L’histoire de Philippidès d’Hérodote à Lucien. Une incursion dans l’atelier du mythe

La légende de Philippidès est bien connue aujourd’hui : il aurait été envoyé à Athènes pour annoncer la victoire de Marathon et se serait effondré après avoir délivré son message. Cette version est celle que développe Lucien de Samosate au iie siècle après J.-C. Pourtant au ve siècle avant J.-C., Hérodote parle quant à lui d’un Philippidès hémérodrome allant demander de l’aide aux Spartiates avant la bataille. Entre les deux récits, plusieurs auteurs ont repris le thème du messager, chacun d’entre eux altérant légèrement la leçon précédente selon sa propre stratégie discursive. Le motif apparaît alors comme un mythe, c’est-à-dire une histoire commune à de multiples sources mais toujours adaptée aux codes et aux intérêts particuliers de chacune des sources qui le présentent. L’ensemble des représentations de l’épisode donne l’occasion, du fait de l’épaisseur historique dont nous disposons, de rentrer dans l’atelier d’un mythe en train de s’élaborer.The legend of Philippides is now well-known: he would have been sent to Athens in order to announce the victory at Marathon and he would have collapsed after delivering his news. This version is narrated by Lucian of Samosata in the 2nd century ad. But in the 5th century bc, Herodotus speaks about Philippides as a hemerodromos asking for help in Sparta before the battle. Between those two narrations, several authors took over the theme of the messenger and softly altered the former versions according to their own discursive strategy. The story appears as a myth, because it is widespread and it tunes the codes and the specific interests of each source. Thanks to this historic depth, all the new presentations of this episode enable us to enter the workshop of the myth when it is taking shape

Le sceau d’Agamemnon

Les recherches récentes en histoire ancienne s’intéressent à la vie des objets, au sens de la circulation et des réemplois des artefacts, à l’image des statues, dont la biographie peut ainsi être retracée. Le sceau d’Agamemnon, évoqué chez Eschyle, Sophocle et Euripide, fait jouer différemment ce questionnement : en tant qu’objet fictif, son élaboration progressive au cours du ve siècle avant Jésus-Christ répond à une logique intertextuelle mais aussi à des stratégies qui le chargent d’une fonction à chaque fois spécifique. Les divers passages tragiques donnent alors l’occasion de réinterroger les usages des sceaux dans l’Athènes classique, entre fermeture, reconnaissance, identification et accréditation d’un message ou de l’intégrité d’un contenant. Une telle reconstruction met en balance les sceaux archéologiques, dont seules les images sont connues, et les vases attiques, qui représentent très rarement sceaux et amulettes et jamais l’iconographie qu’ils pourraient arborer.Recent research in Ancient history focuses on the life of objects, as circulation and the reuse of artifacts, and the image of statues, whose biography can be traced. The seal of Agamemnon, mentioned in Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, raises this question in a different way: as a fictional object, its progressive elaboration during the 5th century bc responds to an intertextual logic but also to strategies that entrust it with a function that is each time specific. The various tragic passages then provide an opportunity to reexamine the uses of seals in classical Athens, between closing, recognition, identification and accreditation of a message or the integrity of a container. Such a reconstruction balances the archaeological seals, whose images alone are known, and the attic vases, which very rarely represent seals and amulets and never the iconography they might display

The CC-Bio Project: Studying the Effects of Climate Change on Quebec Biodiversity

Anticipating the effects of climate change on biodiversity is now critical for managing wild species and ecosystems. Climate change is a global driver and thus affects biodiversity globally. However, land-use planners and natural resource managers need regional or even local predictions. This provides scientists with formidable challenges given the poor documentation of biodiversity and its complex relationships with climate. We are approaching this problem in Quebec, Canada, through the CC-Bio Project (http://cc‑bio.uqar.ca/), using a boundary organization as a catalyst for team work involving climate modelers, biologists, naturalists, and biodiversity managers. In this paper we present the CC-Bio Project and its general approach, some preliminary results, the emerging hypothesis of the northern biodiversity paradox (a potential increase of biodiversity in northern ecosystems due to climate change), and an early assessment of the conservation implications generated by our team work

Chapitre 6. L’évidence des faits

Selon le Pseudo-Plutarque, Hypéride défend Phryné, accusée d’impiété dans les années 340-330, avec une stratégie radicale : « Comme elle allait être condamnée, il la fit avancer au milieu de la salle (εἰς µέσον) et, ayant déchiré sa robe, il exhiba (ἐπέδειξε) sa poitrine. Quand les juges virent (ἀπιδόντων) sa beauté, ils l’acquittèrent. » La présentation du corps de l’hétaïre apparaît comme une arme rhétorique redoutable. Si le discours d’Hypéride est aujourd’hui perdu et si l’authenticité de..

La cité de la suspicion. Le miroir des révolutions oligarchiques chez les orateurs attiques des Ve-IVe siècles av. J.-C.

A City of Suspicion. The Mirror of the Oligarchical Revolutions in the Athenian Orators (5th and 4th centuries BC) The Athenian oligarchies of 411 and of 404/3 are treated with distrust by Attic orators. They are shown as being the result of mutual doubts between citizens and as introducing a climate of generalized suspicion. Such a representation is not the description of the historical events, but an elaborated discourse aimed at ‘reinventing’ Athens after the Peloponnesian War crisis. The oligarchs play the role of the mirror of democracy, where trust rules and justice is enforced. It highlights the importance of the witnesses’ liability in the Athenian trials: judges accept as true a testimony only because the witness can be sued for perjury.Les révolutions oligarchiques qui ont lieu à Athènes en 411 et 404 sont placées sous le signe de la méfiance chez les orateurs attiques. Elles sont dites découler des soupçons mutuels des citoyens et connaître un climat de suspicion généralisé. Une telle représentation ne correspond pas à la description de la réalité historique, mais à une élaboration visant à “réinventer” Athènes après la crise de la guerre du Péloponnèse. Les oligarques fonctionnent comme le miroir de la démocratie, où règne la confiance et où la justice est respectée. Cela souligne l’importance de la responsabilité du témoin dans les procès athéniens : les juges n’acceptent comme véridiques un témoignage que parce que le déposant peut être poursuivi pour faux témoignage.Siron Nicolas. La cité de la suspicion. Le miroir des révolutions oligarchiques chez les orateurs attiques des Ve-IVe siècles av. J.-C.. In: Dialogues d'histoire ancienne, vol. 43, n°1, 2017. pp. 97-116

Witnessing and convincing : the truth apparatus in the Attic orators (5th-4th centuries BC)

Comment croire ou mettre en doute les propos des individus qui montent à la tribune lors d’un procès de l’Athènes classique ? Les orateurs qui prennent la parole lors d’une affaire mobilisent tout un éventail de preuves pour construire leur discours comme crédible aux yeux des juges. Ces procédures constituent le dispositif de vérité, au milieu duquel les témoins se situent en bonne place dans les discours judiciaires, c’est-à-dire les textes des dix auteurs sélectionnés comme le canon des orateurs attiques des Ve et IVe siècles avant Jésus-Christ (Antiphon, Andocide, Lysias, Isocrate, Isée, Démosthène, Eschine, Hypéride, Lycurgue et Dinarque). Si aucune théorie de la preuve ne se fait jour dans ces corpus, la figure du témoin judiciaire apparaît comme centrale, comme l’illustrent les très nombreuses convocations testimoniales. Le rapport entre témoignage et documents écrits montre également la valeur probante des dépositions. Qu’est-ce qui, alors, permet aux paroles d’un témoin d’être présentées comme véridiques ? Les déposants peuvent être crus car ils engagent leur responsabilité, du fait d’une possible punition divine, s’ils prêtent serment, ou humaine, si l’adversaire lance un procès pour faux témoignage. En outre, les témoins doivent avoir une connaissance directe des événements en question. Mais cette exigence est paradoxale : ils sont le premier intermédiaire entre l’auditoire et les faits. Les plaignants rappellent donc fréquemment aux juges des points déjà connus, afin d’en faire leur propres témoins. Ils cherchent aussi à effacer leur propre rôle dans l’argumentation, en désignant leurs propos comme simples et en minimisant leur expérience oratoire.How did the Athenians trust or doubt the words of someone who came up to the tribune during a trial? The speakers used a whole range of evidence to make their speech credible for the judges. All these techniques and the witnesses were a very important part of this process can be qualify as the truth apparatus in the orators’ speeches, i.e. the texts from the ten authors chosen as the canon of the Attic orators of the 5th and 4th centuries B.C.: Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, Demosthenes, Aeschines, Hyperides, Lycurgus, and Dinarchus. Even if no proof theory has been found out, the witnesses were crucial in the courtroom, as we can see from the many times a litigant called a witness to testify. The relation between testimony and written documents also shows the convincing value of the witness statement. Therefore, to what extent could a testimony be considered as truthful? The witnesses were usually trusted because their responsibility was at stake: they could incur a divine punishment, if they swore an oath, or a humane penalty, if they were put on trial for false witnessing. Besides, the witnesses must have a direct knowledge of the events. Yet, there was a paradox in this requirement: they were the first part of the demarcation between the facts and the public of the trial. Thus, the litigants often reminded the judges about some elements already known in order to make them witnesses. Litigants also tried to erase their own role in the demonstration, by presenting their words as simple and by minimising their oratory skills

Quel est votre verdict ? Le résultat des discours contenus dans le canon des dix orateurs attiques

Si ritiene comunemente che siano pochi i verdetti a noi noti per quanto riguarda le cause trattate nelle orazioni giudiziarie conservate nel canone degli oratori attici. Per di più le liste delle vittorie e delle sconfitte redatte dagli studiosi non sono concordanti. Il riesame degli esiti noti o congetturali permette quindi di proporre una lista chiara e affidabile. Ne risulta una conoscenza relativamente estesa dei verdetti pronunciati: la decisione dei giudici può essere ritenuta relativamente probabile per circa un terzo del corpus giunto fino a noi. Benché per i discorsi composti dai logografi per i terzi l’esito dei processi sia conosciuto in misura minore rispetto alle orazioni e alle requisitorie composti da, per o contro, uno degli oratori del canone, complessivamente la nostra conoscenza dei verdetti è più ampia di quanto leggiamo nei testi degli storici e dei commentatori moderni. Le sentenze risultano tanto più interessanti in quanto permettono di meglio comprendere i discorsi stessi attraverso l’esame delle strategie che sottendono la loro pubblicazione.It is commonly said that we know only a few verdicts of the forensic speeches preserved in the canon of the Attic orators. Moreover, the lists of successes and defeats drawn up by law specialists do not match. The survey of the known or conjectured results makes it possible to propose a clear and reliable list, which reveals a relatively extensive knowledge of the verdicts delivered: the jurors’ decision can be proposed with a certain probability for almost a third of the corpus. It is true that we know the sentence of pleadings written for or against one of the canon’s authors more than when they wrote their speeches as logographers, but our knowledge of the judgements is broader than what historians and commentators think and repeat. Jurors’ verdicts are of particular interest because they provide a better understanding of the speeches themselves, through the examination of the strategies that support the publication of a text.Si ritiene comunemente che siano pochi i verdetti a noi noti per quanto riguarda le cause trattate nelle orazioni giudiziarie conservate nel canone degli oratori attici. Per di più le liste delle vittorie e delle sconfitte redatte dagli studiosi non sono concordanti. Il riesame degli esiti noti o congetturali permette quindi di proporre una lista chiara e affidabile. Ne risulta una conoscenza relativamente estesa dei verdetti pronunciati: la decisione dei giudici può essere ritenuta relativamente probabile per circa un terzo del corpus giunto fino a noi. Benché per i discorsi composti dai logografi per i terzi l’esito dei processi sia conosciuto in misura minore rispetto alle orazioni e alle requisitorie composti da, per o contro, uno degli oratori del canone, complessivamente la nostra conoscenza dei verdetti è più ampia di quanto leggiamo nei testi degli storici e dei commentatori moderni. Le sentenze risultano tanto più interessanti in quanto permettono di meglio comprendere i discorsi stessi attraverso l’esame delle strategie che sottendono la loro pubblicazione

Quel est votre verdict ?: Le résultat des discours contenus dans le canon des dix orateurs attiques

International audienceIt is commonly said that we know only a few verdicts of the forensic speeches preserved in the canon of the Attic orators. Moreover, the lists of successes and defeats drawn up by law specialists do not match. The survey of the known or conjectured results makes it possible to propose a clear and reliable list, which reveals a relatively extensive knowledge of the verdicts delivered: the jurors’ decision can be proposed with a certain probability for almost a third of the corpus. It is true that we know the sentence of pleadings written for or against one of the canon’s authors more than when they wrote their speeches as logographers, but our knowledge of the judgements is broader than what historians and commentators think and repeat. Jurors’ verdicts are of particular interest because they provide a better understanding of the speeches themselves, through the examination of the strategies that support the publication of a text.Il est communément admis que peu de verdicts sont connus pour les affaires des discours judiciaires préservés dans le canon des orateurs attiques. De plus, les listes de victoires et de défaites établies par les spécialistes du droit ne concordent pas. La recension des résultats connus ou conjecturés permet de proposer une liste claire et fiable. Celle-ci laisse finalement percevoir une connaissance relativement étendue des verdicts prononcés : la décision des juges peut être avancée avec une certaine probabilité pour près d’un tiers du corpus préservé. S’il est vrai que le jugement est moins souvent connu dans le cas des plaidoiries rédigées par des logographes que dans celui des plaidoyers et réquisitoires composés par, pour ou contre un des orateurs du canon, notre connaissance des verdicts est plus large que ce que répètent les historiens et commentateurs. Les sentences sont d’autant plus intéressantes qu’elles peuvent permettre de mieux comprendre les discours eux-mêmes, à travers l’examen des stratégies qui soutiennent leur publication.Si ritiene comunemente che siano pochi i verdetti a noi noti per quanto riguarda le cause trattate nelle orazioni giudiziarie conservate nel canone degli oratori attici. Per di più le liste delle vittorie e delle sconfitte redatte dagli studiosi non sono concordanti. Il riesame degli esiti noti o congetturali permette quindi di proporre una lista chiara e affidabile. Ne risulta una conoscenza relativamente estesa dei verdetti pronunciati: la decisione dei giudici può essere ritenuta relativamente probabile per circa un terzo del corpus giunto fino a noi. Benché per i discorsi composti dai logografi per i terzi l’esito dei processi sia conosciuto in misura minore rispetto alle orazioni e alle requisitorie composti da, per o contro, uno degli oratori del canone, complessivamente la nostra conoscenza dei verdetti è più ampia di quanto leggiamo nei testi degli storici e dei commentatori moderni. Le sentenze risultano tanto più interessanti in quanto permettono di meglio comprendere i discorsi stessi attraverso l’esame delle strategie che sottendono la loro pubblicazione

Le sceau d’Agamemnon

Recent research in Ancient history focuses on the life of objects, as circulation and the reuse of artifacts, and the image of statues, whose biography can be traced. The seal of Agamemnon, mentioned in Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, raises this question in a different way: as a fictional object, its progressive elaboration during the 5th century bc responds to an intertextual logic but also to strategies that entrust it with a function that is each time specific. The various tragic passages then provide an opportunity to reexamine the uses of seals in classical Athens, between closing, recognition, identification and accreditation of a message or the integrity of a container. Such a reconstruction balances the archaeological seals, whose images alone are known, and the attic vases, which very rarely represent seals and amulets and never the iconography they might display

Des galets dans la bouche. La construction de la figure de l'orateur dans les discours judiciaires de l'Athènes classique

International audienceAccording to Plutarch, Demosthenes had serious speech problems at the beginning of his career that led him to practice a whole range of exercises, such as speaking with stones in his mouth. Even if these difficulties and efforts were considered authentic in the 19th century and by some contemporary historians, we can re-examine those topics from the speeches of Demosthenes himself. He insists on the weakness of his voice, but he is also very critical of any training, especially that of his opponent Aeschines, whose purpose would be to deceive the jurors. Moreover, Demosthenes is not the only “important man” of the 4th century to have this point of view. Lack of rhetorical skill and extemporaneous speech are in fact elements of the truth-telling mechanism set up in the forensic speeches: thanks to these patterns, orators can claim to take place on the side of truth and place their adversaries on the side of deception.Selon Plutarque, Démosthène aurait eu au début de sa carrière de graves problèmes d’élocution qui l’auraient poussé à pratiquer toute une série d’exercices, comme s’entraîner à parler avec des cailloux dans la bouche. Si ces difficultés et ces efforts ont été considérés comme authentiques au XIXe siècle et par certains historiens contemporains, il est possible de réinterroger ces thèmes à partir des discours de l’orateur lui-même. Celui-ci insiste certes sur la faiblesse de sa voix, mais est également très critique envers tout entraînement, notamment celui de son adversaire Eschine, dont le but serait de tromper les juges. Démosthène n’est d’ailleurs pas le seul « grand homme » du IVe siècle à procéder de la sorte. Le manque de talent oratoire et l’improvisation sont en fait des éléments du dispositif de vérité mis en place dans les plaidoiries judiciaires : ces motifs permettent aux orateurs de se positionner du côté de la vérité et de placer la partie adverse du côté de la tromperie