Contenu du sommaire

After the tyrannicide of 514 B. C. and the reforms of Cleisthenes, Attic theater contributed to the definition of the Athenian democracy. The tyrant therefore became the antithesis of the polis. To the moral condemnation of historical tyrants, which could already be found in passages of Herodotus' writings, Plato and Xenophon then superimposed anti-tyrannical topoi; those were inspired from the Tragic Poets, whose works were reinterpreted through the prism of Socratic ethics. In Hellenistic and Imperial times, writers stayed with the tyrannical and theatrical metaphor, condemning an evil power, especially the monarchy's power, characterized by abuses and deception. At the same time, a new relationship to the world emerged: theatricality, namely the ability to create a deceiving image of oneself in order to exert influence on others (Angelos Chaniotis). Thus, historians and philosophers claimed the Greek tyrants to be particularly fond of tragedies while the tyrant's costume was likened to a tragic actor's stage clothes. Associating tyrants with theater amounted to depicting their reigns as royal simulacrum.

Roman scenic performances experienced an important shift at the end of the First Punic War, as the magistrates in charge of the Ludi in 240 decided to have a Greek drama staged. The translation of the text was then assigned to the poet of Tarentine origin Livius Andronicus, considered as one of the fathers of Latin literature. This episode initiates the development of a theatrical form inspired in particular by the new Greek comedy, whose success was to last for almost a century. The comedies known as fabulae palliatae are fairly well known to us through the works of Plautus and Terence. This is not the case for the fabula praetexta, a Roman-inspired form which appeared a few decades later during the Second Punic War (218-202 B C). The origin of this new form is attributed to the poet Naevius, a contemporary of Livius Andronicus, from whom we only have the titles of two works: Clastidium and Romulus. Like the palliatae, these praetextae take their name from a garment – in this case the pretext toga of magistrates and kings, whose exploits were portrayed in works with an “historical” subject. It was also at this time that other historical narratives were written in Rome in various forms, referring the history of the city from its origins. Naevius probably staged a flattering portrait of Marcellus in Clastidium by celebrating his achievement on the Romulean model. Nevertheless, the sources we have on Marcellus reflect a lively debate on the construction of the character's memory. During his lifetime, he had faced strong opposition from a part of the Roman aristocracy, which the historian Polybius had adopted in part. Marcellus had also generated glowing tales, which Plutarch reflects in his Life of Marcellus. Since we cannot judge the content of this praetexta celebrating Marcellus' victory at Clastidium in more detail, this study proposes to explore the background of its performance, to investigate the circumstances for which the play was written and staged. It probably accompanied the dedication ceremony of the temple to Honos and Virtus, two deities associated by Marcellus in an original and polemical way. Marcellus, like many triumphing generals, had decided to erect a temple to deities in conformity with the vow made on the battlefield. In fact the vow seems to be connected to the Battle of Clastidium in 222, but Marcellus waited until he returned victorious from the famous siege of Syracuse in 212-211 to erect this votive temple – while strongly linked to the victory of 222 by Marcellus' vow, it was nevertheless decorated with many works of art taken from Syracuse, including a famous celestial sphere that had belonged to Archimedes.The association of these two “conceptual deities” in a temple was the first time in Rome and caused controversy within the nobilitas, the aristocracy that reserved for itself the access to the consulate. Linking this access to the higher magistracies (the Honores) to those who had demonstrated their Virtus (military exploits and courage) tended to challenge the primacy accorded to heredity, established de facto by the Roman nobilitas. The dedication of the temple of Honos and Virtus took place on July the 17th, the temple's dies natalis and the date on which the main cultic ceremonies occurred every year. The choice of this date linked this temple with that of Castor and Pollux, whose natalis was on July the 15th. The association of these two temples is quite clear, as they were linked by a remarkable procession: the transvectio Equitum.The knights, i.e. the Roman elite owning a public horse, started their procession at the Capenes gate, where the temple of Honos and Virtus was located, to go to the temple of Castor and Pollux in the forum. These fraternal and equestrian deities incarnated the spirited Virtus of the young Roman knights over whom they exercised a form of patronage. In making such a “connection”, Marcellus expressed very explicitly his conception of the devolution of power, and in particular for the higher magistracies, which was to be based on the recognition of the Virtus of the equestrian order's members, rather than a more hereditary approach of a nobilitas reduced to less than a hundred families. Marcellus was also celebrating his own career, since he himself had distinguished in many equestrian battles during the First Punic War before obtaining a late first consulship in 222, at the age of 46. Staging the Naevius' praetexta Clastidium at the dedication of this temple was a way of exalting the importance of the Virtus he had shown as a knight, while also celebrating his victorious consulships and his famous equestrian duel of 222. Unfortunately, Marcellus was killed in an ambush in 208, without having been able to conclude the dedication of his temple, which fell to his son who accomplished it on July the 17th, 205. This circumstance probably provided the opportunity to represent the Naevius' Clastidium. This praetexta could then assume an elaborated meaning. The feat of 222 performed on the Romulean model certainly conferred on it a heroic dimension, which was accomplished, according to my hypothesis, in an astral mode. Indeed, the connection established between the temples of Castor and Pollux, divinities who experienced an astral apotheosis, and that of Honos and Virtus where the first Roman representation of the cosmos appeared, must have established a significant mise en scène of an astral apotheosis.

Historians have long been interested in the theoretical question of the residence of cardinals in the Curia and their fluctuating participation in the Church's government. Nevertheless, the presence of the senators of the Church both at consistories and at papal liturgical ceremonies had never been considered in a practical way. It is possible, however, to measure this presence with the help of the diaries of the Ceremonial Officers, with the consistorial letters and above all with an accounting source. Indeed, the cardinals could only receive a share of the common service tax on condition that they participated in the consistories. Several registers of the Divisiones, in which the distributions of this tax income among the cardinals are recorded, have been preserved for the 15th century. The study of these sources shows that the rate of absenteeism in the Curia increased significantly among the cardinals of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. This increase can certainly be explained by the creation of more and more state cardinals. The Sacred College was thus divided into two categories: on the one hand, cardinals, often Italian, who resided with the pope and exercised the traditional function of papal advisors, and on the other hand, senators who remained in their country of origin, generally to advise the sovereign, and for whom the purple represented above all an honorary distinction. However, not all the cardinals who surround the pope participate equally in the government of the Church. During the Renaissance, the pontiffs increasingly relied on a small, informal group of advisors in which several cardinals held the top positions. The idea that the power of the Sacred College diminished in the fifteenth century, prefiguring the situation of the sixteenth century, must therefore be qualified, but rather we must take care to differentiate the situations within it.

In 1610, a conflict broke out in Rennes between the diocesan bishop, François Larchiver, and the avocat général du roi in the Parliament of Brittany, François Busnel. The bishop, who was a typical figure of the resident Roman prelate and reformer, had just introduced a number of liturgical innovations in favour of the Tridentine pastoral reform. The avocat général, a staunch royalist with a deep-seated distrust of the former League members still linked to Spain and of any liturgical innovation coming from Rome, saw these recent episcopal decisions as serious attacks on royal authority and on the rights and freedoms of the Gallican Church. Everyone appealed to the Chancellor of France by interposed missive letters. The episode sheds light on the Catholic Reformation as a creator of conflicts of power and therefore as a factor in politicisation. Tridentinism is shown here to have been at the root of the affirmation of a Gallican way of thinking in parliamentary circles, which also helped to reaffirm the arbitral figure of the king in the 1600's.

J. Norton Cru (1879-1949) was born in Labatie-d'Andaure (Ardèche, France). He had an academic career of French literature professor at the Williams College (Williamstown, USA). He was enrolled in the French army during the whole duration of World War I including twenty-eight months on the front line. He became famous for his book Témoins published in 1929, in which he makes a critical analysis of more than 300 books written by authors who actively participated in WWI. The criteria he used in this analysis were based on the genuineness of the War, the importance of the soldier testimony and the lack of lyricism to describe the tragedy.J. Norton Cru has left an abundant correspondence which is kept in the “Archives de Marseille”. This corpus was recently enriched by a new set of letters discovered by chance in 2022. Some were letters he received, he is the author of the other, more intimate. This correspondence written between 1907 and 1947, reflects Norton Cru universe, family solidarity and friendly ties. Among other inputs, his exchange of letters with French and foreign colleagues, demonstrates his influence among intellectual circles in Europe and in the USA.