De uita duodecim Caesarum; however, scholarly discussion has frequently overlooked the timespan including the Middle Ages and the Renaissance; an example of this recurrent attitude are the proceedings of the congress Présence de Suétone, an otherwise extremely interesting volume, which nonetheless disregards an entire millennium and skips directly from Antiquity to the modern and contemporary times. 27 And yet, the history of Suetonius’ reception offers a very typical case study, showing the multiple facets of the transmission of classical literature through the medieval and the early modern times. The medieval manuscript tradition of this text is fairly well documented. Its archetype is probably the codex Memmianus (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 6115), dating from the 9th century, which has belonged to the abbey of Saint-Martin in Tours. 28 Two other manuscripts occupying the upper branches of the stemma codicum, Gudianus and Vaticanus, date from the 11th and the beginning of the 12th centuries respectively. The other copies are full of interpolations, glosses and commentaries that show the typical exegetic attitude of medieval copies. But the main track of Suetonius’ medieval circulation consists in the florilegia, i.e. collections or anthologies. Among those collections it is worth quoting the Florilegium Gallicum, preserved in twelve manuscript copies, which contains an anthology of several classical authors. 29 Among them, Suetonius occupies the penultimate place. The author of the collection had selected the extracts by omitting anecdotes and details that he considered too circumstantial, while retaining and preferring elements that, due to their exemplar value as moral teachings, could be of broader interest for a large audience. Throughout the Middle Ages, classical authors were considered as particularly eminent repositories of knowledge. The Florilegium Gallicum is very important in this regard because it was widespread throughout Europe (this diffusion being confirmed by the presence of manuscripts in a wide area, including France, Germany and Spain), and because it was used by the Dominican friar Vincent of Beauvais in his Speculum historiale, the most important historical compilation of medieval Western culture. 30 Preserved in about 250 manuscripts, this historical encyclopaedia played a role of paramount importance in the circulation of knowledge POIGNAULT (ed.) (2009). AILLOUD (1931), p. xlii-xlvi. Cf. ROCHEBOUET (2011). 29 ROUSE (1979), p. 135. The florilegium is preserved in 12 manuscripts. Mattia Cavagna has examined ms. Paris, BnF latin 1703, which includes an anthology of the following Latin authors, in this order: Prudentius, Claudian Ovid, Tibullus, Horace, Juvenal, Persius, Martial, Petronius, Virgil, Calpurnius, Terence, Sallust, Boethius, Cicero, Quintilian, Seneca, Plautus (inserted under the label Querulus), Macrobius, Aulus Gellius, Caesar, Sidonius Apollinaris, Cassiodorus, Suetonius, Donatus. 30 Cf. ULLMAN (1932) and, more recently, CAVAGNA (2020). 27 28

22

M. CAVALIERI / P. ASSENMAKER / M. CAVAGNA / D. ENGELS

in medieval Europe, and acted in particular as a crucial vector of knowledge concerning ancient history, its authors and its protagonists. However, the medieval and early modern portrait of Augustus was drawn from several sources. The second author we must focus on is certainly Seneca. In his De clementia (1.9-11), Seneca presents the famous ‘Plot of Cinna’. In 16 BC, Gnaeus Cornelius Cinna and Aemilia Lepida, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus’ granddaughter, were discovered while plotting a conspiracy against the emperor. Augustus forgave both of them, following the advice of his wife Livia and the inspiration of a dream; Cinna became a consul and Augustus’ close friend and advisor. Seneca’s narrative includes a night scene, a premonitory dream, and an episode testifying the mercy of the emperor, a virtue that was highly valued in Christian aesthetics: all those ingredients ensured a broad echo of this story in the Middle Ages (and further: see the article by Ida Gilda Mastrorosa). Furthermore, Seneca, is also mainly the most popular classical author during the Middle Ages, and he was often included in florilegia and in historical compilations. 31 But it is thanks to the famous disciple of Saint Augustine, the Christian historian Orosius, that the figure of the emperor Augustus has been durably projected from the history to the myth. His Seven Books of History against the Pagans, based, among others, on Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum (which he regards, however, as a work by Suetonius) and on Titus Livius’ Ab Vrbe Condita (at least the Periochae), had a great impact on historiography during the period between Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Through the theory of the ‘four kingdoms’, Orosius focused on the intervention of God in History, for an eschatological purpose. Augustus is presented therefore as the peacemaker of the empire and thus the one who, by creating the necessary conditions provided for by the Old Testament, opens the way for the birth of Christ. Orosius’ theory is based on the Gospel of Luke (2.1) and on the Book of Isaiah (2.4). The same perspective is taken by two Church Fathers, namely Saint Ambrose, bishop of Milan, and Beda the Venerable. Their commentaries on the Gospel of Luke have been included in the collection of Biblical glosses, added in the margins of the Latin Bible – the Vulgate – and known as Glossa Ordinaria. For several centuries, from the Carolingian period up until the 14th century, this collection of glosses was considered as a sort of standard commentary on the Bible in Western Europe; it has been used as a manual, a source of inspiration for preachers and for monastic meditation, and it had a great influence on Western Christian theology and culture. The commentary on Luke 2.1 indicates Augustus as the instrument of God in creating the conditions of peace for the arrival of Christ. This means that Augustus finds his place, so to speak, in the very Canon of the Scriptures. 31

Vincent of Beauvais’ Speculum historiale devotes 35 chapters to Seneca, 27 to Cicero and 17 to Ovid.

AUGUSTUS THROUGH THE AGES – INTRODUCTION

23

Another mediaeval best-seller contributes to increase the fame of Augustus. It is the Golden Legend, the most famous medieval collection of hagiographies, compiled around 1260 by the Franciscan friar Jacobus de Voragine. More than a thousand manuscripts of this text have survived, confirming its wide reception in medieval Europe. In the legend 6, relating the birth of Christ (De natiuitate Domini), Jacobus de Voragine tells that the Tiburtine Sibyl had prophesised to Augustus the birth of Christ, and relates the foundation of Santa Maria in Aracoeli (see the article by Mattia Cavagna). The image of a Christian Augustus also engenders a movement of re-reading and interpretation of another great classical author, namely Virgil. His fourth eclogue depicting the announcement of the Cumaean Sibyl was interpreted as a prophecy prefiguring the coming of Christ. The most influential work containing this interpretation was certainly Augustine’s De ciuitate Dei (10.27), which ensured this tradition a great echo for centuries (for the Christianised interpretation of Virgil, see the article by Mattia Cavagna). The Middle Ages essentially inherit the image of an inspired, peaceful and beneficent emperor. In the literature he is often referred to in opposition to the persecutors of Christianity, who have had a very large success both in the historiographical works and in the theatrical performances. 4.2. The ‘Re-historicisation’ of Augustus as a Model of Good Government Between the 14th and 16th centuries, the image of the prudent and clement prince gradually imposed itself on that of the visionary and subsidiary prince of Christ. The writings of Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374), the father of humanism, show a varying image of Augustus that is emblematic of this evolution: having, so to say, a foot in the Middle Ages and the other in the Renaissance, Petrarch deserves a particular attention here. 32 In a poetic epistle addressed to Pope Clemens VI in 1342, Petrarch, who the year before had been crowned as poeta laureatus on the Capitol in Rome, used the famous etiologic legend of the church Santa Maria in Aracoeli as one of numerous arguments aimed at persuading the Pope of leaving Avignon for Rome (Epystole 2.5.129-143). In Petrarch’s version of this legend that had been popularised by the Mirabilia urbis Romae and the Legenda Aurea, Augustus personally prays the Christ Child to grant universal dominion to Rome in return for the cult that he will institute, so that, centuries later, the Pope is urged to assume the ‘Augustan inheritance’ of Rome as the (Christian) world’s capital. 33 In her contribution to this volume, Susanna de Beer analyses two previous metrical letters addressed On Petrarch’s praise of Augustus in his various works, see BLACK (2018), p. 181186 (who, however, does not mention the metrical epistles to Popes Benedict XII and Clemens VI). 33 ASSENMAKER (2020), p. 105-106. 32

24

M. CAVALIERI / P. ASSENMAKER / M. CAVAGNA / D. ENGELS

to Pope Benedict XII (Epystole 1.2 and 5), in which, by means of a subtle intertextual play with the poets emblematic of the Augustan age (especially Horace and Ovid), Petrarch modelled the Pope after Augustus, conceived as a symbol not only of the Roman Empire, but also of the advent of a new Golden Age. Within the enormous corpus of Petrarch’s correspondence in prose, a long letter written in the last months of his life to Francesco da Carrara, Lord of Padua, can be pretty much regarded as a ‘mirror for the prince’ (Seniles 14.1, dated 28th November 1373). Augustus is one of the numerous figures from the Roman history that Petrarch gives as examples (or counter-examples) of the ideal moral virtues and righteous behaviour of the rector. In every single passage, the humanist enjoys quoting with a truly virtuosic erudition the most varied Latin sources – not only the inescapable Suetonius, but also Livy or Macrobius’ Saturnalia, as far as Augustus is concerned. In so doing, he gives an image of the founder of the Empire that turns out to be remarkably well documented, already “modern” and far removed from the nebulous medieval legends. It is interesting to note that Petrarch, at the beginning of this letter, sketches a comparison between Julius Caesar and Augustus – qui, licet uirtute minor bellica, certe imperio maior fuit (§ 5) – in terms that remind us of the Triumphus Fame (1a.22-25; see the contribution by Marco Cavalieri) and prefigure the modern judgements on both figures (see above). Remarkably enough, Petrarch concludes his list of the ideal ruler’s qualities by insisting on the necessity of surrounding oneself with litterati homines – surely not a completely disinterested advice… Here, the exemplum of Augustus is developed at the greatest length. This prince, Petrarch says, attracted the greatest talents of his time by treating them as his equals, and this illustrious company contributed to his aeterna fama more than his military power: non minus quam omnibus Romanis legionibus illustratus hoc doctorum hominum comitatu (§ 104). So, in the eyes of Petrarch, literary patronage turns out to be a quite specific Augustan virtue. The Petrarchan view of Augustus as an unsurpassed model of righteous government remained vivacious – even if not exclusive 34 – in the early humanist period. So, the story of Cinna’s plot, emblematic of Augustus’ clemency, is already the focus of the Romuleon, by the Italian historian Benvenuto da Imola, a notable compilation of Roman history composed around 1361-64, which has been translated into French first by Jean Miélot (1460) and then by Sébastien Mamerot (1466). From the 15th century onwards, the printed editions of Suetonius multiplied and the comments became more and more focused on the question of good government, and related to the tradition of the ‘mirror for the prince’. Ida Gilda Mastrorosa (cf. her article) reports the erudite compilations of Remigio Nannini and Jean Bodin, as well as Scipione Ammirato’s Discorsi sopra Cornelio Tacito. Regarding the canon of modern French literature, it was 34 On the contrasted views of Augustus in humanist literature, see the contribution by Marco Cavalieri in this volume and BLACK (2018).

AUGUSTUS THROUGH THE AGES – INTRODUCTION

25

above all the celebrated tragedy of Pierre Corneille, Cinna, or the clemency of Augustus (1643) that established Augustus as the very incarnation of the good ruler’s leniency (see the article by Jelle Koopmans). As Taillerand reported, Napoleon claimed to know this piece almost by heart (see the article by Agnieszka Fulińska). 4.3. Beyond the Medieval Corpus An important date in the history of Augustus’ reception is surely 1515, the year of publication of the complete editio princeps of the extant parts of Tacitus’ Annals, containing the text of books 1-6 which had survived in only one manuscript (the Mediceus I, i.e. the Laurentianus plut. 68, 1, of the 9th century). Although they only consist of a brief survey of Augustus’ reign, chapters 2-5 of the first book, which convey the darker portrait of a hypocritical and calculating Augustus, gravedigger of the Republican priscus et integer mos, provided the negative view of the first princeps, which had been developing since the Florentine humanism (see the contribution by Marco Cavalieri), with a new classical authority. Besides Tacitus, several Greek sources of the utmost importance for the historical study of Augustus and his time were totally unknown in the Middle Ages and rediscovered only in the humanist period. It is well known that Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, already translated in Latin, Spanish and French in the 15th century, became one of the most popular ancient works in the Renaissance thanks to the French translation of Jacques Amyot published in 1559 (upon which was based the English version of Thomas North, an important source of Shakespeare’s Roman plays: see the contribution by Elizabeth Oakley-Brown). However, Plutarch’s biographies do not rank among the main sources regarding Augustus, since the future emperor only plays a secondary role in the lives of Mark Antony and Brutus (the biography that the Chaeronaean writer had dedicated to Augustus is unfortunately lost). We have to admit that the Greek historical works dealing more directly with Augustus and his time did never reach the degree of popularity of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives and have not shaped to the same extent the general view of Roman history. A crucial source on Augustus’ principate, Cassius Dio’s Roman History (in particular the books 45-56, the only extant continuous narrative of the period running from 44 BC to AD 14), was first read in translation: an Italian version was carried out by the physician and humanist Niccolò Leoniceno before 1488 and was printed in Venice in 1533. The jurist Andrea Alciato, in his treatise De magistratibus ciuilibusque et militaribus officiis liber unus published in 1529, was the first to use Cassius Dio’s work, which he was able to read in Greek, in order to study the nature of Augustan power. 35 At that time, Dio’s text was still 35

FERRARY (2015), p. 5-6.

26

M. CAVALIERI / P. ASSENMAKER / M. CAVAGNA / D. ENGELS

circulating in manuscripts, since the editio princeps was published by Robert Estienne only in 1548. 36 Ten years later appeared the Latin translation of Cassius Dio’s Roman History by Wilhelm Xylander, professor of Greek at the university of Heidelberg. Even if discreet, the fortune enjoyed by Cassius Dio in the Modern Period is not insignificant. For instance, it has been shown that, next to Seneca’s De clementia, the Roman History was possibly a direct source of inspiration of Corneille for his play Cinna. 37 For the events running from 44 to 35 BC, the books 15-17 of Appian’s Roman History (i.e. books 3-5 of the section entitled Civil Wars) are the second major source. As for Cassius Dio, this author was first accessible through translations. In the middle of the 15th century, the Italian humanist Pier Candido Decembrio carried out a Latin translation which was soon severely criticised for its obscurity and many errors, among others by Claude de Seyssel, a jurist and ecclesiastic, counsellor of King Louis XII of France, who gave a French version of Appian around 1506 (a highly successful work which was posthumously printed many times from 1544 onwards). 38 The Greek text of Appian was first partially printed by Charles Estienne in Paris in 1551; the complete editio princeps was printed by Henri II Estienne (Henricus Stephanus) in 1557. It was superseded only by Johannes Schweighäuser’s outstanding edition published in 1785. Even if Appian does not rank among the best-known classical authors and if his quality as an historian was severely called into question in the Modern period, his importance in Western culture should, however, not be underestimated. Regarding in particular the reception of Augustus, it is sufficient to think that Appian’s Civil Wars were used as a source by Shakespeare (in an English translation published in 1578) for his plays Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra, and that books 3 and 4 of this work were annotated by nobody less than Karl Marx in the margins of his copy of the German translation by Ferdinand Dillenius. 39 The oldest literary source focusing on Octavian-Augustus preserved to a substantial extent is the Life of Augustus written by Nicolaus of Damascus, the adviser of King Herod, around 25-20 BC. This text is a very interesting document as it provides an outsider’s view on the Empire while being very probably based on the princeps’ own autobiography. Two large fragments remain, preserved in two of the four extant sections of the so-called Excerpta Constantiniana, a vast compilation of excerpts of historical writings drawn up at the instigation of the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (945-959). The first one, dealing with Augustus’ childhood and youth until 45 BC, has been discovered and published in 1634 by the French philologist Henri Valois; 36 37 38 39

BELLISSIME (2016). BELLISSIME (2018). FAMERIE (1990), p. 91-95. CANFORA (2015), p. 32-44.

AUGUSTUS THROUGH THE AGES – INTRODUCTION

27

the second one, relating the conspiracy against Cesar (including the prophetic dream of his wife Calpurnia) and the events of the following months, has only been discovered in the 19th century. 40 What about the impact of Augustus’ ‘own words’ on his posthumous image? We know from Suetonius (Aug. 85.1) that the emperor wrote an autobiography in 13 books, entitled De uita sua, which went as far as the Cantabrian War in 25 BC. We barely know 19 fragments of this work, transmitted by several authors, the latest being the so-called Servius auctus. 41 Appian quotes several times Augustus’ hypomnemata (he says explicitly that he translates the Latin text in B.C. 5.45.191) and it is quite possible, as argued by Luciano Canfora, that these were the main source of books 3-5 of the Civil Wars. 42 Whatever the truth of the matter, the precise content of Augustus’ De uita sua is impossible to reconstruct in detail. Besides the autobiography, we also have a corpus of 53 fragments of letters written by Augustus, the main part being transmitted by Suetonius. 43 A part of Augustus’ correspondence had been published (so the letters to his grandson Gaius), but many letters were certainly consulted in the imperial archives by the biograph, who had access to them in his capacity as secretary ab epistulis. Had we conserved the autobiography (at least substantial passages of it) or complete letters, the modern image of Augustus would certainly have turned out to be more incarnate and maybe quite different – possibly, the reception would have been all the more ‘trapped’ by the first princeps’ artful and subtle self-stylisation as a bringer of universal peace and restorer of the social and moral values. Contrary to these personal writings, the Res Gestae diui Augusti have been preserved. 44 This epigraphical text, whose original Latin version was exposed on two steles installed before the princeps’ mausoleum in Rome, was discovered in Ankara in 1555 by Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, ambassador of the Emperor Ferdinand I to Suleiman the Magnificent at Constantinople. The so-called Monumentum Ancyranum, preserving both the Latin text and its Greek translation (with some lacunas), has been several times read and copied since the 16th century, but was first edited in 1865 by Theodor Mommsen, who called it the ‘queen of the inscriptions’. Other fragmentary copies of the Res Gestae were found in Pisidia, in Apollonia (Greek text) and Antioch (Latin text), at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. The current research on the Res Gestae does no more regard Augustus as the true ‘author’ – in the modern sense of the word – of this text, which was rather written by his secretariat and controlled by the princeps, who possibly gave a personal touch to some 40 41 42 43 44

PARMENTIER / BARONE (2011), p. 435. Edition and translation by SMITH (2009). CANFORA (2015), p. 215-290. MALCOVATI (1962), p. 6-28. SCHEID (2007); COOLEY (2009).

28

M. CAVALIERI / P. ASSENMAKER / M. CAVAGNA / D. ENGELS

passages. Nonetheless, this first-person record of Augustus’ achievements exerted for long a deep fascination, especially in the first half of the 20th century, in the context of the rising of the totalitarian regimes and their cult of personality of the leaders (see the contributions by Timo Klär and Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen). The monumental display of the Latin text of the Res Gestae in bronze letters on the travertine outer wall of the Museo dell’Ara Pacis designed in 1938 in the context of the construction of the Piazza Augusto Imperatore (see the article by Klaus Tragbar) is a telling example of it. Since this inscription was conserved in the present building designed by the US architect Richard Meier and inaugurated in 2006 – on April 21st, the day of the Parilia –, the Res Gestae are still nowadays part of the urbanistic landscape of Rome. 5. Augustus Through the Ages: From Historical Figure to Ideal Model To sum up the different strings of reception presented in the preceding chapters, the purpose of this collective volume is to discuss how the image of Augustus had been received from the very day of his death up to the present, by looking at the princeps not only as a historical figure, but also as a symbol and a model. The radical political change operated in Rome by Augustus left a long-lasting mark, while leaving the institutions of the res publica apparently untouched. His own political propaganda presented him as the one who had saved Rome. By doing this, and turning the city into a place on a par to the most important Hellenistic urban centres, he gave Rome – and Italy with it – a prominent role, and at the same time guaranteed himself undying fame. The victor over Marcus Antonius, he gained a place as one of the most prominent figures in the history of western civilisation. Nevertheless, the emperor’s multifaceted and ambivalent features were as relevant as his qualities. All of these contributed to the long-lasting fame of this complex character, with art, literature and architecture often referring to these aspects. His cultural and religious profile adds depth to the strictly political one. What happened after the battle of Actium is particularly revealing in this respect. Augustus proved to be a forward-looking politician: by imposing internal peace and stability, he secured long-lasting positive effects to his triumph, which extended well after the victory. The emperor’s intention to pursue clementia must also be seen as a means to ensure that his fame lasted in time. For all these reasons, and especially during the Middle Ages, Augustus rose as the champion of good government: he had been able to guarantee the conditions that made possible the survival of ancient Rome. In other words, he had played a ‘providential’ role in saving the res publica. It was at this point that Rome started to be perceived as an increasingly ideal place, rather than a historical one. Why ‘ideal’? During the Middle Ages, for instance, the multifaceted political situation of the 1st century BC was not fully acknowledged; the distinction between the Republic and the early Empire became increasingly blurred. Augustus was perceived as a complex character guided by

AUGUSTUS THROUGH THE AGES – INTRODUCTION

29

the Divine Providence, a sort of profane King David. Medieval artists liked the complex semantic meanings underlying the figure of Augustus, and rulers looked at him as a reference model. The ‘Augustan Myth’ was born: a less democratic cultural reference if compared to figures of the like of Scipio and Caesar, but equally attractive to the visual arts, literature, history and philology, which selectively borrowed contents and images from this multi-faceted model in a continuous dialogue between ancient and current times. In the process of assimilation that followed, architecture played a central role in shaping the influence of the emperor on Rome. Even from the very earliest celebratory works, Augustus’ reign was described as an aurea aetas: a ‘golden’ time of aesthetic, political and cultural plenty, an endless century. As such, albeit a posteriori, this can be seen as a ‘classical’ time, that is, a time when the values and expressive models used were almost a-temporal, hence becoming applicable and comparable to values and models of later periods. In other words, this period was regarded as a ‘moment zero’ in History, when many – if not all – things began. Political propaganda, the Christian providential perspective, up to the cyclical view of time, all had their origin here, between the late 1st century BC and the early 1st century AD. The Roman Empire moved its first steps, Christ was born and a new era of peace and prosperity had started. Literature AILLOUD, H. (1931), Suétone. Vies des douze Césars, t. I, César – Auguste, Paris. ALBERTI, L. B. (1485), De re aedificatoria, Florence. ASSENMAKER, P. (2020), Souverain universel ‘augustéen’ et époux d’une Rome délaissée  : la représentation de la figure pontificale dans les Epystole de Pétrarque, in C. D’ALBERTO (ed.), Imago Papae. Le pape en image du Moyen Âge à l’époque contemporaine, Rome, p. 99-116. BALTRUSCH, E. / WENDT, C. (eds.) (2016), Der Erste. Augustus und der Beginn einer neuen Epoche, Darmstadt. BELLISSIME, M. (2016), Le Parisinus graecus 1689 et l’édition princeps de l’Histoire romaine de Cassius Dion, in V. FROMENTIN et al. (eds.), Cassius Dion  : nouvelles lectures, Bordeaux, p. 33-38. BELLISSIME, M. (2018), La réception de Cassius Dion chez Corneille  : le débat AgrippaMécène (Histoire romaine, livre 52) et le débat Cinna-Maxime (Cinna, II, 1), in Tangence 116, p. 77-92. BLACK, R. (2018), From Peacemaker to Tyrant: The Changing Image of Augustus in Italian Renaissance Political Thought, in GOODMAN (2018), p. 178-197. BORGNA, A. (2015), Uno, nessuno o centomila? Riflessioni su Augusto nel bimillenario della morte (14-2014), in Teoria politica n. s. 5, p. 453-466. CANFORA, L. (2015), Augusto figlio di dio, Bari. CARTER, J. M. (1983), Augustus down the Centuries, in History Today 33, p. 24-30. CAVAGNA, M. (2020), Ovide compilé, entre florilège et encyclopédie. Une approche analytique, in C. BAKER / M. CAVAGNA / E. GUADAGNINI (eds.), ‘Traire de latin en

30

M. CAVALIERI / P. ASSENMAKER / M. CAVAGNA / D. ENGELS

romans les fables de l’ancien temps’. Traduire, gloser et moraliser Ovide entre Moyen Âge et première modernité, Paris, p. 257-289. CAVALIERI, M. (2002), Auctoritas aedificiorum. Sperimentazioni urbanistiche nei complessi forum-basilica delle Tres Galliae et Narbonensis durante i primi tre secoli dell’impero, Parma (Quaderni del seminario di Archeologia, Università di Parma – Istituto di Storia dell’Arte 21). CAVALIERI, M. (2020), Basilicam opere mirabili extruere… Considerazione sulla basilica civile nelle province galliche dell’Impero: ruolo e decorazione, in H. SELDESLACHTS / T. VAN HAL (eds.), Tam discretus quam egregius. Hommage au Professeur Lambert Isebaert, I = Les Études Classiques 88, p. 5-30. CLAREBORN, A. (2018), Augusto Reframed. Exhibiting Augustus in Bimillennial Rome, in GOODMAN (2018), p. 322-339. COOLEY, A. E. (2009), Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Text, Translation, and Commentary by A. E. C., Cambridge. CROCE, B. (1904), Review of Sophonisbe dans la tragédie classique italienne et française by Charles Ricci (Turin, 1904), in La Critica. Rivista di Letteratura, Storia e Filosofia (diretta da B. Croce) 2, p. 483-486. DAGUET-GAGEY, A. / LEFEBVRE, S. (eds.) (2018), L’empereur Auguste et la mémoire des siècles. Actes des journées d’études de Dijon (28 novembre 2014) et Arras (23 mars 2015), Arras. ENGELS, D. (2017), Construction de normes et morphologie culturelle. Empire romain, chinois, sasanide et fatimide – une comparaison historique, in T. ITGENSHORST / Ph. LE DOZE (eds.), La norme sous la République romaine et le Haut Empire. Élaboration, diffusion et contournements, Bordeaux, p. 53-73. ENGELS, D. (2020), ‚Reinheit‘ als Herrscherqualität im ideologischen Narrativ der großen Universalherrscher der alten Welt: Rom, China, Indien und Iran, in B. ECKHARDT / C. LEONHARD / K. ZIMMERMANN (eds.), Reinheit und Autorität in den Kulturen des antiken Mittelmeerraumes, Baden-Baden, p. 19-54. FAMERIE, E. (1990), Appien, ses traducteurs français et Marx, in Acta Classica Univ. Scien. Debrecen. 26, p. 91-99. FERRARY, J.-L. (2015), Nature et périodisation du Principat, des juristes humanistes à Mommsen, in ID. / J. SCHEID (eds.), Il princeps romano: autocrate o magistrato? Fattori giuridici e fattori sociali del potere imperiale da Augusto a Commodo, Pavia, p. 3-34. FLECKER, M. et al. (eds.) (2017), Augustus ist tot – Lang lebe der Kaiser! Internationales Kolloquium anlässlich des 2000. Todesjahres des römischen Kaisers vom 20.–22. November 2014 in Tübingen, Rahden/Westf. GOODMAN, P. J. (ed.) (2018), Afterlives of Augustus, AD 14-2014, Cambridge. GROS, P. (2016), La sémantique sacrale du marbre blanc à Rome de la fin de la République à l’époque augustéenne, in V. GASPARINI (ed.), Vestigia. Miscellanea di studi storico-religiosi in onore di Filippo Coarelli nel suo 80° anniversario, Stuttgart, p. 238-252. HARDWICK, L. (2003), Reception Studies, Oxford. HÖLSCHER, T. (1987), Römische Bildsprache als semantisches System, Heidelberg. HURLET, F. (2015), Auguste. Les ambiguïtés du pouvoir, Paris. LE DOZE, Ph. (2020), Auguste. Prince républicain, Paris. MALCOVATI, E. (1962), Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti Operum fragmenta, quartum edidit E. M. (Corpus Scriptorum Latinorum Paravianum), Torino. PARMENTIER, E. / BARONE, Fr. (2011), Nicolas de Damas, Œuvre historique, Paris.

AUGUSTUS THROUGH THE AGES – INTRODUCTION

31

POIGNAULT, R. (ed.) (2009), Présence de Suétone. Actes du colloque de ClermontFerrand (25-27 novembre 2004), Clermont-Ferrand. ROCHEBOUET, A. (2011), Faits des Romains, in C. GALDERISI (ed.), Translations médiévales. Cinq siècles de traductions en français au Moyen Âge (XIe–XVe siècles), vol. 2.1, Turnhout, p. 190-195. ROUSE, R. H. (1979), Florilegia and Latin Classical Authors in Twelfth- and ThirteenthCentury Orléans, in Viator 10, p. 131-160. SAURON, J. (1993), La promotion apollinienne de l’acanthe et la définition d’une esthétique classique à l’époque d’Auguste, in L. PRESSOUYRE (ed.), L’acanthe dans la sculpture monumentale de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, Paris, p. 75-97. SCHEID, J. (2007), Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Hauts faits du divin Auguste. Texte établi et traduit par J. S., Paris SEGENNI, S. (ed.) (2018), Augusto dopo il bimillenario. Un bilancio, Milano. SMITH, Chr. (2009), The Memoirs of Augustus: Testimonia and Fragments, in ID. / A. POWELL (eds.), The Lost Memoirs of Augustus and the Development of Roman Autobiography, Swansea, p. 1-13. STROTHMANN, J. (2000), s.v. Herrscher, in Der Neue Pauly 14, col. 362-413. ULLMAN, B. L. (1932), Classical Authors in Certain Mediaeval ‘Florilegia’, in Classical Philology 27, p. 1-42. VISCOGLIOSI, A. (1996), Il tempio di Apollo in Circo e la formazione del linguaggio architettonico augusteo, Roma.

INAUGURAL LECTURE

D’un anniversaire à l’autre : Auguste et la notion de pax entre Fascisme et époque moderne GIOVANNI BRIZZI (Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna)

Abstract Much has changed in the seventy-six years between the two bimilliennial celebrations of Augustus’ birth and death (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14), with the latest anniversary being much less disturbing than the 1937 one which, as Ronald Syme pointed out, did coincide with the return of the Fascist ‘Empire’ “on the fatal hills of Rome”. However, around the character of Augustus a kind of apathy by the media seems to persist, one that not even Mussolini’s favour was able to shake. Television, but also cinema and comics have mostly ignored Augustus’ life and achievements, making instead some of his contemporaries (Caesar, Cleopatra, Anthony) the main protagonists, cursorily touching upon some of the events of his age (the battles of Philippi and Actium). Thus, what is left of this extraordinary politician? We propose one answer to this question: in recent times one of his most decisive ideological constructions, that of the pax Romana, has been re-evaluated.

J’ai accepté, pour ouvrir ce volume, de retracer autant que possible la vision que nos contemporains ont d’Auguste en suivant les apparitions du personnage dans les domaines du cinéma, de la télévision et de la bande dessinée 1. Que reste-t-il, dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, de cet artiste de la survie et de la dissimulation, de cet impitoyable « caméléon » – ainsi que l’appela l’Empereur Julien 2 –, du manipulateur d’hommes capable de faire de personnalités comme celle d’Agrippa les instruments de sa volonté, du politicien de génie qui élabora une construction idéologique qui lui survécut pendant des siècles ? Une recherche aussi soigneuse que possible sur Internet ne m’a permis de découvrir, au fond, que deux apparitions réellement significatives d’Auguste, 1

Je tiens à évoquer l’expérience personnelle de ma participation (aux côtés des regrettés Géza Alföldi et Robert Étienne, ainsi que d’Andrea Giardina et Angela Donati) à l’équipe scientifique chargée d’expertiser et corriger le scénario de Augusto, il primo imperatore (de Roger Young, scénario de Roger Young et Eric Lerner, produit par RAI Fiction/Lux Vide/Eos/Quinta Communications/France 2, Italia, 2003). 2 IUL., Symp. 309 A-B.

36

GIOVANNI BRIZZI

lesquelles, de surcroît, se limitent à chaque fois à un second rôle : d’une part dans Cleopatra, le célèbre film de 1963 confié d’abord à la direction de Rouben Mamoulian, ensuite à Joseph L. Mankiewicz ; d’autre part dans la série télévisée Rome produite par HBO, BBC et RAI fiction entre 2005 et 2007 dans les studios de Cinecittà et diffusée dans ses différentes versions (intégrale et expurgée) en Italie entre 2006 et 2009. De l’Octavien de Cleopatra, il reste surtout l’image – totalement fausse – du jeune homme hystérique hurlant « Guerre ! », qui transperce de la lance des Fétiaux la poitrine du malheureux ambassadeur égyptien en guise d’ager hostilis. On trouve un portrait plus complexe dans la série télévisée Rome. Aristocrate plein de morgue – alors qu’il était en réalité issu d’une famille équestre ! –, accusé, peut-être par complaisance envers les sujets scabreux, d’un penchant pour l’inceste tout à fait fictif, l’Octavien de Rome présente néanmoins quelques traits qui coïncident, ne fût-ce que partiellement, avec le personnage historique : le dévouement envers la famille, allié à l’observation austère des mœurs romaines, et une formidable adresse dans l’art de venir à bout de ses adversaires (bien que par le truchement de sicaires, et non par la perfidie politique, sournoise et raffinée, qui lui était propre). Quand j’ai entamé ma recherche, je dois avouer que je m’attendais à de nombreux résultats : face à la rareté des matériaux disponibles, j’ai dû radicalement revenir sur cette première opinion. Pour aborder notre sujet, il faut probablement commencer par traiter les changements de perspective qui ont eu lieu pendant les trois quarts de siècle qui viennent de s’écouler. Nous sommes, en 2014, au bimillénaire de la mort d’Auguste. Soixante-seize ans auparavant, on célébrait en Italie, de façon solennelle et emphatique, le bimillénaire de sa naissance, une célébration qui prévoyait d’importantes réalisations telles que la grande Exposition Augustéenne de la Romanité (Mostra Augustea della Romanità). On exaltait dans ce personnage une référence et un modèle fondamental pour le régime fasciste, qui mettait en parallèle, à travers les siècles, toute une série de coïncidences significatives : la guerre en Espagne et l’assainissement des marais pontins (les Paludi Pontine) dans le Latium ; la fondation, présentée comme providentielle, d’un État qui devait permettre la diffusion du christianisme, et les mesures religieuses fascistes assimilées à la réforme des mores. On souligna surtout la naissance de l’Empire italien qui, à ce moment-là précisément, venait se poser à nouveau sui colli fatali di Roma, sur les sept collines de Rome marquées par le destin (fatum). Pour proposer aux Italiens un modèle idéal auquel rapporter sa personne, Benito Mussolini avait longtemps hésité entre César et Auguste. Au départ, en effet, il s’était laissé séduire par la figure du premier. « L’assassinat de César », déclara le Duce 3, « a été un malheur pour l’humanité… J’aime César. Lui seul 3 Cité dans la traduction française de l’entretien de Mussolini avec l’écrivain et reporter Emil Ludwig (LUDWIG [1932b], p. 76). Pour la version italienne, cf. LUDWIG (1932a [2000]), p. 65 : « L’uccisione di Cesare fu una disgrazia per l’umanità… Io amo

AUGUSTE ET LA NOTION DE PAX

37

a réuni en lui la volonté du guerrier et le génie du sage. Au fond, c’était un philosophe qui considérait toutes choses sub specie aeternitatis. Oui, il aimait la gloire, mais son ambition ne l’empêchait pas d’être humain. » Capable de « réaliser l’équilibre entre les tendances opposées de Marius et de Sylla, qui pendant un demi-siècle avaient bouleversé la vie de Rome », César était aussi un exemple de clémence, vertu que Mussolini cherchait à revendiquer pour soimême. Et néanmoins, il finit par changer de modèle : il avait été, en particulier, défavorablement frappé par l’incapacité de César à percevoir le danger qui l’entourait, ce qui avait finalement décidé de son échec politique et causé sa mort tragique. Mussolini choisit Auguste comme modèle probablement aussi pour une autre raison. Dans la culture fasciste, la conception des rapports entre Rome et les peuples de l’Empire, qui avait oscillé longtemps entre deux pôles opposés, adopta enfin une position qui allait devenir « canonique » et dominante. D’après une série de savants tels que Pietro De Francisci, Mario Attilio Levi ou Aldo Ferrabino, il était nécessaire de maintenir une distinction entre le peuple guide et les peuples conquis ; ou bien, au cas où un rapport égalitaire se serait instauré, il aurait fallu acquérir sans cesse de nouveaux sujets. En outre, capable d’épuiser la force vitale des peuples italiques, la politique d’extension du ius ciuitatis aux provinciaux – comme celle mise en œuvre par César – fut perçue comme le punctum originis de la décadence qui mena finalement à la chute de l’Empire. Il y eut certes des voix discordantes, tel un Luigi Pareti 4 qui osa juger négativement la politique augustéenne d’ouverture prudente aux sujets extraitaliens ; mais ce point de vue finit par s’avérer nettement minoritaire. C’est en 1937 qu’un géant comme Ronald Syme – qui était sans doute déjà en train d’élaborer sa grande fresque sur la Roman Revolution, parue peu après, en 1939 5 – s’opposa, seul contre tous, à l’admiration presque unanime, même hors d’Italie, des spécialistes de l’Antiquité classique. À propos de la « révolution fasciste » et des manifestations des bimillénaires romains (on avait déjà célébré ceux de Cicéron et de César…), il n’avait pas hésité à manifester son scepticisme : « Ces anniversaires, qui ne sont que de simples accidents de notre système numérique, finissent souvent par s’avérer fastidieux et même nuisibles » 6. Cesare. Egli solo riuniva in sé la volontà del guerriero con l’ingegno del saggio. In fondo era un filosofo, che contemplava tutto sub specie aeternitatis. Sì, egli amava la gloria, ma il suo orgoglio non lo divideva dalla umanità. » La citation suivante est extraite d’un article paru dans le journal Il Popolo d’Italia du 6 juillet 1933 : « Realizzare l’equilibrio fra le opposte tendenze di Mario e di Silla, che sconvolsero per mezzo secolo la vita dell’Urbe ». Cf. B. Mussolini, Cesare, in SUSMEL (1958), p. 21-22 (citation p. 21). 4 PARETI (1938), p. 244-247. Cf. CAGNETTA (1979), p. 42-43. 5 SYME (1939). 6 « These anniversaries being mere accidents of our numerical system, may often prove to be tedious or noxious » : SYME (1937), compte rendu de ALLEN (1937) et de WRIGHT (1937).

38

GIOVANNI BRIZZI

Mais surtout, son intuition l’amena à exprimer une appréhension profonde singulièrement par rapport à l’imminent anniversaire augustéen : « un anniversaire mémorable et alarmant plane lourdement sur nous… Maintenant, toute l’Italie conspirera 7 pour saluer le Princeps qui était aussi Dux » 8. Syme fut bon prophète : après la conquête de l’Éthiopie et en coïncidence avec le bimillénaire augustéen (1937), Mussolini fit son choix et commença à se représenter comme le véritable alter ego d’Auguste. Selon la reconstruction élaborée par le régime, la « révolution » fasciste était en effet la prémisse idéale à la fondation de l’Empire, tout comme, dans une rétroprojection idéale, la « révolution » romaine qui avait donné naissance au Principat représentait – selon les termes de Luciano Canfora 9 – « le contexte politique et institutionnel, ainsi que le cadre de l’oikoumène romaine unifiée par Auguste dans la perspective trompeuse d’une pax universelle » (cette dernière devenant un projet ambitieux pour le fascisme aussi). Et ce n’est pas tout : si César avait poursuivi le dessein d’une fusion entre Italiens et provinciaux – ce qui, selon la vision enfin dominante, avait produit un mélange de races différentes qui avait pollué la majesté (maiestas) du peuple souverain –, Auguste, au contraire, par sa législation prudente, avait cherché à favoriser la composante italienne et avait fini, de fait, par incarner dans sa personne l’idéal même de l’Empire. Sic transit gloria mundi, si l’on peut dire. Trois quarts de siècle plus tard, cette image du Diui filius a disparu. La figure d’Auguste a quelque peu pâli, tandis que César, politiquement mis de côté par le fascisme, occupe à nouveau le devant de la scène. Le cinéma, considéré par Mussolini comme « l’arme la plus puissante », avait introduit triomphalement la propagande dans toutes les salles de projection grâce aux actualités et avait obligé l’Italie fasciste à se familiariser avec l’Antiquité. Fait surprenant, seuls deux films à sujets romains furent réalisés pendant les vingt années du fascisme : Nerone, une comédie interprétée au théâtre par Ettore Petrolini et tournée par Alessandro Blasetti (1930), et Scipione l’Africano de Carmine Gallone, tourné en 1936 à l’occasion de la campagne militaire d’Éthiopie (qui, de surcroit, fut un flop). Ni César, ni Auguste, donc, ne figurent parmi les protagonistes de la cinématographie fasciste. César, néanmoins, dont la fortune dans le cinéma d’outre-Atlantique ne s’était jamais démentie, a connu un renouveau, voire un véritable boom, au cinéma (en Italie et ailleurs) surtout depuis les années 1960. Il triomphe également dans la bande 7

Il est curieux que le terme anglais employé par Syme, to conspire, rappelle le mot latin coniuratio, typiquement augustéen, qui fut adopté ensuite par Mussolini pour définir le consentement de l’Italie à son égard. 8 « A memorable and alarming anniversary looms heavily upon us… Now all Italy will conspire to acclaim the Princeps who was also Dux » : SYME (1937). 9 CANFORA (1979), p. 7 : « il quadro politico-istituzionale, oltre che la cornice, dell’oikouméne romana unificata da Augusto nell’illusoria prospettiva di una pax universale. »

AUGUSTE ET LA NOTION DE PAX

39

dessinée : sans parler d’autres productions plus ou moins récentes, il suffira ici de citer d’Astérix, où Jules César est un véritable deutéragoniste par rapport aux Gaulois et constitue une figure si bien tracée que, paraît-il, la plupart des Français se représentent l’ancien dictateur avec les traits que lui ont donnés Uderzo et Goscinny 10. Au contraire, Auguste continue à être quelque peu sous-estimé. À ma connaissance, il n’existe qu’une bande dessinée qui lui soit entièrement consacrée, le numéro 30 de la série The Sandman, due à Neil Gayman et publiée par DC Comics entre 1989 et 1996. Bien que présentant leurs solutions comme des vérités secrètes, méconnues par la doctrine traditionnelle, les 75 numéros de cette série, cherchant peut-être à gagner un nouveau public à l’histoire (et notamment à l’histoire ancienne), donnent au fond un résultat appréciable. Tout récemment, Auguste a fait son apparition, comme second rôle important, dans la nouvelle série d’Alix 11. Mais il n’en reste pas moins vrai que l’un des plus grands protagonistes de l’histoire de Rome a été souvent négligé par les médias. Quelle en est la cause ? Je ne crois pas que cette situation soit due à une sorte de damnatio memoriae envers l’une des icônes du fascisme : César, qui reste très présent dans notre culture, put sembler, du moins dans un premier temps, presqu’autant compromis que lui sous ce régime. À mon avis, la différence de succès « médiatique » de ces personnages tient aux images différentes qu’ils ont laissées d’eux-mêmes. S’il est vrai que César est probablement le plus extraordinaire propagandiste de sa propre personne, Auguste aussi, à travers les auteurs de son entourage, a proposé à la postérité une image bien précise. Mais c’est le modèle de César – que Mussolini considérait déjà comme « un exemple de génie tourné vers l’action et à la conquête, l’emblème de la volonté et du dynamisme typiques des Romains » 12 – qui est gagnant. Face au grand public, le dictateur n’a jamais perdu son appeal. Concernant la clementia, Voltaire présente Auguste, peut-être non sans raison, comme un homme sans honneur, un monstre assoiffé de sang ; quant à Montesquieu, au chapitre XIII des Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, il l’a dépeint comme un méchant tyran 13. Ces fautes, néanmoins, pourraient lui être pardonnées. Mais ce que le public ne lui pardonne pas, c’est probablement son apparente médiocrité. Certes, les conquêtes réalisées sous ses ordres ont été immenses – l’Espagne du Nord-Ouest, les districts alpins, le Norique, la Pannonie, la Dalmatie –, et ne sont pas inférieures à celles de César. Certes, au nom du lien privilégié avec les MARTIN (1985) ; cf. JEHNE (2008). Sur le roman graphique de N. Gayman et la série Alix Senator, voir respectivement les contributions de A. KLĘCZAR et de J. GALLEGO dans ce volume. 12 GIARDINA (2000), p. 247 : « un esempio di genio volto all’azione e alla conquista, l’emblema della volontà e del dinamismo tipici dei Romani. » 13 Sur ces deux passages voir MASCKIN (1956), p. 34. Sur l’image d’Auguste dans les Considérations de Montesquieu, voir en outre MASTROROSA (2012). 10 11

40

GIOVANNI BRIZZI

dieux restaurés à travers sa personne, Auguste revendiqua pour soi les énormes acquisitions territoriales de son époque, en disant, dans le texte des Res Gestae, qu’elles avaient été réalisées aut a me, aut per legatos meos 14 ; et la différence entre le complément d’agent – a me – et le complément de moyen – per legatos meos – est extrêmement significative. En effet, souligne Auguste dans la suite de la phrase, tous ces exploits ont été réalisés auspiciis meis, et c’est cette investiture divine qui a assuré le succès de ses entreprises. Mais l’imaginaire populaire n’a jamais considéré ces victoires comme vraiment siennes ; les Modernes ont fini par oublier, à ce propos, l’énorme élargissement de l’Empire et par ne garder que le souvenir de son manque de bravoure sur les champs de bataille. Le Diui filius semble donc complétement dépourvu du halo romantique qui, au contraire, entoure son père adoptif. Auguste est, par définition et par nécessité, sinon par choix, l’homme de l’ombre, ou du moins celui qui agit le plus souvent par personne interposée. On peut probablement dire que tout ce que, au niveau populaire, on connaît sur Rome, on l’a, au fond, appris grâce à Hollywood 15 – ou à Cinecittà. Qu’est-ce qui survit de ce personnage immense auprès de ces Américains qui se sont si souvent proclamés – à tort ou à raison : la question doit être posée… – les héritiers de Rome et qui, à travers la magie d’Hollywood, se sont en réalité souvent célébrés eux-mêmes ? Ce qui reste de la façon la plus durable, en réalité, c’est le souvenir et la fascination de ce que l’empereur a contribué à définir grâce à son extraordinaire héritage politique, c’est à dire la notion d’empire. Aux Modernes, Auguste a laissé en héritage des idées très importantes, dont on trouve par exemple l’écho dans l’une des plus belles séries récentes de la télévision américaine : The West Wing, qui tire son nom de l’aile occidentale de la Maison Blanche, où se trouve le Bureau Ovale, siège des décisions politiques les plus importantes 16. Le troisième épisode de la première saison, intitulé A Proportional Response 17, livre une réflexion extrêmement significative sur le sens que peut avoir, de nos jours, le rôle de superpuissance impériale et sur le statut de citoyen de cet État face au reste du monde. Dans cet épisode, le président américain Bartlett, protagoniste de la série – qui, soit dit en passant, est un démocrate –, est confronté à une crise internationale dramatique : la Syrie a abattu un avion américain à bord duquel se trouvait AUG., RG 4. C’est le titre, à mon avis très bien choisi, d’un livre sur l’Antiquité et le cinéma : Tutto quello che sappiamo su Roma l’abbiamo imparato a Hollywood (COTTA RAMOSINO / COTTA RAMOSINO / DOGNINI [2004]). 16 Produite par la Warner Bros, cette série (intitulée en français À la Maison Blanche, en italien West Wing – Tutti gli uomini del Presidente) a été diffusée aux États-Unis pendant sept saisons entre le 22 septembre 1999 et le 14 mai 2006. Cf. http://www.imdb. com/title/tt0745591/. 17 Réalisation : Marc Buckland ; scénario : Aaron Sorkin ; première diffusion aux États-Unis le 6 octobre 1999. 14 15

AUGUSTE ET LA NOTION DE PAX

41

un ami personnel du président. Bartlett est donc face à un dilemme : quelle réponse donner au crime commis par l’État arabe ? La première réaction, impulsive, du leader américain serait de recourir à l’option militaire pour déchaîner de lourdes représailles contre les responsables. Face aux doutes exprimés par le Chief of Staff (chef de cabinet), ami personnel lui aussi, auquel il a demandé conseil, Bartlett répond en citant comme exemple précisément Rome : « Savais-tu », demande-t-il à son interlocuteur, « qu’il y a deux mille ans, un citoyen romain pouvait parcourir le monde connu sans craindre d’être agressé ? Il pouvait parcourir la Terre sans dommage, protégé par les seuls mots Ciuis Romanus sum – ‘Je suis un citoyen romain’. En tous lieux, on savait de façon certaine quel grand châtiment Rome infligerait si un seul de ses citoyens devait subir quelque dommage » 18. Le sens de cette affirmation est, sans aucun doute, évident en soi : la violence au détriment d’un citoyen de Rome n’entraînait pas seulement des conséquences d’ordre diplomatique, mais exposait le responsable – du moins d’après le protagoniste – à la certitude absolue d’encourir des représailles militaires terribles, une solution extraordinairement dissuasive puisque le résultat en était universellement connu. Le personnage de Bartlett, qui n’est que le dernier d’une longue série à suggérer le parallèle Rome/USA, ne doute pas que les États-Unis doivent agir de façon analogue à l’ancien Empire en se montrant prêts à déployer partout dans le monde l’arsenal de la première superpuissance planétaire pour défendre les droits de ses citoyens. En d’autres termes, quiconque porte attente à l’intégrité d’un ciuis Americanus devra s’attendre à une réaction militaire proportionnée. Bartlett semble pouvoir associer cette notion à celle, romaine, de bellum iustum (une notion dont on soulignera, entre parenthèses, qu’Auguste l’avait constamment revendiquée pour justifier ses propres guerres). À Bartlett, toutefois, le Chef de cabinet répond – et la réponse est, on le verra, extrêmement significative – qu’il n’est pas Charlemagne et qu’il ne peut donc pas agir comme s’il était la main de Dieu. Ce principe peut néanmoins être encore élargi, et quelques célèbres passages de l’hymne national des États-Unis le suggèrent indubitablement : « Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, | And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust’ » 19. Ces mots rappellent de manière frappante le commandement énoncé par Anchise au livre VI de l’Énéide (sur lequel nous reviendrons)  : Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento | … pacisque imponere morem, |

18 « Did you know that two thousand years ago a Roman citizen could walk across the face of the known world free of the fear of molestation? He could walk across the Earth unharmed, cloaked only in the protection of the words ciuis Romanus sum – ‘I am a Roman citizen’. So great was the retribution of Rome, universally understood as certain, should any harm befall even one of its citizens. » 19 « Conquérir nous devons, si notre cause est juste | et que notre devise soit : ‘En Dieu notre foi’. »

42

GIOVANNI BRIZZI

parcere subiectis et debellare superbos 20. Ce parallèle renvoie directement à l’idée même de pax Romana, qui est l’un des fondements essentiels de l’époque augustéenne et pratiquement son symbole. Le mos pacis que les Romains doivent imposer au monde a, néanmoins, des origines, des dimensions et un développement tout à fait particuliers, qu’il convient de préciser. La transformation qu’Auguste imposa à Rome profita du trouble qui avait frappé le monde entier face au phénomène des guerres civiles, incompréhensible pour les contemporains. Propres à se rallumer sans cesse comme par une combustion spontanée, celles-ci ont fini par susciter les interprétations les plus irrationnelles de la part des contemporains, qui étaient amenés désormais à en considérer la genèse comme le fruit d’un véritable maléfice, comme une sorte de fièvre, de folie furieuse ou de maladie mortelle, dont l’évolution dépassait les intérêts mêmes des factions opposées et survivait obstinément à la mort des différents adversaires. Pour citer Paul Jal, « l’idée qu’une sorte de malédiction pèse sur leur génération revient en leitmotiv chez la plupart des écrivains de la fin de la République » 21. Ainsi, l’auteur des Dirae déplore le miserum genus qui l’entoure 22 et Virgile les impia saecula qu’il doit vivre 23 ; quant à Cicéron, à propos de sa malheureuse époque, il en arrive à se demander casu … quo son monde est précipité dans le chaos 24. Comprenant l’inquiétude sans doute la plus authentique de son temps, le fils de César s’efforce donc d’offrir une réponse valable pour tous ses contemporains ; sur cette base, il organise la structure idéologique autour de laquelle tourne la notion même de saeculum Augustum. Profitant de cette émotion collective, la propagande augustéenne présente la naissance et l’évolution des guerres civiles comme le résultat d’une rupture de la pax deum – autre notion fondamentale –, c’est-à-dire la rupture du pacte en vertu duquel les dieux protégeaient le peuple romain. En prolongeant cette perspective, il était possible de mettre en œuvre une véritable palingénésie de l’État et d’imaginer la renaissance d’un monde tout entier à travers l’instauration d’un nouveau rapport avec les divinités. Le peuple romain était originellement aimé des dieux parce qu’il était pulcher, egregius, pius, sanctus atque magnificus 25, et donc capable de transmettre aux magistrats cum imperio, par le truchement des auspicia, sa vocation à la victoire. Il a désormais perdu son innocence par une faute impardonnable dont les guerres civiles furent la conséquence.

VERG., Aen. 6, 851-853 : « Toi, Romain, souviens-toi de diriger les peuples sous ton commandement … et d’imposer les usages de la paix, d’épargner ceux qui se sont soumis et de réduire par les armes les orgueilleux. » 21 JAL (1963), p. 233. 22 Dirae 2, 78. 23 VERG., Georg. 1, 468. 24 CIC., Ad fam. 5, 15, 3. 25 FLOR. 1, 34. 20

AUGUSTE ET LA NOTION DE PAX

43

Quand l’essence même de la res publica semble désormais irréparablement polluée par la corruption des guerres civiles, qui ont rendu vaines les vertus d’un peuple entier, quand tout semble perdu et la survie même de l’Vrbs mise en péril, voilà qu’apparaît un homme pour en restaurer la destinée compromise ; et par son intermédiaire, les dieux renouvellent leur lien avec Rome. Grâce à l’augurium Augustum, sous le signe duquel Rome est née 26, d’où le Prince également a tiré son nom, celui-ci a pu mettre fin au maléfice des guerres civiles et reconstruire l’État. Comme garantie de la protection sacrée reconstituée au profit de Rome, du renouvellement de la faveur céleste qui rendra à l’Vrbs la santé et la victoire, les dieux réclament toujours la virtus, c’est-à-dire l’ensemble complet et cohérent des qualités morales caractéristiques du Romain. Toutefois, les dieux ne demandent plus ces qualités à un peuple tout entier, mais les cherchent désormais dans un seul homme. Telle est précisément la uirtus qu’on célèbre dans ses différentes composantes sur le clupeus symbolique affiché en l’honneur d’Auguste au mur de la curia Iulia. Dorénavant, donc, la victoire militaire devra nécessairement passer par l’auspicium du Prince, le seul qui puisse obtenir la faveur des dieux. On peut donc dire que, dans la propagande augustéenne, le charisma du Prince, la grâce qu’il a auprès des dieux, est une caractéristique personnelle, qui remplacera désormais le charisma ethnique en vertu duquel, nous l’avons vu, les magistrats de la res publica recevaient l’imperium 27. Au moins sous cette forme, l’idée que le salut du monde dépend de l’entremise irremplaçable d’un homme est, en réalité, tout à fait nouvelle. Au-delà de la propagande, la situation politique d’une république mourante imposait évidemment une « révolution » totale, dont Auguste avait parfaitement compris la nécessité et qui fut par la suite très bien définie par Tacite : comme discordantis patriae remedium (« remède aux discordes de la patrie ») 28, omnem potentiam ad unum conferri pacis interfuit (« on dut, dans l’intérêt de la patrie, confier la toute puissance à un seul ») 29. Dans ce passage, nous sommes évidemment en présence d’une signification bien précise du mot pax, entendu comme paix sociale, comme concorde à l’intérieur de l’État. Mais il ne s’agit là que d’une des deux significations possibles. Lié par sa racine même à des mots – et donc à des notions – tels que paciscor ou pactum, le terme indique en latin le produit d’une convention, d’un pactum bien précis, celui qui a été noué avec les dieux. C’est probablement pour cette raison que les premières attestations – fournies par la documentation numismatique – d’une personnification allégorique de Pax ne datent que de la seconde moitié VARR., RR 3, 1, 1-4. Rappelons, à ce propos, la querelle entre Caton l’Ancien et Scipion l’Africain sur la nature collective et non individuelle du pouvoir : cf. BRIZZI (2014), p. 70. 28 TAC., Ann. 1, 9. 29 TAC., Hist. 1, 1, 1. 26 27

44

GIOVANNI BRIZZI

du Ier siècle av. J.-C. 30, et sont donc de peu antérieures à la dédicace de l’Ara Pacis Augustae (9 av. J.-C.), par laquelle l’empereur instaura le premier culte réel de cette très importante déesse. Mais on peut aller encore un peu plus loin. Ce nouveau pacte avec les dieux finit par s’identifier (et par identifier la nouvelle pax deum) avec la pax Augusti. La pax Romana – qui représente la ligne imposée par l’Vrbs à l’oikoumène, à la terre habitée, ou du moins à l’orbis romain – devient un lien étendu idéalement à tous les peuples et représente de facto la projection terrestre d’un véritable ordre cosmique destiné à s’imposer sur l’oikoumène En assurant à la terre toute entière la pax Romana, l’Vrbs devient pour ainsi dire le vecteur et la courroie de transmission vers tous les peuples du rapport originel avec les dieux, rétabli grâce aux vertus d’un homme. L’extension du concept sous-entend cependant que tous ceux qui en refusent les règles refusent en même temps la pax deum. Le respect de celle-ci sépare – selon la définition cicéronienne de la pax ciuilis – 31 le monde de la barbaria de celui de la culture (« Kulturwelt ») 32, le seul qui compte. Ainsi l’orbis est-il défini – comme l’a dit Andreas Alföldi – 33 comme res Romana ou res nullius. La notion de pax Romana tend à assurer la tranquillité en conjurant l’alternative d’une série infinie de bella omnium inter se gentium 34. Elle est fondée sur la condition nécessaire d’une puissance militaire écrasante et même absolue. Avec la naissance d’un saeculum, d’un ordre cosmique fondé sur la notion même de pax, Auguste préfigure néanmoins une condition destinée à s’imposer de façon absolue et totale, sans être désormais limitée au contexte civil. Janus Quirinus, le dieu de la communauté des Quirites, s’élève au niveau de symbole d’une notion qui se reflète dans la topographie même de la Ville augustéenne : point central d’un vaste ensemble architectural qui constituait le noyau de la Ville, le temple de Janus, dont on ouvrait les portes pour commencer les guerres, marquait le passage idéal entre l’aedes de Mars Vltor et le temple de Pax. Ainsi la paix d’Auguste était-elle une pax … parta uictoriis 35, fruit d’une série de guerres d’ultio (et donc de bella iusta), qui peuvent cependant être motivées par une provocation quelconque, par un uulnus même insignifiant envers la maiestas populi Romani. Revenons donc, à ce propos, à la formule d’Anchise. Comme l’a souligné Wolfgang Haase, auteur de l’un des études les plus intelligentes sur ce thème, les superbi de l’Énéide « sind … Angreifer aller Art, superbi NichtAngreifer » 36. Mais si l’on applique cette logique jusqu’au bout, en présence 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Cf. CRAWFORD (1974), p. 491, n. 480/24 ; SUTHERLAND (1984), p. 79, n. 476. Par ex. CIC., Phil. 7, 8 ; 7, 23. SEN., Dial. 1, 4, 14. ALFÖLDI (1952), p. 5. TAC., Hist. 4, 74, 1 et 3. AUG., RG 13. HAASE (1977), p. 742.

AUGUSTE ET LA NOTION DE PAX

45

d’un ordre cosmique dont la pax Romana est le reflet terrestre, toute forme de pensée libre ou de résistance, fût-elle de principe, face à un pouvoir qui ne tolère plus aucune forme de volonté politique autonome, finit inexorablement par prendre aux yeux des Romains l’aspect d’une agression. Il faut donc préciser ce qui se cache sous la phrase de Virgile : dans un monde qui, selon la construction idéologique augustéenne, a été sauvé par le nouveau pacte avec les dieux et transformé en véritable appendice de Rome, la seule pax possible est précisément celle de Rome, une projection de la volonté de l’Vrbs. Peuvent donc être considérés comme superbi, au moins en puissance, non seulement les agresseurs réels et déclarés, mais tous ceux qui, de quelque façon, refusent de se considérer comme subiecti et d’obéir en tous points à Rome. Les points communs entre la pax Romana énoncée par la formule d’Anchise et la pax Americana qui a été maintes fois évoquée ces dernières années à propos de plusieurs guerres déchaînées pour l’imposer, sont objectivement très nombreux. Comme pour le monde romain, la nouvelle notion politique américaine naît de la rupture de la balance of power, de l’équilibre durable des forces entre les États-Unis et la puissance soviétique, qui s’appuyait sur la dissuasion mutuelle. Tout comme la pax Romana, la pax Americana 37 se fonde sur une pseudo-suprématie éthique : le pactum avec les dieux, dont Rome est le véritable volant terrestre, contraignant pour l’oikoumène tout entière, trouve son parallèle dans l’orgueil de l’Amérique pour un way of life qu’il faut exporter à tout prix, y compris par la force. Par ailleurs, il est difficile de ne pas rapprocher des superbi de Virgile les « États voyous » de la propagande américaine récente. Comme on l’a souligné plus haut, la série américaine West Wing expose cependant une différence fondamentale entre la Rome augustéenne et la réalité de la superpuissance d’aujourd’hui : alors que le premier empereur se déclarait explicitement l’intermédiaire entre les dieux et les hommes, le président américain doit absolument éviter de « se prendre pour Charlemagne ». C’est là une différence souhaitable et qu’il convient de respecter, même si l’on se souvient qu’un des derniers locataires de la Maison Blanche proclamait que ses décisions suivaient l’inspiration divine. Selon la définition formulée par une partie au moins de la doctrine fasciste, les impérialismes – tous les impérialismes – sont considérés comme de grandes associations de nature économique, commerciale, industrielle et monopoliste, ne visant qu’à la satisfaction d’un désir de grandeur ambigu et injustifié, soutenues par une domination militaire obligée de compter exclusivement sur la force, voire sur la violence, mais dépourvues du seul soutien valable : une justification morale. D’après cette théorie, la politique impérialiste ne vise donc Pour une comparaison entre la Rome antique et les USA, cf. REINHOLD (1984) ; VANCE (1989) ; RICHARD (1994). 37

46

GIOVANNI BRIZZI

qu’à la conquête de domaines toujours nouveaux, qui cependant ne seront jamais assimilés : ils seront agrégés par un facteur de force quelconque, mais non incorporés au peuple-État. En revanche, est défini comme « impérial tout peuple qui a été capable de donner au monde un enseignement politique valable pour tous » 38. Pour Rome on devrait donc parler d’orientation impériale, dont la nature est d’associer les populations assujetties, plutôt que d’orientation impérialiste, qui tend à les absorber et à les annuler ; cette dernière a parfois été invoquée par une partie de la critique fasciste pour stigmatiser quelques moments de l’histoire républicaine. Ici réside la différence – de taille – avec les États-Unis, qui a été mise en évidence dans quelques-unes des grandes productions cinématographiques contemporaines. Dans l’acception originelle, plus noble, du terme latin, l’imperium est à la fois une faculté et un don, celui de servir d’intermédiaire à une volonté divine qui voit dans le bellum iustum une possibilité sans alternative. Bien qu’incapables de saisir ce distinguo – hélas, très subtil… –, les États-Unis ont, depuis leur origine, considéré Rome et son empire avec un mélange d’attraction et d’hostilité. Les pères fondateurs des USA avaient adopté une République romaine profondément idéalisée comme modèle pour le jeune État qu’ils étaient en train de créer. En outre, la figure de George Washington fut souvent présentée comme le symbole même des grandes vertus républicaines : patriotisme et frugalité, esprit de sacrifice et ruse tactique. En même temps, contrairement à ce que l’on a dit naguère, on regardait la Rome impériale – dépravée, impérialiste et persécutrice des Chrétiens – comme la fille dégénérée de la République. Elle constituait pour ainsi dire un contremodèle de l’organisation sociale rêvée et s’apparentait plutôt aux formules des régimes européens décadents, par rapport auxquels les pères fondateurs voulaient prendre leurs distances. Mais l’ambigüité de la superpuissance actuelle fut également dévoilée lorsque l’Amérique a dû à son tour se mesurer au défi d’un empire, encore embryonnaire (et, peut-être, aujourd’hui déjà partiellement en crise…). À son tour, elle a dû faire face aux accusations d’impérialisme et de despotisme qui ont été lancées à l’encontre de plusieurs expéditions américaines récentes en terre étrangère. L’Empire a donc souvent été considéré comme le mal absolu, une conception qui a fini par trouver un écho dans quelques superproductions récentes. Je me limiterai ici à quelques exemples seulement. La courbe tracée à travers le cycle de la Guerre des étoiles 39 est celle d’un processus dégénératif grave : comme LEVI (1936), p. 78 : « imperiale ogni popolo che ha saputo dar al mondo un insegnamento politico universalmente valido. » 39 Pour ce qui concerne la comparaison entre le Galactic Empire de Star Wars et l’Empire romain (et, de manière générale, Rome), cf. surtout BONADELLA (1987), p. 227237 ; WINKLER (2001) ; KEEN (2013), p. 126-138 (une section entière sur The Roman Republic, Augustus and the Sith Lord Emperor). 38

AUGUSTE ET LA NOTION DE PAX

47

à Rome, la nouvelle forme politique est engendrée par une longue guerre civile, capable de provoquer la crise des institutions républicaines. Par une sorte de mimesis tout à fait significative, le visage du pouvoir est, au fond, celui, difforme, qui se cache sous le masque sinistre du Seigneur Vador. Quant à l’empereur, sa première véritable apparition évoque précisément – ce qui ne manque pas de suggestion, me semble-t-il – quelques portraits d’Auguste capite uelato. Mentor et âme damnée du même Dark Vador, celui-ci est à son tour doté d’une sacralité négative : il est pour ainsi dire un « pontife noir », qui est même, et de loin, plus puissant et plus mauvais que son ancien élève. Concernant l’idée d’Empire, il y a au moins un autre film dont il faut brièvement parler ici. Citons le texte qui ouvre un des péplums les plus célèbres de ces dernières années, Gladiator, paru en 2000 40 : « Au faîte de sa gloire, l’Empire romain était vaste, il s’étendait des déserts de l’Afrique au nord de la Bretagne. Un quart de la population du monde vivait et mourait en subissant la loi des Césars. L’hiver de l’an 180 apr. J.-C., les douze ans de campagne de Marc Aurèle contre les tribus barbares de Germanie s’achevaient. Un seul bastion empêchait encore la victoire romaine et la promesse de paix à travers l’Empire » 41. La métaphore est transparente. Derrière l’État romain, désormais proche de son triomphe définitif, se cachent évidemment les États-Unis, qui pensent être désormais la seule superpuissance survivante, arbitre des équilibres planétaires et à la veille d’imposer au monde une emprise au nom de laquelle l’imprévoyant Francis Fukuyama annonce publiquement et sans hésitation l’imminence de « la fin de l’histoire » 42. C’est donc bien à Auguste que la doctrine politique des États-Unis semble avoir emprunté, en l’adaptant, la notion de pax Romana. Et pourtant, la consécration de l’Amérique ne va pas avoir lieu. Lors de la sortie de Gladiateur, onze ans après la chute du mur de Berlin et – songeons-y – un an seulement avant la tragédie des Twin Towers, les États-Unis se trouvent en réalité au milieu du gué. Les auteurs mêmes, comme s’ils pressentaient en quelque sorte les événements, sont amenés à s’interroger sur l’arrogance d’un pouvoir que sa grandeur même risque de corrompre. Tout comme Rome, Sur lequel, pour le rapport avec l’histoire romaine, cf. WINKLER (2004). Pour une relecture du point de vue de ses rapports avec la notion de pax Americana, cf. WILSON (2002). 41 Sous-titre de la version française. Version originale : « At the height of its power the Roman Empire was vast, stretching from the deserts of Africa to the borders of Northern England. Over one quarter of the world’s population lived and died under the rule of the Caesars. In the winter of 180 A.D., Emperor Marcus Aurelius’ twelve-year campaign against the barbarian tribes in Germania was drawing to an end. Just one final stronghold stands in the way of Roman victory and the promise of peace throughout the Empire. » 42 FUKUYAMA (1992). Cet essai de Fukuyama est le développement d’un article précédent intitulé The End of History? (FUKUYAMA [1989]). 40

48

GIOVANNI BRIZZI

l’Amérique est menacée par sa croissance également incontrôlée, laquelle engendre corruption et despotisme. Dans le film, les dialogues, notamment, trahissent cette perception : « Il était autrefois un rêve qui s’appelait Rome, que l’on ne pouvait que murmurer », dit Marc Aurèle. « Toute autre chose qu’un murmure la faisait disparaître. Elle était si fragile. Et j’ai peur qu’elle ne puisse survivre à l’hiver » 43. On notera que l’allusion au rêve évoque singulièrement le célèbre discours prononcé par Martin Luther King à Washington le 28 août 1963 : « I have a dream. » Des mots qui furent prononcés trois mois avant la fin d’un autre rêve, alimenté par John Fitzgerald Kennedy, qui fut tué à Dallas le 22 novembre de la même année et que l’imaginaire collectif américain avait souvent identifié à César 44. La phrase de Marc Aurèle met en évidence la nature du rêve évoqué, que le protagoniste Maximus se chargera enfin de réaliser. Certes, d’après la conclusion du film, pour pouvoir survivre, Rome devra revenir aux valeurs de la République, qui sera à nouveau triomphalement restaurée grâce à la mort de Commode et au sacrifice – toujours nécessaire – d’un héros, Maximus lui-même. Ce final est, à mon avis, une métaphore proposant un avertissement et un rappel aux États-Unis eux-mêmes, exhortés à récupérer leurs idéaux génétiques, peut-être partiellement brouillés par les ivresses idéologiques récentes des « neocon » décidés à imposer au monde entier la pax Americana impériale. Après les Twin Towers, les États-Unis n’ont peut-être pas renoncé complètement à l’empire. Cependant, conscients de n’être plus une superpuissance isolée, ils ont été apparemment obligés, si l’on en croit leurs prises de position récentes, de faire montre d’une nouvelle flexibilité, pour ainsi dire « clintonienne », dans un monde multipolaire. Bien qu’on puisse légitimement se demander s’ils ont pleinement récupéré l’esprit « républicain » de leurs origines, invoqué par Gladiateur, ils ont en tout cas été forcés de ramener leurs ambitions à des proportions quelque peu différentes. Bibliographie ALFÖLDI, A. (1952), The Moral Barrier on Rhine and Danube, in E. BIRLEY (éd.), The Congress of Roman Frontier Studies 1949, Durham, p. 1-16. ALLEN, B. M. (1937), Augustus Caesar, London. ARANGIO-RUIZ, V. et al. (1938), Augustus. Studi in occasione del bimillenario Augusteo, Roma. BONADELLA, P. (1987), The Eternal City. Roman Images in the Modern World, Chapel Hill.

43

Dialogue de la version française. Version originale : « There was once a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish… It was so fragile. And I fear that it will not survive the winter. » 44 Pour le rapport des États-Unis avec César : WYKE (2012).

AUGUSTE ET LA NOTION DE PAX

49

BOTTAI, G. (1937), L’Italia di Augusto e l’Italia di oggi, in Accademie e Biblioteche d’Italia 11, p. 207-222. BRIZZI, G. (1997), Storia di Roma. 1. Dalle origini ad Azio, Bologna, p. 438-442. BRIZZI, G. (2014), L’imperium dal senatus populusque al princeps, in M. P. GUERMANDI / S. URBINI (éds.), Imperituro. Renovatio imperii. Ravenna nell’Europa ottoniana, Bologna, p. 61-72. CAGNETTA, M. (1975), Il mito di Augusto e la ‘rivoluzione’ fascista, in Quaderni di storia 3, p. 139-181. CAGNETTA, M. (1979), Antichisti e impero fascista, Bari. CANFORA, L. (1979), Presentazione, in M. CAGNETTA, Antichisti e impero fascista, Bari, p. 5-7. CANFORA, L. (2015), Augusto figlio di Dio, Roma / Bari. CASTIGLIONI, L. et al. (1939), Augusto, Padova. Conferenze Augustee nel bimillenario della nascita (1939), Milano. COPPOLA, G. (1937a), Augustum saeculum, in Il Popolo d’Italia, 7 gennaio 1937, p. 13 COPPOLA, G. (1937b), La Spagna di Augusto, in Il Popolo d’Italia, 7 settembre 1937, p. 7. COTTA RAMOSINO, L. / COTTA RAMOSINO, L. / DOGNINI, C. (2004), Tutto quello che sappiamo su Roma l’abbiamo imparato a Hollywood, Milano. CRAWFORD, M. H. (1974), Roman Republican Coinage, Cambridge. CURTIUS, G. (1934), Mussolini und das antike Rom, Köln. FERRUA, A. (1940), compte rendu de Conferenze Augustee (1939), in Civilità Cattolica 1, p. 221-225. FUKUYAMA, F. (1989), The End of History?, in The National Interest, Summer 1989, p. 3-18. FUKUYAMA, F. (1992), The End of History and the Last Man, New York, 1992 (trad. fr. La fin de l’histoire et le dernier homme, Paris, 1992 ; trad. it. La fine della storia e l’ultimo uomo, Milano, 1992). GIARDINA, A. (2000), Ritorno al futuro: la romanità fascista, in A. GIARDINA / A. VAUCHEZ, Il mito di Roma. Da Carlo Magno a Mussolini, Roma / Bari, p. 212296. HAASE, W. (1977), ‘Si uis pacem, para bellum’. Zur Beurteilung militärischer Stärke in der römischen Kaiserzeit, in J. FITZ (éd.), Limes. Akten des XI. Internationalen Limeskongresses (Székesfehérvár, 30.8 – 6.9.1976), Budapest, p. 721-755. JAL, P. (1963), La guerre civile à Rome. Étude littéraire et morale, Paris. JEHNE, M. (2008), Asterix und Caesar, in K. BRODERSEN (éd.), Asterix und seine Zeit. Die große Welt des kleinen Galliers, 3., durchgesehene Auflage, München, p. 58-71. KEEN, T. (2013), I, Sidious. Historical Dictators and Senator Palpatine’s Rise to Power, in N. R. REAGIN / J. LIEDL (éds.), Star Wars and History, Hoboken, p. 125-149. LEVI, M. A. (1936), La politica imperiale di Roma. Pref. di C. M. DE VECCHI DI VAL CISMON, Torino. LUDWIG, E. (2000 [1932a]), Colloqui con Mussolini. Trad. it. par T. GNOLI, Milano. LUDWIG, E. (1932b), Entretiens avec Mussolini. Traduit de l’allemand par R. HENRY, Paris. MARTIN, P.-M. (1985), L’image de César dans Astérix ou comment deux Français sur trois aujourd’hui voient César, in R. CHEVALLIER (éd.), Présence de César. Hommage au doyen M. Rambaud. Actes du colloque des 9-11 décembre 1983, Paris, p. 459-481. MASCKIN, N. A. (1956), Il principato di Augusto. Trad. it. de R. ANGELOZZI, II, Roma.

50

GIOVANNI BRIZZI

MASTROROSA, I. G. (2012), Le visage d’Auguste chez Montesquieu  : les manifestations ambiguës du pouvoir autocratique dans la Rome antique, in P. HUMMEL (éd.), De Fama. Études sur la construction de la réputation et de la postérité, Paris (Philologicum), p. 79-99. Mostra Augustea della Romanità. Catalogo (1937), a cura di G. QUIRINO GIGLIOLI, Roma (Appendice bibliografica e indice, Roma, 1938). PAIS, E. (1938), Roma dall’antico al nuovo impero, Milano. PARETI, L. (1938), I due imperi di Roma, Catania. PARIBENI, R. (1939), Grandi ricorrenze cronologiche dell’anno 1937, in CASTIGLIONI et al. (1939), p. 3-21. REINHOLD, M. (1984), Classica Americana. The Greek and Roman Heritage in the United States, Detroit. RICHARD, C. J. (1994), The Founders of the Classics, Cambridge Mass. SUSMEL, E. / SUSMEL, D. (éds.) (1958), Opera omnia di Benito Mussolini, XXVI, Dal patto a quattro all’inaugurazione della provincia di Littoria (8 giugno 1933-18 dicembre 1934), Firenze. SUTHERLAND, C. H. V. (1984), The Roman Imperial Coinage. Volume I. Revised Edition. From 31 BC to AD 69, London. SYME, R. (1937), Augustus and Agrippa, in The Classical Review 51, 5, p. 194-195. SYME, R. (1939), The Roman Revolution, Oxford. VANCE, E. (1989), America’s Rome, New Haven. WILSON, R. (2002), Ridley Scott’s Gladiator and the Spectacle of Empire. Global/Local Rumblings inside the Pax Americana, in European Journal of American Culture 21, 2, p. 62-73. WINKLER, M. M. (2001), Star Wars and Roman Empire, in ID. (éd.), Classical Myth and Culture in the Cinema, Oxford, p. 273-290. WINKLER, M. M. (2004), Gladiator. Film and History, Hoboken. WRIGHT, F. A. (1937), Marcus Agrippa, Organizer of Victory, London. WYKE, M. (2012), Caesar in the USA, Berkeley / Los Angeles / London.

THE MEMORY OF AUGUSTUS IN ANTIQUITY

Alcune osservazioni sulla memoria postuma di Augusto nelle immagini MATTEO CADARIO (Università degli Studi di Udine)

Abstract This paper aims to investigate the posthumous memory of Augustus in the images from his death and consecratio to the third century. It examines the new statues depicting Diuus Augustus, the imperial portraits that, having suffered the damnatio memoriae, have been reworked as (Diuus) Augustus, and the ancient images of Augustus relocated in new monuments. The best available evidence belongs to the Julio-Claudian family groups. Afterward, the end of the dynasty transformed the relationship with the images of Augustus, because the ruling emperors, looking for political legitimacy, could refer to him only as the first emperor and not as an ancestor. During the second century, Augustus was often part of the civic memory of Greek cities like Ephesus and Perge. The later evidence dates from the third century AD, and belongs to the cult of the Diui, whose series began with Augustus himself in order to sum up the glorious history of Rome during a time of crisis.

1. Introduzione Nei primi anni del regno di Adriano, Svetonio (Diu. Aug. 7.1), che allora era il segretario ab epistulis dell’imperatore, provò a ingraziarsi il sovrano donandogli un’antica imaguncula in bronzo da lui identificata con un ritratto infantile di Gaius Octauius, che a quel tempo avrebbe portato il cognomen Thurinus come a suo dire si leggeva nell’iscrizione. Adriano apprezzò molto il dono, o almeno così sostiene il donatore, tanto da collocare l’imago ricevuta tra i Lares del suo cubiculum affidando così ad Augusto la protezione del suo sonno 1. Il curioso aneddoto non riguarda solo il collezionismo romano di memorabilia illustri e le strategie cortigiane di conquista del favore imperiale. In primo luogo avere tra i propri Lari gli inspirational portraits dei predecessori doveva essere una sorta di divertissement tipicamente imperiale, visto che anche nel larario di Alessandro Severo è segnalata la presenza dei diui, sebbene la scelta fosse limitata agli ottimi (SHA Seu. Al. 29 e 31), tra i quali mi sentirei quindi di includere di nuovo lo stesso Augusto. Ma soprattutto la composizione del proprio Larario doveva 1

Sul culto imperiale nei Larari: FISHWICK (1991), p. 532-533.

54

MATTEO CADARIO

avere per un imperatore anche un significato connesso all’attualità politica. L’interesse di Adriano per le immagini di Augusto era concreto (nel 118 d.C. egli firmava i documenti con un anello sigillo raffigurante il caput Augusti come sappiamo dagli Acta fratrum Arualium 2) e può essere spiegato alla luce del tentativo più ampio di giustificare con il richiamo alle celebri istruzioni finali del princeps la difficile decisione di abbandonare le conquiste traianee ritenute meno solide. Probabilmente l’inserimento nel larario della statuetta donata da Svetonio ribadiva ancora una volta la validità del modello augusteo nella gestione stessa di un impero i cui fines non potevano essere estesi oltremisura, come invece avrebbero voluto i nostalgici di Traiano 3. Possedere l’immagine di Augusto non era quindi per Adriano solo un omaggio al fondatore del principato, ma un atto denso di significato. Il mio intento sarà d’ora in poi quello di ricomporre nel tempo e nei contesti una breve storia delle immagini del Divo Augusto 4 nella convinzione che esse siano fondamentali per comprendere la vitalità della memoria del fondatore dell’impero. Nel corso del lavoro ho preso in considerazione le seguenti categorie di testimonianze: – l’aggiornamento di statue di Augusto al suo nuovo status divino, mediante l’integrazione della corona radiata in metallo, attestato almeno in un ritratto di Ottaviano della collezione Grimani (Fig. 1) 5. – la rilavorazione retrospettiva dei ritratti degli imperatori damnati come nuove immagini del Divo Augusto. La scelta di Augusto come soggetto della rilavorazione rispondeva a finalità sia ideologiche sia pratiche, visto che, per esempio, la trasformazione del volto di Caligola in Augusto era più semplice di quella in Claudio 6. – l’ampia produzione postuma di immagini del princeps 7, che almeno nel caso delle basi di statue a lui dedicate è pari a circa un quarto del totale 8. – la conservazione di antiche statue di Augusto dopo il rinnovamento di un edificio o il loro spostamento in collocazioni diverse da quella originale. Queste nuove collocazioni non avevano sempre un valore simbolico, ma potevano essere imposte anche dal rischio di incorrere nella lex Iulia de 2 BIRLEY (1997), p. 96; CIL VI 32374 ab. Probabilmente è l’anello che aveva usato anche Traiano, citato a sua volta negli Acta. 3 Cfr. GALIMBERTI (2007), p. 90-93. In generale su Augusto e Adriano, cfr. anche CALANDRA (1996), p. 47-60. 4 Sulla divinizzazione di Augusto, cfr. la recente sintesi di KOORTBOJIAN (2013). 5 BOSCHUNG (1993), p. 23-24 e 109; CADARIO (2011a), n. 4.7, p. 260. Cfr. BERGMANN (1998), p. 111-112. 6 Sulla damnatio: VARNER (2004), e in particolare p. 30-33 per la rilavorazione come Augusto dei ritratti di Caligola. 7 Sui cicli statuari giulio-claudi: ROSE (1997); BOSCHUNG (2002); CESARANO (2014). 8 Cfr. HØJTE (2005), p. 133.

LA MEMORIA POSTUMA DI AUGUSTO NELLE IMMAGINI

55

Fig. 1. Testa di Ottaviano trasformata nel Divo Augusto dall’aggiunta della corona radiata. Venezia, Museo Archeologico Nazionale (da CADARIO [2011a]).

maiestate che proteggeva anche le statue dei diui 9. Senza dimenticare il fatto che lo statuto delle immagini erette ad Augusto vivo era ambiguo: se nel 15 d.C. il proconsole di Bitinia M. Granio Marcello si salvò dalla condanna per aver sostituito un ritratto di Augusto con quello di Tiberio, nel senatus consultum de Pisone Patre del 20 d.C., Pisone risultò condannato dal Senato anche per aver violato il numen Augusti non rispettando le imagines quae, antequam in deorum numerum refferetur, ei r[elatae Eck] erant 10. 2. Tiberio L’età tiberiana fu ovviamente cruciale non solo perché la consecratio determinò la produzione immediata di nuove statue per onorare il neo divo, ma perché si scelse spesso la continuità, ossia di inserire anche le immagini del Divo Augusto nei nuovi gruppi statuari eretti negli edifici pubblici, senza dunque scindere la sua figura ormai consecrata da quelle degli altri membri della Domus Augusta. 9 10

KOORTBOJIAN (2013), p. 156 e 182-183; ECK et al. (1996), p. 186. KOORTBOJIAN (2013), p. 156-158.

56

MATTEO CADARIO

La possibilità concreta di una diversa gestione della presenza postuma delle statue del Divo Augusto è testimoniata da almeno due coppie di iscrizioni di età tiberiana, una ad opera degli Augustales di Ercolano e l’altra della boulé di Elaea in Misia, che associavano il Divo Augusto al “collega” Divo Giulio, isolando così i membri divini della gens 11. Soprattutto nel caso di Ercolano la collocazione affrontata delle due basi nella sede del Collegio serviva a costruire una relazione quasi “privata” tra i due divi e gli Augustali stessi. Tuttavia, una serie di fattori, tra cui la scarsa attualità del Divo Giulio e l’esigenza di illustrare concretamente la linea di successione mostrando insieme Augusto, Tiberio e i suoi eredi, fece verosimilmente preferire la collocazione delle immagini del nuovo Divo nell’ambito di gruppi comprendenti i familiari e successori designati. La decisione di procedere in questo modo fu immediata e nel 15 d.C. il console C. Norbanus Flaccus riunì nel Circo Flaminio le statue del Divo Augusto e della Domus Augusta 12, collegando inoltre simbolicamente la dinastia al percorso del trionfo in modo da rimarcare il carisma dei suoi membri nel momento della successione. Poco dopo, mediante l’esibizione in un sacrarium domestico a Tomi di un gruppo di imagines del Divo Augusto, Livia, Tiberio e dei suoi eredi Ovidio (Pont. 4.9) si premurò infatti di dimostrare di aver pienamente compreso quale fosse la compagnia migliore per la nuova divinità 13. Sulla scelta di riunire Augusto ai suoi eredi influirono però anche le élites locali che avevano a loro volta bisogno di ribadire la legittimità del nuovo assetto del potere, talora anche a costo di sfidare la nota ostilità di Tiberio per gli onori divini. Nella celebre iscrizione che descrive nel dettaglio i Kaisareia di Gytheion è infatti menzionata la commissione delle eikones graptai, ossia dei ritratti dipinti, del Divo Augusto, di Livia, e dello stesso Tiberio, destinati a essere esposti insieme nel teatro 14. Le modalità dell’onore riservatogli non piacquero troppo a Tiberio, ma l’iniziativa dimostra proprio il bisogno locale di sottolineare i legami familiari del nuovo Divo e l’importanza della presenza di Livia quale trait d’union tra costui e il successore. Questo aspetto è ribadito anche in altri gruppi di età proto-tiberiana come l’edicola che a Forum Clodii nel 18 d.C. accolse insieme almeno le statue del Divo Augusto, Tiberio e Livia 15. 11 ROSE (1997), p. 23; 91, n. 14 (Ercolano) e 172, n. 111 (Elaea, dove la presenza del Divo Augusto si deduce però da quella di Livia); LAIRD (2015), p. 118-122. Su Ercolano cfr. anche CESARANO (2014), p. 55-56. In generale sulla presenza di Cesare: HEKSTER (2015), p. 171. 12 Cfr. ROSE (1997), p. 107-108, n. 35. 13 CADARIO (2019). 14 Ibid., n. 74, p. 142-144; KANTIRÉA (2007), p. 66-68; LO MONACO (2009), p. 189197 e 605-607; CAVALIERI (2007), p. 220-221. Il rito includeva anche Germanico e Druso Cesare nella sequenza dei giorni festivi, ma non cita loro immagini. 15 ROSE (1997), p. 88-89, n. 11 e cfr. KOORTBOJIAN (2013), p. 172-176, che pensa anche a una prima fase augustea, alla successiva dedica delle tre statue del Divo Augusto, di Livia e di Tiberio, alle quali furono probabilmente aggiunte anche le statue di Germanico e Druso Minore.

LA MEMORIA POSTUMA DI AUGUSTO NELLE IMMAGINI

57

Fig. 2. Sesterzio raffigurante il Divus Augustus Pater (22/3 d.C.) (da KOORTBOJIAN [2013]).

Il gioco di specchi tra l’immagine di Tiberio e quella del Divo Augusto si coglie molto bene nei primi anni di regno, quando la Victoriola divenne per esempio un attributo condiviso (mi riferisco alla spada di Tiberio del 16/7 d.C. e al simulacrum del Divo Augusto posto nel tempio di Tarraco nel 22 d.C.). Tuttavia in due importanti monumenti pubblici Urbani, noti grazie alle monete, restano ben visibili alcune significative differenze di rango: nella statua togata del Divus Augustus Pater eretta da Tiberio e Livia nel 22 d.C. presso il teatro di Marcello, il divo è radiato, impugna un ramo d’olivo e siede in trono (Fig. 2) 16, mentre nella statua sempre togata di Tiberio eretta dalle civitates Asiae nel forum Iulium per gli aiuti concessi dopo il terremoto del 17 d.C., l’imperatore liba (ossia compie un atto di culto e non lo riceve) e siede su una più semplice sella curule, mostrando così uno status inferiore 17. Questa distinzione era rimarcata a seconda dei contesti. L’allestimento del tempio di Roma e di Augusto di Leptis Magna costituisce un esempio chiaro di TORELLI (1982), p. 68-70. Cfr. KOORTBOJIAN (2013), p. 211. Sulla corona radiata BERGMANN (1998), p. 107-118. Per gli assi con la stessa legenda: HEKSTER (2015), p. 46-47. 17 HERTEL (2013), p. 127-128. 16

58

MATTEO CADARIO

Fig. 3. Cammeo raffigurante Livia con in mano il busto del Divo Augusto. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum (da ZWIERLEIN-DIEHL [2008]).

come almeno in uno spazio cultuale si potesse e dovesse comunque evidenziare il rango superiore dell’immagine del Divo Augusto anche in un edificio che presentava la famiglia imperiale al completo. Adottando una attenta distinzione topografica tra simulacra e ornamenta applicata già nel Pantheon di Agrippa (D. C., 53.27.3; 54.1.1) 18, l’acrolito raffigurante il Divo Augusto seduto fu posto insieme a quello di Roma nella cella del tempio e separato fisicamente dalle statue, sempre sedute e acrolitiche, ma più piccole, di Tiberio e Livia, collocate verosimilmente nel pronao, e ancora di più dagli eredi Germanico e Druso Minore onorati fuori dal tempio in quadrigis 19. La basilica di Veleia costituisce invece l’esempio di come la collocazione in un edificio pubblico civile potesse spingere verso un allestimento indifferenziato delle statue togate raffiguranti il Divo e i suoi eredi, ai quali in questo caso si aggiunse il patrono locale Pisone. Senza la dedica iscritta al Divo Augusto sarebbe stato difficile stabilire con certezza la datazione tiberiana o augustea del primo allestimento dell’arredo scultoreo dell’edificio 20. Anche un altro gruppo datato nel 18 d.C., ossia la base semicircolare dell’acropoli di Lindos, mostrava, almeno a giudicare 18 Su tale distinzione: ESTIENNE (2010). Sul Pantheon, vedi da ultimo LA ROCCA (2015), p. 45-46. 19 Per la ricostruzione del gruppo: BOSCHUNG (2002), p. 8-21 e MUSSO (2008), p. 175-177. Cfr. anche ROSE (1997), p 182-183, n. 125; CESARANO (2014), p. 70. 20 Per il ciclo di Veleia accetto la messa in fase di BOSCHUNG (2002), p. 25-34. L’attribuzione della statua di Livia alla prima fase del ciclo è discussa e incerta. Vedi anche ROSE (1997), p. 121-126, n. 50; CESARANO (2014), p. 67 e l’edizione di SALETTI (1968).

LA MEMORIA POSTUMA DI AUGUSTO NELLE IMMAGINI

59

dai tenoni, le statue del Divo Augusto, Tiberio, Germanico e Druso Minore senza che la collocazione evidenziasse distinzioni di rango 21. Un’altra novità fu costituita dall’illustrazione diretta del culto del Divo Augusto, come si vede almeno in un cammeo che rappresenta Livia con in mano un busto del marito divinizzato (Fig. 3) 22, di cui era diventata sacerdotessa e che nel testamento l’aveva adottata, inserendola così nella gens Iulia. La scena ricorda anche l’importanza che nel culto dei divi andavano assumendo sia le donne della famiglia imperiale 23 sia le imagines (busti perlopiù), che offersero a cittadini e sudditi una formula meno costosa di espressione della propria lealtà. 3. Gli altri giulio-claudi Passando al breve regno di Caligola, caratterizzato comunque da un evento centrale per il culto del Divo Augusto come la consacrazione nel 37 del suo templum novum eretto tra Palatino e Capitolium 24, Augusto continuò probabilmente a essere inserito nei gruppi scultorei 25. L’età claudia è più ricca di informazioni: la rilavorazione dei ritratti di Caligola come Divo Augusto, opportunamente richiamato nel momento della prima grave crisi dinastica, è attestata almeno una decina di volte e anche a costo di reduplicare l’immagine del Divo, come avvenne nel teatro di Caere 26. Claudio puntava a legittimarsi rifacendosi proprio ad Augusto e il tentativo si coglie anche nella decisione di sostituire il volto di Alessandro Magno con quello del predecessore in due tabulae realizzate da Apelle (Alessandro incoronato da Vittoria e accompagnato dai Dioscuri e Alessandro trionfante con Furor in catene) ed esposte nel forum Augusti, forse nell’aula del Colosso, dove si trovava la statua colossale del Genius Augusti 27. La scelta di inserire le imagines del Divo Augusto al posto dei ritratti del sovrano macedone sarebbe coerente con il particolare legame con l’imperatore che l’aula del Colosso doveva svolgere all’interno del complesso forense. Inoltre l’immagine di Furor (o della personificazione della Guerra) incatenato era considerata una metafora della fine delle guerre civili, un fatto che giustificava ancora di più l’inserimento del ritratto di colui che vi aveva posto fine 28. Un 21 ROSE (1997), p. 154-155, n. 89; BOSCHUNG (2002) p. 105, n. 34.3; HØJTE (2005), p. 283, Tiberius 125. 22 Mi riferisco al cammeo viennese raffigurante Livia in trono, assimilata a Cibele, cfr. ZWIERLEIN-DIEHL (2008), n. 8, p. 126-133. 23 Sul tema: FREI-STOLBA (2008). 24 Vedi Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, I, p. 145-146, Roma, 1983, s.v. Augustus, diuus, templum (nouum); aedes (M. TORELLI). 25 Vedi BOSCHUNG (1993), p. 74-75. 26 Sulle rilavorazioni dei ritratti di Caligola come Augusto: BOSCHUNG (1993), p. 79-80; VARNER (2004), p. 31-33; 225-229 e n. 1.12 per Caere. 27 PLIN., H. N. 35.93. Cfr. CELANI (1998), p. 141-145. Per il Genius Augusti: cfr. LA ROCCA (2015), p. 69-70. 28 SERV., ad Aen. 1.294.

60

MATTEO CADARIO

interesse analogo per le circostanze dell’ascesa al potere di Augusto si riconosce nei rilievi Medinaceli, anch’essi datati in età claudia, forse di provenienza campana e derivanti verosimilmente da un modello Urbano: essi costituiscono un esempio impressionante di riflessione/compendio postumo della biografia di Augusto, dalla battaglia di Azio alla sua consecratio, passando per il trionfo. Il grande spazio concesso alla rappresentazione di Azio dimostra che la guerra civile occupava un posto di primo piano nel racconto postumo della “vita” del fondatore dell’impero 29. L’atto più significativo di Claudio nell’ambito del culto imperiale fu però la divinizzazione di Livia nel 42 d.C.: una statua seduta della Diua Augusta, rappresentata in un dupondio dello stesso anno, affiancò dunque il Diuus Augustus nel suo tempio, determinando così l’aggiornamento dei suoi onori pubblici in tutto l’impero 30. Nel cosiddetto Augusteo di Rusellae, ritengo che la coppia di statue sedute posta ai lati dell’abside raffigurasse i due diui e riproducesse il nuovo assetto del tempio Urbano, mentre il già esistente Caligola era stato tempestivamente trasformato in Claudio 31. E non escluderei che anche la coppia di statue sedute di Augusto e Livia provenienti dalla Stoà Basiliké di Efeso sia stata dedicata in età claudia, visto che pone sullo stesso piano Augusto e Livia 32. Infine, verso il 45 d.C., nei pressi del già citato tempio di Roma e di Augusto a Leptis Magna, fu eretto ex nouo un gruppo di statue raffiguranti il Divo Augusto e la Diva Augusta insieme a Tiberio, Claudio e a Messalina, reinterpretando così la storia della domus Augusta in funzione dell’ascesa dell’imperatore regnante 33. Un secondo gruppo analogo, formato da statue sedute, fu poi eretto presso i rostri e potrebbe essere tardo-claudio 34. Alcuni cicli statuari del tempo suggeriscono in effetti la volontà di associare direttamente l’imperatore in carica al fondatore dell’impero. Il famoso monumento voluto dagli Aenatores alle pendici del Palatino vide in età claudia una strategica ridislocazione delle statue e l’inserimento di una nuova immagine di Claudio proprio di fianco a quella più antica di Augusto, cui seguirà l’altrettanto strategico inserimento di Nerone tra lo stesso Divo Augusto e Claudio 35. Una SCHÄFER (2013), p. 321-323. Sul tema si veda anche LANGE (2016), p. 171-194. OSGOOD (2011), p. 56-58; RIC I2, Claudius 101. Per la statua di Livia: ROSE (1997), p. 118; POLLINI (2012), p. 88-89. 31 Su Rusellae: LIVERANI (2011), p. 15-31; BOSCHUNG (2002), p. 69-71; CESARANO (2014), p. 85-86; sul ritratto di Caligola/Claudio, cfr. VARNER 2004, n. 1.20, p. 230-231. 32 Per la datazione in età giulio-claudia, cfr. ROSE (1997), p. 175; BOSCHUNG (2002), p. 66-67. 33 Il gruppo è documentato dalle basi iscritte: BOSCHUNG (2002), p. 18-21; CESARANO (2014), p. 90. 34 Le statue sedute sarebbero quattro, due maschili del Divo Augusto e di Claudio, e due femminili di Livia e un torso acefalo: BOSCHUNG (2002), p. 9-20 e 18-21. Non vanno però dimenticate le lacune nella documentazione: cfr. MUSSO (2008), p. 181. 35 BOSCHUNG (2002), p. 118-119; KOORTBOJIAN (2013), p. 186-188. 29

30

LA MEMORIA POSTUMA DI AUGUSTO NELLE IMMAGINI

61

simile intenzione di accostare il nuovo imperatore al fondatore della dinastia può essere individuata anche nei gruppi di nuova realizzazione: per esempio a Luni dall’area circostante il probabile sacello degli Augustali sorto intorno alla metà del I sec. d.C. nella zona sud del foro provengono una testa radiata di Augusto e una statua frammentaria di Claudio 36, mentre a Ercolano, nella grande Porticus un tempo nota come Basilica, sono state trovate le statue bronzee del Divo Augusto in Hüftmantel e del successore completamente nudo 37. La differenziazione dei tipi statuari ribadiva la gerarchia esistente tra l’immagine del diuus e quella dell’imperatore regnante. In altri casi prevalevano la celebrazione più o meno ampia della dinastia: nel cosiddetto rilievo di Ravenna era probabilmente raffigurata l’intera Domus Augusta, mentre sull’arco che fu eretto dai Cyziceni per ricordare la vittoria di Claudio in Britannia accanto al Divo Augusto e allo stesso Claudio, c’era anche Tiberio 38. Stupisce invece lo scarso numero di ritratti di Augusto attribuibili all’età neroniana 39, soprattutto alla luce dell’esplicita proclamazione di Augusto quale modello, presente già nel primo discorso tenuto da Nerone in Senato nel 54 d.C. (Suet., Nero 10.1), confermata dal richiamo alla discendenza diretta da lui nella titolatura epigrafica ufficiale (abnepos Diui Augusti in ILS 228) e illustrata per esempio anche in un celebre cammeo di San Pietroburgo in cui il giovane principe era raffigurato tra i divi Augusto e Livia 40. L’importanza di Agrippina accanto a Nerone nelle immagini all’inizio del suo regno si spiega anche con il fatto che solo per suo tramite il giovane imperatore poteva definirsi un pronipote del Divo Augusto, come dimostra anche il celebre aureo che nel 55 d.C. raffigurò madre e figlio sul dritto e i due divi Claudio e Augusto insieme sulla stessa quadriga trainata da elefanti 41. Negli anni iniziali del principato neroniano fu anche stabilito quel solido legame tra la vittoria partica e il ritorno dell’età dell’oro che comportò un ampio ricorso a iconografie create in età augustea 42. Fin dal 55 d.C. la dedica di una statua (effigies) del giovane sovrano SACCHI (1998). BOSCHUNG (2002), p. 119; LAHUSEN / FORMIGLI (2007), S1, p. 16-19 (Divo Augusto); S7, p. 70-72 (Claudio); CESARANO (2014), p. 79; LAIRD (2015), p. 223-234. Secondo quest’ultima ricostruzione nell’edificio si trovavano quindi ben tre statue del Divo Augusto, quella in bronzo conservata, quella in marmo seduta posta nella cella e quella dedicata da Mammius Maximus in un ampio gruppo familiare. 38 ROSE (1997), p. 171-172, n. 110; BOSCHUNG (2002), p. 157, n. I. 66; HØJTE (2005), p. 282, Tiberius 116. L’arco imitava probabilmente quello costruito dallo stesso Claudio a Roma lungo la uia Lata. Per il rilievo di Ravenna si veda BOSCHUNG (2002), p. 195-196. 39 In BOSCHUNG (2002), p. 76 è proposta una cronologia tardoclaudia-neroniana per due soli ritratti, quello di Veio dei Musei Vaticani (p. 182, n. 175) e un altro di Mantova (p. 162, n. 127). 40 CHAMPLIN (2003), p. 139. 41 RIC I², Nero, n. 6-7. 42 CADARIO (2011b), p. 176-189. 36 37

62

MATTEO CADARIO

nel tempio di Marte Ultore (Tac., Ann. 13.8.1.) dimostrò che l’entourage di Nerone aveva scelto la strada dell’imitatio Augusti per celebrare la sconfitta dei Parti e questo percorso continuò fino al dies aureus dell’incoronazione di Tiridate a Roma nel 66 d.C. (D. C. 63.2-6; Suet., Nero 13; Plin., H. N. 33.54; Tac., Ann. 16.23-24) che fu celebrato nelle statue loricate attingendo proprio all’iconografia della submissio partica creata in età augustea 43. Tuttavia, per quanto negli spazi pubblici l’immagine del Divo Augusto dovesse essere ormai onnipresente e quindi non ci fosse probabilmente una grande necessità di nuovi ritratti 44, resta il fatto che in età neroniana non sembra esservi stato un particolare interesse per la produzione di gruppi raffiguranti insieme ex nouo i due imperatori 45. In ogni caso l’emulazione del Divo Augusto da parte di Nerone si manifestò diversamente, ossia soprattutto tramite l’adozione nella propria immagine di riferimenti solari e apollinei a lui ispirati 46, tra i quali spicca la corona radiata, questa sì usata eccezionalmente da vivo e come elemento di raffronto con il Divo, per esempio nelle tetradracme coniate ad Alessandria tra il 56/7 e il 60 d.C. e poi nella monetazione urbana 47. Nerone voleva essere raffigurato con gli attributi del Divo Augusto più che essere rappresentato con lui. Il ciclo dei rilievi del Sebasteion di Afrodisia, conservato in gran parte e completato a poco a poco a partire dall’età tiberiana fino a quella neroniana, offre oggi una sorta di compendio dell’età giulio-claudia 48. Nei pannelli il Divo Augusto compare sicuramente solo una volta in un rilievo assegnato alla fase tiberiana e collocato in corrispondenza dell’entrata nel complesso 49. Il divo è nudo e affiancato da un trofeo e da una Vittoria ed è accompagnato dall’aquila che segnala probabilmente la sua consacrazione (Fig. 4). Per quanto non si sia ritenuto necessario integrarne di nuovo la figura in età claudia e neroniana, la sua memoria continuò a essere evocata nel monumento tramite le iconografie scelte dai successori: il rilievo illustrante il potere terra marique di Claudio è infatti costruito con un repertorio encomiastico rigorosamente augusteo e anche il ritratto di Claudio è influenzato dalla fisionomia di Augusto, dal quale lo allontana solo la disposizione della frangia 50. Lo stesso vale per il celebre rilievo raffigurante Nerone incoronato da Agrippina che nel mondo micrasiatico non poteva non ricordare il gruppo raffigurante Roma e Augusto nel loro tempio CHAMPLIN (2003), p. 221-229. Cfr. CADARIO (2011b), p. 176-177. Non mancò invece l’aggiornamento strategico di cicli più antichi, come nel già citato caso degli Aenatores, cfr. CESARANO (2014), p. 93. 45 Cfr. HEKSTER (2015), p. 172. Per ritratti tardo-claudi o neroniani: BOSCHUNG (1993), p. 76. 46 Sull’argomento: CHAMPLIN (2003), p. 112-135. 47 BERGMANN (1998), p. 157-164 e 172-181. Sull’imitazione del Divo Augusto: CHAMPLIN (2003), p. 143. 48 Sul Sebasteion: SMITH (2013). 49 Ibid., C2, p. 128-131. Augusto era poi rappresentato nel Propileo di accesso come Zeus Patroos Sebastos Kaisar: ibid., p. 57-58. 50 Ibid., C29, p. 171-173. 43

44

LA MEMORIA POSTUMA DI AUGUSTO NELLE IMMAGINI

63

Fig. 4. Divo Augusto accanto a un trofeo, dal Sebasteion di Afrodisia. Afrodisia, Museo Archeologico (da SMITH 2013).

pergameno 51. Augusto, anche quando non raffigurato direttamente, restava dunque sempre il modello per eccellenza da imitare. Per concludere il discorso sull’età giulio-claudia, vanno spese alcune parole su ritratto e tipi statuari adottati 52. Nelle immagini del Divo Augusto non si nota una particolare evidenziazione del suo nuovo status divino, salvo nei casi in cui egli indossava la corona radiata. Esigenze di legittimazione spingevano verso una accentuazione della somiglianza con l’imperatore in carica, particolarmente 51 52

Ibid., A1, p. 74-78. Sull’immagine postuma di Augusto, cfr. VIERNEISEL / ZANKER (1979), p. 64-75.

64

MATTEO CADARIO

evidente per esempio nei ritratti da Lanuvio e Fondi, datati al tempo di Caligola 53 e in alcuni ritratti attribuiti all’età di Claudio (Ercolano) 54. Inoltre la tendenza alla colossalità connessa al nuovo status cultuale delle immagini portò spesso a un’impostazione più squadrata e massiccia del volto. Cito come esempio più antico il ritratto acrolitico tiberiano di Leptis Magna, poi quelli dalla stoà basiliké di Efeso, da Veio, dall’esedra in summa cauea del teatro di Volterra, probabilmente commissionato dal Cecina amico personale di Claudio e console nel 42 d.C., e dal teatro di Vicenza 55. Restano eccezionali sia la costruzione di un’immagine eroizzata, come nel ritratto di Ariccia oggi a Boston 56, sia l’adozione di una fisionomia più realistica, come sull’altare dedicato al Divo Augusto a Praeneste in cui il princeps mostra le guance segnate dai solchi labionasali 57. Quanto ai tipi statuari la statua di Veleia mostra che l’habitus togato, perfetto per una basilica, non fu abbandonato immediatamente, ma la scelta del costume giovio, che aveva peraltro già precedenti augustei, prevalse rapidamente almeno in templi e teatri, sia nello schema stante (Arles, Tessalonica, Ravenna, Ercolano), sia in quello seduto (Minturno, Efeso, Caere, Leptis e Tarraco) 58. 4. I Flavi Dopo la morte di Nerone il numero di nuove statue o ritratti del Divo Augusto calò drasticamente, ma non cessò la cura per le sue immagini. Nel caso di una dinastia come quella flavia priva di legami diretti con i Giulio-Claudi la ricerca di una legittimazione dovette passare infatti attraverso una duplice strategia, attenta a rifiutare da un lato l’esempio negativo di Nerone e dall’altro a evocare quello positivo dei “buoni imperatori” giulio-claudi, ossia il Divo Augusto e, in parte, il Divo Claudio. La cosiddetta Lex de imperio Vespasiani citava del resto come precedenti legittimi Augusto, Tiberio e Claudio, omettendo proprio Caligola e Nerone 59. Una plastica rappresentazione di questa esigenza sono gli effetti della damnatio memoriae sulle statue di Nerone, spesso e volentieri trasformate proprio in Augusto, un cambiamento utile a legittimare il nuovo assetto istituzionale 60. La volontà di costruire nuovi rapporti interdinastici 53 BOSCHUNG (1993), p. 115, n. 16 (Fondi) e p. 158, n. 117 (Lavinio). Cfr. VIERNEISEL / ZANKER (1979), p. 70 (Fondi). 54 BOSCHUNG (1993), p. 75-76. 55 BOSCHUNG (1993), p. 182, n. 175 (Veio); p. 186, n. 186 (Efeso); p. 191, n. 203 (Vicenza); p. 192-193, n. 205 (Volterra). 56 Per una proposta di datazione adrianea: FITTSCHEN (1991), p. 151. Resta comunque più probabile la datazione in età claudia in VIERNEISEL / ZANKER (1979), p. 69 o al tempo di Caligola in BOSCHUNG (1993), p. 146, n. 80. 57 BOSCHUNG (1993), p. 138, n. 63. 58 BALTY (2007). Cfr. KOORTBOJIAN (2013), p. 211-216. 59 Cfr. per esempio VENTURINI (2009). 60 Sulle rilavorazioni dei ritratti di Nerone come Augusto: BOSCHUNG (1993), p. 80-82; VARNER (2004), p. 61-63 e 238-240.

LA MEMORIA POSTUMA DI AUGUSTO NELLE IMMAGINI

65

è documentata anche dalla dedica di alcuni monumenti onorari Urbani che mescolavano le due famiglie, nei quali manca però per ora la testimonianza esplicita della presenza di immagini di Augusto. Va però rilevato l’interesse per alcuni importanti monumenti onorari augustei come la statua nuda del princeps posta su una colonna rostrata dopo un bellum navale (Azio?). Essa è riprodotta in un denario di Vespasiano in cui appare anche aggiornata dalla presenza della corona radiata 61. Inoltre, in seguito, Domiziano fece spostare ben quattro colonne rostrate augustee in Capitolio 62. I Flavi furono del resto particolarmente attenti nell’uso della restituzione di antichi tipi monetari in funzione legittimante 63. Bisogna però rivolgersi alle province per trovare una prova del bisogno delle élites locali di collegare i primi due Flavi al Divo Augusto. Senza dimenticare i tanti edifici (ricordo il Sebasteion di Afrodisia, l’Augusteo di Narona, il Metroon di Olimpia, la Porticus/“Basilica” di Ercolano) nei quali le statue di Vespasiano e Tito furono aggiunte ai complessi preesistenti centrati sulle immagini del princeps divinizzato 64, vi sono infatti almeno due casi di gruppi realizzati ex nouo e raffiguranti il Divo Augusto insieme agli imperatori flavi. Nel pagus numidico di Thibilis un edificio aperto sul foro e identificato con la Curia ospitò dal 74 d.C. la dedica da parte del collegio dei Larenses di una serie di busti raffiguranti il Divo Augusto, Vespasiano (al centro), Tito e in origine forse anche Domiziano 65. Al foro della colonia di Tarraco appartenevano probabilmente le due basi di statua dedicate alla fine del I sec. d.C. al Divo Vespasiano e al Divo Augusto da M. Acilius Nymphodotus. L’uso della pietra locale di Santa Tecla ne conferma la datazione negli anni ottanta del secolo, quando queste cave furono sfruttate intensamente per i programmi urbanistici flavi 66. È interessante anche il caso di Conimbriga, dove il foro fu completamente ricostruito in età flavia, quando la città ricevette da Vespasiano lo ius Latii. I ritratti giulio-claudi esistenti furono riusati nell’arredo scultoreo del nuovo foro e una statua togata colossale del Divo Augusto, alta tre metri, forse rilavorata da un precedente Caligola in età claudia (cfr. la statua di Agrippina Maggiore) fu inserita nell’edicola esistente lungo i portici del foro, dove è stata rinvenuta anche la base con indosso i calcei (Fig. 5) 67. L’aspetto dell’edificio, Cfr. BERGMANN (1998), p. 110. Sulle colonne rostrate: PALOMBI (1993), p. 321-332. 63 Furono ripresi i coni di tutti i giulio-claudi, eccetto naturalmente Caligola e Nerone, cfr. HEKSTER (2015), p. 56. 64 In generale: ROSSO (2007). Per la statua di Vespasiano a Narona: MARIN et al. (2004), n. 8, p. 94-102 e Rosso (2009), n. 95, p. 492. Per il Metroon: HITZL (1991). Per Ercolano: BOSCHUNG (2002), p. 119-125. 65 ROSSO (2007), p. 135. 66 Ibid., p. 134; DEPPMEYER (2008), p. 79, n. 28. Sulle cave: ÀLVAREZ PÉREZ (2009), p. 82-83. 67 Sul ritratto: BOSCHUNG (2002), p. 125, n. 43.1; RODRIGUES CONÇALVES (2007), p. 74-77. Sul contesto e sulle altre sculture di un “ciclo” scultoreo giulio-claudio: 61 62

66

MATTEO CADARIO

Fig. 5. Statua di Augusto dal foro di Conimbriga con indicazione della collocazione (da RODRIGUES CONÇALVES 2007).

simile a una facciata templare, doveva probabilmente ribadire il carattere cultuale del colosso, mettendolo in relazione con il tempio centrale. L’attenta conservazione della statua fa pensare che questa facesse ormai parte dell’identità civica. Anche il cosiddetto Sebasteion di Kalindoia in Macedonia, ossia il santuario dedicato a Zeus, Roma e Augusto in età augustea, fu rinnovato in età flavia, al tempo di Domiziano. L’aula dedicata specificamente al culto imperiale era quella alpha, dove si trovava probabilmente l’agalma offerto ad Augusto nel I sec. a.C. e dove nel 79 d.C. fu aggiunta almeno una statua di uno degli imperatori flavi 68. Dall’aula gamma, costruita ex nouo nel rifacimento, provengono CORREIA (2013). Sulla fase flavia del centro e sul culto di Mars Augustus: CORREIA (2009). 68 Sul Sebasteion si veda ADAM-VELENI (2008).

LA MEMORIA POSTUMA DI AUGUSTO NELLE IMMAGINI

67

Fig. 6. Ritratto del Divo Augusto dal Sebasteion di Kalindoia (da ADAM-VELENI 2008).

invece il ritratto e la dedica di Flavia Mysta che fece ricostruire l’edificio poco prima dell’86 d.C., e una statua loricata di Augusto di dimensioni superiori al vero, il cui ritratto può essere attribuito proprio alla sua committenza (Fig. 6) 69. Possiamo quindi distinguere in questo caso la progressiva integrazione dei nuovi divi in una sala destinata al loro culto dalla costruzione del nuovo spazio in cui erano protagonisti i committenti, che scelsero di farsi rappresentare insieme all’imperatore per cui il Sebasteion era stato realizzato in origine. 5. Traiano e Adriano Dopo la fine della dinastia flavia, Nerva si affrettò a coniare una serie di monete raffiguranti il Divo Augusto e in particolare una con la legenda Diuus Augustus Pater 70, quanto a Traiano, molto interessato piuttosto all’esempio di Cesare, 69 Ibid., n. 17-18; 20, p. 142-144 e 147 sulla statua del Divo Augusto e n. 22, p. 150151 sul ritratto di Flavia Mysta (K. SISMANIDES). 70 RIC I2, Nerva 146. Non si dimentichi che Nerva fu poi inumato nel Mausoleo di Augusto. Un ritratto di Domiziano da Saragozza fu probabilmente rilavorato come Augusto: VARNER (2004), p. 260-261, n. 5.4.

68

MATTEO CADARIO

è significativo il rilancio di culto e iconografie legate a Mars Ultor, forse per sottolineare le “sconfitte” attribuite a Domiziano in Dacia e da lui vendicate 71. Di Adriano si è detto. Le lettere di Plinio il Giovane (Ep., 10.8.9) permettono inoltre di far luce sulla realizzazione di nuovi spazi dedicati al culto imperiale usando statue già esistenti. Plinio chiese infatti il permesso prima a Nerva e poi a Traiano di trasferire nel municipio di Tifernum le statuae principum che aveva ereditato insieme a una villa costruendo per loro un templum e integrandole con nuove immagini del Divo Nerva e di Traiano stesso 72. In linea di massima però a partire dal II sec. d.C. il culto imperiale andò spesso organizzandosi intorno a templi dedicati al singolo imperatore divinizzato, mettendo così in disparte la continuità con il fondatore dell’impero. Le testimonianze più stimolanti mostrano comunque la vitalità e l’attualità della figura di Augusto nella costruzione dell’identità civica. Nel 103/104 d.C. una lunga iscrizione efesina attribuisce all’eques C. Vibio Salutare l’istituzione di una processione che dall’Artemision attraversava tutta la città, passando per il teatro e svolgendo una funzione quasi didascalica per gli Efesini, ai quali mostrava i maggiori dèi ed eroi locali. Vibio Salutare dedicò ben 29 immagini (eikones) in argento. Oltre alle statue di Artemide sfilavano anche quelle del fondatore mitico Androclo e del rifondatore Lisimaco, e insieme a loro c’era anche spazio per il Divo Augusto, la coppia regnante Traiano e Plotina, e le personificazioni delle istituzioni romane (Senato e Popolo Romano) e civiche (le personificazioni del Demos, di Boulé, Gerousia e delle tribù cittadine). Augusto, unico selezionato tra gli imperatori del passato, sfilava nella parte “romana” della processione, ossia dopo Traiano, Plotina e le personificazioni del Senato e del Popolo Romano e insieme alla tribù Sebaste, a lui intitolata. Il princeps era quindi considerato ormai parte integrante della storia della città, che ospitava del resto molte sue statue e anche feste in suo onore 73. Una situazione analoga si riconosce anche a Perge in età adrianea. Mi riferisco alle dieci basi decoranti l’arco a tre fornici dedicato da Plancia Magna (122/123 d.C.) nei pressi della porta ellenistica e raffiguranti i divi Augusto, Nerva e Traiano, l’imperatore regnante Adriano (loricato) e quattro tra principesse e imperatrici (Marciana, Matidia, Plotina e Sabina) insieme ad Artemide e Tyche 74. La serie degli imperatori, con il solo Augusto a convalidare il ruolo della nuova dinastia, dialogava con l’arredo scultoreo della corte ovale che si apriva subito alle spalle della porta e comprendeva le immagini della famiglia di Plancia Magna, come a Kalindoia, e quelle degli eroi fondatori locali, come a Efeso. Eroi greci, élites locali e imperatori romani erano così riuniti nello stesso spazio. Inoltre dal MIGLIORATI (2003), p. 76. DEPPMEYER (2008), p. 186-188. 73 Sulla processione delle statue efesine: ROGERS (1991), p. 93-94 sull’immagine di Augusto. 74 SLAVAZZI (2010), p. 277; BRAVI (2011), p. 306-310. 71 72

LA MEMORIA POSTUMA DI AUGUSTO NELLE IMMAGINI

69

Fig. 7. Statua identificata con il Divo Augusto dalla palestra delle Terme Sud di Perge (da ÖZGÜR [2008]).

portico settentrionale delle terme sud di Perge provengono due statue loricate, una sicuramente di Traiano e l’altra forse di Adriano, e una nuda con Schulterbausch, identificata con il Divo Augusto (Fig. 7) 75. A Perge Augusto era quindi proposto sia come modello alla dinastia regnante sia come figura fondante del potere romano e inserita a pieno titolo nella storia cittadina 76. Un’altra prova dell’interesse per la figura di Augusto si riconosce nel riallestimento adrianeo del frontescena del teatro di Corinto, datato poco dopo il 123 d.C. e caratterizzato dalla conservazione di una coppia di statue protoimperiali nel programma decorativo per il resto rinnovato. Alla collocazione nelle nicchie centrali delle statue del Divo Traiano seduto e di Adriano loricato, rispondeva infatti la presenza in due nicchie laterali di due statue ritratto acefale più antiche, una maschile in nudità armata, come suggerisce il mantello militare 75 76

ÖZGÜR (2008), p. 96, n. 41. SLAVAZZI (2010), p. 283.

70

MATTEO CADARIO

frangiato, e l’altra femminile. L’identificazione della coppia con Augusto e Livia è molto verosimile 77. A Corinto ritornerebbe così l’evidenziazione di un legame tra dinastia regnante e il Divo Augusto in funzione anche di legittimazione della posizione di Adriano. E il teatro di Corinto potrebbe non essere un esempio isolato: nel frontescena del teatro di Lecce, insieme a un nutrito gruppo di opera nobilia adrianei, spicca la conservazione di una statua loricata giulio-claudia, raffigurante probabilmente il Divo Augusto 78. Un altro caso riguarda forse il teatro di Leptis Magna, da cui proviene una base di statua di Augusto del 3/2 a.C. (IRT 320) che in origine doveva essere parte di un gruppo eretto nel Forum Vetus, comprendente almeno Gaio (IRT 328) e forse anche Lucio Cesare, e fu verosimilmente spostata solo in un secondo momento nell’edificio di spettacolo 79. La ricollocazione / conservazione nei teatri delle statue di Augusto ne ricorda anche l’importanza per il culto imperiale, vista già a Gytheion 80; infatti a Efeso durante ogni assemblea le statue commissionate da C. Vibio Salutare erano collocate ritualmente nel teatro, dove, come a Corinto, si trovavano sicuramente già altre statue imperiali. Le immagini del Divo Augusto svolsero quindi a lungo un ruolo importante nei rituali civici. La presenza del ritratto del Divo Augusto sulle monete di II secolo d.C. coniate a Nicopolis in Epiro fa pensare che lo stesso sia accaduto anche in quella città, dove Augusto era stato effettivamente ktistes dell’insediamento 81. 6. Dagli Antonini al III sec. d.C. L’ultima testimonianza concreta nota di una nuova immagine di Augusto è un ritratto acrolitico colossale (Fig. 8) rinvenuto a Praeneste insieme a un analogo ritratto di Faustina Maggiore. Le due teste, entrambe parte della collezione Barberini, hanno caratteristiche e dimensioni così simili da far pensare a una produzione comune, che può essere fissata verso gli ultimi decenni del II sec. d.C. 82. Manca purtroppo un contesto sicuro e la relazione con la città bassa si fonda sull’ipotesi che fosse questa l’area destinata ad accogliere il culto imperiale, come suggerisce, tra gli altri, il ritrovamento in loco dell’ara tiberiana del 77 STURGEON (2004), p. 31-33; 66-68, n. 2 (Augusto) e 68-71, n. 3 (Livia); DI NAPOLI (2013), p. 190-191. Le due statue appartennero probabilmente alla fase protoimperiale dell’arredo scultoreo del teatro, conservata nel rifacimento adrianeo. 78 MANNINO (1999), p. 46-49. La datazione adrianea delle altre statue supera i dubbi espressi in CADARIO (2004), p. 238-239. 79 REYNOLDS / WARD-PERKINS (1952), n. 320 e n. 328. La presenza di Gaio Cesare fa pensare che vi fosse anche il fratello. Le due basi sono molto simili e hanno gli stessi dedicanti, i Fului Leptitani. 80 CAVALIERI (2007), p. 241-244. 81 CALOMINO (2011), p. 110. 82 Sui ritratti: BOSCHUNG (1993), p. 69 e 169, n. 147; AGNOLI (2002), p. 169-176, n. II.11-12; DEPPMEYER (2008), p. 183-185, n. 84; Apoteosi (2013), n. 28 e n. 29, p. 347348 (N. Agnoli).

LA MEMORIA POSTUMA DI AUGUSTO NELLE IMMAGINI

71

Fig. 8. Ritratto colossale del Divo Augusto da Praeneste. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Palestrina (da AGNOLI [2002]).

Diuus Augustus 83. Visto che una coppia formata dai soli Augusto e Faustina Maggiore è inverosimile, è possibile ipotizzare comunque l’esistenza di una galleria dei divi da ubicare, alla luce della tecnica acrolitica, in uno spazio coperto e sacro della città laziale. Forse si potrebbe mettere in relazione la dedica con la rappresentazione del tempio del Divo Augusto in un aureo di Antonino Pio coniato tra il 158 e 159 d.C. in memoria di un restauro dell’edificio 84. L’enfasi sulle statue di culto di Livia e di Augusto fa sospettare che l’imperatore prospettasse l’analogo destino per sé e per la Diva Faustina, che aveva già il proprio tempio, in cui nel 161 d.C. fu infatti integrato anche Antonino divinizzato. A Praeneste, verosimilmente in età aureliana, sarebbe 83 84

AGNOLI (2002), p. 243-249; Apoteosi (2013), n. 28, p. 346-347 (N. Agnoli). Sull’aureo: HEKSTER (2015), p. 173.

72

MATTEO CADARIO

quindi stato recepito un modello urbano e il Divo Augusto e la Diva Augusta potrebbero dunque essere stati onorati insieme almeno alla coppia divina formata da Antonino Pio e Faustina. Al III sec. d.C., forse alla trasformazione della città in municipium nel 205 d.C., risale invece un gruppo di basi di statue eretto nel foro di Thugga per raffigurare un numero selezionato di divi, in cui Augusto compare insieme a Livia, Claudio, Vespasiano, Traiano, Adriano, Antonino Pio e Marco Aurelio. In questo caso Augusto fu quindi onorato insieme agli altri buoni imperatori delle dinastie precedenti 85, una selezione che ricorda i criteri enunciati poco tempo dopo da Alessandro Severo per il suo Larario, accessibile solo per i divi migliori e più venerabili. L’ultimo dei Severi fece anche dedicare statue colossali nude o equestri dei divi nel Foro Transitorio, a imitazione dei summi uiri del foro di Augusto (SHA Seu. Alex. 28.6) 86. Era il segno della volontà di riorganizzare il culto pubblico degli imperatori consecrati (ormai troppi: i fratres Aruales ne ricordavano 16 nel 183 d.C. e 20 nel 224 d.C.) 87, limitandolo ai boni principes, secondo la formula usata anche dall’imperatore Tacito per il suo enigmatico templum Diuorum (SHA Tac. 9.5) 88. La galleria di Thugga, l’ultima in cui sia possibile riconoscere la commessa di una nuova statua del Divo Augusto, sembra dunque non nascere tanto dalla volontà di ricollegarsi ad Augusto da parte della dinastia regnante, come si evince del resto dalla presenza di imperatori di più dinastie, ma da un ambiente che si preparava a dare più risalto e omogeneità al culto dei divi, come faranno nella seconda metà del III secolo anche Decio, con la sua serie monetale del 251 d.C. raffigurante proprio un’ampia selezione degli imperatori consecrati, e probabilmente anche l’imperatore Tacito, con la già citata decretazione del tempio loro dedicato 89. Nel culto dei diui Augusto aveva, insieme a Traiano, una posizione ovviamente privilegiata, evidenziata proprio da Alessandro Severo che aveva realizzato la sua galleria nel foro Transitorio citando come modello i summi uiri del foro di Augusto e proclamando che il princeps era il vero auctor imperii e tutti i suoi successori esercitavano il loro potere per diritto ereditario (SHA Seu. Alex. 10.4) 90. In continuità con questi interventi destinati ormai, come in molte opere storiche del tempo (cfr. anche i Caesares di Giuliano), a presentare anche una sorta di compendio della storia di Roma e dell’impero, credo vadano viste alcune tarde gallerie, formate da ritratti imperiali più antichi riuniti appositamente. DEPPMEYER (2008), p. 156-157, n. 73; DE BRUYN (2016), p. 277. PALOMBI (2013), p. 142-143. 87 Cfr. ibid., p. 127-144. 88 Nel Templum diuorum di Tacito è stata di recente identificata l’Aedes Caesarum palatina (SUET., Galba 1) ricordata spesso negli Acta Fratrum Arualium del II sec. d.C. e restaurata per l’occasione da Tacito, cfr. COARELLI (2012), p. 425-430. 89 Per la serie monetale di Decio e Treboniano Gallo, cfr. PALOMBI (2013), p. 130, nota 36. Cfr. in questo volume il contributo di L. CLAES. 90 LONGFELLOW (2011), p. 201. 85 86

LA MEMORIA POSTUMA DI AUGUSTO NELLE IMMAGINI

73

L’esempio più impressionante è quello della villa di Chiragan, dove, accanto a Traiano, Adriano, Marco Aurelio, Settimio Severo, Geta, Caracalla e altri, c’era anche un ritratto postumo di Augusto con corona civica 91. Esso faceva parte di un ristretto gruppo di teste giulio-claudie, che avevano avuto una diversa storia espositiva e furono recuperate nella villa come se fossero una preziosa testimonianza archeologica delle origini dell’impero. La presenza anche di imperatori non divinizzati rende però questa galleria diversa da quelle dei diui appena citate, che avevano l’intento politico di evidenziare un modello di buon governo, mentre in questo caso sembrano prevalere interessi collezionistici e storici. Un altro possibile caso, più limitato, riguarderebbe l’Aquileia tetrarchica, dove nell’area delle Marignane, non lontano dal circo, sono state rinvenute una statua togata uelato capite del Divo Augusto, una statua in abito militare da viaggio di Claudio e una statua femminile attribuita a una principessa di età giulio-claudia. Le tre statue, dalla storia molto complessa che suggerirebbe un intervento di restauro, visto che almeno le due virili potrebbero essere state frutto di una ricomposizione di corpi e ritratti non pertinenti (e i ritratti erano stati verosimilmente già rilavorati in età giulio-claudia) 92, sarebbero state trasferite in località Marignane per essere usate, insieme a un consistente gruppo di clipei raffiguranti divinità, come arredo di un edificio residenziale sorto nei pressi del circo 93. La somiglianza con il contesto di Chiragan rende l’ipotesi seducente, ma lascia perplessi la lontananza reciproca dei luoghi di rinvenimento delle statue (a est del circo), dei clipei (perlopiù nella zona vicino all’angolo NO delle mura tardoantiche) e dell’ubicazione delle strutture note della villa più vicina (a sud del circo) 94. Il caso di Chiragan e quello al momento molto più incerto di Aquileia sono tra le ultime testimonianze ricostruibili della valorizzazione postuma delle immagini del Divo Augusto. Rispetto all’età giulio-claudia, in cui si concentra il maggior numero di statue e monumenti, nei quali il fondatore era di solito accompagnato da familiari ed eredi diretti, i periodi seguenti hanno quindi visto una progressiva rarefazione di nuove dediche. La fine del legame dinastico diretto trasformò il rapporto con le immagini di Augusto, al quale gli imperatori regnanti potevano richiamarsi solo come a un modello illustre. Di solito il 91 DEPPMEYER (2008), p. 158-164, n. 74. Cfr. ROSSO (2006), p. 440-491 (sul ritratto di Augusto: n. 213, p. 448-450). Per la datazione giulio-claudia del ritratto di Chiragan cfr. anche VIERNEISEL / ZANKER (2008), p. 71 e BOSCHUNG (1993), p. 190, n. 199. 92 Per le varie ipotesi sulle due statue, cfr. CASARI (2005), p. 204-214 e MIAN (2009). Sulla rilavorazione dei ritratti: BOSCHUNG (1993), p. 141, n. 69 (Nerone/Augusto) e VARNER (2004), 1.17, p. 229-230 (Caligola/Claudio); 2.7, p. 238 (Nerone/Augusto). 93 Per la villa di Marignane e la proposta di identificazione con una proprietà imperiale: MIAN (2006), p. 423-439. 94 Sui luoghi di rinvenimento (n. 43 e 46 della Fundkarte di Enrico Maionica), cfr. BUORA (2000), p. 42-43. Sull’ubicazione della villa, in realtà piuttosto distante dal circo, cfr. REBAUDO (2012).

74

MATTEO CADARIO

riferimento al passato imperiale era quindi limitato al solo Augusto in quanto fondatore dell’impero, ma nel corso del III secolo d.C. si nota un maggiore interesse per monumenti che, tramite la rappresentazione di una selezione degli imperatori migliori, ossia dei diui, aperta ovviamente dal Divo Augusto, potessero riassumere e quasi restaurare la storia e l’autorità di un impero in crisi. Non va poi dimenticata l’importanza dei contesti locali, in particolare quando Augusto era inserito direttamente nella memoria civica, come a Efeso, a Perge e a Nicopolis in Epiro. Ciò poteva accadere anche tramite la valorizzazione di antichi monumenti connessi ad Augusto, come si è già visto a Conimbriga e nei teatri di Corinto e Lecce. La possibilità di riconoscere i segnali archeologici di una particolare attenzione verso una statua del princeps nelle varie fasi della storia di un’area/edificio pubblico è infatti una strategia molto promettente per ricostruire quanta importanza la figura di Augusto abbia mantenuto nel corso del tempo in un insediamento. Farò alcuni esempi: il primo riguarda la Colonia Augusta Philippensis, dove, dopo la battaglia di Azio, fu eretto un gruppo comprendente il Divo Giulio in Hüftmantel mentre incoronava Augusto loricato. La base è affiancata da due altari e la legenda della moneta chiarisce le identificazioni. Il gruppo fu raffigurato di nuovo durante il regno di Claudio, opportunamente aggiornato mediante la dedica al Diuus Augustus, e poi ancora al tempo di Nerone, Traiano, Antonino Pio e Commodo, evidentemente proprio perché ritenuto un monumento cruciale della storia cittadina, connesso all’istituzione della colonia augustea 95. Il secondo esempio riguarda il Grande Tempio di Luni, ristrutturato all’inizio dell’età augustea, quando vi fu integrato il culto imperiale, e poi riedificato da Caracalla. Il tempio si affacciava su una grande piazza porticata che fu probabilmente a sua volta ricostruita in età severiana. Nel vano orientale del portico, pavimentato con lastre di marmi colorati, è stata rinvenuta una statua loricata protoaugustea e acefala in Hüftmantel. Ritengo verosimile che essa ritraesse Augusto e fosse collegata alla fase augustea del “Grande Tempio”. La sua conservazione / valorizzazione, verosimilmente nel contesto dell’intervento severiano, ne prova quindi l’importanza per la storia dell’edificio e della città 96. L’ultimo caso riguarda Suasa. Dalla fase di abbandono della Domus dei Coiedii provengono una testa colossale di Augusto di età giulio-claudia e una gamba che hanno permesso di ricostruire una statua di culto in Hüftmantel del Divo. È molto probabile che la statua si trovasse in origine in uno degli ambienti pubblici autonomi dalla domus e prospicienti il foro (in particolare si è pensato a quello absidato in asse con l’ingresso nella piazza). Essi sono stati oggetto di interventi di restauro o rinnovo nella prima metà del III sec. d.C., nel corso dei

95 CADARIO (2004), p. 114-115; KOORTBOJIAN (2013), p. 228-230. Cfr. HEKSTER (2015), p. 173. 96 Sulla collocazione della statua: CADARIO (2015), p. 100-102.

LA MEMORIA POSTUMA DI AUGUSTO NELLE IMMAGINI

75

quali la statua sarebbe stata quindi mantenuta (o ricollocata) conservando così il proprio ruolo 97. Bibliografia ADAM-VELENI, P. (a cura di) (2008), Τα Καλίνδοια. Μια αρχαία πόλη στη Μακεδονία, Κατάλογος της Περιοδικής Έκθεσης στο Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Θεσσαλονίκης, Thessaloniki. AGNOLI, N. (2002), Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Palestrina. Le Sculture, Roma. ÀLVAREZ PÉREZ, A. et al. (a cura di) (2009), El marmor de Tarraco. Tarraco Marmor, Tarragona. Apoteosi (2013), F. COARELLI et al. (a cura di), Apoteosi da uomini a dei. Il Mausoleo di Adriano, Roma. BALTY, J.-C. (2007), Culte impérial et image du pouvoir  : les statues d’empereurs en “Hüftmantel” et en “Jupiter-Kostüm”. De la représentation du genius à celle du diuus, in T. NOGALES BASARRATE / J. GONZÁLEZ FERNÁNDEZ (a cura di), Culto imperial: política y poder (Atti Mérida 2006), Roma, p. 51-73. BASSANI, M. (2017), Sacra Privata nell’Italia centrale. Archeologia, fonti letterarie e documenti epigrafici, Padova (Antenor Quaderni 40). BERGMANN, M. (1998), Die Strahlen der Herrscher. Theomorphes Herrscherbild und politische Symbolik im Hellenismus und in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Mainz am Rhein. BIRLEY, R. (1997), Hadrian. The Restless Emperor, London. BOSCHUNG, D. (1993), Die Bildnisse des Augustus (Das römische Herrscherbild I, 2), Berlin. BOSCHUNG, D. (2002), Gens Augusta. Untersuchungen zu Aufstellung, Wirkung und Bedeutung der Statuengruppen des julisch-claudischen Kaiserhauses, Mainz am Rhein (Monumenta Artis Romanae 32). BRAVI, A. (2011), Le immagini negli spazi pubblici di Perge in epoca adrianea, in F. D’ANDRIA / I. ROMEO (a cura di), Roman Sculpture in Asia Minor, Portsmouth (Rhode Island), p. 302-318. BRAVI, A. (2012), Ornamenta Urbis. Opere d’arte greche negli spazi romani, Bari. BUORA, M. (2000), Introduzione e commento alla Fundkarte von Aquileia di H. Maionica, Trieste. CADARIO, M. (2004), La corazza di Alessandro. Loricati di tipo ellenistico dal IV sec. a.C. al II d.C., Milano (Il Filarete 212). CADARIO, M. (2011a), Ritratto di Ottaviano con il capo velato, in E. LA ROCCA et al. (a cura di), Ritratti. Le tante facce del potere, Roma, p. 260. CADARIO, M. (2011b), Nerone e il “potere delle immagini”, in M. A. TOMEI / R. REA (a cura di), Nerone, Milano, p. 176-189. CADARIO, M. (2015), Gli spazi pubblici di rappresentazione tra memoria civica e celebrazione imperiale a Luni e in Cisalpina, in S. AUGUSTE-BOULAROT / E. ROSSO (a cura di), Signa et tituli. Monuments et espaces de représentation en Gaule Méridionale sous le regard croisé de la sculpture et de l’épigraphie, Aix-en Provence, p. 91-110.

97

DE MARIA (2015), p. 146-148. Vedi anche BASSANI (2017), n. 6, p. 259-261.

76

MATTEO CADARIO

CADARIO, M. (2019), Il volto di Augusto ex Ponto e la pietas non ignota di Ovidio. Imagines imperiali in contesto domestico, in C. BATTISTELLA (a cura di), Ovidio a Tomi. Saggi sulle opere dell’esilio, Sesto San Giovanni, p. 129-147. CALANDRA, E. (1996), Oltre la Grecia. Alle origini del filellenismo di Adriano, Napoli. CALOMINO, D. (2011), Actia Nicopolis. Coinage, Currency and Civic Identity (27 BC-AD 268), in F. LÓPEZ SÁNCHEZ (a cura di), The City and the Coin in the Ancient and Early Medieval Worlds, Oxford (BAR International Series 2402), p. 103-113. CASARI, P. (2005), Ritratti imperiali ad Aquileia tra I e III sec. d.C., in G. CUSCITO / M. VERZÁR BASS (a cura di), Aquileia dalle origini alla costituzione del ducato longobardo. La cultura artistica in età romana (II secolo a.C. - III secolo d.C.), Trieste (AAAd 61), p. 193-226. CAVALIERI, M. (2007), Il culto imperiale nelle province galliche. L’imago e il suo contesto religioso: santuari, templi e teatri, in Florentia. Studi di archeologia 2, p. 213256. CELANI, A. (1998), Opere d’arte greche nella Roma di Augusto, Perugia. CESARANO, M. (2014), In honorem Domus Diuinae. Introduzione allo studio dei cicli statuari giulio-claudi a Roma e in Occidente, Roma. CHAMPLIN, E. (2003), Nero, Cambridge Mass. / London. COARELLI, F. (2012), Palatium. Il Palatino dalle origini all’impero, Roma. CORREIA, V. H. (2009), O forum de Conimbriga e a evolução do centro urbano, in T. NOGALES BASARRATE (a cura di), Ciudad y foro en Lusitania Romana, Mérida (Studia Lusitana 4), p. 89-106. CORREIA, V. H. (2013), Curia e Basílica na evolução do forum de Conimbriga, in B. SOLER HUERTAS et al. (a cura di), Las sedes de los ordines decurionum en Hispania: análisis arquitectónico y modelo tipológico, Mérida (Anejos AEspA 67), p. 353-362. DE BRUYN, G. (2016), Rhétorique dynastique ou mémoire des «  bons empereurs  » dans les cités africaines aux IIIe-IVe siècles, in S. BENOIST / A. DAGUET-GAGEY / C. HOËT-VAN CAUWENBERGHE (a cura di), Une mémoire en actes. Espaces, figures et discours dans le monde romain, Villeneuve d’Ascq, p. 265-282. DE MARIA, S. (2015), L’Augusteum di Fano e i luoghi del culto imperiale nel I secolo d.C., in L’Augusteum di Fanum Fortunae. Un edificio del culto imperiale nella Fano d’età romana, Cinisello Balsamo, p. 133-149. DEPPMEYER, K. (2008), Kaisergruppen von Vespasian bis Konstantin. Eine Untersuchung zu Aufstellungskontexten und Intentionen der statuarischen Präsentation kaiserlicher Familien, Hamburg. DI NAPOLI, V. (2013), Teatri della Grecia romana: forma, decorazione, funzioni. La provincia d’Acaia, Atene (Meletemata 67). ESTIENNE, S. (2010), Simulacra Deorum versus Ornamenta Aedium: The Status of Divine Images in the Temples of Rome, in J. MYLONOPOULOS (ed.), Divine Images and Human Imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome, Leiden / Boston, p. 257-271. FISHWICK, D. (1991), The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire, II, 1, Leiden / New York. FITTSCHEN, K. (1991), Die Bildnisse des Augustus, in G. BINDER (a cura di), Saeculum Augustum, III, Darmstadt, p. 149-186. FREI-STOLBA, R. (2008), Livie et aliae: le culte des divi et leurs prêtresses; le culte des divae, in E. BERTHOLET et al. (a cura di), Égypte, Grèce, Rome. Les différents visages des femmes antiques, Bern, p. 345-395. GALIMBERTI, A. (2007), Adriano e l’ideologia del Principato, Roma.

LA MEMORIA POSTUMA DI AUGUSTO NELLE IMMAGINI

77

HEKSTER, O. (2015), Emperors and Ancestors. Roman Rulers and the Constraints of Tradition, Oxford. HERTEL, D. (2013), Die Bildnisse des Tiberius, Berlin (Das römische Herrscherbild I, 3). HITZL, K. (1991), Die kaiserzeitliche Statuenausstattung des Metroon, Berlin / New York (Olympische Forschungen 19). HØJTE, J. M. (2005), Roman Imperial Statue Bases from Augustus to Commodus, Aarhus. KANTIRÉA, M. (2007), Les dieux et les dieux Augustes. Le culte impérial en Grèce sous les Julio-Claudiens et les Flaviens. Études épigraphiques et archéologiques, Athènes (Meletemata 50). KOORTBOJIAN, M. (2013), The Divinization of Caesar and Augustus. Precedents, Consequences, Implications, Cambridge. LAHUSEN, G. / FORMIGLI, E. (2007), Grossbronzen aus Herculaneum und Pompeji. Statuen und Büsten von Herrschern und Bürgern, Worms. LAIRD, M. L. (2015), Civic Monuments and the Augustales in Roman Italy, Cambridge / New York. LANGE, C. H. (2016), Triumphs in the Age of Civil War: The Late Republic and the Adaptability of Triumphal Tradition, London. LA ROCCA, E. (2015), Esperimenti del culto di Ottaviano/Augusto prima dell’apoteosi, in G. ZECCHINI (a cura di), L’Augusteum di Narona (Atti Roma 2013), Roma, p. 43-71. LIVERANI, P. (2011), Il foro di Rusellae in epoca romana, in L. QUILICI / S. QUILICI GIGLI (a cura di), Atlante tematico di topografia antica, 21, Roma, p. 15-31. LO MONACO, A. (2009), Il crepuscolo degli dei d’Achaia. Religione e culti in Arcadia, Elide, Laconia e Messenia dalla conquista romana ad età flavia, Roma (BCAR Suppl. 17). LONGFELLOW, B. (2011), Roman Imperialism and Civic Patronage: Form, Meaning and Ideology in Monumental Fountain Complexes, Cambridge. MANNINO, K. (1999), Il teatro: la decorazione della scena, in F. D’ANDRIA (a cura di), Lecce romana e il suo teatro, Lavello, p. 39-55. MARIN, E. et al. (2004), The Rise and Fall of An Imperial Shrine. Roman Sculpture from the Augusteum at Narona, Split. MIAN, G. (2006), Riflessioni sulla residenza imperiale tardoantica, in G. CUSCITO (a cura di), Aquileia dalle origini alla costituzione del ducato Longobardo, Trieste (AAAd 62), p. 423-439. MIAN, G. (2009), “Cicli” imperiali in area Adriatica: il problema delle botteghe e della circolazione dei modelli, in V. GAGGADIS ROBIN et al. (a cura di), Les ateliers de sculpture régionaux  : techniques, styles et iconographie (Atti Arles, Aix-enProvence, 2007), Aix en Provence, p. 145-154. MIGLIORATI, G. (2003), Cassio Dione e l’impero romano da Nerva ad Antonino Pio alla luce dei nuovi documenti, Milano. MUSSO, L. (2008), La romanizzazione di Leptis Magna nel primo periodo imperiale: Augusto e Roma nel ‘Foro Vecchio’, in D. KREIKENBOM et al. (a cura di), Augustus – Der Blick von außen. Die Wahrnehmung des Kaisers in den Provinzen des Reiches und in den Nachbarstaaten (Atti Mainz 2006), Mainz, p. 161-196. OSGOOD, J. (2011), Claudius Caesar. Image and Power in the Early Roman Empire, Cambridge / New York. ÖZGÜR, M. E. (2008), Sculptures of the Museum in Antalya, Ankara. PALOMBI, D. (1993), Columnae Rostratae Augusti, in Archaeologia Classica 45, p. 321332.

78

MATTEO CADARIO

PALOMBI, D. (2013), Roma: culto imperiale e paesaggio urbano, in F. FONTANA (a cura di), Sacrum facere. Atti del I Seminario di Archeologia del Sacro (Atti Trieste 2012), Trieste, p. 119-164. POLLINI, J. (2012), From Republic to Empire: Rhetoric, Religion, and Power in the Visual Culture of Ancient Rome, Norman Okla. REBAUDO, L. (2012), La villa delle Marignane ad Aquileia. La documentazione fotografica di scavo (1914-1970), in J. BONETTO / M. SALVADORI (a cura di), L’architettura privata ad Aquileia (Atti Padova 2011), Padova, p. 443-474. REYNOLDS, J. M. / WARD-PERKINS J. B. (1952), The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania, Rome. RODRIGUES CONÇALVES, L. J. (2007), Escultura romana em Portugal: uma arte del quotidiano, Mérida (Studia Lusitana 2). ROGERS, G. M. (1991), The Sacred Identity of Ephesos. Foudation Myths of a Roman City, London / New York, p. 80-151. ROSE, C. B. (1997), Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period, Cambridge / New York / Melbourne. ROSSO, E. (2006), L’image de l’empereur en Gaule romaine. Portraits et inscriptions, Paris. ROSSO, E. (2007), Culte impérial et image dynastique  : les divi et divae de la Gens Flavia, in T. NOGALES BASARRATE / J. GONZÁLEZ FERNÁNDEZ (a cura di), Culto imperial: política y poder (Atti Mérida 2006), Roma, p. 125-151. ROSSO, E. (2009), Statua di Vespasiano, in F. COARELLI (a cura di), Divus Vespasianus. Il Bimillenario dei Flavi, Milano, p. 492. SACCHI, F. (1998), L’imperatore Claudio a Luni. Una breve nota, in Quaderni del Centro Studi Lunensi, n.s. 3, p. 3-26. SALETTI, C. (1968), Il ciclo statuario della basilica di Velleia, Roma. SCHÄFER, T. (2013), Ciclo di rilievi Medinaceli, in E. LA ROCCA et al. (a cura di), Augusto, Milano, p. 321-323. SLAVAZZI, F. (2010), Eroi locali e imperatori a Perge (Pamphylia): i monumenti, in Studi Classici e Orientali 56, p. 273-289. SMITH, R. R. R. (2013), Aphrodisias VI. The Marble Reliefs from the Julio-Claudian Sebasteion, Mainz. STURGEON, M. C. (2004), Sculpture: The Assemblage from the Theater, Athens (Corinth 9.3). TORELLI, M. (1982), Typology & Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs, Ann Arbor. TORELLI, M. (1983), Augustus, diuus, templum (nouum); aedes, in LTUR, I, Roma, p. 145-146. VARNER, E. R. (2004), Mutilation and Transformation. Damnatio memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture, Leiden / Boston (Monumenta Graeca et Romana 10). VENTURINI, C. (2009), Note in tema di Lex de imperio Vespasiani e di trasfigurazioni successive, in L. CAPOGROSSI COLOGNESI / E. TASSI SCANDONE (a cura di), La Lex de imperio Vespasiani e la Roma dei Flavi (Atti Roma 2008), Roma, p. 205-217. VIERNEISEL, K. / ZANKER, P. (1979), Die Bildnisse des Augustus. Herrscherbild und Politik im kaiserlichen Rom, München. ZWIERLEIN-DIEHL, E. (2008), Die antiken Prunkkameen im Kunsthistorischen Museum, Wien.

Augustan Images of Legitimacy: The Numismatic Memory of Augustus (AD 14-268) LIESBETH CLAES (Universiteit Leiden)

Abstract In the Roman world, no legal procedure existed regulating the transfer of imperial power. As a consequence, representation of the imperial family was one of the crucial ways in which Roman emperors legitimate their reigns. Following the death of Augustus, the first Roman emperor, his image became a symbol of good emperorship. Subsequently, Augustus’ memory was used as a tool in order to enhance an emperors’ position. Through an investigation of the Augustan references appearing on imperial coinage from Augustus’ death in AD 14 until AD 268, it appears that Augustus’ memory was not abundantly used on imperial coinage. When present, however, Augustus was remembered in a number of ways. Not limited to his role as founder of the principate, Augustus could also be displayed as an ancestor, a military leader, a pacifier, a reformer, a worldly leader, a divinity and a god. The roles attributed to Augustus seem not to have belonged to a generic canon developed over time, but represented deliberate choices made by later individual emperors, and can be attributed to their specific agendas. Moreover, some emperors styled themselves after Augustus by adapting and copying former Augustan reverses and coin symbols. Through this imitatio Augusti emperors could emphasise specific aspects of their personality or of their own reign, strengthening their imperial position through this Augustan link.

1. Introduction In 27 BC, the proclamation of Octavian as Augustus started a new era for Rome and its Empire, and marked an important stage in the emergence of the principate. After the death of Augustus, the imperial powers were transferred through his family line, constructed either by blood or by adoption. This dynastic principle often dominated the transmission of the imperial office, although it was not regulated by any constitution or law. After the Julio-Claudian dynasty, it became soon clear that there were no strict regulations that determined who could become a princeps: this could be a man of undistinguished birth or even someone who was appointed outside Rome. Later, Vespasian created a legal basis for his succession by listing all former powers and offices the

80

LIESBETH CLAES

Julio-Claudian emperors Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius had assumed in the lex quae dicitur de imperio Vespasiani. 1 Yet, much more significant was the change of his name into Imperator Caesar Vespasianus Augustus, adopting Caesar as one of his own names and adding Augustus as a cognomen. By naming himself Caesar and Augustus, Vespasian asserted himself as head of Augustus’ imperial domus, claiming its patrimonium and familia. This name change demonstrates how tracing one’s ancestry back to Augustus was considered a strong element in solidifying an emperor’s legitimacy. 2 Of course, Augustus’ role was not only that of imperial ancestor, he was also the founder of the principate and a predecessor, a father and a grandfather, a military leader and a reformer, a son of a god and a divinity. This paper aims to trace when and how Augustus’ image was displayed on imperial coinage, and subsequently which of Augustus’ roles were emphasised. By displaying virtues and achievements, imperial coinage reflected how emperors wanted to be perceived. 3 Any display of pietas towards or relationship with Augustus could enhance an emperor’s position. 4 Moreover, an emperor could style himself as a new Augustus. Such imitatio Augusti could recall various aspects of Augustus’ reign, such as the prosperous age, military successes, and the founding of the principate. Because of the coins’ unique design, possessing two sides (the so-called obverse and reverse), these messages could be easily displayed on the reverses, while the issuing emperor was portrayed on the obverses. For Roman emperors, coin advertisement was a welcome addition to their efforts in establishing a legal basis for their reigns. 5 Various studies have demonstrated how imperial coinage acted as a tool in disseminating imperial messages. 6 Imperial coins were continuously minted, even in periods of crisis. As a result, this medium presents a coherent picture that can be used to assess historical events and processes over a longer stretch of time. Furthermore, coinage was a very flexible medium, as each issue could depict different images and legends. Furthermore, coins were disseminated to the far corners of the Empire and were accessible to a diversity of audiences. Coins were issued under the authority of individual emperors, whose images they often depicted. However, previous emperors, such as Augustus, could also be displayed. Coinage

BRUNT (1977); HURLET (1993), p. 263; LEVICK (2009). See in particular HEKSTER (2015), p. 8-10. 3 On imperial coinage and messaging, see WALLACE-HADRILL (1986); NOREÑA (2001); ID. (2011); MANDERS (2012). 4 WALLACE-HADRILL (1981), p. 310; 315; 320; CLASSEN (1991); NOREÑA (2001), p. 158; ID. (2011), p. 71-74; MANDERS (2012), p. 178-182. 5 MANDERS (2012); ROWAN (2012); CLAES (2013); HEKSTER (2015). 6 To name a few: SUTHERLAND (1959); EHRHARDT (1984); WALLACE-HADRILL (1981); NOREÑA (2001); HEKSTER (2003). 1

2

THE NUMISMATIC MEMORY OF AUGUSTUS

81

therefore is an excellent medium for tracing developments in Augustus’ coin representation over a longer time. In this paper, I will chronologically analyse the various displays of Augustus on imperial coinage, thereby distinguishing four periods: the Julio-Claudian dynasty, the civil wars of AD 68-69 and its aftermath, the period going from the late first century to the beginning of the second century AD and the first half of the third century AD. These chapters will discuss each coin type displaying Augustus posthumously, and subsequently, they will document when an emperor tried to style himself as a new Augustus (imitatio Augusti) through his coin messages. 2. Augustus and His Julio-Claudian Successors Augustus was displayed under each Julio-Claudian emperor: Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero. His display, however, varied from that of ancestor and allegoric founder of the principate, to that of divine predecessor. The frequency of his coin types differed under each Julio-Claudian emperor. Accordingly, the display of Augustus clearly reflects the different approaches the four JulioClaudian emperors had towards the first princeps. On the coinages of Tiberius (AD 14-37) and Caligula (AD 37-41), their filiation with Augustus was extensively propagated. Legends as diui filius and diui Augusti pronepos were added to respectively Tiberius’ and Caligula’s name, and subsequently the title of pater was given to Augustus. 7 Needless to say, the transfer of Augustus’ powers as princeps was unprecedented. Tiberius’ adoption must have been an extra tool to enforce his legal succession. Of course, Tiberius could appeal to his long political and military career, and before his adoption in AD 4 he had also received a share of Augustus’ maius imperium, establishing him formally as an imperial colleague of Augustus. 8 Caligula, however, could not bring in these powers, nor did he possess any military experience. Unsurprisingly, his coins extensively stressed his imperial descent by placing him into an imperial line of succession up to Augustus. Not only did they advertise Caligula’s biological affiliation as great-grandson of Augustus, they also referred to him as the son of Germanicus and Agrippina Maior, who on their turn could claim affiliation to Augustus as his adopted son 7 All coin types name Tiberius diui filius: RIC I² Tiberius 1-69; Gaius is named diui Augusti pronepos on RIC I² Caligula 39-54; Augustus is named pater on RIC I² Tiberius 49; 70-83. 8 VELL. PAT. 2.103; TAC., Annals 1.3; SUET., Tiberius 21-24; DIO 55.13. Cf. LEVICK (1999²), p. 49-50; 63. Previously, Tiberius crowned a new pro-Roman king in Armenia (20 BC), coordinated the return of the captured legionary standards in Persia (20 BC); was legatus Augusti in Gallia (16-15 BC); campaigned in Pannonia and Dalmatia (12-9 BC); held an imperium proconsulare in Germania (8 BC) and was granted tribunicia potestas for five years and control in the East (6 BC).

82

LIESBETH CLAES

and his granddaughter. 9 Furthermore, the young emperor was also styled as the son of Tiberius, who had adopted him some years before his accession. 10 Augustus’ portrait was also displayed on the coinages of these two JulioClaudian emperors. Under Tiberius, a series of bronze types was dedicated to diuus Augustus; their reverses mainly showed scenes and attributes associated with his funeral procession and cult. Types displayed an altar closure, the elephant funeral cart carrying the statue of the deified emperor, the statue of the deified emperor with an altar (Fig. 1) and a round temple. 11 In addition, some reverses also stressed Augustus’ earthly leadership. One depicted a corona ciuica, echoing his status as founder of the principate. 12 The goddess Victoria celebrated his military leadership, probably remembering Augustus’ successful campaign against the Parthians which freed the eastern provinces. 13 Other depictions of a (winged) thunderbolt and an eagle on a globe symbolised Augustus as a new Jupiter, governing the Empire with worldly and divine power. 14 Again, the filiation of Tiberius with Augustus was stressed as half of the types portraying Augustus denoted the latter as pater. Tiberius and Augustus’ adopted grandson Agrippa Postumus became Augustus’ imperial successors through their adoptions. 15 Yet, this transfer of imperial powers was not regulated by any legal transition, resulting most likely in the intensive paternal advertisement on Tiberius’ coinage. 16 The kinship term of pater may have also confirmed Augustus’ status as father of all Romans, recalling the honorary title of pater patriae which he received in 2 BC. 17 The paternal kinship term could have enforced the message of Augustus as the new Jupiter, who also symbolically was the father of the gods. Both explanations for the presence of the pater legend are not mutually exclusive, and can have ambiguously represented Augustus both as father of the Empire and of Tiberius. Caligula’s coins highlighted similar roles of Augustus, except for the world dominance theme. In doing so, Augustus was memorised on the one hand by portraying him on the back of Caligula’s obverses, and on the other by a sacrificial scene in front of his temple that was inaugurated by Caligula (Fig. 2). 18 9

Diui Augusti pronepos: RIC I² Caligula 39-54; diuus Augustus: RIC I² Caligula 3-4; 9-10; 15-16; 23-24; 31; 65; Germanicus: RIC I² Caligula 11-12; 17-18; 25-26; 35; 43; 50; 57; Agrippina: RIC I² Caligula 7-8; 13-14; 21-22; 30; 55. 10 RIC I² Caligula 35; 43; 50. SUET., Tiberius 76; LEVICK (1999²), p. 219-220. 11 RIC I² Tiberius 49; 56; 71-76; 79-81. 12 Res Gestae diui Augusti 34.3. 13 RIC I² Tiberius 57; 63; 69; 77-78. 14 RIC I² Tiberius 70-73; 82-83. Contra GRADEL (2002), p. 291-293; 305-310 who states that the eagle is already a reference to Augustus’ consecration. 15 On the elimination of Agrippa Postumus, see LEVICK (1999²), p. 49-50; 57-65. 16 SEVERY (2003), p. 205-212; CLAES (2013), p. 52; 83. 17 ROSE (1997), p. 22-24; SEVERY (2003), p. 187-212; LYASSE (2008), p. 37-65; 92-96. 18 RIC I² Caligula 36; 44; 51.

THE NUMISMATIC MEMORY OF AUGUSTUS

83

Fig. 1. Sestertius of Tiberius for diuus Augustus pater (RIC I² Tiberius 49 – Numismatica Ars Classica AG. Auction 72, 581 [16/05/2013]).

Fig. 2. Sestertius of Caligula with the emperor sacrificing before the temple of diuus Augustus (RIC I² Caligula 44 – Numismatica Ars Classica AG. Auction 86, 105 [08/10/2015]).

Caligula’s coins undoubtedly used the image of Augustus as a way to legitimatize his succession through his imperial kinship and through his pious gesture towards his divine predecessor. 19 As mentioned before, the young heir of Tiberius had not much political or military experience when he became emperor. His imperial kinship with the divine Augustus was thus a powerful tool to legitimise and strengthen his succession to Tiberius. 19 On the legitimizing effect of a consecrated ancestor see HEDLUND (2008), p. 175-186. Cf. WEINSTOCK (1971), p. 385-386; GRADEL (2002), p. 262-268; 298-304; 321-371; DE JONG (2006), p. 169-172.

84

LIESBETH CLAES

Fig. 3. Dupondius of Claudius for diua Iulia and diuus Augustus (RIC I² Claudius 101 – Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin No. 18209871).

No explicit kinship affiliation with Augustus is claimed by the Julio-Claudian emperors Claudius (AD 41-56) and Nero (AD 56-68). Claudius could only claim ancestry from Livia, Augustus’ wife. Her statue is displayed on one bronze coin type identified as diua Augusta, a type she shared with the portrait of diuus Augustus on the reverse (Fig. 3). 20 Most likely, the type celebrated the deification of Livia by Claudius, which was performed in AD 42. 21 As her statue was added to the temple of her late husband, the type most likely honoured the couple now re-joined in divinity, and not so much the figure of Augustus himself. 22 With the type, Claudius commemorated the pietas he had displayed towards his grandmother Livia and with her, her husband and Claudius’ predecessor, Augustus. Likewise, under Nero, diuus Augustus was not commemorated on his own, but he shared a silver and gold type with diuus Claudius (Fig. 4), which was briefly issued at the beginning of his reign. 23 On the types, the statues of both divi are pulled by an elephant cart which probably featured in Claudius’ funeral procession in AD 54. Was the figure of Augustus an obvious choice to accompany the newly deified god? 24 Did he have to strengthen the contested 20

RIC I² Claudius 101. ARENA (2009), p. 78-80; CIL 6.2032. Claudii A.15-18. 22 Diuus Augustus is flanked with the letters SC, which are traditionally depicted on the reverse. Therefore, Livia’s statue seems to have been intended as the obverse image, and thus can be perceived as the main theme of the coin. 23 RIC I² Nero 6-7. 24 Yet, some scholars tend not to agree with the Augustan identification. CLAY (1982), p. 26-29; 42-45, followed by GINSBURG (2006), p. 73 n. 80 and identify the 21

THE NUMISMATIC MEMORY OF AUGUSTUS

85

Fig. 4. Aureus of Nero with diui Claudius and Augustus (RIC I² Nero 6 – British Museum No. 1964,1203.89).

deification of Claudius? 25 Or do the types reflect a transitional stage of display in the portraiture of deified emperors? All can be true, and the arguments do not have to be mutually exclusive. Later, no deified emperor was accompanied by Augustus or his statue, demonstrating that the presence of Augustus next to a newly deified emperor did not become a tradition. 26 In addition, Nero’s indirect references to Augustus went further. His first coin portraits show how Nero is trying to stabilise his imperial succession. Portrayed with the typical Julian hairstyle and facial features, the young emperor is styled as a true descendant of Augustus. 27 However, after some years one by one the Augustan references ceased. After AD 55, the types for the diui Augustus and Claudius disappeared, an event that most likely can be linked to the removal of Nero’s a rationibus Pallas in AD 55. 28 In AD 59, a new coin portrait of Nero was introduced, lacking the Augustan coiffure and showing a more realistic picture of the emperor with a prominent fleshy neck and double chin and with heavy waves of curls in his

statue next to diuus Claudius as Fides Praetorianorum. GIARD (1988), p. 116 has described the figure as an unidentified female personification. 25 On Claudius’ consecration, see for example the political satire of Seneca titled Apocolocyntosis (diui) Claudii. 26 See CLAES (2013), p. 242-244. 27 GRAU (2009), p. 133-134; CADARIO (2011), p. 180; HEKSTER (2014), p. 8-9; 18-19. 28 CLAES (2014). For more on Nero’s ancestral advertisement using different media, see HEKSTER (2014).

86

LIESBETH CLAES

hair. 29 Likewise, Nero’s coin legends omitted the references made to his JulioClaudian descent. First, the phrase diui filius was dropped, later also the name Claudius disappeared. After AD 56, Nero’s name included only Caesar and Augustus, with occasionally Germanicus added. These choices seem to emphasise solely his imperial position. 30 All these changes will certainly have reflected Nero’s changing attitude towards his Augustan and Julio-Claudian descent, showing the young emperor “as a ruler in his own right, rather than as an Augustan descendant”. 31 Indeed, after some regnal years, Nero seems to have had fewer problems with the legitimation of his imperial auctoritas, which in fact he had received through Claudius, his predecessor and adopted father. Later coin types, especially after the big fire of Rome in AD 64, primarily focussed on the city of Rome (and Ostia), and (the closing of) the arch of Janus and to Victoria, without referring to any Julio-Claudian coin precedents, proclaiming Nero as the bringer of a new golden age. 32 3. Augustus in the Civil Wars of AD 68-69 and Its Aftermath During the civil wars of 68-69, a special series commemorating Augustus and diuus Augustus was issued by the opponents of Nero’s reign. Stylistic elements and weight standards indicate that these coins must have been produced by Spanish and Gallic mints. 33 Nevertheless, scholars have demonstrated that the messages on the coins responded to the coinage that was issued centrally, providing valuable evidence of the political aspirations and ambitions of those who issued them. 34 Most coins of this civil wars-series, numbered group III a (Augustus) and b (diuus Augustus) in the RIC, portray the bust of (diuus) Augustus, displayed bare-headed or wearing either a laurel wreath, an oakwreath, or a radiated crown. 35 The series includes many coins that unmistakably attempt to reproduce former Augustan types, displaying the Julian comet and CADARIO (2011), p. 180; see also quoted references in HEKSTER (2014), p. 19, n. 117. For the matter of completeness, CADARIO (2011), p. 183-189 has argued that Nero’s coinage also portrays himself as a new Apollo and that he associated himself with Sol/Helios. In these roles, Nero’s coinage may have implicitly referred to diuus Augustus. We do, however, have to be careful with this suggestion as other evidence for these identifications often comes from images produced by non-imperial centers. 30 HEKSTER (2014), p. 11. 31 HEKSTER (2014), p. 18-19, and especially p. 8-9 on the nearly-continuously focus on Nero’s Augustan descent and imitatio Augusti in modern scholarship. Contra GRAU (2009), p. 135-150; ID. (2015), p. 41-60. 32 HEKSTER (2014), p. 9-13; 19-20; contra GRAU (2009), p. 135-150. 33 RIC I², p. 199-200; cf. BMCRE, p. cxcvii; KRAAY (1949), p. 147; NICOLAS (1979), p. 1377-1386. 34 Cf. KRAAY (1949), p. 129 and references; 145; MARTIN (1974), p. 54; ASSENMAKER (2015), p. 229. 35 Cf. NICOLAS (1979), p. 1337-1346; GIARD (1988), p. 28-30; plate 2. 29

THE NUMISMATIC MEMORY OF AUGUSTUS

87

Fig. 5. Aureus of the civil war group III.a with Augustus and the capricorn with rudder and globe (RIC I² Civil Wars 81 – Numismatica Ars Classica AG).

Augustus’ grandsons, or they use typical Augustan symbols, such as the capricorn (Fig. 5) and the Gallic butting bull. 36 Other types depicted Augustus’ reign as peaceful and prosperous or stressed Augustus’ role as imperator. 37 Finally, a large number of types referred to the Senate and the Populus Romanus and others emphasised Augustus’ role as founder of the principate through the depiction of the corona ciuica. 38 Sutherland has rightly remarked that “the emphasis given to Augustus in 68-[6]9 was quite certainly a deliberate reminder of the finely balanced constitutionalism which Augustus, military ruler though he essentially was, had slowly and patiently evolved during the early principate, and which Nero’s autocracy had ruthlessly diminished”. 39 In his recent article, Assenmaker goes even further, claiming that Augustus figured as “the paradigm of the good princeps”. 40 Indeed, the appearance of Augustus during the civil wars represents a crucial step in the evolution of the political use of Augustus’ memory. His role as Julio-Claudian ancestor totally disappeared to the background. For the rebellion leaders, the coins most likely had to symbolize Augustus as their model emperor who ruled the Empire in consent with the Senate and the People of Rome. In doing so, Augustus represented

36 RIC I² Civil Wars 81-85; 87; 90; 92; 94; 97-100 and RIC I² Augustus 37a-38b; 102; 125-130; 166a-169; 174; 176a-178b; 186a-189b; 206-212; Cf. NICOLAS (1979), p. 1377-1379. 37 RIC I² Civil Wars 88-91; 93-103; 111; 113-115. 38 RIC I² Civil Wars 102; 104-110; 116-117. Cf. KRAAY (1949), p. 147. 39 RIC I² Civil Wars, p. 197. 40 ASSENMAKER (2015), p. 228-229; cf. MARTIN (1974), p. 54.

88

LIESBETH CLAES

everything that Nero was not, a message that the leaders of the anti-Neronian revolt clearly wanted to disseminate. 41 Vespasian became the victor of the civil wars. Throughout his reign, several types were produced which recaptured and adapted Augustan coin images. Between AD 69 until 71, for example, Vespasian’s sons were displayed together as Caesares Vespasiani Augusti filii on the reverses of the coins that depicted their father. Wearing togas while holding shields and lances, Titus and Domitian are portrayed as identical with Augustus’ adopted grandsons Gaius and Lucius on the Augustus’ type. 42 Other Augustan reminiscences in Vespasian’s coinage are the capricorn (Fig. 6) and the Gallic butting bull. 43 It is clear that Vespasian’s coinage styled him after the Augustus figure that the rebellion leaders of AD 68-69 had created. 44 In addition to this, two other aspects of the Flavian house were advertised by using adapted Augustan reverses. First of all, there were a couple of types re-using Augustan Victory reverses. 45 Most likely, these had to place the Flavian military achievements on par with those of Augustus. Most likely, other Vespasian types, referring to the Judean war, contributed to this Flavian military imitatio Augusti. 46 Secondly, the image of Venus, reclining on a column while holding a helmet and a lance, was recaptured by Vespasian and Titus (Fig. 7). 47 Venus, ancestress of the Julian gens, unmistakably symbolised Vespasian’s Augustan destination to rule the Empire, and furthermore, the goddess stressed the continuation between the Julio-Claudian and the Flavian house. Vespasian’s coin imitations, however, went further as his types also show similarities with coins of Vitellius, Otho, Galba, Nero, Tiberius, Agrippa, the triumuiri and even of older Republican types. 48 Most likely, all these antiquarian types did not figure as one restoration series, like LANGE (2009), p. 181-190; ROSSO (2009), p. 212; ASSENMAKER (2015), p. 229. RIC II² Vespasian 1344 and RIC I² Augustus 206-212. Cf. BUTTREY (1972), p. 95-96; JACOBO PÉREZ (2003), p. 116; ROSSO (2009), p. 240; CLAES (2013), p. 164-165. 43 RIC II² Vespasian 357; 768; 780; 841-842; 1058; 1060 and RIC I² Augustus 125130; 166a-169; 174; 176a-178b; 186a-189b. 44 Cf. ROSSO (2009), p. 212-213; ASSENMAKER (2015), p. 229. 45 See for example: Victoria on prow and on cista mystica: RIC II² Vespasian 284285; 325; 331; 335-338; 406-407; 417; 545; 471; 602-603; 605; 641-642; 644; 650; 676-678; 688; 732-735; 753-755; 775-776; 785; 824; 897-899; 916; 934; 1013-1014; 1035-1039; 1056; 1094; 1103; 1158-1160; 1178; 1198; 1243; 1274; 1285-1286 and RIC I² Augustus 276; 474; cf. BUTTREY (1972), p. 97; 99-100; 102. 46 RIC II² Vespasian 1-4; 51; 59; 81; 134; 159-169; 221-226; 233-236; 256; 271; 303-308; 363; 368-369; 375-376; 422; 445; 458; 457; 495; 562; 626; 1117-1120; 1134; 1179; 1181; 1204-1205; 1233; 1245-1246; 1268-1269; 1315-1316; 1332; 1357; 1515-1516; 1531; 1535-1536; 1558; 1562. Cf. ROSSO (2009), 240. 47 RIC II² Vespasian 1077-1078 and RIC I² Augustus 250a-b; BUTTREY (1972), p. 100. 48 For a good overview, see BUTTREY (1972), p. 95-102. Cf. JACOBO PÉREZ (2003), p. 116; RIC II², p. 30-31; CLAES (2013), p. 164-166. 41

42

THE NUMISMATIC MEMORY OF AUGUSTUS

89

Fig. 6. Denarius of Vespasian with a capricorn and a globe (RIC II² Vespasian 1058 – Numismatica Ars Classica AG Auction 78, 889 [26/05/2014]).

Fig. 7. Denarius of Titus with Venus reclining on a column, holding a helmet and a lance (RIC II² Titus 53 – Numismatica Ars Classica AG Auction 84, 956 [20/05/2015]).

the ones that were issued under Vespasian’s sons. 49 Nevertheless, the Augustan antecedents outnumbered the other antiquarian types, suggesting that the association with Augustus was one of the pivotal aims of Vespasian as it must have facilitated the acceptance of his reign, and subsequently, his imperial house. 49

Arguments for not identifying the Vespasian types with antiquarian references as restoration coinage are: i) they were issued throughout Vespasian’s reign, from which they not former a closed series; ii) the legend restituit was not mentioned on the types discussed; iii) no replacement of older coins, that could have been memorised by these antiquarian types, is thought to have taken place under Vespasian’s reign. Cf. BUTTREY (1972), p. 102-105. Buttrey continues by arguing that Vespasian had been a mint master and that this early career position would explain the antiquarian types in his coin output. Yet, this has been criticised by LEVICK (1999), p. 8-9.

90

LIESBETH CLAES

4. Augustus Recaptured on Restituit Coins Under Vespasian’s sons, Titus and Domitian, as well as under Nerva and Trajan, Augustus reappears on imperial coinage on the so-called restoration coins. On these coins, the legends, reading RES, REST, RESTITV, RESTITVIT, claim that the coin images have been restored from the past. Scholars have argued that these coins, like monumenta, had to restore former coin types that had been worn or deliberately withdrawn. 50 The purpose of the restoration coinage is still a point of debate, explanations ranging from economic reasons to the conservation of heritage. 51 Although each series of restoration coins is different, restoring either various Republican or former imperial types, Augustus is included in each series. 52 Under Titus (AD 79-81), several coin types of the former Julio-Claudian emperors and Galba were restored in their original form. The series included the following emperors apart from Augustus: Tiberius, Claudius, and Galba. 53 In addition, types of some prominent members of the Julio-Claudian house were restored; they honoured Agrippa, Drusus Senior, Germanicus, Drusus Iunior, and Agrippina Maior. 54 Finally, four Tiberian types depicting Pietas, Iustitia, Salus Augusta and a scene commemorating Tiberius’ financial aid after an earthquake disaster in Asia Minor, were also issued. 55 The selection of Titus’ restored types associated the emperor explicitly with the former “good” emperors. 56 In doing so, the restoration series associated Titus explicitly with the past dynasty, and like his father’s Augustan coins, it emphasised the continuity between his own Flavian and the Julio-Claudian house. 57 In the series, the restored types of Augustus outnumbered the other types that were recaptured. These types were not restorations of coins that had been issued under Augustus, but they were Tiberian types that had been issued in name of diuus Augustus This belief is based on DIO (68.15.3) who reported that Trajan melted down all the worn-out coinage. See MEADOWS / WILLIAMS (2001); KOMNICK (2001), p. 158-164. Cf. RIC II², p. 192; BMCRE II, p. lxxvii. 51 For an overview of the four most given purposes, see KOMNICK (2001), p. 158-180. 52 Later, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus restore one of the legionary coins of Mark Antony, honoring the sixth legion, but no reference to Augustus is made. RIC III Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus 443. 53 RIC II² Titus 399-403; 410-413; 420-423; 431-436; 444-452; 454-468; 471-490; 496; KOMNICK (2001), nos. 1-3; 7; 12-14; 19-23; 29-51; 53-62. 54 RIC II² Titus 414-419; 437-443; 470; KOMNICK (2001), nos. 8-11; 24-28; 52. 55 RIC II² Titus 405-410; 424-427; 429-430; KOMNICK (2001), nos. 4-5; 15-18.2. 56 Galba received a restitutio memoriae under the reign of Vespasian: ZIMMERMAN (1995). However, Galba was not included in the emperor’s list of the lex de imperio Vespasiani and SUETONIUS, Galba 23 reports that Vespasian annulled the decree to put up a statue for Galba on the place he was murdered. Yet, the dates of these events are discussed, see BRUNT (1977), p. 104 and NICOLET (1988), p. 852-853. 57 MATTINGLY (1920), p. 180-181; BMCRE II, p. lxxvii; KOMNICK (2001), p. 164-171. 50

THE NUMISMATIC MEMORY OF AUGUSTUS

91

Fig. 8. Restored sestertius of Titus honoring diuus Augustus (RIC II² Titus 401 – Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin No. 18208039).

pater. The restored types commemorated three different roles of Augustus. Firstly, Augustus’ status as deity was celebrated. Augustus’ seated cult statue was recaptured (Fig. 1 and 8) as well as the type with the altar enclosure. 58 Moreover, Augustus is the only deified emperor who is named and portrayed as a diuus in Titus’ restoration series. Secondly, Augustus’ victorious achievements were emphasised, restoring the Tiberian Victoria types. 59 Thirdly, the coins reissued Augustus’ reverses of the eagle on a globe, hinting at Augustus’ world dominance (Fig. 9). 60 Augustus was the only person in Titus’ restoration series who was memorised because of his military victories and his global government. Next to Augustus, only Agrippa was honoured with a rostral crown remembering at his naval victories, a theme that was emphasised with the god Neptune on the reverse. 61 The reverses of Tiberius, Claudius and Galba as well as the ones of the victorious generals Drusus and Germanicus mostly featured the letters SC, and when reverses recaptured images, they depicted mainly allegoric themes or virtues. In this way, Titus’ restoration series can be read as some kind of imperial chronicle in which Augustus was the divine emperor bringing military successes and possessing world dominance, whereas other emperors and imperial relatives were memorised for other deeds. RIC II² Titus 399-403; 449-452; 454-457; KOMNICK (2001), nos. 1-3; 30-32; 38-40. Cf. KOMNICK (2001), p. 169. Underneath the altar enclosure the legend PROVIDENTIA proclaims the providence of the divine Augustus to foresee the security of the Roman Empire, which can be categorised as an worldly message either. 59 RIC II² Titus 445-448; KOMNICK (2001), nos. 35-37. Cf. KOMNICK (2001), p. 169. 60 RIC II² Titus 458-469; KOMNICK (2001), nos. 33-34; 41-51. Cf. KOMNICK (2001), p. 169-170. 61 RIC II² Titus 454; KOMNICK (2001), no. 52. 58

92

LIESBETH CLAES

Fig. 9. Restored as of Titus for diuus Augustus with an eagle on a globe (RIC II² Titus 458 – Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin No. 18209801).

The restoration series of Domitian (AD 81-96) resembled Titus’ one, but it recaptured a more selective list of emperors and imperial members. Only types featuring Augustus, Agrippa, Tiberius, Drusus Iunior, Germanicus and Claudius were restored. 62 The series appeared in the beginning of Domitian’s reign. 63 As under Titus, Augustus is again included with the same Tiberian types showing the radiated crown, naming him diuus Augustus pater and displaying the same restored images referring to the altar enclosure, Victoria and the eagle sitting on a globe. 64 Augustus was thus remembered in the same roles – divinity, victorious imperator and world leader – as under Domitian’s brother. The restoration series issued under Nerva (AD 96-98) featured only diuus Augustus. 65 Nerva’s series restored new Augustan images either once issued by Augustus himself or by Tiberius for Augustus. The types honoured Augustus’ divinity and his peaceful and prosperous reign (Fig. 10). The latter message certainly had to benefit the reign of Nerva, who needed every positive advertisement after the reign of the unpopular Domitian. In doing so, Nerva represented himself as a new founder of the principate, a new Augustus. 66 Many of the restored types also bore the letters SC letters, which aside from the Augustan theme could have referred to Nerva’s senatorial appointment. 67 This possibility RIC II² Domitian 822-830; KOMNICK (2001), nos. 1-10. RIC II², following CARRADICE (1983), p. 117 and KOMNICK (2001), p. 98-99, dates the series to AD 81-82, with the Domitian’s assumption of the name of Germanicus in the first half of AD 83 as terminus ante quem. 64 RIC II² Domitian 822-824; KOMNICK (2001), nos. 1-3.1. 65 RIC II² Nerva 126; 128-137; KOMNICK (2001), nos. 1-11.1. 66 Cf. KOMNICK (2001), p. 172-175. 67 SHOTTER (1983), p. 220-222. 62 63

THE NUMISMATIC MEMORY OF AUGUSTUS

93

Fig. 10. Restored dupondius of Nerva for diuus Augustus with globe and rudder (RIC II Nerva 131 – Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin No. 18209854).

is strengthened by the facts that two of Nerva’s restored types displayed Augustus’ head and that the SC letters do not have an historic prototype, which tentatively suggests that the SC emblem was a deliberately chosen image. 68 Both the senatorial as well as the prosperous age messages designate Nerva as a legitimate successor of Augustus’ principate. The restoration series of Trajan (AD 98-177) is subject of much scholarly discussion, because of its images, economic purpose and volume of the production. 69 Trajan’s series has the largest number of types in a restoration series of all emperors who issued these series and, unprecedentedly, restored Republican types besides imperial types. Again Augustus is included in the series together with Tiberius, Claudius, Galba, Vespasian, Titus and Nerva. For Augustus, different life stages are recorded, hailing him as Octavian, triumuir, diui filius, Augustus and diuus Augustus. Augustus’ types display primary governmental and military themes. The curule chair represented Octavian in office as triumuir (Fig. 11). 70 Augustus’ portrait is displayed twice with Agrippa displayed on the reverse. The latter is either displayed with his portrait, wearing a rostral and mural crown or sits on horseback. 71 The issues for diuus Augustus either refer to the crocodile, a unmistaken reference to Augustus’ capture of Egypt, or show 68

Of course, we may not underestimate the fiduciary power of the SC letters, which could enlarge the trust of new restoration series, see BAY (1972). 69 See for example: MATTINGLY (1920), p. 177-178; ID. (1926), p. 266; BMCRE III, lxxxvii-lxxxix; KOMNICK (2001), p. 137-138, 175-178; WALKER (2002), p. 93-100; DUNCAN-JONES (2005), p. 481; SEELENTAG (2007); WOYTEK (2010), p. 167-169; 641644; appendix 3.A; BECKMANN (2015). See also the contribution by Martin Galinier in this volume, p. 110-120. 70 RIC II Trajan 807; KOMNICK (2001), no. 45; WOYTEK (2010), p. 845. 71 RIC II Trajan 817-818; KOMNICK (2001), nos. 50-51; WOYTEK (2010), p. 848-849.

94

LIESBETH CLAES

Fig. 11. Restored denarius of Trajan for Octavian (Augustus) as IIIuir displaying a curule chair (RIC II Trajan 807 – Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin No. 18207145).

Fig. 12. Restored aureus of Trajan for diuus Augustus with aquila and two legion standards (RIC II Trajan 820 – Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin No. 18252270).

an aquila between two legion standards (Fig. 12). 72 None of the types emphasised Augustus’ divinity, except for the diuus legend. Nor was he depicted with the radiated crown. It is clear that under Trajan, Augustus is primarily commemorated in his role as political and military leader. Besides Augustus, only 72

RIC II Trajan 819-820; KOMNICK (2001), nos. 56-57; WOYTEK (2010), p. 854-855.

THE NUMISMATIC MEMORY OF AUGUSTUS

95

Vespasian and Titus were represented as victorious generals, referring to their involvement in the Judean war. 73 None of the other emperors who appear on Trajan’s restored coins were associated with military themes. As Trajan himself was a skilled military man, it could be tentatively suggested that his restoration series presented him in line with the former victorious military emperors, such as Augustus, Vespasian, and Titus. Although discussing why the restoration series were issued is not within the scope of this paper, it is clear that the types of Augustus were carefully selected to emphasise particular aspects or roles assigned to him as founder of the principate. Under Titus and Domitian, Augustus was commemorated as a victorious imperator, a world leader and a divinity. Under Nerva, the divine aspect of Augustus and his prosperous reign were propagated, whereas under Trajan Augustus was commemorated as statesman and military leader. Most likely, the last two emperors even styled themselves after Augustus, highlighting particular roles which fitted their own agendas. For matter of completeness, it is necessary to mention that under Antonius Pius several types among his regular coin issues were produced that commemorated the restoration of the temple of diuus Augustus and diua Iulia. Although these types refer to an historical event in the first place, a closer imperial relation between Pius and Augustus was also emphasised, showing again the importance of Augustus as the divine founder of the principate. 74 5. Diuus and deus Augustus After Trajan, Augustus disappears from imperial coinage, only to reappear in a new restoration series issued under Trajan Decius (AD 249-251). Most scholars denote Decius’ series as the diui series, because it portrayed eleven deified emperors, all wearing the radiated crown, and because the verb restituit is omitted from the legends. The main motive behind the divine display was economic, as all diui types are former denarii restruck into radiates, the so-called antoniniani, which, in theory, valued one and a half or two denarii. The radiated crowns had a double function, masking the lower silver content of the restruck denarii 75 and symbolising the divinity of the emperors. 76 On RIC II Trajan 826-827; 831-832; KOMNICK (2001), nos. 64-65.1; 68-69; WOYTEK (2010), p. 861-864; 867-866. 74 RIC III Antoninus Pius 124; 143-144; 272a; 272b; 289-290; 305a; 305b; 755; 787; 795a; 795b; 796; 829; 870; 873; 973; 978; 988; 998; 998a; 1003-1004; 1013; 1017; 1021a; 1021b; 1024-1025; 1040; 1061. 75 The radiated crown was the value mark of the Antoninianus. 76 LE GENTILHOMME (1946), p. 45; MATTINGLY (1949); BUTCHER (1996), p. 522; POTTER (2004), p. 244. Notably, other Antoniniani under Decius’ later reign and also Gallus’ are overstrikes of denarii. Yet, those did not restore any former emperors or coin images, see MATTINGLY (1939). 73

96

LIESBETH CLAES

Fig. 13. Restored antoninianus of Trajan Decius for diuus Augustus with altar (RIC IV.C. Trajan Decius 78 – Numismatica Ars Classica AG. Auction 86, 89 [08/10/2015]).

the reverses, the consecration images – either an altar (Fig. 13) or the consecration eagle – must have been a logical choice in relation to the divine status of the emperors. 77 Next to Augustus, the memory of ten other emperors was restored: Vespasian, Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, Septimius Severus and Alexander Severus. 78 Remarkably, some deified emperors, such as Claudius, Lucius Verus, Pertinax, Caracalla and the Gordiani, were excluded from Decius’ series, suggesting that a deliberate selection was made between more or less preferred emperors. In the Historia Augusta, although written more than 100 years later, similar imperial lists are given, in which Augustus is referred to as first, Commodus is often excluded and Pertinax is included together with the later emperors Claudius II Gothicus and Aurelian. 79 It is therefore possible that Decius’ series reflects some kind of general accepted canon of model emperors, in which Augustus was advertised as the first emperor and, subsequently, founder of the principate. Decius, who is known for his fierce attempts to connect himself with Trajan, must certainly have seen himself as the twelfth emperor in the list. 80 Moreover, Decius’ series did not only restore the worn denarii of former emperors, the divine status of 77

The eagle’s accession from the funeral pyre symbolized an emperor’s elevation to the heavens. For more on the consecration ritual, see TEMPORINI (1978), p. 201-202; ARCE (1988), p. 131-140; ID. (2010); GRADEL (2002), p. 291-293; 305-310. 78 RIC IV.C. Decius 77-98. 79 Historia Augusta, Pescennius Niger 12.1; Elagabalus 1.1; Aurelian 42.1; Tyranni triginta 6.6; Tacitus 16.6; Probus 22.4; Carus et Carinus et Numerianus 3.1-4. 80 Cf. DMITRIEV (2004). It has been said that Decius adopted Trajan’s name and he used similar Dacian propaganda. MANDERS (2012), p. 263-266 also stresses that Decius’ restoration series could have been an extra tool to associate himself with Trajan, although the latter’s restoration series is different in form and content.

THE NUMISMATIC MEMORY OF AUGUSTUS

97

Fig. 14. Aureus of Gallienus with deus Augustus (RIC V.A. Gallienus 28 – Harlan J. Berk, Ltd. 122 Buy or Bid Sale, September 2001, lot 16).

the advertised emperors also served Decius’ restoration of Rome’s traditional religion. 81 In this traditionalist view, Augustus was propagated as the main imperial god, although Caesar had been the first in Roman history to receive divine honours. The imperial list starting with Augustus and Decius’ associations with Trajan could refer to the standard phrase the Senate used on accession of each new emperor: “May you be luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan”. 82 In sum, Decius’ diui series served several purposes, in which Augustus was commemorated as divine founder of the principate. Under Gallienus (AD 253-268), Augustus is commemorated for the last time on imperial coinage during the third century. The type figured in Gallienus’ decennalia issue minted at Rome in the autumn of AD 262. On the obverse, Gallienus’ portrait was shown together with the legend GALLIENVS AVG. The reverse hailed DEO AVGVSTO with a portrait of Augustus, whose features looked similar to Gallienus’ portrait type 2, apart from the typical Augustan, and later Julio-Claudian, hairline (Fig. 14). 83 After Gallienus’ father Valerian had been shamefully captured by the Persian king Shapur I, Gallienus needed other ways to legitimize his reign. 84 His coinage first dropped the gentile name MATTINGLY (1949), p. 79-82; SELINGER (1994), p. 25; RIVES (1999), p. 142-143; BLOIS (2006), p. 273-274; ANDO (2012), p. 149-152; MANDERS (2012), p. 263-266 and references in n. 47. 82 EUTROPIUS 8.5.3: felicior Augusto melior Traiano. 83 RIC V.A. Gallienus 28; GÖBL (2000), no. 530; GEIGER (2013), p. 219-220; 250252; Cf. FITTSCHEN (1993); KUHOFF (1979), p. 63-66; ZANKER (1987), p. 98-99; 215223; 247-250. 84 AURELIUS VICTOR, Book of the Caesars 32; The Two Gallieni 1; 17; EUTROPIUS 9.7; FESTUS, Summary 23; LACTANTIUS, On the Death of the Prosecutors 5; Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle 155-171; Res Gestae Diui Saphoris 11; POTTER (1990), p. 50-51; 81

DE

98

LIESBETH CLAES

of Licinius, which can be interpreted as deliberately distancing himself from his paternal descent. 85 Furthermore, he started to accentuate his maternal affiliation with the Egnatii by issuing coin types hailing the VIRTVS and the PIETAS of the native city of this senatorial family, Falerii Novi, nowadays Civita Castellana (Lazio). 86 The evocation of this ancient Italian family would certainly have pleased the Italian elite, but also Gallienus’ officers, who had strong nostalgic feelings towards Rome’s past and its ancient families, must have been impressed by Gallienus’ noble ancestry. 87 The association with the founder of the principate seems to have been another way for Gallienus to strengthen his reign. Being issued on gold flans, the type was probably intended to be distributed among higher officials as presents or as military donatives. 88 This suggestion is strengthened by the fact that this deus type also appeared on gold medallions. 89 The coin display of Augustus shows how the imperial cult ideology became excessively exploited turning Augustus into a full god instead of a divine emperor. Nevertheless, the type’s message of imperial continuity, personified by Gallienus, could not be mistaken. 90 Recently, Geiger has formulated it aptly, stating that the type announced a new golden age in which Gallienus as a new Augustus would defeat the Empire’s enemies and would restore peace. 91 This message would certainly have targeted Gallienus’ officers, who mentally dwelt on Rome’s great past and hungered for an eternal pax Romana. 92 The Gallienian features of Augustus also suggest that the fatherless Gallienus, who likely tried to cut the bonds with his unheroic father, represented the god

328-347; ID. (2004), p. 252-256; WATSON (1999), p. 27-29; GÖBL (2000), p. 59; HEDLUND (2008), p. 176-177; GOLTZ / HARTMANN (2008), p. 247-256, esp. p. 255-256. 85 Before the capture of Valerian in AD 260, half of Gallienus’ coin legends included Licinius, see: RIC VI.A. Gallienus Joint Reign 1; 69-80; 82-85; 87; 89; 91-95; 98-100; 109; 113; 115-119; 125; 127-128; 130-135; 137; 141-145; 147-153; 155; 158-159; 161-162; 164; 166; 168; 170-174; 178; 181-182; 184-185; 188-190; 192-194; 197; 199; 202; 205; 207-211; 213-217; 219-221; 223; 225-226; 230-235; 237-238; 240244; 247-258; 260-262; 264-266; 270-272; 274; 276-281; 283; 286-301; 378; 387; 417-419; 421; 431-436; 438-440; 445-450; 455-462. 86 RIC V.A. Gallienus Siscia 596, although the type was most likely issued at Rome, see GÖBL (2000), no. 349; RIC V.A. Gallienus and Salonina 1-2; GÖBL (2000), no. 942A. Other sources show Gallienus link to Falerii Novi as well: AURELIUS VICTOR, Book of the Caesars 32.4 mentions Gallienus’ Etrurian origin, and the inscription CIL 11.30893094 testifies Gallienus’ visit to the town. See also MENNEN (2011), p. 100-103 and GEIGER (2013), p. 73-75 for more on the Egnatii. 87 DE BLOIS (1976), p. 134; MANDERS (2012), p. 178; 295. 88 Cf. BASTIEN / METZGER (1997). 89 RIC V.A. Gallienus 9. 90 KUHOFF (1979), p. 56. 91 GEIGER (2013), p. 220, with references in note 1192; 251. 92 Cf. DE BLOIS (1976), p. 134.

THE NUMISMATIC MEMORY OF AUGUSTUS

99

Augustus as his imperial forefather. 93 Moreover, it can be suggested that Augustus’ portrait had to recall the traditional imagines maiorum. This implies that even in the middle of the third century the image of Augustus as divine forefather seems to have been a powerful tool to strengthen an emperor’s reign. 94 6. Conclusion When present, the numismatic memory of Augustus had many faces. This is immediately visible under his direct successor Tiberius, whose coinage hailed Augustus as an ancestor, a divinity, a military commander and a world leader. After Tiberius, descent from Augustus was only overtly advertised by the young Caligula, who styled himself by the use of an elaborate phrase pronepos diui Augustus and displayed his great-grandfather on several coins. For both Tiberius and Caligula, any relationship with Augustus would have been useful to boost the legitimacy of their imperial office in this early period of the principate. Caligula also explicitly commemorated Augustus’ divine status by referring to his temple. The divine theme was also followed by Claudius and Nero, although it was not displayed on their coins with great frequency. Being the fourth and fifth emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, the need to stress legitimate descent from the first princeps seems to have become less urgent. However, the use of the numismatic memory of Augustus did not stop with the Julio-Claudian emperors. The leaders of the civil wars in AD 68-69 understood the power of Augustus’ image very well as well. During this period, the image of Augustus signified opposition to Nero’s government and supporters, and subsequently, came to represent the model of good emperorship. Types of the civil war period stressed Augustus’ military qualities and divine status, they depicted his reign as peaceful and prosperous, and they emphasised that he received his emperorship with the consent of the senate and the people of Rome. Peace was restored with the reign of Vespasian. He styled himself as a new Augustus on his coinage, copying several Augustan reverses and coin symbols throughout his whole reign. Through this imitatio Augusti, Vespasian enhanced the legitimate status of his emperorship and the impact of the military achievements of his Flavian house. Augustus’ image reappears on the special restoration coin series, issued under the reigns of Titus, Domitian, Nerva and Trajan respectively. The Flavian brothers, together with Trajan, primarily advertised 93

From Augustus’ reign, the depiction of divine ancestors, such as diuus Iulius under Augustus, seems to have been accepted. Cf. FLOWER (1996), p. 86-87, 237-255, 263-265. 94 Because the decennalia series also includes a type featuring the legend SPQR OPTIMO PRINCIPI, Göbl suggested that the type together with the deo Augusto type referred to the previous mentioned “felicior Augusto melior Traiano” acclamation, yet, without any direct reference to the person of Trajan himself, this suggestion stays tentative.

100

LIESBETH CLAES

Augustus’ military leadership. On the restoration coins of Titus and Domitian, Augustus is also associated with images of world dominance, while Trajan stressed Augustus’ exceptional political career from triumuir to (diuus) Augustus. It is most probable that these emperors used such political and military messages as a way of glorifying their own imperial position and military achievements. Nerva did something similar, but with another aspect of Augustus’ reign. Through images of peace and prosperity, Nerva’s coinage promised that his reign would be the renascence of Augustus’ golden age. The divine status of Augustus was the most advertised aspect of the first princeps. Not only did all Julio-Claudian emperors, as well as the leaders of the civil wars of AD 68-69, refer to diuus Augustus; Titus, Domitian, and Nerva also highlighted Augustus’ divinity in one way or another, as did Antonius Pius, Trajan Decius and Gallienus later on. In doing so, references were made to the cult of Augustus, temple and cult statue, or to other divine attributes which were connected to Augustus. By the third century, the image of Augustus as divinity was the only aspect of the founder of the principate that had survived the ages. It symbolised the revival of traditional Roman religion, but it was also used to mask the illegal practices of the official mint. Moreover, under Gallienus, Augustus’ divine status had developed into that of a full deus. Gallienus’ godly and paternal association with deus Augustus, whose features even resembled him, must certainly have helped to legitimate the reign of the fatherless emperor. The deus coin type in particular shows how, 250 years after Augustus’ death, the image of the founder of the principate was still thought to communicate a powerful message of legitimacy. Epilogue No other visual reference to Augustus was made on the third and fourth century coinage, although imperial lineage remained an important aspect in the emperor’s legitimation. 95 Yet, in the later Empire, coin reverses developed into more static and conservative range of images, leaving fewer opportunities to disseminate various messages. In the middle of the fourth century however, Augustus’ coin image reappeared on the so-called “regular” contorniates series. In this epilogue, the re-introduction of these “regular” contorniates and the reasons why these big brass medallions depicted Augustus’ portrait will be discussed. 96 HEKSTER (2015), p. 277-314. MITTAG (1999), p. 31-33; (2016), p. 338 following ALFÖLDI (1943) dates the appearance of the “regular” contorniates to AD 355/360 (under Constantius II) to ca. 410. Next to these, two other types of contorniates exist. In addition, scholars also differentiate between contorniates, proto-contorniates and pseudo-contorniates, see for this debate KOS (1993), p. 431-437 and MITTAG (1999), p. 6-19; 200-206. 95 96

THE NUMISMATIC MEMORY OF AUGUSTUS

101

The contorniates derive their name from their circular groove, the contorno, which is curved within their edge. All seem to have been issued by the mint in Rome. Their obverses display various persons, such as athletes and charioteers, historical and mythological personalities, philosophers and writers, but also former kings and emperors. Of the last group, Alexander the Great was most frequently represented, followed by the emperors Nero and Trajan. Augustus appeared only during the first phase of the appearance of the contorniates, from ca. AD 355/360 until AD 375/380. 97 Remarkably, contorniates depicting Augustus are less abundant than the ones with Nero and Trajan. 98 The major part of the contorniates’ reverses haves scenes referring to games. The predominance depiction of games could explain why the emperors who went down into history with a bad reputation such as Caligula, Commodus, Caracalla and in particular Nero, were chosen to be included into the contorniates series: all these “bad” emperors could boast about their achievements concerning the sponsoring and promotion of games. 99 On the contorniates which display Augustus, the founder of the Principate is always named diuus and pater. In most cases, however, his portrait bears a laurel wreath and never the radiated crown, suggesting that diuus Augustus had become a rather standard formula leaving the exact nature of his divinity somehow ambiguous. This choice may have been influenced by Christianity, which became more and more the dominant religion during this period. Likewise, the word pater may have been added as some sort of standard title, emphasizing Augustus’ paternal role as the first princeps of the Roman Empire. The majority of the reverses shared with the obverses of Augustus are all related to games, displaying chariot races, the Circus Maximus and uenatio scenes. 100 Other scenes include a walking Victoria, the triad Mars-Fortuna-Diuus Augustus (in military dress) together with Terra and Oceanus, Cybele and Attis in a quadriga, Hector and Andromache, and Bacchus in a panther biga, which celebrate Augustus as a victorious general, supported by the gods. It is generally accepted that the contorniates were not used as money. Most likely, they were designed as gifts of good fortune for the New Year or at other occasions, such as the circus games. 101 As a result, the contorniates could have MITTAG (1999), p. 127-129. Other Roman emperors and empresses that feature on the contorniates as well are Caligula, Agrippina Maior, Galba, Vespasian, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, the Faustinae, Lucilla, Commodus, Crispina, Julia Domna, Caracalla, Philippus Arabs, and Helena. 99 Cf. MARVIN (1896), p. 29-38; MITTAG (2016), p. 338-342. 100 ALFÖLDI (1976), p. 217-232 and tables. 101 Various scholars have discussed this matter, see for example: STEVENSON (1889), p. 271-279; MARVIN (1896), p. 29-38; BLANCHET (1897), p. 93-96; ALFÖLDI (1943), p. 10; ZADOCKS-JOSEPHUS JITTA (1952), p. 85-87; ALFÖLDI (1990), p. 43; MITTAG (1999), p. 200214; ID. (2016), p. 238-240. The presence of the legends “VINCAS” and “NIKA” and the display of Hecate, the deity of enchantments which featured on many amulets and gems, 97 98

102

LIESBETH CLAES

been used as fortune amulets or talismans, a common practice for images of Alexander the Great. 102 From this perspective, it seems that the imperial center did not construct messages for self-advertisement by using the image of Augustus on the contorniates. Moreover, Alföldi and Mittag have demonstrated that a lot of the contorniates’ reverses were used interchangeably between the obverses, which means that the reverses were not exclusively reserved for Augustus alone. 103 Nevertheless, we can state that Augustus was one of the emperors perceived suitable to be associated with the contorniates’ fortune messages, styling the first princeps as a divine and military patron of the Roman games. Bibliography ALFÖLDI, A. (1943), Die Kontorniaten, Budapest. ALFÖLDI, A / ALFÖLDI, E. (1976), Die Kontorniat-Medaillons, 2 volumes, Berlin / New York. ALFÖLDI, E. (1990), Die Kontorniat-Medaillons, Berlin / New York. ANDO, C. (2012), Imperial Rome, AD 193 to 284: The Critical Century, Edinburgh (The Edinburgh History of Ancient Rome). ARCE, J. (1988), Funus Imperatorum. Los funerales de los emperadores romanos, Madrid. ARCE, J. (2010), Roman Imperial Funerals in Effigie, in B. C. EWALD / C. F. NOREÑA (eds.), The Emperor and Rome. Space, Representation, and Ritual, Cambridge, p. 309-324. ARENA, P. (2009), The pompa circensis and the domus Augusta (1st–2nd Century A.D.), in O. J. HEKSTER / S. SCHMIDT-HOFNER / C. WITSCHEL (eds.), Ritual Dynamics and Religious Change in the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Heidelberg, July 5-7, 2007), Leiden / Boston, p. 77-93. ASSENMAKER, P. (2015), ‘Roma restituta’. La rappresentazione dei fondamenti politici e religiosi della rivolta contro Nerone nelle coniazioni monetarie anomine del 68 d.C., in J.-L. FERRARY / J. SCHEID (eds.), Il princeps romano: autocrate o magistrato?, Pavia, p. 203-238. BASTIEN, P. / METZGER C. (1997), Le trésor de Beaurains (dit d’Arras), Arras (Mémoires de la Commission départementale des Monuments historiques du Pas-de-Calais, XVII). BAY, A. (1972), The Letters SC on Augustan Aes Coinage, in Journal of Roman Studies 62, p. 111-122. BECKMANN, M. (2015), Trajan’s Restored Coinage: Volume, Value and Purpose, in Revue belge de Numismatique et de Sigillographie 161, p. 311-324. BLANCHET, J. A. (1897), Further Notes on Contorniates, in American Journal of Numismatics 31, p. 93-96. BLOIS, L. DE (1976), The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus, Leiden. strengthen the contorniate’ function as “luck-bringer” even more. Cf. MARVIN (1896), p. 35-36. 102 Cf. Historia Augustus, Tyranni triginta 14.2-6; JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, Ad illuminandos catechesis 2.5; MAGUIRE (1997), p. 1040-1041; MITTAG (1999), p. 164-166. 103 ALFÖLDI (1943), p. 217-232; tables and MITTAG (1999), p. 215-216.

THE NUMISMATIC MEMORY OF AUGUSTUS

103

BLOIS, L. DE (2006), Emperorship in a Period of Crises. Changes in Emperor Worship, Imperial Ideology and Perceptions of Imperial Authority in the Roman Empire in the Third Century A.D., in L. DE BLOIS / P. FUNKE / J. HAHN (eds.), The Impact of Imperial Rome on Religions, Ritual and Religious Life in the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Münster, June 30 - July 4, 2004), Leiden / Boston, p. 268-278. BMCRE = MATTINGLY, H. / CARSON, R. A. G. (eds.) (1923-1963), Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vols. 1-6, London. BRUNT, P. A. (1977), Lex de Imperio Vespasiani, in Journal of Roman Studies 67, p. 95-116. BUTCHER, K. E. T. (1996), Imagined Emperors: Personalities and Failure in the Third Century, in Journal of Roman Archaeology 9, p. 515-527. BUTTREY, T. V. (1972), Vespasian as Moneyer, in Numismatic Chronicle 12, p. 89-109. CADARIO, M. (2011), Nerone e il “potere delle immagini”, in M. A. TOMEI / R. REA (eds.), Nerone, Roma, p. 176-189. CARRADICE, I. (1983), Coinage and Finances in the Reign of Domitian, Oxford. CIL = MOMMSEN, Th. / BORMANN, E. et al. (eds.) (1853-2003), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin. CLAES, L. (2013), Kinship and Coins: Ancestors and Family on Imperial Coinage during the Principate, Nijmegen (dissertation). CLAES, L. (2014), A Note on the Coin Type Selection by the a rationibus, in Latomus 73, 1, p. 163-173. CLASSEN, C. J. (1991), Virtutes imperatoriae, in Arctos 25, p. 17-39. CLAY, C. L. (1982), Die Münzprägung des Kaisers Nero in Rom und Lugdunum, 1. Die Edelmetallprägung der Jahre 54 bis 64 n. Chr., in Numismatische Zeitschrift 96, p. 7-52. DMITRIEV, S. (2004), “Good Emperors” and Emperors of the Third Century, in Hermes 132, 2, p. 211-224. DUNCAN-JONES, R. P. (2005), Implications of Roman Coinage: Debates and Differences, in Klio 87, p. 459-487. EHRHARDT, C. (1984), Roman Coin Types and the Roman Public, in Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 39, p. 41-54. FITTSCHEN, K. (1993), Das Bildnis des Kaisers Gallien aus Milreu: Zum Problem der Bildnistypologie, in Madrider Mitteilungen 34, p. 210-227. FLOWER, H. I. (1996), Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture, Oxford. GEIGER, M. (2013), Gallienus, Frankfurt am Main. GIARD, J.-B. (1988), Catalogue des monnaies de l’Empire romain, Volume 2. De Tibère à Néron, Paris. GINSBURG, J. (2006), Representing Agrippina: Constructions of Female Power in the Early Roman Empire, Oxford. GÖBL, R. (2000), Die Münzprägung der Kaiser Valerianus I., Gallienus, Saloninus (253268), Regalianus und Macrinus, Quietus (260/262), Wien. GOLTZ, A. / HARTMANN, U. (2008), Valerianus und Gallienus, in K.-P. JOHNE / U. HARTMANN / T. GERHARDT (eds.), Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser: Krise und Transformation des Römischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (235-284), Berlin, p. 223-296. GRADEL, I. (2002), Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, Oxford. GRAU, D. (2009), Néron, héritier d’Auguste  : perspectives numismatiques, in Revue Numismatique 165, p. 129-152.

104

LIESBETH CLAES

GRAU, D. (2015), Néron en Occident. Une figure de l’histoire, Paris. HEDLUND, R. (2008),“… Achieved Nothing Worthy of Memory”. Coinage and Authority in the Roman Empire c. AD 260-295, Uppsala. HEKSTER, O. J. (2003), Coins and Messages: Audience targeting on coins of different denominations, in L. DE BLOIS / P. ERDKAMP / O. J. HEKSTER / G. DE KLEIJN / S. T. A. M. MOLS (eds.), The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Netherlands Institute in Rome, March 20-23, 2002), Amsterdam, p. 20-35. HEKSTER, O. J. (2015), Emperors and Ancestors: Roman Rulers and the Constraints of Tradition, Oxford. HEKSTER, O. J. / CLAES, L. / MANDERS, E. / SLOOTJES, D. / KLAASSEN, Y. / HAAN, N. DE (2014), Nero’s Ancestry and the Construction of Imperial Ideology in the Early Empire. A Methodological Case Study, in Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology 1, 4, p. 7-27. HURLET, F. (1993), La Lex de imperio Vespasiani et la légitimité augustéenne, in Latomus 52, p. 261-280. JACOBO PÉREZ, Á. (2003), Auctoritas et Maiestas. Historia, programa dinástico e iconografía en la moneda de Vespasiano, Alicante. JONG, J. DE (2006), Emperors in Egypt: The Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power in Greek Papyrus Texts from Egypt, AD 193-284, Nijmegen (dissertation). KOMNICK, H. (2001), Die Restitutionsmünzen der frühen Kaiserzeit, Berlin. KOS, P. (1993), Proto-Contorniates, in Rivista Italiana di Numismatica 95, p. 431-438. KRAAY, C. (1949), The Coinage of Vindex and Galba, A.D. 68, and the Continuity of the Augustan Principate, in Numismatic Chronicle ser. 6, 9, p. 129-149. KUHOFF, W. (1979), Herrschertum und Reichskrise: Die Regierungszeit der römischen Kaiser Valerianus und Gallienus (253 – 268 n. Chr.), Bochum. LANGE, C. H. (2009), Res Publica Constituta. Actium, Apollo and the Accomplishment of the Triumviral Assignment, Leiden / Boston. LE GENTILHOMME, P. (1946), La trouvaille de Nanterre, in Revue Numismatique ser. 5, 9, p. 15-114. LEVICK, B. (1999²), Tiberius the Politician, London / New York. LEVICK, B. (1999), Vespasian, London / New York. LEVICK, B. (2009), The Lex de imperio Vespasiani: The Parts and the Whole, in L. CAPOGROSSI COLOGNESI / E. TASSI SCANDONE (eds.), La Lex de imperio Vespasiani e la Roma dei Flavi. Atti del Convegno, 20-22 novembre 2008, Roma, p. 11-22. LYASSE, E. (2008), Le Principat et son fondateur. L’utilisation de la référence à Auguste de Tibère à Trajan, Bruxelles. MAGUIRE, H. (1997), Magic and money in the Early Middle Ages, in Speculum 72, 4, p. 1037-1054. MANDERS, E. (2012), Coining Images of Power. Patterns in the Representation of Roman Emperors on Imperial Coinage, A.D. 193-284, Boston / Leiden (Impact of Empire 15). MARTIN, P.-H. (1974), Die anonymen Münzen des Jahres 68 nach Christus, Mainz. MARVIN, W. T. R. (1896), Notes on Contorniate Medals and their Purpose, in American Journal of Numismatics 31, p. 29-38. MATTINGLY, H. (1920), The “Restored” Coins of Titus, Domitian and Nerva, in Numismatic Chronicle 20, p. 177-207. MATTINGLY, H. (1926), The Restored Coins of Trajan, in Numismatic Chronicle ser. 5, 6, p. 265-278.

THE NUMISMATIC MEMORY OF AUGUSTUS

105

MATTINGLY, H. (1939), The Great Dorchester Hoard of 1936, in Numismatic Chronicle ser. 5, 19, p. 21-61. MATTINGLY, H. (1949), The Coins of the “Divi” Issued by Trajan Decius, in Numismatic Chronicle ser. 6, 9, p. 75-82. MEADOWS, A. / WILLIAMS, J. (2001), Moneta and the Monuments: Coinage and Politics in Republican Rome, in Journal of Roman Studies 91, p. 27-49. MENNEN, I. (2011), Power and Status in the Roman Empire, AD 193-284, Leiden / New York. MITTAG, P. F. (1999), Alte Köpfe in neuen Händen, Urheber und Funktion der Kontorniaten, Bonn. MITTAG, P. F. (2016), Neros Revival in der Spätantike – die Kontorniaten, in Nero – Kaiser, Künstler und Tyrann, Trier, p. 338-242. NICOLAS, E. P. (1979), De Néron à Vespasien. Études et perspectives historiques suivies de l’analyse, du catalogue, et de la reproduction des monnaies “oppositionnelles” connues des années 67 à 70, 2 vol., Paris. NICOLET, C. (1988), La Tabula Siarensis, la lex de imperio Vespasiani, et le jus relationis de l’empereur au Sénat, in Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 100, 2, p. 827-866. NOREÑA, C. F. (2001), The Communication of the Emperor’s Virtues, in Journal of Roman Studies 91, p. 146-186. NOREÑA, C. F. (2011), Imperial Ideals in the Roman West: Representation, Circulation, Power, Cambridge. POTTER, D. S. (1990), Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire: A Historical Commentary on the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, Oxford. POTTER, D. S. (2004), The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180-395, London / New York. RIC = SUTHERLAND, C. H. V. et al. (eds.) (1924-2007), Roman Imperial Coinage, Vols. 1-10, London. RIVES, J. B. (1999), The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire, in Journal of Roman Studies 89, p. 135-154. ROSE, C. B. (1997), Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period, Cambridge. ROSSO, E. (2009), Le thème de la Res publica restituta dans le monnayage de Vespasien  : pérennité du “modèle augustéen” entre citations, réinterprétations et dévoiements, in F. HURLET / B. MINEO (eds.), Le Principat d’Auguste. Réalités et représentations du pouvoir. Autour de la Res publica restituta, Rennes, p. 209-242. ROWAN, C. (2012), Under Divine Auspices. Divine Ideology and the Visualization of Imperial Power in the Severan Period, Cambridge. SEELENTAG, G. (2007), Bilder und Betrachter. Eine neue Restitutionsmünze Traians, in Klio 89, p. 161-183. SELINGER, R. (1994), Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Decius: Anatomie einer Christenverfolgung, Frankfurt am Main. SEVERY, B. (2003), Augustus and the Family at the Birth of the Roman Empire, New York / London. SHOTTER, D. C. A. (1983), The Principate of Nerva: Some Observations on the Coin Evidence, in Historia 32, p. 215-226. STEVENSON, S. W. (1889), Dictionary of Roman Coins, Republican and Imperial, London. SUTHERLAND, C. H. V. (1959), The Intelligibility of Roman Imperial Coin Types, in Journal of Roman Studies 49, p. 46-55.

106

LIESBETH CLAES

TEMPORINI, H. (1978), Die Frauen am Hofe Trajans: Ein Beitrag zur Stellung der Augustae im Principat, Berlin / New York. WALKER, B. (2002), Trajan’s Restored Coinage and the Revival of the Memory of Caesar the Dictator, in Ancient World 33, p. 93-100. WALLACE-HADRILL, A. (1981), The Emperor and His Virtues, in Historia 30, p. 298-323. WALLACE-HADRILL, A. (1986), Image and Authority in the Coinage of Augustus, in Journal of Roman Studies 76, p. 66-87. WATSON, A. (1999), Aurelian and the Third Century, New York. WEINSTOCK, S. (1971), Divus Julius, Oxford. WOYTEK, B. (2010), Die Reichsprägung des Kaisers Traianus (98-117), vols. 1-2, Wien (Moneta Imperii Romani 14). ZADOCKS-JOSEPHUS JITTA, A. N. (1952), Contorniaten, in Jaarboek voor Munt- en Penningkunde 49, p. 85-87. ZANKER, P. (1987), Augustus und die Macht der Bilder, München. ZIMMERMAN, M. (1995), Die restitutio honorum Galbas, in Historia 44, p. 56-82.

Auguste à l’époque de Trajan : l’exemple surpassé MARTIN GALINIER (Université de Perpignan Via Domitia)

Abstract During Trajan’s reign, the Augustan example is still used, but the Optimus Princeps is now presented as the Best one, rather than as the founder of the Principate. Restitution coins, the respect of libertas (contrary to the precedent emperor, Domitian), the décor of the Forum of Trajan full of Augustan citations but bigger, the use of Roman history, all those elements are proclaiming that Trajan is the best emperor. His adoption (by Nerva, but by Jupiter as well) completes this positive portrait, in contrast with those of Domitian and Augustus. During Hadrian’s reign, Suetonius attributes to Augustus, in his Life of Augustus, values cited by Tacitus and Plinius the Younger to celebrate Trajan. The founder of the Principate becomes again a model for Hadrian: Is the successor of Trajan the equal of Augustus, successor of Caesar? « Tout ce que nous avons aimé dans Agricola, tout ce que nous avons admiré demeure et demeurera dans l’esprit des hommes, à tout jamais, par le souvenir de ses faits glorieux ». Tacite, Agricola XLVI (trad. E. de Saint-Denis, Paris, 1942).

1. Introduction Je débuterai cette contribution en laissant la parole à Auguste lui-même, qui serait très satisfait de savoir que, 2000 ans après sa mort, on se soucie encore de ses actions et de son règne. Voici ce qu’il dicta, quelques mois avant son décès, texte qui a ensuite été consigné dans ses Res gestae et gravé pour l’éternité : « Par de nombreuses lois, votées sur mon initiative, j’ai ranimé de nombreuses coutumes de nos ancêtres, qui avaient déjà tendance à disparaître dans notre génération, et j’ai laissé moi-même sur beaucoup de points à la postérité des exemples à imiter » 1. 1 AUG., R. G. 8, 5 : Legibus noui[s] m[e auctore l]atis m[ulta e]xempla maiorum exolescentia iam ex nostro [saecul]o red[uxi et ipse] multarum rer[um exe]mpla imitanda pos[teris tradidi] (édition et traduction : John Scheid, Paris, 2007).

108

MARTIN GALINIER

Si la modestie ne transparaît pas dans ces quelques mots, c’est d’abord parce que ce testament est un document politique et que, en politique, il vaut mieux écrire soi-même ses mémoires que de laisser son héritier s’en charger, surtout lorsque celui-ci est Tibère avec lequel, on le sait, Auguste avait peu d’affinités. Il s’agit aussi d’affirmer l’importance de son règne, et que les siècles à venir en prennent acte. En contrepoint de ce texte et pour justifier mon titre, je citerai Eutrope qui, au IVe siècle, confirme sous l’empereur Valens la permanence de l’exemple augustéen mais révèle aussi l’importance du règne de Trajan : « [Trajan] fut mis au rang des dieux, et, seul, de tous les empereurs, enseveli à l’intérieur de la Ville. Ses cendres, placées dans une urne d’or, furent mises sur le Forum qu’il avait édifié, sous une colonne ayant 144 pieds de haut. On a gardé de lui un tel souvenir que jusqu’à nos jours on n’acclame pas autrement les princes au Sénat qu’en les déclarant plus heureux qu’Auguste et meilleurs que Trajan. La gloire que lui procura sa bonté fut telle que, pour les flatteurs comme pour les louangeurs sincères, elle offre l’occasion d’un magnifique exemple » 2.

Felicior Augusto, melior Traiano : l’expression comparative, et laudative envers les deux empereurs, en fait les deux exemples proposés par le Sénat aux empereurs du IVe siècle, les deux sommets du Principat, mais avec une nuance distinctive. Si le règne d’Auguste est célébré comme modèle, il l’est par sa felicitas, et ce en dépit de l’absence de fils, de la mort de ses héritiers pressentis Caius et Lucius, ou encore de la relégation de son petit-fils Agrippa, de sa fille Julia et de sa petite-fille Julia, enfin du choix de son beau-fils Tibère comme successeur, maux que, d’après Suétone, Auguste résuma dans une citation de l’Iliade : « Plût au ciel que je ne me fusse pas marié et que je fusse mort sans descendance » 3. Mais le jugement posthume sur le règne d’Auguste, contenu dans l’exclamation sénatoriale, met en avant le retour dela paix, malgré le désastre de Teutoburg en 9 après J.-C. 4, qui marqua tant les dernières années du règne, et l’établissement réussi du principat. En regard, Trajan est présenté comme le meilleur, son agnomen officiel étant, de son vivant même, Optimus Princeps. Dans son Panégyrique, Pline le Jeune le justifie par ces lignes :

2 EUTROPE VIII, 2 : Inter Diuos relatus est. Solus omnium intra Vrbem sepultus est. Ossa conlata un urnam auream in foro quod aedificauit sub columna posita sunt cuius altitudo CXLIV pedes habet. Huius tantum memoriae delatum est ut usque ad nostram aetatem non aliter in senatu principibus adclametur nisi ‘Felicior Augusto, melior Traiano’. Adeo in eo gloria bonitatis obtinuit ut uel adsentantibus uel uere laudantibus occasionem magnificentissimi praestet exempli (trad. J. Hellegouarc’h, Paris, 1999). 3 SUET., Aug. LXIII et LXV (trad. H. Ailloud, Paris, 1931). La citation d’Homère, Il. III, 40, est en LXV. 4 SUET., Aug. XXIII.

AUGUSTE À L’ÉPOQUE DE TRAJAN

109

« Aurait-il suffi de t’appeler Felix  ? C’est l’éloge non des mœurs, mais de la chance. Magnus  ? C’est un titre auquel s’attache plus d’envie que d’éclat. […] on ne se fait pas mieux comprendre en disant Trajan qu’en disant Optimus, de même que jadis on désignait les Pisons par leur frugalité, les Laelii par leur sagesse, les Metelli par leur piété filiale ; toutes vertus qui sont d’un coup contenues dans ce seul surnom qui est tien. […] Il est moins d’être Imperator, César, Auguste, que d’être meilleur que tous les empereurs, tous les Césars, tous les Augustes ».

Et Pline de rapprocher Trajan et Auguste : « De même que le surnom d’Auguste nous fait toujours penser à qui l’a eu le premier, de même cette appellation d’Optimus ne reviendra jamais à la mémoire des hommes sans qu’ils songent à toi […] » 5. À comparer à une autre formule du Sénat, rappelée en présence de Trajan par Pline : « Il n’en est que plus grand, plus auguste ! » 6, où le terme augustus est un qualificatif : mais au regard de la citation précédente, n’y a-t-il pas intention comparative ? Au-delà des textes de Pline et Eutrope, et de la comparaison que l’exclamation du sénat établit entre les deux empereurs, c’est la place faite au règne d’Auguste sous Trajan qui va ici m’intéresser. On sait que Vespasien, Nerva et Hadrien se référèrent au fondateur du Principat, le successeur de Trajan installant même dans le laraire de son cubiculum une statuette de bronze inscrite Thurinus (nom du jeune Auguste) donnée par Suétone en personne 7 – le même indiquant que « son propre portrait [d’Auguste], gravé par Dioscuride, […] resta le sceau des empereurs suivants » 8. Mais c’est du vivant de Trajan que la rhétorique de son excellence fut introduite : et si l’entreprise réussit (Eutrope en témoigne), elle impliquait l’affirmation de la supériorité du successeur de Nerva sur tous ses prédécesseurs, Auguste le premier. Dans cette optique, le travail récent d’Emmanuel Lyasse sur l’utilisation de la référence augustéenne de Tibère à Trajan a été pour moi une base de réflexion de qualité. S’il utilise tradition littéraire, documents épigraphiques et 5 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. LXXXVIII, 5-7 puis 10 : An satius fuit felicem uocare  ? quod non moribus, sed fortunae datum est. Satius magnum  ? cui plus inuidiae quam pulchritudinis inest. […] nec magis distincte definiteque designat, qui Traianum quam qui optimum appellat, ut olim frugalitate Pisones, sapientia Laelii, pietate Metelli monstrabantur  ; quae simul omnia uno isto nomine continentur. […] Minus est enim imperatorem et Caesarem et Augustum quam omnibus imperatoribus et Caesaribus et Augustis esse meliorem […]. Etenim ut nomine Augusti admonemur eius cui primum dicatum est, ita haec optimi appellatio numquam memoriae hominum sine te recurret (trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). 6 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. LXXI, 4 : tanto maior, tanto augustior (trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). 7 SUET., Aug. VII. 8 SUET., Aug. L : Dioscuridis manu sculpta, qua signare insecuti quoque principes perseuerarunt (trad. H. Ailloud, Paris, 1931). Information confirmée Par PLINE L’ANCIEN, H. N. 37, 8-10, et DION CASSIUS, LI, 3, 6. Voir LYASSE (2008), p. 11.

110

MARTIN GALINIER

numismatiques 9, il me paraît possible d’enrichir la comparaison par divers documents révélateurs de l’usage trajanien de la postérité d’Auguste. Je vais procéder par corpus documentaire, afin de proposer une synthèse idéologique de ce « match du siècle » entre Auguste et Trajan. 2. Les monnaies de restitution (112-113 après J.-C.) Évoquées par E. Lyasse, récemment étudiées et datées par Bernhard Woytek, elles sont nombreuses : 50 deniers, pour l’essentiel des citations de deniers républicains, et 24 aurei. Là où Nerva n’avait restitué que des monnaies au Diuus Augustus 10, Trajan opère un choix plus large. Il dresse en fait une galerie de références historiques exceptionnelles, dans laquelle Auguste apparaît cinq fois : – trois deniers, l’un d’Octavien (CAESAR III VIR R P C) pour une monnaie (Fig. 1) évoquant César mais omettant l’inscription CAESAR DIC PER 11 de l’original (42 avant J.-C.) 12 ; deux au nom AVGVSTVS avec représentations d’Agrippa 13 (Fig. 2-3) ; – et deux aurei, l’un au CAESAR AVGVSTVS PATER PATRIAE (sans prototype connu mais postérieur à 12 avant J.-C. 14 : Fig. 4), l’autre au DIVVS AVGVSTVS 15 (sans prototype connu) (Fig. 5). Soit autant que les restitutions consacrées à César : deux deniers 16, deux aurei 17, auxquels on peut rajouter une frappe au DIVVS IVLIVS (sans prototype) 18. À comparer aux six aurei frappés pour VESPASIANVS (quatre comme empereur, 9 LYASSE (2008), p. 25-33. La thèse récente de CAHUT (2015) analyse à partir d’un grand nombre de sources (dont la numismatique) la manière dont l’histoire a été utilisée par les empereurs, de Vespasien aux Sévères : nous renvoyons aussi à ce travail de qualité. 10 LYASSE (2008), p. 332. Monnaies restituées de Nerva : MATTINGLY (1936), p. 12 n° 78 (pl. 3.8), denier avec légende DIVVS AVGVSTVS / IMP NERVA CAES AVG REST (98 après J.-C.) ; p. 28-30 n° 149-161 (pl. 8.1 à 8.8), sesterces avec légende DIVVS AVGVSTVS / SC IMP NERVA CAESAR (ou CAES) AVGVSTVS (ou AVG) REST. Cf. la contribution de Liesbeth Claes dans ce volume, p. 92-93. 11 WOYTEK (2010), p. 642 n° 845. À rapprocher de SUET., Aug. LII, qui rapporte qu’Auguste se mit à genoux et découvrit sa poitrine pour refuser la dictature offerte par le peuple. 12 Denier d’Octavien, 42 avant J.-C. ; avers : buste d’Octavien et CAESAR·III· VIR·R·P·C ; revers : chaise curule et couronne de laurier et CAESAR DIC PER (document visible sur le site du British Museum ; voir CRAWFORD (1974), n° 497.2a. 13 WOYTEK (2010), p. 642 n° 848 et 849. 14 Ibid., p. 643 n° 854. 15 Ibid., p. 643 n° 855. 16 Ibid., p. 642 n° 835-836. 17 Ibid., p. 643 n° 850-851 (pas de prototype pour le second). 18 Ibid., p. 643 n° 852.

AUGUSTE À L’ÉPOQUE DE TRAJAN

111

Fig. 1. Denier restitué par Trajan, 112-113 après J.-C. (d’après un original de 42 avant J.-C.) ; avers : buste d’Octavien et CAESAR·III·VIR·R·P·C ; revers : chaise curule et couronne de laurier et IMP CAES TRAIAN AVG GER DAC P P REST (document d’après WOYTEK [2010], n° 845).

Fig. 2. Denier restitué par Trajan, 112-113 après J.-C. (d’après un original de 12 avant J.-C.) ; avers : tête d’Auguste avec couronne de chêne et AVGVSTVS COS IX ; revers : tête d’Agrippa avec couronne murale et M AGRIPPA COS TER COSSVS LENTVLVS - IMP CAES TRAIAN AVG GER DAC P P REST (document reproduit avec l’autorisation du British Museum).

112

MARTIN GALINIER

Fig. 3. Denier restitué par Trajan, 112-113 après J.-C. (d’après un original de 12 avant J.-C.) ; avers : tête d’Auguste et AVGVSTVS ; revers : statue équestre d’Agrippa avec casque et trophée, avec un piédestal orné de deux proues, et COSSVS CN F LENTVLVS - IMP CAES TRAIAN AVG GER DAC P P REST (document reproduit avec l’autorisation du British Museum).

Fig. 4. Aureus restitué par Trajan, 112-113 après J.-C. (pas de prototype connu, mais postérieur à 12 avant J.-C.) ; avers : tête d’Auguste et CAESAR AVGVSTVS DIVI F PATER PATRIAE ; revers : crocodile, et IMP CAES TRAIAN AVG GER DAC P P REST (document d’après WOYTEK [2010], n° 854).

AUGUSTE À L’ÉPOQUE DE TRAJAN

113

Fig. 5. Aureus restitué par Trajan, 112-113 après J.-C. (pas de prototype connu) ; avers : tête d’Auguste laurée et DIVVS AVGVSTVS ; revers : trois étendards légionnaires plantés au sol, et IMP CAES TRAIAN AVG GER DAC P P REST (document reproduit avec l’autorisation du British Museum).

et deux au DIVVS VESPASIANVS) 19, aux cinq aurei pour TITVS (deux en tant qu’empereur, trois comme DIVVS) 20 et aux deux consacrés à Nerva (un à l’empereur, un au DIVVS) 21. Auguste est important mais pas prééminent dans ce corpus sélectif, même s’il bénéficie de davantage de frappes que Tibère (une), Claude (deux) et Galba (une). En empereur respectueux du Sénat, Trajan ne commémora ni Caligula, ni Néron, ni Vitellius et Othon, ni Domitien. Si l’on y regarde de plus près, on constate que l’un des deniers augustéens en l’honneur d’Agrippa représente ce dernier (Fig. 3) en statue équestre, sur une base ornée de rostres 22 : le gendre d’Auguste est coiffé d’un casque et porte un WOYTEK (2010), p. 643 n° 861-866. Ibid., p. 643 n° 867-871. 21 Ibid., p. 643 n° 872-873. 22 Dans sa thèse Principat et République, p. 481-482 [n. 9], B. Cahut propose de reconnaître dans la statue équestre du denier de 12 avant J.-C. non pas Agrippa, mais Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, le consul de 187 avant J.-C., honoré en 61 avant J.-C. d’un denier à l’effigie d’une statue équestre avec comme légende : M. LEPIDVS / AN[NORVM] XV PR[OGRESSVS] H[OSTEM] O[CCIDIT] C[IVEM] S[ERVAVIT] (CRAWFORD [1974], n° 419.1) : le cavalier porte bien un trophée sur l’épaule (l’autre denier de 61 avant J.-C., commémorant la Basilique émilienne, a été restitué par Trajan : CRAWFORD [1974], n° 419.3). VALÈRE MAXIME, 3, 1, 1, place la statue du consul de 187 avant J.-C. sur le Capitole. La restitution trajanienne de la monnaie de 12 avant J.-C. pourrait donc renvoyer, plutôt qu’à Agrippa, à la statue équestre de M. Aemilius Lepidus, célébrée par le monétaire augustéen, Cossus Cornelius Lentulus. Cependant Virgile, 19 20

114

MARTIN GALINIER

trophée, ce qui paraît renvoyer au vainqueur d’Actium. Le propos de la frappe originale de 12 avant J.-C., année de la mort d’Agrippa, et du choix de Trajan de restituer cette dernière, paraît être d’associer à Auguste l’image très militaire d’Agrippa. On peut comparer cette frappe à celles célébrant la statue équestre de Trajan, au centre de son Forum, datées de 112-114 23, et aux innombrables monnaies du règne représentant des trophées. Il en est de même pour le denier (Fig. 2) montrant la tête d’Agrippa avec couronne murale et rostrale, allusion à ses succès militaires, Auguste étant cette fois bénéficiaire, sur l’avers, de la couronne civique, de chêne. Les deux aurei augustéens restitués célèbrent à la fois un titre porté par Trajan (Pater patriae), dont Pline le Jeune explique qu’il l’a mérité avant même d’en accepter l’octroi : « Aussi es-tu le seul à avoir été Pater patriae avant de le devenir » 24, et pour le premier (Fig. 4), la conquête de l’Égypte (par la présence du crocodile), pour le second, l’organisation militaire de l’Empire (Fig. 5) dont Trajan se veut l’héritier actif : la restitution est très proche d’un de ses aurei ; les emblèmes militaires (aigle entre étendard et vexillum) figurent en effet beaucoup dans le monnayage du règne, de 107 à 114 25. Enfin le denier d’Octavien (Fig. 1), qui renvoie à un moment difficile de l’histoire romaine, avait peut-être un sens précis en 112-113, années de frappe de ces monnaies et du sixième consulat de Trajan. Le denier montre la sella aurea de César 26 : or Pline explique que Trajan, lors de sa prise de consulat en 100, avait eu une attitude éminemment républicaine à l’égard du consulat : « Les rites des comices étaient terminés puisque, songez, il s’agissait d’un prince, et déjà toute la foule s’était ébranlée, quand, à la surprise générale, tu t’approches du siège du consul, tu t’offres à prêter serment selon la formule dont ne s’étaient jamais servis les princes, sinon, pour forcer les autres à jurer […]. Voilà donc l’empereur, César, Auguste, Pontifex Maximus, qui se tient debout devant le consul ; le consul est resté assis, le prince debout devant lui ; il est resté assis, imperturbable impassible, comme devant un fait accompli. Bien plus, le consul assis à l’empereur debout a dicté son serment ; et le prince a juré » 27. Énéide VIII, 681-683, décrit Agrippa coiffé d’une couronne rostrale : le denier de 12 avant J.-C. pourrait donc bien renvoyer au gendre d’Auguste… Nous avons conservé ici l’interprétation usuelle (WOYTEK [2010], p. 642 n° 848). 23 WOYTEK (2010), p. 389 n° 393-394 (aureus et denier, 112-113), p. 407 n° 435 (113-114), p. 418 n° 461 (112-114). 24 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. XXI, 3 : Itaque soli omnium contigit tibi ut pater patriae esses ante quam fieres (trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). Trajan est appelé père du peuple (parentem publicum) en XXVI, 3. 25 WOYTEK (2010), n° 295 pl. 58 (as, daté de 107-108) ; n° 418-419 pl. 85-86 (aureus et denier, datés de 113-114) ; n° 432 pl. 87 (aureus, 113-114). 26 PÉREZ (1986), p. 199. 27 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. LXIV, 1-3 : Peracta erant sollemnia comitiorum, si principem cogitares, iamque se omnis turba commouerat, cum tu mirantibus cunctis accedis ad consulis sellam, adigendum te praebes in uerba principibus ignota, nisi cum jurare

AUGUSTE À L’ÉPOQUE DE TRAJAN

115

Je ne suis pas certain du sens à prêter à la restitution trajanienne du siège curule « césarien » (sans cependant l’inscription CAESAR DIC PER) qui rappelle, au revers du denier d’Octavien de 42 avant J.-C., la période trouble de la dictature puis du second triumvirat, mais le respect des institutions républicaines affiché par Trajan est affirmé par une autre formule de Pline, cette fois tirée d’une phrase du consul Trajan prononcée sur les Rostres, au Forum, lors de son serment de prise de fonction : « Voici que j’entends pour la première fois, que j’apprends pour la première fois que le ‘prince’ est non pas ‘au-dessus des lois’, mais que ‘les lois sont au-dessus du prince’ : quand César est consul, mêmes défenses pour lui que pour les autres » 28.

Au regard des pratiques impériales, ce positionnement de Trajan ne pouvait qu’étonner. Leur mention par Pline témoigne de l’extrême attention que, après Domitien, les sénateurs portaient au respect formel des pratiques républicaines, ce que le nouvel empereur s’est attaché à montrer, par exemple ici : « À peine avait lui le premier jour de ton consulat qu’entré dans la curie tu nous as exhortés tantôt un à un, tantôt tous ensemble à reprendre la liberté, à assumer les charges d’un pouvoir pour ainsi dire partagé entre toi et nous, à veiller aux intérêts publics, à nous redresser. Tous avant toi en ont dit autant, mais nul avant toi n’a été cru. […] Tu nous ordonnes d’être libres ; nous le serons » 29.

Et Pline d’ajouter, à propos de son propre consulat : « Car on a le droit, pour ce qui est de notre empereur, on a le droit de tenir le rôle de consul comme les consuls d’avant les empereurs » 30. Le corpus des restitutions monétaires pourrait être sollicité sur d’autres points. Je recouperai une remarque d’Emmanuel Lyasse à propos des dépouilles opimes 31, que Pline le Jeune souhaite à Trajan alors qu’Auguste ne les a jamais cogerent alios. […] Imperator ergo et Caesar et Augustus et pontifex maximus stetitante gremium consulis, seditque consul principe ante se stante et sedit inturbatus, interritus et tamquam ita fierit soleret. Quin etiam sedens stanti praeiit ius iurandum, et ille iurauit (trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). 28 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. LXV, 1 : Quod ego nunc primum audio, nunc primum disco, non est  : ‘Princeps super leges’, sed  : ‘Leges super principem’, idemque Caesari consuli quod ceteris non licet (trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). 29 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. LXVI, 2 et 4 : Inluxerat primus consulatus tui dies, quo tu curiam ingressus nunc singulos, nunc uniuersos adhortatus es resumere libertatem, capessere quasi communis imperii curas, inuigilare publicis utilitatibus et insurgere. Omnes ante te eadem ista dixerunt, nemini tamen ante te creditum est […]. Iubes esse liberos  : erimus (trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). 30 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. XCIII, 2 : licet enim, quantum ad principem, licet tales consules agere quales ante principes erant (trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). Il ajoute plus loin (ibid., 3) : « […] de nous occuper de la chose publique de manière à croire que la république existe […] » (ita uersemur in re publica ut credamus esse rem publicam). 31 LYASSE (2008), p. 342.

116

MARTIN GALINIER

Fig. 6. Denier restitué par Trajan, 112-113 après J.-C. (original de 50 avant J.-C.) ; avers : tête de M. Claudius Marcellus, et MARCELLINVS ; revers : M. Claudius Marcellus portant un trophée dans le temple, et MARCELLVS COS QUINQ IMP CAES TRAIAN AVG GER DAC P P REST (document reproduit avec l’autorisation du British Museum).

obtenues et les a même refusées à M. Licinius Crassus (petit-fils du vaincu de 53 avant J.-C.), consul avec lui en 30 et vainqueur (de sa main) du roi des Bastarnes en 29 avant J.-C. 32. « Toi-même tu ne manqueras pas de dépouilles opimes au cas où quelque roi oserait se mesurer à toi […] », écrit Pline 33. Or, Trajan a restitué (Fig. 6) le denier de Marcellinus, original de 50 avant J.-C., première monnaie romaine commémorant le dépôt au temple de Jupiter Feretrius d’un trophée valant dépouilles opimes, en l’occurrence celles offertes par le consul de 222 avant J.-C., M. Claudius Marcellus 34. Ce choix place Trajan vainqueur de Décébale (il ne l’a pas tué de sa main) dans cet héritage républicain, et sa propre victoire dacique sous l’égide de Jupiter. Si critique il y a de l’attitude d’Auguste refusant les dépouilles opimes à M. Licinius Crassus, vainqueur… en Mésie, elle est implicite. Mais le thème des dépouilles opimes républicaines est bien présent, et chez Pline le Jeune, et dans les monnaies restituées, ce qui révèle la cohérence idéologique des documents du règne. 32 À ce propos, TARPIN (2003), p. 275-311. Le denier de Marcellinus est la plus ancienne représentation des dépouilles opimes à Rome (ibid., p. 316). 33 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. XVII, 3 : Nec tibi opima defuerint, si quis regum uenire in manus audeat […] (trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). 34 WOYTEK (2010), p. 518 et p. 642 n° 834.

AUGUSTE À L’ÉPOQUE DE TRAJAN

117

Cette pratique de la « citation », que nous allons retrouver sur un autre support, rappelle les lignes écrites par Pline l’Ancien sous le règne de Vespasien à propos des galeries de portraits d’ancêtres conservées dans les atria gentilices. Il s’arrête sur la pratique consistant à placer dans sa demeure l’image de grands hommes n’appartenant pas directement à la famille. Les tenants de la tradition y voyaient, dit-il, une usurpation, mais Pline l’Ancien l’explicite par un éloge de la citation qui, au temps de Vespasien et de ses références à Auguste, devait avoir une forte résonnance politique : « […] même le fait d’usurper les portraits d’hommes illustres était un témoignage réel d’amour pour leurs vertus, et c’était bien plus honorable que de se conduire de telle sorte que personne ne cherchât à s’approprier nos portraits à nous » 35.

L’enjeu était celui de l’exemple donné aux jeunes générations, à l’identique des lignes d’Auguste lues au début de cette communication. Or Pline le Jeune cette fois, dans une lettre expliquant les objectifs de la lecture publique du Panégyrique où il multiplie les comparaisons entre Trajan et les grands hommes de la République 36, a cette phrase éclairante quant à l’objectif de son ouvrage : « [il s’agit] de montrer aux princes à venir, non pas sur le ton d’un maître, mais cependant par l’enseignement d’un exemple, quelle route est la plus sûre pour arriver à la même gloire » 37.

Son protégé, Tacite, le rejoint à propos d’Agricola : « Transmettre à la postérité les actions et le portrait des hommes illustres est un usage ancien ; même à notre époque, malgré son indifférence pour ce qui la touche, notre génération n’y a pas renoncé […] » 38. Pour prouver la supériorité de Trajan, plusieurs procédés sont utilisés, et d’abord la comparaison critique vis-à-vis de Domitien. La véracité de la victoire sur Décébale est ainsi proclamée par la colonne Trajane, là où le dernier des Flaviens avait célébré de faux triomphes 39. L’usage de l’histoire vaut alors PLINE L’ANCIEN, H. N. XXXV, 2 : […] etiam mentiri clarorum imagines erat aliquis uirtutum amor multoque honestis quam mereri ne quis suas expeteret (trad. J.-M. Croisille, Paris, 1985). 36 Je renvoie aux remarques de LYASSE (2008), p. 336-337, quant aux comparaisons entre Trajan et ses prédécesseurs (seuls Vespasien et Titus seraient cités de manière positive : Pline le Jeune fait référence aux anciens Romains et il cite par exemple Pompée, et non Auguste, pour l’annone). 37 PLINE LE JEUNE, Lettres III, 18 : ut futuri principes non quasi a magistro sed tamen sub exemplo praemonerentur qua potissimum uia possent ad eandem gloriam niti (trad. A.-M. Guillemin, Paris, 1987). Le même multiplie les références à l’exemplum, lié aux mérites, à destination des jeunes et des futures générations : Pan. LIII, 5-6 ; LV, 10 ; LXII, 7 ; LXIII, 1 ; LXX, 3 ; LXXV, 4. 38 TACITE, Agricola I (Clarorum uirorum facta moresque posteris tradere, antiquitus usitatum, ne nostris quidem temporibus quamquam incuriosa suorum aetas omisit […]  : trad. E. de Saint-Denis, Paris, 1942). 39 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. XII, 2. 35

118

MARTIN GALINIER

preuve des vertus de l’empereur 40, qui a créé une nouvelle province, la Dacie. Mais la comparaison est élargie à l’ensemble de l’histoire romaine, Auguste inclus, sans que ce dernier ne soit particulièrement accablé. Il n’est cependant pas mis en valeur, et lorsque Trajan exerce le consulat, c’est à Brutus que Pline se réfère, au nom de la libertas 41  : ni à Auguste, ni à Romulus. Une monnaie de restitution confirme d’ailleurs cette généalogie républicaine (Fig. 7) : elle montre Brutus, le premier consul de la République, entouré de licteurs et accompagné d’un accensus (héraut) 42. Un exemple encore : la proximité de l’Optimus Princeps avec ses soldats est soulignée par Pline le Jeune : « Ils partageaient avec toi les privations, avec toi la soif ; dans les exercices sur le champ de manœuvre tu mêlais aux escadrons la poussière et la sueur impériales ; sans autre distinction que ta force et ta supériorité, sans aucune étiquette, tantôt tu lançais de loin des traits, tantôt tu recevais ceux qu’on te lançait […]. Il n’était pas dans tes habitudes de pénétrer sous ta tente avant d’avoir passé en revue celles de tes compagnons d’armes, ni de prendre repos si ce n’est le dernier » 43 .

Pline compare cette attitude à celle des Fabricius, Scipions et Camilles républicains – et c’est à opposer aux lignes que Suétone consacre à Auguste : « Jamais après les guerres civiles, soit dans une harangue, soit dans une proclamation, il ne traitait ses hommes de ‘compagnons d’armes’, mais toujours de soldats […] » 44. Le contre-exemple à Auguste est, chez Suétone même, César, auquel Trajan se réfère sans aucun doute : « Dans ses harangues, au lieu de les appeler

PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. LIII (contre les mauvais princes) et LIV, 2 (contre Domitien) : « Des poèmes sérieux et la louange éternelle de nos annales te célèbrent, et non cette publicité éphémère et honteuse » (Seria ergo te carmina honorque aeternus annalium, non haec breuis et pudenda praedicatio colit  : trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). 41 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. LXXVIII, 3 : « Ton but est certainement de rappeler et de ramener la liberté. Quel honneur dois-tu alors aimer davantage, quel titre prendre plus souvent que celui qu’inventa le premier la liberté ? » (Haec nempe intentio tua ut libertatem reuoces ac reducas. Quem ergo honorem magis amare, quod nomen usurpare saepius debes quam quod primum inuenit reciperata libertas  ?  : trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). Brutus est cité, avec Camille, dans une comparaison avec les statues érigées pour Trajan (LV, 6). 42 WOYTEK (2010), p. 642 n° 833. 43 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. XIII, 1-3 : cum tecum inediam, tecum sitim ferrent, cum in illa meditatione campestri militaribus turmis imperatorium puluerem sudoremque misceres, nihil a ceteris nisi robore ac praestantia libero Marte nunc eminus tela uibrares, nunc uibrata suspiceres […]. Non tibi moris tua inire tentoria, nisi commilitonum ante lustrasses, nec requiem corpori nisi post omnes dare (trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). Autres mentions des commilitones : XV, 5 ; XIX, 3. 44 SUET., Aug. XXV : Neque post bella ciuilia aut in contione aut per edictum ullos militum commilitones appellabat, sed milites […] (trad. H. Ailloud, Paris, 1931). 40

AUGUSTE À L’ÉPOQUE DE TRAJAN

119

Fig. 7. Denier restitué par Trajan, 112-113 après J.-C. (original de M. Junius Brutus de 54 avant J.-C.) ; avers : tête de Libertas, et LIBERTAS ; revers : le premier consul Brutus, un accensus et deux licteurs, et BRVTVS - IMP CAES TRAIAN AVG GER DAC P P REST (document reproduit avec l’autorisation du British Museum).

‘soldats’, [César] leur donnait le nom plus flatteur de ‘compagnons d’armes’ […] » 45. La colonne Trajane insiste à l’envi sur la présence de Trajan sur le champ de bataille dacique, sur sa proximité avec les soldats, à l’identique de César mais à la différence de Domitien, nommément raillé par Pline le Jeune, mais aussi d’Auguste dont le courage physique au combat était, à raison, moqué par Antoine 46 : d’où l’importance d’Agrippa à ses côtés durant la première partie du règne et, sans doute aussi, dans les restitutions monétaires de Trajan. Ce premier corpus me paraît révéler la filiation militaire et républicaine dont se réclame l’Optimus Princeps, compromis idéal que Tacite résume par cette phrase : « S’il me reste assez de vie, j’ai réservé pour ma vieillesse le principat du divin Nerva et celui de Trajan, sujets plus riches et moins dangereux, grâce au rare bonheur d’une époque où l’on peut penser ce que l’on veut et dire ce que l’on pense » 47. 45 SUET., Caes. LXVII : Nec milites eos pro contione, sed blandiore nomine ‘commilitiones’ appellabat […] (trad. H. Ailloud, Paris, 1931). 46 SUET., Aug. XVI. 47 TACITE, Histoire I, 1 : quod si uita suppeditet, principatum diui Neruae et imperium Traiani, uberiorem securioremque materiam, senectuti seposui, rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae uelis et quae sentias dicere licet (trad. H. Goelzer, Paris, 1946). Sur Tacite, voir LYASSE (2008), p. 344 (rare félicité).

120

MARTIN GALINIER

Un développement similaire se trouve en exergue de la Vie d’Agricola : « Aujourd’hui seulement on revit : Mais bien que l’empereur Nerva, dès l’aurore d’une ère bienheureuse, ait combiné des régimes jadis incompatibles, le principat et la liberté, que chaque jour Trajan accroisse le bonheur de l’époque, et que la sécurité publique ne soit pas seulement une espérance et un vœu, mais repose sur une ferme confiance et la réalisation de ce vœu, néanmoins la faiblesse de la nature humaine fait que les remèdes agissent moins vite que les maux » 48.

Les mêmes composantes (allusions à la libertas républicaine, alliée à l’excellence militaire) se retrouvent dans l’urbanisme trajanien. 3. Le Forum de Trajan Le Forum de Trajan, dernier de la série des forums impériaux, a été inauguré le 1er janvier 112, le même jour que le Forum de César restauré par… Trajan. Le plan de son Forum, orné d’une basilique et de deux bibliothèques, est mieux connu depuis les fouilles des années 2000 49 (Fig. 8). Il a souvent été interprété comme étant d’inspiration militaire ; je rappellerai ici les travaux de J.-Ch. Balty 50, qui ont montré que ce type de plan est d’inspiration civile et républicaine puisque associant forum, basilique et curie, ce qui est conforme au positionnement de Trajan comme général victorieux certes, mais fidèle à la tradition républicaine 51. Minorer cette dimension de l’Optimus Princeps pour n’en faire qu’un militaire est méconnaître la complexité idéologique du règne. Or, les décors du Forum de Trajan et de la Basilica Ulpia s’inspirent de ceux du Forum d’Auguste voisin, en adjoignant aux citations formelles deux dimensions qui matérialisent la prétention de Trajan à la supériorité.

TACITE, Agricola III (Nunc demum redit animus  ; sed quamquam primo statim beatissimi saeculi ortu Nerua Caesar res olim dissociabilis miscuerit, principatum ac libertatem, augeatque cotidie felicitatem temporum Nerua Traianus, nec spem modo ac uotum securitas publica, sed ipsius uoti fiduciam ac robur adsumpserit, natura tamen infirmitatis humanae tardiora sunt remedia quam mala  : trad. E. de Saint-Denis, Paris, 1942). Autre passage, en fin d’ouvrage (XLIV, 5) : « En effet, s’il [Agricola] ne lui a pas été permis de subsister jusqu’à l’aurore de ce siècle bienheureux et de voir le principat de Trajan […] » (Nam sicut ei non licuit durare in hanc beatissimi saeculi lucem ac principem Traianum uidere). Aussi : PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. LXVII, 3 (trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947) : « sécurité du temps » (fidelitate temporum). 49 MENEGHINI (2009). Voir également CARANDINI (2013), volume I, p. 210-214 et volume II, pl. 52-54. 50 BALTY (1991). 51 LYASSE (2008), p. 336 : choix du 10 décembre pour l’octroi de la puissance tribunicienne, « date de l’entrée en fonction des tribuns de la plèbe », et du titre de proconsul hors d’Italie, mais le même (LYASSE [2008], p. 348-340) considère que Trajan rompt avec le modèle urbanistique d’Auguste et que son forum renvoie à un camp romain. 48

AUGUSTE À L’ÉPOQUE DE TRAJAN

121

Fig. 8. Plan des forums impériaux après les fouilles des années 2000 (d’après Eugenio La Rocca, La nuova immagine dei fori imperiali. Appunti in margine agli scavi, in RM 108 [2001], p. 171-213, spécialement p. 175).

– D’abord une dilatation spatiale, qui constitue le manifeste des ambitions de Trajan : un espace plus grand, pourvu de quatre exèdres et non de deux ; cependant des fouilles récentes ont révélé que le Forum d’Auguste avait eu à l’origine quatre hémicycles. Il y a donc bien hommage au Forum d’Auguste (il n’y a point d’exèdre sur le Forum de César), et dépassement. Le fait que l’amputation de l’espace augustéen ait d’abord été le fait de Domitien 52 peut justifier le plan du Forum de Trajan, lequel se placerait donc comme le continuateur de l’œuvre urbanistique de ses prédécesseurs, mais aussi comme celui qui la parachève en associant traditions républicaines (les basiliques : un denier restitué [112-113] célèbre d’ailleurs la Basilica Aemilia dans les années où les aurei trajaniens [112-114] mettent en exergue la BASILICA VLPIA) 53, césarienne (l’axe général du Forum de Trajan est celui du Forum de César ; la restauration architecturale du complexe césarien achevée en 112), augustéenne (les exèdres latérales) et flavienne (face au templum pacis de Vespasien, le nouveau Forum est lui-aussi construit ex manubiis). C’est le Forum de Trajan qui dessine ce qui apparaît dès lors comme l’axe principal des Forums impériaux, perpendiculaire à celui du Forum d’Auguste, quasi identique à celui du Forum de César et légèrement décalé par rapport à celui du Templum Pacis. 52 MENEGHINI (2009), p. 101 (destruction de l’exèdre sud-est pour la construction du Forum entrepris par Domitien et inauguré par Nerva) ; p. 60 (destruction de l’exèdre sud-ouest pour la construction du Forum de Trajan). 53 WOYTEK (2010), p. 641 n° 825 (denier restitué) ; p. 392 n° 99 ; p. 395 n° 404 ; p. 419 n° 464 (aurei de Trajan).

122

MARTIN GALINIER

L’exercice urbanistique peut être comparé à celui, rhétorique, de la diaphora, répétition d’un mot qui, par l’exercice même de la répétition mais en contexte différent, voit son sens initial modifié 54… – Ensuite, une variation dans les thèmes du décor : si l’on retrouve dans les deux espaces une alternance de statues porteuses et d’imagines clipeatae 55, il ne s’agit pas d’art grec, de citation de modèles athéniens, mais de personnages historiques renvoyant à l’histoire romaine : les spectateurs romains sont invités à comparer les Daces captifs, représentation de la réalité des conquêtes de Trajan, et les caryatides et bustes de l’élévation du Forum d’Auguste (le clipeus avec Zeus Ammon renvoie, selon Paul Zanker, à la conquête de l’Égypte), incarnation des provinces soumises. Là où Auguste proposait des allégories, en allusion à sa victoire d’Actium et à la conquête de l’Égypte, la Grande Frise de Trajan et les reliefs de la colonne historiée montrent la réalité des opérations militaires et l’omniprésence, sur le terrain, de l’empereur conquérant. Si modèle grec il y a pour Trajan, il s’agit d’Alexandre le Grand, lequel avait déjà été le modèle de César. Il y a aussi une constante : la référence à l’histoire de Rome se trouve sur les deux complexes. Auguste plaça sous les portiques de son Forum les summi uiri de Rome, en une sorte de galerie gentilice dilatée dont il était à la fois le centre (le quadrige dédié au pater patriae) et l’aboutissement 56. Suétone explicite ainsi l’intention du Princeps : « […] il honora la mémoire des généraux qui avaient rendu tout-puissant le peuple romain d’abord si faible ; ainsi, non seulement il restaura, en conservant les inscriptions primitives, les édifices bâtis par chacun d’eux, mais il fit ériger, sous les deux portiques de son forum, des statues qui les représentaient tous avec leurs insignes de triomphateurs, en déclarant même dans un édit : ‘qu’il avait imaginé cela, pour que lui-même, tant qu’il vivrait, et les princes ses successeurs, fussent tenus, devant leurs concitoyens, de se modeler, pour ainsi dire, [sur l’image, sur l’exemple] de ces grands hommes’ » 57.

Trajan est lui-aussi au centre des regards, à cheval comme César, mais cette fois les grands hommes de l’histoire romaine sont honorés d’imagines clipeatae ENNIUS, Fragments 417 (édition anglaise de E. H. Warmington, Londres, 1988). Des panneaux d’armes ont été identifiés récemment sur le forum d’Auguste, annonçant eux aussi ceux du forum de Trajan (communication de L. Ungaro et E. Polito au colloque « Trophées et monuments de victoire romains », 21-23 octobre 2015, Université de Perpignan). 56 On renvoie ici au célèbre chant VI de l’Énéide de Virgile et aux multiples travaux sur Auguste de ZANKER (1970) ; ID. (1989) et de SAURON (1995) ; ID. (1999). 57 SUET., Aug. XXXI : […] honorem memoriae ducum praestitit, qui imperium P.R. ex minimo maximum reddidissent. Itaque et opera cuiusque manentibus titulis restituit et statuas omnium triumphali effigie in utraque fori sui porticu dedicauit, professus et edicto  : ‘commentum id se, ut ad illorum uelut ad exemplar et ipse, dum uiueret, et insequentium aetatium principes exigerentur a ciuibus’ (trad. H. Ailloud, Paris, 1931). 54

55

AUGUSTE À L’ÉPOQUE DE TRAJAN

123

dans l’architecture du forum. Sans doute y retrouvait-on les mêmes que ceux honorés d’une monnaie de restitution. La concordance avec les thèmes idéologiques du Panégyrique de Pline est si forte que la lecture paraît assurée. Pline le Jeune résume l’exercice en une formule, identique dans l’intention à celle prêtée par Suétone à Auguste mais avec l’adjonction de l’inévitable critique de Domitien : « Tout ce que, Pères conscrits, je dis ou ai dit sur les autres princes, tend à montrer par quelle longue habitude ont été corrompues et gâtées les mœurs du principat que notre père redresse et réforme. De plus il n’y a pas de bon éloge sans comparaison » 58.

La nouveauté est que, si Trajan se compare à Auguste, tout comme Vespasien et Nerva avant lui, l’Optimus Princeps affiche sa supériorité sur le modèle fondateur. Selon Pausanias, Auguste figurait sur le Forum de Trajan, dans une exèdre latérale mais mis en valeur par le matériau et l’emplacement de son portrait. Il y figurait, non comme fondateur du Principat, mais (je crois) avec le statut de fondateur de province, en l’occurrence la Germanie, donc comme précurseur de Trajan en tant que… conquérant de la Dacie et créateur de nouvelle province : « Parmi tous les monuments qu’il [Trajan] a construits, les plus magnifiques sont les bains qui portent son nom ainsi qu’un grand théâtre circulaire et un bâtiment qui domine l’hippodrome et fait deux stades de long, ainsi que l’agora des Romains, monument remarquable à tous égards pour sa décoration, mais en particulier pour son toit de bronze. Les portraits qui se trouvent dans les monuments circulaires sont en électrum pour celui d’Auguste, l’empereur de Rome, et en ivoire, à ce qu’on disait, pour celui de Nicomède, le roi de Bithynie » 59.

58 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. LIII, 1 : Omnia, patres conscripti, quae de aliis principibus a me aut dicuntur aut dicta sunt eo pertinent ut ostendam quam longa consuetudine corruptos deprauatosque mores principatus parens noster reformet et corrigat. Alioquin nihil non parum grate sine comparatione laudatur (trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). 59 PAUS., Élide V, 1, 12, 6-7 (ὁπόσα δὲ ἐς ἔργων ἔχει οἱ κατασκευήν, ἀξιολογώτατά ἐστι λουτρὰ ἐπώνυμα αὐτοῦ καὶ θέατρον μέγα κυκλοτερὲς πανταχόθεν καί οἰκοδόμημα ἐς ἵππων δρόμους προῆκον καὶ ἐς δύο σταδίων μῆκος, καὶ ἡ Ῥωμαίων ἀγορὰ κόσμου τε εἵνεκα τοῦ λοιποῦ θέας ἀξία καὶ μάλιστα ἐς τὸν ὄροφον χαλκοῦ πεποιημένον. 7 Αἱ δὲ εἰκόνες αἱ τοῖς κατασκευάσμασι τοῖς περιφερέσιν ἐγκείμεναι, ἡ μὲν τοῦ ἠλέκρτου βασιλέως Ῥωμαίον ἐστὶν Αὐγούστου, ἡ δὲ τοῦ ἐλέφαντος βασιλέως Νικομήδους ἐλέγετο εἶναι Βιθυνῶν ; trad. J. Pouilloux, Paris, 2002). Trajan préparait dans les années 112-113 son expédition contre les Parthes (il envoya Pline le Jeune gouverner la Bithynie), la mention du buste du roi Nicomède en ivoire peut donc, le 1er janvier 112, renvoyer à la (encore) future campagne de Trajan ; en regard, le portrait d’Auguste en ambre peut être une allusion à la première victoire de Trajan qui lui valut son surnom de Germanicus et par lequel, déjà, il marquait sa supériorité sur son prédécesseur vaincu (par procuration) à Teutoburg… Cela demeure une hypothèse, le texte de Pausanias étant purement descriptif.

124

MARTIN GALINIER

Citation valant hommage, ainsi que l’écrivent Pline l’Ancien et son neveu Pline le Jeune, il n’y avait dans cet ensemble de diaphora urbanistique nul manque de respect, mais l’affirmation assumée de la supériorité de l’Optimus Princeps. Alliant Libertas républicaine et uirtus militaire, Trajan prétendait renouer avec les temps d’avant Auguste, ainsi que l’écrit Florus avec regret sous le « pacifique » Hadrien : « De César Auguste à notre temps, il n’y eut pas beaucoup moins de 200 ans, pendant lesquels, sous l’effet de l’inertie des Césars, [l’empire] vieillit et se réduisit en quelque sorte, sinon que, sous le principat de Trajan il fit jouer ses muscles : contrairement à toute attente, le vieil Empire voit, comme si on lui avait rendu sa jeunesse, ses forces reverdir » 60.

Il est vrai que la phrase qui précède cet extrait place Auguste parmi les pacificateurs : « Puis, jusqu’à César Auguste, 200 ans, pendant lesquels il [le peuple romain] pacifia tout l’univers » 61. Mais avec Trajan, c’est bien la jeunesse qui revient, celle de la République, période glorieuse que Florus caractérise ainsi : « Ce fut, pour ce qui est des hommes et des armes, la période où il [le peuple romain] se montra le plus énergique […] » 62. 4. L’adoption et les fondements du Principat Autre aspect : les institutions. On a déjà croisé chez les auteurs trajaniens l’opposition entre le Principat (fondé par Auguste) et le thème de la libertas républicaine. Un des fondements du régime augustéen fut l’hérédité. Aussi Auguste est-il vraiment épargné par cette phrase du Panégyrique  ? « Tel devait être celui que nous ne devons ni aux guerres civiles ni à l’oppression des armes, mais à la paix et à l’adoption et aux divinités enfin fléchies par les habitants de la terre. Était-il convenable qu’il n’y eût aucune différence entre un empereur choisi par les hommes et un empereur choisi par les dieux ? » 63. 60 FLORUS, praef. : A Caesare Augusto in saeculum nostrum haud multo minus anni ducenti, quibus inertia Caesarum quasi consenuit atque decoxit, nisi quod sub Traiano principe mouit lacertos et praeter spem omnium senectus imperii quasi reddita juuentute reuirescit (trad. Paul Jal, Paris, 1967). PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. LIX, 2, évoque aussi l’inertia qui prévalait avant Trajan : « Mais dans le cas présent nous te demandons au contraire d’enseigner aux futurs princes à sortir de l’inaction, à suspendre un peu leurs plaisirs […], à monter sur la chaise curule qu’ils détiennent […] » (Nunc uero postulamus ut futuros principes doceas inertiae renuntiare, paulisper delicias differre […], ascendere curulem quam detineant […] : trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). 61 FLORUS, praef. : Deinceps ad caesarem Augustum CC anni, quibus totum orbem pacauit (trad. Paul Jal, Paris, 1967). 62 FLORUS, praef. : Hoc fuit tempus uirit, armis incitatissimum, ideoque quis adulescentiam dixerit (trad. Paul Jal, Paris, 1967). 63 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. V, 1-2 : Talem esse oportuit quem non bella ciuilia nec armis oppressa res publica, sed pax et adoptio et tandem exorata terris numina dedissent.

AUGUSTE À L’ÉPOQUE DE TRAJAN

125

Certes, celui avec lequel Trajan se confronte en premier lieu est Domitien, ainsi que le Panégyrique de Pline le Jeune l’atteste à foison, par exemple : « Nous recevons des otages, nous ne les achetons plus ; nous ne négocions plus au prix d’énormes sacrifices et d’immenses largesses des victoires imaginaires » 64. Mais l’adoption de Tibère par Auguste est-elle exclue de ces phrases de Pline ? « Tu as été pris pour fils non par un beau-père, mais par un prince […]. Quand on va transmettre le Sénat et le peuple romain, les armées, les provinces, les alliés à un seul chef, peut-on n’accepter pour successeur que l’enfant donné par sa femme et chercherait-on l’héritier du pouvoir suprême seulement à l’intérieur de sa maison ? […] Qui doit commander à tous doit être choisi entre tous […] » 65.

La condamnation du principe héréditaire de l’Empire, créé par Auguste, est ici forte, et il semble qu’elle soit sincère puisque Trajan n’aurait pas, à sa mort, désigné son successeur 66. Auguste n’était pas le seul visé (Pison adopté par Galba l’est aussi), mais le fondateur n’est pas exonéré de responsabilités. Les rappels au retour de la libertas, chez Pline comme chez Tacite, sont nombreux 67. L’hérédité est en fait remplacée par l’élection et la providence 68. Si Trajan a été choisi par Nerva, c’est que ces qualités le désignaient pour le poste, et il l’a fait dans le temple de Jupiter Capitolin, maître de l’imperium : « Aussi n’est-ce pas dans un appartement, mais dans un temple, non devant le lit nuptial, mais devant le puluinar de Jupiter Optimus Maximus que l’adoption a été consommée, qui fondait enfin non pas notre servitude, mais notre liberté et notre bonheur et notre sûreté » 69. An fas erat nihil differre inter imperatorem quem homines et quem di fecissent  ? (trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). 64 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. XII, 2 : Accepimus obsides ergo, non emimus, nec ingentibus damnis immensisque muneribus paciscimur ut uicerimus (trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). 65 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. VII, 4-6 : Adsciuit enim te filium non uitricus, sed princeps […]. An senatum populumque Romanum, exercitus, prouincias, socios transmissurus uni successorem e sinu uxoris accipias summaeque potestatis heredem tantum intra domum tuam quaeras  ? […] Imperaturus omnibus eligi debet ex omnibus (trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). 66 LYASSE (2008), p. 346-347 (avec les sources regroupées notes 67-68). 67 En sus des extraits déjà mentionnés dans le texte, on peut en outre citer PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. LVIII, 3 : « […] ç’a été une preuve encore du retour à la liberté que le consul fût un autre que César » (hoc quoque redditae libertatis indicium fuit quod consul alius quam Caesar esset) ; LXI, 7 (pratique républicaine des consulats) ; LXIII, 5 (« cité libre », liberae ciuitatis) ; LXVII, 2 (liberté des sénateurs) ; LXVII, 6 (« salut de la république », rei publicae salute) (trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). 68 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. X, 4. 69 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. VIII, 1 : Itaque non in cubiculo, sed in templo, nec ante genialem torum, sed ante puluinar Jouis optimi maximi adoptio peracta est, qua tandem non seruitus nostra, sed libertas et salus et securitas fundabatur (trad. M. Durry, Paris 1947). Aussi (I, 5) : « Ce n’est pas l’obscur pouvoir du destin, c’est Jupiter lui-même,

126

MARTIN GALINIER

L’action de Jupiter est soulignée, on la retrouve à la fin du règne sur une monnaie montrant Jupiter avec le sceptre, étendant le bras droit porteur de la foudre au-dessus de Trajan, lequel tient un rameau, et la légende CONSERVATORI PATRIS PATRIAE : « Au Protecteur de Père de la Patrie » 70. Autrement dit : à Jupiter, afin qu’il protège le Père de la Patrie, Trajan, lequel est à cette date en guerre contre les Parthes. Au début du règne, était apparu dans le monnayage trajanien un autre dieu 71, un dieu exclu depuis Auguste car protecteur d’Antoine 72 : Hercule. Cette rupture n’est pas une réhabilitation de l’adversaire d’Auguste : Antoine ne bénéficie d’aucune monnaie de restitution, alors que Q. Cassius Longinus, césarien 73, et Marcus Junius Brutus, césaricide (Fig. 7), en ont chacun une. Il s’agit plutôt, avec le retour d’Hercule dans le monnayage officiel, de renforcer le thème de l’élection de Trajan par Jupiter, de placer son action sous son égide et de faire de l’Optimus Princeps le représentant sur terre du plus grand des dieux, comme Héraclès l’était en tant que fils de Zeus 74. Cette tendance n’est pas nouvelle. Auguste est comparé à Jupiter par Ovide dans les Fastes 75, à Hercule par Horace 76 et Properce 77, et Suétone rapporte des songes mettant en scène Jupiter Capitolin choisissant Auguste parmi plusieurs au su et au vu de tous, qui l’a révélé : n’a-t-il pas été élu devant tous les autels et dans le même lieu où ce dieu réside aussi visible et présent que dans le ciel et les astres ? » (Non enim occulta potestate fatorum, sed ab Ioue coram ac palam repertus est  : electus quippe inter aras et altaria eodemque loci quem deus ille tam manifestus ac praesens quam caelum ac sidera insedit). Autres références à I.O.M.  : LII, 6 ; LXXX, 4 ; XCIV. 70 WOYTEK (2010), p. 404-406 n° 428 (aureus), 429 (denier), 438H (aureus), p. 428 n° 479 (sesterce), p. 439 n° 507 (années 113-114), et p. 458 n° 547 (114-116). 71 WOYTEK (2010), p. 225-226 n° 72 (aureus) et 73 (denier) (année 100), p. 238-240 n° 99 (aureus), n° 100 (denier), n° 101 (quinaire), p. 255 n° 138 (denier) (années 101102) … D’autres frappes sont datées de 103-105, et une dernière de 112-114 (p. 417, n. 457, c’est un as). 72 APPIEN, Guerres civiles III, 16 ; PLUTARQUE, Antoine 4, 2 ; 36, 7 ; 60, 5 ; 90, 4. Le triomphe d’Octave sur Antoine aurait eu une forte connotation herculéenne, du fait de la date choisie, celle de la victoire d’Hercule sur Cacus : à ce propos, ARCELLASCHI (1995), p. 24-30, spécialement p. 26. 73 WOYTEK (2010), p. 518 n° 832 (Q. CASSIVS ; l’avers présente un buste de Vesta, le revers la chaise curule des consuls, une urne de vote et une tablette). 74 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. LXXX, 4 : « C’est ainsi, je le croirais, que le père du monde règle tout d’un signe de sa tête, quand il jette ses regards sur la terre et daigne compter les destins humains parmi les occupations divines ; désormais libre et dispensé de cette partie, il ne s’occupe plus que du ciel […] » (Talia esse crediderim quae ille mundi parens temperat nutu, si quando oculos demisit in terras et fata mortalium inter diuina opera numerare dignatus est  ; qua nunc parte liber solutusque tantum caelo uacat […] ; trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). Sur Trajan qui fut un Hercule sous un DomitienEurysthée : XIV, 5. 75 OV., Fastes I, 650. ZANKER (1989), p. 245-254 à ce propos. 76 HOR., Odes III, 14. 77 PROP., Élégies IV, 9.

AUGUSTE À L’ÉPOQUE DE TRAJAN

127

enfants pour lui confier l’État 78. Mais le thème s’accompagne avec Trajan d’une personnalisation renforcée : n’étant pas fils d’empereur, ne se rattachant de manière exclusive à aucun de ses prédécesseurs, il tire sa légitimité des qualités des uns et des autres. Dans cet ensemble, Auguste n’est plus qu’un prince parmi d’autres, le premier en terme chronologique, mais pas en terme idéologique. Le « meilleur », c’est Trajan, car il a réussi à allier dans l’exercice du Principat liberté républicaine et qualités personnelles. Pour ce faire, il n’efface aucun des princes ses prédécesseurs, hormis ceux condamnés par le Sénat, Domitien en premier lieu. La comparaison et les faits suffisent à démontrer sa supériorité : conquérant là où Auguste ne le fut pas ; promoteur de la liberté quand Auguste instaura la « servitude », pour reprendre l’expression de Pline ; constructeur de plus grands édifices qu’Auguste ; conciliateur de l’histoire romaine davantage que le fondateur du Principat, acteur des guerres civiles : le modèle de Trajan est le Brutus de 509 avant J.-C., non Romulus ; heureux dans sa famille là où Auguste ne le fut guère 79… 5. En guise de conclusion Nul besoin de faire disparaître Auguste pour l’éclipser. Lorsque Suétone décrit la manière dont le fondateur du Principat refusa le titre de dominus  : « considérant le titre de maître comme une injure infamante, il le repoussa toujours avec horreur » 80, il utilise une formule proche de celle de Pline : « nous ne parlons pas d’un tyran, mais d’un concitoyen, nous ne parlons pas d’un maître, mais d’un père » 81 et introduit de surcroît une comparaison avec la formule qu’il prête à Domitien dans la Vie qu’il lui consacre : dominus et deus 82. Le même Suétone rapporte qu’Auguste consul circulait à pied et préférait les entrées de ville discrètes et était très respectueux envers les sénateurs 83 : autant de qualités prêtées par Pline à Trajan. Écrites sous Hadrien, les Vies de Suétone témoignent du rôle prééminent à nouveau accordé à Auguste. N’a-t-il pas ces lignes à propos du fondateur, qui aurait hésité par deux fois à « rétablir la République » :

78 SUET., Aug. XCIV. On peut se demander si ce thème « herculéen » rattaché à Auguste n’est pas une création de Suétone postérieure au règne de Trajan… 79 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. IV, 5 : « celui-là a perdu dans sa maison une gloire acquise au-dehors » (hic in publico partam domi perdidit  : trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). Voir LXXXIII-LXXXIV pour l’éloge de Plotine et Marciana. 80 SUET., Aug. LIII (Domini appellationem ut maledictum et obprobrium semper exhorruit  ; trad. H. Ailloud, Paris, 1931). 81 PLINE LE JEUNE, Pan. II, 3 (non enim de tyranno, sed de ciue, non de domino, sed de parente loquimur  ; trad. M. Durry, Paris, 1947). 82 SUET., Dom. XIII. 83 SUET., Aug. LIII.

128

MARTIN GALINIER

« Fasse le ciel que l’État se maintienne en pleine prospérité et qu’en retour je recueille la récompense à laquelle j’aspire, d’être désigné comme le fondateur du régime le plus heureux et d’emporter en mourant l’espérance que les fondements de l’État demeureront inébranlables, tels que je les aurais jetés ».

Et Suétone de conclure, dans un esprit plus hadrianique que trajanien : « Luimême se chargea de réaliser son vœu, en faisant tous ses efforts pour que personne n’eût à se plaindre du régime nouveau » 84. L’éclipse d’Auguste ne dura guère, mais elle fut par la suite concurrencée par l’éclat de Trajan. Avec une question subsidiaire : dans quelle mesure les histoires postérieures au règne de l’Optimus Princeps ne furent-elles pas écrites pour tenir compte des critiques implicites portées à l’encontre d’Auguste sous Trajan, par Pline et Tacite ? Dans le cas de Suétone, la question peut se poser. Les empereurs qui suivirent, Hadrien en premier, s’inspirèrent toujours du modèle augustéen, mais Trajan devint, à tout le moins, son égal. Le Moyen Âge ne l’oublia pas, développant le thème de sa « Justice » avant que l’Encyclopédie et Edward Gibbon n’en fassent, au XVIIIe siècle, le modèle du Bon Souverain. Ils suivaient en cela les historiens du règne, mais s’inspiraient aussi de la colonne Trajane dont l’importance dans la Fortune artistique, monumentale et politique de son inspirateur demeura primordiale, ainsi que l’affirme l’article « colonne Trajane » de l’Encyclopédie – citation par laquelle nous conclurons cet exposé : « Colonne Trajane, monument à l’honneur de Trajan […]. Un prince qui le premier avait ajouté de son ordre cette expresse condition aux vœux publics qu’on ferait pour sa personne, « que ce ne serait qu’autant qu’il veillerait à la conservation de la patrie ; et que s’il faisait rien qui y fût contraire, les dieux détournassent de dessus lui leurs regards et leur protection » : Ut Trajanum dii sospitem incolumenque praestarent, si bene rempublicam ex utilitate omnium rexerit  ; sin contra, ut ab illius custodia oculos dimoverent  : un prince qui pensait que le souverain bonheur était de pouvoir faire tout le bien qu’on veut, et le comble de la grandeur, de pouvoir faire tout le bien qu’on peut : un prince enfin qui, comme le remarque Pline le jeune son ami, n’avait point de plus grand modèle à se proposer que luimême ; un tel prince méritait sans doute les plus sublimes efforts de l’Architecture, pour célébrer sa gloire et ses vertus. Aussi le sénat et le peuple Romain lui érigèrent avec zèle ce mausolée, si l’on peut parler ainsi, en reconnaissance de ses rares qualités, et des grands services qu’il avait rendus à la république » 85. SUET., Aug. XXVIII (‘Ita mihi salua mac sospitem rem p. sistere in sua sede liceat atque eius rei fructum percipere, quem peto, ut optimi status auctor dicar et moriens ut feram mecum spem, mansura in uestigio suo fundamenta rei p. quae iecero’. Fecitque ipse se compotem uoti nisus omni modo, ne quem noui statut paeniteret ; trad. H. Ailloud, Paris, 1931). Suétone, qui avait publié vers 113 des recueils De uiris illustribus consacrés aux écrivains latins (« Introduction » de H. Ailloud, p. XII-XIV), acheva ses Vies des douze Césars au début du règne d’Hadrien. 85 Encyclopédie vol. III, p. 653, art. « Colonne Trajane » [Jaucourt]. 84

AUGUSTE À L’ÉPOQUE DE TRAJAN

129

Bibliographie ARCELLASCHI, A. (1995), Properce, Auguste et Marc-Antoine, in VL 140, p. 24-30. BALTY, J.-Ch. (1991), Curia Ordinis. Recherches d’architecture et d’urbanisme antiques sur les curies provinciales du monde romain, Bruxelles (Académie Royale de Belgique, Mémoire de la classe des Beaux-Arts 2ème série, tome 15, fascicule 2). CAHUT, B. (2015), Principat et République. Images et représentations du passé républicain dans la construction de la figure impériale à Rome de la crise de 68 à l’assassinat de Sévère Alexandre, thèse soutenue le 18 juin 2015 sous la direction de Michel Molin (Paris XIII). CARANDINI, A. et al. (éds.) (2013), Atlante di Rome antica, Rome. CRAWFORD, M. H. (1974), Roman Republican Coinage, Cambridge. LYASSE, E. (2008), Le Principat et son fondateur. L’utilisation de la référence à Auguste de Tibère à Trajan, Bruxelles (Collection Latomus 311). MATTINGLY, H. (1936), Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum III: Nerva to Hadrian, Londres. MENEGHINI, R. (2009), I Fori imperiali e i Mercati di Traiano, Rome. PÉREZ, Ch. (1986), Monnaie du pouvoir, pouvoir de la monnaie. Une pratique discursive originale : le discours figuratif monétaire (1er s. av. J.-C. – 14 ap. J.-C.), Besançon. SAURON, G. (1995), Quis Deum ? L’expression plastique des idéologies politiques et religieuses à Rome à la fin de la République et au début du Principat, Paris (BEFAR 285). SAURON, G. (1999), Légende noire et mythe de l’âge d’or. Les pôles complémentaires de la mystification augustéenne, in Le mythe grec dans l’Italie antique. Fonction et image, Rome (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 253), p. 593-625. TARPIN, Cl. (2003), M. Licinius Crassus imperator, et les dépouilles opimes de la République, in RPh LXXVII, 2, p. 275-311. WOYTEK, B. (2010), Die Reichsprägung des Kaisers Traianus (98-117), Band 2, Vienne (Moneta Imperii Romani 14). ZANKER, P. (1970), Forum Augustum, Tübingen (Monumenta Artis Antiquae). ZANKER, P. (1989), Augusto e il potere delle immagini, Turin (éd. allemande 1987).

Augustus’ Fame in Late Antiquity: From Constantine to Theodosius DIEDERIK BURGERSDIJK (Universiteit van Amsterdam)*

Abstract After his life-long reign, opinions about the legacy of Augustus have not always been positive, witness the negative representations of his power by Pliny in his Panegyricus to Trajan, or the history of his contemporary Tacitus. Augustus’ fame seems to have faded in later antiquity. At a closer inspection, however, it appears that his name and fame are omnipresent, though sometimes in more indirect ways than might be expected. In the corpus panegyricorum, emperors are addressed as Augustissime imperator in Augustissimae laudes, expressions that clearly hint to the first bearer of the name. Augustus has turned into the exemplum to be surpassed. This usage concurs with artistic expressions such as encountered in the Arch of Constantine, which serves as a sign of complete victory of the reigning emperor over the past. Furthermore, Augustus’ promise of the return of a golden age, represented in so many arts in his own time – not least in Augustus’ own Res Gestae –, had a great afterlife, most prominently revived in Constantine’s times. An interesting case is provided by the Historia Augusta, which purports to have been written in the earlier fourth century – and therefore links to the panegyrical discourse – but actually stems from Theodosian times. Other testimonia of the reception of the person of Augustus are encountered in Julian’s satiric Caesares and Ausonius’ quatrains of the emperors. It is difficult to distinguish, as will be demonstrated, between reception of Augustan culture and the person of Augustus, but an attempt should at least be made. In this paper, the fate, name and fame of Augustus in the fourth century are traced, leading to the conclusion that Augustus was never erased from the Roman record.

1. Introduction The bi-millennial celebration of Augustus’ death may be considered random, or even distasteful, given the example of the first great commemoration in 1937, but still leads to new perspectives on the most famous and influential emperor Rome had produced. In contrast with earlier celebrations, the jubilee year of

* I would like to thank Dorine van Espelo for her critical reading of the article and for many useful suggestions.

132

DIEDERIK BURGERSDIJK

2014 was accompanied by reflections about what memory is all about, now that memory-studies, Gedächtnisgeschichte and Lieux de mémoire are flourishing in research. The 1937 celebrations consisted of real-life events and re-enactments with huge political dimensions, while the present celebrative year is carefully monitored and watched by researchers, as the website by Penelope Goodman, who registers events, prove: www.augustus2014.com. In my view, this is an improvement upon the past, when celebrations, congresses and exhibitions were held with considerably less critical reflection. But does the revival of Augustan studies as a result of a quite arbitrary occasion still yield to new knowledge or insights? I think it does. The organizers of the exhibitions in Rome and Paris in 2014 have been criticized for being conservative in their presentation of the material, even to the point that a repetition of the 1988 Berlin exhibition was detected; and indeed, the organization was supervised from the same scholarly perspective. 1 This Berlin exhibition was considered as important as it was innovative in its own decade, particularly because it chose the novel perspective of Augustus’ ‘Macht der Bilder’, as it was compellingly brought forward by Zanker, moving away from the politically and morally motivated discussion in earlier decades. Where the 1937 exhibition exercised propaganda itself by the employment of Augustan culture, since 1988 scholarship pretended to unravel or deconstruct this same propagandistic discourse from Augustan times. Politics had made place for scholarship, but they shared the paradigm of propaganda applied to Augustan culture. The current criticism, which I do not necessarily share, at least suggests that a need is felt for new perspectives in Augustan research. My own topic will meet this demand only modestly: I will try to explore a neglected part of Augustan reception studies, which this conference is mostly about. To my knowledge, the appreciation of Augustus in the fourth century AD – or more generally, in Late Antiquity – has never been assessed before, at least not as a topic in itself. Most of the studies, among which some recent publications, treat the image of Augustus in Nero’s time, mostly due to the fact that Seneca mentions and treats Augustus as an exemplum and historical figure from the near past most frequently. Trajan’s reign, too, is covered by recent studies, augmented by Martin Galinier’s study in this volume. 2 The two mentioned emperors, Nero and Trajan, served as historical hinges in the appreciation of Augustus: Nero was the last of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, and Trajan the first of a new one, in the sequence of adopted emperors. Both were well covered by contemporary sources such as Seneca and Pliny The Younger respectively. After Trajan, however, the study of Augustus’ reception diminishes, although LA ROCCA (2014a and 2014b). For further recent literature on various aspects of Augustus’ reign and reception: VON DEN HOFF / STROH / ZIMMERMANN (2014), p. 295-331. 2 See note 25 in BURGERSDIJK (2014), p. 42 for relevant literature. 1

AUGUSTUS’ FAME IN LATE ANTIQUITY

133

there is ample cause to extend the study of the position of the first emperor much further in time. My investigation will focus on the fourth century AD, more specifically on the period between Constantine and Theodosius, the period in which Christianity developed from a religio licita in the first decade to the only legitimate religion in the Roman empire in the last decade of that same age. The sources used in this paper, mainly dating from or about the reign of Constantine, often depend on or look back upon the preceding two centuries, the 2nd and 3rd c. AD, which were important for the image of Augustus within the chosen time limits of this paper. 2. Augustus in Christian Literature In Christian literature, the reception of Augustus is twofold. On the positive side, it was under this emperor’s reign that the Saviour Child was born, which had been made possible by the peace and rest that Augustus brought to the empire. At the same time, Augustus was not the bringer of peace himself, which he was depicted to be in the artistic expressions of his time. Stories in Suetonius’ Life of the Divine Augustus show that Augustus was considered the child that would bring back golden times to the Roman world, as suggested by several other stories around his conception and birth. In other words, the birth of another savior child might be considered a competitor to Augustus as bringer of peace, although this potential threat to the emperor’s position has never been spelled out explicitly in Christian literature. 3 Rather, the neutral or even positive view prevailed: Augustus as the man who made it all possible. In the famous Gospel of Luke, written in the second half of the first century, we find a report – the only one – about some far-removed involvement of Augustus: In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 4

Historically, nothing is known about this legendary census, although it has been speculated that a kind of census had taken place in Judea around 6 AD, which sorted under the procuratorship of Syria (although this is no less than ten years

3

A related question is whether the earthly ruler should be considered an ally in or enemy to the quest for Christian world peace, as compellingly sketched in chapter 5 (“The Prince: Ally or Enemy”) of MACCULLOCH (2009), p. 155-188. 4 Luc. 2.1: Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα παρὰ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. / Factum est autem in diebus illis exiit edictum a Caesare Augusto ut describeretur uniuersus orbis. haec descriptio prima facta est praeside Syriae Cyrino.

134

DIEDERIK BURGERSDIJK

after Christ’s birth, who is supposed to have been born under the Judean king Herod’s rule, 37-4 BC). 5 The relatively mild reception of Augustus, being a sole and earthly ruler, in the New Testament may be explained by the fact that Augustus in hindsight was never confronted with the newborn child as a competitor. Although Christianity places a supreme power above the emperor in Rome, this view never threatened the emperor’s position (he belonged to the earthly realm, after all). Biblical language shows how different an approach towards heaven and earth is taken: in Luke 2.14, again, we read: “Glory to God in the highest heaven, / and on earth peace to those on whom his favour rest”. 6 The Greek ἐν ὑψίστοις (Latin: in excelsis, or: in altissimis) may evoke associations with the etymology of the name of Augustus, ‘The Elevated’, but is actually derived from the Old Testament notion of ‘Heaven of Heavens’ (e.g. Job 16.19). 7 In itself, this situation was not discordant with the traditional classical view, in which the emperor was deified after his death, but was also supposed to act under divine supervision during his life, and therefore received divine honors (or his genius did, depending on the part of the empire). 8 This theology, the divine honors for the emperor or the gods eventually would become the stumbling stone for Christians, especially when serving in the army and obliged to swear oaths; after all, there was only one God who did not have any representant on earth apart from his onlyborn and crucified son. That idea took hold long after Augustus’ death, although all his successors on the throne personify somehow the emperorship of the first Augustus, if only because they all bore his name. In general, the reigning

5 The census, a kind of inventory of the inhabitants of a certain region or province in order to impose taxes, has been connected with the census as mentioned in Flavius Josephus (Ant. 20.102). The debate is too extensive to be summarized here, but general information and references may be found in GRUEN (1996), p. 157. For a theological explanation of the census, see BOVON (1991), p. 117: Luke’s treatment is directed against princes in general (because the people belong to God), and was not meant to undermine Augustus’ reign specifically. The Greek name ‘Kaisar Augoustos’ in the quote is used as a name, instead of a title, otherwise the Greeks ‘Sebastos’ would have been used instead of ‘Augoustos’ (such as occurs in Acts 27.1). 6 Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας. / gloria in altissimis deo et in terra pax in hominibus bonae uoluntatis. 7 The Latin excelsus or excelsum (or plural –a) is never brought in connection with augustus. Cicero (Cat. 3.8), e.g., speaks about a simulacrum Iouis … in excelso, where it means ‘a higher place’, and in De Republica 5.11 de excelso et pleno stellarum as a place far removed from the earth, but no suggestion of any relation with augustus. 8 Studies about divine honours for the emperor and imperial cult in general abound; a good starting point for the study of Augustus’ divinity as presented by Suetonius is now WARDLE (2012), who postulates a generally shared divine cult for the ruler, a “real and manifest god” ([2012], p. 323), in the private sphere, to be divinized (diuus) after his death (in spite of Pliny the Elder’s much more sceptic remark in Naturalis Historia, 7.150, in which the divine status is claimed by the emperor himself).

AUGUSTUS’ FAME IN LATE ANTIQUITY

135

Augustus was addressed as the one to secure peace for Christians in order to be able to worship their God. The early Christian sources are important to understand the situation as it was at the beginning of the fourth century. The bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (Historia Ecclesiastica 4.26.7), who was a loyal follower and maybe even a confidant and adviser of Constantine, quotes from an Apologia written by bishop Melito of Sardis to the emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, who reigned from 161-180: “For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among barbarians; and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under your rule, during the distinguished reign of your ancestor Augustus, it proved to be a blessing and most happy omen to your empire”. 9 The passage pertains to a situation that took place one-and-a-half century earlier than Eusebius’ own times, but may reflect how the reign of Augustus was still looked upon: as the reign that made world-peace possible, while the successors of that famous first emperor continued to maintain it. This, of course, was perfectly applicable to the pro-Christian reign of the emperor Constantine. The successors of Augustus were not only considered successors to the throne and inheritors of the Augustan name, but were even seen as actual family of the first emperor. 10 Comparing Melito’s address to the emperor with a contemporaneous philosopher from pagan stock, Marcus’ teacher and confidant Fronto, the different tradition becomes clear. Fronto (Epistula, 11.2, ed. HAINES 1920, p. 318) praises Augustus, following Seneca’s De Beneficiis, 1.9, for his moderatio (‘moderation’) and clementia (‘clemency’), one of the most important imperial virtues for which Augustus – whether historically justified or not – was known. 11

Ἡ γὰρ καθ’ ἡμᾶς φιλοσοφία πρότερον μὲν ἐν βαρβάροις ἤκμασεν, ἐπανθήσασα δὲ τοῖς σοῖς ἔθνεσιν κατὰ τὴν Αὐγούστου τοῦ σοῦ προγόνου μεγάλην ἀρχήν, ἐγενήθη μάλιστα τῇ σῇ βασιλείᾳ αἴσιον ἀγαθόν. With gratitude to J. Zangenberg, who treated the passage at the Zenobiaseminar “Augustus, de Man en de Mythe in de Christelijke Oudheid”, 17 oktober 2014, and with whose permission I repeat two passages from his handout. VERMES (2012), p. 189-193, for a comprehensive overview of his Christology; more detailed information in HALL (1979). 10 The same can be oberved in APPIANUS’ Bellum ciuile 4.16, in which the civil wars of the post-Caesarian period are described, where the author in an apostrophe addresses the reigning emperor of the period Hadrian (117-138): τοῦ ἑνὸς αὐτῶν (…), τὴν ἀρχὴν συστησαμένου τε ἐς ἕδραν ἀσφαλῆ καὶ γένος καὶ ὄνομα τὸ νῦν ἄρχον ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ καταλιπόντος, ἐπιφανέστερα. (“one of them [i.e. of the triumvirate], who refounded the empire on a firm basis and whose family, that still bears his name, is still in power”). 11 Clementia at least is a virtue which Augustus prided himself on, as he mentions in his Res Gestae 34: clupeus aureus in curia Iulia positus, quem mihi senatum populumque Romanum dare uirtutis clementiaeque et iustitiae et pietatis causa testatum est per eius clupei inscriptionem (“a golden shield, set up in the council chamber by the senate and people of Rome, bore witness through its inscription to my valour and clemency an and justice and piety”, translation COOLEY [20123], p. 99). A marble copy of the clupeus uirtutis from Arles is depicted in COOLEY (20123), p. 267. The shield was granted to 9

136

DIEDERIK BURGERSDIJK

3. Augustus in Constantine’s Oratio ad sanctos A very important testimony for the appreciation of Augustus is the so-called oratio ad sanctos (‘speech to the holy men’), also oratio ad coetum sanctorum (‘speech to the community of holy men’), which has been transmitted as the fifth book of Eusebius’ Vita Constantini. 12 ‘Holy men’ refers to the world community of Christians. 13 Although the authenticity of the speech has been disputed, it is accepted quite broadly nowadays, which is of immense importance for the appreciation of Constantine as a Christian emperor. Also the date (theories diverge from 313 to 328) and place of performance (among which Trier, Rome and Antiocheia) are heavily disputed. In this speech, Constantine quotes from Virgil’s fourth Eclogue, in which he gives a christianised version of the pagan poem, as if Virgil were aware of the coming of the Savior in due time. Constantine thus makes it a uaticinium post euentum (‘a prophecy after the happening’). 14 Most famous is the reinterpretation of Virgo, the maiden of justice, who returns to mankind after she left the earth at the end of the previous generation of men, into the virgin Maria who bore the Christ. Many other elements are reinterpreted this way, which bears witness to a vivid re-use of Augustan culture at the beginning of the fourth century. 15 But since our topic is not the transmission or renaissance of Augustan culture, but the reception of Augustus himself, we will focus on his appreciation by his first Christian successors. In his Oratio ad sanctos 19.3, Constantine mentions the length of Augustus’ reign: “Antonius was overcome by Augustus, who reigned for 56 years. He was succeeded by Tiberius, in whose times the appearance of the Savior shone”. 16 This duration may be surprising, as one may either count from the moment that Octavius – as Augustus had been named before he took on the imperial name Augustus in January 27, though other – close – dates have been suggested, see SCHEID (2007), p. 90. 12 Referred to by Eusebius in VC 4.32. 13 Recently published in the series Fontes Christiani by GIRARDET (2013a). Until that time, HEIKEL (1902) (Eusebius’ Werke, vol. 1) was the standard. 14 Constantine considers Virgil the best of Italian poets (τὸν ἐξοχώτατον τῶν κατὰ Ἰταλίαν ποιητῶν, Or. 19.3), and adresses him in apostrophe: πεπαιδευμένως δέ, ὦ σοφώτατε ποιητὰ Μάρων, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ἅπαντα ἀκολούθως ἔχει (“so learned, o most wise poet Maro, is everything that follows”), referring to Eclogue, 4.26 ff. This opinion is not shared by Constantine’s advisor at Trier and the teacher of his sons Lactantius (Diuinae Institutiones 7.22), who criticizes Virgil for his lack of knowledge of the truth. 15 See for an overview of the reception of Virgil’s Aeneid in the broader framework of the eternality of the Roman empire and continuation in the empire of Christ: HARDIE (2014), chapter 6: “Imperium sine fine. The Aeneid and Christianity”. 16 Ἀντωνίου δ’ αὖ πάλιν Αὔγουστον περιγεγενῆσθαι, ὃς ἓξ καὶ πεντήκοντα ἔτεσιν ἐβασίλευσε. τοῦτον Τιβέριος διεδέξατο, καθ’ ὃν χρόνον ἡ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐξέλαμψε παρουσία…

AUGUSTUS’ FAME IN LATE ANTIQUITY

137

– claimed supremacy in the Roman empire in 44 or 43 BC, or from the moment that he acquired sole rule in 31 or was appointed Augustus in 27 BC. 17 The only viable explanation, that to my knowledge has not been brought forward so far, may be that that a timespan of 56 years before Augustus’ death brings us to the year 41 BC, in which the birth of the Savior was announced, namely in Virgil’s Eclogue which was addressed to the consul designatus of 41, Pollio, under whose reign a iuuenis, or young man, was to be born. With this calculation, the beginning of Augustus’ reign coincides with the moment that the Saviour’s birth was predicted. 18 4. Augustus as an Example in the Panegyrici Latini The positive appreciation of Augustus in the oratio ad sanctos is not always in accordance with other testimonia. The imitatio Augusti that Constantine clearly shows, e.g. by shaving of his beard after two centuries of bearded emperors, often turns into aemulatio. Let us investigate an example of the panegyrici Latini, recently treated by Hostein in a meticulous study. Just like in Virgil’s Fourth Eclogue, the return of a golden age under the reigning emperor takes a prominent position. In the year 298, in the time of the tetrarchy under Diocletian, a Gaulish retor named Eumenius adresses a governor in the Roman West. Eumenius stems from the Burgundy city of Augustodunum, present-day Autun, the city that had been founded by Augustus and was named after the emperor. He refers to the main imperial theme from the time of the name-giver: “Thus … that golden age, which flourished during briefly when Saturnus was king, is now reborn under the eternal auspices of Jupiter and Hercules”. 19 The latter two gods refer to the emperors who took them as their patrons, Diocletian and Maximian respectively. 20 Eumenius links the restauration of the City to the renaissance of good morals. The main goal of his speech is the restauration of the rhetorical schools, because literature can only flourish “when the Roman empire was strong on land and on sea”. 21 This formula has been connected to 17

I use the name of Octavius here and on relevant occasions below, as the more commonly used name of Octavianus (also in the fourth century, see e.g. the quote of the emperor Julian below) has never been an official name of the man who was born as Gaius Octavius, and inherited the names of Julius and Caesar. See for an elucidation of the problem GOLDSWORTHY (2014), p. 6. 18 GIRARDET (2013a), p. 202, n. 175 calculates beginning from 42 BC. 19 Pan. Lat. IX (5) 18.4: Adeo, ut res est, aurea illa saecula, quae non diu quondam Saturno rege uiguerunt, nunc aeternis auspiciis Iouis et Herculis renascuntur. Translation by NIXON / RODGERS (1994), p. 170. 20 Pan. Lat. IX (4) 18.5: Adeo, ut res est, aurea illa saecula, quae non diu quondam Saturno rege uiguerunt, nunc aeternis auspiciis Iouis et Herculis renascuntur (translation by NIXON / RODGERS [1994], p. 170). With the restauration of the city, Eumenius connects the return of good morals, or pietas, in 17.5. 21 19.4: Romana res plurimum terra et mari ualuit.

138

DIEDERIK BURGERSDIJK

Augustus’ own Res Gestae, 3: “I often waged wars both by land and by sea, civil and foreign, in the whole of the inhabited world”, although it is so generally used that it hardly evokes specific associations with the first emperor. 22 Therefore, the wording must not be considered a reference to Augustus, but rather as an evocation of the return of wealth: given the tetrarchic system of collegiality and a strict hierarchy of Augusti and Caesares, emperors and corulers, the association with the first emperor, who clearly ruled alone, might not have been opportune. 23 Thirteen years later, another orator from Autun delivered a speech of thanks addressed to Constantine as a result of the tax relief, one year before the emperor’s triumphal march on Rome in 312. 24 The gratulatory speech took place in Constantine’s capital of the Roman West, Augusta Treuerorum, present-day Trier, also founded by and named after Augustus. The first sentence is telling: If Flavia of the Aedui, now called at last by an eternal name, most sacred Emperor, had been able to move herself from her foundations and come hither, the entire city… would give thanks to you as her restorer, or rather, to speak more truly, as her founder… 25

An astonishing beginning, given the fact that the City was founded by Augustus and named as a pendant of nearby Bibracte, that has been baptized equally, as appears from the last sentence of the speech, 14.5: Even as you are the regent of all cities and all peoples, yet we have been granted the privilige to acquire your name: not ancient Bibracte, that was called Iulia Polia Florentia up to the present day, but Flavia is the city of the Haedui. 26

The people of the Haedui, who were granted the diplomatic honorary title fratres et consanguinei populi Romani (“blood brothers of the Roman people”), erased the memory of its founder, the emperor Augustus. 27 The Haedui Tr. COOLEY (2009), p. 61 (bella terra et mari ciuilia externaque tot in orbe terrarum saepe gessi…). See also RICH (2014), p. 137-138 for a discussion of the passage, especially related to the visual testimonia of the statement in the urban structure. 23 HOSTEIN (2012), p. 298 and n. 34. 24 Pan. Lat. V (8) in NIXON / RODGERS (1994), p. 264-287 (English) and p. 572-584 (Latin). 25 V (8) 1.1: Si Flauia Aeduorum tandem aeterno nomine nuncupata, sacratissime imperator, commouere se funditus atque huc uenire potuisset, tota profecto coram de tuis in se maximis pulcherrimisque beneficiis una uoce loqueretur, tibique restitutori suo, immo (ut uerius fatear) conditori, in ea potissimum ciuitate gratias ageret, cuius eam similem facere coepisti. 26 Omnium sis licet dominus urbium, omniu nationum, nos tamen etiam nomen accepimus tuum: iam non antiquum Bibracte, quod hucusque dicta est Iulia Polia Florentia, sed Flauia est ciuitas Aeduorum. 27 For the honorary title, see CAESAR, B. G. 1.33; RICH (2014), p. 147 on Augustus’ friendship policies. 22

AUGUSTUS’ FAME IN LATE ANTIQUITY

139

appointed a new founder, Constantine, the regent of all cities and peoples, on his way to total victory over past and present. As Caesar compared to Augustus, old Bibracte compared to Augustodunum, that both were covered by the piled up layers of memory, now topped up by Constantine. The same happened with the far more famous example of Constantinople, the new capital of the Roman Empire that replaced the city refounded by Augustus as a city of marble, and a place of peace and rest. 5. Augustus as an Example in the Historia Augusta The Historia Augusta is one of the most important literary testimonia for Augustus’ reception in the fourth century. The name of this series of thirty biographies of second and third century Roman emperors, by the way, has only very thin connections with the name of the first emperor. It is a renaissance vignette, by the humanist Sylburg in 1588, taken from the Vita Taciti, the “Life of the Emperor Tacitus” (chapter 10.3), where it refers to the works of the historiographer Tacitus. The series is a kind of continuation of the series by Suetonius, which ends with the biography of Domitian; the HA begins with Hadrian (BURGERSDIJK 2016). The work, of which the author is unknown, probably is a product from the later fourth century, as Hermann Dessau in 1889 ingeniously proposed, but pretends to have been written during the earlier fourth century, the reigns of Diocletian, Constantine and beyond. The work, which is very complex in its design and construction, mainly stages Augustus in three manners: as a part of enumerations of emperors, in exempla of emperorship and, most of all, in digressions on imperial names (or fitting into several of these categories). Some examples. In the Life of Auidius Cassius (AC 8.6) – a rival claimant to the throne in AD 175 – the emperor Marcus Aurelius puts Augustus on a par with Trajan, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, as not being murdered like other emperors, while their adversaries were assassinated unbeknownst to the emperor. This parallel was brought forward by Marcus Aurelius, thereby showing his clementia (‘clemency’ – referred to above) when the head of his murdered adversary Avidius Cassius was brought to him. 28 There is a small enumeration of emperors here which serves to place Marcus in a series of emperors with the virtue of clementia, in which Augustus was also supposed to outshine. These enumerations often occur in the more imaginative parts of the HA, especially in the lives of the usurpers and claimants to the throne, as well as in the middle and later parts of the series, from the life of the emperor Macrinus (218-219) onwards. Avidius Cassius’ colleague as rival emperor, Pescennius Niger, mentions Augustus among his favorite emperors, together with VON HAEHLING (1985), p. 201 about clementia as a crucial characteristic for the bonus princeps, ‘the good ruler’, and Augustus as an exemplum. 28

140

DIEDERIK BURGERSDIJK

Vespasian, Titus, Trajan, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius (PN 12.1), an obligatory row that reveals the author’s preoccupation with lists and enumerations. 29 More historical – and indeed in the biography of an official emperor – is the narration in the Life of Septimius Seuerus (S. 7.6), in which rebellious soldiers, having entered Rome triumphantly, demand a fee of ten thousand sestercies, following the example of Octavius’s soldiers who did the same when they had accompanied him to Rome victoriously. 30 Literary invention prevails in the Life of the three Gordiani, who reigned from 238 onwards. The author mentions that the first of the triplet closely resembles Augustus in voice, behavior and looks, his son looked like Pompeius, and his grandson like Scipio Asiaticus. Clear fabrications, mentioned on the authority of the equally fictitious Vulcatius Terentianus (Gd. 21.5). In later biographies, the enumerations augment in number. In the Life of Aurelian (A. 21.11), Aurelian enlarges the pomerium, the sacred space before the city, as Augustus, Trajan and Nero had done before him. 31 Given Augustus’ enormous importance for Roman history, the frequency of his name is far from surprising, but also because his name had become a title as well as an office. The author of the HA plays a game with that notion, as he also thematizes the names of Caesar, Pius and Antoninus, the latter with crazy fanaticism. He combines this with another theme, of great men not being able to produce good sons. A first example of this occurs in the Vita Septimi Seueri (S. 21.3): “And what about Augustus, who did not have a good adoptive son, while he had the possibility to choose from all?” 32 The same holds for a remark in the Vita Caracalli (9.2), in which it is mentioned that Antoninus Caracalla’s alleged son, Elagabalus, also bears the name of Antoninus: “for the name of the Antonines was thus grown in, that he could not be reveled from the minds of people, while it had nestled itself like the name of Augustus in everyone’s imagination”. 33 Just as the author of the HA explained the name of Caesar following Suetonius, and subsequently explained the name of Pius in Antoninus Pius’ biography, he put the name of Antoninus on a par with that of Augustus. Pliny had done the same with the honorary title optimus for Trajan as substitute 29

In the Vita Heliogabali 1.2 the same series of good (contrasted with bad) emperors occurs, in a different order, and without Hadrian. 30 The historicity of this episode is attested by the contemporaneous Greek historiographer CASSIUS DIO (46.46.5). See comm. BERTRAND-DAGENBACH (2014) ad loc. 31 In A 42.3, a list of good emperors from Augustus to Aurelian is summed up, which, given the progress of the narration, is longer than the previous lists and is contrasted with bad emperors. 32 Quid de Augusto, qui nec adoptiuum bonum filium habuit, cum illi legendi postestas fuisset ex omnibus?, tr. MAGIE (1932), like all other translations of passages from the Historia Augusta in this article. 33 Ita enim nomen Antoninorum inoleuerat, ut uelli ex animis hominum non posset, quod omnium pectora uelut Augusti nomen obsederat.

AUGUSTUS’ FAME IN LATE ANTIQUITY

141

of the first emperor’s name. The author starts to develop a theme that will later on cover half a book, in the Life of Diadumenianus: the theme of the name of Antoninus (nomen Antoninorum). 34 As it comes to style and structure, the more imaginative middle and later parts of the HA have more in common with the lives of the early usurpers than with the first nine official emperors from Hadrian to Caracalla, which are based on more reliable sources. The Life of Alexander Seuerus belongs to the middle part; this emperor states that he is not prepared to bear the name of Antoninus, because, consequently, he would also have had to accept the names of Trajan, Titus and Vespasian (A.S. 10.2). The enumeration continues the theme of the nomen Antoninorum, by the emperor’s remarks (10.4): “The first Augustus was the first founder of the empire, and in his name we all succeed him as it were by adoption or by hereditary right. The Antonines are called Augusti themselves”. 35 Alexander thus refuses the name of Antoninus out of respect for his predecessors: an example of recusation and a reversal of the nomen Antoninorum theme, by which he reinstates the importance of the name of Augustus. 6. Panegyrics in the Historia Augusta A revealing enumeration of imperial virtues is found in the Life of Claudius (Cl. 2.3): not as much the meaning of those virtues, but the rhetorical way in which these are presented are important for an understanding of Constantine’s emperorship. The prologue brings the reader immediately to one of the most important elements of Constantine’s emperorship, the claim of the emperor Claudius’ ancestry of his family. Claudius Gothicus (268-269), “whom we will describe with much care at the instigation of emperor Constantine”. 36 Thus, the biographer subscribes Constantine’s claimed ancestry and continues in a clearcut panegyrical vein (2.3), which seems to hark back to Augustus’ own Res Gestae (8.5) as well as Pliny’s Panegyricus (71.5): “What was not admirable in his person? What was not remarkable? What did make him not preferable above past triumphators? In him, the bravery of Trajan, the piety of Antoninus, the moderation of Augustus and the good characteristics of great emperors were 34

Formed analogously with the nomen Augustorum, see Life of Didius Iulianus 4.5. Augustus primus primus est huius auctor imperii, et in eius nomen omnes uelut quadam adoptione aut iure hereditario succedimus; Antonini ipsi Augusti sunt dicti. Cf. FLORUS 4.12.66: tractatum in senatu an, quia condidisset imperium, Romulus uocaretur (“It has been debated in the senate whether, because he had founded the empire, he should be called Romulus”). According to SUET., Aug. 7.2 he refused the title of Romulus: quibusdam censentibus Romulum appellari oportere quasi et ipsum conditorem Urbis (“when some were proposing that he should be called Romulus on the grounds that he too was the founder of the city”), translation taken from WARDLE ([2014], p. 43) and see comm. ad loc. ([2014], p. 106). 36 Qui nobis intuitu Constantini Caesaris cum cura in litteras digerendus est. 35

142

DIEDERIK BURGERSDIJK

of such quality, that he not only took others for an example, but also, if they were not there, he had presented an example to others”. 37 This is what Augustus meant in his Res Gestae (8: “I provided myself examples in many cases to be imitated by my successors”), and Pliny in his praise to Trajan (Pan. 75: “and finally, that you provide posterity with an example”). 38 The ‘others’ (ceteri) in panegyrical praise were all the emperors in the past and in the future, who are surpassed by the praised emperor. The orator Nazarius, who held a laudatory speech to Constantine in the year 321, begins thus: “At the beginning of my high praise of Constantine, who towers above the emperors of all ages as the other emperors are above the normal”. 39 This is all pure panegyric, whether encountered in biography or laudatory speech. The author of the HA addressed Diocletian, who is as much praised in panegyrical speeches as Constantine, in the preface to the Vita Aelii with tot principum maxime: “the greatest of so many emperors”. The praised emperor is the greatest one, even greater than the founder of the empire Augustus, which is why the emperors are so insistently addressed with the honorary adjective augustissimus in late antique discourse. The panegyrical lives in the HA are those of Claudius, Tacitus and above all Probus, who for obvious reasons is said to stem from Claudius’ family (Pr. 3.3). Probus, who surpasses all his predecessors, will liberate the world from tyrants, there will be peace on earth (Tac. 16.6) and his posterity will reign forever (Pr. 24.3). Yet another time Augustus is brought forward in comparative perspective: while Probus only reigned for five years, he achieved more than each of the Antonines with their twenty-year terms, and finally Augustus: “What should I say about Augustus, whose reigning years are hardly surpassed by human life?” 40 The praise for Augustus is entirely turned upside down. In these expressions, the exemplum of Augustus made way for emulation of all emperors, among whom Augustus himself. 41 The 37 Quid enim in illo non mirabile? quid non conspicuum? quid non triumphalibus uetustissimis praeferendum? in quo Traiani uirtus, Antonini pietas, Augusti moderatio et magnorum principum bona sic fuerunt, ut non ille ab aliis exemplum caperet sed, etiamsi illi non fuissent, hic ceteris reliquisset exemplum. The virtue of moderatio was also mentioned as characteristic for Augustus by Fronto, see above. 38 AUG., R.G. 8: et ipse multarum rerum exempla imitanda posteris tradidi (“and I myself handed myself down as model of many things to future generations”, tr. COOLEY [2009], p. 67). PLIN., Pan. 75 : denique, ut in posterum exemplo prouideres! 39 Dicturus Constantini augustissimas laudes, qui tantum ultra omnium saeculorum principes eminet quantum a priuatis ceteri principes recesserunt. 40 Pr. 22.4: nam quid de Augusto loquar, cuius imperii annis uix potest aduiui? After this passage Augustus is mentioned once more, in the Life of Carus, Carinus and Numerian 2.1, where it is stated that the aging of the personified Roman empire starts with the reign of Augustus. 41 Ammianus Marcellinus, prudent as he is, practically always mentions Augustus (often called by his name Octavian, in order to avoid ambiguity about his identity) in an antiquarian context, as embellishment of his narration and evocation of the past.

AUGUSTUS’ FAME IN LATE ANTIQUITY

143

emperor as praised in panegyrical discourse is supposed to surpass the example of Augustus, and the same holds for the optimus imperator Trajan. In general, comparison is an important ingredient for praise as prescribed in the rhetorical handbooks. 42 Constantine’s Arch should be seen in the same light: although scholars tend to stress the line of good emperors (Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus) in which the emperor places himself, it is rather a question of emulation: the triumphant emperor surpassed them all, and this is what the triumphal arch shows. History from an imperial perspective is not a linear process, but an exponential growth of imperial greatness. 7. Augustus in the Later Fourth Century In the second part of the fourth century, Augustus was not given the reception one might expect on the basis of the historical position of founder of the empire. As in other instances, his name is not as much connected with an historical person as felt as an institute, whose influence was still omnipresent in the empire. His was the most powerful of all imperial names, and moreover, he started the series of persons in power who all acquired to bear the magnificent name and legitimized their position with it. Second in the hierarchy was Caesar, whose personal name as worn by Julius Caesar the dictator had also become a function. The adoption of Octavius in 44 BC, who from that point in time was embellished with the names of his adoptive father, became the example for many generations of emperors to come: not only the adoption, but also the concomitant heritage of goods, became the elements by which power was transferred from one legitimate ruler to another. Sometimes power had to be claimed by military force – after which a posthumous self-adoption could follow, such as in the case of Septimius Severus, who advertised Marcus Aurelius as his father – but also for this an example could be taken from Octavius, who inherited power after military intervention. Beyond Augustus, Caesar was often considered the founder of the imperial row. 43 Mind the fact that Suetonius started his De uita Caesarum with Caesar’s life, which must have been quite normal in Roman perception. Ausonius, the poet-professor from Bordeaux, retook this model – he explicitly states so – and wrote a series of short quatrains on the Roman emperors, the Caesares (ca. 380). In one of the four introductions to these (a dedication, a poem about the succession of the emperors, the length of their reigns and their deaths), it is constantly Ammianus’ use of Augustus is explored into further detail by VON HAEHLING (1985), p. 215-218. 42 Comparatio (ἡ ἀντιπαραβολὴ) is considered by Aristotle as part of pistis (‘proof’) of the proposed prothesis (‘statement’), see ARIST., Rhet. 3.13.4. 43 See now BARNES (2015) for the view in Late Antiquity on Caesar as the first emperor. Barnes confirms ‘that in Late Antiquity and in the Byzantine period Julius Caesar was generally regarded as the first Roman emperor’ (2015), p. 277.

144

DIEDERIK BURGERSDIJK

repeated that Ausonius will start off with Julius Caesar. In his Monosticha de ordine imperatorum (“Verses about the Sequence of Emperors”), he writes that Julius Caesar was the first to open up the regal hall, and transferred his name (nomen) and his stronghold (arcem) to Augustus’ (vs. 1-2). 44 Augustus (vs. 50-51) is styled Vltor successorque, ‘avenger and successor’, and Caesar and Augusti nomine nobilior, “Caesar, even nobler by the name of Augustus”. The short poetic vignettes are scarce examples of direct reception of individual emperors, although even these are rather stereotyped portraits without much personal detail. In the fourth century, Augustus hardly seems to be staged as an historical person, but rather as the legendary founder of the empire. An exception to the rule is the unfavorable description by Julian, the Augustus who became famous by an attempt to reverse Christianity after his predecessor Constantius had firmly established Christian government. In his Caesares (c. 309), he stages an emperors’ battle organized by Romulus, from which Marcus Aurelius would in the end appear as the ‘second best’ (although after the ultimate winner Alexander the Great). The description of Augustus’ entrance to the stage deserves to be quoted in full: Octavianus entered, changing color continuously, like a chameleon, turning now pale now red; one moment his expression was gloomy, sombre, and overcast, the next he unbent and showed all the charms of Aphrodite and the Graces. Moreover in the glances of his eyes he was fain to resemble mighty Helios… 45

Julian seems to grasp a particularly specific characteristic of Augustus: his adaptability, if not elusiveness, to which we will return below. Julian’s description of Augustus’ gaze here conforms the portrayal of the ideal ruler, referring to a divine status of the emperor, here nonetheless occurring in a satirical sense. A passage from Suetonius (Aug. 79.2) highlights the same: “He had clear, bright eyes, in which he liked to have it thought that there was a kind of divine power, and it greatly pleased him, whenever he looked keenly at anyone, if he let his face fall as if before the radiance of the sun”. 46 44 Primus regalem patefecit Iulius aulam / Caesar et Augusto nomen transcripsit et arcem. For text and commentary, see the edition by GREEN (1991), esp. p. 162-164, 557663 for the relevant passages. 45 Ὀκταβιανὸς ἐπεισέρχεται πολλὰ ἀμείβων, ὥσπερ οἱ χαμαιλέοντες, χρώματα, καὶ νῦν μὲν ὠχριῶν, αὖθις δὲ ἐρυθρὸς γινόμενος, εἶτα μέλας καὶ ζοφώδης καὶ συννεφής, ἀνίετο δ’ αὖθις πρὸς Ἀφροδίτην καὶ Χάριτας, εἶναί τε ἤθελε τὰς βολὰς τῶν ὀμμάτων ὁποῖός ἐστιν ὁ μέγας Ἥλιος. Translation by WRIGHT (1969), p. 351. 46 Oculos habuit claros et nitidos, quibus etiam existimari uolebat inesse quiddam diuini uigoris, gaudebatque, si qui acrius contuenti quasi ad fulgorem solis uultum summitteret. Translation ROLFE (1998), p. 269. See also SEN., Dial. 11.12.3: fulgor eius (sc. Caesaris) illos, ut nihil alius possint aspicere, praestringet (“The emperor’s brilliance took their sight away, so that they could not observe anything else”). John Williams took up the motif in his novel Augustus (1971), at the moment when the young Augustus – before he took the name – heard about the murder of his uncle.

AUGUSTUS’ FAME IN LATE ANTIQUITY

145

Radiant eyes are a recurring motif in literature and arts of the (earlier) fourth century, see for example the emperor Maximian’s fulgor oculorum (“the flashing of your eyes”) as praised in Pan. Lat. 6.17.1 (from 310 AD), and Constantine’s in Pan. Lat. 12.19.6 (from 313 AD), often also applied to the emperor’s head in general. 47 In an elaborate study about imperial portraiture from the beginning of the fourth century, R. R. R. Smith supposes the orators to have adapted to the sculptural record, in which Constantine appears to bear a much more civilian and modest gaze (see Plate XII Smith), in the style of the emperor Augustus (see e.g. the Augustus of Via Labicana as a priest, with veiled head, capite uelato). 48 In conclusion, the well-known motif of imperial brilliance, as attested in panegyrics from the earlier fourth century and grounded in a tradition that goes back to Augustus’ times, is mocked in the satirical writing of Julian. Augustus is characterized by Julian as a ‘changeable monster’ by one of the jury-members Silenus, and is thus portrayed in an extremely negative light in this piece of satire, just as others from the series, like Julian’s great-uncle Constantine (c. 336). 49 At the same time, the passage reminds us how little Augustus’ person was celebrated in later antiquity, and how great the influence of his legacy was. The artistic culture that was shaped in Augustus’ time resonated for centuries after his activities as head of the state, and forms and language remained point of departure for many artistic, political and societal phenomena. 8. Conclusion In spite of Suetonius’ much read personal portrait of the first emperor from the second century AD, by the fourth century Augustus seems to have become a kind of person hors catégories. With few exceptions, he is neither liked nor disliked as a person, but is simply accepted as the founder of the empire, although he sometimes seems to share that palm with his adoptive father Julius Caesar the dictator (who entered the stage in Julian’s Caesares just before Octavius came in). The lack of personal portraiture may be due to the elusive

47 E.g. in Pan. Lat. 10.3.2 (to Maximian, 289 AD): illa lux diuinum uerticem claro orbe complectens (“that light which surrounds your divine head with a shining orb”). Constantine’s fulgor oculorum in Pan. Lat. 12.19.6 is at the same time referring to a radiant crown or nimbus around the emperor’s head (NIXON / RODGERS [1994], p. 58, n. 15). In 7.9.5 (from 307 AD), the Constantine’s imperatorius ardor oculorum is mentioned, and cf. 4.5.4 (from AD 321). 48 Smith further adheres to the minimalistic view that the colossal head and inlaid eyes of Constantine are not supposed to represent or reflect brilliance, but simply impress by their magnitude. 49 A description of Augustus of later date, the beginning of the fifth century (which falls outside the scope of this study), is found in Macrobius’ Saturnalia, a table-conversation with many Suetonius-based anecdotes and plaisanteries about Augustus in chapters 2.4-6, the dramatic date of which is 384, when paganism was still virulent. It seems that Augustus as a person is popular as a laughing-stock.

146

DIEDERIK BURGERSDIJK

figure Augustus had been, already in his own times. Augustus had been a master in organizing his own surroundings, in which a culture of imperial presentation took hold, behind which the man, personal and historical, tends to disappear a bit. As Augustus’ recent biographer Adrian Goldsworthy put it: “Yet the real Augustus is very hard to pin down, not least because he took great care to reinvent himself during his lifetime”. 50 It was the great novelist John Williams in his Augustus who projected himself into the exclusive attitude of man to become Europe’s first emperor: surrounded by his social circle, he still showed himself intangible for his peers. Moreover, an emperor with a reign of more than forty years, and a life of almost eighty, is hard to reduce to one coherent image to last into eternity. Rather, all the images produced in Augustus own times, in literature and arts, were destined to lead an afterlife that Augustus somehow must have dreamt of (although he could not have been aware of the extraordinary influence his legacy was to have). The image, to name one, encountered in lyric, epic, historiography as well as visual arts, of the prosperity and wealth when the emperor returns from abroad or enters the eternal city, is gratefully re-used in Constantine’s times in panegyric, coinage and sculpture, and not exclusively then. Another image, broadcast by imperial portraiture, is the emperor without beard, about which other authors in this volume have recorded. However, as soon as we start to talk about Augustan culture, the historical figure of the man who towered above it all in his Palatine dwellings, immediately escapes us, which we tried to avoid in the present article. Where does Augustus appear then, if constantly shrouded in a cloud of ‘Augustan Culture’? Apart from scarce historiographical or biographical accounts in earlier centuries, Augustus in the fourth century appears as an exemplum (in the Historia Augusta) or an historical embellishment for the narration (Ammianus Marcellinus). If not as exemplum, or as founder of the empire or of cities, Augustus role is particularly seen in the light of his own pax Romana, in pagan as well as Christian literature. Pagan authors and orators (the Panegyrici Latini) used imagery of prosperity and praise to model their own lofty descriptions on (often in an emulative sense), while Christian literature accepted those same images to emphasize the world-peace in which the Savior Child could be born. The person of Augustus again seems to be removed to the background on the Late Antique stage, while the influence he exerted on the history of the Roman Empire could not be escaped, and was extended for centuries in expressions of imperial and consequently ecclesiastical power. That is Augustus’ lasting legacy that began to take shape in the fourth century, that pivotal era in the cultural evolution of Europe. 50 And, earlier on, about Augustus in modern research: “… the man tends to be lost in discussion of policy, ideas or the imagery employed by the regime” (GOLDSWORTHY [2014], p. 4-5).

AUGUSTUS’ FAME IN LATE ANTIQUITY

147

Bibliography BARNES, T. (2015), The First Emperor: The View of Late Antiquity, in M. GRIFFIN (ed.), A Companion to Julius Caesar, Oxford, p. 277-287. BERTRAND-DAGENBACH, C. / MOLINIER-ARBO, A. (eds.) (2014), Histoire Auguste. Tome III 2ème partie: Vie d’Alexandre Sévère, Paris (Collection des Universités de France). BOVON, F. (1991), L’Évangile selon Saint Luc 1-9, Genève (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament IIIa). BURGERSDIJK, D. (2013), Pliny’s Panegyricus and the Historia Augusta, in Arethusa 46, p. 289-312. BURGERSDIJK, D. (2014), Augustus van Trajanus tot Theodosius. Een exemplum in de literatuur van de keizertijd, in Roma Aeterna 2.1, p. 37-44. BURGERSDIJK, D. (2016), Qui uitas aliorum scribere orditur. Narratological Implications of Fictional Authors in the Historia Augusta, in K. DEMOEN / K. DE TEMMERMAN (eds.), Writing Biography in Greece and Rome: Narrative Technique and Fictionalization, Cambridge, p. 252-270. COOLEY, A. E. (ed.) (2013³, orig. 2009), Res Gestae Diui Augusti, Text, Translation, and Commentary, Cambridge. CHASTAGNOL, A. (ed.) (2013), Histoire Auguste. Les empereurs Romains des IIe et IIIe siècles, Paris. EDWARDS, M. (2003), Constantine and Christendom, Liverpool (Translated Texts for Historians 39). GIRARDET, K. M. (2013a), Oratio ad sanctorum coetum, München (Fontes Christiani 55). GIRARDET, K. M. (2013b), Die Christianisierung der 4. Ekloge Vergils durch Kaiser Konstantin d.Gr., in Gymnasium 120, p. 549-583. GOLDSWORTHY, A. (2014), Augustus. From Revolutionary to Emperor, London. GREEN, R. (1991), The Works of Ausonius, Oxford. GRUEN, E. S. (1996), The Expansion of the Empire under Augustus, in The Cambridge Ancient History X: The Augustan Empire, 43 BC-AD 69, Cambridge, p. 147-198. HAINES, C. R. (ed.) (1920), Fronto. Correspondence II, London / Cambridge Mass. HALL, S. H. (ed.) (1979), Melito of Sardis, On Pascha and Fragments, Oxford. HARDIE, Ph. (2014), The Last Trojan Hero. A Cultural History of Virgil’s Aeneid, London. HOFF, R. VON DEN / STROH, W. / ZIMMERMANN, M. (2014), Der erste Römische Kaiser und Seine Welt, München. HOSTEIN, A. (2014), La cité et l’Empereur. Les Éduens dans l’Empire romain d’après les Panégyriques latins, Paris (Histoire Ancienne et Médiévale 117). LA ROCCA, E. (ed.) (2014a), Augusto, catalogo della mostra a Roma, scuderie del Quirinale 18 ottobre 2013 – 9 febbraio 2014, Rome. LA ROCCA, E. (ed.) (2014b), Auguste, catalogue de l’exposition à Paris, Grand Palais, Galeries Nationales, 19 Mars – 13 Juillet 2014, Paris. MACCULLOCH, D. (2009), A History of Christianity. The First Three Thousand Years, London. MAGIE, D. (1932), Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 3 vols, Cambridge Mass. NIXON, C. E. V. / RODGERS, B. S. (1994), In Praise of Later Roman Emperos. The Panegyrici Latini. Introduction, Translation and Historical Commentary, with the Latin Text of R. A. B. Mynors, Berkeley. RADICE, B. (1969), Pliny. Letters Books VIII-X, Panegyricus, Cambridge Mass. RICH, J. W. (2014, orig. 2009), Augustus, War and Peace, in EDMONDSON J. (ed.), Augustus, Edinburgh (Edinburgh Readings in the Ancient World), p. 137-164.

148

DIEDERIK BURGERSDIJK

ROLFE, J. C. (1998), Suetonius, vol. I, Cambridge Mass. SCHEID, J. (ed.) (2007), Res Gestae Diui Augusti. Hauts faits du divin Auguste, Paris (Collection des Universités de France). SMITH, R. R. R. (1997), The Public Image of Licinius I: Portrait Sculpture and Imperial Ideology in the Early Fourth Century, in Journal of Roman Studies 87, p. 194-202. SYME, R. (1979), The Fame of Trajan, in Emperors and Biography, Oxford, p. 98-112. VERMES, G. (2012), Christian Beginnings. From Nazareth to Nicaea, AD 30-325, London. VON HAEHLING, R. (1985), Augustus in der Historia Augusta, in Bonner HistoriaAugusta-Colloquium 1982/1983, Bonn, p. 197-220. WARDLE, D. (2014), Suetonius. Life of Augustus. Translated with Introduction and Historical Commentary, Oxford (Clarendon Ancient History Series). WARDLE, D. (2012), Suetonius on Augustus as God and Man, in The Classical Quarterly 61, p. 307-326. WILLIAMS, J. (2003, orig. 1971), Augustus. A Novel, London, 2003. WRIGHT, W. C. (1969), The Works of Julian II, Cambridge Mass.

THE FIGURE OF AUGUSTUS IN MEDIEVAL LITERATURE AND ICONOGRAPHY

Les péripéties du premier empereur romain : du Romanz d’Othevien (XIIIe s.) à l’Othovien en prose (XVe s.) MARCO MAULU (Università degli Studi di Sassari)

Abstract The article deals with a text considered by critics as both a novel and a Chanson de Geste, Florent et Octavian, the first version of which dates back to the end of the 13th century and recounts the adventures of emperor Augustus and his children. The story is based on a completely imaginary chronology and juxtaposes the legendary figure of a rather little-known Emperor (Augustus) with that of King Dagobert. It mixes the image of the city of Rome with Eastern geography and the struggle against the Saracens. Our analysis focuses on the treatment of Augustus, and particularly on the changes this character undergoes in two different versions of the text.

1. Introduction Le Romanz d’Othevien (= O) est un texte transmis par un seul manuscrit de la fin du XIIIe s. en 5371 octosyllabes à rime plate et dont la composition, d’après son éditeur Karl Vollmöller, remonterait à une période comprise entre 1229 et 1244 1. La version originale a été remaniée et amplifiée en 18500 alexandrins et s’est vue attribuer un nouveau titre qui est devenu le plus célèbre du cycle narratif dédié à l’empereur romain : Florent et Octavien (= FO). Cette œuvre est

Voir VOLLMÖLLER (1883), p. IV. À la place de Octavian nous préférons utiliser le titre qui se trouve dans l’incipit du manuscrit Hatton 100 de la Bodleian Library, f. 1r, qui transmet cette œuvre, c’est-à-dire Romanz d’Othevien. Dans le catalogue de la B. L. on lit que le codex a été écrit vers la fin du XIIIe s. « by an Anglo-Norman scribe ». Jean-Philippe Llored prépare une nouvelle édition. Voir également SINCLAIR (1978), p. 216-218. SUARD (1998), p. 61-74, part. p. 61, note 5, observe que « ce texte se présente nettement comme une chanson (« Seignor preudon, or escoutés / qui les bones chansons amés […] ») mais […] est composé en octosyllabes rimant deux à deux ». Toutefois dans l’incipit et dans l’explicit, l’Othevien est appelé roman. Sur cet aspect SUARD (2019), p. 348, écrit : « Pour l’auteur d’Othevien, il est clair que le riche ensemble relevé par lui situe son œuvre du côté de l’épique, même s’il recourt à la forme romanesque ». 1

152

MARCO MAULU

conservée par trois manuscrits du XVe siècle et a fait l’objet d’une édition 2. Le succès du récit est également confirmé par l’Othovien en prose : ce dernier est un texte actuellement inédit de provenance bourguignonne, daté de 1454, transmis par cinq manuscrits et dédié à Jean de Créquy 3. Enfin, on connaît une deuxième version en prose, transmise par l’editio princeps datée de 1500 et intitulée d’abord Lyon et Florent, puis Florent et Lyon, qui puise directement de la version en octosyllabes 4. Nous connaissons également deux versions en moyen anglais 5 et une rédaction en allemand (Octavianus. Ein schöne vnnd Kurtzweilige Hystori von dem Keyser Octauiano, Strasburg 1535) qui, d’après Brunet, est une « histoire romanesque traduite du français en allemand par Salzmann » 6. Enfin, deux versions italiennes du récit sont insérées, au XIVe siècle, dans les Storie di Fioravante et, au siècle suivant, dans les Reali di Francia d’Andrea da Barberino 7. L’œuvre connut donc une diffusion durable, qui permet de supposer que le souvenir du personnage d’Octavien-Auguste s’est maintenu durant le Moyen Âge français 8.

Voir l’éd. LABORDERIE (1991). D’après DI LUCA (2016), p. 62, « suite à des comparaisons précises entre les deux œuvres [O et FO, la critique] est parvenue à identifier dans Octavian la source de la première partie de Florent et Octavien, que l’auteur de cette dernière chanson suit fidèlement jusqu’à un certain point, pour ensuite la remanier, en la combinant avec des noyaux thématiques dérivés d’autres poèmes romanesques ». 3 Matthieu Marchal prépare une édition d’Othovyen. Pour une description des mss. conservant Othovyen je renvoie à DI LUCA (2014), p. 245-249. 4 Dans l’impossibilité d’accéder à la princeps de Florent et Lyon, ainsi qu’à l’édition diplomatique de VON ERTZDORFF / SEELBACH / WOLF (1993), nous avons consulté l’exemplaire numérisé de l’éd. Arnouillet, intitulée Florent et Lyon et imprimée à Lyon le 30 mai 1526 : en ligne http://diglib.hab.de/wdb.php?dir=drucke/142-3-quod-4s&pointer=0. CAPPELLO (2011) fait mention de l’editio princeps, intitulée Lyon et Florent, Lyon, Martin Havard, 1500, puis passée stablement à Florent et Lyon à partir de l’éd. Arnouillet. D’après LABORDERIE (1991), p. CXXVIII, FL « est une adaptation presque littérale d’Octavian, sauf le dernier chapitre : Comme Florent fut couronné roy d’Angleterre qui est une adaptation du dérimeur ou de l’imprimeur ». Cet intitulé s’explique facilement à partir du motif du lion qui accompagne Octavien le jeune, très développé dans FO. Comme le remarque SUARD (1998), p. 62, par rapport à O, Octavien est ici « devenu indissociable de son compagnon animal, au point qu’on le désigne sous le nom de Chevalier au lion : ʻChivalier au lÿon l’appelloient toudiz’ (6774) ». Sur cette version, dont Paolo di Luca prépare une édition, voir également PARIS (1873), KRAPPE (1952) et, surtout, l’importante mise à jour de DI LUCA (2014), qui dresse une liste de 15 témoins au total. 5 Voir MCSPARRAN (1979) et SARRAZIN (1885). 6 BRUNET (1860-1865), s.v. Octavianus. Voir DI LUCA (2016), p. 63. 7 Voir respectivement les éditions de RAJNA (1872) et de VANDELLI / GAMBARIN (1947). 8 Voir, dans ce même volume, l’article de M. CAVAGNA. 2

DU ROMANZ D’OTHEVIEN À L’OTHOVIEN EN PROSE

153

2. Date et provenance Si la datation de O et Othovien en prose ne pose globalement pas de problème, pour FO la situation est beaucoup plus complexe : une partie de la critique situe sa rédaction au milieu du XIVe siècle, plus précisément vers 1356, année de la bataille de Poitiers ; une autre partie la situe lors de l’avènement de Charles V en 1364, sur base d’arguments internes qui, cependant, ne se sont pas avérés irréfutables 9. Wijsman et Van Hoorebeeck suggèrent en effet que le codex A – manuscrit de base de l’édition Laborderie – doit être daté bien après le milieu du XIVe s. En fait, d’après l’étude paléographique et l’analyse des filigranes, il faudrait le postdater au moins d’un siècle ; il serait donc à peu près contemporain des témoins d’origine picarde B et C 10. Par rapport à la langue de l’auteur, les deux chercheurs observent que : D’autres raisons invitent à revoir l’hypothèse communément admise de la doyenneté du manuscrit en francien (Paris, BNF, fr. 1452) sur les deux exemplaires produits en picard. Une analyse linguistique menée par Takeshi Matsumura tend à démontrer qu’en dépit de la place importante qu’occupe l’Île de France comme lieu d’action dans le récit, la langue originelle du texte serait le picard plutôt que le francien 11.

Wijsman et Van Hoorebeeck soulignent aussi le fait que, pour la datation, ni Bossuat, ni Laborderie, ni Willard ne tiennent véritablement compte de l’époque des trois témoins ; pourtant, ils observent que « tous les exemplaires connus de ce texte en alexandrins datent du milieu du XVe siècle, donc de l’époque de l’adaptation en prose de l’œuvre » 12. Par conséquent, on peut se demander si FO et Othovien en prose n’appartenaient pas tous les deux au milieu de la cour bourguignonne, vu que « de plus, les codices subsistants [de FO] furent réalisés dans les Pays-Bas bourguignons, et parmi les anciens propriétaires, nous retrouvons des familles importantes de la cour de Bourgogne » 13. Dans le cadre de Voir BOSSUAT (1952), p. 289-331, part. p. 313 ; LABORDERIE (1991), I, p. II-III ; WILLARD (1989). 10 Cf. WIJSMAN / VAN HOOREBEECK (2006), p. 161-169, part. p. 164. 11 WIJSMAN / VAN HOOREBEECK (2006), p. 164. MATSUMURA (1992), p. 355-366, à la p. 356 remarque comme que Laborderie aurait choisi le seul manuscrit francien comme manuscrit de base, en s’appuyant sur l’opinion de Bossuat : « Robert Bossuat a tenu le ms. A pour le plus ancien et le plus fiable ; il a souligné également le fait que l’histoire se déroule principalement à Paris et, par conséquent, que le témoin francien devrait être le plus proche de l’original ». Ainsi, Laborderie « a été amenée à signaler un nombre considérable des erreurs que présente son manuscrit de base », ainsi que « en lisant les notes et les variantes, on est conduit à se demander si le ms. A est le manuscrit le plus sûr et s’il ne faudrait pas faire confiance plutôt aux mss. B et C ». Dans l’article de Matsumura, l’édition de Laborderie, publiée en 1991, paraît pourtant sous forme de thèse doctorale. 12 WIJSMAN / VAN HOOREBEECK (2006), p. 165. 13 Ibid. 9

154

MARCO MAULU

notre contribution, cette remise en discussion de la prétendue supériorité du manuscrit francien A s’avère très intéressante, vu qu’il s’agit du seul témoin de FO qui intitule cette version Florent et Octavien 14. 3. Le récit La mère de l’empereur Othovien fait croire à son fils que son épouse Florimonde est adultère ; à son instigation, l’empereur fait bannir Florimonde et ses deux jeunes enfants. Peu après leur départ, un singe ravit l’un des deux bébés, et l’autre est emporté par un lion ; Florent, est vendu à un bourgeois, Climent, tandis que Octavien retrouve Florimonde ; avec le lion, qui s’était laissé attendrir par les supplications de la dame et lui avait rendu l’enfant, il se rend à Jérusalem. Le roi Dagobert, menacé par le Sultan d’Iconium, appelle l’empereur Othevien à son secours ; Florent, qui ne supportait guère l’existence menée chez Climent, se mêle à la bataille et tue le Roi des géants. Il tombe cependant amoureux de la fille du Sultan, Marsabile, qui avait été promise justement à l’adversaire de Florent, et tente de l’enlever. Entretemps, Dagobert livre bataille ; l’armée d’Octavien se trouve en grave difficulté mais finalement, grâce à l’intervention de saint Denis, les Sarrasins sont vaincus par Dagobert ; pourtant, Octavien et Florent ont été faits prisonniers. À ce moment, le jeune Octavien, au service du roi d’Acre, vient en France dans l’espoir que ses parents se réconcilient ; apprenant que l’empereur et Florent sont assiégés à Paris, il les secourt et les délivre. Enfin, Florimonde reconnaît ses fils et pardonne à l’empereur son mari, puis Florent épouse Marsebille et Octavien regagne Rome avec sa famille réunie. Dans FO le récit peut être divisé en trois parties : les deux premières sont consacrées aux aventures de l’empereur de Rome Othevien, de sa femme et surtout de ses fils Florent et Octavien le jeune qui ont fourni l’intitulé de la chanson, ceci jusqu’à leur mariage. La première [partie] renouvelle la matière d’Octavian, la deuxième développe abondamment l’épilogue du roman en prêtant à Othovien le jeune de nouveaux exploits et des amours qui font pendant à ceux de son frère Florent dans la première partie. La troisième partie est une suite qui présente les aventures des deux couples et celles d’Othon, fils de Florent, qui sera le père de la belle Florence, l’héroïne de Florence de Rome, une chanson du début du XIIIe s. qui se trouve annexée au cycle et dont LABORDERIE (1991), I, p. CLXX, considère la troisième partie de FO – c’est-à-dire du v. 11990 jusqu’à la fin – « largement postérieure aux deux premières parties, comme l’attestent le changement de la tradition manuscrite et ses rapports avec les autres chansons du XIVe s. ». Ainsi, continue Laborderie, « par voie de conséquence, on peut se demander si la date tardive de ces manuscrits ne s’explique pas par la présence de cette dernière et nouvelle partie qui les aurait fait considérer comme plus complets et préférer à d’autres plus anciens qui en étaient dépourvus » et souligne que […] « ce décalage important entre les œuvres et les manuscrits est général pour les chansons du XIVe s. ». 14

DU ROMANZ D’OTHEVIEN À L’OTHOVIEN EN PROSE

155

un remaniement fait justement suite à Florent et Octavien dans l’un des manuscrits 15. 4. Origines du rôle Comme l’action ne se déroule pas dans l’Antiquité classique mais à l’époque mérovingienne, à première vue le protagoniste ne semble partager avec le personnage historique d’Octavien-Auguste que le nom 16. En outre, dans les textes médiévaux en question, on ne retrouve guère d’éléments concrets qui puissent suggérer que les auteurs avaient une connaissance plus ou moins approfondie de la biographie de l’empereur. Dès lors, il faut être extrêmement prudent dans la reconstruction des liens historiques entre les récits français et les données concernant le premier empereur romain. On peut tout de même penser qu’Octavien, souvent dénommé « le premier » justement en tant que Princeps, donc initiateur du Principatus à partir de 27 a.C., a été choisi en qualité de premier empereur, afin de donner une aura d’importance au récit. D’autre part, ce personnage, bien qu’assez peu exploité au niveau littéraire par rapport à d’autres vedettes de l’Antiquité romaine tels que Jules César ou Virgile, est associé, dans le récit de O, au motif narratif de l’impératrice injustement accusée par son mari et bannie avec ses enfants, motif qui eut à son tour une diffusion considérable dans la littérature médiévale. 17 S’agit-il d’un choix fortuit ou conscient ? Voyons ce qu’il en est dans les textes littéraires qui précèdent la parution de O. D’abord, nous retrouvons notre personnage, fondamentalement avide, dans le conte intitulé Gaza, qui fait partie de la tradition occidentale du Roman des sept sages de Rome, attesté à partir du XIIe s. Ici Octavien a caché, à l’aide de Virgile, son immense trésor dans plusieurs endroits, notamment dans la Tour Croissant, mais celui-ci est finalement dérobé par un chevalier romain et par son fils 18. Le motif de la richesse revient, LABORDERIE (1991), I, p. I. À ce sujet, LABORDERIE (1991), I, p. CXXV, écrit : « Quant à l’empereur Othevien, il est entièrement mythique et son invention paraît mystérieuse. L’histoire ne connaît qu’un empereur Octavien à Rome, c’est le premier, Auguste, Caesar Augustus Octavianus, avec qui notre personnage n’a rien de commun que le nom : prestige de ce nom ou rencontre fortuite ? Il apparaît pour la première fois, à ma connaissance, dans le roman du XIIIe s. Octavian, comme une pure création littéraire et semble avoir eu assez de notoriété pour être mentionné outre-Manche par Chaucer ». 17 Cf. par exemple SCHLAUCH (1934) et ROUSSEL (1998). 18 Dans Le Roman des Sept Sages de Rome. A Critical Edition of the Two Verse Redactions of a Twelfth-Century Romance, prepared by SPEER (1989), p. 183, Octavian est introduit de la façon suivante : « Octeviens fu ja a Romme. / En cest siecle n’ot plus sage homme, / ne miels amast argent ne or ; / em pluisors lius fu son tresor. / Le Tour Croissant en fist emplir, / d’or et d’argent molt bien garnir » (v. 2858-2862). L’on peut trouver des références à Auguste aussi dans Herbert, Roman de Dolopathos, LECLANCHE (1997), 3 t., passim. Dans cette version, le conte correspondant à Gaza parle d’un 15 16

156

MARCO MAULU

entre autres, dans un couplet du Cligès de Chrétien de Troyes (XIIe s.) : « Car le destrier valoit a oes un prodome / l’avoir Othevïen de Rome » 19. Dans le Jeu de Saint Nicholas de Jehan Bodel (daté entre 1194 et 1202) on lit : Rois, si grans tresors ne fu onques : Il a passé l’Octevïen, Tant n’en ot Cesar ni Eracles 20.

Enfin, le même motif revient dans une continuation du Roman des sept sages de Rome, le Roman de Cassidorus, où l’auteur mentionne « le mireoir de Romme, qui valoit l’or Ostevien » 21. C’est au XIIIe siècle qu’Auguste apparaît à la fois comme personnage historique et narratif dans l’Estoire del Saint Graal : le médecin Hippocrate soigne son neveu qui se trouve en fin de vie et reçoit ainsi des grands honneurs. L’empereur fait alors construire deux statues en or en l’honneur d’Hippocrate et de son neveu 22. Il est vraisemblable de croire que cet épisode puise ses origines dans une célèbre anecdote racontée par Suétone : Medico Antonio Musae, cuius opera ex ancipiti morbo conualerat, stuatuam aere conlato iuxta signum Aesculapi statuerunt 23. Finalement, même si Auguste n’est jamais le protagoniste des récits que nous venons de citer, il apparaît toujours comme un personnage peu apprécié à cause de son attachement excessif à l’argent, un trait de caractère abondamment documenté dans la biographie rédigée par Suétone 24. Pourtant, cet aspect est absent du cycle narratif auquel nous nous intéressons où, par contre, Octavien-Auguste est représenté en tant que mauvais père et mari. Cette deuxième connotation négative pourrait également puiser ses origines dans quelques épisodes de sa biographie, comme par exemple le dur exil de sa fille Julia sur l’île de Pendateria (actuelle Ventotene), décrété à la suite des multiples accusations d’adultère et de trahison émanant de son père et de son mari Tibère 25. En outre, le comportement de l’empereur envers sa femme dans O et dans ses réécritures peut être mis en rapport avec la séparation de Scribonia, qu’Auguste a répudiée en concomitance anonyme « riche rois de grant valence » (v. 5311), ainsi que dans la rédaction latine (cf. FOEHR-JANSSEN / MÉTRY [2000], p. 132). 19 Les Romans de Chrétien de Troyes, MICHA (1982), v. 3569-3570. 20 Jean Bodel, Jeu de Saint Nicholas, HENRY (1981), v. 1397-1399. 21 Roman de Cassiodorus, PALERMO (1963), chap. XXII, p. 183. 22 Sur cet épisode cf. NICOLAS (2007) ; SÉGUY (2001) ; GROS (2005). Nous nous permettons de renvoyer aussi à MAULU (2015). Enfin, cf. l’édition de PONCEAU (1997). 23 SUET., Aug. LIX, trad. H. AILLOUD (1989). 24 SUET., Aug. LXXXI. GRILLI (1988) rappelle à la p. 176 que dans le Liber de Caesaribus, un auteur anonyme d’origine africaine du haut Moyen Âge, en reprenant Suétone, écrit : « L’uomo ebbe abitudini da cittadino e piacevoli, per quanto lo bruciassero il gusto dei piaceri e la passione dei giochi ». On peut ainsi constater combien cette renommée s’était désormais répandue à travers les siècles. 25 SUET., Aug. LXV : Iulias, filiam et neptem, omnibus probris contaminatas relegauit.

DU ROMANZ D’OTHEVIEN À L’OTHOVIEN EN PROSE

157

avec la naissance de Julia, afin de contracter un mariage plus avantageux avec Livia Drusilla, et ceci bien que Livia fût enceinte de son mari légitime Tiberius Claudius Nero. D’après les sources contemporaines, Octavien accuse Scribonia de mener une vie dissolue 26. Par ailleurs, dans un célèbre épisode relaté par Suétone que atteste une tradition manifestement hostile à Auguste, on lit : M. Antonius super festinatas Liuiae nuptis obiecit et feminam consularem e triclinio uiri coram in cubiculum abductam, rursus in conuiuium rubentibus auriculis incomptiore capillo reductam 27.

Ce genre d’anecdote contribua à diffuser non seulement l’image d’un empereur luxurieux et cupide d’un côté mais aussi, de l’autre côté, celle d’un homme sans scrupules au niveau des liens familiaux. La présence encombrante de la mère dans le poème médiéval peut aussi tenir au fait qu’Auguste perdit son père à l’âge de quatre ans seulement : dès lors, sa mère Attia, ensuite remariée avec Lucius Marcus Philippus, joua certainement un rôle important dans son éducation 28; enfin, il ne faut pas non plus oublier l’existence de la sœur Octavie et de la grand-mère Julia. En somme, l’importance des personnalités féminines dans la vie de l’empereur a pu contribuer à le transformer en homme subjugué par la volonté de sa mère. Evidemment, tout ce matériel a pu être retravaillé d’une façon compatible avec le motif narratif sous-jacent sur lequel l’intrigue est axée : ainsi, dans la fiction, Attia a facilement pu être transformée en une vieille femme d’une cruauté folle envers sa belle-fille, ainsi qu’en une mère possessive et jalouse, capable de manipuler la volonté du fils à son gré. Finalement, il semble évident que la vaste diffusion en France, à partir du XIIIe s., du motif de la femme injustement accusée par son mari, notamment dans le domaine que l’on appelle la « chanson de geste tardive », a pu faciliter, à partir de O, la soudure avec certaines données biographiques et littéraires controversées relatives à l’empereur et à son cercle familial. Venons-en désormais aux implications principales de ce processus dans notre corpus.

COSME (2005), p. 73, écrit : « Estimant que l’alliance avec Lucius Scribonius Libo ne lui était plus d’aucune utilité, il répudia Scribonia, qui venait d’accoucher d’une fille, appelée Julie […] en invoquant son caractère difficile et ses mœurs dissolues ». 27 SUET., Aug. LXIX. 28 SOUTHERN (1998), p. 12, écrit qu’après avoir revêtu la toga uirilis à l’âge de 15 ans, « though he was now officially a man, Octavius was still subject to parental discipline, according to Nicolaus [= Nicolaus of Damascus, Life of Augustus, translated with commentary by C. M. HALL, Menasha, 1923] ; Atia seems to have retained strict control of her son, not allowing him to go out except on legitimate business, and making him sleep in the same apartment as before ». Dans la deuxième édition du volume [2014, p. 10], Southern écrit tout simplement que « according to Tacitus, the young Octavius was educated by Atia ». 26

158

MARCO MAULU

5. Dagobert et Octavien  : le paradoxe de l’antihéros À partir de la première rédaction en octosyllabes de sa légende, Octavien apparaît en tant qu’initiateur de la glorieuse époque de l’Empire, même si cette époque est en réalité purement fictionnelle, étant donné que le conte commence au temps du roi des Francs Dagobert. En fait, O et FO font partie d’un cycle narratif comprenant Charles le Chauve, Theséus de Cologne et Ciperis de Vignevaux, c’est-à-dire des chansons qui représentent toutes le roi franc à différentes époques de sa vie. Dagobert était l’ancêtre le plus célèbre de la dynastie mérovingienne, qui « fist sain Denis faire fonder » (O, v. 20) 29. Concernant l’association de notre empereur à Dagobert, on peut souligner que, dans l’explicit de O, on lit : « Ici finist le romance d’Otheviens empereor de Rome et le roi Dagonbert de France » (f. 188ra) 30. On observera cependant qu’il ne s’agit pas d’un rapport paritaire, car le roi des Francs est dépeint d’abord dans O, puis dans FO, comme un véritable mythe de la royauté et de la chrétienté : O Aprés un jor qui iadis fu Ot a Paris un roi cremu, Qui Dagonbers fu apelés, Plus fiers hom de lui ne fu nés, Ne miex seust terre tenir, Ne ses anemis estormir (vv. 7-12).

FO …avoit un roy en France de bon entendement. Dagoubert avoit nom, moult avoit d’essïent, […] le mostier Saint Denis estoura honestement Et le benoit martir y mist solempnement Et ceulx qu’avecques luy morurent saintement Et pour preschier la loy du Pere sapïent, Et puis fist desus eulx couvrir de fin argent Le mostier, ce tesmongne cronique vrayement (vv. 11-20).

De plus, O présente Dagobert comme le fils de Loteires (Clotaire II, 584-629) et jusqu’au v. 70, il est question du mariage que celui-ci, désormais vieux et malade, organise pour son fils. Cet épisode est absent de FO qui, après avoir situé le récit au temps de Dagobert, introduit directement Octavien. Par rapport au roi des Francs, l’éloge de l’empereur romain est manifestement composé de stéréotypes dans les deux versions : O Al tens que vos dire m’orrés avoit a Rome un roi vaillant, Hardit et preus et conbatant, Otheviens avoit a non (80-83).

29

FO En celuy temps, seigneurs, dont je faiz parlement, Avoit ung empereur a Rome proprement : Othovïen ot nom en droit baptizement. Preudons fu et loyaulx et de bon santement (21-24).

« Le mostier Saint Denis estoura honestement / et le benoit martir y mist solempnement » (FO, v. 20-21). Cf. aussi LABORDERIE (1991), I, p. XCVIII et suivantes. Voir aussi BOSSUAT (1964), en part. aux p. 362-363. 30 Dans les citations de O nous avons modernisé les critères orthographiques de l’édition Volmöller (accents et distinction des graphèmes u et v).

DU ROMANZ D’OTHEVIEN À L’OTHOVIEN EN PROSE

159

La différence entre le roi Dagobert et Othovien (qui porte le titre de roi d’après O et d’empereur d’après FO), tient principalement au fait que ce dernier se rendra bientôt coupable d’une faute très grave : l’exil de sa femme et de ses enfants. Dès lors, cette mise en parallèle renforce la mise en relief de Dagobert tandis qu’Octavien, dans le cadre du motif de la femme injustement accusée par son mari, joue le rôle de l’adversaire de sa propre famille. Dans O, lorsque la mère de l’empereur commence à dévoiler sa haine envers sa belle-fille, l’empereur ne se comporte guère mieux qu’elle. Par contre, dans FO, Octavien apparaît plutôt comme l’une des victimes des trames de la vieille folle, et l’action aboutit quand même à l’injuste condamnation de Florimonde. Il faut aussi préciser que la version la plus ancienne s’acharne particulièrement sur l’empereur et sur ses défauts, en le rendant semblable à son horrible mère : au début du roman, Octavien et sa femme n’arrivent pas à avoir un enfant, jusqu’au moment où l’impératrice tombe enceinte et accouche finalement deux jumeaux. Au Moyen Âge, la naissance de jumeaux était considérée comme la preuve qu’une femme avait couché avec deux hommes 31. Pour cette raison, la mère d’Octavien s’exclame : Or saura l’en vostre convine, Que ce ne puet estre por voir Que une famme peust avoir Deus enfans ensemble a un lit S’a .ii. hommes n’a son délit. (O, 11-121).

Cette accusation est plus implicite dans FO ; après la naissance des enfants, la vieille s’écrie : Certes, pute, dist elle, or peut on bien prouver qui avés deux enfans cy voulu apporter. Ilz ne sont pas mon filz, je les ferai tüer. (FO, vv. 327-329).

Or, si le rôle de la méchante ne change guère d’une version à l’autre, c’est par contre la position de l’empereur qui évolue : de fait, dans FO, la vieille profite de la longue absence d’Octavien – parti en campagne militaire pour défendre le roi Dagobert assiégé par les Sarrasins – pour nuire à sa belle-fille. Durant cette période, Florimonde s’aperçoit qu’elle est enceinte et, au retour de l’époux, la vieille l’accuse d’avoir couché avec « ung garsom » (FO, v. 221), en sollicitant habilement l’orgueil masculin de son fils : Il ha sis ans passés que vous corps l’espousa et onques en sa vie enfant el(le) ne pourta. Cuidés vous dont avoir engendré cetuy la Dont elle est engroissee ? vous corps bien foulia. (FO, vv. 216-219).

31

Cf. FAABORG (1997), p. 112-114.

160

MARCO MAULU

Bien que l’allusion soit grossière, elle n’en reste pas moins sous-entendue. Par contre, dans O, le comportement de la vieille dévient presque caricaturale dans sa férocité et, par conséquent, moins crédible. Sans qu’Octavien s’éloigne de Rome comme dans FO, sa mère accuse Florimonde juste après la naissance des jumeaux et essaye même d’étrangler les enfants, heureusement sans succès. Pourtant, elle ne s’arrête pas là et dit à son fils, qui l’interroge sur sa mauvaise humeur : « Que j’ai ? […] / Ta famme lorde, chetive, que a un garson [s’]est donee » (O, vv. 147-149). Pour accomplir son dessein, la vieille donne cent marcs à un garçon afin que, une fois l’impératrice endormie, il s’allonge tout nu à son côté. Or, si dans le cas de FO la longue absence de l’empereur justifie en partie sa crédulité, pour O cette excuse ne vaut pas. Dans FO, Octavien se rapproche davantage d’une victime plutôt que d’un bourreau ; en effet, une fois revenu de sa campagne militaire, il croit aux mensonges de sa mère mais, après avoir déchaîné sa rage contre sa femme, lors qu’elle s’évanouit « pitié le vint semondre, vers elle s’en alla ; / par le bras l’a saysie, amont la redreissa » (FO, vv. 236-237). Il en va autrement dans O où Octavien, soupçonneux à l’égard de Florimonde, la met à l’épreuve sans hésitation : l’empereur fait ainsi semblant d’aller la nuit « veiller à Saint Piere […] Dieu gracier et aurer » (O, vv. 170171) et l’impératrice se couche avec ses enfants dans les bras. Entretemps, Quant li vespres s’est aprochiés, Otheviens s’est enbuschiés ; En un requoi(e) s’est esconsés, Et o lui trois de ses prievés. (O, vv. 188-191).

L’image du jaloux caché qui tend un piège à sa femme n’est vraiment pas édifiante pour notre empereur. Auparavant, la vieille avait corrompu le garçon ; cela fait, elle appelle son fils qui, de son côté, ne peut que constater la situation. Enfin, après avoir envisagé de la faire brûler sur le champ avec les enfants, Por sa femme li roi plora, et des enfans grant piete a. (O, vv. 369-370),

et décide de la bannir. Visiblement, dans sa spontanéité un peu naïve, O s’approche néanmoins du pattern narratif sous-jacent de l’impératrice injustement bannie par son mari, tandis que FO en représente une élaboration successive, plus raffinée et plus nuancée. Dans les deux cas, on est en présence d’un Octavien faible, presque dupe, manipulé par sa mère possessive et qui, au final, n’incarne certainement pas le suzerain idéal, une fonction qui revient à Dagobert. Il est intéressant de souligner que, dans un cycle qui doit son intitulé à Octavien, le roi des Francs se voit confier une position de supériorité : d’ailleurs, on comprend facilement que, pour un auteur français, le fait d’attribuer une fonction négative à un personnage célèbre, mais dont la mémoire historique s’était affaiblie, devient un prétexte pour célébrer davantage l’ancêtre du roi de France, protecteur et

DU ROMANZ D’OTHEVIEN À L’OTHOVIEN EN PROSE

161

protégé de saint Denis. Cette opération permettait l’insertion, dans l’ensemble des textes narratifs qui glorifiaient Dagobert, d’un schéma narratif qui était à la page durant le XIIIe siècle et qui était fréquemment lié aux empereurs et aux impératrices (cf. le § 5). De plus, le fait qu’Octavien le père soit un allié, voire un roi vassal de Dagobert, rend bien évidemment l’exaltation du roi mérovingien encore plus efficace. L’intitulé de ce cycle, qui évoque le nom du premier empereur romain, semble tout à fait paradoxal (cf. le § 8) : par exemple, mis à part la confrontation implicite avec Dagobert, son inconsistance en tant que protagoniste est confirmée par le fait que O, malgré son titre, est en réalité un poème qui raconte principalement les aventures de Florent, un personnage positif qui dépasse en importance son père Octavien et son frère, également appelé Octavien. L’incongruité entre titre et intrigue dans la version la plus ancienne du conte a été apparemment « réglée » dans le remaniement intitulé Florent et Octavien  : en fait, ici ce nouveau titre ne met plus l’accent sur le père (coupable), mais sur les fils (victimes) et singulièrement sur Florent, malgré la présence d’un fils homonyme de l’empereur qui aurait pu être mentionné en première place. Pourtant, ce qui frappe davantage est qu’au niveau de l’intrigue, par rapport à O, dans FO Florent joue justement un rôle moins important par rapport au frère Octavien. De fait, comme l’a observé François Suard, Octavien le jeune, accompagné de son fidèle lion, regagne dans la seconde partie du remaniement en alexandrins un rôle très important : Dans O, l’objectif du roman est la reconstitution de la famille dispersée : les enfants retrouvent leurs parents, et Florent, celui des deux fils du souverain de Rome qui occupe le premier plan, épouse Marsebille. Dans FO, l’objectif emprunté au conte-type subsiste, mais le rapport entre les deux frères est considérablement modifié. Octavien devient un personnage essentiel, que la figure emblématique du lion suffit à distinguer de son frère : Florent est celui qui, avec son fils Othonnet, a une descendance, tandis que Octovien est le héros qu’accompagne et désigne le lion 32. En somme, la fonction de l’empereur Octavien, certainement secondaire par rapport à son quasi homologue Dagobert, semble ne pas s’accorder avec son supposé rôle de protagoniste du cycle éponyme. Par conséquent, l’empereur disparaît de l’intitulé de la version la plus connue : Florent et Octavien. En revanche, ce même titre contredit le fait que, dans la version en alexandrins, Florent cesse d’être le héros principal, et qu’il partage ce rôle avec son frère Octavien.

SUARD (1998), p. 73-74. MCSPARRAN (1979), p. 29, écrit : « The title, which refers to the twin sons of the Emperor Octavian, like the increased attention given to the second brother Octavian, reflects a further shift in focus from the parents to the children, and to the romantic themes of love and war ». 32

162

MARCO MAULU

6. Le rapport avec Florence de Rome À la base du récit, on reconnaît aisément le schéma narratif de la légende de saint Eustache, qui se soude avec les cycles de la reine Sibylle (femme de Charlemagne) et de la Belle Hélène de Constantinople 33. En fait, Sibylle et Hélène représentaient les avatars d’un motif très répandu au XIIIe siècle : celui de la reine/impératrice injustement accusée par son mari et bannie avec ses enfants, lesquels, selon le schéma typique de cet ensemble de textes, sont les protagonistes d’aventures individuelles, jusqu’au moment où la famille se réunit 34. Dans FO, le déroulement du noyau narratif reste à peu près pareil que dans O ; pourtant, dans la rédaction en alexandrins, les aventures se multiplient considérablement et, surtout, un remanieur interpole une suite qui manque dans O. Cette « troisième partie » narre le sort des fils d’Octavien et de leurs épouses, ce qui permet de rattacher FO au Roman de Florence de Rome (FdR), une œuvre qui date du XIVe siècle mais qui remonte au XIIIe siècle dans sa version la plus ancienne 35. Le rapport entre les deux textes est confirmé par le fait que FdR a été copié après FO dans l’un des témoins de la version en alexandrins, c’est-à-dire le manuscrit C. Enfin, dans la version dérimée intitulée Othovien, les deux cycles se trouvent à nouveau soudés. D’après FO, FdR s’avère une continuation de la lignée d’Othevien, car Florence est la fille d’Othon, qui est à son tour fils de Florent. Pourtant, FdR est censé être antérieur à FO et, probablement, à O aussi. Or, puisque l’on peut constater, notamment à partir de FO, une influence très importante du cycle de FdR, l’on pourrait même conclure que le titre Florent et Octavien a été inspiré d’un texte antécédent antérieur et plus célèbre qui a pu notamment influencer sa troisième partie : une telle solution permettait, d’une part, de déplacer l’attention sur les fils d’Octavien, qui sont d’ailleurs les vrais protagonistes du récit ; d’autre part, grâce à la mise en relief de Florent, grand-père de Florence de Rome, de mieux unir les deux cycles, notamment par le biais de la version

33 Cf. LABORDERIE (1991), I, p. CXXXI et suivantes. Voir aussi TIEMANN (1977) et ROUSSEL (1995). 34 LABORDERIE (1991), I, p. CXXXIV, écrit : « Jeune reine injustement accusée par sa belle-mère, mère et jumeaux persécutés, séparés, famille dispersée, enfants ravis par des fauves, et pour finir, réunion, reconnaissances et réconciliation dans l’allégresse générale : tels sont les thèmes principaux déjà tombés, peut-on dire, dans le domaine commun au XIIIe siècle et mis à la disposition de chaque poète ». 35 Le Romanz d’Octavien – c’est-à-dire FO – se trouve aux ff. 1-202 et le Roman de Florence de Rome à partir du f. 202. Déjà WALLENSKOLD (1907-1909), I, p. 5, soulignait le fait que dans les mss. A et B, « qui contiennent Florent et Octavien, mais non Florence de Rome, il y a à la fin des allusions analogues au Roman de Florence de Rome ». La Chanson de Florence de Rome date du premier quart du XIIIe s., tandis que le Roman date du XIVe siècle.

DU ROMANZ D’OTHEVIEN À L’OTHOVIEN EN PROSE

163

masculine du prénom Florence, c’est-à-dire Florent 36. Pourtant, il faut souligner que le témoin C, qui réunit les cycles de Octavien et de Florence de Rome dans le même manuscrit, présente dans son explicit « Romanz d’Octevien de Roume et de Flourent son frere », un intitulé qui place Florent en seconde position et qui exclue encore une fois l’empereur Octavien. 7. Les titres Dans l’incipit du codex qui transmet O, c’est-à-dire le ms. Hatton 100 de la fin du XIIIe s., on lit : « Ici commence la romanz de Othevien emperereor de Rome » (f. 1ra) ; dans l’explicit « ici finist le romance d’Otheviens empereor de Rome et le roi Dagonbert de France » (f. 108ra) : de toute évidence, l’intitulé de cette version ne fait aucun doute. De plus, à la différence de la version en alexandrins, Florent et Octavien le jeune ne sont pas présents dans cet explicit. D’ailleurs, dans O, les aventures des enfants n’ont pas encore eu le développement qu’elles auront dans FO même si, on l’a dit, les exploits de Florent y occupent une large place. Dans la tradition de FO, qui se compose de trois témoins, le ms. A, choisi comme manuscrit de base dans l’édition Laborderie, présente au fol. 1r une rubrique ajoutée successivement à la rédaction du texte : « Florent et Octavien. Roman en vers sans nom d’auteur ? » (cf. l’image n. 1). Visiblement, le texte originel de A était anépigraphe à l’époque où il a été transcrit. Dans le ms. B, on a un seul titre, lui aussi tardif, qui a été noté sur la page de garde, probablement au XIXe s. : « le Roman d’Octavien et de Florent, abrégé écrit par Druet Vignon en 1461 ». Au f. 248v, c’est le même Druet qui dit avoir exécuté son travail pour Mailin du Boz à cette date 37. 36 Selon LABORDERIE (1991), I, p. CLXVI, l’intention du remanieur était celle de d’« imaginer ce que sont devenus, après la retraite de l’empereur Othevien et de sa femme, leurs fils Florent et Othevien, les jeunes premiers dont les aventures et les amours avaient séduit le public ; mais très vite on voit percer, par l’introduction du personnage d’Othon, l’idée de relier Florent et Octavien à la chanson plus ancienne de Florence de Rome. Ainsi saisit-on, en gestation, la formation d’un cycle sur la légende d’Octavien, mais il est remarquable que dès la laisse 370, le remanieur nous promette la matière de cette chanson Ains que no livre soit mené a droit coron (v. 15014) comme s’il s’agissait d’une seule et même œuvre. Un remaniement de cette chanson suit immédiatement Florent et Octavien dans le manuscrit C et dans la note qui clôt ce manuscrit, le copiste parle de Che roumanch d’Octevien de Roume et de Flourent son frere et apriés de Flourence de Roume… Ces laisses de transition sont le ciment du regroupement cyclique : de la même manière la chanson de Charles le Chauve […] a-t-elle reçu une laisse de transition qui annonce les aventures d’Othevien et de ses fils (ms BN fr 24372 f. 70c) […] mais il serait vain, bien sûr, de chercher dans Florence de Rome un rappel de Florent et Octavien. L’annonce d’une deuxième chanson qui ne contient pas de rappel de la première, est en fait la preuve que la deuxième préexistait à la première ». 37 LABORDERIE (1991), I, p. VII.

164

MARCO MAULU

Enfin, C (BNF, fr. 24384), daté de 1455-1456 et d’origine picarde comme B, présente un explicit au f. 248v : « Che roumanch d’Octevien de Roume et de Flourent son frere et apriés de Flourence de Roume, qui fu fille Otton, ossi d’Esmeret, qui espouzet eult la bielle Flourence ». En récapitulant : 1. Dans les 2/3 de la tradition de FO, les rubriques sont postérieures à la transcription du roman, qui était anépigraphe ; 2. la rubrique la plus ancienne, qui appartient au manuscrit C, est : « Roman d’Octevien de Roume et de Flourent son frere ». À l’évidence, il s’agit d’Octavien le jeune, comme précise la formule « Flourent son frere » ; 3. Cet intitulé est confirmé par le manuscrit B, où l’on trouve la rubrique « Roman d’Octavien et de Florent ». Compte tenu de leur provenance picarde commune et de la datation, il est probable que B ait tout simplement abrégé le titre de C. Donc, l’ordre Florent et Octavien n’est pas unanimement attesté au niveau de la tradition et le titre le plus autorisé du point de vue chronologique est celui de C, ce qui est symptomatique, on l’a dit, de l’indécision autour de l’intitulé de cette version. Ces incertitudes sont probablement dues au fait que, en passant de la première à la deuxième rédaction, l’empereur Octavien a cessé d’être considéré comme le protagoniste du conte. Par conséquent, cette fonction a été transférée sur ses enfants et sur leurs exploits ; en outre, on voit bien que, d’après C et B, l’empereur Octavien a été remplacé en première position par son fils homonyme, ce qui était tout à fait prévisible. Ainsi, Florent n’est mentionné en premier que dans la rubrique tardive du manuscrit A, c’est-à-dire le codex francien dont l’autorité a été remise récemment en question du point de vue linguistique, ainsi que chronologique (cf. le § 1). 8. L’Othovien en prose Voyons maintenant ce qu’il en est dans la tradition de l’Othovien en prose, qui est censé être une version dérimée de FO et du Roman de Florence de Rome 38. Cette œuvre est transmise par les manuscrits suivants : – KBR, 10387, olim 177, datant de 1454-1467-69 39. Il s’agit d’un manuscrit en papier d’une épaisseur remarquable de 14 cm., qui transmet « le livre des haulx fais et vaillances de l’empereur Othovyen et de ses deux filz et de

38 WIJSMAN / VAN HOOREBEECK (2006), p. 163 : « Le texte date du XVème siècle et est inédit à ce jour. Cette prose se base sur deux poèmes antérieurs, Florent et Octavien et Florence de Rome, appartenant au même groupe d’œuvres centrées sur le personnage du roi Dagobert ». 39 DI LUCA (2014), p. 245 et WIJSMAN / VAN HOOREBEECK (2006), p. 161.

DU ROMANZ D’OTHEVIEN À L’OTHOVIEN EN PROSE

165

ceulx qui d’eux dessendirent » (f. 2r, f. 612r) 40. L’écriture est une gothique bâtarde bourguignonne. Dans le colophon (f. 612r) on lit : « Icy fine la vraie hystoire de lempereur othouien le premier Et de ceulx qui de lui dessendirent Lequel liure fu mys en prose A la pryere et requeste de noble et puissa(n)t seigneur Jean seigneur de crequi et de canappes lequel fu parfait et escript de ryme en prose le premier iour de may Lan mil iiij liiij ». Le commanditaire était probablement Jean V de Créquy, qui en aurait ensuite fait don à Philippe le Bon 41. Ce codex est mentionné dans l’inventaire de la librairie de Bourgogne dressé après la mort de Philippe le Bon : par conséquent, on peut dater sa production entre 1454 et 1467-69 42. – Chantilly, Mus. Condé, 652, olim 1082 : manuscrit en papier de la seconde moitié du XVe siècle, 253 ff. Manuscrit « exécuté pour un membre de la Maison de Croÿ ou, plus probablement, les bibliophiles de la branche Croÿ-Chimay » 43. Titre : « Le livre des haulx fais et vaillances de l’empereur Octhovyen et de ses deux filz et de cheulx quy d’eulx descendirent ». Ce titre est précédé d’un prologue où l’auteur anonyme s’exprime en ces termes : A la requeste de noble et puissant chevalier et mon très honoré seigneur Jehan, seigneur de Crequy et de Canappes, ay mis et fermé mon pourpos de mettre par escript en langaige maternel les nobles fais d’armes et périlleuses adventures, paines et perilz que jadis advindrent a ung noble empereur rommain, lequel se nommoit Octhovien, de ses enffans et de ceux qui de lui dessendirent…, selonc ce que i’ay trouvé en ung livre en ryme dont je ne sçay le nom de l’acteur… 44.

– Orléans, Bibliothèque municipale, ms. 466, olim 381, manuscrit en papier de la seconde moitié du XVe s., 143 ff. Titre : « Le roman d’Ottonien ou Othon, empereur romain » 45. – Paris, BNF, ms. nouv. acq. fr. 21069, la seconde moitié du XVe s., 303 ff., papier, provenant du Nord de la France. On lit au f. 303v : « Icy fine la vraye histoire de l’empereur Octovien le premier et de ceux quy de luy descendirent » 46. – Enfin, un manuscrit turinois signé L-I-14, olim k.VI.13, a été partiellement détruit durant l’incendie de la Biblioteca nazionale di Torino en 1904 ; à ce 40

Ibid., p. 162-163 : « Il met en scène un empereur romain légendaire, Othovien (ou Octavien), et ses fils jumeaux, Florent et Octavien. Figurent également parmi les principaux protagonistes le fils de Florent, Othon, et la fille de celui-ci, Florence. L’empereur Othovien est lié d’amitié au roi Dagobert ». 41 DI LUCA (2014), p. 245. 42 WIJSMAN / VAN HOOREBEECK (2006), p. 164. 43 DI LUCA (2014), p. 247. 44 Ibid., p. 164 : « Le manuscrit Chantilly, Musée Condé, 652 (1082) contient pas moins de 125 illustrations du Maître de Wavrin et semble avoir appartenu à la lignée des bibliophiles des Croÿ-Chimay ». 45 PELLEGRIN / BOUHOT (2010), p. 531-532 et DI LUCA (2014), p. 249. 46 Ibid., p. 249.

166

MARCO MAULU

propos, dans le catalogue de Pasini 1749, II, p. 484, on lit : « Chartaceus, habens folia 465, saeculi XV. Le livre des haulx fais et vaillantes de l’Empereur Octavien et ses deux fils […] deest autoris nomen, et codex mutilus est in fine » 47. Incipit de la préface : « Pour ce que pourfitable chose est a tout noble homme scavoir liere et entendre le livre c’est l’istoire par le quel on poeult oyr et scavoir le record et remenbrance des noubles emprises et hauls fais d’armes » etc. Les données issues des manuscrits confirment qu’au milieu du XVe s. l’intitulé Florent et Octavien ne s’était pas encore imposé ni répandu, au point de ne pas avoir laissé la moindre trace dans l’Othovien en prose, malgré le fait que cette version du conte soit proche de FO. En fait, on est en mesure d’affirmer que le titre du dérimage était Octovien [le premier] et ses deux filz et de ceulx qui d’eux dessendirent, à part la variante très suspecte du manuscrit d’Orléans, « Le roman d’Ottonien ou Othon, empereur romain ». On a vu qu’Othon n’est que le fils de Florent, donc un descendant de l’empereur Octavien : évidemment, il s’agit d’une substitution facilement justifiable, compte tenu aussi de la présence d’Othon dans FdR. Par contre, la lectio singularis du dérimage « Octovien le premier » transmise par le manuscrit BNF, nouv. acq. fr. 21069 s’explique facilement si l’on pense à une innovation fonctionnelle destinée à identifier l’Octavien en question, malgré la suite et ses deux filz et de ceulx qui d’eux dessendirent. Cette précision s’imposait puisque le problème de l’homonymie subsistait, donc on dirait que : mieux valait prévenir que guérir. 9. La version imprimée Cette ambiguïté entre Octavien père et fils est également confirmée par le fait que, hormis le manuscrit A, l’intitulé le plus semblable à Florent et Octavien est documenté par la princeps de FL, à savoir Florent et Lyon, modifié successivement en Florent et Lyon enfans de l’empereur de Rome à partir de l’imprimé attribué à Lotrian (entre 1530 et 1540) 48. Au niveau de la réception, il est intéressant de noter que FL est un dérimage de la version O ; pourtant, le titre est proche de la version en alexandrins transmise justement par le manuscrit A. En outre, il faut souligner qu’Octavien le jeune a été rebaptisé d’abord comme Cf. également WAHLGREN (1934), p. 134 et, surtout, l’importante mise à jour de ZARKER (2017). 48 Cf. DI LUCA (2016), p. 71. D’après CAPPELLO (2011), « l’inversion de l’ordre traditionnel du nom des deux protagonistes, rétabli au colophon, pourrait dépendre, comme le suggère Dalbanne [DALBANNE (1934), p. 15], de l’intention d’attirer l’attention de la clientèle locale. Il correspond, en tout cas, à l’ordre de leur présentation dans la gravure de la page de titre où Lyon est à gauche et Florent à droite ». À côté de cette hypothèse, nous suggérons la possibilité que ce changement relève également des oscillations et des ambiguïtés conséquentes concernant les intitulés du cycle dans la tradition manuscrite antécédente. 47

DU ROMANZ D’OTHEVIEN À L’OTHOVIEN EN PROSE

167

Lyon 49, puis comme « l’enfant au lyon » et que, sauf erreur de ma part, il n’est jamais appelé Octavien, en soulignant ainsi qu’il s’agissait d’un nouveau personnage. Or, étant donné qu’Octavien le jeune n’est appelé « chivalier au lyon » que dans FO, il s’agit visiblement d’une contamination entre la tradition de O, qui fournit la version du récit la plus courte à dérimer, et celle de FO, qui connut une plus ample diffusion et un majeur succès. Par contre, le problème des deux Octavien a été résolu dans l’imprimé en exploitant la caractéristique la plus marquante du fils de l’empereur, afin de le renommer d’une façon moins ambiguë. En fin de compte, l’évolution de FO à FL confirme que la première variante de l’intitulé était tardive par rapport à celle de Roumanch d’Octevien de Roume et de Flourent son frere  : en fait, FO a pu s’affirmer à une époque intermédiaire entre l’Octovien en prose (milieu du XVe s.) et la parution des imprimés, qui ont pourtant modifié cet intitulé dans la partie concernant Octavien le jeune. Cette hypothèse trouve un argument supplémentaire dans le fait que la rubrique du manuscrit A est postérieure à la rédaction de ce même témoin. 10. Conclusions En récapitulant, il nous paraît que la reconstruction la plus fiable au niveau des rubriques des différentes rédactions de la légende d’Octavien est la suivante : – Version 1) Romanz de Othevien empereor de Rome (O) ; – Version 2) Roumanch d’Octevien de Roume et de Flourent son frere (FO) ; – Version 3) Histoire de Octovien [le premier] et ses deux filz et de ceulx qui d’eux dessendirent (Othovien en prose) ; – Version 4) Florent et Lyon (enfans de l’empereur de Rome) (FL). D’abord, il faut souligner que, contrairement au titre FO, la rubrique de la version 2, Roumanch d’Octevien de Roume et de Flourent son frere, relève possiblement du rôle attribué dans ce remaniement à Octavien le jeune, qui y apparaît comme le « Chevalier au Lion », exactement comme le protagoniste de l’Yvain de Chrétien de Troyes 50. Néanmoins, il s’est probablement répandu une version abrégée de l’intitulé du remaniement en alexandrins, qui pouvait être *Octevien [de Rome] et Florent (comme dans la rubrique du ms. B). Ce titre s’avérait potentiellement ambigu par rapport aux deux Octaviens et il a dû être modifié ensuite en Florent et Octavien. Cela a pu arriver successivement à la rédaction de la version en prose, qui propose une leçon tout à fait cohérente, où l’empereur et ses fils ont été justement réunis dans la même rubrique.

49 Dans l’éd. Arnoullet de 1526, f. 2, chapitre 1, on lit : « […] dont l’ung des deux enfans fut appellé Florent et l’autre Lyon ». 50 Cf. ROQUES (1960).

168

MARCO MAULU

Dans l’éventualité d’une nouvelle édition critique de FO, compte tenu de l’autorité des rubriques que les témoins présentent (ou pas), on serait tentés de préférer l’intitulé de C, c’est-à-dire Roman d’Octevien de Roume et de Flourent son frere. Par ailleurs, il ne faut pas non plus sacrifier sur l’autel de la philologie l’importante réception d’un texte connu grâce à un titre qui, de toute façon, a connu une importante diffusion et une réelle évolution au fil des siècles et qui nous permet aujourd’hui de l’identifier à coup sûr. Au final, le parcours à travers ce complexe réseau de réécritures permet de constater à quel point le traitement du personnage d’Octavien-Auguste est emblématique d’une tradition historique longue et controversée. En fait, l’image que le cycle médiéval a dû hériter du passé était partagée entre, d’une part, la figure officielle d’un empereur synonyme de pax, et l’image privée liée à l’avidité et à la luxure de l’autre. Nonobstant certaines qualités – par exemple sa vaillance au combat et sa fidélité envers Dagobert, auxquelles s’ajoute à la fin du récit le rétablissement du rapport avec ses enfants et avec sa femme – ses vices supposés, tout à fait inadmissibles pour la culture chrétienne, ont dû finalement prendre le dessus dans la fiction narrative, en contribuant à faire d’Octavien un antihéros. Par conséquent, le nom du « protagoniste », excessivement tâché par les injustices commises à l’égard de sa famille, est tombé partiellement dans l’oubli pour céder sa place aux enfants, donc aux victimes de ses fautes.

Bibliographie AILLOUD, H. (éd. et trad.) (1989), Suétone. Vies des douze Césars, Paris. BOSSUAT, R. (1952), ‘Florent et Octavien’, chanson de geste du XIVe siècle, in Romania 73, p. 289-331. BOSSUAT, R. (1964), Le roi Dagobert, héros de romans du Moyen Âge, in Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Comptes rendus, 108e année, n. 2, p. 361-367. BRUNET, J. Ch. (1860-1865), Manuel du libraire et de l’amateur de livres, Paris. CAPPELLO, S. (2011), [Florent et Octavien] Florent et Lyon, in ELR  : Éditions Lyonnaises de Romans du XVIe siècle (1501-1600), en ligne : http://www.rhr16.fr/base-elr. COSME, P. (2005), Auguste, Paris. DALBANNE, C. (1934), Typographie lyonnaise au XVe siècle, in Documents paléographiques, typographiques, iconographiques. Bibliothèque de la ville de Lyon, 11, p. 13-44. DI LUCA, P. (2014), Florent et Lyon et Florent et Octavien, in M. COLOMBO TIMELLI / B. FERRARI / A. SCHOYSMAN / F. SUARD (éds.), Nouveau répertoire de mises en prose, XIVe-XVIe siècle, Paris, p. 239-244. DI LUCA, P. (2016), Pour une première approche de ‘Florent et Lyon’. Source, histoire éditoriale et morphologie de la mise en prose, in A. SCHOYSMAN / M. COLOMBO TIMELLI (éds.), Le roman français dans les premiers imprimés, Paris, p. 57-79. FAABORG, J. N. (1997), Les enfants dans la littérature française du Moyen Âge, København.

DU ROMANZ D’OTHEVIEN À L’OTHOVIEN EN PROSE

169

FOEHR-JANSSEN, Y. / MÉTRY, E. (2000), Jean de Haute-Seille, Dolopathos ou le roi et les sept sages. Traduction et présentation de Y. F.-J. et E. M., Turnhout. GRILLI, A. (1988), Il giudizio sull’età augustea negli storici del IV-V secolo D.C.R., in Accademia Nazionale Virgiliana. L’età augustea vista dai contemporanei e nel giudizio dei posteri. Atti del Convegno (Mantova, Palazzo Ducale 21-22-23 maggio 1987), Mantova, p. 173-198. GROS, G. (2005), Le palais ruiné dans l’île  : la légende d’Hippocrate dans l’ʻEstoire del saint Graal’ (§ 542-59), in D. JACQUART / D. JAMES-RAOUL / O. SOUTET (éds.), Par les mots et les textes. Mélanges de langue, de littérature et d’histoire des sciences médiévales offerts à Claude Thomasset, Paris, p. 383-392. HENRY, A. (éd.) (1981), Jean Bodel, Jeu de Saint Nicholas, Bruxelles. KRAPPE, A. H. (1952), ‘Florent et Octavien’, chanson de geste du XIVe siècle, in Romania 73, p. 289-331. LABORDERIE, N. (1991), Florent et Octavien. Chanson de geste du XIVe siècle, I, Paris. LECLANCHE, J.-L. (1997), Herbert, Roman de Dolopathos, 3 t., Paris. MATSUMURA, T. (1992), Pour la localisation de ‘Florent et Octavien’, Strasbourg-Nancy, (Travaux de linguistique et de philologie publiés par le Centre de philologie et de littératures romanes de l’Université de Strasbourg 30). MAULU, M. (2015), Variaciones sobre el motivo de la muerte de Hipócrates, in eHumanista/IVITRA 8, p. 181-200. MCSPARRAN, F. (1979), Octavian Imperator, ed. from ms. BL Cotton Caligula A II by F. Mc., Heidelberg. MICHA, A. (1982), Les Romans de Chrétien de Troyes, édités d’après la copie de Guiot (Bibl. Nat., fr. 794), Cligè, Paris. NICOLAS, C. (2007), Fabrique du personnage et fabrique du roman : Hippocrate dans l’Estoire del Saint Graal, in Ch. CONNOCHIE-BOURGNE (éd.), Façonner son personnage au Moyen Âge. Actes du 31e colloque du Cuer Ma (9-11 mars 2006), Aix-enProvence, p. 254-271. PARIS, P. (1873), Florent et Octavian, in Histoire littéraire de la France 26 [réimpr. Paris 1971], p. 303-335. PALERMO, J. (éd.) (1963), Roman de Cassiodorus, Paris. PELLEGRIN, E. / BOUHOT, J.-P. (dir.) (2010), Catalogue des manuscrits médiévaux de la Bibliothèque Municipale d’Orléans, Paris. PONCEAU, J.-P. (1997), L’estoire del Saint Graal, Paris. RAJNA, P. (éd.) (1872), I Reali di Francia. Ricerche intorno ai Reali di Francia seguite dal Libro delle Storie di Fioravante e dal Cantare di Bovo d’Antona. Volume I, Bologna. ROQUES, M. (éd.) (1960), Chrétien de Troyes, Le chevalier au lion. Yvain, Paris. ROUSSEL, C. (éd.) (1995), La belle Hélène de Constantinople, chanson de geste du XIVe siècle, Genève. ROUSSEL, C. (1998), Berthe, Florence, Hélène  : trois variations épiques sur le thème de l’épouse persécutée, in F. SUARD (éd.), L’épopée tardive, Nanterre, p. 39-60. SARRAZIN, Gr. (1885), Octavian. Zwei mittelenglische Bearbeitungen der Sage herausgegeben von Dr. Gr. S., Heilbronn. SCHLAUCH, M. (1934), Chaucer’s Constance and Accused Queens, New York. SÉGUY, M. (2001), Hippocrate victime des images. À propos d’un épisode déconcertant de l’Estoire del saint Graal, in Romania 119.3-4, p. 440-464. SINCLAIR, K. V. (1978), Evidence for a Lost Anglo-Norman Copy of ‘Octavian’, in Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 79, p. 216-218.

170

MARCO MAULU

SOUTHERN, P. (1998), Augustus, London / New York. SPEER, M. B. (1989), Le Roman des Sept Sages de Rome. A Critical Edition of the Two Verse Redactions of a Twelfth-Century Romance, Lexington Kentucky. SUARD, F. (1998), Octavien, le nouveau Chevalier au lion, in L’épopée tardive. Études réunies et présentés par François Suard, Nanterre, p. 61-74. SUARD, F. (2019), Les habits surprenants de la chanson de geste. À propos d’‘Othevien’ (ms. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 100), in S. DOUCHET / M. P. HALARY / S. LEFÈVRE / P. MORAN / J. R. VALETTE (éds.), De la pensée de l’histoire au jeu littéraire. Études médiévales en l’honneur de Dominique Boutet, Paris, p. 333-348. TIEMANN, H. (éd.) (1977), Der Roman von der Königin Sibille in drei Prosafassungen des 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts, Hamburg. VANDELLI, G. / GAMBARIN, G. (éds.) (1947), Andrea da Barberino, I Reali di Francia, Bari. VOLLMÖLLER, K. (éd.) (1883), Octavian. Altfranzösischer Roman nach der Oxforder Handschrift Bodl. Hatton 100, Heilbronn. VON ERTZDORFF, X. / SEELBACH, U. / WOLF, C. (1993), Florent et Lyon. Wilhelm Salzmann : Kaiser Octavianus, Amsterdam. WAHLGREN, E. G. (1934), Renseignements sur quelques manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale de Turin, Uppsala. WALLENSKOLD, A. (1907-1909), Florence de Rome, chanson d’aventure du premier quart du XIIIe siècle, Paris. WIJSMAN, H. / VAN HOOREBEECK, C. (2006), Le manuscrit KBR 10387  : Othovien, in La librairie des ducs de Bourgogne. Manuscrits conservés à la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique. Vol. III. Textes littéraires, Turnhout, p. 161-169. WILLARD, C. C. (1989), Florent et Octavien: the Fourteenth-Century Poem, in Olifant 14, p. 179-189. ZARKER, M. L. (2017), The Turin ‘Octavien’ Retraced: Needed Updates for Turin Manuscript Records, in Romania 135, p. 445-451.

DU ROMANZ D’OTHEVIEN À L’OTHOVIEN EN PROSE

Fig. 1. Paris, BNF fr. 1452 (A), fol. 1 (détail, source : Gallica).

Fig. 2. Paris, BNF fr. 12564 (B), feuillet de garde (détail, source : Gallica).

171

172

MARCO MAULU

Fig. 3. Paris, BNF fr. 12564 (B), fol. 1 (détail, source : Gallica).

Fig. 4. Paris, BNF fr. 24384 (C), fol. 1 (détail, source : Gallica).

DU ROMANZ D’OTHEVIEN À L’OTHOVIEN EN PROSE

Fig. 5. Paris, BNF fr. 24384 (C), fol. 248v, explicit (détail, source : Gallica).

Fig. 6. Bruxelles, KBR 10387, fol. 2, rubrique (détail, source : opac.kbr.be).

173

Octovien et la scène : histoire et drame à la fin du Moyen Âge JELLE KOOPMANS (Universiteit van Amsterdam)

Abstract In the imagination of the late Middle Ages Emperor Augustus is primarily regarded as the one who established peace in Western Europe – the “Octovian Period” is proverbial and synonymous of wealth and pacification (which fulfils the aspirations of the late 15th century). At the end of the Middle Ages “Octovian” also features in the dramatic mysteries. While the intention of these mysteries – which put history on a stage using sometimes global, sometimes local symbolism – is to establish the identities of the characters, they also want to give meaning to the whole of the history. Particularly in this context, the figure of “Octovian” assumes great importance. This paper will seek to detail the characteristics of the character of Augustus on stage.

1. Introduction Quand on pense à Auguste et la scène française et qu’on est formé à la littérature française, ce n’est pas le Moyen Âge qui s’impose à notre vue, mais bien naturellement Cinna ou la Clémence d’Auguste de Pierre Corneille : Je suis maître de moi comme de l’Univers. Je le suis, je veux l’être. Ô siècles, ô Mémoire, Conservez à jamais ma dernière victoire, Je triomphe aujourd’hui du plus juste courroux De qui le souvenir puisse aller jusqu’à vous. Soyons amis, Cinna, c’est moi qui t’en convie : Comme à mon ennemi je t’ai donné la vie, Et malgré la fureur de ton lâche destin, Je te la donne encore comme à mon assassin. (III, 8)

Cette image d’Auguste, ces alexandrins qui résonnent, ont été consacrés par les manuels tels ceux de Lagarde & Michard et de Castex & Surer, et leurs questions d’explication de texte classiques ont bien codifié « Auguste sur scène » – et récemment, l’équipe de Christian Biet a récidivé dans son histoire du théâtre du XVIIe siècle pour la collection l’Avant-Scène 1. Et décidément, il y a du bon dans le canon littéraire ! On est censé être contre, mais pourtant…. 1

BIET (2009), p. 199-201.

176

JELLE KOOPMANS

Ailleurs dans ce volume, le lecteur sera davantage informé sur cette clémence 2, mais enfin, il s’agit, pour tous ceux qui ont eu leur éducation dans un contexte français ou francophone, tout simplement d’une pièce d’anthologie. C’est l’un des morceaux qui font la gloire du théâtre classique et qui montreraient le renouveau important occasionné par le retour à la tragédie classique et aux grands thèmes humains que celle-ci aborde en revenant à la sagesse antique. Toutefois, on aurait tort de croire que l’Antiquité est absente du théâtre médiéval (qui date d’ailleurs pour une bonne partie du XVIe siècle) – le miroir déformant de l’opposition traditionnelle entre un théâtre religieux et un théâtre profane ne paraissant pas lui laisser de place. Auguste ou Octovien – et l’on reviendra sur la différence – sont bien présents sur la scène française des XVe et XVIe siècles. 2. Moyen Âge et Antiquité En fait, la culture et l’histoire antiques n’avaient point disparu au Moyen Âge pour que la Renaissance, finalement, puisse leur restituer leur place naturelle – bien au contraire. Et souvent, ceux qui ont voulu soutenir la vision opposée et, justement, souligner l’importance de l’Antiquité pour le Moyen Âge, partaient eux aussi d’une vue idéologique et non pas simplement historique. Restituer sa dignité au Moyen Âge en lui associant la dignité de l’Antiquité : tel était leur programme. Et comme la perspective détermine la vue, on trouvera ce que l’on veut dire. Replacer l’Antiquité dans le monde du Moyen Âge, voilà un sujet difficile et non point gratuit, un programme idéologique aussi qui fait obstacle à un programme plus proprement historique. Les hommes du Moyen Âge n’avaient point oublié leur ascendance et tout ce qu’ils devaient à l’Antiquité – mais il en résulte pourtant une situation assez problématique où il fallait rendre compte des origines antiques, mérovingiennes, carolingiennes et même gauloises de la « nation ». Et ce, d’ailleurs, de manières fort différentes au cours de la période que nous nous amusons à définir comme « Moyen Âge », même si cette période n’a point existé. S’ajoute à cette complexité une volonté bien marquée d’arriver à une intégration des différents mythes, de construire une histoire plausible de l’humanité ou de la Chrétienté, où tous les éléments disparates puissent trouver une place naturelle. De là, des chroniques bien curieuses où l’histoire biblique, l’histoire romaine et les mythes des origines – troyennes, arthuriennes, gauloises, carolingiennes, mérovingiennes – sont replacés dans des constructions intelligentes que le critique moderne qualifie volontiers de fantasques. On peut même dire, d’une certaine manière, que l’histoire du Moyen Âge est aussi celle de l’« épaississement » 2

375.

Voir les contributions d’I. G. MASTROROSA et d’A. FULIŃSKA, p. 317-340 et p. 341-

OCTOVIEN ET LA SCÈNE

177

des fondements antiques de sa culture – mouvement qui eut lieu dès l’époque carolingienne, mais qui s’accentue certes aux XIVe et XVe siècles – enfin : vous pardonnerez cette présentation fort grossière 3. À la base de tout cela, l’idée selon laquelle l’histoire a un sens, qu’elle s’articule dans un mouvement clair et précis, voire prédéterminé, même si ses détours exacts sont au-delà de nos possibilités de prévision et de compréhension. L’histoire romaine devra donc (re)trouver sa place naturelle dans la « grande histoire » – et c’est là une tâche à laquelle se sont attelées un grand nombre de chroniques universelles 4. En même temps, il faut bien dire qu’Auguste n’est pas au centre de l’intérêt que l’on porte à l’histoire antique au Moyen Âge : on a bien d’autres chats à fouetter, et d’autres histoires des origines sont bien plus urgentes. César, l’un des Neuf Preux, le pivot de l’Histoire ancienne jusqu’à César et du Fet des Romains (fin du XIIe – début du XIIIe siècle), connaît une fortune bien plus importante – qui se poursuivra dans les mythologies césariennes autour de François Ier 5. Énée, qui le premier atteignit les rives italiques, a également une place importante. Pourtant, Auguste y est ; pourtant, Auguste doit y être ; pourtant, sans Auguste, ce ne serait pas complet. Là encore, le constat n’est pas sans soulever de nouveaux problèmes. En quelque sorte, cet article reprend donc la base de La Philosophie du Non de Gaston Bachelard 6 en préconisant un Moyen Âge non médiéval, et par là aussi une Renaissance non « renaissanciste » et non burckhardtienne, un automne printanier du Moyen Âge – enfin, en mettant en lumière toutes les contradictions que l’on voudra trouver dans ce domaine épineux, dans ce dossier difficile. Au cœur de cet article, il y aura donc, partiellement, une tentative de voir et de revoir cette position, certes problématique, et de lui assigner une place précise dans l’imaginaire historique de la fin du Moyen Âge. L’objet de cette démarche sera ici la culture des mystères dramatiques, mais on aurait tort d’isoler celle-ci de la question plus générale de la représentation de l’histoire pendant la période. Dans l’imagination de la fin du Moyen Âge, l’empereur Auguste est avant tout celui qui a établi la paix dans l’Europe occidentale – le temps Octovien proverbial est synonyme de richesse (le trésor Octavien se rencontre aussi, dès le XIIIe siècle) 7 et de pacification (ce qui répond à des aspirations de la fin du 3 Et n’oublions pas que bon nombre de ces chroniques universelles attendent encore leur édition – ne mentionnons que celle de Julien Fossetier, le « polygraphe d’Ath » (Bruxelles, Bibliothèque Royale, mss. 10509-10513). 4 Et ce sont justement ces chroniques qui comptent parmi les moins étudiées, car l’on privilégie naturellement – on est historien ou l’on ne l’est pas – les chroniques qui rapportent des informations réelles et directes sur la période. 5 LECOQ (1987). 6 BACHELARD (1940). 7 HENRY (2015), p. 1187 donne des exemples de la richesse d’Octavien.

178

JELLE KOOPMANS

XVe siècle : on va bien sûr revenir sur ce point) 8. Dans sa ballade contre les ennemis de France, François Villon exprime ce vœu : D’Octovïen puist revenir le temps, C’est qu’on luy coulle ou ventre son tresor 9.

À la fin du Moyen Âge, « Octovien » est aussi présent dans les mystères dramatiques. Ces mystères, qui entendent mettre en scène l’histoire dans une symbolique tantôt globale, tantôt locale, ont une mission identitaire, mais doivent aussi conférer un sens à l’ensemble de l’histoire. Et c’est dans ce contexte, notamment, que la figure d’« Octovien » prend une grande importance qu’il ne faudra cependant pas surévaluer, surtout parce qu’elle s’inscrit partout et toujours dans un cadre bien plus ample. Et justement, cette double vision d’Auguste comme personnage important, mais intégré dans une vision globalisante de l’histoire, sera au cœur du témoignage des mystères français et étrangers. En tout cela, il faut aussi à noter qu’il s’agit d’Octovien ou d’Octavien, et que le nom Auguste n’est pas employé, car c’était, peut-on croire, une épithète trop lourde, trop chargée, ou à éviter pour d’autres raisons encore. Auguste ou Octovien était un grand, et donc un exemple et un modèle. On a voulu voir en lui un père de la patrie, un modèle pour Charles VIII et Louis XII – et nous ne sommes presque plus au Moyen Âge. Cet emploi politique, pour intéressant qu’il soit, devra être étudié ailleurs, car ici, nous chercherons à détailler les caractéristiques du personnage sur la scène, même si l’on peut se poser la question de savoir s’il est vraiment possible d’isoler un Octovien théâtral des occurrences du personnage dans d’autres types de textes. Une fois admise cette limitation, on peut voir que ce que la scène française a surtout retenu du personnage d’Auguste, c’est la prophétie de la Sibylle Tiburtine. C’est elle qui aurait annoncé à Auguste l’arrivée d’un prince plus grand que lui ; c’est grâce à cette prophétie qu’Auguste aurait renoncé à se faire adorer comme un dieu – sous la forme d’une statue (et on reconnaît l’ancienne discussion sur l’idolâtrie). Auguste devient donc un chaînon essentiel, mais dépersonnalisé et fonctionnel, dans l’histoire sainte – et c’est bien comme cela qu’il a fonctionné sur la scène médiévale : il n’est pas le personnage historique d’Auguste, mais il rentre dans une construction historique de l’histoire du salut (tout comme, d’ailleurs, la passion du Christ est instrumentalisée dans cette construction).

8 VAN HEMELRYCK (2006), p. 309-322 ; p. 312 cite des exemples d’Eustache Deschamps et la réutilisation du thème, bien naturellement, chez Octavien de Saint-Gelais. 9 CERQUIGLINI-TOULET (2014), p. 203, voir la note aux v. 813-814 ; Villon se base sur une histoire contenue dans les Sept Sages de Rome.

OCTOVIEN ET LA SCÈNE

179

3. Empereur ou Octavien  : le témoignage des mystères Le moment-clef de la présence scénique d’Auguste, pour les drames de la fin du Moyen Âge, est bien la scène avec la Sibylle Tiburtine. Rappelons brièvement de quoi il s’agit 10. La Sibylle de Tibur aurait montré à l’empereur Auguste une Vierge et un autel, pour lui faire comprendre qu’un roi bien plus grand que lui était né et que donc, comme le spécifient certaines sources, Auguste aurait tort de se faire adorer comme un dieu. On conçoit l’importance et les implications de cette construction : l’apogée de l’Empire romain est inscrite dans l’histoire d’un empire chrétien à venir. À partir de là, on comprend aussi pourquoi cet épisode a été promis à un bel avenir sur la scène, en particulier des mystères. Les mystères dramatiques peuvent être considérés comme des entreprises hardies pour établir une symbolique globale de l’histoire du salut. Des mises en scène historiques, certes, mais dans une perspective bien particulière, où se mêlent aussi un patriotisme local et des questions politiques à l’ordre du jour 11. Il est tout naturel que les mystères, à partir de leur perspective d’une histoire globalisante du salut humain, aient donné une place spéciale à Auguste dans tous les jeux portant sur la Nativité. Ce n’est pas tout. L’histoire théâtrale accorde une place majeure aux mystères, et à partir des textes conservés. Cela se comprend facilement. Mais tout n’est pas mystère, au Moyen Âge – ni farce, d’ailleurs. Il a dû exister un grand nombre de pièces tirées du répertoire chevaleresque, mais on n’en a presque pas de textes, exception faite pour le Mystère de Pierre de Provence – inédit, et cela en dit long 12. De même, les mentions dans les archives et les documents normatifs nous montrent l’extrême importance des histoires romaines, ou jeux romains, ou antiquailles de Rome. Faute de textes, tout reste dans la conjecture… Il y a pourtant bien des histoires romaines qui ont été jouées 13. Dès la fin du XIVe siècle, toutefois, le thème d’Auguste et de la Sibylle pénètre dans l’espace public. En 1385, pour l’entrée d’Isabeau de Bavière, on joua – sans paroles – Octavien et la Sibylle ; on en a fit de même pour l’entrée du duc de Bedford en 1424 (là, le tableau fut joué par des enfants) 14. Le duc de Berry commanda, en 1388, une tapisserie avec l’Histoire d’Octavien de Rome 15, Voir à ce propos VERDIER (1982) ; WENZEL-BECK (2002), p. 113-133 ; le thème a aussi été traité dans THOMAS-BOURGEOIS (1939). Voir aussi la contribution de J. REYNIERS dans ce volume. 11 WENZEL-BECK (2002), p. 133-205. 12 BABELON (1913), p. XVIII-XXVI ; p. 138-140 en donne pourtant quelques fragments. 13 SCOTT (2010), p. 61. 14 Essais historiques sur l’origine et les progrès de l’art dramatique en France (1784), p. 321. 15 CHARRON (2002). 10

180

JELLE KOOPMANS

mais on ignore de quoi il s’agit. Si l’on examine ces éléments à partir d’une vision centripète, on considérera comme naturelle la présence de cette affaire avec la Sibylle Tiburtine, puisque c’est là ce que l’on connaissait le mieux à l’époque ; à partir d’une vision centrifuge, on jugerait plutôt, puisque ce n’est pas l’histoire de la Sibylle, mais bien celle d’Octavien, qu’il s’agit peut-être d’autre chose, d’un phénomène qui dépasse les possibilités de notre documentation. Les deux, d’ailleurs, sont des options valides, intelligentes et il est difficile de trancher. L’aporie est évidente. Au début du XVe siècle, la scène figure dans la Nativité de SainteGeneviève 16 et apparaît également dans la Passion de Semur 17. La Nativité du ms. Ste-Geneviève date probablement du début du XVe siècle, et elle fait partie d’un cycle avec la Nativité, les Rois Mages, la Passion et la Résurrection, mais il s’agit de compositions indépendantes. Dans cette pièce, l’effondrement d’une statue au moment de la naissance du Christ attire surtout l’attention (scène d’un grand effet dramatique). Il est à noter aussi qu’Octavien est désigné ici uniquement par des termes génériques comme « l’empereur » ou « César », comme si la mémoire de la personne historique s’était effacée ou devenue insignifiante. Dans la Passion de Semur, la fonction essentielle de l’apparition d’Auguste est de donner un homologue occidental aux rois mages 18. Or, Auguste y occupe une position spécifique. Il n’est pas jaloux de son trône, comme l’est par exemple Hérode (et n’oublions pas que le rôle d’Hérode est, depuis les débuts du théâtre religieux, important : dès le jeu de Münsterbilzen, dès les premières tentatives d’émanciper le théâtre de la liturgie, cela passe par le rôle d’Hérode) 19. Au contraire : il fait même construire une route pour que ce nouveau roi ait accès à Rome. Les éléments, ici, sont des plus traditionnels : Auguste est un homme de la paix, il fait proclamer le census ; on trouve le miracle de la Sibylle et l’histoire de la fontaine d’huile. Dans le mystère qui clôt la grande série du Vieil Testament, le début est consacré à une exposition : le meurtre de Jules César et la place de son successeur Auguste, en quelque 400 vers ; à la suite de quoi deux Tiburtins conseillent à Auguste de s’en rapporter à une Sibylle (en quelque 250 vers), puis la prophétie et le défilé des Sibylles (encore quelque 450 vers) 20. On a avancé qu’il y a, dans ce mystère, un calque naturel de l’histoire récente : notamment le meurtre de César qui ferait écho, voire représenterait le meurtre de Louis d’Orléans. Le côté pacifique d’Octavie, pour qui la guerre coûte simplement trop de vies humaines, ne se retrouverait pas dans d’autres 16 17 18 19 20

JUBINAL (1837), t. II, p. 1-78. RUNNALLS (2003), p. 276. BORDIER (1998), p. 385. Voir NOWÉ (1989). WENZEL-BECK (2002), p. 141-142.

OCTOVIEN ET LA SCÈNE

181

sources et collerait bien au personnage de Charles VI. Mais une telle interprétation présentiste présente aussi des risques. L’image d’un empereur peut toujours être interprétée comme image du prince régnant – ou comme critique de celui-ci. C’est une interprétation qui fonctionne, dans un sens ou dans l’autre, à tous les coups et qui demeure donc, sans autres éléments à l’appui, une affirmation gratuite. Cela étant dit, dans la construction symbolique des mystères et leur didactisme encyclopédique, toute représentation d’un roi connote naturellement la royauté idéale (ou son contraire, ce qui revient au même), mais cela ne doit pas toujours être mis en relation avec le roi en place et peut adresser les thèmes plus généraux de bongouverne ou malgouverne. Dans la Passion d’Arras, (v. 1560) 21, est notamment évoqué l’édit d’Octavien : Comme il soit ainsi que le monde Si grant comme il est a la ronde Des parties orientales Jusqu’aux mettes occidentales Et aussi depuis aquilon Tout jusques au septentrion Face plainiere obeysssance A la souveraine puissance De notre grant et noble empire.

En fait, Octavien veut faire le recensement pour connaître « la puissance de nostre empire » ; il en énumère les régions, dont Hollande, Zélande et Frise (ce qui a, dans le contexte bourguignon, une certaine actualité, vu les tentatives de Philippe le Bon pour s’emparer des régions nordiques rebelles à tout maître). En repensant à Corneille et Auguste comme maître de l’univers, on observe ici une petite faille, mais cette revendication « universelle » sera reprise par la propagande de Charles Quint, notamment pour son élection en 1519. Dans la Passion d’Arras, le messager Bondésir appelle Auguste : Puissant recteur du saint empire Empereur de la gent romaine.

Ici encore, il faut noter qu’Auguste n’est désigné que par le terme générique « L’Empereur » : cela implique-t-il que le nom d’Octavien/Auguste s’est éclipsé ou – justement – qu’il est si connu qu’il n’est pas utile de le spécifier ? À Barcelone, en 1418, la nuit de Noël, on a pu admirer des images de la Vierge et de l’enfant Jésus descendant des voûtes de la Seu sur une araceli, ou trapèze aérien équipé de 230 cierges pour montrer la vision de la Sibylle qui, au cours d’un dialogue qui suit cette apparition, annonce à Auguste la naissance

21

RICHARD (1891), p. 17.

182

JELLE KOOPMANS

du Messie. On a également conservé un court dialogue, en catalan, de 5 folios : Fet de la Sibila e de l’emperador Sésar 22. Un nouveau moment important dans l’histoire scénique d’Auguste en France est le Mystère de l’Incarnation, joué à Rouen en 1474 23 : dans le cortège des prophètes, l’ordo prophetarum, il y a bien une Sibylle (mais laquelle ?) qui s’adresse à Auguste ; puis, le jour de la Nativité, c’est la Sibylle Tiburtine qui lui montre les signes célestes. En fait, la première journée de ce mystère, commence par les interrogations des dieux du Capitole sur l’identité de l’homme qui succédera à Auguste, sept ans avant la naissance du Christ, et se termine par la visite d’Élisabeth à Marie. La seconde journée commence avec l’édit d’Auguste. Il y est notamment question de savoir s’il y aura un jour une personne plus puissante qu’Auguste. L’effondrement du Temple à la naissance du Christ est au rendez-vous, et c’est bien une scène hautement efficace sur le plan dramaturgique ; et Dieu demande à Uriel de bien vouloir dire à Auguste qu’il devra construire un « autel du ciel » – ce sera l’ara coeli. Dans cette pièce, Auguste est un héros foncièrement altruiste, raisonnable. Le mythe de la fontaine d’huile surgissant à Rome vient de la Légende Dorée, mais elle est sans doute hautement parlante sur le plan visuel dans la mise en scène de ce mystère. On a voulu voir dans l’Auguste de ce mystère un calque de Louis XI, surtout en se basant sur le portrait de Louis XI fourni par Philippe de Commynes – mais est-il vraiment la source à consulter ici ? Et comment savoir si c’est vraiment le cas, s’il n’y a pas simplement des conformités gratuites ? Dans sa monographie sur la procession d’Audenaerde, Bart Ramakers a montré comment, à partir des années 1470-1480, Octavien commence à apparaître dans les livres des comptes 24, mais ce sont là, encore, des détails qui témoignent d’un certain courant difficile à interpréter – ce qui ne veut pas dire que leur existence n’a pas de sens. En Angleterre, on observe, notamment dans l’ensemble de pièces religieuses connu sous le nom de Cycle de Chester, une amplification du rôle d’Octavien 25 : Make room, Lords, and give way And let Octavian come and play And Sybil the Sage that well free may Tell you a Prophecy !

Ici comme dans tant de mystères, il s’agit d’établir une logique – laquelle est trouvée ici par le subterfuge suivant. Les sénateurs veulent faire d’Octavien un Dieu ; celui-ci refuse, car il est soumis au temps : 22 23 24 25

Pour le domaine catalan, voir MASSIP (2011). LE VERDIER (1885-1886). RAMAKERS (1996), p. 263. MILLS (1992), p. 107-110.

OCTOVIEN ET LA SCÈNE

183

Godhead asks in all thing Time that hath no beginning Ne never shall have ending.

Cette idée excite la curiosité de l’empereur, qui demandera donc à la Sibylle si quelqu’un pourra jamais le surpasser – et la Sibylle répond : « oui, et il n’a pas de commencement et n’aura jamais fin. » Et Auguste de conclure cette séquence de la Nativité en enjoignant à tous d’honorer cet enfant. Dans la Festa di Ottaviano (1465, Florence), un temple tombe en ruines, comme dans la Passion de Valenciennes en vingt journées. Bordier explique cela par la chute du Temple lors de la fuite en Égypte, mais on se demande s’il n’y a pas un lien possible avec l’histoire de Virgilius dans les Sept Sages de Rome 26. Dans la Passion en rime franchoise, sans doute représentée à Douai – appelée parfois aussi Passion de Valenciennes en 20 journées parce que le manuscrit a été conservé à Valenciennes et pour la distinguer de la Passion de Valenciennes en 25 journées qui fut bien représentée à Valenciennes mais dont le manuscrit n’est pas conservé dans cette ville – la quatrième journée surtout contient des éléments intéressants pour notre propos : l’édit, les signes miraculeux et la consultation de la Sibylle. On nomme les problèmes, les guerres, ensuite Octavien nomme les cinquante villes, peuples et pays où il fait régner la paix. Cette liste est des plus intéressantes. Il y a bien sûr une part de leçon de géographie dans tout cela, mais ce n’est pas tout : la majeure partie des territoires nommés, au début du XVIe siècle, s’identifie comme pays de l’empereur Charles Quint, une partie bien plus réduite concerne les pays de François Ier, le reste est exotique. Pur hasard, sans doute, mais l’on rencontrera plus bas l’assimilation d’Auguste à Charles Quint. Dans la grande Passion de Valenciennes jouée en 1547, Octavien demande, avant qu’on adore sa statue, l’avis de la Sibylle, qui lui explique que seul le fils de la Vierge qui vient de naître doit être adoré – et elle lui montre la Vierge à l’enfant ; à la suite de quoi Octavien fait construire l’Ara Coeli en son honneur. Nous savons que ce rôle a été tenu par Quentin Coret 27. 4. Éléments disparates Cette esquisse de la fonction d’Octavien dans les mystères dramatiques consacrés à la Passion du Christ peut être complémentée par un certain nombre de mentions plus ou moins isolées – on a déjà vu celle d’Audenaerde – qui, toutefois – dans leur ensemble –, montrent certaines convergences.

26 27

CERQUIGLINI-TOULET (2014), p. 813-814. LAVÉANT (2011), p. 110-111.

184

JELLE KOOPMANS

À Chaumont, du XVe au XVIIIe siècle, il y avait une représentation qui pouvait compter jusqu’à quinze échafauds, dont un avec Auguste et la Sibylle 28. À Aix-en-Provence, lors de la procession de la Fête-Dieu, la Sibylle (parfois, le scribe écrit la « reine Sibylle ») prédit la naissance du Christ à Auguste, en armure, tenant le globe du monde dans sa main 29. Parmi les mystères joués à l’occasion de la Procession de Lille, on trouve aussi une Histoire d’Octavien et la sibylle 30, et toujours à Lille, pour l’entrée de Philippe II en 1549, on joue des histoires de moralité, et entre autres une histoire de Titus et Vespasien – où il faudra reconnaître sans doute la Vengeance Notre Seigneur, une histoire de l’Empereur Octavien (mais qu’est-ce à dire ?) et une histoire de Paul-Émile, sans doute basée sur Plutarque 31. En 1555, on joue à Saint-Omer une Histoire de l’empereur Octavien – et l’un des grands acteurs de la ville, Robert de Trect ou d’Utrecht est de la partie 32. À Lille, en 1598, un témoin oculaire rapporte encore un autel avec, des deux côtés, l’histoire de l’empereur Octavien (ici, pas de Sibylle, car les Sibylles sont ailleurs, à quelques rues de là) 33. Il s’agit de savoir ce qu’est, ce qu’a pu être « ce dont on extrait une chose ». Certes, la remarque reste vague, mais elle n’en est pas moins essentielle. Dans la culture historique de la fin du Moyen Âge, l’Histoire a un sens et les chroniques en défendent bien une vue téléologique. Et l’histoire sainte fait partie de l’Histoire au même titre que l’histoire, disons : notre histoire. De la sorte, la théologie fait partie de l’Histoire et l’Histoire fait partie de la théologie. Cela se remarque dans toutes les chroniques universelles ; cela se fait jour dans les multiples dramatisations de l’histoire, sainte ou non, cela fait partie, en quelque sorte, d’un système de pensée. En même temps, bien naturellement, ce n’est qu’une construction de l’esprit. Sacrifier aux autels de la doctrine, puisque l’on cherche aussi tout simplement à accommoder des vues, à légitimer des perspectives, à « redocumenter » ce que l’on croit déjà savoir, est une manière biaisée de faire de l’histoire littéraire. Autant dire qu’extraire Auguste des sources médiévales est une entreprise hasardeuse. On pourra dire au même titre que dans les multiples mystères de la Passion, la Passion du Christ n’est en fait qu’instrumentale par rapport à la « grande histoire » du salut humain. En d’autres termes : là où, enfants que nous sommes de la Passion selon saint Matthieu de Bach, nous célébrons un culte de la souffrance, dans les mystères de la fin du Moyen Âge, cette souffrance n’est qu’un élément dans le projet divin du salut de l’humanité. La Passion du Christ est un choix de Dieu et il n’y a que des fols et des diables qui THOMAS-BOURGEOIS (1939), p. 888, d’après JOLIBOIS (1838). Catalogue de l’exposition Le roi René et son temps, 1382-1481 (1981), p. 239. 30 KNIGHT (2001). 31 LAVÉANT (2011), p. 332-333 ; voir Joyeuse entrée du prince d’Espagne à Lille et jeux de personnages en 1549 (1855), p. 268-270. 32 LAVÉANT (2011), p. 123, 332. 33 DEROLE (1848), p. 143. 28 29

OCTOVIEN ET LA SCÈNE

185

s’y opposent. Le tout, donc, relève d’une symbolique plus globale. Et Auguste n’y est pas un personnage, mais une fonction. Pour la plupart des lecteurs, une telle affirmation est sans doute gratuite, puisqu’il ne s’agit là que d’un fait bien connu, mais il a fallu aborder cette question avant même d’entamer l’étude du personnage d’Auguste, car il est bien évident qu’on ne pourra séparer sa présentation, sa présence sur scène, de la question plus large de la vue historique. Toutefois, une première détermination de ce que l’on cherche vraiment et du pourquoi de cette recherche ne feront jamais de mal – c’est une simple question de procédure. S’ajoute à cela une question difficile et problématique à long terme. Selon certains – et vous apprécierez ce vague au moment d’introduire des théories du complot –, au moment de la rédaction des Évangiles, bien après la mort du Christ, il y aurait eu tout intérêt à minimiser le rôle des Romains pour rejeter la faute sur les Juifs, puisque justement, vers la fin du Ier siècle, Rome – qui pratiqua une politique assez libérale par rapport aux chrétiens – aurait cherché (et le lecteur appréciera ici encore le conditionnel) à montrer que le centre de ce nouveau christianisme ne se trouvait aucunement à Jérusalem, mais bien à Rome. J’avoue d’emblée être incapable de suivre, de juger, et d’évaluer les méandres d’une telle pensée. Cependant, une chose apparaît clairement dans les documents que j’ai pu étudier, c’est-à-dire les grands cycles de mystères qui cherchent à rendre compte de la totalité de l’histoire du salut humain : on y observe effectivement pourquoi et comment les Romains sont plus ou moins « du bon côté ». Cela est d’autant plus flagrant que l’auteur de la Passion d’Arras, Eustache Mercadé, ajoute à son Mystère de la Passion en quatre journées une Vengeance Jésus Christ en trois journées 34. Or, cette Vengeance tend à montrer que le bon Dieu, dans sa sagesse, a choisi les Romains pour instrument de sa Vengeance dirigée contre les Juifs. Détruire Jérusalem, punir les Juifs de leur faute, c’est également proclamer Rome comme centre de la chrétienté. Surtout dans la logique de ces mystères « cycliques », dans l’idée selon laquelle une vue globale et une symbolique totale doivent présider à la création de telles pièces de théâtre, il y a un aspect hautement intéressant à la position romaine dans l’histoire du salut humain. Et c’est là, justement, que le rôle d’Octovien ou Auguste, prend toute sa place et recouvre toute son importance. Dans la vision présentée par ces mystères, de toute évidence, les Romains doivent être « du bon côté ». Rome – avec son statut sans pareil à l’aube de la véritable Renaissance – ne se discute pas et doit rentrer dans la grande construction symbolique des origines de la chrétienté, de la nation, de l’entité locale ou d’autre chose encore. Cela veut dire, tout naturellement, qu’il existe un filtrage important dans ces mystères dramatiques dont le premier but n’est pas – n’est surtout pas – de documenter l’histoire, mais plutôt de la faire rentrer dans une plus ample vision téléologique de l’humanité. 34

WRIGHT (1989).

186

JELLE KOOPMANS

Tout naturellement, pour clore l’Octavien médiéval, il y a la Cléopâtre captive de Jodelle et le retour à la tragédie antique. Jodelle se présente comme le grand rénovateur du théâtre – dans ses préfaces – mais reste le plus grand auteur de théâtre du Moyen Âge : l’Eugène est une farce, mais en trois actes ; la Cléopâtre captive sans doute une histoire romaine – mais sous forme de tragédie. Si le roi comprend qu’Octavian est Charles Quint et qu’il vient de vaincre le vainqueur du poème, alors il saura que la tragédie lui annonce une gloire qui ressemble à celle d’Auguste, mais qui sera meilleure, plus légitime encore 35.

Henri II, donc, sera Marc Antoine. Remy Belleau joue le rôle de Cléopâtre (excusez du peu !), Jean Bastier, dit la Péruse, celui d’Octavien (encore un nom) 36. Voici donc le début de l’acte II : OCTAVIEN : En la rondeur du Ciel environnee A nul, je croy, telle faveur donnee Des Dieux fauteurs ne peut estre qu’à moy : Car outre encor que je suis maistre et Roy De tant de biens, qu’il semble qu’en la terre Le Ciel qui tout sous son empire enserre M’ait tout exprés de sa voûte transmis Pour estre ici son general commis, Oustre l’espoir de l’arriere memoire Qui aux neveux rechantera ma gloire, D’avoir Antoine, Antoine, dis-je, horreur De tout ce monde, accablé la fureur, Outre l’honneur que ma Romme m’appreste Pour le guerdon de l’heureuse conqueste, Il me semble ja que le Ciel vienne tendre Ses bras courbez pour en soy me reprendre, Et que la boule entre ses ronds enclose Pour un Cesar ne soit que peu de chose ; Or’ je desire, or’ je desire mieux, C’est de me joindre au sainct nombre des Dieux. Jamais la terre en tout advantureuse N’a sa personne entierement heureuse : Mais le malheur par l’heur est acquité, Et l’heur se paye par l’infelicité.

Ah, le brave Jodelle !

35 36

CORNILLIAT (2003), citation p. 231 LAMY (2012), p. 65 citant CORNILLIAT (2003), p. 231.

385

390

395

400

405

OCTOVIEN ET LA SCÈNE

187

5. Pour conclure En conclusion, il y a certains éléments importants à mettre en avant. Le premier, tout naturellement, est le souci des hommes du Moyen Âge de faire rentrer l’histoire dans une vision plus générale de l’histoire de l’humanité. Qu’on appelle celle-ci « chrétienne » ou « catholique » ou « occidentale », n’est en fin de compte qu’un simple détail. Ce disant, j’entends mettre en lumière les bases de l’entreprise en tant que telle – et c’est une entreprise qui mériterait certes d’être aussi examinée par les anthropologues. Second élément important : l’approche de l’histoire et de sa fonction ne diffère pas foncièrement du Moyen Âge à la Renaissance, même si elle est utilisée à d’autres fins, même si elle a connu une autre historiographie. Et il faut dire aussi que les deux histoires s’écrivent à partir de ce que l’on sait et que, pour le Moyen Âge, il y a un vaste territoire de non-savoir, d’ignorance (comme les histoires romaines ou les antiquailles de Rome – qui furent, selon les documents d’archive, une pratique courante ; hélas ! rien dans les textes…). Finalement, ramener ou non Auguste à l’histoire du salut chrétien – si l’on veut bien admettre la caricature selon laquelle ce serait là l’objectif médiéval, alors que la Renaissance lui aurait conféré un statut plus proprement historique – n’est qu’un simple détail, une infime différence par rapport à une vision qui a cherché avant tout à lui rendre sa place naturelle dans une histoire non entachée par cette histoire globalisante du salut humain – à partir d’une perspective – soulignons-le, tout aussi globalisante et partisane. Bibliographie (1784), Essais historiques sur l’origine et les progrès de l’art dramatique en France, Paris. (1855), Joyeuse entrée du prince d’Espagne à Lille et jeux de personnages en 1549, in Annales archéologiques 15, p. 268-270. (1981), Catalogue de l’exposition Le roi René et son temps, 1382-1481, Aix-en-Provence. BABELON, J. (1913), La bibliothèque française de Fernand Colomb, in Revue des bibliothèques, suppl. X, Paris, p. XVIII-XXVI, p. 138-140. BACHELARD, G. (1940), La philosophie du non. Essai d’une philosophie du nouvel esprit scientifique, Paris. BIET, Chr. (2009), Le théâtre français du XVIIe siècle. Histoire – textes choisis – mises en scène, Paris. BORDIER, J.-P. (1998), Le jeu de la passion. Le message chrétien et le théâtre français (XIIIe-XVIe s.), Paris. CERQUIGLINI-TOULET, J. (2014), François Villon. Œuvres complètes, Paris. CHARRON, P. (2002), Les grandes collections françaises de tapisserie  : histoire de la permanence, in G. MASSIN-LE GOFF / É. VACQUET (éds.), Regards sur la tapisserie, Arles, p. 43-59. CORNILLIAT, F. (2003), «  Mais que dirai-je à César  ?  » Éloge et tragédie dans la poétique d’Étienne Jodelle, in I. COGITORE / F. GOYET (éds.), L’éloge du prince de l’Antiquité au temps des Lumières, Grenoble, p. 223-250.

188

JELLE KOOPMANS

DEROLE, V. (1848), Histoire de Lille, tome II, Paris / Lille. HENRY, A. (éd.) (2015), Jehan Bodel, Le jeu de saint Nicolas, Genève, 1981, v. 11=398 ; G. DI STEFANO, Nouveau dictionnaire historique des locutions, Turnhout. JOLIBOIS, A. (1838), La diablerie de Chaumont, Chaumont / Paris. JUBINAL, A. (1837), Mystères inédits du XVe siècle, Paris, t. II. KNIGHT, A. (2001), Les mystères de la procession de Lille, Genève (5 vols.). LAMY, M. (2012), Cléopâtre dans les tragédies françaises de 1553 à 1682. Une dramaturgie de l’éloge, Avignon (thèse de doctorat). LAVÉANT, K. (2011), Un théâtre des frontières. La culture dramatique dans les provinces du Nord aux XVe et XVIe siècles, Orléans. LECOQ, F. (1987), François Ier Imaginaire. Symbolique et politique à l’aube de la Renaissance, Paris. LE VERDIER, P. (1885-1886), Le mystère de l’Incarnation et Nativité de Nostre Sauveur et Rédempteur Jésus-Christ, représenté à Rouen en 1474, Rouen (3 vols.). MASSIP, F. (2011), La Sibila como personaje dramático: textos y contextos escénicos, in Viator 42, p. 239-264. MILLS, D. (1992), The Chester Mystery Cycle: A New Edition with Modernized Spelling, East Lansing (MI). NOWÉ, J. (1989), Herodes in Maasland: Das Dreikönigspiel aus Münsterbilzen als Drama, in Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 108, p. 50-65. RAMAKERS, B. (1996), Spelen en figuren. Toneelkunst en processiecultuur in Oudenaarde tussen Middeleeuwen en Moderne Tijd, Amsterdam. RICHARD, J.-M. (1891), Le mystère de la Passion. Texte du manuscrit 697 de la bibliothèque d’Arras, Arras. RUNNALLS, G. (2003), Les mystères dans les provinces françaises (en Savoie et en Poitou, à Amiens et à Reims), Paris. SCOTT, V. (2010), Women on Stage in Early Modern France: 1540-1750, Cambridge. THOMAS-BOURGEOIS, C.-A. (1939), Le personnage de la Sibylle et la légende de l’Ara Coeli dans une nativité wallonne, in Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 18, p. 883-912. VAN HEMELRYCK, T. (2006), La Mutacion de la Paix. L’évolution des figures exemplaires pacifiques dans la littérature française médiévale du XIVe siècle au début du XVIe siècle, in G. CLAASSENS / W. VERBEKE (éds.), Medieval Manuscripts in Transition. Tradition and Creative Recycling, Leuven, p. 309-322. VERDIER, P. (1982), La naissance à Rome de la Vision de l’Ara Coeli. Un aspect de l’utopie de la Paix perpétuelle à travers un thème iconographique, in Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Moyen-Âge, Temps modernes 94, 1, p. 85-119. WENZEL-BECK, R. (2002), Das Augustusbild der französischen Literatur des Mittelalters, thèse, Chemnitz. WRIGHT, S. K. (1989), The Vengeance of Our Lord. Medieval Dramatizations of the Destruction of Jerusalem, Toronto.

La figure de l’empereur Auguste dans l’historiographie française et bourguignonne (fin du Moyen Âge – début du XVIe siècle) MATTIA CAVAGNA (UCLouvain)

Abstract This paper investigates a set of partly unpublished historiographical sources dating back to the late Middle Ages and the Early Modern period and concerning Emperor Augustus. Depending on the different contexts and channels of transmission, on the one hand his image is filtered through the prism of moral interpretation – polarised between good and evil –, between virtue and vice, while on the other hand it becomes associated with figures appealing to Christianity – Virgil and the Sybil – or with the image of the ‘exemplary sovereign’, namely Alexander the Great.

1. Introduction Octavien, IIe ampereur des Romains, fut denommé auguste pour l’augmentation de la chose publicque, le quel gouverna noblement. Et pour memoire de ceste chose tous les ampereurs de Rome ont esté consequamment denommez augustes 1.

À l’instar de Suétone, l’auteur anonyme de la Vies des douze cesars, rédigée vers 1515-20, considère que le pouvoir impérial a été fondé par Jules César et indique Auguste comme le deuxième empereur. Dans cet extrait, qui ouvre sa notice, deux informations sont immédiatement mises en avant : l’étymologie du terme auguste renvoyant, selon une tradition qui remonte à Isidore de Séville 2, à l’acte d’« agrandir » la « chose publique » – ce mot prend ici une acception sociale et non politique – et le fait que ce titre honorifique a été repris par tous les empereurs qui ont succédé à Octavien 3. Les manuscrits, très richement 1

Paris, BnF, nouvelles acquisitions françaises 28800, fol. 4r. ISIDORE, Etymologiae IX, 3.16 : Augustus ideo apud Romanos nomen imperii est, eo quod olim augerent rempublicam amplificando. Isidori Hispalensis episcopi Etymologiarum siue Originum libri XX (LINDSAY [1957]). 3 Y compris au Moyen Âge, cf. Lexikon des Mittelalters, 1, col. 1232-1233. L’adverbe consequamment, bien attesté en moyen français à partir du XIVe siècle (FEW 2-2, 1064b, s.v. consequi), prend ici le double sens de « par la suite » et « en conséquence ». 2

190

MATTIA CAVAGNA

enluminés, qui conservent ce texte ont très probablement fait partie de la collection privée de François Ier qui les a utilisés comme cadeaux diplomatiques 4. Une telle attitude s’inscrit dans une tradition bien enracinée car depuis le Moyen Âge central, la couronne française n’a jamais cessé de regarder vers l’histoire de Rome et de l’Empire Romain comme dans un miroir. L’attribution du titre Auguste au roi Philippe II (1179-1223) n’est que l’exemple le plus célèbre de ce phénomène 5 qui s’étend bien évidemment aussi au duché de Bourgogne. Au milieu du XVe siècle, Georges Chastelain applique le titre Auguste au duc Philippe le Bon en insistant à la fois sur ses fortunes et richesses et sur sa date de naissance qui coïncide avec le début du mois d’août 6. Au début du XVIe siècle, Jean Lemaire de Belges, un autre écrivain bourguignon, emploie le titre au féminin et l’attribue à Marguerite d’Autriche, fille de l’empereur Maximilien Ier et petite-fille du duc Charles le Téméraire. Dans l’ouvrage intitulé La Concorde du genre humain, il insiste tout d’abord sur le fait que cette princesse « est elle seulle plus augmentatifve que toutes les autres ensemble » 7. Mais le titre prend ici tout son sens par rapport à l’image d’Auguste en tant que pacificateur de l’Empire. En effet, cet ouvrage en forme de panégyrique célèbre Marguerite Auguste en tant que promotrice de la pacification entre Louis XII et Maximilien d’Autriche, qui a abouti aux traités de Cambrai (10 décembre 1508) 8. La présente contribution se propose de mettre en exergue les principales caractéristiques attribuées à l’empereur Auguste dans l’histoire de sa réception médiévale jusqu’à l’aube de la Renaissance, essentiellement à travers les œuvres historiographiques en langue française. La thèse allemande de Renate WenzelBeck 9, qui offre un aperçu de l’image d’Auguste dans la littérature française 4

Voir la notice en ligne sur le site www.gallica.bnf.fr. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des Manuscrits, nouvelles acquisitions françaises 28800. Titre : Vie des Douze Césars. Date de mise en ligne : 09/03/2015. 5 Le roi Philippe II Auguste, de la dynastie capétienne, reçoit son célèbre surnom par le chroniqueur Rigord de Saint-Denis. Ce choix est justifié par le fait qu’il a « augmenté » le domaine de l’État et qu’il est né au mois d’août, lequel prend justement son nom de l’empereur, comme le rappelle par ailleurs SUÉTONE, Aug. 31, 2. Cf. J. BALDWIN, Philippe Auguste [1986], trad. fr., Paris, 1991, p. 23. 6 Par quoy, ayant tourné mes yeux à ce […] ay attribué le nom vray d’Auguste duc, tant pour ses fortunes et félicités qui tousjours estoient augustes et multipliantes, comme pour ce que, le dernier jour de juillet, au commencement d’aoust, il nasqui en la montance du signe du lyon, dont, et par nature et par propriété du mois et du signe, il se doit et peut nommer Auguste. Œuvres de Georges Chastellain, éd. DE LETTENHOVE (1963), p. 150. 7 Jean Lemaire de Belges, La Concorde du genre humain, éd. JODOGNE (1964), p. 68. 8 Ibid., p. 69 : plus digne d’estre nommée «  Auguste  », non seulement eu regard au nombre multiplié des traictiéz de paix… Marguerite est appelée auguste aussi ailleurs, cf. par exemple le traité anonyme sur l’éducation de Charles Quint, conservé à la KBR, ms. 10316 : Marguerite perpetuelle, auguste archiduchesse d’Autrice. 9 WENZEL-BECK (2002).

AUGUSTE DANS L’HISTORIOGRAPHIE FRANÇAISE

191

médiévale, a constitué un point de départ important pour mes recherches et je tiens à lui rendre hommage. Pour la définition du corpus, en revanche, je me suis davantage appuyé sur le répertoire établi par Frédéric Duval dans son ouvrage de référence Dire Rome en français 10. Quant aux sources exploitées par les auteurs médiévaux, Suétone et Orose constituent certainement les références principales 11. À ceux-ci il faut ajouter surtout la Glose à l’Évangile de Luc, qui attribue à Auguste un rôle de tout premier plan dans le contexte de la naissance du Christ. Pour la tradition latine du Moyen Âge central, je retiendrai surtout quatre sources, datées des XIIe et XIIIe siècles, dont j’analyserai les traductions françaises : les Mirabilia Vrbis Romae, une sorte de guide de la ville écrit par un bénédictin anonyme vers 1140, les Otia imperialia de Gervais de Tilbury (1214), le Speculum historiale de Vincent de Beauvais (vers 1250) et la Légende Dorée de Jacques de Voragine (vers 1260). 2. La Pax Romana à l’époque de la Guerre de Cent ans La vision médiévale de l’histoire romaine est marquée par une forte tendance césaro-centrique. L’ouvrage intitulé Li fet des Romains, compilé ensemble de Saluste et de Suetoine et de Lucain (vers 1214), par exemple, coïncide en réalité avec une vaste biographie de Jules César 12. D’après l’historiographie du XIIIe siècle, c’est le règne de Jules César qui marque la fin de l’Antiquité, comme en témoigne la célèbre compilation intitulée Histoire ancienne jusqu’à César (vers 1213-14) 13. La Chronique dite de Baudouin d’Avesnes, commencée vers 1280, élargit quelque peu la perspective. Cette chronique universelle est une sorte d’ouvrage modulaire et connaît plusieurs amplifications. Parmi celles-ci, on retiendra surtout l’Histoire des douze cesars 14 qui, comme on le verra par la suite, accorde à Auguste une place assez importante. Au XIVe siècle, on assiste à l’essor de la traduction de plusieurs grands ouvrages latins de l’Antiquité et du Moyen Âge. Jean de Vignay, qui travaille DUVAL (2012), p. 25-30. Pour la tradition de Suétone au Moyen Âge, Cf. ROCHEBOUET (2011), p. 190-195. Le manuscrit le plus ancien conservant l’œuvre de Suétone (Paris, BnF, lat. 6115) date du IXe siècle. À propos d’Orose, cf. l’article de VALENTINI (2011), p. 201-202. 12 FLUTRE / SNEYDERS DE VOGEL (1938). À propos de l’engouement pour César, cf. aussi, par exemple, les deux ouvrages de Jean de Thuin, Le roman de Jules César, COLLET (1993) et Li Hystore de Julius Cesar. Eine altfranzösische Erzählung in Prosa, SETTEGAST (1881). 13 Cette vaste compilation d’histoire antique se termine, dans la plupart des témoins, sur le triomphe de Pompée. Elle reste en partie inédite. Pour la liste des manuscrits et les éditions partielles disponibles, je renvoie à la page correspondante dans les Archives de Littérature du Moyen Âge, éd. L. BRUN : http://www.arlima.net/ 14 Ouvrage inédit. Toutes les citations sont tirées du manuscrit de Bruxelles, KBR, 9277. 10 11

192

MATTIA CAVAGNA

sous Philippe VI de Valois (1328-1350), est un véritable précurseur de ce mouvement et traduit, à lui seul, trois des sources latines que je viens de citer : les Oisivetez des emperieres, le Miroir historial et la Legende des sains 15. Bien d’autres traducteurs, actifs sous le patronage de Jean le Bon et surtout de Charles V, dans la deuxième moitié du XIVe siècle, contribuent largement à la redécouverte de l’Antiquité 16. À l’époque de la guerre de Cent Ans (1337-1453), l’empereur Auguste, dans son image de pacificateur de l’Empire, bénéficie d’une faveur sans pareille et est présenté, par plusieurs écrivains français et bourguignons, comme le prototype du souverain idéal. Dans son Livre de la Mutacion de Fortune, Christine de Pizan considère la période de la pax Augusta comme une sorte d’âge d’or de l’histoire universelle : Si n’orent pas esté laisans Rommains, en ce temps, com pouez Lire, de Fortune avouez, Qui si hault les ot anobly Et puis si les mist en oubly ! En ce temps, Jhesu Crist nasqui ; Paix le monde hot, tant qu’il vesqui. (22052-58) 17

Quelques années plus tard, sous le règne turbulent de Charles VI, la même Christine de Pizan compose le Chemin de Longue Étude, où elle trace, entre autres, les traits du souverain idéal. Celui-ci est un prince descendant de Jules César et d’Octavien-Auguste : C’est un prince qui dessendus Est d’empereurs et de ducs ; […] De Romme par succession, De Cesar, le grant conquereur, Et d’Octovïen l’empereur. (3109-10, 3120-22) 18

La célébration de la paix est un véritable topos de cette époque et OctavienAuguste est considéré comme un souverain idéal par plusieurs autres écrivains, comme Eustache Deschamps, Alain Chartier et Octavien de Saint-Gelais 19. À l’instar des poètes, les historiographes de la fin du Moyen Âge accordent désormais à Auguste une place précise à l’intérieur de l’histoire universelle, comme en témoigne par exemple l’œuvre de Jean Mansel, écrivain bourguignon À propos de ce traducteur, cf. CAVAGNA (2014), p. 141-255. Cf. par exemple la traduction de l’Histoire romaine de Tite-Live par Pierre Bersuire et celle du De Ciuitate Dei par Raoul de Presles, cf. BERTRAND (2013). 17 SOLENTE (1966), p. 27. 18 TARNOWSKI (2000), p. 270. 19 BOUTET / STRUBEL (1979) ; VAN HEMELRYCK (2006). 15

16

AUGUSTE DANS L’HISTORIOGRAPHIE FRANÇAISE

193

actif au milieu du XVe siècle. Dans sa première rédaction, sa grande compilation intitulée Fleur des histoires 20 se compose de trois livres contenant respectivement : I. l’histoire de l’Antiquité à partir de la Création jusqu’à l’époque de l’empereur Auguste ; II. la vie du Christ, les actes des apôtres et les miracles de la Vierge ; III. une série d’hagiographies et de récits exemplaires suivis d’une traduction abrégée des Dialogues de Grégoire le Grand. Quelques années plus tard, le duc Philippe le Bon demande à son escripvain de réaliser une nouvelle compilation centrée sur l’histoire de Rome. L’ouvrage, intitulé Histoires romaines, est achevé en 1454. En réalité, les deux grands manuscrits qui le conservent (Paris, Arsenal, 5087 et 5088) sont en large partie occupés par les conquêtes de Jules César. Le jeune Octavien n’entre en scène qu’au feuillet 292r du deuxième volume, lorsque le texte évoque sa bataille contre Antoine et Cléopâtre. Deux feuillets plus loin, on lit cette rubrique : Comment Octovien retourna a Romme a noble triumphe, comment il submist les Gaullois, les Espagnolz et les Germains et comment, tout le monde apaisié, Nostre Seigneur nasquit en ce monde 21. Ce titre synthétise parfaitement la place qu’occupe Auguste dans la conception de l’histoire à la fin du Moyen Âge. Désormais, la fin de l’histoire antique coïncide avec son règne et son activité de pacificateur prépare l’avènement de Jésus-Christ. Comme on l’a vu, un autre écrivain bourguignon, Georges Chastelain, applique le surnom auguste à Philippe le Bon. Dans le « miroir au prince » qu’il adresse à Charles le Hardi, successeur de Philippe le Bon, le même auteur s’efforce de transmettre au jeune prince les valeurs de paix et de concorde en comparant les deux ducs aux deux grandes figures de l’histoire romaine : ton père a été César, toi tu seras Auguste 22. 3. Nascituro Domino describitur mundus Dans le Miroir historial, traduit par Jean de Vignay autour de 1330, le chapitre 71 du livre VII est intitulé Des victoires des Rommains et de l’apaisement du monde soubs Augustien Cesar. La dernière rubrique mérite une attention toute particulière : La Glose sus Lucas. Cesar Augustien regna XII anz en pais environ la nativité Nostre Seigneur. Si que a la lectre soit veue aconplie cele prophecie qui dit « il fondront leur glaives en coutres et leur lances en faus. Gent ne leveront pas glaive contre gent et cetera  ». En cel temps volt nestre Jhesu Crist que il quist la pais 20

La première rédaction est conservée dans le ms. de Bruxelles, KBR 9232. Paris, Arsenal 5087, 294vb. 22 Georges Chastelain, Advertissement au duc Charles, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE (1865), vol. 7, p. 316. Par ailleurs, on sait que cette œuvre didactique n’a pas eu l’effet espéré : l’image du pacificateur d’Auguste n’a pas été assez puissante pour tempérer le caractère belliqueux de Charles le Téméraire. 21

194

MATTIA CAVAGNA

a grant oevre et l’ama, et envoia les ameurs de pais. Et voult certes que les desciples que il devoit envoier preeschier peussent aler seurement la ou il vousissent 23.

Le texte reprend et traduit ici la Glose à l’Évangile de Luc 24. Le lien entre la paix et la naissance du Christ repose ici à la fois sur des arguments « idéologiques » – Jésus-Christ est, bien sûr, partisan de la paix – et sur des raisons pratiques : la sécurité des disciples est une condition nécessaire pour la diffusion de la nouvelle religion. On notera surtout que la pacification de l’Empire est inscrite à l’intérieur du dessein universel, en ce sens où elle a été prophétisée à l’époque de l’Ancien Testament, comme en témoigne la citation tirée du livre d’Isaïe (II, 4) 25. Cette idée se retrouve déjà chez Orose 26. La Glose insiste également sur l’importance du recensement réalisé par Auguste et en propose même une interprétation anagogique : l’empereur fait recenser les hommes de son royaume comme Dieu fait inscrire les saints dans le livre du salut éternel. Auguste devient ainsi un véritable instrument dans les mains du Créateur 27. Cette suggestion a sans doute inspiré l’auteur anonyme de l’Histoire des douze cesars  : Mais tantost qu’ilz furent en la cité arrivez, a sçavoir en ceste propre nuit, la glorieuse Vierge se delivra du Saulveur de lignie humaine Jhesucrist, filz de Dieu le Createur, comme l’Euvangille tesmoigne parlant de cest edit cesarien qui fut fait 23 Paris, BnF, fr. 316, fol. 294vb (la coïncidence du feuillet avec la référence donnée à la note 21 paraît suspecte mais elle a été soigneusement vérifiée). 24 Glosa super Lucam – Augustus XII annis circa tempus natiuitatis Christi, in pace regnauit, ut etiam ad litteram completum uideatur illud propheticum: “Conflabunt gladios in uomeres, et lanceas in falces. Non leuabit gens contra gentem gladium, et cetera”. (Isaïe II, 4) Tali autem tempore uoluit Christus nasci, quia pacem magnopere, quesiuit et, amauit et pacis amatores inuisit. Voluit etiam ut discipuli quos predicandum missurus erat, quocumque uellent securi transire possent et ab imminentium seditionum feruore tremenda Romani nominis umbra protegerentur. La source de la Glose est le commentaire à l’Évangile de Luc par Bède le Vénérable. Pour la Glose, cf. BOURGAIN / SIRI / STUTZMANN (2015). 25 Nicolas de Lyre, dans ses Postillae à la Glose, ajoute une deuxième citation tirée du Psaume 71 : Ex hoc etiam patet quod Christus natus fuit tempore maximae pacis, sicut fuerat prenunciatum a prophetis, “Orietur in diebus eius iustitia et abundantia pacis”. Nicolas de Lyre rappelle aussi l’étymologie du nom : Augustus ab augendo, quia notabiliter auxit imperium Romanum. 26 VERDIER (1982). 27 Nascituro Domino describitur mundus quia ille apparebat in carne qui electos suos ascriberet in aeternitate, in quo nomen Augusti uere impletur, qui suos augere sufficiens, censoribus suae professionis non pecuniae sed fidei oblacione signare precepit, quia dum professio secularis obtenditur spiritualis impletur. Abolito autem censu synagogae uetusto, nouus census ecclesiae paratur, qui tormenta non exigit, sed aufert, qui non uno numismate, sed una signatur fide. Quietissimum et pacatissimum erat regnum, quia una descriptione totum mundum conclusit. BOURGAIN / SIRI / STUTZMANN (2015), col. 706-707.

AUGUSTE DANS L’HISTORIOGRAPHIE FRANÇAISE

195

a grant mistere et au grant honneur de l’empire Rommain. Et est chose bien esmerveillable comment le Seigneur de tous les cieulz, de toute la terre et de la mer, Dominateur de toute sa creation, tantost qu’il eut prinst char humaine cha jus voult estre escript et nombré ou publicque registre des mortelz 28.

Le chroniqueur affirme que le recensement fut fait a grant mistere et au grant honneur de l’empire Rommain, ce qui revient à lui conférer une sorte d’aura religieuse, étant donné que le mot mystère prend ici le sens, bien attesté en moyen français, d’« intervention divine » (DMF, s.v. mystère). Il souligne ensuite un paradoxe qui est parfaitement cohérent avec le dispositif exégétique : au moment de son incarnation, le Créateur de tout l’univers accepte de se plier aux exigences, toutes terrestres, de l’administration publique (la locution adverbiale cha jus signifie « dans l’ici-bas », donc « sur terre »). Le publicque registre des mortelz doit être considéré comme le correspondant, sur le plan anagogique, du « livre de la vie (éternelle) » dont parle l’Apocalypse de saint Jean (XX, 12). La même Histoire des douze cesars relate aussi une anecdote à saveur hagiographique comprenant un miracle qui s’est produit au moment où le jeune Octavien succède à Jules César à la tête de l’Empire : Icellui Octovien n’avoit lors que environ XVIII ans d’eage. Et fut ce, comme dist Orose en son sixieme livre, l’an de la fondation de Romme VII cens et X. Si fut veu le jour qu’il entra a Romme environ heure de tierce ung cercle qui environnoit le corps du solleil a maniere de l’arc en ciel en ramembrance – ce dist Orose – qu’il seroit tres grant ou monde et que en son temps devoit naistre le Createur du solleil comme Sebille luy monstra visiblement 29.

Devant le soleil entouré d’une sorte d’arc-en-ciel, Auguste devient une véritable figura Christi et anticipe, en quelque sorte, le miracle de la Rédemption lié à la mort du Sauveur. On notera que dans ce court extrait, le chroniqueur sent l’exigence de faire appel deux fois à sa source, Orose, qui fait office de garant 30. 4. A leur desordonnee requeste, Sibille, prophete, fut appellee Le passage de l’Histoire des douze cesars cité ci-dessus fait allusion à un autre épisode miraculeux destiné à avoir un succès très important, tant dans la littérature que dans l’iconographie 31. Il s’agit de la vision de la Vierge à l’enfant

28

Bruxelles, KBR 9277, fol. 161va-b. Bruxelles, KBR 9277, fol. 146va-b. 30 ARNAUD-LINDET (1991). Ce miracle est rapporté aussi par Calendre, auteur des Empereurs de Rome (1213-20), MILLARD (1957), p. 93. Calendre insiste sur le fait que ci ot bele senefiance, v. 2256. 31 OROSE, Hist. VI. Cf. aussi, dans ce volume, les contributions de J. REYNIERS, pour l’iconographie, et de J. KOOPMANS, pour la tradition théâtrale. 29

196

MATTIA CAVAGNA

dont l’empereur aurait bénéficié grâce à l’intercession de la Sibylle Tiburtine 32. Comme en témoignent les Vies des douze cesars, cette légende est toujours d’actualité au début du XVIe siècle : Il gouverna la cité en si tresgrande tranquilité et paix qu’il estoit si agreable au senat que comme dieu le vouloit adoré. Laquelle chose ledi Octavien refusa et appella la sibille Tiburtine desirant savoir par elle se au monde nasquiroit point homme plus grant que luy. Et comme le jour de novel ladi sibille vouloit donner response, a l’heure de minuyt s’aparut ung sercle d’or, et alentour du soleil, et au meilleu une vierge tresbelle tenant ung enfant en son giron. Et alors ladi sibille luy va dire : « L’enfant que tu peult veoir est plus grant que toy par quoy le te convient adorer » 33.

Comme l’a bien montré Julien Abed dans sa thèse, cette légende puise ses origines chez Suétone et Orose 34. Le premier rapporte qu’Auguste refusa le titre de dominus 35 ; le deuxième interprète ce refus dans une perspective chrétienne. D’après Orose, Auguste a choisi, tout à fait consciemment, de ne pas usurper le titre du Christ naissant : Eodemque tempore hic ad quem rerum omnium summa concesserat dominum se appellari non passus est, immo non ausus, quo uerus Dominus totius generis humani inter homines natus est 36.

À ces deux sources vient s’ajouter la quatrième églogue de Virgile, où l’annonce de la Sibylle de Cumes a été interprétée comme la préfiguration de la venue du Christ 37. La fusion des deux traditions en un seul récit a probablement été élaborée dans le milieu des écrivains byzantins 38 et a été ensuite véhiculée en Occident par plusieurs textes latins de grande diffusion, comme les Mirabilia Vrbis Romae, traduits en français au XIIIe siècle sous l’intitulé Merveilles de Rome, les Gesta Romanorum et surtout la Légende dorée et le Speculum humanae Sur cet épisode, voir désormais POUCET (2015). À propos de la Sibylle, cf. aussi MCGINN (1999) et surtout ABED (2009). 33 Paris, BnF, n.a.fr. 28800, fol. 4r. 34 ABED (2009). 35 SUETONE, Aug. 52, 2 – 53, 1 : Dictaturam magna ui offerente populo genu nixus deiecta ab umeris toga nudo pectore deprecatus est. Domini appellationem ut maledictum et odproprium sempere exhorruit. 36 OROSE, Hist. VI, 22, 5 : « À l’époque même où le vrai maître de tout le genre humain était né parmi les hommes, celui à qui le pouvoir universel avait été accordé ne toléra pas d’être appelé le maître des hommes ; bien plus, il ne l’osa pas. » Dans Les empereors de Rome, Calendre [n. 30], qui suit de près Orose, écrit qu’Auguste n’accepte que le titre de « justicier » : Si fist crïer par tote Rome / Que il n’i ait si hardi home / Qui le claint mes que justicier / Ne se vialt de plus avancier (v. 2307-10, p. 95). 37 Voir notamment l’étude classique de COURCELLE (1957) et, récemment, UCCELLINI (2014), p. 817-818. 38 ABED (2009). 32

AUGUSTE DANS L’HISTORIOGRAPHIE FRANÇAISE

197

saluationis 39. Les trois séquences composant cet épisode méritent d’être analysées séparément car, dans la tradition médiévale, elles subissent des variations significatives. On note tout d’abord que la pax Augusta, dont il a été question au paragraphe précédent, a été très appréciée par les contemporains de l’empereur, tant et si bien que, d’après la tradition médiévale, les sénateurs de Rome voulurent l’élever au rang d’un dieu. La version proposée par les Merveilles de Rome insiste sur le fait que l’admiration idolâtre dont il fait l’objet repose sur un ensemble de vertus et, en premier lieu, sur sa beauté physique : Quant li senator virent Octovian qui estoit si biaus, si sages, si precieus que nulz ne pooit trover son per, et li mondes estoit soumis a lui, si distrent  : «  Sire, nos te volons aorer  !  » 40. La légende reprend ensuite le motif de l’humilité : Auguste refuse les honneurs qu’on lui propose et demande conseil à la Sibylle Tiburtine. Les Vies des douze cesars rapportent la requête d’Auguste sur le mode du discours indirect : desirant savoir par elle se au monde nasquiroit point homme plus grant que luy. La requête comprend ici l’objet de la prophétie, ce qui crée un effet d’anticipation. La version des Merveilles de Rome est moins explicite, mais elle ajoute un détail important : Et il refusa et demanda l’espace de .iii. jors. Et demanda Sibile de Tybre por li consiller, et consilla a lui 41. En réalité, dans la version latine des Mirabilia Vrbis Romae, c’est la Sibylle elle-même qui, avant de se prononcer, demande un délai de trois jours pendant lesquels elle se livre à la pratique, toute chrétienne, du jeûne : Qui renitens inducias postulauit, ad se Sibillam Tiburtina, uocauit, cui quod senatores dixerant, recitauit, que spatium trium dierum petiit, in quibus artum ieiunium operata est 42. Dans la version de la Légende dorée, l’idolâtrie est, pour ainsi dire, déclassée du rang du sénat à celui du peuple. De plus, c’est le peuple lui-même qui fait appel à la Sibylle et non l’empereur. Voici la traduction par Jean de Vignay qu’a connue le Moyen Âge francophone :

Cf. GRAF (1882-1883), p. 312-320. ROSS (1969), p. 617-665, part. p. 626. ROSS propose également le texte latin. Voici le passage en question : Tempore Octauiani imperatoris senatores uidentes cum tantae pulchritudinis, quod nemo in oculos eius intueri posset, et tante prosperitatis et pacis, quod totum mundum sibi tributarium fecerat, et dicunt  : «  te adorare uolumus, quia diuinitas est in te. Si hoc non esset, non tibi omnia subirent prospera  ». Renart le Contrefait utilise une formule vague : il fut si amiable au Senat qu’ilz le voulrent aorer comme dieu. La version latine des Mirabilia a été reprise par Gervais de Tilbury dans ses Otia imperialia, par Godefroi de Viterbe dans le Speculum regum, par Fazio degli Uberti dans son Dittamondo (vers 1356) et par Pétrarque, dans sa lettre à Giovanni Colonna. Cf. ABED (2009). 41 ROSS (1969), p. 626. 42 ROSS (1969), p. 619. 39 40

198

MATTIA CAVAGNA

Et Innocent pape dit que quand Octovien l’empereur eut mis tout le monde a sa subgection, il pleust tant au peuple que ilz le vouloient adourer comme Dieu. Et celui sage empereur sçavoit bien qu’il estoit mortel, si ne voulut pas prendre nom de immortel. Et lors, a leur desordonnee requeste, Sibille, prophete, fut appellee et vouloit sçavoir par sa prophecie se nul greigneur de luy estoit a naistre jamais au monde 43.

Pour un historien comme Orose, le fait qu’Auguste consulte une prophétesse relève tout simplement d’une pratique cohérente avec son époque. Une telle attitude ne semble pas concevable pour la source que Jacques de Voragine cite explicitement, à savoir le pape Innocent III 44. La volonté de diviniser l’empereur et l’idée de faire appel à une prophétesse sont ici placées sur le même plan et constituent deux manifestations de l’idolâtrie et de l’ignorance d’un peuple païen auquel l’auteur oppose la sagesse de l’empereur 45. En effet, celui-ci avait refusé de se considérer comme immortel bien avant l’entrée en scène de la Sibylle. La scène centrale de l’épisode porte sur la prophétie de la naissance du Christ accompagnée d’une apparition de la Vierge sur le mode iconographique de la femme apocalyptique 46. L’auteur des Vies des douze cesars (cf. l’extrait ci-dessus) place le miracle à minuit, alors que les autres versions indiquent plutôt le midi 47. S’agit-il d’une mauvaise compréhension de la source ou bien d’un choix conscient ? Dans cette deuxième hypothèse, on pourrait imaginer que l’auteur s’est efforcé de conférer à la scène un plus grand impact visuel grâce à l’opposition « ténèbres – lumière ». La Légende dorée donne quelques détails supplémentaires tant d’ordre logistique – la scène a lieu dans la chambre de l’empereur – que métaphysique : Et Sibille estoit seule en la chambre de l’empereur pour soy adviser, au milleu du jour, ung sercle d’or apparut entour le souleil, et au milleu du cercle estoit une tresbelle vierge sur ung aultel et portoit ung enffant en son giron. Et lors, Sibille monstra celle chose a l’empereur : et si comme l’empereur se merveilloit forment

DUNN-LARDEAU (1997), légende 6, p. 148. Innocent III, Sermo II de natiuitate Domini, éd. J.-P. MIGNE, Patrologia Latina, 217, col. 455-459, part. 457. 45 L’expression a leur desordonnee requeste traduit le groupe ad illorum instantiam (éd. cit., p. 69). Dans le texte latin, le substantif instantia a une connotation tout à fait neutre. L’ajout de l’adjectif, très négativement connoté, desordonnee, confère à la traduction une efficacité remarquable. 46 On en trouvera plusieurs exemples dans le volume MORELLO / FRANCIA / FUSCO (2005). 47 RAYNAUD / LEMAÎTRE (1914) : Mais ce tempz pendant qu’elle estoit avec l’empereur, le jour de la nativité de Jhesucrist, celle Sebille estoit en la chanbre de l’empereur, et entendoit a ses prophecies. Et a l’heure de midy elle veÿt entour le Soleil ung cercle d’or, se lui sambla, et ou millieu de ce cercle une vierge tresbelle qui tenoit sus ung autel ung tresbel enffant en son giron. 43 44

AUGUSTE DANS L’HISTORIOGRAPHIE FRANÇAISE

199

de ceste vision, il ouyt une voix disant : « C’est l’autel du ciel » et Sibille luy dist : « Cest enffant est greigneur de toy et pour ce le dois tu adourer » 48.

La Sibylle se trouve ici en tête à tête avec l’empereur, dans sa chambre, pour l’interroger. Le ciel s’ouvre, un cercle apparaît autour du soleil et ils assistent à l’apparition d’une vierge assise sur un autel portant un enfant dans ses bras. Une voix mystérieuse prononçant les mots Hec est ara celi, donne la clé de cette apparition. La Sibylle explique alors à Auguste que l’enfant est le fils de Dieu et l’empereur lui rend tous les honneurs et refuse, avec plus de force, d’être déifié. Dans les Mirabilia Vrbis Romae, la Sibylle prononce une séquence de trois hexamètres : Post tertium diem respondit imperatori: Hoc pro certo erit, domine imperator: “Iudicii signum tellus sudore madescet, E caelo rex adueniet per saecla futurus, Scilicet in carne praesens, ut iudicet orbem”, Et cetera quae sequuntur 49.

Comme en témoigne la séquence et cetera quae sequuntur, les vers prononcés par la Sibylle sont une citation renvoyant à un texte qui est censé être connu du public 50. En fait, il s’agit des Oracles sibyllins (8, 217-219). Le passage en entier est repris par Saint Augustin dans son De Ciuitate Dei (XVIII, 23). Le traducteur français s’efforce de conserver l’allure poétique de cette réponse mystérieuse 51. Quant au dénouement de l’histoire, dans les Merveilles de Rome, l’anecdote se termine sur l’explication topo-étiologique concernant la fondation de l’église de Sainte-Marie in Ara Coeli. Voici le passage dans la traduction française : Puis vint as senators et lor dist cest avision. Et il s’en mervillerent tuit. Et fu escrite en la chambre a l’empereor ou est l’eglise de Sainte Marie de Capitole. Et por ce est ele apelee Sainte Marie du Ciel Doré, et i sont orandroit les Freres Meneurs 52.

Comme l’explique Julien Abed, l’objectif de ce texte – à l’origine un guide pour pèlerins – est « d’asseoir le statut de Rome comme nouvelle ville sainte, et de

DUNN-LARDEAU (1997), p. 148. ROSS (1969), p. 639. 50 Une telle pratique est généralement employée, on le sait, pour les renvois aux citations bibliques. 51 Le résultat, obtenu en faisant rimer les désinences des verbes conjugués au futur, est assez médiocre. Et ele respondi ensi  : «  Du ciel vendra / Qui le monde jugera, / Et touz vos gouvernera, / Et qui la terre amoitera  », ROSS (1969), p. 628. 52 Ibid. 48 49

200

MATTIA CAVAGNA

revisiter l’Antiquité et l’époque païenne pour la charger de légendes qui mettent en scène la préparation de la ville à la venue du Christ » 53. La version de la légende proposée par le Speculum historiale évoque trois sources, à savoir Virgile, saint Augustin et saint Jérôme. Voici la traduction réalisée par Jean de Vignay : Augustin dit au Xe livre de la Cité Dieu aucunes choses estre propheciees de Virgille de Jhesu Crist. Si comme celle. « La nouvelle lignie est ja envoiee du hault ciel », et ces autres choses qui s’ensuivent, as quiex vers de Virgille celui Augustin adjouste : « La quelle chose il ne dist pas – ce dist il – de li meismes au IIIIe Eloge de celi, il le demonstre en la fin d’un vers disant ‘Le derrenier aage du ditié de la cumeiennne est ja venu’, c’est assavoir de une des dix Sebilles, celle qui fu dite Cumeienne, de quoy il dist ceste chose appert appertement avoir esté dite de Sebile la Cumeienne ». Mais il ne plaist pas a Jheroumme ces dis ne les semblables de Virgille estre prophecié, mais estre descouvers a Virgille des Centoniens artificieusement de Jhesu Crist 54.

La traduction, quelque peu chaotique, de ce passage reflète une caractéristique propre à l’encyclopédie, à savoir l’imbrication des sources et des citations (d’où la difficulté, pour l’éditeur, de ponctuer le passage). Le texte rapporte l’opinion exprimée par saint Augustin au sujet de la source première, à savoir la quatrième églogue de Virgile. Dans le deuxième discours rapporté, il faut donc comprendre : « la quelle chose il (sujet : Virgile) ne dist pas – ce dist il (sujet : saint Augustin)… ». Comme c’est souvent le cas, en outre, le compilateur s’efforce d’instituer un véritable dialogue entre plusieurs sources et oppose les opinions de saint Augustin et de saint Jérôme. Le premier confirme que l’églogue de Virgile doit être interprétée dans une perspective prophétique alors que le deuxième considère cette interprétation comme un artifice 55. Jean d’Outremeuse apprécie à tel point cette légende qu’il la relate deux fois dans sa chronique, toujours d’après la version des Mirabilia Vrbis Romae. La première évocation se trouve dans la section consacrée à la description de Rome, notamment sous la rubrique Ara Coeli 56. La deuxième est placée dans la biographie d’Octavien (p. 352). Dans cette deuxième actualisation de la légende, l’auteur reprend tels quels les deux vers latins cités : iudicii signum tellus sudore madescit… À l’inverse, les chroniques bourguignonnes ne font pas mention de la Sibylle et ne retiennent que le début de l’épisode, ce qui leur permet de focaliser

ABED (2009). Paris, BnF, fr. 316, fol. 259rb-va. 55 JERÔME, Ep. 53, Ad Paulinum, chap. 7 : ac non sic etiam Maronem sine Christo possumus dicere Christianum […] Puerilia sunt haec et circulatorum ludo similia docere quod ignores. 56 BORGNET (1864), p. 72. 53 54

AUGUSTE DANS L’HISTORIOGRAPHIE FRANÇAISE

201

l’attention sur l’humilité de l’empereur. Voici la chronique dite de Baudouin d’Avesnes : Eusebe dist que aprez ces choses quant Cesar Augustus fut repairiez a Romme les senatours luy offrirent la monarchie du monde mais il la refusa 57.

La source citée est la chronique d’Eusèbe de Cesarée qui fait effectivement une allusion, assez sibylline – c’est le cas de le dire – à cet épisode 58. Le refus de l’empereur n’empêche pas pour autant les Romains de bâtir des temples et de forger des statues en son honneur. Poussé par son humilité indéfectible, Auguste va jusqu’à faire fondre les statues : Nul temple il ne vouloit avoir par soi, ains fist fondre toutes les ymages d’argent que les Rommains avoyent faittes en son honnour 59.

Le chroniqueur semble avoir effectivement saisi le noyau originel de la légende. 5. Auguste et Alexandre le Grand Dans un paragraphe intitulé Des presens que ceulz d’Inde firent a Octovien, les Histoires des douze cesars assimilent Auguste au plus célèbre héros de l’Antiquité, à savoir Alexandre le Grand : Ainsi comme Octovien retournoit d’Espaigne et sejournoit a Tarascon, les legatz d’Inde et de Sicie la sauvage vindrent devers luy qui aportoient grans dons et sumptueux presens requerant sa paix et sa grace priant que recepvoir les voulsist soubz sa seignourie, retournant en luy la gloire du grant roi Alexandre qui concquist tout le monde ; car tout ainsi que les occidentales nations se rendirent par leurs messages audit Alexandre pour sa renommee, pareillement recheupt Octovien les foiz orientales par lesdi messages en Occident vers lui envoiez 60.

La mise en parallèle entre les deux souverains est tout à fait explicite : les peuples d’Orient se rendent à l’autorité d’Auguste comme les peuples d’Occident s’étaient rendus à celle d’Alexandre le Grand. On notera que l’auteur met les exploits d’Alexandre en rapport avec l’Occident plutôt qu’avec l’Orient : en effet, Alexandre était considéré comme le fondateur du duché de Bourgogne avant d’avoir gagné l’Orient 61. Le fait d’avoir recours à un personnage de la 57

Bruxelles, KBR 9069, fol. 270rb. L’Histoire des douze cesars reprend exactement le même passage mais insiste plus explicitement sur l’humilité : Eusebe dist que Cesar auguste retourné a Romme ceste fois les consulz pour exceder tout triumphe accoustumé luy presenterent la monarchie du monde, mais par son humilité le refusa. Bruxelles, KBR 9277, fol. 159vb. 58 HELM (1956), p. 164-165: Augustus, cum ei monarchia deferretur, rennuit. 59 Bruxelles, KBR 9069, fol. 273va 60 Bruxelles, KBR 9277, fol. 159rb-va. 61 Sur l’image d’Alexandre le Grand dans nos régions (à l’époque bourguignonne), voir BLONDEAU (2009).

202

MATTIA CAVAGNA

renommée d’Alexandre le Grand permet à l’auteur de mieux définir la place d’Auguste à l’intérieur de l’histoire universelle. Une telle assimilation a sans doute été inspirée par Suétone. Dans la Vie d’Auguste, la figure d’Alexandre le Grand est en effet évoquée à plusieurs reprises car l’empereur le considérait apparemment comme le monarque idéal. Au chapitre 18, Suétone raconte que, pendant sa campagne d’Égypte, Auguste fit ouvrir le tombeau d’Alexandre le Grand, fit retirer son corps et lui mit une couronne sur la tête, en signe de respect et d’admiration 62. Au chapitre 50, il rappelle que l’image d’Alexandre le Grand fut choisie comme cachet pour les actes publics et pour d’autres documents de la diplomatie. De son côté, Orose (6, 21, 19) dit que les ambassadeurs d’Inde et de Schytie sont venus trouver Auguste à Tarragone (en 25 av. J.-C.). Gervais de Tilbury semble également rapprocher, dans les Otia imperialia, les figures d’Auguste et d’Alexandre, en ce sens où il les considère, aux côtés d’Adam et de Noé, comme les représentants et les chefs des quatre grandes monarchies qui ont façonné l’histoire du monde 63. Chacun de ces quatre personnages se voit confier un rôle très précis. Ainsi, Adam est le premier père, car Dieu lui a confié la terre (Gen. I, 28) ; Noé a partagé la terre entre ses trois fils (tradition d’origine apocryphe très largement attestée dans la littérature et l’iconographie médiévale) ; Alexandre a exploré la terre d’Orient, en poussant son regard jusqu’à l’air et la mer ; Auguste a pacifié la terre et fondé l’empire d’Orient et d’Occident. À propos d’Auguste, Gervais de Tilbury reprend le passage de la Glose à l’Évangile de Luc (2, 1) et dit qu’il « commanda que tout le monde fust descript  ». 6. Vertus et vices d’un empereur Comme on l’a vu, les Merveilles de Rome attirent l’attention sur la beauté de l’empereur, en la considérant comme la première de ses vertus. Loin d’être une initiative originale de l’auteur, le motif de la beauté d’Auguste est bien enraciné dans la tradition et puise ses origines chez Suétone qui insiste longuement sur sa beauté et sur l’éclat de son regard. Le passage de Suétone (Vie d’Auguste 79) a été repris, avec des coupures, par Vincent de Beauvais dans son Speculum historiale (livre VII, chap. 43) 64. La beauté de l’empereur est présentée comme SUÉTONE, Aug. 18, 1. Otia imperialia, chap X. La traduction par Jean de Vignay se lit dans l’édition de GERNER (1995). Pour ce passage, cf. tome II, p. 64 : Et de ces iiii lectres fu pris Adam. Aprés y ot iii autres monarchies, de quoi Noé fu l’un, et Alexandre de Macedoine l’autre, et Cesar Augustus fu le tiers. 64 Conformément à sa pratique de compilateur, Vincent de Beauvais a opéré une sélection en omettant certaines parties du chapitre qui ne l’intéressaient pas (l’épisode avec le notable gaulois, § 2) ou qui allaient à l’encontre de la vision idéale d’Auguste (les détails presque « cliniques » du portrait, § 3-4). Fuit autem Augustus forma eximia 62 63

AUGUSTE DANS L’HISTORIOGRAPHIE FRANÇAISE

203

une vertu naturelle : Suétone insiste sur le fait que l’empereur néglige les artifices (lenocinii negligens). Il évoque l’empereur qui se fait raser sans qu’il cesse de lire et écrire : cette image de l’homme d’État qui ne perd pas une minute de son temps précieux a une portée iconique formidable. Suétone se focalise sur l’éclat de son regard et sur le fait qu’il en est très orgueilleux : « il se réjouissait si quelqu’un baissait les yeux devant lui, comme s’il était aveuglé par le soleil », et peu importe si cet « orgueil oculaire » est tout à fait contradictoire avec l’humilité dégagée plus haut. Comme c’est souvent le cas, la tradition médiévale vernaculaire a retenu certains détails et les a soumis à un processus d’amplification assez hyperbolique. Jean d’Outremeuse, dans son Miroir des histors, qui reprend le Speculum historiale, propose l’un des portraits les plus développés de l’empereur. Chis emperere fut li plus beaus hons de monde de corps et de tous ses membres, et tenoit X piés de hault, et astoit gros et reons, et si bien fais qu’ilh n’y falloit riens ; et tout sa plus grant bealteit li gisoit en ses yeux, car quant alcuns le regardoit ès ses yeux, ilh ly sembloit que chu fussent raez de soleal qui issoient de ses yeux 65.

Sans doute afin de renforcer la véracité et la vivacité de ce portrait, le chroniqueur met de côté la description à l’imparfait et insère une petite anecdote au passé simple : Si avint une foiz que I chevalier parloit à ly ; si regardoit la bealteit de ses yeux, si tournat sa faiche d’altre costeit, et quant ons ly demandat porquoy ilh faisoit chu, si respondit que la lumiere de ses yeux ne poioit regardeir nient plus come le soleal 66.

Dans la plupart des textes, la célébration de la beauté de l’empereur est accompagnée par la célébration de la beauté de Rome si bien qu’on assiste à une sorte de télescopage entre l’homme et la ville. Le motif de la beauté vient renforcer le lien qui existe entre le prince bâtisseur et la capitale de son Empire.

et per omnes etatis gradus uenustissima, quamquam omnis lenocinii negligens et in capite comendo tam incuriosus ut raptim compluribus simul tonsoribus operam daret, ac modo tonderet, modo raderet barbam, eoque ipso tempore aut legeret aliquid, aut scriberet. Vultu erat uel in sermone tacitus, tranquillo serenoque, oculos habuit claros ac nitidos, quibus existimari uolebat inesse quiddam diuini uigoris, gaudebatque si qui sibi acrius contuenti quasi ad fulgorem solis uultum submitteret. Staturam breuem, sed que commoditate et equitate membrorum oculeretur, ut non nisi ex comparatione alterius astantis procerioris intelligi posset. Je cite le SH d’après la transcription du ms. 797 de la Bibliothèque municipale de Douai, réalisée par l’Atelier Vincent de Beauvais (Université de Nancy) : http://atilf.atilf.fr/bichard/. 65 Ly Myreur des histors, BORGNET (1864), p. 351. 66 Ibid.

204

MATTIA CAVAGNA

Une fois de plus, ce motif puise ses origines chez Suétone. Au chapitre 28 de la Vie d’Auguste, on repère un passage destiné à avoir un grand succès au Moyen Âge : Vrbem […] excoluit adeo, ut iure sit gloriatus marmoream se relinquere, quam latericiam accepisset 67.

Cette séquence se retrouve telle quelle dans la Chronique de Baudouin d’Avesnes : La cité de Romme il aourna et acrut de quoy il dist a la mort qu’il laissoit la cité ediffyé de marbre qu’il avoit trouvee de tieule 68.

Dans ses Histoires romaines, Jean Mansel célèbre également la beauté de la ville : Forte chose seroit de raconter toute la beaulté et l’excellence, les richesses d’or et d’argent et de pierres precieuses qui furent a Romme en icellui temps. Ancores apperent les traces de pluseurs nobles edefices qui y furent jadis 69.

L’embellissement de la ville de Rome est la conséquence des conquêtes, notamment de la fin de la guerre contre Antoine et Cléopâtre et de la transformation de l’Égypte en province romaine 70. L’Histoire des douze cesars mentionne le fleurissement de l’empire dans une séquence très dense : Oncques ne fut l’empire mieulz en sa valleur florissant en toutes supefluitez que de son temps 71. On notera que le substantif féminin superfluité prend ici une connotation positive et désigne l’« abondance », la « profusion », sous-entendu de biens. La beauté est donc indissolublement liée à la richesse. Or, la richesse est précisément la vertu la plus caractéristique de l’empereur Auguste d’après les auteurs vernaculaires du Moyen Âge, en particulier d’après les sources non historiographiques 72. 67 SUÉTONE, Aug. 28, 5 : « Il l’embellit tellement qu’il se vanta avec raison d’avoir trouvé une ville de briques et d’en avoir laissé une de marbre. » 68 Bruxelles, KBR 9069, fol. 273va. Cf. aussi le Romuleon en françois (DUVAL [2000], p. 294-295) : Justement se glorifia qu’il avoit trouvee la cité de bricque et la laissoit de marbre. 69 Paris, Arsenal 5087, fol. 303rv. 70 SUÉTONE, Aug. II, 17-18 ; cf. aussi OROSE, Hist. VI, 19, 1-18. 71 Bruxelles, KBR 9277, fol. 167va. 72 Parmi celles-ci je citerai Cligès de Chrétien de Troyes (éd. HILKA, v. 3609-3612), le Jeu de Saint Nicolas de Jean Bodel (éd. HENRY, v. 1397-1399), le lai Lanval de Marie de France (éd. RYCHNER, v. 82-86), le Roman de Cassidorus (chap. 43), le Dit de le Mortel Vie de Jean de Condé (v. 46-49), le Jugement du roi de Bohème de Guillaume de Machaut (v. 420-425), le Songe du vieil pélerin des Philippe de Mézières (éd. COOPLAND, p. 331), Le Livre de la Mutacion de Fortune de Christine de Pisan (v. 333335 et 3950), le Quadriloge invectif d’Alain Chartier (éd. BOUCHET, p. 61), le roman Floriant et Florete (v. 103-108), la Ballade contre les ennemis de la France de François Villon. La plupart de ces sources ont été répertoriées par WENZEL-BECK (2002).

AUGUSTE DANS L’HISTORIOGRAPHIE FRANÇAISE

205

La mention que j’ai repérée chez Guillaume de Machaut me paraît particulièrement intéressante : Que sachiez bien, Se j’eüsse l’avoir Otheviën, Et sceüsse le scens de Galiën, Et avec ce tuit li bien fussent mien, Je tout eüsse Guerpi par si, … 73

Auguste est évoqué ici comme la figure emblématique de la richesse et il fonctionne en couplet avec Galien qui, lui, représente le savoir scientifique. Le couplet rimant Octavien  : Gallien est repris, dans le même contexte, par Christine de Pizan 74. Finalement il faut citer la compilation d’histoire romaine de Benvenuto da Imola et en particulier sa traduction par Sébastien Mamerot intitulée Romuleon en François. Cette œuvre attribue également à Auguste des qualités intellectuelles et artistiques, affirmant qu’il estoit expert es ars liberaulx et escripvit bien en vers et en prose 75. Le portrait de l’empereur n’est pourtant pas dépourvu d’aspects négatifs. Certains épisodes de sa vie, que Suétone raconte sur un ton assez neutre, comme la répudiation de Fulvie et Scribonie et le mariage avec Livia (Diu. Aug. 62), ou quelque peu négatif, comme le nombre important de ses adulteria (ibid. 69), voire les attitudes homosexuelles et les débauches qui ont caractérisé sa jeunesse (ibid. 68), semblent avoir fait forte impression sur les auteurs du Moyen Âge. C’est sans doute sur ces épisodes que se fonde l’accusation de luxure, présente dans plusieurs sources vernaculaires. Dans la Chronique de Baudouin d’Avesnes, le portrait tout à fait élogieux de l’empereur subit un infléchissement dans sa partie conclusive (in cauda uenenum) : Et ja soit ce que il fust sy abstinens, sy fu il sy luxurieux que on en parloit trop contre luy car il laissa sa propre femme Juliam et prist la femme a ung chevalier rommain et la tint comme soye par l’ottroy de son mari qui ja en avoit eu II enfans, dont l’un ot a nom Drusus et l’autre Tyberius. A celluy Tyberius donna il sa fille en mariage 76.

73

« Sachez bien que si j’avais possédé la richesse d’Octavien et tout le savoir de Galien, et si j’avais possédé tous les biens du monde, j’aurais tout laissé pour elle » (traduction personnelle). Guillaume de Machaut, Jugement du roi de Behaigne (HOEPFFNER [1908]), v. 420-425, p. 73. 74 Le Livre de la Mutacion de Fortune (SOLENTE [1966]), v. 335-336, tome I, p. 18. 75 DUVAL (2000), p. 304. Le texte latin demeure inédit à l’exception du livre I. Cf. SARASINI (2006), part. p. 223-274. 76 Bruxelles, KBR 9069, fol. 273vb.

206

MATTIA CAVAGNA

Aussi la richesse qui, comme on vient de le voir, est souvent considérée comme une caractéristique définitoire de l’empereur, est parfois vue avec méfiance. Dans une optique chrétienne, la richesse devient en effet synonyme de convoitise. Dans une version française du roman des Sept sages de Rome, notamment, le rôle du roi riche et avare est attribué à l’empereur Auguste : Octeviiens fu ja a Romme. En cest siecle n’ot plus sage homme, Ne mielz amast argent ne or ; Em pluisors lius fu son tresor. Le Tour Croissant en fist emplir, D’or et d’argent molt bien garnir 77.

Ce passage est tiré du deuxième apologue, intitulé « Gaza », raconté par le deuxième sage. Auguste y est décrit comme un souverain très riche, avare et suspicieux. Il commande à Virgile de construire la statue avec les clochettes pour surveiller les révoltes. Il s’agit d’une variante de la Saluatio Romae 78. Ce texte attribue à l’empereur une liste de vices assez importante : il est assoiffé de pouvoir, orgueilleux, passionné des jeux de hasard et, bien sûr, luxurieux, car il répudie Scribonia et épouse Livie 79. 7. Conclusions Associé tantôt à la richesse et à l’expansion militaire, tantôt à la paix et au bon gouvernement, l’image de l’empereur Auguste a traversé, d’une façon assez discrète mais constante, l’historiographie du Moyen Âge jusqu’à l’aube de la Renaissance. S’il est vrai que son règne coïncide avec la naissance du Christ, comme le rappelle fortement une source connue de tout l’Occident chrétien – à savoir la Glose aux Évangiles, en particulier la Glose à l’Évangile de Luc –, il est vrai aussi que l’imaginaire médiéval semble avoir été davantage frappé par la figure de Jules César d’un côté et par les empereurs persécuteurs, comme Néron et Domitien, de l’autre. Ces derniers apparaissent beaucoup plus souvent dans les textes hagiographiques ainsi que dans les mystères 80. La présente enquête, basée en large partie sur des sources médiévales inédites, ainsi que sur des thèses de doctorat dactylographiées – l’édition des sources contribue d’ailleurs à orienter et à fausser, dans une certaine mesure, notre perception du canon médiéval –, m’a tout de même permis de souligner que la popularité d’Auguste subit une sorte de tournant dans le courant du Le Roman des Sept Sages de Rome, SPEERS (1989). Cf. la version française K, v. 2856-2862, p. 183. 78 GRAF (1882-1883), p. 159-168. 79 Pour les connotations négatives qu’une importante tradition littéraire attribue à Auguste, cf. l’article de M. MAULU dans ce volume. 80 BJAÏ / MENEGALDO (2009). 77

AUGUSTE DANS L’HISTORIOGRAPHIE FRANÇAISE

207

XIVe siècle, ce qui est lié, en large partie, à son image de pacificateur de l’empire. Si aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles il figurait surtout dans les récits miraculeux liés à la naissance du Christ – la vision de la Sibylle Tiburtine, mais aussi les miracles atmosphériques, voire les magies de Virgile – et si son nom était le synonyme d’une richesse parfois regardée avec suspicion, à la fin du Moyen Âge il est surtout considéré, par un certain nombre d’écrivains et de poètes, comme le souverain idéal et il se voit attribuer, par les historiens et les chroniqueurs, une place de choix dans l’histoire universelle.

Bibliographie ABED, J. (2009), La parole de la sibylle dans les œuvres médiévales françaises, thèse, Paris. ARNAUD-LINDET, M.-P. (éd.) (1991), Orose, Histoires (Contre les païens), tome 2 (livres IV-VI), Paris. BALDWIN, J. (1991 [1986]), Philippe Auguste, trad. fr., Paris, 1991. BERTRAND, O. (éd.) (2013), La Cité de Dieu de saint Augustin traduite par Raoul de Presles (1371-1375). Livres I à III, Paris. BJAÏ, D. / MENEGALDO, S. (éds.) (2009), Figures du tyran antique au Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance, Paris. BLONDEAU, Chr. (2009), Un conquérant pour quatre ducs. Alexandre le Grand à la cour de Bourgogne, Paris. BORGNET, A. (éd.) (1864), Ly Myreur des histors. Chronique de Jean des Preis dit d’Outremeuse, tome I, Bruxelles. BOUTET, D. / STRUBEL, A. (1979), Littérature, politique et société dans la France du Moyen Âge, Paris. BOURGAIN, P. / SIRI, F. / STUTZMANN, D. (2015), Notice de Glossa ordinaria in Lucam, in FAMA. Œuvres latines médiévales à succès (http://fama.irht.cnrs.fr/oeuvre/326598). CAVAGNA, M. (2014), Jean de Vignay, Actualités et perspectives, dossier recueilli par M. C., in Cahiers de recherches médiévales et humanistes 27, p. 141-255. COLLET, O. (éd.) (1993), Jean de Thuin, Le roman de Jules César, Genève (TLF, 426) COURCELLE, P. (1957), Les exégèses chrétiennes de la quatrième églogue, in REA 59, p. 294-319 DUNN-LARDEAU, B. (éd.) (1997), Jacques de Voragine, La Légende dorée, édition critique dans la révision de 1476 par Jean Batallier d’après la traduction de Jean de Vignay de la Legenda aurea (c. 1261-1266), Paris. DUVAL, F. (éd.) (2000), Romuleon en françois, traduction de Sébastien Mamerot, Genève. DUVAL, F. (2012), Dire Rome en français. Dictionnaire onomasiologique des institutions, Genève. FLUTRE, L.-F. / SNEYDERS DE VOGEL, K. (éds.) (1938), Li Fet des Romains, compilé ensemble de Saluste et de Suetoine et de Lucan. Texte du XIIIe siècle, Genève / Groningen. GERNER, D. (1995), La Traduction des Otia Imperialia de Gervais de Tilbury par Jean de Vignay dans le ms. Rothschild n 3085 de la Bibliothèque nationale de Paris, thèse, Strasbourg.

208

MATTIA CAVAGNA

MCGINN, B. (1999), Oracular transformations: the “Sibylla Tiburtina” in the Middle Ages, in I. CHIRASSI COLOMBO / T. SEPPILLI (éds.), Sibille e Linguaggi oracolari. Mito, storia, tradizione, Pisa / Roma, p. 603-645. GRAF, A. (1882-1883), Roma nella memoria e nelle immaginazioni del medio evo, 1, Torino. HELM, R. (éd.) (1956), Eusebius Werke, Die Chronik des Hieronymus, Berlin. HOEPFFNER, E. (éd.) (1908), Œuvres de Guillaume de Machaut, vol. 1, Guillaume de Machaut, Jugement du roi de Behaigne, Paris. JODOGNE, P. (éd.) (1964), Jean Lemaire de Belges, La Concorde du genre humain, Bruxelles. KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, J. (éd.) (1865), Œuvres de Georges Chastellain, vol. II, Chronique 1430-31, 1452-53, Bruxelles. LINDSAY, W. M. (éd.) (1957 [1911]), Isidore, Etymologiae, Oxford. MILLARD, G. (éd.) (1957), Calendre, Empereurs de Rome (1213-20), Ann Arbor. MORELLO, G. / FRANCIA, V. / FUSCO, R. (éds.) (2005), Una donna vestita di sole. L’Immacolata Concezione nelle opera dei grandi maestri, Roma / Milano. POUCET, J. (2015), Les «  marqueurs  » de la nativité du Christ dans la littérature médiévale. La christianisation du matériel romain, in Folia Electronica Classica 29, p. 55-120. RAYNAUD, G. / LEMAÎTRE, H. (éds.) (1914), Le Roman de Renart le Contrefait, vol. I, branche II, Paris [réimprimé à Genève, 1975]. ROCHEBOUET, A. (2011), Faits des Romains, in C. GALDERISI (éd.), Translations médiévales. Cinq siècles de traductions en français au Moyen Âge (XIe–XVe siècles), vol. 2.1, Turnhout, p. 190-195. ROSS, D. J. A. (1969), Les Merveilles de Rome. Two Medieval French Versions of the Mirabilia Urbis Romae, in Classica et Mediaevalia 30, 1-2, p. 617-665. SARASINI, L. (2006), Per un’edizione critica del Romuleon di Benvenuto da Imola  : la tradizione manoscritta, thèse, Venezia. SETTEGAST, F. (éd.) (1881), Li Hystore de Julius Cesar. Eine altfranzösische Erzählung in Prosa, Halle. SOLENTE, S. (éd.) (1966), Le livre de la Mutacion de Fortune par Christine de Pisan, tome IV, Paris. SPEERS, M. B. (éd.) (1989), Le Roman des Sept Sages de Rome, Lexington. TARNOWSKI, A. (éd.) (2000), Christine de Pizan, Le Chemin de longue étude, Paris. UCCELLINI, R. (2014), Messianism, in R. F. THOMAS / J. M. ZIOLKOWSKI (éds.), The Virgil Encyclopedia, vol. II, Malden, MA / Oxford, p. 817-818. VALENTINI, A. (2011), Orose, Historia adversus paganus, in C. GALDERISI (éd.), Translations médiévales. Cinq siècles de traductions en français au Moyen Âge (XIe– XVe siècles), vol. 2.1, Turnhout, p. 201-202. VAN HEMELRYCK, T. (2006), La Mutacion de Paix : l’évolution des figures exemplaires pacifiques dans la littérature française médiévale du XIVe siècle au début du XVIe siècle, in G. CLAASSENS / W. VERBEKE (éds.), Medieval Manuscripts in Transition. Tradition and Creative Recycling, Leuven, p. 309-322. VERDIER, Ph. (1982), La naissance à Rome de la Vision de l’Ara coeli. Un aspect de l’utopie de la paix perpétuelle à travers un thème iconographique, in Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome, Moyen Âge – Temps Modernes 94, p. 85-119. WENZEL-BECK, R. (2002), Das Augustusbild der französischen Literatur des Mittelalters, thèse, Chemnitz.

The Iconography of Emperor Augustus with the Tiburtine Sibyl in the Low Countries. An Overview JEROEN REYNIERS (Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage, Brussels)*

Abstract The iconography representing the Tiburtine Sybil accompanied by Augustus was invented in Italy and became widespread in Western tradition, evolving from a group of twelve Sibyls to an alone standing iconography. Most of the time this representation is connected to the birth of Christ and features a kneeling Augustus with a standing sibyl next to, or behind him. This iconography became probably known in the Low Contries since 1400 in parallel with the diffusion of the Legenda Aurea of Jacobus da Voragine and the Speculum Humanae Salvationis. As the legend was also popular at court and with high-ranked men and women, it is not surprising that such iconography was associated with power and recognition. This article focuses on the depiction of the ‘Emperor and the Tiburtine Sibyl’ in the Low Countries and gives a general overview of its use, from its origin to the representation of independent figures, focusing specifically on its function and the idea of authority.

1. Introduction In the Antwerp cathedral of Our Lady a fifteenth century painting is preserved (Fig. 1), made by an anonymous Brussels painter in the style of Rogier van der Weyden. 1 Two scenes of Saint Joseph’s life are depicted and when the Antwerp restorer A. Maillard took a closer look at this remarkable painting in 1858, he discovered another depiction on the back. 2 Most likely a black paint layer was added, at an unknown point in time, to hide its bad condition. But thanks to this nineteenth century restoration, it is now certain that this panel originally belonged to an altarpiece in which the back was visible on a daily basis when it was closed. * I would like to thank Bart Fransen, Katrien Houbey, Jim Moeglein o.s.c., Myra van Looy and Eric Stuy for their help and comments on this article. 1 GRIETEN / BUNGENEERS (1996), p. 373-375; REYNIERS (2014); ID. (2015). 2 GÉNARD (1859), p. 10-11. According to Janssen, the restorer was asked by an art connoisseur to pay attention to the reverse. JANSEN (1979), p. 44.

210

JEROEN REYNIERS

Fig. 1. Follower of Rogier van der Weyden, Scenes from the Life of Saint Joseph & Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl (reverse), 1450-1475. Antwerp, Our Lady Cathedral, inv. no. 924. © Bruno Vandermeulen – KU Leuven.

AUGUSTUS WITH THE TIBURTINE SIBYL IN THE LOW COUNTRIES

211

Fig. 2. Anonymous painter, Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl, end of 15th century. Antwerp, Reynderstraat 18. Photo Author.

When the damaged scene was discovered, there were difficulties with its identification. In the nineteenth century it was believed to be a representation of Saint Ursula with a kneeling donor. 3 Jules Destrée (1930) was not able to identify the depiction. 4 In the 1940s, it were Adolf Janssen and Charles Van Herck who identified the scene as the kneeling Emperor Augustus with the Tiburtine Sibyl, by comparing with it the fifteenth century wall painting in the Reyndersstraat of Antwerp (Fig. 2). 5 Although several remarkable studies exist about this iconography, some more context is needed to reveal the importance and role of the Emperor Augustus with the Tiburtine Sibyl iconography in the Low Countries. 6 Furthermore, the function of the sibyl with the emperor will be discussed in a religious and profane context. And although Hans De Greeve tried to catalogue all the preserved GÉNARD (1859), p. 10-11; ID. (1861), p. 29. DESTRÉE (1930), p. 172. 5 JANSEN / VAN HERCK (1949), p. 95. For the wall paintings, read VICOMTE DE CAIX DE SAINT AYMOUR (1902); BERGMANS / PERSOON (2002). 6 See for example Marsaux, Verdier, Blisniewski and Pascussi: MARSAUX (1906); VERDIER (1982); BLISNIEWSKI (2005); PASCUCCI (2011). 3 4

212

JEROEN REYNIERS

examples in European collections and churches, his enumeration for Belgium is fragmentary. 7 His list will be enriched with several new examples in the attachment. This study will try to understand the function and use of this iconography in the Low Countries, and therefore also contribute to the study of the Antwerp panel. 2. The Sibyls in a Broader Context Since the Ancient time the sibyls take an important place as predictors of the coming of Christ. The word sibyl has a Greek origin and is the English term for Σίβυλλα, meaning prophetess. 8 It was believed that they were women from the pre-Christian period who gave advice to others. They also had the opportunity to do some prophecies. In the ancient period only women had the feasibility to prophesy and to communicate with the godheads and during this period these oracles received their own names. First there only was one sibyl, called the Sibylla. Aristotle didn’t describe the Sibylla as a person but he rather used this term to enclose several oracles. Afterwards Heraclides Ponticus identified some of them and Varro was the first author to mention ten sibyls, named after their place of origin: the Persian, Libyan, Delphic, Cimmerian, Erythraean, Samian, Cumaean, Hellespontine, Phrygian and the Tiburtine. In 325 the Christian Emperor Constantine, and afterwards Augustine, connected their predictions to the coming of Christ. 9 Many classical authors paid attention to the prophetesses and the appreciation of these women was increased during the Middle Ages. Virgil, Lactantius, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas were responsible for a contribution to the impact and the role of the sibyls in the society. Step by step the sibyls became more equivalent to the twelve Old Testament prophets, caused by similar ability to prophesy scenes from the life of Christ. Therefore, the number of the predicting women changed at an unknown moment from ten to twelve. The oldest description of these twelve is stated in a mystery play of 1350 where the two new women were named as the European and the Agrippine Sibyl. 10 Although it wasn’t always possible for the common people to read the texts about the oracles, they knew these women by the circulation of prints, psalters and book blocks, like the Biblia Pauperum. The sibyls were popular in all sections of the population, over centuries and in and outside the Low Countries. Hand in hand with the visual examples the

7

DE GREEVE (2011), p. 60-61. DE CLERCQ (1978-1979), p. 105. 9 DE GREEVE (2011), p. 17. 10 Ibid., p. 23. 8

AUGUSTUS WITH THE TIBURTINE SIBYL IN THE LOW COUNTRIES

213

sibyls also appeared in songs and plays, such as Orlandus Lassus’ Prophetiae Sibyllarum and in a play of Shakespeare. 11 3. The Representation of the Sibyls The representation of the prophetesses evolved at the beginning from one to ten. The oldest known depictions of these ten sibyls exist in an eleventh century manuscript from the abbey of Monte Cassino, illuminated in the third chapter of Hrabanus Maurus’s De uniuerso. 12 And the oldest known depiction of twelve sibyls was painted in the Palazzo Orsini in Rome in the second quarter of the fifteenth century. 13 Later on, some other examples were realized like in the cathedral of Siena (1482-1483) and the well-known sibyls on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in Rome by Michelangelo (1508-1512). For painters, illuminators and printers a source was needed to represent these women. The way of depicting was passed down by the text and illuminations in the Oracula Sibyllina (ca. 1465), the books of Filippo de Barbieri (1481) and the editio princeps of the Church Father Lactantius (1465). 14 In the first mentioned source, each sitting oracle is placed next to her prediction, with a prophet and an evangelist underneath it. For example, the Erythraean Sibyl thrones on the left side and on the right side the Annunciation is depicted, with the prophet Isaiah and the Evangelist Luke underneath. Both men were printed with a banderol in their hand (Isaiah 9, 6 and Luke 2, 6) and are connected to the scene above them. 15 One of the oldest known set of twelve isolated sibyls is printed in the De Sibillis of de Barbieri. As mentioned above, many different sources existed on the prophetesses and each of them had her own traditions. This resulted in different attributes and acts for the oracles. 16 For that reason, the Erythraean prophetess could be identified with a sword, a rose or a lily. 17 It is remarkable to observe a conspicuous interest in the French and the Italian regions for these women, but they were depicted in a different way. In the case of de Barbieri’s sibyls they don’t have all attributes, in contrast with the French examples, as in the Heures de Louis de Laval. 18 As an alternative, the single oracles had a banderole in the Italian sources, which made their identification easier.

11

ALWES (2015), from p. 115 onwards; MALAY (2010). DE CLERCQ (1979), p. 7-9. 13 HELIN (1918); DE CLERCQ (1978-1979), p. 106-108; DE GREEVE (2011), p. 43, 64-65. 14 DE GREEVE (2011), p. 44. 15 HEITZ (1903), p. 22-23. 16 DE GREEVE (2011), p. 24, 38. 17 Ibid., p. 38. 18 Ibid., p. 24. 12

214

JEROEN REYNIERS

Between 1482, the moment the editio princeps of Lactantius and the works of de Barbieri were published, and circa 1550, the depiction of the sibyls flourished. 19 In the Low Countries, the Ghent Altarpiece of the Van Eyck brothers is a well-known example with some depicted sibyls (Fig. 3). The Erythraean and the Cuman Sibyl are painted at the top of the altarpiece, together with prophets Zacharias and Micha, and are visible to the spectator when the altarpiece is closed. According to Griet Steyaert’s new idea on the original display of the altarpiece, the sibyls had a more prominent place than the prophets when the worshipper stood in front of the polyptych. 20 Furthermore, a copy of the Palazzo Orsini depictions in Rome existed in the abbey of Saint Peter in Ghent but disappeared in time. 21 And in Bruges Ambrosius Benson painted two sibyls, together with prophets in the first half of the sixteenth century (Antwerp, Royal Museum of Fine Arts), probably made after a lost prototype of Hugo van der Goes. 22 When the identification of portraits was forgotten, some of them were reused in series of sibyls. A painting of the duchess of Burgundy, Isabella of Portugal, painted in the workshop of Rogier van der Weyden (Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Museum), was changed to a depiction of the Persian Sibyl, by adding Persica sibÿlla in the left corner around 1600. 23 The Ia underneath the description refers to the first painting of this group of sibyls. The same recuperation appears for a painting by Hans Memling (Bruges, Sint-Janshospitaal), where the description Sibylla Sambetha quae / et Persica, an(no) ante / Christ(um): nat(um): 2040 was added afterwards to the portrait of the woman. 24 In all likelihood the same can be said by the portrait of the so-called Aloisia Sabanda as Sibylla Agrippina (Washington, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections) of the Robert Campin group. 25 19 For a better understanding of the sibyls in art history (focus on Belgium, France and Italy), see DE CLERCQ (1978-1979); ID. (1979); ID. (1980); ID. (1981). 20 STEYAERT (2015). Staeyaert’s idea is one of the many hypotheses on the original setting of the altarpiece, see DENEFFE / FRANSEN / HENDERIKS (2015). 21 DHANENS (2005). 22 DHANENS (1998), p. 92-95. Simon Bening also depicted this scene in a similar way. See also DE CLERCQ (1979), p. 50-52, who refers to the retable of Saluzzo in Brussels where a carved sibyl is present on the central part of the altarpiece. 23 DE VOS (1999), p. 374-375; CAMPBELL / SZAFRAN (2004). 24 It was probably added by painter Pieter Claeissens de Jonge. DE VOS (1994a), p. 168-169 (cat. no. 36). Lobelle-Caluwé proposed that the description underneath the portrait was added on the same time that Hans Memling finished his work. Memling might have worked together with a scribe, see LOBELLE-CALUWÉ (2009). De Vos also mentions the addition of a sibyl banderol to the portrait of Anne of Cleves in The Puskin State Museum of Fine Arts. DE VOS (1994a), p. 168; DE VOS (1994b), p. 86 (cat. no. 16). 25 Châtelet connects this work from a stylistic point of view to Jacques Daret. He is not convinced that the description on the painting is original. Thürlemann believes that

AUGUSTUS WITH THE TIBURTINE SIBYL IN THE LOW COUNTRIES

Fig. 3. Hubert and Jan Van Eyck, Ghent Altarpiece: sibyls, 1432. Ghent, Saint Bavo Cathedral. © KIK-IRPA, Brussels.

215

216

JEROEN REYNIERS

According to the panel painting production in the Low Countries, the twelve predicting women were also popular in block books and engravings, like the set of Lambertus Suavius (1520-1567), Lucas van Leyden (ca. 1530), 26 Frans Huys (ca. 1537), Philips Galle (1575) and Crispijn de Passe the Elder (ca. 1600 and 1615). The Sassetti family commissioned important frescos for their chapel in the Santa Trinita church in Florence, which were painted by Domenico Ghirlandaio in 1482. The ceiling of this chapel is decorated with four sibyls and above, on the exterior wall of the chapel, the Tiburtine Sibyl is painted with Emperor Augustus (Fig. 4). 27 This iconography already existed longer in Italy, where it has its origin and it developed independently from the twelve prophetesses. It also became popular in the Low Countries during the fifteenth and sixteenth century. 4. The Tiburtine Sibyl and Emperor Augustus 28 Augustus is mentioned in the Bible (Luc. 2, 1) on the day of Christ’s Birth and since the eleventh century he is painted as an emperor on his throne, like in the Liber floridus (ca. 1100, University library Ghent, fol. 138v). 29 During the Middle Ages he became famous in context of the prophesy of Jesus by the Tiburtine Sibyl. The origin of this legend goes back to the sixth century. 30 The Byzantine this painting is rather a work of the sixteenth century. CHÂTELET (1996), p. 320 (inv. no. D6); THÜRLEMANN (2002), p. 298 (inv. no. II.7). 26 Doen Pieterz., an important publisher in Amsterdam, commissioned Lucas van Leyden to make these sibyls. Lucas made twelve half-length oracles, together with the Synagogue and the Ecclesia. MÖLLER (2005), p. 185-188; VELDMAN (2011a); ID. (2011b). 27 DE CLERCQ (1979), p. 17-18. The scene does not depict a Mary with Child in a halo but rather the letter IHS. This comes from Suetonius’ Life of Augustus. BORSOOK / OFFERHAUS (1981), p. 31. 28 Over the past years I have been trying to collect all the depictions with this iconography. At the moment a list exists of more than hundred different examples. This article will only focus on the highlights and the different iconographical representations from the Low Countries. Unfortunately four interesting examples cannot be discussed in this study, so they will only be mentioned here: a drawing by Jan Gossart in the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett (ALSTEENS [2014], cat. no. 91), a drawing in the Graphische Sammlung of the Städel Museum in Frankfurt am Main (MESSLING [2012], cat. no. 69), a painting in a private collection, made by an artist in the circle of Cornelis Engebrechtsz. (Sotheby’s London, July 10, 2008, lot no. 114) and finally a tapestry of Pieter van Edingen in the Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo de El Escorial in Madrid. 29 BOLTEN (1937), col. 1268. The Liber floridus was composed by canon Lambertus of the Our Lady church in Saint-Omer. DEROLEZ (2015), p. 122-124; 137-139. 30 For a better understanding of the legend and its iconographic evolution, it was useful to read MARSAUX (1906); BOLTEN (1937); RÉAU (1956), p. 412-424; AURENHAMMER (1959), p. 272-275; KIRSCHBAUM (1994), p. 225-227; ERASMO (2015), p. 118-119.

AUGUSTUS WITH THE TIBURTINE SIBYL IN THE LOW COUNTRIES

217

Fig. 4. Domenico Ghirlandaio, Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl, 1482. Florence, Santa Trinita, Sassetti chapel. © Sailko.

chronicler John Malalas (ca. 491-578) wrote about two persons to explain the origin of the history of the Santa Maria in Aracoeli in Rome, where the church was built after the vision. 31 The Souda encyclopedia in the tenth century and the Greek historian Georgius Cedrenus in the eleventh century evoke the figure of a prophetess. In the twelfth century, Godfrey of Viterbo (ca. 1120-ca. 1196) speaks in his Speculum regum of a sibyl. In the description of the Mirabilia urbis Romae and the Graphia aureae urbis Romae, mid-twelfth century manuscripts with the descriptions of the sights of Rome, the Tiburtine Sibyl is mentioned. 32 The Tiburtine pythoness, also known as the Albunea, was the only sibyl from the group of twelve whose iconography evolved in an independent way. The legend starts with the Roman Senate rewarding Emperor Augustus. Three men visited Augustus to announce him the news, but he wanted to know if there would be a greater ruler than himself. So he consulted the oracle on the day of Christ’s Birth. The sibyl pointed her hand to heaven and spoke out the words 31 32

KNAUER (1970), p. 333; VERDIER (1982), p. 95. GRAF (1882-1883), p. 312-320; ALLART (2008), p. 137; DE GREEVE (2011), p. 51.

218

JEROEN REYNIERS

Haec est ara coeli (“This is the altar of heaven”). 33 At that moment Mary with her Child appeared in the sky. The prophetess had revealed that Jesus Christ would be greater than Augustus, so the emperor knelt and rendered Him homage. The oldest known depiction of this legend was painted in 1285 in the apse of the Santa Maria in Aracoeli church in Rome, made by Pietro Cavallini. 34 It was destroyed in the sixteenth century, but thanks to Giorgio Vasari’s description it is still possible to visualize the original fresco. 35 It showed the kneeling emperor, accompanied by the sibyl. He looked up to the center of the fresco, where Mary and her Child were painted in a mandorla. 36 Jacobus da Voragine’s Legenda Aurea and the Speculum Humanae Saluationis made this theme popular in the Low Countries. 37 The common people also knew this representation by the mystery plays, such as the Mystère d’Octavien et de Sibylle Tiburtine. 38 For many years it was believed that the legend was depicted for the first time in the Low Countries by the Limbourg brothers. In the beginning of the fifteenth century they illuminated the Belles Heures de Jean de Berry (New York, the Metropolitan Museum of Art) and the Très Riches Heures de Jean de Berry (Turin, Museo Civico). Recently Dückers drew the attention to an older example with the same iconography in a manuscript of the Italian illuminator who worked for Jean Duc de Berry as well. 39 The illuminator probably introduced the Italian iconography in the Low Countries in a breviary of 1400 (Fig. 5), nowadays in the Royal Library of Brussels (Ms. 11060-61, p. 83). The emperor appears in a small initial across the folio with the big miniature of the angels before the shepherds (p. 82). Thanks to this depiction the Limbourg brothers had probably known this theme and used it in their elaboration of the manuscripts. But both depictions differ from each other. The Limbourg Brothers 33 De Greeve mentions two quotes of the Tiburtine Sybil. The second is: Haec est ara primogeniti Filii Dei (“This is the altar of the first-born Son of God”). See DE GREEVE (2011), p. 51. 34 VERDIER (1982), p. 103. 35 It was destroyed during the renovation of the church in 1564. RÉAU (1956), p. 422423; LOMBARDO / PASSERELLI (2003), p. 16-22. 36 VAYER (1963); VERDIER (1982), p. 106-111. De Greeve mentions the altar in stone of the Santa Maria in Aracoeli as the oldest example in art history (first quarter of the 12th century), but by the absence of the Tiburtine Sibyl the legend is incomplete. See DE GREEVE (2011), p. 52-53. 37 According to Kramer, the impact of the Speculum on the arts was limited. She nuances Mâle’s description on the influence of the Speculum in art history. MÂLE (1931); KRAMER (2013), from page 157 onwards. 38 See the article of J. KOOPMANS in this volume. Cf. MÂLE (1931), p. 255. Thanks to a documented joyous entry of Margaret of York in Douai (19 November 1470), it is certain that this iconography was known by the common people, because it was one of the several scenes that were shown during the entry. See LECUPPRE-DESJARDIN (2004), p. 287-291. 39 DÜCKERS (2005), p. 75.

AUGUSTUS WITH THE TIBURTINE SIBYL IN THE LOW COUNTRIES

219

Fig. 5. Italian illuminator, Heures de Bruxelles: Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl, ca. 1400. Brussels, Royal Library, ms. 11060-61, p. 83. © KBR, Brussels.

depicted Mary on a half moon, an iconography that originates from the Apocalypse (12, 1). 40 The texts next to the two miniatures describe what the emperor said when he saw Mary and Jesus in heaven. 41 The Groeningemuseum in Bruges preserves a triptych which is identified as a copy of the Van Maelbeke painting that was made by Jan Van Eyck (ca. 13801441) for the Saint Martin’s church in Ypres. 42 When the preserved altarpiece is closed, Emperor Augustus with the sibyl is visible. Although scholars 43 assumed that this triptych forms the copy of the oldest – and now lost – example of this iconography on panel from the Low Countries, the wings probably 40

And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet. See HUSBAND (2008), p. 110. 41 O unspotted and eternally blessed, O unique and incomparable virgin, Mother of God, O Mary, the most pleasing temple of God and sanctuary of the Holy Spirit, gate of the kingdom of heaven, through whom the whole earth lives following God. From thee, the Son of God, the true, almighty God, made his most sacred mother, taking from thee his most sacred flesh, through whom the world which had been lost was saved. By whose precious blood… See HUSBAND (2008), p. 110. 42 Anonymous master, Van Maelbeke triptych (copy after Jan Van Eyck), 181 × 172 cm (17th century), inv. no. 2007.GRO0001.I-0003.I. 43 For example Mund & Goetghebeur and Allart: MUND / GOETGHEBEUR (2003), p. 296; ALLART (2008), p. 137.

220

JEROEN REYNIERS

did not belong to the original panel by Van Eyck. They were most likely added later to the central panel with donor Maelbeke. 44 The legend of the emperor is without doubt associated with the Bladelin altarpiece (Fig. 6) of Rogier van der Weyden (Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Gemäldegalerie). 45 The left inner shutter shows the kneeling emperor and the right inner shutter the three kings. Both scenes refer to the nativity, which is painted on the central panel. Van der Weyden’s left wing is painted in the way it was written in Jacobus da Voragine’s Legenda Aurea, which took place at noon in a room of the royal palace. 46 This depiction was copied several times and still exists in many paintings and a drawing. 47 Master E.S., a German printmaker and active between 1450 and 1470, made a print of the legend in 1466, which was probably based on the panel of van der Weyden. 48 In several paintings and miniatures, the emperor and the sibyl are accompanied by three spectators. They are the three courtiers who visited Augustus. 49 Although they are briefly mentioned in the sources about the legend, Mâle had identified these men with the help of the French mystery plays from Rouen. 50 They are mentioned in the Mystère de l’Incarnation and the Mystère d’Octavien et de la Sibylle as the seneschal, the provost and the high constable. In other cases two women or more also are part of the legend, as it is painted by the Master of the Magdalen legend (Brussels, Royal Museums of Fine Arts) and the Master of the Tiburtine Sibyl (Frankfurt am Main, Städel Museum). It is not clear who they are, but they might also derive from the theatre and mystery plays of that time. 51 The first depictions of the Vision kept strictly to the minimum, which only consisted of the emperor, the sibyl and the Mary with her Child in a mandorla. Hélène Mund and Nicole Goetghebeur have noticed an evolution in this

44 I would like to thank Susan Jones for the interesting discussion in the Groeningemuseum on this triptych. JONES (1995), p. 89; ID. (2006); BORCHERT (2010b). 45 DE VOS (1999), p. 242-248. 46 ROZE / SAVON (1967), p. 70; DE VOS (1999), p. 242-248. 47 For instance: workshop of Rogier van der Weyden, Annunciation polyptych, ca. 1460. Oil on panel, 151.8 × 274.3 × 49.5 cm. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Cloisters Collection, inv. no. 49.109. Another work is preserved in Berlin (KEMPERDICK [2009], p. 344-348) and a third in a private collection. But the wings of the latter triptych probably do not belong to the original central panel (BORCHERT [2007], p. 55-67). A drawing is added in the study of Sonkes, see SONKES (1969), p. 49-51. 48 JACOBOWITZ (1976), p. 2-3; HÖFLER (2007), p. 106; BORCHERT (2010a). 49 They were mentioned as courtiers in ROUSSEAU (1951), p. 276; De Vos and Rothstein described these figures as senators: DE VOS (1999), p. 224; ROTHSTEIN (2001), p. 38. 50 MÂLE (1931), p. 255. 51 The same idea is proposed by Fransen and Syfer d’Olne: FRANSEN / SYFER D’OLNE (2006), p. 127-143.

AUGUSTUS WITH THE TIBURTINE SIBYL IN THE LOW COUNTRIES

221

Fig. 6. Rogier van der Weyden, Bladelin triptych, 1445-1450. Berlin, Staatliche Museum zu Berlin. Gemäldegalerie, inv. no. 535. © KIK-IRPA, Brussels.

iconography. 52 They argued that it was enriched around 1445/50 by Rogier van der Weyden for his Bladelin altarpiece (Fig. 6). The scene is placed in a room, and the sitting Virgin with her Child appears before the window. Afterwards, around 1477, the theme changed into open air, with a figuration on the inner court of the emperor’s palace, as illustrated by the Master of the Tiburtine Sibyl (Frankfurt am Main, Städel Museum). 53 In the first quarter of the sixteenth century the iconography finally evolved, in a painting of the Master of the Magdalen legend (Brussels, Royal Museums of Fine Arts), to a depiction in a landscape. 54 Several other examples could take the edge off Mund’s and Goetghebeur’s arguments. For example, Master E.S. represented the legend in two different ways. His oldest depiction of the emperor was printed in a landscape and he engraved this iconography before 1455. 55 The representation in 52 53 54 55

MUND / GOETGHEBEUR (2003), p. 296-297. SANDER (1993), p. 67-86; PÉRIER-D’IETEREN (2005), p. 189-192. MUND / GOETGHEBEUR (2003), p. 297; FRANSEN / SYFER D’OLNE (2006). HÖFLER (2007), p. 296-297 (cat. no. 131-133).

222

JEROEN REYNIERS

the landscape also existed earlier in the Speculum Humanae Salvationis 56 and the example by an anonymous follower of Rogier van der Weyden, which is mentioned as case-study in the introduction, was painted between 1450 and 1475 (Fig. 1). During the following decades the iconography evolved in its own way. In several cases, such as the stained glass windows of the cathedral of Auch (France), the Tiburtine Sibyl is changed into the Libyan prophetess. This representation originates from the Oracula Sybillina where the Libyan Sibyl sits next to the Vision of Augustus, Isaiah and Saint John the Evangelist. 57 And in El Salvador in Ubeda (Spain), the Tiburtine Sibyl is converted into the Cumean Sibyl. The legend of the emperor was a well-known theme and remained popular on the European continent until the eighteenth century. 58 5. Function The legend of the emperor is in many cases connected to the Birth of Christ. 59 In the Speculum Humanae Saluationis the representation of the emperor with the sibyl forms a typological prefiguration to Christ’s Birth. 60 It appears together with the Dream of the cupbearer of the pharaoh (Gen. 40, 9-11) and the Flowering rod of Aaron (Num. 17, 16-23), like in the manuscript of Jean le Tavernier, nowadays in the University Library of Glasgow. 61 Jan Mostaert also painted this combination on a pillar behind his Adoration of the Magi (1515-1520), nowadays in the Rijksmuseum of Amsterdam. 62 In many prayer books, book of hours and graduals, the legend is depicted after the Annunciation scene. In the illuminated manuscript by Nicolas Spierinc (The British Museum, Harley Ms. 2943) the recto side of folio 18 consists of the kneeling emperor with the sibyl behind him. 63 The scene follows the 56 Kammerer noticed a difference in the Specula between the legend of Augustus with a German origin and those from the Southern Netherlands. In the latter the emperor kneels and the sibyl stands next to (or behind) the emperor and vice versa. KAMMERER (1974). 57 HEITZ (1903), p. 21; DE GREEVE (2011), p. 58-60. 58 AURENHAMMER (1959), p. 275; KIRSCHBAUM (1994), p. 227. From the seventeenth century a drawing by Peter Paul Rubens is preserved (Paris, Musée du Louvre, inv. no. RF702) and an eighteenth-century depiction is preserved in the Sèvres’ Cité de la céramique where it is depicted on a board (inv. no. MNC). 59 In the Compendium historiae uniuersalis, ca. 1450 (The Hague, MMW, Ms. 10 A 21, folio 68r) the legend of the Aracoeli is exceptionally depicted with the Birth of Christ in one miniature. 60 CARDON (1996), p. 176-177. 61 Ibid. 62 Jan MOSTAERT, Adoration of the Magi, 1515-1520. Oil on panel, 49 × 35 cm. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, inv. no. SK-671. FILEDT KOK (2008a). 63 VAN DER HOEK (1989).

AUGUSTUS WITH THE TIBURTINE SIBYL IN THE LOW COUNTRIES

223

Annunciation on folio 17 verso and underneath the miniature sits Saint John on Patmos. The saint and the angel refer to a similar occurrence with an appearance of Mary in the sky (Book of Revelation 12, 1). The angel points with two fingers to the sky, to the crowned Mary in the initial. This connection between Augustus and Saint John was also popular for the execution of the panel paintings and the carved altarpieces. It is painted among other works of art by the Master of the Holy Blood in his Adoration of Mary triptych in Bruges 64 and carved out in Adriaen Wesel’s altarpiece for the Illustre Lieve Vrouw Broederschap of ’s Hertogenbosch in 1475. 65 The same central theme appears in the Aberdeen sculpture (King’s College Chapel), deriving from the circle of Arnt Bildesnider. In this case, the apocalyptic virgin is surrounded by four scenes: the emperor with the sibyl, Moses with the burning bush, Ezechiel and the kneeling Gideon. 66 Jan Provost’s painting for the Saint Donation church in Bruges exceptionally represents Mary above the emperor and the sibyl, accompanied by King David. 67 6. Authority and Power In the Middle Ages a courtly culture existed with dukes and kings who took interest in antiquity and who compared themselves to important historical heroes, e.g. Charles the Bold (1433-1477) as Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. 68 The same idea existed for the historical hero Augustus. The Vision of Augustus could be associated with power, caused by the fact that he was a powerful and great ruler. In the miniatures of the Limbourg brothers the emperor wears the duke’s clothing, what suggests that Jean Duc de Berry saw himself as Augustus. 69 The same concept is present in the painting of Aertgen van Leyden in the Royal Museum of Fine Arts in Antwerp. 70 Henry of Nassau (1483-1538) is portrayed on the left inner shutter of the altarpiece and behind him stands the sibyl. He had been member of the Golden Fleece since 1505 and was one of the most powerful men of that time. 71 This depiction as Emperor Augustus was also popular outside the Low Countries. For example, in France,

64

The triptych is situated in St. Jacob’s church. HENDRIKMAN (1998). HALSEMA-KUBES / LEMMENS / DE WERD (1980), p. 94; BOLTEN (1937), col. 1273. In the Stadtpfarrkirche St. Nicolai in Kalkar a similar example exists, above the sculpted altarpiece, made by Heinrich Douvermann. BLISNIEWSKI (2005), p. 23-24. 66 JOPEK (2000). 67 NIKULIN (1987), p. 100-107. 68 FRANKE (2009). See also STROO (2002), p. 295-315. 69 HARBISON (1985), p. 91. 70 Inv. no. 977-979. BRUYN (1961), p. 142. 71 FILEDT KOK (2011), p. 329. 65

224

JEROEN REYNIERS

Charles IX (1550-1574) also wanted to be portrayed as this emperor 72 and the same can be seen in Spain, where Ferdinand II of Aragon (1452-1516), was portrayed on the left folio, just before the Birth of Christ. 73 The predecessor of Henry of Nassau was Duke Engelbert II of Nassau (14511504) who is painted as a witness of the Vision in the eponymous work of the Master of the Tiburtine Sibyl in Frankfurt am Main. 74 He stands in the right corner of the painting, together with some members of the University of Leuven (Louvain). 75 The iconography was also popular in the circles of the high-ranking aristocrats. Jan Mostaert (1474-1552/3), who worked for a while in Mechelen at the court of Margaret of Austria (1480-1530), was commissioned to paint the aristocrats with the story of the emperor in the background. 76 A similar concept was considered for the painting in the Mayer van den Bergh Museum (Fig. 7), by an anonymous master. 77 On the reverse a skull was depicted, and it is connected to the missing portrait of a man or a woman, which formed the second wing of the diptych. 78 The British Library in London preserves one part of an original cartoon for the production of a window by an Antwerp mannerist. The drawing shows the Tiburtine Sibyl with several other women. Van den Brink suggested that this depiction was part of a larger composition which showed the vision of the emperor accompanied by donors. 79

72 It was painted by Antoine Caron and is nowadays preserved in the Musée du Louvre in Paris. In France there already existed an interest for the Roman Empire, a tradition that started with the last Valois kings. The city of Paris was rebuilt and reconstructed as an ancient city and its river, the Seine is compared with the Tiber. See YATES (1951); CAPODIECI (2008). 73 The king is depicted in a missal-breviary (Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Chigi C.VII.205, fol. 2v) which Ferdinand received as a gift of Giovanni Maria Poderico during his visit to Naples at the beginning of the sixteenth century. FREIBERG (2014), p. 83-84. 74 SANDER (1993), p. 69; 74; PÉRIER-D’IETEREN (2005), p. 189-192. 75 SNYDER (1960), p. 51; SANDER (1993), p. 73; 79-80. 76 Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique (1984), p. 204; FILEDT KOK (2008b). Two other works of this painter with the emperor and the sibyl in the background are preserved in Copenhagen (Statens Museum for Kunst) and Berlin (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Gemäldegalerie). The first one is a portrait of Jacob Jansz. van der Meer (ca. 1505), the second is a portrait of a woman (ca. 1530). 77 MUND / GOETGHEBEUR (2003). In this context a similarity exists with the Marguerite of York’s joyous entry in Douai, which happened on 19 November 1470. Two figures, the emperor and the sibyl, were part of the entry, where it also had to prove Marguerite’s power and good rulership. LECUPPRE-DESJARDIN (2004), p. 287-291. 78 In the Upton House in Warwickshire (United Kingdom), another panel with the depiction of the emperor and the sibyl is preserved and is attributed to the Master of the Khanenko Adoration, of the circle of Hugo van der Goes. It also formed a diptych, where Augustus and the sibyl formed the right part of the display. MARTENS (1993). 79 VAN DEN BRINK (2004-2005), p. 206-208.

AUGUSTUS WITH THE TIBURTINE SIBYL IN THE LOW COUNTRIES

225

Fig. 7. Anonymous Master, Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl & Skull in a Stone Niche (reverse), end 15th century. Antwerp, Museum Mayer van den Bergh, inv. no. 12. © KIK-IRPA, Brussels.

A last and almost unknown example of this iconography in function of power can be found in the parish church Saint John the Baptist in Siersdorf (Germany). The apse of this church is furnished in late-gothic style and in front of the sculpted, Antwerp altarpiece some works by the Master of Elsloo are present. He sculpted around 1520 the emperor, the Tiburtine Sibyl and Mary with Child that belonged to a rood screen. They were commissioned by the Teutonic order in Siersdorf, the commandry that was part of the bailiwick Alden Biesen (Belgian Limburg). 80 At the same time the legend was also popular in palaces. Most of the time they were decorated with tapestries. The Musée de Cluny in Paris preserves an example with the legend of the Aracoeli on it, which was fabricated in an Antwerp workshop around 1520. 81 Most likely, it had an important and conspicuous place in a room of the palace. 82 Most of the time the focus of the iconography lies on the emperor. The series of virtuous women by the Liège master Lambert Lombard must be understood in context of high-ranking women. 83 It was made for the Cistercian abbey of 80

THEILE (2010) (cat. no. 264); PEEZ (2013). LEFÈVRE (1910), p. 198; JOUBERT (1987), p. 108-111. 82 Another one with the same iconography is preserved in the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Lille, a tapestry dating from the sixteenth century and probably woven in a Tournai workshop. 83 DENHAENE (1990), p. 122-131. 81

226

JEROEN REYNIERS

Fig. 8. Lambert Lombard and workshop, Series of Virtuous women: Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl, 1541-1560. Stokrooie, Saint Amandus church. © KIK-IRPA, Brussels.

Herkenrode, the residence of several noble nuns since the twelfth century. 84 Each canvas presents a scene of a good woman, one of them the Tiburtine Sibyl with the emperor (Fig. 8), which could be interpreted as a visual link with Mary. This painting is nowadays preserved in the Saint Amandus church of Stokrooie. 85 7. Conclusion The iconography of the Tiburtine Sibyl with Emperor Augustus had been invented in Italy and had a widespread interest in and around the Low Countries. Most of the time this iconography is connected to the Birth of Christ and 84

CEULEMANS (1981), p. 299; OGER (2006); DENHAENE (2006). CEULEMANS (1981), p. 296-298. The Szépművészeti Múzeum in Budapest also preserves a drawing of this scene by the same artist. 85

AUGUSTUS WITH THE TIBURTINE SIBYL IN THE LOW COUNTRIES

227

it is characterized by a depiction of a kneeling Augustus with a sibyl standing next or behind him. The iconography was introduced in the Low Countries most likely by an Italian illuminator, around 1400 and evolved during the following decades. It was known by the common people and it was also popular at the court. The courtiers liked to compare themselves to the emperor, with the exception of the female series for the Cistercian nunnery of Herkenrode, focusing exceptionally on the sibyl. High-ranked men and women also wanted to be depicted with this theme, so it is obvious that the iconography was associated with power and recognition. The moment that Mary with her Child appears in the sky is always depicted. In the Antwerp cathedral, the painting does not have those figures in the upper corner (Fig. 1). A study of the underdrawing and with radiography proves that these figures were originally sketched in the upper right corner, but were never painted. 86 Emperor Augustus and the two women on the left do not look up to the right upper corner of the painting, but higher up, out of the painting. The place of Mary and her Child on another panel in the right corner suggest that the original altarpiece consisted of a painted or sculpted retable with a T-shape, which was very popular at that time in Brussels. 87 In context of this iconographical study it moves forward that the other wing of the original altarpiece depicted the three kings. This combination appears regularly in the Rogier van der Weyden context. Both scenes refer to the Birth of Christ, which was probably depicted on the central panel when the altarpiece was opened. 88 Although this study gives a glimpse of the importance and the role of this iconography in (art) history, the study of this depiction still asks for more research. But it is clear that Emperor Augustus was famous as the good ruler in the Low Countries during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period. Attachment In 2003 a list with the iconography of Emperor Augustus with the sibyl of Tibur in context of the Flemish Primitives was collected by Mund and Goetghebeur. 89 De Greeve published his catalogue with works of the emperor and the Tiburtine Sibyl in several countries in 2011. 90 The latter list with Belgian examples is fragmentary and therefore a new, expanded version is added below. It only brings together sculptures, tapestries and paintings on panel and canvas. The 86

REYNIERS (2015), p. 83. PÉRIER-D’IETEREN (2000), p. 41. 88 It was believed that it originally belonged to a Saint Joseph altarpiece. Thanks to several small details on the painting this idea must be abandoned. The representations above the scene with the flowering rod of Saint Joseph refer to Saint Mary’s life. See REYNIERS (2015). 89 MUND / GOETGHEBEUR (2003), p. 299-300. 90 DE GREEVE (2011), p. 60-61. 87

228

JEROEN REYNIERS

mentioned manuscripts and drawings were the only examples that are known by the author. Aarschot CHURCH OF OUR LADY – Jan Borchmans, Choir stalls: Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl (misericorde), wood, unknown dimensions (1515). 91 Antwerp THE MAYER VAN DEN BERGH MUSEUM – Anonymous master, Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl & Skull in a Stone Niche (reverse), oil on panel, 34.5 × 27.5 cm (end 15th century), inv. no. 12 (Fig. 7). 92 OUR LADY CATHEDRAL – Follower of Rogier van der Weyden, Scenes from the Life of Saint Joseph & Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl (reverse), oil on panel, 128 × 104 cm (1460-1475), inv. no. 924 (Fig. 1). 93 PATRICIAN ‘DE WITTE AREND’ – Anonymous painter, Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl, wall painting, unknown dimensions (1480-1500) (Fig. 2). 94 ROYAL MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS – International School (Cologne?), Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl, oil on panel, 17 × 26 cm (beginning of the 15th century), inv. no. 5143. 95 – Aertgen van Leyden, Triptych of Count Henry III of Nassau, oil on panel, 66 × 219 cm (16th century), inv. no. 977-979. 96 – Jan Mostaert, Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl, oil on panel, 66 × 100 cm (16th century), inv. no. 557. 97 Bruges GROENINGEMUSEUM – Anonymous master, Van Maelbeke triptych (copy after Jan Van Eyck), 181 × 172 cm (17th century), inv. no. 2007.GRO0001.I-0003.I. 98 91

CUMPS (1978), p. 200-202; THEUNISSEN (2011), p. 126 and 131. MUND / GOETGHEBEUR (2003), p. 289-301. 93 GRIETEN / BUNGENEERS (1996), p. 373-375; REYNIERS (2014); ID. (2015). 94 VICOMTE DE CAIX DE SAINT AYMOUR (1902), p. 10-11; BERGMANS / PERSOON (2002), p. 95-96. 95 This painting entered the museum in 1997. VANDENBROECK (2014), p. 16 and 18. 96 BRUYN (1961), p. 142; Catalogus schilderkunst oude meesters (1988), p. 226-227; FILEDT KOK (2011), p. 329. 97 Catalogus schilderkunst oude meesters (1988), p. 261. 98 BORCHERT (2010b), with an expanded bibliography on page 523. 92

AUGUSTUS WITH THE TIBURTINE SIBYL IN THE LOW COUNTRIES

229

– Follower of Lucas van Leyden, Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl, ink on paper, 186 × 178 mm (16th-17th century), inv. no. 0000.GRO4002.III. CHURCH OF SAINT JACOB – Master of the Holy Blood, Tree of Jesse (left wing: Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl), oil on panel, 96 × 53 cm (1500-1525). 99 Brussels ROYAL LIBRARY, MANUSCRIPT CABINET – Anonymous miniaturist, Vision of Augustus (beginning of 15th century), ms. 11060-61, p. 83 (Fig. 5). – Anonymous miniaturist, Speculum humanae salvationis (1450), ms. 531539, fol. 395r. – Antoine de la Sale and an anonymous illuminator, Traité de morale d’Antoine de la Sale (1461), ms. 9287-9289, fol. 23. [This depiction is, to my knowledge, unique: on the left the sibyl brings the emperor outside the palace. On the right the emperor kneels on the court pavement.] ROYAL LIBRARY, PRINT ROOM – J. N. Vincentio after F. Mazzuoli, Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl (16th century), inv. no. S.III 25275. – Antoine de Trente after F. Mazzuoli, Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl (16th century), inv. no. S.II 117600. – Antoine de Trente after F. Mazzuoli, Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl (16th century), inv. no. S.III 25274. ROYAL MUSEUMS OF ART AND HISTORY – Brussels workshop, Glorification of Christ (detail: Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl), tapestry, 370 × 468 cm (ca. 1500), inv. no. 3647. 100 ROYAL MUSEUMS OF FINE ARTS – Workshop of the Master of the Magdalene legend, Emperor Augustus with the Tiburtine Sibyl, oil on panel, 113 × 82.3 cm (ca. 1530), inv. no. 8619. 101 – Jan Mostaert, Portrait of Abel of Coulster, oil on panel, 89.5 × 56 cm (16th century), inv. no. 2935. 102 – Jan Mostaert, Portrait of Albrecht Adriaensz. Van Adrichem with Saint Peter, oil on panel, 79.7 × 37.7 cm (16th century), inv. no. 2583. 103

99

HENDRIKMAN (1998). CRICK-KUNTZIGER (1956), p. 24-25 (cat. no. 8). Similar tapestries are preserved in New York, Saragossa and Washington. For the contextual study on the tapestry in New York, see SALVATORE CAVALLO (1993), p. 377-412. 101 FRANSEN / SYFER D’OLNE (2006). 102 Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique (1984), p. 204. 103 Ibid., p. 204; FILEDT KOK (2008b). 100

230

JEROEN REYNIERS

– Brussels workshop, Crucifixion retable (left wing: Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl), oil on paint and polychromed sculptures, 154 × 95.5 × 21.5 cm (1510-1520), inv. no. 8774. 104 [The wings were added later to the altarpiece.] Liège MUSÉE DE L’ART WALLON – Antwerp master (?), Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl, oil on panel, 69.5 × 40 cm (beginning of the 16th century?), inv. no. LPD 98. 105 CABINET DES ESTAMPES ET DES DESSINS DE LA VILLE DE LIÈGE – Anonymous artist, Arenberg album: Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl, ink on paper, 18.8 × 15.3 cm (1540), inv. no. N553. Middelburg CHURCH OF SAINT PETER AND SAINT PAULUS – Jan Ricx?, Copy after the Bladelin triptych of Rogier van der Weyden, oil on canvas, 107 × 190.5 cm (17th century). 106 Stokrooie (formely Kuringen, Abbey of Herkenrode) SAINT AMANDUS CHURCH – Lambert Lombard and workshop, Series of Virtuous women: Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl, oil on canvas, 139 × 169 cm (1541-1560) (Fig. 8). 107 Bibliography Catalogus schilderkunst oude meesters (1988), museum cat., Antwerp, Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Antwerp. Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique (1984). Département d’Art Ancien. Catalogue inventaire de la peinture ancienne, museum cat., Brussels, Royal Museums of Fine Arts, Brussels. ALLART, D. (2008), La peinture du XVe et du début du XVIe siècle dans les collections publiques de Liège, Brussels (Répertoire des peintures flamandes des quinzième et seizième siècles, 6). ALSTEENS, S. (2014), Jan Gossart. The Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl, in M. AINSWORTH (ed.), Man, Myth and Sensual Pleasures. Jan Gossart’s Renaissance. The Complete Works, exhib. cat., New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New Haven / London, p. 362-364. ALWES, C. L. (2015), A History of Western Choral Music, 1, Oxford. AURENHAMMER, H. (1959), Lexikon der Christlichen Ikonographie, 1, Vienna. 104 105 106 107

STEYAERT (2000). ALLART (2008), p. 135-138. DHANENS (1981), p. 46; DE VOS (1999), p. 244-245. CEULEMANS (1981); OGER (2006); DENHAENE (2006).

AUGUSTUS WITH THE TIBURTINE SIBYL IN THE LOW COUNTRIES

231

BERGMANS, A. / PERSOON, H. (2002), Die Sibyllen im ‘Weißen Adler’ zu Antwerpen, in A. MÖHLENKAMP / U. KUDER / U. ALBRECHT (eds.), Geschichte in Schichten. Wandund Deckenmalerei im städtischen Wohnbau des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit. Internationales Symposium 2000 in Lübeck, Lübeck (Denkmalpflege in Lübeck, 4), p. 93-102. BLISNIEWSKI, T. (2005), Kaiser Augustus und die Sibylle von Tibur. Ein Bildmotiv des Meisters der Verherrlichung Mariae im Wallraf-Richartz-Museum-Fondation Corboud, in Kölner Museums-Bulletin. Berichte und Forschungen aus den Museen der Stadt Köln 3, p. 13-26. BOLTEN, J. (1937), Augustus, in O. SCHMITT (ed.), Reallexikon zur deutschen Kunstgeschichte 1, München, col. 1268-1275. BORSOOK, E. / OFFERHAUS, J. (1981), Francesco Sassetti and Ghirlandaio at Santa Trinità, Florence: History and Legend in a Renaissance Chapel, Doornspijk. BORCHERT, T.-H. (2007), A little known Triptych (?) with the Descent from the Cross, formerly in the Collection of the Duke of Lucca, in F. GOMBERT / D. MARTENS (eds.), Le Maître au Feuillage brodé. Démarches d’artistes et méthodes d’attribution à un peintre anonyme des anciens Pays-Bas du XVe siècle, Lille, p. 55-67. BORCHERT, T.-H. (2010a), Meester E.S. Keizer Augustus en de Tiburtijnse sibille, in T.-H. BORCHERT (ed.), Van Eyck tot Dürer. De Vlaamse Primitieven & CentraalEuropa 1430-1530, exhib. cat., Bruges, Groeningemuseum, Tielt, p. 296-298. BORCHERT, T.-H. (2010b), Vlaams meester, naar Jan Van Eyck en atelier, Triptiek van Petrus Wyts, in T.-H. BORCHERT (ed.), Van Eyck tot Dürer. De Vlaamse Primitieven & Centraal-Europa 1430-1530, exhib. cat., Bruges, Groeningemuseum, Tielt, p. 153-155. BRUYN, J. (1961), Een drieluik van Aertgen van Leyden, in Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, p. 113-129. CAMPBELL, L. / SZAFRAN, Y. (2004), The Portrait of Isabella of Portugal, Duchess of Burgundy, in the J. Paul Getty Museum, in The Burlington Magazine 146, 1212, p. 148-157. CAPODIECI, L. (2008), Légitimation prophétique de l’identité du roi  : Auguste et la sibylle de Tibur d’Antoine Caron, in T. W. GAEHTGENS / N. HOCHNER (eds.), L’image du roi de François Ier à Louis XIV, Paris, p. 149-167. CARDON, B. (1996), Manuscripts of the Speculum Humanae Salvationis in the Southern Netherlands (c.1410 - c.1470). A Contribution on the Study of 15th Century Book Illumination and the Function and Meaning of Historical Symbolism, Leuven (Corpus of Illuminated Manuscripts, 9). CEULEMANS, C. (1981), Het aandeel van Lambert Lombard als ontwerper van schilderijen in de Sint-Amanduskerk te Stokrooie (Kuringen). Een bijdrage tot de studie van de Luikse schilderschool in het midden van de 16de eeuw, in SMEYERS (1981), p. 295-305. CHÂTELET, A. (1996), Robert Campin. Le Maître de Flémalle. La fascination du quotidien, Antwerp. CRICK-KUNTZIGER, M. (1956), Catalogue des tapisseries (XIVe au XVIIIe siècle), Brussels. CUMPS, J. A. (1978), De koorbanken van de Onze Lieve Vrouwkerk te Aarschot, Tielt (Bijdragen tot de Geschiedenis van het Land van Aarschot, 2). DE CLERCQ, C. (1978-1979), Quelques séries italiennes de Sibylles, in Bulletin de l’institut historique belge de Rome 48-49, p. 105-127. DE CLERCQ, C. (1979), Contribution à l’iconographie des Sibylles I, in Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, p. 7-65.

232

JEROEN REYNIERS

DE CLERCQ, C. (1980), Contribution à l’iconographie des Sibylles II, in Jaarboek van het Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten Antwerpen, p. 7-35. DE CLERCQ, C. (1981), Quelques séries de Sibylles hors d’Italie, in Bulletin de l’Institut Historique Belge de Rome 51, p. 87-116. DE GREEVE, H. (2011), In de schaduw van profeten. Iconografie van de sibille, Leyden. DENHAENE, G. (1990), Lambert Lombard. Renaissance en humanisme in Luik, Antwerp. DENHAENE, G. (2006), Lambert Lombard et atelier. Auguste et la sibylle de Tibur, in DENHAENE (ed.) (2006), p. 509-511. DENHAENE, G. (ed.) (2006), Lambert Lombard, peintre de la Renaissance. Liège 1505/061566. Essais interdisciplinaires et catalogue de l’exposition, Brussels. DENEFFE, D. / FRANSEN, B. / HENDERIKS, V. (2015), De oorspronkelijke opstelling: diverse hypotheses – La présentation originale  : plusieurs hypothèses – The original presentation: various hypotheses, in A. VAN GREVENSTEIN-KRUSE / KIK-IRPA, BRUSSELS (eds.), Van boomstam tot altaarstuk – Du tronc d’arbre au retable – From tree trunk to altarpiece, Ghent, p. 115-139. DEROLEZ, A. (2015), The Making and Meaning of the Liber Floridus. A Study of the Original Manuscript, Ghent, University Library, MS 92, Turnhout. DESTRÉE, J. (1930), Roger de la Pasture van der Weyden, 1, Paris / Brussels. DE VOS, D. (1994a), Hans Memling. Het volledige oeuvre, Antwerp. DE VOS, D. (ed.) (1994b), Hans Memling: vijf eeuwen werkelijkheid en fictie. Catalogus, exhib. cat., Bruges, Groeningemuseum, Antwerp. DE VOS, D. (1999), Rogier van der Weyden. Het volledige oeuvre, Antwerp. DHANENS, E. (1981), Nieuwe gegevens betreffende het Bladelin-retabel, toegeschreven aan Rogier van der Weyden (ca. 1445), in SMEYERS (1981), p. 45-52. DHANENS, E. (1998), Hugo van der Goes, Antwerp. DHANENS, E. (2005), De Sibillen van het Palazzo Orsini in Rome en de Gentse Sibillen van 1458, in N. DACOS / C. DULIÈRE (eds.), Italia Belgica. La Fondation nationale Princesse Marie-José et les relations artistiques entre la Belgique et l’Italie. De Nationale Stichting Prinses Marie-José en de artistieke betrekkingen tussen België en Italië. 1930-2005. 75e anniversaire - 75e verjaardag, Brussels / Rome, p. 79-83. DÜCKERS, R. (2005), De gebroeders Van Limburg en de Noordelijke Nederlanden: boekverluchting en paneelschilderkunst in het hertogdom Gelre en omstreken, circa 1380-1435, in R. DÜCKERS / P. ROELOFS (eds.), De Gebroeders Van Limburg. Nijmeegse meesters aan het Franse hof 1400-1416, exhib. cat., Nijmegen, Museum Het Valkhof, Antwerp. ERASMO, M. (2015), Strolling Through Rome: The Definitive Walking Guide to the Eternal City, London / New York. FILEDT KOK, J. P. (2008a), Jan Mostaert. De aanbidding van de koningen, in F. LAMMERTSE / J. GILTAIJ (eds.), Vroege Hollanders. Schilderkunst van de late Middeleeuwen, exhib. cat., Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, p. 167-168. FILEDT KOK, J. P. (2008b), Albrecht van Adrichem met de heilige Petrus / Elisabeth van Dorp met de heilige Paulus, in F. LAMMERTSE / J. GILTAIJ (eds.), Vroege Hollanders. Schilderkunst van de late Middeleeuwen, exhib. cat., Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, p. 169-172. FILEDT KOK, J. P. (2011), Drieluik met de Heilige Familie en graaf Hendrick III van Nassau, met op de buitenluiken de Annunciatie, ca. 1535, in C. VOGELAAR et al. (eds.), Lucas van Leyden en de Renaissance, exhib. cat., Leyden, Museum De Lakenhal, Antwerp, p. 329.

AUGUSTUS WITH THE TIBURTINE SIBYL IN THE LOW COUNTRIES

233

FRANKE, B. (2009), Het heldenpantheon van Karel de Stoute, in S. MARTI / T.-H. BORCHERT / G. KECK (eds.), Karel de Stoute. Pracht en praal in Bourgondië, exhib. cat., Bern / Bruges / Vienna, Historisches Museum / Bruggemuseum & Groeningemuseum / Kunsthistorisches Museum, Antwerp, p. 304-305. FRANSEN, B. / SYFER D’OLNE, P. (2006), Workshop of the Master of the Magdalen Legend. Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl, in The Flemish Primitives IV. Masters with Provisional Names, Brussels, p. 127-143. FREIBERG, J. (2014), Bramante’s Tempietto, the Roman Renaissance, and the Spanish Crown, Cambridge. GÉNARD, P. (1859), Herstelling eener schildery van Rogier van der Weyden, den oude (?). Ontdekking van een tafereel der XVe eeuw, in De Vlaemsche School. Tijdschrift voor Kunsten, Letteren, Wetenschappen en Nyverheid 2, p. 10-11. GÉNARD, P. (1861), Aenteekening over eene schildery met hare luiken der XVe eeuw, welke zich bevindt in de kerk van St-Gummarus te Lier, Lier. GRAF, A. (1882-1883), Roma nella memoria e nelle immaginazioni del medio evo, 1, Turin. GRIETEN, S. / BUNGENEERS, J. (1996), De Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekathedraal van Antwerpen. Kunstpatrimonium van het Ancien Régime, Turnhout (Inventaris van het kunstpatrimonium van de provincie Antwerpen, 3). HALSEMA-KUBES, W. / LEMMENS, G. / DE WIRD, G. (1980), Adriaen van Wesel (ca 1417/ ca 1490). Een Utrechtse beeldhouwer uit de late middeleeuwen, ’s Gravenhage. HARBISON, C. (1985), Visions and Meditations in Early Flemish Painting, in Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 15, 2, p. 87-118. HEITZ, P. (1903), Oracula Sibyllina (Weissagungen der zwölf Sibyllen). Nach dem einzigen, in der Stiftsbibliothek von St. Gallen aufbewahrten Exemplare, Strasbourg. HELIN, M. (1918), Un texte inédit sur l’iconographie des sibylles, in Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 15, p. 349-366. HENDRIKMAN, L. (1998), De verheerlijking van de Heilige Maagd, in M. P. J. MARTENS (ed.), Brugge en de Renaissance. Van Memling tot Pourbus, exhib. cat., Bruges, Memlingmuseum – Oude-Sint-Janshospitaal, Antwerp, p. 52-53. HÖFLER, J. (2007), Der Meister E.S. Ein Kapitel europäischer Kunst des 15. Jahrhunderts, Regensburg. HUSBAND, T. B. (2008), The Art of Illumination. The Limbourg Brothers and the Belles Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry, exhib. cat., New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New Haven / London. JACOBOWITZ, E. S. (1976), A Rare 15th Century Engraving, in Philadelphia Museum of Art Bulletin 72, 314, p. 2-3. JANSEN, A. / VAN HERCK, Ch. (1949), Kerkelijke kunstschatten. Een rijk geïllustreerd documentatie- en herdenkingsalbum, samengesteld en uitgegeven naar aanleiding van de tentoonstelling “Kerkelijke kunst”, gehouden te Antwerpen van 16 October tot 15 November 1948, Antwerp. JANSEN, J. (1979), Fotorepertorium van het meubilair van de Belgische bedehuizen. Provincie Antwerpen I tot IV, Liège. JONES, S. (1995), The Virgin of Nicholas van Maelbecke and the Followers of Jan van Eyck, in M. W. AINSWORTH (ed.), Petrus Christus in Renaissance Bruges. An Interdisciplinary Approach, Turnhout. JONES, S. (2006), New Evidence for the Date, Function and Historical Significance of Jan van Eyck’s ‘Van Maelbeke Virgin’, in The Burlington Magazine 148, 1235, February 2006, p. 73-81.

234

JEROEN REYNIERS

JOPEK, N. (2000), The Virgin of the Apocalypse, from the Circle of Arnt Beeldesnider, in J. GEDDES (ed.), King’s College Chapel, Aberdeen, 1500-2000, Aberdeen, p. 147154. JOUBERT, J. (1987), La Tapisserie médiévale au musée de Cluny, Paris. KAMMERER, O. (1974), Recherches sur l’iconographie des Sibylles en Allemagne du Sud, Rhénanie et en Flandre à la fin du Moyen Âge, in L’Information de l’histoire de l’art 19, p. 26-31. KEMPERDICK, S. (2009), Workshop of Rogier van der Weyden, Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl / The Archangel of the Annunciation, in S. KEMPERDICK / J. SANDER (eds.), The Master of Flémalle and Rogier van der Weyden, exhib. cat., Berlin / Frankfurt am Main, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Gemäldegalerie / Städel Museum, Ostfildern, p. 344-348. KIRSCHBAUM, S. J. (1994), Lexikon der Christlichen Ikonographie. Allgemeine Ikonographie. A bis Ezechiel, 1, Rome. KNAUER, E. (1970), A Cubiculo Augustorum: Bemerkungen zu Rogier van der Weydens Bladelin-Altar, in Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 33, 4, p. 332-339. KRAMER, B. (2013), Een lekenboek in woord en beeld: De Spegel der minschliken zalicheid, Hilversum. LECUPPRE-DESJARDIN, E. (2004), La ville des cérémonies. Essai sur la communication politique dans les anciens Pays-Bas bourguignons, Turnhout (Studies in European Urban History, 4). LEFÈVRE, L. E. (1910), La Sibylle de Tibur représentée sur une tapisserie du Musée de Cluny, in Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France, p. 198. LOBELLE-CALUWÉ, H. (2009), Hans Memling’s Portrait of a Woman, 1480: Hidden Information?, in H. VEROUGSTRAETE / C. JANSSENS DE BISTHOVEN (eds.), The Quest for the Original. Symposium XVI. Bruges, September 21st, 22nd and 23rd, 2006, Leuven, p. 1-9. LOMBARDO, P. / PASSERELLI, G. (2003), Ara Coeli. La basilica e il convento dal XVI al XX secolo attraverso le stampe del fondo della postulazione della Provincia romana dei frati minori, Rome. MALAY, J. L. (2010), Prophecy and Sibylline Imagery in the Renaissance. Shakespeare’s Sibyls, New York. MÂLE, E. (1931), L’art religieux de la fin du Moyen Âge en France  : étude sur l’iconographie du Moyen Âge et ses sources d’inspiration, Paris. MARSAUX, L. H. (1906), La prédiction de la sibylle et la vision d’Auguste, in Bulletin monumental 70, p. 235-250. MARTENS, D. (1993), Nouvelles recherches sur le Maître de l’Adoration Khanenko, son évolution, son catalogue et sa personnalité, in Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art 62, p. 74-80. MESSLING, G. (2012), Nederlanden of Frankrijk, Profeten en sibillen (?) (voorzijde) en Augustus en de Tiburtijnse sibille (achterzijde), ca. 1420-1440, in S. KEMPERDICK / F. LAMMERTSE (eds.), De weg naar Van Eyck, exhib. cat., Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, p. 260-261. MÖLLER, C. (2005), Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen und Doen Pietersz. Studien zur Zusammenarbeit zwischen Holzschneider und Drucker im Amsterdam des frühen 16. Jahrhunderts, Berlin / Münster / München / New York (Niederlande-Studien, 34). MUND, H. / GOETGHEBEUR, N. (2003), Anonymous Master, Emperor Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl, in The Mayer van den Bergh Museum Antwerp, Brussels (Corpus

AUGUSTUS WITH THE TIBURTINE SIBYL IN THE LOW COUNTRIES

235

of Fifteenth-Century Painting in the Southern Netherlands and the Principality of Liège, 20), p. 288-303. NIKULIN, N. (1987), 15th and 16th Century Netherlandish Paintings in Soviet Museums, Oxford. OGER, C. (2006), Historique et iconographie du cycle, in DENHAENE (2006), p. 169-174. PASCUCCI, A. (2011), L’iconografia medievale della sibilla Tiburtina, Tivoli (Contributi alla conoscenza del patrimonio tiburtino, 8). PEEZ, M. (2013), Die spätgotischen Skulpturen und der Lettnerbogen in der St. Johannes-Kirche in Sierdorf: Ein Beitrag zur Werktechnik, in F. PETERS (ed.), A Masterly Hand. Interdisciplinary Research on the Late-Medieval Sculptor(s) Master of Elsloo in an International Perspective. Proceedings of the Conference Held at the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage in Brussels, 20-21 October 2011, Brussels (Scientia Artis, 9), p. 231-245. PÉRIER-D’IETEREN, C. (2000), De geschilderde luiken van Brabantse retabels, in M. BUYLE / C. VANTHILLO (eds.), Vlaamse en Belgische retabels in Belgische monumenten, Brussels (M&L cahier, 4), p. 37-52. PÉRIER-D’IETEREN, C. (2005), Thierry Bouts. L’œuvre complet, Antwerp. RÉAU, L. (1956), Iconographie de l’art chrétien, 2, Paris. REYNIERS, J. (2014), Onroerend erfgoed op paneel. Een 15de eeuwse voorstelling van een gotische kerk, in M&L. Tijdschrift voor Monumenten, Landschappen en Archeologie 33, 1, p. 42-61. REYNIERS, J. (2015), Onbekend maakt onbemind. Een vijftiende-eeuws schilderij in de stijl van Rogier van der Weyden in de Antwerpse kathedraal, in Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art / Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Oudheidkunde en Kunstgeschiedenis 84, p. 57-123. ROTHSTEIN, B. (2001), Vision, Cognition, and Self-Reflection in Rogier van der Weyden’s Bladelin Triptych, in Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 64, 1, p. 37-55. ROZE, J.-B. M. / SAVON, H. (1967), Jacques de Voragine. La Légende Dorée, 1, Paris. ROUSSEAU, T. (1951), A Flemish Altarpiece from Spain, in Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 9, 10, June 1951, p. 270-283. SALVATORE CAVALLO, A. (1993), Medieval Tapestries in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. SANDER, J. (1993), Niederländische Gemälde im Städel, 1400–1550, Mainz. SMEYERS, M. (ed.) (1981), Archivum Artis Lovaniense. Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van de Kunst der Nederlanden. Opgedragen aan Prof. Em. Dr. J. K. Steppe, Leuven. SONKES, M. (1969), Dessins du XVe siècle  : groupe van der Weyden, essai de catalogue des originaux du maître, des copies et des dessins anonymes inspirés par son style, Brussels (Les Primitifs flamands. III Contributions à l’étude des Primitifs flamands, 5). SNYDER, J. E. (1960), The Early Haarlem School of Painting: I. Ouwater and the Master of the Tiburtine Sybil, in The Art Bulletin 42, 1, p. 39-55. STEYAERT, D. (2000), Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique. Retable de la Crucifixion (legs Livrauw-Delporte), in C. PÉRIER-D’IETEREN / N. GESCHÉ-KONING (eds.), Guide bruxellois des retables des Pays-Bas méridionaux (XVe-XVIe siècles). Bruxelles et environs, Brussels, p. 82-87. STEYAERT, G. (2015), The Ghent Altarpiece: New Thoughts on its Original Display, in The Burlington Magazine 157, February 2015, p. 74-84. STROO, C. (2002), De celebratie van de macht. Presentatieminiaturen en aanverwante voorstellingen in handschriften van Filips de Goede (1419-1467) en Karel de

236

JEROEN REYNIERS

Stoute (1467-1477), Brussels (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten. Nieuwe reeks, 7). THEILE, C. (2010), Meister von Elsloo. Lettnerbogen, 1. Hälfte 16. Jahrhunderts, in G. VON BÜREN et al. (eds.), Renaissance am Rhein, exhib. cat., Bonn, LVR-LandesMuseums, Ostfildern, p. 390-392. THEUNISSEN, C. (2011), De koorbanken van Aarschot, in C. THEUNISSEN / P. MAAS / J. KOLDEWEIJ (eds.), De koorbanken van Oirschot en Aarschot gezien door de lens van Hans Sibbelee en Jan Verspaandonk, Nijmegen, p. 115-148. THÜRLEMANN, F. (2002), Robert Campin. A Monographic Study with Critical Catalogue, Munich / New York. VAN DEN BRINK, P. (2004/05), The Artist at Work: the Crucial Role of Drawings in Early Sixteenth-Century Antwerp Workshops, in Antwerp Royal Museum Annual, p. 158231. VANDENBROECK, P. (2014), De eeuw der Vlaamse Primitieven, Antwerp. VAN DER HOEK, K. (1989), De Noordhollandse verluchter Spierinck. Haarlem en/of Beverwijk, circa 1485-1519, in J. M. M. HERMANS (ed.), Middeleeuwse handschriftenkunde in de Nederlanden 1988, Grave, p. 163-182. VAYER, L. (1963), L’affresco absidiale di Pietro Cavallini nella Chiesa di S. Maria in Aracoeli in Roma, in Acta Historiae Artium 9, p. 39-73. VELDMAN, I. M. (2011a), Drie bladen uit een reeks van zeven houtsneden met Sibillen en scènes uit het leven van Christus, ca. 1525-1530, in C. VOGELAAR et al. (eds.), Lucas van Leyden en de Renaissance, exhib. cat., Leyden, Museum De Lakenhal, Antwerp, p. 314-315. VELDMAN, I. M. (2011b), Doen Pietersz’s Editions of Woodcuts by Jacob Cornelisz van Oostsanen and Lucas van Leyden, and Illustrations in French Printed Books of Hours, in Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art 35, p. 41-60. VERDIER, P. (1982), La naissance à Rome de la Vision de l’Ara Coeli. Un aspect de l’utopie de la Paix perpétuelle à travers un thème, in Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Moyen-Âge, Temps modernes 94, 1, p. 85-119. VICOMTE DE CAIX DE SAINT AYMOUR, A. (1902), Les Sibylles d’Anvers, Caen. YATES, F. A. (1951), Antoine Caron’s Paintings for Triumphal Arches, in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 14, 1/2, p. 132-134.

AUGUSTUS IN CULTURE AND POLITICS FROM HUMANISM TO THE 19TH CENTURY

The Memory of Augustus and Augustan Rome in Humanist Latin Poetry SUSANNA DE BEER (Universiteit Leiden)*

Abstract This paper focuses on the memory of Augustus and Augustan Rome in humanist Latin poetry (ca. 1350-1550). The Roman Emperor plays a prominent role in the Renaissance humanists’ visions of Rome, because he symbolizes many, if not all, aspects of Roman culture that appealed so much to them and their audience. Typical of their literary reception of Augustus is that they do not seem particularly interested in the person of Augustus himself, but rather in employing him as a model for contemporary rulers. I will discuss three case studies, each focusing on a different aspect of the memory of Augustus. First, Augustus’ long and peaceful reign is characterized as the period in which the Pax Augusta was established and the Golden Age restored. Accordingly, the first case study will discuss the use of this image in two metrical letters by Francesco Petrarca dedicated to Pope Benedict XII, in which his return to Rome is advocated and likened to the Pax Romana that Augustus brought about. Secondly, since Augustus in the words of Suetonius “found the city in brick and left it in marble”, he is also regarded as the primary embellisher of physical Rome. This image will be explored in a collection of epigrams by Aurelio Brandolini (Ad Sistum IV Pontificem Maximum De urbe ab eo instaurata liber), in which he hails pope Sixtus IV as the new Augustus, focusing primarily on his activities as the Renaissance Restaurator Vrbis. Finally, as the addressee and supporter of authors like Virgil, Horace and Propertius, Augustus functioned as the prototypical patron of art and literature. This aspect of his rule will be the focal point of the last case study, which concerns the elegiac poetry by the German humanist Conrad Celtis. In these poems Celtis equates the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian with Augustus as supporter of the German Muses. By analyzing which elements of Augustus’ legacy these poets selected, by means of what literary devices they interpreted them, and to what purpose they appropriated them, this paper aims to provide a richer understanding of the multifaceted process of reception by which means Augustus and Augustan Rome lived on during the Renaissance.

* This work was supported by grants from The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and The Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NIAS). I am also very grateful for the feedback received from the audience at the conference Augustus through the Ages.

240

SUSANNA DE BEER

1. Introduction This paper focuses on the memory of Augustus and Augustan Rome in humanist Latin poetry (ca. 1350-1550). Renaissance humanists worshipped Rome as the symbol of Antiquity at large. 1 As the cradle of Roman literature, politics, and culture, it functioned as a common heritage they all felt entitled to. Their interest concerns both the physical aspects of the eternal city, and the cultural and political symbolism stored in ancient literature. 2 Within their visions of Rome, Augustus plays a prominent role, because in his turn he symbolizes many, if not all, aspects of Roman culture that appealed so much to the humanists and their audience. Typical of their literary reception of Augustus is that they do not seem particularly interested in the person of Augustus himself, but rather in employing him as a model for contemporary rulers. This means that his person and rule are reduced to a number of stereotypes, which found their basis, amongst others, in the literary and physical remains of the Augustan age. These were precisely the areas in which the humanist poets were experts. For their poetry Augustus appeared to be the ideal example, because he unites at least three different characteristics that appealed to humanist authors and Renaissance princes alike. This paper will discuss the employment of these Augustan characteristics in the Latin poetry of three humanist authors. First, Augustus was the stereotypical founder and consolidator of the Roman Empire. During his long reign the Pax Augusta was established and the Golden Age restored. The reception of these themes of peace, foundation and restoration will be analyzed in two metrical letters dedicated by Petrarch to Pope Benedict XII (1334-42). In these letters the Pope’s return from Avignon to Rome is advocated by comparing his absence to Ovid’s exile and his return to the Pax Romana brought about by Augustus. Secondly, since Augustus, in the words of Suetonius, ‘found the city in brick and left it in marble’, he is also regarded as the primary embellisher of physical Rome. 3 The reception of this image will be explored in a collection of epigrams by Aurelio Brandolini (1454-97) dedicated to Pope Sixtus IV (1474-84). In this collection Brandolini hails Sixtus as the new Augustus, focusing primarily on his activities as the Renaissance Restaurator Vrbis. Finally, as the addressee and supporter of authors like Virgil, Horace and Propertius, Augustus functioned as the stereotypical patron of art and 1 For a general introduction into Renaissance Humanism, see KRAYE (1996). For its specific relationship with Antiquity, see WITT (2000). For a brief typology of humanist images of Rome, see further DE BEER (2014). 2 For humanism and antiquarianism in Rome, see WEISS (1969) and CHRISTIAN (2010). 3 SUET., Aug. 28. For this aspect of Augustus’ rule, see amongst others FAVRO (2005) and KOLB (2006).

AUGUSTUS AND AUGUSTAN ROME IN HUMANIST LATIN POETRY

241

literature. 4 Although he has to share this honor with Maecenas, it is largely Augustus who is held responsible for the flourishing literary climate in his days. This aspect of his rule will be the focal point of the last case study, which concerns the lyrical poetry by the German humanist Conrad Celtis (1459-1508). In these poems Celtis equates the Holy Roman Emperor with Augustus as the one who gave the Muses a new home. In each case we will analyze which elements of Augustus’ legacy these poets selected, how they interpreted them, and to what purpose they appropriated them. 5 The element of appropriation is especially important, for it is clear that their memory of Augustus was not straightforward, but was created in an eclectic and strategic way. 6 It was eclectic to the extent that they highlighted some characteristics of Augustus while neglecting others, as well as contaminating it with characteristics of other people if it suited their wishes. It was strategic in that, as we will see, by reviving the Augustan age in and by means of their Latin poetry, humanist authors could offer political or religious legitimization to their addressees. By so doing they tapped into the wider significance and exemplarity of Augustus, which also pervaded other cultural expressions and political thought, as this volume clearly shows. At the same time, and by this same means, the humanists could also pursue their own literary goals. The intricate relationship between the reception of Augustus on the one hand, and the reception of Augustan literature on the other hand, is in fact a crucial element of their literary enterprise. For Augustan literature not only supplied the stereotypical images of Augustus which interested them, it also offered the literary models to appropriate these images. 7 This means that an important step in the analysis of the image of Augustus in their poetry is to determine the literary model or models, and the intertextual relationships that have been created. 8 For this aspect of Augustus’ rule see e.g. WHITE (1993). This methodology is based on current approaches in Classical Reception Studies and Heritage Studies. For an introduction into these fields, see HARDWICK (2003) and GRAHAM / HOWARD (2008). I have explained in greater depth the benefits of such an approach for the analysis of humanist Latin poetry about Rome in DE BEER (2020). 6 See GRAHAM (2008), p. 2: “It is now largely agreed that most heritage has little intrinsic worth. Rather, values are placed upon artefacts or activities by people who, when they view heritage, do so through a whole series of lenses […]”. 7 For the double nature of the humanists’ interest in ancient Rome, that is as a subject of study and as a model for artistic or literary creation, see GREENE (1982b). 8 By adopting this approach, I follow the ideas about intertextuality articulated in HINDS (1998) and CONTE (1986). Both Hinds and Conte understand literary allusions as generating meaning by creating analogies between the source text and the new (con)text. Although no systematic study has been devoted to the similarities or differences between literary imitation in Antiquity and the Renaissance, a very valuable study about imitative practices in the later period is GREENE (1982a). See further for the Renaissance discourse about literary imitation MACLAUGHLIN (1995). 4 5

242

SUSANNA DE BEER

Just like their appropriation of Augustus, their procedure of literary imitation can also be characterized as eclectic and strategic. It often is based on allusions to various authors, and ranges from recalling very specific passages with a clear purpose to evoking a more general imagery, appropriated to generate new poems with a certain Augustan flavor. 9 This means that it is impossible – and also unnecessary – to identify all reminiscences to classical literature. Instead, our aim is to assess the most important models and to illustrate how meaning is generated by means of intertextual references. The process of literary imitation is also strategic, in the sense that the selection and appropriation of literary models for imitation is determined by the memory of Augustus that the authors wished to recall. 10 Equally, however, the memory of Augustus created in these poems is also determined by the literary models that were selected. This is especially interesting in cases, such as Brandolini’s, where the poetic genre, in this case the epigram, is not directly associated with Augustan Rome. By offering a comparative analysis of a number of such poems by various authors with different addressees this paper aims to provide a richer understanding of the multifaceted process of appropriation by which means Augustus and Augustan Rome lived on during the Renaissance. 2. The Pope’s Return to Rome: Two Metrical Letters by Petrarch During the Avignon papacy of Benedict XII (from 1334 to 1342) Petrarch addressed to him two metrical letters that aimed at the Pope’s return to Rome. 11 He does so by employing various Augustan images and references to Augustan literature. In this way the Pope is modeled after Augustus, especially as a symbol for the Roman Empire, the pax Augusta and the return of the Golden Age. The first of the two letters, Epistola metrica 1.2, presents Rome speaking as a suppliant at the Pope’s feet. The second letter, Epistola metrica 1.5, addresses this same situation, but now it is seen and described from the perspective of the

9

Intertextual references are not necessarily to a specific source passage, but could also recall a topos, which (according to HINDS [1998], p. 34) “invokes its intertextual tradition as a collectivity, to which the individual contexts and connotations of individual prior instances are firmly subordinate” or (CONTE [1986], p. 31) refers to a general “code model”. 10 As such, appropriation is a pivotal concept in HINDS (1998). For intertextuality as a trigger of cultural memory see SCHEIDING (2005) and CONTE (1986), p. 49 where he refers to “the dialectical role of memory, which absorbs the past and is coopted into the present.” 11 The edition used is SCHÖNBERGER / SCHÖNBERGER (2004). About Petrarch’s metrical letters in general see DOTTI (1967) and (1968). See further ARGENIO (1956). The discussion of these two letters here is based on HOUGHTON (2011).

AUGUSTUS AND AUGUSTAN ROME IN HUMANIST LATIN POETRY

243

author himself. In both cases Rome pleads for the Pope’s return to her by considering her present state and the Pope’s responsibilities towards her. To understand how these letters shape Benedict XII after Augustus, it is important to consider first the literary models that are employed here. For Petrarch’s metrical letters in general, Horace’s epistles have provided the primary model. 12 Moreover, in this specific case some similarities with Horace’s Epistle 2.1 to Augustus can be found, which already hints at the Augustan context. 13 However, with regard to the narrative situation a more telling parallel is provided by Ovid’s exile poetry, as Luke Houghton recently pointed out, especially the book that is addressed to Augustus in its entirety, Tristia 2. 14 To be sure, there are many differences in setting and atmosphere. Most importantly, in Ovid’s case it is the poet himself who is exiled by his addressee, Augustus; in Petrarch’s case it is the Pope, the addressee himself, who is in exile. At the same time, there are clear similarities in the poetic address itself and in the way the main characters in the narrative are portrayed. First, in Petrarch’s letters the description of the personified city of Rome, who is left behind, shows all of the features of the exiled Ovid: neglected, grown old, hardly recognizable anymore. 15 Petrarca, Epistola metrica 1.2.15-19 Squalida sed quoniam facies neglectaque cultu     [15] Cesaries, multisque malis lassata senectus Eripiunt solitam effigiem, uetus accipe nomen, Quo nullum toto memoratur notius orbe: Roma uocor. 16

In addition, Benedict XII is portrayed in a similar way as Ovid portrays Augustus: as the sole ruler of the world, as a father, who is asked for a moment of his precious time to consider the pleas of the suppliant. In the following

12 For a general discussion of Petrarch’s models see the introduction in SCHÖNBERGER / SCHÖNBERGER (2004), p. 18-22. 13 For example, PETRARCH, Epistola metrica 1.2.8 (Alme parens, solus qui cunta gubernas) recalls HORACE, Epistle 2.1.1 (Cum tot sustineas et tanta negotia solus), cf. HOUGHTON (2011), p. 46. 14 HOUGHTON (2011), passim. For further Ovidian influences in Petrarch’s works see MARCOZZI (2001). For the relationship between Ovid and Augustus, see BARCHIESI (1997). For Ovid’s exile poetry, see CLAASSEN (2008). 15 Compare for example OVID, Tristia 1.3.90 (squalidus immissis hirta per ora comis). For further references, see HOUGHTON (2011), p. 47-48. In addition, the phrase toto … notius orbe recalls MARTIAL, Epigrams 1.1.2 (toto notus in orbe). 16 “But since my filthy aspect and untended hair, and old age exhausted by many woes, rob me of my accustomed appearance, hear my ancient name, than which no other [name] is recalled with greater renown throughout the world: Rome, I am called.” All translations of Petrarch’s metrical letters are from HOUGHTON (2011).

244

SUSANNA DE BEER

passage, for example, the image of Benedictus XII holding the reins of the world, recalls the reins of the empire in Tristia 2. 17 Petrarca, Epistola metrica 1.2.1-4 Te, cui telluris pariter pelagique supremum Contulit imperium uirtus meritumque pudorque Et deus omnipotens et ineuitabile fati Arbitrium mundique dedit, quas uoluis, habenas […] 18 Ovid, Tristia 2.39-42 Tu quoque, cum patriae rector dicare paterque Vtere more dei nomen habentis idem Idque facis, nec te quisquam moderatius umquam Imperii potuit frena tenere sui. 19

Moreover, just as Ovid begs the only one capable of changing the current state of affairs to take his responsibility and let him return to Rome, so in Petrarch’s letters Rome begs Benedict XII to return to her and restore her to her old glory. Thus, in Petrarch’s employment of Ovid’s Tristia as a model, the analogy between Benedict XII and Augustus lies in their position as addressee in combination with their leadership of the world, by which they can enable a return to Rome and reverse the speaker’s fortune. 20 Petrarch also hints to another Augustan model to enhance the parallel between Benedict XII and Augustus, by equating the ruler’s return to Rome with a return of the Golden Age and a renewed period of peace. A similar equation is offered by Horace’s Ode 4.5, in which Rome longs for Augustus’ return after an absence in Gaul of about three years. 21 Again we can observe many differences between Augustus and Benedictus XII, both in the actual situation and its literary representation, but the imagery shows conspicuous similarities as well. Not only does Rome, in both Horace’s Ode and Petrarch’s poem, long

17

Petrarch calls Benedictus salus patriae in 1.2.194, which, apart from the previous passage in the Tristia, also recalls OVID’S Fasti 2.127 (pater patriae). 18 “You, whose virtue has gained you supreme authority over both land and sea, along with your merit and your modesty, and to whom almighty God and the ineluctable dispensation of fate have given the reins of the world, which you ply […].” 19 “Do you also, seeing that you are called father and ruler of our native land, follow the way of the god who has the same title. And that you do; no one has ever been able to hold the reins of his power with more restraint.” Translation (adapted) from WHEELER / GOOLD (2002). 20 Ovid remarks on the reversal of his own fortuna in Tristia 1.1.119-122. In Epistola metrica 1.2 Fortuna is held responsible for Rome’s ruined state. The vicissitudes of fortune would remain a very important topic in the Renaissance discourse about Rome, most conspicuously so in Poggio Bracciolini’s De uarietate fortunae. 21 QUINN (1996), p. 307-309.

AUGUSTUS AND AUGUSTAN ROME IN HUMANIST LATIN POETRY

245

for the ruler’s return, but this return also coincides with a situation of renewed peace, symbolized by an image of a pacified sea. 22 Petrarca, Epistola metrica 1.2.223-226 Iamque age pelle moras tibi summa cacumina montes Inclinent nullusque vuie labor obstet eunti Ac bene pacatas substernat classibus undas Equor et impellant placidi tua carbasa uenti. 23

Both authors employ a family metaphor to interpret Rome’s longing for the absent ruler. In Horace’s Ode Rome longs for Augustus like a mother longs for her child. 24 Petrarch however, employs a marriage metaphor to advocate the return of the Pope. By this means Benedict XII is presented as the husband who is called to return to his wife Roma. 25 If not Horace, what is the source of this imagery? This question allows for several answers, at least some of which also include Augustus. First of all the plea of a woman left behind by her lover immediately recalls Ovid’s Heroides, and there is no doubt that Petrarch refers to them here. 26 However, addressing a ruler in similar ways as elegiac lovers addressed their beloved men or women was by no means Petrarch’s invention. Employing such imagery from the realm of love in the realm of unequal power relations or patronage settings already pervaded Ovid’s appeals to friends and patrons in his exile poetry, among which his appeal to Augustus in Tristia 2. 27 The analogy between both realms is especially clear in the portrayal of rulers and lovers as dominus and domina respectively. 28 In addition, the representation of the inextricable ties between Rome and the papacy as a marriage could find its source in the use of this imagery for the relation between God and the City of Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation. 29 In this specific case, however, it seems likely that Petrarch directly draws on Dante, who in his Commedia let Rome cry out to the Holy Roman Emperor in a similar way: 22 HORACE, Odes 4.5, 16 (quaerit patria Caesarem) and 19 (pacatum uolitant per mare nauitae). Similar themes recur in Epistola metrica 1.5, e.g. 102-103 (te cunta parentem Italia expectat) and 108-109 (alma fides et amor tranquillaque terris pax uigeat). 23 “Now act, do not delay, let the highest mountaintops bow for you, let no obstacle hinder you on your way, and let the sea spread ‘pacified’ waves beneath the ships, and let gentle winds push your sails forward.” 24 HORACE, Odes 4.5, 9-13 (Vt mater iuuenem … uocat). 25 Benedictus is called maritus amongst others in Epistola metrica 1.2.48 and 172 and sponsus in Epistola metrica 1.5.102. 26 See SCHÖNBERGER / SCHÖNBERGER (2004), p. 19 and HOUGHTON (2011), p. 53. 27 For elegiac motifs in classical patronage poetry, see amongst others WHITE (1993), p. 87-89. 28 Benedictus XII is also called dominus in Epistola metrica 1.2.7 and 49. 29 For this imagery see ROSSING (1999).

246

SUSANNA DE BEER

Dante, Purgatorio 6.112-114 30 Vieni a veder la tua Roma che piagne vedova e sola, e dì e notte chiama: “Cesare mio, perché non m’accompagne?” 31

Dante belonged to the Ghibellines, the faction supporting the Holy Roman Emperor, in whom he saw the legitimate heir of Augustus’ Roman empire and the protector of Rome. 32 Petrarch on the other hand, at least in this specific case, cast the Pope in this role. 33 In both cases the analogy with Augustus not only offers an image of a specific kind of ruler, but also conveys a more concrete political message. In Petrarch’s case this means that the return of the papacy to Rome is legitimized by framing it as the return of the ancient Roman Empire under Augustus. In the following case study, we will see that similar claims were repeated a century later when the Popes had indeed returned to Rome and the physical restoration of the eternal city, in imitation of Augustus, was an important part of their imperial image. 3. Pope Sixtus IV as Vrbis Restaurator: The Epigrams by Aurelio Brandolini Sixtus IV, who was Pope from 1471 to 1484, modeled his pontificate in various ways after Augustus. Among other things he presented it as a return to the Golden Age after a period of turmoil and unrest. 34 This turmoil partly concerned the ongoing political instability in Italy during this period, in which the Pope was also involved, and partly the moral decline within the Catholic church itself, which called for reform and a restoration of pietas. Both aspects recall the manner in which the Pax Augusta was framed. However, the aspect of Sixtus’ rule that stands out as most Augustan regards his activities as Vrbis restaurator, his building and restoration activities in the city of Rome. 35 For one thing, the kind of building activities Sixtus carried out in Rome mirrors Augustus’ building policies, in so far he combined restoration of buildings that had fallen into neglect with the construction of new buildings, and Cf. HOUGHTON (2011), p. 45, n. 13. “Come and see your Rome, who weeps, a desolate widow, and day and night cries: ‘My Caesar, why do you not keep me company?’” 32 For Dante’s idea of Rome, see DAVIS (1982), passim (for this passage esp. p. 26). 33 For the restoration of Rome, Petrarch did not put his hope exclusively on the Pope, as he also called out to the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of Naples, amongst others. He actually hints at this situation in Epistola metrica 1.2 itself. When abandoned Roma accuses the Pope of adultery, he replies by saying that she herself also had more than one spouse (1.2.144). For Petrarch’s image of Rome, see REGN (2004). 34 For the idea of Rome and the Roman Empire in Renaissance religious thought, see O’MALLEY (1968), esp. p. 118-138. 35 For this aspect of Sixtus’ papacy, see BLONDIN (2005); MIGLIO et al. (1986); BENZI (1990); BENZI et al. (2000). 30

31

AUGUSTUS AND AUGUSTAN ROME IN HUMANIST LATIN POETRY

247

combined religious buildings like churches and chapels, with utilitarian and infrastructural works, like bridges, aqueducts and roads. Overall, it created an image of respect for old values combined with a fresh and new start, by which the city of Rome was supposed to mirror the state of the Roman or Christian empire in general. Moreover, there was also a very practical side to this enterprise, as the city grew immensely in this first century after the return of the Popes from Avignon. Sixtus’ building activities became the subject of two books of Latin epigrams by the humanist poet Aurelio Lippi Brandolini. 36 After starting his humanist career in Naples, Aurelio Brandolini arrived in Rome in around 1480, where he came into contact with the circle of Pomponio Leto and seems to have gained the support of Sixtus IV, although much about the practicalities of this relationship has yet to be uncovered. 37 In any case, already in 1481 or 1482 he dedicated the two books of epigrams to Sixtus, a collection of which at least three copies still exist, one in the Biblioteca Nazionale in Rome and two in the Vatican Library. 38 The two books together contain 67 epigrams of varied length and content, most of which are concerned with Sixtus’ character and deeds. The first book focuses specifically on Sixtus’ building policies, as the title immediately suggests: Ad Sistum IV Pontificem Maximum de urbe ab eo instaurata liber. In it Brandolini associates Sixtus with Augustus in various ways. In the few cases in which he compares him to Augustus explicitly, it is clear that Sixtus outdoes him by far. For example, in a poem in which the day that Sixtus was created Pope is compared to Augustus’ birthday: Brandolini 1.8.11-14 39 Nec Roma Augusti tantum natalibus amplis Debuit, aut unquam gaudia tanta dedit Se quantum huic luci tellus debere fatetur, Quanta capit titulis gaudia, Siste, tuis. 40

For Brandolini’s life and works, see ROTONDÒ (1972). For his poetry for Sixtus IV see DE LUCA (1938). Some of his poems are also quoted in BLONDIN (2005) and in MÜNTZ (1983). 37 For the circle of humanists around the court of Sixtus IV, see LEE (1978), esp. chapter 5. Rome was a favorite topic in the poetry of the humanists gathered around Leto, for an overview of which see MUECKE (2007). 38 Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale, Ms. SS. Giovanni e Paolo 7 and Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ms. Vat. Lat. 5008 and Ms. Urb. Lat. 739. Here we follow the text in this last manuscript. 39 Ms. Urb. Lat. 739, fol. 76v. (Tit. De die quo Sistus pontifex est creatus). 40 “Neither was Rome so much indebted to the birthday of Augustus, or did she ever give as much joy, as much as the earth confesses to be indebted to this light, or as much joy she has taken from your glory, Sixtus.” If not indicated otherwise, translations of Brandolini’s epigrams are my own. 36

248

SUSANNA DE BEER

Or in the epigram that compares the Vatican Library institutionalized by Sixtus IV to Augustus’ library on the Palatine: Brandolini 1.12.7-8 41 Ipse Palatinus seruanda uolumina Phebus Augusti taceat dissimuletque sui. 42

However, Brandolini more often models Sixtus after Augustus by presenting the Pope in the same manner and praising him for the same things as Augustus was praised for by contemporary poets. Just as Augustus was seen as the second founder of Rome, Brandolini also presents Sixtus IV as the conditor of the new Rome. In this guise, moreover, both are compared and found superior to Romulus: Brandolini 1.18.26-31 & 36-37 43 Ausus at est Sistus ueteremque resurgere solus Iussit Romam, immo condidit ipse nouam. Reddidit hic urbi formam ueteresque ruinas Sustulit et passim coctile fecit iter. Nobile pontis opus struxit, delubra refecit Multa quidem, fecit sed noua plura tamen

[30]

[…] Romule cede pater, ueteres concedite cuncti. Hic urbis pater est. Hic deus, hic dominus. 44

In this epigram about the (re)foundation of Rome Brandolini aligns Sixtus with Augustus by alluding to a passage from Ovid’s Fasti that is concerned with this Augustan image. To claim Sixtus’ superiority over Romulus, he uses a phrase comparable to the Ovidian Romule, concedes, and portrays him as the father of Rome, just as Ovid called Augustus pater patriae and pater orbis. 45 However, whereas Ovid compares Augustus’ rule over the earth with Jupiter’s rule over

41

Ms. Urb. Lat. 739, fol. 79r. (Tit. De biblioteca a Sisto condita). “Let Palatine Apollo himself keep silent and conceal the volumes he had to guard of his Augustus.” 43 Ms. Urb. Lat. 739, fol. 82r. (Tit. De Vrbe Roma a Sisto iterum condita). 44 “But Sixtus dared this and he alone ordered old Rome to rise up again; no, actually he himself founded a new Rome. This man returned beauty to the city and he removed the old ruins and he laid out in all directions a road of baked brick. He built a famous work of a bridge and he restored churches, many to be sure, but he built still more new ones. […] Father Romulus, yield. All ancients yield. He is the father of the City. He is god and master.” Translation by BLONDIN (2005), p. 4. 45 OVID, Fasti 2.133 (Romule, concedes), 127 (sancte pater patriae), and 130 (pater orbis). 42

AUGUSTUS AND AUGUSTAN ROME IN HUMANIST LATIN POETRY

249

heaven. 46 Brandolini presents Sixtus as pater, deus and dominus all in one. By this means Sixtus outdoes Romulus and Augustus and is at the same associated with the Christian Lord. 47 Brandolini’s descriptions of the specific works in the city that Sixtus was concerned with, such as the various roads, the bridge (Ponte Sisto) and the Sistine chapel, include a lot of gold, marble and other kinds of magnificence, which also made up the image of Rome in Augustan poetry. Likewise the Augustan contrast between Rome’s past and present state, be it from her pastoral origins to an urban centre, or from brick to marble, 48 is paralleled in Brandolini’s presentation of Renaissance Rome in various ways. The following example gives an idea of how Brandolini interprets Sixtus’ improvement of Rome’s infrastructure: Brandolini 1.19.13-14 49 Quae modo uix stabulum fuerat, te principe formam Vrbis habet. Duce te reddita Roma sibi est. 50

Although the phrase duce te in the last line is by no means exclusive to Augustan literature, it may be a telling reference to either Horace, Odes 1.2 or Virgil’s Fourth Eclogue, which are both concerned with Augustus. 51 However, generally speaking the epigrammatic genre that Brandolini singled out for his praise was not typically Augustan. The primary model for epigrammatic poetry, especially in fifteenth-century Rome, was the Flavian poet Martial. 52 Among the many topics he dealt with in his poetry, he also praised his imperial addressees for their embellishment of Rome. 53 In fact, the phrase Roma reddita sibi est in the previous example is directly taken from an epigram that Martial dedicated to the construction of the Colosseum, begun by Vespasian and finished by

OVID, Fasti 2.132 (hominum tu pater, ille deum). Dominus et Deus is how God is addressed, among others, in the Book of Revelation 4.11, but it is also the formula by which Emperor Domitian was often named, for example in several of Martial’s Epigrams (a.o. 5.8.1, 7.34.8, 8.2.6, 9.66.3, and 10.72.3). For the relationship between this imperial and religious discourse see THOMPSON (1990), p. 104-107. 48 As for example in VIRGIL, Aeneid 8.347-8, PROP. 4.1.1-2 and SUET., Aug. 28. 49 Ms. Urb. Lat. 739, fol. 83r. (De urbe a Sisto uiis ornata). 50 “She (i.e. Roma) who only recently was hardly a stable, now under your rule has the form of a City. Under your leadership Rome’s back to herself.” 51 HORACE, Odes 1.2.52 (te duce, Caesar) or VIRGIL, Eclogue 4.13 (te duce), where it is addressed to Asinius Pollio but clearly associated with the return of the Golden Age under Augustus (who was still Octavian by that time). For Renaissance interpretations of this ‘Messianic’ eclogue, see HOUGHTON (2014) and (2018). 52 See DE BEER et al. (2009). 53 See ROMAN (2010). 46 47

250

SUSANNA DE BEER

Titus. 54 As a result, Brandolini’s image of Sixtus appears not exclusively modeled after Augustus, as it is sometimes conflated with images of later emperors, by means of intertextual references to a literary model from another period. In cases such as this it is, however, very difficult, if not impossible, to make out whether we should take this reference to suggest any purposeful alignment of Sixtus with the Flavian emperor, or whether the phrase from Martial just appealed to Brandolini as fitting. More than anything else it shows that the Latin literary discourse about Rome, on which Brandolini draws just as much as on the discourse on Augustus, consists of stereotypical topics and motifs with roots in Augustan literature, but not exclusively so. 55 Apart from Martial, Statius’ Siluae, for example, also offered a wealth of themes related to Rome and to the deeds of wealthy and influential patrons. 56 In addition, many themes that Brandolini touches upon have only been developed in late antique, medieval and early renaissance meditations about Rome, in which both Christianity and the Roman ruins became important elements. 57 This means that, although there is indeed a very distinctive Augustan flavor to all these poems, Brandolini – just like Petrarch and Celtis – also connects his poetry to the broader literary discourse about Rome. 4. The Holy Roman Emperor as Patron of the Arts: The Lyrical Poems by Conrad Celtis The last case study concerns the memory of Augustus as a patron of the arts and, as a consequence, his rule as the period in which arts and literature flourished in Rome. In the poetry by the German humanist Conrad Celtis dedicated to the Holy Roman Emperor – first Frederick III, later Maximilian I – this is one of the Augustan characteristics that stand out, determined both by Celtis’ ideas about the transfer of learning (translatio studii) from Rome to Germany, and by his individual appeals to patronage. 58 Interestingly, this characteristic of Augustus’ rule was seldom explicitly dealt with in classical literature. 59 One of the reasons could be that, for individual writers, wealthy aristocrats like Maecenas or Asinius Pollio, rather than Augustus, were regarded as literary patrons. 60 In addition, the immense productivity and quality of literature produced MARTIAL, De Spectaculis 1.2.11-12 (Reddita Roma sibi est et sunt te praeside, Caesar, / deliciae populi, quae fuerant domini). 55 For the discourse on Rome specifically in Augustan literature, see HARDIE (1992). 56 For the ancient literary discourse on Rome, see EDWARDS (1996). 57 For the literary discourse on Rome from Antiquity through to the Renaissance, see KYTZLER (1972); DISSELKAMP et al. (2006); and DISSELKAMP (2013). 58 The edition used is SCHÄFER (2011). For his poetic program see ROBERT (2003). 59 For the relationship between Augustus and the poets of his time, see MILLER (2009); GRIFFIN (1984); WHITE (1993); LE DOZE (2014). 60 Generally, about literary patronage in Antiquity, see GOLD (1982). 54

AUGUSTUS AND AUGUSTAN ROME IN HUMANIST LATIN POETRY

251

during the Augustan period, and the wealth of literature addressed to him or his deeds, came to be seen as a stereotypical characteristic of Augustus’ rule only in retrospect. By the time Celtis wrote he seems to have overshadowed Maecenas in this role. Throughout his poetry Celtis models the Holy Roman Emperor after Augustus and presents him as the legitimate heir of the ancient Roman empire who, following the scheme of the translatio imperii, has transferred the center of the empire from Rome to Germany. 61 In accordance with that same scheme Celtis also advocates the transfer of learning (translatio studii). This translatio-scheme can be distinguished most clearly in Celtis’ famous Ode to Apollo (4.5). 62 In this ode Celtis asks Apollo – father of the Muses and patron-deity of Augustus – to move from Latium to Germany, just as he had once traveled from Greece to Rome to chase away barbarism. Celtis, Ode 4.5.17-24 63 Tu celer uastum poteras per aequor Laetus a Graecis Latium uidere, Inuehens musas, uoluisti gratas Pandere et artes. Sic uelis nostras rogitamus oras Italas ceu quondam aditare terras, Barbarus sermo fugiatque, ut atrum Subruat omne. 64

[20]

The parallel between the Holy Roman Emperor and Augustus is only implicit, as neither of them are mentioned in the poem. However, in Celtis’ poetry the link between the translatio studii and the emperor’s doings is very clear, just as the link with Augustus in Celtis’ imitation of Horace’s poetic oeuvre is the ancient backbone to this imperial image. 65 More specifically, this ode recalls at least two Horatian poems that are directly related to Augustus. The first is Ode 4.5, in which Augustus is asked to return to Rome, offering the structural analogy of a poetic request to someone to make a journey. 66 With regard to the See GOEZ (1958). For a discussion of this poem see FRINGS (2000) and JAUMANN (1999). 63 Two titles of this poem circulate: Ad Phoebum, ut Germaniam petat or Ad Apollinem repertorem poetices, ut ab Italis cum lira ad Germanos ueniat. 64 “You it was who deigned to leave Greece, passing swiftly and gladly over the wide sea to visit Latium with the Muses in your train; your pleasure it was to reveal the arts you love. So now we pray you: Come to us as you came to Italy. Let Barbarian speech be driven out and the whole fabric of darkness collapse.” Translation taken from FORSTER (1948), p. 21. 65 See AUHAGEN et al. (2000), passim. 66 The same Ode that we discussed in the context of PETRARCH’s Epistula metrica 1.2 (see above n. 22). Cf. e.g. HORACE, Odes 4.5.4 (redi) and 16 (quaerit patria Caesarem). 61 62

252

SUSANNA DE BEER

content, however, a stronger resemblance can be seen with Horace’s Epistle 2.1. to Augustus. In this poem Horace discusses the transfer of Greek art into rude Latium, just as Celtis presents the transfer of Apollo to Germany. 67 Horace, Epistles 2.1.156-159 Graecia capta ferum uictorem cepit et artes Intulit agresti Latio; sic horridus ille Defluxit numerus Saturnius, et graue uirus Munditiae pepulere … 68

However, Celtis is not only concerned with the Emperor’s regard for the Muses in general, but also for his own particular Muse. The four books of Odes he wrote and the Carmen Saeculare he dedicated to Maximilian’s efforts in 1500, not only serve to create a specific image of the emperor, but also render Celtis himself a second Horace. 69 Moreover, like Horace, Celtis also calls on his addressees to support him, both for his and their own best interests. However, whereas in Horace’s poetry we can distinguish between dedications to Maecenas, the literary patron proper, and Augustus, the omnipotent ruler, no such distinction can be found in Celtis’ work. As a result, in his portrayal of the Holy Roman Emperor the images of Maecenas and Augustus are conflated. This we can see, for example, in the programmatic Ode 1.1. to Frederick III, which combines elements of Horace’s Odes 1.1 and 1.2, the first of which was dedicated to Maecenas, the second to Augustus. 70 Celtis, Ode 1.1.1-8 71 Caesar magnificis laudibus inclitus, Rex regum et dominus maxime principum. Si quis prisca tuis tempora saeculis Vel conferre uelit regna prioribus, Non te, crede, queunt uincere gloria.

[5]

67 Cf. also Odes 3.30 in which Horace presents himself as the one who brought the Greek lyre to Italy (3.30.13-15: [dicar] princeps Aeolium carmen ad Italos / deduxisse modos). In similar ways Celtis ascribes himself an important role in the translatio studii. FRINGS (2000) singles out two more important Horatian models for this ode by Celtis (Odes 1.30 and 1.12), which are themselves telling examples of how Greek poetry was appropriated in Rome. 68 “Greece, the captive, made her savage victor captive, and brought the arts to rustic Latium. Thus the stream of that rude Saturnian measure ran dry and good taste banished the offensive poison.” Translation adapted from FAIRCLOUGH (1929). 69 See COPPEL (2000). 70 For a discussion of this poem see AUHAGEN (2000) and MERTENS (2000). We are concerned here with the second version of this poem, which Celtis prepared for his collection of Odes. The first version was presented at the ceremony of his coronation as poet laureate in 1487. 71 Title: Ad Fridericum Caesarem pro Laurea, Proseutice.

AUGUSTUS AND AUGUSTAN ROME IN HUMANIST LATIN POETRY

253

Te uiuo redeunt aurea saecula, Et pax atque fides, canaque sanctitas, Et uitae integritas atque benignitas. 72

In these initial lines of his first ode Celtis introduces Frederick III in similar ways as Horace had introduced Maecenas in his first ode. 73 However, the images immediately following align Frederick III much more with Augustus. 74 Celtis praises him for the return of the Golden Age by using the literary language and imagery of both Virgil’s fourth eclogue and several Horatian Odes. 75 A bit further on in the poem he praises Frederick for reviving Latin literature and bringing it to Germany in ways that recall the Ode to Apollo. 76 Celtis, Ode 1.1.19-20 & 35-39 Te uiuo, Latiis gloria litteris Antiquumque decus iam redit artibus […] Hoc Grai studio nomen ad aethera Fuderunt, Italis deinde sequacibus, Et nos nunc facili tenuia barbito Illorum celeres dum sequimur pedes, Caelo sub rigido carmina spargimus. 77

72

[35]

“Emperor famous for deeds of great renown, king of kings, lord, prince of princes! If anyone seeks to compare times of old with yours or your reign with those of your predecessors, believe me, none of them excels yours in esteem or reputation. Under your rule the golden age is returning, with peace and loyalty, old-age sanctity, the integrity and goodness of life.” Translations of this ode taken from FLOOD (2006), p. lxxxvi-lxxxvii. 73 Cf. HORACE, Odes 1.1.1-2 (Maecenas atauis edite regibus / o et praesidium et dulce decus meum). For all similarities between both odes, see SCHÄFER (1976), p. 10. 74 The formula Rex regum et dominus furthermore recalls the Book of Revelation 19.16, see MERTENS (2000), p. 70. 75 Cf. VIRGIL, Eclogue 4.6 (redeunt Saturnia regna) and 4.13 (te duce), though this is directed towards Asinius Pollio. Cf. further HORACE, Odes 1.2.52 (te duce, Caesar) with CELTIS, Ode 1.1.9 (te, duce); HORACE, Ode 4.5.19 (pacatum) and 20 (fides). Pax and Fides also appear in Horace’s Carmen Saeculare and in his Epistle 2.1 to Augustus. The wording further reminds of VIRGIL, Aeneid 1.292 (cana Fides et Vesta). See AUHAGEN (2000), p. 65. 76 See JAUMANN (1999) for the tension between these two images of the Renaissance in Germany, as a renovatio and a translatio at the same time. 77 “Under your rule honour accrues to us through our mastery of the writings of the Romans; the arts and sciences, the pride and renown of the ancients are returning. […] This attitude caused the reputation of the Greeks to reach the stars, and the Romans followed them. And now we, under a less benign sky, cultivate these songs, accompanying the hastening verses on the lute.”

254

SUSANNA DE BEER

Finally, in a twist bringing us back to Horace’s Ode 1.1. to Maecenas, he connects Frederick’s support for his poetry with his individual poetic fame. 78 By that means he strategically links the revival of the Golden Age of Augustus and Augustan literature with a revival of the Golden Age of literary patronage. Celtis, Ode 1.1.40-43 Dum uires dabis ac ingenium mihi, Atque inculta probes si mea carmina, Ornans laurigeris tempora frondibus, Me gustasse putem nectar Olympicum. 79

[40]

This twist is important, since patronage played an important role in the lives and works of most humanist poets, and often offers the necessary background to understand the poetic works they dedicated to wealthy and influential patrons. 80 Moreover, it is a typical feature of their poetry that they turned the issue of patronage into a literary theme, just as many ancient authors had done. Now that we have seen how Celtis relates his request for patronage with the memory of Augustus and the Augustan age, we will now briefly return to Petrarch and Brandolini to see to what extent they also revive this element of the Augustan imagery alongside the other stereotypes. Interestingly, Petrarch appears much less interested in patronage than Celtis and Brandolini, even though the model he employs, Ovid’s Tristia 2, offers numerous possibilities to address the issue within an Augustan context. Ovid, after all, addressed Augustus directly, and his request to alleviate his exile is at least partly aimed at re-opening his literary vein. 81 However, the way Petrarch interprets the narrative situation, by putting Rome in the place of Ovid, suggests that his concern is more with the state of Rome than with his own career. Whether or not this reflects his real concerns is another question, but at least he does not address the issue of patronage explicitly. The situation is completely different in the epigrams by Brandolini, for whom the dedication to Sixtus and requests for support were important literary themes themselves. Brandolini contributes to Sixtus’ image of an Augustus-like literary patron both by the content of his work and by the simple fact that he dedicates a work of Latin literature to him and is part of his learned entourage. But by aligning himself with the ancient poets, Brandolini also tries to lay claim to the same kind of support the Augustan poets used to receive. His main Cf. HORACE, Odes 1.1.35-36 (Quod si me lyricis uatibus inseris / sublimi feriam sidera uertice). 79 “If you give me the strength and courage, if you raise my spirit, applaud my still rough verses and crown my brow with the laurel wreath, I will believe that I have tasted the joys of heaven itself.” 80 See DE BEER (2013) and GWYNNE (2015). 81 Giannantonio Campano used Ovid’s Tristia 2 to model his poetic approach of Pope Pius II, see DE BEER (2013), p. 42-55. 78

AUGUSTUS AND AUGUSTAN ROME IN HUMANIST LATIN POETRY

255

argument in favor of this support is that his Muse is the only one capable of granting Sixtus’ deeds immortality, since physical witnesses will eventually fall into ruin. 82 By this means he puts his poetic praise of Sixtus’ building policies on a higher level than the buildings themselves. 83 Brandolini 2.38.17-26 84 Est equata quidem summo tua gloria celo, Sed tamen eternum non habitura decus. Non hoc templa dabunt, non structi machina pontis, non dabit in latas urbs tua secta uias. Hoc tibi docta dabunt clarorum scripta uirorum, continget solo carmine fama tibi. Delebit titulos liuor, monumenta uetustas, concedent fatis cetera quaeque suis. Liuorem fugiunt, fugiunt haec sola senectam, effugiunt auidos carmina sola rogos. 85

[20]

[25]

Support is needed for his Muse to be able to sing Sixtus’ praise, especially since his praiseworthy deeds are so numerous. By following this argumentation Brandolini again manages to combine praise of Sixtus with his own patronage concerns: Brandolini 1.28.21-26 At nec musa loqui nec scribere dextera tantum ulla queat, quantum tu pater alme geris. Sed fessa est, fessae modicum largire quietem, Fortior ad coeptum musa resurget opus. Quare age, dum reficit uires calamumque resumit Tu geris, mox quae tu gesseris illa canet. 86

[25]

For the durability of literature, the most famous example is HORACE, Odes 3.30.1 (exegi monumentum aere perennius). 83 And than the visual arts, as well. For a pictorial counterpart of Brandolini’s poetry about Sixtus’ life and deeds, see HOWE (2005). 84 Ms. Urb. Lat. 739, fol. 116r. (Tit. De laudibus et eternitate Sisti). 85 “Your glory is equal to the highest heaven, but still it will not possess eternal splendor. Temples will not give you this, neither the fabric of a built bridge, neither your city, cut into wide roads: the learned writings of famous men will give you this, fame will only take hold of you by means of a poem. Envy will destroy your name, old age your monuments, all other things will meet with their own fate. Only these poems flee from envy, flee from old age, flee from greedy funeral piles.” 86 “But my Muse cannot sing and describe the wonderful things to such a degree, that you, cherishing father, carry them out. She is tired: give her proper rest, then she will rise stronger to the task she has begun. So, come on! while she regains her power and takes up her pen again, you carry on: very soon she will sing about the things you will have done.” 82

256

SUSANNA DE BEER

In this epigram Brandolini connects his own poetic services for Sixtus IV to the memory of Augustus by a reference to Propertius 4.1.66 (Roma, faue, tibi surgit opus), in which the writing of poetry about Rome is also compared to the construction of Rome itself. 87 5. Conclusion In the three preceding case studies we have observed both Augustus’ absence and presence in humanist Latin poetry. These poets hardly seem interested in the historical Augustus, but all the more in his potential for shaping the image and legitimizing the claims of contemporary rulers. For this purpose, his rule is reduced to some stereotypical characteristics: the return of the Golden Age and the Pax Augusta, the renovation and embellishment of the City of Rome, and his support of the Muses. By this means the poets did not completely follow their own path, but proceeded largely in accordance with the imperial image these rulers themselves also created by other means, and in other media. Humanist poets only seldom aligned their addressees with Augustus by explicit references to the emperor, but mostly by allusions to or echoes of passages in Augustan poetry that deal with a specific characteristic of the princeps. They also shaped their addressees after Augustus simply by adopting ancient literary models that addressed or dealt with Augustus’ doings, such as Horace, Ovid and Virgil. In fact, from the recurrence of the same models in several case studies we may deduce that they had a clear sense of a literary canon about Augustus. However, they did not stick to Augustan models exclusively, but also included phrases or topics from other, sometimes later, authors. As a consequence, their poetic image of Augustus was sometimes conflated with images of other literary characters: as such we have seen Popes or Emperors being portrayed as elegiac lover, God, Flavian emperor and Maecenas as well. This conflation partly results from the eclectic nature of their literary imitation, by which they strategically select images that are appropriate for a specific situation, without giving consistency the highest priority. It also ties in with the fact that the discourse about Augustus intersects with the literary discourse about Rome, which in turn heavily draws on Augustan literature, but not exclusively so. Finally, it should be seen in the context of the goals the humanist poets tried to meet by means of their poetry. The image of their addressee was just one of their concerns; another was their own self-presentation and career, which sometimes led them to trigger other than Augustan characteristics. However, it is precisely because of the wide range and large quality of Latin poetry produced under Augustus that they were able to kill two birds with one stone in the first place. By presenting themselves as Augustan poets, they could A similar theme is treated in BRANDOLINI 2.10.49-52, in which he promises Sixtus to be a new Virgil or Homer for him if he offers his Muse the necessary support. 87

AUGUSTUS AND AUGUSTAN ROME IN HUMANIST LATIN POETRY

257

legitimize their addressees’ claim to the Augustan political heritage and their own claim to Augustus-like patronage at the same time. By thus restoring the Golden Age of Latin literature they continued to appropriate the memory of Augustus and Augustan Rome for the future.

Bibliography Source editions Conrad CELTIS, Oden / Epoden / Jahrhundertlied. Libri Odarum Quattuor, Cum Epodo et Saeculari Carmine (1513). Ed. by E. SCHÄFER, Tübingen, 2011. Selections from Conrad Celtis 1459-1508. Ed. w. Transl. and Comm. by L. FORSTER, Cambridge, 1948. HORACE, The Odes. Ed. w. Introd. & Comm. by K. QUINN, London, 1996. HORACE, Satires, Epistles and Ars Poetica. W. an English Transl. by H. R. FAIRCLOUGH, Cambridge MA, 1929. OVID, Tristia. Ex Ponto. W. an English Transl. by A. L. WHEELER. Rev. by G. P. GOOLD, Cambridge MA, 2002. Francesco PETRARCA, Epistulae Metricae. Briefe in Versen. Hrsg., übers. & erl. von O. SCHÖNBERGER und E. SCHÖNBERGER, Würzburg, 2004. Secondary literature ARGENIO, R. (1956), Roma nelle epistole metriche di Petrarca, in Studi Romani 4, p. 274-282. AUHAGEN, U. et al. (eds.) (2000a), Horaz und Celtis, Tübingen. AUHAGEN, U. (2000b), Konrad Celtis, ein neuer Horaz. Die zwei Fassungen der Ode 1, 1, in AUHAGEN et al. (2000), p. 55-66. BARCHIESI, A. (1997), The Poet and the Prince. Ovid and Augustan Discourse, Berkeley, 1997. BENZI, F. (1990), Sixto IV renovator urbis. Architettura a Roma 1471-1484, Rome. BENZI, F. et al. (eds.) (2000), Sisto IV. Le arti a Roma nel primo rinascimento, Rome. BLONDIN, J. E. (2005), Power Made Visible. Pope Sixtus IV as Urbis Restaurator in Quattrocento Rome, in The Catholic Historical Review 91, p. 1-25. CHRISTIAN, K. W. (2010), Empire without End. Antiquities Collections in Renaissance Rome, c. 1350-1527, New Haven / London. CLAASSEN, J.-M. (2008), Ovid Revisited. The Poet in Exile, London. CONTE, G. B. (1986), The Rhetoric of Imitation. Genre and Poetic Memory in Virgil and other Latin Poets, Ithaca. COPPEL, B. (2000), Celtis’ Carmen Saeculare. Das Lied der Deutschen (nach Horaz), in AUHAGEN et al. (2000), p. 277-287. DAVIS, C. T. (1982), Roma and Babylon in Dante, in RAMSEY (1982), p. 19-40. DE BEER, S. et al. (eds.) (2009), The Neo-Latin Epigram. A Learned and Witty Genre, Leuven. DE BEER, S. (2013), The Poetics of Patronage. Poetry as Self-Advancement in Giannantonio Campano, Turnhout.

258

SUSANNA DE BEER

BEER, S. (2014), Rom: symbolischer Ort, in M. LANDFESTER (ed.), Der Neue Pauly. 2. Staffel, Band 9: Renaissance-Humanismus. Lexikon zur Antikerezeption, Stuttgart, p. 856-864. DE BEER, S. (2020), Framing Humanist Visions of Rome. Heritage Construction in Latin Literature, in M. DE POURCQ et al. (eds.), Framing Classical Reception Studies. Different Perspectives on a Developing Field, Leiden, p. 201-226. DE LUCA, G. (1938), Un umanista fiorentino e la Roma rinnovata da Sisto IV, in La Rinascita 1, p. 74-79. DISSELKAMP, M. et al. (eds.) (2006), Das alte Rom und die neue Zeit. Varianten des Rom-Mythos zwischen Petrarca und dem Barock, Tübingen. DISSELKAMP, M. (2013), Nichts ist, Rom, Dir Gleich. Topographien und Gegenbilder aus dem mittelalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen Europa, Ruhpolding. DOTTI, U. (1967), Le Metriche del Petrarca, in Convivium 35, p. 155-173. DOTTI, U. (1968), Formazione dell’umanesimo nel Petrarca. Le Epistole Metriche, in Belfagor 23, p. 532-563. EDWARDS, C. (1996), Writing Rome. Textual Approaches to the City, Cambridge. FAVRO, D. (2005), Making Rome a World City, in K. GALINSKY (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, Cambridge, p. 234-263. FLOOD, J. L. (2006), Poets Laureate in the Holy Roman Empire. A Bio-Bibliographical Handbook. Vol. 1, Berlin. FRINGS, I. (2000), Celtis’ Ode an Apoll – eine Ode an Horaz, in AUHAGEN et al. (2000), p. 135-151. GOEZ, W. (1958), Translatio Imperii. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Geschichtsdenkens und der politischen Theorien im Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit, Tübingen. GOLD, B. K. (ed.) (1982), Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome, Austin. GRAHAM, B. (2008), Heritage and Identity, in GRAHAM / HOWARD (2008), p. 1-15. GRAHAM, B. / HOWARD, P. (eds.) (2008), The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity, Aldershot. GREENE, T. M. (1982a), The Light in Troy. Imitation and Discovery in Renaissance Poetry, New Haven / London. GREENE, T. M. (1982b), Resurrecting Rome. The Double Task of the Humanist Imagination, in RAMSEY (1982), p. 41-54. GRIFFIN, J. (1984), Augustus and the Poets. ‘Caesar qui cogere potest’, in F. MILLER / C. SEGAL (eds.), Caesar Augustus. Seven Aspects, Oxford, p. 189-218. GWYNNE, P. (2015) Patterns of Patronage in Renaissance Rome. Francesco Sperulo: Poet, Prelate, Soldier, Spy, Oxford. HARDIE, P. (1992), Augustan Poets and the Mutability of Rome, in C. A. POWELL (ed.), Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus, London, p. 59-82. HARDWICK, L. (2003), Reception Studies, Oxford. HINDS, S. (1998), Allusion and Intertext. Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry, Cambridge. HOUGHTON, L. (2011), Exiled Rome and August Pope, in J. INGLEHEART (ed.), Two Thousand Years of Solitude. Exile after Ovid, Oxford, p. 41-58. HOUGHTON, L. (2014), Renaissance and Golden Age Revisited. Virgil’s Fourth Eglogue in Medici Florence, in Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 76, p. 413-432. HOUGHTON, L. (2018), Virgil and the Idea of a Renaissance, in L. HOUGHTON / M. SGARBI (eds.), Virgil and Renaissance Culture, Tempe, Arizona, p. 203-221. HOWE, E. (2005), Art and Culture at the Sistine Court. Platina’s “Life of Sixtus IV” and the Frescoes of the Hospital of Santo Spirito, Città del Vaticano. DE

AUGUSTUS AND AUGUSTAN ROME IN HUMANIST LATIN POETRY

259

JAUMANN, H. (1999), Das dreistellige Translatio-Schema und einige Schwierigkeiten mit der Renaissance in Deutschland. Konrad Celtis’ Ode Ad Apollinem (1486), in G. VOGT-SPIRA / B. ROMMEL (eds.), Rezeption und Identität. Die kulturelle Auseinandersetzung Roms mit Griechenland als europäisches Paradigma, Stuttgart, p. 335-349. KOLB, F. (2006), Augustus und das Rom aus Marmor – Glanz und Größe, in E. STEINHÖLKESKAMP / K.-J. HÖLKESKAMP (eds.), Erinnerungsorte der Antike. Die römische Welt, Munich, p. 123-139. KRAYE, J. (ed.) (1996), The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, Cambridge. KYTZLER, B. (ed.) (1972), Roma Aeterna. Lateinische und griechische Romdichtung von der Antike bis in die Gegenwart, Zürich. LE DOZE, P. (2014), Le Parnasse face à l’Olympe. Poésie et culture politique à l’époque d’Octavien/Auguste, Rome. LEE, E. (1978), Sixtus IV and Men of Letters, Roma. MACLAUGHLIN, M. (1995), Literary Imitation in the Italian Renaissance. The Theory and Practice of Literary Imitation in Italy from Dante to Bembo, Oxford. MARCOZZI, L. (2001), Petrarca lettore di Ovidio, in E. RUSSO (ed.), Testimoni del vero. Su alcuni libri in biblioteche d’autore, Roma, p. 57-106. O’MALLEY, D. (1968), Giles of Viterbo on Church and Reform. A Study in Renaissance Thought, Leiden. MERTENS, D. (2000), Celtis ad Caesarem. Oden 1, 1-2 und Epode 1, in AUHAGEN et al. (2000), p. 67-85. MIGLIO, M. et al. (eds.) (1986), Un Pontificato ed una Città: Sisto IV (1471-1484), Rome. MILLER, J. F. (2009), Apollo, Augustus and the Poets, Cambridge. MUECKE, F. (2007), Poetry on Rome from the Ambience of Pomponio Leto: Topography, History, Encomium, in L’Elisse. Studi storici di letteratura italiana 2, p. 101-126. MÜNTZ, E. (1983), Les arts à la cour des Papes pendant le XVe et le XVIe siècle, vols. 1-3, Hildesheim. RAMSEY, P. A. (ed.) (1982), Rome in the Renaissance. The City and the Myth, New York. REGN, G. (2004), Aufbruch zur Neuzeit. Francesco Petrarca 1304–1374, in R. SPECK / F. NEUMANN (eds.), Francesco Petrarca, 1304-1374. Werk und Wirkung im Spiegel der Biblioteca petrarchesca, Cologne, p. 33-77. ROBERT, J. (2003), Konrad Celtis und das Projekt der deutschen Dichtung. Studien zur humanistischen Konstitution von Poetik, Philosophie, Nation und Ich, Tübingen. ROMAN, L. (2010), Martial and the City of Rome, in Journal of Roman Studies 100, p. 88-117. ROSSING, B. R. (1999), The Choice between Two Cities. Whore, Bride, and Empire in the Apocalypse, Harrisburg. ROTONDÒ, A. (1972), Aurelio Lippo Brandolini, in A. M. GHISALBERTI (ed.), Dizionario biografico degli Italiani 14 (http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/aurelio-lippobrandolini [Dizionario_Biografico]). SCHÄFER, E. (1976), Deutscher Horaz. Conrad Celtis – Georg Fabricius – Paul Melissus – Jacob Balde. Die Nachwirkung des Horaz in der neulateinischen Dichtung Deutschlands, Wiesbaden. SCHEIDING, O. (2005), Intertextualität, in A. ERLL / A. NÜNNING (eds.), Gedächtniskonzepte der Literaturwissenschaft. Theoretische Grundlegung und Anwendungsperspektiven, Berlin, p. 53-72.

260

SUSANNA DE BEER

THOMPSON, L. (1990), The Book of Revelation. Apocalypse and Empire, New York. WEISS, R. (1969), The Renaissance Discovery of Classical Antiquity, Oxford. WHITE, P. (1993), Promised Verse. Poets in the Society of Augustan Rome, Cambridge MA. WITT, R. G. (2000), In the Footsteps of the Ancients. The Origins of Humanism from Lovati to Bruni, Leiden.

Caesar Augustus and Shakespeare ELIZABETH OAKLEY-BROWN (Lancaster University)

Abstract This essay tries to show how reading against the grain of a text might refresh critical engagement with canonical material. While Shakespeare never produced a play called Augustus, Rome’s first princeps occupies a pivotal role in Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra and Cymbeline and early modern England itself. Hence, the paper introduces some of the ways in which Shakespearean drama adapts Rome’s shifting political climate for performance in the turbulent social conditions of post-Reformation England and how the transformation of Octavius into Augustus is an important marker of sixteenthand seventeenth-century cultural concerns.

According to Adrian Goldsworthy, ‘Caesar Augustus has slipped from the wider consciousness’ and ‘One of the reasons is that Shakespeare never wrote a play about him, perhaps because there is little natural tragedy in a man who lives to a ripe old age and dies in his bed’. 1 Goldsworthy continues, ‘He appears as Octavius in Julius Caesar [ca. 1599] and as Caesar in Antony and Cleopatra [ca. 1606-7], but in neither play is his character engaging’. 2 While it is indisputable that Shakespeare does not focus his audience’s attention on the figure of Augustus – the plays’ titles make that very obvious point at the outset – he is an undeniable material presence in the tragedies and an invisible yet important force in Shakespeare’s late play Cymbeline (ca. 1609-10). Even a cursory glance at the sequence of names used to refer to Rome’s eventual princeps in these three plays – Octavius, Caesar, Augustus as in the 1623 First Folio – insinuates that Shakespeare’s treatment of Roman rule is more complex than Goldsworthy’s brief discussion suggests and that a useful critical perspective might be gained by examining his development across Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra and Cymbeline. In what follows I introduce some of the ways in which Shakespearean drama adapts Rome’s shifting political climate for performance in the turbulent social conditions of post-Reformation England and how the transformation of Octavius into Augustus is an important marker of sixteenth- and seventeenthcentury cultural concerns. 1 2

GOLDSWORTHY (2014), p. 2. Ibid., p. 2.

262

ELIZABETH OAKLEY-BROWN

Augustus is often commonly celebrated for initiating the pax Romana during an epoch which simultaneously witnessed the birth of Christ, thus interwoven strands of polity, humanist endeavour and Christian enterprise are bound up in early modern’s England’s bifurcated view of classical Rome as both a model of ‘cultural authority’ 3 and the central loci of Papal rule. In other words, there is no well-defined model for the reception of Augustus in Shakespearean drama. For a nation bent on consolidating its burgeoning Protestant identity, classical epic provides an especially compelling mode of writing. Lisa Stark-Estes explains, ‘As Shakespeare and his contemporaries well knew, the Latin epic – with Virgil’s Aeneid as its prototype – was deeply implicated in the service of dynastic power and imperial conquest, as the primary purpose of its narrative was to praise Augustus and to build poetic monuments of national history and identity from inherited stories, chronicles, legends, and myths’. 4 However, drama is a generically different – and during Shakespeare’s lifetime ‒ a less prestigious form of textual production. Nonetheless, with its integrated use of verbal and non-verbal signs, drama is an ideal mode for tacitly questioning political and poetic sensibilities. The actors’ bodies, rather than words alone, convey meaning: voice and gesture signify. Within the guiding principles of classical epic, Augustus can be viewed as a powerful patron encouraging literary production. And yet he might also be seen as controlling the content of that literature. Such a perspective is offered in Ovid’s biography. The author of the Metamorphoses (finished in AD 8), one of Shakespeare’s favourite classical source texts, was memorably subjected to Augustan exile. While the reason for Ovid’s banishment remains a mystery, his expulsion to Tomis generated the Tristia [‘Sorrows’] (ca. AD 8) and helped to seal the Roman poet’s general identification as an oppositional poet. For StarkEstes, Ovid offers a ‘facetious, obligatory bow to Augustus in the final book of Metamorphoses’ which in turn helps to establish Shakespeare ‘as an antiAugustan, Ovidian poet-playwright’. 5 As an early modern actor-come playwright, Shakespeare may also have been aware that Suetonius records that Augustus ‘readily demonstrated his power to transform the theatre into a locus of spectacular punishment for any actor who displeased him’. 6 Though his anti-Augustan credentials are open to debate, Shakespeare’s interest in recasting classical Rome for early modern English audiences cannot be easily separated from political allegory. Indeed, Shakespeare’s treatments of Octavius Caesar in Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar in Antony and Cleopatra cannot be neatly divorced from their respective Elizabethan and Jacobean periods of production.

3 4 5 6

HOPKINS (2008), p. 4. STARK-ESTES (2014), p. 65. Ibid., p. 144. ENDERS (1999), p. 202.

CAESAR AUGUSTUS AND SHAKESPEARE

263

Octavius makes his inaugural Shakespearean appearance in the late-Elizabethan tragedy Julius Caesar, a self-consciously reflective work about its own relationship to past events. As Katharine Eisaman Maus points outs, Caius Cassius ‘eagerly anticipates his own impersonated presence on Shakespeare’s stage: ‘How many ages hence/ Shall this our lofty scene be acted over, / In states unborn and accents yet unknown!’ (3.1.112-14). 7 Shakespeare’s second Roman play (after Titus Andronicus [1594]) was most likely first performed in 1599 and quite possibly at The Globe. The diary of the Swiss traveller Thomas Platter the Younger records that ‘On September 21st after lunch, about two o’clock, I and my party crossed the water, and there in the house with the thatched roof witnessed an excellent performance of the tragedy of the first Emperor Julius Caesar’. 8 Shakespeare’s apparently Tudor exploration of Julius Caesar’s assassination and its aftermath thus took place at a time when England’s future rule was open to speculation. Now, the famously childless Elizabeth I’s juxtaposition alongside the young Octavius’ ‒ Caesar’s grandnephew, heir and ultimately one of Rome’s triumvirs ‒ seems highly pertinent. According to Howard Erskine-Hill: Augustus had been praised for allowing writers a reasonable freedom of expression. The relative political stability of the principate had allowed this tolerance, which in respecting existing freedoms had also been prudent. It was hard for Protestant England in Counter-Reformation times, to rise to this standard. Invasion, attempted or threatened, conspiracy, rumoured or real, kept the political tension high, especially as Elizabeth grew old, with the question of succession still unsettled. 9

Given the government’s control of the Elizabethan public theatre 10 and the Augustan-like threat of corporeal punishment for those who transgressed its legislation, it is not surprising that it is difficult to establish whether the play supports or defames republicanism. If ‘Shakespeare stakes out an ambivalent position toward the figure of Julius Caesar’, 11 the same might be said of the playwright’s attitude to Octavius. Shakespearean scholars comprehensively show how Thomas North’s translation of Plutarch’s Lives of the noble Grecian and Romanes is an important source for the Roman plays. First published in 1579 and dedicated ‘To the most high and mighty Princesse Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, France, and Ireland Queene, defender of the faith: &c.’, 12 Augustus does not appear as an individual life in the prefatory table of the 1579 edition. Nonetheless, his MAUS (2008), p. 1549. WILLIAMS (1937), p. 166. 9 ERSKINE-HILL (1983), p. 102. 10 See further GURR (2009), p. 91-99. 11 STARK-ESTES (2014), p. 144. 12 Folio *.ir. 7 8

264

ELIZABETH OAKLEY-BROWN

significance is inevitably woven into Plutarch’s lives of Julius Caesar and Brutus. Likewise, and as Mark Antony’s dialogue with his servant over Julius Caesar’s slain body at the end of 3.1 shows, Octavius is a marginal yet marked presence in Shakespeare’s tragedy: Post back with speed and tell him what hath chanced. Here is a mourning Rome, a dangerous Rome. No Rome of safety for Octavius yet. Hie hence and tell him so. – Yet stay awhile, Thou shalt not back till I have borne this corpse Into the market-place. There shall I try In my oration how the people take The cruel issue of these bloody men; According to the which thou shalt discourse To young Octavius of the state of things. Lend me your hand. (290-300)

In just ten lines, this prescient speech establishes Octavius’ imminent arrival into Rome, his youth and, as he reaches out for the servant’s assistance to remove the corpse, Mark Antony’s allegiance-by-proxy. Accompanied by Mark Antony carrying a list of those who ‘shall die’ (4.1.1) and Lepidus, Octavius Caesar takes the stage at the start of 4.1. At this point, the audience see Rome’s new triumvirate in the flesh. Caesar’s first words to Lepidus ‘Your brother too must die. Consent you, Lepidus’ (4.1.2) confirms this economical scene’s investment in dramatizing the stark strategy of proscription. Lepidus’ reply, ‘I do consent. / … Upon condition Publius shall not live, / Who is your sister’s son, Mark Antony’ (4.1.3-5) establishes the cool emotional co-ordinates determining how this political bond surpasses familial ties. Once Lepidus exits at 4.1.11, ‘Antony plots with Octavius to eliminate Lepidus’ and ‘the audience knows as history cannot that the cold, noncommittal Octavius will ultimately annihilate both his triumviral associates’. 13 However, for all of his youth – a fact which Mark Antony is keen to point out by saying that he has seen ‘more days’ (4.1.18) than his fellow triumvir ‒ Octavius is perhaps an artful rather than ‘noncommittal’ reader of the situation. Mark Antony’s sustained defamation of Lepidus as a ‘slight, unmeritable man, / Meet to be sent on errands’ but not fit to share in ‘The three-fold [Roman] world divided’ and one who should be spoken of ‘as a property (4.1.12-40) is met with Octavius’ succinct yet ultimately probing responses. Whereas Antony’s bid for influence involves the castigation of his absent colleague, his auditor takes stock of the situation at large. The episode closes with Octavius’ wider-reaching perspective:

13

MAUS (2008), p. 1555.

CAESAR AUGUSTUS AND SHAKESPEARE

265

… we are at the stake And bayed about with many enemies; And some that smile have in their hearts, I fear, Millions of mischiefs. (4.1.47-51)

Throughout the play, Mark Antony confidently commands the onstage proceedings. Yet the audience cannot be sure whom Octavius deems an enemy and whom he believes dissimulates friendship. As another dead body (this time Brutus’) brings Julius Caesar to an end, it is striking that Octavius declaims the closing couplet: ‘So call the field to rest, and let’s away / To part the glories of this happy day’ (5.5.79-80). The youthful Roman – quite literally ‒ controls the plot. In the years between Julius Caesar and its supposed sequel Antony and Cleopatra, ‘the Augustan Idea in English Literature’ (to cite the title of Howard Erskine-Hill’s important book 14) gained wider cultural visibility. On 21 December 1601, for example, Ben Jonson’s satirical comedy Poetaster, Or The Arraignment was entered in the Stationers’ Register and performed at the Blackfriars theatre by the Children of Queen Elizabeth’s Chapel in 1601-2. 15 Set in the court of Augustus Caesar, Jonson’s play, as its title Poetaster (‘an inferior poet’ [OED]) indicates, is ostensibly concerned with the relationship of poetry, value and authority. If Shakespeare’s Elizabethan Julius Caesar fashions an upcoming singular yet distant leader, ‘Jonson follows that humanist tradition exemplified by Sir Thomas Elyot, which already saw Augustus as a “most noble emperor … in whom reigned all nobilities”, a pattern for princes’. 16 According to Lisa Hopkins, ‘one of the principle reasons the early modern English stage found the Caesars so useful was that they could so readily be used to figure contemporary English rulers. Although it could be used in relation to queens, this paradigm does not acquire its full potential until the accession of James VI and I’. 17 One example of this cultural realisation is James’ own adoption of Augustan iconography as witnessed in the address ‘To the Reader’ added to the 1603 edition of his treatise on government, Basilikon Doron: I will speake no thing of the state of England, as a mater wherein I never had experience. I knowe … no kingdome lackes her owne diseases, and likewayes what interest I have in the prosperitie of that state: for although I would be silent, my blood & discent doth sufficiently proclaime it. But notwithstanding, since there is a lawfull Queene there presently raigning, who hath so long with so great wisedome & foelicity governed her kingdoms, as (I must in true sinceritie confesse) the like hath not bene read nor heard of, either in our time, or since the 14 15 16 17

ERSKINE-HILL (1983). CAIN (1995), p. 1 and p. 277. Ibid., p. 16. HOPKINS (2008), p. 7.

266

ELIZABETH OAKLEY-BROWN

dayes of the Romane Emperour Augustus; it could no wayes become me, farre inferiour to her in knowledge and experience, to be a busie body in other Princes maters, and to fishe in other folkes waters, as the proverbe is. (Folio 3r)

To be sure, it is England’s Queen who is likened to the Roman Emperor. However, ‘For James to praise Elizabeth through a comparison with Augustus was a public affirmation, by the queen’s probable successor, of some of his own political values’. 18 In the same year that James issued his revised edition of Basilikon Doron, ‘Octavius Caesar’ was one of the fifteen ‘Lives newly added’ (Folio A7v) to the 1603 edition of Plutarch’s Lives and its prefatory poem is inscribed with a similar attributes: Thy Thy Thy Thy

youth Augustus, and thy tongues good gift, valour, wisedome, and thy worthy feats, countries love, thy lawes, and statutes lift throne above all other princely seates.

As England’s Augustan interests increase alongside its shift from Tudor to Stuart rule, the role of Caesar seems similarly foreground in Antony and Cleopatra. In the words of Lisa Hopkins, ‘at the heart of the play is … the figure of Augustus’. 19 This significance is underscored in the British Broadcasting Company’s 1981 television production which cast Ian Charleson in the role of Caesar and it is his image which appears on the cover of the DVD alongside Jane Lapotaire’s Cleopatra rather than Colin Blakely’s Antony. Returning to Antony and Cleopatra’s Stuart context, and with the King an avowedly living iteration of Augustus, it seems expedient to note that, like Julius Caesar and Cymbeline, this play was first printed in the 1623 First Folio of Shakespeare’s Comedies, histories, & tragedies. These three plays featuring the progression of Augustan influence are all Jacobean publications. While ‘[i]n Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra the use of the Augustus persona may initially seem flattering to James’, as Hopkins demonstrates, a ‘closer examination reveals that some unexpectedly explosive associations which can be detonated by reading James as Augustus’. 20 In turn, the specific period of production may shape a mindfully guarded representation of Augustus. Focussing on the period 40 to 30 B.C. and examining ‘Rome’s external imperial domains’ rather than the domestic politics surrounding Julius Caesar’s assassination – the ‘The three-fold [Roman] world’ mentioned in the earlier play has now been ‘divided’ between Lepidus, Antony and Caesar 21 ‒ the comparisons between Antony and Caesar are exacerbated as the narrative

18 19 20 21

ERSKINE HILL (1983), p. 107. HOPKINS (2008), p. 11. Ibid., p. 11. COHEN (2008), p. 2633-2634.

CAESAR AUGUSTUS AND SHAKESPEARE

267

progresses. ‘Shakespeare’s is a dialectical imagination’ 22 and the play’s binary form, made clear in its very title, is extended once Caesar’s accusation of Lepidus is reported in 3.5.6-11. His threatened expulsion from power in Julius Caesar 4.1 finally come to fruition: Rome’s three leaders become two. As in that earlier play, Antony remains scathing about Caesar’s age and Cleopatra now joins him in that defamation. In Act 1, Cleopatra calls him ‘the scarcebearded Caesar’ (1.1.22); two acts later Antony calls him ‘the boy Caesar’ (3.3.17). By way of the letter which opens Act 4, Antony’s disparagement of Caesar’s youth is made to known to the character himself who, in an uncharacteristically emotional speech, responds as follows: He calls me boy, and chides as he had power To beat me out of Egypt. My messenger He hath whipped with rods, dares me to personal combat, Caesar to Antony. Let the old ruffian know I have many other ways to die; meantime, Laugh at his challenge. (4.1.1-6)

But even here, Caesar reigns in his passion to use laughter as a means to undercut his opponent’s ambitions. As we have already witnessed in Julius Caesar, Caesar is a clear-sighted strategist able to read his immediate circumstances with nuance and precision. His propensity for analysis is maintained until the very end of Antony and Cleopatra. Caesar surveys the Egyptian women’s bodies with an almost forensic eye for detail as he asks ‘The manner of their deaths? / I do not see them bleed?’ (5.2.327-8). The play’s final lines speech further information about Cleopatra’s suicide: … her physician tells me She hath pursued conclusions infinite Of easy ways to die. Take up her bed, And bear her women from the monument. She shall be buried by her Antony. No grave upon the earth shall clip in it. A pair so famous. High events as these Strike those that make them, and their story is No less in pity than his glory which Brought them to be lamented. Our army shall In solemn show attend this funeral, And then to Rome. Come, Dolabella, see High order in this great solemnity. (5.2.344-356)

By comparison with Mark Antony’s use of Julius Caesar’s body to manipulate the populace (Julius Caesar 3.2.70ff), this Caesar orchestrates his offstage spectators through different rhetorical means. By emphasising the Queen’s interest 22

ERSKINE HILL (1983), p. 135.

268

ELIZABETH OAKLEY-BROWN

in ‘easy ways to die’, his measured speech quietly undercuts Cleopatra’s agency. In so doing, Caesar also reduces the former triumvir to a subordinate role; he is Cleopatra’s. As Augustus matures in the course of these three works, the playwright’s stagecraft acquires signs of increasing confidence and experimentation. Whereas Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra take a fairly straightforward approach to the adaptation of classical history, Shakespeare’s final Roman play Cymbeline crafts a bold fusion of ‘an aggressively independent Britain with the pax Romana of Augustus’. 23 Primarily indebted Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae and Holinshed’s Chronicles, and as it switches focus between ‘the earlier descendants of the first Trojan settlers of the land’ and Romans, Cymbeline’s narrative structure speaks to James’ own ambitions to unify Scotland and England: the drama… certainly arises out of some very extreme contrasts: primitive Britain with “the most high and palmy state of Rome” ‒ and for that matter the polished libertine Rome of Iachimo, the Rome of Ovid whose Metamorphoses (Iachimo notes) Imogen has been reading in the bedchamber scene in II, ii. (ll. 22-6), with the public and martial Rome of Caius Lucius and Augustus. 24

Augustus does not appear in Cymbeline. For that matter, King Cymbeline – the play’s titular monarch – is generally overshadowed by the plot’s focus on his daughter and presumed sole heir Imogen. However, Cymbeline’s backstory is embroiled with that of the Roman principate. Taking inspiration from the life of Cunobeline, the historical king of pre-Roman Britain who, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth, was raised in the Augustan court, Shakespeare constructs a heady tale around Imogen which nonetheless is situated in a wider political context. Though often seen as ‘a second plot strand’, Cymbeline takes up and develops chronicle accounts of Britain’s refusal to pay Rome tribute. 25 Shakespeare’s use of this refusal brings the play’s King into indirect contact with Augustus Caesar while allowing the audience to experience a reminder of early modern geopolitics as they listen to Cymbeline’s speech. According to Hopkins,’ England itself laid an increasingly embattled claim to be the only true inheritor of the cultural authority of Rome via the Brutus myth and the idea of translatio imperii. 26 It cannot be a matter of chance that the play’s central act opens with a direct interrogation of Britain’s engagement with the Empire. ‘Now say’ asks Cymbeline, ‘what would Augustus Caesar with us?’ (3.1.1). The Roman

23 24 25 26

ERSKINE HILL (1983), p. 161. Ibid., p. 161. Howard (2008), p. 2694-2695. HOPKINS (2008), p. 4.

CAESAR AUGUSTUS AND SHAKESPEARE

269

Ambassador’s answer provides the playwright with the opportunity to supply some salient information: When Julius Caesar – whose rembrance yet Lives in men’s eyes, and will to ears and tongues Be theme and hearing ever ‒ was in this Britain And conquered it, Cassibelan, thine uncle, Famous in Caesar’s praises no whit less Than in his feats deserving it, for him And his succession granted Rome a tribute, Yearly three thousand pounds, which by thee lately Is left untendered. (3.1.2-10)

Encouraged by his Queen’s rebuttal (3.1.24-33) and his stepson’s view that ‘there’s no more tribute to be paid. Our kingdom is stronger than it was at that time … there is no more such Caesars’ (3.1.34-36), Cymbeline challenges the outstanding debt to Rome: You must know, Till the injurious Romans did extort This tribute from us we were free. Caesar’s ambition, Which swelled up so much that it did almost stretch The sides o’th’ world, against all colour here Did put the yoke upon’s, which to shake off Becomes a warlike people, whom we reckon Ourselves to be. We do say then to Caesar, Our ancestor was Mulmutius which Ordained our laws, whose use of the sword Caesar Hath too much mangled, whose repair and franchise Shall by the power we hold of our good deed, Though Rome be therefore angry. Mulmutius made our laws, Who was the first of Britain which did put His brows within a golden crown and called Himself a King. (3.1.44-59)

Inscribed with the iconic paraphernalia of monarchy and nationhood, Cymbeline’s rail against Roman rule is allied with the kinds of impassioned voices encountered in Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra. With what is now an archetypal example of succinct Augustan rhetoric, Rome’s Ambassador makes the resulting situation very clear: I am sorry Cymbeline, That I am to pronounce Augustus Caesar ‒ Caesar that hath more kings his servants than Thyself domestic officers ‒ thine enemy. (3.1.59-62)

Swiftly and pragmatically, Britain is thus plunged into a war with Rome which is ultimately resolved at the very end of the play. Having agreed to ‘pay our

270

ELIZABETH OAKLEY-BROWN

wonted tribune, from the which / We were dissuaded by our wicked queen’ (5.6.461-463), Cymbeline’s final lines are delivered by its titular figure: … Set we forward, let A Roman and a British ensign wave Friendly together. So through Lud’s town march, And in the temple of great Jupiter Our peace we’ll ratify, seal it with feasts. Set on there. Never was a war did cease, Ere bloody hands were washed, with such a peace. (5.6.479-485)

While it is very convenient for Cymbeline to blame his earlier fiery resistance on ‘our wicked queen’ (and in a longer discussion there is much more to say about the sexual politics of Shakespeare’s Augustus) it is noteworthy that his mode of rhetorical address which calmly emphases the last word of the play ‒ ‘peace’ ‒ ‘may well appear more Augustan than Augustus himself’. 27 From a twenty-first century perspective it is impossible to confidently assert how sixteenth- and seventeenth-century audiences received Shakespeare’s Augustus. The embodied nature of drama relies on the immediacy of performance and a great deal of any character’s staged appearance depends on the actor’s physical and vocal interpretation of their role. Furthermore, the spectator’s reception of that performance rests on their prior knowledge – if any – of the character in question. Nevertheless, I have tried to show in this short essay how reading against the grain of a text might refresh critical engagement with canonical material. While Shakespeare never produced a play called Augustus, Rome’s first princeps occupies a pivotal role in Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra and Cymbeline and early modern England itself. Bibliography All references to Shakespeare’s plays are from GREENBLATT et al. (2008). CAIN, T. (ed.) (1995), Ben Jonson: Poetaster, Manchester. COHEN, W. (2008), Antony and Cleopatra, in GREENBLATT et al. (2008), p. 2633-2642. ENDERS, J. (1999), The Medieval Theatre of Cruelty: Rhetoric, Memory, Violence, Ithaca. ERSKINE-HILL, H. (1983), The Augustan Idea in English Literature, London. GOLDSWORTHY, A. (2014), Augustus: First Emperor of Rome, New Haven. GREENBLATT, S. / COHEN, W. / HOWARD, J. E. / MAUS, K. E. (eds.) (2008), The Norton Shakespeare, 2nd edition, New York. GURR, A. (2009), The Shakespearean Stage 1574-1642, 4th edition, Cambridge. HOPKINS, L. (2008), The Cultural Uses of the Caesars on the English Renaissance Stage, Aldershot. HOWARD, J. E. (2008), Cymbeline, in GREENBLATT et al. (2008), p. 2963-3054. 27

HOPKINS (2008), p. 112.

CAESAR AUGUSTUS AND SHAKESPEARE

271

JAMES VI and I (1603), Basilikon doron. Or His Majesties instructions to his dearest sonne, Henry the prince, London. MAUS, K. E. (2008), Julius Caesar, in GREENBLATT et al. (2008), p. 1549-1556. MIOLA, R. S. (1983), Shakespeare’s Rome, Cambridge. STARK-ESTES, L. (2014), Violence, Trauma, and Virtus in Shakespeare’s Roman Poems and Plays, Basingstoke. SHAKESPEARE, W. (1623), Comedies, histories, & tragedies Published according to the true originall copies, London. NORTH, Th. (tr.) (1579), The lives of the noble Grecians and Romanes compared together by that graue learned philosopher and historiographer, Plutarke of Chaeronea; translated out of Greeke into French by Iames Amyot, London. WILLIAMS, C. (tr.) (1937), Thomas Platter’s Travels in England: 1599, London.

A Role Model Twice Removed? Cosimo I de’ Medici as New Augustus ANDREA M. GÁLDY (International Forum Collecting & Display)*

Abstract Cosimo de’ Medici, Florentine duke and “capo della repubblica” at the same time, had himself portrayed as Augustus in paintings and sculptures. Cosimo even promoted the idea that the foundation of Florence had taken place during the Second Triumvirate and in the presence of a young Octavian. Cosimo owned a copy of Suetonius’s Twelve Caesars and was also a collector of portraits of Julius Caesar and Augustus, all displayed together with his antiquities in the Florentine ducal residences. But is this a full and fair picture of Cosimo’s fixation with Augustus? Why does Cosimo-Augustus usually wear a beard? Does this refer to Suetonius’s Life of Augustus where the emperor’s beard is described as sometimes clipped and sometimes shaved? or is it the result of early modern fashion influencing the sixteenth-century view on Antiquity? In this article I propose to revisit both ducal Florence and ducal imagery. While ancient traditions still play an important role in my investigation, I suggest a different reading of role models and personae adopted by some of the key people of sixteenth-century politics.

1. Introduction My interest in portraits and in the degree of likeness such images actually aimed for – in antiquity as well as in the early modern period – goes back to the early days of my university education. 1 Whilst learning to count curls on ancient imperial foreheads and comparing the different types of imagery to the portraits of the descendants of Octavian Augustus, I started to wonder whether the emperor actually looked anything like his portraits. And, I then asked myself whether – at some later point – rulers might not have picked up this kind of «persona» in order to «dress up» in the Roman emperor’s facial features. Since then, the work of my colleagues as well as my own research has taught me that Cosimo I de’ Medici (1519-1574), Duke of Florence from 1537 and * This chapter is based on my original conference paper presented in Brussels in 2014. I would like to thank Marco Cavalieri, the organiser of the conference, and my fellow presenters, in particular Mattia Cavagna, who very kindly «impersonated» me during the conference. 1 GÁLDY (2013), p. 31-50.

274

ANDREA M. GÁLDY

Grand Duke of Tuscany from 1569, successfully used the Augustan role model. 2 At least since the 1970s, his political imagery has been under investigation, for example, by Kurt W. Forster (1971), 3 Paul W. Richelson (1978) 4 and Robert B. Simon (1982) 5. His adoption of the guise of a new Augustus has, therefore, been an acknowledged thesis for some time and fits with Cosimo’s biography, his collecting practices, his politics as well as with his succession to power in the wake of the murder of a close relative. Why, then, yet another essay on Cosimo I as a new Augustus? My chapter is not primarily concerned with renaissance portraiture and its potential dependence on ancient material culture in general nor with Cosimo as citizen prince in the succession of Augustus primus inter pares. Rather, it revisits Cosimo I’s political use of the Augustan role model in the days of the Holy Roman Empire. In my view at least, Cosimo – frequently if perhaps not always – tried to give an entirely different image and account of himself and of his government in his negotiations with the emperor and with the Holy Roman Empire than has long been assumed. As a result, I focus on the perception of Augustus as an emperor of resolve and as an example of good government – a perception developed and visualised since antiquity and revitalised in the days of Maximilian I and Charles V. And, on how and why Cosimo tried to adapt this imagery for himself. Therefore, the investigation is less about whether Cosimo followed the Augustan model but which Augustan model the Florentine duke tried to emulate and to what use. 2. An Augustan Succession In June 1519, a baby boy was born to the Florentine condottiere Giovanni de’ Medici, often also referred to as Giovanni dalle bande nere, 6 and to his wife Maria Salviati, 7 a granddaughter of Lorenzo il Magnifico. 8 His parents’ marriage brought together the gene pool and aspirations of both lines of the Medici family. The child became the focus of Medici hopes and ambitions, which had lain largely frustrated ever since the family had been forced to leave Florence, at least temporarily, in 1494. Therefore, Pope Leo X de’ Medici picked «Cosimo» deliberately as a programmatic name with the heavy inheritance of Cosimo Pater Patriae (1389-1464) attached to it. As Cosimino grew up, he

GÁLDY (2009). FOSTER (1971), p. 65-104. 4 RICHELSON (1978). 5 SIMON (1982). 6 ARFAIOLI (2005). 7 SIMON (2013), p. 17-30 and the first chapter on Maria Salviati in LANGDON (2006), p. 23-58. 8 FUSCO / CORTI (2006) and KENT (2004). 2 3

COSIMO I DE’ MEDICI AS NEW AUGUSTUS

275

frequently followed family traditions established by his forebears in his own politics. In January 1537, his relative Alessandro, 9 the first Medici duke ruling over Florence due to his marriage ties with the house of Habsburg, was murdered by Lorenzo (Lorenzaccio) de’ Medici; Cosimo became Capo della Repubblica and was eventually elected as Duke of Florence. 10 After a choppy start, he managed to conclude a highly successful marriage with the daughter of the Vice-roy of Naples, Don Pedro of Toledo. 11 With one possible short-lived exception, Cosimo seems to have remained a staunch ally of the Empire throughout his reign: after all, he depended on the emperor’s goodwill and hoped to gain recognition and a rise in rank. 12 Unfortunately, his favourite ambition, i.e. to become King of Tuscany, was doomed to fail. So was his aspiration for a place among the archdukes of the Empire. In the end, the best he could get was a papal – and, therefore, unusual and not entirely satisfactory – appointment as Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1569, with the coronation following in 1570. 13 Cosimo died in April 1574, after which his eldest son Francesco, eventually and not without dispute, succeeded to the grand ducal title. Fully aware of what it meant to be a Medici ruling over Florence in 1537, Cosimo had chosen an image that emphasised the coming of a second Cosimo much in line with Pontormo’s defiant portrait of the famous ancestor. 14 This made some rewriting of history necessary, though. Cosimo the Elder had been given the title of pater patriae by the Florentine Republic and was often presented as a new Cicero and saviour of the republic, 15 for example in the salone of the Medici villa at Poggio a Caiano and in several of the state rooms of Palazzo Vecchio after it had become the seat of ducal government in 1540. Cosimo, the duke, needed to find additional and appropriate role models, for example from classical antiquity, to expand his imagery and underpin his aspirations. The message, in sum, always remained the same: he presented himself as saviour of Florence in general and of the Florentine Republic in particular and as bringer of peace, whether in the guise of Orpheus wearing the body of the Torso Belvedere or clad in all’antica armour. 16 9 Visit https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AlessandrodeMediciRuestung.jpg for the Giorgio Vasari’s 1534 portrait of Alessandro in Maximilian armour. 10 SPINI (1980). 11 EISENBICHLER (2001). 12 SPINI (1976). 13 PASTOR (1920), VIII, p. 478. VAN VEEN (1998), p. 206-219, part. p. 213-217. On the grand duke and his commissions after his rise in rank, see VAN VEEN (2006), p. 131-147. 14 For an illustration, visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosimode’Medici#/media / File: Pontormo -_Ritratto_di_Cosimo_il_Vecchio_ Google_Art Project.jpg. On Pontormo, see COSTAMAGNA (1994); ECLERCY (2013); FALCIANI / NATALI (2014). 15 KENT (2000). 16 SIMON (1985); PIZZORUSSO (2010), p. 118-119; TALVACCHIA (2013), p. 51-66.

276

ANDREA M. GÁLDY

The most successful adoption of a role model by Cosimo was that of Emperor Augustus; it is probably also the one to have been studied in most detail. Cosimo who may have had a bucolic upbringing – hunting and fishing in the Tuscan countryside – came to power according to the stipulations put in place by the murdered Alessandro’s father in law, Charles V. 17 The young duke almost immediately exploited the parallels between the events leading to his own succession and the career of Octavian primus inter pares after Caesar’s murder. He did so by means of art and literature – in response to what had already been done by the murderer. 18 An entire book by the Bolognese writer Mario Matasilani eventually described the parallel lives of Cosimo and Octavian (much in the ancient tradition of Plutarch). 19 Cosimo’s study room of Calliope on the second floor of Palazzo Vecchio contained ancient portraits of Caesar and Augustus. 20 In his library, Suetonius’s work on the twelve Caesars was available for consultation. 21 It is proof of Cosimo’s political acumen that he, despite his youth, immediately grasped the importance of the Augustan model for his rule. He successfully managed to grow into this new role, which he shaped and presented to a diverse audience according to changing political contexts and requirements. 3. Renaissance Portraiture Research in early modern portraiture has shown that images such as Bronzino’s portrait of Cosimo in the Guise of Orpheus (Agnolo Bronzino, ca. 1537-1539, oil on panel, Philadelphia Museum of Art) tried to do more than depict the true likeness of a person. 22 In most cases, the early modern portrait served as vehicle of the sitter’s personality as much as of his or her features. On occasion, it functioned as a sympathetic presence to a far-away relative or intended to establish a first emotional tie as part of marriage negotiations. In any case, and in particular when the sitter was part of the ruling class, the portrait expressed ambitions, aspirations and alliances. In all likelihood, the allegorical painting of Cosimo-Orpheus was, therefore, not so much regarded as an exact rendition of the ducal face and physique but as a spirited attempt to turn him into a recognisable symbol of Pax Cosmiana as well as into an expression of uxorious feelings for his dynastic bride, Eleonora of Toledo.

See the imperial charter published as appendix n. IV in CANTINI (1805), p. 507. STREHLKE (2004). 19 MATASILANI (1572). 20 GÁLDY (2005), p. 699-709. 21 GÁLDY (2009), p. 74, 99-100 and 240. 22 Visit http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/52029.html for an illustration. 17 18

COSIMO I DE’ MEDICI AS NEW AUGUSTUS

277

4. Twelve Caesars at the Early Modern Court By the sixteenth century, portraits of the twelve Caesars had become coveted collectors’ items. Antiquities, copies after the antique and painted as well as sculpted renaissance works all’antica found their way into the kunst- and wunderkammern of Europe. As has already been mentioned, Cosimo collected ancient images in his Scrittoio of Calliope on the second floor of the ducal palace (Palazzo Vecchio) in Florence. Hence, sixteenth-century knowledge about the physical appearance of Roman emperors combined written sources such as Suetonius’s Lives with visual sources in the form of ancient material culture. 23 Augustan official portraiture falls into three distinctive types. 24 With very few exceptions, he was depicted as clean-shaven in his ancient sculpted portraits and so were the succeeding emperors in the Julio-Claudian line up to Nero who gradually adopted a more individual look. 25 An exception to this general rule is provided by a coin portrait, of the kind struck in 36BC and usually bearing the image of the Temple of Divus Julius on the reverse: it shows a young Octavian in profile with a short beard. 26 A marble bust of a similarly bearded Gaius Caesar, grandson of Augustus, was sold at Bonham’s Antiquities in October 2013. 27 Suetonius, who in his Lives of the Caesars described Augustus as handsome but negligent in his hair-care and as someone who sometimes wore a beard and sometimes went without, corroborates these ancient portraits to an extent. LXXIX. In person he was handsome and graceful, through every period of his life. But he was negligent in his dress; and so careless about dressing his hair, that he usually had it done in great haste, by several barbers at a time. His beard he sometimes clipped, and sometimes shaved; and either read or wrote during the operation. His countenance, either when discoursing or silent, was so calm and serene, that a Gaul of the first rank declared amongst his friends, that he was so softened by it, as to be restrained from throwing him down a precipice, in his passage over the Alps, when he had been admitted to approach him, under pretence of conferring with him. His eyes were bright and piercing; and he was willing it should be thought that there was something of a divine vigour in them. He was likewise not a little pleased to see people, upon his looking steadfastly at them, lower their countenances, as if the sun shone in their eyes. But in his old age, he saw very imperfectly with his left eye. His teeth were thin set, small and scaly, his hair a

GÁLDY (2009). ZANKER (20095). 25 On Nero’s imagery in sculpture and on coinage, visit http://www.rome101.com/ portraiture/nero/ for the photos by Bill STORAGE and Laura MAISH. 26 See fig. 2 of a denarius in the British Museum in KEMPERS (2002), p. 191-198, part. p. 193. 27 See http://www.historyextra.com/news/gaius-caesar-bust-heading-home-italy. 23 24

278

ANDREA M. GÁLDY

little curled, and inclining to a yellow colour. His eye-brows met; his ears were small, and he had an aquiline nose. His complexion was betwixt brown and fair; his stature but low; though Julius Marathus, his freedman, says he was five feet and nine inches in height. This, however, was so much concealed by the just proportion of his limbs that it was only perceivable upon comparison with some taller person standing by him. 28

Augustus certainly knew how he wanted to be remembered for eternity and so he created a memorable imperial portrait, which could be easily recognised throughout the culturally diverse Roman Empire and serve as the visual foundation for imperial memory for the next 2,000 years. 29 Paul Zanker who studied Augustan imagery for some decades and in great detail, has described how the enduring image preserved to this day was the result of portraits gradually created by combining Octavian’s actual looks with Polycleitan works of art, for example the Doryphoros. 30 Whereas the early portraits still show the lively, individual traits of a young man enmeshed in a fight for power and survival, the later Augustan images convey the impression of almost divine serenity. Princes and emperors of the Julio-Claudian family adopted similarly stylised portraits that are proof of the success and longevity of an image that was far more a brand than a likeness. 31 5. Titian’s Twelve Caesars at Mantua Centuries later, images of the Julio-Claudian emperors, whether ancient or all’antica, occasionally substituted an aristocratic genealogy if a family had only been ennobled for a short time. Princely collectors such as the Medici of the sixteenth century would have been aware of their own lack of lineage and would have tried to correct it with the help of marriages to dynastic brides and by displaying imperial imagery. A network of artists and impresarios, chief among them Giorgio Vasari, kept the princes informed about commissions at rival courts. Cosimo I must have been aware of Titian’s series of the Twelve Emperors commissioned by the Duke of Mantua for the Troy Apartments decorated by Giulio Romano in the late 1530s. 32 Twelve half-length portraits, probably painted around 1537 and 1538, were completed for display in the Cabinet of the Caesars – the twelfth probably painted by Giulio Romano, a close friend of Giorgio Vasari. The paintings were sold to England in the seventeenth

SUET., Aug. LXXIX-LXXX (translated by J. C. ROLFE, Cambridge MA, 1998). EVERITT (2006), for a family tree, see p. xxix. 29 ZANKER (20095), p. 294-311. 30 ZANKER (20095), in particular p. 50-52 and 103-106. 31 See W. ECK (2008), p. 7-37. On the succession, see p. 31-35. 32 On Titian’s Twelve Emperors for Mantua, see for example KEMPERS (2002). 28

COSIMO I DE’ MEDICI AS NEW AUGUSTUS

279

century and later sent to Spain where they may have perished in a fire. 33 Knowledge survives through literary sources, for example in Vasari’s Lives, 34 and through drawings and prints executed by Ippolito Andreasi and Aegidius Sadeler from the 1560s and 1590s respectively. 35 The portraits may well have been influenced by Suetonius’s biographies but bear remarkably little resemblance to most surviving antiquities. When faced with the possibility of using an ancient written source or a visual model, Titian, his advisors (Benedetto Lampridio), or his patron seem to have chosen the literary information over available antiquities. This may be the reason why Augustus was depicted wearing all’antica garments, short hair and, unusually, a slight beard. Federigo Gonzaga was a notable (and bearded) collector of antiquities. 36 In 1530 he was raised to the rank of duke by Emperor Charles V who also came to visit Mantua in 1530 and 1532, i.e. the first time on his way to his own papal coronation and to having his portrait in armour painted by Titian (through Medici negotiation). 37 By 1536, he was going to extend the Gonzaga territory well into Piedmont. Titian’s series for Federigo may, therefore, have been intended as an expression of humanist enthusiasm for an antiquarian culture very close to the heart of the Gonzaga duke. Alternatively, it may have been celebrating Charles V as Caesar, finally anointed and crowned to rule over an empire seen as the successor of imperial Rome and thus as modern addition to the series of portraits of ancient emperors. Konrad Eisenbichler, and André Chastel before him, have shown that in the days of Charles V a deliberate «Romanisation» of the Holy Roman Empire took place, which re-connected Emperor Charles to the ancient original through a changing imagery employed, for example, during festive entries. 38 While I am inclined to think that this process had already started with Emperor On their afterlife, see KEMPERS (2002). Most recently, ANDERSON (2015) discussed the negotiations and sale of the collection and the reasons why it was attractive for a collector and king such as Charles I. On Charles I’s imperial aspirations, see also PARRY (2013), p. 49-50. 34 «[…] Federigo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, with whom Tiziano went to his States and there painted a portrait of him, which is a living likeness, and then one of the Cardinal, his brother. These finished, he painted, for the adornment of a room among those of Giulio Romano, twelve figures from the waist upwards of the twelve Caesars, very beautiful, beneath each of which the said Giulio afterwards painted a story from their lives». See VASARI (2010); https://www.gutenberg.org/files/32362/32362.txt. 35 For the respective roles of Andreasi and Sadeler see KEMPERS (2002), p. 191-192. 36 On Federigo Gonzaga see BODART (1998). 37 On Titian painting Charles V’s portrait in Bologna, see: «It is said that in the year 1530, the Emperor Charles V being in Bologna, Tiziano was invited to that city by Cardinal Ippolito de’ Medici, through the agency of Pietro Aretino. There he made a most beautiful portrait of his Majesty in full armour, which so pleased him, that he caused a thousand crowns to be given to Tiziano», VASARI (2010). 38 EISENBICHLER (1999), p. 430-439 refers to CHASTEL (1960), II, p. 197-202. 33

280

ANDREA M. GÁLDY

Maximilian I, 39 I agree that it makes a case for Charles V as a new Caesar Augustus and a new Charlemagne in a double (or perhaps even triple) revival of empire. Bologna was an unusual place for such an imperial coronation and, therefore, the city tried very hard to refer at every occasion, i.e. in the chosen locations and decorative programme, to ancient Rome as well as to the eternal city as the site of Charlemagne’s coronation on Christmas Day 800. The objective was to render invalid any possible objections to Charles, after all emperor elect since 1519, or to Bologna as the place of coronation. 40 Charles Habsburg was still a clean-shaven young man as King of the Romans in ca. 1521, following the fashions of his Burgundian forebears; by the 1530s, he wore a full beard. 41 Perhaps he had chosen to change his appearance by adopting a beard of the kind that his ancient and mediaeval role models for his new post had once worn. Some ancient emperors had worn beards, as he (or at least his advisors) would have known, in particular from ancient coins, and so did Charlemagne who had been able to revive the ancient idea of empire in a Christian key for the first time. By going clean-shaven when young, Cosimo may have deliberately followed the example of his famous condottiere father, Giovanni, who famously referred to long hair and a beard as a hotbed of lice – true, no doubt, during a military campaign – and who rarely wore a beard since he was also proud of his pale complexion. 42 In any event, the pictorial references to Cosimo the Elder and to Pontormo’s portrait of the young duke still abound throughout the decorations of the staterooms in Palazzo Vecchio over a decade later. 43 Thus, the two Cosimos appear as the Medici saints Cosmas and Damian on the wings of the altarpiece in the chapel of the apartment of Leo X. 44 Here, the brother saints no longer look like twins: by the mid-fifties to early sixties Cosimo’s image had found its own distinctive features, including a beard, which he looked after with the help of a barber. In 1544, it was Barbetta Barbiere, who also held a place among the duke’s «lancie spezzate» bodyguards. 45 Even though Cosimo’s portraits were allowed to age somewhat in the years prior to his death in 1574, they long stuck to the official image type. 46 It is not impossible that perhaps the duke SILVER (2008). EISENBICHLER (1999), p. 432-435. 41 For the portraits of Charles V in diverse media see, for example, HACKENBROCH (1969), p. 323-332 and FERINO-PAGDEN / BEYER (2005). 42 PIERACCINI (1924), I, p. 384. 43 On the staterooms in Palazzo Vecchio, see ALLEGRI / CECCHI (1980), p. 55-182. 44 For the altarpiece and chapel, see ALLEGRI / CECCHI (1980), p. 162-165. 45 On Barbetta Barbiere, see the Bia database of the Medici Archive Project (www. medici.org), doc ID 28433, vol. 616, insert 21, fol. 618r which mentions Barbetta as one of the «boche» (mouths) of the ducal household plus one horse; I wish to thank Maurizio Arfaioli for bringing Barbetta to my attention. 46 SIMON (2013). 39 40

COSIMO I DE’ MEDICI AS NEW AUGUSTUS

281

tried to cling to it as well – against the advice in Castiglione’s Courtier. 47 The Bia database contains a number of letters in which recipes for special shampoos and dyes for beards are discussed and exchanged. 48 Castiglione and other early modern writers had already discussed the need to look after one’s beard without falling into extremes of foppishness. 49 They also describe different styles, the square Venetian beard or the forked beard, and sizes – with a preference for the smaller version – to choose from. 6. A New Augustus Sixteenth-century portraits, for all their apparent individuality, were also subject to fashion. One of the new trends in male portraiture were portraits in armour, successfully established by Titian’s portrait of Charles V in the early 1530s, 50 that is after the Battle of Pavia had put the Age of Chivalry to an end and the «Knight in Shining Armour» had become an ideal to survive henceforth on canvas or in novels. 51 Cervantes’s Don Quijote as an anti-hero is part of this cultural development. 52 The bearded portrait was another innovation, which together with the plate armour could be interpreted as an outward sign of virility, something that distinguished men from women and demonstrated physically and in principle why men are born to rule whereas women are obviously not. 53 Male members of the aristocratic warrior class trained to fight from an early age onwards; as they grew up, they grew beards. Beard and armour together – one might say – were a sign of being ready to rule. Nonetheless, men and women had ruled and been depicted in portraits before and after beards and armour had come into fashion and it is legitimate to ask when and why such trends had been established. In particular, why the beard?

CASTIGLIONE (1528), book II, p. 90. For access to the full text, visit Internet Archive https://archive.org/stream/bookofcourtier00castuoft#page/102/mode/2up. 48 See the Bia database of the Medici Archive project, for example document ID 8087, vol. 1173, insert 3, fol. 101: the letter from Iacopo Guidi to Pierfrancesco Ricci, dated 12 March 1547, mentions a special soap for washing the duke’s beard. 49 CASTIGLIONE (1528); on foppishness, see book II, p. 103-105. 50 The original portrait is lost but Rubens’s copy (ca. 1603) after Titian survives in a private collection; for additional information see FREEDBERG (1998), p. 29-66; for an illustration visit https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: Peter_Paul_Rubens - Charles V_in_ Armour_-_after_Titian.jpg. 51 The Battle of Pavia on 24 February 1525 marked the end of traditional knightly warfare as the result of the development of new weapons, strategies and military architecture; for more informations see, for example, PEPPER / ADAMS (1986); KNECHT (1994); and KONSTAM (1996). 52 DE CERVANTES SAAVEDRA (1605) and (1615). 53 GÁLDY (2013). 47

282

ANDREA M. GÁLDY

Last year, while preparing a conference paper on Cosimo I’s beard as an expression of dynastic claims, I came across an essay by Douglas Biow entitled «The Beard in Sixteenth-Century Italy», which discusses exactly this question. 54 One theory he cites was developed by Elliott Horowitz who puts the appearance of the beard in the context of cultural and social changes in the aftermath of the discovery of the New World. 55 The indigenous people of the Americas were unable to grow beards and, therefore, the beard was one of the most distinctive features, which physically set European males apart. Biow describes this theory of establishing otherness by means of hairiness. In the Italian context, he seems to postulate, following Castiglione as well as Horowitz, 56 the bearded «other» of the sixteenth century still referred to Jewish or Muslim males. I would like to add that the beard could not only introduce an Eastern or Western touch of the exotic but also hark back to ancient times. Roman emperors such as Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and, perhaps most famously, Julian the Apostate wore beards; 57 Julian even wrote a satire about his philosopher’s beard crawling with lice: the Misopogon (beard hater). 58 Since ancient portraits of Roman emperors were collected and displayed from the fifteenth century onwards, it is quite possible that at some point early modern men started to consider their styles a fashion statement well worth of imitation. 59 As far as we can tell, sometime between the 1520s and 30s, beards had become an accepted hairstyle, which had lost some of its exotic, rustic, or otherwise potentially negative connotations. Landucci’s anonymous successor wrote about beards to be the fashion in Italy in 1532. 60 Quite likely, this was a result of Charles Habsburg setting a new coiffeurial trend. Perhaps this also had to do with a culture, in which votive beards, i.e. beards not to be shaved off until a certain event had taken place, or which were shaved off to confirm a treaty, started to play a certain role in the religious and political lives of princes of the church and of the blood.

BIOW (2010), p. 176-194. HOROWITZ (1997), p. 1181-1201 (as well as HOROWITZ [1994a] and [1994b]). 56 CASTIGLIONE (1528), book II, p. 102; HOROWITZ (1994a); (1994b); (1997). 57 While for Augustus the beard seems to have been generally a matter of personal negligence, after the defeat of Varus by Arminius, he cut neither his hair nor his beard in an act of desperation (SUET., Aug. XXIII). Later emperors, such as Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius, wore beards according to the Greek style. In the case of at least some of the Antonines, this custom served to tighten visually the connection to Hadrian during a period of Adoptive Emperors: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ropo2/hd_ ropo2.htm. 58 For more information on Julian’s satire Misopogon and for the text in English translation visit http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/julian-mispogon.asp. 59 KEMPERS (2002), p. 192. 60 See BIOW (2010), p. 186-187, on beards having become the fashion; for the account of a contemporary Florentine, see LANDUCCI (1883), p. 371. 54 55

COSIMO I DE’ MEDICI AS NEW AUGUSTUS

283

There are papal and princely examples for such votive beards, which in some cases at least may still be admired in early modern portraits. Early in the sixteenth century, Pope Julius II who had originally grown a beard whilst ill, kept it to mark his intention to liberate the Papal States. 61 Medici pope Clement VII wore a beard after the death of Leo X and, again, after the sack of Rome in 1527. 62 In addition to being a sign of depression and mourning (Biow), a sixteenth-century audience might have understood the respective beards as a sign of manly resolve to fight back and get one’s own. By way of contrast, in 1564, as we can learn from an entry in the BIA database (Medici Archive Project), two mighty princes of the Empire, Augustus of Saxony and Maximilian II met in Silesia to ratify a treaty. The outward sign of their agreement was to shave off the beards as a mark of friendship. 63 It must have caused something of a stir at a time when most men presumable wore beards and the growing of a new beard would no longer have been regarded as a momentous event but the treaty and the new clean-shaven look of the protagonists certainly made the news in Florence. 7. Which Augustus? When Augustus is depicted in the state rooms of Palazzo Vecchio, he can be a beardless Octavian (Fig. 1) engaged in the Foundation of Florence or a bearded Cosimo Augustus. In the latter case, wearing the emperor’s costume as well as the civic crown made from oak leaves, he still looks unmistakably like Cosimo (Fig. 2 and 3). As we know, Cosimo also adopted the imperial motto of «festina lente» and claimed the zodiacal sign of Capricorn, 64 which was thus shared by Augustus, Cosimo and by Emperor Charles V. The Capricorn in conjunction with the imperial beard seems, however, to point at political and dynastic claims of imitatio, renovatio and translatio imperii in the nascent age of absolutism and during a period of «Romanisation» during the first half of the sixteenth century. If Cosimo’s beard made him look more like Emperor Charles, it thus also made him appear more like Augustus, and bestowed on him an aura of empire necessary to underpin his own dynastic aspirations. 61 On Julius II’s beard as a conversation piece: KEMPERS (2002), p. 191. On Raphael’s famous portrait: SANDER (2013), p. 79-101. 62 For Giulio de’ Medici/Clement VII see REISS (1992), p. 541, in which she cites CAMBI’S (1786) remark that in 1522, upon his return to Florence, Giulio had grown a beard «per la morte di Papa Lione» (XXII, p. 194-195), which reached «a mezzo il petto» (p. 214). Information on Clement’s papacy can be found in GOUWENS / REISS (2005). On the question of decorum of the pontifical beard after the Sack: REISS (2009), p. 21-23. I would like to thank Sheryl Reiss for generously providing this information. 63 See the Bia database of the Medici Archive Project, document ID 3607, vol. 503, fol. 648: letter to Cosimo I de’ Medici dated 12 February 1563 [1564]. 64 On early modern astrology, see DOOLEY (2014).

284

ANDREA M. GÁLDY

Fig. 1. The Foundation of Florence during the Second Triumvirate, Giorgio Vasari and Giovanni Stradano, oil on panel, ceiling decoration of the Salone dei Cinquecento, Palazzo Vecchio, completed before December 1565.

Cosimo may well have been inspired to use Augustan imagery by the murder of his predecessor as well as by Emperor Charles V’s use of Roman imagery. He was certainly quick to see the advantages, having suddenly become the head of a former Roman colony, city republic and relatively new duchy. This happened in the context of political and dynastic changes by which the Habsburg family managed to become the only clan eligible for imperial office, although the college of electors could, at least in theory, have picked from a more diverse pool of candidates. 65 Charles V was also the last emperor to be crowned and 65

WHALEY (2012); BUMKE (1991), p. 29-33.

COSIMO I DE’ MEDICI AS NEW AUGUSTUS

285

Fig. 3. Apotheosis of Cosimo I, Giorgio Vasari and Giovanni Battista Naldini, oil on panel, ceiling decoration of the Salone dei Cinquecento, Palazzo Vecchio, completed before December 1565.

Fig. 2. Cosimo-Augustus, Giorgio Vasari, fresco, Sala di Leone X, Palazzo Vecchio, 1555-1562.

confirmed by a pope. The Holy Roman Empire (from 1512 of the German Nation) had been intended as the rebirth of the Roman Empire in a Christian key. This thread is obvious from its inception under Charlemagne in 800, through its revival under the Saxon Ottonians and up to the blatant grasp for absolute power by the Habsburg dukes who made the imperial dignity hereditary for their family much like Augustus had done ca. 1500 years earlier. 8. Conclusion To conclude, I wish to bring two facets of Augustan imagery into this discussion, which – though noted – have been not used sufficiently in the Florentine context. First of all, it pays to take another look at the depiction of the bearded Cosimo-Augustus in the Sala di Leone X (Fig. 2). It is balanced on the left of

286

ANDREA M. GÁLDY

the window by a depiction of Alessandro de’ Medici, equally wearing all’antica armour. 66 Perhaps too much attention has been given to the Capricorn at the feet of Cosimo-Augustus and not enough to the juxtaposition with Alessandro. For this image is very similar to, if not clearly inspired by the Flavian copy of the cult statue of a heavily bearded Mars Ultor at the Vatican. 67 Therefore, here Cosimo is represented not just as a new Augustus but also as Mars Ultor, taking his revenge against the murderers of his relative, much like Octavian had done in the first century BC. This revenge is less an act of violence than the piety owed to one’s ancestors; it connects Cosimo to Augustus as well as to Aeneas Pius through a genealogy reaching all the way to the very beginnings of Roman history. At the same time, this piety of Augustus also opens up another avenue to be explored: the pious emperor who foresaw the coming of Christ in a vision inspired by the Tiburtine Sybil. 68 Bram Kempers, for example, pointed out that there existed a mediaeval tradition of a proto-Christian Augustus as had been shaped particularly in Northern Europe and that this Augustus was usually depicted by northern artists as wearing a beard and long hair, an image derived from the traditional portraiture of Emperor Charlemagne. 69 Neither these traditions nor the imagery will have been unknown in Florence: the Medici as well as other Florentine banking families active in Bruges and elsewhere in the North had commissioned works of art from Flemish painters since the fifteenth century and Giambologna and Jan van der Straet (Giovanni Stradano) were just two of several northern artists working at Cosimo’s court in the sixteenth. Finally, it would be surprising if Charles V, born in Ghent in 1500, apart from the classical traditions had not also been aware of Christian and Carolingian interpretations of the Augustan image or if Cosimo I had not tried to express his alliance to the emperor by way of a familiar type of imagery. 66 ALLEGRI / CECCHI (1980), nos. 28 and 32, fig. 32; cf. ZANKER (20095), p. 203 and fig. 155a. 67 Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, Zurich / Munich, 1984, II, 1, p. 515. See entry 24. a) «Ares/Mars», which discusses the restored torso, originally from the Forum of Nerva, and its early modern additions, among which the «divine boots» particularly call for attention. The statue was depicted by Francisco da Hollanda (and later Rubens) and, therefore, it is likely to have been known to Vasari and his circle of artistic friends in Rome. 68 KEMPERS (2002), p. 193-195. For more detail on this topic, see also REYNIERS, in this present volume. In late 1560s Florence, Vincenzo Danti, nonetheless, created the statue of a youthful, beardless Cosimo-Augustus to go over the façade of the new Uffizi building. He also cast a bronze relief, depicting an equally young Augustus ordering the burning of the Sibylline books, which was to secure a safe for important papers in the newly decorated apartments of the ducal palace in Florence. Both are now at the Bargello; GÁLDY (2009), Cat. 58 B, p. 398-399. 69 Among these artists were the Limbourg brothers as well as Rogier van der Weyden whose work was known to the Medici who owned an Entombment (1450) displayed at the Medici Villa of Careggi, now at the Uffizi, and had commissioned the so-called Medici Madonna (1450-1451), now at the Städelsches Kunstinstitut, Frankfurt.

COSIMO I DE’ MEDICI AS NEW AUGUSTUS

287

Bibliography ALLEGRI, E. / CECCHI, A. (1980), Palazzo Vecchio e i Medici, Florence. ANDERSON, C. M. (2015), The Flemish Merchant of Venice. Daniel Nijs and the Sale of the Gonzaga Art Collection, New Haven / London. ARFAIOLI, M. (2005), The Black Bands of Giovanni: Infantry and Diplomacy during the Italian Wars, 1526-1528, Pisa. BIOW, D. (2010), The Beard in Sixteenth-century Italy, in J. L. HAIRSTON / W. STEPHENS (eds.), The Body in Early Modern Italy, Baltimore, p. 176-194. BODART, D. H. (1998), Tiziano e Federico II Gonzaga: storia di un rapporto di committenza, Rome. BUMKE, J. (1991), Courtly Culture: Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages, Berkeley / Los Angeles, CA, p. 29-33. CAMBI, G. (1786), Istorie fiorentine, in I. DI SAN LUIGI (ed.), Delizie degli eruditi toscani, Florence. CANTINI, L. (1805), Vita di Cosimo de’ Medici primo granduca di Toscana, Florence. CASTIGLIONE, B. (1903), The Book of the Courtier (1528), translated by L. ECKSTEIN Opdycke, New York. CERVANTES SAAVEDRA, M. DE (1605 and 1615), El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quixote De la Mancha (2 vols.), Madrid. CHASTEL, A. (1960), Les entrées de Charles Quint en Italie, in J. JACQUOT (ed.), Fêtes et cérémonies aux temps de Charles V, Paris II, p. 197-202. COSTAMAGNA, P. (1994), Pontormo, Milan. DOOLEY, B. M. (ed.) (2014), A Companion to Astrology in the Renaissance, Leiden / Boston. ECK, W. (2008), Augustus, in A. A. BARRETT (ed.), Lives of the Caesars, Oxford, 7-37. ECLERCY, B. (ed.) (2013), Pontormo. Meisterwerke des Manierismus in Florenz, Petersberg. EISENBICHLER, K. (1999), Charles V in Bologna: The Self-fashioning of a Man and a City, in Renaissance Studies 13, 4, p. 430-439. EISENBICHLER, K. (ed.) (2001), The Cultural Politics of Duke Cosimo I de’ Medici, Farnham. EVERITT, A. (2006), Augustus: The Life of Rome’s First Emperor, New York. FALCIANI, C. / NATALI, A. (eds.) (2014), Pontormo and Rosso Fiorentino. Diverging Paths of Mannerism, Florence. FERINO-PAGDEN, S. / BEYER, A. (eds.) (2005), Tizian versus Seisenegger. Die Portraits Karls V. mit Hund. Ein Holbeinstreit, Turnhout. FOSTER, Kurt W. (1971), Metaphors of Rule. Political Ideology and History in the Portraits of Cosimo I. de Medici, in Mitteilungen Kunsthistorisches Institut Florenz 15, p. 65-104. FREEDBERG, D. (1998), Rubens and Titian: Art and Politics, in H. T. GOLDFARB (ed.), Titian and Rubens: Power, Politics, and Style, Boston, p. 29-66. FUSCO, L. / CORTI, G. (2006), Lorenzo il Magnifico, Collector and Antiquarian, New York. GÁLDY, A. M. (2005), The Scrittoio della Calliope, a Tuscan Museum, in Renaissance Studies 19, 5, p. 699-709. GÁLDY, A. M. (2009), Cosimo I de’ Medici as Collector: Antiquities and Archaeology in Sixteenth-century Florence, Newcastle. GÁLDY, A. M. (2013), Identity and Likeness: Bronzino’s Medici Portraits, in A. M. GÁLDY (ed.), Agnolo Bronzino – Medici Court Artist in Context, Newcastle, p. 31-50.

288

ANDREA M. GÁLDY

GOUWENS, K. / REISS S. E. (eds.) (2005), The Pontificate of Clement VII. History, Politics, Culture, Farnham. HACKENBROCH, Y. (1969), Some Portraits of Charles V, in The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, 27, 6, February 1969, p. 323-332. HOROWITZ, E. (1994a), On the Significance of the Beard in Jewish Communities in the East and in Europe in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times, in Pe’amim 59, p. 124-148. HOROWITZ, E. (1994b), Faces of Judaism: The Beard in the Jewish World and Elaborations and Significance of it, in Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales 49, 5, p. 10651090. HOROWITZ, E. (1997), The New World and the Changing Face of Europe, in Sixteenth Century Journal XXVIII, 4, p. 1181-1201. KEMPERS, B. (2002), Augustus and Julius II: an Archaeological and Art Historical Aperçu on the Beard, in W. A. BOSCHLOO / E. GRASMAN / G. J. VAN DER SMAN (eds.), «Aux Quatre Vents»: a Festschrift for Bert W. Meijer, Florence, p. 191-198. KENT, D. (2000), Cosimo de’ Medici and the Florentine Renaissance: The Patron’s Oeuvre, New Haven / London. KENT, F. W. (2004), Lorenzo de’ Medici & the Art of Magnificence, Baltimore. KNECHT, R. J. (1994), Renaissance Warrior and Patron, New York. KONSTAM, A. (1996), Pavia 1525: The Climax of the Italian Wars, Oxford. LANDUCCI, L. (1883), Diario Fiorentino dal 1450 al 1516, continuato da un anonimo fino al 1542, Florence. LANGDON, G. (2006), Medici Women: Portraits of Power, Love, and Betrayal, Toronto / Buffalo / London. MATASILANI, M. (1572), La felicità del Ser. Cosimo de’ Medici, Granduca di Toscana, Florence. PARRY, G. (2013), The Seventeenth Century: the Intellectual and Cultural Context of English Literature, 1603-1700, Abingdon. PASTOR, L. (1920), Die Geschichte der Päpste seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters, Freiburg im Breisgau. PEPPER, S. / ADAMS, N. (1986), Firearms & Fortifications: Military Architecture and Siege Warfare in Sixteenth-Century Siena, Chicago. PIERACCINI, G. (1925-1925), La stirpe de’Medici di Cafaggiolo, Saggio di ricerche sulla trasmissione ereditaria dei caratteri biologici, Florence. PIZZORUSSO, C. (2010), II.3. Baccio Bandinelli: Bust of Cosimo de’ Medici, in C. FALCIANI / A. NATALI (eds.), Bronzino. Artist and Poet at the Court of the Medici, Florence, p. 118-119. REISS, S. E. (1992), Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici as a Patron of Art, 1513-1523. Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University. REISS, S. E. (2009), Cat. 39: Giuliano Bugiardini, 1475–1554, Portrait of Pope Clement VII, c.1532, in D. FRANKLIN (ed.), From Raphael to the Carracci: The Art of Papal Rome, Ottawa, p. 21-23. RICHELSON, P. W. (1978), Studies in the Personal Imagery of Cosimo I de’ Medici, Duke of Florence, New York / London. SANDER, J. (2013), Raphael’s Portrait of Pope Julius II. On the Genesis and Attribution of the Portrait in the Städel Museum, in J. SANDER (ed.), Raphael and the Portrait of Julius II, Petersberg, p. 79-101. SILVER, L. (2008), Marketing Maximilian: the Visual Ideology of a Holy Roman Emperor, Princeton / Oxford.

COSIMO I DE’ MEDICI AS NEW AUGUSTUS

289

SIMON, R. B. (1982), Bronzino’s Portraits of Cosimo I de’ Medici, Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University. SIMON, R. B. (1985), Bronzino’s Cosimo de’ Medici as Orpheus, in Bulletin Philadelphia Museum of Art 81, 348, p. 17-27. SIMON, R. B. (2013), Bronzino’s Portrait of Maria Salviati, in A. M. GÁLDY (ed.), Agnolo Bronzino – Medici Court Artist in Context, Newcastle, p. 17-30. SPINI, G. (ed.) (1976), Architettura e politica da Cosimo I a Ferdinando I, Florence. SPINI, G. (1980), Cosimo I e l’indipendenza del principato mediceo, Florence. STREHLKE, C. B. (ed.) (2004), Pontormo, Bronzino, and the Medici: the transformation of the Renaissance portrait in Florence, Philadelphia. TALVACCHIA, B. (2013), Bronzino’s Corpus between Ancient Models and Modern Masters, in A. M. GÁLDY (ed.), Agnolo Bronzino – Medici Court Artist in Context, Newcastle, p. 51-66. VEEN, H. VAN (1998), Circles of Sovereignty: The Tondi of the Sala Grande in the Palazzo Vecchio and the Medici Crown, in P. JACKS (ed.), Vasari’s Florence & Artists and Literati at the Medicean Court, Cambridge, p. 206-219. VEEN, H. VAN (2006), Cosimo de’ Medici and his Self-Representation in Florentine Art and Culture, Cambridge. WHALEY, J. (2012), Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, Oxford. ZANKER, P. (20095), Augustus und die Macht der Bilder, Munich.

Dictionaries «24. a) Ares/Mars» in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae II, 1, 515, Zurich/Munich 1984.

Websites VASARI, G. Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors & Architects, vol. IX (of 10) «Michelagnolo to the Flemings» translated by Gaston Du C. de Vere, released by Project Gutenberg in May 2010; https://www.gutenberg.org/files/32362/32362.txt. http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/julian-mispogon.asp. http://www.historyextra.com/news/gaius-caesar-bust-heading-home-italy. http://www.medici.org. http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/52029.html. http://www.rome101.com/portraiture/nero/. https://archive.org/stream/bookofcourtier00castuoft#page/102/mode/2up. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alessandro_de_Medici_Ruestung.jpg. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Paul_Rubens_-_Charles_V_in_ Armour_-_after_Titian.jpg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosimo_de’_Medici#/media/File:Pontormo_-_Ritratto_di_ Cosimo_il_Vecchio_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg.

Fu vera gloria? 1 La fortuna d’Augusto nella storia della letteratura italiana MARCO CAVALIERI (UCLouvain)

Abstract This paper deals with the destiny of the first Roman emperor through the Italian literature, from the 13th century to the early 1940s of the 20th century. The aim is to collect a reasoned and diachronic anthology of texts, selected through a non-systematic analysis of the main (but not only) Italian authors or the ones whose works, especially political and religious, could a priori not avoid the confrontation with the Augustan model, directly or by implication. The texts analysis, also based on historical and archaeological criticism about Augustus, showed how his figure, although in some respects ambiguous and chameleonic already in ancient times, goes through a lot of literature with fluctuating historical evaluations and ideological reinterpretations but always with a constant Fortuna.

1. Introduzione Da archeologo, in più occasioni, mi è capitato d’occuparmi, nella ricerca così come nell’insegnamento, dell’ideologia del principato augusteo, del suo linguaggio artistico-formale volto ad esaltare l’Impero e la persona stessa del sovrano attraverso l’organizzazione del consenso, e, non ultimo, della memoria politica ed iconografica che Augusto esercitò sui suoi successori, vuoi come rifiuto del suo exemplum, vuoi, più spesso, come ispirazione 2 (Fig. 1). In queste pagine, invece, vorrei osare qualcosa a mia conoscenza ad oggi non ancora tentato, un contrappunto tra archeologia e letteratura, quella italiana, al fine di confrontare il modello esegetico che la ricerca moderna ha costruito attorno alla persona, all’immagine ed agli atti di Augusto, mediante la fama, la conoscenza e l’utilizzo di cui questo personaggio storico ha beneficiato nel corso di otto secoli, dalla generazione che precede quella di Dante al Fascismo. Ritengo la fonte letteraria – poesia o prosa che sia – un punto di vista privilegiato per 1 Alessandro Manzoni ne Il cinque maggio si interroga retoricamente sulla parabola di Napoleone… 2 Cfr. in questo volume i contributi di M. CADARIO e M. GALINIER.

292

MARCO CAVALIERI

Fig. 1. Calco in gesso (46 × 46 × 14 cm) di rilievo marmoreo (probabilmente moderno) rappresentante il profilo di Augusto; originale conservato presso i Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Proprietà del Musée L (Louvain-la-Neuve), n. inv. MA235. Autorizzazione alla riproduzione ottenuta.

testare la ricezione della controversa figura d’Augusto nell’evolversi della storia italiana ed europea, in un periodo in cui, ne siamo ben consci, egli, fino alle soglie dell’età moderna, era principalmente noto sulla scorta dell’opera di Virgilio e di Svetonio, l’archeologia e la grande speculazione storiografica tedesca nascendo ben più tardi 3. È evidente che questo contributo non ha alcuna presunzione di esaustività in merito all’occorrenza delle citazioni letterarie augustee, ma si presenta come 3

MOMMSEN (1871-1888).

AUGUSTO NELLA STORIA DELLA LETTERATURA ITALIANA

293

un’antologia diacronica di testi in lingua italiana 4, selezionata sulla base di uno spoglio non sistematico dei maggiori (e non solo, a dire il vero) autori italiani o di quelli le cui opere, soprattutto politiche e religiose, a priori non potevano esimersi dal confrontarsi con il modello augusteo direttamente o implicitamente. 2. Il XIII e XIV secolo Dopo le prime testimonianze del volgare (IX-XI secolo), e la nascita nel XII di una vera e propria tradizione letteraria, fra i primi autori che nella storia della letteratura italiana riportano il nome di Augusto 5, compare Brunetto Latini, in pieno XIII secolo 6. L’autore, infatti, nell’incompiuto Tesoretto, poemetto didascalico-allegorico in settenari rimati a coppie, ricorda come il potere e le ricchezze dell’imperatore 7 – Attavian nel testo – così come le virtù, le capacità e le doti di altri personaggi famosi (tra cui Giulio Cesare, Sansone, Alessandro ed Ettore) ed ignoti della storia, non siano riusciti a sconfiggere l’ineluttabilità della morte, colei che non comporta / officio o dignitate 8. Da paradigma della più fortunata condizione umana in terra, il princeps diviene per l’allievo del Latini, Dante Alighieri, esempio di virtù morali già dall’incipit della Comedia (1304-1321), anche se le terzine ove, direttamente o indirettamente, il poeta si rifà al ruolo di Augusto quale fondatore dell’Impero – nella visione teleologica dantesca garanzia di ordine e stabilità del mondo – attraversano le tre cantiche, ritornando, per altro, anche nel Convivio (1304-1307) 9. If. I, 70-72 Nacqui sub Iulio, ancor che fosse tardi, e vissi a Roma sotto ’l buono Augusto nel tempo de li dèi falsi e bugiardi.

È Virgilio, nell’opera notoriamente simbolo della ragione sottomessa alla fede, che si presenta a Dante alle porte dell’Inferno ricordando il tempo della propria vita mortale, caratterizzato dal regno del buono Augusto, aggettivo utilizzato, alla maniera antica, con un’accezione che connota il principe quale retto, giusto,

4

Non saranno prese in considerazione, se non episodicamente, le opere di autori italiani, ma redatte in latino. 5 Ringrazio per il fondamentale aiuto nella raccolta delle occorrenze augustee in seno alla letteratura italiana l’amico Alessandro Novellini che, con la consueta generosità, ha fattivamente reso possibili queste pagine. 6 Letterato e uomo politico (Firenze 1220 circa - ivi 1293 circa). 7 Il tema dell’avere in rapporto ad Augusto, ritorna anche in Dante (Pg. XXIX, 116) come lusso e bellezza di cui il sovrano si circonda. 8 Tesoretto 2471-2494. 9 Convivio XIII.

294

MARCO CAVALIERI

valente 10, cioè in sintonia con ciò che riguarda il bene morale sia in una visione terrena – rispetto alla vita di Virgilio, Augusto funziona essenzialmente come cronòtopo letterario – che provvidenziale – l’aggettivo buono ha un senso antifrastico rispetto alla coppia di sinonimi del verso seguente, riguardante gli dèi falsi e bugiardi 11. Come vedremo di seguito, nel Medioevo, infatti, l’agire di Augusto si esprime in una duplice dimensione: umana, quale pio esecutore e probo giudice, e divina in quanto strumento del supremo progetto redentore. Pg. VII, 7 … fur l’ossa mie per Ottavian sepolte.

Anche nel Purgatorio è Virgilio il medium narrativo che, proferendo queste parole, attribuisce ad Augusto, non a caso erede della schiatta troiana, una della virtù che caratterizzano maggiormente l’eroe dell’Eneide, la pietas, nella fattispecie del verso, quella usata nei confronti del mantoano per la cura della sua sepoltura 12. La dimensione morale dell’azione del principe è, dunque, ribadita dal verso dantesco: ne approfondisce la complessità etica, pur restando nell’ambito di un agire nella storia. Sarà solo nella terza cantica che si completerà il quadro mediante lo svelamento della missione divina incarnata da Augusto. Dopo Pd. VI, 79-81, dove, ricordando la fine della guerra civile che vide opporsi Marco Antonio e Cleopatra VII da un lato, ad Ottaviano dall’altro, si individuano, anche sulla scorta dell’Eneide 13, le conseguenze provvidenziali della vittoria di quest’ultimo. Il controllo del mondo fino al Mar Rosso ed una pace duratura e diffusa: Pd. VI, 79-81 Con costui corse infino al lito rubro; con costui puose il mondo in tanta pace, che fu serrato a Giano il suo delubro.

Il concetto della pax Augusta, l’imperium sine fine riservato ai discendenti di Enea 14, in verità è ben presente tra i letterati della Firenze tra XIII e XIV secolo, come si può evincere anche nella Nuova Cronica (1308-1348) di Giovanni Villani (1280 circa - 1348) 15:

10 È possibile che al mito della probità del sovrano non sia estraneo l’episodio narrato da Svetonio (Aug. LIII), secondo il quale durante una rappresentazione teatrale alla quale Augusto assisteva, un mimo esclamò: O dominum aequum et bonum! 11 BOSCO / REGGIO (1988), p. 12. 12 Sulla scorta della Vergilii Vita di Donato. 13 Aen. VIII, 685-688. 14 Aen. I, 278-279. 15 La sua Nuova Cronica, in dodici libri, è una storia universale (dall’epoca della torre di Babele al 1346).

AUGUSTO NELLA STORIA DELLA LETTERATURA ITALIANA

295

E apresso lui [Cesare] Ottaviano Agusto, che signoreggiò in pace dopo molte battaglie tutto l’universo mondo, al tempo che nacque Iesù Cristo, anni VIIC dopo la dificazione di Roma 16.

Tale infatti è il retaggio dell’interpretazione cristiana del mito augusteo già evidente nell’Oratio ad sanctorum coetum (in greco) allegata alla Vita Constantini di Eusebio di Cesarea 17, così come nella visione provvidenziale di Prudenzio 18 circa la pienezza dei tempi portata da Augusto, per volontà divina e finalizzata all’ingresso nella storia di Cristo. In Dante, invero, emerge una funzione provvidenziale non tanto nelle persone, quanto nell’istituzione dell’Impero che, attraverso Cesare (considerato il primo imperatore), Augusto, Tiberio e Tito, pacificando il mondo, permise l’avvento e la diffusione del Cristianesimo 19. Questo concetto pervade anche le terzine di Pd. VI, 55-96 in merito alla storia dell’aquila romana in età imperiale, un lungo discorso proferito dall’imperatore Giustiniano, incontrato dal poeta nel cielo degli spiriti operanti per la gloria terrena. Augusto qui, come abbiamo visto, è considerato come una sorta di “preparatore” al terzo Cesare, Tiberio 20, allorquando la giustizia celeste concesse la gloria di vendicare, con il sacrificio di Cristo, l’ira divina per il peccato di Adamo. In questo passaggio sono sintetizzati alcuni aspetti fondamentali del pensiero medievale in generale e di Dante nella fattispecie. Come già osservato, “tutta la storiografia del Medioevo considerava la storia dell’umanità come facente perno sulla Redenzione […]” 21. La morte di Cristo sanzionata dall’autorità imperiale conferma solennemente l’alta missione universale e provvidenziale dell’Impero e dei suoi “operatori”: un segno non solo redentivo ma anche politico che attraversa tutta l’opera di Dante e la letteratura medievale, anche transalpina, contemporanea 22. Una nuova stagione sembra inaugurarsi con il Triumphus Fame di Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374), poema narrativo-allegorico in terzine, la cui prima redazione, non definitiva, dovrebbe collocarsi attorno al 1350. La Fama, su cocchio

16

Nuova Cronica XXIX. Nell’Oratio ad sanctorum coetum, 19 si ricorda come nella IV Ecloga si faccia riferimento al ritorno della virgo Astrea, dea della giustizia, durante il regno di Augusto. “Segue l’interpretazione, in senso profetico, della venuta di Cristo, di alcuni versi della IV Bucolica (nell’ordine, versi 7; 1; 4; 5-6; 8-10; 13-14), considerati trapunti di allegorie, ed è attribuito a Virgilio il proposito di esprimersi in maniera velata per evitare le accuse di empietà da parte dei contemporanei, e sottrarsi così alla crudeltà pagana”; CRISTOFOLI (2013). 18 PRUD., C. Symm. I, 286-290. SIRAGO (2002); ROSSINI (2014a). 19 Cv. IV, v, 4. 20 È qui presente l’eco di EUSEB., Oratio ad sanctorum coetum, 19. 21 BOSCO / REGGIO (1989), p. 96. 22 De monarchia I, xvi; II, xii, 5. ROSSINI (2014c). Cfr. a tal proposito il contributo di M. CAVAGNA in questo volume. 17

296

MARCO CAVALIERI

trionfale, conduce con sé un corteo di personaggi storici celebri per le azioni, tra i quali Augusto occupa una posizione subalterna al solo Cesare: Ella a veder parea cosa divina, e da man destra avea quel gran romano che fe’ in Germania e ’n Francia tal ruina; Augusto e Druso seco a mano a mano… 23.

Nella redazione definitiva del capitolo, cui Petrarca lavora ancora nel 1364, mutato è l’assetto del testo e Augusto scompare lasciando campo, accanto alla dea, all’endiadi Cesare-Scipione. Parafrasando quanto già autorevolmente ricordato su questi episodi 24, emerge come il Petrarca, nell’approfondimento del suo stesso umanesimo, sia vinto dal fascino di Cesare e Scipione, per l’eccellenza delle loro personalità storiche, il cui diritto a comparire a fianco della Fama supera quello augusteo, non più adorato medievalmente quale provvidenziale creatore dell’Impero 25. Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375), vissuto durante la generazione successiva, nell’ottava novella dell’ultima giornata (decima) in cui ambienta il Decameron (1349-1351 o 1353), nomina due volte l’imperatore Ottaviano: la prima per collocare cronologicamente la vicenda narrata; la seconda in qualità di arbitro del contenzioso che è chiamato a dirimere quale rappresentante della carica ricoperta all’epoca dei fatti, il triumvirato. Nel tempo adunque che Ottavian Cesare, non ancora chiamato Augusto, ma nello uficio chiamato triumvirato, lo ’mperio di Roma reggeva […]; e più sotto: Aveva già Ottaviano questa cosa sentita, e fattiglisi tutti e tre venire, udir volle che cagion movesse ciascuno a volere essere il condannato, la quale ciascun narrò. Ottaviano li due, per ciò che erano innocenti, e il terzo per amor di loro liberò 26.

Rispetto all’opera di Dante, Augusto recupera compiutamente una dimensione storica, quella della giustizia umana, certamente anch’essa positiva, ma di certo non trascendente. È evidente, quindi, che nel corso di tutto il Medioevo si scelga un metodo di lettura ed interpretazione dei classici latini, Virgilio in primis 27, che è il Triumphus Fame 1a, 22-25; edizione di riferimento, PACCA / PAOLINO (1996), p. 551. MARTELLOTTI (1947), p. 149-158. 25 Anche nel De uiris illustribus, Vita Scipionis I, 2-3 Petrarca ricorda la superiorità, nella fattispecie militare, di Scipione rispetto ad Augusto (Epitome ex Tito Liuio I, 22, 58) e fa altresì intendere che probabilmente anche Livio (LIV. XXX, 30) avrebbe espresso lo stesso giudizio, se non avesse temuto di offendere il principe. Sulla figura di Augusto nell’opera latina di Petrarca, cfr. l’introduzione di questo volume, p. 23-24, e il contributo di S. DE BEER. 26 BRANCA (1956), p. 827, 844. 27 Si pensi all’opera dell’autore cristiano Fulgenzio (V sec. d.C.), De continentia Vergiliana, che ebbe grande influenza durante tutto il Medioevo o alle precedenti Diuinae Institutiones di Lattanzio (in particolare VII, 24). 23

24

AUGUSTO NELLA STORIA DELLA LETTERATURA ITALIANA

297

medesimo di quello adottato per le Sacre Scritture, così da recuperare le opere pagane ed integrarle nel sistema cristiano secondo la teorizzazione agostiniana del “sacro furto” strumentale del patrimonio classico 28. In tal senso è da valutare anche la ripresa della figura di Augusto su presentata, riproposta alla luce di una lettura ideologizzata, qual è quella di Orosio 29, del passo svetoniano (Aug. LIII): l’interpretatio Christiana, infatti, attribuisce all’imperatore il riconoscimento di un dominus che stava per nascere ben più importante di lui. Una costruzione letteraria di grande successo che dalla tarda Antichità attraversa la letteratura bizantina e latina alto-medievale e, passando attraverso i Mirabilia Urbis Romae, si codificata, nella seconda metà del XIII secolo, nella Legenda Aurea del domenicano Jacopo da Varagine (oggi Varazze) 30. Un mito, ampiamente riprodotto anche iconograficamente fino al XVI secolo 31, che si coagulerà attorno alla mitica erezione di un’Ara Coeli capitolina (sostituita più tardi da una basilica di Santa Maria in Aracoeli), voluta da Augusto sul punto più alto del Campidoglio, quello stesso ove egli era stato spettatore di una apparizione della Vergine con il Bambino, a seguito di una profezia della Sibilla tiburtina 32. In tal senso Augusto assumerebbe il ruolo di una sorta di profeta pagano che nei Libri Sibillini avrebbe raccolto una serie di profezie e speranze per un nuovo ciclo di vita del genere umano, così come l’affresco di Domenico Ghirlandaio e bottega illustra nel sottarco della Cappella Sassetti in Santa Trinita a Firenze (1479-1485). Eccone la descrizione di Giorgio Vasari (15111574) nelle Vite (1550): […] e’ [il Ghirlandaio n.d.a.] fece nella volta quattro Sibille, e fuori della cappella un ornamento sopra l’arco nella faccia dinanzi, con una storia dentrovi, quando la Sibilla Tiburtina fece adorar Cristo a Ottaviano Imperatore, che per opera in fresco è molto praticamente condotta e con una allegrezza di colori molto vaghi 33.

28

De doctrina Christiana II, 40. OROSIO, Historiae aduersus paganos VI, 1. 30 MALALAS, Χρονογραφία X; Chronicon Palatinum, in A. MAI (1843), Spicilegium Romanum, IX, Roma, Legenda Aurea, X. 31 Cfr. in questo volume il contributo di J. REYNIERS e, ancora una volta, quello di M. CAVAGNA. Di grande interesse la lettura in chiave politica che del mito offre M. Faietti per il XVI: nell’immediata fase successiva al sacco di Roma del 1527, la ripresa del tema augusteo in un quadro del Parmigianino (Martirio di San Paolo e la condanna di San Pietro e Augusto e la Sibilla Tiburtina) sembra interpratabile quale monito a Carlo V affinché egli riconoscesse i limiti del proprio potere temporale rispetto a quello spirituale della Chiesa; FAIETTI (2013). 32 Copiosissima la bibliografia a riguardo; segnalo quella a partire dagli anni Settanta del XX secolo a natura iconografica: DE’ MAFFEI (1984); MOMIGLIANO (1987); BORRI CASTELLI (1993); PAOLI (2008); PASCUCCI (2011); ROSSINI (2014b). 33 VASARI (1550), p. 476, ed. 1986, p. 460. 29

298

MARCO CAVALIERI

3. Il XV e XVI secolo Come è stato già osservato, se tra XV e XVI secolo, nell’immaginario popolare, la figura di Augusto rimane viva 34, la sua fortuna tra gli Umanisti della Repubblica fiorentina viene meno, il personaggio storico ammantandosi dei colori della tirannide e dell’assolutismo liberticida dei valori della Roma repubblicana, a vantaggio di una libera – e invero idealizzata – Atene, la cui storia ed istituzioni la riscoperta del greco aveva reso accessibili allo Studium Florentinum 35. Questo il clima, il cosiddetto Umanesimo civile, in cui vennero composti gli Historiarum Florentini populi libri XII (iniziati nel 1415) da parte di Leonardo Bruni (1370-1444), umanista ed autorevole cancelliere della Repubblica fiorentina dal 1427 alla morte, opera tradotta in volgare da Donato Acciaiuoli nel 1473, con il titolo di Istoria fiorentina. Ma la declinazione dell’imperio romano mi pare che principiasse, quando Roma, perduta la libertà, cominciò a servire agl’imperadori. E benchè Augusto e Trajano paressero utili in alcune cose, e fossero di grande fama e reputazione […], se cominceremo dalla guerra civile di Giulio Cesare, e di poi dalla cospirazione fatta e crudelissimamente esercitata da quelli tre a tempo di Augusto […] senza dubbio confesseremo che la grandezza de’ Romani cominciò a declinare allora quando il nome di Cesare, quasi una manifestissima ruina, entrò nella città di Roma. Perocchè la libertà dette luogo alla potenza dello imperio, e dopo la distruzione della libertà, si spense la virtù 36.

In effetti Augusto durante il Rinascimento fiorentino è apparentato al mito di Lorenzo de’ Medici e alla parabola che vide prima il padre Cosimo il Vecchio e successivamente il figlio assumere il potere nella Repubblica senza mai formalmente esautorare le istituzioni comunali 37. Un giudizio, come riportato supra, che vede al progredire della forza dei Medici il venir meno della libertà e delle virtù, senza che, tuttavia, il parere nella letteratura contemporanea sia unanime. All’opposizione repubblicana, infatti, facevano da contraltare umanisti dagli ideali aristocratici di governo ristretto, ai quali fece appello la politica medicea dopo il rientro dall’esilio nel 1512. Tra questi figura Giovanni Corsi (1472-1547), valente politico e uomo di lettere fiorentino che, proprio nella sua Marsili Ficini Vita del 1506, in latino, descriveva il Magnifico come un nuovo Augusto in qualità di politico e nuovo Mecenate quale protettore delle arti 38; un accostamento tra Lorenzo ed Augusto 39, accomunati da auctoritas e saggezza, cui non fu immune neppure un altro estimatore del Ficino, Niccolò Valori 34 35 36 37 38 39

MANCINI (1909) (non vidi). VON ALBERTINI (1995), passim. Istoria fiorentina, I, ed. Felice LE MONNIER (1861), p. 24-25. ROSSINI (2014d). Marsili Ficini Vita, 13. Cfr. infra la nota 47.

AUGUSTO NELLA STORIA DELLA LETTERATURA ITALIANA

299

(1464-1530 circa), il quale, nonostante posizioni politiche antimedicee, redasse in tempi diversi (subito dopo la morte del Magnifico, fra il 1492 e il 1494, e poi durante il pontificato di Leone X, fra il 1513 e il 1521) una Vita Laurenti Medices 40, volgarizzata dal figlio Filippo ed pubblicata a Firenze nel 1567. Più sottile, ambiguo per certi aspetti, è il punto di vista su Augusto di Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), così come esso traspare dai Discorsi sopra la prima Deca di Tito Livio (1513-1519), il capolavoro dell’autore, una meditazione storico-politica in forma di libera glossa al testo liviano. L’opera, composta successivamente al rientro mediceo a Firenze, risente della frequentazione del gruppo di giovani letterati, di ispirazione repubblicana, che si riuniva nei celebri Orti Oricellari attorno a Cosimo Rucellai. Eccone un estratto: Consideri ancora quello ch’è diventato Principe in una Repubblica, quante laudi, poichè Roma fu diventata Imperio, meritarono più quelli imperadori che vissero sotto le leggi e come principi buoni, che quelli che vissero al contrario; e vedrà come a Tito, Nerva, Traiano, Adriano, Antonino e Marco, non erano necessari i soldati pretoriani nè la moltitudine delle legioni a difenderli, perchè i costumi loro, la benivolenza del Popolo, l’amore del Senato, gli difendeva 41.

Augusto non è nominato direttamente, fatto che interpella giacché, salvo i principes damnati, gli optimi sono tutti elencati, compreso, qualche riga prima del passo estrapolato, Cesare. La scelta non è casuale e forse è da mettere in relazione all’allora diffusa associazione Augusto-Lorenzo di cui abbiamo detto: una diretta presa di distanza dalla condotta augustea, soprattutto dopo l’esperienza di carcere che Machiavelli visse successivamente alla caduta della Repubblica del Soderini, avrebbe potuto essere letta come un attacco alla politica medicea instaurata anni prima dal Magnifico. Certo il giudizio sul personaggio nel testo è in filigrana ma, nonostante tutto, evidente: infatti, è palese chi sia diventato Principe in una Repubblica (un’associazione certo non positiva dei due termini politicamente antitetici), atto che ebbe come conseguenza l’organizzazione di una Guardia pretoriana (tra il 27 e il 26 a.C.) 42 indubbiamente extra legem et ordinem. Un’evidente freddezza nei confronti della politica augustea è ribadita questa volta senza mezzi termini anche ne Dell’arte della guerra (1519-1520): in tal caso si sottolinea come la scelta politica di Augusto di riformare l’esercito legionario e di costituire una Guardia pretoriana sia stata in nuce anche la causa ultima della caduta dell’Impero. Perchè Ottaviano, prima, e poi Tiberio, pensando piu alla potenza propria che all’utile publico, cominciarono a disarmare il popolo romano per poterlo piu facilmente comandare, e a tenere continuamente quegli medesimi eserciti alle

40

Vita Laurentii Medices – manoscritto di dedica a Leone X, Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, n. inv. Plut. 61.3. 41 Discorsi sopra la prima Deca di Tito Livio I, 10. 42 LE BOHEC (2003), p. 28-30.

300

MARCO CAVALIERI

frontiere dello Imperio. E perchè ancora non giudicarono bastassero a tenere in freno il popolo e senato romano, ordinarono uno esercito chiamato Pretoriano, il quale stava propinquo alle mura di Roma ed era come una rocca addosso a quella città. E perchè allora ei cominciarono liberamente a permettere che gli uomini deputati in quelli eserciti usassero la milizia per loro arte, ne nacque subito la insolenza di quegli, e diventarono formidabili al senato e dannosi allo imperadore […]. Dalle quali cose procede, prima, la divisione dello Imperio e, in ultimo, la rovina di quello 43.

Il potere personale anteposto all’utile collettivo, quindi, mina alla base la solidità dello Stato. Infine, va rilevato che la scarsa reputazione di cui gode Augusto è evidente ex silentio anche per il fatto che il princeps non compare mai nel maggior trattato di strategia e prassi politica di Machiavelli, Il Principe (1513), al contrario, ad esempio, del nome più volte citato di Cesare (così come quelli di Alessandro Magno, Scipione e Ciro) preso come paradigma di buon governo. Passando ad un altro genere letterario e abbandonando la corte medicea per quella estense, nell’Orlando Furioso (1516), prima opera di un autore non toscano nella quale è impiegato il toscano come lingua letteraria nazionale, Ludovico Ariosto (1474-1533), negli oltre 18.000 versi del suo poema cavalleresco, trova, in un paio di “ottave d’oro”, lo spazio per inserire una critica lapidaria al primo imperatore, bacchettando al contempo il sommo poeta di età augustea, Virgilio. Non fu sì santo né benigno Augusto / come la tuba di Virgilio suona. / L’aver avuto in poesia buon gusto / la proscrizione iniqua gli perdona 44.

Partendo da questa posizione, Ariosto, tre ottave supra 45, attraverso le parole di San Giovanni Evangelista, denuncia la funzione adulatoria dei poeti di corte… Oh bene accorti Principi e discreti, / che seguite di Cesare l’esempio, / e gli scrittor vi fate amici, donde / non avete a temer di Lete l’onde!

L’accusa, per il poeta, è ancora per Augusto e il suo mecenatismo che, tramite, ad esempio, la forza della poesia virgiliana, aveva celato alla vista le ingiuste proscrizioni inflitte a molti cittadini romani, alcune delle quali notissime, come quella del poeta Ovidio 46. L’autore del Furioso si pone, in effetti, quale erede di quella cultura umanistica civile che, con Poggio Bracciolini ad esempio 47, 43

Dell’arte della guerra, I. Orlando Furioso, XXXV, 26, 1-4. 45 Ibid., XXXV, 22, 5-8. 46 Un fatto questo che ancora l’illuminismo francese, talora ferocemente avverso ad Augusto, non riuscì a superare, come si legge nel celebre passo del Dictionnaire Philosophique (s.v. ‘Amour Socratique’) in cui Voltaire lo ricorda come ce meurtrier débauché et poltron, qui osa exiler Ovide. 47 Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459), umanista e storico fiorentino. Nel dialogo in latino De infelicitate principum (1444) associa implicitamente l’immagine di Cosimo il 44

AUGUSTO NELLA STORIA DELLA LETTERATURA ITALIANA

301

aveva già duramente criticato Augusto, facendolo oggetto, nel Quattrocento, di un rovesciamento del comune giudizio storico; lo stesso parere per cui Ariosto sottolinea che, per scoprire la verità sul principe (la cui figura è equivalente a quella di Nerone!), è necessario ribaltare tutta al contrario l’istoria. Per completare il quadro, comunque, va anche osservato che, rispetto a Machiavelli, la posizione antiaugustea dell’Ariosto non muove da considerazioni d’ordine comportamentale e di riflessione politico-storica, ma piuttosto dall’amarezza per un personale disagio materiale oltre che morale causato dalla dipendenza da un mecenate 48 ritenuto incapace di riconoscere la grandezza del poeta, di ben altro temperamento rispetto a un presunto Virgilio, adulatore nei confronti del potere del poco benigno Augusto. Si percepisce come ancora in pieno XVI secolo l’interpretatio Christiana della pax Augusta sia tema ampiamente condiviso nella letteratura a soggetto religioso, così come dimostra la Humanità del figlio di Dio, poema in dieci libri di ottave (1533), opera di Teofilo Folengo (1491-1544), autore del ben più noto Baldus, poema epico (in latino maccheronico) ove l’eroico è volto al farsesco. Nel registro del sacro il magistero dantesco, anche per l’altrove caustico Folengo, assume valore di indiscussa auctoritas, conservando di Augusto (anzi qui Ottaviano per motivi di rima) una dimensione provvidenziale: Dal primo giorno ch’ebbe il Padre eterno degli elementi il fosco grembo rotto, donde usci ’l ciel, la terra, il mal, l’inferno e quanto è lá dissopra e qua dissotto, eran voltati (come il ver discerno) cinque mill’anni cento e novantotto, quando sotto sua legge Ottaviano soggiugò ’l mondo e chiuse il tempio a Iano 49, dove ’l furor de l’arme, incatenato a l’aurea etá, die’ luogo a l’aurea pace 50.

Vecchio de’ Medici a quella di Augusto, cui dedica pagine fortemente critiche; CANFORA (2014), p. 197-198. L’associazione ad Augusto, nella schiatta medicea, riemerge, come si è visto, anche con Lorenzo e, più tardi, con Cosimo I, se è vero che Giorgio Vasari, completando la decorazione del soffitto della Sala dei Cinquecento, a Palazzo Vecchio (1565), rappresenta il princeps quale alter ego del granduca. Cfr. in proposito il contributo di A. M. GÁLDY in questo volume. 48 Si tratta del cardinale Ippolito d’Este (dedicatario dell’Orlando Furioso), uomo, a dire dell’Ariosto, avaro e poco amante della poesia e delle lettere, presso cui il poeta ricoprì anche funzioni di segretario e inviato. 49 Espressione che è quasi un calco dantesco (cfr. supra): il poeta fiorentino aveva utilizzato lo stesso riferimento allo stato di apertura/chiusura del tempio di Giano indice, nella Roma antica, di periodo bellico o di pace. 50 Humanità del figlio di Dio, II, ottave 3 e 4.

302

MARCO CAVALIERI

Una dimensione universale del potere del sovrano che riecheggia anche il Vangelo 51: Augusto che non pur d’Italia féssi, ma de’ regni del mondo gran tiranno, manda un editto a quanti sottomessi popoli a sé nel grembo del mar stanno, che portate gli sian discritte in carte tutte le nazion di parte in parte 52.

La crisi della declinante civiltà rinascimentale si manifesta nell’esperienza letteraria di Torquato Tasso (1544-1595), oscillante tra il fascino dei valori terreni e l’ansia di adesione a quelli religiosi controriformistici. Tale conflitto di valori culturali morali ed estetici intesse il capolavoro epico del poeta, la Gerusalemme liberata (1575), poema eroico a soggetto cristiano (la crociata), di profonda ed innovativa portata psicologica. Nell’opera i riferimenti ad Augusto sono limitati a citazioni storico-erudite e rimandi virgiliani. Infatti, se al canto X, 75, 4 si allude all’imperatore Federico I Barbarossa come l’empio Augusto, probabilmente per le crudeltà perpetrate contro i Comuni di Milano e Tortona e per l’opposizione al papato, al successivo canto XVI, l’ottava 4 traduce, talora alla lettera, la descrizione virgiliana dello scudo di Enea, tra le cui scene compare anche la battaglia di Azio (Aen. VIII, 671-677), episodio, per l’appunto, rappresentato sul battente di una delle cento porte del palazzo tondo d’Armida: D’incontra è un mare, e di canuto flutto vedi spumanti i suoi cerulei campi. Vedi nel mezzo un doppio ordine instrutto di navi e d’arme, e uscir da l’arme i lampi. D’oro fiammeggia l’onda, e par che tutto d’incendio marzial Leucate avampi. Quinci Augusto i Romani, Antonio quindi trae l’Oriente: Egizi, Arabi ed Indi 53.

Infine, XX, 118, sempre richiamandosi agli Actia bella, si rievoca la fuga di Cleopatra dalla battaglia, abbandonando al fortunato Augusto il suo fedele Antonio. Insomma una ripresa augustea senza evidenti riferimenti politici o metastorici ma esclusivamente quale citazione dell’auctoritas Vergiliana, exemplum di ogni poema epico.

51 52 53

Lc. II, 1-3. Humanità del figlio di Dio, II, ottava 84. CARETTI (1957), p. 469.

AUGUSTO NELLA STORIA DELLA LETTERATURA ITALIANA

303

4. Il XVII e XVIII secolo L’occorrenza dei riferimenti alla figura augustea nella produzione letteraria in lingua italiana (lirica, narrativa e teatro) pare avere una battuta d’arresto durante l’età barocca (o meglio della Controriforma), per il mutato clima culturale e un cambiamento di orizzonte nei confronti degli auctores medievali e classici a vantaggio di temi nuovi e “moderni”. Obiettivi polemici divengono il concetto stesso di autorità e tradizione, per una modernità e novità che possono significare anche effimero, stupore e meraviglia da suscitare nel pubblico, ed il conseguente rifiuto di una concezione pedagogica della letteratura, fino al Manierismo imperante. Il modello augusteo, quindi, in passato proclamato o negato, perde la sua ragion d’essere. Occorrerà attendere il secolo filosofico e scientifico dell’età dei lumi, in Italia caratterizzato dalla personalità di Gianbattista Vico (1688-1744), la cui formazione per altro indipendente dalle tesi illuministiche d’Oltralpe, riannodò il dialogo con gli antichi (in primis Tacito) e tra i moderni, Bacon e Descartes. Nella Scienza nuova (1744, edizione definitiva e postuma), egli, riscoprendo la storia non come idea scientistica di progresso, come per gli illuministi, ma come vicenda spirituale ed evolutiva dell’uomo, cita Augusto tra i protagonisti della legge universale e ciclica che governa i fatti storici: Gli uomini prima amano d’uscir di suggezione e disiderano ugualità: ecco le plebi nelle repubbliche aristocratiche, le quali finalmente cangiano in popolari; dipoi si sforzano superare gli uguali: ecco le plebi nelle repubbliche popolari, corrotte in repubbliche di potenti; finalmente vogliono mettersi sotto le leggi: ecco l’anarchie, o repubbliche popolari sfrenate, delle quali non si dà piggiore tirannide, dove tanti son i tiranni quanti sono gli audaci e dissoluti delle città. E quivi le plebi, fatte accorte da’ propi mali, per truovarvi rimedio vanno a salvarsi sotto le monarchie; ch’è la legge regia naturale con la quale Tacito legittima la monarchia romana sotto di Augusto 54, «qui cuncta, bellis civilibus fessa, nomine principis sub imperium accepit» 55.

Di qui la figura di Augusto proposta da Vico sintetizza l’azione provvidenziale di Dio con la capacità umana di comprendere ed influire sulla storia, anticipando una visione idealistica e romantica dell’agire umano. Tutt’altra personalità, a metà tra l’ideale neoclassico e l’irrequieto eroe romantico, è Vittorio Alfieri (1749-1803) che, nel trattato politico Della tirannide (1777), si propone di analizzare le caratteristiche del tiranno, del suo regime e dei modi con cui il liber’uomo può vivere, sopportare ed eliminare il dispotismo. A parte qualche idea che si rifà alle posizioni di Montesquieu, il trattato è tutt’altro che d’ispirazione illuministica, ma esprime i sentimenti, gli stati d’animo dell’uomo, ponendo le contingenze politiche e storiche della 54 55

TAC., Ann. I, 1. VICO (1911), p. 258.

304

MARCO CAVALIERI

vicenda contemporanea sullo sfondo della sfera esistenziale personale. In tal senso, Augusto, come altri “tiranni”, assume una connotazione immateriale, seppur negativa, divenendo l’incarnazione di un’indagine psicologica di tutte le forze ostili che l’uomo può trovare sul suo cammino verso un’ideale affermazione dell’io. Ma, mi dirà taluno: «Gli eretici credono pure nella trinità; e questa al senso umano pare una cosa certamente ancora più assurda che le sopraccennate: non sono dunque gli eretici meno stupidi dei cattolici». Rispondo che anche i Romani credevano nel volo e nel beccar degli augelli, cosa assai più puerile ed assurda; eppure erano liberi e grandi; e non divennero stupidi e vili, se non quando, spogliati della lor libertà, credettero nella infame divinità di Cesare, di Augusto, e degli altri lor simili e peggiori tiranni 56.

Scrittore dall’animo repubblicano, Alfieri cerca nella mitografia della storia romana un confronto possibile alle sfide delle moderne rivoluzioni: così, attribuendo ad Augusto il ruolo di tiranno, conferisce a Bruto quello di icona dei moti antitirannici sorti tra Illuminismo ed Ottocento 57. 5. Il XIX secolo L’età napoleonica, che impronta di sé la vita e l’opera di Alfieri, fa da sfondo anche a quello che si può definire il neoclassicismo minore italiano che in Vincenzo Monti (1754-1828) ha il suo esponente più significativo. Poeta di belle forme, del virtuosismo linguistico e dell’immaginazione, non dei sentimenti, Monti menziona Augusto per fini di inquadramento cronologico o poetico della vicenda trattata. Così nella Feroniade, poema in endecasillabi (iniziato nel 1812 ed incompiuto) sul prosciugamento delle paludi pontine da parte di Pio VI, in cui si canta il mito della ninfa Feronia abitatrice di quei luoghi: Indi il possente fortunato Augusto Esecutor della paterna idea… 58.

Del princeps, quindi, non si investiga il ruolo storico, pur accennato nell’idea della bonifica palustre, ma solo la dimensione evocativa: in tal senso, in effetti, è interessante notare come la figura augustea non compaia nella pur ampia produzione politica montiana, quasi che l’ispirazione e la citazione dell’antichità classica non dovessero essere mescolate all’attualità neppure come rievocazione poetica. Le numerose occorrenze di Augusto in Giacomo Leopardi (1798-1837), invece, si caratterizzano per un maggior contrappunto tra riferimenti generici al 56

Della tirannide, I, 8, 10 (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITA0750/_PB.HTM, consultato il 12.12.2015). 57 CANFORA (2014), p. 201-202. 58 MONTI (1839), p. 506.

AUGUSTO NELLA STORIA DELLA LETTERATURA ITALIANA

305

princeps, ad esempio al fine di circoscrivere cronologicamente un’epoca, e considerazioni più puntuali d’ordine soprattutto storico-politico, letterario e morale. La sede privilegiata per tali dissertazioni è lo Zibaldone di pensieri (18171832), una sorta di diario di riflessioni personali. Augusto è considerato quale tiranno intelligente e scaltro conoscitore della giusta misura da mantenere tra ragione e natura, intese come strumenti dal cui equilibrio si ottiene assicurazione e consolidamento della tirannia (252; 28 settembre 1820). Altrove (475; 5 gennaio 1821) Augusto è citato come promotore di civiltà ma anche di corruzione, tra le cui cause nelle monarchie (come sotto Augusto) è la mancanza non solo delle illusioni, ma del principio di esse, non solo della vita dell’animo, ma della vita delle cose, cioè la mancanza di cose che realizzino e fomentino queste illusioni […]. Una dinamica che nella visione pessimistica e ciclica dell’esistenza umana leopardiana, dalla Roma antica si riflette sulla Francia dei suoi tempi, nazione snervata dall’eccessiva civiltà. Al pessimismo cosmico, per il quale all’uomo è concessa una felicità finita ed un’infelicità infinita, Leopardi associa una visione d’Augusto quale uomo perfettamente fortunato, che nulla possa desiderare di più, la cui felicità non possa più stendersi (1147; 10 agosto 1821), evocandolo, inoltre, tra i principi insigni e famosi per la bontà ma non per ragioni di filantropia ma d’egoismo, che è la cagione tanto della clemenza, quanto della crudeltà e della tirannide de’ principi, e determina i loro caratteri a questa o a quella, secondo la diversità delle circostanze (1535; 20 agosto 1821). Tra i molti altri riferimenti ad Augusto, alcuni anche mediati dalle idee di Montesquieu (117-118; 9 giugno 1820), si percepisce quanto il poeta impieghi l’immagine augustea, comunque inserita nel suo contesto storico, come personaggio esemplare di un potere, quello umano, in perpetuo conflitto con una natura matrigna e destinata a prevalere. Un evidente carattere letterario ed un fine esemplificativo assume, invece, il riferimento ad Augusto ne Del romanzo storico, e, in genere de’ componimenti misti di storia e di invenzione (1830) di Alessandro Manzoni (1785-1873), ove l’autore giudica negative tutte le opere non fondate esclusivamente sul vero (compresi quindi i Promessi sposi) e riconosce legittimità morale solo alla storiografia. In tale ottica di verità storica Manzoni ritiene necessario che anche la messa in scena teatrale sia attenta al rispetto del reale, in questo ricordando che il Voltaire, non mi rammento in qual luogo, descrive l’attore che, nel secolo di Luigi XIV, rappresentava Augusto nel Cinna, con una gran parrucca, e sopra di questa un gran cappello a gran penne, e le penne lardellate di foglie d’alloro: il rimanente su quel gusto. Ma cosa voleva dir questo? Che gli spettatori erano più disposti di quello che furono poi, a veder nell’attore l’Augusto del poeta, l’Augusto verosimile, senza darsi tanto pensiero dell’Augusto reale della storia. Poeta e scrittore minore, quanto patriota di primo piano, è Goffredo Mameli (1827-1849), la cui fama è in primis legata alla redazione, nel 1847, dell’inno

306

MARCO CAVALIERI

Fratelli d’Italia (poi detto Inno di Mameli), che fu successivamente posto in musica dal maestro Michele Novaro (e che è dal 1946 l’inno nazionale della Repubblica Italiana). Tra i numerosi scritti ispirati ad un profondo ideale risorgimentale, che per altro ne improntò la breve vita fino alla morte in difesa della Repubblica Romana, troviamo anche alcune critiche letterarie, il tutto raccolto negli Scritti editi e inediti. Nel capitolo Ricordi scolastici dell’anno 1841, in Genova, il saggio su Virgilio ricorda che: Quel riso sereno dell’anima che sa nulla, e piangendo e ridendo pargoleggia, non può chiedersi ad un’età matura di anni e di studj, come era il secolo di Augusto; né ad un popolo che non ebbe per tanti secoli (se pur mai) altre lettere che straniere 59.

Al riconoscimento della maturità culturale – rispetto al mondo dell’epos greco – della letteratura latina augustea, che proprio perché tale non può trattare di temi lievi, si confronta – con sottesi toni patriottici – la condizione letteraria, non felice, di un popolo che da stranieri governato, non può essere libero neppure nella scelta dei soggetti poetici. Quale chiosa all’Ottocento letterario italiano, momento di articolata espressione tra neoclassicismo e romanticismo, emerge abbastanza chiaramente come la personalità di Augusto, nelle corde del Risorgimento nazionale, si configuri piuttosto come contesto di un’espressione letteraria e perda il suo valore storicopolitico di riferimento, essendo più genericamente ed ideologicamente associata alla figura del despota liberticida. 6. Il XX secolo: due posizioni antitetiche La storia della letteratura italiana compresa tra le due guerre mondiali fu anch’essa testimone di una nuova e mirata ideologizzazione della figura augustea, arrivando nel 1937, in occasione dell’apertura della Mostra Augustea della Romanità, al suo momento più alto. Fu infatti proprio per la MAR che i vertici dell’archeologia italiana del tempo (con in testa Giulio Quirino Giglioli) portarono a compimento l’assimilazione di Augusto a Benito Mussolini 60: il fondatore dell’Impero dell’antica Roma associato idealmente a quello del nuovo Impero dell’Italia fascista – la guerra d’Etiopia era terminata un anno prima – restituito ai fatali colli della città eterna 61 (Fig. 2). La bibliografia che ripercorre

59 Scritti editi e inediti di MAMELI (1902). Edizione IntraText CT (2007), http:// www.intratext.com/IXT/ITA2900/_P2L.HTM (consultata il 22.12.2015). 60 In quegli anni il mito di Augusto imperversava e non solo in Italia, a dire il vero, come si evince da LEVI (1933). Anche tra le fila di storici anglosassoni, infatti, comparvero articoli e libri che guardavano con ammirazione a Mussolini quale novello Augusto: in tal senso cfr. SCOTT (1932). 61 Cfr. in questo volume il testo di G. BRIZZI.

AUGUSTO NELLA STORIA DELLA LETTERATURA ITALIANA

307

Fig. 2. Serie filatelica incompleta (6 valori usati) del Regno d’Italia, anno 1937. Serie del bimillenario della nascita di Augusto (Collezione M. Cavalieri).

il confronto tra queste due personalità è copiosa ed in parte anche assai recente 62, per tal motivo, ci limiteremo a ricordare due testi degli anni Venti-Trenta del ‘900 politicamente schierati agli antipodi, concettualmente invero incomparabili, ma utili a mostrare la dialettica (a distanza) con cui gli autori si ponevano di fronte alla contingenza politica in rapporto al personaggio augusteo. Un testo di alto contenuto propagandistico del Fascismo, con marcate posizioni razziste e velleità storiografico-letterarie è quello di Emilio Balbo (1904-?), Protagonisti dei due imperi di Roma: Augusto e Mussolini, che il sottoscritto ha potuto leggere solo nell’edizione del XIX anno dell’E.F. [1941] 63. L’autore, infatti, Su Augusto e Mussolini cfr. CAGNETTA (1976); NELIS (2007). In verità una prima edizione risale al 1937, in rapporto diretto con la MAR. Su E. Balbo, la sua vicenda umana e politica, cfr. Appendice infra. 62 63

308

MARCO CAVALIERI

intellettuale del Fascismo militante fino alla R.S.I. e tra le personalità segnatarie del Manifesto della razza (1938) da cui scaturirono le leggi razziali italiane, esprime su Augusto un giudizio di grandezza subalterna a quella del Duce e del suo vero paragone, Cesare: Tentare un paragone, tra Caio Cesare Ottaviano e Mussolini, è cosa ardua e direi quasi impossibile: troppa differenza esiste tra il figlio adottivo di Giulio Cesare e il Duce del Fascismo, tra il buon senso del primo e il genio creatore del secondo. […] Siamo di fronte a due uomini che si differenziano profondamente: per cercare l’uomo paragone di Mussolini bisognerebbe chiamare in causa Giulio Cesare.

Così come acutamente osservato da G. Pucci, la simpatia di Mussolini per Cesare, considerato il vero fondatore dell’Impero di fatto e di diritto, era motivata dalle sue capacità di condottiero – a differenza di Augusto dipendente da Agrippa in battaglia e da Mecenate per strategia politica – e da quei generosi sentimenti che riflettono tutta la grandezza dell’uomo veramente superiore che passa di vittoria in vittoria senza infierire sui vinti 64. […] A Caio Ottaviano questa generosità è del tutto sconosciuta. Egli non indugia per le sue mire politiche, a consegnare nelle mani dei suoi colleghi di triunvirato [Sic! n.d.a.] i più intimi amici e persino i suoi parenti. L’associazione con Augusto, quindi, fu ideata solo più tardi, quando le esigenze propagandistiche seguite alla proclamazione di Vittorio Emanuele III ad imperatore d’Etiopia, necessitarono sul piano politico di recuperare Augusto, “capo carismatico autorevole ma misurato. E soprattutto, rispetto a Cesare [n.d.a.], longevo” 65. Infatti, se le simpatie del duce erano chiaramente cesariane, la conclusione della vicenda umana del dittatore pareva di cattivo presagio tanto da condurre Mussolini ad identificarsi piuttosto con Scipione l’Africano 66, il più grande condottiero romano fin dai tempi del Petrarca 67; solo necessità di convenienza politica e propagandistica portarono, in fine, alla scelta augustea. A fronte di una visione provvidenzialistica della missione civilizzatrice di Roma mercé il genio di Benito Mussolini, per altro sulla scorta dell’eredità del mondo antico, si contrappone la visione disincantata di Antonio Gramsci (18911937) che nella Roma di Augusto e in quella di Mussolini, di secoli dopo, riconosce un medesimo scenario polveroso ove l’ordine proletario è represso da un’ideologia ufficiale in cui il «capo» è divinizzato, è dichiarato infallibile, è preconizzato organizzatore ed ispiratore di un rinato Sacro Romano Impero 68. 64

La celebrata clementia Caesaris esaltata nella Pro Marcello di Cicerone. PUCCI (2014). 66 Il paragone con Mussolini era già presente in PETRAI (1927), ristampato nel 1937 in occasione dell’uscita del film di Carmine Gallone, Scipione l’Africano. 67 Cfr. la nota 25. 68 Le riflessioni su Mussolini-Augusto sono tratte dall’articolo “Capo” edito nel periodico politico-culturale L’Ordine nuovo del 1 marzo 1924. 65

AUGUSTO NELLA STORIA DELLA LETTERATURA ITALIANA

309

Una falsa rivoluzione, inoltre, che ha portato al potere non un leader del proletariato, ma un dittatore della borghesia (con un totale sovvertimento dell’ottica antiborghese proclamata dal regime!); un processo ciclico per Roma (e l’Italia) che aveva visto nel tempo succedersi Romolo, Augusto etc. fino all’età moderna: una vicenda che si dipana secondo un copione in cui la personalità augustea è richiamata quale simbolo della fine della lotta di classe, quest’ultima stritolata da una personalità individuale (Mussolini) che ha conquistato il governo e lo mantiene con la repressione più violenta ed arbitraria. Così come, in verità, aveva fatto Augusto e tutti i tiranni prima di lui! 7. Ad concludendum, melius ad continuandum… Il florilegio di passi letterari raccolti mostra quanto negli otto secoli trascorsi dal Tesoretto allo scoppio della seconda guerra mondiale, poeti, scrittori ed artisti furono infaticabili nella delicata operazione di incastonare Augusto nel loro attuale, ideale, esemplare (anche negativo), determinando un’indubbia fortuna del personaggio letterario. Una memoria che, pur mostrando maggior modulazione nelle occorrenze rispetto alla prorompente presenza, per esempio, di Cesare, molto dovette in primis, ad una reinterpretazione provvidenziale del princeps quale precursore e preparatore dell’avvento cristiano. Privata dell’ottica cristiana, l’immagine politica del primo imperatore di Roma nei secoli ha oscillato tra due posizioni antitetiche: modello di governo rasserenante, misurato e pacifico da un lato o camaleontico 69, astuto e calcolatore sovvertitore dell’ordine “repubblicano”, dall’altro 70. Di qui discende che l’assimilazione ideologica augustea sembra legata ad un pendolo interpretativo fluttuante a seconda dell’orientamento politico dell’autore e del contesto storico contingente. Insomma, accanto all’ideale classico-cristiano, alla luce apollinea di cui il potere augusteo si volle artatamente ammantare improntando di sé un’ampia parte della storia occidentale, va anche osservato come, a partire dai suoi contemporanei, ogni qual volta si siano diffusi valori antitirannici o fervori repubblicani, ecco che freddezza, calcolo e crudeltà hanno connotato la ricezione dell’immagine augustea 71.

69 A proposito di tale definizione, già attribuita all’imperatore Giuliano, cfr. il contributo di D. BURGERSDIJK. 70 La divergenza tra proiezione di sé e valutazione esterna dell’immagine e della condotta augustea, è già nota in antico se, l’imperatore Giuliano, in un’operetta satirica intitolata Καίσαρες, al paragrafo 309A-B, stigmatizza di Augusto proprio l’opportunismo e l’incoerenza (in linea, probabilmente, con parte della storiografia antica): Ὀκταβιανὸς ἐπεισέρχεται πολλὰ ἀμείβων, ὥσπερ οἱ χαμαιλέοντες (… ecco che si fa avanti Ottaviano, cambiando continuamente colore come i camaleonti…). 71 RAAFLAUB / SAMONS (1990); ROHR VIO (2011); CITRONI MARCHETTI (2013).

310

MARCO CAVALIERI

Una seconda considerazione che pare emergere dai testi letterari raccolti è il richiamo all’identità di Augusto non come artefice del mito imperiale-assolutista (negativo), proprio della visione dell’Antichità romana di parte una certa storiografia del XX secolo 72, quanto ad una sua sacralità confortante quale pacificatore (vero o presunto che fosse): un modello drammatico della personalità del sovrano in cui la critica storico-artistica moderna ha trovato riscontro iconografico, da un lato, nella statua di Prima Porta, connotata bellicosamente anche se in una dimensione ideale; dall’altro, nel togato di via Labicana, ove la visione sacerdotale d’Augusto trasmette un messaggio d’ordine, di pax restituta (almeno in apparenza, senz’altro con il sangue) 73. Appendice Emilio Balbo: per un inquadramento dell’uomo e dello scrittore Studiando la figura e la ricezione di Augusto durante il Ventennio fascista, è difficile non imbattersi nell’opera di Emilio Balbo, autore e politico oggi noto soprattutto per aver scritto il libro Augusto e Mussolini, Roma: Pinciana, a. XVI dell’E.F. (anche se pubblicato nel 1937), verosimilmente rieditato qualche anno più tardi, in pieno conflitto mondiale, con il titolo di Protagonisti dei due imperi di Roma: Augusto e Mussolini, Roma: Pinciana, a. XIX dell’E.F. 1941 (Fig. 3). È verosimile, infatti, che questo secondo volume abbia costituito, se non un’edizione anastatica (i due testi differiscono di qualche pagina!), almeno una revisione leggermente aggiornata dell’opera del 1937, da diffondere in un momento di “necessità” propagandistica da parte del Regime, da poco entrato in guerra a fianco della Germania nazista, e necessitante di richiamare alla memoria dell’italica gente la romana, per non dire augustea, ispirazione del Duce, valente condottiero in pace belloque. Molti studiosi di quello che lo storico britannico Eric Hobsbawm definì il secolo breve 74, trattando dell’appropriazione ideologica della figura di Augusto attuata dal Fascismo, hanno sottolineato come essa avvenga soprattutto tra 1937 e 1938, in occasione del bimillenario augusteo (Mostra Augustea della Romanità, esposizione dell’Ara Pacis, nuova sistemazione urbana del Mausoleo di Augusto), e come l’organismo che curò il complesso di discorsi ed iniziative pubbliche fu l’Istituto di Studi Romani (fondato nel 1925, in prima linea nella propaganda fascista della Romanità). Quanto risulta strano è che, dalle ricerche eseguite fino ad oggi in termini biografici, Emilio Balbo non sembra essere inserito nel circuito di studiosi ed intellettuali espressione della propaganda REHRMANN (1937); SYME (2014), p. xxi; CANFORA (1980), p. 83-90; JUDGE (2008). 73 ZANKER (1989); GIARDINA (2010), p. 42-49. 74 HOBSBAWM (1994). 72

AUGUSTO NELLA STORIA DELLA LETTERATURA ITALIANA

311

Fig. 3. Copertina del volume di Emilio Balbo, Augusto e Mussolini, edito a Roma nel 1937: le due figure erano inequivocabilmente associate.

“ufficiale” del Regime e quindi connessi direttamente all’Istituto di Studi Romani, al comitato organizzatore della MAR etc. Secondo lo storico Joshua Arthurs, “Emilio Balbo was not really part of that world, and more likely an independent author or journalist of some kind” 75. 75 Dalla corrispondenza via mail con Joshua Arthurs, Associate Professor of History, West Virginia University, Fellow of the American Academy in Rome, 2015-16 (09.12.2015).

312

MARCO CAVALIERI

In effetti, la dimensione biografica, la formazione culturale ed identitaria di E. Balbo sfuggono ad una analisi della critica storiografica moderna se, ancora di recente, Aristotele A. Kallis 76 lo definisce an historian, quando, invece, si ha l’impressione che, nonostante una nutrita produzione editoriale storicopropagandistica del Fascismo ed un taglio ideologico di evidente espressione razzista, l’autore di Augusto e Mussolini non sia che l’espressione “dell’erudito di provincia”, del cultore dell’apologia fascista e razziale, approdato alla ribalta non perché inserito nell’intelligencija di potere, ma per una sua certa capacità di comunicazione, pomposa e ideologicamente magniloquente, ma efficace, per certi versi agguerrita, parenetica, così come piaceva all’apparato del Regime più lontano dalla speculazione intellettuale, pur orientata, del tempo. Per studiosi come Giovanni Gentile, Gioacchino Volpe o Giuseppe Bottai, ad esempio, Roma antica rappresentava un repertorio simbolico e retorico ricco ed evocatore ma da comprendere e rispettare storicamente, tanto che nelle loro posizioni era evidente una diffidenza ed anche un certo disprezzo per gli eccessi e per la superficialità storica con cui i cantori del Regime – e tra questi Balbo – pretendevano di stabilire un parallelismo immediato tra la Roma augustea e quella di Mussolini 77. La produzione editoriale di Balbo, come accennato, non si limita al volume in oggetto, ma si qualifica, fin dalla fine degli anni Venti, quale supporto propagandistico alle “grandi imprese” e posizioni politiche del Regime. A seguito del volume Catilina nel giudizio della critica demagogica, Roma, Edizioni Tiber, 1929, ecco Come Pietro Badoglio ha frantumate le armate abissine, Roma, Casa Editrice Pinciana, 1936 e Delitti e vendette del Negus, Roma, Casa Editrice Pinciana, 1936; per terminare con il Giudaico pietismo, Roma, M. Tupini, 1939. Balbo, in effetti, nel 1936 si erge cantore della missione civilizzatrice italiana in Africa attraverso la conquista dell’Etiopia, la cui vicenda è esaltata dalle azioni del comandante del corpo di spedizione italiano, Pietro Badoglio, e legittimata dal racconto delle presunte nefandezze perpetrate dal negus Hailé Selassié, ultimo imperatore della dinastia salomonide d’Etiopia. Questi due libri costituiscono, per così dire, i primi due capitoli di una trilogia sulla fondazione dell’Impero fascista che sarà conclusa, di lì a poco, proprio con Augusto e Mussolini, opera che alla storia evenemenziale contemporanea si pone come antefatto del fatale rinnovamento della Roma imperiale augusteomussoliniana. Infine, alle leggi razziali del 1938 fa seguito un volume che, unitamente alla stampa di Regime, esprime con cruda fermezza che “chi pietisce per gli Ebrei in qualsiasi forma o maniera non può essere fascista” 78, polemizzando con chi simpatizzava o, peggio, mostrava di avere comprensione per gli Ebrei. 76 77 78

KALLIS (2014), p. 212. LA PENNA (1999), p. 609-610 e passim. BALBO (1939), p. 13.

AUGUSTO NELLA STORIA DELLA LETTERATURA ITALIANA

313

È evidente la radicata posizione razzista di Balbo, personaggio gravitante attorno alla casa editrice Pinciana e tra i segnatari del cosiddetto Manifesto della purezza della razza, documento ufficiale da cui scaturirono le leggi razziali italiane, pubblicato il 14 luglio 1938 e che recava in allegato la lista delle “personalità” che vi aderirono 79. Tuttavia, nonostante tale sua adesione al documento, il nome di Balbo non compare su Razza e Civiltà, organo della divisione del Ministero dell’Interno preposta alla persecuzione razziale (Direzione Generale per la Demografia e la Razza). Questa rivista esprime un tipo di uso politico della storia antica funzionale alla teorizzazione di una razza italica non ariana, nata con la romanizzazione dei popoli italici. Si tratta di teorie razziste in contraddizione con il razzismo ufficiale (razza ariana, razzismo biologico, linea filotedesca). Non mi risulta, in effetti che Emilio Balbo fosse tra i membri del Consiglio Superiore per la Demografia e della Razza (consiglio dei teorici statali del razzismo fascista, affiancato alla Demorazza) né tra gli studiosi che scrissero su Razza e Civiltà o che furono recensiti su quella rivista. Non risulta nemmeno – ma ulteriori ricerche sarebbero necessarie – che fosse tra i portavoce fino ad ora conosciuti delle altre correnti razziste (ovvero quella “biologica”, facente capo a La Difesa della razza, o quella “esoterico-tradizionalista” dei seguaci di Julius Evola). Insomma, ancora una volta, E. Balbo sembra emergere come una personalità dalle pervicaci convinzioni fasciste e razziste, ma dalla natura di outsider rispetto ai circuiti del potere e della propaganda più ufficiali. Quanto alla vicenda biografica, è stato possibile ricostruirla solo parzialmente; altre e più approfondite ricerche sarebbero certamente opportune: in particolare, come vedremo, avendo Baldo ricoperto, in provincia di Cuneo, incarichi pubblici durante il Ventennio e la guerra civile, sarebbe utile una disamina presso l’Archivio Centrale di Stato a Roma, dove potrebbero essere rimaste tracce della carriera e, eventualmente, di un processo di epurazione, fatto che forse spiegherebbe le difficoltà incontrate per ritracciarne la storia umana e professionale. In ogni caso, presso l’Istituto storico della Resistenza di Cuneo si è evidenziato che Emilio Balbo nacque a Sale Langhe (provincia di Cuneo) il 28.3.1904 80. Ricoprì le cariche di Segretario politico del Fascio di Bra (Cuneo) e di Ispettore federale per il periodo 1922-1943 e fu segretario amministrativo della Federazione repubblicana di Cuneo tra il 1943 ed il 1945. Non abbiamo alcuna indicazione circa il suo percorso di studi e la formazione culturale, anche se possiamo immaginare studi superiori se non universitari, data una certa familiarità con la storia e la letteratura latina. Presso il Comune 79

http://www.internetsv.info/Manifesto.html Dato il luogo di nascita, riteniamo improbabile una parentela con il famoso Italo Balbo (gerarca fascista della prima ora, politico e valente aviatore), di nascita ferrarese, ancorché di origini piemontesi, come lascia intendere il cognome, Balbo e la provenienza del padre. 80

314

MARCO CAVALIERI

di Sale Langhe non è annotata la data del decesso, ma risulta essersi sposato a Sanremo (provincia di Imperia) il 21 giugno del 1953, fatto che indica che superò indenne la fine della guerra e ritornò, almeno in apparenza, ad una normale vita civile 81. Sappiamo, comunque, che oltre alla vicenda di scrittore, Balbo ebbe anche un ruolo attivo nell’apparato provinciale del Fascismo piemontese: tra aprile e giugno del 1944 egli fu, a Bra, Commissario prefettizio e capo dei fascisti, e come tale oggetto di rapimento da parte dei partigiani giacché l’azione del gerarchetto (sic!) dava noia alle attività delle squadre di liberazione 82. Nelle trattative per la sua liberazione (in vita), egli promise, dando la sua parola d’onore, che avrebbe abbandonato la politica e non avrebbe più messo piede a Bra se non dopo la fine della guerra. Una volta liberato, tuttavia, sembra non aver mantenuto fede alla parola data e, accompagnato da una scorta di fascisti armati, rientrò a Bra rioccupando il ruolo di Commissario prefettizio cui assommò anche quello di vice federale della provincia di Cuneo. Insomma, nelle stesse parole (gerarchetto) della fazione avversa, una personalità anche politicamente secondaria, come comprova il fatto che si ritenne il suo rilascio dall’arresto non in contraddizione con il buon esito delle operazioni partigiane nel Cuneese. Bibliografia BALBO, E. (1939), Giudaico pietismo, Roma. BORRI CASTELLI, L. (1993), La leggenda di Augusto e la Sibilla Tiburtina nella redazione di Nicolò Soggi, Arezzo. BOSCO, U. / REGGIO, G. (1988), Dante Alighieri, La divina Commedia. Inferno, Firenze. BOSCO, U. / REGGIO, G. (1989), Dante Alighieri, La divina Commedia. Paradiso, Firenze. BRANCA, V. (1956), Decameron di Giovanni Boccaccio, Torino. BRUNI, L. (1861), Istoria fiorentina, trans. D. Acciaiuoli, Firenze. CAGNETTA, M. (1976), Il mito di Augusto e la ‘rivoluzione’ fascista, in Quaderni di Storia, 3, p. 139-181. CANFORA, D. (2014), L’immagine di Scipione nella letteratura politica umanisticorinascimentale, in W. GEERTS / M. CACIORGNA / Ch. BOSSU (ed.), Scipione l’Africano: un eroe tra Rinascimento e Barocco. Atti del convegno di studi (Roma 24-25 maggio 2012), Milano, p. 193-202. CANFORA, L. (1980), Ideologie del classicismo, Torino. CARETTI, L. (1957), Gerusalemme liberata di Torquato Tasso, Milano, http://www.letteraturaitaliana.net/pdf/Volume_5/t329.pdf (consultata il 31.12.2015). CITRONI MARCHETTI, S. (2013), Divi Augusti adversa: un anti-mito augusteo nel I secolo dell’Impero?, in M. LABATE / G. ROSATI (ed.), La costruzione del mito 81

Tali notizie si devono alla gentilezza di Marco Ruzzi dell’Istituto storico Resistenza Cuneo e a quella di Barbara Berruti dell’Istituto piemontese per la storia della Resistenza e della società contemporanea “Giorgio Agosti”, i quali ringrazio sentitamente. 82 RONCHI DELLA ROCCA (1965), p. 57-58.

AUGUSTO NELLA STORIA DELLA LETTERATURA ITALIANA

315

augusteo, Heidelberg (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften 141), p. 221-240. CRISTOFOLI, R. (2013), L’Oratio ad sanctorum coetum. Un imperatore cristiano alla ricerca del consenso, in Enciclopedia Costantiniana, http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/l-oratio-ad-sanctorum-coetum-un-imperatore-cristiano-alla-ricerca-delconsenso_%28Enciclopedia_Costantiniana%29/ (consultata l’8.11.2015). DE’ MAFFEI, F. (1984), La Sibilla “Tiburtina” e “Profitissa” negli affreschi di Sant’Angelo in Formis, in Monastica IV, Miscellanea Cassinese 48, p. 9-30. FAIETTI, M. (2013), Roma 1527, Bologna 1530: Parmigianino, il Papa e l’Imperatore, in M. DE GIORGI / A. HOFFMANN / N. SUTHOR (ed.), Synergies in Visual Culture – Bildkulturen im Dialog: Festschrift für Gerhard Wolf, München, p. 447-463. GIARDINA, A. (2010), L’impero di Augusto, in I volti del potere, Roma / Bari, p. 42-49. HOBSBAWM, E. J. (1994), The Age of Extremes. The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991, London. JUDGE, E. A. (2008), The Second Thoughts of Syme on Augustus, in E. A. JUDGE (ed.), The First Christians in the Roman World: Augustan and New Testament Essays, Tübingen, p. 314-345 (ed. orig. in Ancient History 27, 1, 1997, p. 43-75). KALLIS, A. A. (2014), The Third Rome, 1922-43. The Making of the Fascist Capital, London. LA PENNA, A. (1999), Il culto della romanità nel periodo fascista. La rivista «Roma» e l’Istituto di Studi Romani, in Italia contemporanea, 217, pp. 606-630. LE BOHEC, Y. (2003), L’esercito romano. Le armi imperiali da Augusto alla fine del terzo secolo, Roma. LEVI, M. A. (1933), Ottaviano capoparte: storia politica di Roma durante le ultime lotte di supremazia, Vol. 2, Firenze. MAI, A. (1843), Chronicon Palatinum, in Spicilegium Romanum, IX, Roma. MAMELI, G. (1902), Scritti editi e inediti di Goffredo Mameli (1902), ordinati e pubblicati con proemio introduzione e note a cura di A. G. BARRILI, in Società ligure di storia patria, Palazzo Bianco, già Brignole Sale, Genova. MANCINI, G. (1909), Il bel S. Giovanni e le feste patronali di Firenze descritte nel 1475 da Piero Cennini, in Rivista d’arte 6, p. 184-227. MARTELLOTTI, G. (1947), Petrarca e Cesare, in Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe Lettere e Filosofia, II, 16, p. 149-158. MOMIGLIANO, A. (1987), Dalla Sibilla pagana alla Sibilla cristiana: profezia come storia della religione, in Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe Lettere e Filosofia, XVII, 3, p. 407-428. MOMMSEN, Th. (1871-1888), Römisches Staatsrecht, 3 vol., Leipzig. MONTI, V. (1839), in Poemetti, Feroniade, canto III, Milano. NELIS, J. (2007), Constructing Fascist Identity: Benito Mussolini and the Myth of Romanità, in Classical Worlds 100, 4, p. 391-415. PACCA, V. / PAOLINO, L. (1996), Francesco Petrarca. Trionfi, Rime estravaganti, Codice degli abbozzi, Milano. PAOLI, M. (2008), Il ritratto di un autore-donna del XVI secolo: Chiara Matrani (15151604) e il dipinto di “Augusto e la Sibilla”, in Rara Volumina 15, p. 7-20. PARISI PRESICCE, C. / ROSSINI, O. (ed.) (2014), L’arte del comando. L’eredità di Augusto, Roma. PASCUCCI, A. (2011), L’iconografia medievale della Sibilla Tiburtina, Tivoli. PETRAI, G. (1927), Scipione l’Africano duce delle legioni romane vittoriose in Africa e in Spagna, Firenze.

316

MARCO CAVALIERI

PUCCI, G. (2014), Il falso Augusto di Via Nazionale, in Il Manifesto, 27.01. RAAFLAUB, K. A. / SAMONS L. J. II (1990), Opposition to Augustus, in K. A. RAAFLAUB / M. TOHER (ed.), Between Republic and Empire. Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate, Berkeley (LA) / Oxford, p. 417-454. ROHR VIO, F. (2011), Contro il Principe: congiure e dissenso nella Roma di Augusto, Bologna. REHRMANN, F. A. (1937), Kaiser Augustus. Neuschöpfer Roms, Retter des römischen Reiches und der abendländischen Kultur, Ideal eines genialen und sozialen Friedensfürsten, Hildesheim. RONCHI DELLA ROCCA, I. (1965), Ricordi di un partigiano. La Resistenza nel braidese, Torino. ROSSINI, O. (2014a), Costantino e l’interpretazione cristiana del mito augusteo, in PARISI PRESICCE / ROSSINI (ed.) (2014), p. 35-36. ROSSINI, O. (2014b), Dall’Ara Pacis all’Ara Coeli, in PARISI PRESICCE / ROSSINI (ed.) (2014), p. 40-45. ROSSINI, O. (2014c), Dante, Virgilio e Cola di Rienzo, in PARISI PRESICCE / ROSSINI (ed.) (2014), p. 57-59. ROSSINI, O. (2014d), Augusto nel Rinascimento e il mito laurenziano, in PARISI PRESICCE / ROSSINI (ed.) (2014), p. 60-63. SCOTT, K. (1932), Mussolini and the Roman Empire, in The Classical Association of the Middle West and South 27, p. 645-657. SIRAGO, V. A. (2002), Roma e cristianesimo: scontro e integrazione, in Cristiani nell’impero romano. Giornate di studio (S. Leucio del Sannio – Benevento 22, 29 marzo e 5 aprile 2001), Napoli, p. 269-293. SYME, R. (2014), La rivoluzione romana, Torino (ed. orig. Oxford 1939). VASARI, G. (1986), Le vite de’ piú eccellenti architetti, pittori, et scultori italiani, da Cimabue insino a’ tempi nostri, Firenze, 1550, in L. BELLOSI e A. ROSSI (ed.), Torino. VICO, G. (1911), Principj di scienza nuova d’intorno alla comune natura delle nazioni, vol. I, sez. II, XCV, Bari. VON ALBERTINI, R. (1995), Firenze dalla Repubblica al Principato. Storia e coscienza politica, Torino. ZANKER, P. (1989), Augusto e il potere delle immagini, Torino (ed. orig. München 1987).

Ancient Readings and Modern Reinterpretations of Augustus’ Clemency towards Cinna IDA GILDA MASTROROSA (Università degli Studi di Firenze)

Abstract Among the various positive aspects which characterize the representation of the figure of Augustus in the ancient tradition, his inclination towards clemency after his final ascent to the Princedom stands out, in some special cases, including that of Cinna, whose life the prince decided to spare, despite rumours of his plotting against him. A parallel analysis of the only two classical statements of the episode by Seneca and Cassius Dio, as well as of some passages referring to it by some 16th century writers and thinkers, provides the opportunity to refocus on the different forms through which, as well as the purposes for which, the case was exploited in different historical contexts in order to draw attention to the space to be given to clemency in the exercise of power.

1. Seneca’s ‘Idealization’: How to Make Augustus a Model of Clementia According to the account offered in a passage of Seneca’s treatise De clementia, 1 at the time of his stay in Gaul – thus presumably in the years 16-13 BCE 2 – Augustus had news of a conspiracy against him by L. Cornelius Cinna, one of Pompey’s grandsons. Having decided to take revenge and having called the consilium amicorum, the Prince spent the previous night worrying, hesitant about how to react to the episode. He was convinced at first that it was not safe to leave unpunished the conspirator who had plotted to kill him, after he had faced so many risks for the salvation of the state to which he had also guaranteed peace, facing many threats on land and at sea. On the other hand, he was not convinced that it was opportune to punish a young nobleman whose conduct had been irreproachable until then and who was also Pompey’s grandson. 3 1 Cf. SEN., Clem. I, 9, 2-12. For further insights into Seneca’s passage, in addition to ADLER (1909); BÉRANGER (1956 [1975]), among most recent contributions see ROHR VIO (2000), p. 188-193; CHAUMARTIN (2005), p. 75-82; ADLER (2011), p. 135-137. 2 Regarding the date presupposed by Seneca’s passage, see also PRÉCHAC (1967); SHOTTER (1974), p. 307; GRIFFIN (1976), p. 409-411, and lastly ROHR VIO (2000), p. 191-192; COGITORE (2002), p. 151-154. 3 Cf. SEN., Clem. I, 9, 3-4: Constituit se ab eo uindicare et consilium amicorum aduocari iussit. Nox illi inquieta erat, cum cogitaret adulescentem nobilem, hoc detracto integrum, Cn. Pompei nepotem, damnandum […].

318

IDA GILDA MASTROROSA

During that sleepless night, he expressed his thoughts aloud, and – as stated by Seneca – his wife Livia advised him to forgive Cinna, following the criterion that doctors use when, observing the ineffectiveness of the usual remedies, try opposite therapies. 4 She pointed out, in particular, that the seueritas used until then in some cases concerning other persons 5 had not been useful and urged him to resort to the path of clemency, considering that the plotter could no longer harm him, since his machinations had been uncovered. Augustus’ reputation would benefit from pardoning him. 6 Following his wife’s suggestion, the Prince called off the council the next day and admitted Cinna alone to his presence. He made him a long speech, reminding him in the first place that he had already spared his life when he found him in the enemy’s camp, allowing him to retain his heritage and helping him access the priesthood. 7 Furthermore, having denounced the details he had discovered about Cinna’s plan, Augustus asked him to explain the intentions underlying his project. He pointed out that, in the end, even if Cinna had been able to remove him, he never could become princeps, as he would find opposition from members of prominent families, members of the res publica able to boast the authority received from their ancestors. 8 Seneca does not report other passages of the speech, thanks to a sentence which suggests that he had in front of him a written document stating Augustus’ discourse. 9 He simply remarks that it went on for two hours, adding that in the end the emperor spared Cinna’s life, wishing for the beginning of a new friendship between them and inviting him to participate in a contest of loyalty towards himself. 10 In this vein, from the final step of the account we learn that the previously supposed plotter was given the consulship without requesting it, and Cf. SEN., Clem. I, 9, 6: Fac, quod medici solent, qui, ubi usitata remedia non procedunt, temptant contraria. Although documented by other occurrences within Seneca’s works, this use of a medical metaphor may have attracted the attention of Cassius Dio who similarly adopts medical analogies in his own reconstruction of the dialogue between the couple: cf. CASS. DIO LV, 17, 1; 18, 1; 20, 3 and the remarks by HEYWORTH (2014). For other examples of medical images within Dio’s work, see also LVI, 6, 1; LVI, 39, 2. 5 SEN., Clem. I, 9, 6 with reference to Salvidienus, Lepidus, Murena, Caepio, Egnatius; for the historical contextualization of the plots they were involved in, see especially RAAFLAUB / SAMONS II (1990), p. 418-427; ROHR VIO (2000), p. 21-30, 124-146; COGITORE (2002), p. 52-60, 123-135. 6 Cf. SEN., Clem. I, 9, 6: Nunc tempta, quomodo tibi cedat clementia: ignosce L. Cinnae. Deprensus est, iam nocere tibi non potest, prodesse famae tuae potest. 7 Cf. Ibid. I, 9, 8. 8 Cf. Ibid. I, 9, 10. 9 Cf. Ibid. I, 9, 11: Ne totam eius orationem repetendo magnam partem uoluminis occupem (diutius enim quam duabus horis locutum esse constat, cum hanc poenam, qua sola erat contentus futurus, extenderet); and COGITORE (2002), p. 155; CANFORA (2015), p. 178-179. 10 Cf. SEN., Clem. I, 9, 11. 4

AUGUSTUS’ CLEMENCY TOWARDS CINNA

319

from that moment on, Augustus obtained his sincere friendship and loyalty and was never again the object of a conspiracy by anyone. 11 Leaving aside the questions regarding the historicity of the episode, 12 it is worth noticing, however, that Seneca presented it to his disciple Nero as an example of clemency from the forefather of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, 13 underlining in particular that the ability to withstand the injuries received exposes individuals to receive more injury but makes the Prince’s position more stable and secure, avoiding the risk of inspiring others to hate him. 14 Despite this advice, which on one hand implies the interpretation of clementia as one of the moral qualities to be possessed by the ‘good’ emperor 15 and on the other hand reflects the tendency of the author to exploit historical examples, 16 the use of Augustus as a model to be appreciated and imitated deserves to be highlighted, as it does not perfectly correspond to Seneca’s overall interpretation of his conduct. 17 2. Cassius Dio’s ‘Reconstruction’: Suggestions for Exercising Power Prudently It is very likely that the passage included in his treatise On Clemency was the most influential source 18 used by Cassius Dio to reconstruct the same episode in book LV of his Roman History, 19 where Cinna’s conspiracy is placed in the

11

Cf. Ibid. I, 9, 12. Among those in favour of the historicity of the plot, see for example SPEYER (1956); BAUMAN (1967), p. 195; GIUA (1981), p. 317, n. 2; GRIMAL (1986), p. 49; CHASTAGNOL (1994); COGITORE (2002), p. 155; SWAN (2004), p. 148-149; DOWLING (2006), p. 66; CANFORA (2015), p. 179. As regards more sceptical positions, see SYME (1939 [repr. 1963]), p. 420; SYME (1958), t. I, p. 404, n. 2, and most recently ROHR VIO (2000), p. 199-206; HILLNER (2015), p. 55-56; MARCONE (2015), p. 212. 13 Cf. SEN., Clem. I, 9, 1: Hoc quam uerum sit admonere te exemplo domestico uolo. For Seneca’s use of the episode as an example, see ARMISEN-MARCHETTI (2006), p. 200-201. 14 Cf. SEN., Clem. I, 8, 6: Adice nunc, quod priuatos homines ad accipiendas iniurias opportuniores acceptarum patientia facit, regibus certior est ex mansuetudine securitas, quia frequens uindicta paucorum odium opprimit, omnium inritat. 15 Cf. Ibid. I, 22, 3; II, 3. 16 For other observations on these topics see MAYER (1991); CASTAGNA (1991). 17 In this vein, in addition to JAL (1957); GRIMAL (1988); SCHIMMENTI (1997); see lastly PIERINI (2012); BERNO (2013). 18 As pointed out by ADLER (1909), according to whom Dio depended on Seneca through an intermediate source, and among others, by SPEYER (1956), p. 277; SYME (1958), p. 404, n. 2; MILLAR (1964), p. 78-79; PRÉCHAC (1967), p. LVI-LXV; BAUMAN (1967), p. 193; VAN STEKELENBURG (1971), p. 133-135; MANUWALD (1979), p. 125; GIUA (1981), p. 317; RICH (1990), p. 8; SWAN (2004), p. 147-148; BRAUND (2009), p. 259-260. 19 Cf. CASS. DIO LV, 14-21 with the commentary by SWAN (2004), p. 147-155. 12

320

IDA GILDA MASTROROSA

year 4 CE. Besides the different dating, 20 the first aspect to be remarked in Cassius Dio’s account is the ample space given to the figure of Livia, 21 which also shows the historian’s interest in inserting into his work speeches attributed to leading figures of the political scenario. 22 Omitting here any discussion on the meaning that should be assigned to these rhetorical sections, 23 which are considered sometimes fictive by most scholars and reputed to be narrative pieces introduced specifically by Cassius Dio, in order to express his own position about significant questions or subjects, 24 the detailed narration of Livia’s intervention reported in the passage states that she stepped in to reassure her sleepless husband. In fact, she reminded him, on one hand, that his role led him to take decisions that could damage many people and that the risk of plots should be expected. On the other, she pointed out how inevitable it is for those who govern, albeit in an exceptional way, to be the object of hatred by many. She also stressed that virtuous individuals, who may be eager to get unattainable benefits, as well as people intolerant of their inferior status, usually consider those in power to be responsible for their situation. 25 In addition to such arguments – according to Cassius Dio’s report – Livia ultimately made it clear to her husband that it was not possible to avoid the machinations plotted by them nor by those who were more generally against the monarchy. Moreover, she pointed out to her husband that had he been a private citizen he would have run no risk, noting also that, vice versa, given the natural ambition that people have when they find themselves in roles of power, to achieve greater objectives, it is not easy to keep their manoeuvres under control with persuasive methods or with coercion. In the light of these observations, Livia finally urged Augustus to be tolerant towards both categories and pay attention to his person as well as to the institutions, without resorting to massive punishments. 26 Besides this reasoning attributed to the Prince’s wife, the historian introduces a rather broad and well-structured dialogue between the couple, probably the result of his own re-elaboration, significant for the image he wanted to convey of Augustus and the political-institutional model he meant to promote. 20 For recent reviews of various hypotheses, see especially ROHR VIO (2000), p. 191192, n. 224; COGITORE (2002), p. 151-153; ADLER (2011), p. 137-138. 21 As recently highlighted by ADLER (2011), p. 134. 22 For other examples see MASTROROSA (2014); MASTROROSA (2017). 23 In this light, suffice it to remember here that Dio followed a historiographical practice amply attested in classical historiography: for a recent overview of these topics see MARINCOLA (2007) with the previous bibliography. 24 As highlighted by MILLAR (1964), p. 83; GABBA (1984), p. 71. For further discussion on Dio’s use of speeches, among many contributions, besides SCHWARTZ (1899), col. 1717-1719, see also MILLAR (1961); VAN STEKELENBURG (1971); MARTINELLI (1990). 25 Cf. CASS. DIO LV, 14, 4-5. 26 Cf. Ibid. LV, 14, 6-8.

AUGUSTUS’ CLEMENCY TOWARDS CINNA

321

Indeed, looking more closely at some passages in chapters 15-21 of book LV of Roman History, it emerges that when faced with his wife’s invitation to solve the problem by acquiring a group of trusted guards, the Prince reminded her that often the greatest risk for those who govern comes from people who are closest. 27 Having expressed his distrust of the possibility of relying on real friends, he declared his distress at being forced to resort to revenge and punishment against some. 28 In response to these considerations, according to Cassius Dio’s text, Livia invited her husband to use mercy and not cruelty against acts of opposition plotted for various reasons, pointing out that forgiveness elicits good feelings in those who benefit from it and thus seek to repay their benefactors. Furthermore, it discourages others from committing injustices themselves. She also highlighted that cruel reactions cause the resentment of those who are affected by them and she talked of the hostility of those who take an opportunity to organize conspiracies in order to avoid becoming victims of the Prince’s abuse. 29 Livia was convinced that the line of moderation would be more fruitful than the one of violence and would prevent other reactions. However, she pointed out that there was no need to save all the perpetrators of injustice, but it was necessary to remove those who were daring and viscerally consecrated to evil, taking care while evaluating the more or less voluntary nature of the acts. She also suggested admonishing only with words or moderate treatment those who had made mistakes owing to their young age, ignorance or thoughtlessness, or other reasons. Therefore, Livia went on to propose a pragmatic line of conduct, suggesting that Augustus should use other forms of punishment, including exile or fines or confinement within the res publica or other places. 30 In this respect, according to the words attributed to the Prince’s wife by Cassius Dio in the subsequent passage, she also clarified the importance of pondering reactions, in order to avoid giving the impression to some that sending them to death was an expression of resentment, or was aimed at taking possession of their property, or was chosen for fear of their value and even in envy of their virtue. 31 Moreover, she pointed out to Augustus that people may be sceptical about the news of a plot orchestrated by an individual with no weapons and means against a person in a position of power and may therefore accuse him of having lent credence to false rumours, circulated by other interested parties. 32

27 28 29 30 31 32

Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf. Cf.

CASS. DIO LV, 15, 4-5. Ibid. LV, 15, 7. Ibid. LV, 16, 4-6. Ibid. LV, 18, 1-3. Ibid. LV, 18, 5. Ibid. LV, 18, 6.

322

IDA GILDA MASTROROSA

After emphasizing the need for the Prince not to commit injustice as well as not giving the impression of doing so, 33 according to another passage of the speech reported by Cassius Dio, Livia encouraged her husband to adopt suitable behaviour so that he could lead his subjects to love him and avoid acquiring a bad reputation, which could only produce the opposite effect. 34 Furthermore, having brought other arguments in support of her proposal, she argued that Augustus would especially have to take care to save them and not send them to death, given that the position of ruler had been created to protect his subjects and prevent them damaging each other or being damaged by outsiders. 35 Beyond this consideration, in fact suggesting a ‘protective’ conception of power, in another passage of her oratio, Livia essentially identified the role of the good ruler as the ability to educate through legislation, to bestow useful benefits and reprimands to teach the way of moderatio, to exercise a function of control in order to avoid improper actions from his subjects and to monitor the risk of degeneration. 36 Within these rules on good governance, conceived as the prudent exercise of power and consistent with the senatorial perspective of the historian Cassius Dio, 37 she emphasized the need to tolerate the offences of the great mass of citizens using great wisdom and balance and firm power. 38 Therefore, she urged Augustus to avoid punishing indiscriminately all acts of injustice with a precisely commensurate penalty, thus running the risk of putting to death the majority of men. She urged him to prefer in some cases a more reasonable solution, suitable to encourage offenders to stay away from other illegal acts in the future, merely relegating them to distant places where they could not harm others nor plot conspiracies. 39 In fact, according to Cassius Dio’s reconstruction, in Livia’s opinion, not adopting a rigidly strict line and refraining from punishing some with weapons in order to annihilate them physically but also alienating the goodwill of many others, Augustus would not only reduce the risk of a generalized spread of hostility towards him, but also achieve more loyalty from those who, having been forgiven, would continue to treat him well, hoping for more benefits from him. 40 Finally, she argued that by using clemency, the Prince would even ensure that some of his previous decisions, adopted with discontent but inspired by Cf. CASS. DIO LV, 19, 3. Cf. Ibid. LV, 19, 4-5. 35 Cf. Ibid. LV, 20, 1-2. 36 Cf. Ibid. LV, 20, 3. 37 For useful insights into the senatorial perspective of Cassius Dio see REINHOLD / SWAN (1990), p. 165-167 who remark the historian’s appreciation of Augustus’ choice to give a significant role to the senatorial order; on this matter see also SATTLER (1960); BRUNT (1984). 38 Cf. CASS. DIO LV, 20, 4. 39 Cf. Ibid. LV, 20, 5. 40 Cf. Ibid. LV, 21, 2-3. 33 34

AUGUSTUS’ CLEMENCY TOWARDS CINNA

323

a ruler’s incapacity to make changes without bloody actions, could appear to be based on need and not on his deliberate decisions. 41 Whatever historical reliability one attributes to the above observations on how to handle the examined case, according to reports at the end of the passage, the Prince held to the line recommended by his wife. Then, he acquitted all the accused merely by cautioning them, but above all he appointed Cinna to the consulate, drawing on his benevolence and that of others, so that thereafter there were no more plots or the suspicion of them. 42 3. Beyond Seneca and Dio’s ‘Rewritings’: History at the Service of Ancient Political Reflection In addition to the question of the different dates of the episode given by Seneca and Cassius Dio, the different structures of the dialogue proposed by them have been variously interpreted by scholars. They sought, among other things, to evaluate on one hand Seneca’s reconstruction in relation to his concept of mercy, 43 and on the other hand that of Cassius Dio in the light of events and conditions of his age. In particular, they found in his account the echoes of purges that followed Lucilla’s plot under the Reign of Commodus or the atmosphere of suspicion and conspiracy that started from that phase, instigated by the activities of the imperial informants. 44 Furthermore, it was also suggested that behind Livia’s realistic advice to adopt the line of clemency to eliminate the risk that the guilty could carry out other similar actions, was the example taken by Cassius Dio from Marcus Aurelius’ conduct, since he had punished with death only a few of Avidius Cassius’ rebels. 45 In any case, it is worth noticing the different approach taken by the authors: on the one side the simplification made by Seneca in suggesting an evolution in Augustus, who was initially cruel and then disposed to clemency and, on the other, Cassius Dio’s narration that reveals a realistic perspective, including allusions on the hard line used by Octavian during the civil wars so as to have Livia agree that a soft line towards Cinna could produce a positive re-evaluation of some of the Prince’s previous behaviours, judged as evidence of his intransigence and his willingness to use force. 46 Cf. CASS. DIO LV, 21, 4. Cf. Ibid. LV, 22, 1-2. 43 In this light, see for instance ADAM (1970), p. 86-88; GIUA (1981), p. 327-328; BELTRAMI (2005), p. 150-154. 44 For this hypothesis, see GIUA (1981), p. 321-322, with reference to CASS. DIO LV, 16, 3 and Ibid. (Epit. XIPHILIN.) LXXII, 7, 3. 45 Cf. GIUA (1981), p. 323-325 with reference to CASS. DIO (Epit. XIPHILIN.) LXXI, 30, 3; LXXI, 28, 2-3; SWAN (2004), p. 150, with reference to CASS. DIO (Epit. XIPHILIN.) LXXI, 24, 1-26, 4. 46 Cf. CASS. DIO LV, 21, 4. 41 42

324

IDA GILDA MASTROROSA

Moreover, Cassius Dio’s account of the couple’s reaction not only remarks on the role played by Livia in suggesting to Augustus the best ruling strategy, thus insisting on her position as a powerful femina princeps, 47 but it also presents useful elements to evaluate his own point of view on the best form of government and to show his appreciation of a monarchic model conceived as tutelage of common interests and willingness to avoid harsh actions against an opponent. It is likely that, after recording other conspiracy cases, judging some of them uncertain, 48 Cassius Dio chose to examine Cinna’s episode in depth, not merely under the influence of Seneca’s reconstruction but first of all according to his own political view, that is to say in order to positively point out the right conduct adopted by Augustus when faced with a descendant of Pompey, 49 whose name could be implicitly associated with the traditional republican values that Augustus himself appreciated. In this vein, the ample space attributed to the affair of Cinna within the narration should be valued considering Cassius Dio’s positive reference to the Prince’s prudence in convicting conspirators, found in a final passage of the Augustan section of the Roman History. 50 In addition to reflecting the author’s approval of some aspects of the Emperor’s personality, 51 this latter context included in book LVI of the work reveals the theoretical perspective that was also possibly assumed in the previous passage in book LV and may help to clarify Cassius Dio’s overall interpretation on the strategic clemency adopted by the forefather of the Princedom. 4. Further Traces of Augustus’ Clemency Whatever intents both Seneca and Cassius Dio had in deciding to variously resume the wide-ranging dialogue between the Prince and his wife in their texts, 47 According to the definition of OV., Trist. I, 6, 25; Pont. III, 1, 125; on this matter see also BARRETT (2002), p. 318-319. For a different interpretation of Livia’s dominant approach to political questions, cf. PURCEL (1986), according to whom the characterization of the role she played reflects a traditional view. 48 Cf. CASS. DIO LIV, 3, 4-8; 15, 1-4. 49 In this vein, it is significant Livia’s reference to the noble ancestors of Cinna in CASS. DIO LV, 21, 1. 50 Cf. Ibid. LVI, 40, 6-7 where Tiberius recalls that Augustus spared most of his surviving opponents as victor in the civil wars, as highlighted by REINHOLD / SWAN (1990), p. 167, who observe the realism of the narration containing “a conspicuous admixture of contrary material”. Indeed, see CASS. DIO LIV, 15, 1. On the characterization of Augustus in Tiberius’ speech cf. also GIUA (1983). 51 As is well known, Dio’s representation of Augustus’ Princedom has been variously interpreted; for a deeper analysis of this matter, among numerous contributions, see especially MILLAR (1964), p. 83-118; RODDAZ (1983); GABBA (1984), p. 70-75; RICH (1989); REINHOLD / SWAN (1990); NOÈ (1994), p. 23-30; FREYBURGER-GALLAND (2009).

AUGUSTUS’ CLEMENCY TOWARDS CINNA

325

processing Augustus’ conduct when faced with Cinna’s case, we can inquire about the role he himself attributed to the use of leniency in his political strategy – as documented by ancient sources. 52 In this light, particular attention should be paid to some comments from Velleius Paterculus about the forgiving attitude adopted by Octavian at the stage after the victory at Actium when he promised life and forgiveness to the people of the rival Antonius who had made the request to him. 53 In this light, the historian’s reference to the episode is especially worth mentioning, as a victory marked by great mercy (uictoria … clementissima), where no one was killed and few were banned because they did not dare even to ask for a pardon. Besides this evidence suggesting, in particular, the use of clemency in the military field against the enemy, and some self-interested allusions made by the poet Ovid 54 to the Prince’s aptitude for forgiveness, other information provided in a passage of Augustus’ Life by Suetonius should not be overlooked. According to Suetonius, he offered many significant examples of clementia and ciuilitas on other occasions. 55 Although in this context, Cinna’s plot is not specifically mentioned, samples collected by the biographer to demonstrate the Prince’s capacity to pardon, especially in the judicial persecution of political opponents, lead us to believe that Augustus matured the perception of the usefulness of leniency beyond that specific episode. 56 In this view, it is noteworthy that in addition to noticing his concern to be clement in order to avoid the risk of plots, Suetonius states the Emperor’s tendency to suggest the same line also to Tiberius. This is not surprising if we remember that on the golden shield given by the Senate to Augustus in 27 BCE together with uirtus, iustitia and pietas, there was also clementia, clearly recognized by the patres as one of the hallmarks of his activity. 57 Furthermore, it should not be overlooked that the Prince himself had not failed to point out in person in his Res gestae, that he had followed the line of forgiveness and mercy throughout his existence. Suffice it to remember here the passage where, recalling his victories in the military field, Augustus

52 For a recent overview on this subject, see FLAMERIE DE LACHAPELLE (2011), p. 121-169. Moreover, it is noteworthy that Augustus’ conduct represented a model of clemency already in the Severian Age, as we get from HEROD. III, 13, 3. 53 Cf. VELL. PAT. II, 86, 2 with the observations by GABBA (1984), p. 80-81; WOODMAN (2004), p. 230. 54 Cf. OV., Pont. I, 2, 121; Trist. II, 1, 43-50; IV, 4, 53-54; V, 2, 35-36; V, 4, 19-22; and FLAMERIE DE LACHAPELLE (2011), p. 161-166. 55 Cf. SUET., Aug. 51, with the comments by GASCOU (1984), p. 174. 56 The Prince’s conduct towards Gaius Furnius, Antonianus dux in Asia and East during the civil wars can be considered a further example of Augustus’ clemency, as suggested by RAONI TROMBETTA (2015). 57 Cf. RGDA, 34, 2. For a discussion of this matter see, among others, see WEINSTOCK (1971), p. 234-236; WALLACE HADRILL (1981); NOREÑA (2001), p. 152-157.

326

IDA GILDA MASTROROSA

proudly says that he had forgiven all citizens who asked for grace and that he preferred to save rather than exterminate all the other nations to which one he could grant forgiveness without risk. 58 5. Reminiscences and Adaptations of the Episode of Cinna in the Modern Age: Some Examples from 16th Century European Culture Augustus was appreciated by fifteenth century Italian humanists for his peace-building work after the civil wars and for his positive conduct in various fields, but considered to be responsible together with Caesar for contributing to the decline of the republican institutions. 59 In addition of these aspects, he survived in the cultural memory of the following century as a figure who, despite his quest for absolute power, was able to demonstrate in political life the important quality of clemency. In this sense, we should note the interest that different writers and thinkers have dedicated to the aforementioned Cinna episode, in which Augustus played a key role. Beyond the historiographical recovery of a case that had occurred many centuries before, some references in 16th century works show a tendency to exploit the story as a valid exemplum to promote a model of sovereignty conceived as a prudent and pragmatic exercise of government, far from potentially counterproductive intransigence. In this regard, attention deserves to be given to the insertion of Cassius Dio’s account of Cinna’s episode in one of two anthologies of speeches taken from ancient and modern historians by Remigio Nannini (1521-1581), 60 a Florentine Dominican friar known for his activities as a compiler and who worked for Giolito de Ferrari. In particular, the dialogue between Augustus and his wife is to be found among the numerous pieces selected from Cassius Dio’s Roman History and included in a vernacular version in the Orationi in materia ciuile e criminale edited by Nannini in 1561, 61 most likely using the translations edited by Nicolò

58 Cf. RGDA, 3, 1-2: uictorque omnibus ueniam petentibus ciuibus peperci. Externas gentes quibus tuto ignosci potuit, conseruare quam excidere malui. On Augustus’ use of clemency, see also COSME (2005), p. 204-206; FLAMERIE DE LACHAPELLE (2011), p. 141-143. 59 Interesting examples can be taken from the work by Leonardo Bruni and Biondo Flavio, on which see MASTROROSA (2016). 60 For further details of Nannini’s biography and activity see HESTER (2003); TOMEI (2012); MASTROROSA (2017). 61 Cf. REMIGIO NANNINI, Orationi in materia civile, e criminale, tratte da gli historici greci, e latini, antichi, e moderni, raccolte, e tradotte per m. Remigio Fiorentino, con gli argomenti a ciascuna oratione… e con gli effetti che seguirono da dette Orationi, in Vinegia, appresso Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari, 1561 (hereinafter: NANNINI, Orationi in materia civile e criminale).

AUGUSTUS’ CLEMENCY TOWARDS CINNA

327

Leoniceno in 1533. 62 Indeed, it is inserted between the speech delivered by Octavian-Augustus in 27 BCE to return the res publica to the patres and populus Romanus and the oratio according to the historian pronounced by him in 9 CE to encourage the Romans not to overlook marriage. Omitting here the details concerning the vernacular version of the classical text included by Nannini in his work, 63 for our purposes the argumentum that he places before the talk between the two spouses is significant. In this context, after having pointed out as completely natural and verifiable in daily experience, the possibility that the Prince’s government and its laws, despite being good, are not welcomed by all and mentioning the risk that he will stir hatred capable of generating some danger, the Compiler reminds his sixteenth-century readers that, despite being an excellent sovereign, Augustus was the target of the assassination attempt by Cinna. In addition, highlighting the Prince’s benevolent nature, and echoing the arguments attributed to him by ancient sources, Nannini also argues that Augustus’ uncertainty arose from the awareness that killing the author of the plot could not obtain greater security for himself and from the fear that it would expand the number of possible conspirators and increase the threats against him. 64 This observation reveals the Compiler’s interest in placing the emphasis on the pragmatic nature of Augustus’ uncertainties and therefore to show, not his intention to avoid committing anything cruel, attested by the sources, but to reveal his will to behave so that his line of conduct would not to be disadvantageous to him. A similar purpose is apparent even from the first two notes placed next to the text of the vernacular version of the dialogue between Augustus and Livia, as glosses in the margins, where Nannini insists on the difficulties of looking

62 As suggested by HESTER (2003), p. 240, Nannini’s translations are from Dione historico Delle guerre e fatti de Romani, tradotto di Greco in lingua vulgare, per M. Nicolò Leoniceno, impresso in Vinegia per Nicolò d’Aristotile di Ferrara detto Zoppino, 1533. 63 Cf. NANNINI, Orationi in materia civile e criminale, p. 78-84: «Ragionamento d’Augusto e di Livia sua moglie intorno al gastigar certi Congiurati». 64 Cf. Ibid., p. 78-79, Argomento: «Un principe nel suo governo non si può portar mai tanto bene, ch’e’ non dispiaccia qualcuno, e le leggi ch’egli farà, ancor che sieno sante, e buone, è impossibile che non dispiaccino a chi che sia, si come per esperienza si vede ogni giorno. Di qui avviene, che il povero Principe è sempre odiato, il qual odio gli partorisce tuttavia pericolo, e qualche volta danno: Era ottimo il governo d’Augusto, e le leggi sue erano bonissime, nondimeno, perch’elle non piacevano a tutti, però e’ furono alcuni che gli fecero congiura adosso, tra’ quali fu Gneo Cornelio, figliuolo d’una figliuola di Pompeo Magno, che si fece capo d’una, per volerlo ammazzare. Riseppe questa congiura Augusto (perché rare son quelle, che stieno ascoste, quando passano il numero di due) ma perch’era di natura benigno, non gli harebbe voluti ammazzare, e stava sospeso tra il sì, e’l nò, perché per la morte sua, e de’ compagni, non restava più sicuro, e non gli uccidendo, haveva paura che il numero non si facesse maggiore, e gli s’accrescessero ogni hora insidie. […]».

328

IDA GILDA MASTROROSA

out for enemies from within the State 65 and on the other hand underlines the need that those who govern should not be unfair and not even give the impression of being so. 66 Moreover, the contents of the other two glosses respectively concerning the need to avoid the hatred of the subjects, defined as never good and often detrimental, 67 and the possibility of repaying evil with good proposed as an opportunity for positive, lasting bonds between individuals, 68 reveal an equally pragmatic perspective, probably inspired by Nannini’s direct experience, as he was accustomed to conflicts within the Medici family in Florence and their consequences. The particular perspective from which in the mid-16th century he interpreted Augustus’ merciful attitude towards Cinna can be really identified in the Effetto, inserted at the end of the speech, to highlight the outcome and the results that it produced, according to the usage adopted throughout the anthology. From this section of the oratio we learn that according to Nannini, princes would have to learn not to be cruel to their enemies and conspirators in order not to arouse hatred, but we also understand his belief that forgiveness does not constitute a good solution in an absolute sense, since the excessive mercy of a Prince in his opinion could be interpreted as a lack of wisdom and character: Di qui doverebbono i Principi imparare a non incrudelir sempre verso coloro, che sono loro stati nimici, e gli hanno congiurato contra, perché la crudeltà è l’esca del fuoco dell’odio, e la clemenza è l’acqua, che lo smorza; non dico già che il perdonar sia sempre buono, accioche la molta pietà d’un Principe, non fosse tenuta per molta dappocaggine. 69

Looking at the European cultural panorama in the same period of the 16th century, we see that fifteen years later, Augustus’ calm reaction towards Cinna attracted the attention of Jean Bodin (1529-1596) in book IV of the République (1576). In this work, inspired by the author’s adhesion to a strong conception of sovereignty, 70 tending to be free from constraints imposed by the relationship with their subjects, the French jurist does not hesitate to recognize the position of freedom from obedience to the laws achieved by Octavian after Actium. 71 Cf. Ibid., p. 80: «Da un nimico domestico è impossibile il guardarsi». Cf. Ibid., p. 82: «Un Principe, non pur non deve essere, ingiusto, ma ne anche parere». 67 Cf. Ibid., p. 83: «L’essere odiato da’ sudditi non fu mai buono, e spesso è stato dannoso». 68 Cf. Ibid., p. 84: «Il render ben per male, s’obliga gli huomini in perpetuo». 69 Cf. Ibid., p. 84. 70 See BODIN (1986 [1593]), I, 8, p. 179: «la souveraineté est la puissance absoluë et perpetuelle d’une Republique». For a deeper discussion of this topics see QUAGLIONI (1992); FRANKLIN (1993), p. 165-176; QUAGLIONI (2004), p. 49-69; SCATTOLA (2006), p. 61-75; MAROCCO STUARDI (2006); TURCHETTI (2007). 71 Cf. BODIN (1986 [1593]), IV, 1, p. 19: «Ainsi voyons-nous qu’apres la fin malheureuse de Marc Antoine succeda le grand Auguste, et gouverna l’Empire fleurissant en armes, et en loix tressagement et vertueusement» 65 66

AUGUSTUS’ CLEMENCY TOWARDS CINNA

329

At the same time he highlights in positive terms some character qualities such as prudence and superiority in his accomplishments, 72 the ability to govern the Empire, making it flourish militarily and legislatively, 73 his determination in protecting customs through appropriate legislative measures to make the State better, 74 the ability to achieve peace after a long period of violence, using a monarchic regime recognized as the safest form of Government. 75 Within this framework, while not denying the possibility to suppress the enemies of the state who threaten the internal order, Bodin appreciates Augustus’ choice to pardon Cinna who had threatened his life, highlighting his capacity even to offer his enemy his friendship, according to Seneca’s words which constitute his source for the episode next to Cassius Dio, as can be deduced from the presence of both names in the notes in the margin: J’ay dit qu’il faut tuer telles gens, ou en faire de bons amis: comme fit Auguste ayant descouvert la conjuration de Cinna, et le tenant entre ses mains, attaint et convaincu par ses lettres mesme, lui pardonna, et ne se contenta pas, ains encores il lui toucha en la main, et jura amitié avec luy, et deslors luy donna de grands estats, usant de ces mots […]. 76

Beyond the origins of the data, once more revealing a good knowledge and use of ancient sources, 77 it should be noted that for Bodin, Augustus’ decision showed a much more significant wisdom in view of the tendency to a merciless 72 Cf. BODIN (1986 [1593]), IV, 6, p. 152: «Qui fut onques semblable à ce grand Auguste en prudence politique?» 73 Cf. Ibid., IV, 6, p. 166: «Il n’y a point de meilleur exemple que d’Auguste, qui a emporté le prix d’estre l’un des plus sages et vertueux Princes qui fut onques, et qui portoit la peine des condamnez, et ne souffroit pas moins, dit Seneque, que ceux-là mesmes qu’on executoit». 74 Cf. Ibid., VI, 1, p. 9: «Et si tost que l’Empereur Auguste fut de retour en Rome, apres la victoire de Marc Antoine, le Senat par arrest luy donna la charge de Censeur, l’appellant Praefectus morum […] Aussi n’y eut-il onques empereur qui laissast un plus bel estat de tout l’Empire que cestuy-là». 75 Cf. Ibid., IV, 1, p. 28-29: «apres la defaicte de Marc Antoine, il retint quarante legions és provinces, et gouvernements des frontieres, desquelles il disposoit à son plaisir: et commettoit au gouvernement d’icelles, non pas de grands Seigneurs, mais de moins nobles, remettant en la disposition du peuple et du Senat, l’institution de quelques Magistrats, et l’ottroy des moindres provinces: ce qu’il faisoit en apparence: car en effect il disposoit de tout, prenant par la main, et recommandant au peuple ceux qu’il vouloit avancer aux estats et honneurs: et se mettoit sans relasche à faire justice, recevoir et respondre les requestes d’un chacun: et luy mesme avoit les registres des finances, des forces, et de tout l’estat devant ses yeux, faisant response aux gouverneurs de sa main propre, si la chose le meritoit: ayant neantmoins tousjours les forces de tout l’Empire en sa puissance, et pres de sa personne trois legions. En quoy il appert assez evidemment qu’il estoit seul Monarque et Prince souverain, quelque belle qualité de Prince qu’on donnast aux uns et aux autres en apparence […]». 76 Cf. Ibid., IV, 1, p. 48. 77 On this subject, among many contributions see especially STEGMANN (1975); DESIDERI (1998); MELANI (2006); DESIDERI (2008); ZECCHINI / GALIMBERTI (2012).

330

IDA GILDA MASTROROSA

hardness he had shown previously in killing many of those who had conspired against him. He considered it as a change driven by the intention to try to obtain consent through non-violence, which actually proved effective since no one later dared to conspire against him. 78 On the other hand, the choice of giving a positive assessment to the Prince’s behaviour in this case appears to be much more significant if we consider that it is mentioned in book IV of the République. Indeed, in this context, specially dedicated to examining the birth, development and decline of States, Augustus is praised for his puissance, sagesse, justice, and again for his capacity to be loved like a father and to lay the foundations of a monarchy destined for great success and demonstrating the goodness of his works. 79 In parallel to the readings of the Cinna episode by Nannini and Bodin, another significant testimony, again coming from the Florentine area, is found in the Discorsi sopra Cornelio Tacito by Scipione Ammirato (1531-1601), the drafting of which was begun at least ten years prior to the date of publication of the work, in 1594. 80 Active at the Court of Grand Duke Cosimo I of Tuscany since the mid1560s, inter alia as a historiographer, 81 and animated by his conviction that the study of history should be useful for evaluating the forms of government, 82 Ammirato believed it appropriate to draw attention to events of the Early Roman Empire as being best suited for a comparative focus on the evolution of the political framework of his time. 83 With this in mind, he put himself to the 78 Cf. BODIN (1986 [1593]), IV, 1, p. 49: «Auguste avoit auparavant faict mourir une infinité de ceux qui avoyent juré sa mort : il voulut aussi essayer si par douceur il pourroit gaigner les cœurs des hommes : depuis il ne se trouva jamais personne qui osast rien attenter contre luy». 79 Cf. Ibid., IV, 1, p. 29: «Encores avec tant de puissance, de sagesse et justice que ce grand Prince avoit, on luy dressa plusieurs embusches, quoy que les plus furieux fussent morts : mais les subjects ayans peu à peu conu sa justice et sagesse, et gousté la douceur d’une haute paix et tranquillité asseuree, au lieu des cruelles et sanglantes guerres civiles : et qu’ils avoyent à faire plustost a un pere, qu’a un seigneur, comme dit Seneque, ils commencerent a l’aimer et reverer : et luy de sa part chassa ses gardes, allant tantost chez l’un, puis chez l’autre sans compagnie : et jetta les fondements de la Monarchie, avec le plus heureux succez que jamais a faict Prince ». 80 Cf. Discorsi del Signor Scipione Ammirato sopra Cornelio Tacito nuovamente posti in luce, in Vinezia, per Filippo Giunti, 1599 (hereinafter: AMMIRATO, Discorsi). 81 For further insights into Ammirato’s intellectual biography see especially DE MATTEI (1963). 82 Cf. AMMIRATO, Discorsi, Il Proemio: «A niuna cagione più agevolmente & per più corta via dipende la felicità de popoli, che dal buon governo d’un principe, ne luogo alcuno è, dove più manifestamente si scorga la perfezione, ò mancamento di chi governa, che nello specchio dell’istoria». 83 Cf. Ibid., XIII, 9, p. 273: «Dico parimente, che gli huomini, che discorrono, traggono gli argomenti da simili; & havuta considerazione a luoghi, a tempi, a gli stati, alla religione, a costumi, e a tutto ciò, che è degno da esser ponderato, con prudenza

AUGUSTUS’ CLEMENCY TOWARDS CINNA

331

test of interpreting the Annals and the Histories by Tacitus, considering them a source of valuable advice for managing monarchies and on the ‘Reason of State’, 84 but also with the aim – according to his words – of not competing with Machiavelli, who had studied Livy and the republican political structures in his Discorsi sopra la Prima Deca di Tito Liuio. 85 Within this cultural setting which makes Scipione Ammirato a significant exponent of 16th century Tacitism 86 thanks to a work that was considered to be one of the most influential commentaries on Tacitus in early modern Europe, reprinted eight times before 1619 and translated into Latin and French, we should note the attention paid in book XV of his work to the episode of Cinna. It is exploited in particular in the seventh Discorso, 87 expressly dedicated to clemency as an instrument more suitable than cruelty for saving States (“Che con la clemenza, & bontà, & non con la crudeltà si mantengono gli Stati”). In this context, the author recalls firstly Nero’s harsh reaction in 65 CE when he responded with the death sentence to statements by the tribune Subrius Flavius, one of the accomplices of the Pisonian conspiracy concocted against him, interpreting it as the sign of the inevitability of being victims of plots for those princes who abandon themselves to evil and cruel behaviour. Moreover, Ammirato mentions the case of Dionysius of Syracuse, who was convinced that the best way to protect his own power was the use of force but was disowned by his son who showed the usefulness of following virtue and justice. Later, turning his gaze to Roman history, he remembered the speech by Livia, according to his words “celebrated by writers” and “put into practice by the greatest

accordano le cose antiche con le moderne; & da gli antichi avvenimenti ancor che diversi con savio consiglio trovasi riparo alle cose presenti». 84 On Ammirato’s definition of the ‘Reason of State’ as the extraordinary means that a ruler might use to preserve the common good cf. AMMIRATO, Discorsi XII, 1, p. 206: «Ragione di stato altro non essere che contravenzione di ragione ordinaria per rispetto di publico beneficio, overo per rispetto di maggiore e più universal ragione». For other observations on this topics, among a rich bibliography, in addition to DE MATTEI (1979), p. 90-108; DE MATTEI (1985), see SENELLART (1989); ZARKA (1994); BALDINI (1995); BALDINI / BATTISTA (1997); RICCIARDI (1999), and lastly CATTEEUW (2013), p. 184-198. 85 Cf. AMMIRATO, Discorsi, Il Proemio: «hò eletto […] Cornelio Tacito, si perché questa opera si vede andar molto hoggi per le mani di ciascuno: & si perché trattando di principato; più a tempi nostri si confà, & meno si darà occasione a mormoratori, se non entrando io per quelle vie, che altri prima di me calpestò, il quale fece discorsi sopra autore, che scrisse di Repub. farommi posto a scrivere sopra uno, il quale habbia trattato di principi». On the relation between Ammirato and Machiavelli, among many contributions, see SENELLART (1997); VASOLI (2007). 86 On the first rise of Tacitism, its meaning, themes and most relevant interpreters see ETTER (1966); BURKE (1969); STEGMANN (1969); SCHELLHASE (1976); WHITFIELD (1976); MOMIGLIANO (1990); MELLOR (1995); GAJDA (2009); GRAFTON (2010); KAPUST (2012). 87 Cf. AMMIRATO, Discorsi XV, 7, p. 336-342.

332

IDA GILDA MASTROROSA

Prince in the world” 88 and considered it a concrete example to propose for the rulers of his day to imitate: Ma se noi vogliamo star con Romani piu tosto che con Greci; se con Imperadori anzi che con tiranni vogliamo impacciarci: & se per felicità di quel che ne seguì habbiamo a prender animo, che in tal caso non più d’un filosofo & d’un capitano, che del consiglio d’una grandissima principessa s’habbia a tener conto, perche fu degno d’esser celebrato dagli scrittori, & posto in opera dal maggior principe del mondo; & da quel di Dione non fu differente, approviamolo ancor noi, proponiamolo a moderni principi, & giusta nostra possa a seguitarlo e a imitarlo li confortiamo. 89

Beside the reference to clemency as a useful tool to save the possessions of those who govern and an effective means of deterring anyone with bad intentions, 90 in another passage it is also worth noticing the reference to benevolence towards his subjects as the most secure sentiment for the conservation of States that a Prince can easily conquer as long as he shows himself unable to harm them. 91 On the other hand, the subsequent arguments in the seventh Discorso suggest that, following Livia’s considerations, Ammirato felt it necessary and functional for those who govern to react differently depending on the public or private character of the offences inflicted on them. He argued that in the first case a punishment was deserved and in the second tolerance, given that hardly anybody would be willing to believe that the Prince, who had every means of defence, could be the subject of actions by private individuals that could damage him. 92 Overall, it is important to emphasize that according to Ammirato’s interpretation, Augustus’ dialogue with Livia could provide valid instructions to exhort sixteenth-century readers to take into account the benefits of clemency, deemed

88 For other observations on Ammirato’s appreciation of Augustus’ conduct see MASTROROSA (2018a). 89 Cf. AMMIRATO, Discorsi XV, 7, p. 336-337. 90 Cf. Ibid., p. 337: «Non la crudeltà, ma la clemenza è quella, che metterà in salvo le cose nostre, imperoche i misericordiosi non solo da coloro sono amati, i quali potendo per i falli commessi uccidere, han mantenuto in vita, ma sono anche riveriti per l’amor di quella pietà, che han dimostrato al genere humano, dagli altri huomini, onde si toglie a ciascuno l’animo di offenderti». 91 Cf. Ibid., p. 338: «Ad huomini, Augusto, e non a bestie comandi, a conseguir la benevolenza de quali una sola strada è spedita, se ti ingegnerai far in guisa, che ciascuno conosca, che ne forzato ne volentieri farai per offenderli». 92 Cf. Ibid., p. 338: «Questa è quasi comune sentenza di tutti, a gli huomini privati star bene il vendicarsi per non cader nel dispregio delle persone ma il principe le publiche ingiurie ha à punire, & le sue tollerarle, perché niuno farà per credere giamai che un principe da tante arme circondato per dispregio possa esser offeso».

AUGUSTUS’ CLEMENCY TOWARDS CINNA

333

essential for the proper functioning of a State . 93 On the other hand – as we read in other passages of the Discorsi – the State should be ruled while preserving the common good and in any case following a monarchic model. 94 In that sense, clemency was but one of the ideal virtues of a sovereign like Augustus, appreciated by the author also because he knew how to evaluate people. 95 Leaving aside Scipione Ammirato’s use of the Cinna episode in the Discorsi sopra Cornelio Tacito to corroborate the thesis about the benefits of clemency in the exercise of power, the example offered by Augustus is seen from an opposite perspective in the ’80s of the 16th century in Essays by Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). 96 Such work, characterized by a tendency to look at the history of Rome and more generally of the ancients as a cradle of useful exempla from an ethical point of view, allows a more generally positive image of the founder of the Julio-Claudians to emerge. So Augustus is remembered, among other things, for his generosity in giving gifts to those who deserved them, and in parallel for his avarice in bestowing honours, 97 and again for his liberality in giving back the kingdoms torn by war to those who had lost them, having made a gift of them to foreign monarchs, 98 but also for having restored hierarchical principles in the military, abolishing the use of addressing soldiers with the term commilitones, undignified for maintaining the dignity of an emperor. 99 Beyond references that in more general terms demonstrate the habit of carefully reading the classical sources in order to select materials with which to forge the different sections of his work, 100 Montaigne – who was, among other things, familiar with Seneca’s treatises 101 – recalls Augustus’ clemency for a different reason. Although, on one hand, he shows appreciation for the In this light see also Ibid., XX, 7, p. 477: «Et tutto che la clemenza come virtù eccellentissima de Principi dovrebbe da lor sempre esercitarsi senza danno della giustizia: mostrano nondimeno da quelli sopra tutto doversi procacciare il nome, & la credenza d’esser tali, i quali son i primi a metter il piede nella soglia del nuovo imperio». 94 Cf. AMMIRATO, Opuscoli, t. II, Discorso VI, Firenze 1637, p. 62; DE MATTEI (1963), p. 28-29. 95 Cf. AMMIRATO, Discorsi XIII, 9, p. 272: «Augusto savissimo principe non solo havea perfetta conoscenza della qualità dei Cittadini Romani: ma come fanno coloro, i quali sono profondi in alcuna dottrina, veniva alle minute distinzioni, & ultime differenze de casi loro». 96 Cf. MONTAIGNE, Essais I, 24 (edited by THIBAUDET / RAT [1962]), p. 122-132. 97 Cf. Ibid., II, 7, p. 360. 98 Cf. Ibid., II, 24, p. 667. 99 Cf. Ibid., II, 34, p. 714. 100 For a deeper analysis on this topics, among a rich bibliography, see SCHIFFMAN (1982); KONSTANTINOVIC (1989); SMITH (2001); METSCHIES (1997); GRILLI (1998); SCHAEFER (2001); O’BRIEN (2005). 101 On Montaigne’s interest in Seneca’s work, cf. e.g. MONTAIGNE, Essais II, 10; II, 32. For useful insights on this subject, in addition to HILL HAY (1938), see CLARK (1968); VON ALBRECHT (1987 [2004]); CHEVALLIER (1999); TARRETE (2004). 93

334

IDA GILDA MASTROROSA

Prince’s behaviour, on the other hand, unlike his predecessors, he does not consider the case of Cinna as sufficient proof of the effectiveness of leniency in the political field. In this light, it is significant that the episode is included in a chapter entitled “Divers evenemens de mesme conseil”, which mentions first of all the act of clemency on the part of Francis, Duke of Guise, a member of the House of Lorraine, in favour of a Huguenot who had a hand in a conspiracy against him. 102 Proposing a comparison between the results obtained by Augustus, whose forgiveness saved him from the risk of other conspiracies and the fate of the Duke of Guise, whose meekness did not prevent him from being the victim of a subsequent conspiracy, Montaigne discusses the predominant role played by “fortune” in human affairs, 103 with respect to which “humaine prudence” appears vain and frivolous. 104 Despite the different conclusion, in line with the ethical perspective of the Essais, this last reference to the Cinna episode however offers another example that helps to explain that the image of Augustus, able to resort in a prudent and farsighted way to clemency, was so deeply established that it had acquired an almost conventional value. It had become efficient even for those, like Montaigne, who meant to affirm the indisputable primary role of fate and thus admit the possibility that the use of such virtue might not always have advantageous results. The French philosopher demonstrated above all that he was convinced that Rome had been destined by fate to be a model, comprising all of the institutional forms and events regarding a state, a monarchy capable of resisting shocks of every kind and survive thanks also to its multifaceted structure. In any case, the above examples show that while in Christian and early modern Europe the reflection on the concession of grace was maturing on several levels and in relation to different models of sovereignty, writers inspired by different mentality and political perspective readapted the episode of Cinna recorded by the ancient sources, taking from it the image of Augustus as having been able to interpret and use clemency as a pragmatic art of governing.

102 See MONTAIGNE, Essais I, 24, p. 122-132. For a more detailed discussion on this passage cf. QUINT (1998), p. 23-26. 103 On Montaigne’s interpretation of fortune see especially SMITH (1981), p. 23-27; LEGROS (2009), p. 23-28. 104 See MONTAIGNE, Essais I, 24, p. 125: «Or depuis cet accidant, qui advint à Auguste au quarantiesme an de son aage, il n’y eut jamais de conjuration ny d’entreprinse contre luy et receut une juste recompense de cette sienne clemence. Mais il n’en advint pas de mesmes au nostre : car sa douceur ne le sceut garentir qu’il ne cheut depuis aux lacs de pareille trahison. Tant c’est chose vaine et frivole que l’humaine prudence; et au travers de tous nos projects, de nos conseils et precautions, la fortune maintient tousjours la possession des evenemens».

AUGUSTUS’ CLEMENCY TOWARDS CINNA

335

6. Conclusion Considering these previous occurrences, is not surprising, therefore, that a few decades later the same case offered material to the playwright Corneille for the scenario of the tragedy Cinna ou la mémoire d’Auguste (1643), 105 set against the backdrop of the contrasts between Louis XIV and the nobility. It was intended to suggest a strong model of sovereign authority, but able to opt for clemency towards the young Emilia who was eager to avenge her father’s death, freedom-loving and with the complicity of her boyfriend Cinna, plotting against the life of the Prince. Mentioned again later in the 18th century by Diderot, 106 but omitted by thinkers who censured Augustus’ tendency towards an authoritarian view of the exercise of power, 107 the Cinna episode appears significant for an understanding of the process by which Augustus’ memory evolved and gradually became consolidated in modern culture. In this light, as well as revealing the interest and attention reserved in the 16th century to the story related by Seneca and Cassius Dio, more in general the statements chosen for this study show that intellectuals able to interpret the classical sources in an active and original way and committed to delving into them to find relevant suggestions for European rulers in their time, have contributed in various ways to making a model of Rome’s first emperor. Bibliography ADAM, T. (1970), Clementia principis. Der Einfluß hellenistischer Fürstenspiegel auf den Versuch einer rechtlichen Fundierung des Principats durch Seneca, Stuttgart. ADLER, E. (2011), Cassius Dio’s Livia and the Conspiracy of Cinna Magnus, in GRBS 51, p. 133-154. ADLER, M. (1909), Die Verschwörung des Cn. Cornelius Cinna bei Seneca und Cassius Dio, in ZÖstG 60, p. 193-208. AMMIRATO (1599), Discorsi del Signor Scipione Ammirato sopra Cornelio Tacito nuovamente posti in luce, in Vinezia, per Filippo Giunti. ARMISEN-MARCHETTI, M. (2006), Speculum Neronis. Un mode spécifique de direction de conscience dans le De clementia de Sénèque, in REL 84, p. 185-201. BALDINI, A. E. (ed.) (1995), Aristotelismo politico e Ragion di Stato, Firenze. BALDINI, E. / BATTISTA, A. M. (1997), Il dibattito politico nell’Italia della Controriforma: Ragion di Stato, tacitismo, machiavellismo, utopia, in Il Pensiero Politico 30, p. 393439. 105 For more details on this work and the cultural context within which it was composed, in addition to BÉRANGER (1956 [1975]) and BRAUND (2009), p. 83-84, see recently BILIS (2013) with a previous bibliography. 106 On Diderot’s interpretation of the Cinna episode in the Essai sur les règnes de Claude et de Néron (1778) see CANFORA (2015), p. 179-180. 107 Montesquieu’s and Mably’s representations of Augustus’ conduct are significant in this sense: see MASTROROSA (2012); MASTROROSA (2018b).

336

IDA GILDA MASTROROSA

BARRETT, A. (2002), Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome, New Haven. BAUMAN, R. (1967), The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and the Augustan Principate, Johannesburg. BELTRAMI, L. (2005), Il De clementia di Seneca: un contributo per l’analisi antropologica del valore della clementia, in A. HALTENHOFF / A. HEIL / F.-H. MUTSCHLER (eds.), Römische Werte als Gegenstand der Altertumswissenschaft, München / Leipzig, p. 143-172. BÉRANGER, J. (1975), De Sénèque à Corneille. Lueurs sur Cinna, in Hommages à Max Niedermann, Brussels, 1956, p. 52-70, repr. in ID., Principatus. Études de notions et d’histoire politiques dans l’Antiquité gréco-romaine, Genève, p. 191-207. BERNO, F. R. (2013), Eccellente ma non troppo: l’exemplum di Augusto in Seneca, in M. LABATE / G. ROSATI (eds.), La costruzione del mito augusteo, Heidelberg, p. 181-196. BILIS, H. (2013), Corneille’s Cinna, Clemency, and the Implausible Decision, in The Modern Language Review 108, p. 68-89. BODIN, J. (1986), Les six livres de la République, texte revu par C. FRÉMONT / M.-D. COUZINET / H. ROCHAIS, Paris, 1986 [1593]. BRAUND, S. (ed.) (2009), Seneca: De Clementia, Oxford. BRUNT, P. (1984), The Role of the Senate in the Augustan Regime, in CQ 34, p. 423-444. BURKE, P. (1969), Tacitism, in T. A. DOREY (ed.), Tacitus, New York, p. 149-171. CANFORA, L. (2015), Augusto. Figlio di Dio, Roma / Bari. CASTAGNA, L. (1991), Storia e storiografia nel pensiero di Seneca, in A. SETAIOLI (ed.), Seneca e la cultura, Napoli, p. 89-117. CATTEEUW, L. (2013), Censures et raisons d’État. Une histoire de la modernité politique (XVIe-XVIIe siècle), Paris. CHASTAGNOL, A. (1994), Lueurs nouvelles sur la conjuration de Cinna, in MEFRA 106, p. 423-429. CHAUMARTIN, F.-R. (éd.) (2005), Sénèque. De la Clémence, Paris. CHEVALLIER, R. (1999), Montaigne, lecteur de Sénèque, in Paideia 54, p. 95-113. CLARK, C. E. (1968), Seneca’s Letters to Lucilius as a Source of Some of Montaigne’s Imagery, in Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 30, p. 249-266. COGITORE, I. (2002), La légitimité dynastique d’Auguste à Néron à l’épreuve des conspirations, Rome. COSME, P. (2005), Auguste, Paris. DE MATTEI, R. (1963), Il pensiero politico di Scipione Ammirato. Con discorsi inediti, Milano. DE MATTEI, R. (1979), Il problema della “ragion di stato” nell’età della controriforma, Milano / Napoli. DE MATTEI, R. (1985), Scipione Ammirato e la Ragion di Stato, in G. VESE et al. (eds.), Scipione Ammirato fra politica e storia, Lecce, p. 77-112. DESIDERI, P. (1998), Plutarco nel pensiero politico di Jean Bodin, in I. GALLO (ed.), L’eredità culturale di Plutarco dall’Antichità al Rinascimento, Napoli, p. 299-311. DESIDERI, P. (2008), Les Moralia dans la Méthode et les Six livres sur la République de Jean Bodin, in O. GUERRIER (ed.), Moralia et Œuvres Morales à la Renaissance, Paris, p. 199-215. DOWLING, M. B. (2006), Clemency and Cruelty in the Roman World, Ann Arbor. ETTER, E.-L. (1966), Tacitus in der Geistesgeschichte des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts, Basel / Stuttgart.

AUGUSTUS’ CLEMENCY TOWARDS CINNA

337

FLAMERIE DE LACHAPELLE, G. (2011), Clementia. Recherches sur la notion de clémence à Rome, du début du Ier siècle a. C. à la mort d’Auguste, Bordeaux. FRANKLIN, J. H. (1993), Jean Bodin et la naissance de la théorie absolutiste, éd. fr. revue par l’auteur, avant-propos, trad. par J.-F. SPITZ, Paris (1st ed. Cambridge, 1973). FREYBURGER-GALLAND, M.-L. (2009), Res publica restituta chez Dion Cassius, in F. HURLET / B. MINEO (eds.), Le Principat d’Auguste. Réalités et représentations du pouvoir autour de la Res publica restituta, Rennes, p. 325-341. GABBA, E. (1984), The Historians and Augustus, in F. MILLAR / E. SEGAL (eds.), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects, Oxford, p. 61-88. GAJDA, A. (2009), Tacitus and Political Thought in Early Modern Europe, c. 1530c. 1640, in A. J. WOODMAN (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Tacitus, Cambridge, p. 253-268. GASCOU, J. (1984), Suétone historien, Rome. GIUA, M. A. (1981), Clemenza del sovrano e monarchia illuminata in Cassio Dione 55, 14-22, in Athenaeum 59, p. 317-337. GIUA, M. A. (1983), Augusto nel libro 56 della Storia Romana di Cassio Dione, in Athenaeum 61, p. 439-456. GRAFTON, A. (2010), Tacitus and Tacitism, in A. GRAFTON / G. W. MOST / S. SETTIS (eds.), The Classical Tradition, Cambridge, MA / London, p. 920-924. GRIFFIN, M. T. (1976), Seneca. A Philosopher in Politics, Oxford. GRILLI, A. (1998), Montaigne e Plutarco, in I. GALLO (ed.), L’eredità culturale di Plutarco dall’Antichità al Rinascimento, Napoli, p. 401-410. GRIMAL, P. (1986), La conjuration de Cinna, mythe ou realité  ?, in J.-M. PAILLER (ed.), Mélanges offerts à Monsieur Labrousse, Toulouse, p. 49-57. GRIMAL, P. (1988), Sénèque et Tacite juges d’Auguste et de son époque, in E. BENEDINI (ed.), L’età augustea vista dai contemporanei e nel giudizio dei posteri, Mantova, p. 155-172. HESTER, H. (2003), Scholarly Borrowings: the Case of Remigio Nannini’s Orationi militari and François de Belleforest’s Harangues militaires, in Modern Philology 101, p. 235-258. HEYWORTH, S. J. (2014), Medical Imagery in Ovid, Metamorphoses 1, 190-1 and Livia’s Advice to Augustus, in CQ 64, p. 293-297. HILL HAY, C. (1938), Montaigne, lecteur et imitateur de Sénèque, Poitiers. HILLNER, J. (2015), Prison, Punishment and Penance in Late Antiquity, Cambridge. JAL, P., Images d’Auguste chez Sénèque, in REL 35, p. 242-264. KAPUST, D. (2012), Tacitus and Political Thought, in V. E. PAGÁN (ed.), A Companion to Tacitus, Malden, MA / Oxford, p. 504-528. KONSTANTINOVIC, I. (1989), Montaigne et Plutarque, Genève. LEGROS, A. (2009), Montaigne between Fortune and Providence, in J. D. LYONS / K. WINE (eds.), Chance, Literature, and Culture in Early Modern France, Burlington, p. 17-30. MANUWALD, B. (1979), Cassius Dio und Augustus: Philologische Untersuchungen zu den Büchern 45-56 des Dionischen Geschichtswerkes, Wiesbaden. MARCONE, A. (2015), Augusto, Roma. MARINCOLA, J. (2007), Speeches in Classical Historiography, in J. MARINCOLA (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, Malden, MA / Oxford, p. 118-132. MAROCCO STUARDI, D. (2006), La République di Jean Bodin. Sovranità, governo, giustizia, Milano.

338

IDA GILDA MASTROROSA

MARTINELLI, G. (1990), Motivi originali nei discorsi dell’opera di Cassio Dione, in Atti dell’Accademia Ligure di Scienze e Lettere 46, p. 411-425. MASTROROSA, I. G. (2012), Le visage d’Auguste chez Montesquieu: les manifestations ambiguës du pouvoir autocratique dans la Rome antique, in P. HUMMEL (ed.), De Fama. Études sur la construction de la réputation et de la postérité, Paris, p. 79-99. MASTROROSA, I. G. (2014), Octavien à la veille d’Actium chez Dion Cassius (L, 24-30)  : haranguer les troupes en diffamant l’adversaire, in Exercices de rhétorique 3 (Sur l’Histoire), p. 1-13. MASTROROSA, I. G. (2016), Ottaviano Augusto nella memoria storiografica quattrocentesca, in A. SETAIOLI (ed.), Apis matina. Studi in onore di Carlo Santini, Trieste, p. 470-480. MASTROROSA, I. G. (2017), Oratory and Political Debate in the Last Decades of the Roman Republic: Cassius Dio’s Reconstruction (with Some Notes from Remigio Nannini’s Orationi Militari), in J.-C. IGLESIAS-ZOIDO / V. PINEDA (eds.), Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches from Antiquity to Early Modern Times. Rearranging the Tesserae, Leiden / Boston, p. 319-338. MASTROROSA, I. G. (2018a), Consigli di Scipione Ammirato per il “principe savio che può del suo stato a suo modo disporre”: promuovere le nozze e integrare i “forestieri” sulle orme degli antichi, in L. CAMPOS BORALEVI (ed.), La costruzione dello stato moderno, Firenze, p. 55-65. MASTROROSA, I. G. (2018b), Octavien-Auguste à l’‘ombre’ des Lumières  : SaintÉvremond, Montesquieu et Mably, in A. DAGUET-GAGEY / S. LEFEBVRE (eds.), L’empereur Auguste et la mémoire des siècles, Arras, p. 281-299. MAYER, R. G. (1991), Roman Historical Exempla in Seneca, in P. GRIMAL (ed.), Sénèque et la prose latine, Vandœuvres / Genève (Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 36), p. 141-169. MELANI, I. (2006), Il tribunale della storia. Leggere la Methodus di Jean Bodin, Firenze. METSCHIES, M. (1997), La Citation et l’art de citer dans les Essais de Montaigne, Paris. MELLOR, R. (1995), Tacitus: the Classical Heritage, New York. MILLAR, F. (1961), Some Speeches in Cassius Dio, in MH 18, p. 11-22. MILLAR, F. (1964), A Study of Cassius Dio, Oxford. MOMIGLIANO, A. (1990), Tacitus and the Tacitist Tradition, in ID., The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, Berkeley / Los Angeles / Oxford, p. 109-131. THIBAUDET, A. / RAT, M. (eds.) (1962), Montaigne, Œuvres complètes, Paris. NOÈ, E. (1994), Commento storico a Cassio Dione LIII, Como. NOREÑA, C. F. (2001), The Communication of the Emperor’s Virtues, in JRS 91, p. 146-168. O’BRIEN, J. (2005), Montaigne and Antiquity Fancies and Grotesques, in U. LANGER (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Montaigne, Cambridge, p. 53-73. PIERINI, R. (2012), Augusto privato in Seneca, breu. uit. 4, 2, ss., in Paideia 67, p. 107121. PRÉCHAC, F. (ed.) (1967), Sénèque. De la clémence, Paris. PRÉCHAC, F. (1967), De clementia, 1, 9. Le prénom du Cinna de Senèque et le séjour d’Auguste en Gaule, in MAH 79, p. 153-164. PURCEL, N. (1986), Livia and the Womanhood of Rome, in PCPS 32, p. 78-105. QUAGLIONI, D. (1992), I limiti della sovranità. Il pensiero di Jean Bodin nella cultura giuridica e politica dell’età moderna, Padova. QUAGLIONI, D. (2004), La sovranità, Roma / Bari. QUINT, D. (1998), Montaigne and the Quality of Mercy: Ethical and Political Themes in the “Essais”, Princeton.

AUGUSTUS’ CLEMENCY TOWARDS CINNA

339

RAAFLAUB, K. A. / SAMONS II, L. J. (1990), Opposition to Augustus, in K. A. RAAFLAUB / M. TOHER (eds.), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate, Berkeley / Los Angeles / Oxford, p. 417-454. RAONI TROMBETTA, F. (2015), La clementia di Ottaviano e la rappresentazione storiografica di Gaio Furnio, in T. M. LUCCHELLI / F. ROHR VIO (eds.), Viri militares. Rappresentazione e propaganda tra Repubblica e Principato, Trieste, p. 157-169. REINHOLD, M. / SWAN, P. M. (1990), Cassius Dio’s Assessment of Augustus, in K. A. RAAFLAUB / M. TOHER (eds.), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate, Berkeley / Los Angeles / Oxford, p. 155-173. REMIGIO, NANNINI (1561), Orationi in materia civile, e criminale, tratte da gli historici greci, e latini, antichi, e moderni, raccolte, e tradotte per M. Remigio Fiorentino, con gli argomenti a ciascuna Oratione… e con gli Effetti che seguirono da dette Orationi, in Vinegia, appresso Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari. RICCIARDI, M. (1999), Principi e ragion di stato nella prima età moderna, in G. DUSO (ed.), Il potere. Per la storia della filosofia politica moderna, Roma, p. 51-59. RICH, J. W. (1989), Dio on Augustus, in A. CAMERON (ed.), History as Text: The Writing of Ancient History, London / Chapel Hill, p. 86-110. RICH, J. W. (1990), The Augustan Settlement (Roman History 53-55.9), edited with Translation and Commentary by J. W. R., Warminster. RODDAZ, J.-M. (1983), De César à Auguste. L’image de la monarchie chez un historien du siècle des Sévères. Réflexions sur l’œuvre de Dion Cassius, à propos d’ouvrages récents, in REA 85, p. 67-87. ROHR VIO, F. (2000), Le voci del dissenso. Ottaviano Augusto e i suoi oppositori, Padova. SATTLER, P. (1960), Augustus und der Senat, Göttingen. SCATTOLA, M. (2006), Ordine della giustizia e dottrina della sovranità in Jean Bodin, in G. DUSO (ed.), Il potere. Per la storia della filosofia politica moderna, Roma, p. 61-75. SCHAEFER, D. L. (2001), Montaigne and the Classical Tradition, in International Journal of the Classical Tradition 8, p. 179-194. SCHELLHASE, K. C. (1979), Tacitus in Renaissance Political Thought, Chicago / London. SCHIFFMAN, Z. (1982), Montaigne’s Perception of Ancient Rome: Biography as a Form of History, in P. A. RAMSEY (ed.), Rome in the Renaissance. The City and the Myth, Binghamton / New York, p. 345-353. SCHIMMENTI, P. (1997), Motivi antiaugustei nel proemio del “De clementia”, in RCCM 39, p. 45-69. SCHWARTZ, E. (1899), Cassius 40 (Cassius Dio Cocceianus), in RE III, 2, col. 1684-1722. SENELLART, M. (1989), Machiavélisme et raison d’État (XIIe-XVIIe siècle), Paris. SENELLART, M. (1997), La critique de Machiavel dans le Discorsi sopra Tacito (1594) d’Ammirato, in A. DIERKENS (ed.), L’antimachiavélisme de la Renaissance aux Lumières, Bruxelles (Problèmes d’histoire des religions 8), p. 105-119. SHOTTER, D. C. A. (1974), Cn. Cornelius Cinna Magnus and the Adoption of Tiberius, in Latomus 33, p. 306-313. SMITH, M. (1981), Montaigne and the Roman Censors, Genève. SMITH, P. J. (2001), Montaigne, Plutarch and Historiography, in K. A. ENENKEL / J. L. DE JONG / J. DE LANDTSHEER (eds.), Recreating Ancient History. Episodes from Greek and Roman Past in the Arts and Literature of the Early Modern Period, Leiden, p. 167-186. SPEYER, W. (1956), Zur Verschwörung des Cn. Cornelius Cinna, in RhM 99, p. 277-284.

340

IDA GILDA MASTROROSA

STEGMANN, A. (1969), Le Tacitisme  : programme pour un nouvel essai de définition, in Il Pensiero Politico 2, p. 445-458. STEGMANN, A. (1975), L’apport antique dans la réflexion de Bodin sur l’État, in L’histoire antique dans l’humanisme français, Paris, p. 737-757. SWAN, P. M. (2004), The Augustan Succession. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History, Books 55-56 (9 B.C. - A.D. 14), Oxford. SYME, R. (1939 [1963]), The Roman Revolution, Oxford. SYME, R. (1958), Tacitus, Oxford. TARRETE, A. (2004), Sénèque, in P. DESAN (ed.), Dictionnaire de Michel de Montaigne. Nouvelle Édition, revue, corrigée et augmentée, Paris, p. 1054-1059. TOMEI, C. (2012), Nannini Remigio, in Dizionario Biografico degli italiani, t. LXXVII, Roma, p. 734-738. TURCHETTI, M. (2007), Jean Bodin théoricien de la souveraineté, non de l’absolutisme, in A. PROSPERI / P. SCHIERA / G. ZARRI (eds.), Chiesa cattolica e mondo moderno. Scritti in onore di Paolo Prodi, Bologna, p. 437-455. VAN STEKELENBURG, A. V. (1971), De Redevoeringen bij Cassius Dio, Delft. VASOLI, C. (2007), Unità o disunione dell’Italia? Uno storiografo della Controriforma, Scipione Ammirato e la sua replica al Machiavelli, in A. TALLON (ed.), Le sentiment national dans l’Europe méridionale aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles (France, Espagne, Italie), Madrid, p. 189-203. VON ALBRECHT, M. (1987 [2004]), Montaigne und Seneca, in Filologia e forme letterarie. Studi offerti a Francesco della Corte, t. V, Urbino, p. 543-559 (repr. with revisions in ID., Wort und Wandlung. Senecas Lebenskunst, Leiden, p. 173-192). WALLACE HADRILL, A. (1981), The Emperor and his virtues, in Historia 30, p. 289-323. WEINSTOCK, S. (1971), Diuus Iulius, Oxford. WHITFIELD, J. H. (1976), Livy > Tacitus, in R. R. BOLGAR (ed.), Classical Influences on European Culture A.D. 1500-1700, Cambridge, p. 281-293. WOODMAN, A. J. (ed.) (2004), Velleius Paterculus: The Caesarian and Augustan Narrative (2.41-93), Cambridge. ZARKA, Y.-C. (1994), Raison et déraison d’État, Paris. ZECCHINI, G. / GALIMBERTI, A. (eds.) (2012), Storici antichi e storici moderni nella Methodus di Jean Bodin, Milano.

In pace Augusto. Augustan Motifs in Napoleon’s Public Image AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA (Jagiellonian University, Krakow)

Abstract At least since 1809, Napoleon strove to gain his fame and position all by himself, rejecting the ready comparisons to the great historical individuals of the past. However, much as he maintained that he intended to be the Emperor of the French, and not a new Caesar, Augustus or Alexander (“Le titre de l’Empereur est celui d’Empereur des Français”, he wrote in 1809), he could not avoid comparisons made by his contemporaries, either in the flattering or criticising mode. Moreover, even official art of the period abounded in motifs and themes taken from classical antiquity, as well as from the French past, and “Augustan” elements were particularly prominent. The paper first gives a short overview of the political situation and the actions and circumstances that provoked Augustan comparisons. It then focuses on the presence of such motifs first of all in art and literature, at the same time showing that some of the traits that are interpreted as “Augustan” are intermediated by major works of French culture, such as in the first place Corneille’s Cinna, but also the image of Louis XIV, the “Sun King” who chose Apollo as his patron just like Augustus.

1. Introduction Nehmt euch in Bälde den Suetonius zur Hand, denn der neue Augustus ist fertig. Joseph von Görres, 1799 1

In her brief but insightful analysis of the public image evolution under the Consulate and the Empire, Annie Jourdan shows convincingly that at least since the proclamation of the Empire in 1804 Napoleon kept distancing himself from the symbolic genealogies, and strove to establish himself as the great man of his own time: Napoléon Ier n’est ni Alexandre, ni Hannibal, pas même César, puisque César n’a pas su durer. […] L’empereur s’est fait lui- même. […] Napoléon accède à un 1 Allegedly in a letter from Paris, which itself is lost, but is quoted in STEIN (1928), p. 17. Görres sojourned in Paris in 1799/1800 as an envoy of the Rhineland republicans and witnessed the 18 Brumaire and later development of the consular power.

342

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

statut supérieur aux hommes du passé sous une image inédite dans les annales de la France. Image qui sera celle de Napoléon Ier. 2

And yet the very subtitle of the book from which the quotation is taken – “héros, imperator, mécène” – is a testimony to the extent to which antiquity still governs the image, even though the book is concerned with ancient models only marginally. The scholar’s opinion can be supported by the contemporary voice of Auguste de Chambure, who in 1824 compiled a selection of engravings related to Napoleon’s “heroism, clemency, generosity and popularity”, and wrote in the preface to his book: L’antiquité nous offrait une foule de ces traits de grandeur et d’héroïsme dont le récit enflame d’émulation les cœurs nobles et généreux, et chacun de ces traits vint rappeler à notre souvenir des actions encore récentes. Nous avons comparé les annales des siècles passés à l’histoire de nos jours, et nous avons abandonné l’idée de vanter les anciens. Nous aussi, nous sommes-nous dit, nous avons nos César, nos Annibal, nos Alexandre ; et si un gouffre nouveau venait à s’entr’ouvrir, nous aussi nous aurions nos Curtius ! 3

Even if in accordance with his own ambitions, but also with the prevailing tendencies in art of his time, 4 Napoleon intended in the first place to equal on his own or even surpass the heroes and kings of the past all by himself, instead of emulating them – as already the composition of David’s Bonaparte franchissant le Grand-Saint-Bernard, with the First Consul’s horse leaping over the stones inscribed “Hannibal” and “Charlemagne”, 5 might suggest – he could not avoid comparisons, in poetic eulogies, newspaper articles, historical analyses and any other texts, 6 especially when the traits or virtues associated with JOURDAN (1998), p. 185. DE CHAMBURE (1824), p. v-vi. 4 FOUCART (2004), p. 23, argues convincingly, partly after ROSENBLUM (1970), p. 94-103, that during the Empire art passed “directly and voluntarily” from the historical painting of ancient topics to modern topics, and sees in this change not decay and deterioration, but ultimate reincarnation and appropriation, merging of antiquity by modernity. 5 Cf. Discours prononcé par le Tribun Siméon sur la motion relative au gouvernement héréditaire, 10 floréal an XII [30 avril 1804], in La proclamation du Premier Empire ou Recueil des pièces et actes relatifs à l’établissement du gouvernement impérial héréditaire, imprimé par ordre du Sénat conservateur. Première réédition depuis 1804, Paris, 2002, p. 48: “quand nous proclamerons empereur le guerrier qui triompha, comme Hannibal et Charlemagne, des roches inaccessibles des Alpes”. On David’s study of antiquity, see e.g. ETTLINGER (1967), esp. p. 107-109. 6 A fine example of the former is the operatic piece Triomphe du Mois de Mars ou le Berceau d’Achille by R. KREUTZER (music) and E. DUPATY (text), composed on the occasion of the birth of the King of Rome, Napoleon’s son with Marie-Louise, in 1811: “L’allégorie imaginée par Dupaty se prêtait aux transparentes interprétations et permettait de louer habilement l’Empereur et son fils. Ainsi Napoléon n’apparaît-il pas sous les 2 3

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

343

classical antiquity were in question. And if Jourdan is right about one of the reasons for the rejection of the modelling of the official image upon the ancients in saying that “Caesar had not known how to last”, then Augustus ought to have been the hero much dearer to the Emperor of the French, because “how to last” was exactly what Augustus knew very well. And yet the phantom presence or apparent absence of Augustus in the period of Bonaparte’s rule is perplexing. This paper surveys some of the “Augustan” traits in the public image of Napoleon Bonaparte during his lifetime. Due to the limitations of space only the direct or literal appropriations and associations with Augustus will be taken into account, even though it would be tempting to include in the analysis the broader topics such as the myth of the saviour or the solar myth, which border on our subject because of the associations of Augustus with e.g. Apollo, both in his time and in the later periods. 7 For the same reason the discussion is limited to Napoleon’s official myth and propaganda, leaving aside the contemporary, post-exile and posthumous popular legend. 8 In the first two subsections a short overview of political and civil enterprises that bear the Augustan mark is presented, in order to shed light on the circumstances of the eulogistic mode in art and literature. The other sections discuss more in detail the representation of the main virtues of the ruler that are associated with the persona of Augustus as known from ancient sources, and eventually the image of Napoleon himself. Main focus is on the iconographic sources, especially those that by their very nature were highly classicizing, but traits du dieu Mars, comme l’aurait fait un Louis XIV. L’allusion au souverain est plus subtile. Tantôt on le devine derrière des désignations vagues comme « fils de la victoire », « le héros moderne », « le plus grand des guerriers », « le plus grand des Césars », ou simplement « le héros », tantôt il prend les traits du héros mythique « Achille »” (CHAILLOU [2003], p. 212). An admirable modern example of the recurrent unavoidable and apparently uncomfortable comparisons with Augustus can be found in the strongly and openly biased against Napoleon popular historical account by HEROLD (2002), esp. p. 123-132. For a glance on contemporary newspaper comparisons, see ROWELL (2012), p. 149 and 204, n. 133. 7 Certain aspects of these motifs have been discussed from a different point of view by TELESKO (2004), esp. p. 33-54, 86-90. 8 In this paper is applied the distinction proposed by HAZAREESINGH (2004), p. 4, where “myth” relates to Napoleon’s lifetime and “the attempt by Napoleon to control his public image(s)”, while legend is “a much broader and more heterogeneous phenomenon which developed spontaneously in France after 1815”. To discuss the legend would be an entirely separate enterprise, which would require different tools, because of the various backgrounds and intentions of the often anonymous authors. One should, however, mention that in 1800 appeared in Erfurt a booklet entitled Die republikanischen Könige Cäsar Octavius Augustus und Alexander Neoptolem Bonaparte: Eine historische Vergleichung, which juxtaposes and compares ancient sources on various personages with mostly anecdotic material on the early stages of Bonaparte’s career, but by its character does not belong to the material discussed in this paper.

344

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

visual material is confronted with relevant textual sources. In the concluding section the question is asked, why with the apparent emphasis on Augustan traits and motifs in Napoleonic public image, this historical personage is almost entirely absent from the utterances by Napoleon himself. 2. Politics The political models and analogies for the French Empires are usually discussed in terms of Caesarism, summarized by Mommsen’s notion of Julius Caesar’s popularly supported “absolute military monarchy”. 9 However, much as this perspective is fully grounded, even at the first, non-analytical glance, Napoleon’s rule is marked by Augustan moves as well, which was apparently noted by the German republican Joseph Görres, eyewitness to the events of 1799 in Paris, cited at the beginning of the present paper. Firstly, soon after his return from Egypt, which at the time of the coup d’état of 18 Brumaire (1799) had not yet been entirely lost to the French, who abandoned it eventually in 1801, Bonaparte seized power, and then four and a half years later – by pure coincidence roughly the same amount of time that separates Actium from the senatus consultum of 16 January 27 BCE, which offered the de facto sole rule to Octavian and bestowed upon him the title of Augustus – the sénate consulte proclaimed him the Emperor of the French. 10 Noteworthily, the term Empire had been in use for France under Louis XIV as well as during the Revolutionary period, therefore the name as such was not exactly a novelty. The new sovereign’s title could have, in turn, alluded to the Roman imperator (emphasizing the military and victorious aspect of authority, but also suggesting disapproval of royal monarchy – another characteristic of the Roman principate, and a desirable trait in post-Revolutionary France), as well as to the renouatio imperii under Charlemagne, 11 whom Napoleon perceived as his patron much in the same way as Augustus had regarded Caesar. 9 MOMMSEN (1866), p. 467. Mommsen himself was strongly opposed to the idea of “modern Caesarism”, and rejected comparisons of e.g. the 18th Brumaire to Caesar’s coup d’État; for further discussion of his ideas, the differences with Max Weber, and their relation to 19th century political practice, as well as ample bibliography on the subject, see BAEHR (2011), p. 79-82. For the Bonapartist context in France, especially during the Second Empire, see e.g. BAEHR / RICHTER (2004), passim; ENGELS (2014), p. 184-185, 189-191, 195-197. 10 Act of 18 May 1804; a predominantly Carolingian in style coronation followed on 2 December 1804. Cf. Res gestae diui Augusti 34: Quo pro merito meo [putting the end to the civil war; see infra] senatus consulto Augustus appellatus sum et laureis postes aedium mearum uestiti publice coronaque ciuica super ianuam meam fixa est et clupeus aureus in curia Iulia positus, quem mihi senatum populumque Romanum dare uirtutis clementiaeque et iustitiae et pietatis caussa testatum est per eius clupei inscriptionem. 11 The contemporary discussion on the models of imperium, the role of Charlemagne as well as (papal rather than imperial) Rome in its establishment and projected shape, as

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

345

The use of the Roman term distanced the new political situation from the ancien régime, and allowed for a smooth transition from the republic, or even its symbolic continuation: “Bonaparte instead of attempting to restore the monarchy, appropriated the Republic by becoming Napoleon, Emperor of the French, in 1804”. 12 The military character of the imperium was at the same time emphasized and balanced by both actual civil enterprises, and rhetoric. In the address to the Council of State presented in 1802, the First Consul would proclaim that “L’armée, c’est la nation”, but at the same time admit that “Ce n’est pas comme général que je gouverne, mais parce que la nation croit que j’ai les qualités civiles propres au gouvernement; si elle n’avait pas cette opinion, le gouvernement ne se soutiendrait pas”. 13 Caesarian character of the new rule had been since its very beginning attenuated by the emphasis on the sovereign’s role as lawgiver and advocate of national reconciliation, which ought to be regarded as the Augustan face of the regime. Particularly interesting in the instant of the establishment of the Empire is the political manoeuvring, very much like that of Octavian on the occasion of becoming Augustus: the act in its formal aspect had not originated from the ruler, but from the people, represented by the Senate, and in the French case also formally supported by popular vote. 14 Moreover, probably the most important association with the rule of Augustus that Bonaparte may at that time have sought to exploit, was that his coming to power put an end to the civil unrest: just like the conquest of Egypt had ended the Roman civil war, so in France the 18 Brumaire ended the period of Republican faction struggles, and began the period of national reconciliation after the Revolution. The coup d’État was a turning point, paving the way for the Empire, and the analogy with Octavian’s return from Egypt must have been clear for people used to omnipresent evocations of antiquity in art, literature and political rhetoric, among them Bonaparte himself, whose familiarity with ancient historians and poets is widely attested. Centuries before, the Roman hero from Egypt was welcomed as the saviour of the homeland: After the Battle of Actium and the capture of Alexandria […] extraordinary honors awaited the victor […] The days of uncertainty were over, and for the first time all the power in Rome was concentrated in a single individual. There could be no doubt who pulled the strings, to whom one must turn for help, and to whom well as on the main group of people (supporters of the ancient regime vs. “revolutionaries”) is related by Joseph Fouché, the chief of police, in his memoirs (Mémoires de Joseph Fouché, duc d’Otrante, minister de la police générale, Paris, 1824, p. 256-258). Cf. ENGELS (2008), p. 274-275. 12 HUET (1999), p. 53. 13 Bonaparte au Conseil d’État, 14 floréal an X [4 May 1802], quoted in A.-C. THIBAUDEAU, Mémoirs sur le Consulat, 1799 à 1804, par un ancien conseiller d’État, Paris, 1827, p. 79-80. 14 LANGLOIS (1972); ID. (1988).

346

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

one had to give thanks. Glorification and self-glorification proceeded hand in hand. […] Senate and people included Octavian in their prayers, immortalized his name in song […]. The huge Mausoleum and the temple of Apollo, the bringer of victory, approached completion. 15

This passage from Paul Zanker’s fundamental work on Augustan imagery could be rewritten almost in extenso for Napoleon; 16 and as a contemporary commentary Talleyrand’s remark in his memoirs can be quoted: “Les trois hommes qui ont reçu sur la terre le plus de louanges sont: Auguste, Louis XIV et Napoléon. Les époques et le talent ont donné à ces louanges des rédactions différentes; mais, au fond, c’est la même chose”. 17 The sole major difference with Zanker’s account is that Napoleon’s mausoleum would be erected thirty years after his death, but in its conception, form and programme it actually would in many ways resemble the architecture of the mausolea of Augustus and Hadrian, while the sculptural decoration of the crypt, with the enumeration of the great deeds, reminds us of the Res Gestae. Not only the mid-19th century monument, erected under the rule of Napoleon’s nephew during the renovated empire, is reminiscent of Augustan commemorations and his own autobiographic account. In the highly mythicizing his own person Res Gestae Augustus wrote: In consulatu sexto et septimo [28-27 BCE], postquam bella ciuilia exstinxeram, per consensum uniuersorum potitus rerum omnium, rem publicam ex mea potestate in senatus populique Romani arbitrium transtuli. 18 Napoleon’s primary political testament, and an equally mythbuilding work, is the Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène, compiled from the dictations and conversations held during the first and a half year of exile by the count Emmanuel Las Cases, and published in 1823 to become one of the greatest bestsellers of the 19th century. 19 Under the date of 1 June 1816 Las Cases noted the following remark by Napoleon:

ZANKER (1990), p. 79. Similarly, the characteristic of Julius Caesar given by MOMMSEN (1866), p. 455 and elsewhere, is very much in the vein of early characteristics of Napoleon I, in spite of the author’s reservations towards Bonapartism and both French Empires, and even though he contrasts Caesar to every other ancient or modern leader. When Mommsen mentions Napoleon in the context of Caesar’s ideas of the political system [p. 491], he describes the intention in a way that echoes the above quoted passage from Bonaparte’s 1802 address: “But, if it remains a mere probability that Caesar ought not to be designated a world-conqueror in the same sense as Alexander and Napoleon, it is quite certain that his design was not to rest his new monarchy primarily on the support of the army nor generally to place the military authority above the civil, but to incorporate it with, and as far as possible subordinate it to, the civil commonwealth.” 17 DE TALLEYRAND (1967), p. 420. 18 Res gestae diui Augusti 34. 19 All references to this work in the present paper are based on the critical edition: Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène (1968). 15 16

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

347

Fig. 1. Medal commemorating the conquest of Upper Egypt. Musée national d’histoire et d’art, Luxembourg – Cabinet des Médailles.

J’ai fait tout au monde pour accorder tous les partis : je vous ai réunis dans les mêmes appartements, fait manger aux mêmes tables, boire dans les mêmes coupes ; votre union a été l’objet constant de mes soins… 20

Napoleon was an avid reader of ancient histories, 21 with particular interest given to biographers such as Plutarch and Suetonius, therefore we may assume that even if he had not consciously intended to emulate Augustus’ testament, the influence of education and readings could not be avoided. The clearly Augustan analogy of the circumstances of coming to power was exploited by Dominique Vivant Denon in the design for the medal commemorating the conquest of Upper Egypt (CONQUETE DE LA HAUTE EGYPTE; 22 project conceived between 1803-1805; Fig. 1), 23 which on its reverse bears the image known from a coin struck in numerous variants by Octavian’s Actium veterans in Nemausus between 20 BCE-14 CE (Fig. 2). 24 The image in question, a crocodile chained to a palm tree, was in turn a more complex variant of a Roman mint 20 Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène (1968), p. 767. National reconciliation and unity had been for Napoleon the means of achieving social order; cf. BLUCHE (1981), p. 15: “L’ordre, pour Napoléon, consiste en la fin des désordres et dans la satisfaction des besoins élémentaires de la masse.” 21 GALLO (2004), p. 325; CASANOVA (2008), p. 49-54. 22 MILLIN 19. The numismatic references are to the 19th century catalogue: MILLIN (1819), which remains the most dependable catalogue of the official medallic production, even though it lists the issues according to the events commemorated, disregarding any other aspects, such as chronology of design and production. 23 FULIŃSKA (2014), p. 332-333. 24 RIC I2, 154-161.

348

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

Fig. 2. Coin of Nemausus, Augustan period (RIC I2, 160). Nomos, Auction 10, lot 78 (18.05.2015).

issue by Octavian, dated to 28 BCE, and featuring the crocodile alone, with the legend AEGYPTO CAPTA. 25 Not only the image itself, or even its context, but also the fact that the model coin had been struck in modern Nîmes, a city with Augustan traditions, must have played a major role in Denon’s choice of the subject. After Marengo (1800) Bonaparte sought to establish peace with the former enemies of the French Republic, and achieved it by the treaties of Lunéville and Amiens (1801, with Austria, and 1802, with Britain, resp.), which, however, had been soon broken by the British and the Austrians, beginning the period of the so-called Napoleonic wars. Nonetheless, for a short while the pax Napoleonica seemed to be a reality, to return in 1809 for an equally short period of time. The subject of its medallic representation will be treated later in this paper. 3. Civil Enterprises If we were to distil the persona (or Aristotelian ethos) of Augustus through the ages, we would have to include for certain the following associations out of many: the idea of the pax Augusta, patronage of arts, urbanistic changes in Rome, welfare, clemency towards enemies, moral revival. The civil and economic enterprises undertaken by Napoleon, such as the embellishments of Paris and Rome, construction of canals, aqueducts and fountains with fresh water for the cities, roads (including passages of the Alpine passes), mines, drainage of marshes, legal and monetary reforms, support for science and education, etc., are well documented, and their political, economic and social aspects possess ample bibliography. 26 In the Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène 25

RIC I2, 275a. E.g. ROWELL (2012), esp. chapter 2, for the improvements in Paris and the Roman face of the city’s modernisation; BONNET (2004), for the patronage of arts, and esp. part 3, for the idea of new Rome; general overview of civil enterprises in PIGEARD (2014), passim. 26

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

349

these undertakings are listed as “the treasures of Napoleon” on 29 September 1816, and the engineering works are commented upon as “surpassing in grandeur and effort all the works of the Romans”; similar remarks can be found on 29-30 November 1815, concerning the civil code and schools. 27 These achievements were also propagated and commemorated by visual means, first and foremost the official medallic production, during the period. The visual language of Napoleonic medals is to a huge extent classical, but mostly generic: they abound in the personifications of virtues or allegorical renditions of particular actions, in general accordance with the model of presenting the narration about the ruler’s deeds on the reverses, with the omnipresent, and very much Augustan in its execution, profile of the Emperor on the obverses. The “rhetoric” force of the series produced under Dominique Vivant Denon’s directorship of the Monnaie des Médailles in Paris (i.e. since the turn of 1802/1803) lies in their stylistic unity and iconographic programme, rather than in the designs and execution of particular pieces, even though a fair number of them presents true ingenuity and high artistic value both as individual works of art and as short series within the larger design. 28 The latter has never been fully executed, due to shortage of funds and time, and some of the projects were entirely abandoned, but the preserved pieces, as well as designs for unachieved series of medals, show that this classical par excellence medium was very strongly influenced by imagery that is Roman in general, and Augustan in particular. Of singular prominence from the point of view of the current topic are these visual documents, together with their textual context, that allude to the two virtues associated strongly with the persona of Augustus, while belonging at the same time to the intrinsic Roman virtues: Pax and Clementia. Their reworkings in the time of the Consulate and Empire make a very interesting example of the reception of Augustus via earlier interpretations within the French culture, i.e. of the intermediated reception. That Augustus was counted among the “good kings” of the past, whose examples are worthy of being followed by modern rulers, finds a particularly interesting testimony in a 1764 letter of CharlesNicolas Cochin, director of the royal building works (Les Bâtiments du Roi) to the marquis de Marigny, commenting on the proposed design for the royal residence at Choisy: 27 Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène (1968), 1299-1300 and 272-273 resp. The role of education and reformed school system as one of Napoleon’s major concerns within his civil project is related in detail in VILLEMAIN (1854), I, p. 144-160. 28 One of the most sophisticated iconographic cum propagandistic programs is presented by a short “Egyptian” series directed by Dominique Vivant Denon (supra for the adaptation of the crocodile coin of Nemausus), but also for instance by the medal commemorating the introduction of the vaccine in 1804/05 (Fig. 6), which exploits the immortal beauty of the Venus Medici, whose triumphal arrival in Paris had been celebrated only four years prior, and commemorated by another medal.

350

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

On a tant celebré les actions guerrières qui ne vont qu’à la destruction du genre humain ; n’est-il pas raisonnable de représenter quelquefois les actions généreuses et pleines d’humanité qui chez les bons rois ont fait le Bonheur de leurs peuples.

Subsequently Cochin suggested scenes from the lives of good emperors: Augustus, Trajan, Titus and Marcus Aurelius, as well as Cyrus the Great and Alexander the Great, as the main motif of the decoration. 29 Since civil works, which cannot be discussed here in detail, were joined with the notions of peace and generosity of the “good rulers”, these two virtues deserve major attention in the present context. 4. Pax Peace is a quality rarely associated with Napoleon’s figure in popular perception, partly due to the fact that in spite of his undeniable posthumous propagandistic victory over his enemies, 30 the popular image had been in a large part shaped by the anti-Napoleonic, predominantly British propaganda, partly – to the decade of imperial France’s undisputed military dominance in Europe. Not without blame are the imperial art and propaganda themselves, and the fact that the most widely known images of Napoleon are those executed by the painters, who according to the distribution of topics and style between various arts in force in the period, were the ones to undertake current subjects, i.e. among others a vast majority of the batalistic topics, which for the non-specialist modern eye are devoid of classical allusions. 31 As a result, even the heir to the First Empire’s glory and tradition, Napoleon III, would play on the popular image, supported fervently by his political enemies, when seeking support for his imperial project: “Il est néanmoins une crainte à laquelle je dois répondre. Par esprit de défiance, certaines personnes se disent : l’Empire, c’est la guerre. Moi je dis : l’Empire, c’est la paix”. 32 Quoted and commented in FOUCART (2004), p. 23; BRIANT (2012), p. 293-294. The 19th century process, which in fact began as early as in 1815, is described in detail in HAZAREESINGH (2004), passim. One may also consider e.g. the modern polls and surveys which invariably show Napoleon among the best recognizable and/or influential and significant persons in world history, usually holding the second place after Jesus; see e.g. lists and their analyses in the following articles in influential media: http://www. theguardian.com/books/2014/jan/30/whos-most-significant-historical-figure; http:// ideas.time.com/2013/12/10/whos-biggest-the-100-most-significant-figures-in-history (both accessed Sept. 27, 2015). 31 The allegorical renditions in this case are rare but not non-existent, as for instance the series of allegories of victories at Marengo, Ulm and Austerlitz by Antoine-François Callet (1741-1823) show. They present Napoleon in the guise of a triumphant Roman emperor with features of a solar deity. The prominence of the militaristic image is also partly due to the fact that most modern books on Napoleon’s iconography directed at the broad audience, let alone album publications, focus on this aspect of art, e.g. CASALI / CHANTERANNE (2009). Mark, however, Rosenblum’s and Foucart’s opinions recalled in n. 1 to the present paper. 32 Discours de Bordeaux, 9 octobre 1852, in Œuvres de Napoléon III, p. 342-343. 29 30

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

351

The glorification of continental, imperial peace (pax Napoleonica) under the First Empire could have had its sources in the legend of Alexander the Great originating from Plutarch: of the worldwide empire, in which the conquered lands are united by brotherhood of men (an idea particularly dear to the French Revolution, whose ideals to a greater or lesser extent would always be present in Napoleonic propaganda). But even though the Vita Alexandri was in the school curricula together with other lives, and according to the sources the young Bonaparte “devoured” Plutarch, 33 it is the idea of pax Romana that seems to dominate the peace imagery ever since the Consulate. From the onset of Bonaparte’s fame and subsequently during his rule, the notion of peace was connected to military victory as its guarantee. The antecedent for such notion can be found in the widely read Mahomet by Voltaire (seen in the theatre by Napoleon at least three documented times; 34 also commented upon in the Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène on 22-25 April 1816), 35 with its famous dialogue concerning the legitimacy of rule – charismatic rule, as we could call it, after Max Weber: 36 Voltaire, Mahomet I 4: ZOPIRE : Qui l’a fait roi ? Qui l’a couronné ? OMAR : La victoire. Ménage sa puissance, et respecte sa gloire. Aux noms de conquérant et de triomphateur, il veut joindre le nom de pacificateur […]

According to the memoirs of Talleyrand, Napoleon regarded the two last lines of this passage from Voltaire, when recited in the theatre, as an epitome of his own rule, and always waited with particular attention for them to be delivered: “À ce dernier vers, Napoléon montra une émotion habile qui indiquait que c’était là, où il voulait que l’on trouvât l’explication de toute sa vie”. 37 Interestingly, the notion proposed by Voltaire is echoed in two focal musical pieces of the Revolution (Le chant du départ, 1794, written to celebrate the Republican victory at Fleurus, and played to the troops at the apogee of the Empire 38), CHUQUET (1898), p. 89, 129-130. All data concerning Napoleon’s visits to the theatre are taken from HEALEY (1959), p. 156, Appendix B. 35 Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène (1968), p. 541-542. 36 WEBER (1968), p. 242. 37 TALLEYRAND (1967), I, p. 431. On the far from being simplistic marriage of theatre and politics in Napoleon’s thought, see HEALEY (1959), p. 88: “Napoleon’s interest in the theatre was lasting, deep-seated and practical. […] He was well aware of the great political possibilities and dangers of the drama but, at the same time, he was interested in its more technical and even aesthetic aspects. These last, never entirely divorced in his mind from political considerations, do however occupy his attention very frequently, sometimes in the most unexpected places and circumstances.” 38 Text by Joseph-Marie Chénier (brother of André Chénier), music by ÉtienneNicolas Méhul; for a detailed analysis of the text see DOMINE (2002), p. 89-100. 33 34

352

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

and of the Consulate (Chant national du XXV Messidor An VIII [14 juillet 1800], composed to commemorate the battle of Marengo and the death of general Desaix, first performed in the church of St. Louis des Invalides in Paris, turned at that time into the Temple of Mars): 39 Le Chant du départ: Les Français donneront au monde Et la paix et la liberté. Chant national: Ô glorieuse destinée! Applaudis-toi, peuple français : bientôt, de palmes couronnée, la victoire obtiendra la paix.

The idea of victory that brings peace was also applied very early in art that glorified Bonaparte’s deeds, and in this particular case direct and literal employment of Augustan motifs can be observed, as the medals struck to commemorate peace treaties of Lunéville and of Amiens show. The Lunéville medal, 40 signed by [Bertrand] Andrieu as engraver, shows on its reverse 41 the standing figure of the goddess Fortuna, holding an olive branch in her right hand, and a horn of plenty in her left hand (Fig. 3). This iconography is a variation on a very popular topic found on Roman imperial coins, where Fortuna would frequently also hold the rudder. 42 The image appears as an allusion to Horace: iam Fides et Pax et Honos Pudorque | priscus et neglecta redire Virtus | audet adparetque beata pleno | Copia cornu, 43 especially when regarded together with its complementary piece celebrating the treaty of Amiens, signed by the engraver [Jean-Pierre] Droz (Fig. 4). 44 The latter’s reverse iconography leaves no doubt as to the designer’s intention to evoke Augustan poetry: it shows a female figure descending on the earthly globe, touching it with her foot, holding an olive branch in her right hand, and the balance scales in her left hand. The image is accompanied by the legend LE RETOUR D’ASTREE, which points directly at the famous passage from Virgil’s 4th Eclogue (3-6) as its source of inspiration: Vltima Cumaei uenit iam carminis aetas; | magnus ab integro 39

Text by Jean-Pierre-Louis de Fontanes, music by Étienne-Nicolas Méhul. MILLIN 41. 41 In both cases the obverse is reserved for the effigy of Bonaparte as the First Consul; in the Lunéville case the bust portrait is realistic, in modern attire, while the Amiens piece shows a far more idealized head with naked neck. 42 E.g. RIC II, 403 for Vespasian (type Pax Augusti, branch and horn of plenty). 43 HOR., Carm. Saec. 57-60. Carmen saeculare and the notion of saeculum could be considered in the present context: the Chant national mentions the end of the grand siècle (of Louis XIV) and the beginning of the new one (“Un grand siècle finit, un grand siècle commence”), also the enumeration of the most venerated personages in history by Talleyrand (see supra) seems to repeat this rhetorical concept. 44 MILLIN 52. 40

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

353

Fig. 3. Medal commemorating the peace of Lunéville. WAG Online oHG, Auction 108, lot 110 (10.05.2020).

Fig. 4. Medal commemorating the peace of Amiens. iNumis (www.inumis.com).

saeclorum nascitur ordo. | Iam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna, | iam noua progenies caelo demittitur alto. The Lunéville and Amiens medals are not isolated pieces as far as imagery is concerned; the 1802 painting by Dominique Doncre, La paix d’Amiens, 45 shows the First Consul Bonaparte burning the weapons and armours in the company of Mars and Bellona, and overviewed by the personifications of Peace 45

Arras, Musée des Beaux Arts, inv. 846.

354

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

holding an olive branch and Abundance with the horn of plenty. The pictorial medium required the scene to include numerous figures and arrange the subject in the quasi-narrative scene, while the medals propose a concise, summarizing treatment of the topic, but the general idea remains the same: victory brings peace, and consequently peace brings welfare. The year 1802 marks the beginning of the work on the greatest commission intended to glorify the peace brought about by the French Republican conquests: the colossal statue of Bonaparte as Mars Peacemaker by Antonio Canova (Fig. 8). The idea of this sculptural monument falls into the scope of Augustan presence in Napoleon’s image, both by its composition and ideological content, possibly the idea being as well an allusion to Augustus’ veneration of Mars Ultor combined with the aforementioned notion of victory as harbinger of peace, but its iconographic programme and fate will be discussed in the section on Napoleon’s image. 5. Clementia The closest connotations of clemency are justice, generosity, compassion/pity and continence. Numerous ancient heroes were associated with this set of virtues in legend and art: Alexander the Great, Scipio, Caesar, Titus, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, and naturally Augustus. In French art prior to the Revolution, particularly in the 17th century, considerable popularity was gained by the episodes of clemency from Alexander’s legend (first and foremost the family of Darius before Alexander and the meeting with the defeated king Porus, e.g. in the monumental paintings by Charles Le Brun), and continence of Scipio (e.g. Nicolas Poussin). In the case of Augustus, again the intermediary reception of the motif in French culture ought to be considered, 46 rather than the ancient personage as such. The most important vehicle for such reception is Corneille’s Cinna, which culminates in the famous scene of forgiveness: AUGUSTE […] Je suis maître de moi comme de l’univers ; Je le suis, je veux l’être. Ô siècles, ô mémoire ! Conservez à jamais ma dernière victoire ! Je triomphe aujourd’hui du plus juste courroux De qui le souvenir puisse aller jusqu’à vous. Soyons amis, Cinna, c’est moi qui t’en convie : Comme à mon ennemi je t’ai donné la vie, Et, malgré la fureur de ton lâche destin, Je te la donne encor comme à mon assassin. 46

For the reception of this motif from Antiquity to the Humanism, see the contribution of I. G. MASTROROSA in this volume.

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

355

[…] CINNA Seigneur, que vous dirai-je après que nos offenses Au lieu de châtiments trouvent des récompenses ? Ô vertu sans exemple ! ô clémence, qui rend Votre pouvoir plus juste, et mon crime plus grand ! 47

This dialogue is preceded by Livia’s intervention in favour of the conspirators, in which she encourages Augustus to show clemency, and explains that such an act will add to her husband’s fame and reputation: Essayez sur Cinna ce que peut la clémence ; Faites son châtiment de sa confusion, Cherchez le plus utile en cette occasion : Sa peine peut aigrir une ville animée, Son pardon peut servir à votre renommée. 48

Her argumentation in the play echoes Seneca’s account of the same episode: Interpellauit tandem illum Liuia uxor: […] Nunc tempta, quomodo tibi cedat clementia; ignosce L. Cinnae. Deprensus est; iam nocere tibi non potest, prodesse famae tuae potest, 49 and even though, as we will see, Augustus’ words were interpreted in terms of political pragmatism in the first place, this passage makes it obvious that such idea permeates the play. Corneille needs to be our primary source for the understanding of clemency in the present context, first and foremost because his tragedies formed part of the curricula of both schools that young Bonaparte attended in France: the preparatory school in Brienne, and the École Militaire in Paris. The quoted passage was commented during the lessons, which is attested, apart from other sources, in an anecdote: “C’était [Louis] Domairon 50 qui lui avait commenté Corneille, et lorsque le professeur lisait en chaire la fameuse scène Soyons amis, Cinna, c’est moi qui t’en convie, l’auditoire ajoutait tout bas ce vers d’un facétieux cadet On trouve le bonheur dans les bras d’une amie”. 51 Cinna was also the CORNEILLE, Cinna ou la Clémence d’Auguste, V 3. Ibid., IV 3. 49 SEN., Clem. 1.9.6. 50 Author of the Principes généraux des Belles-Lettres of 1785, the most important French textbook of literature, poetry and rhetoric into the 19th century, based on neoclassical principles; reprinted in 1807. Interestingly, the only remark on Cinna in this work is on the clemency scene (DOMAIRON [1807], p. 306: “Cinna, dans la Tragédie de ce nom, forme une conjuration contre Auguste. L’empereur Romain la découvre ; et dans l’instant même où il pourroit faire mourir ce chef des conjurés, non-seulement il lui pardonne, mais encore il lui dit : « Soyons amis, Cinna ; c’est moi qui t’en convie. » N’est-ce pas là le sublime de la clémence, de la générosité ? Ce sentiment sublime est parfaitement soutenu par ces vers qui suivent peu après : « Tu trahis mes bienfaits, je veux les redoubler. Je t’ai comblé de biens ; je veux t’en accabler. »” 51 CHUQUET (1898), p. 202. 47 48

356

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

play that Napoleon saw the greatest number of times in his life (12 documented instances, unrivalled), even though apparently he had numerous reservations concerning its plot. Very likely the commentaries on Corneille by Voltaire (1664), in which the problem of clemency is disputed, were also known to him. Talleyrand quotes the Emperor’s opinion expressed 1808, on the occasion of planning the theatre performances during peace negotiations in Erfurt: “Encore s’il m’avait dit Cinna ; il y a de grands intérêts en action, et puis une scène de clémence, ce qui et toujours bon. J’ai su presque tout Cinna par cœur, mais je n’ai jamais bien déclamé”. 52 Later in the same account, after having discussed with others the details of the text, Napoleon expresses an opinion that the play will serve well the morale of the Germans, who “still talk about the duke d’Enghien”. Interesting testimony concerning Napoleon’s reading of Cinna and the clemency scene comes from the memoirs of Madame de Rémusat (whose husband was present in Erfurt during the aforementioned episode), who quotes the Emperor’s opinion on the text and its theatrical representation given on a different occasion: Par exemple, il n’y a pas bien longtemps que je me suis expliqué le dénouement de Cinna. Je n’y voyais d’abord que le moyen de faire un cinquième acte pathétique, et encore la clémence proprement dite est une si pauvre petite vertu, quand elle n’est point appuyée sur la politique, que celle d’Auguste, devenu tout à coup un prince débonnaire, ne me paraissait pas digne de terminer cette belle tragédie. Mais, une fois, Monvel, en jouant devant moi, m’a dévoilé le mystère de cette grande conception. Il prononça le Soyons amis, Cinna, d’un ton si habile et si rusé, que je compris que cette action n’était que la feinte d’un tyran, et j’ai approuvé comme calcul ce qui me semblait puéril comme sentiment. Il faut toujours dire ce vers de manière que de tous ceux qui l’écoutent, il n’y ait que Cinna de trompé. 53

Much as these memoirs, as any other from the period, should be read cum grano salis, the anecdote appears to illustrate well Napoleon’s pragmatic views on the notion of public image and propaganda – notions actually very close to what Seneca had advised in his work, as quoted above. 54 One should not, however, jump to easy conclusions concerning Napoleon’s own appraisal of clemency – 52 TALLEYRAND (1967), I, p. 403-404. Similarly REICHARDT (1804), vol. I, p. 386387, no 13. 53 GRAVIER DE VERGENNES, COMTESSE DE RÉMUSAT (1880), vol. I, p. 279. 54 In this respect the following remark by AUCHINCLOSS (1996), p. 44-45: “Napoleon, approved of the way the famous actor Monvel played the part, indicating to the audience with a shrug that his pardon was only a cynical bid for better public relations. But I think Corneille was trying to tell his audience that the emperor, as we used to say of our presidents, had grown morally in office, that his long reign had endowed him with a wisdom and heart he had not had before”, is of no consequence: in the history of reception what matters is how the work was perceived, and to a much lesser extent – how it had been intended.

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

357

the quoted remarks concern a theatrical piece, not politics, and the “sentiment” commented upon should by all probability be treated as a literary category rather than a pragmatic one. Even with such reservations and regardless of the assessment of the purely personal emotions, one must admit, though, that Napoleon knew how to publicise the acts of clemency, as is shown for instance the 1806 example of “Madame Hatzfeld”, one of the most popular topics in Napoleonic popular imagery. The story is worth of a uita by Plutarch: Franz Ludwig Graf von Hatzfeldt, governor of Berlin during the French occupation, was accused of espionage, and there was hard evidence in form of an intercepted letter. His young and allegedly heavily pregnant (which is never shown in visual representations) wife begged for audience with Napoleon in order to implore him to spare her husband. When received, she was shown the letter, and immediately admitted that indeed the handwriting was his. Moved by her sincerity, Napoleon ordered her to throw the letter into the fire, with the comment that condemning her husband to death would not make him more powerful – a statement that sounds like a direct application of Seneca/Corneille. The story is well documented, even if with easily discernible variations of details: in the memoirs of general Rapp, in a letter from Napoleon to Josephine of 6 November 1806 (quoted in the Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène on 18-19 December 1815 55), as well as in the official press, the Bulletin de la Grande Armée (No. 22, 7 November 1806) and consequently Le Moniteur universel. 56 However, not only was this episode propagated in official media, but it also became one of the favourite topics of paintings, reproduced in innumerable popular engravings during Napoleon’s reign, after 1815, and long into the 19th century, which shows how important the notion of clemency was for the public image (Fig. 5). The scene allowed for the combination of personal sentiment towards sincerity and misery of a young woman with the political aspect of forgiveness offered to a former enemy and traitor who can be converted into ally. This episode was supplemented by other, similar cases of pardoned traitors or rebels, telling the same story in numerous variants: Mademoiselle SaintSimon, who successfully intervened in favour of her father in Spain, the family Moltrecht in Saxony, an Arab family in Egypt, while analogous episodes showed benefactory acts towards nations. 57 All these scenes, apart from just building up the public image of the Emperor in France, served also as arguments against the increasingly vilifying satire and caricature, produced first and foremost in Britain, presenting Napoleon as the “Corsican ogre”, new Cromwell 55

Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène (1968), p. 305-306. FOUCART (2004), p. 26. 57 An exhaustive compilation of related topics and ways of their iconographic execution is presented in the catalogue of the exhibition held in the Bibliothèque Marmottan, Boulogne-Billancourt, in 2004: FOUCART. 56

358

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

Fig. 5. Napoléon et la princesse de Hatzfeld. Anonymous print, 19th century (Musée Carnavalet). https://www.parismuseescollections.paris.fr/fr/musee-carnavalet/ oeuvres/napoleon-et-la-princesse-de-hatzfeld

etc. Obviously, the same strategy was employed by Augustus in the creation of his public image, especially in the Res Gestae and Autobiography: “His enemies depicted him as cruel and savage, he emphasized his clementia”. 58 In actual politics the acts of clemency are juxtaposed with acts of retaliation, or ones that can be easily interpreted as such. The coup d’État of 1799 resulted in the reconciliation with the majority of émigrés from the revolutionary period, but saw the exile of radical Jacobins, who at the moment posed more serious threat to the fragile internal peace. The accusation and conviction of the duke d’Enghien in connection with the royalist plots in 1804, whatever its actual origin, 59 as well as the (not numerous) executions of conspirators from both radical sides of the political scene, were eagerly picked up by the enemies of the new regime, therefore a proper response was necessary, and the episodes listed above performed this function successfully. YAVETZ (1990), p. 3. For detailed analysis of the case and a collection of related documents see SCHUMANN (1984), esp. p. 57-73. 58 59

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

359

The topic of clemency, its value for the public image, as well as its exploitation, is aptly epitomized by an apparently Bonapartist caricature described in the Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène on 11 February 1816, which showed the Madame Hatzfeld scene captioned as “Acte tyrannique d’un usurpateur”, contrasted with the scene of Louis XVIII pushing away a pleading woman, while the execution of her husband is already on its way, captioned “Acte paternel de la légitimité”. 60 Interestingly, Napoleon himself left us an interesting testimony to his opinions on clemency, in a work that of all his writings is to the least extent propagandistic: the commentary to Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum. In the notes on the episode of Caesar executing the whole senate of the Veneti as retribution for a revolt against the Romans, we read the following remarks: On ne peut que détester la conduite que tint César contre le sénat de Vannes. Ces peuples ne s’étaient point révoltés ; ils avaient fourni des ôtages, avaient promis de vivre tranquilles ; mais ils étaient en possession de toute leur liberté et de tous leurs droits. Ils avaient donné lieu à César de leur faire la guerre, sans doute, mais non de violer le droit des gens à leur égard et d’abuser de la victoire d’une manière aussi atroce. Cette conduite n’était pas juste ; elle était encore moins politique. Ces moyens ne remplissent jamais leur but ; ils exaspèrent et révoltent les nations. La punition de quelques chefs est tout ce que la justice et la politique permettent ; c’est une règle importante de bien traiter les prisonniers. 61

Again, the assessment of unjustified cruelty, made from a humane point of view, is combined with pragmatic political judgement, and the remark on the “abuse of victory” echoes the topics employed at the beginning of Bonaparte’s rule: victory’s role is to herald peace, reconciliation and welfare. This passage is concluded by the remark that in 1803, at the rupture of the treaty of Amiens, the British acted in the same way as Caesar in the commented episode, a clear 60 Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène (1968), p. 415. The second scene is described as showing “Madame de Labédoyère” (wife of Charles Angélique François Huchet, comte de La Bédoyère, one of the former imperial officers executed in 1815 by the second Restoration), but the scene resembles a more prominent, and exploited by Napoleonic legend, case of Marshal Ney and his wife imploring in vain for audience with Louis XVIII, until she was informed by a courtier that the audience would not be granted, since her plea was no longer valid (“l’audience ne pouvait lui être accordée, parce qu’elle était maintenant sans objet”), as her husband had already been executed (FOUQUIER [1815], p. 32). A similar propagandistic war of images as the one described above took place during Napoleon’s reign, and concerned the Jaffa episode with the plague-stricken soldiers: the British propaganda maintained that Bonaparte ordered the poisoning of the sick, while the French responded with the image of the general visiting fearlessly the hospital, and touching their wounds, as in the famous painting of Antoine-Jean Gros, evoking the medieval concept of les rois thaumaturges (see FRIEDLAENDER [1941/1942], p. 139-141). 61 Précis de guerres de César par Napoléon, écrit par M. Marchand, à l’île de Sainte-Hélène, sous la dictée de l’Empereur, Paris, 1836, p. 52-53. The episode is related in CAES., BGall. 3.16.

360

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

indication not only of the opinion about Britain’s politics, but also of the classicizing mind frame, which despite all declarations and conscious changes of public image, persists in treating antiquity as the obvious point of comparison. 6. Art and Image “Devenu empereur, [Napoléon] comprit, comme Auguste, le pouvoir des images et essaya de les contrôler” 62 – this modern comparison to Augustus should be augmented. Napoleon constructed the major part of the public representation of his empire through the images and forms taken from classical antiquity, spiced with Egyptian motifs and elements. The latter, however, were also filtered to a major extent through the Graeco-Roman lens, partly due to the ways of transmission, partly to the aforementioned political analogies, and the role of the conquest of Egypt in the early Napoleonic myth. The decorative style, and the main traits of imperial representation had not changed even in the time when Napoleon would emphasize the French face of his public persona and rule, rejecting the ancient comparisons and emulation of the heroes of the past. Therefore also the imagery of the Emperor himself bears a strong imprint of classical tradition, especially in the media which by the standards of the period demanded classicizing traits, i.e. sculpture and medallic art. The most widespread official image of the French ruler, present on coins, medals and in omnipresent sculpted busts, owes much to the portraiture of Augustus, as has already been signalled. The change between the youthful portraits from before 18 Brumaire and the evolution of the official imagery between the Consulate and the Empire seems to echo the metamorphoses of Augustus: As soon as he was securely holding the reins of government, he undertook to change his public image. No longer was a young Octavian represented on coins […] but a new idealized image of a great man and a great warrior emerged. This was not intended to portray the real physical appearance of Augustus […] but an Augustus whose physique embodied a new political ideal. 63

Napoleon portraits in the classicizing style are similarly idealized, serene and grave, and very often resemble the physiognomy and projected persona of Augustus rather than Caesar, even though in paintings the physical changes are quite realistically represented. The similarity of the medallic profile (Fig. 6) to the idealized portraits of Augustus as for example the Blacas Cameo (Fig. 7), 64 is striking, which echoes Jacques-Louis David’s anecdotic praise of young Bonaparte’s features as the ideal classical face, presented to his students: “Oh ! mes amis quelle belle tête 62 63 64

GALLO (2004), p. 328. YAVETZ (1990), p. 7. British Museum, Gem 3577.

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

Fig. 6. Medal commemorating the introduction of the vaccine. On the obverse, portrait of Napoleon designed by Bertrand Andrieu. Numismatica Varesi, Auction 64, lot 151 (29.04.2004).

Fig. 7. Blacas Cameo (British Museum). © Trustees of the British Museum

361

362

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

il a ! C’est pur, c’est grand, c’est beau comme l’antique !” This well-known quote is usually recalled without it context, which is quite interesting: in the conclusion of the anecdote David criticizes his contemporary artists: “Ces maladroits de graveurs italiens et français n’ont pas seulement eu l’esprit de faire une tête passable avec un profil qui donne une médaille ou un camée tout faits”. 65 The episode belongs to the period between the first Italian campaign (1796/97) of Bonaparte and his Egyptian expedition (1798/99), and the idea of David making the portrait of the victorious, and enormously popular young general, is explained as follows: “Comme, malgré les efforts des artistes italiens et français, il n’y avait encore ni une médaille ni une gravure qui rappelassent fidèlement les traits du héros pacificateur, David lui proposa de venir poser dans son atelier, s’offrant à reproduire cette image que tout le monde désirait connaitre et posséder”. 66 The profile chosen later by Denon for the series of medals was not designed by David, but by Bertrand Andrieu, but the general idea seems the same: the head is reminiscent of the classical ideal, the deeds deserve a classical representation, both combine into the neo-classical ideal of external and internal beauty. The resemblance to Augustus was also noted by the contemporary German composer and writer, Johann Friedrich Reichardt, observed with ambivalence in the thirteenth of his literary “familiar letters from Paris”, dated to 17 December 1802: Bei meiner heutigen Morgenandacht in der Gallerie der Antiken hab’ ich die nicht bedeutungslose Entdeckung gemacht, daß die kolossale Statue des Augustus einen ganz auffallend ähnlichen Zug mit Bonaparte hat. Es ist das feine sardonische Lächeln, das bei August eben so stehend und bleibend gewesen sein muß, als man es immer auf den Lippen Bonaparte’s sieht; sonst hätte der römische Künstler es wohl nicht seinem Kaiserkopfe gegeben. […] Der übrige Theil des Gesichts ist zwar von dem des neuen Augustus verschieden, aber doch gar nicht widersprechend. 67

The most Augustan case of Napoleon’s portraiture, however, especially in the context of the traits and virtues discussed before, is the aforementioned colossal statue of Mars Pacificator by Antonio Canova (Fig. 8). Apart from the medallic production it is also the most important classicist enterprise within Napoleon’s official public image. The model for the face of Mars was executed during Canova’s first visit in Paris in 1803, but the statue’s idea must have originated earlier, because it reflects the unachieved, though documented monument for Milan, commissioned in March 1801 by the president of the provisional government of the Cisalpine Republic, count Giovan Baptista Sommariva. 68 According to the letter 65 66 67 68

Quoted by DELÉCLUZE (1855), p. 203. DELÉCLUZE (1855), p. 200. REICHARDT (1804), p. 370-371. BOYER (1940), p. 3.

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

363

Fig. 8. Antonio Canova, Napoleon as Mars the Peacemaker (print). Author’s collection.

of 8 December 1801, from the French ambassador in Papal Rome, François Cacault, to the French minister of the foreign affairs, Talleyrand, the former talked to Canova about the project and they agreed on the concept of the disarmed god of war, purveyor of peace. Cacault is explicit that the idea was the sculptor’s: “On a parlé de l’idée de Canova de le représenter sous la figure de Mars, désarmé et pacificateur”. 69 On the occasion of the 1802/03 commission Canova himself proposed the same motif and it was accepted. It appears, too, 69

Correspondance des directeurs de l’Académie de France à Rome avec les surintendants des bâtiments publiée d’après les manuscrits des Archives Nationales par MM. Anatole de Montaiglon et Jules Guiffrey sous le patronage de la Direction des Beaux-Arts, vol. XVII (1797-1804), p. 337, no 9894.

364

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

that Napoleon gave the artist free hand in designing the details of the figure; they would discuss them in detail seven years later, during Canova’s second visit in Paris in 1810. 70 That the idea of representing the First Consul as the god of war who lays down his arms and brings peace was popular at the time of the statue’s commission, finds testimony in the earliest biography of Canova, whose attitude towards Bonapartist commissions has some time ago been presented as subversive; 71 in the opinion of the present author, however, without definitive or even convincing evidence. According to the anonymous Abozzo della biografia [di Antonio Canova] the artist commented his iconographic design as follows: “Del resto tutti han bisogno e desiderio della pace, tutti pregano il Cielo per la di lei conservazione poiché da lei solo dipende il bene dell’umanità”. 72 It took the sculptor until 1806 to execute the statue in marble, but it had to wait until 1811 to be delivered to Paris. It was meanwhile exhibited in Rome, where it gained high praise, and popular engravings began to circulate widely in Europe, including France. Nonetheless, the statue never came to be exhibited publicly in Paris, but the dispute over the actual reasons of this decision is too long and complicated to be analysed here in detail. 73 Its eventual fate is, moreover, hardly of concern to us here, unlike the circumstances of its conception: in the time when the treaties of Lunéville and Amiens were still in place, the idea of the divine warrior who brought peace to Europe had its obvious appeal. In 1811 the Empire was still at the top of its glory; the treaty of Schönbrunn (1809) guaranteed peace with Austria, barely a month before Napoleon 70

Documented by Canova himself in Conversazione tra Antonio Canova e Napoleone 1810, preserved in three manuscripts, published in HONOUR (1994), p. 333-371. 71 In particular JOHNS (1998), and earlier papers by the same author on particular issues. 72 Abozzo della biografia f. 32v. Full text published with ample commentary on the possible authorship and significance for Canova’s biography and opinions in HONOUR (1994), p. 275-332. 73 The present author tends to support the notion that much as the reasons for the rejection are complex, the change in the official image of Napoleon was a major factor: the statue arrived in Paris in 1811, i.e. almost ten years after its commission. By that time the dominating official image was the Napoleon in his study by Jacques-Louis David (1812), presenting Napoleon as the modern statesman rather than a superhuman and semi-divine figure. The assumption that it had been nudity that discouraged Napoleon from showing the statue to the public can hardly be sustained in the light of Canova’s own account of his conversations with the Emperor in 1810 and the circulation of the images before the statue’s arrival in Paris. This problem deserves a detailed study based on thorough analysis of the sources, which the present author intends to undertake, and can only be signalled here. The academic discussion around Paul Zanker’s notion of Augustus’ rejection of nudity in 27 BCE, in the wake of the moral revival project for Rome (summarized in STEVENSON [1998], p. 45-47), calls for attention as another ready analogy to the situation in Napoleonic France, but modern scholarship proposes perspectives on ancient art unknown to the 18th/19th century artists and patrons, therefore must not be treated as evidence for the case.

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

365

Fig. 9. Augustan coin depicting on the reverse Victory standing on a globe (RIC I2 255). Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 94, lot 40 (06.10.2016).

saw Canova’s work the heir to the French imperial throne had been born, and the Emperor himself was busy with his civil projects whose extent was enormous. When we take into account the rejection of direct emulation of the heroes of the past, and the emphasis given to the individual achievements, it is hardly surprising that Napoleon at this time preferred the modern (and modest) costume of the statesman and lawgiver, epitomized by David’s Napoleon in his study at the Tuileries, as the main element of the public image. Canova’s project shows the First Consul in the heroic attitude – and also in ideal classical nudity perceived in the period as heroic 74 – as the athletic god in his prime, standing in a relaxed pose, supporting the winged Victory on a globe in his extended right hand, while the left hand holds a long spear-like sceptre, and the sword rests at the god/hero’s feet. The arrangement of the right hand – as if Mars were sending the goddess to the world to announce peace – is reminiscent of a similar gesture known from the seated portrait of Augustus with the globus and Victory in his right hand, 75 based in turn on the Capitoline Jupiter/ Olympian Zeus; analogical Victory standing on a globe, almost identical in her pose to Canova’s, is also present on the post-Actium coins of Augustus (Fig. 9). 76 74

This view has been contended in 20th century scholarship, and for ancient art the term “ideal nudity”, not unknown to J. J. Winckelmann was proposed instead (see an overview of the dispute in HALLETT [2005], p. 5-19). 75 St. Petersburg, The State Hermitage, inv. GR 4191. 76 RIC I2, 254-255. For the discussion on dating, identification and variants of Victoria on this and related issues, see GURVAL (1998), p. 61-63. For the use of the globe in Napoleon’s iconography in general, its later metamorphoses in Late Antiquity and Byzantine symbolism (discussed e.g. in DÉER [1961], p. 53-85 and p. 291-318) could be

366

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

Noteworthily, Napoleon would be represented in a similar seated pose as Jupiter in the painted apotheosis by Andrea Appiani, executed in 1807 for the Palazzo Reale in Milan (now in Villa Carlotta, Tremezzo), with the difference that his hand rests on the globe (devoid of the Victory figure, but resembling the orb finials of the throne armrests in Ingres’ portrait of Napoleon in coronation robes), instead of holding it. This image corresponded perfectly with the notion of victory and peace, so popular, as we have seen, in the period of its commission. In 1810 Canova visited Paris for the second time, in connection with another imperial consignment that by all appearances should have complimented the Mars Pacificator: the statue representing the new empress, Marie-Louise Habsburg, as the goddess Concordia. This design’s origin is ideologically quite clear and obvious: the marriage with the archduchess had been perceived by the enemies as humiliation of Austria after Wagram and the subsequent occupation of Vienna in 1809, but from the point of view of Napoleon’s plans and propaganda it was supposed to guarantee his further legitimation among the European dynasties as well as provide an heir to the imperial throne, but also and above all – assure peace between the two contending powers. 77 Therefore the choice of Concordia as the symbolic figure for Marie-Louise seems logical and ingenious in its simplicity. Canova’s statue shows the empress as a seated maternal figure, which coincides (or consciously corresponds) with the fact that at the time of Canova’s visit in France the imperial couple was expecting the birth of the heir, and the fact had been announced not long before the arrival of the sculptor. This event was to be exploited later in the same line of propaganda: one of the medals struck on the occasion of the birth of Napoleon François Charles shows Marie-Louise in a pose reminiscent of the famous statue of Eirene with Ploutos by Kephisodotos (Fig. 10), 78 and numerous poems written to celebrate the newborn heir to the throne clearly and directly allude to the symbolism of the of consequence, but in the case of Canova’s statue, executed in purely neoclassical style, the classical ancient models seem sufficient. 77 ROWELL (2012), p. 149, elaborates on the very interesting issue of the imagery of Roman triumph in the context of Napoleonic celebrations, including the “triumphal” entry of the newly married imperial couple to Paris in 1810, but much the Roman face of such instances is generic rather than particularly Augustan, hence it can only merit a mention here. 78 The image on the medal is actually intermediated by the statue of Messalina with little Britannicus, in the collection of the Louvre. This fact provides evidence against several arguments of Ch. M. S. Johns, in particular the subversive theory concerning the seated statue of Madame Mère, modelled upon the so called Agrippina (Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 6029): Johns bases his theory on the fact that the subject of the model had negative connotations for the contemporary audience (JOHNS [1997], p. 43-57; cf. GALLO [2004], p. 327). It is hard to think of a more negative model of wife and mother than Messalina, and yet the statue had been placed on the officially struck medal as model for the figure of the empress (MILLIN 270).

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

367

Fig. 10. Medal commemorating the birth of the king of Rome. Nomisma S.p.a, E-Auction 14, lot 966 (13.02.2020).

Golden Age in general, and to the imagery of 4th Eclogue in particular. 79 The latter has even been interpreted as the prophecy of the coming of Napoleon’s son, styled at birth as the King of Rome (in connexion to both his descent from the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire, and the recent, 1808/09, annexation of the Papal States and the proclamation of Rome the second capital of the French Empire), like in the note to the poem by Alphonse [Charles] Huillard-Bréholles: Il semble que Virgile, pressentant qu’il naîtroit en France un Roi de Rome, ait voulu célébrer le règne du futur souverain de sa patrie ; son églogue est une allusion continuelle aux événements qui se développent sous nos yeux. 80 79

Numerous works were submitted to the poetic competition announced right after the birth of the King of Rome (JULLIEN [1844], p. 125-137; GRAND-CARTERET [1901], p. 36-47; the whole collection was published in a two volume and appendix edition Hommages poétiques à Leurs Majestés impériales et royales sur la naissance de S.M. le roi de Rome, recueillis et publiés par J. J. Lucet et Eckard, Paris, 1811). They were written by both promising poets (e.g. the debutant Casimir Delavigne) and amateurs, abound in classical allusions and motifs, in accordance to the style of the period. The closest to Virgil’s imagery are the following: WAHARTE (1811), p. 8 (the poem is preceded by a quotation from the 4th Eclogue): “La Justice et la Paix, ses compagnes fidèles, | Sur son trône éclatant siègeront avec lui : | La Victoire viendra l’y couvrir de ses ailes ; | L’honneur sera sa garde, et la loi son appui”; LASERVE (1811), p. 75: “Si la Parque cruelle, oubliant ses victimes, | À mon front jeune encor permettait de vieillir, | Je dirais tes vertus sublimes | Dont l’État va s’enorguellir. | Sous le fardeau des ans, fidèle à ma promesse, | […] je te chanterais sur ma lyre sacrée, | Ramenant le siècle d’ASTRÉE | Et les beaux jours de l’âge d’or.” According to SEIBT (2009), p. 168, even Goethe contributed to the legend of the King of Rome as the messianic figure of golden age. 80 HUILLARD (1811), p. 9. The author was the father of the renowned historian, [Jean Marie Louis] Alphonse Huillard-Bréholles (1817-1871).

368

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

The development of the concept of peace between the Consulate and the apogee of the Empire seems to evolve in the first place from the notion of victory to the notion of concord as purveyor of peace, which can be explained by the change of political situation: while up to 1802 the fast victories in Italy could be regarded as events that might put definitive end to the wars of the Republic, in 1810, after years of constant fighting, the concept of unity and reconciliation was definitely more attractive: thus in imagery the goddess Concordia (Augusta?) replaced the belligerent, even if disarmed Mars. 7. Napoleon and Augustus Despite all of the eminence of Augustan motifs in the visual and textual propaganda of the Consulate and Empire, Augustus is almost entirely absent from Napoleon’s own writings and memories. There is no mention of him in Las Cases’ Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène, even though many ancient personages are discussed; the preserved commentaries from the readings of the influential in its time ancient history by Charles Rollin 81 do not include any remarks on the Roman volume. A brief mention is found in the juvenile Discours sur la question proposée par l’Académie de Lyon (1791), 82 and noteworthily Augustus serves there as the example of clemency: “Qu’il soit clément avec Auguste” says the young lieutenant Bonaparte, listing the qualities of a good and happy man in response to the question proposed by the academy: “Quelles vérités et quels sentiments importe-t-il le plus d’inculquer aux hommes pour leur bonheur ?” The other direct remark, this time directly connected with Napoleon’s ideas concerning his own public image, is found in the letter dictated to the duc de Frioul (Michel Duroc) in Schönbrunn on 3 Oct. 1809, in which Napoleon rejected the inscriptions for the triumphal arch, proposed by the Institut de France. The two first ones were supposed to read as follows: 1o À Napoléon, empereur et roi, toujours victorieux, et à sa grande armée, qui, sous ses ordres dans la campagne de 1805, vanquit à Ulm, prit Vienne, et détruisit à Austerlitz les forces combinées de l’ennemi. 2o Imp. Napoleo Aug. Germanicus, exercitibus hostium deletis, Vindobona in deditionem accepta, terris a Rheno ad Marum trimestri spatio subactis, uictoriae monumentum dicauit anno 1809. 83

Napoleon rejected the proposal with the following argumentation: L’Institut propose de donner à l’Empereur le titre d’Auguste et de Germanicus. Auguste n’a eu que la bataille d’Actium. Germanicus a pu intéresser les Romains Published in BONAPARTE, Œuvres I, p. 91-137. Text re-established from versions of uncertain authorship (possibly Louis Bonaparte); published in BONAPARTE, Œuvres, II, p. 213. 83 DE BAUSSET (1826), p. 142. 81 82

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

369

par ses malheurs, mais il n’a illustré sa vie que par des souvenirs très-médiocres. On ne voit rien dans le souvenir des empereurs romains que l’on puisse envier. Un des plus grands soins de l’Institut et des hommes de lettres doit être de s’attacher à mettre une grande différence entre eux et les faits de notre histoire. Quel horrible souvenir pour les générations que celui de Tibère, Caligula, Néron, Domitien et de tous ces princes qui régnèrent sans lois légitimes, sans transmission d’hérédité, et, par des raisons inutiles à définir, commirent tant de crimes et firent peser tant de maux sur Rome ! Le seul homme, et il n’était pas empereur, qui s’illustra par caractère et par tant d’illustres actions, c’est César. S’il était un titre que l’Empereur pût désirer, ce serait celui de César. Mais tant de petits princes ont tellement déshonoré ce titre (si cela était possible), que cela ne se rapproche plus de la mémoire du grand César, mais de celle de ce tas de princes allemands aussi faibles qu’ignorants et dont aucun n’a laissé de souvenirs parmi les hommes. Le titre de l’Empereur est celui d’Empereur des Français. Il ne veut donc aucune assimilation, ni le titre d’Auguste, ni celui de Germanicus, ni même celui de César”. 84

It would seem that even though in the opening sentences of this note “Auguste” relates to Octavian, the last sentence uses the name in a broader and generic meaning, as the title of Roman emperors, closer to the commonplace French adjective “auguste” than to the actual figure of Octavian Augustus. Similarly, when Valerie Huet writes her paper on “Napoleon as the new Augustus”, 85 she does not primarily mean comparison with the particular personage, but general “Roman imperial” face of first of all the civil enterprises under the French Empire. Probably from the present point of view the most interesting remark that Napoleon made on Augustus comes from a discussion on general education, following the visit of the count Louis Marie de Narbonne-Lara, Napoleon’s aide-de-camp, to the École normale in 1812, and concerns again Corneille: “Quel chef-d’œuvre que Cinna ! comme cela est construit ! comme il est évident qu’Octave, malgré les taches de sang du Triumvirat, est nécessaire à l’Empire, et l’Empire à Rome ! La première fois que j’entendis ce langage, je fus comme illuminé, et j’aperçus clairement dans la politique et dans la poésie des horizons que je n’avais pas encore soupçonnés, mais que je reconnus faits pour moi.” 86 This passage illustrates what was suggested at the beginning of this paper: that Augustus had been the perfect model for Napoleon’s rise to power and empire, and that Napoleon must have been aware of this. The pronouncement shows again how art, especially theatre, and politics come together 84 Correspondance générale XIX/15894 (“Note sur des inscriptions proposées pour l’Arc de triomphe”), also quoted in DE BAUSSET (1826), p. 141, under the date of 10 Oct. 1809. This note is omitted in the recent critical edition of Napoleon’s correspondence, BONAPARTE (2013). 85 See HUET (1999). 86 Quoted in VILLEMAIN (1855), p. 157. HEALEY (1959), p. 90, n. 9, has no doubts that despite its anecdotic character, this account is reliable: “There is little in this particular passage which is unlikely to have been said by Napoleon.”

370

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

for him, which in turn makes it another piece of commentary to the interpretation of the Emperor’s reception of Corneille, discussed before. Interestingly, in the same conversation with de Narbonne, Napoleon remarked also on his own legacy, stating among others that “Ma plus grande victoire, ce fut mon gouvernement civil”, 87 which brings us back to the Augustan face of Napoleonic Empire. Nonetheless, these few instances of documented remarks on the first Roman emperor, who appears to be a natural role-model for Napoleon, actually make up for an almost absolute silence about this particular historical person, which is perplexing, principally in the view of the indubitable presence of Augustan motifs in propaganda, myth and image. Augustus seems to permeate all domains of Napoleon’s representation, let alone some of the political actions of Bonaparte, and yet he is the great absentee from his own reflections. Equally perplexing is a painting commissioned from Jean-Baptiste Wicar, one of the chief portraitists of the Bonaparte family, by the former Napoleonic official in the Cisalpine Republic and collector of art, the count Giovan Battista Sommariva. The painting undertakes the subject popular in art since late 18th century, known as “tu Marcellus eris” or “Virgil reading the Aeneid in the presence of Augustus”, and executed earlier by i.a. Jean-Joseph Taillasson (1787), Angelica Kauffman (1788), and Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres (several versions since 1811, original commission from the Napoleonic governor of Rome, Sextius Alexandre François, comte de Miollis), as well as by Wicar himself (1790-93). In the Sommariva version 88 two persons in the scene are represented with the features of contemporaries: Maecenas with the traits of the count himself, and Marcus Agrippa with the traits of Napoleon. The great military commander and author of Octavian’s most prominent victory is most certainly a proper figure for Napoleon, and even more for the young founder of the Cisalpine Republic, whom Sommariva may have wanted to evoke, but this particular Augustan face of the Emperor, executed during his exile, and therefore belonging to the legend, still awaits a more thorough and in-depth study. 8. Conclusion Augustan themes are present in the public image of Napoleon himself, his family and also of his regime, both in classicizing art and in eulogistic poetry, but apart from direct quotations from Augustan poetry, they are usually either intermediated by earlier reception or presented in generalized form. The main motifs are in the first place those adopted from Vergilian imagery of the golden age of Saturnus – they appear on medals glorifying early peace achievements, as well as much later in the texts commemorating the birth of the heir of the throne. These two instances are politically connected with the hopes for lasting European 87 88

VILLEMAIN (1855), p. 151. Two copies: Musée des Beaux Arts, Lille, and Villa Carlotta, Tremezzo.

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

371

Fig. 11. Antoine-Jean Gros, Napoléon sur le champ de bataile d’Eylau, 1808 (Musée du Louvre). https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010066486

peace, both times following quick and decisive victories, in accordance with one of the main topics of this particular propaganda, therefore Augustan motifs serve in both cases first and foremost the glorification of internal and external peace. The Augustan face of Napoleon’s public image is for a brief period of time the face of Octavian – the conqueror of Egypt, but to a much greater extent that of Augustus – reformer of the state, peacemaker, benefactor, statesman, all this according to the persona of the first Roman emperor as propagated by himself. In popular reception this face is dominated by the martial image of the commander, but even in the paintings that are remote from direct or stylistic association with classical antiquity, the image of clemency and generosity is often superimposed over the figure of the warrior. A fine example of such merging of motifs is the painting of Napoleon after the 1807 battle of Eylau by AntoineJean Gros, showing the Emperor on horseback, with his hand extended towards the wounded soldiers of both sides in a gesture of acknowledgement, clemency and blessing (Fig. 11). This powerful image seems to be echoed, filtered by the character’s emotions, in the scene of Prince Andrei’s epiphany on the battlefield of Austerlitz in Tolstoy’s War and Peace. These acts of generosity on the battlefield, however, relate in the first place to another model, that of Alexander the Great, and Napoleon’s gesture in the

372

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

Eylau painting resembles most of all Alexander’s encounter with the wounded Porus in the composition by Charles Le Brun. These two aspects of Napoleon’s rule that are seemingly contradictory but were with great resourcefulness combined into one image, whose both aspects relate to the virtues discussed above, are perfectly epitomized by the last line of the sonnet written in 1807 by an enthusiastic Italian poet, editor and classical philologist, Vincenzo Jacobacci: “Nuovo Alessandro in guerra, in pace Augusto.” 89 In both cases, however, especially having in mind Napoleon’s own ideas concerning the public representation, we should probably adapt what had been said about his yet another great predecessor, who with his own appropriation of the solar myths may appear as one of the intermediaries between the ancient figures and Napoleon’s image, Louis XIV: Napoleon, like the Roi Soleil was not simply a “new Augustus”, but an “Augustan [or Alexandran] figure”. Moreover, his intention was not only to combine the present with the past, or myth with history, 90 as the classicist mind would dictate, but in the romantic spirit emerging in his time turn his own history into myth, employing the ancient models and mirrors as material from which an entirely new figure would be moulded. Bibliography BONAPARTE, ŒUVRES = J. TULARD (éd.), Napoléon Bonaparte, Œuvres littéraires et écrits militaires, I-III, Paris, 2001. BONAPARTE, Correspondance générale publiée par la Fondation Napoléon. Tome neuvième: Wagram, Février 1809 - Février 1810, Paris, 2013. CANOVA, SCRITTI = H. HONOUR (éd.), Edizione nazionale delle opere di Antonio Canova. Scritti I, Rome, 1994. CORRESPONDANCE GÉNÉRALE = Correspondance de Napoléon Ier publiée par ordre de l’Empereur Napoléon III, I-XXXII, Paris, 1858-1869. MÉMORIAL DE SAINTE-HÉLÈNE = E. DE LAS CASES, Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène, préface de J. TULARD, présentation et notes de J. SCHMIDT, Paris, 1968. MILLIN = MILLIN A. L., Histoire métallique de Napoléon  ; ou, le Recueil des médailles et des monnaies, qui ont été frappées depuis la première campagne de l’armée d’Italie jusqu’à son abdication en 1815, London, 1819. REICHARDT, BRIEFE AUS PARIS = REICHARDT J. F., Vertraute Briefe aus Paris geschrieben in den Jahren 1802 und 1803, I-II, Hamburg, 1804. RÉMUSAT, MÉMOIRES = [GRAVIER DE VERGENNES C. E. J., COMTESSE DE RÉMUSAT], Mémoires de Madame de Rémusat 1802-1808, publiés par son petit fils Paul de Rémusat, senateur de la Haute-Garonne, I-III, Paris, 1880. RIC I2 = SUTHERLAND C. H. V., Roman Imperial Coins. Volume 1: Augustus to Vitellius (31 BC–69 AD), revised edition, London, 1984. TALLEYRAND, MÉMOIRES = DE TALLEYRAND Ch.-M., Mémoires complets et authentiques de Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, Prince de Bénévent. Texte conforme au manuscrit 89 90

JACOBACCI (1807). APOSTOLIDÈS (1981), p. 26.

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

373

original, contenant les notes de Monsieur Adolphe Fourier de Bacourt légataire des manuscrits de l’Auteur, I-V, Paris, 1967. APOSTOLIDÈS, J.-M. (1981), Le roi-machine. Spectacle et politique au temps de Louis XIV, Paris. AUCHINCLOSS, L. (1996), La Gloire. The Roman Empire of Corneille and Racine, Columbia SC. BAEHR, P. / RICHTER, M. (2004), Dictatorship in History and Theory. Bonapartism, Caesarism, and Totalitarianism, Cambridge. BAEHR, P. (2011), Caesarism, Charisma and Fate: Historical Sources and Modern Resonances in the Work of Max Weber, New Brunswick / London. DE BAUSSET, L. F. J. (1826), Mémoires anecdotiques sur l’intérieur du palais et sur quelques événemens de l’Empire depuis 1805 jusqu’au 1er mai 1814  : pour servir à l’histoire de Napoléon, Vol. 4, Bruxelles. BLUCHE, F. (1981), Le bonapartisme, Paris. BONNET, J.-C. (ed.) (2004), L’Empire des Muses. Napoléon, les Arts et les Lettres, Paris. BOYER, F. (1940), L’histoire du «  Napoléon Colossal  » de Canova, offprint of the unpublished issue of Revue des Études Napoléoniennes. BRIANT, P. (2012), Alexandre des Lumières. Fragments d’histoire européenne, Paris. CASALI, D. / CHANTERANNE, D. (2009), Napoléon par les peintres, Paris. CASANOVA, A. (2008), Napoléon et la pensée de son temps  : une histoire intellectuelle singulière, Paris / Ajaccio. CHAILLOU, D. (2003), La naissance du roi de Rome et sa représentation à l’Académie impériale de musique, in Histoire, économie et société 22, 2, p. 207-215. DE CHAMBURE, A. (1824), Napoléon et ses contemporains, suite de gravures représentant des traits d’héroïsme, de clémence, de générosité, de popularité, avec texte, publiée par Auguste de Chambure, Paris. CHUQUET, A. (1898), La jeunesse de Napoléon. Brienne, Paris. DÉER, J. (1961), Der Globus des spatrömischen u. des byzantinischen Kaisers. Symbol oder Insigne?, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift LIV, p. 70-124, pl. X-XXI. DELÉCLUZE, E.-J. (1855), Louis David  : son école et son temps. Souvenirs, Paris. DOMAIRON, L. (1807), Principes généraux des Belles-Lettres, I-II, Paris. DOMINE, J.-F. (2002), Le chant du départ de Marie-Joseph Chénier et Étienne Méhul, in Annales historiques de la Révolution Française 329, p. 89-100. ENGELS, D. (2008), „Bel insecte à l’aile dorée, veux-tu rester mon compagnon?“ Ursprung und Wandel der Bienensymbolik bei Napoleon I. und Napoleon III., in D. ENGELS / C. NICOLAYE (eds.), Ille operum custos: kulturgeschichtliche Beiträge zur antiken Bienensymbolik und ihrer Rezeption, Hildesheim, p. 262-287. ENGELS, D. (2014a), Cesarismo, antichità e retorica identitaria, in J. BASSI / G. CANÈ (eds.), Sulle spalle degli antichi. Eredità classica e costruzione delle identità nazionali nel Novecento, Milano, p. 183-188. ENGELS, D. (2014b), Cesarismo, antichità e archeologia militante, in J. BASSI / G. CANÈ (eds.), Sulle spalle degli antichi. Eredità classica e costruzione delle identità nazionali nel Novecento, Milano, p. 189-194. ENGELS, D. (2014c), Cesarismo, antichità e imperialismo, in J. BASSI / G. CANÈ (eds.), Sulle spalle degli antichi. Eredità classica e costruzione delle identità nazionali nel Novecento, Milano, p. 195-200. ETTLINGER, L. D. (1967), Jacques Louis David and Roman Virtue, in Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 115/5126, p. 105-123.

374

AGNIESZKA FULIŃSKA

FOUCART, B. (2004), Les clémences de Napoléon et leurs images  : art et politique, in Les clémences de Napoléon. L’image au service du mythe, Bibliothèque Marmottan exhibition catalogue, Paris, p. 23-29. [FOUCHÉ, J.] (1824), Mémoires de Joseph Fouché, duc d’Otrante, ministre de la police générale, Paris. FOUQUIER, A. (1815), Causes célèbres de tous les peuples, VII, Paris. FRIEDLAENDER, W. (1941/1942), Napoleon as “Roi Thaumaturge”, in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 4, 3-4, p. 139-141. FULIŃSKA, A. (2014), Some Remarks Concerning Napoleon’s Egyptian Campaign Medals, in M. JUCHA / J. DĘBOWSKA-LUDWIN / P. KOŁODZIEJCZYK (eds.), Aegyptus est imago caeli. Studies presented to Krzysztof M. Ciałowicz on his 60 th Birthday, Kraków, p. 329-337. GALLO, D. (2004), Pouvoirs de l’antique, in J.-C. BONNET (ed.), L’empire des Muses. Napoléon, les arts et les lettres, Paris, p. 317-329. GRAND-CARTERET, J. (1901), L’Aiglon en images et dans la fiction poétique et dramatique, Paris. GURVAL, R. A. (1998), Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War, Ann Arbor. HALLETT, Ch. H. (2005), The Roman Nude. Heroic Portrait Statuary 200 BC-AD 300, Oxford. HAZAREESINGH, S. (2004), The Legend of Napoleon, London. HEALEY, F. G. (1959), The Literary Culture of Napoleon, Geneva / Paris. HEROLD, J. C. (2002), The Age of Napoleon, Boston / New York. HONOUR, H. (ed.) (1994), Edizione nazionale delle opere di Antonio Canova. Scritti I, Rome. HUET, V. (1999), Napoleon I: A New Augustus?, in C. EDWARDS (ed.), Roman Presences. Receptions of Rome in European Culture, 1789-1945, Cambridge, p. 53-69. HUILLARD-BRÉHOLLES, A. (1811), Ode sur la naissance de Sa Majesté le roi de Rome, Paris. JACOBACCI, V. (1807), A Napoleone il Grande pel suo arrivo in Milano nel novembre del 1807, printed pamphlet, Parma, Museo Glauco Lombardi, inv. 1798. JOHNS, Ch. M. S. (1997), Subversion through Historical Association: Canova’s Madame Mère and the Politics of Napoleonic Portraiture, in Word & Image: A Journal of Verbal/Visual Enquiry 13, 1, p. 43-57. JOHNS, Ch. M. S. (1998), Antonio Canova and the Politics of Patronage in Revolutionary and Napoleonic Europe, Berkeley / Los Angeles. JOURDAN, A. (1998), Napoléon  : héros, imperator, mécène, Paris. JULLIEN, B. (1844), Histoire de la poésie française à l’époque impériale, ou Exposé par ordre de genres de ce que les poètes français ont produit de plus remarquable depuis la fin du XVIIIe siècle jusqu’aux premières années de la Restauration, Paris. LANGLOIS, C. (1972), Le Plébiscite de l’An VIII, ou le coup d’État du 18 pluviôse an VIII, in Annales historiques de la Révolution française 207, p. 43-65 ; 208, p. 231-246 ; 209, p. 391-415. LANGLOIS, C. (1988), Napoléon Bonaparte plébiscité  ?, in L. HAMON / G. LOBRICHON (eds.), L’élection du chef de l’État en France, de Hugues Capet à nos jours, Paris, p. 81-93. LASERVE, Ch. (1811), Ode, in Hommages poétiques à Leurs Majestés impériales et royales sur la naissance de S.M. le roi de Rome, recueillis et publiés par J. J. Lucet et Eckard, vol. 1, Paris, p. 70-75.

AUGUSTAN MOTIFS IN NAPOLEON’S PUBLIC IMAGE

375

MOMMSEN, T. (1866), The History of Rome, vol. IV, part II. Translated from German by W. P. DICKSON, London. PIGEARD, A. (2014), L’œuvre de paix de Napoléon 1800-1815. 200 réalisations pour reconstruire la France, Paris. REICHARDT, J. F. (1804), Vertraute Briefe aus Paris geschrieben in den Jahren 1802 und 1803, vol. I, Hamburg. ROSENBLUM, R. (1970), Transformations in Late Eighteenth Century Art, Princeton. ROWELL, D. (2012), Paris: The ‘New Rome’ of Napoleon I, London / New Delhi / New York / Sydney. SCHUMANN, M. (1984), Qui a tué le Duc d’Enghien ?, Paris. SEIBT, G. (2009), Il poeta e l’imperatore. Italian translation M. LUMACHI / P. SCOTINI, Rome. STEIN, R. (ed.) (1928), Joseph Görres: Wider Napoleon – für das deutsche Volk, Leipzig. STEVENSON, T. (1998), The ‘Problem’ with Nude Honorific Statuary and Portraits in Late Republican and Augustan Rome, in Greece & Rome, Second Series, 45, 1, p. 45-69. TELESKO, W. (2004), Erlösermythen in Kunst und Politik: zwischen christlicher Tradition und Moderne, Wien. VILLEMAIN, A.-F. (1854-55), Souvenirs contemporains d’histoire et de littérature, I-II, Paris. WAHARTE, J. (1811), Ode sur la naissance de S.M. le roi de Rome par M. J. Waharte, du départment des Ardennes, ex-Directeur des hôpitaux militaires, Paris. WEBER, M. (1968), Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, ed. G. ROTH / C. WITTICH, Berkeley. YAVETZ, Z. (1990), The Res Gestae and Augustus’ Public Image, in F. MILLAR / E. SEGAL (eds.), Caesar Augustus. Seven Aspects, Oxford, p. 1-36. ZANKER, P. (1990), The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Translated from German by A. SHAPIRO, Ann Arbor.

APPROPRIATIONS OF AUGUSTUS IN TOTALITARIAN REGIMES

The Istituto di Studi Romani and the Idea of Rome, from Augustus to the Fascist Era JAN NELIS (Université de Toulouse-Jean Jaurès)

Abstract This paper looks into the role played by the Institute of Roman Studies (Istituto di Studi Romani) during the bimillenary celebration of Roman emperor Augustus in 1937-1938, which was of an explicitly political (c.q. fascist) nature. By means of an analysis of, among other things, the 1938 Convegno Augusteo, we will look into the highly peculiar ‘modern’ and also creative nature of the Institute’s activities, which will be linked to the concept of a fascist, modern and totalitarian ‘political religion’. The latter came with its very own set of myths, including the myth of the third, fascist Rome, of so-called fascist Romanità.

1. Introduction This paper will look into the role played by the Institute of Roman Studies or Istituto di Studi Romani during the bimillenary celebration of Roman emperor Augustus in 1937-1938. 1 This first, and in the Italian case very lavish celebration, was of an explicitly political nature, and it coincided with the apex of modern Italian imperialism, as exemplified by Italian (fascist) colonial conquest in East-Africa, and by the foundation of a short-lived Italian Empire, at the end of the Ventennio fascista – the twenty years during which fascism was in power, from 1922 until 1943. It is this fascist nature and orientation that will be at the heart of the present study, which will focus on the role of the Istituto in the context of the Augustan celebration throughout the 1930s, culminating, as far as the Istituto is concerned, in an ‘Augustan conference’, a Convegno Augusteo organised by founder and director of the Institute Carlo Galassi Paluzzi. Rather than being of any particular value at the level of what was presented and studied, the Convegno will be evoked here in order to introduce a theme which we have touched 1

For a preliminary study on this subject, from which parts of the present paper draw, see NELIS / GHILARDI (2012).

380

JAN NELIS

upon in an earlier paper, 2 i.e. the highly peculiar ‘modern’ and also creative – at the level of the organisation of culture – nature of the Istituto di Studi Romani, which today, in spite of its sensibly reduced role and ambitions, has become a national Institute. We will link these considerations to recent scholarship on fascism and fascist culture – or rather ‘culture at the time of fascism’ –, as well as, above all, to the conception of fascism as a ‘political religion’, fascist, modern and totalitarian. In so doing, the present paper, which is of a more general nature, can serve as a complement to the many excellent case studies contained by the present volume. 2. The Mostra Augustea della Romanità Before anything else, a quick look at the Mostra Augustea della Romanità, the central event during the bimillenary year 1937-1938, as it exemplifies some of the key issues in the fascist use of the myth of Rome or Romanità, 3 and as it also involved none other than Carlo Galassi Paluzzi, 4 the key figure, together with Giulio Quirino Giglioli and a series of other scholars, 5 in the elaboration of the idea of the third, fascist Rome, resurrected on the Italian capital’s “colli fatali”. 6 As has been shown by a reasonably extensive series of studies, 7 the Mostra was a hugely successful propagandistic initiative, the ideal vehicle for the promotion, by the regime and some of its foremost scientists, of the myth of Rome. The exhibition, which today survives, even if only in part, in Rome’s Museo della Civiltà Romana, was dedicated to the history of the Roman Empire, from its origins… to the present-day, fascist version. Special emphasis lay on the Augustan period, whereas at the end of the percorso, in the room dedicated to fascism, spectators also got a clear vision of the ‘Roman’, neo-Augustan, present and future. The intention was as clear as it was unusual, at least for an antiquarian exposition: to captivate the public’s attention, and to showcase the ongoing forcefulness and dynamism of the Roman Empire – including the monarchic and republican periods – and of its millenarian heritage. With this scope in mind, the organisers (director Giglioli, but also Galassi Paluzzi and a score of other antichisti) made use of museological techniques that were as uncommon as they 2 See NELIS (2010). In this context, see also NELIS (2011c), NELIS (2013), and NELIS (2014). 3 On Romanità, see NELIS (2011a). The most up-to-date bibliography on this subject can be found in NELIS (2014). 4 On Galassi Paluzzi, see ROMANELLI / MORRA (1972). 5 To name but a few: Emilio Bodrero, Roberto Paribeni, Corrado Ricci. 6 Mussolini in SUSMEL / SUSMEL (1951-1981), vol. 27, p. 269. 7 The most interesting and comprehensive ones are SCRIBA (1993) and KALLIS (2011).

THE ISTITUTO DI STUDI ROMANI AND THE IDEA OF ROME

381

were innovative: apart from the classic display of archaeological remnants, the exposition also heavily relied on plaster reproductions in order to be able to include historical episodes and objects which for logistic reasons would otherwise have been impossible to treat, whereas scale models replicating, for example, building and engineering techniques used in everyday life, warfare etc., also made up an important part of the Mostra. The intention was clear: to impress visitors, especially the young. The financial means by which the Mostra came to be were quite impressive – even if, as was for example also the case with institutions such as the Istituto, subsidies obtained were often less than expected –, allowing for a grand-scale event, visited by huge crowds coming both from Italy and abroad. In addition to the described contents, and as some scholars have shown, 8 the Mostra is an ideal illustration of the modern character of fascism, and of cultural life during the Ventennio. In fact the exposition was conceived not so much as a collection of objects – which, as said, were in themselves already quite unusual –, as it was a very well thought-through messa in scena of history, using the most modern architectural and sculptural techniques. In so doing, it could hardly contrast more with traditional, rather dusty, archaeological exhibitions. Due to its outlined nature, the Mostra Augustea della Romanità counts as the quintessential example of the fascist interest in Romanità, not at the level of the themes that were treated – Romanità was much more all-encompassing than what the Mostra offered spectators –, but at a more conceptual level: it put past, present and future in a clear, uninterrupted 9 continuum, delivering an explicitly identificatory, nationalist message. All this being said, Romanità, the myth of Rome, is not a fascist invention. Indeed it has been present, with ups and downs, throughout the centuries, ever since the end of the (Western) Roman Empire. 10 What makes the fascist insistence on its Roman heritage so particular is the pervasiveness of this message, its omnipresence throughout the entire cultural field, ranging from purely scientific studies (books, papers, lectures and conferences, exhibitions…) to the arts (painting, sculpture, architecture…) and popular culture (radio, cinema…). 11 It would have been very difficult to escape this message, which was

See for example SCRIBA (1995) and SCRIBA (1996). In the context of fascist Romanità, papal Rome was presented as the ‘second Rome’, following that of the caesars, and preceding contemporary Italian, fascist Rome. This idea was notably developed by the Istituto di Studi Romani. For more information on this ‘catholic Romanità’, see NELIS (2007a), NELIS (2008), NELIS (2012a), ARAMINI (2015a), and ARAMINI (2015b). For the myth of Rome in the context of fascism’s ‘political religion’, see NELIS (2011b). 10 In this context, see GIARDINA / VAUCHEZ (2000). 11 In this context, see GENTILE (2007). 8 9

382

JAN NELIS

consistently developed and propagated for more than twenty years, in so doing becoming an integrative part of fascist, and thus Italian identity, especially in the mindset of those born and raised during the Ventennio. 3. Romanità, Augustus and the Istituto di Studi Romani Whereas for obvious reasons, the Mostra has been very adequately studied from the point of view of the fascist reception of Augustus, in spite of the importance both of the Istituto di Studi Romani and Augustus under fascism, this has not at all been the case with Augustus’s presence in the writings and activities of the Istituto. A quick glance at the Istituto’s publications, combined with somewhat more sustained research in its (luckily well preserved and inventoried) historical archive, suffices to show the frenetical energy with which Carlo Galassi Paluzzi and his colleagues dedicated themselves, already very early on and in spite of Mussolini’s clear preference for Julius Caesar, 12 to the study of various aspects of the life and deeds of the first Roman emperor. Today, our knowledge of the history, orientation and multiple activities of the Istituto (Nazionale) di Studi Romani is quite solid. A quick overview: founded 2 years after the journal Roma (°1923), forerunner of Studi Romani, the Istituto, whose creation and development was the life’s work of Carlo Galassi Paluzzi, had as its main objective the spreading and development of the knowledge of the history and culture of Rome, ancient, pagan, Christian, mediaeval, renaissance… up until the present-day period. It has steadily maintained this focus, albeit with minor alterations and moving towards a more scientific and less public-oriented approach. All of this is illustrated by its manifold activities in Rome, Italy, and also, at some point during the Ventennio, abroad. As already mentioned, the most remarkable feature of the Istituto’s way of functioning, and one which was developed first and foremost by Carlo Galassi Paluzzi, was the efficacy with which it organised a series of initiatives intent at stimulating the knowledge of Rome with both a specialist and a more popular public. In this sense the Istituto had a decidedly modern approach to history and the role of culture in modern society, combining the methods and fruits of science with techniques recently developed at the level of cultural organisation. Thus, and in the ways described above, the ‘reception’ of Rome – and of antiquity in general 13 – that was presented by the Istituto in a sense ‘democratised’ Rome, making it available to the larger public through writings, but also, and above all, through more didactic means such as guided visits, radio broadcasts, etc. In this context, see NELIS (2007b), p. 405-407. The reception of antiquity has today become something of a discipline in itself, as exemplified by the existence of various journals such as the International Journal of the Classical Tradition, Anabases. Traditions et réceptions de l’Antiquité and Classical Receptions Journal. 12 13

THE ISTITUTO DI STUDI ROMANI AND THE IDEA OF ROME

383

Applied to Augustus, this observation receives full confirmation: the materials conserved in the archives show the Institute as a highly ‘tentacular’ institution, 14 which could rely on an ever increasing academic, cultural, political and also clerical network. All started at the beginning of the 1930s, when at the second ‘congress of Roman Studies’ Giglioli, who was to become director of the Mostra Augustea, presented a first draft project in which various initiatives surrounding the bimillenarian celebration were laid out. 15 From this moment on, all went crescendo, until the actual celebratory year, and in close contact with the duce’s office. 16 The Istituto had a hand in almost all initiatives surrounding the bimillenario. Apart from the Convegno Augusteo which we will evoke further on, it was directly responsible for two (series of) events: the organisation of a number of lectures on the Augustan period by both Italian and foreign specialists, and inserted into the Corsi Superiori di Studi Romani programme at the time of the bimillenary year – proceedings were published as the (32) Quaderni Augustei –, and the fifth ‘Congress of Roman Studies’, held in 1938, and focusing on Augustus and the Roman Empire in general (cf. our observations concerning the Mostra Augustea della Romanità). 17 This identification between Augustus and empire 18 was a key element during the bimillenary celebrations, ever since the preliminary, preparatory phase until the immediate aftermath. It was presented as crucial not only for present-day Italy, but for Western society as a whole. At a time when the Italian armies had headed towards the African continent in order to fulfil their ‘civilising mission’, the intention was, indeed, and as Galassi Paluzzi wrote to Giuseppe Bottai, to present an « omaggio […] alla figura e all’opera di Augusto, nonché al contributo recato dall’Impero di Roma allo sviluppo della Civiltà… ». 19 The above observation applies fully and certainly to the Mostra Augustea della Romanità, in the organisation of which, as a member of the organising committee, Galassi Paluzzi played a prominent role. As the correspondence between Galassi and Giglioli is too vast to take into account here, we can turn to another individual with which Galassi regularly corresponded, and one who In this context, see for example NELIS (2010). See GIGLIOLI (1930). 16 For the correspondence between the Istituto and the duce’s office, see Rome, Archivio Centrale dello Stato, segreteria particolare del duce, carteggio ordinario, busta 509.217 I-II, and busta 552.007. 17 The proceedings of this conference were published in 5 volumes: GALASSI PALUZZI (1938), GALASSI PALUZZI (1940), GALASSI PALUZZI (1941), GALASSI PALUZZI (1942), and [no scientific editor mentioned] (1946). 18 On Romanità and the notion of empire, see NELIS (2012b). 19 Galassi Paluzzi to Bottai, September 7, 1937 (Istituto Nazionale di Studi Romani, archivio storico, Archivio Generale, serie Congressi Convegni Mostre, anni 1927-1999, busta 220, fascicolo 58). 14 15

384

JAN NELIS

is of great importance not so much at the academic and scientific level as at the level of the organisation of culture, and its political dimension: Giuseppe Bottai. Ties between Bottai and Galassi Paluzzi were very strong, and they largely outstretched the mere cultural dimension. 20 Indeed, apart from a quite informal relationship, there seems to have been a profound ideological convergence between Bottai and Galassi, as can for example be observed in a 1937 letter in which the Istituto’s president sets out the lines for the possible organisation of an international Augustan conference, mentioning the possibility of sending information to foreign researchers and, generally, foreigners showing an interest in Augustus: “Avrei pensato che la miglior cosa potrebbe essere quella di inviar loro la conferenza che ci hai fatto l’onore di svolgere presso i nostri Corsi Superiori di Studi Romani: sia perché nella prima parte essa riassume limpidamente e sinteticamente l’opera di Augusto, sia perché nella seconda parte, con una efficacia ed una sobrietà – che così grandemente giova a questa efficacia – mette in evidenza quanto del genio di Augusto rivive nel genio di Mussolini e, come quindi sia possibile stabilire un parallelo tra l’epoca di Augusto e l’Era Fascista. Nessuna guida migliore, pertanto, per i conferenzieri che questo tuo importante studio che desidererei inviare a tutti coloro che ce ne fanno richiesta”. 21 Galassi Paluzzi is probably referring to Bottai’s 1937 volume L’Italia di Augusto e l’Italia di oggi. 22 During the actual bimillenary year, the Istituto was a central actor, if not the main protagonist. Galassi Paluzzi was keen on being involved in about everything that concerned Rome and Augustus, in controlling and coordinating manifestations. This stands out very clearly from his correspondence with Giglioli, which was of a highly regular and revelatory nature. One of the most characteristic concerns of both antichisti is their highly prudent attitude when potentially ‘rival’ initiatives, in Italy as well as abroad, were concerned. This prudence was even more outspoken in their dealings with political authorities – except with Bottai, a friend of Galassi –, and it is also this On the ties between Bottai and Galassi Paluzzi, see NELIS (2010) and PERRY (2006). For their correspondence concerning the convegno augusteo (see infra), see Istituto Nazionale di Studi Romani, archivio storico, Archivio Generale, serie Congressi Convegni Mostre, anni 1927-1999, busta 220, fascicolo 58. 21 Galassi Paluzzi to Bottai, December 13, 1937 (Istituto Nazionale di Studi Romani, archivio storico, Archivio Generale, serie Congressi Convegni Mostre, anni 1927-1999, busta 216, fascicolo 53). 22 See BOTTAI (1937). In another letter, which we consulted in the Galassi Paluzzi family’s private archives, he is even more explicit, while referring to BOTTAI (1939): “Caro Amico, ho finito di leggere in questo momento il tuo discorso sulla italianità e universalità di Mussolini. Non conosco quasi nulla – nella storiografia contemporanea – di così acutamente essenziale, di così severamente [difficult to read; maybe solido] nelle linee fondamentali […] di così felicemente – ossia artisticamente – espresso come questa tua potente tesi. Un vero capolavoro.” (Galassi Paluzzi to Bottai, no date). 20

THE ISTITUTO DI STUDI ROMANI AND THE IDEA OF ROME

385

political factor that determines their principal concern regarding the appropriation of Augustus: he was to be depicted as first and foremost an Italian. As such, he was to become a symbol of both Romanità and Italianità. Indeed a sort of symbiosis of both myths was achieved throughout the Ventennio, not in the least in the work of the Istituto. This not only had consequences for the way in which Rome and Augustus were treated; it also influenced the choice of orators at conferences, of contributors to the journal Roma, of various other volumes, etc. Antiquity was politics, and politics in the purest sense of the word. Galassi Paluzzi, and Giglioli, were fully aware of this, with Giglioli observing most significantly, two years before the bimillenary celebration, that “non è possibile, a mio modesto parere, far trattare di argomenti politici dagli stranieri, i quali – dato il clima politico attuale – farebbero una trattazione nazionale e proprio antiromana”. 23 Galassi Paluzzi seems to have fully shared his colleague’s opinion, writing, probably in 1937, to Giuseppe Bottai in the context of the mentioned Convegno Augusteo: “Si dovrebbero scegliere taluni problemi fondamentali riferentisi ai complessi aspetti dell’influenza esercitata da Roma sullo sviluppo della civiltà, invitando studiosi di tutto il mondo a riferire e a discutere sulla base di altrettante apposite relazioni. Per ciascun tema bisognerebbe avere la certezza di poter contare su delle eccellenti relazioni di studiosi italiani, e su un nutrito numero di studiosi nostri pronti ad intervenire eventualmente alle discussioni, in modo da non lasciare libero campo all’intervento e alla discussione promossa dagli studiosi stranieri”. 24 In this context, when consulting the historical archive, one cannot but be impressed by the amount of scholars and cultural actors, both Italian and foreign, that contacted the Istituto, for a number of varying reasons. 25 It thus emerges that the Istituto counted, both nationally and internationally, and especially around the time of the bimillenario, as an authority in the field of the study of Rome, including Augustus. A subsequent highly typical characteristic of Galassi’s Institute is also its activist character, in the sense of the political nature of its activities, but also in a more general sense, i.e. the fact that it was at the basis of a long series of initiatives. Apart from what we have already described, one of these for example consisted in creating a sort of database regarding all initiatives, Italian and

23 Giglioli to Galassi Paluzzi, September 16, 1935 (Istituto Nazionale di Studi Romani, archivio storico, Archivio Generale, serie Corsi Superiori di Studi Romani, busta 47, fascicolo 4). 24 Istituto Nazionale di Studi Romani, archivio storico, Archivio Generale, serie Congressi Convegni Mostre, anni 1927-1999, busta 227, fascicolo 84. 25 In this context, see Istituto Nazionale di Studi Romani, archivio storico, Archivio Generale, serie Congressi Convegni Mostre, anni 1927-1999, busta 211, fascicoli 18-19.

386

JAN NELIS

foreign, surrounding the celebration of Augustus. 26 Especially during the latter half of the 1930s, this near-encyclopaedic interest was coupled with an intense propagandistic activity, which mainly came down to putting pressure on various cultural and academic instances (with a preference for those in charge of archaeological excavations), 27 in order to launch initiatives that could be inserted into the celebratory agenda. The role played by the Istituto di Studi Romani during the Augustan celebrations thus was highly crucial. It was a sort of plaque tournante, an authority and a hub of knowledge and information concerning Augustus. It was more than a cultural and scientific organisation; it was a politico-cultural think tank with remarkable organisational capacities. 4. The Convegno Augusteo In the case of Augustus, these latter capacities are best illustrated by the organisation of the mentioned Convegno Augusteo, which took place, in Rome and elsewhere in Italy, from September 23 to 27, 1938, at the conclusion of the bimillenary year. This conference was not what it might seem at first sight; it was in fact not a “vero e proprio Congresso”, 28 to put it in the words of Galassi Paluzzi. Indeed, rather than organising a classic conference (papers, sessions, etc.), 29 the Istituto opted for a more generally cultural event, which was of a highly ceremonial, ideological and political nature. Most significantly, it included a field trip to Campania, and a ceremony in front of the recently reconstructed – with the help of the Istituto – Ara Pacis Augustae, whereas a delegation was also received by none other than Mussolini. The convegno was officially a joint initiative, organised by the Istituto and Giglioli’s Museo dell’Impero, but in reality it was nearly entirely the Istituto’s responsibility. It could count on the presence of no less than 300 participants – some accompanied by their wife and children – and, as Galassi Paluzzi observed, it had to assume « l’alto significato di un omaggio della Scienza Internazionale 26

In this context, see Istituto Nazionale di Studi Romani, archivio storico, Archivio Generale, serie Affari Generali, busta 78, fascicolo 16. 27 See Istituto Nazionale di Studi Romani, archivio storico, Archivio Generale, serie Congressi Convegni Mostre, anni 1927-1999, busta 209, fascicolo 8. 28 Galassi Paluzzi to Bottai, June 3, 1938 (Istituto Nazionale di Studi Romani, archivio storico, Archivio Generale, serie Congressi Convegni Mostre, anni 1927-1999, busta 220, fascicolo 58). 29 This seems to have been the intention as late as September 1937; see Galassi Paluzzi to Bottai, September 7, 1937: “Si potrebbero scegliere taluni problemi fondamentali sui quali gli studiosi di tutto il mondo verrebbero invitati a riferire, avendo, intanto, già la certezza che su ciascun problema si avrebbero delle eccellenti relazioni italiane, e un nutrito numero di studiosi pronti a rispondere eventualmente a discutibili affermazioni straniere.” (Istituto Nazionale di Studi Romani, archivio storico, Archivio Generale, serie Congressi Convegni Mostre, anni 1927-1999, busta 220, fascicolo 58).

THE ISTITUTO DI STUDI ROMANI AND THE IDEA OF ROME

387

alla figura e all’opera di Augusto, nonché di un riconoscimento del contributo recato dall’Impero di Roma allo sviluppo della civiltà » 30 (sentence repeatedly utilised by Galassi in correspondence with both officials and participants, as also illustrated supra). Apart from the mentioned field trip which was referred to as the gita campana, as said the convegno also involved ceremonies in Rome, making it a highly public, publicised and openly political event. It dominated the Istituto’s agenda at the time of the bimillenario and months before, as is clear from the thousands of letters and other documents that can be consulted in the Archivio Storico. Be that as it may, the Convegno did not seem to affect the Istituto’s ongoing activities, such as the organisation of the Corsi Superiori di Studi Romani, and the work on the journal Roma. Indeed by this time the Istituto di Studi Romani was a well-oiled machine, with years of experience, allowing it to become a major actor in the cultural field. From the archival sources held at the Istituto emerges the image of an extremely prolific, indeed unique, cultural body. 31 In the context of the Convegno such sources, combined with those held at the Galassi Paluzzi family home in Grottaferrata, allow for a meticulous reconstruction of nearly every aspect of the Institute’s activities, i.e. not only its development and promotion of a scientific discourse on Rome, but also more practical, logistic issues such as hotel, transport and meal reservations. From a political and financial point of view, the correspondence with various Ministries is also highly revealing of the energy and decidedness with which Galassi Paluzzi, as well as other members of the Istituto, dedicated themselves to their work. Last but not least, the Convegno is also a perfect illustration of an aspect already mentioned briefly, i.e. the modern, didactic character of Galassi Paluzzi’s concept of culture, and propaganda. As said, the logistics of the event were handled in an expert way, but on top of that, there was also a busta dello studioso, handed to participants, and containing both didactic and practical information. This busta was handed to participants at the beginning of the Convegno, on September 23, 1938, but it had been prepared as early as 1932, i.e. no less than six years before the actual event. If nowadays the existence of the busta, of which a number have been stockpiled in the Istituto’s archives, seems all but surprising, this was all but the case in the 1930s. It further exemplifies the fact that under fascism, the use of antiquity was far from innocent, intent at reaching 30

Galassi Paluzzi to Bottai, September 7, 1937 (Istituto Nazionale di Studi Romani, archivio storico, Archivio Generale, serie Congressi Convegni Mostre, anni 1927-1999, busta 220, fascicolo 58). 31 All archival sources referring to the convegno can be found in Istituto Nazionale di Studi Romani, archivio storico, Archivio Generale, serie Congressi Convegni Mostre, anni 1927-1999, buste 209-239, 289.

388

JAN NELIS

a public that was both academic and less high-brow, telling the story of ancient Rome’s resurgence in twentieth-century Italy. 5. Conclusion: Totalitarian Modernity and the Fascist Political Religion To conclude our short study, a more general remark on the Istituto and its activities supporting the celebration of Augustus in 1937-1938. Here we cannot but deal with fascism itself, a movement and regime which was essentially ‘modern’, 32 a totalitarian political religion that relied on myth and cult, including the myth and cult of Rome. These were developed by a score of actors in the cultural field, spearheaded by the Istituto di Studi Romani. The myth of Rome was one of the main cultural matrixes of fascist ideology, a central element in the fascist will to create a uomo nuovo, surrounded by and integrated in the Stato nuovo. 33 It was not a mere return to the past, but the projection of this past, as a source of ideas and concepts, onto the present, and above all the future. As such, fascism and Romanità were integral parts of European interwar culture, and of a kind of modernism inherent to this culture, even if not the mainstream variant. In this sense, Romanità was but an alternative expression of twentieth-century modernism. The development of Romanità, cornerstone of the culto del Littorio, 34 was achieved ‘from below’, i.e. first and foremost at the initiative of single actors. Governmental instances went along, or didn’t. 35 It was not the project of a meticulously thought-through plan, but the result of the activism of people like Carlo Galassi Paluzzi, an autodidact with a passion for Rome and its history, a passion which he put at the service of the fascist interest in Roman antiquity. Bibliography ARAMINI, D. (2015a), The Myth of ‘Christian Rome’ and the Institute of Roman Studies: An Attempted Synthesis of Fascism and Catholicism, in Journal of Contemporary History 50, 2, p. 188-214. ARAMINI, D. (2015b), ‘Caesar’s Rome’ and ‘Christian Rome’: the Institute of Roman Studies between the Fascist Regime and the Vatican, in J. NELIS / A. MORELLI / D. PRAET (eds.), Catholicism and Fascism in Europe 1918-1945, Hildesheim / Zürich / New York, p. 255-276. BOTTAI, G. (1937), L’Italia di Augusto e l’Italia di oggi, Rome.

In this context, see for example GRIFFIN (2007). In this context, see for example GENTILE (2008). 34 See the still authoritative GENTILE (1990) and GENTILE (1993). 35 In this context, see for example the case of Carolina Lanzani, who desperately sought, but did not obtain, support for her work. For more information, see NELIS (2006). 32 33

THE ISTITUTO DI STUDI ROMANI AND THE IDEA OF ROME

389

BOTTAI, G. (1939), Italianità e universalità di Mussolini, in Nuova Antologia 1623, p. 3-8. COCCIA, B (2000), Carlo Galassi Paluzzi. Bibliografia e appunti biografici, Rome. GALASSI PALUZZI, C. (ed.) (1938), La missione dell’impero di Roma nella storia della civiltà, Atti del V Congresso Nazionale di Studi Romani, Volume Primo, Rome. GALASSI PALUZZI, C. (ed.) (1940), Atti del V Congresso Nazionale di Studi Romani, Volume Secondo, Rome. GALASSI PALUZZI, C. (ed.) (1941), Atti del V Congresso Nazionale di Studi Romani, Volume Quarto, Rome. GALASSI PALUZZI, C. (ed.) (1942), Atti del V Congresso Nazionale di Studi Romani, Volume Terzo, Rome. [no scientific editor mentioned] (1946), Atti del V Congresso Nazionale di Studi Romani, Volume Quinto, Rome. GENTILE, E. (1990), Fascism as Political Religion, in Journal of Contemporary History 25, 2-3, p. 229-251. GENTILE, E. (1993), Il culto del littorio, Rome / Bari. GENTILE, E. (2007), Fascismo di pietra, Rome / Bari. GENTILE, E. (2008), La via italiana al totalitarismo. Il Partito e lo Stato nel regime fascista. Nuova edizione, Rome / Bari. GIARDINA, A. / VAUCHEZ, A. (2000), Il mito di Roma (Da Carlo Magno a Mussolini), Rome / Bari. GIGLIOLI, G. Q. (1930), Per il secondo millenario di Augusto, in [no scientific editor mentioned], Atti del II Congresso Nazionale di Studi Romani, Volume Primo, Rome, p. 278-280. GRIFFIN, R. (2007), Modernism and Fascism. The Sense of a Beginning under Mussolini and Hitler, Houndmills / Basingstoke / Hampshire / New York. KALLIS, A. A. (2001), ‘Framing’ Romanità: The Celebrations for the Bimillenario Augusteo and the Augusteo-Ara Pacis Project, in Journal of Contemporary History 46, 4, p. 809-831. NELIS, J. (2006), Tra Pais e fascismo: Carolina Lanzani, la rivista Historia e il mito della romanità. Con fonti inedite, in Rivista Storica dell’Antichità 36, p. 277-295. NELIS, J. (2007a), Un mythe contemporain entre religion et idéologie: la romanité fasciste, in Euphrosyne, Revista de Filologia Clássica 35, p. 437-450. NELIS, J. (2007b), Constructing fascist identity: Benito Mussolini and the myth of romanità, in Classical World 100, 4, p. 391-415. NELIS, J. (2008), Catholicism and the Italian Fascist Myth of Romanità: Between Consciousness and Consent, in Historia Actual Online 17, p. 139-146 (http://www. historia-actual.com). NELIS, J. (2010), La ‘fede di Roma’ nella modernità totalitaria fascista. Il mito della romanità e l’Istituto di Studi Romani tra Carlo Galassi Paluzzi e Giuseppe Bottai, in Studi Romani 58, 1-4, p. 359-381. NELIS, J. (2011a), From ancient to modern: the myth of romanità during the ventennio fascista. The written imprint of Mussolini’s cult of the ‘Third Rome’, Turnhout. NELIS, J. (2011b), The Clerical Response to a Totalitarian Political Religion: La Civiltà Cattolica and Italian Fascism, in Journal of Contemporary History 46, 2, p. 245270. NELIS, J. (2011c), Le mythe de la romanité et la religion politique du fascisme italien: nouvelles approches méthodologiques, in J. NELIS (ed.), Receptions of antiquity, Ghent, p. 349-359.

390

JAN NELIS

NELIS, J. (2012a), Quand paganisme et catholicisme se rencontrent: quelques observations concernant la nature du mythe de la romanité dans l’Istituto di Studi Romani, in Latomus, Revue d’Études Latines 71, 1, p. 176-192. NELIS, J. (2012b), Imperialismo e mito della romanità nella Terza Roma Mussoliniana, in Forum Romanum Belgicum, 11 pp. (http://kadoc.kuleuven.be/bhirihbr/fr/3_pub_ foru. php, article 3). NELIS, J. (2013), The Myth of Romanità, Antichistica and Aesthetics in Light of the Fascist Sacralization of Politics, and Modernism, in Mediterraneo Antico. Economie, Società, Culture 16, 1, p. 259-274. NELIS, J. (2014), Back to the Future: Italian Fascist Representations of the Roman Past, in Fascism. Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies 3, 1, p. 1-19. NELIS, J. / GHILARDI, M. (2012), L’Istituto di Studi Romani et la figure d’Auguste. Sources d’archives et perspectives de recherche 1937/1938-2014, in Studi Romani 60/1-4, p. 333-339. PERRY, J. S. (2006), The Roman Collegia. The Modern Evolution of an Ancient Concept, Leiden / Boston. ROMANELLI, P. / MORRA, O. (1972), Carlo Galassi Paluzzi, Rome. SUSMEL, E. / SUSMEL, D. (1951-1981), Opera Omnia di Benito Mussolini, 44 vols., Florence. SCRIBA, F. (1993), Augustus im Schwarzhemd? Die Mostra Augustea della Romanità in Rom 1937/38, Frankfurt am Main. SCRIBA, F. (1995), Il mito di Roma, l’estetica e gli intellettuali negli anni del consenso: la Mostra Augustea della Romanità 1937/38, in Quaderni di storia 41, p. 67-84. SCRIBA, F. (1996), The sacralization of the Roman past in Mussolini’s Italy. Erudition, aesthetics, and religion in the exhibition of Augustus’ bimillenary in 1937-1938, in Storia della Storiografia 30, p. 19-29.

Square, Politics and Propaganda. The Redesign of the Piazza Augusto Imperatore in Rome during the Ventennio KLAUS TRAGBAR (Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck)*

Abstract The Piazza Augusto Imperatore with the monumental tomb of emperor Augustus in the center, the churches S. Rocco and S. Girolamo degli Illirici and with the square’s margins, build during the Ventennio, is not only a prime example for the close sequence of historical layers and the density of monuments in Rome, but as well for their use for political, especially fascist propaganda. With the redesign of the Piazza Augusto Imperatore, beginning in 1934, and the enduring evocation of Latinità and Romanità as a collective Italian heritage, fascist propaganda primarily intended to merge the first, antique Rome and the second, Christian one with the third, fascist one into a transtemporal, literally eternal model and to celebrate Mussolini like a reborn Augustus as pater patriae and savior of the nation.

1. Introduction Not only buildings but also cities, especially old and timeless cities like Rome, are like palimpsests – historic monuments scraped away again and again to be rewritten over time. Their areas inscribing history, “they represent continuity and duration, which exceed the memories of individuals, epochs and cultures” as written by Aleida Assmann. 1 The Piazza Augusto Imperatore in Rome is not only a prime example of such an urban palimpsest for its tight sequence of historical layers within a city and for the great variety of connections a site may

* Due to the broad range of topics touched in this paper, from archaeology to history of urban planning, from Bauforschung to the cultural and political significance of architecture, bibliographical references are strictly limited. – I would like to thank AnnCathérine Pielenhofer (Munich/Tel Aviv) and Yarron Katz (Ramat Gan) for proofreading and correcting the English text. 1 “… sie verkörpern Kontinuität und Dauer, die die Erinnerung von Individuen, Epochen und Kulturen übersteigt.” ASSMANN (1980), p. 16. – All translations are the author’s except where otherwise noted.

392

KLAUS TRAGBAR

have with it, but also for the close relationship between architecture and political propaganda. The Piazza Augusto Imperatore is located north of the historic centre of Rome, close to the banks of the Tiber and only a few steps south of the Porta del Popolo, the antique Porta Flaminia, one of the city’s most important entrances. The square’s commanding element is the monumental mausoleum of Emperor Augustus in its very centre, completed in 24/23 B.C. Located to the west are the churches of S. Rocco (1499) and S. Girolamo dei Croati, formerly degli Schiavoni (1588), both facing the Tiber. To the east SS. Ambrogio e Carlo al Corso (1612-1672) connects the square with the Via del Corso; the antique Via Lata. The square’s boundaries were built between 1937 and 1941; its final construction was completed only in 1952. On the west side once stood the Museo dell’Ara Pacis by Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo (1938) (Fig. 1), but as of 2006 a new museum designed by New York architect Richard Meier replaces Morpurgo’s work. 2 Already in Roman times, when Augustus ordered the construction of the mausoleum, the building was not merely a tomb but part of the Emperor’s self-celebration and an explicit political demonstration against his rival Marcus Antonius. During the Ventennio, fascist propaganda linked both the Roman Empire and fascist Italy, and the duce Benito Mussolini was extensively celebrated as the reborn Augustus, the new pater patriae and saviour of the nation. The Augustan alter of peace, the Ara Pacis, excavated in 1937/38, was also arranged on the square and set up in a new museum west of the mausoleum. Pursuant to fascist propaganda the new façades around the Piazza Augusto Imperatore were provided with a most complex iconographic and epigraphic program to merge the first antique Rome and the second Christian one, with the third fascist one into a “supratemporal”, literally an eternal model. In 1938, on the occasion of Augustus’ 2000th birthday, the square and museum were inaugurated. When in 1998 Meier presented the preliminary design of the new Museo dell’Ara Pacis, the first contemporary building in Rome’s historic centre since the elegant entrance building of the Stazione Termini, 3 it immediately evoked polemic discussions. After the museum’s opening in 2006, far-right politician Still the essential papers on Piazza Augusto Imperatore are KOSTOF (1978), with a detailed presentation of the planning process, and BROCK (1995), with an emphasis on the contribution of archaeology to fascist urban planning. Recently NICOLOSO (2012), p. 78-81, pulled together the piazza with other explicit political monuments of the Fascist period, cf. PETRIN (2012). 3 The Stazione Termini was begun in 1939 by Angiolo Mazzoni and the construction division of the Ferrovie dello Stato (FS): the entrance building was built between 1948 and 1950 by Leo Calini, Massimo Castellazzi, Vasco Fadigati, Eugenio Montuori, Achille Pintonello and Annibale Vitellozzi, all ex aequo winners of a national competition set up in 1947; cf. HOLSTE (2007), with bibliography. 2

THE REDESIGN OF THE PIAZZA AUGUSTO IMPERATORE

393

Fig. 1. Rome, Piazza Augusto Imperatore, aerial view from S-W (ca. 1950).

Giovanni “Gianni” Alemanno (ex-Alleanza Nazionale, more recently Popolo della Libertà), at that time Rome’s mayoral candidate and from 2008 to 2013 the city’s mayor, insulted it as “not Roman” (sic!) and promised its demolition 4 – an indication that the Piazza Augusto Imperatore sets the scene for political propaganda to this day. 2. The Mausoleum When Augustus came into power around 30 B.C., 5 he decided to build a mausoleum for him and his family, the gens Iulia in the northern Campus Martius. The area was originally dedicated to military exercises and for the most part not built-up, with only a few scattered buildings north of what is today’s Via del Collegio. 6 As previously said, the building was not merely a simple tomb. Augustus was only age 34 or 35 years when he began the mausoleum, so it was Cf. KLÜVER (2006); ZANKER (2006); SCHÜMER (2006); POVOLEDO (2008) – only to cite some leading newspapers. 5 Good introductions into the Augustan age, mostly with rich bibliographies, are given in KIENAST (1986); SIMON (1986); GALINSKY (2012); VON DEN HOFF / STROH / ZIMMERMANN (2014); CARANDINI (2014); VISCOGLIOSI (2013). 6 For the development of the Campus Martius, cf. recently ALBERS (2013). 4

394

KLAUS TRAGBAR

not the fear of death, but part of the emperor’s self-image and a political demonstration against his overwhelmed rival Marcus Antonius, who was supposed to move the capital to Alexandria and who likewise had a mausoleum built there for himself and Cleopatra – so the Augustan initiative was a clear commitment to Rome portraying the empire’s capital. 7 Works on the mausoleum started around 32 or 29/28 B.C., it was completed 24/23 B.C. 8 The mausoleum was located close to the Tiber banks and a river port. Typologically it was an italic tumulus with a roughly 89 m diameter and a presumed height of 44 m making it one of the tallest single buildings of its time. In Flavian age, two obelisks, one from Egypt and one maybe Roman copy, flanked the entrance. Its façade was covered by statues and inscriptions of Augustus and other members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. A larger than life bronze statue of the emperor was placed on the very top of the mausoleum (Fig. 2 and 3). Inside a system of massive brick pillars, bracings and vaults were constructed to bear the enormous earth fill needed for the tumulus. A crypt in the centre of the mausoleum was dedicated to host the sarcophagi of the emperor, his family and some other personalities. 9 Finally, a public park with promenades was established around the mausoleum. In the early 2nd century, a stonemason’s workshop was set in front of the mausoleum’s entrance. As a result of the nearby river port, stones for the construction of the new Pantheon, probably begun by Hadrian in 118 A.D., could be unloaded there and worked on, on the paved square around the mausoleum, then transported to the Pantheon’s building site only some 750 m south. Scratch marks on the pavement, still visible today, represent not only the gable of the Pantheon’s portico (more precisely, its lower right angle on a 1:1 scale), but also the gable of another smaller and still unidentified building and a capital. 10 In Late Antiquity, the mausoleum fell into ruin. Like many other Roman buildings, it was used as a stone quarry and the area around it became deserted with perhaps some gardens and vineyards. Smaller houses were built adjacent, making use of the dilapidated structure, most belonging to the surrounding churches and monasteries. 11 Reurbanisation slowly started in 1453, when Pope KRAFT (1967). Cf. GARDTHAUSEN (1921/22); BARTOLI (1927/28); FIORILLI (1927/28); GIGLIOLI (1930); GATTI (1938); NASH (1962), vol. 2, p. 38-43; KRAFT (1967); RICHARD (1970); WAURICK (1973); EISNER (1979); BOSCHUNG (1980); ZANKER (2009 [1987]), p. 80-84; VON HESBERG (1988); CLARK REEDER (1992); VON HESBERG / PANCIERA (1994); JOHNSON (1996); RICCOMINI (1996); DAVIES (1998); GUINOMET (2007), p. 34-36; DONDERER (2009); GARCÍA BARRACO (2014). 9 On the basis of new excavations, Carandini recently proposed stairs in the centre to reach the emperor’s sepulchre below his statue; cf. CARANDINI (2014), p. 393-401. 10 HASELBERGER (1994); cf. recently INGLESE (1999); INGLESE (2013). 11 For the development of the entire quarter – and its destruction in the 1930s – cf. PONTI (1935). 7 8

THE REDESIGN OF THE PIAZZA AUGUSTO IMPERATORE

395

Nicholas V Parentucelli recognized the Congregazione Illirica, a community of people from Croatia, Dalmatia, Istria and Slavonia, and handed it the small church of S. Marina, then dedicated to S. Girolamo degli Schiavoni. In 1499 the Confraternita di San Rocco, founded by the bargees and innkeepers living at

Fig. 2. Rome, Mausoleum of Augustus, 29/28 B.C.-14 A.D., view from south.

Fig. 3. Rome, Mausoleum of Augustus, 29/28 B.C.-14 A.D., reconstruction by Henner von Hesberg (1994).

396

KLAUS TRAGBAR

the Tiber, built the church of S. Rocco and a hospital for wounded and people sick by the plague. 12 Around 1520, Baldassare Peruzzi worked on the interior decoration of S. Rocco and measured also some parts of the south-western corner of the mausoleum. 13 His important drawings allow the reconstruction of the sheating of the lower cylinder. After 1546 the moderate Palazzo Soderini, later Correa, was erected north of the mausoleum using the empty ruin as a hanging garden. 14 In 1588 the church of S. Girolamo degli Schiavoni was rebuilt by Martino Longhi the Elder, 15 who had also begun the Palazzo Borghese south of S. Rocco, later bought by Pope Paulus V Borghese for his family and extended by Flaminio Ponzio and Carlo Rainaldi. When in 1585 Pope Sixtus V Peretti started the Renouatio Urbis, the area around the mausoleum indeed was touched by the Tridente, 16 – actually, the Via Leonina, today’s Via di Ripetta, was already built between 1513-1521 – but the mausoleum itself was not met with the interests of Sixtus’ V architect Domenico Fontana. He merely moved one obelisk, the presumed Roman copy, in 1587 to the Piazza dell’Esquilino in front of the apse of S. Maria Maggiore. The other one was moved only in 1786 by Giovanni Antinori to the Piazza del Quirinale, where it was combined with the statues of the Dioscuri creating today’s fountain. Between 1612 and 1672 the church of SS. Ambrogio e Carlo, commonly S. Carlo al Corso, was built east of the mausoleum by the people of Lombardy to honour both their saints. With this building the reurbanisation of the area was nearly completed. During the following centuries only modest transformations appeared. When in 1787 German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe visited Rome, he saw an animal hunt in the mausoleum, which at that time was used as a popular amphitheatre for some 4 to 5000 visitors; not only bullfights and fireworks were shown, but also recitations and concerts. 17 Excavations inside the mausoleum were conducted in 1793; in 1871 parts of the exterior walls appear in the androne of the Palazzo Correa. In the first half of the 19th century, Giuseppe Valadier examined the stability of the mausoleum and provided several projects like a design for a square to the east of it, a monumental entrance from the 12

Today’s façade is a work by Giuseppe Valadier from 1832 after drawings by Andrea Palladio; cf. SALERNO / SPAGNESI (1962); FUOCO / GRASSINI (1988). 13 Cf. BARTOLI (1915), pl. 111-113; (1916), pl. 212, 231, 236, 241, 257; (1920), pl. 324-326, 330; on worth of the Peruzzi’s drawings for reconstruction considerations, cf. VON HESBERG / PANCIERA (1994), p. 9-10, 180 pl. 4-6. 14 An etching by Étienne Dupérac shows the hanging garden in the mausoleum as part of the Palazzo Soderini; cf. DU PÉRAC (1575), pl. 36, cf. DE ANGELIS D’OSSAT (2003). 15 Cf. KOKŠA (1971); CAPERNA (1989); MANGIA RENDA (1993). 16 Cf. SCHIFFMANN (1985); SIMONCINI (1990). 17 “Heute war Tierhetze in dem Grabmal des August. Dieses große, inwendig leere, oben offene, ganz runde Gebäude ist jetzt zu einem Kampfplatz, zu einer Ochsenhetze eingerichtet wie eine Art Amphitheater. Es wird vier- bis fünftausend Menschen fassen können.” J. W. VON GOETHE, Italienische Reise, 1816/17, journal entry July 16, 1787.

THE REDESIGN OF THE PIAZZA AUGUSTO IMPERATORE

397

Ripetta and a tent roof for the state visit of Emperor Franz I of Austria on April 21st, 1819 – the legendary Natale di Roma. 18 At the end of the 19th century, the mausoleum, still in use as a theatre, was covered by a glass-iron construction – and closed by the new Italian administration in 1883 due to missing emergency exits. In 1889 the sculptor Enrico Chiaradia established a workshop in the empty hall for his gargantuan equestrian statue dedicated to the Monumento Nazionale a Vittorio Emanuele II (the Vittoriano). 19 Finally, by initiative of count Enrico di San Martino, president of the Accademia di Santa Cecilia, the mausoleum was used from 1907 onwards as a municipal concert hall, called Augusteo, soon becoming an important centre of Rome’s musical life. 20 In 1925 Marcello Piacentini proposed several improvements on the Augusteo, e.g. a new entrance from the courtyard of the Palazzo Valdambrini and the lowering of the pit to gain more seats. 21 The adjacencies of the mausoleum had changed as well: between 1703 and 1705 the ancient river port at the Tiber was replaced by the baroque Porto di Ripetta by Alessandro Specchi, and in 1845 a popular promenade was established at the Tiber banks. The most dramatic change certainly was the embanking of the Tiber after the abysmal flooding of December 28th, 1870, by high travertine walls roughly four to five meters above the existing bank level and the construction of the Lungotevere above them. In favour of these building activities the baroque Porto di Ripetta was destroyed; the today’s Scalo De Pinedo at the Lungotevere Arnaldo da Brescia, a few steps north, is only a weak commemoration of its former elegance and beauty. In 1877/78 an iron bridge was erected right in front of S. Girolamo dei Croati to reach the new ward Prati di Castello; in 1902 the bridge was replaced by the today’s Ponte Cavour. The plan of isolating the mausoleum completely appears for the first time – irrespective of the ideas of Valadier – in the first Roman Master Plan (Piano Regolatore Generale) of 1909, designed by Edmondo Sanjust di Teulada (Fig. 4). 22 In fact, Sanjust proposed a curious square around the Augusteo, whose design seemed to be more determined by the projected traffic connection between the Ponte Cavour and the Via del Corso than by urban considerations. 23

Cf. DEBENEDETTI (1985), p. 367, cat. no. 477; SCARFONE (2007). On the emperor’s journey cf. KUSTER (2004). 19 On the overall five (sic!) competitions for the statue cf. RETROSI (1888-1889). 20 After the destruction of the Augusteo in 1936, a new concert hall, the Auditorium Parco della Musica by Genoese architect Renzo Piano, was opened only in 2002. 21 PIACENTINI (1925/26); cf. LUPANO (1991), p. 194-195. 22 On the master plans of Rome after 1870, cf. KOSTOF (1973a); ID. (1973b); ID. (1976). 23 SANJUST DI TEULADA (2008); cf. ZAMPA (2004); FIORELLINI (2010). For a coeval critic on Rome’s urban development after 1870, cf. MASSARETTE (1919). 18

398

KLAUS TRAGBAR

Fig. 4. Rome, Piazza Augusto Imperatore, Master Plan (Edmondo Sanjust di Teulada, 1909).

THE REDESIGN OF THE PIAZZA AUGUSTO IMPERATORE

399

Fig. 5. Rome, Piazza Augusto Imperatore, project (Enrico del Debbio, 1927).

In 1927, within a report to Prince Ludovico Spada Veralli Potenziani, governor of Rome from 1926 to 1928, 24 Enrico Del Debbio proposed the complete isolation of the Augusteo and the construction of new boundaries for the square. The three churches were partly isolated and became part of the scenery around the mausoleum (Fig. 5). It is notable, that up to that moment nobody suggested the gutting of the mausoleum, neither Piacentini nor Del Debbio. 3. Politics and Propaganda But the political scenery had already begun to change. Fascism, which came into power in 1922, not only took its name from Roman fasces, symbol of the lictors, one of its basic ideological ideas was that modern Italy inherited the ancient Roman Empire. Although this idea was already known in the Risorgimento, it forms a central element of fascist propaganda. Since the march to Rome on October 28th, 1922, Latinità and Romanità form an ideological 24

FEDERAZIONE FASCISTA DELL’URBE (1927).

400

KLAUS TRAGBAR

constant in fascist propaganda; 25 in 1933 even a Comitato d’Azione per l’Universitalità di Roma was founded. Nevertheless, neither Latinità nor Romanità were ever precisely specified but conjured at any and every opportunity. But more likely it is because both the terms being such vague ideas would explain their success as an ideological concept. Romanità was the enduring evocation of the gone Roman Empire as a collective Italian heritage, and the claim of its rebirth under the sign of Fascism; Romanità was the mapping of contemporary politics onto the Roman Empire. Mirroring himself with Augustus, one of the most powerful personalities in ancient Rome, was a most welcome opportunity to concretize the vague, but often repeated idea of Romanità. Within the Piazza Augusto Imperatore with its antique, Christian and fascist monuments the Duce was reborn as a new Emperor Augustus, as a new pater patriae and saviour of the Italian nation. In fact, it was not Rome as a whole but mainly Imperial Rome and especially the personality of Augustus, who was idealised if not sacralised. Benito Mussolini saw himself as an “Augustus in a black shirt”, 26 emphasizing the parallels of both the biographies: as Augustus pacified the Republic after the civil wars by founding the Principate, – which in fact was the end of the Republic – so too Mussolini set an end to the crisis after World War I by the fascist revolution, and as Augustus brought a Golden Age to Rome, Mussolini was expected to do the same. Already on April 21st, 1924, when he was awarded the honorary citizenship of Rome, Mussolini offered a draft of his program for Rome: “I problemi di Roma, la Roma di questo XX secolo, mi piace dividerli in due categorie: i problemi della necessità e i problemi della grandezza. Non si possono affrontare questi ultimi, se i primi non siano stati risoluti. I problemi della necessità sgorgano dallo sviluppo di Roma e si racchiudono in questo binomio: case e comunicazioni. I problemi della grandezza sono d’altra specie: bisogna liberare dalle deturpazioni mediocri tutta la Roma antica, ma accanto alla antica e alla medioevale, bisogna creare la monumentale Roma del XX secolo. Roma … deve essere una città degna della sua gloria, e questa gloria deve rinnovare incessantemente per tramandarla, come retaggio dell’età fascista, alle generazioni che verranno”. 27 Cf. COFRANCESCO (1980); GHIRARDO (1980); ESTERMANN-JUCHLER (1982); SCHUMACHER (1988); ETLIN (1991); VISSER (1992); VISSER (1993); STONE (1999); TRAGBAR (2004a); TRAGBAR (2004b); NELIS (2007); ARTHURS (2012); DELL’ERBA (2013); NELIS (2014). 26 SCRIBA (1995); cf. recently PRISCO (2013); WILKINS (2013); GIARDINA (2013). See in this volume the contributions of G. BRIZZI and M. CAVALIERI. For a rare example of opposition against the parallelisation of Augustus and Mussolini, cf. NELIS (2009). 27 MUSSOLINI (1956), vol. 20, p. 234-236, here p. 235; cf. CEDERNA (1979), particularly p. 47-50. KOSTOF (1973a), p. 9-10, translated interpretatively “medievale” as “Christianity”. 25

THE REDESIGN OF THE PIAZZA AUGUSTO IMPERATORE

401

When on December 31st, 1925, the first Governor of Rome, Filippo Cremonesi, was inaugurated, Mussolini held his programmatic speech “La nuova Roma”, outlining his program for the urban renewal of Rome: “Le mie idee sono chiare, i miei ordini sono precisi e sono certo che diventeranno una realtà concreta. Tra cinque anni Roma deve apparire meravigliosa a tutte le genti del mondo; vasta, ordinata, potente, come fu ai tempi del primo impero di Augusto. Voi continuerete a liberare il tronco della grande quercia da tutto ciò che ancora la intralcia. Farete dei varchi intorno al teatro Marcello, al Campidoglio, al Pantheon; tutto ciò che vi crebbe attorno nei secoli della decadenza deve scomparire. Entro cinque anni, da Piazza Colonna per un grande varco deve essere visibile la mole del Pantheon. Voi liberete anche dalle costruzioni parassitarie e profane i templi maestosi della Roma cristiana. I monumenti millenari della nostra storia debbono giganteggiare nella necessaria solitudine”. 28 The speech contains some important fundamental ideas of fascist ideology: the continuity of the first, antique Rome – as mentioned above, mainly the imperial Rome of Augustus – and the second, Christian one with the third, the fascist Rome. Even though the interest on antique Rome roots in the Italian nationalism of the 19th century 29 and personalities like Corrado Ricci claimed the redemption – sic: redenzione – of the Imperial Fora already before World War I, 30 it was fascist propaganda which made use of it for its own political purposes. So the interest of a strange alliance of archaeologists and fascist politicians grew not only in the personality of Augustus but in his buildings too: 31 the Forum of Augustus was uncovered between 1924 and 1932 by the same Corrado Ricci. Excavations at the mausoleum conducted by Giulio Quirino Giglioli and Antonio Maria Colini were begun in 1926. At that time the mausoleum was still used as a concert hall. The above mentioned proposal of Piacentini and Del Debbio only offered improvements to the Augusteo, not its uncovering or gutting. 32 But in conside-ration of fascist ideology it seemed to be no longer possible to perform music above the ashes of Augustus. After two field seasons in 1930 Giglioli proposed not only the demolition of the Augusteo and the restoration of the ruin “circondato di nuovo da quei boschetti che Augusto concesse al suo buon popolo di Roma”, 33 but also an exhibition on the emperor’s 2000 birthday on September 23rd, 1938 – an idea, which Mussolini immediately adopted, and which touches as well on a third important Augustan monument, the Ara Pacis.

MUSSOLINI (1934), p. 244-245. Cf. CARACCIOLO (1999); TRAGBAR (2013); ID. (2014). 30 RICCI (1911); ID. (1913); ID. (1924). 31 Cf. BROCK (1995), p. 136-138. 32 Cf. n. 21 and n. 24. 33 GIGLIOLI (1930). Two years earlier Colini suggested the dedication of the crypt to Vergil leaving the Augusteo itself intact, cf. COLINI (1928-1929). 28 29

402

KLAUS TRAGBAR

Fig. 6. Ara Pacis, reconstruction by Guglielmo Gatti (1938).

4. The Altar The Ara Pacis Augustae, officially commissioned by the Senate, was built between 13 and 9 B.C. and the symbol of the pacification brought by Augustus. 34 The reconstruction by Guglielmo Gatti (Fig. 6) from 1938 shows the Ara Pacis as an east-west oriented building with a nearly square shaped courtyard of 11,60 m × 10,60 m and the fire altar in the centre. The upper endings of the walls are lost, the reconstruction referenced from coins showing an architrave and a cornice. The altar was richly furnished with ornamental and figural reliefs, which on the west side tells the story about the legendary founding of Rome with Mars and the twins on the left, and Aeneas worshipping to his Trojan gods after his joyous landing in Italy. On the east side a well preserved scene shows a female figure in the middle with two children sitting on her knees and two other figures flanking her, below a cow, a sheep and some corn complete this peaceful and quite display. The relief on the right represents the city’s goddess Roma sitting on her weapons, peaceful as well, but ready to take her weaponry – if necessary. Cf. MORETTI (1948); KÄHLER (1954); NASH (1961), vol. 1, p. 63-73; SIMON (1967); BORBEIN (1975); BUCHNER (1976); ID. (1980); ZANKER (2009 [1987]), p. 126130, 177-181, 206-209; SETTIS (1988); CASTRIOTA (1995); KOCKEL / KRÄMER (2001); MLASOWSKY (2010); HASELBERGER (2014); CARANDINI (2014), p. 219-224. 34

THE REDESIGN OF THE PIAZZA AUGUSTO IMPERATORE

403

The reliefs on both the side walls show an acanthus with birds sitting in it, symbols of fertility and opulence. Above the acanthus a worshipping scene is represented with Augustus leading the procession in the southern relief. The entire program heralds the Golden Age brought by Augustus, and even if the interpretation of the reliefs is still under discussion, it is beyond dispute that the Ara Pacis represents a highly official, politically and ideologically most important and significant monument, for Augustus and Mussolini as well. The excavation of the Ara Pacis was widely published, propagandistically exploited and noted all around the world; when in May 1938 Adolf Hitler visited Rome, he was brought to the parts presented in the baths of Diocletian. Less politically but more linguistically motivated was a poem of Hermann Weller, a classical scholar and Neo-Latin poet, written in 1938 and awarded with magna cum laude at the competition “Certamen poeticum Hoeufftianum”, an important competition for new Latin poetry, performed between 1844 and 1978, and donated by Jacob Hendrik Hoeufft (1756-1843), a lawyer and a Latin poet. 35 In the “Ara Pacis” titled poem, the lyrical alter ego looks from the ruined Roman Limes to Rome, commenting on the altar’s restoration and new placement: Arae tanta diu latuit defossa uenustas: Eruta iam nobis – noscite fata! – nitet. In Campoque iterum populo sacra Principis ara Pacis et imperii splendida testis erit. 36

5. The Square Since Del Debbio proposed the isolation of the Augusteo, – but not its gutting – several plans for the area were discussed. 37 Finally, an entire city quarter with some 2 to 3000 inhabitants was demolished, the Augusteo was closed and completely gutted, so that it was left as an empty ruin. Work started on October 22nd, 1934, and in his initial speech Mussolini said, the project serves four main purposes: firstly, it is useful for history and beauty; secondly, it is useful for traffic; thirdly, it is useful for hygiene due to the disappearance of narrow streets and old buildings, and fourthly, it is useful because demolition and rebuilding guarantees work and income. One may add, that there was a fifth, unstated purpose: to clean the historic centre of undesirable social classes, as

Cf. VAN DER AA (1845), p. 232-233. On the Certamen poeticum Hoeufftianum cf. WASZINK (1968), p. 281-290; SACRÉ (1993), p. 120-124. 36 Ara Pacis (1938), line 51-54, WELLER (1946), p. 144-152, here 146. Cf. Kürschners deutscher Literaturkalender 41, 1924, c. 994 (first entry); ibid. 47, 1934, c. 906; ibid. 48, 1937/38, c. 862; BRÜCKNER / DUBIELZIG / PLIENINGER (2006). 37 Cf. KOSTOF (1978); ROMANIELLO (2006). 35

404

KLAUS TRAGBAR

that area was inhabited mainly by ordinary people like workers, who were mostly left-voting. Around 1937/38, the mausoleum was nearly isolated and the foundations of the new surrounding buildings were already laid. Only at that time Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo, 38 who previously built the Museo delle Navi Romane in Nemi (1934-1940) and together with Enrico Del Debbio and Arnaldo Foschini, the Palazzo Littorio in Rome (1933/34, 1938-1959), today’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Palazzo della Farnesina, was commissioned to design a museum for the Ara Pacis. The building was thought a strong part of the stage-managing of Augustus, and it should be inaugurated already in 1938, as the final highlight of the Mostra Augustea della Romanità. Morpurgo designed just a simple showcase, a teca in his words, to allow a maximum of daylight for the Ara Pacis. 39 Owing to high-pressure deadlines, the building was constructed in only three months. Unfortunately, due to the shape of the building site, the altar had to be turned 90°, so that worshipping Roman gods now faced north, not east as in Antiquity. The entire planning of the Piazza Augusto Imperatore was determined not by archaeological or historical concepts but purely by political propaganda: the monuments of the first, antique Rome, conjured sources of Romanità, should merge with those of the second, Christian Rome and of the third, fascist Rome to create one eternal space which contains the entire glorious history of Rome – and Mussolini was the one who arranged it and who was the successor of this glorious history. Those propagandistic aspects can be seen at the square’s margins as well: mostly office buildings housing fascist institutions, and built between 1937 and 1940 likewise by Morpurgo. There façades are richly furnished with reliefs, mosaics and inscriptions, showing a complex iconographic and epigraphic program. At the corner of block B, the northern margin of the square, towards Via di Ripetta, a strong reference to the Ara Pacis is given by a relief showing in the centre a woman sitting with a small child on her knees. On the left, a second woman presents her already older child to her, the boy kneels in front of the sitting woman handing her a dove, a symbol of peace, perhaps as a present. On the right, an old shepherd with two of his animals kneels as well, looking to the sitting woman (Fig. 7). The entire composition, the figures as well as the peaceful scenery, reminds one immediately of the famous Italia/Tellus relief of the Ara Pacis only a few steps away. Due to the aforementioned turn of the Ara Pacis, both reliefs face each other. Further to the east, a huge recess of the façade of the same block B in the axis of Largo Schiavoni is furnished with a fountain and a Latin inscription in 38 Cf. BALLIO MORPURGO (1937); on his résumé, cf. Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 77, 2012, p. 183-186. 39 Cf. CALANDRA DI ROCCOLINO (2009-2010).

THE REDESIGN OF THE PIAZZA AUGUSTO IMPERATORE

405

the basement and mosaics by Ferruccio Ferrazzi 40 in the upper stories, showing river Tiber with Romulus and Remus and the lupa Romana, as well as some rural scenes. The Latin inscription (Fig. 8) still celebrates Mussolini as guardian and restorer of the Roman heritage: Hunc Locum Ubi Augusti Manes Volitant Per Auras / Postquam Imperatoris Mausoleum Ex Saeculorum Tenebris / Est Extractum Araeque Pacis Disiecta Membra Refecta / Mussol[ini Dux] Veteribus Angustiis Deletis Splendidioribus / Viis Aedificiis Aedibus Ad Humanitatis Mores Aptis / Ornandum Censuit Anno MDCCCCXL [A.F.R. XVIII].

The characters in square brackets were covered by plaster after World War II to hide, more or less, the fascist background, but recently (2000?) uncovered and restored. The inscription itself clearly refers to Suetonius’ Life of Augustus, where we read, that Augustus has turned Rome from a city of bricks 41 into a city of marble: Vrbem neque pro maiestate imperii ornatam et inundationibus incendiisque obnoxiam excoluit adeo, ut iure sit gloriatus marmoream se relinquere, quam latericiam accepisset. 42

Block A at the eastern margin, housing the Istituto nazionale fascista di previdenza sociale, is provided with a 41 m long sculptural frieze above the central entrance, designed by Alfredo Biagini. 43 The frieze celebrates work and labour; it also shows domestic scenes like the care of children and the elderly. At the centre of the frieze is an Italian inscription which quotes a speech Mussolini gave in Milan on April 2nd, 1923: “Il popolo Italiano è il popolo immortale / che trova sempre una primavera / per le sue speranze per la sua passione / per la sua grandezza.” 44 As the inscription not only faces the mausoleum, but is positioned precisely axial to its very centre, Augustus and the glory of the Roman Empire naturally should be seen as the everlasting spring for Italy’s grandeur. Finally, a huge inscription on the choir of S. Carlo celebrates Pope Pius XI Ratti, who concluded the Lateran Treaty in 1929 with Mussolini, resolving the longstanding hostility between the Italian government and the papacy. The mosaics by Croatian artist Jozo Kljaković on the southern block directly connected to S. Girolamo dei Croati also refer to the Second, the Christian Rome, displaying Jesus Christ in the very centre and the baptism of the Croats by the Cf. VOLLMER (1955), vol. 2, p. 94-95; on his résumé cf. Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 77, 2012, p. 183-186. 41 The Latin word latericium strictly means sun-dried brick, whilst brick today is understood generally for burnt bricks. 42 SUET., Aug. 28, 3. 43 Cf. VOLLMER (1953), vol. 1, p. 204; Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 34, 1988, p. 421-423. 44 MUSSOLINI (1934), p. 98. 40

406

KLAUS TRAGBAR

Fig. 7. Rome, Piazza Augusto Imperatore, block B (Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo, 1937-1940), relief.

Fig. 8. Rome, Piazza Augusto Imperatore, block B (Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo, 1937-1940), inscription.

THE REDESIGN OF THE PIAZZA AUGUSTO IMPERATORE

407

Byzantine emperor Heraclius. On one hand the scenes clearly refer to the historic Congregazione Illirica, on the other hand one may remember that parts of Dalmatia were conquered, or from the Italian point of view, redeemed by Italian troops in 1940, so that the scenes include a current reference too. Even if the entire composition of the Piazza Augusto Imperatore followed a concise political concept, the conservative critic Ugo Ojetti wrote: L‘idea di Augusto è oggi viva alta e presente. Duce Benito Mussolini, ministro Giuseppe Bottai, governatore di Roma un Colonna, spettatore il mondo civile, a quella idea non bastano una scatola, un fossato, un vuoto rudere e venti cipressi. 45

In 1942 Oriolo Frezzotti proposed in vain the foot of the Aventine hill above the Circus Maximus as the new site for the Ara Pacis and to be surrounded by a colonnade similar to the Mausoleo Cesare Battisti in Trento, designed by Ettore Fagiuoli in 1935. Even still in 1949 Guglielmo Gatti suggested bringing the Ara Pacis into the Mausoleum of Augustus and to protect it with a glass roof. 6. P.S. During World War II the lower glass of the panels of the Museo dell’Ara Pacis was substituted by travertine to protect the precious altar; in 1970 the entire building was renovated and also got its glass windows back, but due to the extreme short construction period in 1938 – remember: only three months – the museum showed a lot of structural damages and seemed no longer able to protect the most valuable monument in it. So in 1996 Roman mayor Francesco Rutelli decided to demolish Morpurgo’s building and to directly assign New York architect Richard Meier with the design of a new museum. Immediately after this announcement alternative projects for the Piazza Augusto Imperatore were presented by architects of the conservative, so called New Urbanism movement. 46 Leon Krier proposed the reconstruction not only of the mausoleum but of the entire city quarter around it and turned the Ara Pacis back to east, in contrast Liam O’Connor transformed the mausoleum back into an amphitheater, his Tiber banks immediately recall the baroque Porto di Ripetta, only that O’Connor moved the curved stairs, once right in front of S. Girolamo dei Croati, to the Mausoleum of Augustus (Fig. 9). When in March 1998 the preliminary design was presented, Romans immediately called it pompa di benzina, gas station, which would never fit into the cityscape, and Federico Zeri wrote in La Stampa: “Meier conosce Roma come

45 46

OJETTI (1938). Cf. TAGLIAVENTI (1996); YOUNÉS (2002).

408

KLAUS TRAGBAR

Fig. 9. Liam O’Connor, project for Piazza Augusto Imperatore (1996).

io conosco il Tibet, dove non sono mai stato”. 47 Meier designed a rhythmically staggered building, which follows the bend of the river Tiber (Fig. 10). 48 Approaching from south, from the Pantheon, a sequence of well-known roman urban elements leads to the building’s entrance, all corresponding with their architectural neighbourhood: a fountain is located in front of S. Girolamo dei Croati and a square in front of S. Rocco, both elements were connected by an L-shaped, double flight of steps answering to the void between both the churches. A rough travertine wall, effectively contrasting with Meier’s habitual smooth and white surfaces, leads into the museum. After an entrance room and a small exhibition area the central hall with the Ara Pacis opens, which is considerably higher than the old museum and allows much lighter to touch the altar. Next to those positive, mostly urban aspects, there are some negative ones like the building’s volume, which is too big for the small site. Furthermore, the museum does not respond to its context and, mainly, it cements all urban decisions made during the Ventennio, whether they may be evaluated right or wrong. However, the new Museo dell’Ara Pacis was inaugurated – of course – on April 21st, 2006, and, once again, it causes severe polemics: “Un orrore, uno ZERI (1998). Cf., amongst others, MURATORE (2006); WEGERHOFF (2006); FROMMEL (2007); ANDRIANI / JEMOLO (2007); MONZA (2007). 47

48

THE REDESIGN OF THE PIAZZA AUGUSTO IMPERATORE

Fig. 10. Rome, Museo dell’Ara Pacis (Richard Meier, 1998-2006), view from south.

409

410

KLAUS TRAGBAR

stupro, una brutta architettura contemporanea, un insulto alla cultura, un manufatto orribile ed un progetto sbagliato”. 49 During the election campaign in 2008, Rome’s far-right mayor Giovanni Alemanno threatened to demolish Meier’s museum claiming it is not “Roman” – a strange revenant of Romanità, but not too surprising if we recall Alemanno’s political background. However, Alemanno lost the election in 2013 to Ignazio Marino (Partito Democratico), so the new Museo dell’Ara Pacis still stands … for now. Bibliography ALBERS, J. (2013), Campus Martius. Die urbane Entwicklung des Marsfeldes von der Republik bis zur mittleren Kaiserzeit, Wiesbaden. ANDRIANI, C. / JEMOLO, A. (2007), Richard Meier. Il Museo dell’Ara Pacis, Milan. ASSMANN, A. (1980), Zum Problem der Identität aus kulturwissenschaftlicher Sicht, in H. BAUSINGER / K. KÖSTLIN (eds.), Heimat und Identität. Probleme regionaler Kultur, Neumünster, p. 13-35. ARTHURS, J. (2012), Excavating Modernity. The Roman Past in Fascist Italy, Ithaca NY. BALLIO MORPURGO, V. (1937), La sistemazione Augustea, in Capitolium 12, p. 145-158. BARTOLI, A. (1915-1920), I monumenti antichi di Roma nei disegni degli Uffizi di Firenze, vol. 2, Rome, 1915; vol. 3, 1916; vol. 4, 1920. BARTOLI, A. (1927-1928), L’architettura del Mausoleo di Augusto, in BA 21, p. 30-46. BOSCHUNG, D. (1980), Tumulus Iuliorum – Mausoleum Augusti. Ein Beitrag zu seinen Sinnbezügen, in HASB 6, p. 38-41. BORBEIN, A. H. (1975), Die Ara Pacis Augustae. Geschichtliche Wirklichkeit und Programm, in JDAI 90, p. 242-266. BROCK, I. (1995), Das faschistische Erbe im Herzen Roms. Das Beispiel Piazza Augusto Imperatore, in A. HUBEL / H. WIRTH (eds.), Denkmale und Gedenkstätten, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Hochschule für Architektur und Bauwesen Weimar 41, n. 4-5, p. 129-156. BRÜCKNER, H. / DUBIELZIG, U. / PLIENINGER, K. (2006), Weite Horizonte. Hermann Weller 1878–1956. Klassischer Indologe, lateinischer Dichter, christlicher Humanist, Schwäbisch Gmünd. BUCHNER, E. (1976), Solarium Augusti und Ara Pacis, in MDAI(R) 83, p. 319-365. BUCHNER, E. (1980), Horologium Augusti. Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen 1979/80, in MDAI(R) 87, p. 355-373. CALANDRA DI ROCCOLINO (2009-2010), L’invenzione di un monumento. I progetti di Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo per l’Ara Pacis Augustae, in Opvs incertvm 4-5, n. 6-7, p. 74-85. CAPERNA, M. (1989), Influssi lombardi a Roma. La chiesa di S. Girolamo degli Schiavoni, opera di Martino Longhi, il Vecchio, in Atti del XXIII Congresso di storia dell’architettura, Roma, 24-26 marzo 1988, Rome, vol. 1, p. 219-225. CARACCIOLO, A. (1999), Roma Capitale. Dal Risorgimento alla crisi dello stato liberale, 5th ed., Rome. 49 SGARBI (2006), p. 3. For a synopsis of the controversial discussion and a (nearly) complete list of newspaper articles cf. Dibatti, interventi, in Palladio 17, 2004, no. 34, p. 105-156, primarily the meticulous analysis of Muratore (p. 107-117).

THE REDESIGN OF THE PIAZZA AUGUSTO IMPERATORE

411

CARANDINI, A. (2014), La Roma di Augusto in 100 monumenti, Turin. CASTRIOTA, D. (1995), The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance in Later Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art, Princeton NJ. CLARK REEDER, J. (1992), Typology and Ideology in the Mausoleum of Augustus. Tumulus and Tholos, in ClAnt 11, n. 2, p. 265-307. CEDERNA, A. (1979), Mussolini urbanista. Lo sventramento di Roma negli anni del consenso, Rome. COFRANCESCO, D. (1980), Appunti per un’analisi del mito romano nell’ideologia fascista, in Storia Contemporanea 11, n. 3, p. 383-411. COLINI, A. M. (1928-1929), Il Mausoleo di Augusto, in Capitolium 4, p. 11-22. DAVIES, P. J. E. (1998), Death and the Emperor. Roman Imperial Funerary Monuments, from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius, Cambridge. DE ANGELIS D’OSSAT, M. (2003), Il marchese Correa e il mausoleo di Augusto, in B. CACCIOTTI et al. (eds.), Illuminismo e ilustración. Le antichità e i loro protagonisti in Spagna e in Italia nel XVIII secolo, Rome, p. 121-141. DEBENEDETTI, E. (ed.) (1985), Valadier. Segno e architettura, Rome. DELL’ERBA, N. (2013), L’idea di romanità durante il fascismo, in ID., L’eco della storia. Saggi di critica storica, Mantua, p. 89-138. DONDERER, M. (2009), Zur Datierung des Augustus-Mausoleums, in JÖAI 78, p. 69-77. DU PÉRAC, É. (1575), I vestigi dell’antichità di Roma, Rome. EISNER, M. (1979), Zur Typologie der Mausoleen des Augustus und des Hadrian, in MDAI(R) 86, p. 319-324. ESTERMANN-JUCHLER, M. (1982), Faschistische Staatsbaukunst. Zur ideologischen Funktion der öffentlichen Architektur im faschistischen Italien, Cologne / Vienna. ETLIN, R. A. (1991), Nationalism in Modern Italian Architecture 1900–1940, in ID. (ed.), Nationalism in the Visual Arts, Hanover / London, p. 89-109. FEDERAZIONE FASCISTA DELL’URBE (ed.) (1927), La sistemazione della zona augustea, Rome. FIORELLINI, V. (2010), Edmondo Sanjust di Teulada. Legge Zanardelli per la Basilicata, leggi per la Sardegna, piani regolatori, Potenza. FIORILLI, E. (1927/28), A proposito del Mausoleo di Augusto, in BA 21, p. 214-219. FROMMEL, S. (2007), Museum der Ara Pacis, in STRUNCK (2007), p. 538-541. FUOCO, A. / GRASSINI, St. (1988), Roma. S. Rocco, in Ricerche di storia dell’arte 35, p. 94-98. GALINSKY, K. (2012), Augustus. Introduction to the Life of an Emperor, Cambridge. GARCÍA BARRACO, M. E. (ed.) (2014), Il mausoleo di Augusto. Monumento funebre e testamento epigrafico del primo imperatore romano XIV d.C. – MMXIV d.C. Bimillenario della morte di Augusto, Rome. GARDTHAUSEN, V. (1921-1922), Das Mausoleum Augusti, in MDAI(R) 36-37, p. 111-144. GATTI, G. (1938), Nuove osservazioni sul Mausoleo di Augusto, in L’Urbe 3, n. 8, p. 1-17. GHIRARDO, D. Y. (1980), Italian Architects and Fascist Politics. An Evaluation of the Rationalist’s Role in Regime Building, in JSAH 39, n. 2, p. 109-127. GIARDINA, A. (2013), Augusto tra due bimillenari, in E. LA ROCCA et al. (eds.), Augusto, Exhibition Catalogue, Milan, p. 57-71. GIGLIOLI, G. Q. (1930), Il sepolcreto imperiale, in Capitolium 6, p. 532-567. GUINOMET, Cl. (2007), Mausoleum des Augustus, in Ch. STRUNCK (ed.), Rom – Meisterwerke der Baukunst von der Antike bis heute, Petersberg, p. 34-36. HASELBERGER, L. (1994), Ein Giebelriss der Vorhalle des Pantheon. Die Werkrisse vor dem Augustusmausoleum, in MDAI(R) 101, p. 279-308.

412

KLAUS TRAGBAR

HASELBERGER, L. (ed.) (2014), The Horologium of Augustus. Debate and Context, JRA (suppl.) vol. 99, Portsmouth RI. HOLSTE, D. (2007), Hauptbahnhof (Stazione Termini), in Ch. STRUNCK (ed.), Rom – Meisterwerke der Baukunst von der Antike bis heute, Petersberg, p. 525-529. INGLESE, C. (1999), I tracciati di cantiere incisi nel Mausoleo di Augusto e sul Pantheon a Roma. Ipotesi di lettura, in G. MARTINES (ed.), Geometria e architettura, Rome, p. 43-62. INGLESE, C. (2013), Il tracciato di cantiere dell’Augusteo in Roma. Integrazione di metodologia di rilievo, in Disegnare – Idee. Immagini 24, n. 46, p. 64-73. JOHNSON, M. J. (1996), The Mausoleum of Augustus. Etruscan and Other Influences on Its Design, in J. F. HALL (ed.), Etruscan Italy. Etruscan Influences on the Civilizations of Italy from Antiquity to the Modern Era, Provo UT, p. 216-239. KÄHLER, H. (1954), Die Ara Pacis und die augusteische Friedensidee, in JDAI 69, p. 67-100. KIENAST, D. (1982), Augustus. Princeps und Monarch, Darmstadt. KLÜVER, H. (2006), Bau des Anstoßes, in Süddeutsche Zeitung, April 22, p. 13. KOCKEL, V. / KRÄMER, G. (2001), Ein verlorenes Fragment der Ara Pacis Augustae. Zu dem neu erworbenen Bild von Christian Berentz (1658–1722) in den Augsburger Kunstsammlungen, in P. BARCELÓ / V. ROSENBERGER (eds.), Humanitas. Beiträge zur antiken Kulturgeschichte, Munich, p. 107-137. KOKŠA, G. (1971), S. Girolamo degli Schiavoni, Rome, 1971. KOSTOF, S. (1973a), The Third Rome 1870–1950. Traffic and Glory, Berkeley. KOSTOF, S. (1973b), The Third Rome. The Polemics of Architectural History, in JSAH 32, n. 3, p. 239-250. KOSTOF, S. (1976), The Drafting of a Master Plan for Roma Capitale. An Exordium, in JSAH 35, no. 1, p. 5-20. KOSTOF, S. (1978), The Emperor and the Duce. The Planning of Piazzale Augusto Imperatore in Rome, in H. A. MILLON / L. NOCHLIN (eds.), Art and Architecture in the Service of Politics, Cambridge MA / London, p. 270-325. KRAFT, K. (1967), Der Sinn des Mausoleums des Augustus, in Historia 16, p. 190-206. KUSTER, Th. (2004), Die Italienreise Kaiser Franz’ I. von Österreich 1819, in Römische Historische Mitteilungen 46, p. 305-334. LUPANO, M. (1991), Marcello Piacentini, Rome. MANGIA RENDA, P. (1993), S. Girolamo degli Schiavoni, in M. L. MADONNA (ed.), La Roma di Sisto V. Le arti e la cultura, Rome, p. 145-149. MASSARETTE, J. (1919), Rom seit 1870. Bauliche Umgestaltung und Verwüstung der ewigen Stadt. Pflege der in kirchlicher Obhut verbliebenen Denkmäler und Kunstschätze, Hamm. MLASOWSKY, A. (2010), Ara Pacis. Ein Staatsmonument des Augustus auf dem Marsfeld, Mayence. MORETTI, G. (1948), Ara Pacis Augustae, Rome. MONZA, F. (ed.) (2007), Un museo per l’Ara Pacis. La storia, il progetto, i materiali, Milan. MURATORE, G. (2006), Richard Meiers Ara Pacis, in Bauwelt 97, n. 23, p. 28-33. MUSSOLINI, B. (1934), Scritti e discorsi, vol. 5, Milan. MUSSOLINI, B. (1956), Opera Omnia, Florence. NASH, E. (1961-1962), Bildlexikon zu Topographie des antiken Rom, vol. 1/2, Tübingen. NELIS, J. (2007), La Romanité («  romanità  ») fasciste. Bilan des recherches et propositions pour le futur, in Latomus 66, n. 4, p. 987-1006.

THE REDESIGN OF THE PIAZZA AUGUSTO IMPERATORE

413

NELIS, J. (2009), Ettore Ciccotti’s “Profilo di Augusto” and the “giuramento” of 1931, in Mediterraneo Antico 12, n. 1-2, 283-295. NELIS, J. (2014), Back to the Future. Italian Fascist Representations of the Roman Past, in Fascism. Journal of Comparative Fascist Studies 3, p. 1-19. NICOLOSO, P. (2012), Architetture per un’identità italiana. Progetti e opere per fare gli italiani fascisti, Udine. OJETTI, U. (1938), Corriere della Sera, October 4, p. 3. PIACENTINI, M. (1925-1926), La trasformazione dell’Augusteo, in Capitolium 1, p. 24-27. PETRIN, M. (2012), L’isolamento del sepolcro di Augusto e il padiglione dell’Ara Pacis a Roma, 1936-1942, in F. LUPPI / E. BASSI / M. PETRIN (eds.), Itinerari. Architetture per un’identità italiana. Progetti e opere per fare gli italiani fascisti, Udine, p. 209-224. PONTI, E. (1935), Come sorse e come scomparve il quartiere attorno al Mausoleo di Augusto, in Capitolium 11, p. 235-259. POVOLEDO, E. (2008), Rome’s Mayor Plans to Raze Meier Museum, in The New York Times, May 1, p. E2. PRISCO, G. (2013), Fascismo di gesso. Dietro le quinte della Mostra augustea della romanità, in M. I. CATALANO (ed.), Snodi di critica. Musei, mostre, restauro e diagnostica artistica in Italia 1930–1940, Rome, p. 225-259. RETROSI, E. (1888-1889), Alcune riflessioni sul concorso per la statua equestre di Vittorio Emanuele, in Arte e storia 7, 1888, p. 49-50; 8, 1889, p. 83. RICCI, C. (1911), Per l’isolamento e la redenzione dei resti dei Fori Imperiali, in BA 5, p. 445-455. RICCI, C. (1913), Per l’isolamento degli avanzi dei Fori Imperiali, Rome. RICCI, C. (1924), La redenzione degli avanzi del Foro di Augusto, Rome. RICCOMINI, A. M. (1996), La ruina di sì bela cosa. Vicende e trasformazioni del mausoleo di Augusto, Milan. RICHARD, J.-Cl. (1970), Mausoleum. D’Halicarnasse à Rome, puis à Alexandrie, in Latomus 29, p. 370-388. ROMANIELLO, L. (2006), Progetti per la sistemazione del Mausoleo di Augusto a Roma (1925–1938), in Il tesoro delle città 4, p. 406-417. SACRÉ, D. (1993), “Et Batavi sudamus adhuc sudore Latino?” Het Certamen Hoeufftianum, in Hermeneus 65, n. 2, p. 120-124. SALERNO, L. / SPAGNESI, G. (1962), La chiesa di S. Rocco all’Augusteo, Rome. SANJUST DI TEULADA, E. (2008), Piano regolatore della città di Roma 1908. Relazione presentata al consiglio comunale di Roma, reprint Rome. SCARFONE, G. (2007), “Neo” architettonico di Giuseppe Valadier. Il crollo del velario nell’Anfiteatro Corea, in Strenna dei Romanisti 68, p. 643-651. SCHIFFMANN, R. (1985), Roma felix. Aspekte der städtebaulichen Gestaltung Roms unter Papst Sixtus V., Bern et al. SCHUMACHER, L. (1988), Augusteische Propaganda und faschistische Rezeption, in ZRGG 40, p. 307-334. SCHÜMER, D. (2006), Um alles Scheinen zu steingewordenem Sein zu einen, in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, April 26, p. 39. SCRIBA, F. (1995), Augustus im Schwarzhemd? Die Mostra Augustea della Romanità in Rom 1937/38, Frankfurt upon Main et al. SETTIS, S. (1988), Die Ara Pacis, in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik, Exhibition Catalogue, Berlin, p. 400-425, cat. 226-231. SGARBI, V. (2006), Corriere della Sera, April 14. SIMON, E. (1967), Ara Pacis Augustae, Tübingen.

414

KLAUS TRAGBAR

SIMON, E. (1986), Kunst und Leben in Rom um die Zeitenwende, Munich. SIMONCINI, G. (1990), Roma restaurata. Rinnovamento urbano al tempo di Sisto V, Florence. STONE, M. (1999), A Flexible Rome. Fascism and the Cult of Romanità, in C. EDWARDS (ed.), Roman Presences. Receptions of Rome in European Culture 1789–1945, Cambridge / New York NY, p. 205-220. STRUNCK, Ch. (ed.) (2007), Rom – Meisterwerke der Baukunst von der Antike bis heute, Petersberg. TRAGBAR, K. (2004a), ‘Romanità’, ‘italianità’, ‘ambientismo’. Kontinuität und Rückbesinnung in der italienischen Moderne, in Bericht über die 42. Tagung für Ausgrabungswissenschaft und Bauforschung, Dresden, p. 72-83. TRAGBAR, K. (2004b), Graben, bauen und rekonstruieren im Zeichen der ‘romanità’, in K. RHEIDT / E.-L. SCHWANDNER (eds.), Macht der Architektur – Architektur der Macht, Mayence, p. 309-320. TRAGBAR, K. (2013), “Fatta l’Italia, bisogna fare …” eine nationale italienische Architektur, in D. DOMBROWSKI (ed.), Kunst auf der Suche nach der Nation. Das Problem der Identität in der italienischen Malerei, Skulptur und Architektur vom Risorgimento bis zum Faschismus, Berlin, p. 102-119. TRAGBAR, K. (2014), “Der Geist der Tradition”. Anmerkungen zu Historizität und Erinnerung in der italienischen Moderne, in K. KAPPEL / M. MÜLLER (eds.), Geschichtsbilder und Erinnerungskultur in der Architektur des 20. und 21. Jahrhunderts, Regensburg, p. 59-74. VAN DER AA, A. J. (1845), Nieuw biographisch, anthologisch en critisch Woordenboek van Nederlandsche Dichters, vol. 2, Amsterdam, p. 232-233. VISCOGLIOSI, A. (2013), L’architettura augustea, in E. LA ROCCA et al. (eds.), Augusto, Exhibition Catalogue, Milan, p. 106-117. VISSER, R. (1992), Fascist Doctrine and the Cult of the Romanità, in Journal of Contemporary History 27, n. 1, p. 5-22. VISSER, R. (1993), Pax Augusta and Pax Mussoliniana. The Fascist Cult of the ‘romanità’ and the Use of ‘Augustan’ Conceptions at the Piazza Augusto Imperatore in Rome, in P. KESSEL (ed.), The Power of Imagery. Essays on Rome, Italy & Imagination, Rome, p. 109-130. VOLLMER, H. (ed.) (1953-1955), Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler des XX. Jahrhunderts, vol. 1, 1953; vol. 2, 1955. VON GOETHE, J. W. (1816-1817), Italienische Reise, in C. MICHEL / H.-G. DEWITZ (eds.), Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Sämtliche Werke. Briefe, Tagebücher und Gespräche, vol. 15/1-2, Frankfurt am Main. VON HESBERG, H. (1988), Das Mausoleum des Augustus, in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik, Exhibition Catalogue, Berlin, p. 245-249, cat. 113-115. VON HESBERG, H. / PANCIERA, S. (1994), Das Mausoleum des Augustus. Der Bau und seine Inschriften, Munich. VON DEN HOFF, R. / STROH, W. / ZIMMERMANN, M. (2014), Diuus Augustus. Der erste römische Kaiser und seine Welt, Munich. WASZINK. J. H. (1968), De poesi neolatina Batavorum deque certamine poetico Hoeufftiano, in Institutum Romanis studiis Provehendis (ed.), Acta omnium gentium ac nationum conventus Latinis litteris linguaeque fovendis a die XIV ad diem XVIII mensis Aprilis a. MDCCCCLXVI Romae habiti, Rome, p. 281-290. WAURICK, G. (1973), Untersuchungen zur Lage der römischen Kaisergräber in der Zeit von Augustus bis Constantin, in JRGZ 20, p. 107-146.

THE REDESIGN OF THE PIAZZA AUGUSTO IMPERATORE

415

WEGERHOFF, E. (2006), Veltroni fecit, in Baumeister 103, n. 6, p. 14. WELLER, H. (1946), Carmina Latina, 2nd ed., Tübingen. WILKINS, A. Th. (2013), Augustus, Mussolini, and the Parallel Imagery of Empire, in C. LAZZARO / R. J. CRUM (eds.), Donatello among the Blackshirts, Ithaca NY, p. 53-65. YOUNÉS, S. (ed.) (2002), Ara Pacis. Contro-Progetti / Counter-Projects, Florence. ZANKER, P. (2009 [1987]), Augustus und die Macht der Bilder, 5th ed., Munich. ZANKER, P. (2006), Travertin mit Zebrastreifen, in Süddeutsche Zeitung, April 24, p. 13. ZAMPA, F. (2004), Organizzare l’azione urbanistica, in Roma moderna e contemporanea 12, n. 1-2, p. 175-196 ZERI, F. (1998), La Stampa, March 8, p. 23.

Sources of illustrations Ill. 1: STRUNCK (2007), p. 36. Ill. 2: STRUNCK (2007), p. 35. Ill. 3: VON HESBERG / PANCIERA (1994), p. 196 ill. 49. Ill. 4: KOSTOF (1978), p. 276. Ill. 5: KOSTOF (1978), p. 283. Ill. 6: MORETTI (1948), p. 115, ill. 99. Ill. 7, 8, 10: Author’s photos. Ill. 9: TAGLIAVENTI (1996), p. 37.

Der Caudillo als nouus Augustus. Zur Augustusrezeption in den ersten Jahren der franquistischen Herrschaft in Spanien TIMO KLÄR (Universität des Saarlandes)

Abstract In 1938 the Italian regime of Benito Mussolini celebrated the 2000th birthday of the first Roman Emperor Augustus. On the occasion of this celebration, Mussolini presented himself as nouus Augustus. Likewise, in Spain, where Francisco Franco ruled the country as a military dictator until his death in 1975, a delayed celebration also took place. The most important event of the so called Semana Augustea de Zaragoza in 1940 was the revelation of a statuary copy of the Augustus of Primaporta, a gift from Mussolini to Franco and to the city of Zaragoza. For Francoism the statue was not only a symbol for the new established political system after the Spanish Civil War, but also a manifestation of the fascist doctrine of the Falange, the only allowed political party in Spain. Already at the peak of the Spanish Civil War there were a few hints that Francisco Franco would also have presented himself as nouus Augustus and as guardian of the ancient heritage, so that Galindo Romeo claimed in his Res Gestae Diui Augusti (1938) a bilingual inscription for Franco similar to the Monumentum Ancyranum or that Roman titles such as imperator, pater patriae or princeps were transferred to Francisco Franco.

1. Einleitung Jüngst bot sich im Augustus-Jahr 2014, das anlässlich des 2.000. Todestages des ersten römischen princeps gefeiert wurde, die Gelegenheit, sich mit Augustus in zahlreichen Biographien, Epochendarstellungen, populärwissenschaftlichen Werken, Tagungen, Ausstellungen und Zeitungsbeiträgen in vielfältiger Weise auseinanderzusetzen 1. Im spanischen Saragossa, dem römischen Caesaraugusta, nahm man die Feierlichkeiten zum Día Internacional del Museo vom 16.-22. Mai 2014 zum 1

Beispielhaft seien hier nur zwei genannt. Von Oktober 2013 bis Februar 2014 fand in den Scuderie del Quirinale in Rom eine Ausstellung unter dem Titel Augusto statt und an der Freien Universität Berlin wurde im Wintersemester 2014/15 eine Ringvorlesung mit dem Titel „Modellkaiser-Kaisermodell“ veranstaltet, bei der zahlreiche, namhafte Forscher Beiträge lieferten. Der Tagungsband ist mittlerweile erschienen: BALTRUSCH / WENDT (2016).

418

TIMO KLÄR

Anlass, diesen ganz im Zeichen des Augustus, dem Gründer von Caesaraugusta, zu begehen 2. Die Feierlichkeiten begannen mit der Eröffnung von verschiedenen Ausstellungen in Museen der Stadt, die sich der Persönlichkeit des princeps, der Politik und Kultur seiner Zeit sowie der Geschichte Saragossas widmeten und bis zum 31. Dezember 2014 zu sehen waren. Die Veranstaltungen zum Augustusjahr 2014 legen nahe, dass man in Saragossa mit Stolz auf die antike Vergangenheit der Stadt blickte. Bereits im Jahre 1940 hatte man ähnliche Feierlichkeiten in Saragossa mit der Semana Augustea de Zaragoza begangen, die ebenfalls ganz im Zeichen des Augustus standen. Diese erlauben einen Einblick in die Rezeption des Augustus im Franquismus, die nun einer näheren Analyse unterzogen werden soll. 2. Die Semana Augustea de Zaragoza (30. Mai-4. Juni 1940) Italien feierte den 2.000. Geburtstag des Augustus 1938 mit zahlreichen archäologisch geprägten Veranstaltungen, die Mussolini dazu nutzte, sich als nouus Augustus zu präsentieren und den imperialen Anspruch Italiens in der Nachfolge des Imperium Romanum zu propagieren 3. Die wissenschaftliche Beschäftigung in Italien mit den Errungenschaften in augusteischer Zeit konzentrierte sich darauf, einen universalistischen Anspruch des italienischen Faschismus als Fortsetzung der römischen Reichsidee zu betonen, indem eine Reihe von internationalen Publikationen erschienen, die sich mit augusteischen Themen beschäftigten. Damit einher ging eine vielseitige Beschäftigung mit Augustus in anderen westlichen Ländern. In Spanien hielt bereits im März 1938 der der franquistischen Ideologie nahestehende Bürgermeister der baskischen Stadt Bilbao José María de Areilza eine Rede mit dem Titel Il Año Triunfal. Mit dieser Rede sollte an drei Ereignisse erinnert werden: an das Bimillenario de Augusto, an die Gründung der Fasci italiani di combattimento am 23. März 1919 durch Mussolini und an das Attentat auf Julius Caesar an den Iden des März 44 v. Chr. Auf die Feierstunde in Bilbao folgten im Mai und Juni 1938 eine Reihe von Vorträgen in der gallizischen Stadt Lugo, die ebenfalls des 2.000. Geburtstages des ersten princeps gedachten. Im Jahr darauf erschienen in Italien die Quaderni Augustei. Studi Stranieri mit spanischer Beteiligung. Ferran Valls i Taberner pries in seinem Beitrag Gli studi spagnoli sulla figura e lʼopera dʼAugusto e sulla fondazione dellʼImpero Romano die Leistungen des Augustus 2

Die Gründung von Caesaraugusta im Jahre 14 v. Chr. als colonia immunis bei STRABON 3, 2, 15 (151 C), PLINIUS DER ÄLTERE, Naturalis Historia 3, 4, 24, der Salduie als Vorgängersiedlung und den Status der Gründung erwähnt. Zur Gründung vgl. MOSTALAC CARILLO (2008). Vgl. allgemein zur Stadt: HÜBNER (1897); BARCELÓ (1997). 3 Vgl. etwa den Katalog zur Mostra Augustea della Romanità: GIGLIOLI (1938); vgl. CAGNETTA (1976); SCHUMACHER (1988); TORELLI (1991); VISSER (1992); CANFORA (1995); SCRIBA (1995); DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (1997), S. 565; DERS. (2001), S. 525; GIARDINA (2008), S. 60; NAKAYAMA RUFINO (2011), S. 3.

DER CAUDILLO ALS NOVVS AVGVSTVS

419

in Hispanien. Kurz nach Beendigung des Spanischen Bürgerkrieges wurde im Juli 1939 eine Augustusstatue in Tarragona nochmals eingeweiht, die die Stadt bereits 1934 als Geschenk von Mussolini erhalten hatte 4. Im spanischen Saragossa wurde im Jahre 1939 ein Conlegium Augusteum gegründet, das eine Semana Augustea zum Bimilenario vorbereiten sollte. Die Ehrenpräsidentschaft wurde Francisco Franco und Benito Mussolini übertragen 5. Die einwöchige Veranstaltung fand schließlich vom 30. Mai-4. Juni 1940 6 in Saragossa statt. Das Programm der Semana Augustea bestand aus sechs Vorträgen spanischer und italienischer Forscher zu augusteischen Themen in der Aula der Universidad de Zaragoza 7, aus Besuchen archäologischer Ausgrabungsstätten 8 sowie aus zahlreichen Empfängen. Darüber hinaus wurden in 4 Vgl. ACCADEMIA NAZIONALE DEI LINCEI (1938), mit zahlreicher Beteiligung internationaler Forscher; DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (1997), S. 565; DERS. (2001), S. 525-526. Zur Beschäftigung mit Augustus in Spanien seit 1938: vgl. DERS. (2017), S. 142-146, 148-152. 5 Der eigentliche Verantwortliche war der Falangist Don Pascual Galindo Romeo, der Vizedirektor der Universidad de Zaragoza und Professor für Lengua y Literatura Latina, der die Veranstaltungsreihe vorgeschlagen hatte. Vgl. S. A. (1938). Franco und Mussolini erhielten ihre Einladung durch zwei Briefe, die auf Latein abgefasst waren. Diese sind abgedruckt in: S. A. (1939), S. 197-198. Zur Biografie des Galindo Romeo: vgl. CANELLAS (1981). Ein Nachruf wurde veröffentlicht von FONTÁN (1991); vgl. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (2001), S. 526. 6 Ursprünglich sollte die Veranstaltung früher stattfinden, wurde allerdings wohl aufgrund der politischen Verhältnisse nach hinten verschoben. Vgl. S. A. (1939), S. 195: „El día 30 de mayo comenzó solemnemente en Zaragoza la ‘Semana Augusta’. Su fin principal era celebrar el ‘Bimilenario de Augusto’ que a su tiempo no había podido conmemorar España en 1937, por hallarnos todo entonces ocupados en la defensa de la Patria.“ Zur Semana Augustea de Zaragoza: vgl. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (2017), S. 152-155. 7 Den Anfang machte Prof. Dr. Perrota, Professor für griechische Philologie an der Universität Rom mit seinem Vortrag Augusto; darauf folgten Don Pío Beltrán, Professor am Instituto de Valencia zum Thema Acuñaciones de época augustea; Dr. Pascual Galindo über Augusto y la fundacíon de Caesaraugusta; Prof. Salvatore Riccobono von der Universität Rom und Mitglied der italienischen Akademie über Aportaciones jurídicas de Roma a Hispania; der Jurist Prof. Manuel Torres López von der Universität Salamanca über Romanización de Hispania en tiempos de Augusto und zum Abschluss der Archäologe Biagio Pace aus Rom über Roma de Augusto antes y después de las excavaciones de Mussolini. Vgl. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (1997), S. 566; vgl. auch NAKAYAMA RUFINO (2011), S. 2, 5-6. 8 O. V. (1940a), S. 5: „Zaragoza, 31 – A primeras horas de la tarde, por iniciativa de las personalidades italianas que han venido a los actos que se están celebrando, se efectuó una excursión a la ruínas de Vellila de Ebro, que se llamó en tiempos de César, Julia Celsa. Luego visitaron Azaila. Dirigió la expedición e hizo interesantes relatos sobre el origen romano de las dos villas el doctor don Juan Cabré, director de Museo Cerralbo, que es quien ha descubierto y ordenado dichas ruinas. Visitaron también la excavación de Numancia bajo la dirección del señor Taracena.“ O. V. (1940b), S. 9: „Zaragoza, 1 – Las personalidades italianas que vinieron a ésta para tomar parte en la Semana Augustea, visitaron hoy los monumentos de la ciudad y las ruinas de la antigua

420

TIMO KLÄR

der Basílica del Pilar Messen gefeiert und die Abendessen fanden im Salón pompeyano des Casino Mercantil statt. Weiterhin gab es Filmvorführungen über das Rom Mussolinis und Konzerte, u. a. mit einer Version des carmen saeculare des Horaz 9. Insgesamt nahm eine große Zahl von Repräsentanten an den einzelnen Veranstaltungen teil, die alle unter der Schirmherrschaft der Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista (FET y de las JONS) stattfanden 10. Die Angleichung Spaniens an Italien war überhaupt erst durch die Gründung der Falange Española de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista (Falange Española de las JONS) am 15. Februar 1934 und deren führende Persönlichkeiten möglich geworden 11. Ebenso wie in Italien verstand es dabei die Falange in Spanien ihre faschistische Ideologie durch die Kopplung zwischen Archäologie und Geschichte hervorzuheben und die antike Vergangenheit zu würdigen 12, indem die Gründung der Stadt Saragossa durch Augustus als

Caesaraugusta. Los profesores, señores Galindo, Alvareda y Picamón ilustraron la visita con interesantes relatos acerca de los primeros tiempos de Zaragoza. También visitaron el Museo Provincial.“ Vgl. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (1997), S. 566; NAKAYAMA RUFINO (2011), S. 6. 9 Vgl. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (1997), S. 567. 10 So der Generaldirektor des Istituto Italiano di Cultura in Spanien Salvatore Battaglia; der Geschäftsträger der italienischen Botschaft in Spanien Conde de Zoppi; die Frau des italienischen Botschafters in Spanien Gastone Gámbara; der Sekretär der Botschaft marqués de Cavaletti; der Pressereferent der Botschaft Dr. Rafael Pattueli; der italienische Generalkonsul in Barcelona Gino Berri; der Komponist Carlo Jachino; Giorgio Spotti als Vertreter der Agenzia Stefani; der Chef der italienischen Streitkräfte teniente coronel Scaglia; der italienische Konsul in Saragossa Piccio; der Bürgermeister von Saragossa Juan José Rivas Bosch; die Generäle Monasterio, Sueiro und Yeregui; der gobernador civil Barón de Benasque; der Präsident der Diputación Provincial Giménez Gran; der Rektor der Universidad de Zaragoza Dr. Gonzalo Calamita; der Vizepräsident der Real Academia de Medicina de Zaragoza Ricardo Horno Alcorta, sowie der Chef der Falange in Saragossa Pio Altolaguirre. Zusätzlich waren bei der Eröffnung und dem Abschluss der Feierlichkeiten noch der Ministro de Gobernación Serrano Suñer, und der Ministro de Educación Nacional Ibañez Martín anwesend. Vgl. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (1997), S. 566-567 m. Anm. 3; NAKAYAMA RUFINO (2011), S. 5. 11 Vgl. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (2003); NAKAYAMA RUFINO (2011), S. 5. Die Falange Española wurde 1933 von José Antonio Primo de Rivera gegründet und ein Jahr später mit der faschistischen Organisation Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista (JONS) der Hitlerbewunderer Ramiro Lesema Ramos und Onésimo Redondo zur Falange Española de las JONS zusammengeschlossen. Nachdem Primo de Riveras im November 1936 hingerichtet worden war, schloss Franco am 19. April 1937 Karlisten, rechte Monarchisten und Republikaner mit der Falange zur Einheitspartei FET y de las JONS unter seiner Führung zusammen; vgl. BERNECKER (2002), S. 169; HEROLD-SCHMIDT (2005), S. 415416, 430. 12 Im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert wurde der Rückgriff auf die Archäologie zur Definierung der eigenen historischen Vergangenheit immer wichtiger. Für Spanien vgl. etwa: DÍAZ-ANDREU (1995); NAKAYAMA RUFINO (2011), S. 6-7.

DER CAUDILLO ALS NOVVS AVGVSTVS

421

Caesaraugusta stolz präsentiert wurde 13. Um dies der Öffentlichkeit deutlich vor Augen zu führen, erhielt der caudillo Francisco Franco von Mussolini als Höhepunkt der Feierlichkeiten am 2. Juni 1940 auf der Plaza de Paraíso eine 2,75 m hohe und 760 kg schwere bronzene Kopie der Augustusstatue von Primaporta als Geschenk (s. Abb. 1) 14. Der Festakt begann mit einer Truppenbesichtigung, danach wurde die Statue feierlich enthüllt. Bevor die Truppen bis zur Plaza de España marschierten, wo in der Jefatura del Movimiento ein Empfang stattfand, hielten der Geschäftsträger der italienischen Botschaft in Spanien el conde Zoppi und der Bürgermeister von Saragossa Juan José Rivas Bosch Reden 15. 3. Die Semana Augustea de Zaragoza als Ausdruck der faschistischen Ideologie der Falange Die aufgestellte Kopie der Augustusstatue von Primaporta war als archäologisches Monument ein Symbol der Stadt Saragossa, die sich bereits zu einem sehr frühen Zeitpunkt zu dem neuen Regime Spaniens bekannt hatte. So hatte sich etwa der Rektor der Universität Saragossa Gonzalo Calamita am 19. Juli 1936 offen zum Regime bekannt und im Oktober 1936 wandte sich die Facultad de Letras gegen die Institución Libre de Enseñanza, indem sich der Dekan der

Zur Zensur während des Francoregimes: vgl. NEUSCHÄFER (1991), besonders S. 38-76 mit weiterführender Literatur; SEVILLANO CALERO (1997); TUSELL (2001), S. 403; PÉREZ (2006), S. 651. 14 O. V. (1940c), S. 8: „Zaragoza 3. Ayer mañana, a las once, se ha afectuada el descubrimiento de la estatua del Emperador Augusto, que regala el ‘Duce’ a Zaragoza. Asistieron el ministro de Educación Nacional, señor Ibañez Martín; la esposa del embajador de Italia en España, general Gámbara; autoridades, jerarquías y profesores italianos que toman parte en la Semana Augustea.“ O. V. (1940d), S. 5: „En la Plaza de Paraíso aparecía engalanado el monumento que estaba rodeado de banderas italianas y españolas. Se levantó una tribuna que ocuparon el ministro de Educación Nacional, el encargado de Negocios de la Embajada de Italia, conde Zoppi, el general jefe de la Quinta región, general Monasterio; S. E. la embajadora de Italia, señora de Gámbara, con su hija Mari; los generales Yeregui y Sueiro, y todas las autoridades de Zaragoza. Una companía de Aviación y otra de Infantería rindieron honores. La organización Juvenil falangista, uniformada, cubría la carrera.“ Vgl. NAKAYAMA RUFINO (2011), S. 7. An der Statue war nach DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (1997), S. 567 m. Anm. 4 auf der Vorder- und Rückseite eine Inschrift angebracht. Vorderseite: CAES. AUGUSTO / CIVITAS AB IPSO FUNDATA / F C / MCMXXXX. Rückseite: DUX ITALIAE / IMAGINEM CAESARAUGUSTAE / D D. Die Statue wurde seither mehrere Male versetzt. So kam sie bereits 1950 in die Nähe des Torreón de la Zuda, danach ins Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza, bevor sie wieder auf der Plaza del Paraíso aufgestellt wurde. Im Jahre 1989 wurde sie dann auf den Platz vor dem Mercado Central verbracht, wo sie bis heute steht: vgl. O. V. (2016). 15 DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (1997), S. 567; NAKAYAMA RUFINO (2011), S. 4-5. 13

422

TIMO KLÄR

Abb. 1. Augustusstatue von Saragossa vor dem Mercado Central de Zaragoza (mit freundlicher Genehmigung von Tom Fröhlich, Dresden, www.tommr.net/geschichte-zaragozas/).

DER CAUDILLO ALS NOVVS AVGVSTVS

423

Fakultät verpflichtete, eine „Läuterung“ des akademischen Personals durchzuführen 16. Die Statue war aber auch für Gesamtspanien Ausdruck einer franquistischen Ideologie, die mit ihrem Bezug zu Augustus den universalistischen Herrschaftsanspruch propagieren konnte. Es war demnach nur folgerichtig, dass das franquistische Spanien sich auch mit dem Fascismo Italiano in der Nachfolge des Römischen Reiches verbunden und sich damit politisch wie religiös legitimiert sah. Betont wurde die innige Freundschaft beider Nationen, deren gemeinsame lateinische Kultur hervorgehoben wurde und die beide durch ihr damit verbundenes Römertum verpflichtet seien, als Verteidiger der Zivilisation gegenüber der Barbarei aufzutreten. Wie Augustus, der durch seine Abschottung gegenüber der Barbarei ein dauerhaftes Römisches Reich geschaffen hatte. Religiös legitimiert wurde das franquistische System in der wichtigen Rolle des Christentums in Spanien, dessen Ursprung im Römischen Reich zu suchen war und zur Romanisierung entscheidend beitrug. Der Gedanke der Hispanität wurde erst durch Augustus möglich, der durch seine Städtebaupolitik die römische Kultur in den Provinzen verbreitete, wodurch das antike Hispanien als eine der ersten Provinzen in den römischen Herrschaftsbereich integriert wurde und bedeutende Persönlichkeiten wie Seneca oder die Kaiser Trajan und Hadrian hervorbringen konnte 17. Die Zweite Spanische Republik (1931-1939) wurde als Barbarei angesehen und sollte durch die Trias Latinität, Römertum und Katholizismus bekämpft und zur Zivilisation zurückgeführt werden. Um dieses Ziel zu erreichen, wurde der Spanische Bürgerkrieg (1936-1939) als Kreuzzug gegen die Barbarei stilisiert. Saragossa nahm als Gründung des Augustus und immer wieder standhaftes Bollwerk eine herausgehobene Stellung im franquistischen Spanien ein, war die Stadt doch gegenüber den Vasconen, den Muslimen und dem Bando Republicano über die Jahrhunderte hinweg siegreich geblieben. Die Persönlichkeit des Augustus wurde als Erbe Caesars und als späterer princeps hervorgehoben. In seinem Herrschaftsanspruch allerdings sahen sich der Duce Benito Mussolini und der Caudillo Francisco Franco als seine Nachfolger an 18. Nicht zuletzt war das Geschenk der Augustusstatue von CARRERAS ARÉS (1983), S. 419; DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (1997), S. 568. Zu Trajan: vgl. PRIETO / CORTADELLA (2005). 18 Zur Wichtigkeit der Antikenrezeption für die Falange Española: vgl. jetzt DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (2017), S. 139-142; DERS. (1992); DERS. (1997), S. 569-570. Er zitiert hier aus zwei Artikeln der Zeitung Amanecer. Diario aragonés del Movimiento vom 2. und 4. Juni 1940, die hier auch wiedergegeben werden sollen: „[Domingo 2 de junio]: Zaragoza, la antigua Caesaraugusta, sigue celebrando con inusitado esplendor la conmemoración de su imperial fundador. A estas fiestas se ha asociado el Gobierno italiano, corroborando así una vez más, la hermandad latina de las naciones que bajo el signo de la hispanidad y la romanidad, sellaron su unión en la batalla civilizadora, uno de cuyas principales escenarios, de resistencia primero, y de impulse, después, fue, precisamente, el Ebro aragonés y romano […]. Ya está erigida en nuestras plazas la estatua del César Augusto. A lo largo de toda nuestra guerra y en los pocos días que de esta semana han 16 17

424

TIMO KLÄR

Mussolini auch Ausdruck der Sieghaftigkeit der Falange Española, deren Erfolg im Bürgerkrieg ohne italienische Hilfe nicht möglich gewesen wäre. Die gemeinsame italienisch-spanische Veranstaltung der Semana Augustea de Zaragoza ebenso wie die Ehrenpräsidentschaft zum Conlegium Augusteum sind somit als Ausdruck des Dankes an Mussolini zu verstehen 19. Auch die beiden Reden bei der Einweihung der Augustusstatue sind sichtbarer Ausdruck der spanisch-italienischen Allianz 20. transcurrido, ha vuelto a robustecerse el fervor por la latinidad. Ya decíamos, por otra parte, hace pocos días, que no concebíamos la latinidad sino como una superación de las virtudes romanas lograda por el Cristianismo y la acumulación de ingredientes hispánicos. Por ello, al honrar a Augusto que, por la creación del Imperio y sumisión de los Cántabros, permitio la romanización de España, logró su unificación e hizo posible la hispanización posterior de Roma, honramos no solo nuestra acta de nacimiento como ciudad, sino también el punto de partida de toda una trayectoria histórica de una universalización del genio de España, disperso hasta entonces en particularidades localistas que, sin embargo, fueron genuinamente raciales y que, por tanto, estarán siempre dentro de nuestro corazón.“ „[Martes 4 de junio]: ‘Creo en la grandeza de España’ decía ayer el encargado de Negocios de Italia al entregar solemnemente la estatua del César. No podían decirse otras palabras en este acto ni en esta ciudad. Grandeza de España, que si puede comenzar claramente con Roma y manifestarse hoy en actos como los que comentamos, de empaque y grandiosidad pocas veces igualdadas, tiene también manifestaciones separadas de las de Roma o en las que Roma aparace subordinada al genio creador de España. Grandeza que la hace ser, por naturaleza, rectora de pueblos a la imposibilita para ser criada, copista o simple imitadora de otros pueblos. Es, quizás, la altivez de quien se sabe señor de si mismo y de sus obras, la cualidad más noble del español y la que mejor revela esta grandeza que tan acertadamente proclamaba con amor el diplomático italiano.“ Der Artikel vom 2. Juni ist ebenfalls bei NAKAYAMA RUFINO (2011), S. 8 abgedruckt. 19 H. A. (1940a), S. 19: „Este regalo del Duce a la vieja Caesaraugusta y la aceptación por su parte de la presidencia de honor en la Junta del Bimilenario, constituyen el remate, corona y cifra de tantos presentes como Italia viene haciendo a España, de un modo especial en estos últimos tiempos: presentes de sangre legionaria, de material bélico, de aliento contra la incomprensión, la torpeza y la maldad.“ 20 Rede Conde Zoppis: H. A. (1940b), S. 56: „Cuando César Augusto quiso crear en el Occidente del Imperio un fundamento seguro de la civilización romano, fundó en el corazón de la generosa tierra aragonesa la ciudad de Zaragoza junto a la antigua Salduba. […] Italia fué [sic!] la primera nación que reconoció a vuestro Caudillo y envió a Salamanca a su primer embajador, acto que cantó un gran poeta vuestro, interpretando el gesto del Duce como un acto de fe: Creo en España. Confiándoos hoy la estatua de bronce de Augusto, que no fué [sic!] solamente el fundador de vuestra ciudad, sino el fundador del Imperio, el Duce os dice mucho más que ‘Creo en España’. Os dice: ‘Creo en la grandeza de España’.“ Rede Juan José Rivas Bosch: H. A. (1940b), S. 56-57: „En nombre de la ciudad, orgullosa por su origen y por su nombre, al sentirse romana y augustea, recibió la estatua que el Duce de Italia ha regalado a Zaragoza y España. Desde el primer momento de la lucha comprendió Italia la verdad de España y defendió con su sangre, siendo la primera nación que envió a Salamanca su embajador, como poco después tantos bravos hijos de Italia que vertieron su sangre junto a los soldados de España. Zaragoza conserva en su cementerio gran parte de estos heroicos italianos,

DER CAUDILLO ALS NOVVS AVGVSTVS

425

In Spanien war dieser universalistische Anspruch mit einer neuen spanischen Identität verbunden. 21 Das nationalistische Konzept wird am franquistischen Leitspruch Una, Grande y Libre deutlich. Spanien sollte Indivisible 22, Imperial 23 und no sometida a influencias extranjeras 24 sein. Um diesem Anspruch bereits zu Anfang des franquistischen Regimes gerecht zu werden, bot sich die Figur des Augustus an, der die glorreiche Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft für alle Spanier repräsentieren konnte 25. Indem sich nun Mussolini wie Franco als Erben des Römischen Reiches präsentierten, setzten sie sich nicht nur in die Nachfolge des ersten römischen princeps, sondern sie waren mithin auch noui Augusti.

y mucho se honra en ello. Esta estatua, pues, de nuestro fundador, nos recordará los motivos de agradecimiento que tiene Zaragoza y España entera para con la nación italiana y su Duce. Augusto trajo al mundo entonces la paz. Quiero Dios que esta venida de Augusto en enfigie a Zaragoza sea también nuncio de una paz basada en la justicia, único modo de que sea fecunda y duradera.“ Vgl. NAKAYAMA RUFINO (2011), S. 8-9. 21 Vgl. hierzu: PRESTON (1998), S. 81-83; TUSELL (2001), S. 403. 22 Es sollte nur noch ein geeintes Spanien geben, die Autonomiebestrebungen in Katalonien und im Baskenland sowie in Galizien wurden radikal unterdrückt. 23 Lateinamerika sollte nochmals Spanien eingegliedert und die afrikanischen Territorien zurückgewonnen werden. Vorbild waren hier die Katholischen Könige, die Spanien religiös und politisch geeint hatten. Vgl. EDWARDS (2000); ESLAVA GALÁN (2004). 24 Dies richtete sich einerseits gegen eine jüdisch-freimauerisch-marxistische Verschwörungstheorie gegen Spanien. Vgl. hierzu FERRER BENIMELI (1982). Die Anfänge dieser Theorie liegen in Russland: vgl. DONSKIS (2003), S. 32-63. Andererseits wurde damit auch jeglicher äußerer und innerer Feind des franquistischen Regimes angesprochen. 25 H. A. (1940a), S. 19: „¿Cómo pudo transcurrir tantos tiempos en el olvido la figura del gran Emperador romano que echó los cimientos de nuestra ciudad? Vivía, sí, en la mente de los eruditos; tropezaban con ella los rebuscadores de cosas viejas, entre el polvo de los archivos, y en la pátina que recubre los muros y abraza las piedras miliarias; pero el pueblo, aun aquel que no puede ser llamado ‘vulgo’, desconoce la enorme figura histórica de César Augusto que da su nombre a un siglo; y contempla con indiferencia los numerosos vestigios de la dominación romana, en España […]. ¡Oh, qué majestuosamente señoreará una de nuestras viejas plazas o calles, singularmente las que más sabor tengan a romanidad, la estatua de César Augusto enviada por el Duce! Por ella, vendrán en conocimiento de nuestro abolengo los que hasta ahora lo desconocían, y aprenderán a amar la ciudad romana, después cristiana fidelísima, y hoy y para siempre española como la que más. Es hora de revalorizar los pergaminos de nuestra raza. Hombres pérfidos o mal aconsejados pretendieron hacer almoneda con ellos, y ha sido preciso un enorme y sangriento sacrificio para evitar el sacrilegio. Se evitó; y sobre el pavés se levantan de nuevo nuestros valores morales comenzando por el catolicismo. No podía faltar nuestra romanidad.“ Vgl. HINGLEY (2005), S. 30; SILVA / MARTINS (2008), S. 52; HINGLEY (2010); NAKAYAMA RUFINO (2011), S. 10-11.

426

TIMO KLÄR

4. El jefe de Estado Francisco Franco als Augustus – Die Res Gestae Diui Augusti des Pascual Galindo Romeo Zwei Jahre vor dem Beginn der Feierlichkeiten zum Bimilenario Augusteo erschien in der Zeitschrift Jerarquía eine Edition der Res Gestae Diui Augusti. Der Text folgt der lateinischen Edition von Ernst Diehl aus dem Jahre 1908 und enthält eine spanische Übersetzung von Galindo Romeo. Es fehlt fast vollständig ein kritischer Apparat 26. Der Quellenedition geht eine kurze Einführung (S. 155-157) und eine Präsentation mit dem Titel La inscripción del Emperador (S. 150-154) voran, unter dem auch der komplette Beitrag veröffentlicht ist. Das Fehlen eines Anmerkungsapparates begründet Galindo Romeo in der kurzen Einführung mit folgenden Worten: „Apenas si ponemos notas: no es ahora el momento opportuno“ (S. 157), was meines Erachtens bereits auf den Charakter der Edition als faschistische Propaganda hinweist. Der Text ist zu einer Zeit geschrieben und veröffentlicht, als der Spanische Bürgerkrieg noch in vollem Gange ist. In der Forschung zum Tatenbericht des Augustus ist der Propagandacharakter der Res Gestae allgemeiner Konsens 27, sodass ein Anmerkungsapparat zur richtigen Einordnung der Ereignisse nicht fehlen sollte. Fehlt dieser, lässt sich die Quelle durchaus als Propagandaschrift missbrauchen 28. So folgt Galindo Romeo mithin auch Ernst Diehl in seiner Wiedergabe des 34. Kapitels der Res Gestae, indem er die Lesart Post id tempus praestiti omnibus dignitate, potestatis autem nihilo amplius habui quam qui fuerunt mihi quoque in magistratu conlegae 29 anstatt der bis heute doch eher aufgrund von Neufunden aus Antiochia in Pisidien bevorzugten Post id tempus auctoritate omnibus praestiti, potestatis autem nihilo amplius habui quam ceteri, qui mihi quoque in magistratu conlegae fuerunt gebraucht [meine Hervorhebungen] 30. Die Ablehnung und das Ersetzen der Lesart auctoritas kann nur aus dem antiken Verständnis des Begriffes heraus erklärt werden. Augustus hatte als princeps durchaus die Stellung eines absoluten Herrschers inne. Ihm gelang es allerdings durch die Fiktion einer „wiederhergestellten Republik“ diese Stellung nicht nach außen hin zu zeigen. So setzte er sich nicht über republikanische 26 Vgl. GALINDO ROMEO (1938). Nur drei Fußnoten sind vorhanden: eine zum Augustusmausoleum, eine zweite zum griechischen Text und eine dritte, die die Bibliografie von Diehl wiedergibt und einen kurzen Kommentar dazu liefert. Vgl. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (2001), S. 526-527 m. Anm. 7. Zur Edition der Res Gestae des Galindo Romeo: vgl. DERS. (2017), S. 146-147. Zur Zeitschrift Jerarquía: vgl. DERS. (2012). 27 Vgl. nur HEUSS (1975); SIMON (1993). 28 Allerdings hatte der Text von Galindo Romeo wohl kaum Beachtung gefunden und auch in der modernen Forschung wird er mithin nicht immer beachtet: vgl. etwa CAGNETTA (1976), S. 140 m. Anm. 6, S. 168-170; DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (2001), S. 527 m. Anm. 10. 29 AUGUSTUS, R. G. 34, herausgegeben von DIEHL (41925). Diese Lesart geht auf Mommsen zurück. 30 Herausgegeben von RAMSAY / VON PREMERSTEIN (1927). Vgl. auch die Ausgabe von WEBER (72015).

DER CAUDILLO ALS NOVVS AVGVSTVS

427

Traditionen hinweg, indem er etwa betonte, dass er an potestas keine seiner Magistratskollegen übertroffen hätte oder indem er die Erweiterung seiner Befugnisse ablehnte. Der aus der römischen Republik herrührende Begriff auctoritas aber war als Ersatz dieser Befugnisse geeignet, da er mit der res publica restituta vereinbar und damit unanstößig, trotzdem Ausdruck der Kaisergewalt war 31. Für das faschistische Spanien war demnach der Ausdruck auctoritas allzu republikanisch konnotiert, weshalb sich Galindo Romeo zu einer Rückkehr zum Begriff der dignitas entschloss. Im spanischen Wissenschaftsbetrieb während des Spanischen Bürgerkrieges und des Franquismus ist in den Altertumswissenschaften zu beobachten, dass man sich bemühte, die Größe und den Herrschaftsanspruch des Römischen Reiches hervorzuheben 32. Die Besonderheit bestand allerdings darin, auf die Kontinuität des Römischen Reiches im spanischen Kolonialreich und nach dem Sieg im Spanischen Bürgerkrieg im neuen franquistischen Staat hinzuweisen, um so die Ideologie der Falange und die Herrschaft Francos aus der Tradition heraus zu legitimieren. In der Einführung zur Quellenedition ebenso wie in der Präsentation La inscripción del Emperador wird dies ganz besonders deutlich. So schlägt dann auch Galindo Romeo vor, dem neuen Herrscher Franco eine monumentale zweisprachige Inschrift zu setzen, wie sie Augustus mit seinem Monumentum Ancyranum bekommen hatte, als Zeichen dafür, dass das neue hispanische Imperium kein Ende hätte 33. Der franquistische Staat sollte eine neue Ordnung schaffen, ähnlich wie es in antiker Zeit Augustus mit dem 31 Zum Begriff der auctoritas: vgl. bereits VON PREMERSTEIN (1924), S. 104-105; HEINZE (1925); VON PREMERSTEIN (1937), S. 176-193; WICKERT (1954), Sp. 2287-2288; GRENADE (1961), S. 336-363; FERRARY (2001), S. 113-115; RIDLEY (2003), S. 222-227; NIPPEL (2007). Zu diesem Begriff und der Theoriebildung über Führertum und Führerprinzip: vgl. MAZZA (1994), S. 71-75. 32 Vgl. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (2001), S. 528-529. 33 GALINDO ROMEO (1938), S. 151-153: „Imperial en su hispánica versión y edición: la Reina de los Inscripciones, [i. e. el Monumentum Ancyranum] la Imperial por sus lenguas – griega y latina, ambas imperiales para siempre: civilización, arte, libros e hierodulia –, recibe ahora forma de lengua imperial, de perennidad hispánica y americana… Mas sépase que, al recibir el manto hispánico, la Inscripción no rebusca las generosas elegancias de la magnífica tela hispánica; ha preferido conservar cuanto ha podido el rigor y la incursión que en el espiritu, en el pensar y en el estilo de su Autor – antes de pasar a epígrafe – tuvo hace mil novecientos veinticuatro años. Imperial porque sale a la luz hispánica por vez primera en tiempos de nuestro nuevo y perenne Imperio – conquista plena por primera en la historia de Hispania, de toda su tierra, sangre y laureles sin interrupción. […] Creo que en toda la historia no se dará, en el concepto institucional Romano, caso más verdadero de IMPERIUM como el de nuestro PRINCIPE FRANCO. […] Imperial porque la lección del pasado y la vida que vivimos nos dicen que debemos pensar la gran INSCRIPCION IMPERIAL que en las dos lenguas basileas – latín y español – habremos de dedicar con epigráfica solemnidad – concisión, verdad, fidelidad, perennidad, lección y gratitud – a nuestro IMPERATOR, cuando pronto llegue el momento final de su victoria y comienzo del Hispánico Imperio […].“ Und weiter S. 157: „Nuestro Imperio, con contenido, será eviterno.“

428

TIMO KLÄR

Übergang von der Republik in den Prinzipat gelungen war. Allerdings wird abweichend von der antiken res publica restituta die Ordnung der Zweiten Spanischen Republik negiert und soll vollständig ersetzt werden 34. Der franquistische Staatsstreich wird legitimiert, indem Galindo Romeo auf das erste Kapitel der Res Gestae Bezug nimmt 35, wo Augustus seine Aufstellung eines Heeres als Privatmann hervorhebt, mit dem er die res publica vor der Willkürherrschaft der Anhänger des Marcus Antonius befreit habe, die im Gegensatz zu seiner auf Gesetzen und dem consensus uniuersorum errichteten Prinzipatsordnung stände 36. Um den Antikenbezug des neuen hispanischen Reiches noch deutlicher hervortreten zu lassen, führt Galindo Romeo als einen der Grundpfeiler des Reiches den Ultrakatholizismus an 37. Der Bezug zu Augustus und dem Christentum wird wiederum durch das Monumentum Ancyranum hergestellt, das sich dort zunächst am Tempel der Roma und des Augustus in Ancyra in der Provinz Galatia vollständig erhalten hatte. Dieser wurde im 6. Jh. zu einer christlichen Kirche umgewidmet, wo bis zum heutigen Tag die einzige vollständig erhaltene Kopie des augusteischen Tatenberichts überdauert hätte. 38 Weiterhin wird die pax Augusta in einen heilsgeschichtlichen Kontext gerückt, denn erst der augusteische Friede hätte es nach Galindo Romeo ermöglicht, dass die Ankunft

34

Ibid., S. 152-153: „[…] nuevo espíritu de Imperiales: plena justicia; nueva y verdadera religiosidad: verdad y sacrificios, no sólo gritos y monumentos; negación y sufrimiento, no sólo estudiado egoísmo y falso pietismo […] lengua, civilización, religión, justicia, paz – por él [i. e. Franco], ganado, o salvado, o restaurado.“ 35 Ibid., S. 153-154: „[…] adueñándose del poder de la República por la violencia, lo utilizaron para reducir la Patria a servidumbre, administrarla y exprimirla facciosamente, hasta que, primero por su privada determinación y a sus expensas, luego, siguiéndole todo el Pueblo, se levantó contra la tiranía nuestro Caudillo, nuestro Imperator, Franco…“ Vgl. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (1997), S. 570. 36 AUGUSTUS, R. G. 1: Annos undeuiginti natus exercitum priuato consilio et priuata impensa comparaui, per quem rem publicam a dominatione factionis oppressam in libertatem uindicaui. Vgl. die Erläuterung zur Stelle von WEBER (72015), S. 59-60. Die Aufstellung eines Heeres als Privatmann war in diesem Fall kein gesetzeswidriger Akt, da Oktavian damals das imperium auf Betreiben von Cicero erhielt. Dieser sah den jungen Oktavian als nützliches Werkzeug gegen Antonius an. Vgl. CICERO, Epistolarum ad familiares 11, 18 (20), 1. 37 GALINDO ROMEO (1938), S. 152: „[…] nueva y verdadera religiosidad […].“ Vgl. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (2001), S. 528-529. Vgl. hierzu auch CERECEDA (1943), S. 273-274; BOYD (1997), S. 252. 38 GALINDO ROMEO (1938), S. 151: „Imperial por la postrera salvacíon del epígrafe: conservado en los muros de la iglesia de CRISTO – de El sólo es la Vida y el Imperio; a El sólo el Honor – fué [sic!] descubierta y salvada por legación Imperial: la de Fernando II, Emperador y Rey de Romanos – el hermano de nuestro César Carlos el I, Rey Emperador – en el 1555.“ An der Nordwestecke des Tempels wurde im 15. Jh. die Hacıbayram-Moschee angebaut. Zum Tempel der Roma und des Augustus in Ancyra: vgl. KRENCKER / SCHEDE (1936); SCHEDE / SCHULTZ (1937).

DER CAUDILLO ALS NOVVS AVGVSTVS

429

Christi auf Erden realisierbar sei 39. Franco wird so ebenfalls als Heilsbringer, als Instrument Gottes, der Spanien retten soll, stilisiert 40. Indem Galindo Romeo außerdem Titel wie imperator, princeps oder pater patriae, die Augustus während seiner Regierungszeit erhalten hatte, nun Franco zuschreibt, gelingt es ihm, diesen als nouus Augustus zu präsentieren. 41 Die Leistungen des Caudillo, die denen des ersten princeps in keiner Weise nachständen, bringen Galindo Romeo dazu, ebenfalls für den Generalísimo eine monumentale zweisprachige Inschrift zu fordern 42. Dieser sollte das Monument allerdings bereits zu Lebzeiten erhalten, wohingegen Augustus diese Ehre erst bei seinem Tode mit der Aufstellung der Bronzetafeln auf Marmorpfeilern vor seinem Mausoleum zuteil wurde 43. 5. Zusammenfassung In den Bürgerkriegsjahren wie auch in den ersten Jahren des Franquismus war der Rückbezug auf die Antike, besonders auf die Regierungszeit des ersten römischen princeps Augustus, geeignet, das faschistische System Spaniens zu legitimieren und die Bevölkerung zu indoktrinieren 44. Dies geschah auf mehreren Ebenen. Die Notwendigkeit einer Abschaffung der Zweiten Spanischen Republik und damit der Beginn des Bürgerkrieges konnte aus der antiken Tradition heraus begründet werden, denn bereits die römische Republik wurde

39 GALINDO ROMEO (1938), S. 155: „[…] a quien preparó el lugar y la seguridad para que, en medio de la persecución, triunfara el nuevo y eterno Imperio de Cristo […].“ 40 Ibid. S. 153: „Nunca en la Historia de Hispania hubo tiempos y hechos como los que nos toca vivir, salvándonos Dios Nuestro Señor, el Sumo Emperador, por medio de nuestro Imperator – mando militar – y Príncipe – el primero entre todos, comenzando por el sufrir –, nuestro Caudillo – palabra medieval, de Príncipe – FRANCO…“ 41 Ibid. S. 152-154: „Imperial porque se publica, hispánica, por vez primera en los tiempos solemnes y gloriosos de nuestro CAUDILLO – IMPERATOR, dirían los Romanos –: sin adulación – que nunca conocí – creo que en toda la historia no se dará, en el concepto institucional Romano, caso más verdadero de IMPERIUM como el de nuestro PRINCIPE FRANCO a quien forzado será saludar también, en el día del Triunfo, ya desde ahora, PADRE DE LA PATRIA. […] Nuestro Caudillo, nuestro Imperator, Franco… Por eso el pueblo, a cuyo sólo interés y defensa obedecía el primer movimiento del Imperator, le aclamó Generalísimo, que es decir muchas veces, indefinidas, de triunfo, Imperator, más tarde Jefe de Estado, que es decir Príncipe, y luego, el día del triunfo, Padre de la Patria.“ Vgl. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI (2001), S. 529; DERS. (2017), S. 155-161. Zu Francos Titeln in den ersten Jahren des Franquismus: vgl. REIG TAPIA (1995). 42 GALINDO ROMEO (1938), S. 153: „Conste el hecho: el Imperio hispánico y su Imperator deben tener su Imperial Inscripción, en las dos lenguas basileas occidentales: latín (Imperio Romano y cristiano), español (Imperio de Indias; lengua de misión).“ 43 Vgl. CASSIUS DIO 56, 33, 1 - 34, 1. 44 Siehe hierzu bereits VALLS TABERNER (1939).

430

TIMO KLÄR

nach einer Zeit der Bürgerkriege durch das System des Prinzipats abgelöst 45. Ebenso war damit auch gleichzeitig die Person Francisco Francos als Beender des Spanischen Bürgerkrieges legitimiert, denn auch Octavian hatte die römischen Bürgerkriege mit dem Sieg über Marcus Antonius zu einem Ende geführt und mit dem Prinzipat eine stabile Staatsform errichtet, die über Jahrhunderte hinweg Bestand hatte. Im Unterschied zu Octavian allerdings, der ja bekanntlich die res publica restituta in seinem Tatenbericht betonte, indem er seine Machtbefugnisse nach den Bürgerkriegen abgab und die Lenkung des Staates wieder dem Senat übertrug 46, tat gerade Franco dies nicht. Ganz im Gegenteil, er wollte explizit seinen Franquismus mit sich selbst als Führungsperson als etwas grundlegend Neues verstanden wissen. Wich Franco hier also von der antiken Tradition ab? Doch wohl nicht, denn Octavian erhielt auch nur einige Tage nach der Niederlegung seiner Vollmachten außerordentliche Ehrungen, so etwa den Ehrennamen Augustus, die er auch in seinem Tatenbericht nicht aufzuführen vergaß 47. Octavian war bewusst, dass er nach den Bürgerkriegen der mächtigste Mann im Römischen Reich war, trotzdem betonte er die Aufrechterhaltung des republikanischen Systems 48. Ebenso hatte Franco durch eine Kumulation von Titeln, die noch dazu auf die antike Tradition rekurrierten, die Möglichkeit, keinen Zweifel daran zu lassen, dass er die Führungspersönlichkeit in seiner Partei und in ganz Spanien war. Im Jahre 1964 wurde in Spanien eine 14-teilige Briefmarkenserie herausgegeben, die an die 25-jährige Friedenszeit nach dem Ende der Bürgerkriege erinnern sollte (s. Abb. 2a). Franco erscheint auf der Briefmarke mit dem Wert von 10 PTAS in militärischer Uniform. Auf dem gezähnten Rand ist Franco – Creador de la Paz zu lesen (s. Abb. 2b). Somit wird hier auch kein Zweifel daran gelassen, wer für den langandauernden Frieden verantwortlich ist. Meines Erachtens wird auch hier ein Antikenbezug deutlich 49. 45 Vgl. hierzu etwa THOMAS (31977), S. 930-931, der die antike Tradition negativ konnotiert und beiden Protagonisten, Franco wie Oktavian, lediglich das Glück zuspricht, alle anderen überlebt zu haben: „Upon the heaped skulls of all these ideals, in the dust of the memory of so much rhetoric, one more cold-hearted, dispassionate, duller and greyer man survived triumphant, as Octavius survived the civil wars in Rome. Caesar and Pompey, Brutus and Antony, Cato and Cicero – all with their genius, lacked the minor talent of being able to survive: Franco was the Octavius of Spain.“ 46 AUGUSTUS, R. G. 34: rem publicam ex mea potestate in senatus populique Romani arbitrium transtuli. 47 Ibid., 34: Quo pro merito meo senatus consulto Augustus apellatus sum et laureis postes aedium mearum uestiti publice coronaque ciuica super ianuam meam fixa est et clupeus aureus in curia Iulia positus, quem mihi senatum populumque Romanum dare uirtutis clementiaeque et iustitiae et pietatis causa testatum est per eius clupei inscriptionem. 48 Ibid., 34: Post id tempus auctoritate omnibus praestiti, potestatis autem nihilo amplius habui quam ceteri, qui mihi quoque in magistratu conlegae fuerunt. 49 Zu der Serie vgl. NAVARRO OLTRA (2015), S. 31-32.

DER CAUDILLO ALS NOVVS AVGVSTVS

431

Abb. 2a. Briefmarkenausgabe der spanischen Post zum 25. Jahrestag des Endes des Bürgerkrieges 1964 (mit freundlicher Genehmigung von Marken-Münzen Versandhandel Karl R. Heisinger, Bensheim).

Abb. 2b. Briefmarke mit Porträt von Franco. Am unteren Rand mit dem Eindruck: FRANCO CREADOR DE LA PAZ.

432

TIMO KLÄR

Die Herrschaftsform des Prinzipats wurde schon von den antiken Zeitgenossen als neue Ära angesehen, die der princeps mit seiner pax Augusta nach den Bürgerkriegen geprägt hatte und die dem Römischen Reich Stabilität, Sicherheit und Wohlstand brachte 50. So ist es denn auch nicht verwunderlich, dass sich Augustus mit Apollo verbunden sah, dem Gott des Lichts, der Künste und der Musik, der Weisheit und Weissagung 51. Hier wird wiederum eine Parallele zwischen Augustus und Franco deutlich, denn auch der Caudillo wird durch Zeitgenossen gleichsam als Heilsbringer verherrlicht, dies sogar bereits, als der Spanische Bürgerkrieg noch in vollem Gange ist. Und Galindo Romeo lässt durch die Forderung einer monumentalen zweisprachigen Inschrift, ähnlich der des Monumentum Ancyranum, auch keinen Zweifel daran, an welche Tradition er sein Herrscherlob erinnert haben wollte. Die Präsentation Francos und Mussolinis als noui Augusti während der Semana Augustea 1940, repräsentiert durch die Kopie der Augustusstatue von Primaporta, hatte den gleichen Zweck. Der Franquismus in Spanien hatte gerade erst begonnen, der Caudillo jedoch seinen Herrschaftsanspruch bereits durch den Rückbezug auf die antike Tradition untermauert. Bibliographie I. Quellen a. Antike Quellen AUGUSTUS, Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Das Monumentum Ancyranum. Herausgegeben und erklärt von E. DIEHL, Berlin, 41925. AUGUSTUS, Meine Taten – Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Lateinisch-griechisch-deutsch. Herausgegeben von E. WEBER, Berlin / Boston, 72015. CASSIUS DIO, Römische Geschichte. Bd. IV: Bücher 51-60. Übersetzt von O. VEH, Düsseldorf, 2007. CICERO, Epistularum ad familiares Libri XVI – An seine Freunde. Lateinisch-deutsch ed. H. KASTEN, München, 1964. HORAZ, Sämtliche Werke. Lateinisch und deutsch herausgegeben von H. FÄRBER und M. FALTNER, München, 1967.

50 Vgl. nur HORAZ, Carmina 4, 5, 17-28: Tutus bos etenim rura perambulat, / Nutrit rura Ceres almaque Faustitas, / Pacatum uolitant per mare nauitae, / Culpari metuit fides. / Nullis polluitur casta domus stupris / Mos et lex maculosum edomuit nefas, / Laudantur simili prole puerperae, / Culpam poena premit comes. / Quis Parthum parueat, quis gelidum Scythen, / Quis Germania quos horrida parturit / Fetus incolumi Caesare? quis ferae / Bellum curet Hiberiae? 51 Zum Haus des Augustus auf dem Palatin, das mit dem Tempel des Apollo verbunden war: vgl. CARETTONI (1983); KOLB (2002), S. 334-335, 364, 368, 474-475, 585; TOMEI (2000); DIES. (2004).

DER CAUDILLO ALS NOVVS AVGVSTVS

433

Monumentum Antiochenum. Die neugefundenene Aufzeichnung der Res Gestae Divi Augusti im pisidischen Antiochia. Herausgegeben und erläutert von W. M. RAMSAY / A. VON PREMERSTEIN, Leipzig, 1927. PLINIUS DER ÄLTERE, Naturalis Historia – Naturkunde. Bücher 3-4. Lateinisch-Deutsch. Herausgegeben und übersetzt von G. WINKLER in Zusammenarbeit mit R. KÖNIG, Darmstadt, 1988. STRABON, Geographika. Band 1. Mit Übersetzung und Kommentar herausgegeben von S. RADT, Göttingen, 2002.

b. Zeitgenössische Quellen des Franquismus GALINDO ROMEO, P. (1938), La inscripción del Emperador, in Jerarquía 2, S. 149-195. H. A. (1940a), El regalo de Mussolini a Zaragoza, in Aragón. Revista gráfica de Cultura Aragonesa 16/164, S. 19-20. H. A. (1940b), La Semana Augustea, in Aragón. Revista gráfica de cultura aragonesa 16/166, S. 56-57. O. V. (1940a), Los actos de la Semana Augustea, in La Vanguardia, 1 Junio 1940, S. 5. O. V. (1940b), La Semana Augustea. Llegada del ministro de Educación Nacional, in La Vanguardia, 2. Junio 1940, S. 9. O. V. (1940c), La Semana augustea. Solemne actos en Zaragoza, in ABC, 4 Junio 1940, S. 8; online: http://hemeroteca.sevilla.abc.es/nav/Navigate.exe/hemeroteca/sevilla/ abc.sevilla/1940/06/04/008.html. O. V. (1940d), Solemne entrega de la estatua del Emperador Augusto, donado por el Duce a Zaragoza, in La Vanguardia, 4 Junio 1940, S. 5. S. A. (1938), El Bimilenario de Augusto. Conferencias pronunciadas por el docto Catedrático Dr. D. Pascual Galindo Romeo, in Aragón. Revista gráfica de Cultura Aragonesa 14/148, S. 10-12. S. A. (1939), Crónica. La “Semana Augustea” de Zaragoza, in Emerita. Revista de lingüística y filología clásica 6-7, S. 195-198.

II. Sekundärliteratur ACCADEMIA NAZIONALE DEI LINCEI (Hg.) (1938), Augustus. Studi in occasione del bimilenario Augusteo, Rom. BALTRUSCH, E. / WENDT, C. (Hgg.) (2016), Der Erste. Augustus und der Beginn einer neuen Epoche, Darmstadt. BARCELÓ, P. (1997), s. v. Caesaraugusta, in DNP 2, Sp. 923-924. BERNECKER, W. L. (2002), Spanische Geschichte. Von der Reconquista bis heute, Darmstadt. BOYD, C. P. (1997), Historia Patria. Politics, History and National Identity in Spain. 1875-1975, Princeton. CAGNETTA, M. (1976), Il mito di Augusto e la ‘rivoluzione fascista’, in Quaderni di Storia 2/3, S. 139-181. CANELLAS, A. (1981), s. v. Galindo Romeo, Pascual, in Gran Enciclopedia Aragonesa 6, S. 1474-1475. CANFORA, L. (1995), Politische Philologie. Altertumswissenschaften und moderne Staatsideologien, Stuttgart. CARETTONI, G. (1983), Das Haus des Augustus auf dem Palatin, Mainz.

434

TIMO KLÄR

CARRERAS ARÉS, J. J. (1983), Epílogo. La Universidad de Zaragoza durante la guerra civil, in A. BELTRÁN, u. a. (Hgg.), Historia de la Universidad de Zaragoza, Madrid, S. 419-434. CERECEDA, F. (1943), Historia del imperio español y de la hispanidad, Madrid. DÍAZ-ANDREU, M. (1995), Archaeology and Nationalism in Spain, in P. L. KOHL / C. FAWCETT (Hgg.), Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, Cambridge, S. 39-56. DONSKIS, L. (2003), Forms of Hatred. The Troubled Imagination in Modern Philosophy and Literature, Amsterdam / New York. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI, A. (1992), Notas sobre fascismo y mundo antiguo en España, in Rivista di storia della storiografia moderna 13/3, S. 199-213. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI, A. (1997), Semana Augustea de Zaragoza (30 Mayo-4 Junio 1940), in G. MORA / M. DÍAZ-ANDREU (Hgg.), La cristalización del pasado. Génesis y Desarollo del Marco Institucional de la Arqueología en España, Málaga, S. 565572. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI, A. (2001), A Francisco Franco Imperator. Las „Res Gestae Divi Augusti“ de Pascual Galindo (1938), in M. J. BARRIOS CASTRO / E. CRESPO (Hgg.), Actas del X Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos. 21-25 de septiembre de 1999, Vol. 3, Madrid, S. 525-530. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI, A. (2003), Falange e Historia Antigua, in F. WULFF ALONSO / M. A. MARTÍ-AGUILAR, (Hgg.), Antigüedad y franquismo (1936-1975), Málaga, S. 75-94. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI, A. (2012), La revista falangista Jerarquia y el modelo imperial romano, in Vasconia 38, S. 813-837. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI, A. (2017), Augusto y el franquismo. Ecos del Bimilenario de Augusto en España, in Revista de Historiografía 27, S. 137-162. EDWARDS, J. (2000), The Spain of the Catholic Monarchs. 1474-1520, Oxford. ESLAVA GALÁN, J. (2004), Los reyes católicos, Barcelona. FERRARY, J.-L. (2001), À propos des pouvoirs dʼAuguste, in CCG 12, S. 101-154. FERRER BENIMELI, J. A. (1982), El contubernio judeo-masónico-comunista. Del satanismo al escándalo de la P-2, Madrid. FONTÁN, A. (1991), D. Pascual Galindo Romeo (1892-1990), in Emerita 59, S. 1-3. GIARDINA, A. (2008), O mito fascista da romanidade, in Estudios Avançados 22/62, S. 55-76. GIGLIOLI, G. Q. (21938), Mostra Augustea della Romanità. Bimilenario della nascita di Augusto. 23 settembre 1937-23 settembre 1938. Catalogo, Rom. GRENADE, P. (1961), Essai sur les origines du Principat, Paris. HEINZE, R. (1925), Auctoritas, in Hermes 60, S. 348-366 (wiederabgedruckt in DERS., Vom Geist des Römertums. Ausgewählte Aufsätze, Darmstadt, 31960, S. 43-58). HEROLD-SCHMIDT, H. (2005), Vom Ende der Ersten zum Scheitern der Zweiten Republik (1874-1939), in P. SCHMIDT (Hg.), Kleine Geschichte Spaniens, Bonn, S. 329-442. HEUSS, A. (1975), Zeitgeschichte als Ideologie. Bemerkungen zu Komposition und Gedankenführung der Res Gestae Divi Augusti, in E. LEFÈVRE (Hg.), Monumentum Chiloniense. Studien zur augusteischen Zeit, Amsterdam, S. 55-95 (wiederabgedruckt in A. HEUSS, Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 2, Stuttgart, 1995, S. 1319-1359). HINGLEY, R. (22005), Concepções de Roma. Uma perspectiva inglesa, in Textos Didáticos. Repensando o mundo antigo 47, S. 27-62. HINGLEY, R. (2010), Diversidade y Unidade Culturais. Império e Roma, in DERS. (Hg.), O imperialismo romano. Novas perspectivas a partir de Bretanha, São Paulo,

DER CAUDILLO ALS NOVVS AVGVSTVS

435

S. 67-104 (zuerst als Cultural Diversity and Unity. Empire and Rome, in S. HALES / T. HODOS [Hgg.], Material Culture and Social Identities in the Ancient World, Cambridge, 2009, S. 54-75). HÜBNER, E. (1897), s. v. Caesaraugusta, in RE III, 1, Sp. 1287-1288. KOLB, F. (22002), Rom. Die Geschichte der Stadt in der Antike, München. KRENCKER, D. / SCHEDE, M. (1936), Der Tempel in Ankara, Berlin / Leipzig. MAZZA, M. (1994), Storia antica tra due guerre. Linee di un bilancio provvisorio, in A. DUPLÁ ANSUATEGUI / A. EMBORUJO SALGADO (Hgg.), Estudios sobre historia antigua e historiografía moderna, Vitoria, S. 57-80. MOSTALAC CARILLO, A. (42008), Arqueología, in G. FATÁS (ed.), Guía Histórico-Artística de Zaragoza, Saragossa, S. 649-708. NAKAYAMA RUFINO, R. A. (2011), Antigüidade romana e Espanha franquista. A Semana Augustea de Zaragoza (1940), in Anais do XXVI Simpósio Nacional de História, São Paulo, S. 1-15. NAVARRO OLTRA, G. (2015), Autorretatros del Estado II. El sello postal del franquismo, Santander. NEUSCHÄFER, H.-J. (1991), Macht und Ohnmacht der Zensur. Literatur, Theater und Film in Spanien 1933-1976, Stuttgart. NIPPEL, W. (2007), The Roman Concept of Auctoritas, in P. PASQUINO / P. HARRIS (Hgg.), The Concept of Authority. A Multidisciplinary Approach. From Epistemology to the Social Sciences, Rom, S. 13-34. O. V. (2016), La estatua del emperador Augusto, 18. Juli 2016; online: http://elcentral. mercadocentralzaragoza.com/la-estatua-del-emperador-augusto/. PERÉZ, J. (22006), La España de Franco (1939-1975), in DERS. (Hg.), Historia de España, Barcelona, S. 638-667. VON PREMERSTEIN, A. (1924), Zur Aufzeichnung der Res Gestae Divi Augusti im Pisidischen Antiochia, in Hermes 59, S. 96-107. VON PREMERSTEIN, A. (1937), Vom Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats, München. PRESTON, P. (1998), Las tres Españas del 36, Barcelona. PRIETO, A. / CORTADELLA, J. (2005), Trajano, optimus princeps de la España franquista, in L. HERNÁNDEZ GUERRA (Hg.), La Hispania de los Antoninos (98-180). Actas del II Congreso Internacional de Historia Antigua. Valladolid, 10, 11 y 12 de noviembre de 2004, Valladolid, S. 537-542. REIG TAPIA, A. (1995), Franco «Caudillo». Mito y realidad, Madrid. RIDLEY, R. (2003), The Emperorʼs Retrospect. Augustusʼ Res Gestae in Epigraphy, Historiography and Commentary, Leuven. SCHUMACHER, L. (1988), Augusteische Propaganda und faschistische Rezeption, in Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 40, S. 307-330 m. Tafeln I-IV. SCHEDE, M. / SCHULTZ, H. S. (1937), Ankara und Augustus, Berlin. SCRIBA, F. (1995), Augustus im Schwarzhemd? Die Mostra Augustea della Romanità in Rom 1937/38, Frankfurt/Main. SEVILLANO CALERO, F. (1997), La estructura de la prensa diaria en España durante el franquismo, in Investigaciones históricas. Época moderna y contemporánea 17, S. 315-340. SILVA, G. J. / MARTINS, A. L. (2008), Genealogia e História Antiga, in P. P. FUNARI / M. RAGO (Hgg.), Subjetividades antigas e modernas, São Paulo, S. 47-58. SIMON, B. (1993), Die Selbstdarstellung des Augustus in der Münzprägung und in den Res Gestae, Hamburg. THOMAS, H. (31977), The Spanish Civil War, London.

436

TIMO KLÄR

TOMEI, M. A. (2000), La casa di Augusto sul Palatino, in RM 107, S. 7-36. TOMEI, M. A. (2004), Die Residenz des ersten Kaisers – Der Palatin in augusteischer Zeit, in A. HOFFMANN / U. WULF (Hgg.), Die Kaiserpaläste auf dem Palatin in Rom. Das Zentrum der römischen Welt und seine Bauten, Mainz, S. 6-17. TORELLI, M. (1991), Archeologia e fascismo, in J. ARCE / R. OLMOS (Hgg.), Historiografía de la Arqueología y la Historia Antigua en España, Madrid, S. 243-249. TUSELL, J. (2001), El régimen de Franco. La era azul, in J.-L. MARTÍN / C. MARTÍNEZSHAW / J. TUSELL (Hgg.), Historia de España. La Edad Contemporánea, Madrid, S. 393-418. VALLS TABERNER, F. (1939), Año de la Victoria. Augusto y España, in DERS., Reafirmación espiritual de España, Madrid, S. 145-151. VISSER, R. (1992), Fascist Doctrine and the Culture of the Romanità, in Journal of Contemporary History 27/1, S. 5-22. WICKERT, L. (1954), s. v. Princeps, in RE XXII, 2, Sp. 1998-2296.

Augustus-Rezeption im Nationalsozialismus HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN (Universität des Saarlandes)

Abstract It was not only Hitler, in Mein Kampf, who presented an interpretation of ancient history through a racial lens; German ancient historians too have striven to mould the reading of the past to fit the Third Reich’s ruling ideology. It is indeed surprising that this mechanism applied also to the portrayal of the first princeps, as from a “Germanic” perspective Augustus should have appeared as an imperialist trying to subjugate free “Germania”. The present essay attempts to shed light on this problem and to sketch the broader spectrum of Augustus’ reception in the “Third Reich”. To this end, it first deals with the main features of Hitler’s reception of antiquity, Hitler’s own reference to Augustus, and his stay in Rome in 1938 where he visited the Mostra Augustea. It then presents some examples of scholarship on Augustus under NS-rule and finally analyses the reception of Augustus in the 1942 “Kriegseinsatz der Geisteswissenschaften”.

1. Einleitung Ein in Florenz befindlicher Kopf aus augusteischer Zeit mit jugendlichem Ausdruck fand in der 1929 veröffentlichten Rassengeschichte des hellenischen und römischen Volkes von Hans Friedrich Karl Günther (1891-1968) die folgende Beschreibung: Angeborene Hoheit, Neigung zur Milde, gezügelt durch Wirklichkeitssinn, Neigung zu einer gewissen Nachgiebigkeit auch gegen sich selbst; feinsinnige, doch Achtung heischende Verbindlichkeit; eine innere Scheu im Umgang mit Menschen, eine gewisse Furcht, seine Empfindungen bei der Durchsichtigkeit der hellen Haut durch auf- und absteigende Wangenröte von der menschlichen Umgebung erraten zu sehen, wird beherrscht durch eine erworbene, immer geübte Sicherheit des Auftretens; innerlich bleibt noch eine gewisse, innerhalb der nordischen Rasse nicht seltene mädchenhafte Scheu, ein leichtes Zögern, wenn auch das äußere Auftreten durchaus bestimmt ist, ja entschlossen und Achtung gebietend. Bei keiner anderen als der nordischen Rasse findet sich noch im mittleren Mannesalter und später ein so junges Aussehen (S. 145-146).

Indem Günther, der „Rassenpapst“ der Nationalsozialisten, Augustus zu den „lichten Menschen“ der „nordischen Rasse“ zählte (S. 139), bereitete er die Bahn für die „rassengeschichtliche“ Vereinnahmung der antiken Römer und

438

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

Griechen durch die nationalsozialistische Ideologie 1. Nicht nur Hitler vertrat, wie schon in Mein Kampf zu sehen ist, dieser Deutungslinie. Auch deutsche Althistoriker nutzten die Möglichkeit, ihr Fach durch Ideologeme dieser Art auf die gewünschte Linie zu bringen 2. Dass dies auch mit dem ersten Prinzeps geschah, ist überraschend, denn aus ‚germanischer Perspektive‘ erschien Augustus als Imperialist, der das freie Germanien unterwerfen wollte. Arminius war der deutsche Heros, der bislang gegen und über Augustus gestellt worden war; als Freiheitsheld und erster „Führer“ eines geeinten Deutschland hatte er die Unterwerfung durch Rom verhindert. Da dieses Arminius-Bild von den Nationalsozialisten aufgegriffen und im Rahmen ihrer „völkischen“ Geschichtsauffassung noch verstärkt wurde, stellt sich die Frage, wie daneben auch Augustus zu einem positiven Bezugspunkt der nationalsozialistischen Ideologie und der sich in diesem Rahmen bewegenden Altertumswissenschaftler werden konnte. Die folgenden Ausführungen versuchen, eine Antwort auf diese Frage zu geben und dabei das weite Spektrum der Augustus-Rezeption im „Dritten Reich“ nachzuzeichnen. Dafür werden zunächst die Grundzüge von Hitlers Antikenrezeption (1.), Hitlers eigener Augustus-Bezug (2.) sowie sein Aufenthalt in Rom 1938 mit dem Besuch der Mostra Augustea (3.) behandelt; anschließend wird die Augustus-Literatur im Nationalsozialismus in einigen Beispielen vorgestellt (4.) und das im „Kriegseinsatz der Geisteswissenschaften“ 1942 von Augustus gezeichnete Bild analysiert (5.) 2. Grundzüge von Hitlers Antikenrezeption Hitlers Reden und Schriften enthalten zahlreiche Bezugnahmen auf die griechische und römische Antike sowie auf das germanische Altertum. Das gilt bereits auch für Mein Kampf, erschienen 1925. Im 2. Kapitel („Der Staat“) des 2. Bandes („Die nationalsozialistische Bewegung“) äußerte sich Hitler ausführlich zu seinen Vorstellungen von Erziehung und Bildung und ging dabei auch auf die Bedeutung der Antike ein. Er verlangte eine stärkere Berücksichtung der „humanistischen Fächer“ für „die allgemeine Bildung einer Nation“, da aus ihnen „Kräfte“ zu gewinnen seien, „welche für die Erhaltung der Nation immer noch wichtiger sind als alles technische und sonstige Können.“ Die folgenden Zeilen sind aufschlussreich, da Hitler hier die drei möglichen Bezugspunkte für eine nationalsozialistische Antikenrezeption miteinander verbunden hat: Vgl. LOSEMANN (1980), S. 23; zur kritischen Haltung, die Ulrich Kahrstedt und Alexander Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg dieser „Rassengeschichte“ gegenüber einnahmen, vgl. CHRIST (1982), S. 197. Der Kopf aus den Uffizien wird heute als Porträt des Gaius Caesar identifiziert: POLLINI (1987), S. 59-75, 101 (Nr. 19) und Tafel 21; vgl. BOSCHUNG (1993), S. 70-71. 2 Vgl. z.B. WEBER (1940), S. 336: „Noch einmal strahlt aus allem, was dieser Blonde mit seinen leuchtenden Augen sah, aus seiner Kraft dachte und tat, indogermanische Urkraft in die statische Welt des Reichs.“ Vgl. dazu CHRIST (2006), S. 72. 1

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

439

Insbesondere soll man im Geschichtsunterricht sich nicht abbringen lassen vom Studium der Antike. Römische Geschichte, in ganz großen Linien richtig aufgefaßt, ist und bleibt die beste Lehrmeisterin nicht nur für heute, sondern wohl für alle Zeiten. Auch das hellenische Kulturideal soll uns in seiner vorbildlichen Schönheit erhalten bleiben. Man darf sich nicht durch Verschiedenheiten der einzelnen Völker die größere Rassengemeinschaft zerreißen lassen. Der Kampf, der heute tobt, geht um ganz große Ziele: eine Kultur kämpft um ihr Dasein, die Jahrtausende in sich verbindet und Griechen- und Germanentum gemeinsam umschließt 3.

Bereits 1925 verstand Hitler die antike Kultur einschließlich der germanischen als eine Einheit, für deren Fortleben die Nationalsozialisten zu kämpfen hätten. Ihre Kenntnis sollte in die „allgemeine Bildung“ einfließen und so den Deutschen zu einer „idealen Einstellung“ verhelfen 4, die auf der nationalsozialistischen Rassenideologie beruhte: Griechen und Römer gehörten für Hitler zur „arisch-nordischen Rasse“, und die Germanen hätten eine ähnliche Entwicklung zur Hochkultur durchlaufen können wie die antiken Griechen, wenn sie nicht durch die klimatischen Verhältnisse daran gehindert worden wären 5. Systematisiert man Hitlers Äußerungen zur antiken Geschichte, zeigen sich folgende Linien: 1. Die von seinen Gefolgsleuten gepflegte und von Alfred Rosenberg und Heinrich Himmler ideologisch ausgeschlachtete Germanenbegeisterung teilte Hitler nicht 6. Er kam gelegentlich nicht umhin, die Größe der deutschen Vergangenheit zu preisen, doch lag diese für ihn weniger in der Zeit des Arminius als in der Zeit der salischen und staufischen Kaiser, die seinen Worten zufolge „das gewaltigste Epos“ geboten hätten, das – neben dem alten Rom – „die Welt je gesehen hat“ 7. Zwar ist belegt, dass Hitler 1940 einen Gobelin in Auftrag 3 Ed. HARTMANN u.a. (2016), Bd. II, S. 1075. Vgl. zu diesem in Arbeiten zur nationalsozialistischen Antikenrezeption oft zitierten Passus aus Mein Kampf z.B. LOSEMANN (1980), S. 3; CHRIST (1982), S. 198; BINDER (1987), S. 46; LORENZ (2000), S. 423; DEMANDT (2002), S. 287; CHAPOUTOT (2014), S. 112-116. Zu Hitlers rassistischer „Kulturideologie“ BACKES (1988), S. 49-56. Zur Stellung der Geisteswissenschaften an den deutschen Universitäten in den Jahren 1933 bis 1945 vgl. NAGEL (2012), S. 281-295, bsd. S. 293f.; zur Verunsicherung der Altertumswissenschaftler, die sich sowohl vom Aufschwung der „völkischen“ Vor- und Frühgeschichtsforschung als auch von der Kritik am ‚Dritten Humanismus’ bedroht fühlen mussten und zudem die Zukunft des humanistischen Gymnasiums in Gefahr sahen, vgl. LUNDGREEN (1985) sowie LOSEMANN (1980), S. 15-19. 4 Hitler, Mein Kampf, ed. HARTMANN u.a. (2016), Bd. II, S. 1077. 5 Ibid., S. 1005f. Vgl. auch Hitlers „Kulturrede“ auf dem Reichsparteitag 1933, in der er für Griechen, Römer und Germanen erklärte, sie hätten „alle ihre Wurzeln in einer Grundrasse zu suchen“. Zur „Klimatheorie versus zurückgebliebenes Germanentum“ (so sein Kapiteltitel) vgl. CHAPOUTOT (2014), S. 78-80. 6 Vgl. LOSEMANN (1980), S. 4; DEMANDT (2002), S. 295-297; HALLE (2013a). 7 PICKER (1963), S. 174. Vgl. auch SCHWEIZER (2007) sowie CHAPOUTOT (2014), S. 100-103 zu den von 1937 bis 1939 in München veranstalteten „Festzügen am Tag der

440

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

gegeben hat, auf dem die Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald zu sehen sein sollte; der Teppich war für die Neue Reichskanzlei gedacht 8. Doch Arminius war für Hitler eine ambivalente Figur: Auf der einen Seite war es dem Germanen gelungen, „aus den deutschen Stämmen eine Einheit zu bilden, was nur durch Anwendung von Zwang möglich gewesen“ sei; damals, so Hitler 1942, habe sich „zum ersten Male eine deutsche Kraft offenbart“ 9. Auf der anderen Seite war aber nicht zu übersehen, dass diese Einheit alsbald wieder zerfallen war 10. Und so brachten die Germanen der Antike auch keine Kultur zustande. Mehr als „Steintröge und Tonkrüge“ habe die germanische Archäologie nicht vorzuweisen, und auch die Externsteine, die von der germanischen Altertumskunde im Nationalsozialismus mit der sächsischen Irminsul identifiziert und von Himmler mit einer eigenen „Externsteine-Stiftung“ versehen wurden 11, waren für Hitler nur „Zuflucht-punkte, auf welche die Leute sich zurückgezogen haben, um aus dem steigenden Schlamm herauszukommen. Kalt, feucht und trübe war dieses Land“, während die sonnige Mittelmeerwelt damals bereits Bauten wie die Akropolis gesehen habe 12. 2. Im Sinne seiner Ausführungen in Mein Kampf betonte Hitler wiederholt die „Rassegemeinschaft“ von Germanen, Griechen und Römern. Mit mitunter kuriosen Argumenten stellte er diese Verbindung her, z.B. indem er auf das sagenhafte Atlantis verwies. Atlantis sei als untergegangenes, frühestes Kulturreich der Ausgangspunkt für die europäische Kulturentwicklung gewesen, und was man an germanischen Funden hätte, seien späte Belege dieser atlantischen Kultur, deren Ornamentik sich auch im antiken Griechenland zeige 13. Dass Griechen und Germanen verwandt seien, könne man auch an der ErnährungsDeutschen Kunst“, auf denen die „germanische Zeit“ bis 1800 v. Chr. zurückverfolgt und ein Bezug auf die griechisch-römische Antike nur einmal für die „Zeit der Klassik und der Romantik“ hergestellt wurde: dabei wurden „ein jonisches Kapitäl und das Haupt der Pallas Athene auf Tragbahren mit Teppichen“ gezeigt (Programmheft Zweitausend Jahre Deutsche Kultur. Der Festzug am Tag der Deutschen Kunst 1937 in München, o.S.). 8 DEMANDT (2002), S. 296; DERS. (2016), S. 3. 9 PICKER (1963), S. 495-496 (Geheimrede Hitlers vom 30.5.1942). 10 Eben diese Position war auch von Ernst KORNEMANN in einem 1932 gehaltenen und 1934 publizierten Vortrag vertreten worden (s.u.). 11 MAHSARSKI (2013), S. 53. Vgl. zu den dortigen Ausgrabungen HALLE (2013b), S. 69-70. 12 Zu den nationalsozialistischen Organisationen für die Erforschung und Vermittlung der germanischen Vergangenheit (Reichsbund für Deutsche Vorgeschichte, Amt Rosenberg, Forschungsgemeinschaft Deutsches Ahnenerbe) vgl. HALLE / MAHSARSKI (2013). Zur Germanenideologie der Nationalsozialisten und ihrer praktischen Umsetzung vgl. CHRIST (1982), S. 200; LOSEMANN (2010). 13 Vgl. auch Hitlers Rede am 5.12.1934 in Karlsruhe, in der er anführte, „dass die Germanen schon 1000 Jahre, bevor Rom gegründet wurde, einen kulturellen Hochstand erlebt haben“; dazu auch HALLE (2013a), S. 48. Zum Atlantismythos im Nationalsozialismus vgl. CHAPOUTOT (2014), S. 48-49.

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

441

geschichte ablesen. Denn die Suppe, die er in Holstein gegessen habe, so erklärte er Anfang Februar 1942 beim Abendessen, müsse „die Suppe der Spartaner“ sein, und die Begründung dazu lautete: „Über jede Eigenart hinaus erhält sich der ‚Fraß‘“. Hitler scheint also von der „schwarzen Suppe“, die von den Spartanern während ihrer Syssitien gegessen wurde, zumindest gehört zu haben 14. Ins Positive gewendet, zog Hitler aus solchen Überlegungen den Schluss, dass Griechen und Römer in den Süden ausgewanderte Germanen gewesen wären, so dass man als Deutscher, würde man nach seinen Vorfahren gefragt, auch auf die Griechen verweisen müsse. Denn, so hat es Henry Picker in den Tischgesprächen im Führerhauptquartier überliefert: „Sehen wir auf die Griechen, die auch Germanen waren, so finden wir eine Schönheit, die über dem liegt, was wir heute aufzuweisen haben …“ 15. 3. Das war vor allem ein ästhetisches Argument, denn politisch war Rom das antike Vorbild, an dem sich Hitler orientierte, trotz aller Konkurrenz mit Mussolini, der dies in noch viel stärkerem Maße tun konnte und tat. Frühe Einwände gegen den römischen Imperialismus, wie sie etwa für das Jahr 1920 bezeugt sind, als Hitler das imperialistische Rom mit dem zeitgenössischen Frankreich verglich, das an seinen harten Reparationsforderungen festhielt 16, begegnen bei ihm später nicht mehr. Vielmehr fühlte sich Hitler nach der Italienreise des Jahres 1938 von Rom „ergriffen“, und nicht nur mit seinen Bauten und seiner „Welthauptstadt Germania“ als dem „vierten Rom“ wollte er an das römische Imperium anknüpfen 17, sondern auch mit etlichen Symbolen des Nationalsozialismus, dem nationalsozialistischen Adler etwa, der von einem Sarkophag aus trajanischer Zeit entnommen war, oder dem römischen Vexillum, das in veränderter Gestalt Hitlers „Leibstandarte“ schmückte 18. Schließlich, so kündigte Hitler im Januar 1942 an, werde der „Titel ‚Führer‘ einst in seiner Bedeutung mit ‚Caesar‘ vergleichbar“ sein 19.

PICKER (1963), S. 173; vgl. DEMANDT (2002), S. 297. PICKER(1963), S. 166. 16 Rede in München am 9.9.1920: JÄCKEL / KUHN (1980), S. 226. Vgl. LORENZ (2002), S. 420. Allerdings spielte die antirömische Argumentation in der nationalsozialistischen Propaganda (auch über das Jahr 1938 hinaus) eine erheblich Rolle, wobei vor allem an […] zu erinnern ist. 17 Zur Monumentalität der nationalsozialistischen Bauvorhaben und ihrem römischen Vorbild vgl. BACKES (1988), S. 52-53, 192 (hier auch zu Speers „RuinenwertTheorie“; zu deren umstrittener Historizität SCHÖNBERGER [1987]; CHAPOUTOT [2014], S. 376-378). Zur geplanten Umgestaltung Berlin ebenfalls BACKES (1988), S. 123-140 (bsd. 126: Rom als „einzig ernstzunehmender ‚Rivale‘“). 18 So DEMANDT (2002), S. 290-291. 19 JOCHMANN (1980), S. 174. Vgl. LORENZ (2000), S. 409. 14 15

442

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

3. Augustus bei Hitler Warum dachte Hitler nicht an Augustus, den ersten Prinzeps, als Bezugspunkt für entsprechende Vergleiche mit sich selbst als dem deutschen „Führer“? Deutsche Althistoriker hatten seit 1933 den Erben Caesars und Begründer des Prinzipats zu einem wichtigen antiken Bezugspunkt der nationalsozialistischen Ideologie gemacht, so dass Hitler sich auch in diese Linie hätte stellen können. Er tat es aber nicht, wie hier nur an zwei Belegen gezeigt werden soll: Zunächst gibt es eine Reihe von Äußerungen Hitlers, in denen er mehrere historische Vorbilder zusammenstellt, Reihen von exempla, etwa in einer Rede vom September 1930, in der er „Napoleon, Julius Cäsar, Cromwell und Mussolini“ nannte. 20 In einem Artikel aus dem Jahr 1929 waren es „ein Cäsar, ein Friedrich der Große, ein Napoleon oder ein Bismarck“, die Hitler als „Träger des größten Heroismus, kühnster Leidenschaft und wagemutigster Entschlüsse“ aufruft. 21 Einmal ist neben Caesar auch von Konstantin die Rede 22. Und wenn Hitler das Römische Reich anführt, um ein Staatswesen zu benennen, in dessen Inneren strikt auf Ruhe und Ordnung geachtet wurde, dann steht nicht Augustus für diese Ordnung, sondern Pontius Pilatus 23. Augustus also fällt als Bezugspunkt in solchen Argumentationen Hitlers aus. Nicht minder aussagekräftig sind Abschnitte aus den Reden Hitlers, in denen er über die Idee des „Führerstaats“ spricht und diesen historisch zu legitimieren sucht. War in Mein Kampf noch von einer „germanischen Demokratie“ die Rede – „Wahl des Führers, aber unbedingte Autorität desselben“ 24 –, so bezeichnete er später die „römische Demokratie“ – gemeint ist also die Republik – als „Führer-Aristokratie schärfster Art“ 25. Aussagen dieser Art werden auch durch Goebbels bestätigt; Hitler habe Rom für „die großartigste Republik der Geschichte“ gehalten 26. Und Hitler dachte sogar bei der Frage, wie einst seine Nachfolge geregelt werden sollte, an die römische Republik, denn ein

HARTMANN (1995), S. 416. Vgl. LORENZ (2000), S. 424. HARTMANN (1995), S. 399. Vgl. auch Goebbels, Tagebücher, ed. FRÖHLICH, Teil I, Bd.1/I, S. 173 (19.7.1924): „Große Männer machen große Zeiten. […] Alexander, Cäsar, Barbarossa, Napoleon, Friedrich, Bismarck. Wie kläglich ihre Zeit, wollte man sie hinwegdenken.“ Zur nationalsozialistischen Führer-Ideologie und der Rolle, die Bismarck dabei auch in der pränazistischen Literatur spielte vgl. SCHREINER (1985), S. 169-182, bsd. S. 173. 22 VOLLNHALS (1992), S. 357. Zu einer von Picker überlieferten Gegenüberstellung von Konstantin („dem ‚Verräter‘“) und Julian („dem ‚Treuen‘“) vom 27.1.1942 vgl. CHRIST (1982), S. 199, Anm. 16. 23 HARTMANN (1996), S. 152. Vgl. LORENZ (2002), S. 425; DEMANDT (2002), S. 300. 24 Hitler, Mein Kampf, ed. HARTMANN u.a. (2006), Bd. I, S. 891 (mit Anm. 74 zur späteren Textredaktion). Vgl. LORENZ (2000), S. 423. 25 DUSIK (1992), S. 828. Vgl. LORENZ (2000), S. 426; DEMANDT (2002), S. 298. 26 Goebbels, Tagebücher, ed. FRÖHLICH. Vgl. DEMANDT (2016), S. 4. 20 21

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

443

„Senat“ sollte den neuen „Führer“ wählen 27. Das passt zwar historisch weder zur römischen Republik noch zum Prinzipat, zeigt aber, wie Hitler historisch argumentierte: scheinbar schlagkräftige Argumente wurden so zurechtgebogen, dass sie in das eigene ideologische Konzept passten. Wie dabei die unbeschränkte, diktatorische Macht der eigenen Herrschaft kaschiert werden konnte, zeigen Äußerungen Hitlers vom 31. März 1942: „Große Vorzüge des Wahlkaisertums gegenüber der Erbmonarchie. […] Heute Republik beste Staatsform mit gewähltem Führer, aber nicht vom Volk, sondern von einem Senat. Dieser Führer bedürfe in gewisser Hinsicht des Korrektivs eines Parlaments mit beschränkten Rechten“ 28. So unpräzise alle diese Äußerungen auch bleiben, so wird doch deutlich, dass Hitler nicht an Augustus und dabei vielleicht an die Senatssitzungen des Januar 27 v. Chr. dachte, in denen sich der römische Machthaber vom den willfährigen Senatoren in seiner Machtstellung bestätigen und legitimeren ließ, die er nun als Fortführung bzw. Wiederherstellung der Republik ausgeben konnte. Ob Hitler die Spezifika der augusteischen Herrschaft überhaupt gekannt hat, ist ungewiss; aus dem consensus omnium etwa, den Augustus als Grundlage seines Handels beschwörte, oder aus der Betonung seiner auctoritas hätte er ideologisch einiges für den „Führerstaat“ ableiten können 29. Aber wenn die augusteische Zeit überhaupt einmal von Hitler erwähnt wird, dann ihrer kulturellen Bedeutung im allgemeinen bzw. im besonderen ihrer Architektur wegen, nicht aber aus politischen Gründen. Die Erklärung für den Befund, dass Augustus im Nationalsozialismus, soweit man zunächst nur die Rezeption durch Hitler selbst betrachtet, keine zentrale Rolle spielte, liegt wohl in folgenden Gründen: zunächst war der Bezug auf den ersten Prinzeps durch Mussolini so umfassend vereinnahmt worden, dass sich hier für Hitler keine eigenen Optionen der Bezugnahme oder gar Identifizierung mehr anboten. Zudem waren die Nationalsozialisten, Hitler eingeschlossen, erklärte Gegner einer Monarchie, zumindest wenn diese dynastisch legitimiert werden sollte 30. Und solange man nicht in die wissenschaftliche Auseinandersetzung um die vermeintliche Dyarchie eintrat, als die Mommsen den Prinzipat hatte verstanden wissen wollen, erschien die von Augustus begründete Herrschaft – zumindest für den oberflächlichen Betrachter – doch eindeutig als Beginn einer „Erbmonarchie“ der julisch-claudischen Dynastie. Allerdings gab es bei Hitler und seiner Gefolgschaft eine sehr positive Bezugnahme auf Friedrich d. Gr.; neben Bismark war er das Lieblingsthema der Nationalsozialisten 27 Dies war für den Fall gedacht, dass Hess oder Göring nicht mehr leben würden: DOMARUS (1963), S. 1316 (Rede Hitlers vom 1.9.1939). Vgl. LORENZ (2000), S. 430. 28 Goebbels, Tagebücher, ed. FRÖHLICH. Vgl. PICKER (1963), S. 236. 29 Zu den nationalsozialistischen Theorien zum Verhältnis von Führer von Gefolgschaft SCHREINER (1985), S. 180-182, bsd. S. 180 zu Carl Schmitt. 30 Vgl. z.B. PICKER (1963), S. 234 und Goebbels Notizen zum Italienbesuch 1938: Goebbels, Tagebücher, ed. FRÖHLICH.

444

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

im Historienfilm. Aber die Friedrich-Rezeption bezog sich ganz wesentlich auf die militärischen Erfolge des Königs und schloss keineswegs die Verherrlichung der Hohenzollern-Dynastie mit ein 31. Schließlich dürfte Augustus für Hitler auch deshalb eine mindestens ambivalente Bezugsgröße gewesen sein, weil in seine Herrschaft die Anfänge des Christentums fielen; genau diesen Punkt hatte die Mostra Augustea 1938 in Rom stark betont. Auf zwei weitere Quellen einer möglichen Augustus-Rezeption durch Hitler sei noch hingewiesen: 2002 hat der Trierer Archäologe Günter Grimm Parallelen zwischen den Res Gestae des Augustus und der Rede beschrieben, mit der Hitler am 28. April 1939 im Reichstag auf die Forderung des amerikanischen Präsidenten Franklin Roosevelt geantwortet hat 32. Roosevelt hatte am 14. April von Deutschland gefordert, eine zehnjährige Nichtangriffsgarantie gegenüber einunddreißig Staaten abzugehen. In der Rede, die Hitler etwa sechs Wochen nach dem deutschen Einmarsch in die Tschechei hielt, verteidigte er die deutsche Gewaltpolitik mit hämischen Hinweisen darauf, das die USA in jüngerer Vergangenheit selbst eine Reihe von Kriegen geführt hätten. An das Ende seiner Rede stellte Hitler, wie Grimm formuliert hat, „eine Art Rechenschaftsbericht, in dem er seine eigenen Verdienste bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt herausstrich“. „Im Tonfall wie im Duktus“, so Grimms Interpretation, „erinnere diese Rede an den ‚Tatenbericht’ des Augustus“ 33. Und „evident“ sei auch die „Parallelität der Aussagen: Beide [Hitler wie Augustus] waren Aufsteiger, die ihren Weg bis an die Spitze des Staates nicht ohne Gewaltanwendung aus eigener Kraft geschafft hatten. Beide beendeten das ‚Chaos’ und stellten die ‚Ordnung‘ wieder her. Beide kurbelten die Wirtschaft an […]“ 34. Grimm vermutet, Hitler habe die Res Gestae in Rom gesehen; man habe ihm 1938 „diese Attraktion zweifelsohne nicht vorenthalten“ und er „dürfte den propagandistischen Wert der ‚Res Gestae‘ ohne Schwierigkeiten erkannt haben“. Grimm weist indes selbst darauf hin, dass die Einweihung des Ara Pacis Museums erst am 23. September 1938 erfolgte, und mit den Arbeiten von Friedemann Scriba und Ralph-Miklas Dobler lässt sich inzwischen auch belegen, dass der Aufbau des Ara Pacis Museums in Rom im Mai 1938 noch nicht sehr weit gediehen und der Text der Res Gestae auch noch nicht an der Außenmauer des damals neu gebauten Museums angebracht war 35. Die Reliefplatten der Ara Pacis befanden sich in den Diokletiansthermen, wo sie Hitler, wie durch eine Photographie bezeugt ist, auch gezeigt wurden 36. Dass er im Raum 8 der Vgl. KAHLENBERG (1981). DOMARUS (1963), S. 1148. 33 GRIMM (2002), S. 207. 34 GRIMM (2002), S. 208. 35 SCRIBA (1995); DOBLER (2015), S. 221-224. Zur Feier der Einweihung der Ara Pacis vgl. auch CAGNETTA (1988), S. 616-617. 36 DOBLER (2015), S. 79-80 mit Abb. 51. Vgl. auch die Photographie in HOFFMANN (1938), S. 65 oben („Besichtigung der Augustus-Ausstellung mit ihrer einzigartigen antiken Schau“). 31 32

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

445

Mostra Augustea die dort gezeigte lateinisch-italienische Version der Res Gestae lange genug betrachtete bzw. erläutert bekam, um sie später als propagandistisches Vorbild rezipieren zu können, erscheint angesichts der kurzen Zeit, die für den Besuch der Ausstellung zur Verfügung stand, ganz unwahrscheinlich 37. In seinem Aufsatz erwähnt Grimm auch einen kleinen, heute verschollenen Kopf des Augustus, der sich in Hitlers Privatbesitz befunden hat. Nachgewiesen ist der Kopf in der 1993 von Dietrich Boschung publizierten Studie über Die Bildnisse des Augustus 38. Seine Provenienz lässt sich wohl nicht mehr feststellen; in jüngeren Arbeiten zu Hitlers Kunstsammlungen (Haase [2002]; Schwarz [2009]) wird er nicht erwähnt. Auch auf den Photographien, die es von Hitlers Räumen und von seinen Schreibtischen gibt, ist der Augustuskopf nicht zu entdecken. Für Grimm aber legt der Umstand, dass Hitler einen Augustus-Kopf besessen hat, die Annahme nahe, dass er „die schmeichelhaften Vergleiche einiger Gelehrter wahrscheinlich nicht nur kannte, sondern sich auch damit identifizieren konnte und sie für sich zu nutzen versucht“ 39. Grimm relativiert diese Aussage, indem er anfügt: „Im ‚Germanenwahn‘, in dem ein Teil seines Führungsstabes aufging, könnte Hitlers Wertschätzung des ersten römischen Kaisers jedoch weitgehend untergegangen sein, zumal sie von Mussolini und dessen Vereinnahmung des Augustus überblendet wurde“ 40. Von einer „Identifizierung“ sollte man besser nicht sprechen, aber eine „Wertschätzung“ des Augustus durch Hitler ist sicher festzustellen; sie ist vor allem auf der Ebene der Architektur zu verorten, wo Augustus, allerdings auch nur mittelbar, als Schöpfer der großen Bauten Roms erscheint. Das zeigen auch die Quellen, die für 37 Zu fragen wäre auch, ob Grimm den Aufbau von Hitlers Rede insgesamt ausreichend berücksichtigt. Denn die Rede, die verschiedentlich als die „brillanteste“ Rede Hitlers bezeichnet wurde (FEST [1973], S. 795 mit Anm. 242), bezog ihre Spannung aus der Dialektik zwischen dem reichen Amerika und dem armen Deutschland, das Hitler wieder aufgerichtet haben wollte. Die schubweise Syntax wurde von Hitler auch auf den Gegner, auf Roosevelt angewandt, womit sie sich hier – und in Unterschied zu den Res Gestae des Augustus – als Stilmittel einer ausgesprochen aggressiven Rhetorik erweist. Vgl. SCHNAUBER (1972), S. 42 zu Hitlers „scharfer, spitzer Rhythmik“ als „physiopsychologisch bedingter Ausdrucksweise einer permanent aggressiven Grundeinstellung gegenüber Welt und Mitwelt“ sowie S. 44-53 zu „Hitlers rhythmischem Skandieren“ (S. 46-47 zur Rede vom 28.4.1939). Zur Rede auch UEDING (2003), S. 448-450, der auch auf weitere Reden Hitlers mit „Bestandteilen dieser Führungsbilanz“ verweist. 38 GRIMM (2002), S. 208; BOSCHUNG (1993) beschreibt den Augustus-Kopf, die Nr. 136 seines Katalogs, bei dem sich an der linken Seite noch der vordere Rand eines Diadems erkennen lässt, folgendermaßen: Er habe sich „einst“ in „Münchner Privatbesitz“ befunden; „jetzt verschollen … Herkunft: Aus Ägypten, zuerst in der Sammlung Arndt; dann Sammlung Deutsch, München; dann Sammlung Hitler.“ Vgl. HAFNER (1955): „Der Kopf ist mir nur aus einer Photographie (mit Aufschrift: Sammlung Arndt) in Heidelberg bekannt. Anfragen bei L. Curtius und V. H. Poulsen ergaben keinen Anhaltspunkt über den jetzigen Aufbewahrungsort.“ 39 GRIMM (2002), S. 208. 40 Ibidem.

446

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

Hitlers Besuch in Rom 1938 vorliegen. Keine größere Wirkung auf Hitler ist allerdings für das zu verzeichnen, was eine regimetreue deutsche Altertumswissenschaft an Identifikationsmöglichkeiten mit einem verherrlichten Augustus anzubieten hatte – und das war, wie noch zu sehen sein wird, nicht wenig. 4. Hitler in Rom 1938 In der ideologischen wie politischen Konkurrenz, die über etliche Jahre das Verhältnis zwischen Hitler und Mussolini kennzeichnete, spielte der Bezug auf die Antike eine wichtige Rolle. Anders als Hitler bezog sich Mussolini dabei stark auf die Figur des römischen Kaisers Augustus, den er als Schöpfer des römischen Imperiums und der Pax Romana ansah und als dessen Erbe er sich inszenierte 41. Verfolgt man die ersten Jahre der spannungsreichen Beziehung zwischen dem nationalsozialistischen Deutschland und dem faschistischen Italien, so lässt sich nachvollziehen, wie das Überlegenheitsgefühl Mussolinis, das sich aus seinem Verständnis der italienischen Geschichte ergab, schrittweise durch eine Annäherung ersetzt wurde, als deren kulturgeschichtlicher Ausdruck die beiderseitigen Geschichts-Inszenierungen gelten können. Gemeinsam vertrat man schließlich den Anspruch, das zu verteidigen, was man für die Kultur Europas hielt. Als ein politischer wie kultureller Höhepunkt dieser Annäherung muss Hitlers Besuch in Italien im Mai 1938 gelten, wo Mussolini seinen deutschen Bündnisgenossen mit der groß angelegten Propagandaschau zum 2.000 Geburtstags des Augustus, der Mostra Augustea della Romanità, beeindrucken konnte und damit wohl auch in seinen imperialen Absichten bestärkte 42. Einige Abschnitte aus der Vorgeschichte zu diesem Besuch sind kurz nachzuzeichnen, weil sie zunächst konkurrierende und sich dann ergänzende Konzeptionen der Antiken-Rezeption im Faschismus und im Nationalsozialismus erkennen lassen. Am Nachmittag des 6. September 1934 richtete Mussolini, seit 1925 „Duce del Fascismo“ und Diktator Italiens, das Wort an die Italiener, die sich vor dem Regierungspalast in Bari versammelt hatten. Tagsüber hatte Mussolini die 5. „Fiera del Levante“ besucht, und jetzt lobte er in seiner kurzen Ansprache die Großzügigkeit der Apulier und die Leistungsfähigkeit der Italiener insgesamt, die diese in ihrer nun drei Jahrtausende währenden Geschichte auf dem Gebiet des Rechts, der Politik und des Sozialwesens bewiesen hätten. Von diesem Selbstlob aus gelangte Mussolini in wenigen Sätzen zur Kritik an den faschistischen Ideologen jenseits der Alpen. Mit „erhabener Gleichgültigkeit“ 41 Dass daneben auch ein starker Caesar-Bezug von italienischen (und auch deutschen) Althistorikern hergestellt und von Mussolini selbst genutzt wurde, sei hier nur am Rande erwähnt. Vgl. dazu SCHUMACHER (1988), S. 321; CRIFÒ (1989), S. 258-260; CHRIST (1994), S. 266. 42 Vgl. DOBLER (2015), S. 378-379.

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

447

könnten die Italiener „auf gewisse Doktrinen jenseits der Alpen schauen, die von Leuten vorgebracht werden, die zu den Tagen von Cäsar, Vergil und Augustus noch Analphabeten waren“ 43. Mussolinis Äußerung war Ausdruck seines Ärgers über die jüngsten Vorgänge in Österreich, die unter dem Decknamen „Sommerfestspiele“ eingeleitet worden waren. Am 25. Juli hatten die österreichischen Nationalsozialisten einen Putsch gegen die Regierung Dollfuß unternommen, der zwar niedergeschlagen wurde, Engelbert Dollfuß aber das Leben kostete, Österreich weiter destabilisierte und den „Anschluß“ immer wahrscheinlicher erschienen ließ. Dabei hatte Hitler bei seinem ersten Italienbesuch – nur wenige Wochen zuvor, am 15. Juni 1934 – Mussolini noch versprochen, die Unabhängigkeit Österreichs zu wahren. Das erschien nun als leeres Versprechen, und Mussolini, der sich getäuscht fühlte, reagierte ausgesprochen heftig 44. Schon bald nach Hitlers Italienbesuch Mitte Juni 1934 hatte es nicht lange gedauert, bis ganz Italien wusste, was der „Duce“ vom „Führer“ hielt: Hitler sei, so verkündet er, „einfach ein wirrköpfiger Narr. Sein Kopf steckt voll von philosophischen und politischen Redensarten, die überhaupt nicht zueinander passen“ 45. Und über den Nationalsozialismus urteilte Mussolini, dieser sei „die Revolution der alten germanischen Stämme aus den Urwäldern gegen die lateinische Kultur Roms. […] Der [italienische] Faschismus ist […] eine Regierungsform, die ihre Wurzeln in der großen kulturellen Tradition des italienischen Volkes hat. Der Faschismus erkennt das Recht des einzelnen an, ebenso auch den Wert der Religion und der Familie. Der Nationalsozialismus hingegen ist ein wildes,

SUSMEL / SUSMEL (1958), S. 318-320, hier S. 319: „Trenta secoli di storia ci permettono di guardare con sovrana pietà talune dottrine di oltr’Alpe, sostenute dalla progenie di gente che ignorava la scrittura, con la quale tramandare i documenti della propria vita, nel tempo in cui Roma aveva Cesare, Virgilio e Augusto.“ Zu Mussolinis Rede und dem „Streit um die Kulturhöhe der Germanen“ vgl. auch LOSEMANN (2010), S. 284-285 sowie kurz DERS. (1989), S. 141; außerdem CHAPOUTOT (2014), S. 85-88. Eine Antwort auf Mussolinis Angriff formulierte der Berliner Althistoriker Wilhelm Weber in seiner Rede Vom Neuen Reich der Deutschen, gehalten bei der Feier der Reichsgründung und der Erneuerung des Reichs durch den Führer am 30. Januar 1935 in der Berliner Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität (WEBER [1935]). Auf S. 10 beschwor Weber den furor Teutonicus, der sich im Weltkrieg und in der nationalsozialistischen Bewegung als „Wunder“ bewiesen habe. Neben diesen Beweisen „gibt es unendlich viele in der viertausendjährigen Geschichte unseres germanisch-deutschen Volkes.“ Aus den Wanderungen der Vorzeit „entstanden neue Kulturvölker im Süden, im Westen, im Südosten.“ Weber nennt Griechen und Italiker und Kelten. Und auf S. 11: „Warum beteuern wir immerzu, daß wir keine kulturlosen Barbaren waren? Was liegt uns daran, ob vor zweitausend Jahren Vergil und Augustus schon schreiben konnten?“ Vgl. dazu STAHLMANN (1988), S. 176. 44 Vgl. z.B. TOLAND (1977), S. 469-472. 45 Zitiert nach TOLAND (1977), S. 470. Vgl. PETERSEN (1973). 43

448

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

barbarisches System. Wie die Barbarenhorden billigt er dem Individuum kein Recht zu“ 46. Solche Urteile waren keine gute Basis für eine politische Zusammenarbeit. Erst 1936 war die sogenannte „Achse Berlin-Rom“ geformt, die sich ideologisch schon länger angeboten hatte, und zur Demonstration des neuen Einvernehmens wurden 1937 und 1938 zwei Staatsbesuche vollzogen, die dem neuen Partner und der Welt die Effizienz der faschistischen Systeme vorführen sollten. Die Konkurrenz zwischen Mussolini und Hitler fand nun ihren Ausdruck in pompösen Präsentationen und Inszenierungen, die militärische Paraden, Schaukämpfe und Massenaufmärsche ebenso umfassten wie Demonstrationen technischen Könnens und historischer Überlieferungen. Spätestens mit seinem Besuch in München und Berlin im September 1937 gab Mussolini seine frühere Überheblichkeit den „germanischen Barbaren“ gegenüber auf; an ihre Stelle war die Bewunderung des „Führers“ getreten, der sich nun auf seinen italienischen Verbündeten verlassen konnte. So wie Deutschland inzwischen Mussolinis imperiale Expansion, die Annexion Abessiniens, anerkannt hatte (im Vertrag vom 25.10.1936), so würde sich auch Italien dem Anschluss Österreichs an das Deutsche Reich nicht mehr widersetzen. Am 13. März 1938 wurde dieser Anschluss praktisch vollzogen, am 10. April durch eine Volksabstimmung auch nachträglich legitimiert. Vom 3. bis 9. Mai 1938 folgte Hitlers Gegenbesuch in Italien; Ziele waren Rom, Neapel und Florenz 47. Bei dieser Gelegenheit besuchte die deutsche Delegation, zu der neben Hitler zahlreiche weitere Mitglieder der NS-Führungselite wie Goebbels und Ribbentrop, Himmler und Hess, Frank und Keitel gehörten, die im September 1937 eröffnete, große Schau zum „Bimillenario di Augusto“, zum 2.000 Jahrestag des Geburtstags des Kaisers Augustus, die Mostra Augustea della Romanità. Mussolini nutzte die Schau, um sich in die Tradition des römischen Kaiserreiches und seines Begründers Augustus zu stellen 48. Im Raum 10 der Ausstellung wurde der Augustuskult inszeniert und in Raum 26 demonstriert, dass der italienische Faschismus die „Unsterblichkeit der Idee

Zitiert nach TOLAND (1977), S. 471. Zu Hitlers Aufenthalt in Rom am 3. und 4. sowie vom 6. bis 8. Mai vgl. die minutiöse Darstellung bei DOBLER (2015), S. 54-68, 73-87. 48 Zu den Widersprüchen zwischen der Prinzipats-Ideologie und der von Mussolini propagierten Ideologie des italienischen Faschismus vgl. SCHUMACHER (1988), S. 319-320. Zu ähnlichen Widersprüchen bei den Versuchen deutscher Althistoriker, die nationalsozialistische Reichs-Idee mit dem Imperium Romanum zu verbinden, vgl. VON UNGERNSTERNBERG (2001), S. 407-408. In diesem Zusammenhang ist auch auf Volkmanns Aufsatz von 1938 Der Prinzipat des Augustus hinzuweisen (VOLKMANN [1938]), in dem der Autor einleitend und im Zusammenhang mit dem neuen italienischen „Imperium“ doch recht deutlich darauf hinwies, dass die Leistung des Augustus eben nicht „in der letzthin unbedeutenden Ausweitung des Reiches“ gelegen habe (S. 16). 46 47

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

449

von Rom“ und die „Wiedergeburt des Imperiums“ garantiere. 49 Neben Dante, Petrarca und d’Annunzio waren vor allem Aussprüche des Duce zu lesen, der u.a. einmal erklärt hatte: Civis Romanus sum 50, und als Leitmotiv für die Ausstellung den Eingang zu dieser mit den Worten hatte schmücken lassen: „Italiani, fate che le glorie del passato siano superate dalle glorie dell’avvenire.“ 51 Erwähnt seien in diesem Zusammenhang auch die weit reichenden städtebaulichen Eingriffe, die Rom unter Mussolini erlebte; ganze Wohnviertel waren bis 1938 bereits abgerissen worden, um die neuen großen Straßen und Plätze – die Via dell’ Impero, die Via die Trionfi, die Piazza Augusto Imperatore – für imperialistisch-faschistische Aufmärsche und Kundgebungen herzurichten. Unglaubwürdig ist aber wohl die Überlieferung, Mussolini habe geplant, sich im Augustus-Mausoleum beisetzen zu lassen 52. Zweimal, am 6. und am 7. Mai, hat Hitler die Mostra Augustea della Romanità besichtigt. Die Besuche dieser Ausstellung waren kurz, denn es sollten in Rom noch weitere Museen besichtigt werden; auch war der Aufenthalt mit einer Abfolge militärischer Vorführungen gefüllt. Beim ersten, dem eigentlich offiziellen Besuch der Mostra wurden Hitler und seine Gefolgsleute von Mussolini begleitet; der Besuch am 7. Mai war unvorbereitet und weniger offiziell, da Hitler die freie Zeit nutzen wollte, die sich aus der Absage eines geplanten Luftwaffenmanövers wegen schlechten Wetters ergeben hatte. Ob Hitler während der zwei Besuche die gesamte Mostra Augustea gesehen hat, lässt sich nicht feststellen. Sicher aber wurde ihm u.a. der Raum 10 vorgeführt, in dem die Größe des römischen Imperiums und die Etappen seiner Expansion mit einer belichteten Karte veranschaulicht wurden 53. Bei beiden Besuchen wurde Hitler von dem verantwortlichen Kurator Giulio Quirino Giglioli (18861957) durch die Ausstellungsräume geführt. Anwesend war auch der von seiner deutschen Mutter her fließend deutsch sprechende Archäologe und Kunsthistoriker Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli (1900-1975), der vom Bildungsministerium dazu gezwungen worden war, Hitler und Mussolini in Rom und in Florenz zu begleiten, um die Kunstwerke zu erläutern. Bianchi Bandinelli hat nach dem Kriegsende in seinem Tagebuch eines Bürgers ausführlich über diese Tage 49 Zum Raum 10 vgl. DOBLER (2015), S. 204-205 (mit Abb. 131, S. 203); zum Raum 26, der der Immortalità dell’Idea di Roma und der Rinascita dell’Impero nell’Italia Fascista gewidmet war, vgl. ebenfalls ibid., S. 208-209 (mit Abb. 136). 50 GIGLIOLI (1937), S. 369. 51 Ibid., S. VIII. Vgl. SCHUMACHER (1988), S. 313. 52 D’AGOSTINO (2014), S. 52. Zu Mussolinis Bauprogramm für Rom vgl. SCHUMACHER (1988), S. 322. 53 DOBLER (2015), S. 204-205; SCRIBA (1995), S. 206. Dass man Hitler, den erklärten Gegner des Christentums, hier auch mit der Geschichte der frühen Kirche konfrontierte und ihm ebenso die römische Expansion nach Germanien vorführte, hat SCRIBA (S. 207) als Ausdruck des italienischen Selbstbewusstseins und als politische Botschaft gewertet: „Mit dem Bezug auf die antike Expansion erklärte man implizit auch, dass man Grenzen der germanischen Expansion sah.“

450

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

berichtet. So ist von ihm zu erfahren, dass sich Hitler während seines Rombesuches über die Zerstörung Roms durch das Christentum und über Atlantis als verschwundene Wiege der germanischen Zivilisation ausließ 54. Vor allem aber ereiferte er sich beim Thema Architektur, hielt er sich doch selbst auf diesem Feld für besonders begabt. Bianchi Bandinelli berichtet für den 7. Mai von einem Gespräch, an dem er selbst beteiligt war. Mussolini hatte ihn gefragt, ob der Name des Architekten der Caracalla-Thermen überliefert sei und auf die verneinende Antwort hin die römische Architektur generell für „anonym“ erklärt. Hitler warf ein, dass man doch „den Architekten der Propyläen auf der Akropolis von Athen und des Parthenons: Phidias“ kenne. Mussolini wusste keine Antwort, während Bianchi Bandinelli auf den Unterschied zwischen Griechenland und Rom hinwies. In Griechenland habe es einen „Kult der Persönlichkeit“ gegeben, während sich in Rom „die Persönlichkeit vor der Majestät des Imperiums aufgelöst“ habe. Hitler verwies dagegen auf Vitruv, und wieder musste Bianchi Bandinelli einspringen und erklären, dass Vitruv nur als Autor bekannt sei, nicht aber als Architekt eines konkreten Bauwerkes. Dann sei man von Augustus zum Pantheon übergegangen, was Hitler Gelegenheit gab, seine genaueren Kenntnisse von diesem Gebäude anzuführen und über seine Pläne für die Umgestaltung Berlins zu sprechen 55. Das von Bianchi Bandinelli überlieferte Gespräch vom 7. Mai bezeugt also, dass Hitlers Aufmerksamkeit vor allem den antiken Großbauten in Rom galt 56.

BIANCHI BANDINELLI (1962), S. 178-179 (in der dt. Übs.: DERS. [2016], S. 78-82). BIANCHI BANDINELLI (1962), S. 180-181 (in der dt. Übs.: DERS. [2016], S. 82-84). Erich STÜRZENACKER hat seine 1938 in Essen erschienene (und auch mit Photographien zeitgenössischer NS-Bauten bebilderte) Prachtausgabe von Marcus Vitruvius Pollio – Über die Baukunst mit einem längeren Zitat aus Hitlers „Kulturrede“ vom Reichsparteitag 1933 eingeleitet. Er betonte, dass die antike Baukunst „nur durch das Wirken überragender Einzelpersönlichkeiten heroischen Geistes zu ihrer Vollendung emporgehoben werden“ konnte: in Athen durch Perikles und in Rom durch Augustus. Die gegenwärtige deutsche Baukunst sei durch die „Wiederkehr klassischer Gestaltungsideen“ bestimmt und Ausdruck für „das Wachsen eines starken Bekenntnisses zum rassischen Erbgut arischen Geistes“ (beide Zitate aus der Einführung des Herausgebers. Das vierte Kapitel [ohne Seitenzahl]). 56 Das Pantheon war offenkundig auch eine Quelle der Inspiration für die „Große Halle des Volkes“, mit der Hitler seine zukünftige „Welthauptstadt Germania“ ausstatten wollte und für die er schon 1925 erste Entwürfe angefertigt hatte. Das Gipsmodell, das Albert Speer 1939 für dieses Bauwerk herstellte, besitzt ein Opaion und damit ein Element, das direkt vom Pantheon übernommen erscheint. Vgl. dazu die Abb. 60-63 bei BACKES (1988). Zur Wirkung von Hitlers Rombesuch im Mai 1938 auf die Bauplanungen für Berlin siehe TIMMERMANN (2001), S. 220-221; DOBLER (2015), S. 377, zur „imperialen Architektur“ im Nationalsozialismus und der konkurrierenden Bezugnahme auf Rom CHAPOUTOT (2014), S. 252-266. 54 55

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

451

5. Augustus-Literatur im Nationalsozialismus Während auf der Grundlage der „Gesetzes zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums“ vom 7. April 1933 mindestens 36 Altertumswissenschaftler ihre Professuren bzw. Anstellungen an deutschen (bzw. dann auch deutschsprachigen) Universitäten verloren und in vielen Fällen das Land verließen 57, sahen sich die Verbleibenden vor die Frage gestellt, wie sie sich im System des Nationalsozialismus verhalten und bewegen wollten, welche Grade von Anpassung notwendig, und in welchen Ausmaßen die ideologischen Vorgaben des Regimes aufzunehmen waren. Und für den Betrachter stellt sich die Frage, ob das, was man an intellektueller Unterwerfung erkennen kann, aus reinem Opportunismus oder aus Überzeugung geschah oder aus unterschiedlichen Mischungen dieser beiden Haltungen? Naheliegenderweise wird man aus sehr frühen Verherrlichungen des „Führers“ auf echte Überzeugung schließen sowie aus späteren Korrekturen, die noch vor Kriegsende vorgenommen wurden, auf einen gewissen Grad der Besinnung, der vor allem wohl durch den Untergang der 6. deutschen Armee in der Schlacht von Stalingrad Anfang 1943 ausgelöst worden sein dürfte 58. War für nationalistisch gesonnene Altertumswissenschaftler vor 1933 nicht Augustus, unter dessen Herrschaft Rom die Unterwerfung Germaniens anstrebte, sondern Arminius als ‚Heldengestalt vaterländischer Verteidigung’ zu preisen, so konnten die Wissenschaftler, die dann auf den nationalsozialistischen Kurs einschwenkten, die beiden antiken Kontrahenten gleichermaßen zu Vorbildern deutscher Politik erheben. Zeigte sich in Arminius die germanische Schlagkraft, so verkörperte Augustus das politische Genie, das Zeiten von Bürgerkrieg und Chaos zu überwinden und ein stabiles, dauerhaftes Reich zu etablieren verstand. Erlaubte es schon dieses Argument, Augustus und Hitler nebeneinander zu stellen, und auf ihm aufbauend zur Verherrlichung des „Führers“ und eines autoritären Staates beizutragen, so konnte man darüber hinaus die Bürgerrechtspolitik des ersten Prinzeps als frühe Parallele zur national-sozialistischen „Rassenpolitik“ ausgeben. Das umfangreiche Schrifttum zu Augustus, das in den Jahren der nationalsozialistischen Diktatur in Deutschland entstanden ist, kann hier nicht in ganzem Umfang analysiert werden 59. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit soll – im 57 Hier sind auf der Grundlage der Arbeit von LOSEMANN (1977) die Althistoriker und die Altphilologen gemeint. Zum „Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums“ und zu seinen Folgen vgl. LUNDGREEN (1985), S. 12-13. 58 Zu den begrenzten Freiräumen der Geisteswissenschaftler im Nationalsozialismus vgl. SCHREINER (1985), S. 166-168; zur Wirkung von Stalingrad auf die Wissenschaftler an der Universität Leipzig GRONDIN (2013), S. 247. 59 Zum starken wissenschaftlichen Interesse an Augustus, das aus den zeitgenössischen Erfahrungen mit dem Aufkommen autoritärer Regime resultierte, vgl. CAGNETTA (1988), S. 616. Zum Augustus-Bild, das Joseph Vogt in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus

452

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

letzten Abschnitt des Beitrags – der „Kriegseinsatz der Geisteswissenschaften“ finden, soweit er sich auf die Augustus-Rezeption bezieht. Zuvor sind nur einige wenige Stimmen zu betrachten, mit denen sich das Spektrum der AugustusDeutungen skizzieren lässt: Ernst Kornemann, Wilhelm Weber, Hans Oppermann und Helmut Berve. Ernst Kornemann (1868-1946) hatte noch bei Mommsen studiert und war 1891 bei Mommsens Schüler Otto Hirschfeld promoviert worden 60. Seit 1902 war Kornemann Professor für Alte Geschichte in Tübingen, später in Breslau, wo er 1936 emeritiert wurde. In etlichen Schriften setzte sich Kornemann mit der Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit auseinander, wobei er immer wieder neue Aspekte der Augustus-Deutung anbot 61. Auch über Arminius hat Kornemann gesprochen und geschrieben, und in diesem Zusammenhang bereits 1934 ein nachdrückliches Bekenntnis zu Hitler abgelegt. Der 1932 gehaltene und zwei Jahre später publiziert Vortrag über Die erste Befreiungstat des deutschen Volkes verherrlicht Arminius. Damals, so führte Kornemann aus, habe „das Germanenschwert ein Exempel statuiert“, habe der „furor Teutonicus […] welscher Raubgier nach deutschem Land ein furchtbares Halt geboten“. Kornemann beklagte die antike Uneinigkeit der Germanen und die Ermordung des Arminius: „ein Tatsachenkomplex traurigster Art, der die aus Erbübeln der Nation geborene politische Unfähigkeit der Deutschen zeigt“. Einige Zeilen später beendet Kornemann seine Ausführungen mit den folgenden, wohl erst zur Publikation 1934 verfassten Sätzen:

zeichnete, vgl. KÖNIGS (1995), S. 146-153; zu Vogts Umsetzung der ‚Großraum‘Konzeption Carl Schmitts vgl. VON UNGERN-STERNBERG (2001), S. 412-417. Zu Fritz Taeger (1894-1960) und seiner Bewertung der Epoche des Augustus als „zweiter Hochzeit abendländischen Menschentums in der Antike“ (TAEGER [1939], Bd. 2, S. 348) vgl. CHRIST (2006), S. 77-82. Eine umfassende Behandlung der Augustus-Rezeption im Nationalsozialismus müsste auch die Arbeiten zur augusteischen Literatur (und dabei auch die Publikationen zu den Zweitausendjahrfeiern der Geburtstage von Vergil [1930], Horaz [1935] und Livius [1941]) mitsamt der Diskussionen über den geeigneten Lektürestoff im Schulunterricht berücksichtigen; vgl. dazu BINDER (1987), S. 44-58, darin u.a. (S. 47-48) auch zur Abhandlung über Livius und Ennius – Von römischer Art (1936) von Wolfgang ALY (1881-1962). 60 Zu Kornemann vgl. CHRIST (1982), S. 133-144; DERS. (2006), S. 39-42. 61 Vgl. ausführlich STAHLMANN (1988), S. 130-155 zum „Übergang vom konservativ wilhelminischen zum nationalsozialistischen Augustusbild“ (S. 131). Auf S. 132-138 analysiert die Autorin Kornemanns intensive Beschäftigung mit dem Monumentum Ancyranum, in deren Kontext er Augustus 1902 als „größten Meister der Diplomatie und der politischen Intrige“ bezeichnete, „den das Altertum gesehen hat“, 1922 als „den großen Hypochonder auf dem Throne“ und 1939 als den Begründer „der ersten autoritären Regierung auf europäischer Erde“ (STAHLMANN, S. 134-137). Die aus dem letzten Zeugnis abzulesenden „neue Optik“, so Stahlmann treffend, stimme „mit der nationalsozialistischen Weltanschauung und einem dementsprechend führerstaatlichen Augustusbild überein“ (S. 138).

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

453

Es ist deutsches Schicksal, dass unsere Geschichte seit zwei Jahrtausenden nach jeweils vielverheißendem Auftakt immer wieder als Tragödie endet, weil in Deutschland wirkliche Realpolitiker nun einmal weiße Raben sind und das reiche Gemütsleben des Volkes den kalt berechnenden Verstand, wie er bei unseren Nachbarn allein Politik macht, nicht genügend zur Herrschaft kommen lässt. Möchte das doch endlich in unserem neuen nationalen Staat dank der Genialität Adolfs Hitlers anders werden! Darauf ruht die Hoffnung aller deutschen Männer und Frauen von heute und morgen 62.

Als Kornemann seinen Aufsatz 1943 in Gestalten und Reiche. Essays zur Alten Geschichte noch einmal publizierte, fehlte der letzte Abschnitt. Der Autor hatte seine Lobrede auf Hitler ersatzlos gestrichen 63. Neben der Heldengestalt Arminius stand bei Kornemann zunächst ein eher erfolgloser Augustus, wie z.B. die Rektoratsrede von 1926 zeigt, in der Kornemann Vom antiken Staat handelte: Das italische Volk war in den fortwährenden Außen- und Innenkriegen zu stark zusammengeschmolzen und hatte seine Assimilationskraft verloren, war daher nicht mehr geeignet, als Grundpfeiler des ganzen Systems benutzt zu werden, wie das Augustus gewollt hatte 64.

Und darin liege für Kornemann der wichtigste Unterschied zur modernen Entwicklung, die auf den „nationalen Volksstaat“ abziele, während die antike Entwicklung „immer wieder von neuem auf den übernationalen Volksstaat“ hinauslaufe. Noch in seinem Ostern 1934 geschriebenen Vorwort zur Aufsatzsammlung über Staaten – Völker – Männer, in dem zwar der Kopf der AugustusStatue von Prima Porta zu sehen, Augustus aber kein eigener Beitrag gewidmet war, vertrat Kornemann eine skeptische Position gegenüber den Leistungen des Augustus. Sein „römischer Bürgerprinzipat“ bilde zwar neben Philipps Makedonenreich das „größte okzidentalisch eingestellte monarchische Gebilde der Antike“; beide aber seien „Zwischenformen geblieben, die unter dem Einfluß des Orientes von Gebilden übervölkischer Autokratie abgelöst worden“ seien, KORNEMANN (1934d), S. 143. DERS. (1943), S. 303. 64 DERS. (1934b), S. 11. Zu den „Schwächen und Halbheiten“, die Kornemann dem augusteischen Prinzipat schon 1922 in seinem Aufsatz über Das Problem des Untergangs der antiken Welt zuschrieb, darunter die „Wehrlosmachung des Reiches“, vgl. wieder STAHLMANN (1988), S. 141-142, die in diesem Zusammenhang auf den „üblichen Habitus konservativ-bürgerlicher Historiker in der Weimarer Zeit“ hinweist, „entgegen der zeitgenössischen Politik dem autokratischen Staat mit dem starken Mann an der Spitze das Wort zu reden“ (S. 142). Augustus aber habe den Senat an seiner Herrschaft beteiligt. Auf die spätere These einer vermeintlichen Etablierung eines „Doppelprinzipats“ durch Augustus, die Kornemann 1930 vertrat, ist hier nicht näher einzugehen; vgl. auch dazu STAHLMANN (1988), S. 142-144. Festzuhalten ist nur, dass Kornemann auch den „Doppelprinzipat“ als „Moment der Schwächung“ deutete, der Augustus anzulasten sei. 62 63

454

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

die größere historische Wirkungen entfaltet hätten als „Philipps und Augustus’ national gebundene Schöpfungen“. 65 Für Kornemann hat Augustus aus ‚völkischer‘ Perspektive versagt bzw. versagen müssen, da er den „Untergang des italischen Volkstums“ nicht mehr aufhalten konnte 66. Und dazu passt wieder, dass auch im Vorwort „die germanische Frühwelt mit ihrer gewaltigsten Tat“ sehr viel positiver bewertet wird: „im Mittelpunkt die Heldengestalt des Arminius“ 67. Dieses Urteil aus dem Jahr 1934 liegt noch auf der Linie von Kornemanns älterer Augustus-Deutung, die sich indes mit der Machtergreifung der Nationalsozialisten vollständig veränderte. Schon 1933, in der dritten Auflage der Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft von Gercke und Norden, für die Kornemann eine überarbeitete Fassung seines Kapitels über die römische Kaiserzeit beisteuerte, hatte der Autor den ersten Prinzeps als unangefochtenen Monarchen gefeiert, neben dem der Senat nur noch eine „mitverwaltende Rolle“ einnahm 68. Augustus habe eine Staatsform begründet, die durch die Herausstellung der auctoritas als eigentlicher Grundlage der Macht des Princeps und das gleichzeitige Streben, ideale Gedanken der griechischen Staatsphilosophie auch weiterhin zu verwirklichen, einen neuen Typus der Alleinherrschaft schuf, in welchem die Freiheit des Bürgers mit der Leitung des Staates durch einen einzelnen (den ersten und besten der Bürger) als vereinbar erklärt wurde 69.

Will man die gegensätzliche Einschätzungen aus den Jahren 1933 und 1934 noch als ein Schwanken Kornemann deuten, wie Augustus denn nun zu bewerten sei, betonte er 1937, in einem in Rom gehaltenen Vortrag zum Augustusjahr, erneut die stark monarchische Ausrichtung des Prinzipats, „die Autorität und Freiheit zu vereinigen gesucht“ und dafür die Akzeptanz breiter Bevölkerungsschichten gewonnen habe 70. „Die Analogie zur Herrschaftsideologie der National-sozialisten“, so Stahlmann, „ist nicht zu übersehen. […] Augustus wurde zum ersten einer historischen Reihe von Führergestalten stilisiert“ 71. Die Zuhörer und Leser sollten ohne Frage auch an die zeitgenössischen „Führer“ denken, wenn Kornemann darauf hinwies, dass die Menschheit „nur selten […] wieder einen wahren Augustus“ erzeuge, „der pater patriae im höchsten Sinne des Wortes genannt werden darf“ 72. KORNEMANN (1934a), S. VII. DERS. (1934c), S. 78. 67 DERS. (1934a), S. VIII. 68 DERS. (1933), S. 64-65. Vgl. STAHLMANN (1988), S. 145. 69 KORNEMANN (1933), S. 60; zitiert auch von STAHLMANN (1988), S. 146. 70 KORNEMANN (1937), S. 14. 71 STAHLMANN (1988), S. 147. 72 KORNEMANN (1937), S. 15. Ähnliche Wertungen des Augustus finden sich auch in Kornemanns Aufsatz Zum deutschen Augustusjahr (KORNEMANN [1938]). Vgl. dazu 65 66

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

455

Dass Kornemann bisweilen darauf verzichtete, in seiner Behandlung der römischen Kaiserzeit nationalsozialistische Begriffe und Ideen anzuwenden, hat seiner Römischen Geschichte von 1938/39 eine Verbreitung auch über 1945 hinaus (und bis zur 7. Auflage im Jahr 1977) gesichert 73. Anders stellt sich der Fall der erstmals 1943 veröffentlichten Essays zur Alten Geschichte (mit dem Obertitel Gestalten und Reiche) dar, die, obwohl „voll von rasseideologischen Bemerkungen“, 1952 und 1980 erneut auf den Buchmarkt gebracht wurden, eine „verlegerische Initiative“, so Stahlmann, „die unverständlich bleibt“ 74. Die Essays enthielten auch ein Kapitel zu Augustus (S. 225-244), und dieses war, eng angelehnt an die Römische Geschichte von 1938/39, zwar einigermaßen sachlich gehalten, gipfelte aber in einer pathetischen Verherrlichung des starkes Staates. Dass der „glänzende Offizier“ Caesar einen „militärisch völlig unbedeutenden, aber staatsmännisch so hervorragenden Nachfolger ausgesucht hat […], wäre, so führte Kornemann aus, „eine geniale Tat Caesars, wenn sie bewußt geschehen wäre“ (S. 226). Schrittweise sei Octavian aus dem Schatten Caesars hervorgetreten, um im Jahr 27 den „Bruch mit Caesars Politik“ zu vollziehen und den Prinzipat zu begründen: „Die erste autoritäre Regierung auf europäischer Erde mit einer bis dahin nicht vorhandenen Zusammenfassung der politischen, wirtschaftlichen und geistigen Kräfte des Römertums war geboren“ (S. 235-236). In seiner Beschränkung auf das Mögliche habe sich Augustus als „großer Staatsmann“ erwiesen und darauf geachtet, „sich stets in Übereinstimmung mit dem Willen seines Volkes zu bewegen“ (S. 235). So war „Caesar der genialere, Augustus der klügere Mann“ (S. 236). Ein anderes, besseres „Verständnis für das römisch-italische Bürgertum“, eine größere Rücksichtnahme auf den Senat, die innere Konsolidierung des Reiches durch Verzicht auf weitere Expansion seien die Ansätze des Augustus gewesen, die dem Reich eine „dreihundertjährige Nachblüte“ beschert hätten (S. 239). Die „furchtbare Niederlage im Teutoburger Wald“ habe diese Neuausrichtung bestätigt, und so sei Augustus nicht als „Mehrer des Reiches“, sondern als sein „Ordner und Reformator“ in die Geschichte eingegangen (S. 240-241). Auf den letzten Seiten steigert der Autor sein Augustus-Lob noch einmal beträchtlich, verzichtet aber darauf, eine Aktualisierung dieses Lobes zu formulieren: In alles menschliche Fühlen und Denken ist durch sein gewaltiges politisches Wirken der Staat wieder als Kernproblem wie in der besten alten Römerzeit STAHLMANN (1988), S. 148. Vgl. weiter VON UNGERN-STERNBERG (2001), S. 403-404 zu Kornemanns Vortrag vom Oktober 1940 über Das Imperium Romanum. Sein Aufstieg und Niedergang, in dem Augustus zwar als „größter Staatsmann der antiken Welt“ bezeichnet, zugleich aber die augusteische Friedenspolitik als „Stillstand“ bewertet wird. 73 STAHLMANN (1988), S. 151. 74 Ibid., S. 152.

456

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

gerückt worden. Ja, im geistigen Bereich hieß es jetzt Staatsdichtung und Staatskunst in einem Ausmaß, wie dies frühere Epochen nicht gekannt hatten. So wurde der Kampfruf des neuen Römertums, das Augustus lebendig gemacht hat: alles im Dienst des Staates und alles für den Staat. Wahrhaftig, es war ein unerhörtes Glück für Rom in der Zeitenwende, daß auf den genialen Offizier Caesar, dem es wenigstens vergönnt gewesen war, das Reich in den mitteleuropäischen Raum, den Ursitz der Italiker, zu erweitern, ein Augustus folgte. Er verstand sein Volk wie kein Zweiter […] (S. 243).

Im Gegensatz zu Kornemann vertrat Wilhelm Weber (1882-1948), der nach Professuren in Groningen, Frankfurt a.M., Tübingen und Halle seit 1932 an der Berliner Universität lehrte, durchgängig ein weitgehend positives Bild des Augustus 75. Wie Ines Stahlmann im Detail gezeigt hat, bildeten für Weber von seinen ersten Veröffentlichungen an, die in die Zeit des Ersten Weltkrieges und der Weimarer Republik fallen, die „Figur des erlösenden Retters“ das Ideal des Politikers und die Monarchie die „über den Zeiten stehende, elementare Grundform menschlicher Gemeinschaft“, in der „das stets vorhandene Spannungsverhältnis zwischen der Masse und dem einzelnen seinen fruchtbarsten Niederschlag“ finde 76. Für die römische Kaiserzeit bedeutete dies, dass Weber schon 1925 in Augustus den in Vergils 4. Ekloge angekündigten „Retter“ sah und diese Deutung später unverwandelt mit der Verherrlichung Hitlers verbinden konnte 77. Positionsänderungen in der Deutung des Augustus betrafen nur einzelne Aspekte wie vor allem die Bürgerrechtspolitik, die Weber in seinem zwar 1936 erschienenen, aber bereits 1929 abgeschlossenen ersten (und einzigen) Band seiner Untersuchung zum Princeps als „anachronistisch“ bewertet hatte. Sie habe sich der gegenläufigen Entwicklung widersprochen, die zur Constitutio Antoniana führen musste 78. In seinem 1940 publizierten Beitrag zum 1. Band der Neuen Porpyläen Weltgeschichte wurde Augustus’ „Rassenpolitik“ dann als „Streben nach Erneuerung, Reinheit, Klarheit, Harmonie einer ‚klassischen Zeit’“ gepriesen 79. Dass Weber in seiner Rede zur Feier der Reichsgründung und der Erneuerung des Reichs durch den Führer am 30. Januar 1935 auf Mussolini geantwortet und sich gegen dessen Vorwürfe verwahrt hatte, ist oben schon erwähnt worden (s. Anm. 43). Aus dieser antirömischen Perspektive stand für Weber nicht Augustus, sondern Arminius im Mittelpunkt seiner Betrachtung. Ihm habe 75 Zu Weber, der sich in den Worten von STAHLMANN (1988), S. 175 neben Schachermeyr und Berve „durch sein Engagement für die nationalsozialistische Sache am weitestgehenden exponierte“, vgl. LOSEMANN (1980), S. 13-14; CHRIST (1982), S. 210-225; DERS. (2006), S. 69-74; zu Webers Rolle bei der Besetzung althistorischer Lehrstühle LOSEMANN (1977), S. 75-78, 82-85. 76 STAHLMANN (1988), S. 155-184; die Zitate stammen von DIES., S. 156-157. 77 WEBER (1925), S. 110; vgl. STAHLMANN (1988), S. 162. 78 WEBER (1936), S. 69; vgl. STAHLMANN (1988), S. 168. 79 WEBER (1940), S. 224; vgl. STAHLMANN (1988), S. 177.

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

457

Germanien zu verdanken, dass es nicht in der Unfreiheit leben musste, welche die Römer in Gallien etabliert hatten 80. Und Weber verzeichnete es als besondere Leistung der Germanen, in der Spätantike das römische Reich zerstört zu haben: „Freiheit will kämpfen gegen Herrschaft“ (S. 12). Von Rom sei eine Verlockung des Friedens ausgegangen, doch habe Rom nur seinen eigenen Vorteil im Sinn 81. Denn für die Unterworfenen hatte die römische Herrschaft das „Absterben völkischer Sonderart“ (S. 13-14) zur Folge, „Einebnung und Vermischung“ (14). Im Jahr seiner Festrede, 1935, glaubte Weber an eine nun deutsche Friedensmission. So führte er aus, dass die Deutschen nicht mehr wie einst die Germanen hinausziehen [wollen] in die Welt, um die Weltherrschaft Roms zu zerstören. […] Wollen wir glauben, dass aus dem Frieden der Gerechtigkeit, wie wir sie verstehen müssen, aus dem Willen zum nationalsozialistischen Staat eines Tages die Kraft in der ganzen Welt aufbricht, die die satanische Kraft des Imperialismus in der Welt zerbricht. Nicht durch uns, überall aus eigenen Bewegungen unterdrückter Völker. […] So wird der Friede, die pax Germanica, den wir leben wollen, das größte Geschenk des Führers an die Welt werden (S. 15).

Für Weber wurde Hitler hier zu einer Synthese zwischen dem schlagkräftigen Arminius und dem Friedenskaiser Augustus, und entsprechend bezeichnete er seinen „Führer“ denn auch als „Feldherrn des Friedensheeres“. Eine ähnliche Augustus-Deutung wie Weber formulierte auch Hans Oppermann (1895-1982), indem er die Parallele zwischen der späten römischen und der Weimarer Republik betonte und Hitler neben Augustus stellte, die er beide als Retter aus Staatswirren und Begründer neuer und dauerhafter Gesellschaftsformen verstanden wissen wollte 82. Jürgen Malitz, der Oppermann eine längere Untersuchung gewidmet hat, kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass bei diesem überzeugten Nationalsozialisten und Altertumswissenschaftler – Oppermann erhielt 1926 in Bonn die Venia für „klassische Altertumswis-senschaft“, ersetzte 1934 den entlassenen Eduard Fraenkel auf dem Lehrstuhl für Lateinische Philologie WEBER (1935); vgl. STAHLMANN (1988), S. 176 (hier auch zu Webers 1940 in Rom gehaltenen Vortrag über Rom: Mussolinis cäsarische Vision, in dem nun die „Sendung und göttliche Führung“ des „Duce“ verherrlicht wurde). Zur Arminius-Rezeption im 19. Jahrhundert vgl. CAGNETTA (1988), S. 615. 81 WEBER (1935), S. 13: „Rom verkündete den Frieden, die pax Romana. Er schallt aus Millionen Mündern bis auf den heutigen Tag als völkerverführender Gesang. Denn Roms Friede war beglückend – für Rom.“ 82 MALITZ (1998), S. 524 erklärt die Hinwendung Oppermanns von der griechischen zur lateinischen Literatur mit der von Oppermann empfundenen Parallele zwischen den genannten Epochen, „die ihn eine ähnliche Lösung wie für Rom erhoffen ließ: Sein Augustus hieß Hitler.“ Dass auch die radikale attische Demokratie als Krisenzeit mit Weimar verglichen werden konnte, zeigt sich bei Fritz SCHACHERMEYR (1933), S. 41; zu Schachermeyr und seinem Engagement für eine nationalsozialistische Ausrichtung der Alten Geschichte vgl. LOSEMANN (1980), S. 18-24; SCHREINER (1985), S. 175-176. 80

458

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

der Universität Freiburg und wurde 1941 an die „Reichsuniversität“ Straßburg berufen – die Kompromittierung evident sei 83. Einschlägig für Oppermanns Augustus-Bild ist bereits der Aufsatz über den erzieherische[n] Wert des lateinischen Unterrichts von 1933 84. Oppermann betont hier eine vermeintliche Parallele zwischen der augusteischen Zeit und der Gegenwart, die im jeweiligen „bewussten Neubau des Staates“ bestehen soll 85: So gibt es in der gesamten abendländischen Geschichte keine Zeit, die bei allen Unterschieden […] uns so verwandt anspricht wie die, die ihren politischen Ausdruck im augusteischen Staat fand 86.

Vor diesem Hintergrund überrascht es nicht, dass Oppermann dann auch das römische Straßennetz mit Hitlers Autobahnbau vergleicht. 87 Neben solchen plakativen Argumenten entfaltet Oppermann in den Jahren bis 1942 in zahlreichen Aufsätzen immer neue Möglichkeiten der Verherrlichung des „Führers“ durch einen Vergleich mit der frühen römischen Kaiserzeit. Das geschieht z.B. 1936 in einem Aufsatz zur Bevölkerungspolitik des Augustus nicht nur auf „rassengeschichtlicher“ Grundlage, sondern auch mit politologischen Ansätzen, die er einem Abschnitt aus Mein Kampf entnahm, in dem sich Hitler über die Grundlagen der Autorität geäußert hatte. Opermann wandte die Kategorien Popularität, Gewalt und Tradition auf die Gracchen, dann Sulla, schließlich Augustus an, der alle drei in sich vereint habe (S. 117). Seine Macht habe weniger auf seiner Stellung als Adoptivsohn Caesars beruht als vielmehr darauf, dass er „in immer stärkerem Maße der Repräsentant der nationalrömischen Traditionen gegenüber der Gefahr einer orientalischen Überfremdung wird, die sich in Antonius und Kleopatra verkörpert“. Auf den Machtgewinn aus der „Zustimmung und dem Willen der Nation“ folgt dann der „Neubau des Staates“, den er im geschichtlichen Bewusstsein (S. 118) und „aus den tiefsten Wesensströmen des Römertums“ (S. 119) vollzog, wobei diese Neugestaltung „alle Gebiete des römischen Lebens“ durchdrungen habe (S. 120). Seine Politik habe vor allem darauf abgezielt, „dem national-italischen Element im Ganzen des Reiches das Übergewicht zu verleihen und es in seinem Bestande zu sichern“ (S. 121). Dies sei der „entscheidende Grundzug der Politik des Augustus“: MALITZ (1998), S. 519. Vgl. auch im Zusammenhang mit Oppermanns antisemitischen Auslassungen S. 539f. über die „spürbare Anpassung an die offizielle Propaganda. Manch anderer versuchte, die Wissenschaft vom Altertum dem nationalsozialistischen ‚Geist‘ verfügbar zu machen; Oppermann ist aber der einzige, der auch als ‚Wissenschaftler‘ die Sprache der Täter benutzt hat.“ Zu Oppermanns Antisemitismus vgl. HOFFMANN (1988), S. 264. 84 OPPERMANN (1933). 85 Ibid., S. 52. Vgl. MALITZ (1998), S. 530. 86 OPPERMANN (1933), S. 55 (zitiert nach Malitz). 87 OPPERMANN (1939), S. 168; vgl. MALITZ (1998), S. 531. 83

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

459

Heraushebung der römischen Bürger durch Begrenzung der Bürgerrechtsvergabe und der Freilassung, Rekrutierung vor allem römischer Bürger zugunsten des „nationalen Charakters des Heeres“, deshalb auch die Aufgabe des Zieles, Germanien zu erobern, deshalb die Senatsverkleinerung und die Ehegesetze. Oppermann behandelte weiterhin die Maßnahmen, die Augustus „zur Vermehrung und Reinerhaltung der Bürgerschaft“ ergriffen hatte, und erläuterte im Schlussteil seines Aufsatzes, dass dabei „die Rasse im heutigen biologischen Sinne keine Rolle“ gespielt habe (S. 129). Augustus habe an die soziale Schichtung gedacht, und so nur unbewusst die Elite, die auch durch ihr Erbgut gekennzeichnet sei, gefördert. Aber während die griechischen Denker wie Platon nur ideale Forderungen aufgestellt hätten, hätte Augustus „solche Forderungen, wenn auch unvollkommen, in die politische Wirklichkeit überführt“ (S. 129). Wenn damit die Bevölkerungspolitik des Prinzeps auch ihre „Grenzen in der mangelnden Einsicht der rassisch-biologischen Grundlagen des Völkerlebens“ gefunden habe sowie „in der mangelnden Einsicht in den Wert des Bauerntums und im Fehlen einer wirklich großen Propaganda und Volkserziehung“, so sei sie doch erfolgreich gewesen, denn Augustus habe „den Sturz des römischen Volkes in den Kosmopolitismus des Hellenismus, seinen Untergang im Völkerchaos der spätantiken Mittelmeerwelt für Jahrhunderts aufgehalten“ (S. 133). ‚Rassenpolitische‘ Argumente spielten schließlich auch in den AugustusDarstellungen des Leipziger Althistorikers Helmut Berve (1896-1979) eine wichtige Rolle, wenngleich seine Stellungnahmen zum ersten Prinzeps insgesamt sehr viel sachlicher ausfielen als diejenigen von Kornemann, Weber und Oppermann und ohne ‚Aktualisierungen‘ im Sinne einer Hitler-Adaption auskamen 88. Da Berve sein unbestreitbares und nachdrückliches Engagement für den Nationalsozialismus mit einer – mehr oder weniger ausdrücklich betonten – Differenzierung zwischen ideologischen und wissenschaftlichen Prämissen verband und die Forschung von Vorgaben und Eingriffen der Partei zu schützen verstand 89, hat sein Handeln auch unterschiedliche Bewertungen von Schülern und Kollegen sowie von Wissenschaftshistorikern erfahren. Während z.B. Karl Christ Berve als „unermüdlichen Vermittler einer im Sinne der nationalsozialistischen Ideologie akzentuierten Althistorie“ bezeichnete und dies nicht zuletzt mit seinen Publikationen zu Sparta belegte 90, unterstrich Stefan Rebenich, dass Berve „der Entpersönlichung, Enthumanisierung und Brutalisierung der Gesellschaft das Wort“ geredet habe 91. Jean Grondin dagegen, der Zu Berve vgl. CHRIST (1982), S. 244-246; DERS. (2006), S. 59-65; REBENICH (2001); DERS. (2013), S. 17-20. 89 Vgl. REBENICH (2013), S. 18. 90 CHRIST (2006), S. 59, zu Berves Spartabild S. 60f. sowie REBENICH (2001), S. 467469; zur Sparta-Rezeption im Nationalsozialismus zuletzt CHAPOUTOT (2014), S. 227-232. 91 Vgl. REBENICH (2013), S. 19. 88

460

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

Biograph Hans-Georg Gadamers, beschrieb ein verhältnismäßig liberales Klima an der unter Berves Leitung stehenden Leipziger Universität 92. Rebenich hat indes vor dem Hintergrund der nach 1945 geführten Kontroverse, ob Berve sich in Distanz zum Regime befunden oder sogar, wie er selbst behauptete, „aktiven Widerstand“ gegen das nationalsozialistische Regime geübt habe, klar herausgearbeitet, dass der Althistoriker zwar einerseits „energisch und selbstbewußt die traditionelle Autonomie der Hochschule gegen parteipolitische Infiltration verteidigt“ habe, daraus aber andererseits „keine grundsätzlich oppositionelle Haltung Berves gegen das System deduziert werden“ könne 93. Angesichts der starken ideologischen Färbung vieler fachwissenschaftlicher Arbeiten Berves sowie seiner nachdrücklichen Stellungnahmen zu einer nationalsozialistischen Altertumswissenschaft, die keinen Zweifel an seiner politischen Überzeugung lassen 94, müssen die ‚gemäßigten’ Ausführungen zu Augustus, die aus den Jahren 1934 und 1942 vorliegen, folglich als Varianten in einem breiteren Spektrum von ideologischer Durchringung bewertet werden; sie dürfen nicht als Belege für ein ‚einfaches Mitläufertum‘ des Autors missverstanden werden, der sich zudem auch in der Organisation ‚nationalsozialistischer Wissenschaft‘ hervortat (s.u.). Vielmehr zeigen sie, wie der ‚neue Geist‘ der nationalsozialistischen Ideologie und dabei vor allem die Verherrlichung des „Führer“ untergründig, aber gleichwohl nachhaltig in die historische Darstellung eindrang. So stellte Berve in seinem im Insel-Verlag erschienenen Büchlein über den Kaiser Augustus mit erzählerischen Schwung die Krise der späten Republik und das ordnende Wirken des „Einzelmenschen“ dar, der an ihrem Ende nicht mehr „auflösend“ wirkte wie seine Vorgänger: Erst wenn er [der Einzelmensch] sich in einer großen Erscheinung bis zu dem Punkte gesteigert hatte, wo das Zerstören zum Aufbauen wurde und das Persönliche über sich selbst hinaus allgemeine Verbindlichkeit gewann, so daß sich ein neues Gesetzt über das gesetzlose Chaos spannen konnte, erst dann durfte man Vgl. GRONDIN (2013), S. 224-226 (S. 226: „Die Nazis dort waren so rar, dass man vor ihnen gewarnt wurde“), S. 234 zu der „unpolitischen Atmosphäre der Leipziger Universität“ sowie S. 256-257 zum Schutz vor politischen Verleumdungen, den Gadamer in Leipzig auch durch den Rektor Berve erfuhr. Grondin zufolge blieb Leipzig „trotz der um sich greifenden Zerstörung eine Gelehrteninsel … In Leipzig fand sich ein Kreis sehr angesehener Altertumswissenschaftler, der diesen Glauben an die Realität der irrealen res publica literarum aufrechterhielt. Zu ihm gehörten der Rektor und Altertumswissenschaftler Helmut Berve, … der Latinist Friedrich Klingner …“ (S. 257). 93 REBENICH (2001), S. 482-483. 94 BERVE (1934a); DERS. (1934b). Vgl. zu diesen Artikeln LOSEMANN (1980), S. 25-29; CHRIST (1982), S. 196, Anm. 2; DERS. (2006), S. 62. Zu diesen frühen, linientreuen ‚Programmschriften’ gehört auch der Artikel von Walter EBERHARDT (1895-1981) Die Antike und wir von 1935, der ein weiteres Beispiel für die ‚völkische’ Vereinahmung des Augustus darstellt, wobei aber zugleich das Imperium Romanum und die „lateinische Zivilisationsidee“ abgelehnt werden, da sie das freie Germanien bedrohten; vgl. dazu CHRIST (1982), S. 201-203. 92

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

461

eine Wendung des Verhängnisses und vielleicht einen neuen Aufstieg hoffen (S. 12-13).

Es musste also „ein Retter vom Himmel steigen“ (S. 14), und als solcher agierte der junge Oktavian mit „Taten von kalter Berechnung und Gewissenlosigkeit, von abstoßender Brutalität“ (S. 15), um sich im Machtkampf nach Caesars Ermordung durchzusetzen 95. Distanziert und kritisch führt der Autor weiter aus: Staunend, fast schaudernd gewahrt man die unbeirrbare Zielsicherheit, die überlegene Ruhe und eisige Willenshärte des Jünglings, doch vergebens sucht man nach einem menschlich warmen, sittlich erhebenden oder auch nur jugendlich hinreißenden Zug (S. 17).

In der Phase des Machtkampfs habe Oktavian dann die Rolle des „Erneuerer Roms“ angenommen und seine praktische Politik schrittweise mit dem „neurömischen Ideal“ erfüllt (S. 26-27). Auch lässt Berve den Treueid Italiens „nicht als spontanen Ausdruck der wirklichen Stimmung gelten“, sondern bewertet ihn als Propagandamittel zur Legitimierung des Bürgerkriegs gegen Antonius (S. 29). Nach Actium hütete sich der Sieger, eine absolute Monarchie zu errichten; auch der „neurömische Gedanke“ habe ihn davon abgehalten (S. 31) 96. Und so gab die Republik unter dem Prinzipat „die reale Macht, die ihr freilich längst entglitten war, offen an den gebietenden Einzelmenschen ab, verleugnete ihre Formen und Überlieferungen doch nicht ganz […]“ (S. 33). Augustus herrschte durch seine auctoritas (S. 35), und noch einmal betont der Autor, dass anstelle der res publica restituta auch eine absolute Monarchie hätte etabliert werden können: Es hätte dem sechsunddreißigjährigen Mannes damals freigestanden, über der ermatteten, nur nach Ruhe verlangenden Welt die absolute Monarchie aufzurichten. Daß er es nicht tat, war der Sieg des römischen Geistes in ihm und zugleich der Beweis seines sicheren politischen Instinktes, der wusste, daß nicht die schrankenlose, sondern nur die sich selbst beschränkende Gewalt dauernde Schöpfungen hervorzubringen vermag (S. 36).

Nach eindrücklichen Schilderungen der Sozial-, Außen und Wirtschaftspolitik verzeichnet Berve eine unter dem Prinzipat eintretende politische Abstinenz breiter Kreise, die verständlich sei, da „man die Entscheidung in der festen Vgl. CHRIST (2006), S. 61. Auf den von Berve verwendeten Begriff des augusteischen „Neurömertums“ bezog sich zustimmend Lothar Wickert in seiner Antrittsvorlesung in Kiel im Dezember 1940 (WICKERT [1941], S. 74 mit Anm. 8). Auch Wickerts Vortrag ist nicht frei von ‚völkischer‘, mit Biologismen durchsetzter Ideologie, vgl. z.B. S. 65 zum „römischen Machtwillen, der sich aus bester völkischer Substanz nährte und durch sie seine Legitimation erhält […]“ und S. 71 zur „Durchdringung“ des römischen Volkes „mit fremdem Blut und fremden Gedanken […].“ 95

96

462

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

Hand des Führers wusste“ (S. 60). Als „Fassade“ dürfe der Prinzipat aber nicht bewertet werden, denn neue Formen des politischen Lebens entwickelten ihre eigene Wirkung, wie auch „die eigene Zeit es uns gelehrt hat“ (S. 62). Am Beispiel der Sittengesetze erläutert Berve wenige Seiten später, deren Wirksamkeit würde „heute vielleicht weniger [bezweifelt] als noch vor kurzem“, sehe man doch am „modernen Faschismus“, dass sich „beim südlichen Volk der Römer […] mit staatlichen Einwirkungen [….] in besonderem Maße erzieherische Wirkungen erreichen“ ließen (S. 67). Und so hätten die Gesetze des Augustus und seine Bürgerrechtspolitik dazu beigetragen, „dem römischen Volke […] innerlich wieder einen Halt zu geben und die drohende Überfremdung vom hellenistischen Osten […] auch geistig abzuwehren“ (S. 68). So sei das „Bewußtsein einer stolzen, sich gegen Fremdes abgrenzenden Nation“ erwacht und „dem Römertum das Mark gegeben worden, dessen es zu seiner Behauptung gegen den Orient bedurfte“: Hier ist ein Sieg zu verzeichnen, größer und herrlicher als der Sieg des Schwertes über Antonius, hier liegt Erfolg und Fruchtbarkeit der nationalen Erneuerung offen zutage (S. 69).

Am Ende seiner Darstellung pries Berve die „schier unzerstörbare Festigkeit“ des von Augustus geschaffenen Werkes und die „beispielhafte Wirkung seiner Person über Generationen hin“ (S. 76). Und weiter: Wenige Menschen weist die Geschichte auf, die so dauerhafte Staatsformen geschaffen haben wie er, und nur ganz wenige, denen es vergönnt war, mit ihrer neuen Staatsform zugleich einen neuen zusammenschließenden und lebenzeugenden Geist in ein zerrüttetes, der Auflösung entgegentreibendes Volk zu pflanzen (S. 76-77).

Sollte man aus seinen letzten Sätzen auch eine entsprechende Erwartung an den neuen „Führer“ herauslesen? Wer Berves zeitgleiche Bekenntnisse zum Nationalsozialismus kannte, konnte daran kaum einen Zweifel haben. Und in eben diesen ideologischen Rahmen waren dann u.a. auch die Ausführungen zum „Imperium Romanum“ eingespannt, die Berve 1942 bei der Gründungsfeier der Leipziger Deutsch-Italienischen Gesellschaft im Oktober 1942 vortrug 97. Nach einleitenden Worten zum „Geist des Faschismus“, zur „Tatkraft des Duce“ und zum Gegenwartsbezug seines Themas (S. 3), suchte Mussolini doch ein neues „machtvolles italienisches Imperium“ zu begründen, schilderte Berve den Aufstieg Roms zur imperialen Macht, der in „unbewußter Erkenntnis der Tatsache“ erfolgt sei, „dass die Behauptung jeder Führerstellung eine biologische Überlegenheit des Führerstaates erfordert“ (S. 6). Deshalb habe Rom „nahe stehende und willfährige“ Gemeinden in seinen Vgl. VON UNGERN-STERNBERG (2001), S. 404-407, der auch auf die Textänderungen hinweist, die Berve nach 1945 vorgenommen hat. 97

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

463

Bürgerverband aufgenommen, während es zugleich aufgrund seines Kinderreichtums Bürgerkolonien habe aussenden können. Mit der durch den Bundesgenossenkrieg erzwungenen Bürgerrechtsvergabe an die Italiker habe Rom dann aber erst Jahrhunderte später „ein tragfähiges Fundament der künftigen Reichsbildung gelegt“ (S. 12). Und wieder ist es der „hervorragende römische Einzelmensch“ – Pompeius erst, dann Caesar und Augustus –, der die „neue Herrschaftsordnung“ vorbereitet bzw. erschafft (S. 14). Wieder folgt auch das Argument, Augustus habe das „ungehemmte Einströmen fremden, nicht selten orientalischen Blutes […] aufzuhalten“ gesucht (S. 20), wobei der spätere Verfall des Reiches eben darin seine Erklärung finde, dass das Imperium „ohne die völkische Substanz eines blutmäßig reinen Italikertums […] weder nach innen noch nach außen zu halten“ gewesen sei (S. 21). Berve wollte seine Ausführungen nicht zu einfach als Spiegel der Gegenwart verstanden wissen; man solle keine „für die Gegenwart bequemen, doch höchst trügerischen Parallelen ziehen!“ (S. 23): Aber erkennen lehrt sie [die Geschichte], zumal in dieser Zeit, die uns, Deutsche wie Italiener, für ihre Lehren empfänglicher macht als je zuvor, die Grundkräfte, die wirksam waren und wirksam sein werden, wo immer Politik in großem Stil getrieben und ein Völkerraum durch die Kraft eines führend Volkes geordnet wird (S. 23).

Diese Zeilen erscheinen wie ein ‚Glaubensbekenntnis‘ eines Autors, der nicht nur in den Anfangsjahren der nationalsozialistischen Herrschaft von der ‚neuen Ordnung‘ überzeugt war und zugleich meinte, an Prinzipien der wissenschaftlichen Forschung festhalten zu können, während deren Inhalte aus der Perspektive einer rassistischen und menschenverachtenden Ideologie neu zu interpretieren waren. 6. Der „Kriegseinsatz der Geisteswissenschaften“: „Das neue Bild der Antike“ Alle Wissenschaftler unter dem Hakenkreuz waren nicht nur zur Ausrichtung ihres Faches auf die NS-Ideologie aufgefordert, sondern auch dem Druck ausgesetzt, dies in organisierter Form zu tun. So war die Teilnahme an der sogenannten „Lagerarbeit“ des „Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Dozentenbundes“ für viele Privatdozenten eine unumgängliche Voraussetzung für die Berufung auf eine Professur 98. Für die Frage nach der Rezeption des Augustus 98 Vgl. LOSEMANN (1980), S. 43-59 sowie REBENICH (2012), S. 94 zu den Erfahrungen, die Alfred Heuß mit einem der Dozentenlager machen musste. Zur entsprechenden Form der Ausbildung von Lehrern in Lagern vgl. kurz EILERS (1963), S. 6; grundlegend KRAAS (2004). Oppermann hat 1941 in einem solchen „Lager von Altertumswissenschaftlern“ einen Vortrag über Das römische Schicksal und die Zeit des Augustus gehalten,

464

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

im Nationalsozialismus ist indes ein zweiter Bereich der ‚organisierten‘ althistorischen Arbeit bedeutsamer, der aus den Universitäten heraus erfolgte: der sogenannte „Kriegseinsatz der Geisteswissenschaften“. Er ging auf eine Initiative des Kieler Juristen und Rektors Paul Ritterbusch (1900-1945) zurück, der in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Ministerium und der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft – und in Konkurrenz zum Amt Rosenberg – die Bedeutung der Geisteswissenschaften demonstrieren wollte. Dabei sollte die „Idee einer neuen europäischen Ordnung“ im Vordergrund stehen 99. An diesem „Kriegseinsatz“, dessen Geschichte Volker Losemann und Frank-Rutger Hausmann detailliert aufgearbeitet haben, beteiligten sich in den Jahren 1940 bis 1945 zehn Fächer, darunter die Germanistik, die Geschichtswissenschaft, die Kunstgeschichte, die Orientalistik und auch die Altertumswissenschaften. Das Ziel bestand darin, in „Gemeinschaftswerken“ die Ergebnisse der deutschen Wissenschaften zu präsentieren und damit Europa und der Welt „die Überlegenheit des ‚Deutschen Geistes’ und der ‚Deutschen Wissenschaft’ zu beweisen“ 100. Aus den Beiträgen der Altertumswissenschaftler gingen die beiden von Helmut Berve 1942 herausgegebenen Bände Hellas und Rom hervor; sie standen unter dem Obertitel Das neue Bild der Antike. 101 Das Gesamtwerk umfasst in dem er einen Überblick über die augusteischen Dichter gibt (OPPERMANN [1941]). Dabei betont er „die völlige Übereinstimmung zwischen ihrem Werk und der in Augustus verkörperten politischen Wirklichkeit“ (S. 10), verzichtet aber auf Vergleiche mit der Gegenwart. Ganz anders gehalten war dagegen sein Aufsatz über Volk, Geschichte, Dichtung (Schiller und Vergil) (OPPERMANN [1937]), der als „Ergebnis einer ausgesprochenen Gemeinschaftsarbeit“ veröffentlicht wurde, die Oppermann über zwei Semester an der Universität Freiburg angeleitet hatte. Die Ausführungen zum „geschichtlichen Sein“ und „zur Volkswerdung der Deutschen“ begannen und schlossen mit HitlerZitaten; ‚erarbeitet‘ wurde, dass „die geschichtliche Aufgabe des einzelnen und des Volkes […] übermenschlichen Ursprungs“ seien (S. 79), was unausgesprochen, durch das Aeneas-Bild Vergils, auf Augustus und ausgesprochen (S. 81) auf den „Führer“ angewandt wurde. 99 LOSEMANN (1977), S. 108. Vgl. auch CHRIST (2006), S. 62; VON UNGERN-STERNBERG (2001), S. 397-400. 100 HAUSMANN (2007), S. 27 101 BERVE (1942). Vgl. auch REBENICH (2001), S. 474-475. Ein weiteres Ergebnis des „Kriegseinsatzes“ war der 1943 von Joseph VOGT herausgegebene Sammelband Rom und Karthago. Ein Gemeinschaftswerk, in dem die Frage nach dem „Rassengegensatz“ der beiden Völker und Mächte im Vordergrund stand. Zur Genese dieses Buches vgl. die Einleitung von Vogt unter dem Titel Unsere Fragestellung, in dem der Herausgeber S. 7 erklärt, „den Plan dieses Werkes entworfen und im Einvernehmen mit Helmut Berve, dem Leiter des Kriegseinsatzes der Altertumswissenschaften, die Mitarbeit von Sachkennern für die einzelnen Gebiete gesucht“ zu haben. Vogt selber war auch an dem Neuen Bild der Antike mit einem Beitrag über Raumauffassung und Raumordnung in der römischen Politik beteiligt, und neben ihm haben noch weitere fünf Autoren für beide „Gemeinschaftswerke“ geschrieben (Taeger, Herbig, Gelzer, Miltner, Burck). Zu Rom und Karthago vgl. CHRIST (2006), S. 86, zu Gelzers dortigem Beitrag CHRIST (1982), S. 208 („Ein Schlag ins Gesicht für jede Art von primitiver Rassenoptik […]“).

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

465

38 Beiträge, die von der griechischen Vorgeschichte über die Bedeutung der neuen Funde von Olympia 102, Die Gymnastik und Agonistik der Griechen als politische Leibeserziehung 103, Platos Staat der Erziehung 104 bis zur Völkerwanderungszeit reichen. Für einzelne Autoren wurde vermerkt, dass sie sich „zur Zeit im Felde“ befänden; geplant war auch ein dritter Band, in dem diejenigen Gelehrten zu Wort kommen sollten, die aufgrund ihres Kriegsdienstes an einer Teilnahme verhindert waren 105. Für die Augustus-Rezeption sind neben der Einleitung von Helmut Berve fünf Beiträge aufschlussreich, die den Übergang von der späten römischen Republik zum frühen Prinzipat umfassen: Matthias Gelzer (1886-1974), Althistoriker in Frankfurt am Main, schrieb über Caesar, Ulrich Knoche (19021968), Philologe an der Universität Hamburg, über Die geistige Vorbereitung der Augusteischen Epoche durch Cicero, Friedrich Klingner (1894-1968), Philologe in Leipzig, über Vergil, Hans Volkmann (1900-1975), Althistoriker in Greifswald, aber „z.Zt. im Felde“ über den Mos maiorum als Grundzug des Augusteischen Prinzipats und schließlich Hans Oppermann über Horaz, Dichtung und Staat. Hinzu kommen noch die Beiträge von Erich Burck (1901-1994), Philologe in Kiel, der den 2. Band des Neuen Bildes der Antike mit einem Aufsatz über die Altrömische Familie eröffnete, sowie von dem Berliner Archäologen Gerhard Rodenwaldt (1886-1945), der die Römische Staatsarchitektur behandelte; auch bei diesen Themen sind Aussagen über Augustus zu erwarten. Berve sprach in seiner Einleitung von der „Front der deutschen Altertumswissenschaft“, die durch das Antike-Projekt aufgestellt war, und der Nähe, die man in der großen Gegenwart, „wo eine revolutionäre Bewegung säkularen Ausmaßen Maßstäbe und Werte, die für unverrückbar galten, stürzt, um neue Ordnungen und Ideale an ihre Stelle zu setzen“, zur Antike verspüre: In aufregende Nähe rücken unter dem übermächtigen Erlebnis weltbewegender Politik das politische Schicksal der Römer, der Staatsgedanke der Hellenen, das historische Schicksal beider Völker (Bd. I, S. 6).

Dabei sei das eigentlich Entscheidende der ‚Rassengedanke‘, der die Antike mit der Gegenwart verbinde, und zwar deshalb, weil „der wach gewordene Rasseninstinkt unseres Volkes […] die beiden Völker der Antike, jedes in seiner

102

Hier waren neue Ausgrabungen von Hitler 1936 veranlasst worden. L. ENGLERT, S. 219: „Die neue Zielsetzung: Wehrhaftigkeit, Rassebewußtsein, Gemeinschaftsgeist und Führertum […] musste notwendig zur Frage nach dem Verhältnis der nationalsozialistischen Leibeserziehung zur Leibeserziehung der Griechen und damit zu einem neuen Bild von der griechischen Gymnastik führen.“ 104 Dieser Beitrag stammte aus der Feder von Hans-Georg Gadamer. Vgl. dazu GRONDIN (2013), S. 175-261, bsd. S. 247 mit Anm. 54 sowie S. 257, Anm. 77. 105 BERVE (1942), Einleitung. 103

466

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

Weise, als unseres Blutes und unserer Art empfinden“ lasse (Bd. I, S. 7). 106 Nach solchen linientreuen Aussagen konnte Berve auch auf das notwendige wissenschaftliche Niveau und auf die europäische Dimension der Altertumswissenschaft hinweisen, ohne Zweifel an seiner politischen Einstellung aufkommen zu lassen 107. Er betonte, dass die deutsche Altertumswissenschaft schon seit dem 19. Jahrhundert den „ersten Platz“ behauptet (S. 8) und nach Kriegsende „im europäischen Geistesleben als verbindendes Element eine wesentliche Rolle zu spielen“ habe (S. 11). Welches Bild von Augustus sollte der Leser gewinnen, der die dazu einschlägigen Beiträge im zweiten Band des Neuen Bildes las? Erich Burck verzeichnete ein „lebhaftes Interesse“ am Thema der altrömischen Familie, da man jüngst „mit dem vollen Schwergewicht einer aus völkischer Gefahr geborenen Erfahrung den unersetzbaren Wert der Familie für das Volksganze neu erkannt“ habe (Bd. II, S. 8). Er betonte mehrfach den überindividuellen Wert der römischen Familie, erinnerte aber auch an die „lebendige Frauenbewegung“, die es vor dem 1. Weltkrieg gegeben habe (S. 31; vgl. auch S. 42), verwies sogar auf die starke Stellung des Hausvaters „selbst bei einigen semitischen Stämmen“ (S. 34) und konzedierte, dass die Machtvollkommenheit des pater familias dazu „angetan sei, uns im Innersten zu erschrecken“. Sie erscheine als „wahre Tyrannei“ (S. 37). Einige Seiten später wurde indes zur römischen Großfamilie angemerkt, diese stelle „keine Form von Primitivismus“ dar, „wie wir auf Grund unserer Vorstellung von russischen und serbischen Großfamilien in einfachen bäuerlichen Verhältnissen leicht anzunehmen geneigt sind […]“ (S. 40). Der Autor spielte geradezu mit der Dialektik zwischen Gewaltmonopol und Verantwortung sowie zwischen Familie und Staat, Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, wenn er das erschreckende Bild eines tyrannischen Hausvaters mit den Worten relativierte: So muß sich die Vorstellung des pater familias als des allgewaltigen Richters der Hausgenossen zu der ihres überlegenen und verständnisvollen Lenkers und Leiters wandeln. Von Ihering hat uns wohl als erster eindrucksvoll die Züge dieses verantwortungsbewußten Führers der Familie gezeichnet […] (S. 44) 108.

Die politische Zurückhaltung des Autors kam schließlich auch in den knappen Sätzen am Ende seines Beitrags zum Ausdruck, die Augustus gewidmet waren: er habe, „wie auf vielen anderen Gebieten, so auch in der Ordnung der Ehe das Steuer herumzuwerfen und die altrömischen Ideale wieder lebendig zu machen versucht.“ Damit sei er aber nur in Maßen, mehr in den Provinzen als in Rom, erfolgreich gewesen (S. 52). Zu Berves Einleitung vgl. CHRIST (1982), S. 206. Vgl. dazu BINDER (1987), S. 49, Anm. 19 („Verblüffend auch hier das Nebeneinander von wissenschaftlichem Rigorismus und politischer Verblendung […]“). 108 VON IHERING (1924). 106 107

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

467

Insgesamt stellten Burcks Ausführungen eher eine Verweigerung dar, die Antike als Folie für die Gegenwart zu nutzen. Dieser Befund erscheint bemerkenswert, wenn man bedenkt, dass der Aufsatz aus der Feder eines Mannes stammte, der nicht nur von 1931 bis 1941 der SA angehört hatte, sondern auch 1937 der NSDAP und 1938 dem NSDDB beigetreten war. Daran anschließend war er in Kiel zum ordentlichen Professor ernannt worden. Obwohl Burck von 1942 bis 1945 als Hilfs- und Gerichtsoffizier der Gestapo wirkte, wurde er 1945 als „unbelastet“ entnazifiziert. Wer nun von Gelzers Beitrag deutlichere Bekenntnisse zum „Führerstaat“ erwartet hatte, wurde enttäuscht. Sicher konnte man, so Gelzer, „selbst in einer Zeit lebend, in der eine neue politische Ordnung der Erdenwelt im Werden ist, […] diese Seite Caesars besser erfassen als die älteren Generationen“ (S. 199). Gemeint waren die Frage nach der monarchischen und imperialen Herrschaftskonzeption Caesars und die konträren Urteile, die Theodor Mommsen und Eduard Meyer dazu formuliert hatten. Aber weder Caesar noch sein – im Beitrag nur kurz berührter – Erbe Augustus (S. 193) wurden in irgendeiner Weise mit Hitler verbunden 109. 109 Nicht ganz so zurückhaltend war Gelzer in seinem Aufsatz über die Römische Führungsordnung, einem 1942 gehaltenen Vortrag, publiziert 1942 in den von H. Berve und D. Bohne herausgegebenen Neuen Jahrbüchern für Antike und deutsche Bildung (GELZER [1942]). Am Ende seiner Ausführungen führte Gelzer aus, dass die „Frage der Führungsordnung“ gegenwärtig besonderes Interesse hervorrufe, „weil sich bereits Anzeichen einer künftigen weltgeschichtlichen Entwicklung bemerkbar machen, in der das Nebeneinander von Nationalstaaten ersetzt wird durch eine Gruppierung der räumlich zusammengehörigen Völker in einer von einem Führerstaat geschaffenen und gelenkten Ordnung. Man kann die politischen Aufgaben, die sich so ankündigen, wohl mit denen vergleichen, welche einstmals die Römer auf ihre Art lösten.“ Zwar werde, so Gelzer weiter, den Historiker „sein Gefühl für die Verschiedenheit vor übereilten Schlüssel bewahren.“ Aber zu Recht bestehe doch das Interesse, das Montesquieu zur Betrachtung der „Ursachen von Größe und Niedergang der Römer“ und zur Einsicht geführt habe, „dass Aufstieg und Verfall der Staaten durch ‚allgemeine Ursachen‘ (causes générales), ‚moralische und physische‘, bedingt seien.“ Zuvor hatte Gelzer ausgeführt, dass der römische Prinzipat als „Militärmonarchie“ zu verstehen sei (S. 229) und die Monarchie erst nach „einer 50jährigen schweren Krisenzeit“ und mit „furchtbaren Kämpfen“ etabliert werden konnte, weil „für das damalige römische Bewusstsein die Monarchie Vernichtung der res publica, dessen was die Eigenart des römischen Staates ausmachte, die freie Bewegung seiner Organe Volk, Magistrate und Senat, bedeutete.“ (S. 230). Das „Dilemma“, das sich für Augustus nach seinem Sieg ergab – Notwendigkeit der Monarchie und zugleich deren Ablehnung – habe er „durch seine Prinzipats-verfassung so meisterhaft zu überwinden“ verstanden. Die größte Leistung der römischen Kaiserzeit habe dann in der Entwicklung einer Reichseinheit unter dem Signum der Pax romana bestanden (S. 231), für die das „Nationalitätenproblem“ keine Rolle gespielt habe (S. 232). Gelzer argumentierte auch mit „rassengeschichtlichen“ Argumenten (S. 232-233): im römischen Reich habe sich die „völkische Substanz“ verändert, es seien „viele Orientalen nach dem Westen geströmt.“ Auch durch Sklaverei und Freilassung sei „ein

468

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

Ulrich Knoche stellte in seinem Aufsatz einleitend fest, dass der „Reichsgedanke für die Augusteischen Klassiker von einer ganz außerordentlichen Bedeutung“ gewesen sei (S. 201) und bezeichnete es als Aufgabe eben dieser Dichter, „die maiestas populi Romani und seines Führers zu schmücken und darüber hinaus das römische Imperium durch den Geist, die Idee und die Kunst zu rechtfertigen“. Es war die Aufgabe, welche auch die deutschen Althistoriker mit ihren Mitteln für ihren „Führer“ zu erfüllen hatten. Mit dem Begriff „Führer“ ging Knoche allerdings recht großzügig um; er sprach auch von Vergil als dem „eigentlich geistigen Führer“ und erinnerte an Livius, der die Römer als princeps terrarum populus bezeichnet hatte, also, in Knoches Übersetzung, als „römisches Führervolk“ (S. 202). Die Grundaussage seines Aufsatzes bestand darin, dass Cicero den römischen Führungsanspruch aus der nach „alter Römerart“ zu praktizierenden Gerechtigkeit abgeleitet habe; diese wäre, Cicero zufolge, aber nur wiederzubeleben gewesen, wenn sich die Elite Roms ihrer moralischen Verantwortung bewusst geworden wäre. „Dies ‚Wenn‘“, so Knoche, „blieb zu Ciceros Lebzeiten unerfüllt“, wurde dann aber von der „Augusteischen Reform“ als Anspruch aufgegriffen (S. 213-214). Knoche sprach zwar auch von der „biologischen Rechtfertigung“, die es bei Cicero gegeben habe (S. 216), aber schwerer wog 1942 doch wohl folgender Passus: Cicero hatte gesagt, gerecht sei die Herrschaft über Unmündige und Übeltäter. […] Aber wer ist der Unmündige? […] Soll man […] sagen: unmündig sind die Völker, denen es unter fremder Herrschaft besser ergeht, die also dadurch glücklicher sind als vorher? Das sind peinliche Bestimmungen, und der Gedanke an kulturell überlegene Völker, wie besonders die Griechen, bleibt im Hintergrunde immer lebendig. Da scheint der Führungsanspruch Roms in seinen Fundamenten eine Lücke aufzuweisen; denn mochte Cicero ihn politisch, sittlich, metaphysisch und wohl auch biologisch zum ersten Male systematisch begründet haben: die kulturelle Rechtfertigung fehlte noch, und sie war nicht ganz leicht (S. 211).

Falls ein Leser 1942 an die jüngere Vergangenheit dachte und die Römer durch die Deutschen und die Griechen vielleicht durch die Franzosen ersetzte, wäre er zu dem Schluss gelangt, dass die nationalsozialistische Expansion ungerecht war, da ihr die kulturelle Überlegenheit fehlte. Dieses Gedankenspiel macht aus Knoches Aufsatz kein Manifest des Widerstandes, aber eine Entfaltung der nationalsozialistischen Ideologie war er auch nicht. Hatte Knoche unter dem Eindruck des Krieges, an dem er seit 1941 persönlich teilnahm, umgedacht? Oder vielmehr: sich besonnen? Denn anfangs hatte er dem Nationalsozialismus skeptisch gegenüber gestanden, sich dann aber gefügt und aktiv beteiligt, etwa beträchtlicher Sauerteig hellenistisch-orientalischer Intelligenz in das italische Volkstum eingedrungen.“ Letztlich sei durch diese „in ihrer Gesamtheit schwer fassbare Rassenmischung“ die Kulturentwicklung bestimmt und durch den religiösen Synkretismus der Sieg des Christentums vorbereitet worden (S. 232-233). Vgl. VON UNGERN-STERNBERG (2001), S. 402-403.

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

469

indem er 1935 die Kölner Abteilung des Nationalsozialistischen Dozentenbundes mitbegründete. 1937 folgte sein Eintritt in die NSDAP, kurz danach die Berufung an die Universität Göttingen 110. Auch Friedrich Klingner setzte in seiner Betrachtung Vergils mit dem Bekenntnis ein, erst in jüngster Vergangenheit sei die Wissenschaft zu einer richtigen Auffassung der augusteischen Dichter als „Seher und Deuter“ gelangt (S. 219). Und gerade Vergil habe den großen historischen Zusammenhang der römischen Geschichte verstanden und dargestellt. Klingner ging chronologisch durch das Werk des Dichters und vermerkte zu den Bucolica, dass sich hier „über dem Verfall […] das Bild einer Zeitwende“ erhebe, „die mit dem Kommen eines wunderbaren Menschen göttlicher Art die Welt von ihrem Leiden erlöst“ (S. 227). Und in der Aeneis habe sich dann für Vergil „das innere Bild des römischen Schicksals“ vollendet (S. 233), so wie sich für ihn unter Augustus „das Walten der göttlichen himmlischen Ordnung“ durchgesetzt habe (S. 234). An Pathos fehlt es bei Klingner also nicht, aber an keiner dieser Stellen wird die Linie von Augustus zu Hitler gezogen. Zur Erklärung sei nur darauf hingewiesen, dass Klingner nach dem Zeugnis von Hans-Georg Gadamer an dem „Kränzchen“ teilnahm, das Carl Friedrich Goerdeler regelmäßig in seinem Haus in Leipzig veranstaltete 111. Dem bisher erkennbaren Schema, die Aufsätze (wenn überhaupt) mit positiven Worten über den neuen ‚Zeitgeist‘ zu eröffnen, sich dann aber in Distanz zur nationalsozialistischen Ideologie zu halten, ist Hans Volkmann in seinem Beitrag über den Mos maiorum nicht gefolgt: seine Stellungnahme zur Gegenwart fällt ausführlicher und panegyrischer aus. Aus „dem Erleben der eigenen Zeit“ finde der Historiker „neue Wege zu scheinbar längst bekannten geschichtlichen Gestalten und Formen“, und angesichts des „Wiedererwachens starker völkischer Kräfte“ spüre jeder, „wie sich Geschichte bildet“ (S. 246). In der Zeit des Augustus wie in der Gegenwart vollziehe sich „der Aufbau eines neuen Reiches auf dem Fundament alter, zeitweise verschütterter sittlicher und geistiger Kräfte“ (S. 247). Das deutsche Volk sei sich „seiner blutsmäßigen Verbundenheit bewusst geworden“ und forme sein Leben nun „nach dieser Wertordnung, die alle Volksglieder zu enger Gemeinschaft umschließt“ 112. Auf diese ideologischen Fanfare folgt eine ausführliche Untersuchung, ob die Vgl. LOHSE (1991). GRONDIN (2013), S. 247-248 mit Anm. 58. 112 Dass Volkmann auf solche ideologischen Aussagen auch verzichten konnte, zeigt sein Aufsatz von 1938 Der Prinzipat des Augustus (VOLKMANN [1938]); vgl. dazu oben Anm. 48. Ein weiteres Beispiel für Publikationen zu Augustus, die ohne Bekenntnisse zum Nationalsozialismus oder Faschismus auskamen, stellt Karl Hönns Vortrag vom April 1938 Augustus im Wandel zweier Jahrtausende (HÖNN [1938]) dar, mit der einen Einschränkung, dass der Autor am Ende seiner Ausführungen (S. 46) das „neue Italien“ für seine wissenschaftlichen Leistungen auf dem Feld der Augustusforschung lobte (nicht aber Mussolini). 110 111

470

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

augusteische Sittenpolitik als „billiges Mittel der Propaganda“ zu verstehen oder vom Prinzeps „aus tiefem Wissen um den Kraftquell seines Volkes“ betrieben worden sei (S. 248). Volkmann betonte, dass die deutsche Forschung in der Behandlung des Prinzipats führend sei und zuletzt „aus blutsgebundenen Kräften die Eigenart des Augustus in seinem politischen Handeln und seinem Erfolge zu erklären“ bestrebt sei (S. 249). Augustus habe durch seine auctoritas die Möglichkeit zur Reformierung des Gemeinwesens gefunden, wobei das antike Gefolgschaftsverhältnis von der germanischen Gefolgschaft zu unterscheiden sei, „die durch die Idee der unbedingten Hingabe an den Führer“ geadelt werde (S. 253). Immerhin findet sich auch bei Volkmann ein Passus, dem man als verdeckt kritische Anmerkung zur Gegenwart lesen konnte. Im Zusammenhang mit den politischen Leitbegriffen des Prinzipats schrieb der Autor: So rühmt sich z.B. der Prinzipat, die libertas, das in den Bürgerkriegen verlorene Palladium des Freistaats, wiedergebracht zu haben, und doch nimmt die libertas des Prinzipats immer stärker einen negativen Charakter an, sie bedeutet nur noch das Freisein von dem Gewaltherrscher, dem dominus, während sie in der Republik die positive Freiheit zum politischen Handeln in sich schloß (S. 262).

Augustus habe allerdings die Verbindung zum „römischen Freistaat“ noch aufrecht gehalten, da doch der mos maiorum grundlegend für Republik wie Monarchie gewesen sei. Und nur auf dieser Grundlage habe er „die freiwillige Anerkennung seiner Führerstellung durch das Volk“ gewinnen können (S. 264), was so auch nur einem Mann mit „schöpferischer Kraft“ möglich sei. Mit einem Zitat aus Heinzes Arbeit über die Augusteische Kultur (Leipzig 1933) schloss der Autor: Wer sein Volk auf einen Gipfel führen will, der muß imstande sein, die idealen Kräfte, die im Volke schlummern, zu wecken, und das kann nur einer, in dem diese Kräfte selbst leben und wirken.

Oppermann steuerte zum Neuen Bild der Antike einen der ausführlichsten Beiträge bei, blieb aber im Hinblick auf politische Aussagen zurückhaltender als Volkmann. Gegen ältere Deutungen von Horaz als eines ‚höfischen Dichters‘ betonte er, dass in den Werken des Dichters sein „in innerem und äußerem Ringen allmählich und mühsam erkämpftes, aber darum nur um so echteres Ja […] zu Person und Werk des Augustus zum Ausdruck“ komme (S. 267). Indes brauche es „nicht besonders ausgeführt zu werden, wie stark die Wandlung in der Beurteilung des Horaz mit unserer eigenen geschichtlichen Entwicklung zusammenhängt“ (S. 268). Nach emphatischen Ausführungen über das geradezu religiöse Selbstverständnis des römischen Dichters zeichnet Oppermann die Entwicklung nach, die Horaz im Laufe seines Lebens vollzogen hat, vom Kritiker und Mahner in den Zeiten der Bürgerkriege zum Verkünder einer besseren Zukunft, „einer neuen Welt der Ordnung und der klaren Einsicht, der

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

471

Zucht und des Maßes“ (S. 290), die durch Augustus eingeleitet wurde. Von irgendeiner Parallele in der eigenen Gegenwart, die sich durch den Vergleich mit dem Werk des Dichters Horaz oder des „Staatsmannes“ Augustus aufdrängen würde, ist nicht einmal in den Schlusspartien des Aufsatzes die Rede. Gerhard Rodenwaldt schließlich eröffnete seinen Aufsatz mit einer Beschreibung des von Friedrich Gilly geplanten Denkmals für Friedrich d. Gr., um an diesem Beispiel „die doppelte Beziehung zum Griechischen und zum Römischen“ herauszustellen, die der deutschen Baukunst seit Gilly und Schinkel eigen sei: „Griechennahe ist der einzelne Bau, römisch gedacht ist seine Einordnung in die Umgebung“ (S. 356). Dabei liegt das Ziel der römischen Staatsarchitektur darin, die Macht Roms, die maiestas imperii zum Ausdruck zu bringen, wie das auch von Vitruv Augustus nahegelegt worden sei (S. 358). Auf der Linie von Hitlers Antikenbezügen bewegt sich der Autor, der keineswegs ein Anhänger des Nationalsozialismus war 113, mit seinen abschließenden Bemerkungen: die Bauten bzw. Baupläne der Gegenwart folgten der römischen Konzeption; sie zielten darauf ab, „die Reichshauptstadt pro maiestate imperii“ zu gestalten (S. 373), wobei das einzelne Bauwerk in seiner schlichten Form den dorischen Stil noch übertreffe 114. Implizit werden auch in diesem Beitrag Augustus und Hitler in ihrer Stellung und Bedeutung identifiziert, aber man kann die Ausführungen auch als sachliche Beschreibung lesen; Rodenwaldt verzichtete jedenfalls auf jegliche Verherrlichung nationalsozialistischer ‚Leistungen‘. Zusammengefasst ergibt sich der Befund, dass das Neue Bild der Antike, zumindest in den hier näher betrachteten Beiträgen, die nationalsozialistische Ideologie in bekenntnishaften Phrasen rezipierte, ohne sie eigentlich zur Grundlage der althistorischen Betrachtung zu machen. Die Möglichkeit einer Parallelisierung von Augustus und Hitler scheint mehrfach auf, wird auch ausgesprochen, aber doch kaum ausgeführt. Entschieden nationalsozialistisch formuliert erscheinen Teile der Einleitung Berves und Abschnitte im Beitrag von Volkmann, daneben stehen gelegentliche ‚Anwendungen‘ der „rassengeschichtlichen“ Betrachtungsweise der römischen Antike. Der „Kriegseinsatz der Geisteswissenschaften“ zeigt sich so doch weniger ideologisch, als man dies zunächst erwarten würde. Und dies gilt in besonderem Maße für den Beitrag von Oppermann, der an dem „Gemeinschaftswerk“ nicht nur als Autor beteiligt war, sondern es anschließend auch rezensierte 115. Auf den ersten Seiten seiner Sammelrezension Fachbericht Klassische Altertumswissenschaft lobte Oppermann, dass das Sammelwerk „den gegenwärtigen Stand der Altertumswissenschaft zu einer weiten Kreisen verständlichen BLOCH (1993); SÜNDERHAUF (2012). Vgl. aber auch CAGNETTA (1988), S. 617. Vgl. DEMANDT (2002), S. 290. 115 Zu dieser Besprechung und der von Schachermeyr vgl. CHRIST (1982), S. 195-196 mit Anm. 1; BINDER (1987), S. 49-50. 113 114

472

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

repräsentativen Darstellung“ bringe (S. 211) 116. Aber für den geplanten 3. Band wünschte sich der Rezensent doch eine Darstellung der rassischen Probleme des griechisch-römischen Altertums aus der Feder eines der auf diesem Gebiete bewährten und erfahrenen Altertumsforscher. Gerade wegen des starken Akzentes, den das Vorwort dem Rassegedanken gibt, empfindet man hier in der sonstigen Fülle eine Lücke (S. 212).

Und zu stark sei die Altertumswissenschaft noch von der „Auseinandersetzung mit früheren Wissenschaftsformen“ bestimmt, womit Oppermann den historischen Positivismus und im Besonderen den (Dritten) Humanismus meinte (S. 213). Um deutlich zu machen, wie die deutschen Althistoriker zukünftig zu einer neuen Perspektive auf ihre Untersuchungsgegenstände gelangen könnten – gemeint war eine „völkische“ Perspektive mit den neuen, von der Ideologie der Nationalsozialisten vorgegebenen moralischen Wertungen – verwies der Rezensent auf seinen eigenen Artikel über Arminius, den er gerade in der Zeitschrift Deutschlands Erneuerung veröffentlich hatte 117. Wissenschaftliche Erkenntnis müsse von den großen Entwicklungslinien ausgehen, weshalb die Vorstellung, dass Varus an seiner „Vertrauensseligkeit“ untergegangen und Arminius als Verräter zu betrachten sei, zurückgewiesen werden müsse. Richtig sei eine andere, „zweite Auffassung von Arminius“, ordne sich doch der Varussieg „dem großen Zusammenhange eines Erwachens des germanischen Volksbewußtseins unter“ (S. 125). Diese Deutung aber korrespondiere mit der neuen Auffassung vom „Wesen des Volkes“ und entstamme „dem Leben und Erleben unserer Tage“ (S. 126). Richtig zu verstehen sei Arminius nur „in der Gesamtheit seines Volkes“: „Wir bejahen die Tat des Arminius, weil wir die Idee bejahen, der sie entsprang und weil wir erkennen, dass rebus sic stantibus er eine andere Möglichkeit, sein Volk zu retten, nicht hatte“ (S. 127). Augustus wird in diesem Aufsatz von Oppermann nicht direkt behandelt, er ist nur im Hintergrund als die Kraft präsent, von der eine große Gefahr für die Germanen ausging. Als Parallele zur Gegenwart hätte es sich nun angeboten, eine Verbindung zwischen dem antiken „Retter“ der Germanen und dem neuen „Führer“ herzustellen. Aber vielleicht hatte selbst Oppermann, trotz allen Festhaltens an der nationalsozialistischen Ideologie, inzwischen zu zweifeln begonnen, ob die nächste Zukunft noch einen militärischen Triumph bringen würde wie ihn einst Arminius über Varus errungen hatte.

116 OPPERMANN (1942a), S. 212. Im gleichen Jahr an anderer Stelle war Oppermann doch zustimmender: OPPERMANN (1942c), S. 575. Vgl. MALITZ (1998), S. 537. 117 OPPERMANN (1942b).

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

473

Bibliographie D’AGOSTINO, A. (2014), La „necessaria solitudine“ di due monumenti. L’Ara Pacis e il Mausoleo di Augusto sotto il fascismo, in G. P. PIRETTO (Hg.), Memorie di pietra. I monumenti delle dittature, Mailand, S. 35-68. APEL, H. J. / BITTNER, St. (1994), Humanistische Schulbidlung 1890-1945. Anspruch und Wirklichkeit der altertumskundlichen Unterrichtsfächer, Köln. BACKES, Kl. (1988), Hitler und die bildenden Künste. Kulturverständnis und Kunstpolitik im Dritten Reich, Köln. BERVE, H. (1934a), Die Erfüllung des Reiches, in Wille und Macht 2, S. 4-9. BERVE, H. (1934b), Antike und nationalsozialistischer Staat, in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart 24, S. 257-272. BERVE, H. (Hg.) (1942), Das neue Bild der Antike, Bd. 1: Hellas, Bd. 2: Rom, Leipzig. BIANCHI BANDINELLI, R. (1962), Dal Diario di un Borghese e altri scritti, Mailand. BIANCHI BANDINELLI, R. (2016), Hitler, Mussolini und ich. Aus dem Tagebuch eines Großbürgers, Berlin. BINDER, G. (1987), Einführung, in DERS. (Hg.), Saeculum Augustum I: Herrschaft und Gesellschaft, Darmstadt, S. 1-60. BLOCH, H. (1993), Gerhard Rodenwaldt (1886-1945), in Eikasmós 4, S. 305-310. BOSCHUNG, D. (1993), Die Bildnisse des Augustus, Abt. I 2, Berlin. CAGNETTA, M. (1988), Die Rezeption in Geschichtsschreibung und Politik der Neuzeit, in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik, Berlin, S. 612-619. CHAPOUTOT, J. (2014), Der Nationalsozialismus und die Antike, Darmstadt (franz. 2008: Le nazisme et l’Antiquité). CHRIST, K. (1982), Römische Geschichte und deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft, München. CHRIST, K. (1994), Caesar. Annäherungen an einen Diktator, München. CHRIST, K. (2006), Klios Wandlungen. Die deutsche Althistorie vom Neuhumanismus bis zur Gegenwart, München. CHRIST, K. / GABBA, E. (Hgg.) (1989), Caesar und Augustus, Como. CRIFÒ, G. (1989), La storiografia giuridica italiana fra le due guerre, in CHRIST / GABBA (1989), S. 235-275. DEMANDT, A. (2002), Klassik als Klischee. Hitler und die Antike, in HZ 274, S. 281-313. DEMANDT, A. (2016), Hitler und das Griechentum. Vortrag des Verfassers vor der Fränkischen Gesellschaft für Politik und Zeitgeschichte im Hirsvogelsaal am 27. September 2016. DIETZ, H. (1985), Classics, Ancient History and Ideological Studies in the Third Reich, in Quarderni di Storia 22, S. 129-135. DOBLER, R.-M. (2015), Bilder der Achse. Hitlers Empfang in Italien 1938 und die mediale Inszenierung des Staatsbesuches in Fotobüchern, München. DOMARUS, M. (Hg.) (1963), Adolf Hitler, Reden und Proklamationen, Bd. 2, Neustadt. DUSIK, B. (1992), Hitler, Reden, Schriften, Anordnungen, Bd. II: Vom Weimarer Parteitag bis zur Reichstagswahl. Juli 1926 bis Mai 1928, Teil 2: August 1927 – Mai 1928, hg. und komm. von B. D., München. EILERS, R. (1963), Die nationalsozialistische Schulpolitik. Eine Studie zur Funktion der Erziehung im totalitären Staat, Köln. ELVERT, J. / NIELSEN-SIKORA, J. (Hgg.) (2008), Kulturwissenschaften und Nationalsozialismus, Stuttgart. FABER, R. (1991), Faschistische Vergil-Philologie. Zum Beispiel Hans Oppermann, in Hephaistos 10, S. 111-133.

474

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

FEST, J. (1973), Hitler, Frankfurt a.M. FÖLLMER, M. (2016), „Ein Leben wie im Traum“. Kultur im Dritten Reich, München. FRÖHLICH, E. (Hg.) (1993-2008), Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, 29+3 Bd., München. GELZER, M. (1942), Römische Führungsordnung, in Neue Jahrbücher für Antike und deutsche Bildung 5, S. 217-238. GIGLIOLI, G. Q. (Hg.) (1937), Mostra Augustea della Romanità. Catalogo, Bd. I, Rom. Graben für Germanien. Archäologie unterm Hakenkreuz, hg. vom Focke-Museum unter Mitarbeit von S. GERINGER, F. VON DER HAAR, U. HALLE, D. MAHSARSKI und K. WALTER, Stuttgart, 2013. GRIMM, G. (2002), ‚Mein Kampf‘ und ‚Meine Taten‘. Hitlers ‚Rechenschaftsbericht‘ und die ‚Res Gestae‘ des Kaisers Augustus, in Antike Welt 33, S. 205-209. GRONDIN, J. (2013), Hans-Georg Gadamer. Eine Biographie, 2. Aufl., Tübingen. GÜNTHER, H. Fr. K. (1929), Rassengeschichte des hellenischen und römischen Volkes, München. HAASE, G. (2002), Die Kunstsammlung Adolf Hitler. Eine Dokumentation, Berlin. HAFNER, G. (1955), Zum Augustus-Relief in Ravenna, in Mitteilungen des DAI, Röm. Abt. 62, S. 160-172. HALLE, U. (2013a), Nationalsozialisten und Archäologie, in Graben für Germanien, S. 44-49. HALLE, U. (2013b), Wichtige Ausgrabungen der NS-Zeit, in Graben für Germanien, S. 65-73. HALLE, U. / MAHSARSKI, D. (2013), Forschungsstrukturen, in Graben für Germanien, S. 58-64. HARTMANN, Ch. (1995), Hitler, Reden, Schriften, Anordnungen, Bd. III, Teil 3: Januar 1930 – September 1930, hg. und komm. von C. H., München. HARTMANN, Ch. (1996), Hitler, Reden, Schriften, Anordnungen, Bd. IV, Teil 2: Juli 1931 – Dezember 1931, hg. und komm. von C. H., München. HARTMANN, Ch. / VORDERMAYER, Th. / PLÖCKINGER, O. / TÖPPEL, R. (Hgg.) (2016), Hitler, Mein Kampf. Eine kritische Edition, 2 Bd., München. HAUSMANN, F.-R. (2007), „Deutsche Geisteswissenschaft“ im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Die „Aktion Ritterbusch“ (1940-1945), 3. Aufl., Heidelberg. HERLE, Th. (1947), Nationalsozialismus und Altertumswissenschaft, in Der Aufbau 2, S. 29-32. HOFFMANN, Chr. (1988), Juden und Judentum im Werk deutscher Althistoriker des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, Leiden. HOFFMANN, H. (Hg.) (1938), Hitler in Italien, München. HÖNN, K., Augustus im Wandel zweier Jahrtausende, Leipzig. JÄCKEL, E. / KUHN, A. (Hgg.) (1980), Adolf Hitler, Sämtliche Aufzeichnungen 19051924, Stuttgart. JOCHMANN, W. (Hg.) (1980), Adolf Hitler, Monologe im Führerhauptquartier. Die Aufzeichnungen Heinrich Heims, Hamburg. KAHLENBERG, Fr. P. (1981), Preußen als Filmsujet in der Propagandasprache der NSZeit, in A. MARQUARDT / H. RATHSACK (Hgg.), Preußen im Film. Eine Retrospektive der Stiftung Deutsche Kinemathek, Reinbek bei Hamburg, S. 135-163. KÖNIGS, D. (1995), Joseph Vogt: Ein Althistoriker in der Weimarer Republik und im Dritten Reich, Basel. KORNEMANN, E. (1933), Die römische Kaiserzeit, in A. GEHRKE / E. NORDEN (Hgg.), Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft, III. 2, 3. Aufl., Leipzig, S. 210-306.

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

475

KORNEMANN, E. (1934a), Staaten – Völker – Männer. Aus der Geschichte des Altertums, Leipzig. KORNEMANN, E. (1934b), Vom antiken Staat. Rektoratsrede vom 15. Oktober 1926, in DERS. (1934a), S. 1-29. KORNEMANN (1934c), Kaiser Tiberius. Die Tragödie des Menschen, in DERS. (1934a), S. 78-95. KORNEMANN, E. (1934d), Die erste Befreiungstat des deutschen Volkes (Varusschlacht). Vortrag gehalten in Prag, Deutsche Universität, April 1932, und in Städten des Reiches, in DERS. (1934a), S. 117-150. KORNEMANN, E. (1937), Augustus. Der Mann und sein Werk (im Lichte der deutschen Forschung), Leipzig (ND 1982). KORNEMANN, E. (1938), Zum deutschen Augustusjahr, in Forschungen und Fortschritte. Nachrichtenblatt der Deutschen Wissenschaft und Technik 14, S. 377-379. KORNEMANN, E. ([1943]), Die Varusschlacht. Die erste Befreiungstat auf deutscher Erde, in DERS., Gestalten und Reiche. Essays zur Alten Geschichte, Wiesbaden, o.J. [das Vorwort datiert auf den 24.5.1943], S. 274-303. KRAAS, A. (2004), Lehrerlager 1932-1945. Politische Funktion und pädagogische Gestaltung, Kempten. LOHSE, G. (1991), Klassische Philologie und Zeitgeschehen. Zur Geschichte eines Seminars an der Hamburger Universität in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, in E. KRAUSE (Hg.), Hochschulalltag im „Dritten Reich“. Die Hamburger Universität 1933–1945, Teil 2, Berlin, S. 775-824. LORENZ, St. (2000), Hitler und die Antike, in Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 82, S. 407-431. LOSEMANN, V. (1977), Nationalsozialismus und Antike. Studien zur Entwicklung des Faches Alte Geschichte 1933-1945, Hamburg. LOSEMANN, V. (1980), Programme deutscher Althistoriker in der „Machtergreifungsphase“, in Quaderni di Storia 11, S. 35-105, wieder in und zitiert nach: DERS. (2017), S. 3-41. LOSEMANN, V. (1980), Zur Konzeption der NS-Dozentenlager, in M. HEINEMANN (Hg.), Erziehung und Schulung im Dritten Reich, Teil II: Hochschule, Erwachsenenbildung, Stuttgart, S. 87-109, wieder in und zitiert nach: LOSEMANN (2017), S. 43-59. LOSEMANN, V. (1989), Arminius und Augustus. Die römisch-germanische Auseinandersetzung im deutschen Geschichtsbild, in CHRIST / GABBA (1989), S. 129-163. LOSEMANN, V. (1996), Die Altertumswissenschaften in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, in Die Philipps-Universität im Nationalsozialismus, Marburg, S. 67-72, wieder in und zitiert nach: DERS. (2017), S. 101-105. LOSEMANN, V. (2001), Nationalsozialismus und Antike. Bemerkungen zur Forschungsgeschichte, in NÄF (2001), S. 71-88, wieder in und zitiert nach: LOSEMANN (2017), S. 161-174. LOSEMANN, V. (2010), „Statt Deutschland sollte man künftig Arminien sagen!“ Bemerkungen zur Terminologie der römisch-germanischen Auseinandersetzung, in K. RUFFING / A. BECKER / G. RASBACH (Hgg.), Kontaktzone Lahn. Studien zum Kulturkontakt zwischen Römern und germanischen Stämmen, Wiesbaden, S. 167180, wieder in und zitiert nach: LOSEMANN (2017), S. 283-294. LOSEMANN, V. (2017), Klio und die Nationalsozialisten. Gesammelte Schriften zur Wissenschafts- und Rezeptionsgeschichte, hg. von C. DEGLAU / P. REINARD / K. RUFFING, Wiesbaden. LUNDGREEN, P. (1985), Hochschulpolitik und Wissenschaft im Dritten Reich, in DERS. (Hg.), Wissenschaft im Dritten Reich, Frankfurt a.M., S. 9-30.

476

HEINRICH SCHLANGE-SCHÖNINGEN

MAHSARSKI, D. (2013), „Schwarmgeister und Phantasten“ – die völkische Laienforschung, in Graben für Germanien, S. 50-56. MALITZ, J. (1998), Römertum im „Dritten Reich“: Hans Oppermann, in P. KNEISSL / V. LOSEMANN (Hgg.), Imperium Romanum. Studien zu Geschichte und Rezeption. Festschrift für Karl Christ zum 75. Geburtstag, Stuttgart, S. 519-543. NÄF, B. (Hg.) (2001), Antike und Altertumswissenschaft in der Zeit von Faschismus und Nationalsozialismus. Kolloquium Universität Zürich 14.-17. Oktober 1998, Mandelbachtal. NAGEL, A. C. (2012), Hitlers Bildungsreformer. Das Reichsministerium für Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung 1934-1945, Frankfurt a.M. OPPERMANN, H. (1933), Der erzieherische Wert des lateinischen Unterrichts, in Humanistische Bildung im nationalsozialistischen Staate, Leipzig, S. 50-58. OPPERMANN, H. (1937), Volk, Geschichte, Dichtung (Schiller und Vergil), in HZ 156, S. 71-81. OPPERMANN, H. (1939), Warum heute noch Gymnasium?, in Die Alten Sprachen. Zeitschrift des Reichssachgebietes Alte Sprachen im NSLB 4, S. 161-171. OPPERMANN, H. (1941), Das römische Schicksal und die Zeit des Augustus, in HZ 164, S. 1-20. OPPERMANN, H. (1942a), Rez. zu BERVE (1942), in Neue Jahrbücher 5, S. 212. OPPERMANN, H. (1942b), Zweimal Arminius, in Deutschlands Erneuerung 26, S. 121128. OPPERMANN, H. (1942c), Zur Lage der griechisch-römischen Altertumswissenschaft, in Deutschlands Erneuerung 26, S. 574-579. PETERSEN, J. (1973), Hitler – Mussolini. Die Entstehung der Achse Berlin – Rom 19331936, Tübingen. PICKER, H. (1963), Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1942, hg. von P. E. SCHRAMM, Stuttgart. POLLINI, J. (1987), The Portraiture of Gaius und Lucius Caesar, New York. REBENICH, St. (2001), Alte Geschichte in Demokratie und Diktatur. Der Fall Helmut Berve, in Chiron 31, S. 457-496. REBENICH, St. (2012), Deutsche Eindrücke. Alfred Heuß über das Dritte Reich im August 1934, in Zeitschrift für Ideengeschichte 6, S. 85-94. REBENICH, St. (2013), Einleitung. Zwischen Verweigerung und Anpassung. Die Altertumswissenschaften im „Dritten Reich“, in S. BICKEL / H.-W. FISCHER-ELFERT / A. LOPRIENO / S. RICHTER (Hgg.), Ägyptologen und Ägyptologien zwischen Kaiserreich und Gründung der beiden deutschen Staaten. Reflexionen zur Geschichte und Episteme eines altertumswissenschaftlichen Faches im 150. Jahr der ‚Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde‘, Berlin, S. 13-35. SCHACHERMEYR, F. (1933), Die nordische Führerpersönlichkeit im Altertum, in Humanistische Bildung im nationalsozialistischen Staate, Leipzig, S. 36-43. SCHNAUBER, C. (1972), Wie Hitler sprach und schrieb, Frankfurt a.M. SCHÖNBERGER, A. (1987), Die Staatsbauten des Tausendjährigen Reichs als vorprogrammierte Ruinen? Zu Albert Speers Ruinenwerttheorie, in Idea 6, S. 97-107. SCHREINER, K. (1985), Führertum, Rasse, Reich. Wissenschaft von der Geschichte nach der nationalsozialistischen Machtergreifung, in P. LUNDGREEN (Hg.), Wissenschaft im Dritten Reich, Frankfurt a.M., S. 163-252. SCHUMACHER, L. (1988), Augusteische Propaganda und faschistische Rezeption, in Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 40, S. 307-320. SCHWARZ, B. (2009), Geniewahn: Hitler und die Kunst, Wien.

AUGUSTUS-REZEPTION IM NATIONALSOZIALISMUS

477

SCHWEIZER, St. (2007), „Unserer Weltanschauung sichtbaren Ausdruck geben“ – Nationalsozialistische Geschichtsbilder in historischen Festzügen zum ‚Tag der Deutschen Kunst‘, Göttingen. SCOBIE, A. (1990), Hitler’s State Architecture. The Impact of Classical Antiquity, University Park / London. SCRIBA, Fr. (1995), Augustus im Schwarzhemd? Die Mostra Augustea della Romanità in Rom 1937/38, Frankfurt a.M. STAHLMANN, I. (1988), Studien zur Geschichte des Principatsverständnisses in der deutschen Altertumswissenschaft bis 1945, Darmstadt. SÜNDERHAUF, E. S. (2012), Gerhart Rodenwaldt (1886-1945), in G. BRANDS / M. MAISCHBERGER (Hgg.), Lebensbilder. Klassische Archäologen und der Nationalsozialismus, Rahden, S. 119-127. SUSMEL, E. / SUSMEL, D. (Hgg.) (1958), Mussolini, B., Opera Omnia, Bd. XXVI: Dal Patto a Quattro all’Inaugurazione della Provincia di Littoria (8 Giugno 1933 18 Dicembre 1934), Florenz. TAEGER, F. (1939), Das Altertum, Stuttgart. TIMMERMANN, N. (2001), Repräsentative „Staatsbaukunst“ im faschistischen Italien und im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland – Der Einfluß der Berlin-Planung auf die EUR, Stuttgart. TOLAND, J. (1977), Adolf Hitler, Bergisch Gladbach. TRIMBORN, J. (2011), Arno Breker. Der Künstler und die Macht. Die Biographie, Berlin. UEDING, G. (2003), Rede als Führerproklamation, in J. KOPPERSCHMIDT (Hg.), Hitler der Redner, München, S. 441-454. VOLKMANN, H. (1938), Der Prinzipat des Augustus, in Neue Jahrbücher für Antike und deutsche Bildung 1, S. 16-30. VOLLNHALS, C. (1992), Hitler, Reden, Schriften, Anordnungen, Bd. I: Die Wiederbegründung der NSDAP. Februar 1925 – Juni 1926. Hg. und komm. v. C. V., München. VON IHERING, R. (1924), Geist des römischen Rechts, 8. Aufl., Leipzig. VON UNGERN-STERNBERG, J. (2001), Imperium Romanum vs. Europa. Gedanken zu einigen Vorträgen deutscher Althistoriker in den Jahren 1939 bis 1942, in NÄF (2001), S. 395-418. WEBER, W. (1925), Der Prophet und sein Gott. Eine Studie zur vierten Ekloge Vergils, Leipzig. WEBER, W. (1935), Vom Neuen Reich der Deutschen, gehalten bei der Feier der Reichsgründung und der Erneuerung des Reichs durch den Führer am 30. Januar 1935, Berlin. WEBER, W. (1936), Princeps, Bd. I, Berlin. WEBER, W. (1940), Römische Geschichte bis zum Verfall des Weltreiches, in W. ANDREAS (Hg.), Die Neue Propyläen Weltgeschichte, Bd. I, Berlin, S. 273-372. WEGELER, C. (1996), „… wir sagen ab der internationalen Gelehrtenrepublik“. Das Göttinger Institut für Altertumskunde 1921-1962, Wien. WEIHSMANN, H. (1998), Bauen unterm Hakenkreuz. Architektur des Untergangs, Wien. WICKERT, L. (1941), Caesars Monarchie und der Prinzipat des Augustus, in Neue Jahrbücher für Antike und deutsche Bildung 4, S. 12-23, gekürzter Wiederabdruck in (und zitiert nach): G. BINDER (Hg.) (1987), Saeculum Augustum I: Herrschaft und Gesellschaft, Darmstadt, S. 61-77.

AUGUSTUS IN CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE AND POPULAR CULTURE

God Bless You, Caesar Augustus? Appropriations of Augustus’ Memory in Kurt Vonnegut’s Postmodern Prose ELINA A.S. PYY (University of Helsinki)

Abstract In this article, I examine the appropriations of Augustus in Kurt Vonnegut’s God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, or Pearls Before Swine. Published in 1965, Vonnegut’s work is one of the great satiric novels of the 20th century, and a window to the Western literary tradition at the birth of postmodernism. It is also an excellent example of the ‘politicizing’ of historical figures, such as Augustus. I examine how the author exploits the memory of Augustus, and how he uses the princeps to raise issues topical to his own day. Thus, I attempt to scrutinize the complex relationship between the classical past and the modern world. Who is the Augustus that we see in this novel, and how does he relate to the historical figure, familiar to us from the Roman literary sources? Who owns Augustus’ memory in modern ideological polemics – and what did the postmodern world need Augustus for, two millenia after his death? Based on my case study of God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, I suggest that the ambiguity of Augustus as a historical figure is what makes him a particularly good weapon in ideological polemics at any given period. With his use and abuse of the memory of the princeps, Vonnegut is able to show how so often in modern ideological battles, the historical character himself does not matter – Augustus is only important as the face of multiple ideas and value systems. At the same time, the novel reminds us that there is no past independent of the present; that history is always someone’s interpretation, and usually motivated by questionable agenda. In God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, we can observe how Augustus’ enduring fame and his familiarity to people in the modern world enable the author to use him for most varying ideological purposes, two millenia after his death.

1. Introduction Caesar Augustus is one of the iconic figures of Roman history – two thousand years after his death, we come across him in literature, television, cinema and visual arts. Augustus’ strong presence in the modern culture is indisputable – but what he stands for, or what sorts of ideas are communicated through him, is a more complicated question.

482

ELINA A.S. PYY

Naturally, the ambiguity of the modern Augustus reflects the ambiguity of the historical Augustus. The representation of the Emperor in modern literature, arts and popular culture is strongly built on the Roman authors’ depictions of him – the historiographic works of Suetonius, Tacitus, Plutarch, Appian and Cassius Dio, in particular. And in these works, it is strikingly difficult to find a coherent, unified view on Augustus. The multiple interpretations are due, in the first place, to the authors’ different contexts, attitudes and agendas, 1 and secondly, to ‘exemplarity’ and ‘characterization’, narrative techniques typical of ancient historiography. 2 Naturally, depictions of the Emperors are particularly challen-ging in this respect: the need to represent the princeps as ‘extraordinary’ afforded the Roman authors many opportunities for the fabrication of the past. 3 Augustus is a prime example of a historical figure who is, because of his exceptional status, so strongly shaped by literary stereotypes, attitudes and expectations that it is often hard to tell the ‘fact’ from the ‘fiction’. From Augustus’ own time onwards, every author has used him for one purpose or the other, thereby reconstructing his image and fading the historical figure away. Naturally, there is not a single person in the history of humankind whose public image would not have been reconstructed by later authors – but there are few flesh-and-blood people who have grown into characters of such mythical measure as the first Roman Emperor has. Paradoxically, due to the incredible, durable fame of Augustus, we have little idea who this man was – what we have are interpretations by countless different authors, who all have their own agendas for reconstructing Augustus. In the modern world, motives for reconstructing Augustus’ public image might be very different from those of the Roman authors – yet, the continuous process of rewriting the Emperor’s story goes on until our own days. Even now, each generation reinvents Augustus according to the values, ideals, needs and concerns of their time. In this paper, I examine the appropriations of Augustus in a piece of early postmodern fiction – Kurt Vonnegut’s God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, or Pearls Before Swine. Published in the United States in 1965, it is one of the great satiric novels of the 20th century, and a window to the American culture at the birth of postmodernism. It is also an excellent example of the ‘politicizing’ of distant historical characters, such as Augustus. I examine how the author utilizes and exploits the memory of Augustus, and how he uses him to communicate issues and concerns topical to his own day. Through these 1

The Roman authors’ political agenda and its influence on their works has been a widely studied topic; for a few recent studies, see CONNOLY (2009); DOMINIK (2009). 2 On the exemplary tradition in Roman historiography, see CHAPLIN (2000); ROLLER (2004); ROLLER (2009). On chracterization and ‘typecasting’ in the genre, see VASALY (2009); PITCHER (2007); LEVENE (2007), p. 285. 3 VOUT (2009).

AUGUSTUS’ MEMORY IN KURT VONNEGUT’S POSTMODERN PROSE

483

questions, I attempt to scrutinize the complex relationship between the classical past and the modern world. Who is the Augustus that we see in this novel, and how does he relate to the historical figure, familiar to us from the Roman literary sources? Who owns Augustus’ memory in modern ideological polemics? And what did the postmodern Western world need Augustus for, two millennia after his death? 2. Rewriting Rome: Vonnegut’s American Dream Kurt Vonnegut is known as an apt critic of Western culture and lifestyle in the postmodern era. Due to his razor-sharp social criticism, he has been rightly described as “one of the most socially responsible writers of his generation”. 4 In his novels, Vonnegut criticizes the political corruption, the moral hypocrisy and the consumerism that have taken over the Western world – and often does so with ironic and absurdist overtones. 5 Demoralized by the Second World War, he continuously discusses and examines human nature in his works – its dark and desperate aspects, in particular. Despite the dark melancholy, typical of his style, Vonnegut is an incurable humanist with confidence in the power of human empathy. 6 God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater is Vonnegut’s fifth novel, published four years before the bestseller Slaughterhouse Five. 7 It is an ironic, satiric and humoristic overview of the American society of the early 1960s – and of human

4

Vonnegut’s works have sometimes been criticized for his discernible social vision and his moralist attitude. However, as Davis argues, the core of Vonnegut’s ‘postmodern activism’ is not a promotion of the social reform but rather, “the physical and emotional care of humanity”. DAVIS (2006), p. 4-7, 9-10. See also HIPKISS (1984), p. 43-44. 5 Hipkiss descibes the author as “the remorseful Absurdist”. HIPKISS (1984), p. 73. 6 This characteristic trait of Vonnegut’s works is aptly phrased by Davis, who speaks of his “persistent belief in the best humanity might aspire to, while laughing at the ridiculousness of such a thought”. DAVIS (2013), p. 248. Vonnegut has been considered a leading voice against postmodern amoralism; he is deeply committed to crises and conflicts that decrease the value of humanity. For further analysis on Vonnegut’s postmodern humanism, see DAVIS (2006), p. 25-36; DAVIS (2013), p. 241. On his relationship to postmodernism in general, see DAVIS (2006), p. 6, 14-25; KLINKOWITZ (2009), p. 40; TALLY (2011), p. 4-10. Davis argues that God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater is a novel central to Vonnegut’s idea of postmodern humanism, because it shows how “the purposes often taken up by humanity are mere fabrications”. DAVIS (2006), p. 74. 7 For further analysis of the experimental style and structure of the novel, see REED (1990), p. 109. As Klinkowitz notes, the novel was written at the crucial junctures in Vonnegut’s life and career; it introduces many of the themes and the narrative elements that are central to his later novels such as Slaughterhouse Five, Breakfast of Champions and Jailbird. KLINKOWITZ (2009), p. 49, 56. Reed, too, considers this novel to be particularly close to “the mainstream of Vonnegut’s work”, due to the centrality of the theme of social injustice of economic systems in it. REED (1990), p. 109.

484

ELINA A.S. PYY

nature in general. 8 The conflict between greed and generosity is a central theme in the novel, and it is interwoven with the tragedy of measuring the human value by material criteria. The novel depicts a society that is ideologically and spiritually dead and that values money above all else. In this dystopia, money holds intrinsic value. It is less important what you can do with it – the crucial thing is to have it. The United States depicted in the novel is a class society – as the author puts it, “savage and stupid and entirely inappropriate and unnecessary and humorless American class system” 9 – where the distinction between people is based on wealth. 10 For this reason, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater has sometimes been characterized as a manifesto against the ruthless individualism and the “laissez-faire capitalism” in American society. 11 There is, however, much more to it. In this novel, Vonnegut utilizes his critique of greed and capitalism to discuss a more essential philosophical question – the value of humanity and human beings in general. In God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, members of the elite are filthy rich – most of them having earned their fortunes by quasi-criminal means – but at the same time they are ideologically poor, morally crippled and deeply anxious. Nor are poor people any better from the elite. Everybody is selfish, everybody is unhappy and everybody is a ruthless opportunist. 12 Anything else is just considered madness. Besides the moral corruption, what is common to the rich and the poor is that they really are of no use – when the machines take care of all the work, and the only job left for human beings is to consume, people feel useless. 13 The poor feel useless because they cannot consume, and the rich feel useless because they can never consume enough – as Robert Hipkiss puts it, “the vacuity of their lives is about the same”. 14 These people, whom the protagonist Eliot Rosewater calls “discarded Americans”, have absolutely no ideological capital and therefore,

8 TALLY (2011), p. 17. On Vonnegut’s way of dealing with tragic and traumatizing topics with humor, see KLINKOWITZ (2009), p. 4; DAVIS (2006), p. 245; SCHOLES (1990). 9 VONNEGUT (1965), p. 12. 10 On this ”aristocracy of money”, see REED (1990), p. 112. 11 TALLY (2011), p. 61; see also HIPKISS (1984), p. 49, 62. 12 As Klinkowitz puts it, “a world equally bleak whether rich or poor”. For further analysis of this particular aspect of the novel, see KLINKOWITZ (2009), p. 48-49; REED (1990), p. 113. 13 Klinkowitz considers this feeling of uselessness a crucial element of Vonnegut’s canon, and a feature that can be observed already in his first four novels. God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater is significant for the establishment and development of this theme. See KLINKOWITZ (2009), p. 45; see also REED (1990), p. 120. For further analysis on this theme in Vonnegut’s works in general, see HIPKISS (1984), p. 48-49; DAVIS (2013), p. 243. 14 HIPKISS (1984), p. 50.

AUGUSTUS’ MEMORY IN KURT VONNEGUT’S POSTMODERN PROSE

485

they feel insecure and rootless 15 – they despise the government, despise themselves and mistrust their friends and neighbors. Intriguingly, in this depressing situation the author repetitively makes allusions to the Roman history. For him, the decay of the American society seems to mirror all the previous failures of democratic governance in the history of humankind – the most notable being naturally the fall of the Roman Republic. Undisputably, there are many qualities in the situation depicted in God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater that bring to mind the Rome of the Civil War period. The abundant consumerism, the people’s lack of trust in their leaders, the trauma caused by great wars in the past decades, the idea that people are both useless and replaceable – and, in particular, the ambiguous concept of ‘moral decay’ – these are all phenomena that, both in Roman and in modern historiography have often been associated with the last decades of the Roman Republic. 16 The classical scholar cannot help but think of Rome, when the author expresses his anxiety about “what wars do to us, what cities do to us, what big, simple ideas do to us, what tremendous misunderstandings, mistakes, accidents and catastrophes do to us”. 17 Besides money, another central theme in this novel is freedom. One of Vonnegut’s critics, Donald Morse has described God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater as a meditation upon “the collision of the two conflicting American Dreams”, one based on freedom and the other on wealth. 18 This is a perceptive notion, and it further explains Vonnegut’s use of Rome as a historical parallel. It has been shown that many of the values and ideals on which the political system of the United States was built derived from the Roman political and philosophical discourse. 19 As Robert Ferguson, studying the 18th century Americans’ identifica-tion with Rome, states, for the early Americans, the history of the Roman Republic “furnished pictures for ordering reality”. 20 Particularly crucial in this process was the “so lated interpretation of high-sounding words that could be re-cast for the purposes of their patriotic mission”. 21 ‘Freedom’ was among the most popular of the abstract nouns that were utilized to construct an ideological basis for the nation. It is crucial to notice that this attractively vague concept, favoured by all Republican governments

VONNEGUT (1965), p. 36. For further discussion, see Lintott’s comprehensive analysis of source problems in detecting these sorts of phenomena in the Roman history. LINTOTT (1994). 17 VONNEGUT (1965), p. 18. 18 MORSE (2003), p. 64. On Vonnegut’s ways of dealing with the ambiguity of the American Dream, see also HIPKISS (1984), p. 50-51. 19 See e.g. FERGUSON (2004); SELLERS (2014 [2004]); BRIGGS (2007), p. 282-285. 20 FERGUSON (2004), p. 173. 21 Ibid., p. 177. 15 16

486

ELINA A.S. PYY

everywhere, was a characteristically Roman obsession. 22 In the Roman political thinking, the trauma of the regal period was resistant – for centuries after the Principate had been firmly established, the Romans feared the idea of autocracy, and associated libertas with the Republican governance. 23 This is why, in the Roman political struggles, it was common to accuse one’s opponents for pursuing kingship – and it is also why Augustus, after establishing his Principate, preferred to present it as res publica restituta. 24 Nevertheless, it has often been pointed out that ‘freedom’ in the Roman Republic was a highly relative and questionable matter. In the Republican period, the political system was led by a small and extremely wealthy aristocracy – freedom, power and influence were based, in the first place, on birth and, in the second, on wealth. 25 As the Republic drew towards the end, the latter became increasingly more important. During the last century BC, political freedom was crushed as the power shifted from the hands of the Senate into the hands of individual generals. The power of these men – Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Antony, Octavian – depended on the army – and the army could be bought by money. 26 Therefore, the conflict between ‘the dream of freedom’ and ‘the dream of wealth’, that is crucial to the society depicted in God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, can be considered an essentially Roman phenomenon. 27 More importantly, it was the defining characteristic of the Rome that Caesar Augustus was born into – and the issue that he made his business to solve. Studied against this background, it is not overly surprising that the character of Augustus appears in this novel both implicitly and explicitly. From the very beginning of the novel, it is evident that the author is intrigued by the historical connections between the Roman Republic and the postmodern United States. With subtle allusions to Roman history here and there, Vonnegut creates a feeling of continuum in the historical development, and implies on the impending downfall of the American democracy and social system.

22 For the definition of “freedom” in late 18th century American political culture, see FERGUSON (2004), p. 51-83. 23 See e.g. GLINISTER (2006), p. 23-27. 24 On the concept of adfectatio regni, see SMITH (2006). The question of what the Romans understood by the ‘restoration’ of the Republic has been much disputed – for the most recent comprehensive study on this topic, see HURLET (2009). 25 On the problems of defining the Roman Republican ruling class, see HÖLKESKAMP (2010). 26 See e.g. TATUM (2010); VON UNGERN-STERNBERG (2014 [2004]). 27 This theme, and making the illusion of freedom visible, is central in many of Vonnegut’s works. See e.g. HIPKISS (1984), p. 55.

AUGUSTUS’ MEMORY IN KURT VONNEGUT’S POSTMODERN PROSE

487

3. Two Narrative Levels, Two Uses of Augustus In the second chapter of God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, the link between the Roman Republic and the United States is made evident, in a speech given by Senator Lister Rosewater. Senator Rosewater is somewhat of a caricature; the author depicts him as a stereotypical conservative right-wing patriot – and a passionate one at that. 28 He is a man who is determined to save the nation; and in order to do so, he is prepared to root out the weeds. The Senator has no mercy for weaklings; this is made clear when he rallies his party members behind his new, progressive economic program. He begins by stating that I should like to speak of the Emperor Octavian, of Caesar Augustus, as he came to be known. This great humanitarian, and he was a humanitarian in the profoundest sense of the word, took command of the Roman Empire in a degenerate period strikingly like our own. Harlotry, divorce, alcoholism, liberalism, homosexuality, pornography, abortion, venality, murder, labor racketeering, juvenile delinquency, cowardice, atheism, extortion, slander, and theft were the height of fashion. Rome was a paradise for gangsters, perverts, and the lazy working man, just as America is now. 29

He goes on for a while, listing all sorts of calamities, and blaming both liberals and conservatives for doing nothing about the situation. And then, the Senator gets to the point: That was the Rome that Caesar Augustus came home to, after defeating those two sex maniacs, Antony and Cleopatra, in the great sea battle of Actium. […] And what methods did Caesar Augustus use to put this disorderly house in order? He did what we are so often told we must never, ever, do, what we are told will never, ever, work: he wrote morals into law, and he enforced those unenforceable laws with a police force that was cruel and unsmiling. He made it illegal for a Roman to behave like a pig. Do you hear me? It became illegal! […] Did it work? You bet your boots it did! Pigs miraculously disappeared! And what do we call the period that followed this now-unthinkable oppression? Nothing more nor less, friends and neighbors, than ‘The Golden Age of Rome’. 30

Senator Rosewater is referring to Augustus’ famous marriage laws, the lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus and the lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis, launched in 18 BC and complemented with lex Papia Poppaea in AD 9. The purpose of these edicts was to encourage marriage and procreation among the Roman elite, 28 With his enthusiastic promotion of the free enterprise system, Senator Lister Rosewater, naturally, reminds the reader of Senator Barry Goldwater, famous for his economic liberalism in the 1960s – however, Vonnegut also represents Rosewater as a more general embodiment of radical Republicanism in the political struggles of the early 1960s. For further analysis, see e.g. REED (1990), p. 117; DAVIS (2006), p. 72. 29 VONNEGUT (1965), p. 24. 30 Ibid., p. 25-26.

488

ELINA A.S. PYY

and supposedly to restrain the sexual freedom and adultery that were common phenomena in the early Principate. The laws were remarkably unpopular, and their effectiveness has been disputed among classical scholars over the decades. 31 This, however, does not prevent Senator Rosewater from utilizing this ancient piece of legislation as a weapon in his own political battle. The Senator believes that the problem with the United States is the general immorality, liberalism, indolence and – the horror of horrors – “labor racketeering”. He is convinced that these moral and social problems can be fixed by economic means and, in particular, with the “carrot and a stick” method. This carrot and this stick, as he explains, stand for the Free Enterprise System, that needs to be revived and enforced. In summation: he said, I see two alternatives before us. We can write morals into law, and enforce those morals harshly, or we can return to a true Free Enterprise System, which has the sink-or-swim justice of Caesar Augustus built into it. I emphatically favor the latter alternative. We must be hard, for we must become again a nation of swimmers, with the sinkers quietly disposing of themselves. I have spoken of another hard time in ancient history. In case you have forgotten the name of it, I shall refresh your memory: ‘The Golden Age of Rome’, friends and neighbors, ‘The Golden Age of Rome’. 32

This speech, that Peter Reed describes as “a classic expression of right-wing paranoia”, is an outstanding example of successfully misleading rhetoric. 33 Even though it is full of historical inaccuracies and unsustainable conclusions, the passion and the simplicity make it, if not convincing, at least impressive and memorable. What Senator Rosewater is trying to do is to convince his party members of the necessity of a more radical economic agenda, in the name of common wellbeing. He believes that the solution to the nation’s problems lies in the Free Enterprise System – he does not see, or will not believe, that it is exactly the dominion of money, along with the ideological poverty, that is consuming the people. Vonnegut represents Lister Rosewater as an archetype of a cold-blooded politician, whom Davis perceptively describes as “social Darwinist”. 34 The Senator has no sympathy for the weak; he is prepared to let them sink, in order to re-create “a nation of swimmers” – and for this purpose, he harnesses the memory of Augustus. Notably, the light in which Senator Rosewater represents the Emperor, is somewhat unconventional. He stresses Augustus’ role as a stern and uncompromising pater patriae who with a strong and steady hand purged the Roman society of moral corruption. Senator Rosewater depicts Augustus as a merciless 31 32 33 34

See e.g. CSILLAG (1976); RADITSA (1980). VONNEGUT (1965), p. 27. REED (1990), p. 117. DAVIS (2006), p. 72.

AUGUSTUS’ MEMORY IN KURT VONNEGUT’S POSTMODERN PROSE

489

dictator who did not avert from violence in order to set things straight. He claims – without any reference, naturally – that under Augustus’ rule, Romans caught acting like pigs were “strung up by their thumbs, thrown down wells, and fed to lions”. 35 This is something that we do not very often come across in Roman literary sources. Augustus himself naturally wanted to appear as a creator of peace and stability – a first citizen rather than an autocrat, let alone a tyrant. This is evident from his own literary testimony, the Res Gestae Diui Augusti. This work, composed by Augustus in his old age, consists mainly of lists of his benefactions. The Emperor counts the donations he has made for the Roman people, and the public buildings and the festivals he has paid for. 36 As for his many wars, they are not, first of all, talked about all that much. And when they are, Augustus depicts himself as a merciful winner, stating that Bella terra et mari ciuilia externaque toto in orbe terrarum suscepi uictorque omnibus ueniam petentibus ciuibus peperci. Externas gentes, quibus tuto ignosci potuit, conseruare quam excidere malui. 37

And that In consulatu sexto et septimo, bella ubi ciuilia exstinxeram per consensum uniuersorum potitus rerum omnium, rem publicam ex mea potestate in senatus populique Romani arbitrium transtuli. […] Post id tempus praestiti omnibus dignitate, potestatis autem nihilo amplius habui quam qui fuerunt mihi quoque in magistratu conlegae. 38

Therefore, in his own words, Augustus appears first and foremost as a great civil leader; the first citizen, who bewares of tyranny and avoids the excessive use of force. A similar image of Augustus is given in most the imperial historiographers’ works. Even though the Roman authors are not blind to Augustus’ shortcomings, they rarely directly accuse him of despotism. This is partly due to the blatant autocracy of Augustus’ Julio-Claudian successors – and to the fact that the in the history of the Republic, the mantle of a tyrant belonged to Julius Caesar. 39 Hence, to the Roman authors, Augustus was not a despot because in retrospect, he was still better than both his predecessors and his successors. This relatively positive image of Augustus does not only mark his years as the Emperor, but can be observed in the stories of his youth, as well. In their accounts of the triumviral period, Appian, Plutarch and Cassius Dio often VONNEGUT (1965), p. 26. See AUG., RG 5, 15-23. 37 Ibid. 3. 38 Ibid. 34. See also Ibid. 5-6, where Augustus explains why he repeatedly turned down the dictatorship when it was offered to him by the Senate. 39 For a detailed discussion, see GILDENHARD (2006). 35 36

490

ELINA A.S. PYY

downplay young Octavian’s role in the proscriptions and depict him as avoiding unnecessary cruelty. 40 Dio, for instance, relates that ταῦτα δὲ ἐπράττετο μὲν ὑπό τε τοῦ Λεπίδου καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀντωνίου μάλιστα […] ἐδόκει δὲ καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ Καίσαρος κατὰ τὴν τῆς δυναστείας κοινωνίαν γίγνεσθαι, ἐπεὶ αὐτός γε οὐδέν τι συχνοὺς ἀποκτεῖναι ἐδεήθη: τῇ τε γὰρ φύσει οὐκ ὠμὸς ἦν, καὶ ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρὸς ἤθεσιν ἐνετέθραπτο. […] σημεῖον δὲ ὅτι, ἀφ᾽ οὗ τῆς τε πρὸς ἐκείνους συναρχίας ἀπηλλάγη καὶ τὸ κράτος μόνος ἔσχεν, οὐδὲν ἔτι τοιοῦτον ἔπραξεν. 41

When it comes to his ‘career’ as the Emperor, the Roman authors depict Augustus as a calm and considerate ruler, more associated with stability and peace than with violence and oppression – this is the case even in the less flattering depictions of Suetonius and Tacitus. Tacitus begins his Annales by telling how the chaos and disorder of the Republic finally ended in Octavian’s victory. He states that […] posito triumuiri nomine, consulem se ferens et ad tuendam plebem tribunicio iure contentum, ubi militem donis, populum annona, cunctos dulcedine otii pellexit, insurgere paulatim, munia senatus, magistratuum, legum in se trahere, nullo aduersante, cum ferocissimi per acies aut proscriptione cecidissent, ceteri nobilium, quanto quis seruitio promptior, opibus et honoribus extollerentur ac nouis ex rebus aucti, tuta et praesentia quam uetera et periculosa mallent. 42

Tacitus’ tone is ambivalent: although he speaks of slavery, he also emphasises the peace and prosperity of the Augustan age, implying that these benefits were, after all, cheaply bought with freedom. Suetonius, in turn, relates that during his reign, Augustus twice planned restoring the Republic but ultimately rejected the plan, considering it too dangerous for the stability of the state. According to the author, Quam uoluntatem, cum prae se identidem ferret, quodam etiam edicto his uerbis testatus est: “Ita mihi saluam ac sospitem rem p. sistere in sua sede liceat atque eius rei fructum percipere, quem peto, ut optimi status auctor dicar et moriens ut feram mecum spem, mansura in uestigio suo fundamenta rei p. quae iecero.” Fecitque ipse se compotem uoti nisus omni modo, ne quem noui status paeniteret. 43

A cynical reader could claim that this fairly positive image of Augustus in the imperial literature is due to censorship – that in an autocracy, there is no real 40 See PLUT., Ant. 20-21. Appian is not as enthusiastic an apologist of Octavian as Plutarch and Dio; however, he too gives the greatest part of responsibility to Antony, especially when it comes to the murder of Cicero. APP., BC 4.12; 4.19-20. 41 DIO 47.7.1; 47.7.2-3. For a slightly different view on this matter, see e.g. SUET., Aug. 27.1. 42 TAC., Ann. 1.2. 43 SUET., Aug. 28.2.

AUGUSTUS’ MEMORY IN KURT VONNEGUT’S POSTMODERN PROSE

491

freedom of speech and this is why the Roman authors deliberately restrained from criticizing the man who had established the Principate. In modern scholarship, the relationship between the Roman literary elite and their rulers is nowadays considered to have been more complicated than that. 44 Even though the power of self-censorship is not to be questioned, it is sufficient to take a look at the Roman authors’ depictions of the other Julio-Claudian Emperors to understand that criticizing a former ruler was not out of the question – and to realise that Augustus stands out as a positive exemplum among the Emperors. 45 It could be argued that, at least to some extent, this phenomenon is due to the fact that Augustus really was a great stabilizer and, compared to his successors, he most certainly was a great civil leader as well. After all, he did restore peace in a collapsing society, and he did put an end to the suicidal competition of the Roman elite. Perhaps it was in order to maintain that peace that the Roman authors decided to disregard some of the bloodier acts of the Emperor and to emphasize his clementia instead. Naturally, brutal deeds are required to end civil wars; and it was no secret that Augustus had to get rid of certain people in order to establish a solid base for society. 46 But these elements of his past are usually downplayed somewhat in most of the imperial sources. 47 Senator Rosewater, however, has a different agenda. For his purposes, it is particularly suitable to emphasize Augustus’ role as a stern dictator, concerned with the morals of his people. In this way, he can effortlessly associate himself with the princeps, while promising a similar age of peace and prosperity. Moreover, by emphasizing the “cruel and unsmiling” police force of Augustus, Rosewater makes his own method – the Free Enterprise System – seem like a pretty humane way of creating wellbeing for all. He makes it seem like he shares the goals and pursuits of Augustus and admires his accomplishments, but that he can do better – establish a Golden Age for the United States with less violence, only by means of economic adjustments. In order to depict himself as a savior of his people, Senator Rosewater, therefore, harnesses to his use Roman history and the memory of Augustus, and distorts it shamelessly. Vonnegut, thus, offers us a textbook example of the ways in which ancient history can be exploited and fabricated in modern ideological polemics. However, this is not where the exploitation of Augustus ends in this novel. Vonnegut is famous for his ability to utilize different narrative levels in order 44

For studies on ‘propaganda’ and censorship under the Roman Principate, see WEBER (2003); DOMINIK (2009); POWELL (1992); AHL (1984). 45 As Caroline Vout points out, criticizing the former Emperor could also serve the purpose of making the standing ruler shine in comparison. VOUT (2009). 46 See e.g. SUET., Aug. 19. 47 In the visual material of the Augustan period, too, the emphasis is put on Augustus’ victories in foreign wars, whereas his success in the civil war is often passed over in silence. ZANKER (1987), p. 85-90; WYKE (1992), p. 117-121; GURVAL (1995), p. 4-6.

492

ELINA A.S. PYY

to evoke emotions and sympathies in the reader. In this novel, as Reed points out, three important voices can be heard: besides the dialogue between Lister and Eliot Rosewater, there is the implicit authorial voice that balances out the two. 48 The importance of this third narrative level can be clearly observed in Senator Rosewater’s speech. As I argued, the Senator distorts and misinterprets Roman history to suit his own purposes. The problem with his speech is that he does so too strongly and too blatantly, and this undermines his credibility. In his speech, the political agenda comes first and historical accuracy gets the second place – this is evident to anyone with a slightest knowledge of Roman history, and it is what makes the Senator’s speech seem a little ridiculous. Lister Rosewater describes the Rome of the Late Republic as “a paradise for gangsters, perverts, and the lazy working man”. 49 He claims that “no decent woman was safe on any street, even at high noon”. 50 He blames the Roman liberals for loving the barbarians so much that they “wanted to open all the gates, have all the soldiers lay their weapons down, and let the barbarians come in”. 51 He calls Antony and Cleopatra “those two sex maniacs” 52 and, finally, he asserts that as a result of Augustus’ sink-or-swim justice, “[p]igs miraculously disappeared”. 53 Evidently, the purpose of this speech is to paint an unflattering picture of Senator Rosewater and to make the reader despise him. 54 He is a narrow-minded patriot and a ruthless opportunist, and the narrator wants us to dislike him. 55 What is of importance, is that in order to make the reader dislike Senator Rosewater, the narrator underlines his misinterpretation of Augustus. His deliberate misappropriation of the Roman history and the absoluteness of his naïve and mistaken conclusions show Lister Rosewater in an unflattering light and invite the reader to question his motives and his agenda. The narrator seems to ask if this is really the kind of stupidity and the kind of vulgarity what we have to witness in the highest ladders of society. Are these the men who rule the nation, and if so, is it any wonder that the country is in the state that it is in? The narrator knows that his audience knows that Rosewater’s interpretation of Augustus is mistaken, and he exploits this knowledge to get his own message through to the reader. REED (1990), p. 110. VONNEGUT (1965), p. 24. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid., p. 25. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid., p. 26. 54 DAVIS (2006), p. 72. 55 The author does not, however, represent the Senator as the absolute villain in the novel, but rather as a character that complements the strenghts and the weaknesses of the other protagonist, Eliot Rosewater. As Hipkiss states, it is shown that “pride and self-reliance are virtues just as much as are self-sacrifice, sympathy and cooperation, and that the two sets of virtues are often opposed to each one another”. For further analysis, see HIPKISS (1984), p. 69-70; REED (1990), p. 117. 48 49

AUGUSTUS’ MEMORY IN KURT VONNEGUT’S POSTMODERN PROSE

493

What is common to Senator Rosewater and to the authorial voice is that neither of them really cares about Augustus per se. In the situation where we find ourselves in this novel, the historical Augustus does not matter – he is only important as the face of multiple ideas and value systems. In this game, both sides use Augustus as a weapon, but neither is really interested in him. With this clever narratological play, Vonnegut shows us that there is no past independent of the present; that the history is always someone’s interpretation, and usually motivated by questionable agenda. He implies that our lives, political systems and ideologies – our whole present, really – are based on lies about the past. And it is telling that nothing gets this message through to the reader as efficiently as the double-exploitation of Caesar Augustus – the marble face so well-known to all. In this episode, we can observe how Augustus’ enduring fame and his familiarity to people in the modern world enable the author to use him for most varying ideological purposes, two millennia after his death. 4. The Two Rosewaters, The Two Faces of Augustus As I mentioned above, Vonnegut deliberately represents Senator Rosewater as the archetype of a cold-blooded politician who is more than ready to sacrifice the weak in order to create “a nation of swimmers”. In his depiction of this character, we can observe the social consciousness and the critical voice of the author – it seems that Vonnegut reproaches the political system in general, and the morals of the people who work within it, in particular. The idea that the world of politics is not suitable for a decent man is omnipresent in God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, and it is made particularly clear in the ruthless character of Lister Rosewater. What is important concerning the topic of this paper is that with his ruthless politics, the Senator believes to be following in the footsteps of Caesar Augustus. In the latter part of the novel, the author recalls Lister Rosewater’s earlier speech, and strengthens the reader’s impression of him as a wannabe pater patriae. In chapter six, it becomes clear that the Senator, in effect, does not only speak of himself as the American Augustus, but acts accordingly. In his speech in chapter two, Senator Rosewater asserts that when it comes to moral questions, he prefers economic adjustments to a strict legislative control. However, by chapter six, he seems to have decided that Augustus had it right in the first place, writing morals into a law. In this chapter, we hear of “the Rosewater Law” – an edict that makes the possession of obscene materials a Federal offense. The law is supposed to purge the state of immorality, and the Senator considers it his legislative masterpiece. With an ironic overtone, the author states that “it was a masterpiece because it actually defined obscenity”. 56 A reference to Augustus’ contested leges Iuliae is obvious. These 56

VONNEGUT (1965), p. 71.

494

ELINA A.S. PYY

legislative acts made Augustus’ fame not only as a political leader but also as a moral one – a stern father-figure who did not hesitate to interfere with the private lives of his co-citizens. By making Senator Lister Rosewater follow in Augustus’ footsteps, Vonnegut strengthens the reader’s impression of him as a narrow-minded puritan who lacks subtlety and has serious problems with interpreting the history. The Senator believes that he can cure the nation of its moral sickness by a two thousand years old medicine – a medicine that did not even work two thousand years ago. While emphasizing Lister Rosewater’s short-sightedness, the narrator, once again, benefits from the reader’s familiarity with Augustus. He makes Senator Rosewater pick the negative qualities associated with Augustus’ reign – the moralism and the absolutism – and turn them into his political guidelines. The author does this in order to shape our ideas of Rosewater himself, and it seems that while doing so, he does not care if he does justice to the historical Augustus or not. This is a prime example of the way in which a well-known historical figure can be utilized to reconstruct the image of another person in modern ideological polemics. However, it is crucial to notice that this sort of a use of history is always a two-way street: while Augustus is utilized to describe Senator Rosewater, or to denote certain elements of the modern American culture, the role in which he appears simultaneously shapes the reader’s ideas of him. Nevertheless, at the end, Vonnegut’s representation of Augustus is not that one-dimensional. In effect, the author introduces ‘the other side of Augustus’ by representing Lister Rosewater’s son, Eliot, as an antithesis to his father. 57 Eliot Rosewater is an heir to the fortune of the Rosewater Foundation and to his father’s political legacy. In the society that values money above all else, Eliot appears as a Messiah-like character – or a lunatic – who wants to share from his wealth to the less fortunate. It remains uncertain whether he is a sincere Samaritan or actually mentally ill (or both) – or whether he just wants to get rid of his fortune in order to resign the society that revolts him. 58 Hipkiss perceptively characterises Eliot Rosewater as “[a] guilty innocent with a desire to save the world”, and “a familiar American type, at once admirable for his good heart and dangerous for his wrongheadedness”. 59 What seems the most important is that Eliot, despite of seeming like “a chronic drunk” and “a chronic lunatic”, 60 is the only one who truly understands the fatal state of society, and realizes that the change is inevitable. Like 57

See e.g. REED (1990), p. 117-118. This kind of juxtaposing of characters is a typical element in Vonnegut’s novels; see HIPKISS (1984), p. 69. 58 On the problems of reading Eliot as a moral exemplum, see TALLY (2011), p. 70-72; KLINKOWITZ (2009), p. 48. 59 HIPKISS (1984), p. 49. 60 VONNEGUT (1965), p. 24.

AUGUSTUS’ MEMORY IN KURT VONNEGUT’S POSTMODERN PROSE

495

his father, he too attempts to take on the role of the pater patriae – in this case, the patria being, quite literally, Rosewater County in Indiana, the promised land of Eliot’s forefathers who made his fortune. Leaving behind the headquarters of the Rosewater Foundation in New York City, Eliot moves to Rosewater County, and in this strange and surreal microcosm begins his mission of curing the sick and sickening world. However, whereas to Lister Rosewater, the role of the pater patriae means strict and patronizing moral control, to Eliot it means quite the opposite. “I’m going to love these discarded Americans”, he declares, “[t]hat is going to be my work of art”. 61 This selfless, undiscriminating and somewhat naïve approach to the problem makes Eliot more of a Messiah-like than an Augustus-like saviour. He has no clear political agenda, no plan for the future, and very little hope for it. All he does have is his rich man’s guilt, his sense of duty and his social responsibility – with these, he begins his one-man struggle against the “entirely inappropriate and unnecessary […] American class system”, where a handful of corrupt people controls “all that was worth controlling”. 62 As Hipkiss states, Eliot feels “a dreadful guilt for the failures of American idealism” and “morally responsible for the failure of the American dream”. 63 However, Eliot’s lack of personal ambition and political agenda bitterly turns against him and makes him, in a sense, ‘a failed Augustus’. Ironically, while battling against injustice, he becomes a hero and an object of worship in Rosewater County. As soon as Eliot takes up his residence in Avondale, the people of the town, most of whom work for the Rosewater industry, start treating him as their king. Eliot resents the position. He attempts to please the people by throwing “lavish banquets”, by granting them audiences and by listening to their troubles – all in vain. 64 The author states that “Eliot stood in relation to the clean people of Avondale as a constitutional monarch. […] [he] could not tell them what to do – but he was surely the King, and Avondale knew it”. 65 The people’s worship and admiration of their benefactor, mixed with feelings of inferiority and bitterness, is one of the big paradoxes in the novel. The author seems to snigger at it, as he has one of the residents of Rosewater County declare that Oh, Mr Rosewater, there should be a big statue of you in the middle of this town – made out of diamonds and gold, and precious rubies beyond price, and pure uranimum. You with your great name and your fine education and your money and the nice manners your mother taught you […] you could have been so high 61

Ibid., p. 36. Ibid., p. 12. 63 HIPKISS (1984), p. 53; REED (1990), p. 113. For further analysis of this “crisis of consicence” as a defining quality in Vonnegut’s works, see also HIPKISS (1984), p. 63. 64 VONNEGUT (1965), p. 40. 65 Ibid. 62

496

ELINA A.S. PYY

and mighty in this world, that when you looked down on the plain, dumb, ordinary people of poor old Rosewater County, we would look like bugs. 66

Eliot is frustrated with the situation, but there is nothing he can do about it. Therefore, whereas Lister Rosewater is, in Vonnegut’s words, “a terrifying tyrant” 67 and quite proud of it, poor Eliot, instead, is turned into a leader – in the first place, a moral one – against his will. In both of them, we can observe a feature characteristic of many of Vonnegut’s works: the occupational role-playing that transforms the character, and usually not for the better. 68 As Hipkiss observes, Eliot Rosewater is actually only “the simplistic liberal counterpart to his father Lister’s simplistic conservatism”. 69 More importantly, in these two caricatures, we can observe the two popular ways of looking at Augustus Caesar in the modern world – two exaggerated and unrealistic reconstructions. Whereas Eliot is a benevolent pater patriae and a reluctant king, Lister is a delusional tyrant content with power. Vonnegut’s way of constructing the characters of these two anti-heroes shows the relevance and use of Augustus in modern ideological polemics. In good and bad, the first Emperor can be used as a model for and an archetype of a modern politician – and a modern human being. In these kinds of literary reconstructions, historical events or facts about the Emperor hold little significance; to Vonnegut, Augustus’ renown is far more important. 5. Conclusion From this brief analysis of Kurt Vonnegut’s God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, we can make a few observations concerning the significance and the value of Augustus in modern ideological polemics. It appears that due to Augustus’ ambiguity as a historical person, his semiotic importance as a sign and a symbol is at its greatest in times of cultural or ideological turmoil. In the United States, the 1960s were definitely such a time – it was a decade defined by tension between the East and the West, and by the increasing insecurity and unstability. In this bipolar world, the character of Augustus offered a means to discuss themes of social and political order, cultural revolution, liberty and humanity. Vonnegut’s appropriations of Augustus do not only offer us a peek into the cultural history of the United States in this crucial period of time, but they also show us how the historical Augustus can be reconstructed in multiple ways even in the same historical context, according to different value systems, ideals and concerns. 66

Ibid., p. 60. Ibid., p. 28. 68 This narrative technique as a repeating pattern in Vonnegut’s works is analysed in HIPKISS (1984), p. 46-47. 69 Ibid., p. 51, see also p. 62. 67

AUGUSTUS’ MEMORY IN KURT VONNEGUT’S POSTMODERN PROSE

497

It is worthwhile to ponder a little closer the particular role of the first Roman Emperor in these kinds of modern discourse: why is it namely Augustus that Vonnegut chooses as a sign and a symbol in his novel? Why is it him, and not someone else, that the author utilizes to describe the two Rosewaters and to discuss issues topical to contemporary society? Is there something about Augustus that makes him a particularly good target for the appropriations of history and for the rewriting of the past? If there is, it must be his incredible posthumous fame. Augustus is one of the best-known characters of Roman history, maybe even the best known. More has been written about him than about anyone else but, as I pointed out above, we know very little of him as a person. Practically no ‘anti-Augustan’ sources from the Civil War period survive, and as for the literary sources that do survive, it is difficult to find the man behind the myth in them. As I mentioned in the introduction, the Roman authors simplify Augustus into an idea; they make him the face of the Roman Empire and hide the historical figure from our sights. And it is hard to blame them for doing so. After all, it is the first Emperor they are talking about, the one who put an end to the political chaos and restored – if not the Republic, at least the peace and the order. How does one begin to describe a man who became a legend during his lifetime? I suggest that it is precisely this ambiguity of the historical Augustus that makes him a particularly good weapon in the political and ideological polemics at any given period. It is the main reason why the exploitation and the rewriting of Augustus’ story have continued for decades, for centuries and for millennia. With every new appropriation of his memory, the legend of Augustus expands and it becomes more difficult to find the man behind the myth. If some person has for two thousand years been associated with terms like ‘Golden Age’, pax Romana and pater patriae, how can we possibly think that we could find the historical person under these layers of legend? Kurt Vonnegut’s solution is characteristically cynical: he does not even try. In God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, Vonnegut treats Augustus as he is so often treated: as a marble face that can be taped over any ideology to increase its authority. This is why, while this novel is cynical concerning the future of the human race, it is also deeply pessimistic concerning the value and the significance of historical studies. God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater is a depiction of a world where people do not understand the past and do not care about it, other than as a weapon for their own selfish purposes. They will not learn from the past, and end up repeating the same “misunderstandings, mistakes, accidents and catastrophes”, creating an unending circle of social inequality and ideological poverty. And nothing gets this message through to the reader as efficiently as the author’s blatant appropriation of the memory of Augustus. Demoralizing as this may seem, we can find these multiple appropriations of Augustus, and this constant need to rewrite his story, quite fitting concerning the princeps’ own actions when he was alive. If anything, the first Roman

498

ELINA A.S. PYY

Emperor was a great reconstructor of the past. The ways in which the visual and the literary material from the Augustan period changed the Roman people’s perception of their history were remarkable. The skilful fabrication of the legendary past, the careful reconstruction of the Republican history – if there is one person in the history of humankind who rewrote the past to suit his own purposes, it is Augustus. 70 Examined in this light, it seems fitting that Augustus, in turn, is used as a face and a symbol for so many different ideas in modern ideological polemics. In a sense, the modern reader can appreciate the irony of Augustus being continuously reinvented, reconstructed and ideologically exploited. Moreover, it is important to notice that at least in part, this reinventing of the Emperor is based on Augustus’ own literary legacy. As I mentioned earlier, his Res Gestae consist mostly of lists – lists of donations, lists of buildings, and lists of wars. It is difficult to find any trace of a personality in it; the Augustus that we see in these lines is unapproachable and void of character. Naturally, this is largely due to the formal nature of the document – doubtless, had Augustus’ autobiography survived to our day, the historical Augustus would have more substance, and the modern Augustus, too, would have turned out quite different. 71 But as it is, Augustus’ literary testimony invites later authors to invent the man that is absent from the Res Gestae. Basically, Augustus himself hands over to later generations materials to be exploited and distorted. He lived an incredible life, worth remembering – however, at the end, the way the princeps represents it can be summarized in a couplet written by Eliot Rosewater in his moment of depression and lunacy: Many, many good things I have bought! Many, many bad things I have fought! 72

It would seem that, as usually, the irony was not lost on Vonnegut. Bibliography AHL, F. (1984), The Rider and the Horse: Politics and Power in Roman Poetry From Horace to Statius, in ANRW II, n.s. 32.1, p. 40-124. BRIGGS, W. (2007), United States, in C. W. KALLENDORF (ed.), A Companion to the Classical Tradition, Malden / Oxford / Carlton, p. 279-294. BRINGMANN, K. et al. (eds.) (2008), Augustus: Schriften, Reden und Aussprüche, Darmstadt. See e.g. ZANKER (1987), p. 171-216; TOHER (1990). It is known from various Roman sources that Augustus wrote his autobiography; only fragmentary references to this work survive in the works of other Roman authors. For a detailed analysis of Augustus’ autobiography and its historical significance, see SMIT (2009); BRINGMANN (2008), p. 191-215. 72 VONNEGUT (1965), p. 17. 70 71

AUGUSTUS’ MEMORY IN KURT VONNEGUT’S POSTMODERN PROSE

499

CHAPLIN, J. D. (2000), Livy’s Exemplary History, Oxford. CONNOLLY, J. (2009), Virtue and Violence: The Historians on Politics, in A. FELDHERR (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians, Cambridge, p. 181-194. CSILLAG, P. (1976), The Augustan Laws on Family Relations, Budapest. DAVIS, T. (2006), Kurt Vonnegut’s Crusade, or How a Postmodern Harlequin Preached a New Kind of Humanism, Albany. DAVIS, T. (2013), Kurt Vonnegut, in T. PARISH (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to American Novelists, Cambridge, p. 241-249. DOMINIK, W. J. et al. (eds.) (2009), Writing Politics in Imperial Rome, Leiden / Boston. FERGUSON, R. A. (2004), Reading the Early Republic, Cambridge, Mass. GILDENHARD, I. (2006), Reckoning with Tyranny: Greek Thoughts on Caesar in Cicero’s Letters to Atticus in Early 49, in S. LEWIS (ed.), Ancient Tyranny, Edinburgh, p. 197-209. GLINISTER, F. (2006), Kingship and Tyranny in Archaic Rome, in S. LEWIS (ed.), Ancient Tyranny, Edinburgh, p. 17-32. GURVAL, R. A. (1995), Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War, Ann Arbor. HIPKISS, R. A. (1984), The American Absurd: Pynchon, Vonnegut, and Barth, Port Washington / New York. HÖLKESKAMP, K.-J. (2010), Reconstructing the Roman Republic: An Ancient Political Culture and Modern Research. English Translation by H. HEITMANN-GORDON, Princeton, p. 76-97. HURLET, F. et al. (ed.) (2009), Le principat d’Auguste  : réalités et représentations du pouvoir autour de la Res Publica Restituta, Rennes. KLINKOWITZ, J. (2009), Kurt Vonnegut’s America, Columbia SC. LEVENE, D. S. (2007), Roman Historiography in the Late Republic, in J. MARINCOLA (ed.), Blackwell Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, Malden, MA, p. 275-289. LINTOTT, A. (1994), The Crisis of the Republic: Sources and Source Problems, in J. A. CROOK et al. (eds.), The Last Age of the Roman Republic 146-43 B.C., Cambridge, p. 1-15. MORSE, D. E. (2003), The Novels of Kurt Vonnegut: Imagine Being an American, Westport. PITCHER, V. (2007), Characterization in Ancient Historiography, in J. MARINCOLA (ed.), Blackwell Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, Malden, MA, p. 102117. POWELL, A. (ed.) (1992), Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus, London. RADITSA, L. F. (1980), Augustus’ Legislation Concerning Marriage, Procreation, Love Affairs and Adultery, in ANRW II, n.s. 13, p. 278-339. REED, P. J. (1990), Economic Neurosis: Kurt Vonnegut’s God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, in R. MERRILL (ed.), Critical Essays in Kurt Vonnegut, Boston, p. 108-124. ROLLER, M. B. (2004), Exemplarity in Roman Culture: The Cases of Horatius Cocles and Cloelia, in CPh, n.s. 99, 1, p. 1-56. ROLLER, M. B. (2009), The Exemplary Past in Roman Historiography and Culture, in A. FELDHERR (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians, Cambridge, p. 214-230. SCHOLES, R. (1990), Kurt Vonnegut and Black Humor, in R. MERRILL (ed.), Critical Essays in Kurt Vonnegut, Boston, p. 74-82.

500

ELINA A.S. PYY

SELLERS, M. N. S. (2014 [2004]), The Roman Republic and the French and American Revolutions, in H. I. FLOWER (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic, Cambrigde, p. 401-418. SMITH, C. (2006), Adfectatio regni in the Roman Republic, in S. LEWIS (ed.), Ancient Tyranny, Edinburgh, p. 49-64. SMITH, C. et al. (eds.) (2009), The Lost Memoirs of Augustus and the Development of Roman Autobiography, Swansea. TALLY, R. T. (2011), Kurt Vonnegut and the American Novel: A Postmodern Iconography, London. TATUM, V. J. (2010), The Final Crisis (69-44), in N. ROSENSTEIN et al. (eds.), A Companion to the Roman Republic, Malden / Oxford / Chichester, p. 190-211. TOHER, M. (1990), Augustus and the Evolution of Roman Historiography, in K. A. RAAFLAUB et al. (eds.), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate, Berkeley / Los Angeles, p. 139-154. VASALY, A. (2009), Characterization and Complexity: Caesar, Sallust, and Livy, in A. FELDHERR (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians, Cambridge, p. 245-260. VOUT, C. (2009), Representing the Emperor, in A. FELDHERR (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians, Cambridge, p. 261-275. VONNEGUT, K. (1965), God Bless You, Mr Rosewater, New York. VON UNGERN-STERNBERG, J. (2014 [2004]), The Crisis of the Republic. English Translation by H. I. FLOWER, in H. I. FLOWER (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic, Cambrigde, p. 78-98. WEBER, G. et al. (eds.) (2003), Propaganda – Selbstdarstellung – Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreich des 1. Jhs. n. Chr., Stuttgart. WYKE, M. (1992), Augustan Cleopatras: Female Power and Poetic Authority, in A. POWELL (ed.), Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus, London, p. 86-129. ZANKER, P. (1987), Augustus und die Macht der Bilder, München.

“The World Was my Poem”. Reinventing Augustus as a Literary Hero JÖRG FÜNDLING (Universität Bonn)

Abstract Augustus by John Williams, a novel published in 1972, offers a number of structural peculiarities. The author decided on the ‘documentary novel’ technique, introduced for a Roman subject by Thornton Wilder’s The Ides of March (1948), followed by an autobiographical letter of Augustus that not only copies the structure and key themes of Marguerite Yourcenar’s Mémoires d’Hadrien (1951) but even shows unspoken rivalry with the older novel’s protagonist and contents. While both Wilder’s and Yourcenar’s narrative schemes were expressly designed to convey skeptical or controversial views on their central figures’ characters and deeds, Williams turns them to the contrary. His larger-than-life Augustus, meant to enjoy the readers’ absolute confidence and admiration, is vindicated in every single act and situation, including the manipulative use of lesser humans. This required massive tampering with the historical context and persons around the Princeps, more often than not in a misleading or forced way. Given the outdated appearance of the novel, both Williams’ elaborate structural approach and his selective access on sources and evidence seem strangely out of proportion to the scarce literary results.

1. What Would Augustus Do? An Emperor for Today Early on in the HBO series The Sopranos, New Jersey mobster Tony Soprano and his uncle Corrado, Jr., are watching how their son / grandnephew fares at a Little League baseball game. This moment of shared family sense is Tony’s best chance to address the worries of his second ‘family’ about Uncle Junior’s style of leadership. As a regular History Channel viewer, Tony suggests an ideal role model – who happens to be Italian, of sorts. JUNIOR: What is it you wanta talk about? TONY: Octavian. – You know, Augustus. JUNIOR: You fuckin’ with me? TONY: No. (casts a meaningful look at Junior) Octavian became Augustus. (Junior, already at the end of his patience, turns away.) Forget about that. Bottom line: Augustus was a Caesar. And everybody loved him, right? You know why? J: I don’t know that I give a fuck.

502

JÖRG FÜNDLING

T: Everybody loved him because he never ate alone. Capisci? It was the longest time of peace in Rome’s history. He was a fair leader and all his people loved him for that. J: This the one they, er, stabbed in the back? T: No. That was Julius. Talkin’ about Augustus. He shared his wealth and all his people loved him. J: You said that three fuckin’ times. I heard it. His people loved him. What’s your fucking point? 1

At this point Tony changes his strategy; it is not history but a joke about two bulls and their appetite for cows that eventually persuades his uncle that everyone will profit if the boss prefers patient determination over maximum aggression. The ‘Augustus for Managers’ motif predates Karl Galinsky’s decision to end his Introduction to the Life of an Emperor with two quotes from an economists’ bedtime read, according to which the qualities of the first princeps – such as “a vision” and “an enormous amount of energy” – would make him an errorproof CEO today. This assessment, in turn, stemmed from the remarkable cooperation of a classicist and the editor-in-chief of Forbes Magazine. 2 It seems fair to say that the makers of The Sopranos had more of an eye for the ambivalence of Augustus. HBO executive producer David Chase confessed that his decision to call Tony Soprano’s mother Livia was a passing allusion to the 1976 family drama I, Claudius. 3 Tony’s assurance that Augustus “never ate alone” but gave “all his people” a fair share implies that he sees Octavian-Augustus in the terms of a successful capo who did not work either his victims or his fellow mafiosi too hard. In the end, this is not what Junior will do; therefore he is reduced to a figurehead by his nephew who promptly brings about a – shaky – pax Soprana, as the episode’s title predicts. Compared with Galinsky’s Augustus, such a notion may appear irreverent. It does seem that a minor mood swing regarding Augustus is at hand. In the commemorative year 2014, for instance, German readers were given the remarkable information that “Augustus was no dictator, no despot, and became a god only after his death”. 4 1

The Sopranos, Season 1, Episode 6 (“Pax Soprana”), 41:06-42:46. Warner Bros, Hamburg, 2011, 4-DVD edition, Disc 2, Serial No. 1000239005. 2 FORBES / PREVAS (2009), p. 252, 279; quoted by GALINSKY (2012), p. 185-186. 3 David Chase, interviewed by Peter Bogdanovich; The Sopranos [n. 1], extra feature, Disc 3, 12:24-12:59: “I’d seen that series; not all of it, but I’d seen Tiberius’ treacherous mother Livia. I thought that, perhaps, this character Livia could fulfil a similar function in this story. You know, the… obviously, the Roman-Italian link wasn’t lost on me. Maybe in some way, if anything, it served as a – slightly tongue-incheek – comment on I, Claudius […] We didn’t do I, Claudius in New Jersey, but that was that point.” 4 SONNABEND (2013), p. 84: “Augustus war kein Diktator, kein Despot, und ein Gott wurde er erst nach seinem Tod.” Recent monographs disagree. The triumvirate was “der

AUGUSTUS AS A LITERARY HERO

503

The focus of public history in that year was, of course, on quite another event. Curiously it is to the First World War that we owe the rediscovery of an all-but-forgotten novel on Augustus which, as it happens, anticipates the return to an affirmative position – and indeed makes contemporary admirers of the princeps look half-hearted. Thanks to Stoner (1965), one of a very few North American WW I homefront novels, John E. Williams (1922-1994) is now enjoying renewed attention, and this includes Augustus, written in “Rome, Northampton, Denver, 1967-1972”. 5 Both its preface and the Wikipedia entry call it an epistolary novel 6 but an exact term would be ‘documentary’: Williams presents us with a bundle of letters, excerpts from diaries, official documents and so on – some of them from actual sources, such as Livy, or the Res gestae diui Augusti, 7 while the majority is more or less freely invented or adapted from extant source material. Two books, comprising about 90% of Augustus, lead us from the eve of Caesar’s assassination to Actium (Book I) and then on until the dynastic crisis of 2 BC (Book II). The image of Augustus in this part of the novel is generated by a superposition of narrative voices: family, friends and supporters, detractors and enemies, senators, a centurion, ambassadors, and Octavian’s nurse – but not Octavian-Augustus himself. Major contributors are the loyal but limited Agrippa, a textbook military-minded Roman, and Maecenas, a decadent and talkative observer who feels the distance to his younger self. 8 Prominent voices in Book I include Cicero, the diary of Salvidienus Rufus who later defects from Octavian, and a profoundly stupid Marcus Antonius. 9 Much of Book II is given to Julia: Augustus’ exiled but repentant daughter takes up and amplifies the Sache nach eine pluralisierte Diktatur”: BLEICKEN (2000), p. 138 (cf. DAHLHEIM [2010], p. 162: “die Militärdiktatur in der Form des Triumvirats”); since the beginning of 32 BC Octavian’s legal base for running the res publica was nonexistent, and his continuous consulates since 31 did in no way conform to constitutional norms. The “Militärpotentat” Octavian (BLEICKEN [2000], p. 304; DAHLHEIM [2010], p. 162: “ein Usurpator, der sich seine Macht auf den Schlachtfeldern des Bürgerkriegs genommen hatte”) remained a despot until the January events of 27 BC. On divine honours for Augustus, cf. only GRADEL (2002), p. 109-139. 5 WILLIAMS (1972 [2003]), p. 317. 6 MCGAHERN (2003), p. vii; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_%28Williams_ novel%29 (last viewed February 25, 2016). 7 Res gestae: Document 1.2.15 (WILLIAMS [2003], p. 47) and repeatedly in Book III (p. 280-281, 285, 289, 298). LIV. 120 (frg. 59 Jal) = SEN., Suas. 6,17: 1.3.14 (p. 74-75). None of Cicero’s extant letters have been included; what letters Williams invents for him tend to enhance Cicero’s mood swings while denying him every trace of perceptiveness. 8 Augustus is always called “Octavius Caesar” in the regests of the single documents. Agrippa (Memoirs, 13 BC): 1.1.1, 1.2.2, 1.3.6, 1.4.3, 1.4.5, 1.5.7, 1.5.10, 1.6.12. Maecenas (to Livy, 13 BC): 1.1.2, 1.2.9, 1.3.1, 1.3.8, 1.3.12, 1.4.6, 1.5.9, 1.6.8, 1.6.13. 9 CICERO (letters to Philippus, Brutus, Octavian), 1.2.4-6, 1.2.10-11, 1.3.2, 1.3.4, 1.3.9. Salvidienus, 1.1.4, 1.2.3, 1.2.8, 1.3.3. M. Antonius, 1.2.7, 1.2.12; 1.2.14., 1.3.5, 1.3.10, 1.5.1-2, 1.5.5-6, 1.6.2.

504

JÖRG FÜNDLING

tragic function of Salvidienus. Livia (in her literary standard role as a schemer), Horace (a convert to the imperial concept), Ovid (his irresponsible counterpart), the future imperial biographer Nicolaus of Damascus, and Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (the toady of a sinister Tiberius) complete the list of recurrent voices. 10 There is also a variety of rare or single participants; some of these ‘extras’ are assigned important contributions. 11 A brief (and fictitious) Prologue is reserved for Caesar who announces his political interest in Octavian. In marked contrast to the rest of the work stands Book III in which finally the voice of Augustus, and only of Augustus, is hear. 12 This takes the shape of a memoir-like autobiographical letter, directed to Nicolaus of Damascus (who will never read it) during the very last weeks the princeps had to live. An Epilogue by Augustus’ last physician recounts the death scene to no less than Seneca in AD 55 when Augustus and his lessons are said to be almost forgotten. 2. Celebrity Deathmatch: Augustus vs. Hadrian, Williams vs. Yourcenar An uncommon approach – some reviewers seemed to think it unprecedented. “The finest historical novel ever written by an American”, the Washington Post exulted. 13 At any rate it is not a pioneering effort in terms of structure. The documentary mosaic, the choir of voices in Books I and II, copies the technique developed by Thornton Wilder for The Ides of March (1948) and the last six months in Caesar’s life. What about Williams’ Book III? The concept of a Roman emperor writing a long and musing letter, autobiographical, soulseeking and oracular at once, does feel very familiar. 10 Julia the daughter (journal in exile, 4 AD), 2.1.2, 2.1.5, 2.2.2, 2.2.4, 2.2.8, 2.3.1, 2.3.8, 2.3.11, 2.4.2, 2.4.4, 2.4.6, 2.5.1, 2.5.8, 2.6.2, 2.6.4, 2.6.6. Livia, 2.2.1 (parts), 2.2.5, 2.3.2, 2.4.7, 2.5.4. Horace (to Tibullus, Vergil, Augustus), 2.2.3, 2.2.6, 2.3.4, 2.3.7, 2.3.10 (and a single letter to his father in Book I: 1.4.4). Ovid (to Propertius), 2.4.3, 2.4.5 (poem to Julia), 2.5.2. Nicolaus (to Strabo, Maecenas), 1.6.1, 2.3.5, 2.3.9, 2.4.1, 2.5.7. Piso, 2.5.3, 2.5.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.3. 11 Minor voices, Caesar (to Octavian), 1.1.3; Atia and Marcius Philippus, 1.2.1; anonymous libel (probably by Maecenas) 1.2.13, Acta senatus (always in moments of crisis), 1.3.7, 1.3.11, 1.6.9; Strabo (to Nicolaus), 1.4.1; Brutus (to Octavian), 1.4.2; Epimachos (secret reports to Cleopatra – cf. the spywork around Abra in Wilder’s The Ides of March), 1.5.3, 1.6.3; Cleopatra, 1.5.4, 1.6.7 (letters), 1.6.4-6 (memorandum, again modelled on Wilder); Lepidus, 1.5.8; Q. Appius (patriotic centurion), 1.6.10; Munatius Plancus, 1.6.11; Hirtia, freedwoman, slave-nurse (2 BC), 2.1.1; Varius Rufus (to Vergil), 2.1.3; Mevius (envious would-be poet), 2.1.4; Livia / Phaedrus / Athenodorus to Octavian (27 BC), 2.2.1; Antonius Musa, 2.2.7; Vergil, 2.2.9; Octavia, 2.2.10; Timagenes, 2.3.3; Terentia (lover of Octavian), 2.3.6; Marcella (vapid friend of Julia), 2.5.5; Paullus Fabius Maximus (loyal friend of Augustus), 2.6.5. 12 The only document by Augustus in Books I-II is his anonymous letter of warning to Cicero (43), 1.3.13. 13 WILLIAMS (2003), front page [Reviews of the German translation, available since 2016, have been kind to exuberant so far (as of April 2017)].

AUGUSTUS AS A LITERARY HERO

505

“It is fortunate that youth never recognizes its ignorance, for if it so did it would not find the courage to get the habit of endurance. It is perhaps an instinct of the blood and flesh which prevents this knowledge and allows the boy to become the man who will live to see the folly of his existence.” Very similar feelings were put to paper a few decades before Williams; back then it was yet another fictitious letter, written to the future Marcus Aurelius instead of Nicolaus. “This much vaunted portion of existence, considered dispassionately, seems to me often a formless, opaque, and unpolished period, both fragile and unstable. […] I look back with shame on my ignorance of the world, which I thought that I knew […]”. 14 Marguerite Yourcenar wrote or, at the very least, reviewed the French original of these words in New York State where her lover Grace Frick translated them a few years later. This does not make Mémoires d’Hadrien “the finest historical novel ever written by an American” but it is something. Parallels and references in Augustus are unmistakable, notably to the English translation. One example is Yourcenar’s strategy to cope with gladiatorial games. Her protagonist would be less dear to a modern reader if he liked such bloodshed, so he simply bears it and tries to make the munera more artistic. 15 Williams is almost profuse on the same point. Not only does his Augustus deplore “the lust of the mob” and the sadistic pleasure of “the most respectable of matrons” in the audience, he also assures us: “I never enjoyed these contests, yet I forced myself to attend them, so that the people might feel that I shared in their pleasure; and their pleasure in the carnage was extraordinary to behold.” The contribution of Augustus is kept as small as possible. “At one time, when it was necessary for me to secure the favor and gratitude of the people, I was in the habit of arranging gladiatorial games.” That “one time” is misleading at best; Augustus himself lists eight munera, one great naumachia and 28 uenationes. 16 There seems to be more behind this than ordinary intertextuality. Numerous passages in Williams react on passages in Yourcenar – and often enough they turn the tables on them. Hadrian’s assurance that he does not despise humanity for all its flaws (“Je le sais : je suis comme eux, du moins par moments, ou 14 “It is…”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 281. “This much…”: YOURCENAR (1954); (1963) (quotations from paperback edition, New York, 2005), p. 37. Original: “Considérée pour elle-même, cette jeunesse tant vantée m’apparaît le plus souvent comme une époque mal dégrossie de l’existence, une période opaque et informe, fuyante et fragile. […] Je ne pense sans rougir à mon ignorance du monde, que je croyais connaître, à mon impatience; à une espèce d’ambition frivole et d’avidité grossière.” YOURCENAR (1958) (quotation from paperback edition, 1974, p. 47). The novel first appeared in 1951. 15 YOURCENAR (1974), p. 119: “l’effort de l’endurer m’était un exercice plus valable que la lecture d’Épicure” (Engl.: YOURCENAR [2005], p. 105). Cf. HIST. AUG., Hadr. 19.8. 16 WILLIAMS (2003), p. 292. Res gestae diui Augusti 12.21-22.

506

JÖRG FÜNDLING

j’aurais pu l’être.”) sounds quite Stoic, a point that is probably not lost on the fictitious reader Marcus Aurelius. “The most benighted men are not without some glimmerings of the divine”. In this regard Hadrian considers himself an average human, except for his long-trained ability to adapt to every situation – an “état de liberté, ou de soumission, presque pur”. On this very Existentialist note he continues: There is but one thing in which I feel superior to most men: I am freer, and at the same time more complex, than they dare to be. […] And it is in such a way […] that I have finally learned to accept myself”. 17

What will Augustus say to this? First of all he says no to “that sentimental and rhetorical love for the common people” and has a bad impression of “[m] ankind in the aggregate”. “And yet in the weakest of men […] I have found veins of strength like gold in decaying rock”. Those men – namely Lepidus, Antonius, and Cicero – happen to be his opponents. Much the same statement follows as in Yourcenar, but there is a meaningful change: I am a man, and as foolish and weak as most men; if I have had an advantage over my fellows, it is that I have known this myself […]. It was one of the sources of my power, that knowledge. 18

Yet the fundamental difference between both novels is the distance between author and protagonist. Yourcenar points out that she had to grant ‘her’ Hadrian a partial and biased, or even distorted, view on persons and events: they would appear “par réfraction, à travers les souvenirs de l’empereur”. The voice of Williams is far closer to the voice of his Augustus – if their opinions diverge at all. What Augustus fears is an accusation that some personal motive drove him to “change the world” (repeated three times in twelve lines). To refute that impression he confesses to be only human – except for his “destiny”. 19 Williams makes him claim said destiny over and over again, without so much as a trace of author’s irony. Such an unquestioned goal in life, “a formula, whether in boast or lament”, that claims to epitomise a whole biography, is precisely what Yourcenar’s sceptical emperor of 1951 dismisses: he has been, and done, too many things for that. 20 Chance and contingencies have formed a man called Hadrian; “his form YOURCENAR (1974), p. 51 (“Je le sais…”), 52 (“état de liberté…”); Engl.: YOURCENAR (2005), p. 41 (“The most benighted…”), 42 (“There is but one…”), 45 (“And it is in such…”). 18 WILLIAMS (2003), p. 282 (“that sentimental…”; “Mankind in the aggregate”), p. 283 (“And yet in…”). Roles of Augustus: obviously inspired by SUET., Aug. 99.1. “I am a man…”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 287. 19 “Par réfraction…”: YOURCENAR (1974), p. 335; “destiny”, “change the world”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 283. 20 YOURCENAR (1974), p. 32-33: “L’existence des héros, celle qu’on nous raconte, est simple ; elle va droit au but comme une flèche. Et la plupart des hommes aiment 17

AUGUSTUS AS A LITERARY HERO

507

seems nearly always to be shaped by the pressure of circumstances: his features are blurred, like a face reflected in water.” And yet Hadrian accepts his identity with this person; he must needs be that product of coincidences. “Still, the mind of man is reluctant to consider itself as the product of chance, or the passing result of destinies over which no god presides, least of all himself” [Italics by J. F.]. 21 Hadrian prefers the urge to understand himself to the factual value of any insights that urge may bring; Augustus asserts to understand himself so perfectly that he has not a single weakness and that nobody else can understand him, let alone pass judgment on him, at all. When Marguerite Yourcenar published Mémoires d’Hadrien she confessed to be afraid that her method to achieve verisimilitude would displease the public: “je m’éloigne du livre et de l’homme qui pourraient plaire”. 22 Williams makes his dissatisfaction with her approach plain enough; the emperor he creates is meant to surpass human measure and, indeed, to awe us. While the Hadrian of our sources practised imitatio Augusti, funnily enough the novelist’s Augustus is meant to compete with Yourcenar’s Hadrian. Such aemulatio Hadriani is, by the way, a very Roman concept. 3. A Cosmopolitan, a Patriot, and Various Falls of Rome: Novelists’ Positions and the Anxieties of their Age A strange intensity pervades those passages in which Williams makes his hero declare what defines Rome. Every Roman is a peasant at heart, even “the Roman dandy who minces about his carefully tended garden in his toga of forbidden silk”, and Rome’s religion is a peasant religion. A second ingredient to this “rustic blood” is “the wild blood of the most untamed northern barbarian” and this is to explain “the lust of the mob” for gladiators in the present – and, of course, “Roman bravery” in the past. This combination strikingly resembles à résumer leur vie dans une formule, parfois dans une vanterie ou dans une plainte, presque toujours dans une récrimination ; leur mémoire leur fabrique complaisamment une existence explicable et claire. Ma vie a des contours moins fermes. Comme il arrive souvent, c’est ce que je n’ai pas été, peut-être, qui la définit avec le plus de justesse. […] J’ai occupé toutes les positions extrêmes tour à tour, mais je ne m’y suis pas tenu ; la vie m’en a toujours fait glisser.” “A formula…”: YOURCENAR (2005), p. 24. 21 YOURCENAR (1974), p. 34-35: “Mais l’esprit humain répugne à s’accepter des mains du hasard, à n’être que le produit passager de chances auxquelles aucun dieu ne préside, surtout pas lui-même.” Engl.: YOURCENAR (2005), p. 26. The Epicureanism (cf. YOURCENAR [1974], p. 95: “ce lit étroit, mais propre, sur lequel j’ai parfois étendu ma pensée”) of this passage must have appealed to Sir Ronald Syme who pointed out the links to the Kepos when commenting on Yourcenar: SYME (1991; philosophy: p. 176177). A more reserved view in BIRLEY (1997), p. 108-109. For a detailed study on Yourcenar’s mode of access to ancient sources, see BRUGGISSER (1997), with useful literature. 22 YOURCENAR (1974), p. 340.

508

JÖRG FÜNDLING

mid-20th century views concerning incorruptible rural ancestry, or ‘blood’, as the source of Romanitas. Williams’ Augustus considers this the most valuable lesson of his many journeys. 23 Home is where the heart is. This means hard-working rural Italy. “Unlike my uncle Julius Caesar, who found some odd renewal in such extended travels, I never felt at home in those distant lands, and always longed for the Italian countryside, and even Rome” [Italics by J. F.]. The Augustan references to the prisci mores are a given, and the influence of small-town adherents among the ‘party’ of Octavian, to use Sir Ronald Syme’s term, is widely accepted. Yet at this point Augustus Williams also seems to lunge out at the literary avatar of a later emperor. To portray Hadrian as a man who will find himself everywhere (and nowhere) at home is one of the essential components of Yourcenar’s novel. To quote the key passage in translation: “I must here admit what I have told no one else: I have never had a feeling of belonging wholly to any one place, not even to my beloved Athens, nor even to Rome. Though a foreigner in every land, in no place did I feel myself a stranger.” Hadrian’s many travels correspond with his ideal “to have no prejudices and few habits.” In both novels, by the way, the statements about feeling at home develop from a recollection of travelling impressions. 24 The lack of a special affinity to Rome is amplified by Yourcenar into Hadrian’s belief that Rome must transcend itself to become a global concept of civilization, or even a mere idea: Rome n’est plus dans Rome : elle doit périr, ou s’égaler désormais à la moitié du monde. […] Elle échapperait à son corps de pierre ; elle se composerait du mot d’État, du mot de citoyenneté, du mot de république, une plus sûre immortalité. […] Elle ne périrait qu’avec la dernière cité des hommes.

23 “The Roman dandy…”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 291; religion: p. 292; “rustic blood”, “wild blood…”: p. 293; “the lust…”: p. 292; “Roman bravery”: p. 298. Compare e.g. the exaltation of Ernst Kornemann: “Er stammte aus italisch-latinischem Blut. […] Augustus empfand daher nicht nur römisch wie Cäsar, sondern auch italisch. […] In ihm, dem Manne aus der Kleinstadt-Honoratiorenfamilie, steckte noch altes italisches Blut […]” [Italics spaced in original] KORNEMANN (51963 [1st ed. 1939]), p. 165; cf. ID. (41960 [1st ed. 1938]), p. 542: “Wohl war der republikanische Staat faul und morsch […], aber trotz allem war das Herz und der Wille von großen Teilen des so lange bäuerlich verhaftet gewesenen Volkes jung geblieben […]”. 24 “Unlike…”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 291; rural Italian power base of OctavianAugustus: the locus classicus is R. SYME (1939), p. 349-368. “I must here…”: YOURCENAR (2005), p. 125 (orig.: “Il faut faire ici un aveu que je n’ai fait de personne : je n’ai jamais eu sentiment d’appartenir complètement à aucun lieu, pas même à mon Athènes bien-aimée, pas même à Rome. Étranger partout, je ne me sentais particulièrement isolé nulle part.” YOURCENAR [1974], p. 138). “To have no…”: YOURCENAR (2005), p. 125 (orig. YOURCENAR [1974], p. 137: “Mais je travaillais à n’avoir nul préjugé et peu d’habitudes”).

AUGUSTUS AS A LITERARY HERO

509

This outreaches even the Constitutio Antoniniana, of course, and sounds more like modern democracy and post-colonialism than a mindset accessible to a Roman emperor. The city of Rome is no longer essential in that scenario; “d’autres Romes viendront, dont j’imagine mal le visage, mais que j’aurai contribué à former.” Yesterday’s barbarians, such as we, cannot help being Romans. 25 It does not surprise that Williams makes his imperial writer take the opposite stance; almost but not quite. A sense of doom prevails. Augustus is haunted by the disaster of AD 9, caused by “Varus in his weakness”, who wanted an easy life in Germany, as well as by “the Roman Sybarite in his life of shade who invites the slaughter of thousands more. The barbarian waits, and we grow weaker in the security of our ease and pleasure.” The barbarian waits three pages further up, too, as does “the Sybarite of Rome” whose luxury is bought by “the bodies of honest Roman soldiers”. Given that within his many-voiced novel not a single voice is allowed to contradict the princeps by right, the probability is very high that we are facing the author’s conviction. Williams’ own Stoner was not the work of a war enthusiast, yet right amidst the turmoil of the Vietnam Era he makes his hero look with scorn on his (Roman) contemporaries’ ingratitude and lack of ‘national’ self-preservation. With Augustus the acme has been reached; now he notes the beginnings of a decline. Rome will fall, even though for the time being “throughout this world the Roman order prevails”: a fate that Williams seems to fear for the pax Americana. 26 Williams would not be the first to measure the disquieting aspects of his present by the ell of Roman history. He actually had every chance to know a very similar approach – provided that he had seen Anthony Mann’s The Fall of the Roman Empire in 1964 or read its novelization by pulp fiction veteran Harry Whittington. During one of that film’s most iconic scenes, the review of the multi-ethnic Imperial troops, Marcus Aurelius strikes a ‘Hadrianic’ note: “Look about you and look at yourselves, and see the greatness of Rome. […] No longer colonies and provinces but Rome, Rome everywhere – a family of equal nations. That is what lies ahead.” Then the emperor turns away to murmur: “May the gods hasten the day.” Spectators recognize the mood of impending doom that Marcus, played by Alec Guinness, expressed in his very first words, “When I was a child, Timonides, I had a secret fear that night would come and would never end, that we would live out our lives in total darkness. It was a small fear then.” This is why we see the emperor, well aware of his “Rome n’est plus…”: YOURCENAR (1974), p. 124-125; “d’autres Romes…”: p. 125. Cf. in the English translation especially YOURCENAR (2005), p. 110: “She would no longer be bound by her body of stone, but would compose for herself from the words State, citizenry, and republic a surer immortality.” 26 “Varus…”; “the Roman Sybarite…”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 301 (“barbarian”, cf. p. 298). “The Sybarite…”, “the bodies…”: p. 298; “throughout…”: p. 310. 25

510

JÖRG FÜNDLING

mortal illness, plead that death grant him one more year: “I do not seek pleasures or friendship, or love. I speak only of Rome. And when I say Rome I mean the world, the future.” 27 While the vision of “Rome everywhere” may well owe something to Yourcenar, Mann includes contemporary fears of the Soviet, and possibly Chinese, threats. But the true danger lies within: the careless and cruel side of Roman society, embodied by Commodus, creates an estrangement between Rome and the Northern tribes that will eventually bring about the barbarian conquest of the Empire. The quasi-scholarly prologue, spoken as a voice-over to the suggestive pictures of Roman watchfires along the Danube, plants the seed of that thought: Two of the greatest problems in history are how to account for the rise of Rome and how to account for her fall. We may come nearer to understanding the truth if we remember that her fall, like her rise, had not one cause but many and was not an event but a process, spread over three hundred years.

Keywords such as ‘decadence’ are notably absent but will be the lesson learnt at the end of the film. While the purple is auctioned on the Forum, wrapped in the smoke of burning Germanic captives, another voice-over says: “This was the beginning of the fall of the Roman Empire. A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.” 28 Just like Yourcenar saw it, Rome’s task is to outgrow itself in order to abide – only that the chance has been irredeemably missed in the film narrative. This outcome and the brooding atmosphere that precedes it do resemble the pessimism in Augustus. Yet there the failure of Rome is not an inability to share power and justice but as a lack of energy to force them upon the world. That will to power is dead. Williams’ Augustus is under the impression that he has been “lying upon a corpse in order to revive it” as Marguerite Yourcenar, of all people, phrased it. Nonetheless Augustus brightens up. The encounter with the overjoyed Alexandrian sailors, a meaningful scene from Suetonius, becomes the jumping-off point for a strain of near-euphoric thoughts: I can persuade myself now that after all there has been some symmetry to my life, some point, and that my existence has been of more benefit than harm to the world that I am content to leave. […] Now throughout this world the Roman order prevails. Novelization: WHITTINGTON (1964). Imperial muster: The Fall of the Roman Empire: Der Untergang des Römischen Reiches, Spirit Media Koch Media, 2009, 2-disc DVD deluxe edition, Disc 1, Serial No. DVM020026D, 16:45 (“Look about you…”); 18:28-18:40 (“No longer colonies…”); 18:52 (“May the gods…”); 04:34-46 (“When I was a child…”); 1:00:33-47 (“I do not seek…”). 28 Narrator: The Fall of… [n. 27], 03:40-04:05 (“Two of the…”); 2:54:44-58 (“This was the beginning…”). Cf. DRIJVERS (2009). CLAY (2009) briefly refers to Yourcenar (p. 94-95). 27

AUGUSTUS AS A LITERARY HERO

511

This insight is so dear to Augustus that he repeats it at once. The despair that I have voiced seems to me now unworthy of what I have done. Rome is not eternal; it does not matter. Rome will fall; it does not matter. The barbarian will conquer; it does not matter. There was a moment of Rome, and it will not wholly die; the barbarian will become the Rome he conquers […]. And in time that is ceaseless as this salt sea […], the cost is nothing, is less than nothing. 29

Once again this last-hour optimism of AD 14 is modelled on the earlier novel. Hadrian must face his doubts and fears during the siege of Bethar. Rome’s time may run out – “le temps pour s’instruire par leurs fautes n’est pas plus donné aux empires qu’aux hommes.” “I could see the return of barbaric codes, of implacable gods, of unquestioned despotism of savage chieftains, a world broken up into enemy states and eternally prey to insecurity.” But dawn takes the fright out of such anxieties once and forever. The future of the world no longer disturbs me; I do not try still to calculate, with anguish, how long or how short a time the Roman peace will endure; I leave that to the gods. […] Catastrophe and ruin will come; disorder will triumph, but order will too, from time to time […] some few men will think and work and feel as we have done, and I venture to count upon such continuators, placed irregularly throughout the centuries, and upon this kind of intermittent immortality. If ever the barbarians gain possession of the world they will be forced to adopt some of our methods; they will end by resembling us. […] I accept with calm these vicissitudes of Rome eternal. 30

The great debt of Williams to Yourcenar is made obvious by such passages. Yet intentions vary. Augustus is first horrified and then intoxicated by the prospect that Rome will fall: all his troubles would be in vain – but, on second thought, thanks to him success will be guaranteed even then, for he is that “moment of Rome” he writes about. It is only apt that Williams uses “I” where Yourcenar chose “we”. “Lying upon…”: YOURCENAR (2005), p. 111 (orig.: YOURCENAR [1974], p. 126). Fishermen: SUET., Aug. 98.2. “I can persuade…”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 310. 30 “Le temps…”: YOURCENAR (1974), p. 263 (transl.: “Nor is time granted oftener to empires than to men to learn from past errors.” YOURCENAR [2005], p. 244). “I could see…”: YOURCENAR (2005), p. 243; “The future…”: YOURCENAR (1974), p. 293-294 (orig. “L’avenir du monde ne m’inquiète plus ; je ne m’efforce plus de calculer, avec angoisse, la durée plus ou moins longue de la paix romaine ; je laisse faire aux dieux. […] Les catastrophes et les ruines viendront ; le désordre triomphera, mais de temps en temps l’ordre aussi […] quelques hommes penseront, travailleront et sentiront comme nous : j’ose compter sur ces continuateurs placés à intervalles irréguliers le long des siècles, sur cette intermittente immortalité. Si les barbares s’emparent jamais de l’empire du monde, ils seront forcés d’adopter certaines de nos méthodes ; ils finiront par nous ressembler. […] J’accepte avec calme ces vicissitudes de Rome éternelle”: YOURCENAR [1974], p. 314). 29

512

JÖRG FÜNDLING

4. Collateral Damage: Details and Persons Lost on the Way to Greatness From a literary point of view it does not seem the best approach to combine not one but two techniques of outspoken scepticism – Thornton Wilder’s multitude of voices and Marguerite Yourcenar’s letter-monologue of a diffident moribund – in order to create a unanimous tribute to an infallible history-maker. Many voices expressing one opinion, and one alone, seem a mere waste of energy. Historians will notice peculiarities of their own. In November 44 BC Octavius “encamped the army a few miles outside of Rome […] and offered his services to the Senate and the people”. Armed occupation of the urbs is reserved to Antonius who, shockingly, “defied the Constitution”. “As Antonius swaggered boisterously out of the city, Octavius came secretly in. // And we laid the plan that would give us the world.” This is not how the first march on Rome ended: the historic Octavian did occupy strategic positions inside Rome but most of his private army soon scattered; the rebel leader hastily fled northwards to regroup. Octavius’ ‘secret return’ is fictitious and his alliance with the Republican part of the Senate was negotiated from a safe distance. 31 What Williams ascribes to his Octavius is precisely what Octavian lacked in that situation: respect for the Republic and success. The second attempt, in August 43 BC, is an act of self-defence because Cicero and the Senate plan to murder Octavius or have him destroyed “by the consular armies” (which happened to be under Octavian’s own command) in collusion with Brutus and Cassius. “Octavius encamped his army outside the city […]. It was over in two days, and not a drop of Roman blood was spilled.” There is bloodshed once the proscriptions start, but they are the sole and exclusive idea of Antonius. Octavius does not add a single name to the death list. “[I]t is true that the prosecution of the affair did get rather badly out of hand”, Maecenas sighs. “In the matter of passion, whether of love or war, excess is inevitable.” It is no use discussing “the pitiless demands of necessity […]. And necessity is simply what has happened; it is the past.” Kind-hearted Octavian even sends an anonymous warning to Cicero. 32 In the case of the proscriptions Williams could refer to a pro-Augustan tradition, but mostly he is forced to create his own versions. The fate of Q. Salvidienus Rufus is quite instructive. Salvidienus initially belongs to the ‘happy few’ who counsel and assist Octavius from the beginning. Yet as a fervent Caesarian he resents the tactical alliance with Decimus Brutus against Antonius; Octavius “is no longer the friend we had in Apollonia.” Sometime during 31 Salvidienus: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 23; “encamped…”: p. 49; “defied the…”: p. 51; “As Antonius…”: p. 52. Actual course of events: KIENAST (²1992), p. 25-27. 32 “By the consular armies”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 63; “Octavius encamped…”: p. 64. Antonius responsible: p. 69-70, cf. SUET., Aug. 27. “[I]t is true…”, “In the matter…”, “the pitiless…”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 70. Letter of warning: p. 74, cf. 283 (a statement of the obvious identity for unattentive readers).

AUGUSTUS AS A LITERARY HERO

513

43 BC Salvidienus offers himself and his legions to Antonius, who in his turn reveals that betrayal at the conference of Bononia – out of cruel curiosity how Octavius will take the news. With eyes “like blue fire” Octavius rejects the suggestion to proscribe his companion but breaks off their friendship; when receiving that letter Salvidienus commits suicide. His last words testify that life without that friendship is meaningless; the preceding remark that he has “put away my boyhood” suggest his determination to punish himself like… a man. 33 Octavian’s letter is a loan from the disgrace of Cornelius Gallus in 27 or 26 BC. The death of Salvidienus occurred not in 43 but in 40 BC; the secret offer of desertion, truth or not, concerned the bellum Perusinum. Far from being just deeply disappointed, Octavian prosecuted Salvidienus in the Senate whose survivors obediently passed a death sentence; most sources state that Salvidienus was executed while Livy alone spoke of suicide. 34 It would have been possible to present Salvidienus just as treacherous in 40 BC. Yet apparently Williams did not want a leading general who hedged his bets in a critical situation. The treachery of 43 is displayed as a break of the absolute confidence between Octavius and his friends, an act of weakness to boot. Some pity for the repentant Salvidienus is intended, yet the lion’s share of our sympathies is to be reserved for Octavius himself, unwilling to repay even treachery by cruelty. Once again Williams makes Augustus prompt us the right judgment: “my need of friendship increased to the degree that I refused it. And I believe that my friends – Maecenas, Agrippa, Salvidienus Rufus – never could fully understand that need.” 35 The rearrangement intensifies Augustus’ magnani-mity and loneliness at the same time. The events around Ovid’s banishment are rewritten in a similar way. Under the spell of Augustus’ dissolute daughter Julia and her entourage the poet proclaims, in shockingly bad near-verse, the dawn of “a new season” of careless happiness while “the old Gods”, Augustus and his aging lieutenants, are dismissed as bores and killjoys – another moral betrayal since the princeps had kindly received the young talent. After “Ovid’s involvement in an intrigue that threatened to disturb the order of the state” Augustus feels hurt by the only poet “whom I could not fully trust. And yet I was fond of him, and remain so.” Therefore he “made the banishment as light as possible” and has the intention to recall Ovid “soon”. Ovid’s death in exile – not mentioned in the novel but evidently assumed to be a known fact – is consequently the fault of Tiberius. 36 33 Salvidienus on March 44 BC: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 19-26. “Is no longer…”: p. 54. Antonius uncovers betrayal: p. 71-73; “like blue fire”: p. 72; suicide of Salvidienus: p. 73-74. 34 Execution of Salvidienus: SUET., Aug. 66.1-2; APP., Ciu. 5.278-9; CASS. DIO 49.33, 1-3 (mentions supplicatio); suicide: LIV., Per. 127. 35 “My need of friendship”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 284. 36 “A new season”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 230 (cf. 238); Ovid meets Augustus: p. 220-224. “Ovid’s involvement…”, “I made the banishment…”, “soon”: p. 294.

514

JÖRG FÜNDLING

That reference to an “intrigue” uncovered “[a] few years ago” is the only novelistic trace of the events in AD 8, culminating in the exile of Julia Minor, granddaughter of the princeps. She is conspicuously absent from Augustus. So is Agrippa Postumus. An innocent motive might be that Williams wished to keep the list of dramatis personae small and to skip events between 2 BC and AD 14. Yet it seems more reasonable to suppose that Williams was unhappy about the fact that Augustus made quite a habit of banishing his descendants. He prefers that his uncanny father banished Julia (Maior) only because he saw no other way to save her life. 37 Julia’s trajectory dominates the second book of Williams’ novel, right from its sentimental beginning: “I had only a daughter, and Rome. […] I must order the Senate to take from me that which I have loved most in this life.” Most of Julia’s story is told by herself in the form of a diary, overflowing with remorse and belated insights. Despite her cold stepmother Livia, Julia makes breathtaking progress in rhetoric and literature. Augustus marries her to Marcellus, “cold and ambitious”; Williams admits that she is used as a political pawn but a selection of “touching” (and fictitious) examples of her father’s love prepares the brash contention that Augustus has done this only “to insure my future” because he expects his near death. We are given to understand that no sex at all takes place, an absurdity introduced by Williams to justify the fact, by no means an unusual event in Roman marriage, that the bride “was fourteen years of age”. 38 Livia demands both the succession and Julia for her son Tiberius who “discovered in all others those vices he would not recognize in himself”, as soon as Marcellus is dead; Augustus declines. As Williams tells it, the princeps is most considerate to choose Agrippa as Julia’s second husband. 39 Yet Julia starts growing rebellious because she discovers the addictive effects of being, “except for Livia herself, the most powerful woman in the world”. Unlike her father she resents her public “duty without reward”. Her behaviour is in explicit contrast to that of her aunt Octavia, “very gentle and without guile”, who dutifully submits to her brother’s demand and marries Antonius as soon as she is told: “It is for Rome.” Even after that humiliating match has failed, Octavia continues to play her dynastic role until her strength gives out after the early death of her son Marcellus. As she writes to Augustus, she can no longer live in “that world in which you must live” after seventeen years of self-sacrifice and implores him to be spared yet another marriage but accepts “A few years ago”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 294. “I had only…”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 150. Progress: p. 168. Marcellus “cold…”: p. 180; Horace on treatment of Julia: p. 173-174; “to insure my future”: p. 180. “Was fourteen…”: p. 176. 39 Livia falling out with Augustus: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 186-190; “discovered…”: p. 197. 37 38

AUGUSTUS AS A LITERARY HERO

515

his plan that Agrippa must divorce Octavia’s daughter Marcella in favour of Julia. 40 Julia’s decision to accompany Agrippa to the East in 17 BC is originally a mere whim. When Augustus disagrees she shocks him into acceptance by calling herself a “prostitute”, either offered to Agrippa or to the Empire as a whole (which would make Augustus the pimp). Near Troy she is involved in the rites of a “secret cult” dedicated to “a goddess whose name […] is unknown” but is obviously Cybele. This involves a three-day ceremony of hieros gamos with a fur-clad boy; “it is said that the goddess uses her victim in whatever way pleases her”. The trashy implication of an orgy, or a belated sexual awakening (in former years her body had been “told that it had no rights”), marks a profound change: for a passing moment Julia “had been a goddess”. She can never forget “Ilium and Lesbos, where once I had been more than a mortal”. Thus she proves the weaker vessel, compared with both her long-suffering aunt and her father. 41 The return to Rome is followed by a steady decline. First comes a Gatsbyesque series of parties in the house of “the libertine” Sempronius Gracchus. Her father sadly recognizes her as the symbol of a new generation of “young people” with a zest for easy life. An element of guilt is added by Julia’s decision not to join the homecoming Agrippa at Brundisium. “Your duty is to your husband”, Augustus reminds her. “And to you, and to your cause, and to Rome”, Julia retorts. Agrippa dies without her comfort, however “kind to me” he was. Condign punishment follows when she is handed on to Tiberius. Augustus is apologetic, given the candidate’s “cruelty”. Julia resents his decision if not Augustus himself: “[T]his Rome that you have saved, this Rome that you have built […]. Has it been worth all that you have had to do?” To which the poor princeps answers: “I must believe that it has […]. We both must believe that it has.” 42 Belief is too little for Julia. Soon Tiberius, away in the North, is informed that she has a multitude of short-term lovers; Julia herself remembers only “Except for Livia…”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 206; “duty without reward”: p. 207. Octavia “very gentle…”: p. 97-98; O. and Julia, “It is for Rome”: p. 98. This scene, too, seems to owe much to The Fall of The Roman Empire: Lucilla, just like Octavia, is ready to marry King Sohaemus of Armenia. Marcus Aurelius confesses how much it pains him to ask her that, but Sohaemus is of vital importance as a Roman ally. “Therefore it must be done” (The Fall… [n. 27], 50:56). Octavia’s letter: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 182-185; “that world…”, permission: p. 184. 41 Julia a “prostitute”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 208. “Secret cult…”: p. 213; “it is said that…”: p. 214; “told that it had…”: p. 256; “had been a goddess…”: p. 216. “Ilium and Lesbos…”: p. 227. 42 Gracchus and his parties: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 218; 225-229; “the libertine”: p. 226. “I cannot remember…”: p. 257. “Young people”: p. 227; cf. 245 (Piso). “Your duty is…”, “And to you…”: p. 226. Agrippa “kind”: p. 229. Tiberius’ “cruelty”, “If it were…”: p. 236. “This Rome…”, “I must believe…”: p. 237. 40

516

JÖRG FÜNDLING

those four partners who play a more permanent role. Her hunting-grounds are mixed baths of the capital “whose existence I had never dreamed of”. Friends like the insipid Claudia Marcella encourage her lifestyle. Livia forces Tiberius to give his wife time “to bring disgrace upon herself”. Meanwhile Nicolaus, now Augustus’ confidant, is afraid that Julia might bring about “the death of his soul”. 43 Williams may intend his readers to classify Julia from now on as the “prostitute” she once called herself. The critical stage is reached in 4 BC when Julia gives up casual sex for an amour fou with Jullus Antonius, the ambitious son of the triumvir (and Marcella’s husband). Here she finds “ultimate pleasure”. While all her other lovers were eager to dance to Julia’s tune, Jullus announces that she will either be exclusively his or nothing will happen. Julia obeys. The few sentences on their relationship allow every interpretation from true romance to sexual dependence. Augustus is informed “and I think, almost, he was happy for me”. 44 In 2 BC Jullus conspires against the life of Tiberius, then on Rhodes. A secret agent is about to carry the news there, and Tiberius is certain to use the opportunity to supplant or kill Augustus and to execute Julia. But the princeps steals a march on Tiberius: he kills or banishes the conspirators. 45 When Julia is brought before her father she half-admits her connivance regarding the death of Tiberius but is horrified when Augustus discloses that his own life has also been at stake. He must banish her for life in order to prevent civil war as well as Julia’s execution: “I could not endure knowing that I had allowed you to die before your time. […] It is the only way to save you and Rome.” When Julia hears that Jullus is dead she is too devastated to say goodbye to Augustus who is, one last time, deeply hurt. 46 Williams’ melodramatic scenario collides with our evidence: Tiberius, sidelined on Rhodes in favour of Gaius and Lucius Caesar, was in no position to feel safe, still less to march on Rome. This is why the novel never mentions the young Caesares except in a passing remark; to reveal their predominance would cast Julia’s banishment in all its unsavoury light. As it stands, all-forgiving Augustus exerts himself even further. Julia must have known that neither he nor Rome could have survived the Jullus conspiracy. “The first I might have allowed; the second I could not.” The major offender is someone else, though: “I cannot bring myself to do other than despise Tiberius.” And yet Augustus 43 Exposure: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 239-241. Baths “whose existence…”: p. 255; cf. 268. Marcella: p. 242-243. “To bring disgrace…”: p. 242. “The death of his soul”: p. 249. 44 “Ultimate pleasure”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 257. Julia’s courtship of Jullus: p. 259263; “and I think…”: p. 268. 45 Julia’s hatred of Tiberius: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 266, 270. Planned coup: p. 265, 271. Letter of warning to Augustus: p. 264-266. 46 Augustus interrogates Julia: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 270-271; “I could not…”: p. 271. No proper farewell: p. 272.

AUGUSTUS AS A LITERARY HERO

517

will make that man his successor: “cruelty in an Emperor is a lesser fault than weakness or foolishness”. 47 5. Conclusion Books lie. They may even lie with the best of intentions – for instance, to achieve consistency and logic in a contradictory situation. So far the opinion of Marguerite Yourcenar, pronounced by Hadrian, arguably the most ambiguous emperor: “Je m’accommoderai fort mal d’un monde sans livres, mais la réalité n’est pas là, parce qu’elle n’y tient pas toute entière.” John Williams intends to justify the life, plans, thoughts and actions of Imperator Caesar Augustus without exception. Foresight and abilities of that man exceed the range of human failure; near his end Augustus admits that he sometimes envies poets for their abilities… but to his comfort and utmost contention “the world was my poem”. 48 It is not quite explicable why Williams opted for undiluted hero-worship. The princeps he created is oscillating between smugness and obtrusive appeals to the reader’s pity. Everyone else in the novel is a mere backdrop; critics are idiots or villains, or possibly both. The result makes for a very simple story. Strangely enough, Williams decides on not one but two sophisticated methods to tell it. Thornton Wilder’s The Ides of March provided him with the pseudodocumentary pattern for his Books 1 and 2; but Wilder chose that technique to create layers of irony and doubt – to show Caesar in constant dialogue with his shadow and his critics. Marguerite Yourcenar’s Mémoires d’Hadrien is the elephant in the room of Book 3: an emperor near death, autobiography and Rome’s anticipated future, all the essentials are taken over. A considerable number of themes from the older work recur but are wristed away from the sceptical attitude of Yourcenar’s Hadrian who had, by the author’s full intention, ample opportunity to prove less than perfect. To use not one but two narrative modes successfully against their original design would have called for a great novelist indeed. From the historian’s point of view Williams resorts to painfully many omissions and distortions. There is no such thing as an upper limit of bias or inaccuracy in a historical novel, provided that it works – as a novel. Yet the suppression of unpalatable details, the disavowal of atrocities, and the disappearances of key persons do add up to a puzzling picture. The Augustus of history is 47

Gaius and Lucius: “dies in the service of Rome” (WILLIAMS [2003], p. 308). For an overview of the situation, see LEVICK (1972), p. 779-813; EAD. (1976), p. 36-46. To quote SYME (1939), p. 425: “The whole episode is mysterious.” “The first I might…”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 307; “I cannot bring…”, “cruelty…”: p. 308. 48 YOURCENAR (1974), p. 31 (tr. YOURCENAR [2005], p. 22). “The world…”: WILLIAMS (2003), p. 295.

518

JÖRG FÜNDLING

woefully incomplete without the stories of frequent adultery, the alleged answer moriendum est when he was begged for mercy, or the anecdote about a morning of non-stop death sentences. 49 A book that reads as if Syme’s The Roman Revolution had never been written is just slightly irritating; a book that denies what Augustan flaws even fervent monarchists always admitted is at best hypocritical. Williams himself claimed that, “if there are truths in this work, they are the truths of fiction rather than of history.” This may be considered a backdoor. At any rate Augustus is a book about what values and personal qualities its author cherished at the time of writing; if Williams had wanted to question the strongman image he strives to create, he had included some credible opposition. As it stands, Augustus extols the larger-than-human Great Man far above lesser people. He offers up his life to the Roman state and society; in a not too subtle move Williams equates the princeps with a sacrificial ox – they even share the same blue eyes. 50 To shed less blood and to show less strictness is described as a temptation to decadence and effeminacy. To the farsighted man women ought to submit, such as the dutiful Octavia. In the case of Julia, condemned out of her own mouth, the wish for a self-determined life combines with vanity and indiscriminate sexual appetite. That set of convictions can hardly be blamed on the social realities of the Principate. Recent novelists of Roman antiquity opt for a critical view on the first emperor, however passing a glance they cast on him; nowhere more so than in I, Virgil, an autobiographical novel of the poet by David Wishart (b.1952). “The August ruler of the Roman world is a calculating, ruthless, cowardly, hypocritical opportunist with as much moral firmness as a weathercock.” As the story unfolds it proves very suitable to confirm that view. I have only one fear remaining […]: that you, my reader (if indeed you exist!) are still blinded by the glamour of the Augustan myth. If so, then I have failed, finally and for ever. Octavian may bring in the Golden Age after all (and I pray that he does!), or he may be leading us down yet another of history’s blind, blood-spattered alleyways. I do not know, but it makes no difference: he is a great man, and he is great because he is flawed, not because he is perfect. Understand that, and you will understand my poem. 51

Who looks for close relatives to Williams’ plea for unconditional trust in Augustus may turn to the monarchist German historian Alfred von Domaszewski.

Adultery: SUET., Aug. 69.1; 71.1. Moriendum…: SUET., Aug. 15. Series of death sentences (and disgusted reaction of Maecenas): CASS. DIO 55.7,2. 50 WILLIAMS (2003), p. 1. Ox: p. 311. 51 Critics of Augustus and his age: e.g. ROBERTS (1991 [repr. 2001]), p. 2; DAVIS (1997), p. 13. The novel was written ca. 1985-1988, before Lindsey Davis’ Falco series. “The August ruler…”: WISHART (1995), p. 9; “I have only one fear…”: p. 336-337. 49

AUGUSTUS AS A LITERARY HERO

519

His widespread History of the Principate anticipates the positions of Augustus the novel, that odd contemporary of Watergate, with uncanny comprehensiveness. Unvergänglich bis in unsere Tage wirkt sein edler Geist in der Ewigkeit des großen Roms, dem sein ganzes Leben geweiht war. Alles hatte er dahin gegeben, um sein Volk zu erhöhen, in der Stunde der Entscheidung niemals schwankend, sein eigenes Glück, das Glück derer, die ihm teurer waren als das Leben, dem Wohle des Staates aufzuopfern. Geheimnisvoll wie die Natur an ihren Werken schafft, erscheint sein eigenes Wirken, blöden Augen ewig unverständlich. […] Und jene, die als Fremde im Reiche der Römer standen, als sie auf dem untergehenden Rom ihre eigene Herrschaft errichteten, haben ihr kümmerliches Reich aufgebaut mit den Gedanken, die der große Augustus in seiner Weisheit für geeignet hielt, diese Ewighörigen im Gehorsam zu halten. 52

This was a backward statement when published in 1909, even from a Prussian professor. John Williams would have done better to heed the advice of Horace on ill-timed or inept flatteries of Augustus: cui male si palpere, recalcitrat undique tutus. 53 The princeps who could kick like a horse when the eulogists of his age overdid it can certainly dispense with belated panegyrics. Bibliography The Sopranos (2011), Warner Bros (Hamburg), 4-DVD edition, Disc 2, Serial No. 1000239005. The Fall of the Roman Empire: Der Untergang des Römischen Reiches (2009), Spirit Media / Koch Media, 2-disc DVD deluxe edition, Disc 1, Serial No. DVM020026D. BLEICKEN, J. (2000), Augustus. Eine Biographie, Berlin. BIRLEY, A. R. (1997), Hadrian: The Restless Emperor, London. BRUGGISSER, Ph. (1997), « Patience  » d’un impatient  : Hadrien à l’approche de la mort, de l’Histoire Auguste à Marguerite Yourcenar, in G. BONAMENTE / K. ROSEN (eds.), Historiae Augustae Colloquium Bonnense, Bari (Munera no. 9 ; Historiae Augustae Colloquia, nova series 5), p. 39-70. CLAY, D. (2009), Marcus Aurelius: The Empire Over Himself, in M. M. WINKLER (ed.), The Fall of the Roman Empire. Film and History, Chichester, p. 89-101. DAHLHEIM, W. (2010), Augustus. Aufrührer, Herrscher, Heiland, Munich. DAVIS, L. (1997), The Course of Honour, London. DOMASZEWSKI, A. V. (1909), Geschichte der römischen Kaiser. Erster Band, Leipzig. DOMASZEWSKI (1909), p. 248. (“Imperishable up to the present day, his noble mind acts in that great eternal Rome he dedicated all his life to. Everything he had abandoned to exalt his people, never hesitant to sacrifice his own happiness, and the happiness of those dearer to him than his life, to public welfare in the moment of decision. Mysterious as Nature’s works his own work appears, forever incomprehensible to jaundiced eyes. […] And even they who were strangers in the Empire of the Romans, when founding their own rule on sinking Rome, built their paltry realm but from those thoughts that great Augustus in his wisdom saw fit to keep those eternal serfs obedient.” Translation J. F.). 53 HOR., Serm. 2.1.20. 52

520

JÖRG FÜNDLING

DRIJVERS, J. W. (2009), East and West in The Fall of the Roman Empire, in M. M. WINKLER (ed.), The Fall of the Roman Empire. Film and History, Chichester, p. 117-129. FORBES, S. / PREVAS, J. (2009), Power, Ambition, Glory: The Stunning Parallels Between Great Leaders of the Ancient World and Today… and the Lessons You Can Learn, New York. GALINSKY, K. (2012), Augustus: Introduction to the Life of an Emperor, Cambridge. GRADEL, I. (2002), Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, Oxford. KIENAST, D. (²1992), Augustus. Prinzeps und Monarch, Darmstadt. KORNEMANN, E. (41960 [1st ed. 1938]), Römische Geschichte. Erster Band: Die Zeit der Republik, Stuttgart. KORNEMANN, E. (51963 [1st ed. 1939]), Römische Geschichte. Zweiter Band: Die Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart. LEVICK, B. (1972), Tiberius’ Retirement to Rhodes in 6 B.C., in Latomus 25, p. 779-813. LEVICK, B. (1976), Tiberius the Politician, London. MCGAHERN, J. (2003), Introduction, in J. WILLIAMS, Augustus: A Novel, London, p. viixiii. ROBERTS, J. M. (1991 [repr. 2001]), The Catiline Conspiracy, New York (SPQR II). SONNABEND, H. (2013), August 14. Der Tod des Kaisers Augustus, Darmstadt. SYME, R. (1939), The Roman Revolution, Oxford. SYME, R. (1991), Fictional History Old and New: Hadrian, in ID., Roman Papers VII (ed. A. R. BIRLEY), Oxford, p. 157-181. WHITTINGTON, H. (1964), The Fall of the Roman Empire, Robbinsdale, Minn. WILLIAMS, J. (1972 [2003]), Augustus: A Novel, New York [London]. WISHART, D. (1995), I, Virgil, London. YOURCENAR, M. (1954) (1963 [2005]), Memoirs of Hadrian (transl. G. FRICK), New York [New York]. YOURCENAR, M. (1958 [1974]), Mémoires d’Hadrien, suivi de Carnets de notes des Mémoires d’Hadrien, Paris.

« Pourvu qu’Octave ne se prenne pas désormais pour un phénomène ! » De l’adolescence d’Octave dans Alix à la vieillesse d’Auguste dans Alix Senator JULIE GALLEGO (Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour)*

Abstract Thanks to the story of the flying eagle in Martin’s Le Tombeau étrusque, Augustus, still named Octavian, first appears in a Franco-Belgian comic. Indeed, Jupiter seems to announce to both the Roman people and the readers that an exceptional destiny has been decided for this young child. So, in the Alix series, when the young Octavian from the Republican era appears, it is essentially to let the reader see the implied future Augustus from the Empire. The character is portrayed in his youth as he will be later in old age: smart, proud, confident, not lacking in feelings but always trying to hide them. To be plausible for the readers, he needs to be in harmony with his future nature, even if historical truth is more complex. And yet, cracks appear in the positive image of the emperor in Alix Senator. In Mangin and Démarez’s sequel, he seems to be above all a political animal, pragmatic, calculating and manipulative, but also himself manipulated, as a child, by Caesar, insofar as the flying eagle was probably a show directed by his great-uncle with a tame bird, to give more legitimity to Octavian, chosen as his successor. Even if the Suetonian hypotext is still present, the literary influence is rather less important than the authors’ desire to embed the plot in History. As for OctavianAugustus, the authors insist more on the chronology and on archaeological knowledge even if, because it is fictional writing, they do not hesitate to take liberties with reality if it serves the plot.

1. Introduction C’est une séquence initiale marquante pour tout lecteur de la bande dessinée Alix  : le prodige de l’aigle jupitérien du Tombeau étrusque désignant « le maître du monde » en la personne du jeune Octave. Du portrait de l’empereur

* Nous remercions le comité Martin, Valérie Mangin et les éditions Casterman, pour nous avoir autorisée à reproduire gracieusement les images présentes dans cet article. Pour les images du catalogue Glénat, nous renvoyons à l’ouvrage originel de Gilles Chaillet.

522

JULIE GALLEGO

Auguste par Suétone, Martin a retenu cette anecdote hagiographique, pour montrer, dans une série se déroulant sous César, le destin qui attend le jeune compagnon du héros Alix, en insufflant à son personnage quelques traits de caractère faisant écho à sa grandeur future. Cependant, la valeur prophétique de l’incipit de cet album est altérée dans Alix Senator, la série récente qui en est dérivée, et ce en cohérence avec « l’ère du soupçon » initiée par Martin luimême dans Le Spectre de Carthage, où une autre attaque de l’aigle était présentée par un ennemi d’Alix et d’Octave comme une vengeance humaine. Si la série Alix s’en tient malgré tout à l’image traditionnelle et exclusivement positive du futur premier empereur romain, tout autre apparaît Auguste dans le spin-off de Valérie Mangin et Thierry Démarez. Peut-être parce que la scénariste a un parcours d’historienne et que le contexte éditorial et culturel est différent, avec un retour au premier plan de l’Antiquité romaine grâce au succès, par exemple, de Gladiator au cinéma, de Rome à la télévision et de Murena 1 en bande dessinée, redonnant au péplum une visibilité et une reconnaissance qui lui faisait parfois défaut. L’histoire de la série Alix Senator, créée presque cinquante ans plus tard, se déroule trente ans après celle de la série originelle : il ne s’agit donc plus du jeune Octave mais d’un Auguste vieillissant, manipulateur, pragmatique, menteur si besoin, mais auquel Alix est resté fidèle. Notre propos s’articulera en trois parties : la première sera consacrée à l’étude des variations et des enjeux de la mise en images et en mots du présage suétonien de l’aigle dans plusieurs bandes dessinées, formant un réseau iconique et sémique (d’Alix à Alix Senator, en passant par La Dernière Prophétie) ; la deuxième et la troisième parties porteront sur la représentation plus globale d’Octave dans la série Alix et d’Auguste dans Alix Senator, avec une ouverture sur deux autres séries où l’empereur est présent, Le Dernier Troyen et Les Aigles de Rome. 2. Présage de la grandeur d’Auguste : quand l’aigle de Suétone traverse le temps et la bande dessinée Dans cette première partie, nous nous intéresserons à un extrait de Suétone consacré à Auguste, qui est transposé à plusieurs reprises dans la bande dessinée historique et qui s’inscrit même comme fragment mémoriel dans l’histoire de la bande dessinée. 2.1. Les multiples présages de la grandeur d’Auguste chez Suétone Suétone évoque, à la fin de la Vie d’Auguste, « les présages qui, soit avant sa naissance, soit le jour même où il naquit, soit par la suite, firent prévoir et

1

Voir GALLEGO (2012a).

OCTAVE DANS ALIX, AUGUSTE DANS ALIX SENATOR

523

révélèrent sa grandeur future et son bonheur constant » 2. On lit ensuite un catalogue de prodiges, notamment son pseudo-enfantement par Apollon – qu’il prendra plus tard comme protecteur 3 – en raison de la marque en forme de serpent sur la peau de sa mère Atia 4, ou encore le rêve de son père qui croit voir d’abord des rayons de soleil sortir du sein de sa femme enceinte, puis son fils, « doué d’une grandeur surhumaine, portant le foudre, le sceptre et les attributs de Jupiter Très Bon et Très Grand, ainsi qu’une couronne de rayons, sur un char couvert de lauriers, que traînaient douze chevaux d’une éclatante blancheur » 5. Selon Jacqueline Champeaux, […] ces flamboyances surnaturelles, annonciatrices de royauté, gages sacrés de la protection divine […] sont le signe visible du charisme monarchique. Dès lors, les listes composites de signa, σημεῖα, omina imperii, envoyés à l’homme prédestiné, s’imposent dans les sphères du pouvoir, dès le fondateur du principat et modèle 2

 Et quoniam ad haec uentum est, non ab re fuerit subtexere, quae ei prius quam nasceretur et ipso natali die ac deinceps euenerint, quibus futura magnitudo eius et perpetua felicitas sperari animaduertique posset. (SUET., Aug. 94.1, traduction AILLOUD). 3 Il est fait mention de cette supposée filiation divine dans MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2015), Les Démons de Sparte (p. 9, case 1), ainsi que du choix d’Apollon comme protecteur (p. 8, case 6). Selon le personnage fictionnel de Numa Sadulus, Auguste a voulu « rassembler tous les livres sibyllins de l’empire dans le temple d’Apollon Palatin, à Rome » (p. 7, case 1). La scénariste Valérie Mangin suit ici vraisemblablement COSME (2005), p. 142-143 : « Pour bien signifier sa prééminence, Auguste fit transférer en 28 dans son sanctuaire [i.e. d’Apollon] les Livres sibyllins, ce recueil de prophéties que le sénat consultait quand il le jugeait nécessaire. » L’empereur fit même procéder à une révision des Livres – pour distinguer ce qui semblait véridique (et donc à garder) de ce qui était apocryphe (et donc à brûler) – avant de les faire enfermer dans le socle de la statue du dieu : « ainsi rendait-il son bien à l’inspirateur des devins, tout en en assurant lui-même la surveillance. » (NÉRAUDAU [1996], p. 332). 4 Sur la filiation divine avec Apollon (également présente dans les récits des présages de grandeur d’Alexandre le Grand et Seleucus) et son utilisation politique, voir ENGELS (2007) et ID. (2010), p. 172 et 177 : « The divine siring of Octavian by Apollo, the birthmarks, the flame oracle, the attempted child-murder, the prophecy of coming king – all these prodigies can be neither explained completely by the imitatio Alexandri nor with references to the Egyptian context alone, but manifest surprising similarities with many prodigious stories concerning Seleucus I. […] The Seleucus-imitatio thus helped Octavian to legitimate his position in Rome and Italy as Caesar’s heir by parallelizing it with the Diadochoi’s succession to Alexander, to win support in the ancient Seleucid territories against the Ptolemaic menace, and to gain sympathy in the Levante to prevent the eventual alignment of cities and client states with the Partians, whilst the Apollo cult permitted Octavian not only to oppose ‘Western’ order to ‘Eastern’ chaos, creating thus an ideal intersection between Latin and Hellenistic religiosity, but also to imitate Seleucus in his propaganda which was addressed to an Eastern public ». 5 […] uidere uisus est filium mortali specie ampliorem cum fulmine et sceptro exuuiisque Iouis Optimi Maximi ac radiata corona super laureatum currum, bis senis equis candore eximio trahentibus. (SUET., Aug. 94.8, traduction AILLOUD). Voir aussi DION CASSIUS, Hist. rom. 45.1-2.

524

JULIE GALLEGO

des princes, dès le règne du Diui filius, lui-même futur diuus  : Auguste. Les signes de toute sorte, songes, présages, oracles, prodiges, s’accumulent sur les princes, scrupuleusement notés par leurs biographes, Suétone ou le rédacteur de l’Histoire Auguste, signes d’avènement, signes de mort et, plus généralement, signes de toute une vie auxquels ils ne cessent eux-mêmes de prêter une attention quasi obsessionnelle 6.

Un tel catalogue de prodiges augustéens peut donc fournir une matière intéressante, propre à frapper l’esprit du lecteur, pour tout scénariste désireux de marquer d’un sceau divin la jeunesse du futur empereur qu’il entreprendrait d’évoquer. 2.2. Le vol originel de l’aigle par Martin dans Le Tombeau étrusque Jacques Martin souhaitait raconter un pan de la jeunesse d’Octave dans Le Tombeau étrusque 7. Ainsi, dans la liste des présages de la grandeur d’Auguste, il en sélectionne un qui tient en une courte phrase : « Pendant qu’il déjeunait dans un bois, vers la quatrième borne de la voie campanienne, un aigle vint subitement lui arracher le morceau de pain qu’il tenait, puis, après s’être envolé bien haut, redescendit tout à coup, doucement, et le lui rendit » 8. Dans les paragraphes suivants, deux autres présages associent des rapaces à Auguste : d’abord des vautours 9, puis des aigles 10. Martin a retenu le présage situé dans CHAMPEAUX (2005), p. 219. Voir MARIE (2015). 8 Ad quartum lapidem Campanae uiae in nemore prandenti ex inprouiso aquila panem ei e manu rapuit et, cum altissime euolasset, rursus ex inprouiso leniter delapsa reddidit. (SUET., Aug. 94.11 traduction AILLOUD). Voir aussi DION CASSIUS, Hist. rom. 45.2, qui suit Suétone : τότε μὲν δὴ ταῦτ´ ἐλέχθη, τρεφομένου δὲ ἐν ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ ἀετὸς ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτοῦ ἐξαρπάσας ἄρτον ἐμετεωρίσθη καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο καταπτόμενος ἀπέδωκεν αὐτόν. « Puis, pendant qu’Octave était en nourrice à la campagne, un aigle lui arracha un pain qu’il tenait dans ses mains et s’envola, puis il s’abattit et le lui rendit. » (traduction FROMENTIN / BERTRAND ECANVIL). Selon COSME (2005), p. 16, Suétone et Dion Cassius « qui ont écrit bien après la mort d’Auguste ont probablement repris des récits qui commencèrent à circuler du vivant de César et juste après son assassinat. Ils entendaient ainsi justifier le choix d’Octave comme héritier par le dictateur et soutenir les revendications du futur Auguste face aux autres prétendants à la succession. » Pour un autre présage du même type, on peut aussi penser à l’aigle qui enlève sa coiffe au futur roi Tarquin l’Ancien et la lui remet (LIV., Hist. rom. 1.34.8). 9 Primo autem consulatu et augurium capienti duodecim se uultures ut Romulo ostenderunt […]. « Durant son consulat, quand il prenait les augures, douze vautours se montrèrent à lui, comme (autrefois) à Romulus […]. » (SUET., Aug. 95.2). L’anecdote est aussi chez DION CASSIUS (Hist. rom. 46.46), qui évoque, pour sa part, six puis douze vautours. 10 Contractis ad Bononiam triumuirorum copiis, aquila tentorio eius supersedens duos coruos hinc et inde infestantis afflixit et ad terram dedit, notante omni exercitu futuram quandoque inter collegas discordiam talem qualis secuta est, atque exitum 6 7

OCTAVE DANS ALIX, AUGUSTE DANS ALIX SENATOR

525

l’enfance du futur empereur et cela deviendra l’une des séquences marquantes de la série (Fig. 1). Le premier prodige de l’aigle est mis en scène entre la deuxième et la quatrième planche. Lucius Valerius Sinner, un sénateur en déplacement sur la via Aurelia croise la route d’Alix (le héros de la série, ami de César), de son éternel compagnon Enak et d’un adolescent qui apparaît pour la première fois dans la série, Octave. Deux répliques des cases précédentes ont ancré l’épisode dans la période de la guerre civile entre César et Pompée, tout comme la case 5 avec la bulle de parole de Valerius Sinner, qui évoque les grands dangers que courent les jeunes gens en parcourant sans escorte armée la campagne romaine. Octave prend alors la parole pour expliquer au personnage (et au lecteur) les raisons du voyage : aller chercher sa sœur Lidia à Tarquini, sur ordre de César. Valerius Sinner insiste pour leur fournir une protection, en une bulle dont le locuteur est en hors-champ, afin que le lecteur prête attention à l’essentiel, le dessin de l’aigle surgissant de nulle part : la planche s’arrête, à la dixième case, sur le suspense traditionnel impliqué par l’écriture de la BD en prépublication. Et ce n’est pas de Pompée que vient le danger mais d’un aigle fondant sur les trois amis. Suétone situe la scène sur la via Campana et nul témoin n’est évoqué. Alors Jacques Martin les imagine en intégrant des personnages fictionnels qui auront des rôles divers face à ce prodige : à Valerius Sinner celui de reconnaître pleinement un message divin dans l’acte étonnant de cet aigle, à Alix celui de se poser ensuite quelques questions sur l’interprétation rationnelle à donner à la scène. Valerius Sinner empêche ses hommes de tuer l’aigle lorsqu’il revient vers les jeunes gens à la case 5. La case 6 est importante pour la manière dont Octave est représenté dans Le Tombeau étrusque  : c’est un jeune homme courageux, devant qui même l’aigle de Jupiter s’incline, pour reconnaître sa future grandeur. Et l’oiseau du « dieu du ciel lumineux » repart logiquement vers le zénith, pour « se confond(re) avec le soleil », comme le souligne le sénateur dans l’avant-dernière case de la planche. C’est également lui qui emploie le mot-clé de « prodige », permettant de donner au manège de cet oiseau majestueux et dangereux un statut de phénomène religieux exceptionnel. Il déclare alors dans la dernière case que « Jupiter le Grand est venu désigner ainsi le maître du monde […], le plus grand des plus grands, […] l’aigle de la terre », comme Jupiter est « l’aigle du ciel ». Face à cette intervention divine manifestant selon lui avec éclat la protection que Jupiter accorde à Octave (et à la gens Iulia plus largement), Valerius Sinner praesagiente. « Lorsque les troupes des triumvirs étaient rassemblées à Bologne, un aigle, se perchant sur sa tente, abattit et précipita sur le sol deux corbeaux qui le harcelaient à gauche et à droite : toute l’armée en conclut que la discorde se mettrait un jour entre les trois collègues, – ce qui se vérifia par la suite –, et présagea l’issue (de leurs querelles). » (SUET., Aug. 96.1).

526

JULIE GALLEGO

Fig. 1. Alix t. 8. Le Tombeau étrusque, p. 5, Martin © Casterman 1968. Avec l’aimable autorisation des auteurs et des Éditions Casterman.

OCTAVE DANS ALIX, AUGUSTE DANS ALIX SENATOR

527

reconnaît qu’ils n’ont nul besoin de ses quelques hommes armés et les trois jeunes gens reprennent leur chemin. La nuit suivante, dans une bulle de pensée réservant au lecteur son point de vue sur l’événement extraordinaire de la journée, Alix s’interroge : « Est-ce vraiment un oracle ? … Pourvu qu’Octave ne se prenne pas désormais pour un phénomène ! … Curieux tout de même le manège de cet aigle ! … Mais dormons ! » 11 Alix, en esprit rationnel moderne, ne semble pas pleinement partager l’interprétation de Valerius Sinner et croire qu’Octave soit vraiment destiné à devenir « un phénomène » ! Nous verrons avec Alix Senator que son scepticisme avait peut-être lieu d’être… 2.3. Une adaptation exoréférentielle de l’épisode par Chaillet dans Voyage aux Enfers Les aventures du héros de La Dernière Prophétie se déroulent à la fin du IVe siècle, pendant la période d’affrontements entre païens et chrétiens, sous l’empereur Théodose (pour le tome 1). La femme de Flavien a été tuée lors d’un complot et ses enfants ont disparu. Dans sa quête, il est conduit jusqu’à la Sibylle. Après avoir bu un breuvage étrange et saisi de sa main droite le rameau d’or qui lui assure la possibilité de revenir, il accompagne la vieille femme dans une nekuia, tels Ulysse, Orphée et Énée, puis, après avoir franchi le Styx, il retrouve brièvement son Hélène désormais heureuse aux Champs Élysées. Le voyage aux Enfers, qui donne son titre au premier album de la série, se poursuit et la Sibylle annonce que « c’est à (lui), Flavien, qu’il appartient de découvrir le dessein des dieux… (que) seule la connaissance de certains faits du passé (lui) permettra d’y parvenir » 12. La scène racontée par Suétone est d’abord adaptée seulement en images, sans le moindre texte : les quatre cases correspondent alors au moment où l’aigle descend et prend le bout de pain que tenait dans ses mains un jeune garçon 13. Ce n’est qu’après avoir tourné la page que Flavien et le lecteur obtiennent des informations complémentaires : au visuel pur se substitue le récit qu’en fait la Sibylle, dont le regard perçant est mis en valeur dans une case qui occupe toute la largeur de cet excipit. Elle raconte à la fois le retour de l’aigle et l’interprétation qui en a été faite par les proches d’Octave. On pourrait d’abord penser que Gilles Chaillet se contente de reprendre l’épisode du Tombeau étrusque, qu’il ne peut ignorer puisqu’il a longtemps travaillé avec Martin lui-même (dont il était déjà lecteur dans sa jeunesse). Si l’influence martinienne ne peut être exclue, comme un hommage de l’auteur de Vasco au maître de la BD MARTIN (1968), Le Tombeau étrusque, p. 7, cases 8-9. CHAILLET (2002), Voyage aux Enfers, p. 47, cases 7-8. 13 Pour les cases de La Dernière Prophétie, on pourra se reporter à MARIE (2015), p. 158 pour consulter des reproductions en noir et blanc (reproductions en couleurs dans le portfolio final). 11 12

528

JULIE GALLEGO

historique franco-belge, on voit nettement que la source directe est d’abord Suétone. En effet, quelques cases plus loin, Flavien s’écrie : « J’avais lu l’histoire de cette prophétie dans le livre de Suétone » 14, un procédé narratif qui permet à Chaillet de donner intradiégétiquement sa source littéraire sans ajouter une note explicative qui sortirait le lecteur de la fiction. Mais Chaillet a également puisé dans Suétone le prodige qui fait suite au vol de l’aigle, celui du rêve de Catulus, mis en image dans la case suivante : Q. Catulus, pendant les deux nuits qui suivirent la dédicace du Capitole, fit les rêves que voici : durant la première, il vit Jupiter Très Bon et Très Grand faire son choix entre plusieurs enfants vêtus de la prétexte qui jouaient autour de son autel, et déposer entre les bras de l’un d’eux l’image de l’État, qu’il tenait dans sa main ; la nuit suivante, il aperçut le même enfant sur les genoux de Jupiter Capitolin, et, comme il voulait donner l’ordre de le chasser, le dieu l’en empêcha en lui faisant savoir qu’il l’élevait pour protéger l’État […] 15.

Le rêve est juste simplifié par Chaillet en raison des différentes étapes et versions retranscrites par Suétone. Cette fois, le présage d’un futur extraordinaire est intégré au passé de Rome, à un Âge d’or fini, bien loin des horreurs vécues par le personnage de Flavien dans une Rome décadente gangrénée par une violence généralisée, annonciatrice de la chute de l’Empire. 2.4. Une reprise polyréférentielle de l’épisode par Mangin et Démarez dans Alix Senator Dans la série Alix Senator, on retrouve une allusion à l’épisode de l’aigle dans sa version martinienne à la fin du premier tome. Mais c’est l’ensemble de la série qui s’écrit sous le signe de l’aigle, par influence non seulement de l’épisode originel du Tombeau étrusque mais de la réinterprétation dans Le Spectre de Carthage d’un incident qui y fait écho, lors de sa « réécriture » par un personnage fictionnel commun aux deux histoires.

CHAILLET (2002), Voyage aux Enfers, p. 48, case 3. Q. Catulus post dedicatum Capitolium duabus continuis noctibus somniauit  : prima, Iouem Optimum Maximum e praetextatis compluribus circum aram ludentibus unum secreuisse atque in eius sinum signum rei p. quod manu gestaret reposuisse  ; at insequenti, animaduertisse se in gremio Capitolini Iouis eundem puerum, quem cum detrahi iussisset, prohibitum monitu dei, tamquam is ad tutelam rei p. educaretur […]. SUET., Aug. 94.12. Une autre version du rêve est donnée par Suétone en 94.13 ; Gilles Chaillet a choisi la première, plus développée et présentant une mise en image plus immédiatement lisible dans une case d’ensemble (l’enfant, assis sur les genoux de Jupiter en 12, lui baise les doigts en 13). Dion Cassius (Hist. rom. 45.2) reprend aussi l’anecdote. 14

15

OCTAVE DANS ALIX, AUGUSTE DANS ALIX SENATOR

529

Fig. 2. Alix Senator t. 1. Les Aigles de sang, p. 48, cases 1-3, Martin-Mangin-Démarez © Casterman 2012. Avec l’aimable autorisation des auteurs et des Éditions Casterman.

2.4.1. Une remise en cause exoréférentielle de l’épisode suétonien dans Les Aigles de sang L’épisode suétonien devient un épisode mythique, mémoriel, au sein de la série-matrice Alix, ce qui explique sa réapparition dans le spin-off Alix Senator, non comme une anecdote ponctuelle mais comme un élément central de la série dérivée, et l’interprétation de cet épisode de la jeunesse d’Octave revient au premier plan, lors d’un complot contre l’empereur Auguste, à la dernière planche du premier tome, Les Aigles de sang. En effet, le premier augure fait une révélation fracassante (Fig. 2) : il annonce à l’empereur que le célèbre épisode de l’aigle, considéré par tous comme l’indication par Jupiter de l’exceptionnelle destinée à venir du jeune Octave, est en fait un spectacle monté de toutes pièces par Jules César lui-même, afin de s’assurer du prestige de son successeur, grâce à quelques aigles apprivoisés. Le discours vengeur du premier augure en hors-champ s’affiche sur une statue de Jupiter, maculée du sang qui s’écoule des serres des aigles qui viennent d’attaquer Auguste, Alix, son fils Titus et Khephren, le fils d’Enak. Le vieillard annonce à Auguste à la case 1 : « Tu n’es qu’un homme ordinaire, pas l’élu des immortels. » Puis dans les deux cases suivantes, « c’est moi qui, dans ta jeunesse, ai mis en scène les miracles qui ont fait croire que Jupiter t’avait choisi. Tout ça à la demande de César ! S’il t’avait mieux connu… Hélas, lui seul était divin! » 16. La vignette qui « réécrit » l’histoire du prodige reprend la case de Jacques Martin, en la 16

MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2012), Les Aigles de sang, p. 48, cases 1-3.

530

JULIE GALLEGO

glissant comme un flash-back au milieu des dessins de Thierry Démarez, en la modifiant légèrement pour pouvoir y insérer de plus amples explications et en la marquant d’une teinte sépia pour matérialiser la rupture temporelle. Cette case 2 est une citation iconique de la série-mère dans la série dérivée mais seul le lecteur d’Alix la reconnaîtra car rien ne la distingue de la suivante, montrant César assassiné, une création de Mangin et Démarez qui n’est pas chez Martin. 2.4.2. Le Spectre de Carthage de Martin ou « l’ère du soupçon » : vers une remise en cause endoréférentielle de l’intervention divine finale ? Le treizième album de la série n’est pas directement une reprise de l’épisode suétonien qui fait l’ouverture du Tombeau étrusque. Il est une « relecture » intradiégétique de l’épisode-miroir, l’attaque violente de l’aigle contre Brutus à la fin du huitième album, alors qu’il a été fait prisonnier pour avoir fait tuer des enfants et avoir séquestré Lidia, la sœur d’Octave. Une nouvelle fois, Valerius Sinner donne un sens religieux à cet acte violent : « Regarde, Octave, c’est l’aigle ! … Jupiter le Grand a voulu se venger lui-même ! » La réaction d’Alix, dans la même case, est plus complexe : « La justice de l’aigle a été plus rapide et plus terrible que celle des hommes » 17. Mais nul doute pour le lecteur : le « méchant » de l’histoire a été puni par Jupiter, qui a envoyé son messager accomplir une mission bien moins pacifique que celle permettant de désigner en Octave le futur maître de Rome. Pourtant, l’album Le Spectre de Carthage sème le trouble dans l’interprétation à avoir de l’épisode : Brutus, que tout le monde croyait mort, réapparaît, il est le mystérieux « spectre de Carthage » et se dévoile à Alix tel qu’il est désormais, défiguré après l’attaque de l’aigle. Il donne alors une version bien différente des faits : REGARDE, ce visage mutilé par ta faute, Alix… Souviens-toi à Tarquini… L’aigle ! Cet éclair que vous avez appelé le feu de Jupiter le Grand et qui n’était rien d’autre qu’un rapace dressé. Une farce sinistre et terrible ! … Ô lâches ! Que pouvais-je faire contre cette bête furieuse alors que j’étais enchaîné !? … 18

Rien ne viendra confirmer ou infirmer l’accusation de Brutus, qui meurt deux pages plus loin, et le lecteur restera dans le doute sur l’interprétation à apporter à cet épisode qui appartient au passé de la série : surnaturelle mais rassurante (les dieux punissent les méchants) ou naturelle mais inquiétante (les hommes sont prêts à tout pour se venger). À moins de voir une nouvelle fois l’intervention de Jupiter dans le trait de foudre qui frappe Brutus, qui se tenait en hauteur

MARTIN (1968), Le Tombeau étrusque, p. 64, case 8. MARTIN (1977), Le Spectre de Carthage, p. 64, case 8. Nous maintenons les majuscules dans la citation puisqu’elles sont un effet graphique dans la bulle. 17

18

OCTAVE DANS ALIX, AUGUSTE DANS ALIX SENATOR

531

sur une colonne, et qui meurt à la suite de son éboulement. Mais la légitimité d’Octave comme élu des dieux est entachée. Les quelques mots de Suétone sur ce prodige de l’aigle, parmi d’autres annonçant la destinée exceptionnelle du futur Auguste, ont donc marqué durablement la bande dessinée historique. 3. Le personnage d’Octave dans Alix Octave, qui se présente au préfet de Tarquini comme « Caius Octavius, fils d’Atia, la nièce de César » 19, apparaît pour la première fois dans Le Tombeau étrusque. S’il a certes un rôle moins important que Brutus, le « méchant » de l’histoire, le prodige de l’aigle lui donne dans la série un statut à part, qui explique sa réapparition dans le scénario de Roma, Roma et du Testament de César, quelques dizaines d’années plus tard. 3.1. La première apparition d’Octave et de sa sœur dans Le Tombeau étrusque Après le prodige de l’aigle, Alix, Enak et Octave ont repris leur route, afin d’aller chercher Lidia. S’arrêtant dans une ferme incendiée, ils découvrent « les restes calcinés d’un enfant » 20, ce qui provoque l’effroi et les larmes d’Enak. Son attitude est en complète opposition, dans la même case, avec celle d’Octave, qui a pourtant sensiblement le même âge. Loin de détourner le regard, Octave s’approche du cadavre et regarde attentivement les restes de l’enfant (invisibles pour le lecteur) : « Un Romain doit apprendre à demeurer insensible » affirme-t-il, le visage fermé, à Alix, qui ne partage pas son manque de sensibilité et l’idée que la guerre civile justifierait tous les crimes, et encore moins celle que tous les crimes seraient à imputer à Pompée et ses partisans : « […] un homme doit aussi s’indigner devant un crime » 21. On observe la même attitude chez Octave lorsque les trois jeunes gens découvrent des esclaves squelettiques quelques pages plus loin : délivrés par Alix, ils se ruent sur la farine, ce qu’Octave observe les bras croisés, peut-être pour « apprendre » à s’endurcir une nouvelle fois 22. On constate néanmoins, un peu plus tard, que cet « entraînement » ne semble pas pleinement porter ses fruits puisque Octave reste malgré tout un adolescent désespéré par la capture de sa sœur, qui s’est sacrifiée pour le sauver, sa main sur son visage tentant de masquer ses pleurs devant Alix et les pêcheurs 23. Revenons sur le principe revendiqué par Octave devant le cadavre de l’enfant, conforme à une idée reçue sur les Romains, déjà 19 20 21 22 23

MARTIN (1968), Le Tombeau étrusque, p. 24, case 3. Ibid., p. 7, case 1. Ibid., p. 7, case 2. Ibid., p. 11, case 10. Ibid., p. 33, case 9.

532

JULIE GALLEGO

véhiculés par certains textes antiques. Pourtant, sensiblerie et sentiments n’ont pas la même valeur : On a souvent l’impression en lisant les textes latins que les Romains traversaient la vie impassible comme des statues académiques, parce qu’ils ne cessent de condamner les passions. En réalité, il ne faut pas confondre la passion avec les sentiments ; les sentiments sont légitimes, l’indignation, l’amour, la pitié, la douleur, la volonté de vengeance, l’ambition animent violemment les Romains, poussent à agir ces gens qui loin d’être de froids calculateurs sont au contraire de grands sentimentaux. La passion est autre chose, elle asservit l’homme, c’est un mouvement qu’il ne maîtrise pas, une faim ou une lâcheté animales, qui le ronge et le conduit à la mort. La passion est une émotion, le latin dit très exactement un ‘mouvement de l’âme’, une réaction à un choc reçu de l’extérieur. […] Le sentiment est une émotion maîtrisée grâce au langage culturel du corps. C’est parce que le sentiment est à Rome une émotion maîtrisée par le langage qu’il s’extériorise violemment. Le Romain pleure, crie, tempête, s’attendrit sur lui-même et sur les autres. Il est sujet à de grands sentiments simples et forts qui se succèdent brutalement. Caractère ombrageux, susceptible comme tout homme qui vit pour l’honneur, le Romain est désarmé par l’admiration. […] Mais le Romain est cruel envers les lâches et ceux dont il pense qu’ils cherchent à le tromper 24.

Si Octave revendiquait un stoïcisme exacerbé, une ataraxie dévoyée, « au nom de Rome », Alix lui rétorque « au nom de l’Homme » une nécessaire indignation devant un tel crime. Et sa réaction n’en est pas moins romaine. En tant qu’homme de la famille, Octave avait pour mission de ramener sa sœur Lidia à Rome, sur ordre de César (sans que, de toute l’aventure, l’on ne sache vraiment pourquoi). Et si Alix redoutait qu’« Octave ne se prenne désormais pour un phénomène » 25, après l’apparition initiale de l’aigle, on peut penser que c’est bel et bien déjà le cas lorsqu’il fait appel à Jupiter lui-même, en réutilisant l’expression « aigle du ciel » pour désigner le roi des dieux et « aigle de la terre » pour parler de lui-même, selon l’équivalence posée par Valerius Sinner lors de l’interprétation du prodige : « Ô Jupiter le Grand, toi l’aigle du ciel, déploie sur nous ton aile protectrice si tu veux que je sois un jour le reflet de ta puissance : l’aigle de la terre ! » 26. Et comme si Jupiter écoutait son protégé, un miraculeux bateau apparaît dès la case suivante pour les sauver : Enak

24 DUPONT (1994), p. 285-286. Sur la construction progressive de l’abstraction globalisante d’« homme romain », voir GIARDINA (2002), p. 11-12. Sur les concepts de philanthropia et d’humanitas chez les Grecs et les Romains, voir VEYNE (2002), p. 450451, où il analyse les enjeux d’un passage des Res gestae d’Auguste (3.2) : externas gentes, quibus tuto ignosci potuit, conseruare quam excidere malui. « J’ai préféré laisser vivre les peuplades étrangères auxquelles on pouvait pardonner en toute sécurité, plutôt que de les anéantir » (traduction VEYNE). 25 MARTIN (1968), Le Tombeau étrusque, p. 7, cases 8-9. 26 Ibid., p. 32, case 2.

OCTAVE DANS ALIX, AUGUSTE DANS ALIX SENATOR

533

crie au miracle, Lidia y voit la réponse de Jupiter, et cela semble confirmer la destinée exceptionnelle qui attend le jeune Octave. Ajoutons que Martin a également exploité, dans cet album, des données augustéennes en les associant à un autre personnage qu’Octave. En effet, on trouve dans le Tombeau étrusque un personnage historique qui a réellement côtoyé Auguste : nommé Vesius Pollion dans la série, ce Vedius Pollion qui aimait donner des esclaves à manger à ses murènes, est mentionné par plusieurs auteurs antiques dans une anecdote démontrant la mansuétude d’Auguste (chez Sénèque, et, à sa suite, chez Pline l’Ancien 27 et Dion Cassius) 28. Ainsi lit-on à deux reprises chez Sénèque qu’Auguste serait intervenu un jour pour empêcher Pollion de nourrir ses murènes de chair humaine. Castigare uero irascentem et ultro obirasci incitare est: uarie adgredieris blandeque, nisi forte tanta persona eris ut possis iram comminuere, quemadmodum fecit diuus Augustus, cum cenaret apud Vedium Pollionem. Fregerat unus ex seruis eius crustallinum; rapi eum Vedius iussit ne uulgari quidem more periturum: murenis obici iubebatur, quas ingentis in piscina continebat. Quis non hoc illum putaret luxuriae causa facere? Saeuitia erat. Euasit e manibus puer et confugit ad Caesaris pedes, nihil aliud petiturus quam ut aliter periret, ne esca fieret. Motus est nouitate crudelitatis Caesar et illum quidem mitti, crustallina autem omnia coram se frangi iussit conplerique piscinam. Fuit Caesari sic castigandus amicus; bene usus est uiribus suis: “E conuiuio rapi homines imperas et noui generis poenis lancinari? Si calix tuus fractus est, uiscera hominis distrahentur? Tantum tibi placebis ut ibi aliquem duci iubeas ubi Caesar est?” Sic cui tantum potentiae est ut iram ex superiore loco adgredi possit, male tractet, at talem dumtaxat qualem modo rettuli, feram immanem sanguinariam, quae iam insanabilis est nisi maius aliquid extimuit 29.

27

Sur cette anecdote, Pline l’Ancien cite explicitement Sénèque dans Hist. nat. 9.167.1 (une autre mention sans la source littéraire apparaît en 9.76). 28 DION CASSIUS, Hist. rom. 54.23. 29 « Châtier l’homme irrité, le heurter de front, c’est l’exciter. Il faut l’aborder d’une manière détournée et séduisante, à moins que tu ne sois un assez grand personnage pour briser la colère, comme le fit le divin Auguste, un jour qu’il soupait chez Védius Pollion. Un de ses esclaves avait cassé une coupe de cristal. Védius le fit saisir pour lui infliger une mort peu banale : il devait être jeté aux énormes murènes qu’il entretenait dans un vivier. Qui ne supposerait qu’il le faisait par sensualité ? C’était de la cruauté. L’esclave s’échappa des mains qui le tenaient et se réfugia aux pieds de l’empereur pour lui demander de subir un autre genre de mort, de ne pas servir de pâture. L’empereur fut ému par cette étrange cruauté. Il fit relâcher l’esclave, briser devant lui toutes les coupes de cristal et combler le vivier. C’est ainsi que l’empereur devait châtier un ami. Il a bien usé de sa puissance : ‘Tu ordonnes que des hommes soient traînés hors d’une salle de banquet pour être déchirés par un supplice inouï. Si ta coupe a été brisée, les entrailles d’un homme seront dispersées. As-tu l’outrecuidance de faire conduire quelqu’un à la mort là où est l’empereur ?’ Ainsi, que celui qui a assez de puissance pour pouvoir attaquer de haut la colère la maltraite, mais seulement quand elle est telle que je viens

534

JULIE GALLEGO

Quis non Vedium Pollionem peius oderat quam serui sui, quod muraenas sanguine humano saginabat et eos, qui se aliquid offenderant, in uiuarium, quid aliud quam serpentium, abici iubebat? O hominem mille mortibus dignum, siue devorandos seruos obiciebat muraenis, quas esurus erat, siue in hoc tantum illas alebat, ut sic aleret 30.

Mais Sénèque précise que c’est après s’être lassé de la violence qui l’a amené au pouvoir que l’empereur a développé cette vertu (ou peut-être seulement ce masque de vertu). Dans notre album, c’est à Alix qu’est attribuée l’intervention d’Auguste 31, sous une forme un peu différente puisqu’il se défend simplement face aux manœuvres du préfet corrompu qui essayait de le faire tomber dans son vivier. Il joue donc à la fois le rôle de la potentielle victime, l’esclave, et du justicier, Auguste. 3.2. Le retour des personnages dans Roma, Roma et Le Testament de César Deux albums de l’ère « post-Martin » reprennent les personnages d’Octave et de Lidia. Dans Roma, Roma, Alix est accusé d’avoir tué un sénateur, alors qu’il s’agit en fait d’un comédien lui ressemblant, engagé par Pompée afin d’attirer César à Rome et de le tuer. Alix et Enak trouvent refuge chez Octave et sa sœur. Nous revoyons donc des personnages quittés presque quarante ans avant et les relations sont un peu différentes. Physiquement, Octave et Lidia ont changé : sur un plan artistique, forcément, puisque c’est Moralès, et non Martin, qui dessine cet album ; sur un plan diégétique, ils semblent plus âgés. Octave apparaît sur une dizaine de cases, à partir de la moitié exacte de l’histoire. Le caractère qu’il manifestait dès Le Tombeau étrusque se retrouve ici mais nettement appuyé : il est intelligent, autoritaire et sûr de lui. Il reste néanmoins un jeune homme facétieux lorsqu’il s’amuse à plusieurs reprises, y compris dans la dernière case de l’album, à porter la fameuse perruque qui servait au comédien déguisé en Alix 32. Plusieurs répliques ont pour but de mettre en valeur son intelligence : c’est lui qui comprend que la perruque du comédien doit être utilisée comme preuve de l’innocence de son ami Alix et c’est lui qui est « chargé » par le scénariste d’énoncer que le combat final est un piège 33. de la raconter, farouche, monstrueuse, sanguinaire ; car elle est alors incurable, si elle ne craint plus fort qu’elle » (SEN., De la colère 3.40.2-4, traduction BOURGERY). 30 « Qui haïssait davantage Védius Pollion que ses propres esclaves, parce qu’il engraissait ses murènes avec du sang humain et faisait jeter dans son vivier, autrement dit aux serpents, tous ceux qui l’avaient quelque peu offensé ? Ô homme méritant mille morts, soit qu’il jetât aux murènes destinées à sa consommation des esclaves à dévorer, soit qu’il les nourrit dans le seul objet de les nourrir ainsi. » (SEN., De la clémence 1.18.2, traduction CHAUMARTIN). 31 MARTIN (1968), Le Tombeau étrusque, p. 23-25. 32 MARTIN / MORALÈS (2005), Roma, Roma, p. 48, case 7. 33 Ibid., p. 41, cases 3 et 7 et p. 45, case 1.

OCTAVE DANS ALIX, AUGUSTE DANS ALIX SENATOR

535

L’album comporte aussi un « incident » intéressant. En effet, lorsque Enak évoque le comportement étrange de Lidia envers Alix à leur arrivée dans la domus d’Octave, aucune explication n’est donnée à sa froideur. Au lecteur plus âgé de lire entre les lignes : comme Alix est accusé d’avoir tué le sénateur parce qu’il aurait une liaison avec sa femme Julia et que l’on devine, depuis Le Tombeau étrusque, que Lidia a des sentiments pour Alix, il s’agit de jalousie. C’est Octave qui énonce pourtant les raisons officielles avancées par Lidia 34 : « (elle) craint que la réputation d’honnêteté de notre famille ne soit entachée par la protection de forfaits ignominieux » 35. Même si Lidia est l’aînée, cet album la relègue à l’arrière-plan par rapport à Octave, qui est devenu l’homme décisionnaire de la domus, le nouveau pater familias 36. La nuit suivante, il arrive juste à temps pour surprendre Alix et Lidia dans les bras l’un de l’autre, sur le point de s’embrasser. Bien que plus jeune qu’Alix, il lui ordonne de quitter la pièce et reste à surveiller Lidia, en dépit des remarques de cette dernière, qui le traite de « donneurs de leçons » : OCTAVE : Je te prie, Lidia, de sortir de ce bassin et de te comporter honorablement, toi qui as pour destinée de devenir une matrone. Tes enfants ne devront pas avoir à rougir de ton passé… LIDIA : Ah ! Toujours donneur de leçons, Octave ! Parfois tu encombres très fortement ma vie ! OCTAVE : J’agis en frère qui a la charge de ta réputation 37.

34

Appelée seulement Lidia dans Le Tombeau étrusque, elle est nommée Lidia Octavia dans cet album, ce qui est un peu plus conforme à la réalité puisqu’elle se nommait Octauia minor, si l’on considère qu’il s’agit de la sœur d’Octave qui était née, comme lui, d’Atia, et non de leur demi-sœur Octauia maior, fille d’Ancharia ; Plutarque (Vie d’Antoine 31) fait de la première Octavie (et non de la suivante) la veuve de Marcellus et la nouvelle femme d’Antoine après le décès de son épouse Fulvia. Pourquoi ce nom de Lidia ? Michel Éloy émet l’hypothèse d’une erreur de lecture du titre d’un tableau d’Ingres, Virgile lisant L’Énéide à Auguste, Octavie et Livie (ou « Tu Marcellus eris », d’après Én. 6.885) ; ce prénom de « Lidia » serait en fait issu de celui de Livia, l’épouse d’Auguste (http://www.peplums.info/pep39j.htm, consulté le 13 janvier 2015). Pour une analyse des diverses versions de cette scène antique chez Ingres (trois tableaux peints et plus de quatre-vingts études), voir LÉPRONT (2008) et ZERNER (2010). 35 MARTIN / MORALÈS (2005), Roma, Roma, p. 25, case 6. 36 « Quand un enfant perdait son père, ou quand le père perdait sa puissance paternelle, en perdant la liberté ou la citoyenneté, il devenait sui iuris et pater familias. C’est dire que le mot pater n’implique pas la paternité biologique mais plutôt une puissance ; c’est dire aussi que cette puissance n’est pas orientée vers l’éducation des enfants, mais plutôt vers l’entretien d’un culte et la sauvegarde d’un patrimoine » (NÉRAUDAU [2008], p. 159). Signalons toutefois qu’Atia, après le décès de son époux Octavius en 58 av. J.-C., n’est pas restée longtemps veuve puisqu’elle épouse ensuite Lucius Marcius Philippus (voir COSME [2005], p. 16). 37 MARTIN / MORALÈS (2005), Roma, Roma, p. 27, cases 1-2.

536

JULIE GALLEGO

Le lendemain matin, Octave en profite pour faire une mise au point avec Alix sur les événements gênants de la nuit et sur sa stricte surveillance du pudor de sa sœur, tel le véritable Auguste qui louera les bonnes mœurs des matrones. Alors Alix de s’écrier : « Quel bon Romain tu fais, Octave : dès lors peut-être es-tu destiné aux plus hautes fonctions 38… » On constate aisément que le portrait du futur maître de Rome est dans la droite ligne de la propagande impériale 39 et « l’intuition » d’Alix concernant Octave ne vient ternir en rien le portrait du futur Auguste. Cinq ans et cinq albums après cette aventure de Roma, Roma, Octave et Lidia recroisent la route d’Alix, dans l’album Le Testament de César, scénarisé et dessiné par Marco Venanzi, un testament uchronique dans lequel César aurait désigné Alix comme son fils et successeur unique. Suite à un complot, Alix finit (une nouvelle fois !) en prison, condamné à mort. Il en est subrepticement sorti par Enak et Octave. Ce dernier lui raconte que le testament le désignant comme légataire de César est un leurre, pour le protéger lui, Octave, que le César de la fiction a bien choisi comme successeur, en conformité avec la vérité historique. Signalons que, de manière tout à fait anachronique de la part du scénariste, Alix s’exclame : « Toi, le futur empereur ! J’aurais dû m’en douter 40. » Ce qui est bien sûr assez maladroit puisque l’action se déroule sous la République et qu’Alix n’est pas la Sibylle pour savoir que ce sera ensuite l’Empire… Cela trahit aussi à quel point le personnage d’Octave est pensé par les scénaristes comme le futur Auguste, mais un Auguste déjà « converti » à la sagesse et non à l’image de ce qu’il fut dans ses jeunes années de guerre civile. Dans la séquence finale, c’est l’intervention autoritaire d’Octave (comme dans Roma, Roma) qui sauve Alix et la vestale 41. Le personnage historique reçoit donc le même traitement que dans l’album précédent, si l’on excepte l’absence de tension entre Octave et sa sœur (qui n’a pas non plus de scène amoureuse avec Alix). Le personnage d’Octave est un personnage secondaire pour l’ensemble de la série Alix, dans la mesure où il apparaît peu. Mais sa première apparition dans 38

Ibid., p. 27, case 6. La question de la propagande impériale est complexe dans la mesure où « les moyens de communication, sans aucun rapport avec ceux d’aujourd’hui, ne visent pas une opinion publique constituée. […] Une entreprise de communication envers des communautés si différentes ne peut réussir que par le recours à l’expression figurée, imagée. Reliefs publics, statues, portraits, monuments touchent toutes les catégories de population ; monnaies, camées, argenterie, bijoux véhiculent un message plus complexe à l’intention des plus riches et des plus cultivés. Mais, contrairement aux effets de propagande, la diffusion du message est relayée par ceux-là mêmes à qui elle s’adresse : des particuliers commandent des bustes à l’image d’Auguste, décorent leur vaisselle de ses hauts faits, peignent sur leur mur la gloire de sa conquête de l’Égypte » (ROGER [2014], p. 68). 40 MARTIN / VENANZI (2010), Le Testament de César, p. 34, case 3. 41 Voir son discours « au nom de César et des Julii » à la p. 44, case 1. 39

OCTAVE DANS ALIX, AUGUSTE DANS ALIX SENATOR

537

Le Tombeau étrusque et la véritable destinée du personnage historique expliquent sa réapparition dans les albums ultérieurs, scénarisés ou non par Martin. 4. Le personnage d’Auguste dans Alix Senator Si Auguste a un rôle majeur dans Alix Senator, il n’en est pas à sa première apparition dans l’œuvre de Valérie Mangin puisqu’il est déjà l’une des figures du récit-cadre du Dernier Troyen avec l’aède Virgile (mais « Secundus ») et qu’une autre série, Les Aigles de Rome d’Enrico Marini, introduit à plusieurs reprises un Auguste vieillissant. 4.1. Une première ébauche dans la série Le Dernier Troyen Entre 2004 et 2008, dans Le Dernier Troyen, une série de science-fiction transposant L’Odyssée et L’Énéide sous forme de space opera, Valérie Mangin avait déjà mis en scène Auguste, en une étape intermédiaire, pourrait-on dire, dans la réécriture de la figure de l’empereur dans la bande dessinée historique, depuis la série originelle Alix dont elle était lectrice à la série dérivée Alix Senator dont elle est scénariste. Dans Le Dernier Troyen, déjà dessiné par Thierry Démarez, Auguste n’est qu’une figure fugace, y compris dans la reprise de l’iconographie traditionnelle. Sa présence est d’abord seulement suggérée, avant qu’il n’apparaisse sur une petite dizaine de cases, ce qui est très peu sur une série de près de 280 planches. Le poète Virgile Secundus est présenté dès la première planche comme l’aède qui compose et raconte à un auditoire de choix (l’empereur Auguste et ses proches) la geste de son ancêtre Énée, tel Homère sur le plan de la création littéraire ou tels Ulysse et Énée sur un plan fictionnel, racontant l’un au roi Alkinoos, l’autre à la reine Didon leurs aventures. Dans la dernière case du premier tome, Le Cheval de Troie, il semble aussi metteur en scène du spectacle qui s’est joué sous les yeux de l’empereur et du lecteur car les personnages réapparaissent portant un masque et, tels des acteurs à la fin de leur pièce, ils saluent leur public. L’apparition d’Auguste est limitée au récit-cadre, ce qui explique sa faible présence, mais il est celui qui est à l’initiative du récit de Virgile. Dans sa salle des trophées, il évoque 42 avec Virgile l’importance de ces objets historiques pour le poète qui veut se faire le chantre du passé, guidé par Clio, la muse de l’Histoire, ce qui rappelle l’invocation à la Muse du vers 8 de L’Énéide et la célèbre mosaïque du musée national du Bardo en Tunisie. Ce n’est que dans le dernier tome que l’on sent une distance entre Virgile et Auguste, lorsque le poète observe avec dépit la destruction de la ville « d’avant 42 MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2012), Chroniques de l’Antiquité galactique – Le Dernier Troyen, t. 4. Carthago, p. 147, cases 1-3. La première publication des six tomes s’est étalée de 2004 à 2008, la publication de l’intégrale étant ultérieure.

538

JULIE GALLEGO

l’empire », afin de faire construire à la place un temple à Venus Victrix, pour rappeler à tous l’origine divine de la gens Iulia, une tâche à laquelle Virgile a conscience d’avoir contribué. Il essaie d’influer sur la décision d’Auguste de faire à proprement parler table rase du passé en évoquant la fondation de Rome : « Pour notre Rome galactique, accepter son passé peut aussi être une force, sans compter que le détruire est un crime. » Auguste lui rétorque : « Mais non, Virgile. C’est avant mon avènement qu’ont été commis les crimes ! Moi, je ne fais qu’abattre quelques bâtiments qui jurent dans le paysage. Notre empire romain doit être parfait… Et il le sera… Jusqu’à la fin des temps 43. » On sent poindre dans ce dialogue les prémisses du discours inquiétant d’un dictateur fasciste, qui va plus loin que l’allusion à la fameuse transformation architecturale de Rome sous le règne d’Auguste 44. Ainsi Valérie Mangin déclaret-elle : […] J’admire l’œuvre d’Auguste, le fait qu’il ait mis fin aux guerres civiles et doté l’État romain d’un système politique, administratif et militaire qui lui survivra plusieurs centaines d’années. Mais, bien sûr, je désapprouve totalement la dérive autoritaire de l’empereur. Je suis contre tout pouvoir autocratique 45.

Ces quelques bulles semblent en fait surtout inspirées par le célèbre discours de Mussolini devant le Capitole le 21 avril 1924 : Voici que le fascisme se trouve confronté aux problèmes de la capitale. J’aime diviser les problèmes de la Rome du XXe siècle en deux catégories : les problèmes de nécessité et les problèmes de grandeur. On ne peut affronter ces derniers si les premiers ne sont pas résolus. Les problèmes de nécessité jaillissent à cause du développement de Rome, et se résument dans ce binôme : logements et communications. Les problèmes de grandeur sont d’une autre espèce : il faut libérer toute la Rome antique des objets médiocres qui la défigurent, mais aux côtés de la Rome monumentale de l’Antiquité et du Moyen Âge, il faut créer la Rome monumentale du XXe siècle. Mais Rome ne doit pas être seulement une ville moderne dans le sens désormais banal du terme : elle doit être une ville digne de sa gloire, MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2012), Le Dernier Troyen, t. 6. Rome, p. 288, case 2 (Virgile) puis cases 3-7 (Auguste). 44 Vrbem neque pro maiestate imperii ornatam et inundationibus incendiisque obnoxiam excoluit adeo, ut iure sit gloriatus ‘marmoream se relinquere, quam latericiam accepisset’. « La beauté de Rome ne répondait pas à la majesté de l’empire et la ville se trouvait exposée aux inondations et aux incendies : Auguste l’embellit à tel point qu’il put se vanter à bon droit ‘de la laisser en marbre, après l’avoir reçue en briques’ » (SUET., Aug. 28.5). Sur ces travaux sous Auguste, voir LA ROCCA (2014). Selon Dion Cassius (Hist. rom. 56.30.3-4), le sens véritable de l’expression est un sens figuré : Τοῦτο μὲν οὖν οὐ πρὸς τὸ τῶν οἰκοδομημάτων αὐτῆς ἀκριβὲς ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἰσχυρὸν ἐνεδείξατο. « Par cette parole il désignait, non la stabilité des édifices, mais la solidité de l’empire » (traduction GROS). 45 http://alixmag.canalblog.com/archives/2013/09/18/28044433.html (consulté le 13 janvier 2015). 43

OCTAVE DANS ALIX, AUGUSTE DANS ALIX SENATOR

539

et cette gloire doit être renouvelée sans cesse afin de la transmettre, comme héritage de l’âge fasciste aux générations qui viendront 46.

L’Auguste du Dernier Troyen a bien des accents de Mussolini œuvrant pour le mythe instrumentalisé d’une Romanità magnifiée, pour l’instauration de la « Troisième Rome », celle du Duce après celles des Césars et des Papes, en modifiant l’architecture de la Ville : Le chantier [mis en œuvre par Mussolini] préserve et isole, dans un premier temps, les édifices construits dans l’Antiquité. Il s’agit avant tout d’en finir avec la Rome vieille et pittoresque. Des maisons, des églises et des palais datant du Moyen Âge et de la Renaissance sont à cette occasion rasés. Plus grave encore, des milliers de familles de la petite bourgeoisie, de l’artisanat ou du monde ouvrier, sont obligées de se rendre en périphérie, dans de vétustes masures. Mussolini sacrifie ainsi une partie de la population romaine – la plus pauvre – pour réaliser son dessein. Bientôt, le duce n’hésite plus à faire même démolir les vestiges de la Rome des Césars […]. Pour les fascistes, Rome ne doit plus être un musée. Les nouveaux édifices expriment la modernité et la puissance de l’Italie 47.

En accordant une place accrue à Auguste dans sa série Alix Senator, Valérie Mangin prolonge, par la narration, sa réflexion sur le pouvoir ambigu du premier empereur, seulement amorcée dans sa série précédente. De fait, dans Le Dernier Troyen, comme nous l’a confié la scénariste lors d’un échange de courriels, ce n’est pas réellement l’Auguste « historique » qui est transposé, même s’il inspire le personnage qui porte le même nom, car l’Auguste galactique est troublé par l’image du dictateur Mussolini. Le lien avec le préquel Imperator et le personnage de Gus aurait été plus visible si cette dernière série avait perduré au-delà du premier tome 48. C’est, plus tard, avec Alix Senator qu’elle fait SUSMEL, E. et SUSMEL, D. (1951-1963), Opera Omnia di Benito Mussolini, Florence, volume XIX, 1951-1962. Cité et traduit par MAZENOD (2013). Sur l’utilisation de l’oxymore associant passé, présent et futur dans la rhétorique fasciste, voir MALVANO BECHELLONI (2003), p. 114. 47 AUBERT (2008). Voir aussi GIARDINA (2014), p. 16. 48 « En fait, parallèlement au Dernier Troyen, j’avais l’intention d’écrire une série racontant la vraie naissance de l’Empire romain galactique : Imperator (MANGIN / FAFNER [2012]). Un seul tome est paru (Soleil a arrêté la série). Pour faire bref, le héros s’appelle Gus et sa sœur Julia. Ils vivent sur une terre dévastée sous la coupe d’un nouveau Mussolini. Menacés de mort, ils doivent tous les deux s’unir à la seule force capable de résister à ce dictateur, une sorte de nouvelle Mafia. Au fil de l’histoire, Gus devenait un parrain de cette mafia puis, grâce à l’aide d’une légion d’extraterrestres (menacés d’extermination par les fascistes car non-humains), il finissait par renverser le dictateur et devenir le nouveau maître de la galaxie. En souvenir de sa sœur morte en cours de route et admiratrice de la Rome antique, Gus se proclamait alors nouvel empereur Auguste et transformait la fédération fasciste en empire galactique… L’empereur Auguste du Dernier Troyen était cet ancien parrain à l’histoire personnelle très douloureuse, plus qu’une transposition du vrai empereur Auguste. Je n’ai vraiment commencé 46

540

JULIE GALLEGO

d’Auguste un personnage à part entière et qu’elle se rapproche de la réalité historique antique. 4.2. Une personnalité plus complexe dans Alix Senator L’histoire commence en 12 avant J.-C., presque trente ans après l’assassinat de César et presque vingt ans après l’arrivée au pouvoir d’Octave devenu depuis l’empereur Auguste. Tel le Gallo-Romain Lucius Vorenus fait sénateur par César dans la série Rome 49, on retrouve Alix portant la toge grâce à l’appui financier d’Auguste, avec qui il est resté ami, sans pour autant approuver toutes ses décisions, et notamment sa mainmise sur la res publica. Le concept retenu par Valérie Mangin est le suivant : « Auguste est menacé par des aigles, symboles même de Rome » 50. Comme dans la série Rome où deux acteurs vont jouer Octave à deux âges différents, la prolepse de trente années permet de situer l’histoire dans une période de prospérité et de calme (mais un calme relatif sinon il n’y aurait plus rien à raconter !). La BD se veut tout public donc il eût été difficile que l’histoire se déroule en pleine guerre civile, selon les explications de la scénariste. Le saut dans le temps correspond aussi à un léger changement éditorial : si la série Alix était conçue à ses débuts pour un jeune lectorat, Alix Senator vise un public un peu plus âgé, d’adolescent et d’adulte, tout en restant tout public. Dans les premières planches, Auguste, l’héritier de César, devient grand Pontife 51 (Fig. 3) à la place de Lépide, mort mystérieusement : Valérie Mangin profite des incertitudes sur les morts de Lépide et d’Agrippa pour les relier entre elles et en faire les pièces d’un puzzle qui, dans son intégralité, doit dessiner la mort d’Auguste, à la suite d’un complot.

à l’étudier que pour Alix Senator. » (Valérie Mangin, courriel du 05/11/14). La scénariste a eu la gentillesse de répondre à nos questions et de nous permettre de bénéficier, quelques semaines avant sa sortie, du tome 3, afin que nous puissions l’étudier lors du colloque de 2014. Nous l’en remercions chaleureusement. 49 Sur la série de Bruno HELLER Rome (HBO, 2005-2007), voir GALLEGO (2012b). Qu’Alix, d’origine gauloise (mais, en plus, adopté par un sénateur romain) soit devenu sénateur n’est pas une grande entorse à l’Histoire, juste une anticipation, puisqu’« en 14 après J.-C., c’est-à-dire près de quarante ans avant la ‘promotion politique’ des Gaules [le discours des tables claudiennes date de 48 apr. J.-C., cf. TAC., Ann. 11.23-25], Auguste autorise les citoyens romains de cette province à se porter candidats aux magistratures de Rome, et à entrer au Sénat en cas d’élection » (GROS [2014], p. 265). 50 http://alixmag.canalblog.com/archives/2013/09/18/28044433.html (consulté le 13 janvier 2015). 51 Auguste était déjà pontife depuis longtemps grâce à l’intervention bienveillante de César (VELL., Hist. rom. 2.59.3). Quant à Lépide, la charge lui échut à la mort de César. Cf. COSME (2014), p. 19.

OCTAVE DANS ALIX, AUGUSTE DANS ALIX SENATOR

541

Fig. 3. Alix Senator t. 1 – Les Aigles de sang, p. 5, case 7 et p. 8, case 5, Martin-Mangin-Démarez © Casterman 2012. Avec l’aimable autorisation des auteurs et des Éditions Casterman.

Alix évoque les rumeurs qui bruissent à Rome : Auguste lui-même aurait fait tuer les deux hommes, Lépide pour récupérer le grand pontificat, Agrippa pour éviter la concurrence 52. Ne l’a-t-on pas historiquement soupçonné de s’être débarrassé des consuls Aulus Hirtius et Caius Vibius Pansa en 43 av. J.-C., pour pouvoir accéder plus aisément à la magistrature, alors même que, comme 52 MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2012), Les Aigles de sang, p. 48, cases 1-3. La mort de Lépide a lieu dès la p. 4 et celle d’Agrippa à la p. 13. Les rumeurs sur ces morts étranges apparaissent à la p. 16. Du point de vue de la réalité historique, on sait qu’Agrippa est tombé malade et qu’il est mort en Campanie avant que n’arrive Auguste, prévenu de son état ; ce dernier lui rendit des honneurs funèbres à la hauteur de leur amitié et du soutien qu’Agrippa fut pour lui durant des années (Dion Cassius, Hist. rom., 44.28-29). Selon Pline l’Ancien (cité par COSME [2005], p. 208), Agrippa souffrait déjà depuis longtemps de crises de goutte et de rhumatismes. Valérie Mangin choisit, dans le scénario du premier tome, de présenter cette mort par maladie comme la version officielle fournie par le pouvoir à la demande d’Auguste : « […] j’ai ordonné à Julia de raconter qu’une mauvaise fièvre ramenée de Pannonie avait été fatale à son mari. », pour éviter, expliquet-il à Alix, que « des rumeurs d’assassinat [ne] viennent assombrir sa gloire » (p. 15, cases 1 et 7). Mangin revient sur ce choix narratif dans le dossier final de l’édition premium (à la page III) : « Il meurt en Campanie en 12 avant Jésus-Christ, sans doute à la suite d’une maladie contractée pendant sa dernière campagne ou d’une épidémie locale. Devant le flou de cette situation, nous n’avons pas résisté à en faire une des victimes de nos Aigles de sang. Agrippa a passé sa vie au pouvoir, il fallait bien que ce soit le symbole de ce même pouvoir qui le tue. » La mort de Lépide, la même année, est mentionnée très brièvement par Dion Cassius au début d’une phrase qui fait état du nouveau statut de grand pontife d’Auguste (44.27). Mécène meurt quatre ans plus tard ; il est donc théoriquement vivant quand commence la série mais n’est pas mis en scène, du moins jusqu’au dernier tome paru en 2015 (Les Démons de Sparte), puisque seul le personnage fictionnel d’Alix apparaît comme ami de l’empereur.

542

JULIE GALLEGO

Pompée le Grand, il n’avait pas encore accompli toutes les étapes du cursus honorum 53  ? Mais avant que la vengeance humaine ne soit dévoilée dans les attaques de ces aigles (conformément à ce que supposait rationnellement Alix dès le début, parce que, comme le dit son fils Titus, « de nos jours, les Olympiens descendent rarement sur terre ») 54, l’ombre de Jupiter plane une nouvelle fois sur Alix et Octave, afin de maintenir le lien avec la série-mère et l’interprétation suétonienne de l’épisode de l’aigle du Tombeau étrusque. Les explications sur les meurtres ont lieu dans le tome 2 : Lépide était un danger car, informé de la conjuration, il ne l’avait pas rejointe immédiatement, et Agrippa aurait pu briguer la tête de l’empire après l’assassinat d’Auguste 55. Valérie Mangin justifie ainsi dans plusieurs entretiens son choix de faire commencer l’action en -12 : Ça touche à une période qui me semble cruciale dans l’Histoire romaine, qui est le moment où Auguste finit de s’emparer de tous les pouvoirs à Rome et où il est vraiment empereur. Et c’est ça que j’ai voulu montrer en ouverture d’Alix Senator  : on le voit devenir Grand Pontife à la première scène et c’était la dernière charge qui lui manquait et là, il est vraiment tout puissant à Rome 56. Maintenant c’est lui qui décide. Le reste du clergé n’a d’autre choix que de se soumettre et ce n’est pas toujours facile. Mais au final, Auguste tiendra bien compte des aspirations religieuses des Romains : il fera construire de nombreux temples, maintiendra les rites, redonnera un prêtre attitré à Jupiter… 57

Précisons néanmoins qu’« Auguste n’a pas choisi le régime qu’il a fondé, [que] ce sont les circonstances qui lui ont imposé la forme ambiguë qui le caractérise » 58 et que la voie qui mène à la solution institutionnelle originale que nous nommons le principat a été parcourue par Auguste en plusieurs étapes, sans qu’il existât de plan préétabli, de théorie politique qui en dessine les contours par avance. La pensée politique existe : César, Cicéron, Auguste connaissent La République de Platon, la Politeia d’Aristote, ou même les réflexions des hommes de lettres plus impliqués dans l’action politique, tels Thucydide ou Démosthène, mais ce ne sont là que des spéculations théoriques, nécessaires pour alimenter la réflexion sur le temps présent, mais certes pas des programmes applicables en l’état. Le mot principatus lui-même témoigne de l’élaboration progressive de concepts qui ne sont jamais décrits a priori  : signifiant ‘suprématie’ à l’origine, il n’est pris réellement dans le sens de ‘pouvoir impérial’ que chez Tacite 59. Voir COSME (2005), p. 40, 42 et 45. MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2012), Les Aigles de sang, p. 27, case 2. 55 V. MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2013), Le Dernier Pharaon, p. 40, case 4. 56 http://www.alixsenator.com/videos.html (consulté le 13 janvier 2015). 57 http://www.actuabd.com/Valerie-Mangin-J-aimerais-que-l-on (consulté le 13 janvier 2015). 58 NÉRAUDAU (1996), p. 14. 59 ROGER (2014), p. 68. 53 54

OCTAVE DANS ALIX, AUGUSTE DANS ALIX SENATOR

543

Auguste, « maître absolu de l’empire » 60, selon les mots d’Alix, est alors présenté avec une constante ambiguïté dans la série : il peut être tantôt sans pitié, tantôt étonnamment clément. Il n’hésite pas à rappeler à Alix que ce sont ces « abus d’autorité », que ce dernier lui reproche, qui ont pourtant mis fin au « chaos et [à] la guerre civile 61 ». Les allusions à sa dureté, lorsqu’il s’agit du pouvoir militaire à ne pas partager, concernent essentiellement son ordre de tuer Césarion (en analepse dans le tome 1) 62, alors que ce n’était qu’un enfant, puisqu’il représentait un dangereux concurrent pour l’héritage de César 63. Le tome 3 fait aussi allusion aux proscriptions d’Octave et Antoine 64 mais comme à un passé révolu 65. Et Auguste fait preuve d’un réel manque d’empathie, lorsqu’à la fin du premier tome il déclare à Alix, désespéré à l’idée que ses enfants Titus et Khephren soient morts, que cette sensiblerie est indigne d’un sénateur et que, s’ils sont morts, ce n’est pas grave, Alix n’aura qu’à en adopter d’autres, comme lui 66 ! Cette dureté contraste avec la clémence dont il fait montre 60 MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2012), Les Aigles de sang, p. 7, case 4 : « Mais qu’un seul homme soit maître absolu de l’empire, fût-il mon ami, ce n’est pas ce que je veux pour Rome. » 61 MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2014), La Conjuration des rapaces, p. 13, case 4. La dispute entre les deux personnages est en réalité feinte pour abuser Livie, qui croit ainsi que les deux hommes ne sont plus amis et qu’elle peut enrôler Alix dans la conjuration contre Auguste. Dans le tome suivant, c’est Alix qui défend la pax Romana instaurée par Auguste et condamnée par le Spartiate Héraklion (MANGIN / DÉMAREZ [2015], Les Démons de Sparte, p. 19). 62 MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2012), Les Aigles de sang, p. 23, case 4. 63 Οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκαισαρίη. « Il n’est pas bon qu’il y ait plusieurs Césars » (PLUT., Vie d’Antoine 81, traduction FLACELIÈRE / CHAMBRY). 64 Sur la violence des proscriptions, permettant à Octave et Antoine de se débarrasser d’ennemis politiques tout en accroissant leurs ressources financières, voir APPIEN, Guerres civiles 4.2.5. 65 MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2014), La Conjuration des rapaces, p. 14, case 4. 66 MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2012), Les Aigles de sang, p. 46, case 1. La réplique d’Auguste est à mettre en relation avec le passage où Suétone (Aug. 63.1) fait mention d’une grossesse de Livie non menée à terme et avec les adoptions de ses petits-fils Caius et Lucius (en 17 av. J.-C., à la naissance de Lucius et trois ans après celle de Caius), des jeunes gens dont les morts successives, après celle de son neveu Marcellus en 23, permirent à Tibère d’accéder au pouvoir. Ces adoptions par mancipatio – avec une sorte d’achat symbolique à leur père Agrippa en raison du très jeune âge des enfants encore sous sa tutelle – sont évoquées par Suétone (Aug. 64.3). L’adoption de Tibère n’a pas encore eu lieu dans la série qui débute en 12 av. J.-C., comme le montre, dans le tome 2, la réplique de la vieille femme convoquée par Livie pour procéder à une séance d’aruspicine : « Je vois de la lumière autour de lui… Sois rassurée, ton propre fils n’est pas en danger ! Il reviendra victorieux de ses campagnes : Auguste reconnaîtra ses mérites, il l’adoptera… » (MANGIN / DÉMAREZ [2013], Le Dernier Pharaon, p. 5, case 5). De fait, après la mort de Lucius et Caius (en 2 et 3 apr. J.-C.), Auguste adoptera cette fois Tibère, en plus d’Agrippa Postumus, son dernier petit-fils et fils posthume d’Agrippa (nous prenons comme repère la chronologie établie par ALBIN [2014], p. 271-274). La naissance de Postumus est évoquée dans une scène du tome 3 (2014), p. 33 case 3 : « Livie, qu’en

544

JULIE GALLEGO

à plusieurs reprises dans la série, comme avec Rufus, lorsqu’il croit à tort que seul son frère l’Augure l’a trahi, et pas le général lui-même 67 et surtout avec le préfet d’Égypte Barbarus. Cette attitude clémente fait penser au célèbre épisode historique et littéraire de Cinna, qui l’a trahi, mais auquel Auguste a pardonné et qui a gagné par cet acte un ami des plus loyaux, comme le racontent Sénèque dans le De Clementia (1.9), puis Corneille dans sa tragédie justement intitulée Cinna ou la clémence d’Auguste 68. Le clipeus uirtutis d’Arles, constituant « un programme, rédigé par le Sénat, affiché dans la curie, qu’Auguste, comme tout bon empereur, devra suivre et dont sont garants aussi bien les hommes que les dieux » 69, évoque cette clementia d’Auguste, ainsi que les autres qualités attendues (uirtus, iustitia, pietas). Un passage du tome 3 (Fig. 4) insiste d’ailleurs explicitement sur cette clémence, lors d’un dialogue entre Livie et Auguste lors penses-tu ? Puis-je laisser mon fils dans les bras de ton Tibère ? La naissance de mon petit Postumus l’éloigne encore plus de la succession impériale : il pourrait lui vouloir du mal ! ». On voit, dans la première case de cette même planche, deux jeunes garçons dont les âges sont compatibles avec la chronologie (8 ans pour Caius et 5 ans pour Lucius), ainsi que deux petites filles (leurs sœurs Julia et Julia Agrippina vraisemblablement). 67 MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2012), Les Aigles de sang, p. 41, case 7. 68 Valérie Mangin confirme cette influence littéraire : « Il y eut des complots tout au long du règne d’Auguste. Ses opposants n’ont jamais vraiment désarmé. À peu près à l’époque où je place Alix Senator, il y a eu la fameuse conjuration de Cinna qui a inspiré Corneille, par exemple. Lui a eu de la chance : il a été pardonné par l’empereur. Mais d’autres ont payé très cher leur tentative. Julia, la propre fille d’Auguste, a ainsi été exilée à vie et plusieurs de ses complices exécutés. » (http://alixmag.canalblog.com/ archives/2014/11/30/31055303.html, consulté le 10 février 2015). La série montre Julia, entourée de jeunes gens, dès la fin du deuil d’Agrippa, et les jeunes Titus et Khephren informent le lecteur des bruits qui courent à Rome : même si Auguste faisait semblant de l’ignorer, Julia multipliait déjà les amants du vivant d’Agrippa mais seulement lorsqu’elle était enceinte (tome 1, 2012, p. 28, cases 5-7), pour s’assurer de n’avoir que des enfants légitimes : une allusion au fameux Numquam enim nisi naui plena tollo uectorem (« C’est que je ne prends un passager que quand le navire est plein. », traduction GUITTARD) rapporté plaisamment par Macrobe dans ses Saturnales (2.5.9). Le temps de l’exil n’est pas encore venu pour la Julia de la série mais lorsque le doute ne sera plus permis, Auguste sera d’une fermeté exemplaire : τοῦ δὲ δήμου σφόδρα ἐγκειμένου τῷ Αὐγούστῳ ἵνα καταγάγῃ τὴν θυγατέρα αὐτοῦ, θᾶσσον ἔφη πῦρ ὕδατι μιχθήσεσθαι ἢ ἐκείνην καταχθήσεσθαι. « Une autre fois, alors que le peuple le suppliait, Auguste répondit que le feu se mêlerait à l’eau avant qu’il se décidât à la rappeler. » (DION CASSIUS, Hist. rom. 55.13, traduction GROS). Au point même d’interdire que son corps (et celui de sa fille, dont il condamnait le même comportement), ne puisse reposer dans le tombeau impérial (SUET., Aug. 101.5). À propos de la sévérité d’Auguste, on peut aussi penser au sort du poète Ovide, dont on ne sait toujours pas exactement pourquoi il a été exilé à la même période que Julia, mais qui, en dépit de ses suppliques dans les Tristes, ne put revenir à Rome. Ajoutons que Suétone narre plusieurs anecdotes sur le comportement d’Auguste, adapté à la gravité de la faute, envers des gens qui avaient trahi sa confiance, pour justifier les qualificatifs de non minus seuerus quam facilis et clemens (Aug. 67) qu’il attribue à l’empereur. 69 CADARIO (2014), p. 108.

OCTAVE DANS ALIX, AUGUSTE DANS ALIX SENATOR

545

Fig. 4 : Alix Senator t. 3 – La Conjuration des rapaces, p. 11, cases 2-3, Martin-Mangin-Démarez © Casterman 2012. Avec l’aimable autorisation des auteurs et des Éditions Casterman.

du sacrifice d’un taureau mettant en abîme la scène du « suovetaurile » représentée sur le bas-relief 70. Son acte de clémence le plus marquant des trois volumes reste le fait qu’il pardonnera au Vautour, le chef de la conjuration des rapaces… à savoir Livie elle-même, désireuse de mettre rapidement au pouvoir son fils Tibère 71. Les morts opportunes de Marcellus, Lucius et Caius avaient jeté suffisamment de doute dans l’Histoire pour qu’il ne soit pas incohérent de choisir, dans la fiction, le personnage de Livie comme un charognard planant au-dessus du pouvoir suprême, elle que son arrière-petit-fils Caligula surnommait un « Ulysse en jupon » 72.

70

Pour une analyse de ce bas-relief en marbre daté du 1er ou 2e quart du Ier siècle après J.-C. et découvert à Rome au XVe siècle, voir LAUGIER (2014). 71 MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2014), La Conjuration des rapaces, p. 47. Livie exprime cette envie dans MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2013), Le Dernier Pharaon, p. 5, case 4. Ainsi, dans un entretien à Alixmag, la scénariste déclare : « Dans La Conjuration des rapaces, j’ai essayé de jouer sur tous les tableaux : un César Auguste manipulateur mais (trop) amoureux avec une épouse intelligente et impliquée dans la vie politique mais (trop) ambitieuse. » 72 Liuiam Vlixem stolatum identidem appellans (SUET., Cal. 23.3, traduction AILLOUD).

546

JULIE GALLEGO

Chez Sénèque, c’est Livie qui incitait Auguste, en proie au doute, à la clémence envers Cinna 73 : Rursus silentio interposito maiore multo uoce sibi quam Cinnae irascebatur: “Quid uiuis, si perire te tam multorum interest? Quis finis erit suppliciorum? Quis sanguinis? Ego sum nobilibus adulescentulis expositum caput, in quod mucrones acuant; non est tanti uita, si, ut ego non peream, tam multa perdenda sunt.” Interpellauit tandem illum Liuia uxor et: “Admittis, inquit, muliebre consilium? Fac, quod medici solent, qui, ubi usitata remedia non procedunt, temptant contraria. Seueritate nihil adhuc profecisti; Saluidienum Lepidus secutus est, Lepidum Murena, Murenam Caepio, Caepionem Egnatius, ut alios taceam, quos tantum ausos pudet. Nunc tempta, quomodo tibi cedat clementia; ignosce L. Cinnae. Deprensus est ; iam nocere tibi non potest, prodesse famae tuae potest 74.

Auguste suivra ce conseil, conscient, comme le dit Sénèque, que « la clémence confère [donc] non seulement plus de beauté morale mais plus de sécurité, [qu’] elle est à la fois l’ornement des empires et leur salut le plus certain 75. » Reste à savoir comment sera traitée l’intrigue éventuelle autour de Cinna dans les futurs albums. Mais on constate que l’attitude d’Auguste avec le préfet Barbarus, aussi corrompu que lâche et ventripotent, trouve déjà un écho à la discussion sur Cinna : informé de ses abus et de sa tentative de meurtre contre Alix, il le maintient à son poste pour mieux le contrôler 76. La première trilogie d’Alix Senator est centrée sur les intrigues (remontant au temps de Marius et Sylla) ayant conduit à la mise en place d’une conjuration et à la mise en œuvre finale du plan fomenté depuis le début de l’accession au pouvoir d’Auguste, suite à ses succès militaires. La série commence par sa nomination au poste de Grand Pontife et les premières sollicitations du premier Augure pour rétablir le sacerdoce du flamen Dialis, vacant depuis le suicide du Sur cet épisode, voir l’étude d’I. G. MASTROROSA dans ce volume. « À l’inverse, après un moment de silence, il s’irritait d’une voix bien plus forte contre lui-même que contre Cinna : ‘Pourquoi vis-tu, si tant de gens ont avantage à te voir périr ? Quel sera le terme des supplices, celui du sang ? Je ne suis qu’une tête offerte aux jeunes gens de noble naissance, pour qu’ils en fassent leur cible en aiguisant leurs glaives : la vie n’est pas d’un si grand prix, si, pour me soustraire à la mort, on doit sacrifier un si grand nombre de têtes.’ Son épouse Livie l’interrompit enfin : ‘Acceptes-tu, dit-elle, le conseil d’une femme ? Procède comme les médecins : lorsque les remèdes habituels ne sont plus efficaces, ils essaient leurs contraires. Par la sévérité, tu n’as eu jusqu’ici aucun succès : Salvidiénus a été suivi par Lépide, Lépide par Muréna, Muréna par Cépion, Cépion par Égnatius, sans parler des autres : les voir pousser si loin l’audace est une honte. Maintenant essaie de voir comment la clémence te réussira. Pardonne à Lucius Cinna : il a été pris, désormais il ne peut te nuire mais il peut être utile à ta renommée’ » (SEN., De la clémence 1.9.5-6, traduction CHAUMARTIN). 75 Clementia ergo non tantum honestiores sed tutiores praestat ornamentumque imperiorum est simul et certissima salus (SEN., De la clémence 1.11.4, traduction CHAUMARTIN). 76 MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2014), La Conjuration des rapaces, p. 8. 73 74

OCTAVE DANS ALIX, AUGUSTE DANS ALIX SENATOR

547

grand prêtre Merula 77. Auguste ne prête pas attention au vieillard et sa vengeance sera terrible. Mais l’Augure et ses alliés échouent dans le meurtre d’Auguste par les aigles, grâce à l’intervention d’Alix. L’empereur est constamment présenté par les conjurés comme un tyran 78 ou un usurpateur dont la mort serait une libération pour Rome car, pour le prêtre, telle est « la volonté du plus grand des Olympiens » 79. Une accusation d’autant plus paradoxale [qu’]au cours de sa carrière, [le vrai Auguste] n’a cessé de se poser en libérateur venu sauver la république des mains de ses opposants, décrits comme des tyrans. Il pouvait souscrire pleinement au contenu de La République de Cicéron : la république romaine était devenue une peinture décolorée par le temps, dont on reconnaissait à peine le visage. Ceux qui prétendaient la défendre s’appuyaient sur une vision déformée de la tradition pour faire valoir des intérêts égoïstes ; seul le jeune Octavien défendait la véritable république 80.

Après avoir échoué à tuer Auguste, l’augure se venge par des mots assassins : il annonce, comme nous l’avons vu dans la première partie, que le manège de l’aigle du début du Tombeau étrusque n’était qu’une manipulation de César, pour s’assurer qu’Octave soit vu par tous comme son héritier, que les dieux ne l’ont nullement reconnu comme exceptionnel. Mais la fin du tome 1 et les 77 MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2012), Les Aigles de sang, p. 44, cases 3-8. Le flaminat de Jupiter était à l’époque effectivement vacant, et ce depuis 87 avant J.-C. (voir BORDET [1969], p. 148) ; César, dans sa jeunesse, tenta d’obtenir le poste en 83 av. J.-C. mais Sylla l’en empêcha (SUET., César 1.1-2). Sur les interdits auxquels sont soumis le flamen Dialis et son épouse, voir AULU-GELLE, 10.15. Selon SCHEID (1985), p. 39, le flamine Dial, comme le Quirinal et le Martial, sont ce « qu’on peut appeler, à la suite de Plutarque, les ‘prêtres-statues’, incarnation du dieu, du principe d’une fonction divine [et non des] maîtres des sacra, exerçant leur maîtrise sur le double domaine des rites et de la légitimité ». Velleius Paterculus évoque le personnage historique de Lucius Cornelius Merula (Hist. rom. 2.20 et 2.22), qui s’opposa à Marius et Cinna jusque dans son suicide spectaculaire : Merula autem, qui se sub aduentum Cinnae consulatu abdicauerat, incisis uenis superfusoque altaribus sanguine, quos saepe pro salute rei publicae flamen Dialis precatus erat deos, eos in execrationem Cinnae partiumque eius tum precatus optime de re publica meritum spiritum reddidit. « Quant à Merula, qui avait abdiqué son consulat au moment de l’arrivée de Cinna, il se coupa les veines et répandit son sang sur les autels, priant pour le salut de la patrie les dieux qu’en tant que flamine de Jupiter il avait souvent invoqués ; puis, après les avoir priés de maudire Cinna et son parti, il rendit son âme qui avait tant mérité de l’État » (2.22.2, traduction HELLEGOUARC’H). 78 Sur l’accusation de tyrannie, lourde de conséquences à Rome, voir la réponse d’Antoine à Octave chez APPIEN, Guerres civiles 3.18 : ἄταφα γὰρ οἱ νόμοι τὰ σώματα τῶν τυράννων ὑπερορίζουσι καὶ τὴν μνήμην ἀτιμοῦσι καὶ δημεύουσι τὴν περιουσίαν, « Nos lois en effet privent de sépulture et rejettent au delà des limites de Rome le corps des tyrans, elles abolissent leur mémoire et confisquent leurs biens » (traduction TORRENS). 79 MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2012), Les Aigles de sang, p. 37, case 5. 80 WALLACE-HADRILL (2014), p. 48.

548

JULIE GALLEGO

tomes suivants sont consacrés au retour au premier plan d’un autre héritier potentiel, Césarion, ou plutôt « César Ptolémée XV » 81, comme il se présente lui-même lors de sa première apparition, le fils supposé de César et Cléopâtre 82, retrouvé par Alix, qui n’aurait finalement pas été tué dans le désert après la mort de la reine. L’homme est « exfiltré » d’Égypte par les alliés de la conjuration des rapaces, pour faire son entrée à Rome dans le tome 3 et essayer de renverser Auguste « qui se prend pour un roi » 83 et qui « ne cesse de bafouer ce qui fait la grandeur de Rome » 84. Comme ils le clament, « ils veulent libérer (Rome) de la tyrannie d’Auguste ! La mort de l’empereur restaurera l’ordre traditionnel comme celle de César a provoqué le chaos autrefois » 85. Ils projettent de « remplacer (Auguste) par un homme pieux et respectueux des traditions, un vrai républicain… Un homme comme l’était César contrairement à tout ce qu’ont dit ses assassins ! » 86. Mais, le jour prévu pour de nouvelles Ides de Mars en plein Sénat, Auguste va réussir par ses menaces larvées à « retourner » les conjurés, qui vont finir par tuer eux-mêmes Césarion pour tenter d’effacer ainsi hypocritement leur trahison 87. Auguste, en digne héritier de son grand-oncle et père, a organisé le dévoilement et l’effondrement de la conjuration ; seul Alix était au courant, les autres personnages (et le lecteur) ont été manipulés comme des marionnettes jusqu’au lever de rideau sur l’identité du Vautour (à proprement parler puisque Livie est cachée dans sa litière !) : « toute cette mise en scène a assez duré et les acteurs ont été assez éprouvés. […] La comédie que nous avons jouée n’a de sens que pour un seul spectateur » 88. Acta est fabula, aurait-il pu ajouter. En pardonnant à Livie, il accroît son pouvoir sur elle et évite d’afficher un pouvoir affaibli. Mais le secret devra être gardé à tout prix par Alix. À Rome, les apparences, portées par les mots, comptent, au point de jouer à « faire comme si » quand la situation l’exige : Les Romains s’étaient répété pendant des siècles qu’ils haïssaient la monarchie, mais, depuis un siècle environ, ils se rendaient progressivement à l’idée que l’État ne pouvait être sauvé que par le gouvernement d’un seul. Il leur fallait un roi qui ne portât pas ce titre. Il n’était donc pas d’autre solution, dans le contexte politique où Auguste devait agir, que de jouer la comédie, mais avec des protagonistes qui la jouaient aussi, et pour un public qui savait qu’il assistait à une pièce, et qui 81 MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2013), Le Dernier Pharaon, p. 36, case 1. Et c’est en tant que « Ptolémée César, seul pharaon d’Égypte, seul fils du grand César » qu’il se présente devant le sénat (MANGIN / DÉMAREZ [2014], La Conjuration des rapaces, p. 43, case 5). 82 Sa conception remonterait en fait à la période où César était en Hispanie, sur les traces des derniers Pompéiens. 83 MANGIN / DÉMAREZ (2014), La Conjuration des rapaces, p. 43, case 6. 84 Ibid., p. 4, case 3. 85 Ibid., p. 25, cases 4-5. 86 Ibid., p. 4, cases 4-5. 87 Ibid., p. 45. 88 Ibid., p. 46, cases 1 et 4.

OCTAVE DANS ALIX, AUGUSTE DANS ALIX SENATOR

549

surveillait la qualité du rôle et sa cohérence. Les mots dans cette affaire, qui risquait de provoquer un dédoublement de tous les instants, comptaient beaucoup, autant peut-être que les choses, et Auguste les maniait donc avec précaution. La situation impliquait un écart entre la réalité d’un régime monarchique et les apparences d’une restauration républicaine et cet écart, qui affectait nécessairement l’être du régime et son paraître politique, affectait du même coup l’être d’Auguste et son paraître 89.

Alix Senator est donc la bande dessinée de notre corpus qui accorde la plus grande place à Auguste, qualitativement et quantitativement, surtout dans les tomes 1 et 3 : l’intrigue principale tourne autour de lui et Alix, Enak et leurs enfants n’en sont que les pions. Cette place accrue d’Auguste est d’autant plus visible que, dans les éditions premium des trois tomes d’Alix Senator, on trouve un « cahier spécial » de huit pages, dont le premier est consacré à « Auguste, l’homme qui ne pouvait pas être roi » 90 avec quelques synthèses sur divers aspects du personnage, l’imperator, le princeps senatus, le pontifex maximus (avec la fameuse scène du Tombeau étrusque et la mention de Suétone), l’aedilis 91 et le pater familias. Le cahier du deuxième album, Le Dernier Pharaon, évoque « L’Égypte sous le pharaon Auguste », le troisième la « Domus Augusta, la famille impériale », dont la présentation était juste esquissée à la fin du premier cahier avec la figure du pater familias, et le quatrième cahier est consacré à la Grèce à l’époque romaine. Sur ses sites personnels (mangin.tv et Alix Senator) dont elle assure le rédactionnel, Valérie Mangin s’efforce également de donner au lecteur des clés pour comprendre comment la matière historique devient matière narrative, intimement mêlée à une part de fiction. Les parties « lexique », « personnages » et « événements » contiennent plusieurs entrées concernant Octave et Auguste. La scénariste va jusqu’à fournir au public un reportage photographique permettant de mieux comprendre ses sources

89 NÉRAUDAU (1996), p. 14. Dans Les Aigles de sang (p. 28, case 6), Khephren fait remarquer à Titus qu’Auguste « fai[t] semblant de ne pas être au courant » des multiples amants de Julia. Entre les amants de la fille et les maîtresses du père, la lex Iulia « de adulteriis » appliquée à la famille impériale ne pouvait que paraître assez hypocrite (voir COSME [2005], p. 181). 90 Il ne pouvait porter le titre de rex à Rome, en raison de la charge historique forte du mot, mais il était bien désigné comme basileus dans les régions hellénophones (voir NÉRAUDAU [1996], p. 15). 91 « L’édilité est l’une des premières magistratures du cursus honorum. Elle consiste à administrer la ville de Rome. Auguste, sans être édile en titre comme l’ont été César ou Cicéron avant lui, prend grand soin de sa capitale » (MANGIN, Les Aigles de sang, cahier historique p. VII, section « Le parfait édile de Rome »). En effet, c’est Agrippa qui accepte la charge inférieure de l’édilité en 33 av. J.-C., contrairement au déroulement habituellement linéaire du cursus honorum – il était déjà devenu consul en 37 av. J.-C. (voir COSME [2014], p. 30).

550

JULIE GALLEGO

d’inspiration, et même sa documentation iconographique, puisqu’elle consacre une page à sa visite de l’exposition sur Auguste au Grand Palais 92. 4.3. Des Aigles de Rome aux Aigles de sang Si la série Alix Senator accorde une place de choix à un empereur Auguste d’une cinquantaine d’années, une autre série, dont la publication a commencé quelques années auparavant et se poursuit encore, met également en scène un Auguste plus âgé. Le premier livre des Aigles de Rome se déroule entre 9 et 1 avant J.-C. donc la série débute à peu près au même moment que celle d’Alix Senator, qui commence en 12 avant J.-C. Dans la série d’Enrico Marini, on voit Auguste imposer à l’un de ses anciens généraux la présence dans sa famille d’un adolescent germain, envoyé comme otage à Rome par sa tribu : il lui ordonne de l’éduquer et d’en faire « un vrai Romain » et, pour cela, il commence par attribuer la citoyenneté romaine au jeune Ermanamer et des tria nomina inspirés des siens propres 93 : le jeune homme devient Gaius Julius Arminius, ce même Arminius responsable – historiquement – du désastre des légions de Varus, un échec militaire cuisant pour Auguste et si traumatisant pour l’armée romaine que les numéros des légions perdues ne furent plus jamais attribués. Le deuxième livre a lieu en 4 et 9 après J.-C. et on y voit Auguste s’inquiéter des rumeurs de révolte en Germanie 94. Le troisième livre, en 8 après J.-C., montre les conjurations intérieures (fomentées par le fils de Lépide) qui guettent aussi le princeps 95 et qui sont évoquées par Velleius Paterculus mais bien avant le moment où se déroule notre histoire : Dum ultimam bello Actiaco Alexandrinoque Caesar imponit manum, M. Lepidus, iuuenis forma quam mente melior, Lepidi eius qui triumuir fuerat rei publicae constituendae filius, Iunia Bruti sorore natus, interficiendi, simul in Vrbem reuertisset, Caesaris consilia inierat 96. 92

http://www.mangin.tv/infos.-reportages_photos.38.html (consulté le 13 janvier 2015). 93 MARINI (2007), Les Aigles de Rome. Livre I, p. 16, cases 3-4. 94 MARINI (2009), Les Aigles de Rome. Livre II, p. 46 et 50-52 : « N’oublie pas que mon honneur est en jeu. J’ai fait d’Arminius ce qu’il est aujourd’hui, et je ne peux pas me permettre de m’être trompé sur lui », déclare ainsi Auguste (p. 52, case 6). 95 MARINI (2011), Les Aigles de Rome. Livre III, p. 25-26. 96 « Pendant que César mettait fin aux guerres d’Actium et d’Alexandrie, un jeune homme dont les dons physiques étaient supérieurs aux capacités intellectuelles, M. Lépide, fils de ce Lépide qui avait été triumvir pour la réorganisation de l’État, et de Iunia, sœur de Brutus, avait formé le projet d’assassiner César dès son retour à Rome » (VELL., Histoire romaine 88.1, traduction HELLEGOUARC’H). Ce Lépide, mis en scène dans Les Aigles de Rome, fut relégué par Auguste à Circeï, dans le Latium (voir COSME [2005], p. 207)… le lieu même choisi par Valérie Mangin dans le début des Aigles de sang (p. 3, case 1) pour faire mourir le personnage, de manière certes plus violente que ce que l’Histoire nous a rapporté.

OCTAVE DANS ALIX, AUGUSTE DANS ALIX SENATOR

551

Le but de ce changement dans le chronologie est de montrer un Auguste vieillissant, autoritaire, mais en proie à des attaques sur tous les fronts, aussi bien dans le Latium qu’en territoire ennemi. À cet effet, l’action du dernier tome paru à ce jour a lieu en 9 après J.-C. (avec des flash-back) et évoque les premières opérations militaires des Germains ayant conduit au massacre des légions du général Varus 97. La suite de l’histoire, consacrée à la montée en puissance d’Arminius et à sa victoire à Teutoburg, risque d’accentuer aux yeux du lecteur l’impression de perte de pouvoir d’Auguste en cette fin de règne, à moins que le scénariste ne le dédouane pour s’orienter plutôt vers le récit des erreurs stratégiques de Varus, dont font état Velleius Paterculus et Dion Cassius, qui évoque aussi la douleur et l’inquiétude immenses d’Auguste après la perte de ces légions et le danger potentiel pour Rome même 98. 5. Conclusion « Pourvu qu’Octave ne se prenne pas désormais pour un phénomène », telle était la réflexion d’Alix dans Le Tombeau étrusque en 1968 : au vu du développement du personnage depuis la moitié des années 2000, nous pouvons au moins affirmer qu’il est en passe d’en devenir un dans la bande dessinée. Dans la série originelle Alix, Octave apparaît comme un jeune homme intelligent, qui essaie de rester le plus souvent maître de ses sentiments et qui a déjà un sens des réalités et des responsabilités politiques, lorsque font rage les guerres civiles. Chez Martin et chez Chaillet qui s’inspirent littéralement de Suétone, il est associé essentiellement à la question de l’investiture sacrée du pouvoir puisque les dieux semblent l’avoir choisi dans Le Tombeau étrusque et La Dernière Prophétie. Mais il est également au cœur des manipulations politiques, qu’elles soient mises en place par des anonymes, dans Le Spectre de Carthage, ou par César lui-même, bien décidé à accentuer la légitimité de son héritier potentiel, en mettant en scène au besoin le vol d’aigles apprivoisés dans Alix Senator. La production récente s’attache donc à montrer une facette moins lisse de l’empereur Auguste : le lecteur des Aigles de Rome et surtout celui d’Alix Senator (où l’empereur occupe une place importante) découvrent un Auguste différent en pénétrant dans l’intimité du pouvoir par le biais des liens entre le personnage principal fictionnel de chaque série et le personnage historique de l’empereur. Les scénarios se font de plus en plus documentés, grâce à la lecture d’ouvrages scientifiques ou la consultation de spécialistes. La tendance actuelle est d’essayer d’inverser la vision traditionnelle associée à de grandes figures antiques : si Auguste était perçu au préalable comme essentiellement positif, on 97

La défaite romaine est suffisamment célèbre pour être citée (mais quand même explicitée) par un personnage dans la série télévisée grand public Grimm (NBC) comme référence de la terrible embuscade que les héros ont subie (saison 5, épisode 7). 98 VELL., Hist. rom. 2.117-119 ; DION CASSIUS, Hist. rom. 56.

552

JULIE GALLEGO

va chercher ce qui peut altérer ce portrait ; si au contraire c’est une légende noire qui entourait le personnage, on va essayer de trouver ce qui pourrait améliorer cette image : c’est le cas dans la série Murena qui nous donne à voir un Néron moins noir et plus humain que l’image manichéenne qu’il véhicule traditionnellement dans les réécritures fictionnelles qui le mettent en scène. Bibliographie Corpus de bandes dessinées CHAILLET, G. (2002), La Dernière Prophétie t. 1. Voyage aux Enfers, Grenoble, Glénat. MANGIN, V. / FAFNER (2012), Chroniques de l’Antiquité galactique – Imperator t. 1, Les Fascistes sont éternels, Toulon, Soleil / Quadrants. MANGIN, V. / DÉMAREZ, Th. (2012), Chroniques de l’Antiquité galactique – Le Dernier Troyen (éd. intégrale avec le cahier spécial « Aux sources mythologiques… »), Toulon, Soleil, 2012. MANGIN, V. / DÉMAREZ, Th. (2012), Alix Senator t. 1. Les Aigles de sang, Paris, Casterman, 2012 (éd. premium avec cahier spécial « Auguste, l’homme qui ne pouvait pas être roi »). MANGIN, V. / DÉMAREZ, Th. (2013), Alix Senator 2. Le Dernier Pharaon, Paris, Casterman (éd. premium avec cahier spécial « L’Égypte sous le pharaon Auguste »). MANGIN, V. / DÉMAREZ, Th. (2014), Alix Senator 3. La Conjuration des rapaces, Paris, Casterman (éd. premium avec cahier spécial « Domus Augusta : la famille impériale »). MANGIN, V. / DÉMAREZ, Th. (2015), Alix Senator 4. Les Démons de Sparte, Paris, Casterman (éd. premium avec cahier spécial « La Grèce : une province détruite »). MARINI, E. (2007), Les Aigles de Rome. Livre I, Bruxelles / Paris, Dargaud Bénélux. MARINI, E. (2009), Les Aigles de Rome. Livre II, Bruxelles / Paris, Dargaud Bénélux. MARINI, E. (2011), Les Aigles de Rome. Livre III, Bruxelles / Paris, Dargaud Bénélux. MARINI, E. (2013), Les Aigles de Rome. Livre IV, Bruxelles / Paris, Dargaud Bénélux. MARTIN, J. (1968), Alix t. 8. Le Tombeau étrusque, Bruxelles / Paris, Casterman. — (1977), Alix t. 13. Le Spectre de Carthage, Bruxelles / Paris, Casterman. MARTIN, J. / MORALÈS, R. (2005), Alix t. 24. Roma, Roma, Bruxelles / Paris, Casterman. MARTIN, J. / VENANZI, M. (2010), Alix t. 29. Le Testament de César, Bruxelles / Paris, Casterman.

Sources antiques AILLOUD, H. (1931), Suétone. Vie des douze Césars, Paris, Les Belles Lettres. BOURGERY, A. (1922), Sénèque. Dialogues. Tome I. De ira, Paris, Les Belles Lettres. CHAUMARTIN, Fr.-R. (2005), Sénèque. De la clémence, Paris, Les Belles Lettres. FLACELIÈRE, R. / CHAMBRY, E (2015), Plutarque. Vie d’Antoine, Paris, Les Belles Lettres. FROMENTIN, V. / BERTRAND ECANVIL, E. (2008), Dion Cassius. Histoire romaine. Livre 45 et 46, Paris, Les Belles Lettres. GROS, E. (1848), Dion Cassius. Histoire romaine, Paris, Librairie Firmin Didot. Disponible sur http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/historiens/Dion/table.htm GUITTARD, Ch. (1997), Macrobe. Saturnales, Paris, Les Belles Lettres.

OCTAVE DANS ALIX, AUGUSTE DANS ALIX SENATOR

553

HELLEGOUARC’H, J. (2003), Velleius Paterculus. Histoire romaine. Tome II, Paris, Les Belles Lettres. TORRENS, Ph. (2000), Appien. Guerres civiles. Livre III, Paris, Les Belles Lettres.

Littérature secondaire ALBIN, Br. (2014), La Véritable Histoire d’Auguste, Paris. AUBERT, A. (2008), compte rendu du livre d’E. GENTILE (2007), Fascismo di Pietra, Rome-Bari. Publié le 05/06/08 sur http://www.nonfiction.fr/article-1165-fascisme_ rome_et_romanite.htm ; consulté le 07/02/16. BORDET, M. (1969), Précis d’histoire romaine, Paris. CADARIO, M. (2014), Les formes de célébration du Prince, in C. GIROIRE et al. (éds.), Auguste, Paris, p. 108-119. CHAMPEAUX, J. (2005), Permission, monition, prédiction : les signes de la divination romaine, in J. KANY-TURPIN (éd.), Signe & Prédiction dans l’Antiquité, Saint-Étienne, p. 211-222. COSME, P. (2005), Auguste, Paris. — (2014), Auguste maître du monde : Actium, 2 septembre 31 av. J.-C., Paris. DUPONT, Fl. (1994), Le Citoyen romain sous la République : 509-27 avant J.-C., Paris. ENGELS, D. (2007), Das römische Vorzeichenwesen, Stuttgart. ENGELS, D. (2010), Prodigies and Religious Propaganda : Seleucus and Augustus, in C. DEROUX (éd.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 15, Bruxelles, p. 153-177. GALLEGO, J. (2012a), La murène et le fils de la Méduse [étude sur la série Murena de J. Dufaux et Ph. Delaby], in J.-P. DE GIORGIO / F. GALTIER (éds.), Le Monstre et sa lignée. Filiations et générations monstrueuses dans la littérature latine et sa postérité, Paris, p. 339-357. Disponible sur : http://crphll.univ-pau.fr/live/digitalAssets/ 124/124460_GALLEGO_Julie_-_article_complet_filiation_monstrueuse_Murena.pdf GALLEGO, J. (2012b), Jules César au secours des scénaristes américains : l’incipit de la série Rome, in A. HUDELET / S. VASSET (éds.), Les Séries télévisées américaines contemporaines : entre la fiction, les faits et le réel, TV/Series 1, p. 25-50. Disponible sur : http://journals-openedition.org/tvseries/1057 (consulté le 13 janvier 2015). GIARDINA, A. (2002), L’homme romain, in ID. (éd.), L’Homme romain, Paris, p. 7-25. GIARDINA, A. (2014), Auguste entre deux bimillénaires, in C. GIROIRE et al. (éds.), Auguste, Paris, p. 16-23. GROS, P. (2014), La province de Gaule Narbonnaise créée par Auguste, in C. GIROIRE et al. (éds.), Auguste, Paris, p. 260-281. LA ROCCA, E. (2014), Rome, de la brique au marbre, in C. GIROIRE et al. (éds.), Auguste, Paris, p. 122-129. LAUGIER, L. (2014), [notice du bas-relief du suovetaurile], in C. GIROIRE et al. (éds.), Auguste, Paris, p. 142-143. LÉPRONT, C. (2008), Le geste d’Auguste, in C. LÉPRONT (éd.), Ingres ombres permanentes : belles feuilles du musée Ingres de Montauban, Paris / New York / Montauban, p. 20-25. MALVANO BECHELLONI, L. (2003), Le mythe de la romanité et la politique de l’image dans l’Italie fasciste, in Vingtième Siècle. Revue d’histoire 78, p. 111-120. Disponible sur : www.cairn.info/revue-vingtieme-siecle-revue-d-histoire-2003-2page-111.htm. DOI : 10.3917/ving.078.0111.

554

JULIE GALLEGO

MARIE, V. (2015), La bande dessinée au service d’un imaginaire créateur d’Histoire(s)  : l’exemple du Tombeau étrusque de Jacques Martin, in J. GALLEGO (éd.), La Bande dessinée historique. Premier cycle : l’Antiquité, Pau, p. 153-160. MAZENOD, F. (2013), Patrimoine et marché immobilier  : la rénovation urbaine à Rome pendant le fascisme, ASRDLF, Mons. Disponible sur http://www.asrdlf2013.org (consulté le 07/02/16). NÉRAUDAU, J.-P. (1996), Auguste : la brique et le marbre, Paris. NÉRAUDAU, J.-P. (2008), Être enfant à Rome, Paris. ROGER, D. (2014), La prise du pouvoir  : les arts, les armes et les mots, in C. GIROIRE et al. (éds.), Auguste, Paris, p. 66-69. SCHEID, J. (1985), Religion et piété à Rome, Paris. VEYNE, P. (2002), Humanitas  : les Romains et les autres, in A. GIARDINA (éd.), L’Homme romain, Paris, p. 437-478. WALLACE-HADRILL, A. (2014), Octavien et le déclin de la République, in C. GIROIRE et al. (éds.), Auguste, Paris, p. 48-63. ZERNER, H. (2010), Une sombre histoire : Ingres et Virgile lisant l’Énéide devant Auguste, Livie, et Octavie, in A. MIURA (éd.), Génétique de la peinture. Actes du colloque international, Tokyo, p. 9-23.

Sitographie http://www.alixsenator.com http://www.actuabd.com http://alixmag.canalblog.com http://www.peplums.info http://www.mangin.tv

Videsne, ut cinaedus orbem digito temperat? Augustus, Homosexuality and the Reception of Suetonius, Augustus 68 in Popular Culture ALEKSANDRA KLĘCZAR (Jagiellonian University, Krakow)

Abstract This article focuses on a passage of Suetonius, Divus Augustus 68, where the biographer briefly treats the allegations made by Antony concerning Octavian’s possible seduction by Caesar, together with the accusations of prostitution and effeminacy directed at the future princeps. Without trying to assess any historicity of the events discussed, I shall analyse Suetonius’ text from two complimentary points of view. On the one hand I shall try to place Antony’s accusations of homosexuality, effeminacy and prostitution within their own cultural context and to analyse them against the backdrop of Roman ethical tradition. On the other, I will look at the reception of this motif in modern popular culture. An analysis of two instances when the motif of Octavian’s seduction is used (namely season I of HBO’s TV series Rome and Neil Gaiman, Stan Woch and Dick Giordano’s graphic short story, August) can provide an insight into the modernising, subversive and selective readings and reinterpretations of classical tradition set up by modern popular culture.

1. Introduction: The Cinaedus Who Rules the World In chapter 68 of his Life of Augustus, Suetonius quotes a rather nasty set of rumours, concerning Octavian’s supposedly improper behaviour in the times of his youth: In early youth he incurred the reproach of sundry shameless acts. Sextus Pompey taunted him with effeminacy; Mark Antony with having earned adoption by his uncle through unnatural relations; and Lucius, brother of Mark Antony, that after sacrificing his honour to Caesar he had given himself to Aulus Hirtius in Spain for three hundred thousand sesterces, and that he used to singe his legs with red-hot nutshells, to make the hair grow softer. What is more, one day when there were plays in the theatre, all the people took as directed against him and loudly applauded the following line, spoken on the stage and referring to a priest of the Mother of the Gods, as he beat his timbrel: Seest how a wanton’s finger sways the world? 1 1 SUET., Aug. 68: Prima iuuenta uariorum dedecorum infamiam subiit. Sextus Pompeius ut effeminatum insectatus est; M. Antonius adoptionem auunculi stupro meritum;

556

ALEKSANDRA KLĘCZAR

The text presents a set of serious allegations, suggesting various vices of the future princeps. These particular pieces of gossip in Suetonius are left uncommented, even though the author distances himself from them, by carefully mentioning them as opinions of various individuals (well-known public figures: Sextus Pompey, Antony and his brother Lucius) or of unspecified Romans (the anecdote about an ambiguous line: uidesne, ut cinaedus orbem digito temperat, spoken in theatre; in-play it was referring to a character, a castrated priest of Kybele, and his drum, but was apparently understood by the public as an allusion to debauched Augustus and his ruling of the world). The gossip can be summarized as follows: Augustus as a boy had shamelessly exploited his youth and good looks: he was effeminate (that is, he took part in homosexual acts as the passive partner), he made Caesar have sex with him in exchange for the adoption, and he later kept engaging in the same behaviour, this time for simple financial gratification. The anecdote about the play seems to suggest that these accusations have become common knowledge among the Romans and were still remembered years later. It is interesting to observe the tone of Suetonius’ allegations. It is commonly known that in Rome an accusation of willingly committing this particular kind of stuprum 2 – in other words, of partaking in homosexual acts as the passive partner – was believed to be seriously damaging to one’s reputation (and thus often used against political enemies with little or none factual support for the accusation – as may well be the case here 3). There is an extensive discussion on the topic of Roman cinaedi among classicists and historians of Rome. The scope of the present paper is much too narrow to allow for presenting the details of the debate, which revolves around a number of questions, pertaining to such issues as the identity of the cinaedi: whether or not they were a distinct and defined social group of homosexual males, 4 distinguishable by their behaviour and clothing; what were their social standings and whether their perception and evaluation by Roman cultural norms changed in tim. 5 Despite the controversies, certain facts can be stated with certainty: that the cinaedi were often mentioned in Roman sources of the late Republican and early Augustan period, that they were associated with passive homosexuality and effeminacy and that their perception by the general public in Rome was largely negative, or at best derisive; item L. Marci frater, quasi pudicitiam delibatam a Caesare Aulo etiam Hirtio in Hispania trecentis milibus nummum substrauerit solitusque sit crura suburere nuce ardenti, quo mollior pilus surgeret. Sed et populus quondam uniuersus ludorum die et accepit in contumeliam eius et adsensu maximo conprobauit uersum in scaena pronuntiatum de gallo Matris deum tympanizante: uidesne, ut cinaedus orbem digito temperat? English translation: ROLFE (1913 [1998]). 2 On the understanding of stuprum, see RICHLIN (1983 [1992]), p. 30. 3 See OSGOOD (2008). 4 See RICHLIN (1993). 5 See CANTARELLA (2002), p. 120-163.

AUGUSTUS, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE RECEPTION OF SUET., AUG. 68

557

it could also evoke associations with male prostitution. In the context of the accusations in Suetonius, Aug. 68, it would be rather obvious for the Roman public to see the young Octavius as a depraved, conniving and unprincipled young man, who prostitutes himself, using his sexual attractiveness for political and financial gain. Placed in the narrative context of other misdemeanours and improper acts committed by Augustus (proving his cruelty, vindictiveness and duplicitous morals), these accusations form a rather standard and predictable set. It was nothing new, in both Roman legal practice and, first and foremost, political polemics, to accuse one’s opponent of being effeminate, of prostituting himself in the times of his youth, of engaging in passive homosexual acts. All these allegations were often used to question the opponent’s virility and thus, to suggest that he was either unworthy of the position he had achieved/was trying to achieve, or unfit, generally, for the public service and the company of proper men; often such accusations were also used to throw a certain negative light on the nature and character of the accused. Cicero defended Caelius Rufus against allegations of that kind; 6 conversely, he directed similar charges against Antony. 7 The well-known songs about Caesar and Nicomedes of Bithynia, quoted by Suetonius, 8 and the persistent gossip in Rome concerning this episode in the future dictator’s life are based on identical allegations. CICERO, Pro Caelio 6: “For as to the attacks which have been made on him on the score of chastity, which has been harped upon by all the accusers, not by regular charges, but by outcry and abuse; Marcus Caelius will never be indignant at that, so far as to repent of not being ugly. For those sort of reproaches are habitually heaped upon every one, whose person and appearance in youth is at all gentlemanly.” English translation: YONGE (1891). 7 CICERO, Phil. 2, 18: “You assumed a man’s gown, and at once turned it into a harlot’s. At first you were a common prostitute, the fee for your infamies was fixed, and that not small; but Curio quickly turned up, who withdrew you from your meretricious traffic, and, as if he had given you a matron’s robe, established you in an enduring and stable wedlock. No boy ever bought for libidinous purposes was ever so in the power of his master as you were in Curio’s. How often did his father eject you from his house, how often did he set watchmen that you might not cross his threshold! While you nevertheless, with night as your abettor, at the bidding of lust, and the compulsion of your pay, were let down through the tiles.” English translation: KERR (1926). 8 On Caesar and Nicomedes, SUET., Iul. 2: “Being sent by Thermus to Bithynia, to fetch a fleet, he dawdled so long at the court of Nicomedes that he was suspected of improper relations with the king; and he lent colour to this scandal by going back to Bithynia a few days after his return, with the alleged purpose of collecting a debt for a freedman, one of his dependents.” English translation: ROLFE (1913 [1998]). On the songs and the gossip on Caesar and Nicomedes’ alleged relationship, SUET., Iul. 49: “There was no stain on his reputation for chastity except his intimacy with King Nicomedes, but that was a deep and lasting reproach, which laid him open to insults from every quarter. I say nothing of the notorious lines of Licinius Calvus: ‘Whate’er Bithynia had, and Caesar’s paramour.’ I pass over, too, the invectives of Dolabella and the elder Curio, in which Dolabella calls him ‘the queen’s rival, the inner partner of the 6

558

ALEKSANDRA KLĘCZAR

The accusations quoted in Suet., Aug. 68 are certainly not the most important motifs in the biography of Augustus and, predictably, the majority of his representations in popular culture omits them completely. The more interesting it seems, therefore, to look at two instances of the use of this motif in popular culture 9 and at two diverse readings of the Suetonian gossip from Aug. 68. 2. Augustus and Popular Culture: The Case of Rome The image of Augustus present in popular culture is multi-faceted and ambiguous. On the one hand, we have the popular portrait of him as the great peacemaker and architect of the greatness of Rome, inspired by the vision instilled by school education. This image, however, is often juxtaposed with another, contrasting one: Augustus as a tyrant and usurper, a false, cunning, ruthless man. Interestingly, this second, revisionist vision of Rome’s first emperor seems actually rather widespread: probably in nearly every popular rendition of the Antony and Cleopatra story 10 one has a chance of encountering an evil,

royal couch’, and Curio, ‘the brothel of Nicomedes and the stew of Bithynia’. I take no account of the edicts of Bibulus, in which he posted his colleague as ‘the queen of Bithynia’, saying that ‘of yore he was enamoured of a king, but now of a king’s estate’. At this same time, so Marcus Brutus declares, one Octavius, a man whose disordered mind made him somewhat free with his tongue, after saluting Pompey as ‘king’ in a crowded assembly, greeted Caesar a ‘queen’. But Gaius Memmius makes the direct charge that he acted as cup-bearer to Nicomedes with the rest of his wantons at a large dinner-party, and that among the guests were some merchants from Rome, whose names Memmius gives. Cicero, indeed, is not content with having written in sundry letters that Caesar was led by the king’s attendants to the royal apartments, that he lay on a golden couch arrayed in purple, and that the virginity of this son of Venus was lost in Bithynia; but when Caesar was once addressing the senate in defence of Nysa, daughter of Nicomedes, and was enumerating his obligations to the king, Cicero cried: ‘No more of that, pray, for it is well known what he gave you, and what you gave him in turn.’ Finally, in his Gallic triumph his soldiers, among the bantering songs which are usually sung by those who follow the chariot, shouted these lines, which became a by-word: ‘All the Gauls did Caesar vanquish, Nicomedes vanquished him; Lo! Now Caesar rides in triumph, victor over all the Gauls, Nicomedes does not triumph, who subdued the conqueror’.” English translation: ROLFE (1913 [1998]). 9 Defining popular culture is a complicated task and there is no consensus about the meaning of the term and the criteria of including or excluding various cultural texts. The academic discussion is extensive; see e.g. STOREY (2010) for a useful introduction to the debate. 10 I am purposefully leaving aside the discussion on the image of Octavius in Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra (on which see the contribution of E. OAKLEY-BROWN in this volume), even though there is no doubt about the work’s (indirect) influence on the popular representations of the topic. The cunning, dispassionate Octavius of the play is certainly important for the development of the popular image of Augustus. This influence, however, is usually mediated through other texts of culture. On the representation of Octavius in Antony and Cleopatra, see e.g. KALMEY (1978); SMITH (1974).

AUGUSTUS, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE RECEPTION OF SUET., AUG. 68

559

scheming Octavius, standing in the way of the lovers, uniformly portrayed as positive characters. 11 As is often the case in popular culture, the image of Augustus in a given work often owes more to other popular representations, 12 already present in the cultural and popular-cultural tradition, than to the reworking or reinterpreting of the primary Greek or Roman sources. In other words: when we see, in a popular representation, a vision of Roman empire, it is highly possible that the main inspiration for it can be found in another reworking of the Roman theme, and not (or not primarily) in the author’s reflection on the original sources. It is important to understand that the above statement is not meant to disparage or criticise popular representations as unfaithful to the historical truth or simplified by not using original sources. It is meant rather to point at a very characteristic feature of popular culture: when one analyses, for example, the portrayal of Cleopatra in Rome (the series which I discuss below), it is at least equally important to bear in mind both Plutarch’s image in The Life of Antony and the Egyptian queen’s cinematic interpretations by Theda Bara, Claudette Colbert, Vivien Leigh or Elisabeth Taylor, 13 to quote just a few cases. We may safely assume that Cleopatra’s portrayal in Rome will, in all probability, be created in reference – be it imitation, emulation, conscious reworking or contrast – to one, or some, or many existing popular representations of the queen. 14 The representations of Octavius/Octavian/Augustus in popular culture are fairly numerous. The two cases discussed in the present paper are, however, rather distinct. They both use, among others, the stuprum accusation mentioned by Suetonius. They both explore various possible interpretations of this piece of gossip (Did it happen? Did it not? Was it willing? Was it to gain something? What does it say about Octavian? About Caesar? About Roman mores?) and weave them, intelligently and originally, into the larger storyline, concerning Caesar, Octavian and Rome itself. The BBC/HBO coproduction Rome was a successful two-season-long TV series: against the background of the crumbling Roman republic, it told the story of the lives of two Roman citizens-soldiers, Titus Pullo and Lucius 11 See e.g. Cleopatra, dir. Cecil B. DeMille, 1934 (with Ian Keith as Octavian); Cleopatra, dir. Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1963 (with Roddy McDowall as Octavian); the 1997 novel by Margaret George, The Memoirs of Cleopatra, and its 1999 TV adaptation (with Rupert Graves as Octavian) as examples of this tendency. 12 On the importance of self-referentiality in popular culture see MCROBBIE (1994). 13 Theda Bara: Cleopatra, dir. J. Gordon Edwards, 1917 (despite the fact that the bulk of the film has since been lost, the preserved images of Theda Bara in the title role were highly influential for the subsequent popular culture portrayals of the Egyptian queen); Claudette Colbert: Cleopatra, dir. Cecil B. DeMille, 1934; Vivien Leigh: Caesar and Cleopatra, dir. Gabriel Pascal, 1945; Elisabeth Taylor: Cleopatra, dir. Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1963. 14 On the various images of Cleopatra in popular culture, see DE CALLATAŸ (2015), p. 85-113.

560

ALEKSANDRA KLĘCZAR

Vorenus (fictionalized characters named after the two centurions mentioned by Caesar in Bellum Gallicum 5, 44 15). The historical (or rather history-based) characters are of great importance as well. 16 The first season concentrates on the career of Caesar and ends with his assassination (49-44 B.C.). The second, beginning at the Ides of March, follows the life of Octavian until his victories at Actium and Alexandria (31-30 B.C.) and his triumph at Rome (29 B.C.). The series’ aim was to be authentic: while many details of the characters’ biographies differ from the historical facts, the authors aimed at representing Rome – its morals, its ethics, its looks, its everyday objects like clothing, dishes, furniture – as faithfully as possible. 17 Thus, a lot of attention was paid to using on screen certain anecdotes and episodes known from classical authors, that from Suetonius Aug. 68 among them. The story of Octavius’ alleged sexual adventure with Caesar first appears in episode 4 of the first season, entitled Stealing from Saturn. It continues the previous storylines (the story of the stolen gold, Caesar’s rise to power and his relationship with his niece Atia and his lover Servilia). One of the motifs present here is the growing-up of Octavius. He is presented, in the first season, as a rather sensitive, but headstrong, rebellious, intellectual boy, often misunderstood by his ambitious, sexually voracious and manipulative mother, Atia. Octavius (who in season 2 grows into a much less likeable character of a cold, cruel, political mastermind) is often pushed by his mother towards growing up and making a career for himself: she forces him into sexual initiation by sending him to a brothel and constantly tries to push him on the path of a political career. In Stealing from Saturn, Atia organizes a large party for Caesar – partly to honour him, partly to show the importance of her own house and to triumph 15 CAESAR, Bell. Gall. 5, 44: “In that legion there were two most gallant centurions, now not far from the first class of their rank, Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus. They had continual quarrels together which was to stand first, and every year they struggled in fierce rivalry for the chief posts.” Having described in the rest of chapter 44 their valiant fight against the Nervii and their fortunate salvation in the midst of the battle, Caesar concludes: “In the eagerness of their rivalry fortune so handled the two that, for all their mutual hostility, the one helped and saved the other, and it was impossible to decide which should be considered the better man in valour.” English translation: EDWARDS (1917 [1958]). 16 For a historical analysis of the series, see LE BOHEC (2013). 17 See the opinion of the series’ historical consultant, Jonathan Stamp: “We did everything we could to make these episodes historically authentic, which meant researching and incorporating every kind of detail we could about the way our characters behaved, the way they interacted, how they dressed and gestured, the kind of streets they walked down, the way they conducted their private and public lives. […] We were not, however, making a documentary. We were striving for authenticity because it enriches the experience of the drama for the viewer.” Source: the official press pack for the series, available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/08_august/26/rome.shtml (accessed 2015-09-12).

AUGUSTUS, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE RECEPTION OF SUET., AUG. 68

561

over Caesar’s lover Servilia, whom she hates. During the banquet, Caesar decides the fate of Quintus Pompey, who was recently captured. Against expectations, he sends young Pompey back to his father’s camp, where the antiCaesarian senators have gathered. Pompey is about to carry to the camp a proposal for rather humiliating peace conditions. Young Octavius witnesses that fact. Caesar asks him about his own interpretation of the events. Octavius guesses righty that by setting such conditions Caesar wanted to infuriate the Pompeians and to make them uncertain. Caesar commends Octavius for his intuitions, but then he suddenly starts feeling unwell: he goes into an epileptic fit. Caesar’s trusted slave, Posca, forces Octavius and the sick man into a small shack and locks the door: it is Caesar’s wish that the fact of his sickness remains hidden from the public. Atia’s slaves hear the moans from behind the closed door and later see Caesar and Octavius emerging from the room. In the next episode, The Ram has Touched the Wall, this scene is recalled by Atia, who heartily congratulates her son for seducing his uncle and thus guaranteeing his own prosperous future (Atia, as we see here, repeats the accusations known from Suetonius, only changing their value from negative to positive). Octavius denies the fact of any such relationship but he is reluctant to reveal Caesar’s secret. Finally, he tells her mother that her uncle is very ill. The episode’s writer Julian Farino here makes a connection between two ancient pieces of gossip, that of Octavian seduction by Caesar and that of Caesar’s epilepsy. 18 The gossip repeated by Suetonius is treated exactly as such: as a gossip. We see it in the making, see how the misunderstanding grows from the servant’s mistake, Atia’s willing misrepresentation of the scene and Octavius’ loyalty towards his uncle and his need to keep his word. 19 The scene in the episode has an interesting double meaning and nature. On the one hand, its tone is serious. Octavius is terrified by Caesar’s disease and the viewer is surprised, since no information of Caesar’s affliction was given earlier. Also, this sudden show of weakness and fragilty in Caesar is a subtle foreshadowing of his future fall: even he, presented in Rome as a man of The story as such is related by PLUT., Caes. 17, 1, but made popular in the English-speaking culture by Shakespeare’s account in Julius Caesar (Act I, 2, 2): “(Cassius) But soft, I pray you. What, did Caesar swound? / (Casca) He fell down in the market place and foamed at mouth and was speechless. / (Brutus) ‘Tis very like. He hath the falling sickness.” 19 I do not fully agree with Strong’s remark that in this episode Octavius “could never be an innocent sexual victim. […] [H]e is the consummate manipulator and a callous, ambitious power seeker,” STRONG (2011). The image of Octavius as a ruthless political player is definitely predominant in season 2 of the series, but at the time when Stealing from Saturn takes place, he is still presented as a young boy and his political ambitions seem less predominant in his behavior than his need to impress the uncle and his complicated feelings towards Atia, his mother. I do, however, agree with Strong’s assumption that the disproving of the story affirms both Caesar’s and Octavius’ definite heterosexual identity within the series’ milieu. 18

562

ALEKSANDRA KLĘCZAR

intelligence and vision well surpassing the others around him and as a nearly invincible, always successful leader, suddenly turns out to have a weakness, one hidden carefully from the public eye. On the other hand, the scene also has a number of typically comic properties: it is, after all, a typical quid pro quo scene, with sexual innuendo implied by witnesses misinterpreting the actions. The scene, while short, is of importance for the development of the narrative, especially for the relationship between Octavius and Caesar. It is used to stress trust and understanding between Octavius and Caesar and the fact that the future princeps shares and understands Caesar’s burden (which is, of course, a foreshadowing of the future destinies of both of them). It also helps to characterize Octavius: his quick wits, his decision-making skills and loyalty. Additionally, it contributes to the portrait of his mother, Atia: the witty, cynical, vengeful woman, often treating sex as weapon. But is also important to remember that Rome was made with a general audience in mind, one not necessarily familiar with the Roman way of life and Roman ethics, and with the Roman sexual mores. The scene alluded here, which must be read completely differently by modern society, is also used for the society’s characterization for the intended audience: through Atia’s and the servants’ reactions it helps to point at Roman attitude towards such issues as sexual relationships between men, between people of great age difference (one of them being, from our perspective, underage; Octavian is ca. 14 in that scene), between close relatives. As such, it adds to the general “authenticity” aimed by the authors. 3. Augustus and Popular Culture: The Case of Neil Gaiman’s August Quite a different approach can be found in Neil Gaiman’s comic book short story, August. Gaiman, a British writer, is well known among the readers of speculative fiction. A prolific and awarded novelist and short story author, he is also well known for his scripts, written both for big screen movies and TV series. A work of special importance in his career is the long series of graphic novels called The Sandman; originally started in 1989, the regular issues of The Sandman were published until 1996 20 and were many times reprinted and supplemented with new material ever since. Gaiman was the writer of the story, which was illustrated by a number of artists (including specializes letterers, pencillers and colorists). Gaiman’s comic series has not been studied in more detail by scholars, and classicists make no exception here; and it is regrettable, since, I believe, there is a lot to study here for those interested in the reception of classical mythology and history. 20 Afterwards, a number of sequels, continuations and spin-offs were produced and published; nevertheless, the main storyline as planned and written by Gaiman ended in 1996.

AUGUSTUS, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE RECEPTION OF SUET., AUG. 68

563

In The Sandman Gaiman aimed at creating a world of mythical dimensions, concentrating the main storyline around the title character: the Sandman, Lord of Dreams, named Morpheus. He is surrounded by a large number of supporting characters of varied and miscellaneous origins: some of them originally are comic book 21 or popular culture heroes, some can be traced back to classical literature, from Aeschylus to Shakespeare. Others came from various mythological systems from all around the world, from ancient Greek tradition to Norse mythology and unorthodox Christian visions of Satan and Hell. Yet another group of characters are those rooted in history, or, should one say, in mythicized history or historical myths. Around the latter group of characters and their role in the universe created by Gaiman I would like to build the following part of my argument. Along with the main storyline (complicated and multi-layered as it is), The Sandman comprises a number of stories, usually short, that are only vaguely connected to both the main narrative and main characters; more often than not, they are used by the author to throw additional light on the motivations and characters of the protagonists. Among such stories the collection called Distant Mirrors is of special importance. The four stories belonging to it – entitled Thermidor, August, Three Septembers and a January and Ramadan – were originally published as separate issues of the Sandman in 1991 (in the case of the first three) and 1993 (for the last one). 22 They were later republished, together with a number of other comic shorts, in a collection called Fables and Reflections (1993) The titles of these four stories are ostensibly derived from the names of the months, but there is always a different, double meaning hidden behind a seemingly simple name. The most interesting case is August: 23 it is named after the eighth month of the year, but also, obviously, after the man who gave this month its classical Latin name: Octavian Augustus. Before discussing the portrayal of Augustus it would not be amiss to briefly look at the general character of the collection. All the stories in Distant Mirrors concentrate around two central, interwoven issues: power and memory. The main characters and the exponents of the themes in this collection – the themes of ruling, of kingship and empires – are always derived from history. In Thermidor two of the main personages are Robespierre and Saint-Just, presented by Gaiman as absolute rulers of the Terror-stricken France. Three Septembers and a January deals with the largely forgotten figure of Joshua Abraham Norton, or, as he would style himself, His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I of these United States, Protector of Mexico, a mid-19th c. eccentric businessman from 21

Like John Constantine, who is alluded to in some of the issues. The Sandman, no. 29, 30, 31 and 50 (the latter was written at the same time as the previous stories and its late publication is a result of some technical problems). 23 GAIMAN et al. (1993), p. 100-123. 22

564

ALEKSANDRA KLĘCZAR

San Francisco who believed himself Emperor of America. Ramadan has, as a protagonist, Harun al Rashid, the fifth Abbasid Caliph from the times of the Islamic Golden Age. Finally, in August, the main character is Octavian, but there is a looming shadow of yet another ruler, yet another almost-emperor here: Julius Caesar. The story as such, told in August, is deceptively simple. August is about one day in the life of Gaius Octavius, whom “the whole of the world, Roman and barbarian, was to know as Emperor Augustus”. 24 Augustus is told to be seventy during the events (which would date the story to ca. 7 CE) – although events is perhaps too much of a name for what happens here. A reader used to the stereotypical concept of a comic book being about the exciting adventures of superheroes saving the world is up for a surprise: in August nothing of the kind happens. Indeed, very little happens at all. An elderly Augustus is visited by his associate, the dwarf Lycius, an actor by profession. In his company the emperor is about to embark on a special quest: in a beggar’s guise, he would sit on the stairs of a temple and listen to the Romans, observing everyday life in his city. The observations and the city, however, turn out to be of little consequence here: the main storyline centres around Augustus’ conversation with Lycius, concerning the emperor’s own past and Rome’s possible future – or should we say, futures? In August, Gaiman often alludes to historical facts and details from Augustus’ life. The story is rooted in history and, at the same time, in the world of the fantastic and the fanciful. Great attention is devoted here to historical detail, both on the visual and the textual level. The details of Roman clothing, Roman coins and of the sights of the City itself, such as the temple of Mars Ultor, are carefully represented in the drawings. On the textual level we have frequent remarks about historical facts. They go well beyond the common knowledge of the period and seem to be based mostly on Suetonius’ Diuus Augustus. Augustus mentions his building program (p. 104), discusses his anti-theatre proclamations (p. 105) and the disappointment that his daughter and granddaughter cause him (p. 108). He tells Lycius about the legends concerning his conception, his birth and his possible divinity (p. 109). He also comments on the way in which he is related to Caesar and reflects on the first occasion of their meeting during the funeral of Julia, Caesar’s sister, when he himself was 12 (p. 108) and slowly reveals the well-known history of becoming Caesar’s heir. In addition, he enumerates political and civic offices that he has held in Rome (p. 109). Augustus’ characteristics, as much of it as we can glimpse from the story, are also based on Suetonius: we see Augustus commenting on his liking of simple, traditional and rather sparse food (p. 5, where he lists dried dates, raisins and watered wine as his only meal during the day). This remark is juxtaposed with Lycius’ sarcastic comment on “lark’s tongues and sows’ udders” 24

GAIMAN et al. (1993), p. 101.

AUGUSTUS, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE RECEPTION OF SUET., AUG. 68

565

that he imagines to be typical food for Roman aristocracy; no doubt that this particular belief of Lycius is shared by the story’s modern readers, since exotic, exquisite and slightly nauseating food is a staple in popular culture’s representations of ancient Rome. The historical context here is also built by the presence, in the action or in the narrative reminiscences, of actual historical characters. That Augustus and Caesar are based on real characters is obvious; less obviously so, the same is true about Lycius. The character of a young man, born into a noble family, affected with dwarfism and favoured by Augustus, appears in Suetonius’ Diuus Augustus; 25 interestingly, Gaiman’s Lycius comments casually on the fact that the god Apollo gave him a strong voice as a gift; the stentorian voice of the young dwarf-actor is mentioned in the same passage of Suetonius. 26 Apart from the main characters, also those less crucial or mentioned in passing are often historical characters. For a short moment we see Livia; remarks about the funeral of Iulia Caesaris, Atia’s mother, and of Cicero as pillar of the republic, are also made by Augustus. In one of the final frames the images of Tiberius (named), Caligula, Claudius and Nero (unnamed) also appear. Interestingly, each of them is given a short description that may, together with an image, identify them: evil (Tiberius), mad (Caligula), foolish (Claudius) and all three of these (Nero). Also, numerous allusions are made to various aspects of Roman religion, both at the realistic level (Augustus mentioning the temples and gods) and at the mythical one (Morpheus discussing the reality of the existence of gods such as Apollo and Terminus). On the other hand, the Rome and Romans of August are also deeply rooted in (mostly British rather than American) popular culture tradition. Popular ideas and concepts about Rome present in August, such as strange food, were mentioned before. It is also immediately visible in the faces of Augustus and Livia: they are both based on the images of the emperor and his wife as seen in the classical British TV series, I, Claudius, in which their characters were interpreted by Brian Blessed and Sian Philips. 27 For a reader familiar with the series (which was, needless to say, shown many times in UK and in many countries of the world), the images in the comic book immediately seem familiar. At the same time, this familiarity goes beyond image: the association covers also the 25 SUET., Aug. 43, 3: “He sometimes employed even Roman knights in scenic and gladiatorial performances, but only before it was forbidden by decree of the senate. After that he exhibited no one of respectable parentage, with the exception of a young man named Lycius, whom he showed merely as a curiosity; for he was less than two feet tall, weighed but seventeen pounds, yet he had a stentorian voice.” English translation: ROLFE (1913 [1998]). 26 See TRENTIN (2011). 27 See also A. Strong’s comments on the importance of I, Claudius for Gaiman’s narrative: STRONG (2011), p. 176.

566

ALEKSANDRA KLĘCZAR

features and characteristics, mostly of Augustus, but also of an episodic character of his wife. The character of Augustus in I, Claudius is that of a meek, elderly man, dominated by his wife; nevertheless, Claudius, narrating the story, has no doubts about the fact that his grandfather was, in his time, a shrewd and ruthless leader and an astute politician. These qualities fit very well with the necessarily limited knowledge we have about Augustus in August: we see him as an old man and Livia, in a short glimpse, as a controlling and strong personality, but we also cannot help but notice that Augustus here is a merciless killer (we see him kill a rat – a metaphor obvious in the context of him mentioning a moment earlier the proscriptions and the death of Cicero as well as suggesting that Lycius should fear him due to the political power that he wields) and a brutally efficient ruler of Rome. The simple story of the day in the life of an emperor and an actor is presented in a complicated, intricate narrative form. Like other stories in the collection, August is told in the form of the story within a story. The ostensible viewpoint is Lycius – but Lycius who is now old, as old as Augustus was in the story told by Lycius. We see, therefore, the past, the memory, filtrated and mediated through the eyes of Lycius. But this is not the only trick here. The story starts with a surprising image, a dark frame, isolated and differentiated from the rest: an image of a boy, hiding in his bed, cowering in fear; this much we know from both the illustration and the enigmatic text that accompanies it. 28 It is only much later that we return to this frame, this story: its narrator seems to be someone else than Lycius, some omniscient, distant narrator concentrated on young Octavius (the boy is, as it turns out, his younger self). So there is a breach in the story here, a surprise – what we see seems to be told by old Lycius, belong to his memories – but the crucial events, the pivotal facts are narrated to us by someone else, some other voice. Such a choice is, I believe, fully conscious, as it allows Gaiman to stress two important facts about this motif. Firstly, the choice of another, distant narrator, of dark colours and isolated frame, stresses the secretiveness and deeply personal character of this motive. This is a fact from the past that Augustus rarely shares with others; it is his own, his personal story. The voice of its narrator may, or may not, be associated with a character, who is secondary here, but crucial for the entire Sandman story: the title character, Morpheus, god of dreams. Only when in the latter part Morpheus appears in Augustus’ bedroom, taking on the role of the storyteller who comes to assuage the emperor’s nightmare 28 GAIMAN et al. (1993), p. 100; the text is divided between a number of boxes, indicated here by numbers: (1) “The boy is sixteen.” (2) “He is not crying. He is no barbarian, no Greek to give in to his feelings, his fears.” (3) “He waits in the darkness, listening for a footfall, for a sound.” (4) “He lies awake in the darkness.” (5) “Not crying.”

AUGUSTUS, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE RECEPTION OF SUET., AUG. 68

567

with his narratives, can the reader recognize the pattern of colours and shapes in the story about the frightened boy as typical for Morpheus and associated with him throughout the entire story. But there is a paradox here, yet another: the lord of dreams comes to talk about reality, the storyteller tells the truth. Because it is from Morpheus that we hear, for the first time, the grim and shameful story of what happened between the teenage Octavius and his uncle the general during their stay in the camp. One may add here one more observation: the choice of colours here stresses also the dominant themes – those of shame, humiliation, betrayal and grim secrets. August is also quite particularly complicated, when the chronology of the story is concerned. There are three main time perspectives in this story. Firstly, there is the now of Lycius’ narrative, fifty years after the death of Augustus: this is the frame of the main story. Secondly, there is the now of Lycius’ memories, that day when he went with the emperor to sit on the stairs of the temple. There is also a past: the less distant one, that of Augustus’ meeting with Morpheus, and the more distant past of Octavius’ youth: those few years from his first meeting with Caesar, when he was 12, until the time when he was 16. An additional time plane is created with the appearance of Morpheus, who lives permanently in mythical illo tempore and for whom time has little meaning; the same perspective of timelessness is additionally introduced with the motif of Caesar and Augustus’ knowledge of prophecies and of the possible futures of the Roman empire. Against this canvas of political, historical, biographical and visual reality Neil Gaiman weaves another story, the private and fantastic one. It is based on the very passage in Suetonius discussed here: it is, once again, the accusation that Antonius formulated against Octavian, that is the suggestion that young Octavius allowed his maternal granduncle Caesar to sexually possess him (i.e., committed stuprum) in order to get adopted and thereby to partake in Caesar’s power and wealth. Here Gaiman introduces his secret history of the Roman Empire, the fantastic story that becomes a part of Gaiman’s mythical narrative about the history of the world and the place of the Lord of Dreams within. This secret history starts, indeed, from the story mentioned above, one that Morpheus tells Augustus: the story of cruel rape and abuse of which the teenage Octavius is a victim and the invincible Caesar the perpetrator. It is easy to see how the possible Roman reading of such a story is sharply contrasted with the modern one, present here: for a modern reader it is obvious that the young Octavius feels sick, humiliated, violated. It is true that Caesar promises him adoption and teaches him everything about the future of Rome, grooming him for the future wielding of power and leadership. Nevertheless it does not make the situation right neither does it change the fact that the readers are meant to view Octavius here definitely as a victim of rape and abuse, not as a schemer or someone who could something.

568

ALEKSANDRA KLĘCZAR

The story of Caesar’s brutal exploitation of his young relative cannot, however, be interpreted only as a modernizing, subversive reworking of the motif known from Suetonius. Gaiman uses it also to introduce the theme of the fantastic into the story. And he does it in a particularly Roman way. Through Caesar, and later also through Morpheus, Gaiman’s Augustus has certain knowledge about the future of the world; he gained it not by some divine revelation, but by studying (and later controlling) the contents of the books of prophecies: this is the knowledge of an augur, of someone particularly familiar with a very Roman phenomenon of consulting the gods in order to know what the proper course of action should be. Caesar demanded of him to steer Rome towards the proper direction: a direction which would allow Rome to become a unified, unchangeable and invincible eternal empire, one and only under the sun. Augustus tells that to Lycius – but he does not tell, not openly, what course of actions he took, when the time came for him to decide. Yet we may guess it: his hatred for Caesar (and Caesar here, with his position, his arrogance and his disregard for the will and emotions of others, is a perfect representative of imperial Rome) and his controversial decisions (the end of conquests, the choice of unsuitable Tiberius for an heir) may suggest that he deliberately averted that future. He guaranteed that Rome would fall – and he did it, among other reasons, for personal vendetta. The human world, as in other stories from Sandman, has to be changing; it cannot remain stable, unchanging, unified; without change, there is no hope, and without hope, what meaning is there to life? 29 Neil Gaiman’s approach here, from a literary point of view, is rather traditional: it is, after all, typical for the historical-adventure narrative to introduce a secret, fictional factor, changing the course of known history (Dumas’ The Three Musketeers, where the character of Milady brings about the assassination of the duke of Buckingham, provides just one good example of such a method). Using this approach, Gaiman incorporates the story of the rise and fall of Rome into the general history and historiosophy of his fictional universe; using history, well researched and carefully rendered, he creates a narrative that is both psychological, and, above all else, mythical in his dimension. 4. Conclusions Seemingly, the reinterpretations of the story in Suetonius, Diuus Augustus 68 in Rome and The Sandman are varied and different, exploring diverse possible interpretations of the episode mentioned by Suetonius: in Rome the historicity of the episode is denied, in August it is stressed, with the story presented as crucial for both Octavius’ and the world’s future. Still, certain similarities may 29

See A. Strong’s reflections on the meaning of change in Gaiman’s Sandman: STRONG (2011), p. 173.

AUGUSTUS, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE RECEPTION OF SUET., AUG. 68

569

be stressed. Both texts present new, sometimes subversive ways of readings the episode. In Rome, we see the origins of the story mentioned by Suetonius and within the world of the story we can verify its veracity and see it for what it is; a piece of gossip, created by misunderstanding. In August the gossip turns out to be true, but the reading and the interpretation of it is radically different from the one inferred by Suetonius. Instead of a cunning and cynical youth we see a frightened, broken, disillusioned child; instead of clever seduction we have an image of a rape. Also, both stories are carefully integrated into the new context and new narratives: they become rather important for the general storyline and/ or for part thereof. An episode from a classical biography becomes here a starting point for two intriguing popular re-workings. These contemporary responses to a piece of Roman gossip/propaganda show how engaging and how relevant for the contemporary culture the narratives on ancient history could be, and, at the same time, how varied is the scale and range of modern responses to antiquity.

Bibliography Sources quoted (ancient and modern) EDWARDS, H. J. (1917), Caesar. The Gallic War, Cambridge, Mass. (Loeb Classical Library, 72). GAIMAN, N. (1993) (text) / B. TALBOT et al. (illustrations), The Sandman VI: Fables and Reflections, New York. KERR, W. C. R. (1926), Cicero. Philippics, Cambridge, Mass. (Loeb Classical Library, 15). ROLFE, J. C. (1913 [revised and reprinted, 1998]), Suetonius, vol. I, Cambridge, Mass. (Loeb Classical Library, 31). ROME, TV series: Season I, episode IV, Stealing from Saturn: J. FARINO (screenplay), B. HELLER (dir.), 2005. Season I, episode V, The Ram Has Touched the Wall: A. COULER (screenplay), B. HELLER (dir.), 2005. SHAKESPEARE, W. (2005), Julius Caesar, London. YONGE, C. D. (1891), The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, London.

Academic works CANTARELLA, E. (2002), Bisexuality in the Ancient World. Translated by C. Ó. CUILLEANÁIN, Yale. DE CALLATAŸ, Fr. (2015), Cléopâtre, usages et mésusages de son image, Bruxelles. KALMEY, R. P. (1978), Shakespeare’s Octavius and Elizabethan Roman History, in Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, 18, 2, p. 275-287. LANGLANDS, R. (2006), Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome, Cambridge. LE BOHEC, Y. (2013), Rome. Un conte d’amour et de mort, Paris. MCROBBIE, A. (1994), Postmodernism and Popular Culture, London.

570

ALEKSANDRA KLĘCZAR

OSGOOD, J. (2008), Caesar and Nicomedes, in The Classical Quarterly (New Series) 58, p. 687-691. Press Pack for the TV series Rome: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/ stories/2005/08_august/26/rome.shtml [accessed 2015-09-12]. RICHLIN, A. (1983 [revised and reprinted 1992]), The Garden of Priapus. Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor, New York / Oxford. RICHLIN, A. (1993), Not before Homosexuality: The Materiality of the cinaedus and the Roman Law against Love between Men, in Journal of the History of Sexuality 3, p. 523-573. SMITH, G. R. (1974), The Melting of Authority in “Antony and Cleopatra”, in College Literature 1, 1, p. 1-18. STOREY, J. (2010), Cultural Studies and the Study of Popular Culture, 3rd ed., Edinburgh. STRONG, A. (2011), A Dream of Augustus. Neil Gaiman’s Sandman and the Comics Mythology, in G. KOVACS / C. W. MARSHALL (eds.), Classics and Comics. Classical presences, New York / Oxford, p. 173-182. TRENTIN, L. (2011), Deformity in the Roman Imperial Court, in Greece and Rome 58, p. 195-208. WILLIAMS, C. A. (1999), Roman Homosexuality. Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity, Oxford.

Gaio Giulio Cesare Augusto Digitale. Traduzioni e appropriazioni della figura di Augusto nei videogiochi MATTIA THIBAULT / VINCENZO IDONE CASSONE (Università degli Studi di Torino)

Abstract Historical settings are among the most popular in digital games, which often employ historical periods/events as a privileged background in order to immerse the deeds of fictional characters in coherent and convincing virtual worlds, sophisticated historical simulations and re-enactments, as well as alternative (counterfactual) narratives. This paper examines the representation of Caesar Augustus in historical digital games, by analising two case studies, belonging to two famous series of strategic games: Civilization V (2010) and Rome: Total War II (2013). By doing so, the study describes the logics of character representation, as well as the historical perspective on the Roman age and civilisation.

1. Introduzione Sebbene talvolta trascurata dall’accademia, la presenza della Storia nei videogiochi è massiccia. Accanto a quello fantastico (articolato in fantascienza e fantasy) ed all’horror, il videogioco storico rimane uno dei più diffusi. Come per il Romanzo Storico, la Storia diviene lo sfondo privilegiato per narrare le gesta di personaggi fittizi che si muovono all’interno di essa. D’altro canto, però, vi sono anche moltissimi giochi che, come i più antichi wargames da tavola, permettono di effettuare vere e proprie rievocazioni storiche digitali. Che la Storia – ed in particolare la Storia militare – abbia dei legami con il gioco non è cosa nuova. Non ci riferiamo qui solo ai caratteri ludici che la guerra può assumere (almeno stando a Huizinga) 1, ma piuttosto alla presenza di elementi, situazioni e fascinazioni storiche all’interno di attività ludiche. Dopotutto già gli stessi ludi gladiatorii spesso consistevano nella rievocazione di battaglie passate 2 e moltissimi giocattoli – spade e soldatini – sono spesso riferiti ad epoche passate. 1 2

HUIZINGA (2002). SUMI (2005).

572

MATTIA THIBAULT / VINCENZO IDONE CASSONE

La Storia, nel gioco come nella fiction, diventa così non tanto una ricostruzione del passato, ma un vero e proprio mondo immaginario 3 che dal passato trae ispirazione, ma che si configura come una realtà parallela, più un altrove topologico che cronologico. In questo capitolo, articolato in due parti, gli autori tenteranno di ricostruire brevemente le relazioni che intercorrono tra i videogiochi, la Storia e lo studio di quest’ultima, per poi concentrasi sulla figura di Ottaviano Augusto e su come essa appaia, tradotta e trasformata, nella ludicità digitale. In particolare, verranno analizzati due giochi appartenenti a famose serie strategiche: Total War e Sid Meyer’s Civilizations. In Total War: Rome II un’intera Campagna è dedicata alla figura di Augusto, mentre in Civilizations 4 e 5 egli figura come leader della “Civiltà Romana”. 2. Storia e videogiochi Il rapporto tra Storia e ludicità digitale è al tempo stesso profondo e stratificato. Utilizzando come punto di partenza una definizione astratta del fare storico, come quella proposta da Lozano 4 – che, semplificando, lo intende come un’attività del pensiero che comporta selezione dei fatti, creazione di ordinamenti e connessioni, e la loro messa in prospettiva tramite una ricostruzione/narrazione – possiamo delineare i caratteri principali del rapporto tra videogiochi e Storia: – innanzitutto i giochi utilizzano ampiamente il passato come ambientazione, traendo da esso personaggi, motivi, eventi o situazioni in cui calare il giocatore; ciò può risultare nel semplice uso astratto e iconico (ad esempio, usando per i pezzi di una scacchiera delle raffigurazioni di soldati romani) o in più complesse rappresentazioni di interi mondi di gioco. – d’altro canto, i videogiochi possiedono carattere di modellizzazione, non limitandosi esclusivamente alla rappresentazione degli elementi, ma tentando di riprodurre, in modo più o meno complesso e articolato, a diversi livelli i rapporti e le relazioni tra fatti, eventi, motivi e personaggi storici. – infine, i videogiochi creano forme di immedesimazione, attraverso l’assunzione di punti di vista coerenti o ispirati a quelli di soggetti storici prestabiliti, o al contrario dipendenti da una una visuale omnicomprensiva quanto più totalizzante possibile. Il passato, quindi, nella sua vastità cronologica e varietà tipologica, è in grado di offrire un’ampia gamma di ambientazioni possibili, spesso utilizzate a fini narrativi o ludici. L’uso di eventi e fatti storici all’interno delle ambientazioni di gioco è spesso afflitto da stereotipi o pregiudizi storici di vario tipo. Ciò

3 4

ECO (1979). LOZANO (1987).

GAIO GIULIO CESARE AUGUSTO DIGITALE

573

dipende innanzitutto dall’eterogeneità dei fini tra gli studiosi della disciplina (che mirano ad una costruzione del sapere) e gli sviluppatori dei videogiochi (che si propongono di creare prodotti di intrattenimento), ma anche come diretta conseguenza di una percezione semplificata del fatto storico schiacciato sul presentee stereotipato 5. Questi stereotipi causano, innanzitutto, un notevole bias nella selezione di ciò che è considerato fatto storico, a causa del quale la maggior parte delle ambientazioni videoludiche tratta esclusivamente intrecci di guerre, politica e commercio 6 replicando, più o meno coscientemente, quell’approccio evenemenziale al fatto storico fortemente criticato dagli Annales. Nel tentativo di conciliare queste due realtà e di ovviare alle molte forzature a cui deve essere sottoposta la Storia per essere trasformata in ambientazione, molti giochi possiedono delle forme di enciclopedie, storiograficamente più accurate, che permettono al giocatore di confrontare il passato fittizio e semplificato del gioco, con quello più complesso e soggetto ad interpretazioni degli studi storici. Questi giochi infrangono così il Cerchio Magico 7, quel confine invisibile che separa il mondo del gioco da quello reale. Questa infrazione da un lato può essere un modo per tutelare le case produttrici dei giochi dall’accusa di “insegnare la Storia sbagliata”, dall’altro ha una ricaduta diretta anche sul giocatore: conferendo al gioco un alone di scientificità lo trasforma in una sorta di guida turistica del passato, permettendo così al giocatore di sperimentare un viaggio nel tempo che – per quanto virtuale e ludico – contiene in sé una sensazione di realtà sufficiente a conferigli un sapore di autenticità. 3. Tradurre la Storia La creazione di un videogioco ad ambientazione storica è un processo tutt’altro che semplice, e richiede una serie ben precisa di traduzioni: – La prima 8 è la traduzione del passato – inteso metaforicamente come lingua in parte a noi sconosciuta – nella lingua del presente, ovvero un linguaggio capace di essere compreso dalla comunità (in senso allargato). La scelta del periodo storico, il ruolo e il significato del momento prescelto dipenderà in gran parte dalle proiezioni che il presente attua su di esso e da motivazioni di tipo teleologico. 5 Se per lo storico tali soluzioni sono stereotipiche, dal punto di vista culturale è naturale che il passato venga spesso riletto attraverso il presente, in una chiave più univoca di quanto non sia, e che la sua comunicazione riposi sul rispetto delle attese di lettura e sulle conoscenze della comunità culturale: come sottolineato dai creatori della serie Total war, una ricostruzione efficace del passato deve innanzitutto permettere che what one would expect frome the period is still there; cf. BROWN (2013). 6 SCHUT (2007). 7 HUIZINGA (2002). 8 USPENSKIJ (1988).

574

MATTIA THIBAULT / VINCENZO IDONE CASSONE

– La seconda consiste in una traduzione dalle forme della narrazione scritta (le fonti, i saggi, le opere divulgative) ai linguaggi della rappresentazione digitale. La necessità di fornire una rappresentazione grafica coerente e stilisticamente piacevole prevale in genere sull’adeguatezza e sull’aderenza alle fonti scritte. – Infine vi è una terza traduzione, che trasporta la rappresentazione digitale della Storia nel mondo del gioco, nella sfera ludica. Gli avvenimenti devono così integrarsi con l’interattività tipica dei giochi, le regole previste dal sistema, la libertà di azione dei giocatori. Questi tre processi trasformano il passato storico in una rappresentazione ludica e digitale di esso, alterandolo irrimediabilmente. Ognuno di questi processi utilizza e comporta diverse soluzioni a livello di ambientazione, modellizzazione e immedesimazione. In questo capitolo ci soffermeremo sulle maniere in cui la seconda e la terza traduzione (della prima molto è già stato scritto) determinano la rappresentazione della Storia nei videogiochi. 4. Simulazioni e rappresentazioni digitali La costruzione di una porzione di mondo digitale di ambientazione storica è sempre, come abbiamo detto, frutto di una simulazione. Questa simulazione deve, da un lato, ricostruire i luoghi, gli oggetti ed i corpi (generare un’ambientazione) attraverso una rappresentazione virtuale di immagini in movimento. Dall’altro, però, a questa ricostruzione sincronica va affiancata una struttura di gioco che metta in relazione e in movimento i vari elementi virtuali (determinando una modellizzazione). La ricostruzione virtuale richiede che gli oggetti del reale siano trasformati in numeri ed in algoritmi; ovvero che gli elementi che la compongono – oggetti, luoghi, personaggi – siano riconducibili ad un insieme di elementi modulari. I limiti grafici e i costi delle attuali tecnologie, inoltre, rendono necessarie delle semplificazioni; ad esempio, che sia disponibile soltanto un certo numero di “volti” per tutti gli individui ed un certo numero di “facciate” per tutti gli edifici presenti nel gioco. Con l’aumentare della potenza di calcolo dei processori i videogiochi sono in grado di imitare in modo sempre più verosimile l’apparenza della realtà ma sono ancora ben lontani dalla verosimiglianza, intesa come effetto di realismo percettivo/culturale. Vi è, poi, la questione delle fonti: anche ammettendo la volontà di creare delle rappresentazioni fedeli, spesso le lacune nella documentazione rendono più conveniente creare versioni digitali degli elementi (vestiti, edifici, luoghi etc.) che siano principalmente coerenti visivamente tra di loro, piuttosto che aderenti al periodo in esame. La coerenza grafica diventa un metro più importante della fedeltà visiva, e lo stile viene così spesso determinato in base al gusto contemporaneo (e le riletture dell’immaginario cinematografico).

GAIO GIULIO CESARE AUGUSTO DIGITALE

575

Se l’ambientazione storica non è che un orpello, uno sfondo estetico, la creazione del sistema di variabili che la regoli sarà relativamente semplice. Nel momento in cui lo sviluppatore mira a ricreare un’ambientazione storica credibile e complessa, il problema della traduzione in meccaniche dei processi e delle connessioni tra i fatti storici diventa fondamentale: non solo la singola dinamica deve in qualche modo tener conto degli elementi fondamentali ritenuti parte di un processo storico, ma in generale deve permettere la riproduzione di processi somiglianti o affini a quelli di partenza, rischiando fallimenti anche molto vistosi. Naturalmente un processo che rappresenti in pieno la realtà è irrealizzabile, richiedendo non solo una comprensione totale degli eventi storici e delle cause che li hanno costituiti, ma anche l’elaborazione di un “motore storico” capace di descrivere e mettere in moto la totalità del passato. Queste simulazioni digitali, allora, si limitano a determinare una prospettiva o una narrazione su cui basarsi (attraverso forme di immedesimazione) selezionando una serie di elementi significativi della rappresentazione, e determinando un insieme di dinamiche che possano costituire un effetto di verosimiglianza, inteso stavolta come coerenza e come autenticità della rappresentazione 9, piuttosto che come accuratezza della stessa. 5. Meccaniche e dinamiche di gioco La traduzione della Storia nelle forme più complesse delle simulazioni digitali necessita di un’ulteriore manipolazione. I giochi presentano obbligatoriamente delle regole e funzionano esclusivamente in base a meccaniche precise non sempre in accordo con l’accuratezza storica. La concezione del gioco proposta da Juri Lotman 10 vede in esso un modello che traduce l’ineffabile complessità del reale in un inseme preciso di regole che possono essere padroneggiate facilmente dal giocatore. Le dinamiche del processo storico e della rappresentazione digitale devono essere trasformate in dinamiche di gioco: da un lato mantenendo la coerenza tra la rappresentazione e le regole del gioco, dall’altro rispettando la coerenza interna delle regole tra di loro, assicurando il bilanciamento (ovvero l’equilibrio tra bonus e malus per fazioni diverse) 11. Diverse meccaniche di gioco, in questo modo, interagiscono con la complessità della Storia in quanto tale, generalmente semplificandola e adeguandola ai propri obiettivi: ad esempio, la natura competitiva e orientata alla vittoria dei

KEITH (2004); ELLIOTT (2010). LOTMAN (1967). 11 Senza dimenticare la coerenza delle meccaniche all’interno di una stessa serie, cfr. GAZZARD / PEACOCK (2011) e WINNERLING (2014). 9

10

576

MATTIA THIBAULT / VINCENZO IDONE CASSONE

Game in senso stretto 12, porta alla prevalenza di dinamiche e strategie di aggressione, dominazione o conquista all’interno di queste ambientazioni storiche. Ogni gioco, inoltre, avrà il suo punto focale nel giocatore stesso, cosa che comporta la selezione di un punto di vista, che la narrazione ludica dovrà adottare e seguire per l’intera partita, che si tratti di un singolo personaggio, di un gruppo o di un’intera nazione. Anche questa selezione, però, non è indolore ma soggetta ad un forte bias in quanto spesso circoscritta a soggetti o collettività considerati emblematici, contribuendo alla costruzione di un soggetto-noi rispetto ad un altro considerato come anticulturale, indistinguibile, portatore di principi negativi 13. In questo senso le strategie di immedesimazione e di ambientazione si legano direttamente alle scelte di gameplay. La scelta di un punto di vista presuppone poi la costruzione di una narrazione il più possibile efficace: niente di ciò che è stato detto prima avrebbe senso, se il giocatore non potesse incorporare un avatar 14 o un punto di vista capace di apprezzare “ciò che avviene nel gioco”, e di agire al suo interno (mantenendo un alto grado di agentività). È questo il motivo per cui i simulatori storici propendono per l’adesione da un punto di vista onnisciente e metasoggettivo, (da cui il nome God Game) che incorpora una serie di ruoli al di là delle singole possibilità dei soggetti storici raffigurati nel sistema. Al contrario, spesso nei giochi che puntano all’uso immersivo dell’ambientazione storica piuttosto che ad una complessità modellizzante, il punto di vista del giocatore è strettamente legato ad un singolo avatar coincidente con personaggi/eroi, in modo da permettere di sperimentare/rivivere le vicende a partire da un’ottica che sia al tempo stesso comunitaria/collettiva e privilegiata/simbolica (eroi di guerra, generali, governatori etc.). Nei giochi di questo tipo, infine, la narrazione si struttura in una maniera preminentemente lineare che spesso mina e contrasta con la percezione del farsi della Storia come stratificazione di processi interagenti con diversi livelli di alea e casualità (come sottolineato da De Groot) 15. Da ultimo non va dimenticato il carattere interattivo dei videogiochi. Il rapporto tra l’agentività individuale e le dinamiche interattive del videogioco aprono la questione della Storia controfattuale 16: la possibilità di trasformare la linearità (letta a posteriori) degli eventi storici in un meccanismo aperto a diverse possibilità, dipendente dalle scelte del giocatore, crea il problema di distinguere una possibilità storica che non si è realizzata da una impossibilità di fatto. Tutto questo mette ulteriormente alla prova l’operazione di traduzione Intesi come carattere regolamentato, prestabilito, combinatorio del gioco, cfr. ECO, Introduzione, in HUIZINGA (2002). 13 BEMBENECK (2013). 14 D’ALOIA (2009). 15 DE GROOT (2008), p. 133-145. 16 FERGUSON (1997); PETERSON (2013). 12

GAIO GIULIO CESARE AUGUSTO DIGITALE

577

in meccaniche della Storia, perché un design superficiale delle meccaniche può rischiare di rendere assolutamente plausibile un evento altrimenti impossibile. In tutto ciò, però, risulta evidente che vi è una lezione fondamentale che i videogiochi possono portare all’insegnamento della Storia: l’importanza della sua contingenza 17, ovvero della sua natura di insieme complesso di eventi e processi che, soggetti a stratificazioni, non corrisponde ad una semplice manifestazione di principi immanenti, ma ad una intima complessità strutturale delle vicende umane. 6. Augusto digitale Sebbene la romanità non sia uno dei periodi storici più spesso utilizzati come ambientazione per videogiochi (a differenza di medioevo e guerre mondiali) esiste un buon numero di giochi ambientati in diversi momenti della storia della Roma antica. Coerentemente con quanto già detto, osservando alcune liste di questi giochi 18 si può notare come si tratti principalmente di strategici o action/ adventures, nei quali i temi esclusivi risultano essere, con poche eccezioni, guerra, commercio, costruzione e politica, ed i cui protagonisti esclusivi sono le diverse fazioni dell’Impero e/o i suoi generali. Prima di addentrarci nell’analisi della figura di Augusto nei nostri case studies, è necessaria, però, un’ultima premessa metodologica, riguardante l’approccio semiotico ai testi videoludici: la differenza tra matrice e repertorio. 7. Matrice e Repertorio La distinzione tra matrice e repertorio come strumento euristico di analisi del videogioco è stata introdotta da Ferri 19 che afferma che i giochi digitali non siano testi stabili ma bensì matrici, ovvero dispositivi semiotici per la creazione di testi-partite. Secondo questa prospettiva, il videogioco è costituito da un sistema di possibilità che produrrà un singolo testo ogni volta che un giocatore interagisce con lui. La matrice, allora, può essere vista come un agglomerato semiotico sovrabbondante precedente ogni testo-partita e contenete tre diversi tipi di repertori: quello figurativo (di cui fanno parte immagini, musica, animazioni, algoritmi grafici), quello narrativo e strategico (composto da molteplici segmenti narrativi ridondanti che possono essere ricomposti in molteplici trame ed intrecci differenti), ed infine quello semantico (cui dipendono i valori e le assiologie proposte dal gioco e le loro interazioni con l’avatar mosso dal giocatore). L’intuizione di Ferri è una maniera piuttosto elegante di rendere conto BROWN (2008). Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ancient_Rome_video_games oppure Steam http://store.steampowered.com/tag/it/Roma/#p=0&tab=NewReleases 19 FERRI (2007). 17

18

578

MATTIA THIBAULT / VINCENZO IDONE CASSONE

di tutte quelle peculiarità che rendono un gioco inadatto ad essere definito come singolo testo. Ciononostante, proporremo qui un approccio teorico leggermente differente che, secondo l’opinione degli autori, può essere più adeguato nella descrizione del nostro oggetto di analisi. Il punto focale nel quale il nostro approccio si distingue 20 è quello della separazione fra matrice e repertorio. Se per Ferri la prima è composta da repertori, ci pare invece più corretto considerare i due strumenti come due componenti separate – per quanto strettamente legate. La matrice, infatti, è ciò che, per usare dei termini hjemsleviani, determina la forma sia del contenuto che dell’espressione del testo-partita, mentre, d’altro canto, i repertori forniscono la sostanza. La matrice organizza sia le variabili che regolano le diverse possibili successioni di eventi, sia l’interfaccia con cui il giocatore si trova ad interagire. I repertori, invece, contengono tutte le figure, i ruoli, i temi, i frammenti narrativi e le assiologie che andranno a riempire gli “slot” determinati dalla matrice. In altre parole la matrice è colei che determina l’asse del processo, mentre i repertori formano il sistema. La matrice, quindi, determinerà nodi e collegamenti, mentre gli elementi del repertorio – che poi non sono altro che testi e frammenti testuali – saranno ciò che va a riempire e dare significato a questi nodi. Questa separazione, però, non impedisce a matrice e repertorio di influenzarsi pesantemente a vicenda. Da un lato, infatti, gli elementi dei repertori saranno pensati e costruiti secondo le necessità della matrice, in modo da adattarsi ad essa e di rispondere alla sue esigenze; dall’altro i repertori stessi possono essere in grado di influenzare la matrice, che verrà adattata a loro, in modo da rendere conto delle loro caratteristiche. Andando a ricercare ed analizzare la figura di Augusto nei videogiochi, allora, il campo privilegiato sarà quello dei repertori: vi saranno immagini che lo ritraggono, sue descrizioni più o meno articolate, narrazioni che lo riguardano, frasi pronunciate da lui o a lui e così via. D’altro canto, però, le caratteristiche dell’Augusto storico, dopo essere state sottoposte a tutte le traduzioni ed alterazioni cui abbiamo accennato, andranno anche ad influire sulla matrice del gioco, sulle sue regole, nella forma di bonus o malus, elementi di gioco a lui dedicati (come unità o tecnologie disponibili) e meccaniche di gioco peculiari. Sarà interessante, allora, non soltanto andare a vedere come i giochi si appropriano della figura di Augusto riformulandola nel proprio linguaggio, ma anche in quale maniera essa si faccia modello, ovvero che cosa comporti “essere” Augusto, anche se solo per gioco. 8. La figura di Augusto in Civilization e Total War Nonostante il grande numero di videogiochi di ambientazione storica, va sottolineato che i personaggi storici vi appaiono spesso come figure di sfondo, e piuttosto 20

Introdotto già in THIBAULT (2016).

GAIO GIULIO CESARE AUGUSTO DIGITALE

579

raramente come protagonisti – ruolo spesso riservato, invece, a personaggi di finzione. Questo accade in particolar modo per gli action/adventure games, in cui un protagonista troppo ingombrante rischierebbe di porre troppi limiti alla narrazione, che resterebbe impastoiata nella realtà storica. Nei giochi di strategia, invece, i personaggi storici, in qualità di capi di fazione, hanno una presenza massiccia e trasversale. In questi giochi il personaggio non compare sempre di persona, ma consiste, piuttosto, nello stratega che muove l’intera fazione, impersonato da un’intelligenza artificiale modellata a grandi linee sulla sua personalità storica o, alternativamente, dal giocatore stesso, che allora godrà di bonus e malus particolari tesi ad indirizzare le sue scelte nella direzione voluta dallo stereotipo del personaggio in questione utilizzato dal gioco. 9. Total War: Rome II Total War è una serie di videogiochi strategici ad ambientazione storica, il cui capostipite (Shogun Total War, 2000) era impersonato nei panni militari, di gestione economica e diplomatici di un Daimyo durante il periodo Sengoku. Nelle iterazioni successive, la serie è stata ambientata nel Medioevo europeo (Medieval), nella Roma antica (Rome), nell’Early Modern (Empire) nel 18-19° secolo (Napoleon) e recentemente nella tarda Antichità (Attila). Il secondo episodio ambientato nella Roma antica (Rome II, 2013), è stato oggetto di una Complete Edition denominata Imperator Augustus, con una campagna single-player ambientata nel periodo della guerra civile. Iniziando dal repertorio, è necessario ricordare che nella campagna principale di Total War: Rome II non è presente nessun personaggio storico, poiché essi vengono creati in maniera casuale combinando nomi, tratti, famiglia e capacità; al contrario il gioco presenta specifiche campagne extra (Princeps Augustus, Cesare in Gallia e Annibale alle porte) legate a rievocazioni di eventi e personaggi attestati. Nonostante questo, il gioco base utilizza uno strumento efficace per produrre l’aura del discorso storico: nelle schermate di caricamento, oltre a consigli di gioco, sono presenti frasi o citazioni di generali, filosofi, storici, poeti etc. Per Augusto sono attestate numerose citazioni, appartenenti al repertorio canonico legato al personaggio o a lui attribuite 21: Make haste cautiously 22. Better a cautious commander, and not a rash one 23. I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble 24. Young men, hear an old man to whom old men hearkened when he was young 25. 21 22 23 24 25

Tratte dall’unpacking dei file di registro, sono in lingua inglese originale. SUET., Aug. 25. Ibid. SUET., Aug. 28. PLUT., Apophth., Aug. 92.

580

MATTIA THIBAULT / VINCENZO IDONE CASSONE

If I’ve done well, give loud applause, shouts of joy in this actor’s cause (on his deathbed) 26. Varus, give me back my legions (after the Teutoburgerwald battle) 27.

Nonostante la selezione delle citazioni sia fedele al repertorio più conosciuto dell’imperatore, è evidente che la figura rappresentata viene descritta come una figura decisa ma non avventata, caratterizzata dalla grandezza, ma con una certa dose di modestia, e dotata di un’indiscutibile autorità. Emerge una figura da imperatore “costruttore”, che porta avanti con decisione ma senza avventatezza il futuro di Roma, portandola alla grandezza. La campagna dedicata alla Guerra Civile ha come personaggio principale un giovane Gaio Ottavio, in un momento in cui la figura del princeps è ancora da venire: egli gode di un ruolo predominante rispetto agli altri protagonisti della guerra civile, come evidente a partire dal titolo della campagna (Princeps Augustus). Difatti, nonostante sia possibile per il giocatore scegliere tra diverse fazioni romane (letteralmente, la “dinastia” di Lepido, di Marco Antonio, di Sesto Pompeo, Ottaviano) e non romane (Parti, Egitto, Marcomanni etc.), il filmato iniziale mostra soltanto Gaio Ottavio, la cui rappresentazione visiva è abbastanza fedele, presentando come modello la raffigurazione statuaria e un caratteristico colore dei capelli. Il personaggio, in un dialogo con la madre e alcuni fedeli consiglieri, viene esortato ad occupare il posto che gli spetta, quello di erede di Giulio Cesare; viene rimarcata la sua capacità di guerriero, viene incoraggiato a diventare qualcosa di più, a percorrere le orme del padre adottivo, a riportare ordine e gloria a Roma anche attraverso la guerra, agendo contro l’immobilismo politico, diffidando di Marco Antonio (che viene considerato “avere il cuore in Egitto”) e salendo a capo dell’Impero. A queste esortazioni il giovane risponde con modestia, privilegiando l’importanza della sua fedeltà e della sua costanza rispetto alle capacità personali, e mettendo al centro la necessità del dovere (nel video si prepara a comandare le legioni, salire al Senato, difendere gli avamposti) piuttosto che la volontà di potere. Il video da un lato conferma i caratteri impliciti nella selezione di citazioni del personaggio, dall’altro lo proietta in un momento in cui il suo futuro/destino è ancora percepito come da costruire, e mette quindi il giocatore nel ruolo di colui che porterà il giovane Gaio Ottavio a diventare il futuro Augusto (naturalmente, nel caso scelga di guidare la sua fazione). Iniziata la partita, il consigliere militare fornisce un inquadramento della situazione geopolitica e al tempo stesso consiglia al giocatore la rotta da seguire: You are Octavian. Now you have the chance to surpass the exploits of your glorious predecessor. Alliance with Mark Antony and Lepidus, however tenuous, gives you the space to protect and extend your domains. Once again your Gaulish 26 27

SUET., Aug. 99. SUET., Aug. 23.

GAIO GIULIO CESARE AUGUSTO DIGITALE

581

friends are menaced by migratory Germans – defeat them and take the chance to conquer their lands for Rome’s glory. Also, pay heed to Pompey, the son of your father’s enemy, whose fleet continues to menace your coast. Remember, however, that your ultimate goal is leadership of the Republic; when relations break down, this must be your focus to the exclusion of all else. Seize your birthright – seize the day!

Il consigliere istruisce il giocatore sulla situazione, rafforzando l’immedesimazione nel personaggio attraverso la 2a persona, sfruttando le rappresentazioni del personaggio precedenti; al tempo stesso propone delle narrazioni virtuali da trasformare in azioni di gioco: difendere le province a Nord dalle tribù germaniche, fare attenzione a Sesto Pompeo nelle isole, prepararsi allo scontro con Lepido e Marco Antonio (il gioco inizia nel 41 a.C.). Tutto questo considerato come programma per seguire il destino e le azioni di Giulio Cesare. Il repertorio del Gioco organizza quindi una rappresentazione e una narrazione del personaggio semplice ed efficace, allo scopo di dipingere la figura storica di Augusto con pochi tratti definiti (erede di Giulio Cesare, modello di aequanimitas, governatore deciso e misurato) per rafforzare l’immedesimazione del giocatore; questo processo è generalmente poco sviluppato nella serie, che predilige l’immersione nella rappresentazione che non l’immedesimazione nei personaggi. Infine il repertorio ha il compito mostrare un orizzonte di valori e obiettivi che possa spingere il giocatore all’azione, ovvero replicare e superare le gesta del predecessore. Ciononostante è evidente fin da subito come il tentativo di costruire un’aura di antichità tramite l’uso del repertorio sia compiuto attraverso una semplificazione o deformazione della problematicità storica, con risultati paradossali: ad esempio il seize the day (traduzione inglese di carpe diem) che stravolge il senso originale dell’Ode di Orazio – concentrarsi sul presente senza timori o speranze per il futuro – divenendo invece un consiglio bellico inserito in un quadro di attenta pianificazione di una campagna militare. Al tempo stesso, risulta evidente come il video iniziale, le indicazioni del consigliere (e vedremo in seguito, anche la divisione della mappa) e in definitiva l’obiettivo della campagna (conquistare la Repubblica) dipingano uno scenario caratterizzato da una lettura storica fortemente teleologica: lo scenario della Guerra Civile è schiacciato su un’immagine futura di Roma già concepita come imperiale, con un ruolo limitato del Senato, la centralità della dinastia al comando, e la dipendenza totale da una figura carismatica capace di controllare e decidere univocamente il destino di Roma, simulacro adeguato del giocatore di Total War. In questo caso la struttura di gioco è poco sensibile alle differenze tra le due fasi storiche, sviluppando un sistema di potere e di controllo che sembra teleologicamente avvicinarsi ad uno sviluppo futuro di Roma, anche nel momento in cui dovrebbe rappresentare uno scenario differente. L’analisi della matrice di gioco può così presentare ulteriori elementi per la nostra analisi, nel caso in cui il repertorio influisca su di essa e le meccaniche

582

MATTIA THIBAULT / VINCENZO IDONE CASSONE

di gioco siano modificate per adeguarsi ad alcuni caratteri reputati fondamentali della rappresentazione; nel caso opposto, è la narrazione e gli elementi che vengono semplificati o modificati per rispondere a modelli di gioco preesistenti o comunque gerarchicamente superiori. La fazione di Ottaviano garantisce alcuni bonus/malus di gioco specifici: Corruzione (-3% entrate) Soggiogatore di Barbari (+10% morale contro le tribù barbariche), Romanizzazione (+4 conversione culturale). Alcuni di questi tratti sono motivati, come i tratti della figura “futura” di Augusto (soggiogatore di barbari), ma in generale prevalgono gli elementi non motivati e quelli determinati principalmente dal bilanciamento delle fazioni di gioco: non a caso, la fazione di Ottaviano (così come le altre fazioni romane) non è altro che una combinazione differente dei tratti delle fazioni romane della campagna base (gens Iulia, Iunia, Cornelia), in particolare della Iulia. Allo stesso modo, scarso è il legame tra repertorio e lo studio dei tratti/abilità dei singoli personaggi: ogni protagonista delle fazioni romane possiede un’abilità che, nonostante sia designata con un titolo differente per ciascuno (Erede di Cesare, Il leone di Roma, Terzo triumviro) indica la loro invulnerabilità (possono essere sconfitti, ma non uccisi) come Generale di armata (ovvero come l’unità al comando di una Legione). Tutti gli altri tratti che compaiono per il personaggio sono casuali, selezionati da una lista comune ai generali. In questo senso, nessuna delle caratterizzazioni presentate per il personaggio in quanto Generale ha un’influenza nelle meccaniche di gioco. La differenza tra le fazioni dipende in parte dai bonus/malus, ma principalmente dal posizionamento strategico: il discorso del consigliere per le fazioni romane è legato in primo luogo all’assetto geopolitico della mappa, alle posizioni di forza e a possibili sviluppi strategici; in una parola alle possibili opzioni disponibili al giocatore, che può seguire il canovaccio proposto, o accentuare il carattere controfattuale del gioco. Proprio osservando la mappa strategica e la distribuzione delle fazioni è possibile notare diverse concessioni operate sulla fedeltà geografica e cronologica: i territori assegnati alle fazioni non rispecchiano l’andamento della guerra civile, ma dipendono principalmente da necessità di equilibrio di potere iniziale nel gioco; in particolare è possibile notare come la fazione di Ottaviano “includa” geograficamente la penisola italica a scapito del Senato; inoltre la divisione dei territori in province è completamente slegata da qualsiasi ripartizione amministrativa romana, precedente o successiva (dipendendo piuttosto da ragioni di equilibrio di gioco); in maniera similare, i rapporti tra le fazioni e il comportamento dell’IA non seguono una sceneggiatura necessariamente coerente con l’andamento degli eventi. Il risultato è uno schiacciamento degli eventi della guerra civile in un paradigma iniziale dalle diverse possibilità, che contiene e sviluppa narrazioni possibili, favorendo l’immersione del giocatore in uno scenario “colmo di possibilità”. Il principio è quello di incorporare gli elementi significativi (le fazioni,

GAIO GIULIO CESARE AUGUSTO DIGITALE

583

i personaggi), di rappresentare i principali rapporti tra questi elementi, ad un livello generale, per generare una simulazione tale da essere considerata “autentica piuttosto che accurata” 28. Questo paradigma si basa sulla possibilità di creare storie controfattuali a partire da una concezione evenemenziale della Storia, e non ha come obiettivo quello di mantenere una verosimiglianza con gli eventi, ma di generare una ambientazione e una rappresentazione che in qualche modo ricostruiscano una versione digitale di quelle esperienze facendole percepire come autentiche. Da un punto di vista storico, la figura di Ottaviano viene spogliata dalle problematiche e dalle peculiarità del personaggio durante gli eventi della guerra civile: questioni storiografiche fondamentali come l’acquisizione della fedeltà delle legioni, il complesso rapporto con il Senato, le problematiche e i limiti della struttura politica tradizionale, la costruzione di credibilità e fiducia da parte della popolazione italica 29 non sono sviluppate nella struttura di gioco né citate nelle sue descrizioni. Il personaggio (così come gli altri generali selezionabili) è piuttosto schiacciato all’insegna di un’immagine e una struttura di gioco che si caratterizza come pienamente imperiale, fatta di controllo e accentramento del potere a livello personale, di un impianto di successione a impronta dinastica e di un ruolo limitato (se non marginale) del Senato. La figura di Augusto, in tutto questo, è piuttosto un pretesto per la narrazione nel senso più neutro ed etimologico possibile: una base di sceneggiatura, la legittimazione di una narrazione, un motivo per intraprendere delle azioni. L’importanza che assume all’interno degli elementi di repertorio non è controbilanciata da una differenza o da una rilevanza dei caratteri della matrice; le retoriche narrative di cui viene investito (erede e successore di Cesare) hanno il compito di creare una storia credibile, ma possono altrettanto bene giustificare qualsiasi altra soluzione narrativa, come risultato del Sandbox strategico ad ambientazione storica a cui Creative Assembly mira. Gaio Ottavio è paradossalmente figura in sviluppo, colto nel momento in cui tutte le possibilità sono ancora aperte, ma al tempo stesso schiacciato tra simulacri di predecessori (Cesare) e una struttura di gioco imperiale; alcune vengono rimarcate, segnando un destino possibile e raggiungibile; altre narrazioni sono nelle mani del giocatore, più o meno indifferenti alle problematiche, alle preoccupazioni, ai dubbi e alle complessità che la figura storica del Princeps ha assunto e assumerà negli anni a venire. 10. Sid Meyer’s Civilization La serie di Civilization (d’ora in poi semplicemente “Civ”) nasce con l’omonimo videogioco nel 1991 grazie alla collaborazione tra Sid Meyer e Bruce 28 29

BROWN (2013). ECK (2000); GABBA (1991).

584

MATTIA THIBAULT / VINCENZO IDONE CASSONE

Shelley per conto della Software house MicroProse. Si tratta di una serie di grandissimo successo, in cui ogni nuova edizione appare come una versione rivista e migliorata di quella precedente e appartiene al genere dei God games strategici a turni basati sulle cosiddette 4× (“Explore, expand, exploit, exterminate” le quattro azioni necessarie ad ottenere la vittoria nel gioco). Nelle diverse edizioni di Civ il giocatore veste i panni di un leader storico che guiderà la sua civiltà dalla preistoria fino al prossimo futuro. Ogni civiltà possiede le stesse caratteristiche, lo stesso nome e lo stesso leader per diverse migliaia di anni, pur progredendo tecnologicamente e socialmente (il titolo del leader sarà, di volta in volta, Re, Imperatore, Presidente e così via). Queste caratteristiche, ovviamente, bastano a mostrare come questi giochi non abbiano nessuna pretesa di storicità (come potrebbe averne uno scontro tra Re George Washington e Re Gandhi in piena epoca classica?), ma facciano invece un uso puramente strumentale del passato. In particolare, possiamo dire che il ruolo della Storia in Civ è duplice: da una parte essa diventa un bacino da cui attingere per creare le fazioni di gioco, definite “civiltà”: insiemi di tratti, onomastica, personaggi e ruoli che la accompagnano per tutta la partita e che sono presentati come innati. Dall’altro la Storia è una delle principali meccaniche di gioco, del quale determina l’avanzamento: lo scopo stesso del gioco è attraversare la Storia da un capo all’altro in modo da mettere alla prova la capacità del giocatore di adattare il suo modo di giocare e la sua civiltà alle diverse epoche. Il progresso è così presentato, in maniera fortemente ideologica, come motore della Storia e, in una certa maniera, come suo fine: se è possibile vincere il gioco sterminando i nemici, sono possibili, fin dalla prima edizione, diverse forme di vittoria tecnologiche e culturali basate sul surclassare gli avversari tramite il proprio progresso. Fin dalla prima edizione del gioco, i Romani sono una delle fazioni giocabili, e lo sono rimaste per tutte le edizioni. I personaggi storici presentati come leader della fazione nei diversi giochi sono, in ordine di importanza: Giulio Cesare (presente in tutti i capitoli e le espansioni esclusi Civ4 – Colonizations, e 5), Cesare Augusto (nei due restanti) e, curiosamente, Livia sua moglie (presente in Civ2 come alternativa femminile a Giulio Cesare). Augusto, quindi, appare un’aggiunta tardiva, introdotta in un’espansione di Civ4, ma di successo, in quanto, nel capitolo successivo, in grado di soppiantare il suo predecessore. La compresenza nello stesso gioco di entrambi, però, ci sarà di grande utilità ermeneutica, in quanto ci permetterà un’analisi comparata delle due figure. 11. Augusto in Civ4 – Colonizations Augusto viene rappresentato in Civ4 con un’immagine digitale che lo ritrae e con una voce della Civilopedia che ne racconta la vita e le gesta. La voce, piuttosto dettagliata per un videogioco, ha il compito di offrire l’inquadramento storico del personaggio e, quindi, di legittimare, in parte, l’ambientazione del

GAIO GIULIO CESARE AUGUSTO DIGITALE

585

gioco stesso. D’altro canto, la descrizione punta anche a selezionare e sottolineare gli elementi della personalità e della leadership di Augusto che saranno poi tradotti in meccaniche di gioco. Ne riportiamo, in seguito, i brani salienti: Born Gaius Octavius, Augustus would become the first (and possibly greatest) Roman Emperor. He ended a century of civil wars and initiated two hundred years of the Pax Romana (Roman Peace) while overseeing a golden age of Roman literature and culture. […] He made such a fine impression on the great general that Julius Caesar changed his will to make Octavius his heir. When Caesar was murdered on the Ides of March in 44 BC, all the wealth that Caesar had spent a lifetime accumulating passed into the hands of the 18-year old Octavius. […] He was Caesar’s heir. […] Octavius took the west, while Antony went to the east, where he entered into a torrid affair with Cleopatra, the ruler of Egypt. Octavius saw Antony’s actions as an insult to his sister and to his family, and relations between the co-rulers soon soured. While Antony enjoyed the pleasures of Egypt, back in Rome Octavius strengthened his political position and his armies. Octavius was now the undisputed master of Rome. […] Augustus preferred to style himself ‘Princeps’, or ‘first citizen’ (probably to avoid further antagonizing the remaining republicans in Rome). During his reign Augustus presided over four decades of peace and prosperity, a welcome relief to Rome after almost a century of civil strife. He carried out a great building program in the ancient city, constructing a new Senate house as well as great temples to Apollo and ‘Divine Julius’ (his deceased great-uncle). Later, Augustus would boast – with justification – that he had found Rome a city of brick and left it marble. Under his patronage many of the most famous Roman authors and poets created their great works: Virgil, Ovid, Horace, and Livy all flourished during his reign. […] By Augustus’ death in 14 AD, a return to the old system of the Republic was unthinkable. He was peacefully succeeded by the Emperor Tiberius, and for more than two centuries the Roman Empire would dominate the Mediterranean without any major wars – due in large part to the wise statesmanship of Augustus.

Paragonando questa presentazione con le principali problematiche della figura storica, emergono immediatamente alcune questioni: innanzitutto egli viene presentato come unico erede di Cesare in pieno contrasto con l’evidenza storica, al fine di rafforzarne il filo diretto con il predecessore. In secondo luogo il conflitto con Marco Antonio viene rappresentato come originatosi da questioni di onore, ignorando completamente la problematica dei rapporti di potere contemporanei e avallando quella che fu una retorica utilizzata da Ottaviano per legittimare la sua posizione 30, tralasciando al tempo stesso i motivi economicopolitici della posizione di Antonio. Infine, il periodo di Augusto viene presentato come impero in tutto e per tutto, in cui le strutture repubblicane assumono 30

ECK (2000), p. 31.

586

MATTIA THIBAULT / VINCENZO IDONE CASSONE

valore di sola facciata, semplificando la complessità e l’innovazione del tentativo augusteo di mantenere il potere e costruire una legittimità a partire dall’uso di forme tradizionali di rappresentanza, in un complesso tentativo di innovazione a partire da un uso eclettico di un repertorio istituzionale tradizionale 31. La descrizione inizia presentando Augusto come il più grande imperatore di Roma, pacificatore e iniziatore di una età dell’oro. In seguito il testo sottolinea il talento precoce di Ottaviano ed i suoi legami con Giulio Cesare. Nel raccontare la guerra civile viene rimarcata la sua operosità, contrapposta ad una pigrizia ed un allontanamento dalla morale di Marco Antonio, presentato secondo lo stereotipo del despota orientale. La divisione dell’Impero in due segue quindi un’assiologia moderna e conferisce ad Augusto un’aura di occidentalità che viene contrapposta alla mollezza di Marco Antonio, presentato allora come un romano illegittimo. Infine il dominio di Augusto su Roma viene presentato come indiscusso e totale, ma anche grandemente benefico: Augusto è un grande costruttore e mecenate, un portatore di pace. La descrizione si conclude affermando come la grandezza della civiltà romana sia in gran parte dovuta alla figura di Augusto stesso, legittimando così anche il suo ruolo di leader all’interno del gioco. L’immagine che accompagna la descrizione – un primo piano digitale – è perfettamente in sintonia con la descrizione: Augusto vi appare con sguardo fiero ma benevolo, indossando un’armatura dorata stagliandosi davanti ad un imprecisata opera architettonica romana. Viene così riproposta iconicamente la sua abilità bellica, la pompa degna di un’età dell’oro e l’importanza dell’edificare grandi opere architettoniche. È interessante notare la somiglianza con l’immagine che proposta anche da Total War, indice della stessa sensibilità che si concentra sul dettaglio per sopperire alle inesattezze sistematiche. Le caratteristiche fino ad ora descritte – quindi relative al repertorio figurativo del gioco – divengono poi parte integrante delle meccaniche di gioco (e quindi della matrice) per mezzo di Tratti – regole speciali applicate alla fazione guidata dal loro possessore. I tratti di Augusto sono due: – Industrioso. Tratto che permette di costruire un maggior numero di edifici monumentali e che rende più rapida la produzione nelle forge. – Imperialista. Tratto che aumenta la possibilità di ottenere dei Grandi Generali (unità particolarmente utili in combattimento) e la velocità di creazione dei Coloni (unità che costruiscono nuove città). I Tratti, allora, traducono alcune delle caratteristiche di Augusto già presenti nella descrizione – costruttore, conquistatore, infaticabile, mecenate… – in bonus che influenzeranno il modo di giocare di chi si trovi ad impersonarlo e lo indirizzeranno verso un tipo di gioco che, secondo l’idea degli sviluppatori, si avvicina di più a “ciò che avrebbe fatto Augusto”. 31

GABBA (1991), p. 13-16.

GAIO GIULIO CESARE AUGUSTO DIGITALE

587

Il tentativo di simulare un ipotetico comportamento “da Augusto” si fa più complesso quando la fazione non è mossa da un giocatore, ma da un’intelligenza artificiale. In quel caso vi è una lista di valori e modificatori che ne influenzano i diversi comportamenti di leader di fazione. Tra essi vi sono le strategie di vittoria che l’IA cercherà di seguire e che nel caso di Augusto sono in primis quella della produzione e poi quella militare. Questi valori portano tale IA, durante una partita, a puntare prima di tutto all’espansione della propria civiltà, fondando nuove città, edificando e, di tanto in tanto, allargando i propri territori con campagne militari. Abbiamo già accennato che nello stesso gioco è presente anche Giulio Cesare come leader della civiltà romana. Le somiglianze fra i due sono numerose, talvolta dovute al fatto che guidano la stessa civiltà (dispongono delle stesse unità uniche e della stessa colonna sonora) ma spesso anche per quanto riguarda la loro personalità (condividono, infatti, uno dei loro due tratti distintivi: Imperialista). La maggior parte delle differenze tra i due leader enfatizzate dal gioco sono evidenti fin dalle voci di Civilopedia: se nella vita di Augusto, come abbiamo visto, viene sottolineato il suo essere un fondatore ed un edificatore, per Giulio Cesare l’enfasi è invece sulla sua abilità militare, sulla sua decisione sul campo di battaglia e sulla sua astuzia politica. Nella matrice del gioco questo si riflette nel secondo tratto di Cesare: Organizzato che gli permette un miglior controllo dei suoi territori, e sulle strategie dell’IA che, pur restando identiche a quelle di Augusto, risultano invertite: questa volta è la strategia militare a prevalere, seguita da quella della produzione. L’ultima grande differenza tra i due è quella riguardante le origini dei leader: Giulio Cesare è descritto come un uomo che si è fatto da solo, mentre per Augusto il legame con il suo predecessore è presentato come legittimante e sottolinea ancora più l’idea di predestinazione, tipica di una concezione storica evenemenziale. La maniera di rappresentare le due figure risulta, in fin dei conti, abbastanza simile, in entrambi i casi si tratta soprattutto di esempi di romanità incarnata, con solo poche variabili, opposte a modelli di romanità corrotta (o non-romanità), come quello di Marco Antonio. 12. Augusto in Civilization 5 Nel capitolo successivo della serie Giulio Cesare scompare definitivamente, lasciando campo libero ad Augusto come unico leader. Le somiglianze con Civ4 sono molteplici, ma alcune di esse – così come le differenze – sono degne di nota. Innanzitutto, la voce relativa ad Augusto sulla Civilopedia è identica a quella di Civ4, se non per un paragrafo aggiunto verso la fine riguardante l’espansione militare di Roma (nel quale, tra le altre cose, viene riportata la celebre frase “Varo, Varo, rendimi le mie legioni!”). Fin dalla descrizione storica, quindi, viene reintrodotto l’aspetto bellicoso dei Romani, che prima era affidato quasi interamente a Giulio Cesare.

588

MATTIA THIBAULT / VINCENZO IDONE CASSONE

Oltre alla descrizione presente nella Civilopedia, in Civ5 vi è anche un interessante paragrafo introduttivo, che riportiamo qui di seguito: The blessings of the gods be upon you, Caesar Augustus, emperor of Rome and all her holdings. Your empire was the greatest and longest lived of all in Western civilization. And your people single handedly shaped its culture, law, art, and warfare like none other, before or since. Through years of glorious conquest, Rome came to dominate all the lands of the Mediterranean from Spain in the west to Syria in the east. And her dominion would eventually expand to cover much of England and northern Germany. Roman art and architecture still awe and inspire the world. And she remains the envy of all lesser civilizations who have followed. O mighty emperor, your people turn to you to once more reclaim the glory of Rome! Will you see to it that your empire rises again, bringing peace and order to all? Will you make Rome once again the center of the world? Can you build a civilization that will stand the test of time?

È interessante notare come l’uso della seconda persona e l’identificazione tra Augusto ed il giocatore siano proposte con veemenza fin dal saluto iniziale. Ancora più interessante, però, solo le ultime righe del testo, in cui viene esplicitamente dichiarata la natura non solo controfattuale, ma addirittura ucronica del gioco. Augusto deve reclamare la gloria per Roma una seconda volta, l’Impero deve sorgere di nuovo, Roma deve divenire il centro del mondo ancora una volta. L’ambientazione di Civ5 non è così descritta come un’ambientazione storica, ma si configura come una sorta di “arena di civiltà”, in cui la Storia diviene così mero materiale da costruzione necessario per costituire l’identità individuale ed immutabile di ciascuna civiltà. Augusto viene presentato così come personaggio strappato alla sua realtà e spostato in una realtà alternativa, in cui gli vengono conferiti poteri semidivini, trasformato in nume tutelare di una civiltà cui contribuisce a definire il carattere. Se tutto ciò può essere valido anche per quanto riguardava le edizioni precedenti del gioco, qui questa caratteristica di a-storicità è esplicitata e sottolineata fin dalla primissima schermata della partita. Per quanto riguarda la rappresentazione di Augusto nel repertorio figurativo, va segnalato il fatto che quando il giocatore interagisce con una IA che impersona Augusto, nel tipico video in CGI, l’Imperatore romano dà le sue risposte in latino, e non più nella lingua del gioco. Questa ricostruzione sottolinea un grande desiderio di rendere il gioco autentico (cfr. supra) anche se per nulla accurato. D’altro canto, curiosamente, l’aspetto fisico di Augusto non rispecchia più le ricostruzioni storiche, come avveniva nel gioco predecessore ed in Total War; l’Imperatore è ora castano e dotato di tratti somatici che alla fierezza sembrano sostituire una certa indolenza. Di sfondo due imponenti colonne marmoree richiamano il grandioso stile architettonico romano, anche se la scena sembra svolgersi in una sorta di sala del trono.

GAIO GIULIO CESARE AUGUSTO DIGITALE

589

Per quanto riguarda la matrice, i tratti di Civ4 sono sostituiti da un’abilità di fazione, che in questo caso si chiama “La Gloria di Roma” e che spinge il giocatore ad investire maggiormente nella sua capitale e a renderla un modello per le sue altre città. Per quanto riguarda l’IA, la sua strategia di vittoria è stata cambiata con la vittoria scientifica, reintroducendo così l’importanza della produzione tecnologica e dell’avanzamento continuo verso un’età dell’oro che si era altrimenti persa in questa edizione. Gli innumerevoli modificatori dell’IA costruiscono un Augusto diffidente, ma non guerrafondaio, che tende ad espandere rapidamente il suo impero, costruirvi una fitta rete stradale e mantenere la popolazione felice (tratto del gioco che determina la probabilità di rivolte e ribellioni). La figura di Augusto in Civ5, sembra così ancora più povera e traslucida che nel capitolo precedente. Esplicitamente fuori contesto, diviene pienamente incarnazione della romanità: presta il suo nome ed il suo corpo digitale alla civiltà, per divenirne una manifestazione. Gli elementi di Storia presenti nel testo sono allora poco più che mere “curiosità” aggiunte per dare sapore e creare un senso di autenticità, ma che vanno ad incidere in maniera davvero molto limitata sulle meccaniche di gioco. Curiosamente, da Civ4 in poi, la figura di Augusto copre anche un secondo ruolo. A seconda del punteggio con cui viene ottenuta la vittoria, il giocatore verrà paragonato a un grande statista o leader del passato. Se Lincoln ed Hammurabi occupano il terzo e secondo posto, il primo posto, quello dedicato a chi ottiene il punteggio più alto, è associato proprio ad Augusto. In questo modo la sua figura viene sdoppiata, rendendo possibile per un giocatore sconfiggere Augusto nel corso di una partita, per poi venire a lui paragonato in caso di vittoria! La pretestuosità dell’uso fatto dal gioco della figura di Augusto arriva ad assumere un carattere paradossale, sottolineando, ancora una volta, come l’attenzione per il personaggio storico sia pressoché nulla, mentre ciò che viene ricercato è piuttosto la sua efficacia simbolica. 13. Conclusioni La figura di Augusto nei videogiochi ambientati nella Roma classica appare più come un pretesto teso a contribuire alla creazione di un’ambientazione, piuttosto che un attore a sé stante la cui storia viene ludicizzata. Questo è dovuto, da un lato, ad una concezione della Storia che rimane prettamente evenemenziale, nella quale Augusto viene individuato come figura di spicco, ma rimane fondamentalmente slegato da un quadro storico più ampio, dipendente da processi complessi. D’altro canto, la natura ludica dei videogiochi tende a privilegiare la matrice sopra il repertorio, incaricando la prima di espletare la funzione di motore del divertimento, e relegando il secondo alla creazione di una ambientazione che sembri autentica, ma che sarà basata non tanto sul passato filtrato dalla disciplina, ma sull’idea della Storia che si ha nella

590

MATTIA THIBAULT / VINCENZO IDONE CASSONE

cultura di massa 32 e quindi soggetta alle ben note influenze e semplificazioni hollywoodiane. La precedenza della matrice fa sì che da una narrazione storica più o meno accurata vengano selezionate le caratteristiche di Augusto che più si confanno alle meccaniche di gioco ed eliminate tutte le altre, rischiando spesso di trasformare la figura storica in un semplice ruolo tematico 33 indistinguibile nelle sue diverse incarnazioni e contrapposto ad una sua nemesi (l’orientale Marco Antonio) in modo da rafforzarne l’identificazione con il periodo storico – o meglio ancora lo stereotipo di esso trasformato in ambientazione – di cui si trova ad essere incarnazione. Il rilievo dato dal legame con Giulio Cesare, il ruolo di edificatore di Roma non fanno che rinforzare questa confusionaria sovrapposizione tra le due figure storiche, l’Urbe e l’Impero, mescolandone i tratti e le caratteristiche. I tentativi di ricostruire fedelmente un’atmosfera di autenticità non sono così sufficienti a rendere ragione della complessità del personaggio e della sua storiografia. Quanto detto finora potrebbe sembrare in controtendenza rispetto all’opinione generalmente positiva – seppur con molte riserve – sull’insegnamento della Storia con l’ausilio dei videogiochi. La capacità dei videogiochi di immergere e far agire all’interno di un ambiente percepito come altro viene riportata da numerosi studiosi del rapporto tra Storia e videogiochi 34; l’immedesimazione e l’agentività individuale come motori di una storia controfattuale, la capacità di rappresentazione danno la sensazione di poter “viaggiare nel tempo” e in questo modo, di conoscerlo, con tutti i successi ed i rischi di questo tipo di operazioni. In realtà, la debolezza delle rappresentazioni videoludiche dei personaggi storici non fanno altro che minare la prospettiva evenemenziale che sta alla base della loro creazione. Affiancate alla natura controfattuale della narrazione che può emergere in questi giochi, queste rappresentazioni finiscono per erodere il ruolo centrale del singolo, sostituendolo con una serie di meccaniche e processi sistematicizzati: le regole del gioco. Proprio la consapevolezza che le regole del gioco sovrastano i singoli avvenimenti e personaggi, però, può risultare, ironicamente, la migliore lezione di Storia che il giocatore può trarre da questi giochi: la comprensione del fatto che la Storia è una stratificazione di processi che – sebbene infinitamente più complessi di quelli che possono essere simulati da un computer – finiscono per avere la precedenza sui singoli momenti, proprio come accade per un gioco e le sue regole. Il videogioco, allora, non deve e non può essere considerato un luogo adatto a ricostruire e narrare la Storia ed è in particolar modo inadatto a (rap)presentare una figura storica di rilievo e complessità. Quello che possono essere, però, 32 33 34

USPENSKIJ (1988). GREIMAS (1970). SQUIRE (2004); GEE (2011).

GAIO GIULIO CESARE AUGUSTO DIGITALE

591

in virtù del loro essere modelli della realtà 35 è un punto di partenza per una comprensione di quest’ultima, che sfugga alla linearità narrativa del romanzo – che non può che portare ad un’interpretazione evenemenziale – e si abbandoni alla complessità di un sistema che può avere infiniti esiti e seguire infiniti sentieri. Bibliografia BEMBENECK, E. J. (2013), Phantasms of Rome: Video Games and Cultural Identity, in M. KAPELL / A. ELLIOTT (ed.), Playing with the Past. Representations of History in Videogames, New York, p. 77-90. BROWN, Fr. (2013) intervista con Creative Assembly, disponibile su http://www. pcgamesn.com/totalwar/placing-authenticity-over-accuracy-total-war-rome-ii (ultimo accesso 18/12/2015). BROWN, H. J. (2008), Video Games and Education, Armonk. D’ALOIA, A. (2009), Adamant Bodies. The Avatar-Body and the Problem of Autoempathy, in E/C monografico 5, p. 51-58. DE GROOT, J. (2008), Consuming History, Londra. ECO, U. (1979), Lector in Fabula, Milano. ECK, W. (2001), Augusto e il suo tempo, trad. Carla Salvaterra, Bologna. ELLIOTT, A. B. R. (2010), Remaking the Middle Ages, Jefferson. KELLY, A. K. (2004), Beyond Historical Accuracy: A Postmodern View of Movies and Medievalism, in Perspicuitas 6, p. 1-19. FERGUSON, N. (1997), Virtual History, Alternatives and Counterfactual, Londra. FERRI, G. (2007), Narrating Machines and Interactive Matrices: a Semiotic Common Ground for Gamestudies, in DiGRA ’07 (Proceedings of the 2007 DiGRA International Conference: Situated Play) 4, p. 466-473. GABBA, E. (1990), L’impero di Augusto, in A. MOMIGLIANO / A. SCHIAVONE (ed.), Storia di Roma, vol. II, seconda parte, Torino, p. 9-27. GAZZARD, A. / PEACOCK, A. (2011), Repetition and Ritual Logic in Videogames, in Games and Culture 6, p. 499-512. GEE, J. P. (2003), What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, New York. GREIMAS, A. J. (1970), Du sens, essais sémiotiques, Parigi. GREIMAS, A. J. (1976), Sémiotique et sciences sociales, Parigi. HUIZINGA, J. (2002), Homo Ludens. Traduzione italiana di A. VITA, Torino. KAPELL, M. / ELLIOTT, A. (ed.) (2013), Playing with the Past. Representations of History in Videogames, New York. LOTMAN, J. (1967), The Place of Art among Other Modelling Systems, in Sign System Studies 3, p. 130-145. LOZANO, J. (1987), El discurso historico, Madrid. MCCALL, J. (2011), Gaming the Past: Using Videogames to Teach Secondary History, Londra. PETERSON, R. D. et al. (2013), The Same River twice: Exploring Historical Representation and the Value of Simulation in the Total War, Civilization, and Patrician 35

LOTMAN (1967).

592

MATTIA THIBAULT / VINCENZO IDONE CASSONE

Franchises, in M. KAPELL / A. ELLIOTT (ed.), Playing with the Past. Representations of History in Videogames, New York, p. 33-48. SCHUT, K. (2007), Strategic Simulations and Our Past: The Bias of Computer Games in the Presentation of History, in Games and Culture 2/3, p. 213-235. SQUIRE, K. (2004), Replaying History: Learning World History through Playing Civilization III, Ph.D. Thesis, Indiana University : http://website.education.wisc.edu/ ~kdsquire/dissertation.html (ultimo accesso 4/07/2015). SUMI, G. (2005), Ceremony and Power: Performing Politics in Rome between Republic and Empire, Ann Arbor. THIBAULT, M. (2016), Lotman and Play: For a Theory of Playfulness Based on Semiotics of Culture, in Sign System Studies 44, p. 295-325. URICCHIO, W. (2005), Simulation, History and Computer Games, in J. RAESSENS / J. HASKELL GOLDSTEIN (ed.), Handbook of Computer Game Studies, Cambridge, p. 327-338. USPENSKIJ, B. (1988), Semiotica e storia, Milano. WINNERLING, T. (2014), The Eternal Recurrence of All Bits, in Eludamos. Journal for Computer Game Culture 8, p. 151-170.

Table of Contents

Foreword ......................................................................................................

1

Marco Cavalieri / Pierre Assenmaker / Mattia Cavagna / David Engels Augustus through the Ages – Introduction .................................................

3

Inaugural Lecture 1. Giovanni Brizzi D’un anniversaire à l’autre : Auguste et la notion de pax entre Fascisme et époque moderne .......................................................................................

35

The Memory of Augustus in Antiquity 2. Matteo Cadario Alcune osservazioni sulla memoria postuma di Augusto nelle immagini .

53

3. Liesbeth Claes Augustan Images of Legitimacy: The Numismatic Memory of Augustus (AD 14-268).................................................................................................

79

4. Martin Galinier Auguste à l’époque de Trajan : l’exemple surpassé ................................... 107 5. Diederik Burgersdijk Augustus’ Fame in Late Antiquity: From Constantine to Theodosius ...... 131 The Figure of Augustus in Medieval Literature and Iconography 6. Marco Maulu Les péripéties du premier empereur romain : du Romanz d’Othevien (XIIIe s.) à l’Othovien en prose (XVe s.) .................................................... 151 7. Jelle Koopmans Octovien et la scène : histoire et drame à la fin du Moyen Âge ............... 175 8. Mattia Cavagna La figure de l’empereur Auguste dans l’historiographie française et bourguignonne (fin du Moyen Âge – début du XVIe siècle) ............................ 189

594

TABLE OF CONTENTS

9. Jeroen Reyniers The Iconography of Emperor Augustus with the Tiburtine Sibyl in the Low Countries. An Overview .............................................................................. 209 Augustus in Culture and Politics from Humanism to the 19th Century 10. Susanna de Beer The Memory of Augustus and Augustan Rome in Humanist Latin Poetry ........................................................................................................... 239 11. Elizabeth Oakley-Brown Caesar Augustus and Shakespeare .............................................................. 261 12. Andrea M. Gáldy A Role Model Twice Removed? Cosimo I de’ Medici as New Augustus

273

13. Marco Cavalieri Fu vera gloria? La fortuna d’Augusto nella storia della letteratura italiana .......................................................................................................... 291 14. Ida Gilda Mastrorosa Ancient Readings and Modern Reinterpretations of Augustus’ Clemency towards Cinna .............................................................................................. 317 15. Agnieszka Fulińska In pace Augusto. Augustan Motifs in Napoleon’s Public Image ............... 341 Appropriations of Augustus in Totalitarian Regimes 16. Jan Nelis The Istituto di Studi Romani and the Idea of Rome, from Augustus to the Fascist Era .................................................................................................... 379 17. Klaus Tragbar Square, Politics and Propaganda. The Redesign of the Piazza Augusto Imperatore in Rome during the Ventennio .................................................. 391 18. Timo Klär Der Caudillo als nouus Augustus. Zur Augustusrezeption in den ersten Jahren der franquistischen Herrschaft in Spanien ....................................... 417 19. Heinrich Schlange-Schöningen Augustus-Rezeption im Nationalsozialismus .............................................. 437

TABLE OF CONTENTS

595

Augustus in Contemporary Literature and Popular Culture 20. Elina A.S. Pyy God Bless You, Caesar Augustus? Appropriations of Augustus’ Memory in Kurt Vonnegut’s Postmodern Prose........................................................ 481 21. Jörg Fündling “The World Was my Poem”. Reinventing Augustus as a Literary Hero .. 501 22. Julie Gallego « Pourvu qu’Octave ne se prenne pas désormais pour un phénomène ! » De l’adolescence d’Octave dans Alix à la vieillesse d’Auguste dans Alix Senator ......................................................................................................... 521 23. Aleksandra Klęczar Videsne, ut cinaedus orbem digito temperat? Augustus, Homosexuality and the Reception of Suetonius, Augustus 68 in Popular Culture.............. 555 24. Mattia Thibault / Vincenzo Idone Cassone Gaio Giulio Cesare Augusto Digitale. Traduzioni e appropriazioni della figura di Augusto nei videogiochi ............................................................... 571

COLLECTION LATOMUS OUVRAGES DISPONIBLES 21. Deonna W., De Télésphore au “moine bourru”. Dieux, génies et démons encapuchonnés, 1955, 168 p. + 50 pl. 23. Hommages à Max Niedermann, 1956, 352 p. 27. Van Weddingen R., Favonii Eulogii Disputatio de Somnio Scipionis, 1957, 72 p. 28. Hommages à Waldemar Deonna, 1957, 548 p. + 69 pl. 30. Bolaffi E., La critica filosofica e letteraria in Quintiliano, 1958, 64 p. 32. Astin A.E., The Lex Annalis before Sulla, 1958, 47 p. 33. Favez C., Saint Jérôme paint par lui-même, 1958, 56 p. 35. Paladini M.L., A proposito della tradizione poetica sulla battaglia di Azio, 1958, 48 p. 36. Richter G.M.A., Greek Portraits II. To what extent where they faithful likenesses?, 1959, 49 p. + 16 pl. 39. Tsontchev D., Monuments de la sculpture romaine en Bulgarie méridionale, 1959, 44 p. + 24 pl. 40. Deonna W., Un divertissement de table. “À cloche-pied”, 1959, 40 p. 41. Stengers J., La formation de la frontière linguistique en Belgique ou de la légitimité de l’hypothèse historique, 1959, 56 p. 42. Van Essen C.-C., Précis d’histoire de l’art antique en Italie, 1960, 152 p. + 71 pl. 44. Hommages à Léon Herrmann, 1960, 815 p. + 52 pl. 47. Balty J.C., Études sur la Maison Carrée de Nîmes, 1960, 204 p. + 27 pl. 51. Harmand J., Les origines des recherches françaises sur l’habitat rural galloromain, 1961, 52 p. + 6 pl. 52. Cambier G., Embricon de Mayence. La vie de Mahomet, 1961, 94 p. 53. Chevallier R., Rome et la Germanie au Ier siècle de notre ère, 1961, 49 p. 55. Vandersleyen C., Chronologie des préfets d’Égypte de 284 à 395, 1962, 202 p. 56. Le Glay M., Les Gaulois en Afrique, 1962, 43 p. + 1 carte 58. Renard M. (ed.), Hommages à Albert Grenier, 1962, 1679 p. + 338 pl. (3 vol.) 59. Herrmann L., Perse: Satires, 1962, 55 p. 61. Joly R., Le Tableau de Cébès et la philosophie religieuse, 1963, 92 p. 62. Deonna W., La Niké de Paeonios de Mendé et le triangle sacré des monuments figurés, 1968, 220 p. 63. Brown E.L., Numeri Vergiliani. Studies in “Eclogues” and “Georgics”, 1963, 146 p. 64. Detsicas A.P., The Anonymous Central Gaulish Potter known as X-3 and his Connections, 1963, 73 p. + 16 pl. 65. Bardon H., Le génie latin, 1963, 264 p. 67. Herrmann L., Le rôle judiciaire et politique des femmes sous la République romaine, 1964, 128 p. 69. Herrmann L., Les fables antiques de la broderie de Bayeux, 1964, 62 p. + 42 pl. 71. Fletcher G.B.A., Annotations on Tacitus, 1964, 108 p.

30 € 50 € 30 € 50 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 60 € 40 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 40 € 30 € 90 € 30 € 30 € 40 € 30 € 30 € 40 € 30 € 30 € 30 €

72. Decouflé P., La notion d’ex-voto anatomique chez les Étrusco-Romains. Analyse et synthèse, 1964, 44 p. + 19 pl. 73. Fenik B., “Iliad X” and the “Rhesus”. The Myth, 1964, 64 p. 75. Pascal C.B., The Cults of Cisalpine Gaul, 1964, 122 p. 76. Croisille J.-M., Les natures mortes campaniennes. Répertoire descriptif des peintures de nature morte du Musée National de Naples, de Pompéi, Herculanum et Stabies, 1965, 134 p. + 127 pl. 77. Zehnacker H., Les statues du sanctuaire de Kamart (Tunisie), 1965, 86 p. + 17 pl. 78. Herrmann L., La vision de Patmos, 1965, 150 p. 79. Pestalozza U., L’éternel féminin dans la religion méditerranéenne, 1965, 83 p. 80. Tudor D., Sucidava. Une cité daco-romaine et byzantine en Dacie, 1965, 140 p. + 30 pl. 81. Fitz J., Ingenuus et Régalien, 1966, 72 p. 82. Colin J., Les villes libres de l’Orient gréco-romain et l’envoi au supplice par acclamations populaires, 1965, 176 p. + 5 pl. 84. des Abbayes H., Virgile: Les Bucoliques, 1966, 92 p. 85. Balty J.C., Essai d’iconographie de l’empereur Clodius Albinus, 1966, 70 p. + 10 pl. 86. Delcourt M., Hermaphroditea. Recherches sur l’être double promoteur de la fertilité dans le monde classique, 1966, 76 p. + 10 pl. 87. Loicq-Berger M.-P., Syracuse. Histoire culturelle d’une cité grecque, 1967, 320 p. + 21 pl. 89. Newman J.K., The Concept of Vates in Augustan Poetry, 1967, 132 p. 92. Cambier G. (ed.), Conférences de la Société d’Études Latines de Bruxelles. 1965-1966, 1968, 132 p. 93. Balil A., Lucernae singulares, 1968, 98 p. 97. Cambier G., La vie et les œuvres de Gislain Bulteel d’Ypres 1555-1611. Contribution à l’histoire de l’humanisme dans les Pays-Bas, 1951, 490 p. + 1 pl. 101. Bibauw J. (ed.), Hommages à Marcel Renard I. Langues, littératures, droit, 1969, 840 p. + 14 pl. 102. Bibauw J. (ed.), Hommages à Marcel Renard II. Histoire, histoire des religions, épigraphie, 1969, 896 p. + 41 pl. 104. Veremans J., Éléments symboliques dans la IIIe Bucolique de Virgile. Essai d’interprétation, 1969, 76 p. 105. Benoit F., Le symbolisme dans les sanctuaires de la Gaule, 1970, 109 p. 106. Liou B., Praetores Etruriae XV populorum. Étude d’épigraphie, 1969, 118 p. + 16 pl. 107. Van den Bruwaene M., Cicéron: De Natura Deorum. Livre I, 1970, 191 p. 111. Mansuelli G.A., Urbanistica e architettura della Cisalpina romana fino al III sec. e.n., 1971, 228 p. + 105 pl. 113. Thevenot E., Le Beaunois gallo-romain, 1971, 292 p. 114. Hommages à Marie Delcourt, 1970, 454 p. + 17 pl. 115. Meslin M., La fête des kalendes de janvier dans l’empire romain. Étude d’un rituel de Nouvel An, 1970, 138 p. 117. Dulière W.L., La haute terminologie de la rédaction johannique. Les vocables qu’elle a introduits chez les Gréco-Romains: Le Logos-Verbe, le Paraclet-Esprit-Saint et le Messias-Messie, 1970, 83 p. 118. Bardon H., Propositions sur Catulle, 1970, 160 p.

30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 50 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 50 € 75 € 78 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 40 € 40 € 50 € 30 € 30 € 30 €

119. Righini V., Lineamenti di storia economica della Gallia Cisalpina. La produttività fittile in età repubblicana, 1970, 102 p. 120. Green R.P.H., The Poetry of Paulinus of Nola. A Study of his Latinity, 1971, 148 p. 122. Fitz J., Les Syriens à Intercisa, 1972, 264 p. 123. Stoian L., Études Histriennes, 1972, 176 p. 124. Jully J.J., La céramique attique de La Monédière, Bessan, Hérault. Ancienne collection J. Coulouma, Béziers, 1973, 362 p. 125. De Ley H., Macrobius and Numenius. A Study of Macrobius, In Somn., I, c. 12, 1972, 76 p. 126. Tordeur P., Concordance de Paulin de Pella, 1973, 122 p. 128. Mortureux B., Recherches sur le “De clementia” de Sénèque. Vocabulaire et composition, 1973, 88 p. 129. Broise P., Genève et son territoire dans l’Antiquité. De la conquête romaine à l’occupation burgonde, 1974, 370 p. 131. Piganiol A., Scripta Varia I – Généralités. Éditées par R. Bloch, A. Chastagnol, R. Chevalier et M. Renard, 1973, 564 p. 132. Piganiol A., Scripta Varia II – Les origines de Rome et la République. Éditées par R. Bloch, A. Chastagnol, R. Chevalier et M. Renard, 1973, 384 p. 133. Piganiol A., Scripta Varia III – L’Empire. Éditées par R. Bloch, A. Chastagnol, R. Chevalier et M. Renard, 1973, 388 p. 134. Amit M., Great and Small Poleis. A Study in the Relations between the Great Powers and the Small Cities in Ancient Greece, 1973, 194 p. 136. Hierche H., Les Épodes d’Horace. Art et signification, 1974, 212 p. 138. Gramatopol M., Les pierres gravées du Cabinet numismatique de l’Académie Roumaine, 1974, 131 p. 139. Hus A., Les bronzes étrusques, 1975, 164 p. 140. Priuli S., Ascyltus. Note di onomastica petroniana, 1975, 67 p. 143. Sauvage A., Étude de thèmes animaliers dans la poésie latine. Le cheval – les oiseaux, 1975, 293 p. 144. Defosse P., Bibliographie étrusque. Tome II (1927-1950), 1967, 345 p. 145. Cambier G. (ed.), Hommages à André Boutemy, 1976, 452 p. 146. Hus A., Les siècles d’or de l’histoire étrusque (675-475 avant J.-C.), 1976, 288 p. 147. Cody J.V., Horace and Callimachean Aesthetics, 1976, 130 p. 148. Fitz J., La Pannonie sous Gallien, 1976, 88 p. 150. Desmouliez A., Cicéron et son goût. Essai sur une définition d’une esthétique romaine à la fin de la République, 1976, 937 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-000-7 154. Van den Bruwaene M., Cicéron: De Natura Deorum. Livre II, 1978, 224 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-004-5 158. Cambier G., Deroux C., Préaux J. (eds), Lettres latines du Moyen Âge et de la Renaissance, 1978, 249 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-008-3 160. Le bucchero nero étrusque et sa diffusion en Gaule Méridionale. Actes de la Table-Ronde d’Aix-en-Provence (21-23 mai 1975), 1979, 170 p. 161. Develin R., Patterns in Office-Holding, 366-49 B.C., 1979, 109 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-101-1 162. Olmsted G.S., The Gundestrup Cauldron. Its Archaeological Context, the Style and Iconography of its Portrayed Motifs, and their Narration of a Gaulish Version of Táin Bó Cúailnge, 1979, 306 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-102-8 163. Bonelli G., Aporie etiche in Epicuro, 1979, 135 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031103-5

30 € 30 € 40 € 30 € 50 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 50 € 57 € 50 € 50 € 30 € 40 € 30 € 30 € 30 € 40 € 50 € 50 € 40 € 30 € 30 € 63 € 40 € 40 € 30 € 30 € 50 € 30 €

164. Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History I, 1979, 542 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-104-2 55 € 165. Austin N.J.E., Ammianus on Warfare. An investigation into Ammianus’ Military Knowledge, 1979, 171 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-105-9 30 € 167. Herrmann L., Sénèque et les premiers chrétiens, 1979, 92 p., ISBN: 9782-87031-107-3 30 € 168. Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History II, 1980, 532 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-108-0 53 € 169. Shochat Y., Recruitment and the Programme of Tiberius Gracchus, 1980, 98 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-109-7 30 € 171. Grondona M., La religione e la superstizione nella Cena Trimalchionis, 1980, 104 p. + 10 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-111-0 30 € 172. Catlow L., Pervigilium Veneris, 1980, 105 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-112-7 30 € 173. Rubin Z., Civil-War Propaganda and Historiography, 247 p., ISBN: 9782-87031-113-4 40 € 174. Dury-Moyaers G., Énée et Lavinium. À propos des découvertes archéologiques récentes, 1981, 252 p. + 37 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-114-1 40 € 175. Van den Bruwaene M., Cicéron: De Natura Deorum. Livre III, 1981, 212 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-115-8 40 € 178. Sartre M., Trois études sur l’Arabie romaine et byzantine, 1982, 226 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-118-9 40 € 179. Croisille J.-M., Poésie et art figuré de Néron aux Flaviens. Recherches sur l’iconographie et la corrrespondance des arts à l’époque impériale, 1982, 742 p. + 167 pl. (2 vol.), ISBN: 978-2-87031-119-6 122 € 180. Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History III, 1983, 440 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-120-2 50 € 181. Fitz J., L’administration des provinces pannoniennes sous le Bas-Empire romain, 1983, 113 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-121-9 30 € 183. Green M., The Wheel as a Cult-Symbol in the Romano-Celtic World. With Special Reference to Gaul and Britain, 1984, 408 p. + 85 pl., ISBN: 9782-87031-123-3 60 € 184. Guillaumont F., Philosophe et augure. Recherches sur la théorie cicéronienne de la divination, 1984, 214 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-124-0 40 € 186. Bonelli G., I motivi profondi della poesia lucreziana, 1984, 337 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-126-4 50 € 187. Renard M., Laurens P. (eds), Hommages à Henry Bardon, 1985, 400 p. + 20 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-127-1 51 € 188. Develin R., The Practice of Politics at Rome 366-167 B.C., 1985, 354 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-128-8 50 € 189. Frécaut J.-M., Porte D. (eds), Journées Ovidiennes de Parménie. Actes du Colloque sur Ovide (24-26 juin 1983), 1985, 289 p. + 8 pl., ISBN: 978-287031-129-5 40 € 190. Audin A., Gens de Lugdunum, 1986, 192 p. + 28 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031130-1 30 € 191. Heurgon J., Scripta Varia, 1986, 500 p. + 41 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-131-8 65 € 192. Van den Bruwaene M., Cicéron: De Natura Deorum. Tables, 1986, 175 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-132-5 30 € 193. Deroux C., Decreus F. (eds), Hommages à Jozef Veremans, 1986, 407 p. + 2 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-133-2 51 € 194. Pack E., Städte und Steuern in der Politik Julians. Untersuchungen zu den Quellen eines Kaiserbildes, 1986, 420 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-134-9 51 €

195. Reichler-Béguelin M.-J., Les noms latins du type mens. Étude morphologique, 1986, 271 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-135-6 196. Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History IV, 1986, 550 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-136-3 197. Goar R.J., The Legend of Cato Uticensis from the First Century B.C. to the Fifth Century A.D. With an Appendix on Dante and Cato, 1987, 115 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-137-0 198. Mrozek S., Les distributions d’argent et de nourriture dans les villes italiennes du Haut-Empire romain, 1987, 115 p. + 14 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031138-7 199. Pomathios J.-L., Le pouvoir politique et sa représentation dans l’Énéide de Virgile, 1987, 421 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-139-4 200. Ferguson J., A Prosopography to the Poems of Juvenal, 1987, 250 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-140-0 201. Porte D., Néradeau J.P. (eds), Res Sacrae. Hommages à Henri Le Bonniec, 1988, 466 p. + 12 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-141-7 202. Joulia J.-C., Les frises doriques de Narbonne, 1988, 289 p. + 117 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-142-4 203. Delmaire R., Les responsables des finances impériales au Bas-Empire romain (IVe-VIe s.). Études prosopographiques, 1989, 321 p., ISBN: 978-287031-143-1 204. Martin S.D., The Roman Jurists and the Organization of Private Building in the Late Republic and Early Empire, 1989, 57 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031144-8 205. Roques D., Études sur la Correspondance de Synésios de Cyrène, 1989, 274 p. + 3 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-145-5 206. Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History V, 1989, 516 p. + 1 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-146-2 207. Moscati Castelnuovo L., Siris. Tradizione storiografica e momenti della storia di una città della Magna Grecia, 1989, 175 p. + 3 pl., ISBN: 978-287031-147-9 208. Bertrand-Dagenbach C., Alexandre Sévère et l’Histoire Auguste, 1990, 216 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-148-6 209. Croisille J.-M. (ed.), Neronia IV. Alejandro Magno, modelo de los emperadores romanos. Actes du IVe Colloque International de la SIEN, 1990, 398 p. + 6 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-149-3 210. Mellinghoff-Bourgerie V., Les incertitudes de Virgile. Contributions épicuriennes à la théologie de l’Énéide, 1990, 275 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-150-9 211. Montero Herrero S., Política y adivinación en el Bajo Imperio Romano. Emperadores y harúspices (193 D.C. - 408 D.C.), 1991, 195 p., ISBN: 9782-87031-151-6 212. Paltiel E., Vassals and Rebels in the Roman Empire. Julio-Claudian Policies in Judaea and the Kingdoms of the East, 1991, 352 p. + 19 pl., ISBN: 9782-87031-152-3 213. Ginestet P., Les organisations de la jeunesse dans l’Occident Romain, 1991, 336 p. + 11 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-153-0 214. Wulff Alonso F., Romanos e Itálicos en la Baja República. Estudios sobre sus relaciones entre la Segunda Guerra Púnica y la Guerra Social (201-91 a.C.), 1991, 389 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-154-7 215. Schettino M.T., Tradizione annalistica e tradizione ellenistica su Pirro in Dionigi (A.R. XIX-XX), 1991, 120 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-155-4

40 € 68 € 30 € 30 € 51 € 40 € 59 € 55 € 50 € 30 € 40 € 60 € 30 € 40 € 58 € 40 € 30 € 50 € 50 € 55 € 30 €

216. Keller M., Les verbes latins à infectum en -sc-. Étude morphologique à partir des informations attestées dès l’époque préclassique, 1992, XI-564 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-156-1 217. Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VI, 1992, 516 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-157-8 218. Verdière R., Le secret du voltigeur d’amour ou le mystère de la relégation d’Ovide, 1992, 168 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-158-5 219. Dehon P.-J., Hiems Latina. Études sur l’hiver dans la poésie latine, des origines à l’époque de Néron, 1993, 385 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-159-2 220. Simelon P., La propriété en Lucanie depuis les Gracques jusqu’à l’avènement des Sévères. Étude épigraphique, 1993, 215 p. + 6 pl., ISBN: 978-287031-160-8 221. Desy P., Recherches sur l’économie apulienne au IIe et au Ier siècle avant notre ère, 1993, 346 p. + 4 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-161-5 222. Ulrich R.B., The Roman Orator and the Sacred Stage. The Roman Templum Rostratum, 1994, 345 p. + 81 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-162-2 223. Devillers O., L’art de la persuasion dans les Annales de Tacite, 1994, 390 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-163-9 224. Loutsch C., L’exorde dans les discours de Cicéron, 1994, 583 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-164-6 225. Wardle D., Suetonius’ Life of Caligula. A Commentary, 1994, 395 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-165-3 226. Le Bohec Y. (ed.), L’Afrique, la Gaule, la Religion à l’époque romaine. Mélanges à la mémoire de Marcel Le Glay, 1994, 876 p. + 134 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-166-0 227. Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VII, 1994, 596 p. + 6 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-167-7 228. Poignault R., L’Antiquité dans l’œuvre de Marguerite Yourcenar. Littérature, mythe et histoire, 1995, 1096 p. (2 vol.), ISBN: 978-2-87031-168-4 229. Leclercq R., Le divin loisir. Essai sur les Bucoliques de Virgile, 1996, 712 p. 230. André J.-M., Dangel J., Demont P. (eds), Les loisirs et l’héritage de la culture classique. Actes du XIIIe Congrès de l’Association Guillaume Budé (Dijon, 27-31 août 1993), 1996, 712 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-170-7 231. Darwall-Smith R.H., Emperors and Architecture. A Study of Flavian Rome, 1996, 342 p. + 75 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-171-4 232. Lolli M., D.M. Ausonius: Parentalia, 1997, 281 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-172-1 233. Rochette B., Le latin dans le monde grec. Recherches sur la diffusion de la langue et des lettres latines dans les provinces hellénophones de l’Empire romain, 1997, 423 p. + 3 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-173-8 234. Rambaux C., Tibulle ou la répétition, 2000, 117 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-174-5 235. Dillemann L., La Cosmographie du Ravennate. Ouvrage édité avec préface et notes additionnelles par Y. Janvier, 1997, 262 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031175-2 236. Pansiéri C., Plaute et Rome ou les ambiguïtés d’un marginal, 1997, 807 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-176-9 237. Lehmann Y., Varron théologien et philosophe romain, 1997, 391 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-177-6 238. Vössing K., Schule und Bildung im Nordafrika der Römischen Kaiserzeit, 1997, 690 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-178-3 239. Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VIII, 1997, 506 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-179-0

75 € 68 € 30 € 54 € 40 € 50 € 52 € 53 € 75 € 55 € 125 € 77 € 120 € 95 € 88 € 60 € 40 € 60 € 30 € 40 € 98 € 55 € 80 € 68 €

240. Viré G., Synthèses romaines. Langue latine, Droit romain, Institutions comparées. Études publiées en hommage au professeur J.-H. Michel, 1998, XXIV-458 p. + 1 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-180-6 64 € 241. Loupiac A., La poétique des éléments dans La Pharsale de Lucain, 1998, 235 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-181-8 40 € 242. Deroux C., Maladie et maladies dans les textes latins antiques et médiévaux. Actes du Ve Colloque International “Textes médicaux latins” (Bruxelles, 4-6 septembre 1995), 1998, VI-458 p. + 3 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-182-0 68 € 243. Dangel J., Hinard F., Foulon A. (eds), Liberalitas. Scripta varia. Rassemblés et présentés en hommage à M.J. Hellegouarc’h, 1998, XXIII-767 p. + 1 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-183-7 100 € 244. Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History IX, 1998, 504 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-184-4 68 € 245. Martini M.C., Due studi sulla riscrittura annalistica dell’età monarchica a Roma, 1998, 153 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-185-1 30 € 246. Maggi S., Le sistemazioni forensi nelle città della Cisalpina romana, dalla tarda repubblica al principato augusteo (e oltre), 1999, 186 p., ISBN: 9782-87031-186-8 30 € 247. Croisille J.-M., Martin R., Perrin Y. (eds), Neronia V. Néron: histoire et légende. Actes du Ve Colloque International de la SIEN (Clermont-Ferrand et Saint-Étienne, 2-6 novembre 1994), 1999, 493 p. + 26 pl., ISBN: 978-287031-187-5 63 € 248. Benoist S., La Fête à Rome au premier siècle de l’Empire. Recherches sur l’univers festif sous les règnes d’Auguste et des Julio-Claudiens, 1999, 407 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-188-2 55 € 249. Laigneau S., La femme et l’amour chez Catulle et les Élégiaques augustéens, 1999, 420 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-190-5 55 € 250. Salmon P., La limitation des naissances dans la société romaine, 1999, 103 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-191-2 30 € 251. Texier Y., La question de Gergovie. Essai sur un problème de localisation, 1999, 417 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-192-9 55 € 252. Billault A., L’univers de Philostrate, 2000, 145 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-193-6 30 € 253. Bernard J.-E., Le portrait chez Tite-Live. Essai sur une écriture de l’histoire romaine, 2000, 482 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-194-3 65 € 254. Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History X, 2000, 501 p. + 8 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-195-0 65 € 255. Foucher A., Historia proxima poetis. L’influence de la poésie épique sur le style des historiens latins de Salluste à Ammien Marcellin, 2000, 487 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-196-7 65 € 256. Vons J., L’image de la femme dans l’œuvre de Pline l’Ancien, 2000, 480 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-197-4 67 € 257. Haan E., Thomas Gray’s Latin Poetry. Some Classical, Neo-Latin and Vernacular Contexts, 2000, 198 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-198-1 39 € 258. Brachet J.-P., Recherches sur les préverbes de- et ex- du latin, 2000, 400 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-199-8 55 € 259. Renucci P., Les idées politiques et le gouvernement de l’empereur Julien, 2000, 537 p. + 2 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-200-1 70 € 260. Bouquet J., Le songe dans l’épopée latine d’Ennius à Claudien, 2001, 204 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-201-8 40 € 261. Rambaux C., Properce ou les difficultés de l’émancipation féminine, 2001, 347 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-202-5 50 €

262. Lehmann A., Varron critique littéraire. Regard sur les poètes latins archaïques, 2002, 299 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-203-2 45 € 263. Wulff Alonso F., Roma e Italia de la Guerra Social a la retirada de Sila (90-79 a.C.), 2002, 341 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-204-9 50 € 264. Deman A., Raepsaet-Charlier M.-T., Nouveau recueil des inscriptions latines de Belgique (ILB2), 2002, 288 p. + 65 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-205-6 48 € 265. Spaltenstein F., Commentaire des Argonautica de Valérius Flaccus (livres 1 et 2), 2002, 491 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-206-3 62 € 266. Defosse P. (ed.), Hommages à Carl Deroux I. Poésie, 2002, XXIII-546 p. + 2 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-207-0 93 € 267. Defosse P. (ed.), Hommages à Carl Deroux II. Prose et linguistique, Médecine, 2002, XXIII-577 p. + 1 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-208-7 90 € 268. Croisille J.-M., Perrin Y. (eds), Neronia VI. Rome à l’époque néronienne. Institutions et vie politique, économie et société, vie intellectuelle, artistique et spirituelle. Actes du VIe Colloque International de la SIEN (Rome, 19-23 mai 1999), 2002, 604 p. + 28 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-209-4 96 € 269. Verboven K., The Economy of Friends. Economic Aspects of Amicitia and Patronage in the Late Republic, 2002, 399 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-210-0 54 € 270. Defosse P. (eds), Hommages à Carl Deroux III. Histoire et épigraphie, Droit, 2003, XXIII-488 p. + 7 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-211-7 80 € 271. Goguey D., Les animaux dans la mentalité romaine, 2003, 138 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-212-4 30 € 272. Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XI, 2003, 504 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-213-1 71 € 273. Lévy C., Besnier B., Gigandet A. (eds), Ars et Ratio. Sciences, arts et métiers dans la philosophie hellénistique et romaine. Actes du Colloque international organisé à Créteil, Fontenay et Paris du 16 au 18 octobre 1997, 2003, 274 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-214-8 40 € 274. Puccini-Delbey G., Amour et désir dans les Métamorphoses d’Apulée, 2003, 317 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-215-5 50 € 275. Haan E., Andrew Marvell’s Latin Poetry: From Text to Context, 2003, 536 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-216-2 52 € 276. Turcan-Verkerk A.-M., Un poète latin redécouvert: Latinius Pacatus Drepanius, panégyriste de Théodose, 2003, 194 p. + 3 pl., ISBN: 978-287031-217-9 30 € 277. Defosse P. (ed.), Hommages à Carl Deroux IV. Archéologie et Histoire de l’Art, Religion, 2003, XXIII-567 p. + 72 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-218-6 107 € 278. Peurière Y., La pêche et les poissons dans la littérature latine. I. Des origines à la fin de la période augustéenne, 2003, 268 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031219-3 40 € 279. Defosse P. (ed.), Hommages à Carl Deroux V. Christianisme et Moyen Âge, Néo-latin et survivance de la latinité, 2003, XXIII-619 p. + 13 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-220-9 95 € 280. Aygon J.-P., Pictor in fabula. L’ecphrasis-descriptio dans les tragédies de Sénèque, 2004, 534 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-221-6 73 € 281. Spaltenstein F., Commentaire des Argonautica de Valérius Flaccus (livres 3, 4 et 5), 2004, 564 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-222-3 78 € 282. Martini M.C., Le vestali. Un sacerdozio funzionale al “cosmo” romano, 2004, 264 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-223-0 40 € 283. Fontanille M.-T., Vieillir à Rome. Approche démographique, 2004, 94 p. + 8 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-224-7 30 €

284. Chappuis Sandoz L., Terres d’abondance. Paysages et images poétiques de la fertilité et du don dans la littérature latine, 2004, 478 p., ISBN: 9782-87031-225-4 285. Nadeau Y., Safe and Subsidized. Vergil and Horace sing Augustus, 2004, 327 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-226-1 286. Colton R.E., Régnier and Horace, 2004, 81 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-227-8 287. Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XII, 2005, 496 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-228-5 288. Chambert R., Rome: le mouvement et l’ancrage. Morale et philosophie du voyage au début du Principat, 2005, 411 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-229-2 289. Georgacopoulou S., Aux frontières du récit épique: l’emploi de l’apostrophe du narrateur dans la Thébaïde de Stace, 2005, 296 p., ISBN: 978-287031-230-8 290. Burnand Y., Primores Galliarum. Sénateurs et chevaliers romains originaires de Gaule de la fin de la République au IIIe siècle. I. Méthodologie, 2005, 450 p. + 41 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-231-5 291. Spaltenstein F., Commentaire des Argonautica de Valérius Flaccus (livres 6, 7 et 8), 2005, 575 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-232-2 292. Benferhat Y., Ciues Epicurei. Les épicuriens et l’idée de monarchie à Rome et en Italie de Sylla à Octave, 2005, 369 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031233-9 293. Rambaux C., L’accès à la vérité chez Tertullien, 2005, 264 p., ISBN: 9782-87031-234-6 294. Spevak O., La concession en latin, 2005, 260 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-235-3 295. Scafoglio G., L’Astyanax di Accio. Saggio sul background mitografico, testo critico e commento dei frammenti, 2006, 157 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-236-0 296. Amato E., Roduit A., Steinrück M. (eds), Approches de la Troisième Sophistique. Hommages à Jacques Schamp, 2006, XXVIII-614 p. + 1 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-237-7 297. Pedroni L., Crisi finanziaria e monetazione durante le Guerra Sociale, 2006, 224 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-238-4 298. Guillaumont F., Le “De diuinatione” de Cicéron et les théories antiques de la divination, 2006, 396 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-239-1 299. Thomas J., L’imaginaire de l’homme romain. Dualité et complexité, 2006, 246 p. + 3 pl. + 8 fig., ISBN: 978-2-87031-240-7 300. Merriam C.U., Love and Propaganda. Augustan Venus and the Latin Love Elegists, 2006, 121 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-241-4 301. Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XIII, 2006, 496 p. + 1 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-242-1 302. Burnand Y., Primores Galliarum. Sénateurs et chevaliers romains originaires de Gaule de la fin de la République au IIIe siècle. II. Prosopographie, 2006, 630 p. + 24 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-243-8 303. Roman D., Roman Y., Aux miroirs de la Ville. Images et discours identitaires romains (IIIe s. avant J.-C. - IIIe s. après J.-C.), 2007, 442 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-244-5 304. Garambois-Vazquez F., Les invectives de Claudien. Une poétique de la violence, 2007, 315 p. + 6 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-245-2 305. Perrin Y. (ed.), Neronia VII. Rome, l’Italie et la Grèce. Hellénisme et philhellénisme au premier siècle après J.-C. Actes du VIIe Colloque International de la SIEN (Athènes, 21-23 octobre 2004), 2007, 510 p. + 27 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-246-9

62 € 50 € 30 € 71 € 57 € 42 € 60 € 80 € 54 € 41 € 40 € 30 € 89 € 40 € 57 € 40 € 30 € 71 € 80 € 63 € 50 €

78 €

306. Burnand Y., Primores Galliarum. Sénateurs et chevaliers romains originaires de Gaule de la fin de la République au IIIe siècle. III. Étude sociale. 1. Les racines, 2007, 301 p. + 30 pl., ISBN: 978-2-87031-247-6 50 € 307. Garcia Quintela M.V., Le Pendu et le Noyé des Monts Albains. Recherches comparatives autour des rites et des mythes des Monts Albains, 2007, 222 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-248-3 40 € 308. Briquel D., Mythe et Révolution. La fabrication d’un récit: la naissance de la république à Rome, 2007, 354 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-249-0 53 € 309. Tordeur P., Deux études de métrique verbale, 2007, 325 p., ISBN: 978-287031-250-6 50 € 310. Nadeau Y., Erotica for Caesar Augustus. A Study of the Love-poetry of Horace, Carmina, Books I to III, 2008, 532 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-251-3 75 € 311. Lyasse E., Le Principat et son fondateur. L’utilisation de la référence à Auguste de Tibère à Trajan, 2008, 388 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-252-0 57 € 312. Fain G.L., Writing Epigrams. The Art of Composition in Catullus, Callimachus and Martial, 2008, 238 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-253-7 57 € 313. Vallat D., Onomastique, culture et société dans les Épigrammes de Martial, 2008, 673 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-254-4 95 € 314. Roussel D., Ovide épistolier, 2008, 348 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-255-1 52 € 315. Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XIV, 2008, 529 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-256-8 76 € 316. Viré G. (ed.), Autour du lexique latin. Communications faites lors du XIIIe Colloque international de Linguistique latine, Bruxelles, 4 au 9 avril 2005, 2008, 294 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-257-5 45 € 317. Casali S., Stok F., Servio: stratificazioni esegetiche e modelli culturali. Servius: Exegetical Stratifications and Cultural Models, 2008, 280 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-258-2 42 € 318. Spaltenstein F., Commentaire des fragments dramatiques de Livius Andronicus, 2008, 232 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-259-9 42 € 319. Burnand Y., Primores Galliarum. Sénateurs et chevaliers romains originaires de Gaule de la fin de la République au IIIe siècle. III. Étude sociale. 2. Les horizons de la vie, 2009, 382 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-260-5 55 € 320. Fratantuono L., A Commentary on Virgil, Aeneid XI, 2009, 340 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-261-2 50 € 321. Loutsch C., Melchior M., Humanistica Luxemburgensia: la Bombarda de Barthélemy Latomus, les Opuscula de Conrad Vecerius. Textes édités, traduits et annotés par Myriam Melchior et Claude Loutsch, 2009, 238 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-262-9 40 € 322. Morzadec F., Les Images du Monde. Structure, écriture et esthétique du paysage dans les œuvres de Stace et Silius Italicus, 2009, 461 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-263-6 63 € 323. Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XV, 2010, 528 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-264-3 76 € 324. Louis N., Commentaire historique et traduction du Diuus Augustus de Suétone, 2010, 761 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-265-0 106 € 325. Van Laer S., La préverbation en latin: étude des préverbes ad-, in-, ob- et per- dans la poésie républicaine et augustéenne, 2010, 501 p., ISBN: 9782-87031-266-7 70 € 326. Vannesse M., La défense de l’Occident romain pendant l’Antiquité tardive. Recherches géostratégiques sur l’Italie de 284 à 410 ap. J.-C., 2010, 583 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-267-4 87 €

327. Perrin Y. (ed.), Neronia VIII. Bibliothèques, livres et culture écrite dans l’empire romain de César à Hadrien, 2010, 399 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031268-9 60 € 328. Burnand Y., Primores Galliarum. IV. Indices, 2010, 200 p., ISBN: 978-287031-269-8 32 € 329. Nadeau Y., A Commentary on the Sixth Satire of Juvenal, 2011, 473 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-270-4 68 € 330. Hamdoune C., Echalier L., Meyers J., Michaud J.-N., Vie, mort et poésie dans l’Afrique romaine. D’après un choix de Carmina Latina Epigraphica, 2011, 379 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-271-1 80 € 331. Deroux C. (ed.), Corolla Epigraphica. Hommages au professeur Yves Burnand, 2011, 743 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-272-8 115 € 332. Rambaux C., La genèse du judaïsme et du christianisme. Les faits et les problèmes dans leur contexte historique, 2011, 450 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031273-5 72 € 333. Galtier F., L’image tragique de l’Histoire chez Tacite. Étude des schèmes tragiques dans les Histoires et les Annales, 2011, 344 p., ISBN: 978-287031-274-2 53 € 334. Ratkowitsch C., Von der Manipulierbarkeit des Mythos. Der Paris/HelenaMythos bei Ovid (her. 16/17) und Baudri von Borgueil (carm. 7/8), 2012, 105 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-275-9 30 € 335. Cavalieri M., Nullus locus sine genio. Il ruolo aggregativo e religioso dei santuari extraurbani della Cisalpina tra protostoria, romanizzazione e piena romanità, 2012, 221 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-276-6 44 € 336. Albertson F.C., Mars and Rhea Silvia in Roman Art, 2012, 241 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-277-3 45 € 337. Thomson M., Studies in the Historia Augusta, 2012, 155 p., ISBN: 978-287031-278-0 30 € 338. Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History XVI, 2012, 670 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-284-1 92 € 339. Grillone A., Gromatica militare: Io ps. Igino. Prefazione, testo, traduzione e commento, 2012, 269 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-285-8 49 € 340. Napoli J., Évolution de la poliorcétique romaine sous la République jusqu’au milieu du IIe siècle avant J.-C., 2013, 239 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-287-2 45 € 341. Foucher A., Lecture ad metrum, lecture ad sensum: études de métrique stylistique, 2013, 274 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-288-9 49 € 342. Nadeau Y., Dog Bites Caesar! A Reading of Juvenal’s Satire 5 (with Horace’s Satires I.5; II.5; II.6; Epistles I.1; I.16; I.17), 2013, 100 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-289-6 30 € 343. Engels D., Van Nuffelen P. (eds), Religion and Competition in Antiquity, 2014, 307 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-290-2 51 € 344. Spaltenstein F., Commentaire des fragments dramatiques de Naevius, 2014, 708 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-291-9 99 € 345. Lusnia S., Creating Severan Rome. The Architecture and Self-Image of L. Septimius Severus (A.D. 193-211), 2014, 293 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-292-6 59 € 346. Bonet V., La pharmacopée végétale d’Occident dans l’œuvre de Pline l’Ancien, 2014, 513 p., ISBN: 978-2-87031-293-3 73 € 347. De Giorgio J.P., L’écriture de soi à Rome. Autour de la correspondance de Cicéron, 2015, 305 p., ISBN: 978-90-429-3238-8 51 € 348. Coutelle É., Properce, Élégies, livre IV. Texte établi, traduit et commenté, 2015, VI-1021 p., ISBN: 978-90-429-3241-8 125 €

349. Engels D. (ed.), Von Platon bis Fukuyama. Biologistische und zyklische Konzepte in der Geschichtsphilosophie der Antike und des Abendlandes, 2015, 336 p., ISBN: 978-90-429-3274-6 350. Erdkamp P., Verboven K. (eds), Structure and Performance in the Roman Economy. Models, Methods and Case Studies, 2015, 238 p., ISBN: 978-90429-3280-7 351. Courtil J.-C., Sapientia contemptrix doloris: Le corps souffrant dans l’œuvre philosophique de Sénèque, 2015, 620 p., ISBN: 978-90-429-3281-4 352. Rüpke J., Superstition ou individualité? Déviance religieuse dans l’Empire romain, 2015, IV-126 p., ISBN: 978-90-429-3266-1 353. Lemcke L., Imperial Transportation and Communication from the Third to the Late Fourth Century: The Golden Age of the cursus publicus, 2016, 161 p., ISBN: 978-90-429-3356-9 354. Broekaert W., Nadeau R., Wilkins J (eds), Food, Identity and Cross-Cultural Exchange in the Ancient World, 2016, 105 p., ISBN: 978-90-429-3304-0 355. Beck H., Jehne M., Serrati J. (eds), Money and Power in the Roman Republic, 2016, 238 p., ISBN: 978-90-429-3302-6 356. Escámez de Vera D.M., Sodales Flaviales Titiales: culto imperial y legitimación en época Flavia, 2016, IV-117 p., ISBN: 978-90-429-3414-6 357. Borgies L., Le conflit propagandiste entre Octavien et Marc Antoine. De l’usage politique de la uituperatio entre 44 et 30 a. C. n., 2016, 518 p., ISBN: 978-90-429-3459-7 358. Lagière A., La Thébaïde de Stace et le sublime, 2017, 300 p., ISBN 97890-429-3558-7 359. Vandersmissen M., Discours des personnages féminins chez Sénèque. Approches logométriques et contrastives d’un corpus théâtral, 2019, 399 p., ISBN: 978-90-429-3796-3 360. Coşkun A., Engels D. (eds), Rome and the Seleukid East. Selected Papers from Seleukid Study Day V, Brussels, 21-23 August 2015, 2019,512 p., ISBN: 978-90-429-3927-1 361. Sans B., Vanhalme C. (eds), À l’école de l’Antiquité. Hommages à Ghislaine Viré, 2020, 262 p., ISBN 978-90-429-4150-2 362. Shahin T., Fragmente eines Lebenswerks. Historischer Kommentar zur Universalgeschichte des Nikolaos von Damaskus, 2020, XII-268 p., ISBN 978-90-429-4183-0 363. Fraïsse A., Du héros au Sauveur. Imitatio et Aemulatio dans les Euangeliorum libri IV de Juvencus, 2021, VIII-333 p., ISBN 978-90-429-4437-4 364. Clément-Tarantino S., Jolivet J.-C., Vallat D. (eds), Poétique(s) des commentaires antiques. Actes du colloque international (Université Charles de Gaulle-Lille 3, 17-19 novembre 2016), 2022, IV-296 p., ISBN 978-90-4294534-0 365. Wolff É., Janus Pannonius, Épigrammes. Traduites et annotées, avec le texte latin en regard, 2021, IV-379 p., ISBN 978-90-429-4546-3

52 € 45 € 90 € 25 € 30 € 22 € 45 € 25 € 74 € 57 € 68 € 84 € 55 € 60 € 65 €

75 € 70 €