BMCR 2009.06.11: Farney on Wiseman, Unwritten Rome

T. P. Wiseman, Unwritten Rome.  Exeter:  University of Exeter Press,
2008.  Pp. ix, 366.  ISBN 9780859898232.  $37.95 (pb).

Reviewed by Gary D. Farney, Rutgers University
([email protected])
Word count:  2635 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-06-11.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/06/20090611.html
-------------------------------

This work is in some ways the culmination of Wiseman's thoughts over
the past twenty years or so about early Roman history. As is well
known, he is something of a leader of the "skeptical" school of thought
about early Rome. Indeed, in this book, Wiseman articulates arguments
that most of our surviving material is so compromised by anachronistic
material, having been recorded centuries after the fact, that only
pieces of early Roman society and history can be gleaned from it. This
is a position for which I admit I have a great deal of sympathy. The
book is a collection of 18 essays. Most have appeared in other places
since 1995, but four and a half   are entirely new (see chapter list
below). Wiseman has done some editing to those published previously,
mostly reflecting new positions put forward in response to his
articles, and these additions appear in the footnotes. The book is well
illustrated (54 illustrations and drawings) and well edited.[[1]] And,
though the work relies heavily on evidence from our textual tradition,
by necessity Wiseman also draws  on a variety of material evidence.

Chapter 1, one of the new chapters, begins with a survey of the first
samples of writing from early Rome. Wiseman then asks how much of early
Roman history, potentially going back to the Bronze Age, was accurately
remembered (p. 8). He shows that ancient writers could be wrong in
their interpretation of early written documents with their older
scripts and unfamiliar dialects. He also points out that no real
evidence exists to show that there was a sack of Rome by Gauls in the
early fourth century BC, which was an explanation for the "loss" of
early documents put forward by the ancients themselves and which is
often used by modern scholars for the same purpose. He then summarizes
the situation as he sees it: there was little documentary evidence from
Rome before the 300s BC; what there was could be understood only with
difficulty; and writers in the late Republic felt free to ignore it
when they were interested in telling a "great moral story of triumph
and tragedy" (p. 15). He starts here an attack upon Andrea
Carandini--continued in Chapter 16 on Carandini's "discovery" of the
"House of Tarquin"-- whom Wiseman sees as typifying a credulous school
of thought that would accept even the historicity of Romulus and Remus
and other elements of what must have been part of an oral tradition.
Wiseman also disputes the idea that Roman religious ritual, usually
seen as highly conservative, must impart factual information about
early Rome in a reliable manner. As a counterexample, he   analyzes
the cult of Anna Perenna, which seems to have changed entirely between
the times of Ovid and Martial, noting that even archaeology would seem
to confirm this change (pp. 18-22, continued on 77-78).

The remaining chapters revolve around three basic arguments telegraphed
in Chapter 1. First, that one can gather information about Rome from
its religious cults and festivals, without relying on them to be
unchanging from earlier periods, by close examination of the (material
and textual) sources. Second, it was through native and imported
theatrical performance (indeed, Wiseman sees all Roman dramatic
performance as a hybrid of these) that Rome passed on its cultural
memory, and that this was drawn upon by our written sources at a later
time when information about early Rome was needed to fill gaps of
knowledge. And, finally, Roman historical writers drew as much upon
Rome's own poetic tradition (dramatic and otherwise) as upon Greek
history and historiography.

Chapters 4, 6, 8, and 10 (all previously published) are representatives
of the first group, attempting to recover information about early (or
later) Rome from sources on religion and festivals. In Chapter 4, on
the Lupercalia. Wiseman suggests that, like the cult of Anna Perenna,
the festival changed over time, a fact that would go some way toward
explaining the contradictory nature of our sources. To him it was a
originally a fertility cult (with attendant sexually-charged scenes
reenacted as part of the yearly festival) that transformed itself
partly into a war cult in the late fourth century BC with the rise of
the importance of the Roman cavalry. It was also influenced by
knowledge of the Athenian cult of Pan, whose cave was near the Temple
of Nike on the approach to the Acropolis--just as the Lupercal was near
the Temple of Victory on the Clivus Victoriae on the way up the
Palatine. In Chapter 6 Wiseman speculates on the origin of a ritual on
the Kalends of April whereby women bared themselves to men to encourage
reproduction. He believes the cult might be   influenced by Greece once
again, possibly as early as the sixth century BC. In fact, he champions
Zevi's suggestion that Tarquinius Priscus, as the son of Demaratus of
Corinth, may have brought Greek cultic ideas and festivals with
him.[[2]] Wiseman goes so far as to suggest that the Romans even
installed "sacred prostitutes" as part of a cult of Venus in imitation
of the supposed one of Aphrodite at Corinth. Here, it is disappointing
that he does not note recent (and for his purposes relevant) discussion
about ancient ritual prostitution that casts doubt upon its very
existence.[[3]] In Chapter 10, Wiseman tries to discern what games were
given to Hercules, as seems to be indicated on the coins of M. Volteius
(Crawford #385) and two late Republican inscriptions. The latter
suggest that they were local games (pagani) rather than ones celebrated
by the whole people (ludi). Wiseman suggests that they were originally
ludi set up by Sulla to honor the god he believed his protector. The
games were demoted, Wiseman argues, perhaps around 70-67 BC when Sulla
was more or less repudiated, to local games. Finally, in this group, I
would include Chapter 8, where Wiseman tackles the problem of the
foundation dates of various other Roman ludi, showing (rightly, I
think) that our sources are more contradictory than has sometimes been
admitted, since all are compromised by legends, pseudo-history, and
competing family traditions.

Wiseman's chapters on the Romans' getting their traditions about early
Rome from drama (mainly chapters 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 13) are the most
interesting part of this book. He explores this idea from a number of
angles. In Chapter 5, he proposes that festivals like the Liberalia
contained many varied dramatic performances. Most interesting here is
his use of the "Praenestine" cistae--with their images of satyrs,
silenuses, Marsyas, nymphs, and actors and actresses--arguing that they
represent a wide variety of dramatic performances from both Italic and
Greek traditions (and certainly not to be narrowly circumscribed in set
generic bounds, as he argues convincingly in Chapters 11 and 13).
Indeed, it is in a Greek tradition that Wiseman sees the origin of the
Liberalia, a festival of free speech in some ways modeled on the
Athenian festival of Dionysus Eleuthereus, which he believes was
established after the explusion of the Peisistratids. In Chapter 9, in
a discussion of the Floralia, he argues that this festival regularly
involved performances that contained aetiological legends for places
and monuments of Rome and that were filled with moral exempla. He
points out that the single legend of the siege of Rome by Lars Porsenna
offered three such stories, those of Cocles, Scaevola, and Cloelia;
Wiseman proceeds to describe how these legends could have been "staged"
originally. In Chapter 7 (a new chapter), he argues that the story of
Numa's summoning Jupiter contains elements suggesting that it was a
staged comedy: Numa consulted Picus and Faunus,, who helped him bring
Jupiter literally down to Earth; Jupiter was at first angry but then
amused at the ingenuity of Numa; and so the talismanic shield of the
Salii fell to earth to reward Rome. In Chapter 12, in addition to
titles of some "historical" plays, Wiseman   discusses and example that
might have presented fairly recent events in the form of a dramatic
performance. He argues that the "Octavia" was one such play, asserting
that it was not a part of a "phantom genre" of "recitation plays," as
long proposed, but rather a play intended for a public audience. He
even likes the suggestion that the work dates to just after Nero's
death, to the short reign of Galba (June 68 to January 69), in which it
could now be put forward as were perhaps other dramatic works about the
Julio-Claudians.[[4]]

The remaining chapters place Roman historiography within the context of
the pervasive influence of dramatic performance, other kinds of poetry,
and Greek history and historiography. Chapter 2 (a new chapter)
discusses Livy's fascination with verses sung by soldiers and others on
various occasions (esp. triumphs). Wiseman thinks they are elements
taken directly by Livy (or his sources) from historical plays (pp.
34ff.). In Chapter 3, he talks about the possibility that Ennius and
even earlier poets (vates) had an impact on popular knowledge of early
Rome (and so on later histories of the period; pp. 237ff. have more on
this). He likes the idea that poetry like Ennius' was meant to be read
at festivals. Fauni and vates were prophetic poets, too, and Ennius'
title, "Annales," perhaps is connected to the idea that these early
prophet-poets often predicted the end of Roman power among other
significant events (in Chapter 15, Wiseman also suggests that the title
of the "Annales Pontificum" comes from Ennius' work). In Chapter 15,
Wiseman also discusses how historians determined what was appropriate
for history vs. what was fit for poetry. For example, for Varro it
seems to have been when the events took place, but Livy avoided any
material that involved divine intervention/interaction. In this, Livy
seems to have been exceptional and fighting against accepted practice.
In Chapter 14, in my opinion one of the best in the book, Wiseman
discusses evidence of Rome's familiarity with the Greek world from the
earliest periods on. He argues against older ideas that Rome only
"discovered" Greek culture at later periods (a\ la Horace) or through
the agency of Etruscans. He looks at the earliest physical artifacts,
literary evidence, and inscriptions. He points out that the Greeks
considered Rome a Greek city from very early on: in the fourth century
BC this is claimed by Heracleides of Pontus, and then also by
Aristotle, who claimed that Rome was founded by Achaeans from Troy.
Wiseman also emphasizes the obvious, long noted parallels that exist
between early Roman history and Greek (esp. Athenian) history of the
same periods (pp. 234ff.). E.g., the attack of Porsenna to restore
Tarquin is reflected in that of the Spartans to restore Hippias, the
exile of Collatinus parallels the ostracism of Hipparchus, the exile of
Coriolanus is similar to that of Themistocles, and, of course, the
events surrounding the explusion of the Tarquins are reflected in those
concerning the Peisistratids. One could note many, many others, and
Wiseman goes into more in Chapter 17, particularly those concerning L.
Brutus. Wiseman believes that some Romans had read Atthidographers
quite early on (perhaps Cleidemus), and that this influenced the main
outlines of "Roman history," which were coming into focus ca. 300 BC. I
would also suggest that many of these parallels with Greek history
could have come from the kinds of stage performances that Wiseman
believes influenced Roman historical traditions: it seems possible that
some of those involved in the dramas were Greeks or knew Greek history,
and so they "adapted" the events of Greek history to a Roman
context--not unlike the ways in which Plautus and Terence were adapting
Menander's plots for their plays. Chapter 18 closes the book with a
discussion of the first year of the Republic, which has five consuls
listed in the records. Wiseman believes that the canonical tradition
harmonized what were separate stories about how the Republic began in
its first year, and when combined with the three stories about Roman
heroism from Year Two that led to Porsenna breaking off his siege of
Rome, they glorify six families. He argues that the stories all date
from periods when those families were most prominent, and he does
something similar for those families connected with the seven kings of
Rome.

As noted, I believe that Wiseman's ideas are compelling, and make the
most sense of the origin of our sources' rather large amount of
information for early Rome. Dramatic performance recreating
"historical" events and personalities on a regular basis, Greek
historical traditions, and competing family sources and propaganda--all
had their role to play in inventing early Roman history. Otherwise, we
have to accept that this information was preserved almost solely in a
highly unreliable oral tradition and perhaps through some written
records that aren't extant for the most part and may never have existed
to begin with. For those who would doubt the capacity of a society to
create (or, rather, regularly to recreate) a tradition for itself, I
would suggest reading Michael Flower's important article about the
"invention of tradition" in Classical and Hellenistic Sparta, an
invention that employs techniques and ideas developed by historians of
later periods.[[5]] I see no reason why one can't apply the "invention
of tradition" theory to early Rome. As both Wiseman and Flower point
out, we may lose some of what we thought we knew about these societies,
but at least we'll be gaining vital information about how the ancients
themselves conceived of their past and present. More importantly, we
won't be kidding ourselves anymore about what we "know" about their
history. This said, there are some flaws in this book and in Wiseman's
methods. Given the book's nature, visible "seams" result from stitching
together previously published articles with some new material under
common theses. For example, there is a large amount of repetition of
elements of the arguments presented (e.g., the Senate's refusal to
recognize the Floralia is noted several times). Also, his main thesis,
that the evidence is flimsy and so has to be "teased out," can lead him
into building his arguments with some suppositions that are rather hard
to accept. This is particularly so given the inadequacy of our sources
of early Rome--which is, of course, one of the primary theses of the
book. For example, on p. 72, Wiseman accepts Polybius' account
(6.25.3-4) of how the early Roman cavalry was armed (covered only in
loin-cloths!), when this suits his purposes. And, on p. 76, he implies
that Ovid (Met.  15.627) has accurately recorded one of the symptoms of
a disease from 290s BC, again when this fits his argument. One can't
help thinking that this kind of inconsistency would have been weeded
out if the book were not in the main an assembly of previously
published material.

These observations, however, do not seriously challenge the fact that
this is an important book, and that scholars dealing with early Rome
will have to grapple with its basic arguments, even if they don't agree
with them. As far as I'm concerned, the proverbial ball is now in the
court of those who believe in the basic truth about the tradition of
early Rome.

Chapter List: those with an asterisk (*) are new or partially new
chapters

*1. Unwritten Rome
*2. What Can Livy Tell Us?
3. Fauns, Prophets and Ennius' Annales
4. The God of the Lupercal
5. Liber: Myth, Drama and Ideology in Republican Rome
6. The Kalends of April
*7. Summoning Jupiter: Magic in the Roman Republic
8. Origines ludorum
9. The Games of Flora
10. The Games of Hercules
11. Praetextae, Togatae and Other Unhelpful Categories
12. Octavia and the Phantom Genre
13. Ovid and the Stage
14. The Prehistory of Roman Historiography
15. History, Poetry and the Annales
*16. The House of Tarquin
17. The Legend of Lucius Brutus
*18. Roman Republic, Year One
------------------
Notes:


1.   I found only two typos: on p. 75, the Battle of Sentinum was in
295, not 205 BC; and on p. 159, Valerius Antias wrote in the middle of
the first century BC, not AD.

2.   F. Zevi, "Demarato e I re 'corinzi' di Roma," in A. Storchi Marino
(ed.), L'incidenza dell'antico: Studi in memoria di Ettore Lepore, I
(Naples 1995) 291-314.

3.   See, e.g., articles in C. Faraone and L. McClure (edd.),
Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World (Madison, WI 2006), and
now S. Budin, The Myth of Sacred Prostitution in Antiquity (Cambridge
2008).

4.   As proposed by P. Kragelund, Prophecy, Populism, and Propaganda in
the "Octavia"  (Copenhagen 1982) 38-54, and T. Barnes, "The Date of the
Octavia" MH 39 (1982) 215-17.

5.   M. Flower, "The Invention of Tradition in Classical and
Hellenistic Sparta" in A. Powell and S. Hodkinson (edd.), Sparta:
Beyond the Mirage (Oakville CT 2002) 191-218.