1. For the identification of local references to the triumph, see in particular Halkin, L., ‘La parodie d’une démande de triomphe dans l’Amphitruon de Plaute’, AC 17 (1948), 297–304Google Scholar. This influential article shows that Sosia’s speech outlining Amphitruo’s deeds in war alludes to the requirements for a triumph to be granted (see below). For a reading of the whole play in terms of the triumph, see Jamie, H., ‘L’Amphitruon de Plaute et M. Fulvius Nobilior’, RBPh 34 (1933), 515–531Google Scholar, relating the play to the triumph and subsequent votive games of M. Fulvius Nobilior. See also Herrmann, L., ‘L’actualité dans l’Amphitruon de Plaute’, AC 17 (1948), 317–22Google Scholar. This reading has long been out of favour and will be discussed further in the course of this article.

2. See Beard, M., ‘The Triumph of the Absurd: Roman Street Theatre’, in Edwards, C. and Woolf, G. (eds.), Rome the Cosmopolis (Cambridge 2003), 21–43Google Scholar. It should be noted that this paper was written independently of Beard and its conclusions are rather different.

3. See Beard (n.2 above), especially 40–43.

4. See Cic. Pis. 55–61 for the importance of the triumph to Roman aristocrats. Note Cicero’s incredulity at Piso’s claim that he had not desired a triumph: negauit se triumphi cupidum umquam fuisse. o scelus, o pestis, o labes! (‘He said that he had never been desirous of a triumph. What a crime! What a plague! What a disgrace!’, Pis. 56). For the triumph in general, see above all the introduzione storica of Pais, E., Fasti Triumphales Populi Romani (Rome 1920Google Scholar), and Versnel, H.S., Triumphus (Leiden 1970Google Scholar). Note also the articles by Bonfante Warren, L.: ‘Roman Triumphs and Etruscan Kings: The Changing Face of the Triumph’, JRS 60 (1970), 49–66Google Scholar; ‘Roman Triumphs and Etruscan Kings: The Latin Word Triumphus’, in Lugton, Robert C. and Saltzer, Milton G. (eds.), Studies in Honor of J. Alexander Kerns (The Hague and Paris 1970), 108–20Google Scholar; and see also her review of Versnel 1970 in Gnomon 46 (1974), 574–83Google Scholar. See also Ehler in RE s.v. ‘triumphus’ and Künzl, E.Der Römische Triumph (Munich 1988Google Scholar). In general, the best scholarship concerns the origin and the ‘meaning’ of the triumph rather than the more sociological issues with which I deal here. Exceptions include Nicolet, C., The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome, tr. Falla, P.S. (Berkeley & Los Angeles 1990), 352–56Google Scholar, which sees the triumph as one of the alternative institutions which came to divert the loyalty of the citizens from the Republic to individual personalities and which contributed to an ideology of an individual saviour. On the visual power of the triumph see Brilliant, R., ‘“Let the Trumpets Roar!” The Roman Triumph’, in Bergmann, B. and Kondoleon, C. (eds.), The Art of Ancient Spectacle (Washington DC 1999), 220–29Google Scholar. See also Scullard, H.H.Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic (Ithaca 1981), 213–18Google Scholar.

5. Cf. Lucan Phars. 5.334f. (the soldiers will watch the triumph as part of the Romana plebs). Note also Livy 7.13.10 where Tullius tells Sulpicius that his discontented soldiers, sick and uneasy about being held back from fighting, want to follow their general in an ovation (ouantesque).

6. For surviving uersus triumphales see Courtney, E., The Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford 1993), 483–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the relation between triumph songs and other aspects of Roman popular culture, see Horsfall, N., La Cultura della Plebs Romana (Barcelona 1996), 33Google Scholar.

7. See Richlin, Amy, The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor (New Haven 1983), 10Google Scholar and 94, for the apotropaic nature of triumph songs. See Cèbe, J.-P., La caricature et la parodie dans le monde romaine antique des origines à Juuenal (Paris 1966), 24–26Google Scholar, for their relation to Fescennine Verse. Also Warren ‘Changing Face’ (n.4 above), 65, and Hanson, J.A., ‘The Glorious Military’, in Dorey, T.A. and Dudley, D.P. (eds.), Roman Drama (New York 1965), 51–85Google Scholar, at 58. For fescennini uersus, see Catullus 61 and Horace Ep. 2.1.145f.

8. Crawford, M., The Roman Republic (Cambridge MA 1992), 46Google Scholar.

9. Tr. Waterfield, R., Roman Lives (Oxford 1999Google Scholar).

10. Versnel (n. 4 above), 380, following Ehler (RE s.v. triumphus col. 507). Pliny at NH 28.39 explicitly associates the phallos (fascinus) beneath the triumphal chariot with warding off envy (inuidia). See in general Versnel (n.4 above), 371–84, on the ‘triumphator as the bearer of good fortune’. Also Künzl (n. 4 above), 87–88 and Ehler at RE s.v. Triumphus (who suggests at col. 509 that the songs lost their apotropaic function and became an end in themselves). The source for the slave’s words quoted by Versnel is Tertullian Apol. 33 A. See in addition Epictetus Disc. 3.24.85; also Zonaras 7.21 and Tzetzes Ep. 107 (epitomising Dio). Beard, M., North, J. and Price, S., Religions of Rome, Volume One: A History. (Cambridge 1998Google Scholar), 44f., are sceptical of this figure (‘true or not’).

11. In fact, Camillus was seen as transgressing not only the limits of a citizen but also those of a mortal: parumque id rum ciuile modo sed humanum etiam uisum.

12. See Kurke, L., The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy (Ithaca 1991Google Scholar), for Pindaric odes and their sociological function.

13. Cf. two famous examples from the SHA life of Aurelian: mille Sarmatos, mille Francos semel et semel occidimus/mille Persas quaerimus (‘a thousand Sarmatians and a thousand Pranks once and once again we have killed; now we seek a thousand Persians’, SHA Aurelian 7.2); mille, mille, mille decollauimus,/unus homo! mille decollauimus. mille uiuat, qui mille occidit./tantum uini nemo habet, quantum fudit sanguinis (‘a thousand, a thousand, a thousand we have beheaded. With one man, and we have beheaded a thousand! Let him drink a thousand, he who has killed a thousand. No-one has as much wine as he has shed blood’, SHA Aurelian 6.5). See Morel FPL 375f. for the texts. Note, however, that the vague enumeration of the number of victims here may have an apotropaic function. Cf. the possible analogy with Catullus 5 (basia mille, deinde centum, ‘one thousand kisses, then a hundred’, etc.), where the indeterminacy of the number of kisses is crucial in turning away the evil eye (11–13).

14. See Ogilvie, R.M., A Commentary on Livy Books 1–5 (Oxford 1965Google Scholar) ad loc. for this triumph.

15. For fremere used in Livy to represent unauthorised plebeian speech, see O’Neill, P., ‘Going Round in Circles: Popular Speech in Ancient Rome’, ClAnt 22 (2003), 135–65Google Scholar, at 141f. Note its use also at Livy 45.38.13 quoted above.

16. Note Kraus, C.S, Livy, Ab Urbe Condita Book Six (Cambridge 1994Google Scholar), ad loc: ‘The parade, intended as a display of potestas, is read as one of dominatio.’

17. Livy 4.53.11–13: auctae inde plebis ac militum in consulem irae. itaque cum ex senatus consulto urbem ouans introiret, alternis inconditi uersus militari licentia iactati quibus consul increpitus, Meneni celebre nomen laudibus fuit, cum ad omnem mentionem tribuni fauor circumstantis populi plausuque et adsensu cum uocibus militum certaret. plusque ea res quam prope sollemnis militum lasciuia in consulem curae patribus iniecit; et tamquam haud dubius inter tribunos militum honos Meneni si peteret, consularibus comitiis est exclusus certaret (‘The anger of the plebs and the soldiers against the consul increased as a result. So, when he entered the city in an ovation, songs without form were bandied about with military licence, in which, in turn, the consul was rebuked and the name of Meneni us was celebrated with praise. And at every mention of the tribune, the enthusiasm of the people standing about the procession competed in its applause and approval with the cries of the soldiers’).

18. For the famous controversy over Cossus’ office, see Ogilvie (n.14 above), ad loc. (with bibliography).

19. Cf. Bell, A., ‘Cicero and the Spectacle of Power’, JRS 87 (1997), 1–22Google Scholar, at 1: ‘In any polity where citizens or subjects have some aesthetic contact with the comportment of their leaders, those leaders will find that some of their power is dependent upon the spectators’ view of them; even the power of auctoritas may be weakened if there is jeering and not cheering in the streets.’

20. Suet. Div. Jul. 49: Gallias Caesar subegit, Nicomedes Caesarem./ecce Caesar nunc triumphal, qui subegit Gallias,/Nicomedes non triumphal, qui subegit Caesarem (‘Caesar conquered Gaul, Nicomedes conquered Caesar. Look, Caesar, who conquered Gaul, is triumphing, but Nicomedes, who conquered Caesar, is not triumphing’). It is worth pointing out that this rumour may have dogged Caesar for some 35 years. See Suet. Div. Jul. 2 for the origin of the story. See Suet. Div. Jul. 51 for another famous triumph song concerning Caesar’s adultery in the provinces.

21. See Sedgwick, W.B., ‘The Trochaic Tetrameter and the uersus popularis’, G&R 1 (1931), 96–106Google Scholar, at 99, and Courtney (above n.6), 483f., for this as parodying the children’s rhyme: rex erit qui rectefaciet; qui non faciei, non erit.

22. Suet. Div. Jul. 49. For Caesar’s public image, see Yavetz, Z., Julius Caesar and his Public Image (Ithaca 1983), 220Google Scholar: ‘The limited impact of poems with political allusions (Catull. 29, 54, 93) is not to be denied, but short and vulgar songs by soldiers and civilians (uulgus) (Suet. Jul. 49, 80) had far more influence on the masses.’ See also Cèbe (n.7 above), 164: ‘les affronts que César recevait de ses ennemis n’étaient pas plus méhants.’ See ibid. 163f. for carmina triumphalia as political satire.

23. Other famous examples of triumph songs could be discussed. For instance, Velleius’ account of the triumph of Lepidus and Plancus, who had proscribed their brothers, where, inter iocos militaris and amid the execrationem ciuium, the troops sing the verse: de germanis, non de Gallis duo triumphant consules (2.67 with Woodman ad loc. and Courtney [n.6 above], 484f.). The participation of the bystanders is to be noted here. Cf. the response of the d?mos at Caesar’s quadruple triumph in 46, where, though restrained by fear, they reportedly groan over their domestic ills, especially when they see the pictures of the deaths of Cato, Petreius and L. Scipio (App. BC 2.101). Note also how at Sulla’s triumph, some scoffingly () call it the ‘official denial of royalty’, while others label it the ‘official avowal of tyranny’ (App. BC 1.101).

24. See Livy 4.20.2 (in eum milites carmina incondita aequantes eum Romulo canere, ‘they sang songs without form equating him with Romulus’); 4.53.11 (alternis inconditi uersus militari licentia iactati; ‘unformed verses bandied about with military licence’, in the context of an ouatio); 5.49.7 (interque iocos militares quos inconditos iaciunt, ‘among the military jests which they toss out artlessly’); 7.10.13 (inter carminum prope in modum incondita quaedam militariter ioculantes Torquati nomen auditum (’among the unformed verses, almost like songs, which they jokingly composed in the military manner, the name Torquatus was heard’; this describes the soldiers’ songs after Manlius’ defeat of the Gaul in single combat, but the songs are not in an explicitly triumphal context); 7.38.3 (incondito militari ioco, ‘with artless military jest’).

25. See also Quint. Inst. 6.3.107: there is nothing without form (nihil inconditum) in urbanity (urbanitas).

26. See O’Neill (n.15 above) for an introduction to this topic, focusing on the figure of the circulator.

27. See e.g. Dion. Hal. 2.34.2 and 7.72.11. Note, however, Ullman, B.L., ‘Dionysius on Saturnian Verse’, CP 39 (1944Google Scholar), 47f., suggesting that ametrois, used at Dion. Hal. 7.72.11 of the soldiers’ jests in the past as opposed to the πоιήματα…αύτоσχέδια of Dionysius’ day, should be translated as ‘with bad meter’ as opposed to ‘without meter’. Ullman argues that this must refer to Saturnian verse (described as ἄμετρον by Charisius, , GLL 1: 288Google Scholar Keil, and whose qualities are also dismissed at Livy 7.2.7 and Horace Ep. 2.1.157; see also Servius on Vergil Georg. 2.386). See also Rose, H.J., ‘“Unmetrical” Triumph-Songs’. CP 39 (1944), 258Google Scholar. It should be cautioned that ἀμέτροις here is an emendation of Post in his Loeb edition, replacing the manuscripts’ .

28. Hor. Ep. 2.1.145-55.

29. A useful account of the various controversies concerning triumphs and control over war booty during the age of Plautus can be found at Gruen, E., Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy (Leiden 1990), 129–37Google Scholar. Note that Polybius reveals an awareness of the contested nature of triumphs, listing the Senate’s ability to prevent triumphs as one of the checks and balances in the Roman constitution (6.15).

30. Note Christenson, D.M., Plautus, Amphitruo (Cambridge 2000Google Scholar) on line 642: ‘i.e. worthy of celebrating a triumph.’

31. See p.17 below for discussion of Sosia’s speech. For the ablative absolutes and triumphal language, see Fraenkel, E., Elementi Plautini in Plauto (Florence 1960), 228-30Google Scholar and Galli, F., ‘L’iscrizione trionfale di Ti. Sempronio Graccho (Liv. XLI, 28)’, Aion 9–10 (1987–88), 135–38Google Scholar. For the association of auspicium with imperium and the triumphator, see Versnel (n.4 above), 313–71; also Christenson (n.30 above), 655–57.

32. The play with the next highest frequency of the verb is Mostellaria, where it is found 21 times. It is used 14 times in Trinummus, Epidicus and Truculentus; 12 times in Bacchides; 10 times in Menaechmi and Poenulus; 9 times in Mercator, 8 times in Curculio; 7 times in Captiui and Stichus; 6 times in Miles Gloriosus; 5 times in Rudens and Pseudolus; 4 times in Persa; 3 times in Asinaria; twice in Aulularia and Casina. It is not used at all in Cistellaria.

33. See Versnel (n.4 above), 384–89, esp. 389. Note for example his discussion of aduentus in the Empire: ‘Now this aduentus has in the late imperial period replaced the triumph and taken over its ceremonial, one of the indications that the triumph belongs in the category of the entries described’ (388). He continues: ‘…the current term for “to celebrate a triumph” was not triumphare, but triumphans urbem inire, inuehi, etc. This makes it perfectly clear that the entry into the city was an essential element in the Roman triumph. This was also the reason why any general could, without asking permission, hold a triumph on the mons Albanus, because there the characteristic element of the entry was lacking’ (388). Note Livy 5.23.4, where the aduentus of Camillus after the capture of Veii is associated by Livy with his triumph. However, Ogilvie (n.14 above), commenting on this passage, points out that the aduentus was not a formal part of the proceedings which led up to the triumph.

34. Versnel (n.4 above), 340, drawing on Combès, R., Imperator - Recherches sur l’emploi et la signification du titre d’imperator dans la Rome républicaine (Paris 1966), 90–93Google Scholar. Note Combès 90 n.50 for the use of salutare for consalutare, although his only examples are imperial.

35. See Versnel (n.4 above), 351, for the close relationship between the appellatio imperatoria and the triumph: ‘The appellatio imperatoria we included in our inquiry also shows remarkable connections with the triumph. For it is true that Scipio was, in spite of his title, refused a triumph, but in later times the appellatio imperatoria became, as it were, the first stop on the way to the triumph. The conditions applying to the victory which formed the occasion, were at that time the same for both ceremonies. It is, therefore, not by chance that in the case of Scipio, the first imperator in the strict sense, it was proposed that his imago should be carried in triumphal garb from the temple of Iuppiter O.M.’ Combès (n.34 above), 118–20, is more sceptical about the association between the title imperator and the triumph.

36. Note also Alcumena at 799f.: aio, adueniensque ilico/me salutauisti (‘when you arrived there, you greeted me’).

37. Note that Leo deleted line 685 on these grounds. The line is defended by Christenson (n.30 above) ad loc.

38. Christenson (n.30 above) ad loc.

39. Cf. Christenson (n.30 above) ad loc., suggesting that this might be a lost topical reference or alternatively hint at the public financing of Roman festivals.

40. Note also Sosia at 180–84, blaming his peril on his failure to thank and address the gods upon his arrival (dis aduenientem gratias pro meritis agere atque adloqui, 181; cf. mihi aduenienti, 183). Cf. also 361, where Sosia complains that he has been kept out of his house on his arrival home (me aduenientem). Note also Sosia at 612f.

41. For ludificas, note 585a-b; see also 980 (deludi).

42. For the contents of the lacuna, cf. above all Fantham, E., ‘Towards a Dramatic Reconstruction of the Fourth Act of Plautus’ Amphitruo’, Philologus 117 (1973), 197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Costa, C.D.N., ‘The Amphitruo Theme’, in Dorey, T.A. and Dudley, D.P. (eds.), Roman Drama (New York 1965), 87–122Google Scholar, at 89, and Büchner, K., Studien zur römischen Literatur, Band VII (Wiesbaden 1968), 161–67Google Scholar.

43. Whaley Harsh, P., A Handbook of Classical Drama (Palo Alto 1944), 341Google Scholar.

44. See Hough, J.N., ‘Jupiter, Amphitruon, and the Cuckoo’, CP 65 (1970), 95–6Google Scholar, arguing that Amphitruo’s cuckolding is emphasised in the language by Plautus’ repeated use of the sound ‘cu’.

45. For the dress of the triumphator, cf. Versnel (n.4 above), 56f.

46. Note Mercury’s reference to this chariot of Jupiter (quadrigas…Iouis) in his quarrel with Sosia (450f.).

47. See Versnel (n.4 above), 56–93, for a full discussion and the debate as to whether the triumphator was the embodiment of Jupiter or whether his garb merely recalled the dress of the ancient kings. Cf. Nicolet (n.4 above), 352. Also Beard, Price and North (n.10 above), 142: ‘So, as we have seen, in the ceremony of triumph the victorious general literally put on the clothes of Jupiter Optimus Maximus: in celebration of the victories that he has won through his cooperation with the gods, he slipped into the god’s shoes.’ Cf. Feldherr, A., Spectacle and Society in Livy’s History (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1988), 16Google Scholar: ‘The similarities between the person of the triumphing general and the images of the gods suggest that the triumphator himself made immanent in his own person the power that underpinned his victory.’

48. Feeney, D., Literature and Religion at Rome (Cambridge 1988Google Scholar), 27f.

49. Fragment 19 of the lacuna reads: qui nequeas nostrorum uter sit Amphitruo decernere (‘you who cannot determine which of us is Amphitruo’).

50. Cf. Moore, T.J., The Theater of Plautus: Playing to the Audience (Austin 1998Google Scholar), 108f., on the novelty of gods appearing on stage; see also 122, pointing out that the scene with Mercury on the roof is also unique in the Plautine corpus; the roof would usually be reserved for divine epiphanies in tragedies. The play is also unique in its self-professed status as tragicomedy (sit tragicomoedia, line 59). Bond, R.P., ‘Plautus’ Amphitruo as Tragi-comedy’, G&R 46 (1999), 203–20Google Scholar, examines the comic and tragic elements in the play but is interested in matters very different from those studied in this paper.

51. See below for this reference to a vow as possibly indicative of votive games.

52. Duckworth, G.E., The Nature of Roman Comedy: A Study in Popular Entertainment (Princeton 1952), 353Google Scholar, sees this exchange as pure wordplay, consuere meaning ‘patch up’, ‘invent’ and ‘sew together’.

53. For Sosia’s cowardly nature, see especially 199 and 424–32.

54. On possible Greek sources, see e.g. Whaley Harsh (n.43 above), 338f.; Sedgwick, W.B., Plautus, Amphitruo (Manchester 1960), 2-6Google Scholar; Costa (n.42 above), 68; BUchner (n.42 above), 170–207; Christenson (n.30 above), 50–55.

55. This is the essential approach of Earl, D.C., ‘Political Terminology in Plautus,’ Historia 9 (1960), 235–43Google Scholar, although this study is not quite so restricted as Hanson’s model of Plautine scholarship might suggest.

56. Cf. Hanson (n.7 above), 53. Also 52 on scholarly preoccupation with the search for Greek sources for the plays: ‘If the starting-point for this essay were Shakespeare instead of Plautus, there would be little need to insist on the primacy of these questions. Yet the sight of Latin sometimes tends to obfuscate the critically obvious and the prejudices which shape the direction of literary studies among classical scholars have been especially strong in the case of Roman Comedy. Critical opinion has in general valued Greek literature higher than Latin and deprecated the latter as derivative. Since in addition scholars manifest an unconquerable desire to reconstruct the nonexistent from the extant, the chief use to which Plautus and Terence were put until 1958 was as a tool for the hypothetical reconstruction of Greek New Comedy. In that year the publication of Menander’s Dyskolos ensured the world at least one genuine example of a Greek New Comedy, and lifted from Plautus and Terence the unreasonable burden of simultaneously permitting their critics both to divine their sources and measure their departure from those same sources’. Cf. Segal, E., Roman Laughter: The Comedy of Plautus (Cambridge MA 1968), 1–7Google Scholar, on the issue of Plautus being seen as inferior to his Greek sources.

57. Zorzetti, N., La Pretesta e il teatro latino arcaico (Naples 1980Google Scholar). Compare the similar social function of Roman funerals, on which see Flower, H.I., Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture (Oxford 1996Google Scholar). In general, I find Zorzetti extremely suggestive, although it is of course true that his thesis is built upon the pitiful amount of surviving evidence about the praetextae. Wiseman, T.P., Roman Drama and Roman History (Exeter 1998Google Scholar), 10f., has a much broader vision of the fabula praetexta than Zorzetti, arguing that at times it approached vaudeville—as may have been the case, for instance, with the Nonae Caprotinae. Cf. 14: ‘One of [early Roman drama’s] characteristics was evidently an uninhibited attitude to generic boundaries.’ For a very powerful but very sceptical discussion concerning the possibility of reconstructing praetextae, see Flower, H.I., ‘Fabulae Praetextae in Context: When were Plays on Contemporary Subjects Performed in Rome?’ CQ 45 (1995), 170–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See now on Fabula Praetexta, Kragelund, P., ‘Historical Drama in Ancient Rome: Republican Flourishing and Imperial Decline?’, SO 77 (2002), 5–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Dupont, F., L’Acteur-Roi, ou le théâtre dans la Rome antique (Paris 1985), 215–28Google Scholar on ‘la prétexte’ (and 359–64 on the Amphitruo). Also Dupont, , ‘Signification théatrale du double dans l’Amphitruon’, REL 54 (1976), 129–41Google Scholar and ‘Cantica et diverbia dans l’Amphitruon de Plaute’, in Filologia e Forme Letterarie (Urbino 1987Google Scholar), ii.45–56.

58. Cf. Camillus at Livy 5.49.7 and Cossus (not a triumphator in this instance) at Livy 4.20.1.

59. Zorzetti (n.57 above), 86f.

60. Indeed Bonfante Warren (n.4 above, 582), in her review of Versnel, goes as far as to say that ‘the Amphitryo includes the description of a triumph of this [the Hellenistic] period’.

61. Note Amph. 195f.: me a portu praemisit domum ut haec nuntiem uxori suae;/ut gesserit rempublicam ductu, imperio, auspicio suo (‘he sent me home from the harbour to announce to his wife how he had served the Republic with his leadership, his right of command and his right to take auspices’). See Halkin (n.1 above), 299. See Fraenkel (n.31 above), 226–30, on triumphal language used by Plautine slaves. For the ablative absolutes in Sosia’s speech (e.g. at lines 188f.) as typical of the performances of speeches announcing victory, see p.9 and n.31 above.

62. Halkin (n.l above), 298. At 303 Halkin expounds exactly what is parodic about the scene in the play. At 301 and n.2 he points out that such speeches would have been addressed to the Senate, but he shows that there is evidence that, because of popular demand, they were also allowed to be read to a contio from the Rostra: he cites Livy 30.40.2 (202 BCE); 32.31.6 and 33.24.2 (both from 197 BCE). Lelièvre, F.J., ‘Sosia and Roman Epic’, Phoenix 12 (1958), 117–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, also argues that Sosia’s speech is a parody, but of early Roman epic, especially Naevius.

63. Cf. also Beard (n.2 above) for the Amphitruo as a parody of triumphal mimesis.

64. Janne (n.1 above). See Pais (n.4 above), 149–52, for Fulvius Nobilior’s triumph. Note that Jaime’s interpretation of the play is so out of favour that in Baier, T. (ed.), Studien zu Plautus’ Amphitruo (Tübingen 1999Google Scholar), there is not a single reference to Fulvius Nobilior in the index. Similarly, Janne (and Halkin) are absent from Christenson’s list of works cited in his recent commentary (n.30 above). Cf. Christenson (n.30 above), 3: ‘Identifications of covert allusions to figures such as M. Fulvius Nobilior or to specific battles prove to be illusory.’ But note Harvey, P., ‘Historical Allusions in Plautus and the Date of the Amphitruo’, Athenaeum 59 (1981), 480–89Google Scholar, at 488, who does find that ‘the coincidences among Nobilior’s campaigns, his associations with Hercules, and the plot of the play are notable’.

65. Note that when Mercury states in the prologue that he is a bringer of peace (propterea pace aduenio et pacem ad uos fero, 32), he may well, as Janne suggests (n.l above, 516), be referring to a particular, contemporary Roman victory.

66. Gruen, E., The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley & Los Angeles 1984Google Scholar), ii.459 n.130, is sceptical as to the historicity of this episode.

67. Cf. Badian, E., ‘Ennius and his Friends’, in Skutsch, O. (ed.), Ennius (Entretiens Fondation Hardt 17, 1972), 182Google Scholar, for Fulvius as Ennius’ principal patron; the Ambraciot campaign of Fulvius was probably intended as the original climax and conclusion of the Annales. Cf. Gruen (n.29 above), 114. See Cic. Arch. 22 and Tusc. 1.3 for Ennius and Fulvius in Aetolia (and for Cato’s speech attacking Fulvius for bringing Ennius with him on campaign).

68. Janne (n.1 above), 520–23.

69. Note Livy 39.4.9 where Fulvius speaks in favour of his triumph, mocking a decree of a poorly-attended Senate which said that Ambracia did not seem to have been captured by force (Ambraciam non uideri ui captam). For the emphasis in the play on uis, see e.g. 191, 237 and 413f. Janne (n.1 above), 522f., also feels that the emphasis on Amphitruo’s war as being a bellum iustum (e.g. 246f.; cf. 34–36 for the exuberant play on the adjective iustus in the prologue) responds to accusations that Nobilior’s war had been unjust (Livy 38.43.2f.). Finally, note the stress on booty in the play, again perhaps recalling Fulvius’ lavish celebrations, but also more generally alluding to an increasingly important and contested subject of debate during the conquest of the East.

70. Cf. Herrmann (n.l above), 319: ‘M. H. Janne a établi d’une façon décisive que dans l’Amphitryon de Plaute la guerre contre les Téléboens est une transposition de la campagne de M. Fulvius Nobilior contre les Étoliens et Ambracie.’

71. See Buck, C.H., A Chronology of the Plays of Plautus (Diss., Johns Hopkins 1938Google Scholar) for Hercules as the tutelary deity of Ambracia. See Badian (n.67 above), 187f., for this temple and Fulvius. Viscogliosi, in Steinby, E.M. (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae (Rome 1993-2000Google Scholar), iii.17–19, accepts the arguments of Martini, M., ‘Aedes Herculis Musarum’, DArch. 3 (1981), 49–68Google Scholar, in favour of a date of 179 for the temple of Hercules Musarum but suggests that it was probably begun (and certainly dedicated) earlier. Martini defends the credibility of Eumenius who tells us that the temple was built by Fulvius ex pecunia censoria, suggesting a date of 179 (Paneg. 9.7.3). But note Cic. Arch. 22 claiming that Fulvius dedicated Martis…manubias to the Muses. See Coarelli, F., Il Campo Marzio: dalle origini alla fine della repubblica (Rome 1997), 452–84Google Scholar, for an extraordinarily rich discussion of the problems associated with the temple, defending the position that it was founded by Fulvius Nobilior and confirming its role in the movement towards a hellenising literature in this period. Cf. 473: ‘un momento centrale di questo processo va riconosciuto nella fondazione del tempio di Hercules Musarum, con tutte le sue complesse implicazioni religiose, politiche, culturali, tutte sussunte comunque sotto il segno determinante della Grecia.’

72. Janne (n.1 above), 527f., suggests, in support of his argument, that the famous reference to Alcumena as a Bacchae bacchanti (‘raving follower of Bacchus’, Amph. 703) may be a topical reference to the suppression of the Bacchanalians in 186, just before his date for the performance of Plautus’ play in December of that year at Fulvius’ votive games. Janne also sees Mercury’s reference to uigiles nocturnos (‘night-time guards’, 351) as alluding to the emergency measures taken as a result of the Bacchanalian affair (the verbal parallels with Livy are quite striking; note Livy 39.16.12 for uigiliarum nocturnarum curam per urbem [‘charge over the nighttime guards in the city’]; cf. 39.14.10: triumuiris capitalibus mandatum est ut uigilias disponerent per urbem seruarentque ne qui nocturnus coetus flerent [‘the three men in charge of executions were given the responsibility of setting up the guards throughout the city, so that no nighttime meetings could take place’]). Again, one might doubt the specificity of Janne’s separate arguments, but the overall cumulation of proofs is quite powerful. Herrmann (n.l above) points out other Bacchic elements in the play: he suggests that the god Nocturnus, mentioned in Sosia’s account of the constellations in his description of the long night (line 272), is Bacchus (he compares Virgil Georgics 4.521: nocturnique orgia Bacchi, ‘rites of nocturnal Bacchus’), and he points out the significance of Alcumena’s maid, who appears near the end of the play, being called Bromia. For the Amphitruo and possible similarities to Euripides’ Bacchae, see Stewart, Z., ‘The Amphitruo of Plautus and Euripides’ Bacchae’, TAPA 89 (1958), 348–73Google Scholar, stressing the themes of drunkenness and madness in Plautus– play.

73. Cf. pp.Hf. above. Note also 945–47, where Jupiter says to Alcumena that he vowed a sacrifice for the safety of his army: uota uoui, si domumlrediissem saluos. See Janne (n. 1 above), 529. Cf. also the vows of the generals in Sosia’s battle account (229f.).

74. Rawson, E., ‘Roman Tradition and the Greek World’, CAH ² (Cambridge 1989Google Scholar), viii.422–76, at 442, feels that these artifices were imported to give plays in Greek; see Horsfall, N. ‘Roma’, in Cambiano, G., Canfora, L. and Lanza, D. (eds.), Lo spazio letterario delta Grecia Antica, (Rome 1993Google Scholar), ii.791–822, at 802f., on these artifices and on the evidence for Greek performances in Rome. For a rather different interpretation of Livy’s artifices, see Gruen, E., Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome (Ithaca 1992), 195Google Scholar. Cf. Polybius 30.22 for the technitai at Anicius’ notorious dramatic entertainments following his victory over Genthius. See also Gruen, 215’18, and J.C. Edmondson, ‘The Cultural Politics of Public Spectacle in Rome and the Greek East, 167–166 BCE’, in Bergmann and Kondoleon (n.4 above), 77–95, at 81–84. See Ferrary, J.-L., Philhellénisme et Impérialisme (Rome 1988Google Scholar), 565f., for Anicius’ triumph.

75. Flower (n.58 above), 182f.

76. Flower (n.58 above), 184–86. See Kragelund (n.58 above), 23f., for the dedication of the temple as a likely occasion for the Ambracia. Zehnacker, H., ‘Tragéclie préexte et spectacle romain’, in Zehnacker, (ed.), Théâtre et spectacles dans l’antiquité (Strasbourg 1981), 31–48Google Scholar, at 44, dates the Ambracia to after Fulvius’ death (in the context of funeral games), arguing on the basis of the supposed ban on living senators being represented on stage. The last known reference to Fulvius is to his censorship in 179, and so Zehnacker dates the play to 179–69. Contra Zehnacker, see Flower (n.58 above), 177f, showing that Cicero de Republica 4.10.12 implies that the Romans were uncomfortable with living senators represented on stage, not that there was a prohibition.

77. Compare the stress in the Scipionic epitaphs on the services that Barbatus and his son have done apud uos (ILS 1 and 2).

78. Ribbeck, O., Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta³ (Leipzig 1897Google Scholar), fr. 4: et aequora salsa ueges ingentibus uentis (‘you stir up the salty seas with great winds’). Ribbeck (op. cit. 331) also sees Plautus’ passage as a reference to fabula praetexta.

79. This passage is discussed further below with reference to the location of the Amphitruo–s performance. It is true that at line 41 Plautus specifically uses the phrase in tragoediis, but as Wiseman suggests (n.58 above, 20), this may just refer to ‘serious plays’. For the tendency of ancient grammarians to see praetexta as similar to tragedy, see Diomedes GL i.489 Keil: praetextae…personarum dignitate et [personarum] sublimitate tragoediis similes (‘praetexta plays which are similar to tragedies in the dignity and loftiness of the characters’). Note also Plautus’ reference to tragoediam in Captiui line 63, which Ribbeck again relates to praetexta.

80. In the past scholars have seen references to Ennius in the Amphitruo, especially in Sosia’s famous battle account. A connection between the performance of the Amphitruo and the Ambracia would explain such references. Note Amph. 304f.: formido male,/ne ego hie nomen meum commutem et Quintus fiam e Sosia (‘I badly fear that I might change my name here and turn from Sosia into Quintus’). Herrmann (n.1 above, 319–21), suggests that this odd pun on the praenomen Quintus hints at Ennius. Indeed some have, rather optimistically, seen here an even more specific reference, to Ennius’ famous account of his metempsychosis. See Sedgwick (n.55 above) ad loc: ‘It is tempting to see with Postgate a reference to the dream in the Annals of Quintus Ennius, fifth in descent “pavone ex Pythagoreo” (Persius 6.11)—peacock, Euphorbus, Homer, Pythagoras, Ennius: but schol. ad loc. implies that the story was not in Ennius, and the first books of the Annals were not published till after P.’s death.’ Herrmann (n.1 above, 319f.) also suggests that the play on words between Sosia and socius at 383f. may allude to Ennius’ role as Fulvius’ socius. While this seems somewhat tenuous, it should be pointed out that other explanations of this odd passage are no less tortuous. Cf. e.g. Sedgwick ad loc: ‘apparently intended as a pun on Sosiam, can only be explained by the Umbrian Plautus having recourse to the Umbrian pronunciation with soft c’.

81. Cf. Rostagni, A., La letteratura di Roma repubblicana ed augustea (Bologna 1939), 85Google Scholar (citing Janne): ‘…e nell’ Anfitrione, dove la mitica impresa del protagonista contro gli antichi Teleboi sembra de proposito esemplata sulla recente impresa del console M. Fulvio Nobiliore contro i moderni discendenti dei Teleboi, gli Etoli d’Ambracia (onde l’Anfitrione sarebbe, in campo comico, qualcosa di corrispondente all’ Ambracia, che, come vedrerao, Ennio componeva in onore del console stesso).’

82. Zorzetti (n.57 above, 79) feels that Nobilior’s commemoration of his victory, with its performance of Ennius’ Ambracia, was one of the most important dates in the history of Roman literature. How much more true this would be if the same commemoration included the first performance of the Amphitruo, a play commenting on Fulvius’ victory in a very different manner.

83. Harvey (n.64 above, 48If.) is a useful summary of scholarship on the date of the play. At 485 f., Harvey emphasises line 193 with its allusion to land distribution, which he suggests should provide the play with a terminus post quern of 201, when with the return of Scipio’s troops this first became an issue. He feels 186 is a possible date and suggets that the land distributions mentioned in line 193 may not have been made because of Fulvius’ opposition. But agreement on such issues is, of course, impossible, and it is worth noting that Enk dated the play to as early as 207 or 206 (Harvey 481f.). See also Sedgwick (n.54 above), If., and Christenson (n.30 above), 4, dating the play between 190 and 185.

84. Livy 39.5.11f. (see p.22 below).

85. Halkin (n.l above), 304.

86. Cf. Harvey (n.64 above), 488 n.39, who comments on another scholar’s dismissal of a Fulvian connection with the play: ‘Leliàvre…discounts any such association, because he finds it difficult to believe that any Roman general would invite comparison with Amphitruo, the cuckold. No doubt. But the association was just as strong with Amphitruo the mighty warrior and triumphant general (whose exploits are, after all, lauded at length by Sosia) and Hercules, the child of Alcumena.’ Harvey is, I suggest, half right. The positive connotations of the mighty warrior Amphitruo are present, but Amphitruo the cuckold also plays an important part. The tension that is present in Plautus’ presentation of Amphitruo is inherent in the triumph itself.

87. Gruen (n.29 above), 124.

88. Gruen (n.29 above), 129. Certainly, the Amphitruo has been over-interpreted in the way Gruen condemns. See e.g. Galinsky, K., ‘Scipionic Themes in Plautus’ Amphitruo’, TAPA 97 (1966), 203–35Google Scholar, who attempts to show how the play is replete with Scipionic themes. See esp. 223f.: ‘…when Plautus’ Roman audience heard of Amphitruo’s campaign against the Teleboeae, they could not fail to associate this with the war against the Boii… The Roman campaign had been brought to a close by the consul P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica.’ Cf. 231f.: ‘For Scipio and his circle are known to have tried to introduce Greek religious and philosophical concepts, including that of apotheosis, into Rome. Scipio’s role, in a sense, thus also is analogous to that of Dionysus in the Bacchae: he corresponds to the new and strange god, the Roman populace being too hesitant and skeptical to accept immediately the conceptions advocated by him. This, I believe, explains the presence of the Bacchic theme in the Amphitruo, and the Scipionic and Bacchic themes are well integrated. But the themes from the Bacchae do not enable us to come up with straightforward identifications nor do they cast any light on Plautus’ attitude towards Scipio’s attempted apotheosis.’ Herrmann (n.l above) also sees the play as bringing to mind Scipio, but he believes that the play was written against Scipio, who had (probably) opposed Fulvius’ triumph. Herrmann is reminded of Scipio’s boast, as described in Livy, that his mother conceived him with Jupiter. He also suggests that Scipio lies behind the somewhat sinister summus uir of line 77. Of course, the fact that the same play is seen as pro- and anti-Scipio and the fact that different military campaigns can be seen as lying behind the same passage of Plautus show the danger of over-interpretation that Gruen warns of.

89. Gruen (n.29 above), 137.

90. Gruen (n.29 above), 117 n.186.

91. Gruen (n.74 above), 183.

92. For readings of the Amphitruo which are disinclined to see any engagement with political discourse at all, cf. Segal, E., ‘Perché Amphitruo’, Dioniso 16 (1975), 247–67Google Scholar, and Forehand, W.E., ‘Irony in Plautus’ Amphitruo’, AJP 92 (1971), 633–51Google Scholar.

93. Goldberg, S., ‘Plautus on the Palatine’, JRS 88 (1998), 1–20Google Scholar.

94. See Saunders, C., ‘The Site of Dramatic Performances at Rome in the Times of Plautus and Terence’, TAPA 44 (1913), 87–97Google Scholar, and Hanson, J.A., Roman Theater-Temples (Princeton Monographs in Art and Archaeology 33; Princeton 1959Google Scholar). On the ludi scaenicae in general, see also Taylor, L.R., ‘The Opportunities for Dramatic Performance in the Time of Plautus and Terence’, TAPA 68 (1937), 284–304Google Scholar, and Gruen (n.74 above), 184–88.

95. Flower (n.57 above) denies that ludi scaenici were performed in association with triumphs, but the evidence is too limited to rule out the possibility. Polybius says that Anicius’ famous games with their technitai were part of his (30.22.1). Walbank ad loc. thinks that these were probably votive rather than triumphal games; see also Gruen (n.29 above), 215 n.144. It is true that descriptions of Anicius’ triumph in Livy 45.43.5–8, Veil. Pat. 1.9.5 and App Ill. 9 do not mention dramatic entertainment, but this is not conclusive, and Walbank himself points out that in later sources (e.g. Dion. Hal. 2.23.7) ἐπινίκιος is used to render the Latin triumphalis. See also Edmondson (n.74 above), 92 n.48, arguing that Anicius’ games were held at his triumph. Certainly Tacitus Annals 14.21.2 suggests that there was some kind of entertainment at the triumph of Mummius, following his victory over Achaea in 146, but as Flower (n.57 above), 181 points out, it is not really clear what Tacitus is referring to here. See Versnel (n.4 above), 101–15, showing that the long-influential view of Mommsen, T., ‘Die Ludi Magni und Romani’ in Rdmische Forschungen (Berlin 1879Google Scholar), ii.43–57, that the ludi were originally a part of the triumph (hence the striking similiarities of the pompa circensis and the pompa triumphalis) is unsustainable. Zehnacker (n.76 above, 43) feels that triumphs and funeral games were the usual venues for praetextae. Cf. ibid. 47: ‘De plus, triomphes et funérailles tendaient à concurrencer la tragédie prétexte, en offrant, sur les mêmes thèmes, un spectacle bien autrement prenant, parce que c’était un spectacle total: la scène était dans toute la ville, les citoyens participaient intensément à l’action, le triomphateur pour un jour devenait Jupiter, et dans les families qui avaient le ius imaginum les masques des ancêtres accompagnaient le défunt dans son dernier voyage. Plus que les inventions de lews poetes, ces jeux de la mort et du destin étaient la vraie tragédie des Romains’.

96. Note Flower in Kragelund (n.57 above), 69, accepting the temple of Hercules Musarum as a venue for Ennius’ Ambracia.

97. See Viscogliosi (n.71 above), iii.l3f. It is possible that this temple went back to Flaminius’ foundation of the Circus Flaminius in the late 220s, fulfilling the same relationship to the Circus Flaminius that the the Temple of Hercules Invictus fulfilled with respect to the Circus Maximus. Contra, see Coarelli (n.72 above), 452f., who suggests that the crucial passage, Ovid Fasti 6.209–12, refers to a Sullan foundation for the Temple of Hercules Custos, not a Suilan restoration.

98. See Viscogliosi (n.71 above), i.269–72 on the Circus Flaminius, stressing its associations with the triumph at 270: ‘II c.F., però, era in principale modo legato alle cerimonie del trionfo…, che vi prendevano avvio, e potevano avere massimo afflusso di popolo, da cui l’interesse del-l’aristocrazia senatoria e dei trionfatori, che a partire dal III sec. a.C. lo circondarono con fastosi monumenti pubblici, arricchiti da trofei e prede belliche, spesso celebri opere d’arte greca.’

99. See Val. Max. 1.7.4 for the ludi plebeii at the Circus Flaminius. Wiseman is sceptical about this, suggesting that our source is anachronistic. See Wiseman, T.P., ‘The Circus Flaminius’, PBSR 42 (1974), 3–26Google Scholar. Also Wiseman, , ‘Two Questions on the Circus Flaminius’, PBSR 44 (1976), 44–47Google Scholar. See Zevi, F., ‘L’identificazione del tempio di Marte “in circo” e altre osservazioni’, in Mélanges offerts à Jacques Heurgon (Rome 1976Google Scholar), ii.1047–66, discussing Wiseman’s theories. But even if the anecdote is misplaced, it does seem that for Valerius the Circus Flaminius was a natural place to locate the ludi plebeii. Wiseman points out that Varro suggests that only the ludi Taurii were held at the Circus Flaminius, but Varro is referring to horse and circus racing here and tells us nothing about ludi scaenici (LL 5.154). Valerius also refers to the Circus Flaminius as a spectaculi locus at 4.4.8, but Wiseman 1976 points out that the reference here to the Circus Maximus and Circus Flaminius is only found on the margin of a manuscript and has been incorporated into the text with little justification. Accepting Valerius’ reference to the Circus Flaminius here at first sight implies a terminus post quern of 220 for the ludi plebeii, the date that the Circus Flaminius was probably constructed, in the censorship of the great plebeian leader, C. Flaminius. This dating accords well with the first attestation of the ludi plebeii in Livy’s account of 216 (23.30.17). However, there is no reason to think that the ludi plebeii could not have been founded earlier and moved to the new Circus by Flaminius or his followers. Or, of course, they may have been held in the prata Flaminia even prior to Flaminius’ intervention in the area. Indeed the plebeian associations of the place may have been one reason why Flaminius was interested in this part of the city. Hanson (n.94 above), 12, points out that there is no direct evidence of dramatic presentations at the ludi plebeii, but this is perhaps over-sceptical. See the recent work of Wiseman, , especially Remus (Cambridge 1995Google Scholar), for the role of dramatic performances in forming a plebeian mythical and historical tradition. Note Wiseman, , Historiography and the Imagination: Eight Essays on Roman Culture (Exeter 1994Google Scholar), 12 and 121 n.42, and Remus, 134-37, for the ludi plebeii as designed to rival the ludi Romani and for a suggestion that the origin of the ludi scaenici was associated with the foundation of the ludi plebeii.

100. Note Coarelli (n.72 above), 469, who suggests that Aemilius Lepidus’ decision to build his temple to Juno Regina was ‘un intervento polemico’ in his quarrel with Fulvius, placing this temple between that of Hercules Musarum and thus breaking its planned relationship with the temple of Apollo. If this is the case, games of Fulvius in the same area may well have taken on a polemical aspect. Coarelli also points out that there would have been plenty of physical space in this area: ‘al momento della sua realizzazione, la aedes Herculis Musarum si insediò in un terreno del tutto libero.’

101. Flower at Kragelund (n.57 above), 69.

102. Coarelli (n.72 above), 398f. See Livy 28.11.4 for an ara Neptuni…in circo Flaminio (‘altar of Neptune in the Circus Flaminius’) in 206 BCE. See Dio fr. 57.60, making it clear that this was a temple.

103. Zevi in LTUR iii.226–29.

104. Goldberg (n.93 above), 19. Cf. how scholars have argued that the famous passage in Plautus’ Curculio (470–83) describing activity in the west end of the Forum suggests a performance context somewhere in that space. See Moore, T.J., ‘Palliata Togata: Plautus, Curculio 462–86’, AJP 112 (1991), 343–62Google Scholar, at 358f., and also 359f, on the choragus taking advantage of the presence of the audience to joke at its expense. Also Gaggiotti, M., ‘Atrium Regis - Basilica (Aemilia): una insospettata continuità storica e una chiave ideologica per la soluzione del problema dell’ origine della basilica’, Analecta Romana 14 (1985), 53–80Google Scholar, at 60; Jory, E.J., ‘Gladiators in the Theatre’, CQ 36 (1986), 537–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar (the Forum as the venue for the Hecyra and Adelphoe); and Wiseman, T.P., ‘Afterword: The Theatre of Civic Life’, in Barton, I.M. (ed.), Roman Public Buildings (Exeter 1989), 151–54Google Scholar, at 152.

105. The Loeb edition follows Leo in deleting line 14; however, as the argument here will suggest, the extra emphasis on profit may well be appropriate to the performative context.

106. Of course, what follows depends upon the assumption that the prologue was part of the original performing text, not a later addition. See Duckworth (n.53 above), 80f., opposing Ritschl’s later dating for the prologue.

107. For the Ara Maxima’s location, cf. Propertius 4.9. Also Solinus 1.11 (cited at McDonough, CM., ‘Forbidden to Enter the Ara Maxima’, Mnemosyne 52 [1999], 464–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 464). On the cults of Hercules in the Forum Boarium, see Palmer, R.E.A., ‘Cults of Hercules, Apollo Caelispex and Fortuna in and around the Roman Cattle Market’, JRA 3 (1990), 234–44Google Scholar, at 234–40. Even if some of the temples lay officially outside of the Forum Boarium, they were still in the vicinity. Palmer writes of the ‘vigor of Herculean cults in the Cattle Market and its environs’ (244). On Hercules Victor et Invictus, see Weinstock, S., ‘Victor and Invictus’, HThR 50 (1957), 211–47Google Scholar.

108. Cf. Scullard (n.4 above), 215.

109. Harvey (n.64 above), 482f., though he acknowledges that it could simply refer to a Greek emporion (484).

110. For Plautus’ use of macellum, see De Ruyt, C., Macellum: Marché alimentaire des Romains (Louvain 1983Google Scholar), 236ff, discussing this passage at 237f. The new market in the area of the later Templum Pads was not built (or rebuilt) until Fulvius’ and Aemilius’ busy censorship in 179 (Paulus ex Fest. 112L). But De Ruyt, 239–52, shows that there was a macellum in Rome in the period before Fulvius’ and Aemilius’ censorship near the later macellum, known also, thanks to some of the items to be bought there, as the forum piscarium, the forum cuppedinis and the forum coquinum (and Plautus could also be referring to this).

111. Fraenkel (n.32 above), 333 n.l.

112. See Propertius 4.9.19. See Richardson, L., A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore MD 1992), 162Google Scholar, for other accounts (e.g. Ovid Fasti 6.477f.), which derive the name from an Aeginitan bronze statue of an ox which signified the beginnings of Romulus’ city wall (pomerium).

113. Cf. Hough (n.44 above) for a somewhat more secure instance of onomatopaeic wordplay in the Amphitruo.

114. Thanks to Tom Habinek for reading and discussing an early version of this paper. Thanks also to the audience (especially Cliff Ando, Tony Boyle, Carolyn Dewald and Amy Richlin) at the USC-UCLA Roman Studies Seminar on the triumph in April 2003 where some of these ideas were presented. I was fortunate enough to carry out work on this topic at the American Academy in Rome as NEH-Andrew Heiskell post-doctoral Rome Prize fellow in 2002-03. Special thanks to friends in Rome who read a version of this paper, especially to Rebecca Benefiel, Jennifer Clarvoe, Joe Farrell, Ken Gouwens, Liz Marlowe, Frances Muecke and Jamie Woolard. Thanks also to Mary Beard for stimulating triumph-related conversation in Los Angeles and in Exeter. The usual disclaimers concerning the author’s stubbornness most certainly apply in the case of this paper.