Packer (2006). This section of the Marble Plan (known in part from a re-
naissance manuscript copy, Cod. Vat. Lat 3439 fol. 23r): Rodriquez
Almeida (1982) pl. 28 and 32.
44. Aulus Gellius 10, 1, 7, quoting, or paraphrasing, a letter of Cicero’s ex-
slave Tiro (whether the mistake was Tiro’s, or in the transmission of
Gellius, we do not know). Coarelli (1997) 568–9 defends Gellius’ accu-
racy, by suggesting that he was referring to one of the smaller shrines in
Pompey’s complex which may have been dedicated to Victoria (Fasti Allif.
ad 12 Aug. in Degrassi Inscr. It. XIII.2, 180–1); but Gellius seems clearly to be referring to the main temple.
N4 Pliny, Nat. 36, 115; the fourth-century Regionary Catalogues give a much 5. lower figure of 17,580 loca (Valentini and Zucchetti [1940] 122–3).
46. Theater-temples: Hanson (1959). Mytilene: Plutarch, Pomp. 42, 4—
though excavations there have not produced an obvious model
(Evangelides [1958], L. Richardson [1987]). A combined inspiration is pre-
sumably the most likely (as in the second-century bce theater-temple at
Praeneste, where an Italic sanctuary and “native” architectural forms are
developed in a strikingly Hellenizing idiom). Tacitus, Ann. 14, 20 in-
directly reports some unfavorable reactions to Pompey’s innovations in
Rome; however, the often-repeated charge of Tertullian ( De Spectaculis
10) that the Temple of Venus (with its convenient steps) was merely a
cunning device to disguise the existence of the theater is almost certainly a
willful (or, at best, inadvertent) Christian misunderstanding of pagan ar-
chitecture, culture, and religion.
47. Gleason (1990). Location of Caesar’s murder: Plutarch, Caes. 66; Brut. 17.
Quote: Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 3, sc. ii.
48. Pliny Nat. 7, 34 (Alcippe); 35, 114 (Cadmus and Europa); 35, 59 (“shield-bearer”).
49. Muses: Fuchs (1982). Seated figure: Helbig (1966) 2, no. 1789. Statue
Notes to Pages 25–26
342
bases: IGUR I, no. 210–212; Coarelli (1971–72) 100–3. The statue bases are almost certainly later than the original development (perhaps Augustan
replacements of earlier bases); some of the surviving sculpture may be
mid-first century bce.
50. Tatian, Ad Graecos 33–4. The speculation was initiated by Coarelli (1971–
72), who saw that a Greek statue-base found in the area of the Pompeian
porticoes, recording the statue of “Mystis” by one “Aristodot[os]” ( IGUR
I, no. 212), matched a statue in Tatian’s list (and indeed confirmed the
manuscript reading of “Mystis,” which had generally been emended to
“Nossis”). Two other statues in the list (“Glaucippe” and “Panteuchis”)
seemed more or less to match a pair assigned to Pompey’s complex by
Pliny ( Nat. 7, 34, “Alcippe” and “Eutychis”). So far, so good. But Tatian’s list includes over twenty works of art, three of which (as Coarelli acknowledges) were definitely to be found elsewhere in Rome. There is no
good reason for assuming that all those sculptures whose locations are un-
known to us were in fact part of Pompey’s scheme.
51. Poetesses and courtesans: Coarelli (1971–72). “Quintessentially Roman
formulation”: Kuttner (1999) (quotes p. 348), who fails to convince me
that several of Antipater’s epigrams evoke works of art from Pompey’s
scheme. Varro: Sauron (1987) and (1994) 280–97 (even more decidedly
unconvincing).
52. Gleason (1990) 10; (1994) 19; Beacham (1999) 70.
53. Pliny, Nat. 35, 132 (Alexander); 36, 41 (nationes). The manuscripts read simply “circa Pompeium”; editors have suggested “circa Pompei/
Pompei theatrum”; the precise arrangement of the statues must remain
unclear.
54. Nationes: Plutarch, Pomp. 45, 2; Pliny, Nat. 7, 98. Nero: Suetonius, Nero 46, 1. Nero’s “subtriumphal” show in 66, formally restoring Tiradates to
the Armenian throne, took place in Pompey’s theater, specially gilded for
the day (Pliny, Nat. 33.54; Dio Cassius 63, 1–6).
55. The post-antique history of the statue and possible Domitianic date:
Faccenna (1956). First century bce: Coarelli (1971–72) 117–21 (though he
misrepresents Faccenna’s reasoning). The findspot in the Piazza della
Cancelleria is at the opposite end of the whole complex from the senate
house; the statue was, however, moved by Augustus to an arch opposite
the main entrance of the theater when he closed off the site of his adop-
tive father’s murder (Suetonius, Aug. 31, 5; Dio Cassius 47, 19, 1).
56. Coarelli (1971–72) 99–100. The speech In Pisonem is not itself independently dated, its timing deduced from references to Caesar’s activities in
Notes to Pages 28–34
343
Gaul included in it (esp. Pis. 81). Coarelli argues for the end of Septem-
ber; Nisbet (1961) 199–202 allows a date between July and September.
57. Cicero, Fam. 7, 1, 2–3; Champlin (2003a) 297–8. The sparse surviving
fragments of these plays are collected in ROL 2.
58. Greenhalgh (1980) 202–17; (1981) 47–63; Seager (2002) 133–51.
59. “Dyspeptic”: Champlin (2003a) 298, on Fam. 7, 1. Elephants: Pliny, Nat.
8, 20–1; Dio Cassius 39, 38 (both locating the wildbeast hunts in the Cir-
cus, not in Pompey’s complex itself ).
60. Suetonius, Jul. 50, 1; Champlin (2003a) 298–9.
61. Pliny, Nat. 35, 7 ( aeternae [“for ever”] is Mayhoff ’s plausible emendation of the implausible text of the manuscripts); Suetonius, Nero 38, 2 (on the destruction of such memorials in the Great Fire of Rome).
62. Cicero, Phil. 2, 64–70 (esp. 68). The (disputed) later history of the house: Suetonius, Tib. 15, 1; SHA, Gordians 3; Guilhembet (1992) 810–6; LTUR
s.v. Domus Pompeiorum.
63. Velleius Paterculus 2, 40, 4; Dio Cassius 37, 21, 3–4.
64. Cicero, Att. 1, 18, 6. The Latin diminutive togula picta (“dinky little triumphal toga”) refers, slightingly, to the embroidered toga (toga picta)
characteristic of triumphal dress.
65. C’est la deduction du somptueux ordre . . . Roy de France, Henry second
(Rouen, 1551) O, 4v (with McGowan [1973] 38–44; [2000] 332). Pompey
is also depicted on one of the arches erected to celebrate Louis XIII’s
triumphant entry to Paris in 1628 (Mulryne, Watanabe-O’Kelly, and
Shewring [2004] 2, 157).
66. Polybius 6, 15, 8. My translation (slightly) oversimplifies and elides the
marked language of vision and artistry: enargeia (“vivid impression”) is a
highly loaded rhetorical term, involving the power to conjure up presence, or to make an audience see what is being represented in words (Hardie