This page intentionally left blankROMAN REPUBLICAN THEATRETheatre ourished in the Roman Republic, dramatic works of theperiod including the tragedies of Ennius and Pacuvius, the comediesof Plautus and Terence as well as the mimes of Laberius. Yet apart fromthe surviving plays of Plautus and Terence the sources are fragmen-tary and difcult to interpret and contextualize. This book providesan up-to-date and comprehensive overview of all aspects of the topic,incorporating recent ndings and modern approaches. It discussesthe origins of Roman drama and the historical, social and institu-tional backgrounds of all the dramatic genres to be found during theRepublic (tragedy, praetexta, comedy, togata, Atellana, mime and pan-tomime). Possible general characteristics are identied, and attentionis paid to the nature of the various dramatic genres and their develop-ment. The clear structure and full bibliography also ensure that thebook has value as a source of reference for all upper-level students andscholars of Latin literature and ancient drama.gesi ne manuwald is Senior Lecturer in Latin Language andLiterature at University College London. Her research interests coverCiceros orations, Flavian epic and Neo-Latin literature, on which shehas published several books and many articles. Her main focus ofresearch is Roman drama. She has written extensively on the subject,including several articles on Roman comedy, a book on fabulae prae-textae, Roman historical dramas (:cc:), and, most recently, a readeron Roman drama (:c:c).ROMAN REPUBLICANTHEATREGESINE MANUWALDcambri dge uni versi ty pressCambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town,Singapore, S ao Paulo, Delhi, Tokyo, Mexico CityCambridge University PressThe Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb: ru, UKPublished in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New Yorkwww.cambridge.orgInformation on this title: www.cambridge.org/,;c,::::c:o;c Gesine Manuwald :c::This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exceptionand to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,no reproduction of any part may take place without the writtenpermission of Cambridge University Press.First published :c::Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, CambridgeA catalogue record for this publication is available from the British LibraryLibrary of Congress Cataloguing in Publication dataManuwald, Gesine.Roman republican theatre : a history / Gesine Manuwald.p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.isbn ,;-c-,::-::c:o-; (hardback):. Latin drama History and criticism. :. Rome History Republic, ,:c,c b.c.,. Theater Rome. . Theater History To ,cc. ,. Literature and history Rome.o. Rome Historiography. ;. Rome In literature. I. Title.paoco;.m,o :c::;:

.c:c, dc:: :c:cc,:;;isbn ,;-c-,::-::c:o-; HardbackCambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence oraccuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred toin this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on suchwebsites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.ContentsPreface page viiTechnical notes and abbreviations ixIntroduction: previous scholarship andpresent approach :part i. cultural and institutional background: Evolution of Roman drama :,:.: Cultural contacts :,:.: Impact of Greek drama :c:., Etruscan traditions :::. Dramatic forms in Italy and early Rome :o:., Emergence of Roman dramatic literature ,c: Production and reception ::.: Festivals and dramatic performances ::.: Role of magistrates ,:., Religious aspects ,:. Theatre buildings ,,:., Staging, acting, costumes, masks o:.o Impresarios, actors, musicians c:.; Social status of dramatic poets ,c:. Theatre audiences ,:., Revival performances :c:.:c Readers as recipients ::cpart ii. dramatic poetry, Dramatic genres ::,,.: Fabula crepidata/tragoedia :,,,.: Fabula praetexta(ta) :cvvi Contents,., Fabula palliata/comoedia :,. Fabula togata/tabernaria :,o,., Fabula Atellana :o,,.o Mimus/planipes :;,.; Pantomimus : Dramatic poets :;.: L. Livius Andronicus :.: Cn. Naevius :,., Q. Ennius :c. M. Pacuvius :c,., L. Accius ::o.o T. Maccius Plautus ::,.; Caecilius Statius :,. Luscius Lanuvinus ::., P. Terentius Afer :.:c Sex. Turpilius :,;.:: Titinius :o:.:: L. Afranius :o,.:, T. Quinctius Atta :oo.: L. Pomponius :o;.:, Novius :;c.:o D. Laberius :;,.:; Publilius Syrus :;o.: Minor playwrights :;, Dramatic themes and techniques ::,.: Translation and Greek intertexts ::,.: Topics and the contemporary context :,,,., Metatheatre and performance ,c:,. Dramatic genres and inter textuality ,c,,., Dramaturgy and dramatic structure ,:c,.o Language, style, metre, music ,:,Overview and conclusions: Republican drama ,,:Bibliography ,,,: Editions and commentaries ,,,: Secondary literature ,,oIndex ,,PrefaceThere is more to a beginning than just a start. This is how Sander M.Goldberg concluded a recent article (:cc;a: :,) on appreciating archaicliterature as both a work of art in its own right and a step within the literarydevelopment. He also warned against regarding early literature as primitiveand soon to be superseded. This is indeed a perspective often foisted onearly writers by later scholars (ancient and modern) and prevents modernrecipients from realizing achievements as well as deciencies in unbiasedfashion.It is in this context that the present work wishes to place itself, by makinga contribution to a clearer understanding of the sweeping and impreciseterm Roman Republican drama. Although the nature of the limited evi-dence presents particular methodological difculties, it is important tomake at least an attempt at getting a more precise view of the differentstages and varieties of drama in Republican Rome, both for a proper appre-ciation of this literary genre and also with regard to Roman literature andculture. Though well aware of the various pitfalls and remaining uncertain-ties, this book therefore sets out to provide a synoptic overview of Romandrama over the course of the Republican period, exploring connectionsand developments among the various dramatic genres in their contempo-rary context, and thereby to offer a useful tool both to readers interestedin Roman Republican drama and its role in Roman society and to thosestudying Roman literary history more generally.Some of the views put forward will inevitably be contested in duecourse, particularly because the evidence in this eld is scarce and oftenambiguous; but it is one of the aims of this book to encourage discussionon this fascinating aspect of Roman culture.Writing a comprehensive book on Roman drama that would allow me topoint out connections between the various elements combining to makeup Roman Republican drama and the different areas of current researchviiviii Prefacehas long been on my mind, and this study continues work presented inprevious monographs and a number of articles.At different points in its development, research for this study has beencarried out in Freiburg, Princeton, Oxford and London. I would like tothank warmly all colleagues and hosts for their continuing support andencouragement and the relevant libraries in these places for making alltheir resources available to me.Individual parts of the argument were presented at the Villa Vergilianain Cumae, in Oxford, London and Nottingham; the stimulating questionsand helpful comments of the respective audiences have left their mark onthe nal product.Thanks are also due to the participants in the one-day colloquiumMeaningful Remains: Working with Literary Fragments fromearly Rome,organized by Costas Panayotakis and myself at Corpus Christi College,Oxford, inMarch:cc;, and the presenters at the panel RepublicanRome A Cosmopolitan City, which I ran at the Classical Association Confer-ence in Liverpool in March :cc, for their readiness to take part and forpresenting exciting observations and ideas on areas of particular interest tome.When this book was starting to take shape, I was able to prot fromproductive discussions withDenis Feeney. At later stages I receivedgenerousadvice froma number of experts in their particular elds, including StephenColvin, Bob Kaster, John North and Hector Williams. Larissa Bonfante,Tim Moore, Costas Panayotakis and Jeremy Tanner kindly agreed to lookat drafts of individual sections, which hugely proted from their specialistexpertise. Tony Boyle generously read the entire typescript; his commentshave been most valuable, as have been those of the anonymous readers forCambridge University Press. Michael Sharp at Cambridge University Pressproved a supportive and encouraging editor throughout; and the book hasbeneted hugely from thorough checks by my copy-editor, Fiona Sewell.It goes without saying that writing such a book would not have beenpossible without the support of all these people, even though they mightnot share all the views eventually put forward.london, g.m.Technical notes and abbreviationsterminologyFor the dramatic genres that Romanwriters called fabula crepidata/tragoediaand fabula palliata/comoedia respectively the terms tragedy and com-edy, more common in modern languages, have been adopted, exceptfor contexts that demand precise terminology (where crepidata/fabulacrepidata/Greek-style tragedy and palliata/fabula palliata/Greek-style com-edy are used). For most other Roman dramatic genres, however, no estab-lished modern-language versions of the names exist and therefore the Latinones must be kept, though they have been treated like English words (e.g.praetexta, togata).quotations of and references to latin textsFor fragments of Republican drama the numberings of Ribbecks thirdedition of his collections of tragic and comic fragments (R.,) and of War-mingtons Loeb edition (W.) have been given (where applicable), since theseeditions are most readily available and these numbers will allow readers tond the texts in more recent editions. Hence, to keep references brief, thenumberings of specic editions (Ennius: Jocelyn [J.]; Pacuvius: Schierl [S.];Accius: Dangel [D.]; Caecilius Statius: Guard` [G.]; Turpilius: Rychlewska[Ry.]; togata: Daviault [Dav.]; Atellana: Frassinetti [F.]; mimus: Bonaria[B.]; Laberius: Panayotakis [P.]) have been omitted, since these worksinclude concordances.For Terence and Plautus the Oxford Classical Texts (Plautus: Lindsay;Terence: Kauer/Lindsay) have been used. Ennius Annales are quoted fromSkutschs edition (Sk.), with the numbering of Warmington (W.) alsogiven, his minor works from Vahlens second edition with the numberingsof Vahlen (V.:) and of Warmington (W.). References to Livius Andronicusand Naevius epics are based on FPL,(Bl ansdorf ), with the numbering ofixx Technical notes and abbreviationsWarmington (W.) given in addition. Accius grammatical works (Gram.)are quoted from Dangels edition (D.), with the numbering of Warmington(W.) added. For fragments of Lucilius satires the numberings of Marx (M.)and Warmington (W.) are given.Textual questions are highlighted only where the text is controversial andits establishment has a bearing on the argument. Hence minor differencesin readings between the various editions consulted will not normally bementioned; major differences might be indicated without receiving fulltreatment.Longer quotations of Latintext have beentranslated. Englishtranslationsof dramatic and satirical fragments have sometimes been inspired by E. H.Warmingtons version; translations of other ancient works have been usedas indicated; otherwise they are the authors own. For full information oneditions and translations see the rst section of the bibliography (arrangedin alphabetical order of editors names).While a simple fr. or a basic distinction between Trag. and Com.is often used to refer to fragments of Republican playwrights, a studythat discusses the full range of serious and light dramatic genres in theRepublican period must give more precise references, particularly sinceeditions such as those of Ribbeck or Warmington have separate sectionsand/or numberings for the various dramatic genres.The following abbreviations have therefore been used to distinguishbetween the dramatic genres: crepidata = Trag.; praetexta = Praet.;palliata = Pall.; togata = Tog.; Atellana = Atell.; mimus = Mim.; incer-tum = Inc. (depending on the context, this refers to a fragment of anunspecied work of a particular poet or to a fragment for which bothwriter and work are unknown). Names of playwrights have been abbrevi-ated as follows: Livius Andronicus = Liv. Andr.; Naevius = Naev.; Ennius= Enn.; Pacuvius = Pac.; Accius = Acc.; Plautus = Plaut.; Caecilius =Caec.; Terence =Ter.; Turpilius =Turp.; Titinius =Tit.; Afranius =Afr.;Atta = At.; Pomponius = Pomp.; Novius = Nov.; Laberius = Lab. Thatresults in references of the following type: Enn. Trag. , R.,= : W.. Inthe sections on the individual dramatists in Chapter the names of therespective playwrights are usually omitted.See also Abbreviations used for references to fragments below.bibliography and referencesSince the present work touches on a wide range of different issues, thebibliography is rather extensive. Nevertheless, it is not a comprehensiveabbreviations used for references to fragments xibibliography of works on Roman drama: it is not complete for all questionsaddressed, and there are particular gaps, for instance, as regards articles onindividual fragments or studies and commentaries on individual preservedcomedies. However, this bibliography lists the works that have proved use-ful for the present study and may provide starting points for those who wishto explore further some of the issues discussed (references to bibliographiesor works providing overviews with bibliographical information are givenat relevant points).All these works (and some others) have informed the present studythroughout, although some effort has been made to keep the notes brief,and therefore obvious references, particularly in cases of general agreement,are not always indicated. Older works are also sometimes left out as thenewer ones cited will provide references to those. Neither can there beextensive discussion of all aspects of views in the secondary literature(especially in older works to which reactions are already available); insteadthere will often be brief references to further reading and/or to alternativeviews. In order to keep the argument focused, individual plays will betreated more extensively only if this leads to more general insights; pointsof detail will be relegated to the notes and/or conned to mentions ofstandard treatments (where those exist) instead of full discussions.References to further reading or more detailed discussions of individualproblems are given where they are most necessary or best t the context.Numerous cross-references to other chapters (taking the form of, e.g., seech. .:), therefore, not only refer to discussions of the same issue in adifferent context and/or from another perspective, but might also lead tofurther bibliographical information.Names and titles of works of ancient authors other than those mentionedabove are abbreviated according to OCD (The Oxford Classical Dictionary.third edition, eds. S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth. Oxford and New York:,,o), as are general reference works and collections (e.g. TLL, CAH, CIL).datesDates without either bce or ce are bce.abbreviations used for references to fragmentsAcc. AcciusAfr. AfraniusAt. Attaxii Technical notes and abbreviationsAtell. AtellanaCaec. CaeciliusD. Dangel (Accius)Enn. EnniusFPL3Fragmenta poetarum Latinorum, third editionGram. grammatical worksInc. incertumLab. LaberiusLiv. Andr. Livius AndronicusM. Marx (Lucilius)Mim. mimusNaev. NaeviusNov. NoviusPac. PacuviusPall. palliataPlaut. PlautusPomp. PomponiusPraet. praetextaR.,Ribbeck, third edition (dramatic fragments)Sk. Skutsch (Ennius Annales)Ter. TerenceTit. TitiniusTog. togataTrag. crepidataTurp. TurpiliusV.:Vahlen, second edition (Ennius)W. Warmington (fragments of early playwrights and Lucilius)Introduction:previous scholarship and present approachRoman drama was one of the earliest literary genres to be established inRome, emerging against the background of Romes contact with other cul-tures and its rise to being a major power in the Mediterranean. Thus thehistory of early Roman drama is not only of literary interest, but also ofpolitical, social and cultural relevance: for instance, the introduction of dra-matic performances changed the set-up of public festivals with their specicreligious rituals and their role within the political community; theatricalevents gained relevance as a public institution. Within this framework avariety of dramatic forms were developed over time, which were shaped byindividual playwrights according to their different styles and their respec-tive historical situations. From the late Republican period onwards scholarsstarted to discuss questions of dramatic history and terminology as issuesin their own right.Despite the inherent importance of this literary genre and its early recep-tion, modern research into Roman Republican drama is confronted bythe difculty that evidence is scarce, since a large part of Romes dramaticliterature has not survived.:Names of playwrights, titles of plays, testimo-nia and fragments from a limited number of pieces are all that remainsfor some periods and/or dramatic genres. The only dramas preserved intheir entirety are the comedies of Plautus and Terence from the Republicanperiod as well as the tragedies of Seneca the Younger (including a possiblyspurious one) and the anonymous praetexta Octavia (transmitted in theSenecan corpus) from the imperial era.:Perhaps an initial word of caution on the term Roman is in order: Roman drama (or even Romanliterature) might be regarded as a misleading term, since the early poets were not Romans in a strictsense. But as they created works of literature in Romes language for Roman audiences (originally inthe city of Rome), taking account of topics and conventions relevant to these audiences, the use of theestablished term Roman drama can be justied. For the sake of convenience, the poets themselveswill sometimes be referred to as Roman, as they were writing for Roman audiences in Rome.:: IntroductionModern scholarship on Roman Republican drama, therefore, has virtu-ally been split into two different routes: research on completely preserveddramas, analysed just like any other extant ancient text, and research onfragments, often concerned mainly with establishing text and meaning ofindividual verses or plays. While it is true that different types of evidencerequire different kinds of approaches, all this material concerns the sameissue; yet the two methods and subject areas have seldom come together.Moreover, the (understandable) focus on complete plays, which are derivedfrom Greek sources, has meant that Roman plays tend to be considered incomparison with Greek plays. Hence the view that Roman literature is sec-ondary and derivative, which had arisen since the period of enthusiasmfor Greek culture from the eighteenth century onwards (yet has changedover the past few decades), particularly affected the assessment of Romandramatic forms.:These presumptions and this history of scholarship have long inu-enced the kind of resources produced. For instance, books on practicaland archaeological aspects of ancient theatre tend to devote considerablyless space to the Roman than to the Greek side.,The only attempt at acomplete and concise overview of Roman Republican theatre (coveringliterary and practical aspects) is W. Beares The Roman Stage. A Short His-tory of Latin Drama in the Time of the Republic (:st edn., :,,c; ,rd edn.,:,o), which continues to be a widely used handbook, though its revisionhas been called for; for comedy there is also G. E. Duckworths Nature ofRoman Comedy (:,,:).In the :,,cs there was apparently a desire to collectinformation on Roman drama: E. Paratores Storia del teatro latino dates tothe same period (:,,;); it was reprinted in the early twenty-rst century asstill being sufciently relevant and up to date (:cc,).,Useful though these:On this issue see e.g. Lana :,;: o; Lef` evre :,;b: :; Goldberg :,:: ; Forehand :,,: ,;; Conte:,,: ;.,See e.g. Bieber :,o:; Blume :,,: (cf. justication on p. :c;).For assessments of the two works see e.g. Segal :,:: ,,,; Fantham :,,a: :, n. : (p. ,:); Petrone:,,:: oo,; Anderson :,,,: ,; Brown :cc:: :,;: Beare (:,o) is still the basic English handbook onthe history and staging of Republican Roman drama, though this too is out of date in a number ofrespects and could do with thorough revision.; N. J. Lowe :cc: ,,: Beare :,o, while outdated onGreek New Comedy and indifferent to archaeological evidence, remains unrivalled in English as asynthesis of the literary source material, particularly on lost genres, while, for the extant comedies,Duckworth :,,: still covers more ground than any other single volume in English.,See the editors preface (:cc,: xxi); but see also Petrone :,,:: oo,. The :,;cs saw another roundof surveys, although some of them were rather brief and/or general (Butler :,;:; G. Williams :,;:;Jim enez Gazapo :,;; Lef` evre :,;a). In the :,cs Dupont provided a short introduction, apparentlyintended for beginning students (:,/:,,,), and a general study of Roman drama in its sociologicalcontext (:,,). In the early :,,cs this was followed by a broad survey of the Roman theatre by Petrone(:,,:). Some discussion of Roman theatre can now also be found in Seidensticker (:c:c: ::::). AnIntroduction ,works continue to be, they are out of date on a number of points due todiscoveries of new texts and further research in several areas.As regards the literary side of Roman drama, playwrights whose playshave survived in their entirety (Plautus, Terence, Seneca) are well served byeditions, commentaries and translations into various modern languages.oComprehensive and/or introductory works on aspects of Roman dramahave also been devoted mainly to those poets.;Since Plautus and Terencewere active in the same dramatic genre (what is traditionally called fabulapalliata or Roman [New] Comedy) and substantial remains of Greek NewComedy were unearthed in the course of the twentieth century, studiesgoing beyond one playwright have often dealt with (Greek and Roman)New Comedy.More recently, studies on Roman comedy have started tolook at the plays relationship to the contemporary historical and socialsituation.,By contrast, for Roman dramatic genres preserved in fragments very fewgeneral accounts exist, besides brief portraits in comprehensive works onRoman literature.:cThe major Republican tragic poets have been givencritical editions and commentaries,::but hardly ever have they receivedmonographic treatment; overviews of the whole dramatic genre are only arecent development.::A similar situation applies to praetexta, the Romanearlier collection of essays (Dorey and Dudley :,o,) discussed selected aspects, but did not presentan overview of Roman drama as a whole.oSee the standard bibliographies: on Plautus, Hanson :,o,/o; Gaiser :,;:; Hughes :,;,; Fogazza:,;o [:,;]; Segal :,:; Bubel :,,:; on Terence, Gaiser :,;:; Goldberg :,:; Cupaiuolo :,, :,,:;Lentano :,,;, :,,; on Roman comedy, also Hunter in Duckworth :,,: o,;:; for the Republicandramatists see also relevant sections in Suerbaum :cc:; on Seneca, Hiltbrunner :,,; Seidenstickerand Armstrong :,,; Motto and Clark :,,.;On Plautus see e.g. Leo :,::; Fraenkel (:,::/:,oc) :cc;; N. W. Slater :,,/:ccc; Segal :,;;Anderson :,,,; Moore :,,a; Franko :cc:; on Terence see e.g. B uchner :,;; Forehand :,,;Goldberg :,o; Cupaiuolo :,,:; Moore :cc:; Kruschwitz :cc; Kruschwitz et al. :cc;; on Senecasee e.g. Lef` evre :,;:; Boyle :,,, :,,;; Dingel :,,.See e.g. Arnott :,;,; Sandbach :,;;; Konstan :,,; Hunter :,,; Maurach :cc,; Sharrock :cc,.Other palliata poets of whose work a substantial number of fragments have been preserved have atleast received critical editions (Caecilius: Guard` :,;; Turpilius: Rychlewska :,;:).,See esp. Leigh :cca.:cFor coverage in literary histories see the relevant sections in e.g. Kenney and Clausen :,:; Conte:,,; von Albrecht :,,;; Harrison :cc,.::Livius Andronicus: Spaltenstein :cc; Naevius: Marmorale :,,c; Ennius: Jocelyn :,o;; Pacuvius:DAnna :,o;; Schierl :cco; Artigas :cc, (for the fragments transmitted in Cicero: Artigas :,,c);Accius: DAnt` o :,c; Poci na P erez :,; Dangel :,,,.::See Erasmo :cc; Boyle :cco (comments on these books, with references, in Goldberg :cc;b: ,c:). Cf. Boyles introductory assessment of the state of research (:cco: ix): This book requires littlejustication. Roman tragedy was at the centre of Romes performative life, cultural and political, . . . ,but until :cc there was no monograph in English even attempting to address the evolution ofRoman tragedy and its literary, theatrical and cultural importance. The standard book on (at least a Introductionform of serious drama.:,Light dramatic genres:other than palliatacomedy, such as togata, Atellana and mimus, have been treated even lessfrequently, perhaps because farce and mime tend to be regarded as sub-literary and coarse, do not have proper counterparts in Greece and areattested solely by fragments and a limited number of testimonia.:,For thesedramatic genres there exist at least editions and some overviews.:oThe texts themselves are available for all dramatic genres. The survivingoutput of those Republican dramatists whose work has been transmittedin fragments was made accessible by the seminal work of O. Ribbeck in thesecond half of the nineteenth century: his collections of the comic and thetragic fragments respectively are still the only critical editions that coverall playwrights and dramatic genres; he also gave important informationabout his view of the plays in the introductions to the second version ofhis editions and in his book on Roman tragedy (:;,).:;The fragments ofthe major Republican dramatists became more conveniently approachablesubstantial part of ) the subject was published :,c years ago in Leipzig: Otto Ribbecks Die R omischeTrag odie im Zeitalter der Republik (:;,). . . . But Roman tragedy, despite its cultural importance andthe increasing emphasis in Classical Studies on cultural history and analysis, still awaits a detailedtheatrical and cultural account of its history and evolution. The traditional reference manual forthe contents of the tragedies and their relationship to Greek sources is O. Ribbecks Die r omischeTrag odie (:;,). Another early and more discursive attempt, focusing on particular aspects, is G.Coppolas Il teatro tragico in Roma repubblicana (:,c). A solid discussion of Republican dramawith emphasis on tragedy is found in the introduction to Jocelyns edition of Ennius tragic fragments(:,o;).:,For an overview of this dramatic genre see Manuwald :cc:a; see also Zorzetti :,c; Zehnacker :,,;Flower :,,,; Wiseman, e.g. :,,. The fragments of Republican praetextae are included in Ribbeckseditions of the tragic fragments (see n. :; below); besides this there are special editions of the remainsof this dramatic genre (Pedroli :,,; de Durante :,oo; see also Ussani :,o;/: xxxvlxiii).:The terms serious drama and light drama will be used throughout as descriptions of the twomain forms of drama, each comprising various subtypes of elevated, possibly tragic drama and ofentertaining, more mundane drama respectively. These terms rather than tragic drama/tragedy andcomic drama/comedy have been chosen as the most neutral comprehensive labels, which minimizeassociations of specic dramatic genres or particular characteristics. Gratwick (:,:a: ,,, ::;) alsouses the terms serious drama and light drama to structure his account of early Roman drama (onthe terminological problem see Halporn :,,,: :,;).:,Denard (:cc;) makes a strong case for including lost theatre and performance traditions inscholarly activities.:oEditions of the togata fragments: Daviault :,:; L opez :,,; Guard` :,, (see reviewby Jocelyn :,o);Atellana fragments: D. Romano :,,,; Frassinetti :,o;; mimus fragments: Bonaria :,o,, Laberius:Panayotakis :c:c. For a brief comprehensive treatment of all these genres and bibliography seePanayotakis :cc,a.:;Editions of tragic fragments: Ribbeck :;: (:nd edn.)/:,; (,rd edn.); editions of comic fragments:Ribbeck :;, (:nd edn.)/:, (,rd edn.); study: Ribbeck :;,. The third edition presents Ribbecksnal view on the text, but its apparatus criticus is less detailed. Both editions contain a few inconsis-tencies in numbering. The more recent edition of the dramatic fragments by Klotz, of which onlythe rst volume covering the tragic theatre has been published (:,,,), could be regarded as a replace-ment for the rst volume of Ribbecks edition; yet it is actually not very different from Ribbeck inmany respects, while being less accurate and less comprehensive (see reviews: esp. Skutsch :,,).Introduction ,in E. H. Warmingtons independent bilingual edition in Remains of OldLatin in the :,,cs (Loeb Classical Library), because this multi-volume workincludes English translations, provides short introductions to individualauthors and plays and also gives indications of the context of each fragment(in the editors view).:In the realmof Roman dramatic fragments, researchers have traditionallyfocused on philological problems, such as the difcult establishment ofthe text of individual fragments or the reconstructions of plots (oftenin relation to supposedly corresponding Greek plays). Gradually, furtherissues are winning greater attention among literary scholars, which includethe consideration of the background for the production of dramas, the roleof performance and the choice of plots and themes as well as a new look atthe relationship to Greek models and the Romanization of the plays.Among scholars who are more interested in cultural, historical andsocial issues, the Republican period has recently emerged as a vibranteld of research: it is asked, for instance, why the Romans developeda sophisticated literature, when Roman literature started, what can beassumed about pre-literary and oral traditions at Rome, about theirinuence on subsequent centuries and their relationship to later written lit-erature, what the cultural and political dynamics in Republican Rome werelike, what function entertainment, performance, spectacle and theatricalityplayed in Roman society and what the role of literature was within such aframework.:,Progress is also being made in the study of the material aspects ofRoman theatrical culture. A recent monograph examines the archaeologi-cal evidence of Roman theatres, preceded by overviews of theatre buildingsin Sicily and southern Italy.:cDocumentation of the physical outlines ofRoman theatres all over the Roman Empire allows comparisons betweentheir characteristic features and those of Greek theatres and hence inferenceson performance conditions in the Republican period. However, althoughimplications of archaeological ndings directly bear on the study of the:The Bud e collection has published the togata fragments (Daviault :,:) and the works of Accius(Dangel :,,,), while both volumes have received criticism from reviewers (see esp. Gratwick :,:b;Jocelyn :,:, on Daviault :,:; Gratwick :ccc; Jocelyn :cc:, on Dangel :,,,). There is also anItalian edition of Poeti latini arcaici (Traglia :,o), of which, however, only the rst volume, coveringLivius Andronicus, Naevius and Ennius, has appeared in print.:,For an overview of these issues and some suggestions see Feeney :cc,; on the changing approachesto early Roman literature see also Rossi and Breed :cco: :,:c.:cSee Sear :cco; see also e.g. Mitens :,, :,,,; Courtois :,,, :,,:; on the Roman stage on thebasis of reconstructionist productions see Beacham :,,:. For scholarship on theatre architecture seeFr ezouls :,:: ,,.o Introductionliterary remains,::they still need to be taken fully into account by liter-ary scholars of Roman drama. For matters of Roman comic staging andstagecraft there is now C. W. Marshalls The Stagecraft and Performanceof Roman Comedy (:cco). Yet although there are numerous works dealingwith the overall organization and background of theatrical performancesin the Greek world, there are no comparable, comprehensive, up-to-dateworks for the Roman world.In the area of theoretical approaches to Latin literature and also intheatre studies new concepts and terminology have been developed anddened, which, to a certain extent, can be usefully applied to the study ofRoman drama to complement more traditional ways of analysing dramatictexts. For instance, Roman dramas have traditionally been interpreted inrelation to Greek models, while views on this connection have changedover the centuries. As regards such potential relationships, useful categoriesand criteria concerning the issue of allusion or intertextuality have beenpresented by S. Hinds (:,,). Hinds warns against one-sided philologicalfundamentalism as well as intertextualist fundamentalism; instead, hesuggests combining both approaches with circumspection. In this contexthe challenges the complete death of the author and calls for allowing foran intention-bearing authorial voice in constructing the deeper meaningof a poetic text.::Also, Hinds is rightly critical of the unidirectional andnon-dialogic reading of two related texts, especially when one of them,the incorporating text or the incorporated text, has been preserved infragments.:,Taking up this approach, other scholars have emphasizedthat, as a result of the particular forms of transmission of Latin dramaticfragments, modern readers see these poets through the eyes of other ancientwriters; researchers therefore have to avoid adopting uncritically the portraitpainted in those sources.:Without specic reference to the classical world, theoreticians of the the-atre have applied methodologies such as performance criticism and semi-otic terminology to the theatre.:,Even though not all those approaches::Cf. Goldberg :,,: :,: More certain is a general fact: the problems of dramaturgy and social historyconnected with Roman comedy cannot be entirely divorced from questions concerning the physicalspace in which these plays were performed.::See Hinds :,,: :;,:, :; also Conte :,,: ,. :,See Hinds :,,: :c:,.:See contributions in Fitzgerald and Gowers :cc; (with particular reference to Ennius Annales), esp.Zetzel :cc;; also Goldberg :cc;b: ,;, and n. .:,Cf. Bennett :,,;: ,::: Since the :,cs, two areas of dramatic theory have given emphasis tothe need for a more developed theory of audiences. The rst of these to emerge was performancetheory. . . . While performance theorists have broadened the scope of what we might consider theatre,a second area of dramatic theory has, in recent years, paid a new attention to the multivalentIntroduction ;and theories can be applied fruitfully to an ancient dramatic literaturelargely surviving in fragments, some terminological descriptions providehelpful clarications: these include, for instance, a distinction betweentheatre and drama, the former referring to theatrical performances andthe latter denoting the ctional text as a representative of a literary genre,or between what is produced in the theatre and what is written for thetheatre, with their mutual interdependence.:oBesides, concepts of the-atre semiotics provide a theoretical model for situating the theatre of apast period as a meaningful system within the conditions and circum-stances of its time:;and performance venue:and thus for consideringit within its historical setting, in addition to analysing features of thetext. The notions of cross-cultural conversation and intercultural theatrehelp to describe the transfer of theatre and drama from Greece to Romeas one manifestation of processes that also happen elsewhere in theatreculture.:,In view of this state of research in a variety of areas it is a necessary andtimely step to combine and develop these various insights into an overviewof Roman Republican drama. For the emergence of new approaches andmethodologies, along with traditional philological criticism, provides anexcellent basis for further study that goes beyond individual playwrights ordramatic genres.,cA synthesis of evidence and approaches has not actuallybeen attempted yet, though the production of up-to-date, comprehensivecollections of data on Roman drama is under way, as handbooks, dictio-naries and bibliographies demonstrate.,:For the literary genre of drama,progress in research on non-literary Roman issues is particularly help-ful; for drama must be situated within the contemporary context of itscomponents of theatre. Semiology has considered these components (not simply what takes placeon the stage, or even in the auditorium) and their interaction in the signifying process. See e.g.Honzl (:,c) :,;o; Elam :,c/:cc:; Fischer-Lichte :cc,; for a brief overview of the developmentof semiotic studies related to the theatre see Carlson :,,: :.:oSee Elam :cc:: :, ,, :,:; Fischer-Lichte :cc,: ,::. :;See e.g. Fischer-Lichte :cc,: ,::o.:See Carlson :,,: :c. :,On these terms see G. J. Williams :c:c: ,,:o.,cA similar development and a corresponding outline of contemporary and possible future researchhave been described by Rossi and Breed (:cco: ,,;) in the introduction to a special journal issueon Ennius Annales.,:For recent overviews of the lives and works of individual dramatists and full information ontestimonia and bibliography see Suerbaum :cc:; like most literary histories the handbook is dividedaccording to genres and poets and rarely attempts more general conclusions on Roman drama(see reviews: Gildenhard :cc,; Feeney :cc,); for a dictionary of the Roman theatre see Gonz alezV azquez :cc; for a collection of key texts on Roman drama see Manuwald :c:c; for bibliographyon Roman tragedy see Mette :,o [:,o,]; De Rosalia :,,; Manuwald :cc: [:cc]; on Naeviuscomic output see Suerbaum :ccca; for a brief overview of important aspects of Roman Republicantheatre see Boyle :cco: ,:,. Introductionorganizational background and of developments in Republican society,since by its very nature drama is a public genre produced in a diverse civiccommunity.Against this background the present work intends to look at RomanRepublican drama and its background from a variety of perspectives bothdiachronically and synchronically, in order to provide a synoptic discussionof the whole complex of dramatic works in Republican Rome.,:It will bediscussed, for instance, how Roman drama developed and altered over theRepublican period in relation to changes in society, what the relationshipbetween the various dramatic genres was like and what the place of dramawas in the contemporary political and social context.,,It is hoped that such a synoptic method will make it possible to presentprocesses and mutual inuences within Republican drama in contextual-ized form.,An awareness of how the various dramatic genres and theirrespective characteristics evolved, changed and interacted is essential for aproper understanding of the development of Roman drama.,,This con-tributes to reconsidering the role of audiences and later recipients, iden-tifying specic features of Roman drama and of each of its playwrightsand genres as well as discerning potential cross-fertilization between theindividual dramatic poets and different genres.,o,:Investigating the origin and development of the major dramatic genres in Republican Rome mightalso contribute to increasing the number of studies of literary genres, whose lack was signalled byCairns (:cc;: ,,c), even though the denition of a genre is fraught with its own problems (seeConte :,,: ,;).,,The present endeavour is thus in line both with Goldbergs (:cco: o) call for sufcient attentionto historical change and with Denards (:cc;: :,,) view that all theatre and performance traditionsshould be included in ones considerations as they will all have inuenced each other.,This study thus follows principles similar to those outlined in the introduction to Boyles recentbook on Roman tragedy (:cco: ix), but broadens its scope by encompassing Republican drama asa whole. Although it has rightly been called into question whether literary history is possible, anattempt at a comprehensive description of Roman drama has been made in view of the ulterioraim of literary history (as opposed to history), since it subserves the appreciation of literature (seePerkins :,,:; for discussion of the problems inherent in any attempt to write literary history seealso Conte :,,: ::c; Feeney :cc:). The current approach also takes into account the notion thatthe inclusion of the perspective of reception, of intertextual aspects and of the historical position ofliterary works as well as the addition of a synchronic dimension to the traditional diachronic focusof literary history could contribute to meeting the challenge of writing literary history (see Jau:,o;).,,On the importance of considering Roman traditions see also Goldberg :,:: ;, :,o: xii; Panayotakis:cc,a: :,,. An interesting, albeit controversial attempt to construct a tradition for palliata has beenmade by J. Wright (:,;).,oR upke (:cc:) and, more forcefully, A. Barchiesi (:cc:) in his review have already made the obviouspoint (with reference to epic) that the poets Livius Andronicus, Naevius and Ennius were threeindividuals and lived in a time of massive social and political change. For Plautus and Terence seeDuckworth :,,:: :c:. More generally, the inclusion of the study of fragmentary Latin texts is vitalIntroduction ,In order to establish such an overall picture, it will be necessary toplace dramatists and plays in their historical, cultural and physical contextand to regard dramatic performances as part of Roman festival culture.,;For such an approach, ideally, all aspects mentioned should be consideredtogether, but the need for a clear and readable exposition requires themto be divided among several subsections (with numerous cross-references).On their basis a tentative outline of the characteristics and developmentof Roman Republican drama, along with a brief outlook on subsequentprocesses in imperial times, will form the conclusion. The approaches,insights and theoretical concepts outlined will inform the presentationthroughout, although they cannot be discussed as such.Naturally, a comprehensive presentation of Roman Republican drama isconfronted with the particular problem of scarce, scattered, ambiguousand partly unreliable evidence.,As the high number of festival days andthe :,c plays later circulating under Plautus name (Gell. NA ,.,.::) show,the period during which proper stage drama ourished at Rome must haveseen a huge number of plays of which little has survived. Furthermore, itcan be inferred that a great variety of dramatic entertainment on all levelsof formality was popular in Graeco-Roman Italy during the Republicanperiod. The surviving dramas have to be seen as one element within thisculture even though specic details of inuences and developments maybe hard to determine.,,But rather than despairing of the possibility of nding out anything atall,can attempt to extract as much as possible from the extant sources with the necessary caution applied seems a worthwhile and soundapproach. If all available information is scrutinized from a variety ofangles,:there will be a substantial body of material to work from, whichwill allow some conclusions.for a proper appreciation of the emergence and characteristics of Roman literature (see Goldberg:cc,b: ::,:, :cc;a: :,; also observations in A. Barchiesi :cc: on early Roman epic).,;On the necessity to include the context in any consideration of early Roman drama or literature seeCancik :,;: ,:; Gildenhards criticism (:cc,) of Suerbaum :cc:; Contes (:,,: :,) point in theintroduction to his history of Latin literature that new literary approaches do not free interpretersfrom reintegrating the works within their historical contexts. More generally, from a theoreticalperspective, see Carlson :,,: :.,On the particular methodological accuracy required by this situation and the need to distinguishbetween evidence and hypothesis see Gildenhard :cc,; Goldberg :cco: ,o.,,See also Hunter :,,: :c; N. J. Lowe :cc: ,.cSee Cancik :,;: ,:::; Dupont :,,: ,:: (see Overview and conclusions).:This study will follow Hinds (:,,: ::) in hoping that it will be able to do something to exploreand to probe anew through strategically chosen examples the methodological pluralism whichContes writing has established as an ideal.:c IntroductionYet it has to be borne in mind that only those types of dramatic per-formances, writers and plays can be discussed of which there is somerecord:and that the uneven evidence may distort the picture. Thus onewill have to accept that there are questions to which denite answers can-not be given (e.g. on details of dramatic structure for genres of whichno example is extant in its entirety), but dening those issues and dis-tinguishing between facts and assumptions or well-argued hypotheses aremeans to make progress in those cases.,There may also be the danger ofgeneralizing too broadly, giving the surviving evidence undue weight orusing arguments from silence for the purposes of a coherent and completepicture.Again, cautious inferences on the basis of the available sourcescan be a way forward in such areas.The overview of Roman drama and theatre presented in this book limitsitself to the Republican period, covering the time from the rst beginningsof theatrical performances in Rome to the deaths of Caesar and Ciceroand the emergence of the Principate. Obviously, Roman drama continuedinto the imperial period in various forms, but the conditions inuencingproduction and reception of dramatic scripts changed so signicantly thatanother exposition of the political and social context would be required inorder to outline the characteristics of Roman imperial drama, its positionwithin the contemporary environment, and the similarities and differencesin relation to Republican drama.,This would go beyond the intentionand scope of this work, which is interested in evolution, development andinteractions of the various dramatic genres in the Republican period. Also,the presentation focuses on the city of Rome as the place most importantfor literary drama in Latin and includes Magna Graecia where relevant. Ahistory of theatre in the Roman Empire as a whole would require a separatevolume with a slightly different approach.oAs regards terminology, the poets and the period under discussion arecalled Republican in preference to archaic; for Republican can be under-stood as a neutral, chronological term, whereas archaic implies an evalu-ation from the perspective of later writers or literary historians, whichdoes not apply to the time of the poets, since their writings were new atthe time.;Correspondingly, ancient authors commenting on Republican:See Dupont :,,: ,::. ,See also Farrell :cc,: :; (on Roman epic).See W. Slater :cc: :.,On aspects of theatre in the imperial period see Bartsch :,,; Beacham :,,,; Heldmann :ccc;Duncan :cco: :::;.oYet an attempt is made to overcome the criticism of Rawson ([:,,] :,,:: o,) that our view ofRoman theatrical history itself is still far too Romanocentric.;See Hinds :,,: ,,o; Goldberg :cc;a.Introduction ::drama after its main productive period, such as Cicero, Horace, Quintilianor Gellius, are denoted by descriptions like later writers (where no furtherdistinction is necessary), which is meant to give a fairly objective, relativeindication of their dates. The terms nation and national are avoided asfar as possible due to their anachronistic implications;if they are used forwant of a better word, they are not meant to imply a nationalistic perspec-tive or to convey a simplied idea of the complex situation in RepublicanRome, but are intended to indicate an emerging literature written in theRomans own language and dealing with notions important to them.For objections to the use of these terms see R upke :cc:: oc: with n. ,o; for counter-argumentssee A. Barchiesi :cc:.part iCultural and institutional backgroundchapter 1Evolution of Roman drama1.1 cultural contactsWhen Greek-style drama emerged in Rome in the mid-third century bce,Romans had been in contact with peoples in Italy and elsewhere in theMediterranean for several centuries, and they had got to knowtheir politicalorganizations, their ways of life and various aspects of their cultures (e.g.literature, art, sciences).:This situation resulted in exchanges, testied toby commercial activities (e.g. Greek vases in Italy) and the adaptation ofcustoms (such as religious cults or the alphabet). The peoples Romans gotin touch with included Carthaginians, Etruscans and Oscans, while theencounter with the Greek civilization (in Greece and the Greek colonies)proved to be particularly important for Romes cultural development.:Greeks had been present in Italy since the colonization of the coastalareas in the south of the country and of the neighbouring islands (MagnaGraecia) during the eighth to sixth centuries bce; Romans had dealt withthose Greeks in political and commercial contexts. Greek artefacts found inItaly and Sicily demonstrate the spread of Greek culture and, specically, ofGreek myths:,imported Greek vases from the sixth century bce onwards aswell as locally made vases (esp. in Apulia, Lucania, Campania) particularlyfrom the beginning of the fourth century bce onwards depict well-knownGreek heroes and heroines, while south-Italian vase-paintings include:For the historical developments from the beginnings of Rome until the late Republican period,discussions of recent trends in historical research and bibliography see e.g. CAH2vii.:ix; Crawford:,,,; Cornell :,,,. For other overviews of issues characterizing the Roman Republic see Flower :cc;Rosenstein and Morstein-Marx :cco; for an attempt at a more differentiated portrait of the RomanRepublic see Flower :c:c.:For discussions of Roman contacts with the Greek world and the consequences, from differentperspectives, see Rawson, CAH2viii: ::;o; Wallace-Hadrill :,; Gruen :,,c, :,,:; MacMullen:,,:; Horsfall :,,,; Dench :,,,; Vogt-Spira :,,o.,On the Romans early familiarity with Greek myths and the creation of their own stories see Wiseman:cc; on the literary culture of Magna Graecia see La Penna :,;,.:,:o Evolution of Roman dramapictures that illustrate myths rarely or never found on artefacts elsewhere.After Athens had founded the Hellenic colony of Thurii in Italy in/, bce (and Tarentum had launched the Hellenic city of Heracleia in,,/: bce), cultural links between Athens and the Italian mainland becameeven closer. In the fth century bce Athenian playwrights such as Aeschylushad already come to Sicily and staged dramatic productions there.By the completion of the wars against Pyrrhus in :;: bce, most townsin Magna Graecia were under Roman control. An obvious sign of Romesexpansion towards southern Italy and of her interest in this territory wasthe construction of the Via Appia; its rst section, leading from Rometo Capua, was opened in ,:: bce; during the third century the roadwas extended to Tarentum and Brundisium. The First Punic War (:o:: bce), a large part of which was fought in Sicily, was another signicantstage in gaining experience of areas with Greek culture for a sizeable partof the Roman populace.From the late third century bce contacts between Greeks and Romansshifted in new directions and intensied.,This was due, rstly, to theemergence of the Hellenistic world, which changed Hellenic cultureby making it less exclusively Greek and spreading it over large areas,and, secondly, to political developments, particularly Romes conquestof large areas of the Mediterranean. In this initial period of intensiedcontacts with Greece, elements of Greek culture seem to have simplybeen accepted in Rome without this being a big issue, either becausethere was no major awareness of the fact that foreign practices wereadopted or because this showed participation in the prestigious Greekculture,osince the Romans apparently wished to assert their position in theMediterranean.;At this point in time the culture might not have been rec-ognized as Greek or Hellenistic, but may just have appeared as the superiorcivilization.The process of acculturation was based on a specic relationship betweenthe giving Greeks and the receiving Romans, which one could regard asone-sided borrowing. However, the encounter betweenGreeks and Romansis more adequately described as an interactive, dynamic process within aSee e.g. Trendall :,,: ::. Works of art were produced by highly sophisticated artists and display ahighly literate Greekness, while some distinctive Italic and non-Greek elements, such as style ofclothing, were added (see Taplin :cc;: :::; also Trendall :,,: :o; on representation of Olympicgames according to Etruscan conventions see Falchetti and Romualdi :cc:: :c;).,For a brief overview of literature and culture in the period of the conquests see Conte :,,: ;:; forevidence and bibliography on the events that inuenced literature and culture in the early Republicanperiod see the relevant entries in Suerbaum :cc:.oSee e.g. Dench :,,,: o::. ;See Wallace-Hadrill :,.1.1 Cultural contacts :;contact zone.That the effects of this co-presence and mutual contactare more noticeable in Roman culture is probably the result of what eachside had to offer, along with a remarkable openness and exibility onthe part of the Romans, who were said to be ready to adopt and imi-tate what suited them and they considered useful (cf. Polyb. o.:,.::; alsoCic. Tusc. :.:o; .:;; Sall. Cat. ,:.,;), and their consequent ability inactive appropriation and reuse.,While processes of cultural adaptation arewidespread consequences of contacts between different peoples, the factthat the Romans were confronted with a highly sophisticated and literateculture, at a time when they were about to become an imperial power, butdid not yet have comparable cultural traditions of their own, turned theprocess of Rome adapting elements of Greek culture into a special one.:cTherefore it is perhaps not a coincidence that Greek cultural achievementsbecame a starting point for the Romans to develop their own literature,arts and sciences (in combination with native inuences); the Romans werethus the rst people in Europe to shape their own culture on the basis ofanother, fully developed European culture.The end of the Third Macedonian War (:;::o bce) brought a newood of Greek works of art and literature as well as educated Greeks toRome. An inuential event was the visit to Rome of Crates of Malles(Pergamene critic, grammarian and Stoic philosopher) in :o bce. He wasone of the teachers of the Stoic philosopher Panaetius of Rhodes (c. :,:c, bce), who spent extended periods of time in Rome and was associatedwith P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus minor (c. :,::, bce) and his friends.The same group included the Greek historian Polybius (c. :cc::c bce),who had come to Rome as one of :,ccc Achaean hostages in :o; bceand became attached to Scipio. Another groundbreaking event was anAthenian delegation of three philosophers to Rome in :,, bce, consistingof the sceptical Academic Carneades, the Stoic Diogenes of Babylon andthe Peripatetic Critolaus.The appropriation of the Greek world thus developed on several levelsand triggered an intensied interest in different cultural models amongeducated Romans.::This cultural transformation led to Romes emer-gence as the new intellectual centre of the Mediterranean, coinciding withpolitical and economic movements.::For this period, which is the mostSee Feeney :,,: e.g. o; (referring to myth and using terms borrowed from Pratt :,,:: o;); alsoRossi and Breed :cco: :c; contrast Vogt-Spira :,,o: ::::.,See Gratwick :,:a: ;,; Suerbaum :cc:: ;. :cSee also Batstone :cco: ,,.::For instance, from the second century bce onwards the appropriation of Greek architectural orna-mentation increased signicantly (see von Hesberg :cc,: ,).::See Wallace-Hadrill :,: ::,.: Evolution of Roman dramadynamic in cultural adaptation, it is certain that an awareness of a differ-ence between the Greek way of life and the Roman way of life increasedor was constructed.:,By the rst century bce Roman intellectuals beganto measure Roman cultural achievements against those of the Greeks andto reect on their own traditions.The importance of this process for Roman self-understanding is demon-strated by the notorious conict between phil-Hellenic Romans and tra-ditional anti-Hellenic Romans in the mid-Republic. Although this is toosimplistic a contrast, the relationship of Romans to Greek culture wasfrequently ambiguous: they admired it as superior and adopted its crite-ria, while they remained sceptical of some aspects; hence they adapted itselectively according to their own purposes.Roman literary drama was at the heart of these developments: the rstplaywrights in Rome were Greeks or half-Greeks (cf. Suet. Gram. :.:)and came from regions in the Mediterranean under Greek inuence; theemergence of Roman drama in the mid-third century bce occurred in themiddle of a major Hellenizing phase;:this public literary genre reectedthe ongoing political and intellectual movements within Rome in the topicschosen as well as in the portrayal of characters; it introduced a signicantnumber of Romans to Greek myths along with theological, philosophicaland literary doctrines; it both presupposed and expanded acquaintancewith Greek language and customs, which suggests that this foreign culturewas being assimilated.:,At the same time there was an inux of native traditions. In Italy the mainpoints of inuential contact were the Etruscan and Oscan civilizations,which not only functioned as indirect intermediaries for Greek culture,but also offered their own customs and dramatic traditions (see ch. :.,,:.). Thus the cultural mix in southern Italy was a signicant factor forthe eventual shaping of Roman literary drama. The impact of this culturalenvironment is most famously attested for Ennius, who, according toGellius, claimed to have three hearts, and, as Gellius explains, that meansthat he knew Greek, Oscan and Latin (Gell. NA :;.:;.:).:o:,See Dench :,,,: ,c; also Farrell :cc,: :o.:See Feeney :,,: ,: (on Roman literature); Sciarrino :cco: esp. ,: (on Roman epic); on the impactof the various phases of Romes interaction with the Hellenistic world see Flower :c:c: esp. :;.:,Beachams view (:,,:: ;) that Romans of the period would have been unable to appreciate morerened dramatic performances as they were current in other parts of Italy seems unfounded in viewof the immediate popularity of literary drama in Rome.:oSince Ennius was a native of Rudiae, a Messapic foundation in Calabria, it is puzzling that he shouldbe described as a speaker of Oscan rather than of Messapic (on this problem see Adams :cc,: ::o:;,1.1 Cultural contacts :,Such a cultural mix can indeed be observed on the linguistic level inliterary Roman drama: poets may allude to the original meaning of Greeknames (e.g. Varro, Ling. ;.:; Enn. Trag. :c:c R.,= :,o W.) orjuxtapose equivalent Greek and Latin terms (e.g. Pac. Trag. , R.,= ::c:: W.; Afr. Tog. :,, R.,). Later ancient grammarians have identiedwords of Oscan origin in Pacuvius (Pac. Trag. o; ::, R.,= ,,; :: W.),and a Roman comedy by Titinius mentions people who speak Oscan andVolscian, but no Latin (Tit. Tog. :c R.,), while characters from ruraltowns south of Rome feature in other plays, as suggested by their titles(Psaltria sive Ferentinatis, Setina, Veliterna). A large number of Republicandramatists seem to have moved to Rome via southern Italy, where Oscanwas the dominant and most widespread local language, representing themost advanced culture in the area.While these cultural experiences will have inuenced Romes rst play-wrights, there are hardly any traces of their local languages in the remainingtexts,:;even though Latin still had to be turned into a literary languagewhen Roman drama came into being. Nor did the Romans adopt Greekliterary traditions, like other peoples in the Mediterranean, by taking overthe Greek language for their own literature.:Instead, when plays for pub-lic performance in Rome were rst introduced, Latin was chosen, beingthe dominant local language.:,The Romans own language was therebydeveloped into a literary idiom against the Greek background;:cthus anational literature in Latin was established as a counterpart to the Greekone.::This process is a major reason for Latin becoming a literary languageand for the creation of a Roman literary tradition, which enabled Romansto accept the rst playwrights as their poets; the multicultural start ofwith references to various attempts at explanation). Ennius might have known Messapic as well asOscan, while Oscan was the more important language.:;There are no signicant traces of the poets background either, unless one assumes that their choiceof topics was conditioned by their south-Italian origin (so Erskine :,,).:The Greek language and the format of Greek tragedy were used for a dramatic treatment of thebiblical story of Exodus, written by a Hellenized Jew between the third and rst centuries bce(Ezechiel, Exagoge [TrGF ::; vol. i, pp. :,c:]; for an English translation and commentary seeJacobson :,,; for a French translation and commentary see Lanfranchi :cco; for discussion seealso Manuwald :cc:a: :,).:,Early Roman historiography, which was developed by Roman senators at about the same time,initially used the Greek language, one reason presumably being the intention of promoting theRomans view of their history among non-Romans.:cOn the role of Latin more generally see Adams :cc,: ;,,.::See e.g. Schiesaro :cc,: :;:. Although Hunter (:,,: ::,) assumes that the Romans adoptedGreek drama to ensure their status in the civilized world, he explains performances in Latin by theintention of the ruling classes to ensure that ordinary people could understand them (see also Gilula:,,a: :cc) and to limit the impact of foreign inuence. However, a foreign element remained evenafter translation due to dramatic characters and plots, but this had been integrated into a Romanframework, both by the organizational structure of performances and by the poets adaptations.:c Evolution of Roman dramaRoman literature also prepared the way for its continuation by writersfrom different backgrounds.1.2 impact of greek dramaAlthough Roman contact with the cultures of other peoples included expo-sure to different theatrical traditions, the most dominant inuences camefrom the Greeks (particularly via Greek colonies in Magna Graecia) aswell as from Oscans and Etruscans, who also functioned as indirect trans-mitters of Greek culture. Owing to the confrontation with sophisticatedtheatre, the major genres of Roman drama (like other literary genres inRome) did not undergo a gradual and independent development fromsmall beginnings to more rened forms, but a pre-literary and shadowyphase was immediately followed by a relatively advanced literary stage,which consisted in Roman versions of fully developed models adapted fromelsewhere.When the Romans started to engage with it, Athenian drama had alreadyspread throughout the Greek world and shown its cosmopolitan appeal (onthe generality of tragedy cf. also Arist. Poet. ,: :,:a,ob:c).::For Atheniandrama, especially tragedy and New Comedy, could be taken over by othercommunities, since, besides being geared towards Athenian audiences, ithad a potential for universality and adaptability as it dealt with generalissues of human behaviour and society.:,Re-performances of classical Athenian drama elsewhere in the Greekworld will have involved modications; this is indicated even for Athensitself by Lycurgus efforts to establish an authorized version in the middleof the fourth century bce by having an ofcial copy of the texts of thethree tragic poets made (cf. [Plut.] x orat. :f). Since re-performances ofclassical Greek drama in the Hellenistic period will have been adapted tocontemporary taste, the Greek drama Romans got to know in Hellenizedsouthern Italy might have differed from the classical Athenian version.:That alterations were being made may have paved the way for furtheradaptation.By transposing Greek plays into Latin, Roman poets introduced theart of literary translation as an artistic process to Europe, i.e. translationnot in the sense of word-for-word literal rendering, but of transferring thegeneral meaning and structure of scenes or plays to a different context: they::See Xanthakis-Karamanos :,c: ,o. :,See La Penna (:,;;) :,;,: ,o;; Taplin :cc;: o;.:See also Taplin :cc;: :.1.2 Impact of Greek drama ::arranged the texts for Roman society with its own traditions and ways oflife; thereby they created autonomous works based on models in anotherlanguage by means of a cultural transfer.:,In other words, Romes evolvingliterature was started by the decision to adopt literary works from anotherEuropean culture.:oAccordingly, the rst Roman poets were confrontedwith a wide variety of models; their choices of what to adapt from a rangeof options and how to reuse this material constitute their rst independentartistic decisions.For these choices to be made, Roman poets must have been familiarwith Greek drama. Greek theatre, including performances of contempo-rary Hellenistic plays and revivals of classical plays, ourished around theGreek colonies in southern Italy and Sicily, as the remains of theatre build-ings and vase-paintings found in southern Italy, dating from the fourth andthird centuries onwards, demonstrate.:;Performances were maintained byGreek companies of the Artists of Dionysus, i.e. guilds of actors and sup-porting staff that had become established since the third century bce.:Additionally, by Hellenistic times written versions of classical and contem-porary Greek plays must have existed; and as most Republican dramatists:,The notion that Roman literature (like subsequent ones) was derived from Greek literature andwas thus the rst secondary literature goes back to Leo (:,:,: ,, ,,; see A. Barchiesi :cc:) andhas frequently been repeated in various forms and with several modications, the Romans havingoften been called the rst literary translators (see e.g. Duckworth :,,:: ,; Gentili :,;,: ,:c,;Gratwick :,:a: c; Fantham :,,c: ::c; Gilula :,,a: :cc; Conte :,,: c; Mayer :,,,: ,cc;Vogt-Spira :,,o: ::; Feeney :,,: oo;; Franko :cc:: :,:; Suerbaum :cc:: o, :;, ,;). However,the Romans did not adopt another national literature within Europe unchanged, but adapted itcreatively for a new context (see Feeney :,,: ,,; A. Barchiesi :cc:).:oSchiesaro (:cc,: :o,) remarks that this is not necessarily an obvious way to create a new genre.:;On Greek theatres in southern Italy and Sicily see e.g. Sear :cco: ,; on the availability of Greektheatrical performances in southern Italy see e.g. Gentili :,;,: :o,:.:For the late Republic, ludi Graeci (also (ludi) Graeci thymelici and Graeci astici) and ludi Osci arementioned for Rome itself as well as performances of omnium linguarum histriones; for the earlyimperial period a Roman and a Greek theatre are attested in Rome (cf. CIL vi ,:,:, = ILS ,c,c;Cic. Fam. ;.:.,; Att. :o.,.:; Suet. Iul. ,,.:; Aug. ,.:; Tib. o.; Cal. :c; Nic. Dam., FGrH ,c f::;.,.:,; Plut. Mar. :.:; Strabo ,.,.o [c :,,]). Yet it is not entirely clear what these terms exactly referto and how common entertainments of this type were. While omnium linguarum histriones (spreadthroughout the city) most probably denotes the presence of (troupes of ) actors from differentcultural backgrounds, who would be able to perform in a variety of languages, ludi Graeci mightnot refer to dramatic performances in Greek, but rather to athletic contests, as Ciceros commentssuggest. Of the special types of (ludi) Graeci astici and (ludi) Graeci thymelici, (ludi) Graeci astici islikely to refer to dramatic performances, being named after the games for Dionysus in the city ofAthens (cf. the term for City Dionysia at Thuc. ,.:c.:: ts . . . Aicvuoicv :cv o:iscv), and (ludi)Graeci thymelici to musical performances, being named after the Greek word for artists performingin the orchestra (cf. Vitr. ,.;.:). ludi Osci probably denotes Atellana performances in Oscan dialect(see also ch. ,.,; for some [differing] views on this issue see Mommsen :,: o:, n.; Wissowa :,:::o,; Shackleton Bailey on Cic. Att. :o.,.:, on Cic. Fam. ;.:.,; Rawson [:,,] :,,:: ;,; Beaujeu:,; Manuwald :cc:a: :co n. ::,; other commentaries ad loc.).:: Evolution of Roman dramawere scholar poets in Hellenistic fashion, they will have been able to ndand study texts of the classical exemplars.Although for some Roman plays in Greek style no known Greek prece-dent can be found, most of those for which Greek models can be identiedare based on a limited canon of writers already established in Greece.Roman tragedies seem to have followed classical fth-century models witha preference for Euripides, whereas Roman comedies relied almost exclu-sively on Hellenistic models, particularly Menander. These Greek poetsand their works would have been theatre classics of earlier generations bythe time of the rst Roman dramatists.:,There are likely to be multiplereasons for the fact that the Romans seem to have broadly accepted theGreek canon, and these cannot be determined with certainty: since Romanwriters had a Greek background, they might have followed Greek valuejudgements; they may have selected pieces with a proven success record;or these plays were most readily available, and the Romans too regardedthem as masterpieces.,cRoman tragedies composed on the basis of less well-known myths maybe regarded either as following post-classical, post-Euripidean or lateHellenistic models (which have not survived) or as independent Romancreations developed from mythical narratives on the structural model ofGreek plays. Both methods might have been in use, while observations oncanon formation and on the originality and creativity of Roman dramatistsfavour the second alternative (see ch. ,.:, ,.:). At any rate there is norm basis for the assumption of a signicant role of non-classical models;contemporary Greek Hellenistic theatre presumably had more inuenceon performance style than on the repertoire.1.3 etruscan traditionsBesides indirectly transmitting elements of Greek culture they had adopted,the Etruscans offered their own cultural traditions to the Romans. As the:,By assuming that the Romans had adopted the dramatic genre of Rhinthonica (see ch. :.) priorto Greek-style comedy and tragedy, P. L. Schmidt (:,,: :,:,) posited that the adaptation ofHellenistic forms preceded those of classical models. Yet the basis for this theory is questionable;Romans must have been exposed to Hellenistic and classical Greek drama (albeit in contemporarystyle) at about the same time.,cMayer (:,,,) puts forward the theory that Romans felt not qualied to assess Greek literature inde-pendently, not wishing to disagree with Greek judgements and not being able to make judgementsin this emerging phase of their literature. At any rate Romans chose particular plays from the canonand adapted those to a Roman context, while Mayer (:,,,: ,cc) thinks that the foreign model wasin no way reassessed to take account of local taste and interests.1.3 Etruscan traditions :,written sources left by Etruscans are meagre, details have to be inferredfrom archaeological nds and comments by non-Etruscan writers, whooften are not eyewitnesses to the events or practices described.,:Whilemodern scholars used to neglect the Etruscan contribution, focusing onthe Greek inuence, they are now realizing that the impact of Etruscanculture on Roman drama is signicant, although details remain hard toestablish.,:As regards narratives current in Etruria, Etruscans had been exposed toGreek cultural inuences since the foundation of Greek colonies on theItalian mainland and the establishment of mercantile contacts. Archaeo-logical evidence conrms that Etruscans were familiar with heroes of Greekmyths from the eighth century bce onwards, and that they chose to depictparticular myths or sections of myths that could be seen to have a generalapplicability and also endowed them with special nuances to make themrelevant to their own lives.,,While it is doubtful whether representationsof particular myths were inuenced by dramatic performances, it is note-worthy that Etruscan depictions of Greek myths preferred subjects andways of expression that were also common in the dramatic art.,Additionally, Etruscans seem to have depicted important events fromtheir own history on works of art.,,Paintings in the Tomba Francois atVulci (c. ,,c,:c bce) show a combination of scenes from Greek myth withrepresentations of the Etruscan individual who had the tomb built as well asghting between representative warriors of several Etruscan cities.,oThesescenes include the characters of Caelius Vivenna and Mastarna. Accordingto an Etruscan tradition mentioned in a speech by the emperor Claudius,Mastarna, the most loyal friend of Caelius Vivenna, is said to have movedto Rome after the latters death, occupied the Caelian hill (which he namedafter his companion) and later become a Roman king under the name ofServius Tullius (cf. CIL xiii :oo.:.:o:).The interpretation of these tomb paintings, and their connection withRoman history in particular, is difcult, but it is likely that they includeincidents from Etruscan history. Such a pictorial representation thereforeindicates that there was a historical tradition among the Etruscans, whichmight have been represented in other media as well. In Rome the artisticrepresentation of historical events was to become characteristic of visual,:On the sources see e.g. Harris :,;:: ,:.,:On Etruscan inuence on Rome and Roman drama see Szil agyi :,:; Thuillier :,,:.,,See Bonfante and Swaddling :cco: esp. ,, o,; also Lowenstam :cc.,See Steuernagel :,,: esp. ::,. ,,See Wiseman :,,: ;; Steuernagel :,,: ::.,oOn the paintings in the Tomba Francois see Moretti Sgubini :cc.: Evolution of Roman dramaarts and literature (especially drama and epic). The combination of Greekmyth, symbolizing current problems, and local heroes as found in Etruriamirrors the set-up of serious drama at Rome, consisting of tragedies andpraetextae.In the area of performance practices, Etruscan paintings indicate thatthe Etruscans had a developed festival culture from the sixth century bceonwards, including solemn processions, sports contests, gladiatorial com-bats, games in the circus, the play of phersu, cult dances accompaniedby a player on a wind instrument, the gure of Manducus, mime-likeperformances,;and mimetic dances by masked players.,Archaeologicalevidence points to the conclusion that there were dramatic performancesin Etruria prior to the Hellenistic period, differing from Greek-style per-formances; they have been described as pre-dramatic, consisting of music,dance (e.g. of satyrs) and simple drama, featuring a carmen and maskedprotagonists.,,Etruscan spectacles were apparently connected with political and reli-gious life.cFrequently they were held as funeral games of importantindividuals. A notice in Livy says that it was unlawful to interrupt the ritesof the ludi in Etruria, but that a king once did so for personal reasonsand removed the artists (most of whom were his slaves) in the middle ofthe performance (Liv. ,.:.,,); this presupposes an institutionalized festivalculture, with the performers being of low social status. The Roman ritualprocession to the performance site (pompa circensis), which opened eachfestival and brought gods and participants in the games to the centre ofaction (cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. :.;:.,; ;.;:.:,.:; see ch. :.,), is said toderive ultimately from the Etruscans (cf. also App. B Pun. ,.oo), though itlater developed to incorporate Greek customs.:Since Livy reports that Roman magistrates called in Etruscan dancersin ,o bce as a means to combat a pestilence (Liv. ;.:.,), it seems thataccording to a standard Roman view the Etruscans of this period had avibrant culture of performance in contrast to the Romans, to whom suchspectacles were unknown. Although Livy does not give an objective reportabout the emergence of scenic performances in Rome, the core facts neednot be doubted (see ch. :.,). Additionally, linguistic evidence shows thatEtruscan inuence contributed to shaping the Roman theatre (cf. also Liv.;.:.o) because essential theatre words in Latin such as histrio, ludius, persona,;On this aspect see Maxwell :,,o. It is, however, questionable whether Etruscan inuence on Romandrama can mainly be referred to the development of mime.,On this aspect see Jannot :,,,. ,,See Jolivet :,,,; also Szil agyi :,:; Wiseman :,,: ;.cSee Paratore :,,;/:cc,: :,; Jolivet :,,,: ,;,. :See Jannot :,,,.1.3 Etruscan traditions :,and scaena (attested from Plautus onwards) are likely to have been adoptedinto Latin from Etruscan.:Livy makes it clear for the Etruscan performances initially taken overby the Romans that there was no direct connection of the dances with anarrated story or a narrative song (Liv. ;.:.). Indeed, even though Varromentions a certain Volnius, who wrote tragoediae Tuscae (Varro, Ling. ,.,,),it is uncertain whether the Etruscans originally had scenic performances ofproper plays or narrative poetry.,The terms for dramatic genres at any rateare Latin or modied from Greek ones (e.g. fabula, comoedia, tragoedia),while the Etruscan words concern practicalities of staging applicable to allkinds of dramatic performances.Moreover, the Etruscans must have adopted Greek theatrical cultureprior to the Romans.Since the Hellenistic period representations ofdramatic scenes on artefacts were inuenced by Greek dramatic versionsand their topics.,The high frequency not only of mythical scenes, but alsoof what seemto be actual theatre set-ups, combined witha tendency to showactions on stage that were narrated in Greek drama, allows the conclusionthat there was a distinctive theatre culture in Etruria.oTherefore, theRomans are likely to have experienced another adaptation of Greek theatrein Italy before they started to experiment with their own version.Still, Etruscan inuence on specic features of early Roman dramaremains hard to identify. It seems to have had an effect on the institutionas such and the organization of festivals, as it provided a paradigm. Inview of Etruscan musical and theatrical inuences, such as Etruscan actorsmentionedby Livy or Etruscanwords inthe Latinvocabulary suchas histrio,Etruscan traditions are likely to have contributed to the characteristicallystrong element of music, theatricality and spectacle in Roman plays.:Szemer enyi (:,;,: ,cc:,) argued that these terms originated in Greek and entered Latin via Etruscan(accepted by Bernstein :,,: ::o). Breyer (:,,,: :o,;:, ,:) has defended the traditional viewof the Etruscan origin of those terms against Szemer enyis theories, especially those for ludius andhistrio (see Bonfante and Bonfante :,,: :,, oc).,On the extent of Etruscan literature see Harris :,;:: ,::. References in Livy (,.,o.,) to an earl-ier custom of having children educated in Etruscae litterae (as opposed to Graecae litterae inlater periods) most probably refer to Etruscan disciplina (cf. Cic. Div. :.,:; see Harris :,;:: ,).Since Volnius is mentioned nowhere else, it is uncertain whether this remark might refer to genuineEtruscan tragedies at an early stage or rather to a later period when Etruscans or Romans wrotetragedies with Etruscan elements or characteristics. Hence this single reference does not providesufcient evidence for identifying tragoediae Tuscae or Etruscan tragedies as a distinctive dramaticgenre.On the evidence for comedy see Jolivet :,,.,See (on various aspects) Piganiol :,:,: ,:,; Jolivet :,,,; van der Meer :,,,.oSee Thuillier :,,:; Wiseman :,,: ;.:o Evolution of Roman dramaFor instance, the use of pipes to accompany dramatic performancesseems to have reached Rome via Etruria; this applies to both the Etruscansown traditions and features adopted fromelsewhere. The latter may includeCarthaginian elements if this can be inferred from the term tibiae Sarranae(Sarranian pipes; cf. Serv. on Verg. Aen. ,.o:,[o:]), named after thePhoenician town of Tyre, also called Sarra.;It is uncertain to what aspectsof the instrument this name refers; i.e. it might derive from the type ofwood and its origin or from the fact that this instrument was commonlyfound in this area, though not necessarily in connection with the theatre. AsRomans dealt with Carthaginians not only in well-known wars, but also inpeace, there must have been lively trade links, shown by various treaties.The Romans adopted aspects of the Carthaginian pantheon as well asCarthaginian goods, and they must have acquired a sufcient knowledgeof Carthaginian customs to understand and enjoy performances of PlautusPoenulus with its Punic elements. The only item, however, that might pointto a specic connection in the area of theatre is the term tibiae Sarranae.1.4 dramatic forms in italy and early romeBesides Attic Greek and Etruscan theatrical customs, there were variousother performance traditions throughout Italy prior to the emergence ofliterary drama in Latin. Beyond the cultural and linguistic mixture insouthern Italy (including Greek, Latin and local elements), the dramatictraditions of this region in particular, consisting of a wide range of simplecomic forms with shared features, had an impact on drama in Rome.,Asdetails about the chronological relationship and mutual interdependenceof these dramatic forms remain uncertain, clear generic distinctions anddescriptions are often difcult.,cSome of the comic types originally camefrom Greece, but developed into specic varieties in southern Italy orourished in this region.The most obvious evidence for theatrical activity in fourth-centurysouthern Italy is that of vase-paintings, especially the extensive series of so-called phlyax vases (named thus by H. Heydemann in :o). These vases,most of them dating from c. ,c,c bce, have been found in Sicily andsouthern Italy, particularly in Apulia. They depict a wide range of scenes,;Cf. Gell. NA :.o; Prob. on Verg. Georg. :.,co, quoting Enn. Ann. ;: Sk. = :,o W.On Romes contacts with Carthage see Palmer :,,;.,On theatrical life in Italy throughout the Republican period see Rawson (:,,) :,,:.,cFor overviews (albeit some of them dated or rather brief ) see Dieterich :,;; Nicoll :,,:; Bieber:,o:: ::,o; Gigante :,o;/; Benz :,,,; N. J. Lowe :cc: ,,.1.4 Dramatic forms in Italy and early Rome :;characters and masks related to dramatic performances.,:The applicationof the term phlyax to this type of vases and their vase-paintings was basedon an assumed connection with the later literary pieces of Rhinthon, whowas regarded as a writer of a form of phlyakes, a specic type of light drama(cf. Rhinthon, T :: K.-A.).Accordingly, these vases were seen as evidence for the existence of popularfarce in southern Italy. Yet new research has revealed that they should ratherbe interpreted as fourth-century representations of Attic (Middle or Old)Comedy, particularly since inscriptions on them (naming the characters orsometimes even possibly quoting from plays) are in Attic (and not in thelocal Doric) dialect, masks and costumes resemble those used in Athensand some depictions can be identied as representations of scenes in extantGreek comedies.,:Moreover, vases showing comic scenes or masks seemto have been manufactured primarily in Tarentum, where a particularTarentine style was developed. Hence there must have been a particularinterest in theatre in Tarentum (which was already proverbial in antiquity),but not elsewhere, which tells against a widespread presence and popularityof local rural comedy.Although these results mean that a large body of evidence for indigenouscomic performances in Italy disappears, the vases still testify to the popu-larity of theatre and performance practices in southern Italy. They mightalso be indicative of an attitude to the theatre different from that in classi-cal Athens, where vase-paintings tend not to represent particular theatricalperformances. In southern Italy, however, dramatic productions had beenadopted as an established art and had not been developed as elements ofcivic and political life as they had been in Athens; dramatic performancesrather had the status of enjoyable entertainment, which could also functionas decoration of pottery.,,After the re-interpretation of the phlyax vases, they can no longerprovide evidence for phlyakes, forerunners of the literary fabula Rhintho-nica. Still, such a form of rustic comedy, featuring burlesques, travestiesof myths, parodies of tragedies (with gods in various undignied situa-tions) and everyday (comic) scenes, did exist, probably brought to Italyby Doric settlers and sharing features with Greek Middle Comedy.,This,:See Trendall :,o;, :,,:.,:See esp. J. R. Green :,,:; Taplin :,,,; approved by e.g. P ohlmann :,,;: ,o; Beacham :cc;: ::,.,,On the differences in the representation of theatrical scenes see Taplin :,,;; also S echan :,:o:,,:.,See also Wiseman :ccc: :,. Athenaeus reports that the word phlyakes was the term used in Italyfor a type of comic performances that were also common elsewhere under different names (Athen.: Evolution of Roman dramatype of drama was made literary by Rhinthon, who came from Syracuseand was active in Tarentum around ,cc bce; his plays were a kind of par-ody of tragedy, called tragikoi phlyakes, hilarotragoediae or (later) fabulaeRhinthonicae (cf. Rhinthon, T :,; , K.-A.).,,Late-antique scholars denedfabulae Rhinthonicae as a form of comic and/or Latin drama.,oThe latterdescription is probably based on the observation that this type of dramawas practised in Italy; but there is no clear evidence for the presence offabula Rhinthonica in Rome.,;Even without a connection to this type of drama and its forerunners, thephlyax vases continue to provide evidence for the theatrical style of theperiod: either they point to itinerant players taking their simple stages andproperties around with them, or they indicate a common fourth-centuryculture of mimetic representation that presumably extended beyond theGreek cities of southern Italy into Latium and Etruria.,Since other south-Italian vase-paintings represent the essential elements of specic Greekmyths as well as impressions of dramatic performances, the widespreadknowledge and popularity of Greek tragedy are also proved.,,Local DoricGreek comedy in Italy was rst given literary form in the fth century bceby Epicharmus (cf. Epicharmus, T :; : K.-A.); he seems to have writtenmainly mythical pieces.ocAnother type of entertaining performance, mime, was introduced toItaly via Greeks in the south and in Sicily: mimes had existed in Greecesince the archaic period and covered a wide variety of performances, largelybased on improvisation and the virtuosity of performers. Greek mimes useda simple Doric language; they included song, dance, imitations of every-day scenes and pantomimic representations of mythological scenes (cf. e.g.Xen. Symp. ,.:;); the topics tended to be erotic, burlesque or fanciful; theaction was often set in the mundane environment of average families andtradesmen. Mime was made literary by the Sicilian Sophron in the fthDeipn. :.o::ef ). For a discussion of acting styles and stage conventions in phlyakes inferred fromvase-paintings (understood as representations of these performances) see Neiiendam :,,:: :,o:.,,On Rhinthon and his dramatic form see Gigante :,;:.,oCf. Donat. Com. o.:; on Ter. Ad. ;; Euanth. Com. .:; Lyd. Mag. :.c; [Caes. Bass.], Gramm. Lat.o, p. ,::.;, (= Rhinthon, T , K.-A.).,;P. L. Schmidt (:,,: esp. :::,) suggested that the dramatic satura mentioned in Livy (cf. Liv. ;.:.;;see ch. :.,) should be identied with Rhinthonica (contra Bernstein :,,: ::). H ottemann (:,,,:esp. ,o) regards Rhinthonica as a subgenre of Atellana, namely mythical Atellana. Neither theorycan be proved.,See Trendall :,,:: :o, and Wiseman :ccc: :,; resp. ,,See Trendall :,,:: :o,c.ocOnDoric farce, Epicharmus and the relationshipto Greek Old Comedy see Kerkhof :cc:. Fragmentsof Epicharmus in PCG, vol. : K.-A. A possible inuence on later Roman comedy may be indicatedby Horaces remark that links Plautus with Epicharmus (Hor. Epi