The so-called De consulatu Stilichonis (DcS henceforth), composed by Claudian, celebrates Stilicho’s appointment as consul in AD 400, and contains three books. The first two books praise the military and human qualities of the Egyptian poet’s most influential patron; the third describes the ceremony of Stilicho’s adventus in Rome in February of 400. Despite this panegyric’s significant importance among Claudian’s compositions and in Late Latin literature in general, this encomiastic work has not received the appropriate or global attention during the recent flourishing of studies on Claudian’s poetry.[1] Flores Militello’s monograph aims to fill this gap.
The introduction of his study is divided into five sections.
In the first, the author discusses the tradition of poetic praise in Rome after the panegyric of Pliny the Younger to Trajan, and stresses the strong connection between the political and literary. In this regard Flores Militello talks about “híbrido genérico” (p. XV). Then, he expands the perspective to earlier metrical panegyrics of political leaders, tracing a brief but clear history of the tradition from the first evidence in Homer up to the Late Latin poetry. When discussing Claudian, Flores Militello underscores the mediating role of the poet between the half-barbarian “generalissimo” and the Roman senate, following previous studies by Alan Cameron and Andrew Gillett.[2] The influence of Claudian on Late Antiquity and the Medieval period is briefly discussed, and Flores Militello focuses above all on Sidonius and Corippus. Finally, some observations are dedicated to interesting aspects of Claudian’s poetic style, for example mythological comparisons, intertextuality, descriptions composed with an iconographical language (p. XXX, “lenguaje iconográfico”), and metrical regularity.
The second section traces the historical context of the DcS. Flores Militello offers a clear reconstruction of the historical dynamics, from the debut of Claudian in 395, till his final work (around 404).
In the third, the concise explanation of the meaning, characteristics, and evolution of the consulship in Rome from its origin (509 BC) to abolition (AD 542) is extremely useful for the comprehension of the adventus described in the panegyric (pp. XLIII–XLVII). In introducing the historical events during Stilicho’s consulship and the major protagonists of this period (Aurelianus, Eutichianus, and Anthemius), Flores Militello highlights the continued importance of senatorial support.
The fourth section is reserved for notes on the manuscript tradition and on the text (and translation) of this edition. The text is based on the Teubner edition of John Barrie Hall,[3] but in eleven passages Flores Militello distances himself from the English edition, and prefers some readings of Jean-Louis Charlet,[4] except the capitalization of Pietas (DcS 1.271) and Virtus (DcS praef. 3.5), and his punctuation of DcS 3.102. The DcS has two Spanish translations (by Juan J. Cienfuegos García[5] and Manuel Castillo Bejarano[6]), but, as Flores Militello declares, his employs some forms or terms more typical in Latin American Spanish (p. LIII). For example, I can mention “él campesino púnico” (3.102 Punicus arator). The translation expressly aims to “trasmitir de la maniera más exacta possible el significado de las frases (…) y del mensaje claudianeo” (p. LIII). The goal is almost always achieved, because the language is contemporary and suitable for modern readers. The goal of promoting fluid reading implies that, in some cases, periphrases are unavoidable: it is the case of DcS 1.44 (iam tum conspicuous, iam tum venerabilis ibas). Here the poet describes the sense of deep respect young Stilicho inspires, and Flores Militello translates: “ya entonce atraías la atención; ya entonces infundías respeto al caminar.” In other passages the author uses specific terminology to avoid misunderstandings or directly expresses the meaning of the metaphor. “Politicised” terms are intentionally avoided; so, the author prefers “general” over “caudillo”. Brief footnotes help the readers – also non-experts – in lexical and contextual issues, while extensive notes of the commentary deal with exegetical, historical, cultural, grammatical, and intertextual problems. In the prevailing correctness of the translation, I would report a couple of inaccuracies. In DcS 3.58–59 (Ipsa iubet signis bellaturoque togatus / imperat) the personification of Rome acknowledges the merits of Stilicho entering the city and ordering the movement of the banners. Flores Militello translates „Ella misma dirige sobre las tropas”, but I would suggest “ella misma da órdenes a los estandartes” to maintain the double chiastic parallel signis – bellaturo and iubet – imperat.[7] Unfortunately, the author also misunderstands the meaning of DcS 3.237–238 (Nec tibi … / exiguam Stilicho movit, Latonia, curam, “Stilicho did not take little care of you, daughter of Lato, either”), although the commentary is correct and accurate. The poet is describing the hunting trip of Diana and her mates to catch beasts for the ludi celebrating Stilicho’s consulship. Flores Militello translates “Tampoco tú […] tuviste, hija de Latona, pocos cuidados por Estilicón”, but here Claudian wants to stress the care Stilicho deploys in organising the hunt. In a metaphorical image the consul addresses nec exiguam curam (“no small attention”, thus “great attention”) to Diana, goddess of the hunting.
A concise synopsis of the DcS (fifth section) precedes translation and commentary. The book concludes with an appendix dedicated to transcription, edition, translation of the bilingual inscription dedicated to Claudian by the Senate (CIL VI, 1710).
The commentary often contains an indication of the text’s many literary parallels and a brief but clear reconstruction of the iconographic and literary tradition, when appropriate. An example is the discussion of the topos of the Gigantomachy in DcS 1.12. Providing the reader with useful bibliographical references, Flores Militello retraces the Greek and Latin sources of this episode, and then recalls the artistic origin of the Gigantomachy in classical Athens. The same attention is dedicated to the historical events. For the allusion in DcS 1,52 to Theodosius’ diplomatic mission to Persia (AD 383), the commentator reconstructs the historical circumstances and, agreeing with work by Geoffrey Greatrex, downgrades the evidence provided by panegyric narration and so establishes the diminished influence of the young Stilicho in the legation.[8]
Some clarifications should be made on the translation and commentary. We start with DcS 2.362–376, where Claudian describes the investiture of Stilicho as consul. Flores Militello properly notes the poet’s intention to underscore the pacific condition in Rome, but, with Michael Dewar,[9] the “Romanness” transpiring from the Latii cultus (2.366–367) could be emphasised: the archaic description of the ceremony contributes to Claudian’s desire “to romanise” the figure of the half-barbarous Stilicho, particularly since the goddess Roma dresses him in the vestes Romuleae (2.365–366)[10].
Then, in DcS 2.433–435, in relation to the verendus senex Flores Militello correctly underscores the syncretic connotation of the character of the old man in the Cave of Time, but some bibliographic references could be added. For example, Claudio Moreschini proves the presence of hermetic influences, well attested in late antique culture.[11] Yet it is also possible to think that Claudian may allude to the figure of Christian God. In fact, the locution numeros qui dividit astris seems to evoke the introduction of astronomical navigation in Verg. Ecl. 1.137 (navita tum stellis numeros et nomina fecit) but above all the rewriting of this verse by Christian poets (e.g., Proba Cento 71, Sedul. Carm. pasch. 1.66, Drac. Laud. 1.217, Agrest. Carm. 40, AL 719a.94), who apply Vergil’s verse to the divine creation of the stars and the regular cadence of their paths and phases. Some observation also for the translation: “las matemáticas” for the Latin numeros could seem generic and excessively inaccurate. The Vergilian term refers to the cadences and rhythms of celestial motions, the so-called ephemerides. Thus, the hendiadys “los ritmos y las cadencies” could be proposed.[12]
In praef. 3 the double synkrisis between Roman poets (Ennius and Claudian) and generals (Scipio the African and Stilicho) celebrates both figures. In the commentary of DcS praef. 3.2 Flores Militello seems to misinterprets the locution (in proprium vertit Punica bella caput), where Claudian gives Scipio credit for assuming almost total responsibility for waging the Punic Wars. But, the commentator states that behind the term caput could be seen a reference to the head of the hydra. Clearly, the caput is that of Scipio. Furthermore, it is not clear how the analogy between Scipio and Stilicho could remember a new Heracles, which Flores Militello rather simplistically defines “un motivo panegírico recurrente en Claudiano” (p. CCVI). In agreement with Bruno Bureau, it is more likely to see a similar structure in the preface of the De raptu Proserpinae, where the mythic pair of Orpheus-Heracles replaces the historical one of Ennius-Scipio, while the political ruler Stilicho substitutes the not otherwise known Florentinus.[13]
A final observations on DcS 2.397–402 and the clouds of dust raised by the people welcoming Stilicho in Rome and the intense joy expressed by their acclamation (especially by Roman women) reference to literary loci similes, indicated by Ursula Keudel but neglected by Flores Militello, would have been useful.[14] I allude especially to Lucan. 6.246–247 (et altus / Caesareas pulvis testatur adesse cohortes) and Claud. Hon. VI cos. 545–546 (undare videres / ima viris, altas effulgere matribus aedes). Furthermore, Franca Ela Consolino discusses the influence of panegyrical models and signals an analogy with Paneg. 7 (VI) 8.7 to Constantine and Maximianus, and above all with Paneg. 12 (IX) 7.5 (Qui fuit dies ille quo Mediolanum ingressus es! quae gratulatio principum civitatis! qui plausus populi! quae securitas intuentium te matrum te virginum).[15]
Despite some inconsistencies, Flores Militello’s work provides a good Spanish translation that is easily accessible, linguistically up-to-date, and fluent. The commentary, except for minor gaps, is almost always precise, reliable, and rich in textual comparisons with earlier models and other works of Claudian. In conclusion, this monograph fills a considerable desideratum in the studies of the Late Latin poet, and, at the same time, opens paths for future research.
Bibliography
M. Castillo Bejarano, Claudio Claudiano. Poemas I–II, Madrid 1994.
B. Bureau, Figures de poètes chez Claudian: des manifestes poétiques?, in P. Galand-Hallyn, V. Zarini (éds.), Manifestes littèraires dans la latinité tardive. Actes du Colloque international de Paris, 23–24 mars 2007, Paris 2009, 51–70.
A. Cameron, Claudian. Poetry and propaganda at the court of Honorius, Oxford 1970.
J.-L. Charlet, Vingt années d’études sur Claudien (1993–2013), “Revue des études tardo-antiques” 3 (2013–2014), 259–297.
—. Claudien. Poèmes politiques, III: 300–404, texte établi et traduit par Jean-Louis Charlet, Paris 2017.
J. J. Cinefuegos García, Los géneros literarios en Claudio Claudiano. El panegírico y la épica, Universidad de Sivilla 1990.
F. E. Consolino, La prosopopea di Roma e i primi due libri delle Laudes Stilichonis, in J.-M. Carrié et R. Lizzi Testa (ed.), Humana sapit: études d’antiquité tardive offertes à Lellia Cracco Ruggini, Turnhout 2002, 7–23.
M. Dewar, Spinning the Trabea: Consular Robes and Propaganda in the Panegyric of Claudian, in J. Edmondson, A. Keith (eds.), Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture, Toronto – Buffalo – London 2008, 217–237.
A. Gillett, Epic Panegyric and Political Communication in the Fifth-Century West, in L. Grig, G. Kelly (ed.), Two Romes: Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, Oxford – New York – Boston 2012, 265–292.
G. Greatrex, The Background and Aftermath of the Partition of Armenia in A.D. 387, “Ancient History Bulletin” 14 (2000), 35–48.
J.B. Hall, Claudii Claudiani Carmina edidit John Barrie Hall, Leipzig 1985.
U. Keudel, Poetische Vorläufer und Vorbilder in Claudians De consulatu Stilichonis: Imitationskommentar, Göttingen 1970.
C. Moreschini, Paganus pervicacissimus. Religione e “filosofia” in Claudiano, in W.-W. Ehlers – F. Felgentreu – S. M. Weehler (hrsg.), Aetas Claudianea: eine Tagung an der Freien Universität Berlin vom 28. bis 30. Juni 2002, München 2004, pp. 57–77.
Notes
[1] In the two decades of scholarship considered by Charlet 2013–2014, 272, just six essays engage the DcS.
[2] Cameron 1970, 233; Gillett 2012, 269–270.
[3] Hall 1985.
[4] Charlet 2017.
[5] Cienfuegos García 1990 (absent in the bibliography used by Flores Militello).
[6] Castillo Bejarano 1994.
[7] See also Castillo Bejarano 1993, 116 and Charlet 2017, 170, partially diverging from Cienfuegos García 1990, 491.
[8] Greatrex 2000, 45 n. 50.
[9] Dewar 2008, 231.
[10] See also Consolino 2002, 8 “nessuno più autorevolmente di Roma può sancire la romanità del vandalo Stilicone”.
[11] Moreschini 2004, 63-66.
[12] The translation of Castillo Bejarano 1993, 108 alternatively represents the old figure as Orderer of the cosmos (“él distribuye el número de estrellas en constelaciones”).
[13] Bureau 2009, 67.
[14] Keudel 1970, 98.
[15] Consolino 2002, 16 nt. 85.