Chapter XXII: Act 1834: , and a purchaser of land no longer need trouble himself to (7)

The main features of Roman tragedy admit of no doubt, although our conclusions respecting its earlier progress are only derived from analogy, from scattered notices, especially of the titles of plays, and from such fragments--mostly very brief--as have come down to us. Of the known titles of the tragedies of Livius Andronicus, six belong to the Trojan cycle, and this preference consistently maintained itself among the tragedians of the "Trojugenae"; next in popularity seem to have been the myths of the house of Tantalus, of the Pelopidae and of the Argonauts. The distinctions drawn by later Roman writers between the styles of the tragic poets of the republican period must in general be taken on trust. The Campanian Cn. Naevius (fl. from 236) wrote comedies as well as tragedies, so that the rigorous separation observed among the Greeks in the cultivation of the two dramatic species was at first neglected at Rome. His realistic tendency, displayed in that fondness for political allusions which brought upon him the vengeance of a noble family (the Metelli) incapable of understanding a joke of this description, might perhaps under more favourable circumstances have led him more fully to develop a new tragic species invented by him. But the _fabula praetexta_ or _praetextata_ (from the purple-bordered robe worn by higher magistrates) was not destined to become the means of emancipating the Roman serious drama from the control of Greek examples. In design, it was national tragedy on historic subjects of patriotic interest--which the Greeks had treated only in isolated instances; and one might at first sight marvel why, after Naevius and his successors had produced skilful examples of the species, it should have failed to overshadow and outlast in popularity a tragedy telling the oft-told foreign tales of Thebes and Mycenae, or even the pseudo-ancestral story of Troy. But it should not be forgotten to how great an extent so-called early Roman history consisted of the traditions of the _gentes_, and how little the party-life of later republican Rome lent itself to a dramatic treatment likely to be acceptable both to the nobility and to the multitude. As for the emperors, the last licence they would have permitted to the theatre was a free popular treatment of the national history; if Augustus prohibited the publication of a tragedy by his adoptive father on the subject of _Oedipus_, it was improbable that he or his successors should have sanctioned the performance of plays dealing with the earthly fortunes of Divus Julius himself, or with the story of Marius, or that of the Gracchi, or any of the other tragic themes of later republican or imperial history. The historic drama at Rome thus had no opportunity for a vigorous life, even could tragedy have severed its main course from the Greek literature of which it has been well called a "free-hand copy." The _praetextae_ of which we know chiefly treat--possibly here and there helped to form[80]--legends of a hoary antiquity, or celebrate battles chronicled in family or public records[81]; and in the end the species died a natural death.[82]

Ennius and his successors.

Q. Ennius (239-168), the favourite poet of the great families, was qualified by his Tarentine education, which taught the Oscan youth the Greek as well as the Latin tongue (so that he boasted "three souls"), to become the literary exponent of the Hellenizing tendencies of his age of Roman society. Nearly half of the extant names of his tragedies belong to the Trojan cycle; and Euripides was clearly his favourite source and model. M. Pacuvius (b. c. 229), like Ennius subject from his youth up to the influences of Greek civilization, and the first Roman dramatist who devoted himself exclusively to the tragic drama, was the least fertile of the chief Roman tragedians, but was regarded by the ancients as indisputably superior to Ennius. He again was generally (though not uniformly) held to have been surpassed by L. Accius (b. 170), a learned scholar and prolific dramatist, of whose plays 50 titles and a very large number of fragments have been preserved. The plays of the last-named three poets maintained themselves on the stage till the close of the republic; and Accius was quoted by the emperor Tiberius.[83] Of the other tragic writers of the republic several were _dilettanti_--such as the great orator and eminent politician C. Julius Strabo; the cultivated officer Q. Tullius Cicero, who made an attempt, disapproved by his illustrious brother, to introduce the satyr-drama into the Roman theatre; L. Cornelius Balbus, a Caesarean partisan; and finally C. Julius Caesar himself.

Seneca.

Tragedy continued to be cultivated under the earlier emperors; and one author, the famous and ill-fated L. Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C.-A.D. 65), left behind him a series of works which were to exercise a paramount influence upon the beginnings of modern tragedy. In accordance with the character of their author's prose-work, they exhibit a strong predominance of the rhetorical element, and an artificiality of style far removed from that of the poets Sophocles and Euripides, from whom Seneca derived his themes. Yet he is interesting, not only by these devices and by a "sensational" choice of themes, but also by a quickness of treatment which we may call "modern," a quality not easily resisted in a dramatist. The metrification of his plays is very strict, and they were doubtless intended for recitation, whether or not also designed for the stage. A few tragic poets are mentioned after Seneca, till about the reign of Domitian (81-96) the list comes to an end. The close of Roman tragic literature is obscurer than its beginning; and, while there are traces of tragic performances at Rome as late as even the 6th century, we are ignorant how long the works of the old masters of Roman tragedy maintained themselves on the stage.

Characteristics of Roman tragedy.

It would obviously be an error to draw from the plays of Seneca conclusions as to the method and style of the earlier writers. In general, however, no important changes seem to have occurred in the progress of Roman tragic composition. The later Greek plays remained, so far as can be gathered, the models in treatment; and, inasmuch as at Rome the several plays were performed singly, there was every inducement to make their action as full and complicated as possible. The dialogue-scenes (_diverbia_) appear to have been largely interspersed with musical passages (_cantica_); but the effect of the latter must have suffered from the barbarous custom of having the songs sung by a boy, placed in front of the flute-player (_cantor_), while the actor accompanied them with gesticulations. The chorus (unlike the Greek) stood on the stage itself and seems occasionally at least to have taken part in the action. But the whole of the musical element can hardly have attained to so full a development as among the Greeks. The divisions of the action appear at first to have been three; from the addition of prologue and epilogue may have arisen the invention (probably due in tragedy to Varro) of the fixed number of five acts. In style, such influence as the genius of Roman literature could exercise must have been in the direction of the rhetorical and the pathetic; a superfluity of energy on the one hand, and a defect of poetic richness on the other, can hardly have failed to characterize these, as they did all the other productions of early Roman poetry.

History of Roman comedy.

Palliata.

Plautus.

Terence.

In Roman comedy two different kinds--respectively called _palliata_ and _togata_ from well-known names of dress--were distinguished,--the former treating Greek subjects and imitating Greek originals, the latter professing a native character. The _palliata_ sought its originals especially in New Attic comedy; and its authors, as they advanced in refinement of style, became more and more dependent upon their models, and unwilling to gratify the coarser tastes of the public by local allusions or gross seasonings. But that kind of comedy which shrinks from the rude breath of popular applause usually has in the end to give way to less squeamish rivals; and thus, after the species had been cultivated for about a century (c. 250-150 B.C.), _palliatae_ ceased to be composed except for the amusement of select circles, though the works of the most successful authors, Plautus and Terence, kept the stage even after the establishment of the empire. Among the earlier writers of _palliatae_ were the tragic poets Andronicus, Naevius and Ennius, but they were alike surpassed by T. Maccius Plautus (254-184), nearly all of whose comedies esteemed genuine by Varro--not less than 20 in number--have been preserved, though twelve of them were not known to the modern world before 1429. He was exclusively a comic poet, and, though he borrowed his plots from the Greeks--from Diphilus and Philemon apparently in preference to the more refined Menander--there was in him a genuinely national as well as a genuinely popular element. Of the extent of his originality it is impossible to judge; probably it lies in his elaboration of types of character and the comic turns of his dialogue rather than in his plots. Modern comedy is indebted to him in all these points; and, in consequence of this fact, as well as of the attention his text has for linguistic reasons received from scholarship both ancient and modern, his merits have met with quite their full share of recognition. Caecilius Statius (an Insubrian brought to Rome as a captive c. 200) stands midway between Plautus and Terence, but no plays of his remain. P. Terentius Afer (c. 185-159) was, as his cognomen implies, a native of Carthage, of whose conqueror he enjoyed the patronage. His six extant comedies seem to be tolerably close renderings of their Greek originals, nearly all of which were plays of Menander. It was the good fortune of the works of Terence to be preserved in an exceptionally large number of MSS. in the monastic libraries of the middle ages, and thus (as will be seen) to become a main link between the ancient and the Christian drama. As a dramatist he is distinguished by correctness of style rather than by variety in his plots or vivacity in his characters; his chief merit--and at the same time the quality which has rendered him so suitable for modern imitation--is to be sought in the polite ease of his dialogue. In general, the main features of the _palliatae_, which were divided into five acts, are those of the New Comedy of Athens, like which they had no chorus; for purposes of explanation from author to audience the prologue sufficed; the Roman versions were probably terser than their originals, which they often altered by the process called _contamination_.

Togatae.

The _togatae_, in the wider sense of the term, included all Roman plays of native origin--among the rest, the _praetextae_, in contradistinction to which and to the transient species of the _trabeatae_ (from the dress of the knights) the comedies dealing with the life of the lower classes were afterwards called _tabernariae_ (from _taberna_, a shop), a name suited by some of their extant titles,[84] while others point to the treatment of provincial scenes.[85] The _togata_, which was necessarily more realistic than the _palliata_, and doubtless fresher as well as coarser in tone, flourished in Roman literature between 170 and 80 B.C. In this species Titinius, all whose plays bear Latin titles and were _tabernariae_, was succeeded by the more refined L. Afranius, who, though still choosing natural subjects, seems to have treated them in the spirit of Menander. His plays continued to be performed under the empire, though with an admixture of elements derived from that lower species, the pantomime, to which they also were in the end to succumb. The Romans likewise adopted the burlesque kind of comedy called from its inventor _Rhinthonica_, and by other names (see above). But with them, the general course of the drama, which with the Greeks lost itself in the sand, could not fail to be merged into the flood.

The Roman theatre.

The end of Roman dramatic literature was dilettantism and criticism; the end of the Roman drama was spectacle and show, buffoonery and sensual allurement. It was for this that the theatre had passed through all its early troubles, when the political puritanism of the old school had upheld the martial games of the circus against the enervating influence of the stage. In those days the guardians of Roman virtue had sought to diminish the attractions of the theatre by insisting upon its remaining as uncomfortable as possible; but as was usual at Rome, the privileges of the upper orders were at last extended to the population at large, though a separation of classes continued to be characteristic of a Roman audience. The first permanent theatre erected at Rome was that of Cn. Pompeius (55 B.C.), which contained nearly 18,000 seats; but even of this the portion allotted to the performers (_scaena_) was of wood; nor was it till the reign of Tiberius (A.D. 22) that, after being burnt down, the edifice was rebuilt in stone.

Actors.

Though a species of amateur literary censorship, introduced by Pompeius, became customary in the Augustan age, in general the drama's laws at Rome were given by the drama's patrons--in other words, the production of plays was a matter of private speculation. The exhibitions were contracted for with the officials charged with the superintendence of public amusements (_curatores ludorum_); the actors were slaves trained for the art, mostly natives of southern Italy or Greece. Many of them rose to reputation and wealth, purchased their freedom, and themselves became directors of companies; but, though Sulla might make a knight of Roscius, and Caesar and his friends defy ancient prejudice, the stigma of civil disability (_infamia_) was not removed from the profession, which in the great days of the Attic drama had been held in honour at Athens. But, on the whole, the social treatment of actors was easy in the days of the early empire; senators and knights actually appeared on the stage; Nero sang on it; and a _pantomimus_ was made _praefectus urbi_ by Elagabalus.

The actor's art was carried on at Rome under conditions differing in other respects from those of the Greek theatre. The Romans loved a full stage, and from the later period of the republic liked to see it crowded with supernumeraries. This accorded with their military instincts, and with the general grossness of their tastes, which led them in the theatre as well as in the circus to delight in spectacle and tumult, and to applaud Pompeius when he furnished forth the return of Agamemnon in the _Clytaemnestra_ with a grand total of 600 heavily-laden mules. On the other hand, the actors stood nearer to the spectators in the Roman theatre than in the Greek, the stage (_pulpitum_) not being separated from the first rows of the audience by an orchestra occupied by the chorus; and this led in earlier times to the absence of masks, diversely coloured wigs serving to distinguish the age of the characters. Roscius, however, is said (because of an obliquity of vision which disfigured his countenance) to have introduced the use of masks; and the retrograde innovation, though disapproved of, maintained itself. The tragic actors wore the _crepida_, corresponding to the _cothurnus_, and a heavy toga, which in the _praetexta_ had the purple border giving its name to the species. The conventional costumes of the various kinds of comedy are likewise indicated by their names. The comparative nearness of the actors to the spectators encouraged the growth of that close criticism of acting which has always been dear to an Italian public, and which in ancient days manifested itself at Rome in all the ways familiar to modern audiences. Where there is criticism, devices are apt to spring up for anticipating or directing it; and the evil institution of the _claque_ is modelled on Roman precedent, typified by the standing conclusion "plaudite!" in the epilogues of the _palliatae_.

Roscius and Aesopus.

In fine, though the art of acting at Rome must have originally formed itself on Greek example and precept, it was doubtless elaborated with a care unknown to the greatest Attic artists. Its most famous representatives were Gallus, called after his emancipation Q. Roscius Gallus (d. c. 62 B.C.), who, like the great "English Roscius," excelled equally in tragedy and comedy, and his younger contemporary Clodius Aesopus, a Greek by birth, likewise eminent in both branches of his art, though in tragedy more particularly. Both these great actors are said to have been constant hearers of the great orator Hortensius; and Roscius wrote a treatise on the relations between oratory and acting. In the influence of oratory upon the drama are perhaps to be sought the chief among the nobler features of Roman tragedy to which a native origin may be fairly ascribed.

9. DOWNFALL OF THE CLASSICAL DRAMA

Pantomimus.

Mimus.

The ignoble end of the Roman--and with it of the ancient classical--drama has been already foreshadowed. The elements of dance and song, never integrally united with the dialogue in Roman tragedy, were now altogether separated from it. While it became customary simply to recite tragedies to the small audiences who continued (or, as a matter of courtesy, affected) to appreciate them, the _pantomimus_ commended itself to the heterogeneous multitudes of the Roman theatre and to an effete upper class by confining the performance of the actor to gesticulation and dancing, a chorus singing the accompanying text. The species was developed with extraordinary success already under Augustus by Pylades and Bathyllus; and so popular were these entertainments that even eminent poets, such as Lucan (d. A.D. 65), wrote the librettos for these _fabulae salticae_ (ballets), of which the subjects were generally mythological, only now and then historical, and chiefly of an amorous kind. A single masked performer was able to enchant admiring crowds by the art of gesticulation and movement only. In what direction this art tended, when suiting itself to the most abnormal demands of a recklessly sensual age, may be gathered from the remark of one of the last pagan historians of the empire, that the introduction of pantomimes was a sign of the general moral decay of the world which began with the beginning of the monarchy. Comedy more easily lost itself in the cognate form of the _mimus_, which survived all other kinds of comic entertainments because of its more audacious immorality and open obscenity. Women took part in these performances, by means of which, as late as the 6th century, a _mima_ acquired a celebrity which ultimately raised her to the imperial throne, and perhaps occasioned the removal of a disability which would have rendered her marriage with Justinian impossible.

The drama and the Christian Church.

Meanwhile, the regular drama had lingered on, enjoying in all its forms imperial patronage in the days of the literary revival under Hadrian (117-138); but the perennial taste for the spectacles of the amphitheatre, which was as strong at Byzantium as it was at Rome, and which reached its climax in the days of Constantine the Great (306-337), under whom the reaction set in, determined the downfall of the dramatic art. It was not absolutely extinguished even by the irruptions of the northern barbarians; but a bitter adversary had by this time risen into power. The whole authority of the Christian Church had, without usually caring to distinguish between the nobler and the looser elements in the drama, involved all its manifestations in a consistent condemnation (as in Tertullian's _De spectaculis_, 200 c.), comprehended them all in an uncompromising anathema. When the faith of that Church was acknowledged as the religion of the Roman empire, the doom of the theatre was sealed. It died hard, however, both in the capitals and in many of the provincial centres of East and West alike. At Rome the last mention of _spectacula_ as still in existence seems to date from the sway of the East-Goths under Theodoric and his successor, in the earlier half of the 6th century. In the capital and provinces of the Eastern empire the decline and fall of the stage cannot be similarly traced; but its end is authoritatively assigned to the period of Saracen invasions which began with the Omayyad dynasty in the 7th century.

It cannot be pretended that the doom which thus slowly and gradually overtook the Roman theatre was undeserved. The remnants of the literary drama had long been overshadowed by entertainments such as both earlier and later Roman emperors--Domitian and Trajan as well as Galerius and Constantine--had found themselves constrained to prohibit in the interests of public morality and order, by the bloody spectacles of the amphitheatre and by the maddening excitement of the circus. The art of acting had sunk into pandering to the lewd or frivolous itch of eye and ear; its professors had, in the words of a most judicious modern historian, become "a danger to the peace of householders, as well as to the peace of the streets"; and the theatre had contributed its utmost to the demoralization of a world. The attitude taken up by the Christian Church towards the stage was in general as unavoidable as its particular expressions were at times heated by fanaticism or distorted by ignorance. Had she not visited with her condemnation a wilderness of decay, she could not herself have become--what she little dreamt of becoming--the nursing mother of the new birth of an art which seemed incapable of regeneration.

Survival of the mimes.

Though already in the 4th century _scenici_ had been excluded from the benefit of Christian sacraments, and excommunication had been extended to those who visited theatres instead of churches on Sundays and holidays, while the clergy were absolutely prohibited from entering a theatre, and though similar enactments had followed at later dates--yet the entertainments of the condemned profession had never been entirely suppressed, and had even occasionally received imperial patronage. The legislation on the subject in the _Codex Theodosianus_ (accepted by both empires in the earlier part of the 5th century) shows a measure of tolerance indicating a conviction that the theatrical profession could not be suppressed. Gradually, however, as they lost all footing in the centres of civic life, the _mimes_ and their fellows became a wandering fraternity, who doubtless appeared at festivals when their services were required, and vanished again into the depths of the obscurity which has ever covered that mysterious existence--the strollers' life. It was thus that these strange intermediaries of civilization carried down such traditions as survived of the acting drama of pagan antiquity into the succeeding ages. (Continued in volume 8 slice 7).

FOOTNOTES:

[1] e.g. _Mrichchhakat[=i]k[=a]_; _M[=a]lat[=i] and M[=a]dhava_.

[2] _Vikrama and Urv[=a]s[=i]._

[3] _Sarada-Tilaka._

[4] _S[=a]kuntal[=a]_; _Uttara-R[=a]ma-Charitra_.

[5] _Arichandra_, act iv.

[6] _N[=a]g[=a]nanda_, act i.

[7] Act iii.; cf. _N[=a]g[=a]nanda_, act iii.

[8] _Veni-Samh[=a]ra_; _Pracha[=n]da-Pa[=n]d[=a]va_.

[9] _Viddha-Salabhanjika_.

[10] _S[=a]kuntal[=a]_; _Uttara-R[=a]ma-Charitra_.

[11] Ib. act vii.

[12] _Vikrama and Urv[=a]s[=i]_, act iv.

[13] _Ratn[=a]val[=i]_.

[14] _Vikrama and Urv[=a]s[=i]_: _Arichandra_; _N[=a]g[=a]nanda_.

[15] _M[=r]ichchhakat[=i]k[=a]_.

[16] _M[=r]ichchhakat[=i]k[=a]_.

[17] _Mudr[=a]-Rakshasa_.

[18] _S[=a]kuntal[=a]_; _N[=a]g[=a]nanda_.

[19] _S[=a]kuntal[=a]_, acts vi. and vii; _M[=a]lat[=i] and
M[=a]dhava_, act v.

[20] Induction to _Anargha-R[=a]ghava_.

[21] _Viddha-Salabhanjika_.

[22] _Vikrama and Urv[=a]s[=i]_.

[23] _The Self-Sacrifice of Tchao-Li_.

[24] _Lai-Seng-Tchai_ (_The Debt to be Paid in the Next World_).

[25] _Lao-Seng-Eul_.

[26] _Pi-Pa-Ki_.

[27] _The Circle of Chalk_ (_Hoei-Lan-Ki_); _The Tunic Matched_; _The
Revenge of Teou-Ngo_.

[28] _Tchao-Mei-Hiang_ (_The Intrigues of a Chambermaid_).

[29] _Tchao-Mei-Hiang_; _Ho-Han-Chan_; _Pi-Pa-Ki_.

[30] _Hoei-Lan-Ki_, Prol. sc. i.

[31] _Tchao-Li_.

[32] _Han-Kong-Tseu_.

[33] _Pi-Pa-Ki_, sc. 2.

[34] _Tchao-Mei-Hiang_.

[35] _He-Lang-Tan_, act iv.; cf. _Hoei-Lan-Ki_, act iv.

[36] _Hoei-Lan-Ki_.

[37] _Pi-Pa-Ki_.

[38] _Pi-Pa-Ki_, sc. 15.

[39] _Ho-Han-Chan_, act ii.

[40] _Hoei-Lan-Ki_, act i.

[41] _Teou-Ngo-Yuen_, act iii.

[42] _Hoei-Lan-Ki_, act ii.

[43] _Teou-Ngo-Yuen_, act iii.

[44] _Pi-Pa-Ki_, sc. 18.

[45] _Teou-Ngo-Yuen_, act. iv.

[46] _Tchao-Mei-Hiang_; _Pi-Pa-Ki_.

[47] _Hoei-Lan-Ki_.

[48] _Ho-Han-Chan_.

[49] _Pi-Pa-Ki_, sc. 14.

[50] _Han-Kong-Tseu_.

[51] _Tchao-Mei-Hiang_, act ii.

[52] _Teou-Ngo-Yuen_, act ii.; cf. _Hoei-Lan-Ki_.

[53] _Pi-Pa-Ki_, sc. 5.

[54] Translated by Comte de Gobineau, in his _Religions et
philosophies dans l'Asie centrale_ (Paris, 1865).

[55] _Alcestis_; _Orestes_.

[56] _Persae_.

[57] _Eumenides_.

[58] _Antigone_; _Oedipus Rex_.

[59] _Anthos_.

[60] Phrynichus, _Capture of Miletus_.

[61] Id., _Phoenissae_; Aeschylus, _Persae_ (_Persae_-trilogy?).

[62] Moschion, _Themistocles_; Theodectes, _Mausolus_; Lycophron,
_Marathonii_; _Cassandrei_; _Socii_; Philiscus, _Themistocles_.

[63] Aeschylus, _Septem c. Thebas_; _Prometheus Vinctus_;
_Danais_-trilogy; Sophocles, _Antigone_; _Oedipus Coloneus_;
Euripides, _Medea_.

[64] Quite distinct from this revision was the practice against which
the law of Lycurgus was directed, of "cobbling and heeling" the
dramas of the great masters by alterations of a kind familiar enough
to the students of Shakespeare as improved by Colley Cibber and other
experts. The later tragedians also appear to have occasionally
transposed long speeches or episodes from one tragedy into another--a
device largely followed by the Roman dramatists, and called
_contamination_ by Latin writers.

[65] _Anthos_ (_The Flower_).

[66] One satyr-drama only is preserved to us, the _Cyclops_ of
Euripides, a dramatic version of the Homeric tale of the visit of
Odysseus to Polyphemus. Lycophron, by using the satyr-drama (in his
_Menedemus_) as a vehicle of personal ridicule applied it to a
purpose resembling that of Old Attic Comedy.

[67] _Ion_; _Supplices_; _Iphigenia in Tauris_; _Electra_; _Helena_;
_Hippolytus_; _Andromache_.

[68] _Philoctetes_.

[69] _Archilochi_; _Pytine_ (_The Bottle_).

[70] _Maricas_ (Cleon); _Baptae_ (Alcibiades); _Lacones_ (Cimon).

[71] _Knights_.

[72] _Clouds_.

[73] _Birds_.

[74] Strattis, _The Choricide_ (against Cinesias).

[75] Aristophanes, _Frogs_; Phrynichus, _Musae_; _Tragoedi_.

[76] Aristophanes, _Ecclesiazusae_.

[77] _Lysistrata_; _Thesmophoriazusae_; _Plutus II_.

[78] _Plutus_.

[79] _Aeolosicon_.

[80] Naevius, _Lupus_ (_The Wolf_); _Romulus_; Ennius, _Sabinae_
(_The Sabine Women_); Accius, _Brutus_.

[81] Naevius, _Clastidium_ (_Marcellus_?); Ennius, _Ambracia_;
Pacuvius, _Paulus_; Accius, _Aeneadae_ (_Decius_?).

[82] Balbus's _Iter_ (_The Mission_), an isolated play on an episode
of the Pharsalian campaign, seems to have been composed for the mere
private delectation of its author and hero. _Octavia_, a late
_praetexta_ ascribed to Seneca, was certainly not written by him.

[83] "Oderint dum metuant" (_Atreus_).

[84] _Augur_; _Cinerarius_ (_The Crimper_); _Fullonia_ (_The Fuller's
Trade_); _Libertus_ (_The Freedman_); _Tibicina_ (_The Flute-Girl_).

[85] _Brundisinae_; _Ferentinatis_; _Setina_.