Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T02:42:14.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fabulae Praetextae in context: when were plays on contemporary subjects performed in Republican Rome?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Harriet I. Flower
Harriet I. Flower
Affiliation:
Franklin and Marshall College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The fabula praetexta is a category of Roman drama about which we are poorly informed. Ancient testimonia are scanty and widely scattered, while surviving fragments comprise fewer than fifty lines. Only five or six titles are firmly attested. Scholarly debate, however, has been extensive, and has especially focused on reconstructing the plots of the plays.1 The main approach has been to amplify extant fragments by fitting them into a plot taken from treatments of the same episode in later historical sources such as Livy, Dionysius, or Plutarch.2 This method was extended by Mommsen and others in their efforts to identify new titles and plots by isolating passages in the historians which seem written in a dramatic style, and could therefore be interpreted as derivations from historical plays.3 Such a line of approach is both risky and subjective. It is based on the desire to recover a lost genre, which modern scholars feel must or should have existed. It is tempting to imagine that the Romans would have encouraged a thriving national theatre on historical themes. Such a genre, it is argued, would have been influential in shaping the average Roman's view of past events and the treatment of famous episodes by later historians.4 The conclusions reached have virtually no basis in the ancient sources we actually have. The result is largely a fiction created by the scholarly imagination.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , May 1995 , pp. 170 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a survey of scholarship since the seventeenth century, seeZorzetti, N., La pretesta e il teatro latino arcaico (Naples, 1980), pp. 29–52Google Scholar. The following works are cited most frequently in what follows:Ribbeck, O., Die römische Tragödie im Zeitalter der Republik (Leipzig, 1875)Google Scholar;Müller, L., Q. Ennius: eine Einleitung in das Studium der römischen Poesie (St. Petersburg, 1884)Google Scholar;Boissier, G., ‘Les fabulae praetextae’, RPh 17 (1893), 101–8Google Scholar;Taylor, L. R., ‘The Opportunities for Dramatic Performances in the Time of Plautus and Terence’, TAPA 68 (1937), 284–304Google Scholar;Degrassi, A., Inscriptiones Italiae xiii. l (Rome, 1947)Google Scholar;Beare, W., The Roman Stage: A Short History of Latin Drama in the Time of the Republic (Harvard, 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar;Nicolet, C., The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome (Berkeley, 1980)Google Scholar;Zehnacker, H., ‘Tragédie prétexte et spectacle romain’, in Théátre et spectacles dans I'antiquité (Strasbourg, 1983), 31–48Google Scholar;Dupont, F., L'acteur-roi ou le thétre dans la Rome antique (Paris, 1985)Google Scholar;Gruen, E. S., Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy (Leiden, 1990)Google Scholar;Gruen, E. S., Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome (Ithaca, 1992)Google Scholar.

2 For careful use of this method, see O. Ribbeck, op. cit. (n. 1), andMichels, A., ‘The Drama of the Tarquins’, Latomus 10 (1951), 13–24Google Scholar.

3 E.g.Mommsen, T., ‘Porcia’, Hermes 15 (1880), 99–102Google Scholar;Durante, G. de, Le fabulae praetextae (Rome, 1966)Google Scholar;Alfonsi, L., ‘Una praetexta Veii?’, RFIC 95 (1967), 165–8Google Scholar. For criticisms of these views, seeMüller, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 100–101Google Scholar; R. Helm, RE s.v.praetexta, and especiallyZehnacker, H., op. cit. (n. 1), 34–6Google Scholar.

4 Müller, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 286–7Google Scholar.

5 I owe much to the methodology of Zorzetti, op. cit. (n. 1), and F. Dupont, op. cit. (n. 1). E.g.Zorzetti, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 56Google Scholar: ‘La caratterizzazione centrale della pretesta deve essere ricercata proprio in una sua regolarità occasional nel reticolo funzionale della cultura.’ My conclusions are, for the most part, quite different.

6 For a sound discussion of the ancient definitions, especially Festus 249.14L and Diomedes GL I, 489.23, seeBoissier, , op. cit. (n. 1), 101–8Google Scholar. The testimonia are collected byKlotz, A., Scaenicorum Romanorum Fragmenta i (Munich, 1953), p. 358Google Scholar.Zehnacker, Contra, op. cit. (n. 1), 37Google Scholar, who sees the genre of praetexta as a modern concept.

7 Some modern scholars explicitly assume that the Romans could not work without Greek models, e.g.Beare, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 33Google Scholar. Others assimilate the praetexta to a Hellenistic genre of biographical drama, e.g.Grimal, P., ‘Le théâtre à Rome’, in Actes du IXe Congrès de I'Association G. Budé i (Paris, 1975), 274–5Google Scholar.

8 On the toga praetexta, see Livy 1.8 and 34.7.

9 Nicolet, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 346Google Scholar: ‘This is a civilization based on display, on overt praise and blame.’Dupont, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 24ff.Google Scholar, especially p. 29: ‘Savoir convaincre à Rome, c'est savoir faire voir.’ Cf.Versnel, H. S., Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph (Leiden, 1970), pp. lOlGoogle Scholar ff.

10 Antias, Valerius, Hist. frag. 48Google Scholar (Peter, HRR) = Livy 39.43.1.

11 Zorzetti, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 78Google Scholar.

12 For the praetexta as tragedy, seeJocelyn, H. D., ‘Ennius as a Dramatic Poet’, in Skutsch, O. (ed.), Ennius (Geneva, 1972), 82–3Google Scholar;Gentili, B., Theatrical Performances in the Ancient World: Hellenistic and Early Roman Theatre (Amsterdam, 1979), p. 48Google Scholar;Penna, A. La, Fra teatro, poesia e politico romana (Turin, 1979), p. 51Google Scholar;Zehnacker, , op. cit. (n. 1), 31Google Scholar and 40.

13 Zorzetti, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 93–103Google Scholar.

14 Varro, , L. 6. 7Google Scholar; 7.72.

15 Zorzetti, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 54Google Scholar: ‘Sul versante della celebrazione di fatti contemporanei possono, invece, essere messi a fuoco i rapporti di patronato tra poeti e personaggi da essi celebrati.’

16 The Aemilii were one of Rome's oldest and most distinguished patrician families who had given their name to the tribe Aemilia. The Fulvii were of plebeian origin, perhaps coming originally from Tusculum (cf. CIL 1.616) and had been ennobled for over a hundred years (322 B.C.) before the capture of Ambracia. The Claudii Marcelli were also a distinguished plebeian family.

17 For earlier discussions, see especially Boissier, op. cit. (n. 1),Soltau, W., Die Anfänge der römischen Geschichtschreibung (Leipzig, 1909)Google Scholar, Zorzetti, op. cit. (n. 1), and Dupont, op. cit. (n. 1).

18 For the occasions when plays were performed in Rome, see L. R. Taylor, op. cit. (n. 1), andParatore, E., Storia del teatro latino (Milan, 1957), pp. 51Google Scholar ff. According to the didaskalia, Terence's plays were performed at the Ludi Romani, Ludi Megalenses, and at Aemilius Paullus' funeral games. The Ludi Apollinares of 57 B.C. included Accius' Brutus, Accius' Eurysaces with lines from Ennius' Andromache, and Afranius' Simulans (Cicero, , Sest. 116–123)Google Scholar. Ennius died at the time when his Thyestes was first performed at the Ludi Apollinares (Cicero, , Brut. 78)Google Scholar.

19 What follows is a critique of T. P. Wiseman's 1993 Ronald Syme Memorial Lecture delivered at Wolfson College, Oxford in October 1993 and published as‘The Origins of Roman Historiography’ in Historiography and Imagination. Eight Essays on Roman Culture (Exeter, 1994), 1–22Google Scholar.

20 SeeWiseman, , op. cit. (n. 19), 5Google Scholar, 10, and 14: ‘We have no evidence, but on a priori grounds the Roman festivals are the obvious place to imagine the Roman community's self-image being created.’

21 Wiseman, , op.cit. (n. 19), 5Google Scholar: ‘To put it crudely, I would like to propose in place of the “history from documents” idea, which I believe to be untenable, an alternative model of “history from dramatic fiction”.’ His dismissal of documentary theories is persuasive and sound.

22 Rix, H., ‘Dichtersprachliche Traditionen aus vorliterarischer Zeit?’ in Vogt-Spira, G. (ed.), Studien zur vorliterarischen Periode im frühen Rom (Tübingen, 1989), 29–39Google Scholar suggests the existence from the late fifth century B.C. of a pre-literary genre close to the dialogues of comedy and tragedy based on metrical observations. However, this can tell us nothing about the possible historical content of such verses.

23 SeeWiseman, T. P., ‘Roman Legend and Oral Tradition’, in Historiography and Imagination. Eight Essays on Roman Culture (Exeter, 1994), 23–36Google Scholar.

24 See especially Polybius 6.53–4 andPliny, , Nat. 35. 6–14Google Scholar, with H. I. Flower, Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture (Oxford, forthcoming).

25 On these monuments, see especiallyHölscher, T., ‘Die Anfänge römischer Reprasentationskunst’, MDAI(R) 85 (1978), 315–57Google Scholar;‘Römische Siegesdenkmäler der späten Republik’, in Cahn, H. A. and Simon, E. (eds.), Tainia. R. Hampe zum 70. Geburtstag, 1 (Mainz, 1980), 351–71Google Scholar;‘Die Geschichtsauffassung in der römischen Repräsentationskunst’, JDAI 95 (1980), 265–321Google Scholar.

26 Herodotus 6.21 tells ho w Phrynichus was fined 1000 drachmas for his play the Fall of Miletus which reminded the Athenians of a recent calamity. Both Phrynichus and Aeschylus wrote plays about the Persian Wars but Aeschylus was careful not to introduce contemporary Greek characters such as Themistocles. See especiallyCartledge, P., The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others (Oxford, 1993), pp. 180–81Google Scholar.

27 Herodotus 5.67.5 mentions tragic choruses which celebrated the life of the hero Adrastus at a festival in his honour at Sicyon (cf.Wiseman, , op. cit. [n. 19], 10)Google Scholar. The explicitly cultic context cannot be paralleled in a praetexta about Romulus who was not equated with Quirinus until Caesar became pontifex maximus. SeeClassen, C. J., ‘Romulus in der römischen Republik’, Philologus 106 (1962), 174–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 SeeWiseman, , op. cit. (n. 19), 14, 18–20Google Scholar.

29 On the genre of ‘tragic’ history in the Hellenistic age, seeWalbank, F. W., ‘History and Tragedy’, in Selected Papers. Studies in Greek and Roman History and Historiography (Cambridge, 1985), 224–41Google Scholar;Fornara, C. W., The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley, 1983), pp. 126–37Google Scholar;Gray, V. H., ‘Mimesis in Greek Historical Writing’, AJP 108 (1987), 467–86Google Scholar;Walker, A. D., ‘Enargeia and the Spectator in Greek Historiography’, TAPA 123 (1993), 353–77Google Scholar.

30 SeeFornara, , op. cit. (n. 29), p. 130Google Scholar: ‘A special insistence on visual effects—that history should place a scene before your very eyes—is unmistakeable. Thus Duris attempted to add the pleasure of poetry to history's own.’

31 See Livy 1.46.3, 5.21.9, 2.50.11 and Dionysius of Halicamassus 3.18.1, 9.22.1–3 withWiseman, , op. cit. (n. 19), 18Google Scholar.

32 Wiseman, , op. cit. (n. 19), 16Google Scholar: ‘The Roman People had its own resgestae, and its own means of celebrating them. I would prefer to suppose that the selection of themes was, in part at least, the work of successive producers of patriotic and partisan drama at theludi scaenici.’

33 See especiallyHölkeskamp, K.-J., Die Entstehung der Nobilität. Studien zur sozialen und politischen Geschichte der Römischen Republik im 4. Jhdt. v.Chr. (Stuttgart, 1987), pp. 204–40Google Scholar andUngern-Sternberg, J. von, ‘Überlegungen zur frühen römischen Überlieferung im Lichte der Oral-Tradition-Forschung’, in Ungern-Sternberg, J. von and Reinau, H. (eds.), Vergangenheit in mundlicher Uberlieferung (Stuttgart, 1988), 265CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Wiseman dismisses too hastily the arguments ofTimpe, D., ‘Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit als Basis der frührömischen Überlieferung’, in Ungern-Sternberg, J. von and Reinau, H. (eds.), Vergangenheit in mündlicher Überlieferung (Stuttgart, 1988), 282–6Google Scholar that the res gestae of the nobles became the history of the Roman people.

35 Ovid, , Fast. 4. 326Google Scholar;Varro, , L. 6. 18Google Scholar, cf.Macrobius, Sat. 1. 11Google Scholar.36;Plutarch, Rom. 29Google Scholar; Cam. 33. The Nonae Caprotinae fell on the 7th July during the Ludi Apollinares. SeeDrossart, P., ‘Le théâtre aux nones caprotines’, RPh 48 (1974), 54–64Google Scholar andBremmer, J. N., ‘Myth and Ritual in Ancient Rome: the Nonae Caprotinae’, in Bremmer, J. N. and Horsfall, N. M., Roman Myth and Mythography (London, 1987)Google Scholar, BICS Suppl. 52, 76–88, especially 83.

36 For praise of Quinta Claudia put in the mouth of Appius Claudius Caecus, seeCicero, , Cael. 14. 34Google Scholar.

37 For the Ludi Apollinares, see Livy 25.12.15 (212 B.C.) and 27.23.5–7 (208 B.C.), when the games were made annual, withLatte, K., Römische Religionsgeschichte (Munich, 1960), 223Google Scholar and RE Suppl. 5 (1931), cols. 621–4. For the Ludi Megalenses, see Livy 29.10.4–8 and 29.14.5–14 (204 B.C).

38 Cicero, Sest. 123Google Scholar. L. Caecilius Rufus (RE 110) was a supporter of Cicero whose elogium is recorded at CIL 14.2464.

39 For M. Brutus and his Ludi Apollinares, seeCicero, Att. 15. 12Google Scholar; 16.2; 16.5; Phil. 1.36; 10.8;Appian, BC 3. 24Google Scholar.

40 Accius’ first play is usually dated to 140 B.C. (Cicero, , Brut. 229)Google Scholar so the 140s may be too early for his Brutus but this is not certain.

41 Zorzetti, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 94–5Google Scholar.

42 Accius’ play glorifies a n ancestor of the patron who may well have been inserted into the family tree to gain prestige. There is no evidence for the plebeian Junii holding office before the fourth century B.C. but this was a matter for debate in antiquity.Plutarch, Brut. 1. 6–8Google Scholar (citing Posidonius);Nepos, Att. 18. 3Google Scholar.Gabba, E., ‘II “Bruto” di Accio’, Dioniso 43 (1969), 382Google Scholar assumes Callaecus did not appear in the play.

43 Cicero, , Arch. 11. 26Google Scholar with schol. Bob. and Valerius Maximus 8.14.2 withRibbeck, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 586–93Google Scholar. For the temple, seePliny, , Nat. 36. 26Google Scholar withPlatner, S. B. and Ashby, T., A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford, 1929)Google ScholarAedes, s. v. Martis and Richardson, L. jr, A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore, 1992)Google Scholar s.v. Mars, Aedes in Circo Flaminio. For the Spanish victory, seeLivy, , Per. 56Google Scholar;Appian, , Iber. 71ff.Google Scholar;Plutarch, , Ti. Gracchus 21. 2Google Scholar; Eutropius 4.19.Gabba, , op. cit. (n. 42), 379Google Scholar dismisses any connection with the temple or its verses. He would like to date the play before 133 B.C. and gives a full discussion of its tone, but offers n o suggestion about when it was performed.

44 Here Zorzetti, Dupont, and Zehnacker echo the work of earlier scholars such as Boissier.

45 For Balbus missing Lentulus at Brundisium, seeCicero, , Att. 9. 6.1Google Scholar.

46 Cicero, , Fam. 10. 32Google Scholar.

47 Fam. 10.32.5: ‘Epistulam quam Balbo, cum etiam nunc in provincia esset, scripsi, legendam tibi misi. Etiam praetextam si voles legere, Gallum Cornelium, familiarem meum, poscito.’

48 Fam. 10.32.3: ‘Ilia vero iam ne Caesaris quidem exemplo, quod ludis praetextam de suo itinere ad L. Lentulum pro consule sollicitandum posuit, et quidem, cum ageretur, flevit memoria rerum gestarum commotus;…’ Cf. Dio 54.25 on Balbus' boastfulness at the dedication of his theatre in 13 B.C. provides further evidence for his love of spectacle.

49 Boissier's attempt to use Balbus' play as the typical example of a praetexta is not sound because it goes so against the direct testimony of Pollio. Contra e.g.Beare, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 32Google Scholar: ‘This must be regarded as merely one of the outrageous breaches of decorum of which he was guilty.’ Cf.Zorzetti, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 99–100Google Scholar.

50 Zorzetti, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 55Google Scholar: ‘E prevalsa comunemente la convinzione che i ludi funebri risolvessero ottimamente il problema dell'occasione e ad essa è oertamente sottostante l'idea che nella pretesta fosse stato fatto un uso patentemente politico della comunicazione teatrale.’ AlsoZehnacker, , op. cit., 44Google Scholar, andParatore, E., ‘Indizi di natura sociale nel teatro latino’, Dioniso 43 (1969), 52Google Scholar. ContraLeo, F., Geschichte der römischen Literatur i (Berlin, 1913), p. 197Google Scholar, who sees the celebration of a living patron on a special day as a Hellenistic concept.

51 Rep. 4.10.11: ‘patiamur, inquit, etsi eiusmodi cives a censore melius est quam a poeta notari…’

52 Rep. 4.10.12: ‘si quis occentavisset sive carmen condidisset quod infamiam faceret flagitiumve alteri…’

53 Rep. 4.10.12: ‘dicit deinde alia et sic concludit hunc locum ut ostendat…’

54 Jolowicz, H. F. and Nicholas, B., Historical Introduction to Roman Law 3 (Cambridge, 1972), p. 171Google Scholar with n. 9.

55 SeePliny, ,Nat. 28. 18Google Scholar: ‘qui malum carmen incantassit’. This seems to reflect the original version of the law. For a discussion with bibliography, seeRonconi, A., ‘”Malum Carmen“ e “Malu m Poeta”’, in Syntekia V. Arangio-Ruiz ii (Naples, 1964), 962–3Google Scholar.

58 There are no parallels for a legal use of ‘displicuisse’ meaning a law against something.

57 SeeGruen, , Studies, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 94Google Scholar n. 62.

58 Notorious distortion of history could and apparently did occur regularly in these speeches. Cf.Cicero, , Brut. 16. 62Google Scholar and Livy 8.40.4.

59 Dupont, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 219ffGoogle Scholar.

60 The evidence for Roman theatrical masks is very scanty. Convenient discussions can be found inDuckworth, G. E., The Nature of Roman Comedy (Princeton, 1952)Google Scholar, and nowWiles, D., The Masks of Menander: Sign and Meaning in Greek and Roman Performance (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 127–49Google Scholar.

61 Diodorus 31.25.2 andSuetonius, , Ves. 19Google Scholar refer to an actor hired to impersonate the dead man and imitate his gestures. It is not clear when this custom was introduced.

62 Polybius 31.28.5–7 mentions gladiatorial combats, costing as much as 30 T, as the main part of the funeral of Aemilius Paullus in 160 B.C. Cf.Livy, , Per. 16Google Scholar; 28.21.1; 39.46; 41.28.10.Wissowa, G., Religion undKultus der Romer 2 (Munich, 1912), pp. 465ffGoogle Scholar. points out that they were not a part of religious practice in the Republic. Cf.Taylor, , op. cit. (n. 1), 299Google Scholar andGruen, , Culture, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 197Google Scholar.

63 Livy 41.28.11 and Terence, didaskalia for the Adelphoe and Hecyra.

64 Zorzetti, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 58ff. and p. 75 where he says the praetexta can be seen as a tool for political advancement ‘come tutti i rituali trionfali’.

65 Dupont, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 219–20Google Scholar.

66 Livy, 1.10 withOgilvie, R. M., A Commentary on Livy 1–5 (Oxford, 1965), adloc. andILS 64Google Scholar. Donatus' reference to a play about the early life of Romulus and Remus is late and probably refers to Naevius'Lupus. SeeRibbeck, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 63–6Google Scholar andMarmorale, E. V., Naevius Poeta 2 (Florence, 1950), pp. 154–5Google Scholar.

67 Ribbeck, O., Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta 2 (Hildesheim, 1962), p. 279Google Scholar: ‘Cum spolia generis detraxeritis, quatn inscriptionem dabitis?’ Cf.Jocelyn, , op. cit. (n. 12), pp. 82–7Google Scholar and 94 for discussion of this play.

68 Polybius, 2.19; Livy, 10.27ff., cf. Livy 8.9 for the father's devotio in 414 B.C.

69 The alternative title of Aeneadae cannot be explained by anything known about the Decii, and therefore raises serious questions about the content and purpose of this play. The family is not recorded as having held office after the mid-third century B.C. except the praetor of 115 B.C. and a tribune of the plebs between 52 B.C. and 44 B.C.

70 Cicero, , N.D. 3. 15Google Scholar: ‘consilium id imperatorium fuit, quod Graeci στρατήημα appellant.’

71 Zorzetti, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 58ffGoogle Scholar. This is perhaps the most controversial part of his book.

72 For discussion, seeLatte, K., op. cit. (n. 37), p. 153Google Scholar andGruen, , Culture, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 196Google Scholar. The only direct evidence for the Republic,Tacitus, , Ann. 14. 21.2Google Scholar, is unclear. Mummius’ triumph may only be mentioned here for purposes of dating.

73 For state sponsored votive games, see Livy 27.33.8; 30.27.11–12; 34.44.6; 42.28.8 withPiganiol, A., Recherches sur les jeux romains (Strasbourg, 1923), p. 78Google Scholar ff. andTaylor, , op. cit. (n. 1), 296Google Scholar.

74 Livy 36.2.2ff. of 191 B.C., 36.2.3–4: ‘si duellum, quod cum rege Antiocho sumi populus iussit, id ex sententia senatus populique Romani confectum erit, turn tibi, Iuppiter, populus Romanus ludos magnos dies decem continuos faciet, donaque ad omnia pulvinaria dabuntur de pecunia, quantam senatus decreuerit. Quisquis magistratus eos ludos quando ubique faxit, hi ludi facti donaque data recte sunto’.

75 Taylor, , op. cit. (n. 1), 298Google Scholar. ContraGruen, , Culture, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 195–6Google Scholar who calls the evidence thin but does not take full account of the parallel structure of the Ludi Romani.

76 Livy 28.38.14 and 28.45.12 withPiganiol, , op. cit. (n. 73), pp. 83ffGoogle Scholar. andTaylor, , op. cit. (n. 1), 297Google Scholar.

77 For Africanus in the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, see Valerius Maximus 8.15.1–2 andAppian, , Iber. 23. 89Google Scholar.

78 Livy 36.36.1–2 and 35.1.8 for Nasica and 39.22.8–10 for Lucius Scipio.

79 Livy 39.22.8–10 for Lucius Scipio and Livy 40.44.8–12 for Fulvius Flaccus.

80 Livy 40.44.8–12 records the vows of Q. Fulvius Flaccus in 179 B.C. for votive games and a temple of Fortuna Equestris. He was subject to an overall spending limit and a new law against coerced contributions.

81 E.g. L. Anicius' games in 167 B.C., held on an especially large stage (Polybius 30.22).

82 Livy 36.36.5–7: temple of Juventas in 191 B.C.; 36.36.4–5: Magn a Mater (Ludi Megalenses); 40.52.1–3: Juno Regina and Diana (3 and 2 days); 42.10.5: Fortuna Equestris (4 days). SeeTaylor, , op. cit. (n. 1), 298Google Scholar for further references.

83 Dentzer, J. M., ‘Les témoinages sur l'histoire de la peinture italique dans la tradition littéraire latine et le problème de la peinture murale en Italie’, MEFRA 79 (1967), 7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar collects the references.

84 The evidence for triumphal paintings can be found inZinserling, G., ‘Studien zu den Historiendarstellungen der römischen Republik’, WZJena (1959/1960), 403–48Google Scholar.

85 The time taken to build could vary greatly e.g. from 16 years (M. Livius Salinator, Livy 36.36.6–7) to 6 years (Q. Fulvius Flaccus, Livy 42.10.5).

86 A significant victory which resulted in ludi magni or a new temple could help the victor become censor. The building or dedication of a temple was often connected with a censorship, either held by the same general or an ally. E.g. Livy 42.10.5: Fulvius Flaccus dedicated his temple to Fortuna Equestris as censor.

87 Polybius 2.34–5;Livy, , Per. 20Google Scholar.; Propertius 4.10;Frontinus, , Strat. 4. 5.4Google Scholar;Plutarch, , Marc. 6–8.Google ScholarDegrassi, A., op. cit. (n. 1), p. 550Google Scholar: ‘M. Claudius M. f. M. n. Marcellus cos. de Galleis Insubribus et Germ[an(eis)] k. Mart. an. DXX[XI] isque spolia opima rettu[lit] duce hostium Virdumaro ad Clastid[ium interfecto]’.Plutarch, , Marc. 8Google Scholar describes the triumph.

88 Octavian did not allow Licinius Crassus to dedicate the spolia opima in 29 B.C. on the grounds that his victory had not been won under his own auspices (Livy 4.18–20 and 32; Dio 51.24). Caesar may have dedicated them around 44 B.C., according to Dio 44.4.

89 E.g.Leo, , op. cit. (n. 50), p. 89Google Scholar;Marmorale, , op. cit. (n. 66), p. 153Google Scholar;Grimal, P., Le siècle des Scipions; Rome et I'hellénisme au temps des guerres puniques 2 (Paris, 1975), p. 82Google Scholar substitutes it for thelaudatio;Zehnacker, , op. cit. (n. 1), 41Google Scholar.Gruen, Contra, Studies, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 94Google Scholar who favours a date closer to 222 B.C., in Marcellus’ lifetime.

90 Livy 27.27–8;Plutarch, , Marc. 29–30Google Scholar. For a full discussion, seeCaltabiano, M., ‘La morte del console Marcello nella tradizione storiografica’, CISA 3 (1975), 65–81Google Scholar.

91 Livy 27.27; Dio 53.30.5;Servius, , A. 1. 712Google Scholar and 6.861.

92 Plutarch, , Marc. 30Google Scholar.

93 Livy 29.11.13 with Platner and Ashby, op. cit. (n. 43), s.v. Honos et Virtus, aedes. Games for Honor and Virtus are also attested outside Rome at Puteoli (ILS 5317) and Terracina (ILS 5051), which suggests the importance of the cult and the games associated with it. SeeSanctis, G. de, Storia dei Romani iv. 2.1 (Florence, 1967), pp. 302–3Google Scholar.

94 Livy 27.25.7–9 andPlutarch, , Marc. 28Google Scholar record Marcellus' own attempt to hold the dedication shortly before his death.

95 Gruen, , Studies, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 94Google Scholar misreads the situation when he adduces Polybius 2.34 to show that Naevius' play was a general celebration of Roman victory rather than of Marcellus' own feat. Polybius, friend of the Cornelii, had every reason not to mention Marcellus' special honours, which were not shared by his fellow consul Cn. Cornelius Scipio.

96 For Ennius and Nobilior, see especiallyBadian, E., ‘Ennius and his friends’, in Skutsch, O. (ed.) Ennius (Geneva, 1972), 183Google Scholar;Martina, M., ‘Ennio “poeta cliens”’, QFC 2 (1979), 17–74Google Scholar;Gruen, , Studies, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 113–16Google Scholar.

97 Skutsch, O., The Annals of Q. Ennius (Oxford, 1985), pp. 553ffGoogle Scholar.

98 Degrassi, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 554Google Scholar: ’ [M. Fu]lvius M. f. Ser. n. Nobilpor II, pro cos., de] Aetoleis et Ceph[allenia X k. Ian. an. DLXVI]'. Cf. Nobilior's dedication of his Greek spoils at the Temple of Hercules of the MusesCIL 1.615 =ILS 16: ‘M. FOLVIVS M. F. SER. N. NOBILIOR COS. AMBRACIA CEPIT'.

99 Livy, 39.5 and 22.1–2: ‘decem deinde dies magniflce apparatos ludos M. Fulvius, quos voverat Aetolico bello, fecit, multi artifices ex Graecia venerunt honoris eius causa, athletarum quoque certamen turn primo Romanis spectaculo fuit, et venatio data leonum et pantherarum, et prope huius saeculi copia ac varietate ludicrum celebratum est.’

100 Livy 38.44; 39.4.

101 Gruen, , Studies, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 117Google Scholar n. 186 dismisses the ludi votivi and Nobilior's funeral as contexts for the praetexta without offering any alternative. Yet the play must have been performed and the occasions are limited.

102 Cf. Lucius Scipio's triumph in 188 B.C. which was also disputed: Polybius 21.24.16ff; Livy 37.58.6–59.6; 38.59.3; 45.39.1, likewise those of Minucius in 190 B.C. (Livy 37.46) and Cn. Manlius Vulso in 187 B.C. (Livy 38.44–50). For a full discussion of disputed triumphs and booty, seeGruen, , Studies, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 129Google Scholar ff.

103 Zorzetti, , op. cit. (n. 1), highlights this time of crisis; p. 76Google Scholar: ‘il sistema culturale romano manifesta una crisi di valori e di funzioni.’ Cf. p. 77: ‘al centro della polemica era proprio la celebrazione, momento simbolico di aggregazione e di sanzione dei vantaggi materiali e morali.’

104 See Festus 282L andCicero, De Oral. 2. 256Google Scholar for word play on Nobilior/Mobilior. Cf.Astin, A. E., Cato the Censor (Oxford, 1978), p. 74Google Scholar.

105 1LLRP 431 and/LS 886 withShatzman, I., ‘The Roman General's Authority over Booty’, Historia 21 (1972), 177–205Google Scholar. Cf.Augustus, , Res Gestae 21. 1Google Scholar.

106 Cicero, , Arch. 27Google Scholar; Pliny, , Nat. 35. 66Google Scholar;Servius, , A. 1. 8Google Scholar;Eumenius, , pro rest, schol. 7. 8Google Scholar. Platner and Ashby, op. cit. (n. 43), s.v. Hercules Musarum;Tamm, B., ‘Le temple des Muses à Rome’, OpRom 3 (1961), 157–67Google Scholar;Badian, , op. cit. (n. 96), 187ff.Google Scholar;Gruen, , Studies, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 114–23Google Scholar. For Pyrrhus and the Muses, see Livy 38.9.13–14 andPliny, Nat. 37. 5Google Scholar. The shape of the building, as seen on fragments of the marble plan of Rome, has been interpreted as containing an enclosed central area perhaps especially designed for the meetings of a guild of poets.

107 Badian, loc. cit. (n. 106).

108 See Livy 38.42.10 for Aemilius Lepidus presenting Fulvius in a negative light.

108 ILS 16, quoted in n. 98 above, perhaps suggests that Fulvius made dedications of statues at his temple before his censorship in 179 B.C., although it is also possible that these stood in the precinct before the building was finished. Cf.ILLRP 327–31 for similar inscriptions of L. Mummius. His rival Aemilius Lepidus was dedicating temples in this very part of the city in 179 B.C. while they were both censors (Livy 40.52.1–3).

110 Livy 45.35ff.;Plutarch, , Aem. 31Google Scholar.

111 Degrassi, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 556Google Scholar: ‘L. Aimilius L. f. M. n. Paullus II, procos., ex Macedon(ia) et rege Perse per triduum IIII, II[I], pridie k. Decem. a. DXXCfVI]’. Cf. Livy 45.40;Plutarch, , Aem. 32–4Google Scholar.

112 C/L12.622 = ILLRP 323: ‘L. Aimilius L. f. inperator de rege Perse Macedonibuscepet’. Livy 45.27;Plutarch, , Aem. 28Google Scholar.

113 Polybius 30.14; Livy 45.32. For Paullus' interest in Greek culture cf. Livy 45.8.8;Plutarch, , Aem. 28Google Scholar.

114 Taylor, , op. cit. (n. 1), 297Google Scholar: ‘L. Aemilius Paullus can hardly have failed to hold games for his Macedonian victory, but we have no record of them.’

115 Palmer, R. E. A., ‘Cults of Hercules, Apollo Caelispex and Fortuna in and around the Roman Cattle Market’, JRA 3 (1990), 234–44Google Scholar, has shown how tenuous the connection is between Paullus and a temple of Hercules in the Forum Boarium, whichPliny, , Nat. 35. 19Google Scholar describes as containing paintings by Pacuvius.

116 Ribbeck, , Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta, pp. 280–81Google Scholar: ‘Nunc te obtestor, celere sancto subveni censorio!…’ and ‘Qua vix caprigeno generi gradilis gressio est.’

117 Müller, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 286Google Scholar;Zorzetti, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 55Google Scholar;Zehnacker, , op. cit. (n. 1), 45Google Scholar.

118 Müller, , op. cit. (n. l), p. 287Google Scholar;Hermann, T., ‘La tragédie nationale chez les romains’, C & M 9 (1947), 152Google Scholar andBeare, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 33–4Google Scholar: ‘The praetexta was never more than a parergon for a few writers of tragedy.’ Whereas, some claim, on equally scant evidence, that praetextae were especially popular with audiences, e.g.Kindermann, H., Das Theaterpublikum der Anlike (Salzburg, 1979), pp. 150–52Google Scholar, andBeacham, R. C., The Roman Theatre and its Audience (Cambridge, MA, 1992), p. 24Google Scholar.

119 Dupont, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 30Google Scholar, calls the theatre ‘le coeur véritable de la vie politique’. Cf.Nicolet, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 364ffGoogle Scholar. for discussions of this. Note especially Sest. 115–26. Diodorus 37.12 suggests the political nature of the theatre outside Rome, cf.Purcell, N. in Fredericksen, M., Campania (Rome, 1984), 336Google Scholar. For the possibility of praetextae elsewhere in Italy, seeRawson, E., ‘Theatrical Life in Republican Rome and Italy’, PBSR 53 (1985) 470–72Google Scholar.

120 Other similar occasions were provided by condones, elections, and public trials.Cicero, , Sest. 106Google Scholar: ‘Etenim tribus locis significari maxime de re publica populi Romani iudicium ac voluntas potest, contione, comitiis, ludorum gladiatorumque consessu.’ Att. 2.19.3: ‘Populi sensus maxime theatro et spectaculis perspectus est.’

121 Livy 34.54.4–8 in 194 B.C.; Sest. 115 claims it is easy to see where a demonstration is coming from. Cf.Suetonius, , Aug. 40Google Scholar for further reforms on seating.

122 Cicero, , Att. 14. 3.2Google Scholar asks for news of demonstrations in the theatre.

123 Sest. 115–26; Att. 2.19: Caesar is upset at his lukewarm reception compared with cheers that greeted Curio, especially from the equites. Phil. 1.37: Cicero claims that he personally has never paid attention to how he was greeted or which section of the audience the reaction came from.Plutarch, , Aem. 39Google Scholar, notes the demonstration during Paullus' illness and absence. Ad Fam. 8.2.1: Caelius writes to Cicero about Hortensius being booed for the first time in his career after a dubious acquittal he won for a client.

124 SeeCicero, , Har. 22Google Scholar; Phil. 1.36 and 10.4.8;Appian, , B.C. 3. 24Google Scholar for demonstrations on behalf of the liberators.

125 Sest. 123; Att. 2.19.3: ‘nostra miseria tu es magnus’ was a line used to taunt Pompey in 59 B.C.

126 Beare, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 33 suggests that the habit was encouraged by the fact that there were so few plays containing direct contemporary references.

127 Müller, Contra, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 288Google Scholar who feels that crowds could always be controlled and that poets rose above any political considerations.

128 Cf.Crawford, M. H., Roman Republican Coinage i (Cambridge, 1974)Google Scholar, no. 410 = Hercules in a lionskin with a lyre labelled Hercules Musarum struck by Q. Pomponius Musa in 56 B.C. No. 415 = the victory at Pydna struck by L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus in 62 B.C. No. 439 = a denarius of 50 B.C. with Marcellus and the spolia opima minted by P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus.