Temples votifs et butin de guerre dans la Rome républicaine

Abstract in English further down. Cette étude tente d’expliquer et de contextualiser le lien, admis depuis longtemps mais jamais véritablement prouvé jusque là, entre la construction des temples votifs en ville de Rome et l’utilisation de la catégorie de butin appelée "manubiae". La notion même de "manubiae" y est l’objet d’une tentative de définition (laquelle a cependant été mieux précisée depuis lors grâce aux travaux récents de Michel TARPIN), reposant en partie sur l’analyse de passages du "De lege agraria" de Cicéron. Des rapprochements sont proposés avec le traitement du butin dans la Grèce archaïque, où l’équipement de l’ennemi vaincu revenait soit au vainqueur, soit aux dieux, soit à la collectivité. L’analyse détaillée des notices de Tite-Live relatives au vœu, à la locatio et à la dédicace de temples votifs, ainsi qu’une étude prosopographique des auteurs de ces constructions, permet d’obtenir une meilleure image des compétences respectives des magistrats et du Sénat dans ce domaine. Elle ouvre également des perspectives nouvelles pour la compréhension de la politique édilitaire des grands personnages de l’État romain jusqu’à César et au delà, y compris dans le domaine des constructions profanes, associées ou non à des triomphes. Le rôle des censeurs en matière de constructions publiques, religieuses ou non, est aussi abordé dans ce cadre. En définitive, la construction de temples votifs, marques visibles et pérennes de l’appui apporté par les dieux aux généraux vainqueurs, permettait aux membres les plus éminents de la nobilitas patricio-plébéienne de justifier leur position sociale et leur pouvoir politique. Dans ce contexte, la motivation à remporter des victoires et à faire du butin pourrait avoir joué un rôle non négligeable dans la dynamique de l’impérialisme romain sous la République. En appendice à cette étude, quelques cas particuliers d’interprétation plus délicate sont abordés, tels que l’aqueduc de l’Anio vetus construit par M’ Curius Dentatus ou l’aedes Herculis Musarum attribué à M. Fulvius Nobilior. This study attempts to explain and put into context the connection between the construction of votive temples in the city of Rome and the use of the kind of booty called "manubiae". Such a connection has been acknowledged for a long time but had never really been proven since then. An attempt is made herein to define the very idea of "manubiae" (which has since, however, been better explained thanks to recent work of Michel TARPIN), based in part on an analysis of passages of Cicero's "De lege agraria". Similarities are suggested with the treatment of booty in Ancient Greece where the conquered enemy's equipment reverted either to the conqueror, or to the gods, or to the community. A detailed analysis of Livy's notes relating to the vow, the "locatio" and the dedication of votive temples, as well as a prosopographic study of the authors of these constructions, gives us a better picture of the respective powers of the magistrates and of the Senate in this field. It also gives us new ways of understanding the building politics of important figures of the Roman State up to Caesar and beyond, including in the field of secular monuments, whether associated with conquests or not. The role of censors in the field of public buildings, whether religious ones or not, is also covered in it. Finally, the construction of votive temples, visible and perennial signs of the support of the gods towards the conquering generals, allowed the most eminent members of the patrician-plebeian nobility to justify both their social status and their political power. In this context, the will to be victorious and procure booty may have played a non negligible role in the dynamics of Roman imperialism under the Republic. In the appendix, a few particular cases of more complex interpretation are discussed, such as the "Anio vetus" aquaduct built by M’ Curius Dentatus or the "aedes Herculis Musarum" attributed to M. Fulvius Nobilior

Question d'honneur

Is it legitimate to use the modern notion of “honor” in connection with the ancient Roman Republic? Did the Romans of that time follow a strict code of conduct? On what did they base social prestige? What marks of distinction did they use and for what purposes? These are some of the questions this book attempts to answer. To do this, the author analyzes three Roman notions, honos , honestum and honestas, which cover socio-political objects (marks of honor, prestige, public office) and moral data (dignity of conduct, good ethics). This diversity is apprehended in the work by a plural approach, relating to semantics, sociology and the history of ideas. The preliminary study of the meaning of these terms in the Latin texts thus leads to the examination of the practices of homage and honor in the life of the Romans. Then confronting practice with theory, the work examines the way in which these three notions were employed as literary themes, ideological instruments and philosophical concepts among the Latin authors of the Republic

Question d'honneur

Is it legitimate to use the modern notion of “honor” in connection with the ancient Roman Republic? Did the Romans of that time follow a strict code of conduct? On what did they base social prestige? What marks of distinction did they use and for what purposes? These are some of the questions this book attempts to answer. To do this, the author analyzes three Roman notions, honos , honestum and honestas, which cover socio-political objects (marks of honor, prestige, public office) and moral data (dignity of conduct, good ethics). This diversity is apprehended in the work by a plural approach, relating to semantics, sociology and the history of ideas. The preliminary study of the meaning of these terms in the Latin texts thus leads to the examination of the practices of homage and honor in the life of the Romans. Then confronting practice with theory, the work examines the way in which these three notions were employed as literary themes, ideological instruments and philosophical concepts among the Latin authors of the Republic

L'oratore Lucio Licinio Crasso: commento alle testimonianze e ai frammenti

Commento alle testimonianze e ai frammenti dell'oratoria di Lucio Licinio Crasso (140-91 a.C.