Historical Drama in Ancient Rome: Republican Flourishing and Imperial Decline?

Abstract

Until lately the study of Roman tragedy has commonly been relegated to the sidelines in drama studies as well as in classics. In addition to an almost automatic slighting attitude towards the Romans for lack of originality, or for failing to conform to Greek patterns, our understanding has been hampered significantly by a capricious transmission: we only possess tragedies written by Seneca or his unknown followers. A number of recent developments, however, have allotted a more central place in literary history to Roman tragedy; among these are archaeological and dramaturgic studies in Roman stagecraft, a re-evaluation of the role of drama in the development of Roman historical imagination, and a new emphasis on the ritual contexts in which the mythical or historical past was re-enacted. The last decade or so has also seen the publication of new critical editions of the Senecan corpus in the OCT as well as Budé; this has coincided with the publication of a series of new commentaries on virtually all Seneca's tragedies, an effort which has been stimulated by a renewed historical interest in the age of Nero. By invitation of SO , Library Director and Professor Patrick Kragelund (Copenhagen and Bergen) carries this process further by focusing on the history of the Roman historical drama, the Praetexta . He reinterprets the fragmentary evidence and makes a case for genre continuity for three centuries (ca. 200 BCE-100 CE). The sole surviving praetexta , Octavia , thus grows in importance as a possible key to an entire genre. Kragelund's challenge is met by a panel of European and North American specialists. He replies to their comments and the debate ends with an up-todate bibliography. Further comments from other scholars are invited.