eJournals Papers on French Seventeenth Century Literature 40/78

Papers on French Seventeenth Century Literature
0343-0758
2941-086X
Narr Verlag Tübingen
2013
4078

Rewriting Roman History: Thomas Corneille’s La Mort de l’empereur Commode

2013
Joe Carson
La paternité du Martyre de S te Catherine (1649) 139 La troisième pièce en prose n’est certainement pas Zénobie non plus puisque, dans sa Quatrième dissertation, d’Aubignac fait la distinction entre les trois pièces qu’il donna à Richelieu pour être versifiées et sa tragédie qui traite de la reine de Palmyre : J’en ai même donné trois en prose à feu M. le cardinal de Richelieu, qui les fit mettre en vers ; mais les poètes en changèrent tellement l’économie, qu’ils n’étaient plus reconnaissables. […] Enfin, Zénobie est la seule pièce dont j’ai été le maître, au sujet, en la conduite et au discours ; c’est la seule que j’avoue, et que je n’aurais pas fait néanmoins, sans l’exprès commandement de cet incomparable ministre à qui les rois et toute l’Europe n’ont pu résister. 39 D’ailleurs, nous ne trouvons aucune adaptation en vers de cette pièce dans les années 1640, la Zénobie de d’Aubignac n’ayant été imitée qu’en 1660 par Jean de Magnon (1620-1662). 40 Selon Lancaster, il se peut que la troisième pièce en prose soit Palène (1640) ou La vraie Didon (1643) de François Le Métel, seigneur de Boisrobert (1592-1662), 41 deux œuvres dont d’Aubignac aurait contribué à la composition. 42 Cependant, la participation de d’Aubignac à la création de ces pièces fut minime. Dans La Pratique du théâtre, l’abbé parle d’avoir « eu quelque part au sujet et à la disposition » 43 de Palène. Dans la préface de Sophonisbe, Corneille fait mention du rôle de d’Aubignac dans la composition de La vraie Didon : Le grand éclat que Monsieur de Scudéry a donné à sa Didon n’a point empêché que Monsieur de Bois-Robert n’en ait fait voir une autre trois ou quatre ans après, sur une disposition, qui lui en avait été donné, à ce qu’il disait, par Monsieur l’Abbé d’Aubignac. 44 L’abbé contribua aussi à la composition de Manlius Torquatus (1662), tragicomédie de Marie-Catherine Desjardins (1640-1683) qui fut jouée en 1662. Cependant, comme dans le cas des deux autres pièces, il s’agit d’un rôle mineur de la part de d’Aubignac. S’adressant à Corneille, dans sa Quatrième 39 D’Aubignac, Quatrième dissertation, pp. 167, 168. 40 Jean de Magnon, Zénobie reine de Palmire, Paris : Christophle Journel, 1660. 41 François Le Métel, seigneur de Boisrobert, Palène, Paris : Antoine de Sommaville et Toussaint Quinet, 1640 ; La vraie Didon ou la Didon chaste, Paris : Toussaint Quinet, 1643. Avec Pierre Corneille, Guillaume Colletet, Claude de l’Estoile et Jean Rotrou, Boisrobert fut un des « Cinq Auteurs » qui écrivaient des pièces de théâtre sous la direction du cardinal de Richelieu. 42 Lancaster, t. II, vol. II, p. 669. 43 D’Aubignac, La Pratique, éd. Baby, p. 151. 44 Pierre Corneille, « Préface », Sophonisbe, Paris : Guillaume de Luyne, 1663. Bernard J. Bourque 140 dissertation, l’auteur minimise sa participation à la création de l’œuvre de Desjardins : Vous avez une étrange aversion contre Mademoiselle des Jardins ; il vous fâche qu’une fille vous dame le pion, et vous lui voulez dérober son Manlius par l’effet d’une jalousie sans exemple. Je confesse bien qu’elle m’en a montré le dessein, et que je lui en ai dit mon avis en quelques endroits, dont elle a fait après ce qu’elle a jugé pour le mieux […]. 45 D’Aubignac répète ce message, à propos de toutes les pièces auxquelles il contribua, à la page suivante de sa dissertation : Quels sont les cinq ou six poèmes dramatiques dont j’ai conduit le sujet ? Je ne les connais pas ; on m’en a montré plusieurs dont j’ai dit mes sentiments qui n’ont point été suivis ; j’ai donné l’ouverture de quelques sujets que l’on a fort mal disposés ; j’ai d’autrefois fait en prose jusqu’à deux ou trois Actes, mais l’impatience des Poètes ne pouvant souffrir que j’y mise la dernière main, et se présumant être assez forts pour achever sans mon secours, y a tout gâté. 46 Il est donc clair que la troisième pièce en prose que d’Aubignac soumit à Richelieu pour être versifiée n’est pas Palène, La vraie Didon ou Manlius. D’Aubignac distingue entre ces œuvres et les trois pièces en prose qu’il donna à Richelieu pour être versifiées : Il est possible que la pièce mystérieuse soit L’Heureux prodigue. Nous trouvons l’extrait suivant dans La Bibliothèque du théâtre français de La Vallière : L’HEUREUX PRODIGUE, ou les Accidents merveilleux de la fortune, Comédie en cinq actes, en vers. Elle est suivie de cinq entr’actes, aussi en vers ; de plusieurs traductions en vers d’Horace, d’un prologue de pièce dramatique, en vers ; d’un dialogue aussi en vers, etc. MS. in 8 0 . Ce manuscrit paraît original de la main même de l’Auteur, qui est vraisemblablement l’Abbé Hédelin d’Aubignac : ce manuscrit vient de sa Bibliothèque. 47 De toute évidence, cette pièce ne fut jamais publiée. Il se peut que le manuscrit soit l’adaptation en vers d’une pièce qui fut écrite en prose par d’Aubignac. Mais c’est là pure spéculation. Il faut avouer que la question portant sur l’identité de la « troisième » pièce en prose écrite par notre auteur est encore en suspens. 45 D’Aubignac, Quatrième dissertation, p. 166. 46 Ibid., p. 167. 47 La Vallière, p. 19. La paternité du Martyre de S te Catherine (1649) 141 * La paternité de d’Aubignac du Martyre de S te Catherine est invraisemblable puisque l’œuvre est écrite en vers, convention à laquelle l’auteur ne porte qu’un soutien réticent dans sa Pratique du théâtre. D’ailleurs, le dénouement de la tragédie va à l’encontre de la pratique de d’Aubignac dans sa trilogie tragique, La Pucelle d’Orléans, La Cyminde ou les deux victimes et Zénobie, les seules ouvrages dramatiques certains de ce théoricien-dramaturge. La fin de l’intrigue de la S te Catherine se trouve aussi en désaccord avec la théorie énoncée par l’abbé dans sa Pratique du théâtre. Comme nous l’avons démontré, il y a une forte accumulation de preuves que la paternité de la pièce appartient à St. Germain, l’auteur mystérieux du Grand Timoléon de Corinthe. L’hypothèse selon laquelle Le Martyre de S te Catherine en vers est l’adaptation d’une pièce en prose écrite par d’Aubignac n’est fondée que sur l’affirmation de l’auteur qu’il donna trois pièces au cardinal de Richelieu pour qu’elles soient versifiées. Il est douteux que la troisième pièce soit Le Martyre de S te Catherine à cause de la date et du lieu de publication des deux premières éditions de la tragédie en vers. PFSCL XL, 78 (2013) Rewriting Roman History: Thomas Corneille’s La Mort de l’empereur Commode J OE C ARSON (U NIVERSITY OF S T A NDREWS ) If the Roman emperor Commodus (161-192 A.D.) is known today beyond the confines of the academic study of Roman history, it is most likely because of Joaquin Phoenix’ portrayal of him as an unsympathetic, patricidal, tyrannical sociopath in Ridley Scott’s film Gladiator. 1 Such a portrayal might be assumed to be a simplistic attempt to create a suitably black background against which may shine the ‘idea that was Rome’ as embodied, inter alia by Russell Crowe as Maximus and Derek Jacobi as Gracchus. However, whilst there is no truth in the notions that Commodus murdered Marcus Aurelius or that he died in the arena, although he was assassinated, there is abundant evidence in contemporary histories to support the portrayal of him as a tyrant, and a very unpleasant one. 2 Scott is not the first to embody Commodus in dramatic form, Thomas Corneille having done so with his La Mort de l’empereur Commode. 3 As Julia 1 Dreamworks LLC and Universal Studios, 2000. 2 Details of Commodus’ life are to be found in: Dio’s Roman History, with an English translation by Earnest Cary on the basis of the version of Herbert Baldwin Foster, 9 vol. (London: Heinemann, 1914-1927), 9; Herodian, with an English translation by C.R. Whittaker, 2 vol. (London: Heinemann, 1969-1970), 1; and The Scriptores Historiae Augustae, with an English translation by David Magie, 3 vol. (London: Heinemann, 1922-1932), 1 [hereafter SHA or the Historia Augusta]. Whilst the manner of Marcus Aurelius’ death in Scott’s film is fictional, Dio states that he did not die entirely of natural causes: “he passed away on the seventeenth of March, not as a result of the disease from which he still suffered, but by the act of his physicians, as I have been plainly told, who wished to do Commodus a favour” (61). Neither Herodian nor SHA suggests suspicious circumstances. 3 First performed in 1657, published in 1659. In Œuvres de Thomas Corneille, tomes 1 à 9 (Genève, Slatkine Reprints, 1970), pp. 254-276. Facsimile of volumes 1 to 9 of the edition offered by Valeyre fils, Paris, 1758, IV, pp. 1-91. References given as follows (Act & scene; Slatkine page number(s); Valeyre page number(s)). Joe Carson 144 Prest has demonstrated recently, 4 there is not much extant work on the younger Corneille; whilst he was, unquestionably and by common accord, a less talented dramatist than Pierre, not every play he wrote should be dismissed out of hand. Such is the case for La Mort de l’empereur Commode: as this article intends to show, this play demonstrates a firm grasp of the histories of the Roman period, coupled with the ability to select salient details from these sources before amending and moulding them into a form which would be palatable for the Parisian audiences of the late 1650s, with the result that what Corneille in essence produced was a mort de Commode: lue, revue et corrigée. There are also, although we lack the space to study them here, political undertones in this play which cannot have failed to resonate in a court on the cusp of absolutism and which echo in other plays by the same author. 5 Additionally, in keeping with the tragédies romanesques or galantes which are a truer reflection of his ‘serious’ theatrical production up to this time, 6 there are salon inspired discussions between characters on love, constancy and the need to sacrifice one’s love as proof of a true lover’s générosité. Where the ancient sources are concerned, both Dio (c.163-c.235 A.D.) and Herodian (c.170-c.240 A.D.) were contemporaries of Commodus, and both provide eye-witness accounts of selected events from later in his reign. The Historia Augusta dates from much later, possibly towards the end of the fourth century. Commodus inherited the Roman Empire in 180 A.D. 7 on the death of his father, Marcus Aurelius, whom he was accompanying in the German war. There was an attempt on Commodus’ life in Rome probably towards the end of 182, which seems to have been inspired by his sister Lucilla and which was foiled when the supposed assassin, rather than simply stab the emperor, attempted to preface his strike with a statement attributing his action to the senate. 8 Dio (79) ascribes Lucilla’s motives to her dislike for her husband, Pompeianus, whom she urged to arrange the 4 Julia Prest, “Thomas Corneille (1625-1709): beyond the triumvirate”, in French Studies, (2009) 63 (3): pp. 323-329. Of the extant work, the most recent monograph is David A. Collins’ Thomas Corneille: Protean dramatist (Mouton: The Hague, 1966). For the most part descriptive, the section dedicated to this play (pp. 93-96) indicates no awareness of the ancient sources we identify here. 5 There are elements of Le Charme de la voix (1658) and Antiochus (1666), for example, which seem to be overtly critical of raison d’état as a political principle. 6 Timocrate (1656, publ. 1658) and Bérénice (1659) are properly romanesque, deriving, respectively, from episodes in La Calprenède’s Cléopâtre and Scudéry’s Le Grand Cyrus. 7 Dio, 73; SHA, 201-03; Herodian, 21. 8 Dio, 77; SHA, 273; Herodian, 49. The sources differ as to the identity of the foiled assassin. Rewriting Roman History 145 attempted assassination. Herodian (47) asserts that the motive was Lucilla’s jealousy of Crispina, her brother’s new wife, who now enjoyed the imperial privileges which she had herself enjoyed until his marriage. The Historia Augusta (271) suggests, albeit unconvincingly, that Lucilla’s motive was more noble, arising from revulsion at the depravity of her brother. As a result, along with the predictable execution of all participants, suspected participants and most of their families, Commodus exiled his sister to Capri where she too was subsequently executed. 9 Leaving the running of the empire to others, 10 Commodus gave himself over to pleasure, “rioting in the palace amid banquets and in baths along with 300 concubines, […], and with minions, also 300 in number” (SHA, 275). He also liked to disport himself in the arena, variously killing substantial numbers of wild and exotic animals, or appearing as a gladiator or charioteer, actions, as all three sources are at pains to point out, entirely unbecoming of an emperor. 11 The biographies are equally candid when it comes to Commodus’ brutality, providing litanies of the executed and murdered. Dio wryly remarks: I should render my narrative very tedious were I to give a detailed report of all the persons put to death by Commodus, of all those whom he made away with as the result of false accusations or unjustified suspicions or because of their conspicuous wealth, distinguished family, unusual learning or some other point of excellence. (85) Commodus descended further into megalomania, termed madness by the contemporary historians, by insisting that Rome be renamed Commodiana in his honour and that all the months should bear one of his names (cf. Dio, 101-103). He was finally assassinated on 31 st December 192. In all three accounts, Commodus is poisoned then strangled, although the sources vary in their attribution of motive. According to the Historia Augusta (305) the plot was undertaken by “Aemilius Laetus, prefect of the guard, and Marcia, [Commodus’] concubine” in the interest of the state, arising from an accumulation of bad omens combined with the plotters’ distaste for Commodus’ depravity, favouritism and murderous madness. More significantly for Corneille’s purposes, Dio and Herodian attribute Commodus’ death to the unquestionably less noble, but perhaps more compelling motive of self-preservation, 9 As such, her presence at Commodus’ death in Scott’s film is historically inaccurate. 10 Perrenis, until about 184, then Cleander, until 189, both of whom set about making themselves very wealthy until they overreached themselves and fell terminally foul of the emperor. 11 Dio, 91 passim; Herodian, 99-103; SHA, 293-97. Joe Carson 146 the emperor having decided on the death of yet more citizens, among them Marcia, Eclectus and Laetus. 12 Dio, it is true, suggests that there is more than this at play: “Laetus and Eclectus, displeased at the things [Commodus] was doing, and also inspired by fear, in view of the threats he made against them because they tried to prevent him in acting in this way, formed a plot against him” (115, my emphasis). They also make Marcia their “confidant” (Dio, 117). The “things” which displeased Laetus and Eclectus included, specifically, Commodus’ intention to emerge for the end of year festivities from the gladiators’ barracks, not the imperial palace, thereby debasing yet further the office of emperor. Herodian narrates events in much greater detail, taking this unbecoming intention as the starting point and explanation for the events which would unfold. In his version, Commodus first reveals his intention to Marcia “his favourite mistress” (111) who “fell on her knees earnestly begging him with tears in her eyes not to bring disgrace on the Roman empire” (ibid.), all to no avail. Laetus, the praetorian prefect, and Eclectus, the chamberlain, are summoned and ordered to make preparations for Commodus to spend the night in the barracks. They, too, try to “dissuade him from any action unworthy of an emperor” (113). One of Commodus’ character traits, made clear in all three histories, is his visceral dislike of contradiction or argument, a dislike fundamental to Herodian’s version of events, because the emperor, irked by the remonstrations of the others, “wrote down [on a writing tablet] the names of those who would be executed that night. Heading the list was Marcia; then Laetus and Eclectus, followed by a great many leading senators” (ibid.). The writing tablet having been picked up by his favourite boy lover while Commodus was in his bath, it came into Marcia’s possession at which point self-preservation for her, then Laetus and Eclectus became the sole motive for the assassination. 13 Once Commodus had been killed, Helvius Publius Pertinax, one of the few to survive Commodus’ reign from among the councillors (amici) appointed to his son by Marcus Aurelius, was made emperor. A grasp of this detail is important when it comes to understanding how Thomas Corneille moulds his version of events from what was available to him. Antoine Adam, who is often quite scathing in his observations on the 12 Dio, 115-17; Herodian, 111-21. 13 N.B.: SHA also makes mention of a writing tablet, but not in the context of Commodus’ assassination, and much earlier in the account: “He had planned to execute many more men besides, but his plan was betrayed by a certain young servant, who threw out of his bedroom a tablet on which were written the names of those who were to be killed” (287). Rewriting Roman History 147 younger Corneille, 14 has already provided a partial synopsis of the plot of La Mort de l’empereur Commode: Commode s’est épris d’Helvie, fille de Pertinax. Elle le repousse. Il fait savoir qu’en conséquence Pertinax mourra. Elle cède alors mais pendant la cérémonie du mariage, elle essaie de tuer Commode […]. Comparaissant devant Commode, elle le brave. A la fin on découvre que le tyran a décidé la mort de Pertinax, de ses filles et de la moitié des sénateurs. On se débarrasse du monstre avec une coupe empoisonnée, et se voyant près de mourir, il préfère se poignarder. (343) This is at best a simplification of a much more complex and interesting cast of characters. Helvie’s sister, to whom Adam alludes obliquely, plays a substantial role in the play and is called Marcia; Corneille also includes two other significant male characters not mentioned by Adam: Lætus and Électus. That Corneille should have used these names, and chosen Pertinax as the pater familias, indicates already that he is familiar with the original histories. Furthermore, and before one progresses any further than the list of characters, Thomas Corneille’s attempt to mould these personnages to the tastes of his day becomes immediately evident. Firstly, Marcia is no longer a concubine or mistress, but a daughter of one of those appointed among the amici by Marcus Aurelius, thereby significantly elevating her status. Lætus and Électus rise above the mundane levels of praetorian and chamberlain, with an invented character, Flavian, replacing the former as capitaine des gardes de l’empereur. Helvie is also an invention, although the use of one of the familial names of the historical Pertinax suggests that Corneille was familiar at least with the Historia Augusta, as it is the only work to name him fully: “Publio Helvio Pertinaci pater libertinus Helvius Successus fuit” 15 . In addition, the plot is much more complex than Adam indicates. In the first act, it is Marcia, unashamedly covetous of the position of empress, who is supposed to be marrying Commode, while her sister is scathing regarding his tyranny: Helvie […] dans les cruautés qu’il nous fait éprouver Qui peut souffrir son choix semble les appuyer. Marcia […] Il est vrai que Commode a d’injustes maximes, 14 Antoine Adam, Histoire de la littérature française au XVII e siècle, 5 vol. (Paris: Domat, 1948-56), II, 339-343. 15 SHA, 314, translated as “Publius Helvius Pertinax was the son of a freedman, Helvius Successus” (315). Joe Carson 148 Mais le trône, ma sœur, appaise bien des crimes, Et peu dans les plus noirs verroient assez d’horreur, Pour y refuser place auprès d’un empereur. (I.i; 257; 14) Interestingly, both sisters will remain true to these sentiments as events unfold until the need for self-preservation obliges Marcia to change her position at the beginning of the final act. Corneille further complicates matters by his adaptation of the roles of Lætus and Électus, who become, respectively, the amants of Helvie and Marcia. Moreover, Commode wishes to marry his sister to Lætus with the result that in the initial situation each of the proto-couples seems to face a potentially disjunctive obstacle created by the wishes of the emperor. As a consequence a dilemma is created for each couple, opposing, in properly cornelian (Pierre) style, duty and love. Alongside the invention and distortion of historical characters, there are many historical allusions culled from the sources underpinning Corneille’s exposition, which facilitate the creation of the character of the tyrant and of the atmosphere of repression and fear which surrounds him. This use of apparent fact allows Corneille room for manoeuvre when it comes to the vraisemblance of some of his characters’ behaviours, motivations and actions. In the first instance, Marcia, seeing in her marriage recognition of their father’s service alongside the other amici, remarks that he is the only one left alive: “Et de ces vieux amis resté seul aujourd’hui | C’est le zéle de tous qu’il récompense en lui” (ibid.; 15). The idea of the sole survivor is to be found in Herodian: “[Pertinax] was also the only one of the respected councillors left to Commodus by his father who had survived execution” (131). 16 Helvie’s immediate riposte to her sister’s assertion, “Soit qu’il ait craint le peuple, ou respecté son âge, | Dites qu’il est le seul qu’ait épargné sa rage” (TC, ibid.), might equally have been suggested by the subordinate clauses which finish the sentence from Herodian begun above: “[…] execution, perhaps because Commodus stood in awe of his prestige as the most highly honoured of all the companions and generals of Marcus, or perhaps because his poverty kept him alive” (ibid.). The grammatical structure of the first of Helvie’s lines replicates Herodian where the notion of fear, or awe, is also present. The Greek original (less diacritics) reads η δια σεμνοτητα αιδουμενοζ η ωζ πενητα τηρησαζ (130). Here, the soit / soit opposition of the French is present in the η / η construction, while the particple αιδουμενοζ , along with the gloss attributed to it by Whittaker (“stood in awe of”), may also carry a sense of fear, and especially of not flouting 16 Whittaker points out Herodian knew this not to be true (130, n. 1). Rewriting Roman History 149 social conventions, which one might reasonably surmise to be at the root of qu’il ait craint le peuple in Corneille’s text. 17 The essential dialectic as constructed by Corneille is, then, clearly present in the ancient source. Further evidence of Corneille’s willingness to use the ancient sources to create the atmosphere of oppression is to be found in the incorporation of other details from those sources. We have mentioned, above, the implication of Lucilla in a plot against her brother and her subsequent demise as a result of this. Corneille adduces this fact, although, again, Helvie and Marcia view events differently: Helvie En effet, sa fureur au meurtre toujours prête, Des meilleurs citoyens n’a pas proscrit la tête, Et nous n’avons pas vû ce cruel empereur Tremper dès-lors ses mains dans le sang de sa sœur. Marcia De cette indigne sœur l’orgueilleuse manie D’un injuste attentat fut justement punie, Lucilla conspirant crut trop sa passion, Et sa mort était dûe à son ambition. (ibid.; 258; 16) In this instance, Helvie’s biting irony is met with an interpretation of events which seems to be heavily influenced by the manner in which Herodian presents them (cf. supra, p. 2). The orgueilleuse manie and ambition of Corneille’s text are an effective means of conveying what Herodian remarks upon: “But with [Commodus’] marriage to Crispina, precedence was bound to be assigned to the wife of the emperor. Lucilla was angered by this honour paid to Crispina, which she considered to be an insult to herself” (47). Helvie is not prepared to back down, and her immediate response continues the borrowing from the ancient sources: “Et sur quelques soupçons, si j’en crois un bruit sourd, | L’impératrice même eut un destin bien court” (ibid.). Importantly, the source here is not Herodian, although Corneille has been rather coy about the “quelques soupçons”: “His wife, whom he caught in adultery, he drove from his house, then banished her, then put her to death” (SHA, 277); “Commodus also put Crispina to death, having become angry with her for some act of adultery” (Dio, 79). In this case, therefore, since Herodian does not mention this, it seems reasonable to conclude that Corneille was not working from a single source, but must have been familiar with at least one of the others. We can also see further evidence of his 17 My thanks are due to Dr Alex Long of the School of Classics, University of St Andrews, for assistance for this article with nuances in ancient Greek. Joe Carson 150 willingness to temper the more sordid details of the source texts in keeping with the tastes of his audience. Finally in his attempt to use the exposition to give as complete an introduction as is possible to Commode’s character, Corneille turns to what the histories record as the emperor’s desire to emerge for the celebrations of the festival of Janus, not from the imperial palace, but from the gladiators’ quarters. Once again, and for the purposes of consistency of characterisation and dramatic tension, the sisters’ perspectives do not completely tally, however, we notice that Corneille’s Marcia is less sure of herself when she finds herself opposing Commode’s desires: Helvie Ce grand titre pour lui n’est plus qu’une ombre vaine, Tel qu’un gladiateur il descend dans l’arêne; Et jaloux de cet art qu’il croit justifier, Dans ce vil équipage il veut sacrifier. Avec sa lâche troupe il doit aller au temple. Marcia Je lui fis voir dés hier ce dessein sans exemple; Mais comme en son pouvoir il en trouve l’aveu, Qui veut le partager doit le combattre peu. (ibid.; 16-17) We have already cited Herodian’s description of Marcia’s entreaties to Commodus (cf. supra, 4) and it is possible to see Corneille’s vil équipage and lâche troupe as having been suggested by Herodian’s μονομαχοιζ και απεγνωσμενοιζ ανθροποιζ (110). 18 Dio mentions Commodus’ desire to “issue forth both as consul and as secutor from the gladiators’ quarters; in fact he had the first cell there”. The Historia Augusta does not specifically mention his plan for New Year’s eve, but it does report that he “moved his residence from the Palace to the Vectilian Villa on the Caelian hill” (303), the Vectilian Villa, according to Magie, being the “school for gladiators” (302, n. 2). To add further weight to the notion of the inappropriate nature of Commode’s desire to appear with the gladiators, Corneille carefully includes the disapproval of both Laetus and Eclectus as recorded in Herodian (111- 13) and Dio (115-17). Unlike the female characters, the men are allowed by Corneille to express their sentiments directly to the emperor, sentiments which are couched very much in terms of the concern of Rome regarding the propriety of her emperor’s actions and for his safety. 18 Translated by Whittaker as ‘gladiators and desperadoes’ (111). απεγνωσμενοιζ conveying the notion of desperation might especially be associated with the lâche troupe in Corneille. Rewriting Roman History 151 Électus […] si Rome se plaint, ses murmures secrets Ont pour but votre gloire, et non ses intérêts. Dans un grand empereur elle tient tout auguste, Elle sait qu’il n’est rien qu’il n’ait pu rendre juste; […] Mais elle souffre enfin si-tôt qu’elle contemple Le rebut de la terre enflé de votre exemple, De vils gladiateurs dans l’opprobre vieillis, En oser hautement paroître enorgueillis. (I.iv; 260; 24) Corneille even makes it seem as if Commode is acquiescent to the demands of the people, but his words are very deliberately weighted in order to commit himself to nothing. Speaking to Laetus, he gives the order: Vous, faites qu’on apprête Tout ce qui de Janus peut ennoblir la fête, Ordonnez-en la pompe avec un plein éclat, Et, sur-tout, ayez soin d’assembler le sénat. (ibid.; 27) By the end of his first act, Corneille has already shown substantial skill in using the details of Commodus’ life as presented to him in the three histories we believe he was using for reference. Not only does he use the source material to help him create an atmosphere of oppressive fear based on the behaviour and character of the tyrant, but he sensitively tempers the factual excesses of the sources to make his creation palatable to his audience. After his exposition, Corneille effectively leaves the ancient histories aside as sources for action or historical detail until he reaches his dénouement. However the plot complications of the nœud, mostly not addressed by Adam, depend in no small part for their credibility on the atmosphere as created by the exposition and its use of the sources. In the second act, Commode reveals he regards Marcia as little more than an arriviste, speaking of “L’impatient orgueil de son ambition” (II.v; 263; 38), going on to reveal shortly afterwards to Lætus that his true love is for Helvie. This single peripeteia is to have far-reaching consequences, not the least of which is the creation of more multiple dilemmas of which the elder Corneille might easily have approved. In the first instance, Commode reveals his passion for Helvie to Lætus, who is of course in love with her. The immediate effect of this action is to increase our sympathy for the already stricken Lætus, given that he is Joe Carson 152 already sacrificing his love for Helvie in order to marry Commode’s sister. 19 The emperor then compounds the agony by charging Lætus with the task of being the bearer of these happy tidings to Helvie, although one might argue that Corneille misses a trick here, in that, unlike Racine’s Pyrrhus when he makes Oreste his messenger boy, Commode is not aware of his rival’s passion. Nevertheless, Corneille still manages the dramatic irony (and the comédie grinçante) of the situation with some skill in Commode’s words: Enfin, pour lui ôter cet amour glorieux, Lætus, c’est sur toi seul que j’ai jetté les yeux. Va charmer ses désirs avec cette nouvelle; Plus le bonheur est grand, plus la surprise est belle, Contre toute apparence on aime à s’élever. (II.iv; 263; 39) Corneille follows the logical progression of the Commode / Helvie plot according to the manner in which he has drawn their characters, in that Helvie rejects Lætus’ embassy out of hand, and then Commode himself, when he appears, hints at the iron fist beneath the velvet glove: Mais songez que l’amour est sensible à l’outrage, Et qu’à se trop permettre on peut tout hazarder, Quand l’esclave qui prie a droit de commander. (III.ii; 266; 49) Ultimately, in keeping with his character, and in another manner which prefigures the situation in Andromaque, he resorts to emotional blackmail, creating a dilemma which pits Helvie’s filial duty against her revulsion for the ways of the tyrant, 20 although, again unlike Pyrrhus, he does not communicate the threat personally, preferring to leave it to Flavian, who reveals that he has strict instructions concerning Pertinax, should Helvie not accede to Commode’s wishes: Par la perte d’un pere il croit mieux vous punir; Et si pour son hymen vous n’êtes toute prête, Je ne puis le revoir qu’en lui portant sa tête. (III.iii; 267; 53) Unlike Pyrrhus, again, we feel that Commode would have no hesitation in carrying out his threat, so skilfully has Corneille breathed life into the monster portrayed in the ancient sources. Thus far, the dramatist has not yet fully exploited the conflictual situations which his principal peripeteia had created, since he has yet to present us with the woman scorned. After exposing Helvie to the full 19 There is nevertheless an element of pragmatic self-preservation in his agreeing to marry this unnamed sister. 20 At the end of III.iv (267; 54), she laments: “O nature, ô devoir, où me réduisezvous? ”. Rewriting Roman History 153 menace of Commode’s brutality, he brings Marcia immediately into the fray to engage in a jealous spat with her sister, whom she does not believe to be acting in the defence of their father’s life, but rather out of sororial spite. This then engenders a further situation in which parallels may be drawn with Andromaque. As will be the case for Hermione and Oreste after Pyrrhus’ final rejection of the former, Marcia, in a fit of jealous pique, and feeling that Commode’s rejection of her is a stain on her honour, makes herself the prize of the vengeance she demands of Électus, to wit, the murder of the head of state. 21 Corneille’s character, however, while not as conflicted, might be considered to be more calculating than Racine’s, in that she uses a deliberately masculine line of reasoning when trying to persuade Électus, going beyond the simple jealous rage of Hermione: Dans le honteux revers qui dégage ma foi, Le rebut d’un tyran est indigne de toi. Purge-le par sa mort d’une tache si noire, Pour l’oser accepter, rens-moi toute ma gloire. (III.vi; 268; 58) As far as the male characters are concerned, like Oreste, Électus is reticent, although his reticence is not as a result of qualms over regicide, and is more due to a dilemma which, again, pitches his heart against his duty, the latter born out of loyalty to an emperor who has treated him well: Marcia Que devient ta vertu? Que devient ton amour? Électus L’une et l’autre a sur moi toujours le même empire, Mais leurs droits sont divers, et c’est dont je soupire, Puisque des deux côtés mon cœur trop combattu, Voulant tout par amour, n’ose rien par vertu. (ibid.) Ultimately, while Électus’ reaction remains more ambiguous than will be Oreste’s, Corneille unfortunately fails to manage his situation effectively, his black and white portrayal of the tyrant overcoming the subtleties of developing the dilemmas of the other characters. As Adam indicates, Helvie does indeed attempt to assassinate Commode, in the entr’acte between acts three and four, ostensibly therefore during the marriage ceremony. Corneille thus creates a dilemma for his emperor, a dilemma which might be intended to render him less antipathetic, but 21 It is worth noting that Collins draws a parallel (97-98) between the behaviour of Marcia and that of Émilie in Cinna. Such a parallel overlooks the significantly more spiteful nature of Marcia’s desire for vengeance, more akin to Hermione’s jealousy, and the generally less sympathetic nature of the character drawn by the younger Corneille. Joe Carson 154 which above all allows the dramatist to indulge himself in an extended antithesis: [Mon cœur] a beau se résoudre à prononcer contre elle, S’il la connoît coupable, il la voit toujours belle, Il céde à des attraits qu’il ne peut soutenir; Et, punissant son crime, il craint de se punir. (IV.i; 269; 62) Commode even attempts to reason that Helvie is not the principal guilty party, if paranoia can be called reasoning, by attempting to convince himself that she cannot be acting alone, and must therefore be subject to the desires of other conspirators, Lætus being the most likely candidate. The potentially rich dramatic seam of the juxtaposition of a tyrant’s paranoia with a lover’s desire to exculpate the object of his passion may be intended to engage us a little more with the character, but Corneille is incapable of sustaining for long such sophisticated levels of dilemma, making paranoia the almost immediate victor by having Commode decide that Flavian, the faithful captain of his guards and his interlocutor in this first scene, is the only person he can trust. The dramatic irony inherent in this decision will only become clear later when even Flavian is moved to betray his master. As Adam has also indicated, Helvie stands up to Commode, but there is more to her position than Adam allows for, since she resolutely defends her actions as being on behalf of Rome rather than herself. Whilst Corneille moved away from the ancient sources until the dénouement, there is perhaps a memory of their content in Helvie’s words during her confrontation with Commode, when she blames his lack of control over those he has appointed to rule in the provinces as being the reason he is feared and hated in equal measure. She asks him to cast his eyes over those provinces: Vois-y, vois-y par tout ce funeste ravage Qu’exercent d’autre part l’avarice et la rage, Lorsque de ton pouvoir leurs tyrans revêtus, Se font de tes forfaits d’éclatantes vertus; Et que, pour t’imiter dans tes noires maximes, Regardant tes sujets comme autant de victimes, Ces demi-souverains par de lâches rigueurs, S’en immolant les biens, t’en dérobent les cœurs. (IV.ii; 270; 66) All three of the source histories deal with the manner in which both Perennis (Perennius in Herodian) and Cleander abused their positions of power while the emperor indulged himself in pleasure, 22 unaware of their exactions on the people, apparently in his name, and it seems reasonable to 22 Cf. supra, 3, n. 10. Rewriting Roman History 155 conclude that Corneille has used their, sometimes quite detailed, accounts to fuel Helvie’s republican rhetoric in this instance. 23 By the middle of the fourth act, Commode has convinced himself that he is surrounded by conspirators, Électus included, although Marcia persuades herself that she has won the emperor back from her sister, seemingly blind to the inherent ambiguity of his declaration: Mais j’atteste les dieux que rien n’est plus capable D’altérer de ce cœur le decret immuable, Et que l’effet demain justifiant ma foi, Vous serez hors d’état de vous plaindre de moi. (IV.iv; 271-72; 71-72) The events of Corneille’s final act are heavily influenced by the ancient sources, quite substantially modified in order not to offend the mores and tastes of his contemporaries, and, again, Adam’s description does not do the author justice. This act opens with Marcia “tenant les tablettes de l’empereur”, followed by a list of intended victims which must have been influenced by Herodian, who is the only source to go into such detail: “Heading the list was Marcia; then Laetus and Eclectus, followed by a great many leading senators” (113). In Corneille, Marcia is talking to Lætus: Le barbare! A sa haine abandonner ma vie! S’immoler Électus, vous, Pertinax, Helvie, Et, pour porter sa rage au dernier attentat, Proscrire en même temps la moitié du Sénat! (V.i; 273; 77) There is surely little coincidence in the fact that Corneille should have used the three persons offered to him directly by Herodian before inserting firstly Pertinax, then his own invented character into the list in advance of the unnamed senators. As of this point, while following the essential chain of events in the sources, especially Herodian, Corneille moderates the details. In the first instance, the manner in which Commode’s list of those to be executed comes into Marcia’s hands is changed significantly. In Corneille, in keeping with the dramatic irony mentioned above, it is Flavian who, disgusted by the emperor’s behaviour, communicates the tablettes to Marcia: si par un faux zéle, Flavian à son maître eût craint d’être infidéle, S’il n’eût pas trahi les ordres inhumains, Mon aveugle injustice achevoit ses desseins. (ibid.; 78) 23 Herodian, 51-85, who writes specifically of Cleander: “the Romans hated him because they held him responsible for their troubles and loathed his never-ending greed for money” (77); Dio, 89-99; SHA, 275-83.