Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:42:18.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Satyrs in Rome? The Background to Horace's Ars Poetica*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

T. P. Wiseman
T. P. Wiseman
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the central point of Horace's epistle to the Pisones (ll. 220–50 out of 476) is a lengthy passage on the history and composition of satyr-plays. At the central point within that passage (ll. 234–5), with emphatic use of the vocative and the first-person pronoun, Horace presents himself and his addressees as actively involved in writing satyr-plays:

non ego inornata et dominantia nomina solum

verbaque, Pisones, satyrorum scriptor amabo.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 78 , November 1988 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
Copyright ©T. P. Wiseman 1988. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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 Williams, G., Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (1968), 354Google Scholar; Brink, 273–4, cf. 286 and 496 on the vocative at 1. 235.

2 Horace on Poetry I: Prolegomena to the Literary Epistles (1963), 228. In 1971 Brink criticized his own suggestion as going beyond the evidence, but still wondered whether ‘the withdrawal of much tragic production into the reciter's hall’ might be relevant to the problem (Brink, 275, 276).

3 Stage: 11. 125, 179 ff. Audience: 11. 113, 153–5, 248–50. Trial recitatio: 11. 419–76, esp. 420, 427, 474.

4 Rawson, III n. 86, cf. 102 f.; Seaford, 21 n. 59, 29 f.

5 Livy XXXIX, 8–19; CIL I2, 581. For the reality behind Livy's hostile travesty, see Seaford, R., ‘The Mysteries of Dionysos at Pompeii’, in Stubbs, H. W. (ed.), Pegasus: Classical Essays from the University of Exeter (1981), 52–68Google Scholar.

6 Hor., AP 36, 366 f. For the identity of the father (Cn. Piso, suff. 23 or L. Piso, cos. 15), see Syme, R., The Augustan Aristocracy (1986), 379–81Google Scholar and Table xxv, citing previous bibliography and arguing firmly for Piso the Pontifex (cos. 15).

7 Brink, 496.

8 Diomedes, Ars Gramm. III (GL 1, 482K).

9 Ibid. 490K. Similarities: ‘Prima species est togatarum quae praetextatae dicuntur, in quibus imperatorum negotia agebantur et publica et reges Romani vel duces inducuntur, personarum dignitate et sublimitate tragoediis similes … Secunda species [est] togatarum quae tabernariae dicuntur et humilitate personarum et argumentorum similitudine comoediis pares … Tertia species est fabularum Latinarum quae a civitate Oscorum Atella, in qua primum coeptae, appellatae sunt Atellanae, argumentis dictisque iocularibus similes satyricis fabulis Graecis. Quarta species est planipedis, qui Graece dicitur mimus.’

Differences: ‘Togata praetextata a tragoedia differt, quod in tragoedia heroes inducuntur, ut Pacuvius tragoedias nominibus heroicis scripsit, Orestem Chrysen et his similia, item Accius; in praetextata autem quae inscribitur Brutus vel Decius, item Marcellus. Togata tabernaria a comoedia differt, quod in comoedia Graeci ritus inducuntur personaeque Graecae, Laches Sostrata; in ilia vero Latinae … Latina Atellana a Graeca satyrica differt, quod in satyrica fere satyrorum personae inducuntur, aut siquae sunt ridiculae similes satyris, Autolycus Busiris; in Atellana Oscae personae, ut Maccus.' (No differentiation is offered between planipes and mimus.)

10 Nic. Dam.., FGrH 90 F75 (Athen. VI, 261c); Rawson, 110 f.

11 Jer., Chron. 150H (89 B.C., ‘L. Pomponius Bononiensis Atellanorum scriptor clarus habetur’); Gell., NA x, 24. 5; XII, 10. 7; XVI, 6. 7; Macr., Sat. 1, 4. 22; VI, 4. 13; 9. 4; Nonius 75L.

12 Vell. Pat. II, 9. 5 (‘verbis rudem et novitate inventi a se operis commendabilem’); ps. Aero on AP 288 (praetextae and togatae).

13 Steffen, 117, 139–41, 221 f.; Aristias' Atalante, Aeschylus' Sisyphos, Euripides' Sisyphos. For Ariadne, parallels are hardly required (cf. n. 54 below).

14 Frassinetti, 23–67 for Pomponius' fragments. Marsyas: Arnob., adv. nat. 11, 6. Satura: Prisc., GL 11, 200 K for Liber.

15 Lucr. IV, 1169; CIL XIV, 5303, cf. F. Matz, ΔιΟΝΥΣΙΑΚΗ ΤΕΛΕΤΗ: archäologische Untersuchungen zum Dionysoskult (1964), Taf. 25. (At Catullus 32. 10 f. the phrase ‘satur supinus’ immediately precedes an allusion to a satyr-play: see Seaford, 166 on Eur., Cyc. 327 f.)

16 Suda s.v. Arion; Hdt. 1, 24. 1 f.; archaeological synthesis in Meyer, J. C., Pre-Republican Rome (Analecta Rom. Inst. Dan., Supp. XI, 1983), 157–60Google Scholar.

17 Athens: Seaford, 12–16. Rome: Gjerstad, E., Early Rome III (1960), 139, 144, 189;Google Scholar IV. 2 (1966), 458–62, 597. Elsewhere: A. Andrén, Architectural Terracottas from Etrusco-Italic Temples (1940), clxv–vii, clxxiii–iv (Signia, Velitrae, Satricum, as well as many Etruscan sites); Enea nel Lazio: archaeologia e mito (1981), 15, 197 (Ardea, Lavinium).

18 Gjerstad, op. cit., III, 202, IV. 2, 463–6; cf. Andrén, op. cit., clxxxiii–v for Caere, Cività Castellana, Velitrae, Lanuvium, and the ‘magnificent series’ of antefixes from Satricum. For Etruria in particular, see Heurgon, J., ‘Le satyre et la ménade étrusques’, MEFR 46 (1929), 96–114Google Scholar.

19 Dion. Hal. VI, 17. 2; Vitr., Arch, III, 3. 5; Tac., Ann. II, 49. 1; Cic., Balb. 55 on the sacra Graeca. See Bruhl, A., Liber Pater: origine et expansion du culte dionysiaque à Rome et dans le monde romain (BEFAR 175, 1953), 30–45Google Scholar; and now also de Cazanove, op. cit. (n. 23 below).

20 Livy IV, 25. 3, 29. 7, cf. III, 63. 7.

21 See Trendall, A. D., The Red-Figured Vases of Lucania, Campania and Sicily (1967), index p. 707Google Scholar; Trendall, A. D. and Cambitoglou, A., The Red-Figured Vases of Apulia (1978–1982), partial index p. 1293Google Scholar (cf. 1279: ‘genre scenes of no special significance not included’); Bomati, Y., ‘Les légendes dionysiaques en Étrurie’, REL 61 (1983), 87–107Google Scholar. It may not be irrelevant that Aristophanes was evidently being performed in Apulia in the first half of the fourth century (O. Taplin, PCPS n.s. 33 (1987), 96–101).

22 Szilágyi, 2–4, 8–11 (late sixth to mid fourth centuries B.C.).

23 Soph., Ant. 1118. See now de Cazanove, O. in L'association dionysiaque dans les société's anciennes (Coll. de l'éc. fr. de Rome 89, 1986), 177–97Google Scholar—though he sees it as a ‘dionysisme sans Dionysos’.

24 Her. Pont., ap. Plut., Cam. 22. 3; Pliny, NH XXXIV, 26; Plut., , Numa 8. 20Google Scholar; Fasti Cap. and triumph. sub anno 304 B.C. (P. Sempronius Sophus). Cf. A. La Regina, DdA 2 (1968), 176 on ILLRP 309, the elogium of L. Scipio Barbatus, cos. 298; ‘quoius forma virtutei parisuma fuit’ translates καλòϛ κἀγαθóϛ.

25 ILLRP 1197: ‘Dindia Macolnia fileai dedit, Novios Plautios med Romai fecid’; Dohrn, T., Die ficoronische Cista (1972)Google Scholar. For the iconography, see A. Weis, AJA 86 (1982), 22–38, who suggests it was ‘ultimately based on a monumental painting … created in central Italy in the fifth or early fourth century B.C.’ (p. 29).

26 Hor., Sat. I, 6. 115–17 and scholiasts (‘in rostris’, ps. Aero); Serv., Aen. IV, 58 (‘in foro’); Torelli, M., Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs (1982), 98–106Google Scholar, for Marsyas on the Anaglypha Traiani; Coarelli, F., Il foro romano: periodo repubblicano e augusteo (1985), 91–119Google Scholar. Rawson, P. B., The Myth of Marsyas in the Roman Visual Arts (BAR Int. Ser. 347, 1987), 11Google Scholar f., 224 f., adds nothing new.

27 Serv., Aen. III, 359 (‘a Marsya rege missos e Phrygia regnante Fauno, qui disciplinam auguriorum Italis ostenderunt’), cf. Gellius fr. 7P on Marsyas' ambassador Megales; Livy x, 9. 2.

28 Serv., Aen. III, 20 (‘in liberis civitatibus simulacrum Marsyae erat, qui in tutela Liberi patris est’), IV, 58; see Coarelli, op. cit. (n. 26 above), 95–100 on Marsyas' shackles (presumably with a broken chain). Aediles: Livy x, 23. 11–13, 31. 9, 33. 9. For the popularis tradition of the Marcii (e.g. Sall., Cat. 33. 2; Virg., Aen. VI, 815 f.), see D. C. Feeney, PCPS n.s. 32 (1986), 9 f.

29 Ovid, Fasti V, 277–94 (‘vindicibus laudi publica cura fuit’, 290); Tac., Ann. II, 49. 1 (temple); cf. Varro, LL v, 158; Festus 276L. The Publicii may have been prophets as well (Cic., div. I, 115; II, 113); cf. the Marcii, n. 33 below. For the dates of the Floralia (241 ? 238?) and of Livius Andronicus' first production (240?), see Veil. Pat. 1, 14. 8; Pliny, NH XVIII, 286; Atticus fr. 5P (Cic., Brut. 72, cf. sen. 50, Tusc. I, 3). For aediles' fines, cf. also Schol. Bob. 90St (249); Gell., NA x, 6. 3; Livy XXIV, 16. 19 (246; temple of Libertas); see Wiseman, T. P., Clio's Cosmetics (1979), 92–4.Google Scholar

30 Callim. fr. 106–7Pf; Dion. Hal. I, 34. 4, 49. 2, Plut., Rom. 17. 6 etc. (poets); Pliny, NH III, 57 (Theophrastus), Strabo I, 66 (Eratosthenes), FGrH 840 F7–23.

31 Drama in Forum: Gaggiotti, M., Analecta Romana Inst. Dan. 14 (1985), 60Google Scholar f.; E. J. Jory, CQ 36 (1986), 537 f. Iunii: first known Silanus pr. 212 B.C. (Livy xxv, 20. 1); n. 57 below.

32 Silenus: Cic., Tusc. I, 114; Hdt. VIII, 138, Xen., Anab. I, 2. 13 etc. (Midas); Virg., ecl. 6. 13 ff. Marsyas and Cybele: Diod. Sic. III, 58–9 (σύνεσιϛ, σωφροσύνη); Paus. X, 30. 9, Steph. Byz. s.v. Pessinus, etc. Cf. Plato, Symp. 215a–c for Socrates as Silenus or Marsyas. The satyrs themselves represent the eternal felicity of the initiate: see Seaford, op. cit. (n. 5 above) 64 f.

33 Livy xxv, 12 (carmina Marciana); Cic., div. I, 89 for the Marcii as seers ‘nobili loco nati’.

34 Sil. It. VIII, 502–4; Pliny, NH III, 108 (from ‘Gellianus’); Solinus 2. 6.

35 Gellius fr. 7P (Solinus 1. 7). On this text see Coarelli, F., in Gli Etruschi e Roma: incontro di studi in onore di Massimo Pallottino (1981), 200 f.Google Scholar; Small, J. P., Cacus and Marsyas in Etrusco-Roman Legend (1982)Google Scholar; Wiseman, T. P., in Les ‘bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux IIe et ler siècles av. J.-C. (1983), 302–4Google Scholar ( = Roman Studies Literary and Historical (1987), 300–2); and Coarelli, op. cit. (n. 26 above), 113–17. I am not convinced by Small's attempt to find a sixth-century context for the passage (op. cit. 15 f., 45–7, 105–8).

36 ILS 212. 17–24 (Claudius); Arnobius VI, 7; Serv., Aen. VIII, 345; Varro, LL v, 47; Festus 38L, 468L; Tac., Ann. IV, 65, etc. For a full presentation and discussion of the evidence on the Vibennae saga, see Buranelli, F. (ed.), La tomba françois di Vulci (1987), 225–33Google Scholar (M. Pallottino), 234–43; Ibid. 79–110 (F. Roncalli) on the paintings of the François tomb. For Etruscan historians (Varro ap. Censor. 17. 6; ILS 212. 18), see T. J. Cornell, ASNP 6. 2 (1976), 411–39.

37 Small, op. cit. (n. 35 above), 4, 113.

38 Varro, LL v, 55.

39 Livy VII, 2. 4–8, Val. Max. II, 4. 4, with Szilágyi, 4f., 12–18; cf. n. 22 above. Earlier accounts–e.g. Coffey, M., Roman Satire (1976), 18–22Google Scholar, and A. S. Gratwick in CHCL II (1982), 160–2—will have to be modified in the light of Szilágyi's arguments.

40 See Szemerényi, O., Hermes 103 (1975), 312–16Google Scholar.

41 The classic account is still Bickerman, E. J., ‘Origines gentium’, CP 47 (1952), 65–81Google Scholar; for poetic ktiseis, see Cairns, F., Tibullus: a Hellenistic Poet at Rome (1979), 68–70Google Scholar.

42 West, S. R., ‘Lycophron Italicised?’, JHS 104 (1984), 127–51,CrossRefGoogle Scholar esp. 145 f.

43 Seaford, 22, 24; Plut., Mor. 316A (Praeneste); Hor., Odes III, 29. 8 (Tusculum).

44 Xenagoras, FGrH 240 F29 (Rhomos, Anteias, Ardeias); anon. ap. Plut., Rom. 2. 1 (Romanus); anon. ap. Serv., Aen. I, 273 (Latinus, cf. Hes., Theog. 1011–16).

45 Steffen, 151–3, 123–7. Tibur: Pliny, NH XVI, 237 (Tiburnus); Sextius ap. Solin. 2. 7 (Catillus), cf. Serv., >Aen. VII, 670; see F. Coarelli, DdA n. s. I. 2 (1983), 60–5 for Amphiaraus and Tibur in the François Tomb. Ardea: Pliny, NH III, 56. For lists of Italian foundation legends, see Ovid, Fasti iv, 65–81; Justin, epit. 20. 1; Solinus 2. 5–13.

46 Steffen, 147 (Strabo VI, 258—from Glaukos Pontios?); Festus 486L; Serv., Aen. VII, 662.

47 See n. 18 above. For the Satricum excavations, see Waele, J. A. De, Med. Nederl. Inst. Rome 43 (1981), 7–68Google Scholar, and Arch. Laziale 4 (1981), 305–16Google Scholar.

48 Virg., Aen. VII, 801 f.; Sil. It. VIII, 379 f.; Charax, FGrH 103 F31; cf. Sil. It. VII, 162–211 (Dionysus in the Ager Falernus).

49 Dion. Hal. VII, 71. 1.

50 Fabius, FGrH 809 F13(b) = Dion. Hal. VII, 70–3: to be read in Jacoby's text (FGrH in C (1969), 865–9), where Dionysius' own comments are distinguished typographically.

51 App., Pun. 66; Szilagyi, 8–11, 21 n. 90; de Cazanove, op. cit. (n. 23 above), 190–5.

52 Aelian, VH III, 40; Strabo x, 466.

53 Verzar, M., in Zanker, P. (ed.), Hellenismus in Mittelitalien (1976), 122–6, 133 f.Google Scholar Cf. Bomati, op. cit. (n. 21 above), 90–5 for the popularity of the theme in Etruscan art.

54 In a near-contemporary painting on Delos, Ariadne is shown being awakened by a winged Psyche: Ricerche di pittura ellenistica (Quaderni dei DdA I, 1985), 219, fig. 3. See in general Richardson, E. in Styles in Classical Art and Archaeology: a Tribute to Peter Heinrich von Blanckenhagen (ed. Kopcke, G. and Moore, M. B., 1979), 193–5Google Scholar; Matz, F., Die Dionysischen Sarkophage (1969) in, 374 f.Google Scholar Cf. Ovid, Fasti III, 512; Hyg., Fab. 224. 2: Ariadne as Libera (cf. n. 19 above).

55 Theatre: Val. Max. II, 4. 2; Vell. I, 15. 3; Livy, per. 48; App., BC I, 28; Aug., Civ. Dei II, 5. Ars ludicra: Cassiod., Chron. sub anno 115 B.C. Note also the expulsion of ‘Chaldaean’ soothsayers in 139 (Val. Max. I, 3. 3, Livy, per. Oxy. 54); see nn. 29 and 33 for the vates Publicius and the Marcii; Enn., Ann. VII, 206 Sk on ‘Fauni vatesque’.

56 Plut., Mar. 2. 2; Cic., fam. VII, I. 3 (55 B.C.); ILLRP 803 (late Republic); Nic. Dam., Caes. 19 (46 B.C.); Cic., Att. XVI, 5. 1 (44 B.C.); ILS 5050. 157–61 (17 B.C.); see Rawson, 102 f.

57 Crawford, M. H., Roman Republican Coinage (1974)Google Scholar, nos 337 (D. Silanus, 91 B.C., Silenus), 341 (Q. Titius, 90 B.C., Liber and Silenus), 342 (C. Vibius Pansa, 90 B.C., Silenus and Pan), 363 (L. Censorinus, 82 B.C., Marsyas). For Pansa's ‘double-headed’ issues, cf. Wallace-Hadrill, A., JRS 76 (1986), 74Google Scholar f. and 82: ‘double-headed coins … invite the user to discover some special significance’. Pan and Liber are featured on the issues of Pansa's son in 48 B.C. (Crawford, nos 449, 451).

58 Diod. Sic. XXXVII, 12. 1 f.; Plut., , Sulla 27. 2Google Scholar.

59 Lucr. IV, 580–9; Hor., AP 342, 249.

60 Seaford, 16–18; Simon, E., The Ancient Theatre (1982), 19 f.Google Scholar and pl. 8; Xen., Symp. 9. 2–7.

61 Seaford, 18–20; Snell, B., Scenes from Greek Drama (1967), 99–138Google Scholar on Python; Athen. II, 55d, X, 419d on Lycophron.

62 Dioscorides 23G–P (Anth. Pal. VII, 707); Seaford, 20 f. Cf. Meleager 126G-P (Anth. Pal. VII, 535): Pan comes to town now that Daphnis is dead.

63 Hor., AP 244–50, cf. Brink, 291 f. Roman context in 1. 248 (equites)–and forenses in 245 might make Horace's readers think of Marsyas.

64 See Sifakis, G. M., Studies in the History of Hellenistic Drama (1967), 26 f., 30, 53, 124–6Google Scholar; Garton, C., Personal Aspects of the Roman Theatre (1972), 154 f.Google Scholar The records of the Amphiaraia: IG VII, 416, 419–20, etc.

65 See Williams, G., Change and Decline: Roman Literature in the Early Empire (1978), 102–52Google Scholar on ‘the dominance of Greek culture’. Cf. also Wiseman, op. cit. (n. 29 above), 154–67, op. cit. (n. 35 above), 299–307.

66 See now Jory, E. J., in Betts, J. H., Hooker, J. T., Green, J. R. (eds), Studies in Honour of T. B. L. Webster I (1986), 143–52Google Scholar.

67 Livy I, 46. 3 (‘tulit enim et Romana regia sceleris tragici exemplum’); cf. v, 21. 9; Dion. Hal. III, 18. 1, IX, 22. 3; Plut., Rom. 8. 7 (‘theatrical’ inventions). Beare, W., The Roman Stage (1950), 42–4Google Scholar on the supposed obsolescence of the fabula praetexta after Accius; contra Wiseman, T. P., Catullus and his World (1985), 33 f.Google Scholar

68 Cic., pro Q. Gallio fr. 4 Puccioni (Jer., , ad Nepotianum ep. 52. 8)Google Scholar. Cf. also fr. 6P (Nonius 88L) on ‘logi qui ludis dicti sunt’.

69 Lycophron, n. 61 above; Varro, Men. 143–4B (117, 131 Cèbe).

70 Varro, Men. 304B (Nonius 259L): ‘sed, o Petrulle, ne meum taxis librum,/si te †pepigat haec modo† scenatilis’. Oehler (1844) emended to hic modus.

71 Cic., Rab. Post. 35; Wiseman, op. cit. (n. 67 above), 34 f.; cf. also Ovid, Tristia I, 2. 79 f.; Stat., Silv. v, 5. 66–9. Pantomimi: see E. J. Jory, op. cit. (n. 66 above), 147–9, and BICS 28 (1981), 147–61, esp. 154 f. on Livy VII, 2, 157 on mid-first-century innovation.

72 Ovid, Fasti IV, 326 (‘mira sed et scaena testificata loquar’), on Q. Claudia and the Magna Mater. Aretalogi: Engelmann, H., The Delian Aretalogy of Sarapis (1975). esp. 37, 55 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Philodemus (de poem. 13 Dübner) associates aretalogoi and mimographoi; also Suet., Aug. 74; Juv. xv, 16; Dio Chrys., Or. 20. 493R, etc.

73 Cic., QF II, 16. 3; Shackleton Bailey, following Buecheler, reads factam.

74 Steffen, 273–6, among the doubtful satyr-plays; but since somebody throws a stinking chamber-pot across the room (Athen. I 17A), it is not likely to be a tragedy.

75 Cic., QF II, 16. 1 (‘ut tibi placet, damus operam ne cuius animum offendamus’): similar sentiments at II, 11. 3. 13. 2, 14. 4.

76 Virg., ecl. 1. 1, 6. 4, etc, Georg. IV, 566; see n. 52 above.

77 Serv., ecl. 6. 11; Donat., vita Verg. 26; cf. Tac., Dial. 13. 2.

78 Virg., ecl. 5. 73, 8. 62 ff.; n. 60 above. (Cf. n. 32 above for Silenus in ecl. 6.)

79 Dion. Hal. VII, 70–3 (see n. 50 above), with 1, 4–5, 89–90.

80 VII, 72. 10 and 12; cf. Suet., Vesp. 19. 2 for funerals. Note that Dionysius also cites the soldiers' songs at triumphal processions as analogous to σατυρικὴ παιδία (VII, 72. 11); the word he uses for their mockery is ἰαμβίζειν, and Iambe was a satyr-play by Sophocles (on Iambe, see Richardson, N. J., The Homeric Hymn to Demeter (1974), 213–17)Google Scholar. For satyrs and processions in the Hellenistic world, see Callixeinos of Rhodes, FGrH 627 F2 on the ‘grand procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus’.

81 Athen. 1, 20e (Aristonicus); Arrian, FGrH 156 F106; the sikinnis was discussed by Accius in his Pragmatika (Gell., NA XX, 5).

82 Ovid, Fasti IV, 326; McKeown, J. C., ‘Augustan Elegy and Mime’, PCPS n.s. 25 (1979), 71–84;Google ScholarFantham, E., ‘Sexual Comedy in Ovid's Fasti’, HSCP 87 (1983), 185–216,Google Scholar esp. 187, 197 f. on satyr-play (but only as a literary source?).

83 Ovid, Fasti VI, 319–48 (the same story at 1, 390–440, with Lotis for Vesta, is set at a Greek Dionysiac festival); Met. XIV, 634–41 (also satyrs, Pan, Silenus); Mart, x, 92. 11 f. See Fantham, op. cit., 201–9 on the two versions in the Fasti.

84 Ovid, , Fasti VI, 480–550Google Scholar, exploiting a myth often featured in satyric drama (Steffen, 150, 245, 258 on Athamas satyr-plays). Maenads: 503 f., 507, 514 (cf. Livy XXXIX, 12. 4, 13. 12 for the Lucus Stimulae and the Bacchanalia). Topography: 477 f., 518 (cf. Tac., Ann. II, 49. 1 for the temple of Liber ad circum maximum).

85 Ovid, , Fasti II, 303–58Google Scholar, cf. Hor., Odes III, 18. 1 for Faunus (and Dion. Hal. I, 32. 3–5 on the Lupercal as the cave of Pan). Steffen, 230–4, 241 f. for Omphale satyr-plays by Ion and Achaeus; cf. Simon, E., Arch. Anz. (1971), 199 f.Google Scholar, and Fantham, op. cit. (n. 82 above), 192–201.

86 Ovid, , Fasti III, 285–348Google Scholar, leading into the aition of the Salii and their ancilia (349–92, cf. Plut., , Numa 13Google Scholar); the Salii were presumably the armed dancers imitated by the satyristai in the pompa circensis (Dion. Hal. VII, 72. 6). Antias fr. 6P, cf. frr. 18, 22, 37, 40, 46, 55P on ludi; Wiseman, op. cit. (n. 29 above), 116 f.

87 Ovid, , Fasti III, 303Google Scholar, cf. 309, 315 (‘di nemorum … di agrestes’). Plut., Numa 15. 3. Midas: n. 32 above.

88 See Seaford, 1, 7, 37; for satyrs as magicians, see Snell, op. cit. (n. 61 above), 106 f., on Python's Agen.

89 Frassinetti, 88; Festus 369L. For Novius as ‘Atellanarum scriptor’, see Gell., NA XVII, 2. 8; Macr., Sat. I, 10. 3; his titles include not only Duo Dossenni, Maccus copo, Pappus praeteritus, etc. but also Andromacha, Hercules coactor and Phoenissae.

90 See Virg., Aen. VII, 45–9, 177–91, VIII, 319–23.

91 Picus: Pliny, NH x, 40 f.; Serv., Aen. VII, 190. Faunus (and Fauna) a fando: Varro, LL VII, 36; cf. Calp. Sic. I. 33–5. For Marsyas and Faunus as royal contemporaries, see n. 27 above.

92 Ovid, Met. XIV, 320–434; Virg., Aen. VII, 189–91. Circe: see above, nn. 43, 44.

93 Plut., Mor. 268d–e; Arnob., adv. nat. V, 18; Macr., Sat. I, 12. 24 f.; Wiseman, T. P., Cinna the Poet and other Roman Essays (1974), 135 f.Google Scholar Note that the celebrants of the Bona Dea mysteries are called ‘Priapi maenades’ in Juv. VI, 316 f.; and Propertius' grove of the Bona Dea (invaded by Hercules, IV, 9. 22–70) seems to be the lucus Stimulae of Ovid's maenads (n. 84 above).

94 Dion. Hal. I, 31. 2; Justin, epit. XLIII, 1. 6; Origo gentis R. 5. 3. Cf. Seaford, 6 f. on the ambiguity of satyrs and silenoi.

95 Solinus I. 15 (Silenus of Caleacte); Justin, epit. XLIII, 1. 8 f.; Serv., Aen. VII, 51; Dion. Hal. I, 43. 1.

96 Festus (Paulus) 77L; Plut., Fab. 1. 1; Sil. It. VI, 627–36 (Evander's daughter).

97 Festus (Paulus) 77L; Plut., Fab. 1. 2; cf. Seaford, 36 f.

98 Cf. nn. 26, 31, 57 above. One wonders too (remembering Marsyas and the popularis tradition) about the Satureii (tr.pl. 133) and the Sicinii (trr.pl. ‘493–2, 449, 387’, 76); see n. 81 above on the sikinnis.

99 Cic., An. II, 13. 2; Hor., Odes III, 16. 34; Pliny, NH III, 59; Sil. It. VII, 276, 410, VIII, 529; otherwise, Formiae could be called a Laconian foundation (Strabo v, 233), and the Laestrygonians sited in Sicily (Thuc. VI, 2. 1, etc).

100 Horn., Od. x, 81 and schol.; Hor., Odes III, 17. 1–9, ‘Aeli vetusto nobilis ab Lamo’, for whose identification see Syme, op. cit. (n. 6 above), 394 f.

101 Seaford, 33 f. For the geographical exploitation of Od. IX–X, see above, nn. 43, 44. Cyclops was a familiar mime plot in Horace's time (Sat. I, 5. 63).

102 Schol. Theocr. 15. 40; Diod. Sic. XX, 41. 6 (Euripides); Hor., AP 340; before the association with the Laestrygonians, she was assigned to Libya (Duris, FGrH 76 F17, Paus. X, 12. 1, etc).

103 Livy I, 3. 7 (‘mansit Silviis postea omnibus cognomen’); Hor., AP 244.

104 Ovid, Fasti VI, 143, Met. XIV, 622 f.

105 vitr., , Arch, v, 6. 9,Google Scholar VII, 5. 2; Ovid, , Fasti I, 401–4Google Scholar, II, 315 f., III, 295–8; Plut., , Sulla 27. 2,Google ScholarNuma 15. 3; Calp. Sic. 1. 8–12, etc.

106 Val. Max. II, 2. 9 (‘laetitia exultantes … epularum

107 See Seaford, 38 on Aeschylus' Trophoi, Sophocles' Dionysiskos, Harakleiskos, etc. Note that one of Pomponius' mythological burlesques was Agamemno suppositus (Nonius 758L).

108 Plut., Rom. 8. 7 (cf. n. 67 above); Ar., Poet. 16. 1(1454b21).

109 See Kiessling-Heinze on AP 220 (III, 329), where he essentials were set out three generations ago—Pomponius' three titles, Q. Cicero's Syndeipnoi, the fact that satyr-play still flourished in the Greek East. Cf. also Sutton, D. F., The Greek Satyr Play (1980), 93Google Scholar, where the credibility of Horace (and Porphyrion on Pomponius) is rightly defended.

110 Diomedes, GL I, 485K. See n. 39 above for Szilágyi's heterodox (and convincing) view.