In the summer of 1433, the priest J. Tavelli, better known among Italian humanists as Aurispa, set sail down the Rhine. The purpose of his trip was to visit the libraries of the famous cathedrals of Mainz, Cologne and Aachen. The waterway was not only convenient: it was also safer. The land of the Rhine was uneasy. Here and there peasants rose up against the dominance of the Church and the feudal lords. Sometimes Hussite detachments appeared from neighboring Bohemia, throwing the local chivalry into a panic. But Aurispa didn't mind the dangers. He was an experienced traveler. From recent trips to Greece, which was gripped by turmoil and the struggle with the Turks, he managed to take out the most valuable manuscripts of the works of famous writers, philosophers and historians of antiquity: Sophocles, Euripides, Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides.

Aurispa was also lucky on her journey across the Rhine. Looking through the dusty manuscripts of Mainz Cathedral, he found a hitherto unknown manuscript. "Duodecim panegyrici "("The Twelve panegyrics") - read Aurispa. Panegyrics... This is usually the name of performances that glorify someone or something. The word "panegyric" comes from an ancient Greek adjective that meant "festive, solemn, praiseworthy", and in the sense of "a word of praise at a national assembly" was used by the famous Greek orator Isocrates in relation to the speech he delivered at Olympia in 380 BC. 1 In Latin, the name "panegyric" was first used, apparently, by the outstanding Roman orator and politician Marcus Tullius Cicero (I century BC) .2 But he only referred to the speeches of Isocrates in this way, and in the modern sense the word "panegyric" has been used since the first century AD.

The manuscript found by Aurispa began with a panegyric to the Emperor Trajan, written by the famous Roman official and writer Pliny the Younger in the year 100. Then, without any chronological sequence, there were eleven panegyrics written from 289 to 389. Scientists became interested in finding Auryaspa. To date, dozens of monographs and articles have been devoted to it, but interest in the collection is not fading. The most famous of them is Pliny's "Panegyric". It was translated and commented on in many countries, including the USSR .3 As for the others, they are not very lucky in this respect, and in terms of their degree of study they are still far from the work of Pliny.

The eleven other speeches in the collection are commonly referred to as Gallic panegyrics, because they were written by natives of the Roman province of Gaul. This is not surprising: it was famous for its schools. About a century after its conquest by Julius Caesar (I century BC), rhetorical schools began to appear here in the largest cities, in which "the most distinguished young people" (pan. lat. V, 5, 1) completed their education. Studying at a rhetorical school was considered almost a prerequisite for a successful start to an administrative or political career. They studied rhetoric, grammar, literature, philosophy, law, and sometimes the rudiments of astronomy, mathematics, and geography. Over time, more and more cities have sought to open such schools. It was extremely prestigious, putting the city in the category of a cultural center. Therefore, by the fourth century - the peak of Roman Gaul's cultural development - many of its cities had rhetorical schools. As for the authors of the Gallic panegyrics, we have no information about two of them, and the rest studied and taught in the schools of Burdigala (modern times). Bordeaux), Augustoduna (Autun), Trevera (Trier).

An interesting description of the rhetorical school of Augustodunus was left by Eumenius, the author of the panegyric of 298. It was a rather tall building with a portico, located in the very center of the city between the temple of Apollo and the Capitol (pan. lat. V, 9, 3; 20, 2). The walls of the inner rooms were decorated with maps (frescoes or mosaics), quite accurately depicting various regions of the vast empire (pan. lat. V, 20- 21). Future lawyers, teachers, and government officials should have a clear idea of the likely field of their career.-

1 Isocr. V, 9, 84; XII, 263; XV, 46; Arist. Rhet. III, 1408b, 15.

2 Cic. Orator. XI, 37.

3 For the translation into Russian by V. S. Sokolov, see: Letters of Pliny the Younger, Moscow, 1984.

page 174

new features. After all, no one could know where his fate would throw him and where his luck would smile. Some, like Mamertin, author of the panegyrics of 289 and 291, will have services in Italy and near the German border. Others, like Eumenius and the author of the panegyric of 321, Nazarius, will be engaged in teaching in Gaul. The field of activity of the third may be Illyria, as happened, for example, with the author of the panegyric of 362, Claudius Mamertinus, who was even awarded the title of consul by the Emperor Julian I. And the author of the panegyric of 389, the Latin Pacatus Drepanius, was appointed proconsul of Africa as a reward for a well-delivered speech.

In the meantime, future teachers, lawyers and officials listened attentively to the mentor and wrote down the exercises on wax-covered tablets with a finger (metal stick). Much attention in the rhetorical schools was paid to eloquence. Students were given a topic (specific or speculative), which they had to develop, showing at the same time independent thinking and the ability to well argue the theses put forward by them. Sometimes students were forced to improvise (in the form of a monologue or debate), but usually they composed speeches in advance and then memorized them.

Judging by the small volume of early panegyrics in the collection, these speeches were recited by heart. The size of the eulogy was determined by the circumstances under which it was delivered. "If I wanted to dwell on (the numerous exploits of the emperors-I. Sh.), then I would not have enough for this whole day, nor the previous or subsequent ones; besides, we must not forget about the time, because Caesar listens to my speech standing up" (pan. lat. IV, 4, 4). It must be assumed that the emperors, to whom the last three panegyrics of the collection are dedicated, listened to them sitting down, since the volume of these speeches exceeds the earlier speeches by 2-3 times. Sometimes the emperors themselves ordered speeches for speakers on a particular occasion, indicating at the same time which issues should be paid special attention to. And the speakers, who had been adept at making speeches on a given topic since school, developed the customer's theses to the best of their understanding. And they understood them quite often in their own way.

A careful reading of the Gallic panegyrics makes it clear that the speakers, without leaving the canons of the genre and adhering to the letter of the social order, could express their own opinion on any issues that concerned them. Therefore, the speeches of the collection, as a rule, reflect the views of both the customer and the performer. Sometimes they differ in principle, sometimes the difference is in shades. In short, each panegyric bears the stamp of its creator. The same can be said about the collection as a whole, because it also had its own compiler. In all probability, he was the author of the last speech of the Latin collection Pacatus Drepanius, who placed ten other speeches between Pliny's "Panegyric" and his own work taken as a model. The selection was carefully made by Pacatus, and as a result, the political orientation of the collection as a whole confirms the idea of the compiler's panegyric about the alleged age-old loyalty of the Gallic provinces to Rome .4
In Italy, where Aurispa brought a copy taken from the Mainz manuscript, the panegyrics aroused great interest. Shortly after the invention of printing, a collection of twelve panegyrics was first published. This probably happened in Milan in 1482. After that, interest in the collection increased. It is published in Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, France, and England. In total, the collection has gone through about 20 editions, three of them in our century. After the publication of 1513, which was undertaken by the rector of the University of Vienna I. Cuspinian, the collection gained European fame. Its comprehensive study has begun.

In 1599, the Dutch historian I. Liviney first undertook a scientific publication of the collection: he accompanied each panegyric with comments, and at the end placed a description of the collection as a whole .5 But still, the publication, which can rightly be called strictly scientific, appeared only in 1874. The German historian and philologist E. Barens gave it not only a brief overview of the manuscripts of panegyrics and an index of proper names, but also page-by-page discrepancies .6 This was very important: in this way, a significant step was taken towards restoring the original text of the eulogies.

4 Panegyriques latins. T. 1. p. 1949, pp. XV-XVI.

5 For early editions of the collection, see Panegyriques latins, vol. 1, pp. LVI-LXX.

6 XII Panegyrici Latini. Lipsiae. 1874.

page 175

It is not known how long the missing Mainz manuscript was dated. Perhaps it was one of the copies that were distributed in Gaul in the IV-V centuries. Most likely, it was a copy from a copy. In the course of correspondence, of course, errors appeared. They occurred for various reasons: due to the scribe's fatigue, his lack of awareness about the events described, and simply because of his poor knowledge of the Latin language. Therefore, the researchers were faced with the task of deciphering difficult and incomprehensible places. So, scholars have long puzzled over what the words "Gennobou desateh (in another manuscript variant: Gennoboude sathi) vero munus" mean (pan. lat. 11, 10, 3). From the context, it is clear that this refers to the leadership of one of the German tribes hostile to Rome - the Franks. Some researchers believed that we are talking about two Frankish kings-Gennobode and Esatech - and restored the text in this way: per te regnum accepit Gennoboudes, Atech vero munus (from you Gennoboudes received the kingdom again, Atech also received the title)7 . Subsequently, it was proved that it is necessary to read this passage correctly as follows:: per te regnum recepit Gennoboudes, a te vero munus accepit (by your will, Gennoboudes regained the kingdom and received his rank from you)8 .

In the 100 years that have passed since the publication of the Barens edition, quite a lot of questions have been solved regarding the authorship of speeches, the place and time of their delivery, the stages and time of creating the collection itself. Special mention should be made of its publications, undertaken by W. Behrens and Ed. Galletier. The publication of W. Barens, son of E. Barens, is characterized by a convincing interpretation of a number of obscure passages and detailed personal and subject indexes. As for the Galletier edition, it is the best of all existing ones. This three-volume work contains the text of panegyrics with a parallel French translation 9, a general introductory article, page-by-page comments and discrepancies, indexes of names and titles. Each panegyric is preceded by a brief essay in which Hallethier examines the authorship, timing and circumstances of the speech, briefly pointing out its historical and literary value. His work gives the most complete picture of the study of Gallic panegyrics for its time .10
Despite the obvious achievements of Western researchers in the study of Gallic eulogies, there are still a number of unresolved problems. The most important of them is to identify the program orientation of panegyrics. Contrary to popular belief, Gallic panegyrics have a pronounced political character. Being in form literary works written in a periodic speech (sometimes even turning to verse size), with a verified number of long and short sounds in both parts of the sentence, panegyrics were in fact political speeches, often announcing a new direction in the foreign or domestic policy of the state. After all, not all the changes that were planned to be made in the empire could (due to tradition or the peculiarity of the situation) be immediately implemented by imperial decrees. Sometimes the task of preparing public opinion in the right direction was assigned to panegyrics, which, not being official documents, carried out ideas coming from the administrative top of the empire.

The authors of panegyrics are people who have received professional training in the indoctrination of the masses and are well acquainted with historical, philosophical and religious literature. Therefore, they could convincingly motivate changes in the empire's policy in any area, either by referring to historical precedents, or by claiming that they correspond to the moral and legal norms of the ancient Roman tradition. For example, panegyrists were engaged in justifying the right to the imperial title and the right to rule over the entire empire of a particular applicant, hinted at the emperor's Christianity, or, conversely, defended the principles of the Greco-Roman religion, etc. As a rule, in the Gallic panes-

7 Thierry A. Histoire de la Gaule sous d'administration Romaine. T. 3. P. 1847, p. 65.

8 XII Panegyrici latini. Lipsiae. 1911, S. 270 - 271.

9 The only complete translation of the panegyrics.

10 In Russian and Soviet historical science, they were practically not studied until the author's PhD thesis (see Shabaga I. Y. Latin Panegyrics of the end of the III-IV centuries as a historical source (Program character of Gallic panegyrics), Moscow, 1984).

page 176

The giriks contain an analysis of the whole complex of problems facing the empire, and outline ways to solve them.

However, the factual significance of the Gallic panegyrics has not yet been fully appreciated. Almost all researchers followed the opinion expressed at the time by Galletier: "It is strange and even dangerous to claim that panegyrics are reliable historical sources." 11 With all due respect to Galletier, it is difficult to agree with this formulation. Of course, one cannot say that everything in the Gallic panegyrics is true. It is known that they tend to present biased material to a greater extent than other types of sources. That's not the point here. The fact is that there are no "dumb" sources. There are sources that cannot be deciphered by the old methods. Programmatic focus is the key to properly understanding the historical value of Gallic panegyrics 12 . Identifying the programmatic meaning of both individual speeches and the entire collection as a whole shows that even deliberate distortions and omissions (by the way, not too frequent) not only do not reduce the high informative value of panegyrics, but, with the right research method, increase it.

For example, in the panegyric of 307 addressed to Maximian and Constantine, the speaker, on the one hand, does not mention other emperors in power (including Maximian's son Maxentius, who ruled in Rome). On the other hand, he calls in a veiled form for both emperors to seize Rome, which he insistently calls the capital of the empire (in fact, Rome has already lost this status). This combination of omission and allusion indicates the desire of Constantine and Maximian to establish dominance over the entire territory of the empire. In general, Maximian, whose colorful figure is in a certain sense the personification of his time, cannot be imagined without the information contained in the works of the collection 13 . His biography, compiled on the basis of Gallic panegyrics, can serve as a good illustration of the high informative value of his speeches.

In 284, Diocletian comes to power, who after a year and a half appoints Maximian as his co-ruler (pan. lat. II, 1, 5). Soon Diocletian began to actively introduce the cult of ruling emperors, according to which he was considered a descendant and visible incarnation of Jupiter, and Maximian-Hercules (pan. lat. II, 1, 1; IV, 9, 1). In 305, after a 20-year reign, Diocletian abdicated, forcing Maximian to do so (pan. lat. VII, 15, b). Maximian, however, found it difficult to accept the position of a private citizen. At the first opportunity, he returned to power. It happened like this.

In 306, after taking advantage of the unrest in Rome, Maximian's son Maxentius became emperor. The supreme ruler of the empire, Augustus Galerius, did not recognize this and sent his co-ruler Flavius Severus to deal with the " usurper "(pan. lat. IX, 3, 4). Then Maxentius sends his languishing father a purple robe (a sign of imperial power) and asks him to help him repel the attack of the North. But by the time the old emperor reached his son, Maxentius 'army was already blockading Severus' forces in Ravenna. Having familiarized himself with the state of affairs, Maximian began to call on the enemy soldiers who had previously served under his command to go over to their side. At the same time, he promised them an increase in salary (pan. lat. VII, 16, 1). The Ravenna garrison began to ferment, and the frightened Severus surrendered to the mercy of the victors, who pretended to spare his life. After winning the victory, the emperors immediately disagreed about each other's contribution to it. In addition, everyone believed that it was he who had the right to supreme power. The father had to give in, because the son, referring to the fact that the army is under his command, quickly proved the futility of the dispute.

Angered by his son's disobedience, Maximian went to Gaul to visit the son of his longtime associate, Caesar Constantine

11 Panegyriques latins. Vol. 1, p. XXV.

12 Panegyrics contain five types of programs: military - political, economic, socio-political, religious, behavioral.

13 Only on this basis does Maximian's biography become sufficiently complete and consistent. For example, the statement that in 307, Constantine recognized Maxentius as Augustus (Bickerman E. Chronology of the ancient world. Near East and Antiquity, Moscow, 1975, p. 297) not only differs from the information of the panegyrics, but also makes the subsequent actions of Constantine incomprehensible.

page 177

(pan. lat. IX, 3, 4). At first, the old emperor's business was not bad. Constantine and Maximian quickly agreed and awarded each other the highest imperial titles-Augustus and senior Augustus, respectively (pan. lat. VI, 3, 2; 5, 3 - 4). This treaty was sealed by the marriage of Constantine and Maximian's daughter Fausta on March 31, 307 (pan. lat. VI, 1, 1 - 5). However, the new son-in-law , recognizing in exchange for the title received the formal seniority of Maximian 14, did not show any desire to share real power with him. Nor did he respond to requests from the elder Augustus to teach his "presumptuous" son a lesson together (pan. lat. VI, 11, 1 - 7). From the context of the panegyric of 307, it is clear that Maximian's ultimate goal was already to seize power over the entire empire. But Konstantin did not go on an adventure and waited. Then the old emperor, cursing in his heart the intractability of his son-in-law, decided to try his luck with his son again. However, Maxentius, who managed to repel the attack of the "legitimate" elder Augustus Galerius in the summer of 307, did not want to submit to the "illegal"one. Maximian tried to depose his son (pan. lat. IX. 3, 4), but Maxentius again emerged victorious and expelled his father first from Rome, and then from Italy in general (pan. lat. VII, 14, 6).

Despairing of his own attempts to seize power, Maximian decided to seek the help of Diocletian, who, under his real name (Diocles), led the life of a private man in the luxurious palace of Spalato (modern times). Split). The meeting between Diocletian and Maximian, which took place in the presence of Galerius, took place in 308 at Carnutus. Maximian, under pressure from Diocletian, abdicated for the second time. He was forced to leave Illyricum, and returned to Treverus to join Constantine, the only one who had hitherto recognized him as the elder Augustus (pan. lat. VII, 14, 6). However, it was more profitable for Constantine to submit to the decision of the Carnutus meeting, at which he was awarded the specially invented title "son of Augustus", thus not recognizing the appointment of Maximian. Therefore, Constantine suppressed all Maximian's claims to power (pan. lat. VII. 15, 6), although he surrounded him with luxury and external honor (pan. lat. VII, 15, 1).

But for more than a year Maximian was apparently unable to endure peace. Taking advantage of Constantin's absence, he leads a small squad out of Trener and heads south, recruiting supporters along the way. Constantine at this time, having conducted punitive expeditions against the invading Franks and Bructerians in the lower reaches of the Rhine (pan. lat. VII, 10, 1-2), was engaged in the construction of a bridge near the town of Colonia Agrippina (sovrem. Cologne), intending to cross the Rhine and ravage the Frankish lands (pan. lat. VII. 13, 1-6). Maximian, on the other hand, "having made a slow and unhurried journey, during which, of course, he was already considering military operations, and having exhausted the storerooms so that no army could pursue him, dressed in purple robes, unexpectedly took refuge among the city walls of Arelat (Sovrem. Arles) and after twice giving up power, seized it a third time. He sent letters to win the army over to his side, and with promises of rewards sought to shake the loyalty of your soldiers, " writes the author of the panegyric of 310 (pan. lat. VII, 16, 1). When Constantine learned of this, he gave chase. His troops marched rapidly as far as Cabillon (Chalon-on-Saone) and, taking ships, descended the rivers Arar (Saone) and Rodan (Rhone) to Arelat (pan. lat. VII, 18, 1 - 4). But Maximian was no longer in town. The soldiers, excited by the pursuit, having learned that he had retired to Massilia (Marseilles), immediately went on (pan. lat. VII, 18, 6).

When Constantine arrived at Massilia, he was convinced that it would not be easy to take this fortified city (pan. lat. VII, 19, 1). Despite simultaneous attacks from sea and land, the first assault was repulsed (pan. lat. VII, 19, 4- 6). But the besieged did not want to push their luck, and after Constantine's offer to surrender, Maximian's soldiers, despite his opposition, opened the city gates (pan. lat. VII, 20, 1 - 2). Although the victorious son-in-law "allowed him to stay alive... Maximian refused to accept the favor of" Constantine (pan. lat. VII, 20, 3). These words of the panegyrist can be translated as the order of Konstantin to his father-in-law to commit suicide, which was carried out.

There is also another, more fascinating version, which was introduced in his work by a Christian writer of the III-IV centuries. Lactantium. According to his version, the forgiven Maximian persuades Faust to kill Constant-

14 The" legitimate " supreme ruler of the Roman Empire, Galerius, recognized Constantine only as Caesar.

page 178

Tina. But she betrays her father's plans to her husband. A trap is prepared for Maximian, and he falls into it: instead of his son - in-law, the old emperor kills a figurehead-a eunuch, and Constantine, offended in the best of feelings, comes out from behind the curtain of his bed. Only then was Maximgan "given the opportunity to choose the method of death"15 , which he "took advantage of". Stories

this kind, of course, enlivens the narrative, but is easily refuted by the data of panegyrics.

So, the collection of Gallic panegyrics is not only a literary, but also a most valuable historical monument, containing sometimes unique information about various aspects of the life of the Roman Empire during the century and perfectly conveying the atmosphere of its era.

15 Lact. De mort. pers. 30, 1 - 6.

Permanent link to this publication: