Advertisements painted on Pompeii's walls (edicta munerumj supply precise dates for spectacles there and in neighboring towns. I argue that the specta cles were scheduled to avoid the busiest times in the agricultural year: the organizers of the spectacles, local politicians, wanted the largest possible crowds. Second, I con clude that conflicts with the great spectacles and fairs in Rome were avoided, sug gesting that spectators could be expected to travel from as far as the Bay of Naples to Rome and that Romans traveled outside the capital to attend local games as far as the Bay of Naples. I. The spectacle schedule and its meaning The dipinti found on the walls at Pompeii provide an opportunity to study epigraphic sources for spectacle entertainment that are richer and more varied than the typical inscriptions found on stone and metal across the Roman world. This parietal material at Pompeii includes pictae, painted messages found on the exteriors of buildings along public streets. Designed to reach the literate public, pictae are larger than the more casual graffiti and in many cases are demonstrably the work of professionals hired to paint the announce ments in red on walls along major streets, often at night to avoid heavy traffic.1 These pictae include advertisements, the most impor tant of which are programmata (endorsements for candidates in local elections) and edicta munerum (painted announcements of upcoming spectacles and games); the latter are the unique and critical source for this study.2 The edicta munerum, now almost completely faded, were found throughout the city, but particularly in the region of the * This paper is substantially expanded and revised from one presented at the an nual meetings of the APA in 2007. Thanks to Gregory S. Aldrete, Garrett G. Fagan and Carlos Norena for their comments, questions and suggestions on that occasion, which led to real improvements in the piece. Rebecca Benefiel read and commented exten sively on an earlier draft of this article; I am grateful for her insightful corrections and suggestions. The two anonymous reviewers for CJ provided detailed, thoughtful and generous commentary that improved the work enormously. Finally, S. Douglas Olson and Timothy Beck deserve tremendous credit for extensive editing work that went far beyond correction and revision; it contributed substantively to the article, improving it immensely. Naturally, I am responsible for any remaining errors or infelicities. 1 Franklin (2001) 3. 2 For a brief description and introduction to these categories, see Wallace (2005) 2-28. THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL 104.2 (2008/09) 123-43 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.43 on Wed, 25 May 2016 05:54:00 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms