Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T14:39:40.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ambitions of Scipio Nasica and the Destruction of the Stone Theatre

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2017

James K. Tan
James K. Tan*
Affiliation:
Hofstra [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The censors of 154/3 commissioned a stone theatre which was almost completed when it was demolished on the exhortations of P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica. The sources suggest that this destruction was as late as 151 or 150. Though an array of scholars has seised on Nasica’s claims that a theatre would soften Rome’s moral strength, there has been no satisfactory explanation of this peculiarly long delay between commencement of construction and final demolition. Something must have happened between 153 and 151 which would explain the late objection. This article proposes that Nasica’s awakening was spurred by the death of the princeps senatus and pontifex maximus, M. Aemilius Lepidus. The vacuum left by his death led Nasica to ‘audition’ for the role as Rome’s new leading voice. To demonstrate his worthiness, however, he needed a cause, and the widespread refusals to serve in the Spanish campaign of 151 offered just such an opportunity. Nasica seised upon the most shocking political crisis of the times – the refusal of young men to enlist – in order to parade his guardianship of Rome’s moral worth, and the destruction of a costly and undoubtedly popular theatre constituted the bravura performance he needed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 50 , November 2016 , pp. 70 - 79
Copyright
© The Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2017 

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 Liv. Per. 48, Val. Max. 2.4.2. See also App. BC 1.28 (with an incorrect chronology) and Vell. Pat. 1.15.3 (with an incorrect attribution of a consulship to Nasica). Velleius attributes the theatre to only one censor, C. Cassius Longinus, though the other sources mention censors in the plural. North (1992) argues that Appian’s account is actually of a similar episode from the years 107-6, but his case is unconvincing for reasons which North himself notes in a display of scholarly honesty: the destroyed theatres would require some of our sources to know of one instance, and some of our sources to know of the other without anyone ever mentioning the historical recurrence. I find this less likely than that Appian transmitted confused details, and so this paper holds that Appian is referring to the theatre of the 150’s but with several factual errors. For the case that Rome actually did boast a ‘semi-permanent’ theatre – permanent cavea but without permanent scaena – as early as 179, see Coarelli, F., ‘Il tempio di Bellona’, Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 80 (1965-7) 69-72 Google Scholar and Sear, F.J., Roman Theatres: An Architectural Study (Oxford 2006) 54-55 Google Scholar.

2 Liv. Per. 48: cum locatum a censoribus theatrum exstrueretur, P. Cornelio Nasica auctore tamquam inutile et nociturum publicis moribus ex S. C. destructum est populusque aliquamdiu stans ludos spectauit.

3 Val. Max. 2.4.2, using Briscoe’s text: ne quis in urbe propiusve passus mille subsellia posuisse sedensve ludos spectare vellet, ut scilicet remissioni animorum standi virilitas propria Romanae gentis nota esset.

4 See e.g. Holleran, C., ‘Public Entertainment Venues in Rome and Italy’, in K. Lomas and T.J. Cornell (eds), Bread and Circuses: Euergetism and Municipal Patronage in Roman Italy (London 2003) 48 Google Scholar. The crusade against Greek effeminacy was in no way limited to the issue of a theatre: Astin, A.E., Cato the Censor (Oxford 1978) 178-179 Google Scholar, and Gruen, E.S., Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome (Ithaca 1992)Google Scholar serve as useful overviews.

5 Wallace-Hadrill, A., Rome’s Cultural Revolution (Cambridge 2008) 163-164 Google Scholar.

6 Cic. Flac. 16, also linked to the theatre issue at Flaig, E., Ritualisierte Politik: Zeichen, Gesten und Herrschaft im Alten Rom (Göttingen 2003) 236-267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and at Manuwald, G., Roman Republican Theatre (Cambridge 2011) 59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 How exactly the issue of seating affected earlier Roman theatres is unclear. North notes that ‘it is not immediately obvious why wooden theatres should necessarily imply standing audiences,’ while McGowan has pointed out that the Circus Maximus seems to have offered seating, which would complicate the idea that Romans had to stand to enjoy spectacles. See North, J.A., ‘Deconstructing Stone Theatres’, in A. Cameron, (ed.), Apodosis: Essays Presented to Dr W.W. Cruickshank to Mark his Eightieth Birthday (London 1992) 76 Google Scholar, and L. McGowan, Urbs Maiestatis: Recovering the Roman Republican City (diss. 2012, University of Sydney) 307. McGowan’s thesis offers the most thorough investigation of the theatre project and its destruction.

8 E. Frézouls, ‘Aspects de l’histoire architecturale du théâtre romain,’ ANRW 2.12.1 (1982) 356. See also A. Rumpf, ‘Die Entstehung des römischen Theaters,’ MDAI 3 (1950) 40-50, and L.R. Taylor, Roman Voting Assemblies (Ann Arbor 1990) 30-1, with Manuwald (n. 6) 59-60, for discussion and further bibliography.

9 Pedroni, L., ‘Note sulla tradizione annalistica relativa al teatro ‘a Lupercali in Palatium versus’,’ Scholia: Studies in Classical Antiquity 14 (2005) 110 Google Scholar.

10 Manuwald (n. 6) 60-1, though see Morgan, M.G., ‘The Perils of Schematism: Polybius, Antiochus Epiphanes and the ‘Day of Eleusis’,’ Historia 39 (1990) 73 Google Scholar.

11 Gruen (n. 4) 209, with Beacham, R.C., Spectacle Entertainments of Early Imperial Rome (New Haven 1999) 30-31 Google Scholar.

12 Astin also dates the demolition to 151, ‘or possibly 150’. See Astin, A.E., ‘The Role of the Censors in Roman Economic Life,’ Latomus 49 (1990) 26 Google Scholar, n. 28. McGowan (n. 7) 311 refers to the ‘dogged belief’ that the theatre was destroyed in 154 or 153, and takes various scholars to task for persevering in error. North makes a case that Livy only records the destruction as occurring so late because it is part of his retelling of Nasica’s later opposition to a Punic War, but in another show of scholarly transparency he himself notes that, according to the sources, ‘definite progress had been made’ in building the theatre (North [n. 7] 78).

13 It was not unheard of for the censors to generate controversy with their buildings. Cato the Elder had incurred resentment in 184 for naming a basilica after himself (Plut. Cat. Mai . 19.3), and M. Aemilius Lepidus was criticised in 179/8 for spending censorial funds on improvements in Tarracina, where he just happened to own land himself (Liv. 40.51.2). Neither project, however, was stopped. Five years later, Q. Fulvius Flaccus would be forced to return roof tiles which he had pillaged from the Temple of Juno Lacinia in Croton, but these were for a manubial temple he had previously vowed, and the project was completed with a different roof (Liv. 42.3.1-11, 28.11-2, Val. Max. 1.1.20). The best instance of a thwarted censorial project in this period is of a failed aqueduct proposed by Lepidus and his colleague, M. Fulvius Nobilior. In this case, the project was never begun because – so Liv. 40.51.7 would have us believe – M. Licinius Crassus refused to allow the aqueduct to run across his land. Here is a failed censorial project, much like the stone theatre, but the differences are plenty: most importantly, there were few if any sunk costs in abandoning a project which had not yet begun, and failure was not due to moral claims but to the legal rights of private property. To destroy a censorial project after a delay of several years and after so much money had been spent appears to have been a singular accomplishment on Nasica’s part.

14 North (n. 7) 82.

15 Astin (n. 12) 26, n. 28, who not only shrugs off the importance of the delay but has the senators initially approve the project only to change their minds later: ‘There is no difficulty in supposing Nasica to have persuaded [the senate] to reverse its original decision, especially after a lapse of three years.’ For a similar envisioning of censorial oversight, see Steinby, E.M., Edilizia pubblica e potere politico nella Roma repubblicana (Milan 2012)Google Scholar.

16 Morgan (n. 10) 72-6.

17 Polyb. 36.1. For the diplomatic and political contexts of the war, see Richardson, J.S., Hispaniae: Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism (Cambridge 1986) 141-144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Rosenstein, N., Rome and the Mediterranean 290-146 BC: The Imperial Republic (Edinburgh 2012) 227-228 Google Scholar. The relevance of Spain is noted at McGowan (n. 7) 314.

18 Liv. Per. 48, Polyb. 35.2.1-4.14, Appian, Bell. Hisp. 48-50. According to Appian, recruitment was done by lot in 151, and this novelty suggests that disaffection was well recognised. Livy’s periochae alone record the imprisonment of the consuls, and Richardson (n. 17) 130 n. 17 suggests that Liv. or his epitomator has confused 151 with the events of 138. For further discussion see Brunt, P.A., Italian Manpower, 225 BC-A.D. 14 (Oxford 1971) 397 Google Scholar.

19 Taylor, L.R., ‘Forerunners of the Gracchi,’ JRS 52 (1962) 21-22 Google Scholar.

20 E.S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley 1984) 242, with Val. Max. 3.1.1. The feat was commemorated on coins of 61 (RRC 419/1).

21 Polyb. 16.34.6, Diod. Sic. 29.27.

22 Polyb. 16.34.

23 See MRR for references.

24 Liv. 41.27.3-4 with Harris, W.V., ‘The Era of Patavium,’ ZPE 27 (1977) 283-293 Google Scholar and Liu, J., ‘The Era of Patavium Again,’ ZPE 162 (2007) 281-289 Google Scholar.

25 McGowan (n. 7) 311-2, 314-5 on Lepidus’ death and the consequent opportunity for Nasica ‘to assert his views more effectively’.

26 The references can be found in MRR I and in RE ‘Cornelius’ no. 353. It is worth noting that he shared the aedileship of 169 with a distinguished peer, P. Cornelius Lentulus, but beat him to the consulship; Lentulus would only be consul suffect for 162. Nasica was quite clearly a star.

27 On voting for the position of pontifex maximus, Mommsen yet again offers the seminal study at Staatrsrecht II 25-30. For a clear introduction, see Beard, M., North, J., and Price, S., Religions of Rome. Volume 1: A History (Cambridge 1998) 99-100 Google Scholar, and Scheid, J., An Introduction to Roman Religion (trans. J. Lloyd) (Bloomington 2003) 141-142 Google Scholar.

28 Ryan, F.X., Rank and Participation in the Republican Senate (Stuttgart 1998) 231-232 Google Scholar. In 152, M. Porcius Cato was the senior censorius, though at over eighty his age (and his plebeian status) may have counted against him. By the time the next censors entered office, however, Cato had died, and this left Nasica as the senior censorius. It must be admitted, however, that there is no way to reconstruct how the censors arrived at their choice of Nasica as princeps senatus. See Ryan, chap. 3, for theories about how the principes were chosen.