The Roman Triumph - читать бесплатно онлайн полную версию книги автора Mary Beard (ч. 5)

opportunities for voyeurism (provided by television and especially the

Internet, or occasionally by the apparently spontaneous public humilia-

tion of enemy prisoners); but there could be no thought of marching

captives through the streets with the victorious army in an official dis-

play. The crowd-pulling exotic elements are now more commonly pro-

vided by the home team. In the 1945 Victory Parade in London, it was

the Commonwealth troops and the Greek soldiers in their ceremonial

kit that provided the color.

Yet some of these triumphal practices may not be so remote as we

imagine. One of the very first memories of the explorer and writer

Wilfred Thesiger was witnessing in Abyssinia in 1916 the parade to cele-

brate the victory of the troops of Ras Tafari (later Haile Selassi) over the

rebel Negus Mikael. It is described at length in a letter from Thesiger’s

father, who was head of the British Legation in Addis Ababa.78 First the

“minstrel” from the victorious army marched past the ruling empress.

Some of the men “tore off their mantles and threw them before the Em-

press” and asked for better clothes. “On these occasions,” Thesiger se-

nior noted, “every freedom of speech is allowed.” Then came the cavalry

(“round the horses’ necks were hung the bloodstained cloaks and tro-

phies of the men each rider had killed”), followed by the foot soldiers—

and eventually Ras Tafari himself, followed by the “banners and icons of

the two principal churches which had sent their Arks to be present at the

Th e

R o m a n Tr i u m p h

3 3 0

battle.” Finally it was the prisoners’ turn: “Negus Mikael was brought in.

He came on foot and in chains, an old, fine-looking man dressed in the

usual black silk cloak with a white cloth wound round his head, stern

and very dignified . . . One felt sorry for him; he had fought like a man

. . . Only a month before Mikael had been the proudest chief in Abys-

sinia and it must have been a bitter moment for him to be led in tri-

umph before the hated Shoans.”

“It was,” he concluded, “the most wonderful sight I have ever seen,

wild and barbaric to the last degree and the whole thing so wonderfully

staged and orderly.” His son’s memories chime in. “Even now, nearly

seventy years later, I can recall almost every detail: the embroidered caps

of the drummers decorated with cowries; a man falling off his horse as

he charged by; a small boy carried past in triumph—he had killed two

men though he seemed little older than myself . . . I believe that day im-

planted in me a life-long craving for barbaric splendour, for savagery

and colour and the throb of drums, and that it gave me a lasting venera-

tion for long-established custom and ritual.” The echoes with the Ro-

man triumph seem uncanny: the freedom of speech, the impact of the

noble captive, the memorable mishaps. And the deep impression that

the whole occasion made on both the Thesigers perhaps gives us some

hint of how the triumph, too, lasted in Roman memory.

Yet there is a sting in the tail. Before we become too carried away

with ideas of the universality of the triumph, we should remember that

these observers had been educated in elite British schools, with all their

emphasis on Latin, Greek, and ancient culture. They must both have

known well some of the classic accounts of the Roman ceremony. Al-

most certainly they were seeing the Abyssinian occasion through Roman

eyes; no less than the classicizing writers of late antiquity, they were re-

creating a triumph in ink.

e p i l o g u e

Rome, May 2006

During the final stages of writing this book, I visited the Roman Forum.

It was a very hot day in early summer, but I chose to make the climb up

to the Capitoline hill along the route of the ancient road. It was this way

that triumphing generals must have traveled on the last stretch of the

procession that would end at the Temple of Jupiter. All sorts of images

came into my mind: the porters heaving up the treasures of conquest;

the noisy animals on their way to sacrificial death; the frightened or

proudly unrepentant captives; the puzzled, hot, but enthusiastic specta-

tors; the lurid paintings of enemy casualties; the jeering troops; the gen-

eral himself, aching though he must have been by this point, basking in

his finest moment of glory—or, alternatively, disguising his embarrass-

ment at the low turn-out, the frankly unimpressive haul of booty, the

sauciness of the soldiers’ songs, or that humiliating impasse with the elephants.

As I climbed higher rather more subversive thoughts took over. The

gradient seemed very steep; the paving slabs (even if not the original,

then a close match) were slippery, uneven, and treacherous. Could we

really imagine the procession of Pompey in 61 bce safety negotiating its

way up this, or something like it? At the very least the chariot would

need some burly men lending a shoulder to prevent it (or the general)

E p i l o g u e

3 3 2

falling catastrophically backwards. And why do we never hear of those

piles of precious tableware simply falling off the fercula on which they

were being carted? Why are there no stories of the captured trophies

ending up in the gutter? That, after all, is what notoriously happened in

the sedate streets of London to part of the ceremonial crown balanced

on the coffin of George V at his funeral in 1936. Why not in Rome? Per-

haps, I reflected, the sternest test for those of us who want to understand

antiquity is to learn how to resist taking literally the imaginative con-

structions and reconstructions of ancient writers themselves—while still

remaining alert to what they are saying about their world.

As I came back down the hill into the Forum, I passed a party of Eng-

lish schoolchildren listening, surprisingly attentively, to a tourist guide.

She was telling them about the triumphal procession and how it had

passed by just where they were standing. She conjured up with tremen-

dous verve the extravagance and excitement and oddity of the occasion,

before explaining that it had a very serious purpose indeed. For when

the Roman armies came home from their great victories, they were pol-

luted with “blood guilt” from the deaths they had caused, and they

had to be purified. That is what the triumph was for. The children ap-

peared very happy with this nicely gory and slightly exotic story, and

moved on to inspect the Temple of Saturn. My own reactions were more

ambivalent.

I too had begun my encounter with the triumph wanting to know, to

put it at its simplest, what it was for. Why on earth did the Romans do

it? Why did they invest such time, energy, and expense in this cere-

mony? Why? Theories abound, ancient and modern, ingenious and ba-

nal. A celebration of, or thank-offering for, victory. A reincorporation of

the general and his troops back into the civilian community. A spectacu-

lar demonstration (and justification) of Rome’s imperialist enterprise. A

reaffirmation of Roman militaristic values. A religious fulfillment of the

vows made to the gods at the start of the campaign. A complex negotia-

tion of “symbolic capital” between successful general and the senate.

The theory of purification, with a pedigree that goes back to Festus and

Masurius Sabinus, is just one among many.

Rome, May 2006

333

Almost ten years on, I am far from convinced that the “Why?” ques-

tion is the most useful one to ask. My anxieties partly reflect the objec-

tions often raised to purposive or functional explanations of ritual or

cultural practice. They fail to engage with the complicated, multifari-

ous, personal, and partisan agendas that underlie any mass celebration.

The triumph could be no more or less accurately defined as a ritual of

purification than Christmas could be defined as a celebration of the

birth of Jesus (leaving out the gift exchange, the reindeers, the snow, the

conspicuous consumption, the trees). They also risk turning some gen-

eral cultural truth into a specific explanation. The triumph, for example,

may well have had a role in the complicated trade-offs in Rome between

individual prestige and the interests of the communality. But was not

that the case with almost every form of public ritual?

More to the point, I have come to read the Roman triumph in a sense

that goes far beyond its role as a procession through the streets. Of

course it was that. But it was also a cultural idea, a “ritual in ink,” a trope

of power, a metaphor of love, a thorn in the side, a world view, a danger-

ous hyperbole, a marker of time, of change, and continuity. “Why?”

questions do not reach the heart of those issues. It is more pressing to

understand how those meanings, connections, and reformulations are

generated and sustained.

I could not blame the children for lapping up so eagerly the explana-

tion of their guide. But as I watched and listened, I fancied intervening

to tell them that it was not so simple: that there was much more to a tri-

umph than a ceremony of purification; that we do not really know if

“blood guilt” ever worried the Romans at all (and if it did, how was it

dealt with when a triumph was not celebrated?); that complex ritual and

social institutions could not really be reduced to such a simple formula.

In the event, I did not spoil their day. I have inscribed the case as

powerfully as I can in this book.

alatinus

eace

esta

emple of Isis

orta Carmentalis

Carcer

Site of T

Site of Villa Publica

Site of Circus Flaminius

Site of P

Temple of P

Temple of Apollo Sosianus

Temple of Bellona

Temple of Apollo P

Temple of V

Septizodium

Portico of Octavia

Esquiline Hill

orticoes

Celian Hill

Schematic route of triumphal procession,

according to standard modern reconstructions.

Pompey's Theater and P

Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus

Temple of Saturn

Temple of Antoninus and Faustina

Regia

Circus Maximus

Temples of Fortuna and

Mater Matuta

Pantheon

Theater of Marcellus

Colosseum

Forum of Augustus

Arch of Titus

OMER

l l i

HAL

ain

alatine HillP

Vim

TRIUMP

s u

Forum

Sacra Vi

i V

elabrum us

i r a

g u I

Vicus

Hill

Forum

Boarium

TIC

Capitoline

ventine HillA

r e v i

r e b i

SCHEMA

Campus Martius

River

Tiber

Abbreviations

Abbreviations of journal titles in the notes and bibliography are those used by the annual bibliography of classical studies, L’Année Philologique. The following abbreviations of standard reference works are also used.

ANRW:

Temporini, H., et al., eds. 1972–. Aufstieg und Niedergang

der römischen Welt. Berlin and New York.

BMCRE:

Mattingly, H., et al., eds. 1923–. Coins of the Roman Empire

in the British Museum. London.

BMCRR:

Grueber, H. A., ed. 1910. Coins of the Roman Republic in

the British Museum. London.

CIL:

Mommsen, T., et al., eds. 1863–. Corpus Inscriptionum

Latinarum. Berlin.

Degrassi, Inscr. It. XIII. 1, 2, 3: 1947, 1963, 1937. Degrassi, A. Inscriptiones Italiae XIII, vols.

1, 2, 3. Rome.

ESAR:

Frank, T. 1933–40. An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome.

Baltimore.

FGrH:

Jacoby, F., et al., eds. 1923–. Fragmente der griechischen

Historiker. Berlin and Leiden.

IGUR:

Moretti, L., ed. 1968–79. Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis

Romae. Rome.

ILLRP:

Degrassi, A., ed. 1957–63. Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei

Publicae. Florence.

ILS:

Dessau, H., ed. 1892–1916. Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae.

Berlin.

Keil, Grammatici Latini:

Keil, H. 1855–1923. Grammatici Latini. Leipzig.

LTUR:

Steinby, E. M., ed. 1993–2000. Lexicon Topographicum

Urbis Romae. Rome.

Abbreviations

337

MGH:

Mommsen, T., et al., eds. 1877–1919. Monumenta

Germaniae Historica. Berlin.

New Pauly:

Cancik, H., and H. Schneider, eds. 2002–. Brill’s

Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, New Pauly. Leiden and

Boston.

ORF:

Malcovati, H., ed. 1953–79. Oratorum Romanorum

Fragmenta: liberae reipublicae, 3rd ed. Turin.

RE:

Pauly, A., G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds. 1893–. Real-

Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart.

RIC:

Mattingly, H., E. A. Sydenham, et al., eds. 1923–1994.

Roman Imperial Coinage. London. Vol. I, rev. ed., ed.

C. H. V. Sutherland and R. A. G. Carson, 1984.

Richardson, Dictionary:

Richardson, L., Jr. 1992. A New Topographical Dictionary of

Ancient Rome. Baltimore and London.

ROL:

Warmington, E. H., ed. 1935–40. Remains of Old Latin.

Cambridge, MA, and London (with later revisions).

RRC:

Crawford, M. H., ed. 1974. Roman Republican Coinage.

Cambridge.

ThesCRA:

Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum. 2004–. Los

Angeles.

Notes

The titles of ancient works cited are regularly abbreviated, in most cases following the conventions of the Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1968–1982) and Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, 9th rev. edition., ed. H. S. Jones (Oxford, 1940). I have sometimes lengthened these for clarity (so

“Aen. ” rather than “A. ” for Vergil’s Aeneid); and I have replaced the hopelessly purist Anc. as a reference to the emperor Augustus’ Res Gestae (Achievements) with RG. Where only one work by an author survives, I have referred to it by the author’s name alone. All quotations from ancient texts are given in English translation (my own unless stated otherwise). Reliable translations of almost every work I cite can be found in the Loeb Classical Library (parallel texts in Latin/Greek and English, published by Harvard University Press). Increasingly, translations are available online.

“Perseus” or “Lacus Curtius” are good places to start: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ and http://

penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/home.html. On all details about the classical world, from authors to battles, the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1996), is an excellent source of reliable information and pointers to further reading.

P RO LO G U E : T H E QU E S T I O N O F T R I U M PH

1. Seneca, Ep. 87, 23.

2. A convenient compendium of Renaissance triumphal ceremonial:

Mulryne, Watanabe-O’Kelly, and Shewring (2004). Napoleon: Haskell

and Penny (1981) 108–16; McClellan (1994) 121–3. Dewey: Malamud

(forthcoming). “Triumphal” parades in modern politics and culture:

Kimpel and Werckmeister (2001).

3. I follow the dating of Sperling (1992).

Notes to Pages 2–13

339

4. L. Schneider (1973).

5. Hopkins (1983) 1; Kelly (2006) 4.

1 . P O M PEY ’ S F I N E S T H O U R ?

1. Overview: Greenhalgh (1980) 168–76 and Mattingly (1936–7), a percep-

tive fictionalizing account.

2. Campaigns: Greenhalgh (1980) 72–167; Seager (2002) 40–62. Furniture

store: Appian, Mith. 115.

3. Suetonius, Jul. 51.

4. Plutarch, Luc. 37, 4 (63 bce).

5. Plutarch, Pomp. 45, 1; Pliny, Nat. 37, 14 (the object which directly prompted this fulmination was the portrait in pearls).

6. Appian, Mith. 116. The annual Roman tax revenue is an estimate, based

on figures given by Plutarch ( Pomp. 45, 3) who states that before Pompey’s conquests the annual tax revenue amounted to 50 million drachmae (the

equivalent of the Roman denarius); after Pompey it increased to 85 mil-

lion. We might well distrust the reliability of these figures; but most eco-

nomic historians have—in the absence of anything better—chosen to

believe that they represent roughly the right order of magnitude. Subsis-

tence food bill: Hopkins (1978) 38–40.

7. Appian, Mith. 116; with Pliny, Nat. 33, 151 (silver statues of Mithradates and Pharnaces).

8. Pliny, Nat. 37, 13–4; and 18 (agate).

9. Pliny, Nat. 37, 14. Eastern landscapes: Kuttner (1999) 345.

10. Dio Cassius 37, 21, 2. The idea of the “whole world” in Pompey’s celebra-

tions: Nicolet (1991) 31–3.

11. The work of Jacopo Ripanda: Ebert-Schifferer (1988).

12. Musei Capitolini, inv. 1068; Stuart Jones (1926) 175; Helbig (1966) 2, no.

1453. The chances are that it came from the villa of the emperor Nero at

Anzio.

13. Pliny, Nat. 12, 111 (trees in general); 12, 20 (ebony); 25, 7 (the library).

Others (e.g. Kuttner [1999] 345) have imagined that balsam trees were in-

cluded in the procession, but Pliny (12, 111) is clear that these belonged to

the triumph of Vespasian and Titus in 71 ce.

14. Battlefield spoils: Appian Mith. 116.

15. Placards: Plutarch, Pomp. 45, 2; Appian, Mith. 117.

16. Appian, Mith. 116–7; Plutarch, Pomp. 45, 4 offers a different selection of resonant names.

Notes to Pages 13–21

340

17. Dio Cassius 36, 19. Metellus’ triumph took place in 62 bce.

18. Appian, Mith. 104–6, 111.

19. Appian, Mith. 117. The word eikones could indicate three- or two-dimensional images; but in referring to the picture of the daughters

of Mithradates, Appian writes explicitly of “painting” (Greek: para-

zÇgrapheÇ).

20. Appian, Mith. 117. Beard (2003a) 35 wrongly suggested that this Cleopatra was the sister of Alexander and so implied a slightly different history for

the cloak.

21. Appian, Mith. 117. A different ancient tradition has not even Aristoboulus put to death (p. 130).

22. Lucan 8, 553–4; 9, 599–600; also Propertius 3, 11, 35; Manilius 1, 793–4;

Deutsch (1924).

23. Dio Cassius 42, 18, 3. Trophies: Picard (1957).

24. Plutarch, Pomp. 45, 5.

25. Valerius Maximus 6, 2, 8.

26. Plutarch, Pomp. 11–2. The campaigns: Greenhalgh (1980) 12–29; Seager

(2002) 25–9.

27. Plutarch, Pomp. 14, 1–3; also Mor. 203E (= Apophthegmata Pompei 5); Zonaras, Epitome 10, 2.

28. Date (between 82 and 79): Eutropius 5, 9; Livy, Periochae. 89; Granius Licinianus 36, 1–2; De Viris Illustribus 77; Badian (1955), (1961);

Greenhalgh (1980) 235. Lack of status: Plutarch, Sert. 18, 2; Cicero, Man.

61; also Pliny, Nat. 7, 95; Valerius Maximus 8, 15, 8.

29. Below, p. 315–8.

30. Granius Licinianus 36, 3–4; Pliny, Nat. 8, 4; Plutarch, Pomp. 14, 4. Stage-management: Hölscher (2004) esp. 83–5.

31. Plutarch, Pomp. 14, 5; Mor. 203 F (= Apophthegmata Pompei 5); Frontinus, Str. 4, 5, 1.

32. Pliny, Nat. 37, 16; Appian, Mith. 116; Plutarch, Pomp. 45, 3. 6,000 sesterces would have been enough to support a peasant family at basic subsis-

tence for twelve years: above, n. 6.

33. Pinelli (1985) 320–1.

34. Memorial monuments: Hölscher (2006) esp. 39–45.

35. RRC no. 402. The dating problems are irresolvable. Different views:

BMCRR II, 464–5; Mattingly (1963) 51–2; RRC 83.

36. RRC no. 426.

37. Globe: Nicolet (1991) 37.

38. “Manubial” temples (so-called from their funding from manubiae,

“spoils”): Aberson (1994); Orlin (1996) 116–40, passim.

Notes to Pages 21–24

341

39. Pliny, Nat. 7, 97. The title imperator was often bestowed on a victorious general as a preliminary to a triumph. The temple itself and its possible

location: LTUR, s.v. Minerva, delubrum; Palmer (1990) esp. 13.

40. Vitruvius 3, 3, 5; Pliny, Nat. 34, 57; RRC no. 426, 4.

41. RRC no. 426, 3.

42. The basement of Ristorante da Pancrazio, Piazza del Biscione, offers a

convenient glimpse of one small section of the buried foundations. The

influence of the ancient structures on later topography: Capoferro

Cencetti (1979).

43. LTUR and Richardson, Dictionary s.v. Porticus Pompei, Theatrum Pompei, Venus Victrix, aedes; Beacham (1999) 61–72; Gagliardo and

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

[2002] 5–6).

67. Pliny, Nat. 7, 99; repeated by Florus, Epit. 1, 40 (3, 5, 31). A better pun on paper than orally, for media has a short “e,” Media a long “e.”

68. Dio Cassius 36, 19, 3; Plutarch, Pomp. 29, 4–5 (with Plutarch, Luc. 35, 7

for another tale of Pompey preempting a rival’s triumphal glory). The

similarity between Pompey’s triumphal aureus ( RRC no. 402 = Fig. 3) and Sulla’s of 82 bce ( RRC no. 367) and the issue commemorating

Marius’ ( RRC no. 326 = Fig. 19) clearly suggests that in this medium too

triumphing generals and/or their friends and subordinates were looking

over their shoulders at earlier triumphs (though the homage of imitation

is necessarily hard to distinguish from attempts to outbid).

Notes to Pages 34–38

344

69. Quotation: Beard (2003a) 25, paraphrasing the standard view.

70. Suetonius, Jul. 37, 2; Dio Cassius 43, 21, 1.

71. Pliny, Nat. 37, 14–6, with Hölscher (2004) 95–6. Caesar’s tears: Dio

Cassius 42, 8, 1; Valerius Maximus 5, 1, 10 (also stressing the head “with-

out the rest of his body”); Plutarch, Pomp. 80, 5; Caes. 48, 2 (making the signet ring the prompt for weeping, the head being too upsetting for

Caesar even to look at); Lucan 9, 1035–43 (explicitly “crocodile” tears).

72. Lucan 1, 12.

73. Lucan 2, 726–8.

74. Lucan 9, 175–9; cf Cicero, Att. 1, 18, 6. “Thrice seen by Jupiter” refers to his three triumphal processions culminating at the Temple of Jupiter. Triumphal accoutrements thrown also on the pyre of Caesar: Suetonius, Jul.

84, 4.

75. Lucan 7, 7–27 (conflating the first and second triumphs, implying his

first triumph was over Spain, rather than Africa). The dream: Plutarch,

Pomp. 68, 2; Florus, Epit. 2, 13 (4, 2, 45); H. J. Rose (1958); Walde (2001) 399–414. The tragedy of Pompey’s triumph as a theme of Renaissance literature: McGowan (2002) 280.

76. Dio Cassius 42, 5; Velleius Paterculus 2, 53, 3; Plutarch, Pomp. 79, 4 (putting his death on the day after his birthday). The attempts of Bayet (1940)

and Bonneau (1961) to place the “real” date of his death in August do not

undermine the significance of the “traditional” chronology of Pompey’s

life.

77. Itgenshorst (2005) esp. 13–41 stresses the role of literary accounts in me-

morializing the ceremony (rather than as documentary descriptions).

78. Theophanes: Peter (1865) 114–7; Anderson (1963) 35–41; Anastasiadis and

Souris (1992); he was certainly in Rome in April 59 bce, but we do not

know for how long before that (Cicero, Att. 2, 5, 1). Asinius Pollio: Gabba (1956) 79–88; Pollio could well have been present and had a personal investment in the triumph, having triumphed himself in 39, but his histo-

ries are known to have started in 60 bce, so any account of Pompey’s pa-

rade would have been, at most, a flashback.

79. Pliny’s list ( Nat. 7, 98) includes Crete and the Basternae not mentioned by Plutarch ( Pomp. 45, 2) who includes instead Mesopotamia, Arabia, and

“the area of Phoenicia and Palestine.” Colchis and Media in Plutarch’s list

are likely to be the equivalents of the Scythians and Asia in Pliny’s. Even

so the arithmetic is precarious and depends on including the pirates in

Pliny to make it up to the required fourteen. Other lists are given by

Appian, Mith. 116; Diodorus Siculus 40, 4. The inscribed list of triumphs

Notes to Pages 39–44

345

from the Roman Forum, fragmentary at this point, record only

[Paphla]gonia, Cappadoc(ia), [Alb]ania and the pirates (Degrassi, Inscr.

It. XIII. 1, 84, frag. XXXIX). Recent discussion: Girardet (1991),

Bellemore (2000).

80. Diodorus Siculus 40, 4 quoted in Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Excerpta

4, pp. 405–6 (Boissevain). Venus Victrix: Pais (1920) 256–7. The Greek

East: Vogel-Weidemann (1985). A compilation: Bellemore (2000) 110–8.

81. “Fictional figures”: Scheidel (1996).

82. Dreizehnter (1975) 226–30, though his main point is to try to show that

many are “figures of art,” arranged to make clever number games, and

bear little or no relation to “real” numbers.

83. Brunt (1971) 459–60 is the most judicious, and honest, attempt to move

from the figures for the donative to the number of troops. Economic the-

orizing deploying Plutarch’s estimates of revenue: Duncan-Jones (1990)

43; (1994) 253.

84. Pliny, Nat. 37, 16; Plutarch, Pomp. 45, 3.

85. Hopkins (1980) 109–12.

86. McGowan (2002); Watanabe-O’Kelly (2002).

2 . T H E I M PAC T O F T H E T R I U M PH

1. SHA, Hadrian 6, 1–4; Dio Cassius 69, 2, 3; BMCRE III, Hadrian, no. 47.

Ceremony: Richard (1966). Dating: Kierdorf (1986); Birley (1997) 99–

100; Bennett (1997) 204.

2. Silius Italicus 17, 625–54. The clearest ancient evidence for the triumph in

the fifteenth book of the Annales (which was later extended to eighteen

books) is De Viris Illustribus 52 (with Skutsch [1985] 104 and 553); otherwise the Ennian triumph is a (not implausible) reconstruction from ech-

oes in later poetry. The triumphal aspects of Ennius in general: Hardie

(forthcoming).

3. Statius, Theb. 12, 519–39; Braund (1996) 12–3.

4. Künzl (1988) 19–24; Pfanner (1983) 13–90.

5. Ex manubiis: Augustus, RG 21, 1. Quadriga now lost: Augustus, RG 35, 1; Hickson (1991) 134. Possibly empty: Rich (1998) 115–25; Barchiesi (2002)

22. Bronze foot: Ungaro and Milella (1995) 50, cat. no. 15; La Rocca (1995)

75–6; Tufi (2002) 179–81 (envisaging a different location in the Forum for

the Victory). Heroes of the Republic: Suetonius, Aug. 31, 5 (although the

surviving fragments of sculpture do not obviously bear his description

out: Ungaro and Milella (1995) 52–80, cat. nos. 16–28; Degrassi, Inscr. It.

Notes to Pages 45–52

346

XIII. 3, 1–8). Paintings: Pliny Nat. 35, 27 and 93–4; Servius (auct.), Aen. 1, 294; Daut (1984). Other triumphal associations: Suetonius, Aug. 29, 2;

Velleius Paterculus 2, 39, 2; Spannagel (1999) 79–85. Reconstructions of the

whole iconographic scheme: Zanker (1968); Galinsky (1996) 197–213.

6. History of the site, rams: Murray and Petsas (1989). Triumphal sculpture:

Murray (2004). Function of triumph: Polybius 6, 15, 7–8. A relief sculp-

ture now in Spain, also almost certainly depicting the Actian triumph:

Trunk (2002) 250–4.

7. Arcus triumphalis: Ammianus Marcellinus 21, 16, 15; ILS 2933 = CIL VIII, 7094–8; CIL VIII, 1314 = 14817, 8321, 14728 (all inscriptions from North

Africa); the Arch of Constantine in Rome ( ILS 694 = CIL VI, 1139) uses the term arcus triumphis insignis (“arch noted for its triumphs/of triumphal renown”). Function, history and nomenclature: F. S. Kleiner (1989);

Wallace-Hadrill (1990). Arches for Germanicus: Tacitus, Ann. 2, 83;

Crawford et al. (1996) 1, no. 37, 9–29; Lebek (1987), (1991). Beneventum:

Rotili (1972); Künzl (1988) 25–9.

8. Kuttner (1995) 143–206, though she tries to argue that this miniature rep-

resentation is, in fact, a copy of a large public relief sculpture.

9. Dio Cassius 39, 65.

10. Ovid, Ars 1, 217–22 (trans. P. Green).

11. ILS 5088 = CIL VI, 10194.

12. Varro, RR 3, 2, 15–6; repeated by Columella 8, 10, 6 (Varro wrongly refers to Scipio Metellus).

13. Gladiator: Seneca, Dial. 1 (De Providentia), 4, 4. Town: Pliny, Nat. 3, 10.

Password: Vegetius 3, 5. Infants: Livy 21, 62, 2; 24, 10, 10; Valerius

Maximus 1, 6, 5. “Prodigious” is meant literally: these were “prodigies” in

the Roman religious sense of signs from the gods.

14. Slaves: e.g. Plautus, Bac. 1068–75; Itgenshorst (2005) 50–5. Clemency, etc: Seneca, Cl. 1, 21, 3; Ep. 71, 22. Christian triumph: 2 Corinthians 2, 14; Colossians 2, 15; Tertullian, Apologeticus 50, 1–4; Egan (1977) (a skeptical review of key passages in the New Testament); Schmidt (1995).

15. Horace, Carm. 3, 30 (cf Horace’s use of deducere/deduxisse in a strictly triumphal context, Carm. 1, 37, 31). Putnam (1973) explores these and other

(triumphal) subtleties of the poem. Poet as triumphant general in Virgil’s

Georgics: Buchheit (1972) 101–3. In Ennius: Hardie (forthcoming).

16. Propertius 3, 1, 9–12.

17. Eisenbichler and Iannucci (1990); A. Miller (2001) 52–6. English transla-

tion: Wilkins (1962).

18. Ovid, Am. 1, 2 (quote ll. 27–30; trans. P. Green).

Notes to Pages 52–58

347

19. Romulus: Plutarch, Rom. 16, 5–8. Bacchus/Liber: Pliny, Nat. 7, 191; derivation of triumphus: Varro, LL 6, 68; Isidore Orig. 18, 2, 3 (claiming to quote Suetonius).

20. Pliny, Nat. 15, 133–5 (quoting Masurius); Festus (Paulus) p. 104L.

21. Valerius Maximus 2, 8; Aulus Gellius 5, 6, 20–3.

22. Porphyrio ad Horace, Ep. 2, 1, 192 (with Ps. Acro ad loc. a text which may derive in part from earlier commentators).

23. Mantegna: Martindale (1979). Petrarch’s Africa: Bernardo (1962);

Suerbaum (1972); Colilli (1990); Hardie (1993) 299–300; A. Miller (2001)

51–2.

24. Panvinio (1558), with McCuaig (1991), A. Miller (2001) 47–51 and Sten-

house (2005) 1–20, 103–12.

25. Gibbon (1796) 2, 361–401 (with English translation).

26. Renaissance discussion of the triumph: A. Miller (2001) 38–61. Christian

triumphalism: Biondo (1459). Charles V’s triumph: Jacquot (1956–75) 2,

206, 368 and esp. 431, 488–9; Madonna (1980); Chastel (1983), 209–15.

27. Classically different positions on “triumphal law”: Mommsen (1887) 1,

126–36 and Laqueur (1909).

28. J. S. Richardson (1975); Develin (1978); Auliard (2001).

29. North (1976).

30. Frazer (1911) 174–8; Versnel (1970) esp. 201–303. The early focus of

Triumphus is now nicely conceded in Versnel (2006) 291–2: “The addi-

tion of the word ‘early’ in the title would have prevented much uproar.”

31. Women: Flory (1998). Christian triumph: McCormick (1986). Funerals:

Brelich

(1938);

Richard

(1966).

Iconography:

Andreae

(1979);

Angelicoussis (1984); Brilliant (1999). Poetry: Galinsky (1969); Taisne

(1973). Social semiotics: Flaig (2003a) 32–40; (2003b). Elite control and

conflict resolution: Hölkeskamp (1987) 236–8; Itgenshorst (2005) 193–

209. Individual triumphs: J. S. Richardson (1983) (Metellus Scipio);

Weinstock (1971) 71–5 (Camillus); Östenberg (1999) (Octavian); Sumi

(2002) (Sulla); Beard (2003b) (Vespasian and Titus).

32. McCormick (1986) 11 notes “the dearth of thorough studies” of the devel-

opment under the Principate. Barini (1952) is little more than a discursive

list of military victories and triumphs reign by reign. Payne (1962) is a

popular work which takes the later triumphs seriously. Particularly useful

for the character of the procession in the late Republic and early Empire:

Östenberg (2003).

33. Bell (1992); Humphrey and Laidlaw (1994). My summary here is, of

course, a strategically useful but drastic oversimplification of the argu-

Notes to Pages 58–62

348

ments of these books, both of which include much more that enlightens

the study of ancient ritual. I have been struck, for example, by Humphrey

and Laidlaw’s stress on “non-intentionality”: actions performed as “ritual

actions” do not depend for their significance on the individual intentions

of those carrying them out; their performance is understood both by par-

ticipants and observers as following a pre-stipulated pattern; and, in that

respect, those who perform ritual are not, in the ordinary everyday sense,

the “authors of their actions.” Such nonintentionality can help to distin-

guish the “celebration” of even the most modest triumph from any other

journey up to the Capitol in a chariot—or, for that matter, the “ritual”

preparation of a turkey at Thanksgiving or Christmas from everyday do-

mestic drudgery.

34. Barchiesi (2000); Barchiesi, Rüpke, and Stephens (2004).

35. This is a necessarily unfair summary of the apparently rich strand of re-

cent work on public ritual; but not as unfair as one might hope. Even the

most acute students of the ancient world, widely read in cultural anthro-

pology and studies of other historical periods, tend to offer bland conclu-

sions, sometimes little more than tautologies, on the role of processions

and ceremonial: “the state festival . . . glorify[ing] the state” (Goldhill

[1987] 61); “the careful regulations for participation in the processions are

also important expressions of civic ideology” (Price [1984] 111); “the leader

. . . often uses tribal structures, processions, or festivals to articulate com-

munity values and emerging consensuses about state policy . . . His suc-

cess derives . . . in [sic] his attunement to civic needs and aspirations, and

his ability to give them form and expression” (Connor [1987] 50); proces-

sions “locate the society’s center and affirm its connection with

transcendant things by stamping a territory with ritual signs of domi-

nance” (Stewart [1993] 254, quoting Geertz [1983] 125). Nonetheless—for

all my doubts—like almost any other study of ceremonial culture ancient

or modern, this book cannot fail to be indebted to such much-cited and

no doubt much-read classics as Geertz (1973), especially the famous essay

on the Balinese cockfight, Le Roy Ladurie (1979) and Muir (1981).

36. The reformulation of the Parilia (originally, it seems, concerned with

flocks and herds) as the “birthday of Rome” is a case in point: Beard

(1987).

37. Plutarch, Caes. 61 (with Weinstock (1971) 331–40); Herodian 1, 10.

38. Livy 9, 43, 22 (306 bce); 7, 16, 6 (357 bce).

39. Complete text and story of rediscovery: Degrassi, Inscr. It. XIII. 1, 1–142, 346–571. Display and reconstruction: Degrassi (1943); Beard (2003c).

40. Cerco’s triumph: Degrassi, Inscr. It. XIII. 1, 549.

Notes to Pages 62–67

349

41. Itgenshorst (2004) 443–8; (2005) 219–23 would see these inclusions as

a highly loaded Augustan innovation, designed in part to mask the ir-

regularity of Octavian’s ovations in 40 and 36. The fact that ovations

appear also on the independent Fasti Barberiniani does not support her

case.

42. Aulus Gellius 5, 6, 21–23. “Lesser triumph”: Pliny, Nat. 15, 19; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 5, 47, 2–4; 8, 67, 10. Consolation prize: Livy 26, 21, 1–6 (Marcus Claudius Marcellus in 211).

43. Brennan (1996). The Fasti explicitly note the triumph of Caius Papirius Maso in 231 as “the first in Monte Albano.”

44. Suetonius, Gram. 17. Panvinio (1558) Introduction (“A quibus tabu-

lae . . . ”) b. He was following an earlier emendation by Gabriele Faerno:

Stenhouse (2005) 9.

45. The problem is that it is impossible to coordinate convincingly the sur-

viving archaeological remains, ancient literary references to various struc-

tures in the Forum, and Renaissance accounts of what was found where.

The flamboyant reconstructions in Coarelli (1985) 258–308 have been in-

fluential, and have attracted more credence than they deserve. Recent

conjectures and critiques: Simpson (1993); Nedergaard (1994–5); Chioffi

(1996) 22–6; C. B. Rose (2005) 30–3.

46. The triumphal lists must have been inscribed after 19 bce (the date of the

last in what is clearly a series of entries inscribed at a single time); though

Spannagel (1999) 249 suggests a first conception of this list which culmi-

nated in the triple triumph of Octavian in 29 bce (so rhyming the three

triumph of Romulus at the start). Dating arguments have largely centered

on the patterns of erasure in the different lists. The names of Mark An-

tony and his grandfather were erased and later restored in the list of con-

suls but remained intact on the triumphal list. If the erasures followed the

cancellation of Antony’s honors in Sept./Oct. 30 bce, then the consular

list must have been inscribed before then; a later date is possible if the era-

sure followed the downfall of Antony’s son Iullus in 2 bce. Detailed dis-

cussion: Taylor (1946); (1950); (1951).

47. Braccesi (1981) 39–55. Atticus’ chronology: Nepos, Att. 18, 1–4.

48. Degrassi, Inscr. It. XIII. 1, 338–47; Moretti (1925). The fact that the Fasti Urbisalvienses are inscribed on Greek marble, not regularly exploited in

northern Italy until the Augustan period, effectively scotches the idea that

they are earlier than the Capitolini.

49. Florus, Epit. 1, 5 (1, 11, 6). Invention or not, this is a characteristically sharp observation by an author far less vapid than modern scholars often

assume.

Notes to Pages 67–74

350

50. Valerius Maximus 4, 4, 5. Apuleius, Apol. 17 (Apuleius is defending himself against the charge that he had too few slaves).

51. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 2, 34, 3.

52. Zonaras, Epitome 7, 21.

53. Livy 39, 6–7 (echoed almost verbatim by Augustine, De Civitate Dei 3,

21); Pliny, Nat. 34, 14.

54. Balbus’ victories: Pliny, Nat. 5, 36–7; Strabo 3, 5, 3; Velleius Paterculus 2, 51, 3. The final slab ends with Balbus’ triumph, then a roughly finished

“tongue” where it was presumably inserted into its frame; I am at a loss to

understand why T. Hölscher and others think this to be an element of de-

liberate archaizing, with the implication that there was space for further

names (Spannagel [1999] 250; Itgenshorst [2004] 449).

55. Suetonius, Cl. 24, 3.

56. Campbell (1984) 136.

57. Boyce (1942); Maxfield (1981) 105–9; Campbell (1984) 358–62; Eck (1999).

The key passage, Suetonius, Cl. 17, 3, reads (literally): “Those who had received triumphal ornaments in the same war followed [the chariot], but

the rest went on foot wearing a toga praetexta, Marcus Crassus Frugi on a

horse with full trappings and a palmed outfit (vestis palmata), because he had received the honor twice.” The problem is: does this suggest that the

usual dress associated with triumphal insignia was the toga praetexta? Or that it was the toga praetexta only when on parade in the full triumphal

procession of someone else? Opposing views: Marquardt (1884) 591–2 and

Boyce (1942) 131–2 ( toga picta etc.); Mommsen (1887) 1, 412 and Taylor

(1936) 170 (praetexta).

58. Dio Cassius 55, 10, 3, with Swan (2004) 97.

59. Eck (1984) 138; (2003) 60–2.

60. Suetonius, Aug. 38, 1.

61. E.g., Velleius Paterculus 2, 115, 3; Dio Cassius 54, 24, 7–8.

62. Östenberg (2003) esp. 14 attempts to draw a clear distinction between Ro-

man and Greek imperial writers on the triumph. I am not convinced that

this is as crucial as she suggests. In fact, leaving Livy on one side, the maj-

ority of the lengthy triumphal accounts are written in Greek—but that is

no clear indicator of the writer’s familiarity with Roman culture (Dio was

after all a senator).

3 . C O N S T RU C T I O N S A N D R E C O N S T RU C T I O N S

1. Romulus’ triumph(s): Degrassi, Inscr. It. XIII. 1, 534 (triumph alone); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 2, 34 (triumph and spolia opima); 2, 54, Notes to Pages 74–77

351

2; 2, 55, 5 (also Plutarch, Rom. 16, 5–8 [triumph and spolia opima]; 25, 5).

Spolia opima alone: Livy 1, 10, 5–7 (also Propertius 4, 10, 5–22; Valerius Maximus 3, 2, 3; Plutarch, Marc. 8, 3).

2. Dionysius may well have been writing after the display of the inscribed

Fasti ( Ant. 1, 7, 2 implies that he was composing his preface c. 8 bce). The first five books of Livy are dated on internal evidence to the early 20s bce;

Ogilvie (1965) 2 and Luce (1965) suggest slightly different chronologies

within that period. But, as we shall explore in Chapter 9, there is more to

these discrepancies than simple chronology.

3. Generally optimistic: Cornell (1986); Drummond (1989) 173–6; Oakley

(1997) 38–72, 100–4. More skeptical: Beloch (1926) (the classically super-

skeptical account); Wiseman (1995) 103–7; Forsythe (2005) 59–77.

Among the vast bibliography dicussing the early priestly record, later

published as the Annales Maximi and believed by some (for example,

Oakley [1997] 24–7, relying on the remarks of Servius (auct.), Aen. 1, 373

and Sempronius Asellio frag. 1–2 = Aulus Gellius 5, 18, 8–9) to have in-

cluded notices of triumphs: Crake (1940), an “optimistic” view; Fraccaro

(1957), skeptical; Rawson (1971), who doubts that they were much used in

history writing, against whom Frier (1979) 22 would see their “discernible

imprint” in Roman history writing.

4. Cicero, Brut. 62, a passage which is the starting point for Ridley (1983).

5. Caesius Bassus, De Saturnio Versu (in Keil, Grammatici Latini 6, 265).

6. Ver. 2.1, 57.

7. Livy 41, 28, 8–10.

8. Quoted by Pliny, Nat. 18, 17.

9. Livy 8, 40; Beloch (1926) 86–92; Ridley (1983) 375–8; Oakley (1997) 56–7.

10. The exact date is lost in the inscribed text, but can be deduced from Plu-

tarch, Publ. 9, 5. Richard (1994) 414 argues that the dating to March 1, 509, goes back to the attempts of the early first-century historian Valerius Antias

to associate his own ancestor with Romulus. But whether this specific

type of family loyalty is at issue, or a more general attempt to align the or-

igin of the city and the origin of the Republic (or both), is irrecoverable.

11. The other triumphs on the first of March marked on the surviving por-

tions of the Fasti: 329 bce (two celebrations), 275, 241, 222, 174. The triumph of 222 included Marcus Claudius Marcellus’ dedication of the

spolia opima (matching the tradition of Romulus’ dedication on the same

day). Perceived significance of triumphal anniversaries: Livy 40, 59, 3

(though Livy himself attributes the coincidence of dating to “chance”).

Brennan (1996) 322 discusses evidence for the apparently conscious choice

of significant dates (and anniversaries) for triumphs.

Notes to Pages 78–84

352

12. Livy 7, 15, 9; 9, 24; 10, 10, 1–5. Detailed disussion of the fit between the

Fasti Triumphales and Livy 5–10: Oakley (2005b) 487–9.

13. 504: Livy 2, 16, 6; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 5, 53, 2. 502: Livy 2, 17, 7. 495: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 6, 30, 2–3. 264: Silius Italicus 6, 660–2, a tradition reflected also in Eutropius 2, 18, 2.

14. Invented not ignored: Oakley (2005a) 343. Omission of Actian triumph:

CIL I, 1, 78 (2nd ed.) and below, pp. 302–4.

15. Three further triumphs in 33 and 28 noted on the Fasti Barberiniani

(where the Fasti Capitolini do not survive) are also otherwise unknown.

16. Polybius 11, 33, 7; Livy 28, 38, 4–5. Appian, Hisp. 38 also notes a triumph, while Valerius Maximus 2, 8, 5 and Dio Cassius 17, frag. 57, 56 refer to the

refusal of a ceremony (though according to Dio he was allowed to sacri-

fice 100 white oxen). There is a lacuna in the inscribed Fasti at this point.

17. Livy 39, 6–7; Florus, Epit. 1, 27 (2, 11, 3).

18. The text from the Forum is deduced from a copy found at Arezzo:

Degrassi, Inscr. It. XIII. 3, 57; 59–60.

19. Degrassi, Inscr. It. XIII. 3, 50–1; LTUR s.v. Fornix Fabianus. The embellishment of the arch is inferred from Cicero, Vat. 28. The family con-

cerned is descended from Paullus through a natural son of his first mar-

riage, adopted into the Fabian family.

20. Velleius Paterculus 1, 9, 3. Coins ( RRC no. 415—minted in 62 bce by L.

Aemilius Lepidus Paullus to highlight his “spurious claim to descent from

L. Aemilius Paullus”) also blazon the slogan TER (“three times”), which

may reflect again a family tradition of three triumphs—or possibly that

he was acclaimed imperator by his victorious troops on three occasions.

Other aspects of the inconsistent evidence: Morgan (1973) 228–9; Ridley

(1983) 375.

21. Though note the disputed 3 or 4 triumphs of Manius Curius Dentatus in

the early third century bce: J. S. Richardson (1975) 54.

22. Beard, North, and Price (1998) 2, 119–24 (Lupercalia); 116–9 (Parilia); 87–

8, 151–2 (Arvals).

23. The broad lines of this reconstruction are based on Ehlers, RE 2. VIIA, 1, 493–511, Hopkins (1978) 26–7 and Champlin (2003b) 210–5, though most

scholars tell the same story.

24. “Un-garbling”: Henderson (2002) 42–8, on the similar process lying be-

hind our reconstructions of the history and procedures of the circus

games.

25. Livy 10, 37, 10–2; the reason for his speed was to forestall opposition.

26. Pliny, Nat. 28, 39. “Slung”: Hopkins (1978) 27; Champlin (2003b) 214

(“large phallos”).

Notes to Pages 84–90

353

27. Stars: Appian, Pun. 66 (though Suetonius refers to golden stars on a cloak worn by Nero at a “triumph” held to commemorate his musical and athletic victories, Nero 25, 1). Development of toga: Festus p. 228L (using

chronological development to account for divergent evidence). Painted

body: Pliny, Nat. 33, 111 (though the face may specifically have been re-

ferred to by Dio, to judge from Tzetzes, Epistulae 107); Servius (auct.),

Ecl. 6, 22; 10, 27; Isidore Orig. 18, 2, 6.

28. Tzetzes, Epistulae 107.

29. Doubts on the tradition of “bell and whip”: Reid (1916) 181, n. 3 (“not

credible, for the earlier time at least”). The “economical” solution:

Champlin (2003b) 214. Versnel (1970) 56 also envisages a chariot laden

with both phallos and bell and whip, but does not speculate on the pre-

cise arrangement.

30. Tertullian, Apologeticus 33; Jerome, Epistulae 39, 2, 8.

31. Arrian, Epict. 3, 24, 85; Philostratus, VS 488; Whitmarsh (2001) 241–2.

Aelian’s story ( VH 8, 15) of Philip of Macedon keeping a slave to remind

him three times a day, “you are a man” may also be a fictionalizing

retrojection from the triumph.

32. Zonaras, Epitome 7, 21; Tzetzes, Epistulae 107; Juvenal, 10, 41–2; Pliny, Nat. 33, 11; 28, 39; Isidore, Orig. 18, 2, 6. Köves-Zulauf (1972) 122–49 starts from Pliny and proposes a different reading of his now corrupt text—but

ends up with an interpretation of the role of the slave not very far differ-

ent from that most of scholars.

33. Triumphal imagery extends more widely through this section of the

Apologeticus, which is concerned with the subordination of the emperor

to the Christian God (see, for example, Apologeticus 30, 2: “Let the em-

peror carry heaven captive in his triumph . . . He cannot.”). Even so,

Barnes (1971) 243–5 convincingly disposes of the argument that Tertullian

can be shown to have witnessed a triumph himself.

34. Kuttner (1995) 143–54; Musso (1987); Agnoli (2002) 222–34.

35. Plaque: Klein (1889) 85 (also Favro [1994] 154). Sarcophagus: Rodenwaldt

(1940) 24–6.

36. Images of Victory: Hölscher (1967) 68–97.

37. Forum of Augustus: above, pp. 43–4. Coin: BMCRE, I, Augustus, no.

432–4 (Spanish aureus and denarii of 17–16 bce) = Fig. 18.

38. RRC no. 367, 402.

39. RRC no. 326 ( = Fig. 19). Exactly what counts as the first “historical” representation of a triumph is of course a moot point, and there is a fuzzy

boundary between representations that appear to show Jupiter with a Vic-

tory in a quadriga (so-called quadrigati types of the third century bce, Notes to Pages 91–97

354

RRC no. 28–34) and those that show the triumphal general in similar

pose. The date of this particular coin has been disputed; its common as-

signment to 101 bce rests largely on the assumption that it is a commemo-

ration of Marius’ triumph. Literary tradition projected the image of Vic-

tory crowning the successful general back to the very beginning of

Roman time: Plutarch, Rom. 24, 3.

40. Hölscher (1967) 84.

41. Kuttner (1995) 148–52 explains the slave on the Boscoreale cup (and on

the major Augustan state monument of which she believes it to be a copy)

as a feature of Tiberius’ subservience to Augustus, emphasizing that the

triumphing general was here not yet supreme. Hölscher (1967) 84 simi-

larly refers to Tiberius’ “strong rejection of emperor-worship.”

42. Musso (1987) 23–4; Agnoli (2002) 229.

43. Connection of procession and cityscape: Favro (1996) 236–43. Greek

processions: Price (1984) 110–2; Connor (1987); and—stressing the key

role of processions in linking the center and periphery of a state’s terri-

tory—Jost (1994) 228–30; Polignac (1995) 32–88. The importance of a

circular route: Coarelli (1992) 388, with Pliny, Nat. 15, 133–5 and Festus (Paulus) p. 104 L.

44. Josephus, BJ 7, 123–57 (quoted 123–31).

45. Itgenshorst (2005) 24–9 is sharply aware of the gap which separates

Josephus’ text from physical and ritual “reality.” Millar (2005) 103–7 offers

a level-headed overview of some of the main topographical problems.

46. Tacitus, Hist. 3, 74; Suetonius, Dom. 1, 2; the temple burned down in 80

and was restored by Domitian, see LTUR s.v. Iseum et Serapeum in

Campo Martio.

47. Beard (2003b) 555–8.

48. Makin (1921) 26–8; Coarelli (1968) 59 (function to accommodate gener-

als); Künzl (1988) 32; Champlin (2003b) 212 (waiting to apply).

49. Cicero, Pis. 55; Tacitus Ann. 1, 8; Suetonius, Aug. 100, 2; Dio Cassius 56, 42, 1. Apuleius’ feeble joke ( Apol. 17) about “a single gate” associated with the triumph may also be a reference to the porta triumphalis. Discussion:

Lyngby (1954) 107–22.

50. Versnel (1970) 132–63; Künzl (1988) 42–4; Rüpke (1990) 228–9; though

what exactly Hölkeskamp (2006) 484 means by calling it “a sort of virtual

gate” I am not sure.

51. Morpurgo (1908).

52. Modern theories: LTUR s.v. Porta Triumphalis (Murus Servii Tullii: Mura Repubblicane: portae). Renaissance theories, especially those of Biondo

(1459): Martindale (1979) 60–3.

Notes to Pages 97–99

355

53. The popularity of this view is largely due to the enthusiastic arguments of

Coarelli in Coarelli (1968), revised in (1992) 363–414 and repeated in his

various contributions to LTUR; very similar arguments were put forward

in the early nineteenth century (Nibby [1821] 131–4). The theory treated

as “fact”: Champlin (2003b) 212. A useful corrective: Haselberger (2002)

s.v. Porta Carmentalis, Porta Triumphalis.

54. The commentary (scholion) is quoted by Lyngby (1954) 108–9 and by

Coarelli (1992) 368–9, who asserts that it is in fact ancient and then at-

tempts to tie down the Porta Catularia in a convenient place for his over-

all theory. Others have not been convinced; Richardson, Dictionary s.v.

Porta Catularia shows just how murky the evidence is.

55. Livy 2, 49, 8; Ovid, Fast. 2, 201–4 (with Festus p. 450L; Servius, Aen. 8, 337). The porta triumphalis as the right-hand passage-way, as you left the city—also known as the Porta Scelerata (the “Accursed Gate”): Coarelli

(1992) 370–2. The right-hand, as you returned: Bonfante Warren (1974)

578, drawing on Coarelli (1968); Richardson, Dictionary s.v. Porta

Carmentalis. Clear analysis of the difficulties: Haselberger (2002) s.v.

Porta Carmentalis.

56. Martial 8, 65, fully discussed by Schöffel (2002) 541–53. The connection

of the poem with the porta triumphalis is encouraged by Martial’s refer-

ence to the arch as “gate” (porta). But that is not to claim that this is the porta triumphalis in any technical sense—and Domitian’s fondness for

constructing arches (Suetonius, Dom. 13, 2) implies that there are many

other candidates. Martial’s phrase “open space”— felix area (literally,

“lucky space” )—may also be a play on the name of the divinity con-

cerned.

57. Domitianic coin: BMCRE, II, Domitian, no. 303. The elephant-topped

arch has also been identified on the Aurelian panels inserted in the Arch

of Constantine (ill. Coarelli [1992] 376–7); possibly (though minus the el-

ephants!) on the triumphal relief of Marcus Aurelius (Fig. 31). A different

attempt to visualize the porta triumphalis (this time in a mid-sixteenth

century manuscript illustrating a lost Roman relief sculpture): Pfanner

(1980); F. S. Kleiner (1989) 201–4. As yet, despite occasional claims to the

contrary, no archaeological traces of either the porta triumphalis,

Carmentalis, or Catularia have been found.

58. A way out might be found in the precise sense of Josephus’ Greek.

“AnachÇreÇ” (common in some parts of his writing, rare in others, a pat-

tern perhaps derived from his sources) can mean “withdraw” as well as

“go back” in the sense of “retracing steps”; but where motion is implied it

regularly indicates, literally, back-tracking (e.g. BJ 2, 13; AJ 10, 17).

Notes to Pages 100–103

356

59. Makin (1921) 29–31; Sjöqvist (1946) 117.

60. Coarelli (1992) 368.

61. LTUR s.v. Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus, aedes (fasi tardo-

repubblicane e di età imperiale). Earlier triumphs had, of course, taken

place against the background of a ruined temple: notably in the period af-

ter the fire on the Capitoline in 83 bce and before the restoration of the

Temple of Jupiter was completed in 69.

62. The triumph probably took place in June 71. Vespasian had returned to

Rome in early autumn, probably October, of 70 (Chilver and Townend

[1985] 83); it is hardly conceivable that in the intervening months the new

emperor had not crossed the pomerium. Titus may have obeyed the tradi-

tional rules: according to Josephus ( BJ 7, 121) only a few days elapsed between his return from the East and the triumph. Caesar’s crossing of the

pomerium: Weinstock (1971) 61–2.

63. LTUR s.v. Via Triumphalis (1), citing “the persuasive suggestion” that the name derives from the tradition of Camillus’ triumph over Veii. Possible

connections between this and further “triumphal porticoes” lining the es-

tablished route (the prototype of “triumphal porticoes” attested in villas

outside Rome [e.g. CIL VI, 29776; probably XIV, 3695a]: Coarelli (1992)

394–8. Sanest account: Haselberger (2002) s.v. Via Triumphalis, Porticus:

Forum Holitorium.

64. Statue of Hercules: Pliny, Nat. 34, 33. Aemilius Paullus: Plutarch, Aem. 32, 1 (a spurious modern orthodoxy has the whole procession starting from

the Circus Flaminius; though, in fact, none of the three ancient references

cited by Coarelli [1992] 365 to prove that this circus was “certainly” the

starting point says anything of the sort). Circus Maximus: Wiseman

(forthcoming). Nero’s “triumph” in 67, though with a different start and

finish, also took in the Circus Maximus: Suetonius, Nero 25; Dio Cassius

62, 20–1 (with Champlin [2003b] 229–34, J. F. Miller [2000]).

65. Tribunes: Suetonius, Jul. 79, 2. Prisoners: Josephus, BJ 7, 153–4; Cicero, Ver. 2. 5, 77. Summary of debates on Sacra Via: Haselberger (2002) s.v.

Sacra Via.

66. Künzl (1988) 66–7. Aemilius Paullus: Diodorus Siculus 31, 8, 10, from the

Byzantine excerption of Georgius Syncellus (a variant reading might re-

duce the figure to a mere 1500!).

67. Suetonius, Jul. 37.2; Dio Cassius 43, 21, 1 (who refers to the temple in Greek as Tuchaion).

68. Morpurgo (1908) 135–7; Makin (1921) 34–5.

69. Coarelli (1992) 365–6, 384–5.

Notes to Pages 103–113

357

70. Coarelli (1992) 384.

71. Further confirmation of the Velabrum loop is thought to be found in

Livy 27, 37, 11–15 on a religious procession of 207 bce, which traveled

from the Porta Carmentalis down the Vicus Iugarius to the Forum (where

27 maidens performed a dance) then back up the Vicus Tuscus to the

Aventine. But the final destination (on the Aventine) makes this a much

more logical itinerary, not obviously comparable with the triumph.

72. Ammerman (2006) 305–7.

73. Skirting, avoiding: Suetonius, Aug. 98, 2; Cicero, Cael. 51.

74. Wiseman (forthcoming) reaches a similar conclusion, by a different route:

that the word “Velabrum” does not refer to a whole area but to a specific

location near the Forum Boarium.

4 . C A P T I V E S O N PA R A D E

1. Lankheit (1984) 5–7; Baumstark and Büttner (2003) 318–49 (both citing

Pecht [1873] 54–7). The painting is now in the Neue Pinakothek, Munich

(WAF 771); a smaller version is in the Metropolitan Museum, New York

(Inv. 87.2).

2. Campaigns and celebration: Timpe (1968); Seager (2005) 61–74; Levick

(1976) 143–7.

3. Velleius Paterculus 2, 129, 2. Calendar: Fasti Amiternini s.v. 26 May (=

Degrassi, Inscr. It. XIII. 2, 186–7 (a very fragmentary entry in which, if the restorations are correct, the Latin for “was borne,” invectus, was creatively mispelled as invictus, “unconquered.” Coins: RIC I (rev. ed.), Gaius, 57.

One (optimistic) reconstruction sees a fragment of an inscription ( CIL

VI, 906c = 31575c) reading “RECIP” (perhaps part of the Latin for “re-

covered”) as part of an arch commemorating the victory at the west end

of the Forum; LTUR s.v. Arcus Tiberii (Forum).

4. Strabo 7, 1, 4.

5. Tacitus, Ann. 1, 55.

6. Vatinius apud Cicero, Fam. 5, 10a, 3 offers one (not particularly auspicious) precedent.

7. Tacitus, Ann. 2, 41.

8. Ovid, Am. 1, 2, 19–52 (trans. P. Green).

9. Ovid, Am. 1, 9, 1.

10. Dicussion of the poem: Galinsky (1969) 92–5 (pointing to echoes of Vir-

gil’s opening of the third Georgic, with its claims to triumphal status for the poet); F. D. Harvey (1983) (seeing the relationship of Cupid and Au-Notes to Pages 114–119

358

gustus in the context of Augustus’ restriction of the triumph to members

of his own family); McKeown (1987–) 1, 31–59; Buchan (1995) 56–66;

Athanassaki (1992); J. F. Miller (1995); Habinek (2002) 47–9. In the refer-

ence to “Conscience, hands bound behind her, and Modesty” several

writers see a parodic allusion to the painting of Apelles in the Forum of

Augustus (p. 44).

11. Horace, Carm. 1, 37, 29–32 (trans. D. West).

12. Plutarch, Ant. 84; Florus, Epit. 2, 21 (4, 11, 10–11); Dio Cassius 51, 13–4; Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra Act 4, sc. 15; Porphyrio ad Horace, Carm. 1, 37.

13. Pelling (1988) 319.

14. Different options: Pelling (1988) 318–20; Nisbet and Hubbard (1970)

407–11; Whitehorne (1994) 186–202.

15. Appian, Mith 111.

16. Livy 26, 13, 15.

17. SHA, Aurelian 34, 3; Tyranni XXX (Thirty Pretenders) 30, 4–12 and 24–7; Zosimus, 1, 59. Other candidates for taking the option of suicide rather

than (triumphal) captivity might include: the Carthaginian Sophonisba,

who supposedly took poison in 203 bce rather than fall into Roman

hands, although there is no specific mention of plans for a triumph (Livy

30, 15, 1–8; Zonaras, Epitome 9, 13); the Aetolian leader Damocritus, who

is said to have escaped from prison a few nights before the triumph of

Manius Acilius Glabrio in 190 bce and stabbed himself when rearrested

(Livy 37, 46, 5).

18. SHA, Tyranni XXX (Thirty Pretenders) 30, 2 and 19.

19. Plutarch, Aem. 34, 2; Mor. 198b ( Apophthegmata Paulli 7); Cicero, Tusc. 5, 118.

20. Wyke (2002) 240.

21. Brunt (1971) 694–7; Oakley (1998) 189–90; Scheidel (1996).

22. Eutropius 2, 5, 2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 6, 17, 2; Livy 7, 27, 8–9

(even Livy has doubts here, noting disagreements about whether they

were captured soldiers or slaves—either way, the high figure is hard to rec-

oncile with the demography or economy of early Italy).

23. Livy 45, 42, 2.

24. E.g., Livy 10, 46, 5 refers to 2,533,000 pounds of bronze carried in the tri-

umph of Papirius Cursor in 293 bce, said to have come from the sale of

prisoners.

25. Josephus, BJ 6, 416–9; Appian, Hisp. 98.

Notes to Pages 119–125

359

26. Sardi Venales: Festus p. 428–30L (ascribing this explanation to the second

century bce grammarian, Sinnius Capito); De Viris Illustribus 57. Papus:

Polybius 2, 31, 1–6.

27. This is the implication of Festus p. 430L; the inscription quoted by Livy

(41, 28, 8–10) from the Temple of Mater Matuta in Rome, commemorat-

ing Gracchus’ victory, does refer to booty, but leads with the total of more

than 80,000 enemy killed or captured.

28. Livy 30, 45, 4–5 (though at 45, 39, 7 Livy too refers to his appearance

in the triumph). Livy also offers two different versions of the fate of

Hamilcar: killed in battle (31, 21, 18); taken alive and paraded in triumph

(32, 30, 12; 33, 23, 5).

29. Augustus, RG 4, 3.

30. Livy 45, 39, 7.

31. Anicius Gallus: Livy 45, 43, 6; Velleius Paterculus 1, 9, 5–6. Bituitus:

Florus, Epit. 1, 37 (3, 2, 5). Jugurtha: Plutarch, Mar. 12; Livy, Periochae 67.

Arsinoe etc: Dio Cassius 43, 19, 2–4; Plutarch, Caes. 55; Appian, BC 2, 101; Florus, Epit. 2, 13 (4, 2, 88).

32. Distinguished prisoners: Livy 10, 46, 4; 33, 23, 5; De Viris Illustribus 17, 3.

Scipio’s triumph: Livy 37, 59, 5. Duces ducti: Livy 3, 29, 4; 4, 10, 7.

33. Recording the triumph of Manius Acilius Glabrio in 190.

34. Pliny, Pan. 17; SHA, Lucius Verus 8, 7. See also Persius 6, 43–50.

35. Florus, Epit. 1, 30 (2, 14, 5).

36. Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones 1, 11.

37. SHA, Aurelian 33–4; Tyranni XXX (Thirty Pretenders) 30, 24–6.

38. Vergil, Aen. 8, 722–8. Gurval (1995) 34–6, 242–4; Toll (1997) 45–50;

Östenberg (1999).

39. Velleius Paterculus 2, 121. Dench (2005) 76–80.

40. Lucan 1, 12.

41. Appian, BC 2, 101.

42. “Cover-up”: Poduska (1970); with more nuance, Toll (1997) 48.

43. E.g., Ovid, Am. 1, 2, 30; Tr. 4, 2, 46 (Germania). Pompey’s triumph: Appian, Mith. 117.

44. Literary texts: e.g. Cicero, Pis. 60; Livy 4, 10, 7; 6, 4, 2; Seneca, Ep. 71, 22; Valerius Maximus 4, 1, 8. Inscriptions: in addition to Augustus’ RG 4 (a

text known to us entirely epigraphically), Degrassi, Inscr. It. XIII. 3, no. 17

and 83 (texts derived from the elogium of Marius in the Forum of Augus-

tus, including details of the victory over Jugurtha “led in front of his char-

iot”). Seneca, Dial. 10 (De Brevitate Vitae), 13, 8 half jokes on the familiar Notes to Pages 125–134

360

expression, referring to the “120 . . . elephants” in front of the chariot of

Lucius Caecilius Metellus in 250 bce. Victims behind chariot: Lucan 3,

77–8.

45. Ryberg (1955) 150–4; Rotili (1972) 106–12; Adamo Muscettola (1992);

Rivière (2004) 31–3. Only fragments of other such friezes survive, from

(for example) the Temple of Apollo Sosianus in Rome (Fig. 23) and the

Arch of Titus (Fig. 30).

46. Admitting adjustments for “decorative purposes” (as do Ryberg [1955]

150 and Rivière [2004] 32–3) can obscure the more general ques-

tions of the nature of the documentary realism of sculptures of this

type. So too does the usual claim that this frieze is a version of the par-

ticular occasion of Trajan’s triumph over the Dacians and Germans in

106 ce.

47. Josephus, BJ 7, 153–5.

48. Zonaras, Epitome 7, 21; Cicero, Ver. 2. 5, 77.

49. Rivière (2004) 52–3; Rüpke (1990) 210–1; Bonfante Warren (1974) 580.

50. Pontius: Livy, Periochae 11. Pirate chiefs: Cicero, Ver. 2. 5, 66–7.

Vercingetorix: Dio Cassius 40, 41, 3; 43, 19, 4. Adiatorix and Alexander:

Strabo 12, 3, 6; Dio Cassius 51, 2, 2. Even in these cases it is not entirely

clear whether they were put to death—as Josephus claims was the case for

Simon—during the procession itself, or at some point soon afterwards

and not directly associated with the triumph.

51. Appian, Mith. 117; Dio Cassius 37, 16, 4; 39, 56, 6; 41, 18, 1; Josephus, AJ

14, 79, 92–9, 123–4; BJ 1, 158, 171–3, 183–4.

52. Livy, Periochae 67; Plutarch, Mar. 12. Similar doubts about the fate of Aristonicus (in 126 bce): Velleius Paterculus 2, 4, 1; Eutropius 4, 20 (who

has picked up the idea that although he was killed, he was not displayed

in a triumphal procession).

53. Gentius: Livy 45, 43, 9. Zenobia: SHA, Tyranni XXX (Thirty Pretenders)

30, 27. There are many other examples of captives surviving the proces-

sion, including: King Perseus and his sons in 167 (Plutarch, Aem. 37; Livy 45, 42, 4), Arsinoe in 46 (Dio Cassius 43, 19, 4), Bato in 12 ce (Suetonius,

Tib. 20).

54. Panegyrici Latini 6 (7), 10.

55. Eutropius 10, 3, 3.

56. Simon: Josephus, BJ 7, 153–5. John Chrysostom, In Praise of St. Paul 2, 3.

Also: Silius Italicus 17, 629–30; Seneca, Tr. 150–6; Phoen. 577–8; Horace, Ep. 2, 1, 191; Plutarch, Aem. 33–4; Cicero, Ver. 2. 5, 66.

57. Panegyrici Latini 6 (7) 10; see also Cicero, Cat. 4, 21.

Notes to Pages 135–142

361

58. Quote: Florus, Epit. 1, 38 (3, 3, 10); also Eutropius 5, 1; Orosius, Historia Adversus Paganos 5, 16 (who has him killed on the battlefield).

59. Florus, Epit. 1, 37 (3, 2, 5).

60. SHA, Aurelian 34, 3, Tyranni XXX (Thirty Pretenders) 30, 24–6. Gold chains on Syphax in 201 bce: Silius Italicus 17, 630.

61. Florus, Epit. 1, 37 (3, 2, 5).

62. Dio Cassius 63, 1, 2.

63. Ovid, Tr. 4, 2 (quotes 19–24, trans. A. D. Melville; 27–8); the description of the prisoner is closely related to that of the emperor (47–8; dubbed dux

in l. 44). See Beard (2004) 124.

64. Dio Cassius 43, 19. The form and use of fercula: Abaecherli (1935–6).

65. Plutarch, Aem. 33, 4.

66. Plutarch, Aem. 34, 1.

67. Plutarch, Aem. 35, 1–2; Livy 45, 40, 7–8; Valerius Maximus 5, 10, 2. They differ on the question of whether the younger son did (Valerius

Maximus) or did not (Livy) appear in the triumphal chariot with his fa-

ther before his death. Eutropius 4, 8 has both sons in the chariot—and

does not seem to know of the deaths.

68. Livy 45, 41, 10–11; Plutarch, Aem. 36, 6.

69. Seneca, Ep. 71, 22.

70. Seneca, Dial. 7 (De Vita Beata), 25, 4. The usual translation, “a Socrates”

(that is, a typical sage), conceals the anomaly of The Latin expression.

71. Among a vast literature, seminal contributions include: Brunt (1963);

(1978); (1990) 433–80; Harris (1979) 9–41; Hopkins (1978) 25–8.

72. Dio Cassius 12, 50, 4 (from Byzantine epitome); Florus, Epit. 1, 20 (2, 4).

It is tempting to see a connection here with Horace’s famous phrase about

“captive Greece” making her “savage conqueror captive” (Horace, Ep. 2, 1,

156).

73. Dio Cassius 43, 23, 4 (though it is not explicitly stated that these “prison-

ers” had previously been paraded in the triumph).

74. Plutarch Aem. 37; Zonaras, Epitome 9, 24; Diodorus Siculus 31, 9 (from Byzantine excerptions).

75. Plutarch, Caes. 55; Appian BC 2, 46; Christ (1920) 401–3.

76. Valerius Maximus 6, 2, 3.

77. Suetonius, Jul. 80 (“swanky”: literally “broad-striped” referring to the distinctive senatorial toga).

78. Valerius Maximus, 6, 9, 9 (“prison”/ carcer evokes the threat of execution); Aulus Gellius 15, 4, 4; Velleius Paterculus 2, 65, 3; Pliny, Nat. 7, 135.

79. Ovid, Am. 2, 12, 1–2 and 5–6 (trans. P. Green).

Notes to Pages 143–149

362

5 . T H E A RT O F R E P R E S E N TAT I O N

1. Dio Cassius 51, 21, 8; Propertius 3, 11, 53–4. Nisbet and Hubbard (1970)

410 surprisingly regard Propertius’ reference here as merely “dutiful.”

2. Haskell and Penny (1981) 184–7; Barkan (1999) 246–7. Appropriately

enough, this “Cleopatra” was for a time displayed in the Belvedere court-

yard of the Vatican, supported on a second-century ce Roman sarcopha-

gus with triumphal scenes (Köhler [1995] 372–3).

3. Original Latin text: Perosa and Sparrow (1979) 193–5. Pope’s transla-

tion: Ault and Butt (1954) 66–8. Castiglione also plays on the ambiva-

lence between victim and general: at one point (line 19) the Latin adjec-

tive “unhappy”/“unlucky” (infelix) can be apply equally to the “unhappy”

statue—or to the general “unlucky” in not being able to show the living

queen in his procession.

4. Sartain (1885).

5. Appian, BC 2, 101. Cf. the tears prompted by the model of the town of

Massilia (Marseilles) also in 46 bce: Cicero, Phil. 8, 18; Off. 2, 28.

6. Josephus, BJ 7, 139–47.

7. The dangers of falling off a ferculum: Obsequens 70.

8. Livy 26, 21, 1–10; Plutarch, Marc. 21–2; Valerius Maximus 2, 8, 5.

9. Plutarch, Marc. 21, 1–2. The pun on “booty” and “beauty” is in the original Greek.

10. Florus, Epit. 1, 13 (1, 18, 27).

11. Notably Gruen (1992) 84–130—though, in fact, he comes up with rather

few clear and uncontentious examples. McDonnell (2006) restates the in-

novation of this occasion.

12. Plutarch, Marc. 21, 3–4. Other criticisms of Marcellus: Polybius 9, 10; Livy 34, 4, 4. A more favorable view: Cicero, Ver. 2. 4, 120–3 (using

Marcellus as a foil for the depredations of Verres). Discussions of the

complex historiographical tradition (including the contrast with Fabius

Maximus, often portrayed as a respectful and pious conqueror): Gros

(1979); Ferrary (1988) 573–8; Gruen (1992) 94–102; McDonnell (2006)

78–81.

13. Livy 26, 21, 7–9.

14. Cicero, Rep. 1, 21. The complex story of the refoundation of the temple: LTUR s.v. Honos et Virtus, aedes.

15. ILLRP 218, 295.

16. Plutarch, Marc. 30, 4–5; Livy 25, 40, 3. Marcellus’ booty in general: Pape (1975) 6–7 and passim.

Notes to Pages 149–158

363

17. E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 6, 17, 2 (499 or 496 bce); Livy 9, 40, 15–16 (309 bce).

18. Seneca, Dial. 10 (De Brevitate Vitae), 13, 3; Eutropius 2, 14; Pliny, Nat. 8, 16; 7, 139.

19. Appian, Pun. 66.

20. Livy 34, 52; Plutarch, Flam. 14; Cicero, Ver. 2. 4, 129.

21. Plutarch, Aem. 32–3.

22. Pliny Nat. 12, 111–2.

23. Josephus, BJ 7, 132–52; Beard (2003b).

24. Josephus, BJ 7, 158–62; Millar (2005) 107–12.

25. Summary of the controversies, back to Reland (1716): Yarden (1991); see

also Pfanner (1983) 73–4; Gibbon (1776–88) 4, ch. 36, p. 6; Miller (2005)

127–8 and below, pp. 318–9. Kingsley (2006) claims to have run the holy

objects to ground on the West Bank. There is disagreement too about

which menorah is represented on the arch, and whether it was that from

the Temple at all.

26. In addition to a plethora of often highly partisan websites detailing the

various theories and developments, Fine (2005) offers a sane overview.

27. Dio Cassius 43, 19–21 (Arsinoe, axle); Plutarch, Caes. 55; Appian, BC 2, 101 (paintings of Romans); Suetonius, Jul. 37, 2 (axle, “I came . . .”); 49, 4

and 51 (songs); Florus, Epit. 2, 13 (4, 2, 88–9) (representation and models).

28. Full discussion of the Triumphs: Martindale (1979) esp. chap. 5 for the classical sources (and p. 136 for the pegmata).

29. E.g. Brilliant (1999) 223–4.

30. In general: Ryberg (1955) 141–62. The small frieze on Trajan’s Arch at

Beneventum (Figs. 21, 22; including several loaded fercula): Rotili (1972)

106–12; Adamo Muscettola (1992). The severely damaged small frieze on

the Arch of Titus (Fig. 30; including a plausible model of a river): Pfanner

(1983) 82–90. Sculptural decoration of the Temple of Apollo Sosianus

(Fig. 23; including small triumphal frieze): Heilmeyer, La Rocca and Mar-

tin (1988) 121–48. The small friezes on the Arch of Septimius Severus, of-

ten described as “triumphal” (but equally plausibly—if we are to take

them as narrowly “documentary”—a representation of the journey home

of the victorious army): Brilliant (1967) 137–47. The only surviving repre-

sentation of any architectural model is a fragment of late imperial sculp-

ture (possibly a forgery) from North Africa, showing a bridge—identified

as the Milvian Bridge—carried in procession on a ferculum (illustrated by

Künzl [1988] 78–9, fig 47).

31. Martindale (1979) 109–22.

Notes to Pages 159–164

364

32. ESAR I, 126–38 (“National Income and Expenses, 200–157,” relying

heavily on literary records of triumphal booty).

33. Pollitt (1978) 157.

34. Pollitt (1983) 63–74. Evidence for particular works of art on display in in-

dividual processions and their subsequent history: Pape (1975) 41–71 (with

Yarrow [2006], attempting to track the final destination of Mummius’

booty). Significant contributions to the debates on the changes in artistic

practice and “appreciation” especially among the Roman elite at this time:

Hölscher (1978); Pollitt (1978); MacMullen (1991); Gruen (1992) 84–130.

The complexity of the cultural change which underlies claims (or denials)

of “Hellenization”: HSCPh (1995) and Habinek and Schiesaro (1997).

35. E.g. Holliday (1997); (2002) 22–62. The triumph has also been linked to

the development of Roman traditions in portraiture and honorific statu-

ary, on the grounds that the first statues of living people erected in Rome

appear to have been of generals who had triumphed: Rüpke (2006) 261–5.

Hölkeskamp (2001) 111–26 links honorific statues to (what he sees as) the

triumphal route.

36. Murphy (2004) 155 and 160; Hardie (2002) 310.

37. Velleius Paterculus 2, 56, 2. Cf. accounts of the triumph of Aemilius

Paullus: displaying some 56,250 kilos of silver coin (to translate Plu-

tarch’s account, Aem. 32, 5), or, according to Velleius (1, 9, 6), exceeding all previous triumphs in the display of money (with 200 million sesterces

transferred to the treasury); Pliny ( Nat. 33, 56) refers to 300 million sesterces.

38. Suetonius, Aug. 41, 1.

39. Pliny, Nat. 33, 148 (though he goes on to say that the legacy to Rome of the kingdom of Asia by Attalus had even worse effects); 33, 151.

40. “Tax-paying subjects” (servit nunc haec ac tributa pendit): Pliny, Nat. 12, 111–2.

41. Polybius 6, 15, 8.

42. Josephus, BJ 7, 133–4; Beard (2003b) 551–2.

43. Plutarch, Luc. 36, 7.

44. Florus, Epit. 1, 13 (1, 18, 27). Retrojection of opulence: Valerius Maximus 6, 3, 1b (502 and 486 bce); Livy 4, 34 (426); Dionysius of Halicarnassus,

Ant. 6, 17, 2 (499 or 496); though in discussing Romulus’ spoils in 753

Dionysius ( Ant. 2, 34, 3) drives home the moral contrast between the

modesty of early triumphs (as he assumed them to be) and the ostenta-

tious pomp of his own day. Florus, Epit. 1, 18 (2, 2, 30–2) refers to a triumph in 245 bce aborted because all the booty had been lost at sea.

Notes to Pages 164–169

365

45. Livy 31, 49, 3; cf. 40, 38, 9.

46. Cicero, Att. 4, 18, 4; Q. fr. 3, 4, 6; Dio Cassius 37, 47–8; 39, 65; Scholia Bobiensia (Stangl) 149–50.

47. Appian, Mith. 115.

48. Östenberg (2003) 60.

49. Livy 45, 35, 6; Plutarch, Aem. 29, 3. The procedure for plundering de-

feated cities: Ziolkowski (1993), rightly challenging the orderly picture of-

fered by Polybius 10, 15, 4–16, 9 (referring to the sack of New Carthage in

209).

50. Shatzman (1972) and Churchill (1999) represent the two main sides of the

argument, with full references to other contributions.

51. Livy 37, 57, 12–58, 1; Astin (1978) 69–73; Briscoe (1981) 390–2.

52. Gabelmann (1981).

53. Östenberg (2003) 264–6. Itgenshorst (2005) 82–8; 192–3 is more skeptical

of any detailed reconstructions.

54. For variations in the “literary order” of the procession, compare Appian,

Pun. 66 (trumpeters, wagons of spoils, images of cities, pictures of the

war, bullion and coin, golden crowns, sacrificial animals, elephants, pris-

oners) with Livy 39, 5, 13–17 (golden crowns, bullion, coin, statues, cap-

tured weapons, prisoners) or Tacitus, Ann. 2, 41 (spoils, captives, images of mountains, rivers, and battles). Plutarch, Luc. 37, 2 (perhaps the Circus Flaminius held the booty before the parade too).

55. Livy 9, 40, 16; Rawson (1990), suggesting that often such stories were in-

vented, ex post facto, to explain and give a history to spoils on display in the city. Cistophori: Harl (1991); Kleiner and Noe (1977). Triumphs: Livy

37, 46, 3; 37, 59, 4; 38, 58, 4–5; 39, 7, 1.

56. Livy 10, 46, 5.

57. Callixeinos, FGrH 627 F 2 (=Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 5, 197C–203B).

Rice (1983) is a full discussion of the text which energetically searches out

parallels for the objects in the procession and other reasons to believe.

The statue is “one of many historically attested automata” (p. 65); os-

triches are shown pulling “the chariot of Eros” (hardly much of a proof!)

on an imperial gem from Munich and feature in ostrich carts in Califor-

nia and Nevada (p. 90); the wine sack is “of the size, material, and osten-

tation suited to the Grand Procession” (p. 71). The appendix on “the cred-

ibility of Athenaeus and Kallixeinos,” pp. 138–50, by and large gives both

author and excerptor a clean bill of health. More recent discussions of this

text take it similarly as a more or less accurate documentary account:

Stewart (1993) 253–4; Thompson (2000)—though Itgenshorst (2005) 214

Notes to Pages 169–174

366

is more circumspect. My calculations of comparability are based on

Thompson (2000) 370, where she reckons the capacity of the wine sack at

116,340 litres (assuming 38.78 litres = 1 measure/ metreta).

58. Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 197D; though this reference is a long way

from proving (as Rice [1983] 171–5 would have it) that Callixeinos’ ac-

count was based on an official record of the occasion.

59. Cicero, Ver. 2. 1, 57.

60. Epigraphical hints at record-keeping: ILLRP 319, commemorating the na-

val triumph of Duilius in 260 bce. Literary precision: Livy 34, 10, 4

(195bce); Livy 39, 5, 15 (187 bce). Documents on Pompey’s booty in 61:

above, pp. 38–40.

61. In detail, the pattern of Livy’s account is complicated. There are similarly

precise figures in his text occasionally before 207 bce (for example, 10, 46,

5 and 14 on the triumphs of 293 bce); books 11–20 are lost; the series of

regular standard notices, with precise figures, starts only in 207 bce (Livy

28, 9, 16–7)—triumphs in any case not having been frequent in the pe-

riod covered by Books 21–27. In its most skeletal form, the standard in-

formation is: sums of coin or bullion put into the treasury, the amount

distributed to the troops; though from 190 bce numbers of gold crowns

are regularly included, as are occasionally numbers of standards captured

or statues. Triumphal notices as part of Livy’s rhetorical purposes: Phillips

(1974).

62. Nature of Servilius’ list: Bradford Churchill (1999) 105–6. New Carthage:

Livy 26, 47. 5–8. Livy 45, 40, 1 cites the earlier writer Valerius Antias as

source for his figures for booty.

63. Diodorus Siculus 31, 8, 10–2 (from the Byzantine excerption of George

Syncellus).

64. Plutarch, Aem. 32–3 (the only exact match with Diodorus is the 120

sacrificial oxen and 400 garlands or gold crowns). Östenberg (2003) 23–4,

27 sees the difference in terms of their different uses and understanding of

their common source, Polybius.

65. Livy 36, 21, 11; 36, 39, 2.

66. Plutarch, Flam. 14; Livy 34, 52, 4–7.

67. Briscoe (1981) 128–9.

68. Briscoe (1981) 252, 254, 278–9.

69. Pompey’s “eight cubit” statue: Plutarch, Luc. 37; above, p. 9.

70. Livy 6, 29, 8–10.

71. Pliny, Nat. 34, 54. The exact location is contested: LTUR s.v. Fortuna Huiusce Diei, Templum and Fortuna Huiusce Diei, Templum (in Palatio).

72. Haskell and Penny (1981) 108–24 (quote p. 111); McClellan (1994) 120–3.

Notes to Pages 174–182

367

73. This is not to say that there was no appreciation of Greek art. Discussion:

Gruen (1992) 84–130.

74. E.g., Livy 45, 33, 1–2; Rüpke (1990) 199–202.

75. Plutarch, Luc. 37, 3; Diodorus Siculus 31, 8, 11–2 (from the excerption of George Syncellus); Livy 34, 52, 5–7.

76. Plutarch, Aem. 32, 3–4; Propertius 2, 1, 34.

77. Trophies (tropaea): Picard (1957). Images: Holliday (2002) 57–60.

78. E.g., Livy 9, 40, 15–7 (shields from the triumph of Papirius Cursor in 309

said to have decorated the Forum); Livy 10, 46, 7–8 (Papirius Cursor ju-

nior decorates the Temple of Quirinus, the Forum, and the temples and

public places of the allies with spolia—probably here in the limited sense

of arms and armor). Columnae rostratae (“beaked columns”) featured a

display of “beaks” (or rams) captured from enemy ships.

79. Livy 38, 43, 10 suggests that the spoils attached to houses might be a more

varied selection than just captured weapons.

80. Livy 24, 21, 9.

81. Pliny, Nat. 34, 43. Livy’s notice of Carvilius’ triumph (10, 46, 13–5) does not refer to this.

82. Plutarch, Mor. 273 C–D ( Quaestiones Romanae 37).

83. Livy 23, 14, 4.

84. Plutarch, CG 15, 1 and 18, 1; Velleius Paterculus 2, 6, 4.

85. Livy 24, 21, 9–10.

86. Appian, Pun. 135.

87. Polybius 9, 10 (quotation, section 13). Though not explicitly about the tri-

umph, this is a crucial passage for the darker side of victory.

88. Smith (1981) 30–2.

89. Pliny, Nat. 35, 135; Quintilian, Inst. 6, 3, 61 (cf. Velleius Paterculus 2, 56, 2—a slightly different version).

90. Künzl (1988) 117–8; Ling (1991) 9–11; Holliday (2002) 19, 50–5, 87–90.

91. Pliny, Nat, 35, 22–3; Livy 41, 28, 8–10 (Gracchus).

92. Ovid, Tr. 4, 2 (esp. line 65). Beard (2004) 118–21; Oliensis (2004) 308–17; Hardie (2002) 308–11 (quotation, p. 309). The context is a triumph expected, but not celebrated, in 10 ce.

93. Ovid, Pont. 2, 1, 37–8 (few scholars have been convinced either by the reading victis [“conquered”] or by Heinsius’ emendation of fictis [“made up,” “imaginary”] for pictis; see Galasso [1995] 115). The phrase pictis . . .

viris echoes the pictas . . . vestes (“painted clothes”) of the general, another nice example of the slippage between conqueror and conquered. See

Beard (2004) 116.

94. Appian Mith. 117 (most translations attempt to reduce the peculiarity of Notes to Pages 183–191

368

the Greek by turning it into “his silent flight by night” vel sim. ) with

Beard (2003a) 31–2. Hölscher (1987) 29 incautiously leaps to the conclu-

sion that this description is good evidence for increasingly sensational ef-

fects sought by art in the late Republic.

95. Appian, Mith. 117 with Beard (2003a) 32. Divine image-making in gen-

eral: R. Gordon (1979).

96. Josephus, BJ 7, 136.

97. Ovid, Ars 1, 223–8 (trans. P. Green, adapted).

98. Tigris and Euphrates: Lucan 3, 256–9.

99. Suetonius, Cal. 47; Persius 6, 46–7

100. Tacitus, Ag. 39, 1; Pliny, Pan. 16, 3; Dio Cassius 67, 7. 4.

101. Dio Cassius 79, 16, 7; 72, 17–20.

6 . P L AY I N G B Y T H E RU L E S

1. Plutarch, Crass. 32–3.

2. The letters between Cicero in Cilicia and friends in Rome are clustered in

his Letters to Atticus (Att.), Books 5 and 6 (with the return journey continuing into Book 7) and Letters to Friends (Fam.), Books 2, 3, 8, and 15,

largely comprising numbers 66–118 in Shackleton Bailey (1977). On the

principles of selection: Beard (2002), 116–43.

3. Fam. 8, 5, 1.

4. Fam. 2, 10, 2–3. The usual assumption is that Scipio’s acclamation in 208

was the first: Livy 27, 19, 4; Combès (1966) 51–9; Auliard (2001) 18–9.

5. Att. 5, 20, 3; Fam. 2, 10, 3.

6. Concise narratives: Rawson (1975b) 164–82; Mitchell (1991) 204–31.

Wistrand (1979) offers a detailed reconstruction; Marshall (1966) is an ex-

cellent account of his nonmilitary activity.

7. Fam. 3, 6, 3–5. Cicero assumes malevolence on Appius’ part, but it is not inconceivable that Appius was as much ignorant of Cicero’s arrival as malevolent.

8. Fam. 2, 10, 2; 15, 14, 3 (quoted); in Att. 5, 18, 1 he also takes the Parthian threat seriously at its outset—and similarly, later, in Phil. 11, 35.

9. Att. 5, 20, 3; 21, 2; Fam. 3 , 8, 10; 8, 10, 2. Misinformation from the frontiers (leading to a triumph) in the Empire: Dio Cassius 68, 29, 1–3; Ando

(2000) 126, 182.

10. Att. 5, 16, 2; Fam. 3, 10, 1; 3, 9, 2.

11. Att. 5, 20, 4; 6, 5, 3; 6, 8, 5; 7, 2, 6; Fam. 8, 6, 4. Cicero’s tone changes according to the recipient: his official dispatch to the senate ( Fam. 15, 1, 5) refers to Bibulus as “very brave” (fortissimus). Cake recipe: Cato, Agr. 121.

Notes to Pages 191–201

369

12. Halkin (1953) discusses what (little) we know of the ritual (99–105); for

Cicero’s supplication, 48–58.

13. Att. 7, 1, 8.

14. Fam. 15, 10 (to Marcellus); 15, 13 (to Paullus, markedly more fulsome; quoted).

15. Fam. 15, 4, discussed in detail by Wistrand (1979) 10–18; Hutchinson

(1998) 86–100.

16. Fam. 8, 11. Curio: Lacey (1961).

17. Fam. 15, 5. Judgments: Tyrrell and Purser (1914) xxxiii; Rawson (1975b) 170; Boissier (1870) 294, showing perhaps a more nineteenth-century

sympathy for Cato’s rhetoric.

18. Fam. 15, 11; 3, 13.

19. Fam. 15, 6.

20. Att. 6, 3, 3; 6, 6, 4; 6, 8, 5; Fam. 2, 12, 3.

21. Att. 7, 1, 7; 7, 2, 6–7; 7, 4, 2; the text of the numeral at 7, 2, 7 is disputed.

22. Att. 7, 8, 5; with 6, 9, 2; 7, 1, 9.

23. Att. 7, 1, 5.

24. Att. 7, 4, 2; Cicero did attend the senate (presumably meeting outside the pomerium) in January 49, Att. 9, 11a, 2).

25. Att. 7, 7, 4.

26. Att. 7, 3, 2.

27. Fam. 16, 11, 3.

28. E.g., Att. 7, 10; 8, 3, 6; 9, 2a, 1; 9, 7, 5; 11, 6, 2–3; Fam. 2, 16, 2. The circumstances of Cicero’s laying down his imperium and abandoning his tri-

umphal hopes are (hypothetically) explored by Wistrand (1979) 200–2.

29. Halkin (1953), whose focus is the supplicatio rather than the triumph, is a partial exception; and, briefly, Itgenshorst (2005) 67–9.

30. E.g., Ogilvie (1965) 679; Versnel (1970) 172–3.

31. Phillips (1974) 267–8.

32. Suetonius (quoted in Isidore, Orig. 18, 2, 3) hedged his bets: the tri umph owes its name to the fact that it was awarded by three bodies—army, senate, and people.

33. E.g., Livy 2, 20, 13; 2, 31, 3.

34. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 6, 30, 2–3.

35. Livy 3, 63, 5–11.

36. The “standard procedure” is summarized by, for example, Ehlers, RE 2.

VIIA, 1, 497–9, Weinstock (1971) 60 and, at greater length, Auliard (2001)

133–67.

37. Dio Cassius 48, 4. Dio also, unusually in a republican context, refers

to Pompey “accepting” (rather than asking for) his third triumph (37,

Notes to Pages 201–203

370

21, 1)—a sign maybe of Dio’s imperial perspective. A little earlier Marius

refused or postponed a triumph (Livy Periochae 68; Plutarch, Mar. 24, 1).

38. Bonnefond-Coudry (1989) 143–9 (location of debates); 269–74 (timing).

39. Halkin (1953) 80–3; 109–11; Combès (1966) 118–20 suggests the im-

portance of such an acclamation in gaining a triumph, but the link is only

rarely and tenuously suggested by ancient writers—by Cicero’s loaded

claim that a thanksgiving is regularly preceded by an acclamation ( Phil.

14, 11) and by Zonaras, Epitome 7, 21, derived presumably from Dio.

40. Plautus, Am. 188–92 (with Christenson [2000] 174–6); see also 655–7 and Pers. 753–4. Plautine triumphal parodies: Fraenkel (1922) 234–40; Halkin

(1948). The distinctive style (including series of ablative absolutes): Livy

10, 37, 8 (with Oakley [2005b] 375); 40, 52, 5–6; 41, 28, 8–9 (with Galli

[1987–8]); ILLRP 122. Livy 38, 48, 15 claims to quote part of the official phraseology of the senatorial vote.

41. See, e.g., Livy 45, 35, 4: “The praetor, Quintus Cassius, was assigned the

task of arranging with the tribunes that, following a resolution of the sen-

ate, they should propose a motion to the people that the generals should

possess imperium on the day that they rode into the city in triumph” (167

bce). It seems that the senate might also authorize additional honors to

accompany a triumph: Dio Cassius 43, 14, 3.

42. Apart from Livy 45, 35, 4, the only direct evidence is a similar reference

concerning Marcellus’ ovation in 211 (Livy 26, 21, 5). The accounts of

Pomptinus’ triumph in 54 bce (see esp. Cicero, Q. fr. 3, 4, 6) imply a po-

tentially illegitimate vote of imperium.

43. This theory, in its essentials, goes back to Laqueur (1909). Recent re-

finements and restatements: Brennan (2000) 52–3; Linderski (1990) 44–6

(prompted by the question of why those who held the office of consular

tribune did not, and so perhaps could not, triumph, despite having imperium). The basic controversy, imperium vs auspicia, is reviewed by Versnel (1970) 164–95; it is further and minutely dissected by Vervaet (2007) 41–85.

44. From the many accounts of petitioning a triumph, these are mentioned

only by Livy 5, 28, 13 (an obvious anachronism), 45, 1, 6–7, and Cicero,

Pis. 39. Pliny, Nat. 15, 133 refers to this as one of the uses of the laurel tree, but from what date and how regularly is unclear; Appian, Mith.77 refers

to it as “the custom” for victors. The idea (Livy 30, 43, 9) that the fetial

priests carried their own sacred boughs (verbenae) with them might just

provide a parallel for the general and his laurels.

45. In addition to the early triumphs imagined to have taken place against the

will of the senate: Livy 7, 17, 9 (Caius Marcius Rutilus, 356); 10, 37, 6–12

Notes to Pages 203–208

371

(Lucius Postumius Megellus, 294), with Oakley (1997) 721. One way

round this has been to claim that the senate acquired its triumphal au-

thority only later (perhaps under Sulla): Ogilvie (1965) 513, following

Mommsen (1887) 3, 1233–4.

46. Polybius 6, 15, 8 (though he appears to allow the possibility of proceeding

without funds). Self-funding: Orosius, Historia Contra Paganos 5, 4, 7

(Appius Claudius, 143 bce); also Livy 33, 23, 8 (Alban Mount, 197 bce).

47. Cicero, Cael. 34; Valerius Maximus 5, 4, 6; Suetonius, Tib. 2, 4; Dio Cassius 22, fr. 74 (from a Byzantine excerption); Orosius, Historia Contra

Paganos 5, 4, 7.

48. Brennan (1996) 319–20.

49. Develin (1978) 437–8.

50. Mommsen (1887) 1, 132; Versnel (1970) 191–3; Brennan (1996) 316. It is

partly with these problems in mind that the key role in the triumph of

auspicia (rather than imperium) has been stressed; though, so far as I can see, that only raises further slippery issues.

51. Versnel (1970) 384–8; J. S. Richardson (1975) 59–60.

52. The legal and constitutional notion of imperium (as well as of the sup-

posed subdivisions, imperium domi and imperium militiae) has been the subject of innumerable learned but inconclusive discussions over the last

two centuries at least (largely building on or refining the work of

Mommsen). Useful introductions to the subject include: Drummond

(1989) 188–9; J. S. Richardson (1991).

53. The one major exception is the debate on the triumph of Aemilius

Paullus in 167 bce, which is set by Livy in the popular assembly convened

to extend his imperium (45, 35, 5–39, 20).

54. Livy 26, 21, 1–6.

55. Livy 31, 20.

56. Recent contributions to the traditional industry include: Petrucci (1996);

Auliard (2001). Gruen (1990) 129–33 is a rare case of dissent, though may

overstate the case.

57. Mommsen (1887) 1, 126–36; Laqueur (1909) (with n. 43, above).

58. J. S. Richardson (1975); and, with even greater emphasis on flexibility,

Brennan (1996), with quotation, p. 317.

59. Changing requirements to bring home the army: J. S. Richardson (1975)

61. The Mommsen “rule” (that even magistrates whose victory occurred

in the period directly after their year of office, when their imperium had been seamlessly prorogued, could not triumph): Mommsen (1887) 1, 128–

9; Versnel (1970) 168–9.

Notes to Pages 209–213

372

60. Harris (1979) 255 argues for the “partial confidentiality” of senatorial de-

bates—though how long that lasted, or how strictly it was enforced, is

unclear.

61. Valerius Maximus 2, 8. Ius triumphale is Valerius’ term.

62. Orosius, Historia Contra Paganos 5, 4, 7. For the “what-if?” style of legal conundrum, see the Declamationes of the Elder Seneca and Pseudo-Quintilian.

63. On Valerius’ evidence the date would be 62 bce, the date of Cato’s

tribunate. Lucius Marcius or Marius (the text is uncertain) is otherwise

unknown—though he creeps into reference works on the basis of this

passage.

64. Brennan (2000) 83–5 is the sharpest analysis of Valerius Maximus’ ac-

count of the controversy. Vervaet (2007) 59–64 is a less skeptical discus-

sion.

65. Harris (1979) 123. The classic case of a triumph awarded for the recovery

of territory is Livy’s account (5, 49, 7) of the triumph of Camillus in 390:

“Having won his country back from the enemy, the dictator returned to

Rome in triumph.”

66. Modern writers have also disagreed over the ovation awarded to

Marcellus, but for different reasons: J. S. Richardson (1975) 54–5 sees it as

driven by narrowly political concerns, Develin (1978) 432 as a proper ap-

plication of the rules. Different controversies surround Scipio’s triumph:

against Valerius Maximus and Livy (26, 21, 1–5), both Polybius (11, 33, 7)

and Appian ( Hisp. 38) claim that he celebrated a triumph.

67. The role of precedent (and innovation) in Livy: Chaplin (2000) 137–67.

68. Livy 28, 38, 4; 34, 10, 5.

69. Concern with the fair apportioning of triumphal glory: Livy 28, 9; 33, 22, 2.

70. Livy 31, 48–49, 3 (with Brennan [2000] 197–200 for a full discussion of

the many factors that might have been at work here); 38, 44, 9–50, 3.

71. The need to assert authoritative command perhaps lies behind the list of

terms used to refer to military leadership in several records of victory, and

parodied by Plautus: in its fullest form (found only once, Livy 40, 52, 5),

“under the command, the auspices, the authority and through the success

of so-and-so” (ductu, auspicio, imperio, felicitate). Predictably enough, this phrase and its variants (see, for example, Livy 41, 28, 8; ILLRP 122;

Plautus, Am. 192, 196, 657) have been minutely scrutinized for what they

might reveal about the precise legal or other qualifications for a triumph

(Versnel [1970] 176–81; 356–71). But the point may be far less technical

than that: by piling up different ways of expressing the general’s responsi-

Notes to Pages 213–219

373

bility for his victory, it may serve rather to make that responsibility seem

uncontestable.

72. Livy 40, 38. Despite Livy’s claim of a triumphal innovation here, there are

stories of earlier triumphs said to have involved no fighting (Dionysius of

Halicarnassus, Ant. 8, 69, 1–2; Livy 37, 60, 5–6).

73. Livy 31, 48, 5; 49, 8–11.

74. Livy 33, 22, 9.

75. Livy 35, 8.

76. The same theme is reflected in Cato the Elder’s speech, “On false battles,”

delivered against the triumphal claims of Quintus Minucius Thermus in

190; ORF Cato, fr. 58.

77. Greater strife: Livy 39, 5, 12. The prospect of a triumph: Livy 28, 38, 4.

Nasica: Livy 36, 39, 8. “Desire for (true) glory”: Sallust, Cat. 7, 3; Harris (1979) 17–32.

78. Attacks on those who had come to terms: Suetonius, Jul. 54, 1; Dio

Cassius 36, 18, 1.

79. Livy 2, 47, 10–11. Among vain attempts to account for this: Auliard (2001)

140–1; and see below, p. 300–1.

80. Valerius Maximus 2, 8, 3.

81. Pis. 44; reminiscent of Caelius’ quip (see above, n. 3).

82. Nisbet (1961) 172–80.

83. Cicero, Pis. 37–8; 54.

84. Cicero, Pis. 51–2 (Cicero’s return); 53–64 (Piso’s return). Piso’s return as

“anti-triumph”: Itgenshorst (2005) 82–8.

85. Griffin (2001) is a careful analysis of the Epicurean elements in the

speech, attempting to reveal both Piso’s own philosophical position and

the original audience’s philosophical familiarity and understanding.

86. Cicero, Pis. 60. This section is so expertly parodic that it has been taken for Cicero’s own philosophical critique of triumphal trinkets (Brilliant

[1999] 225). The passage continues, dropping the parody, to make Piso

“put his own case in the worst light” (Nisbet [1961] ad loc.).

87. Cicero, Pis. 56.

88. Cicero, Pis. 62, 58.

7 . P L AY I N G G O D

1. Cafiero (1986) 38–9.

2. A particular puzzle is their relationship to eight similar reliefs, originally

depicting Marcus, later incorporated into the Arch of Constantine. Dif-

Notes to Pages 221–222

374

ferent solutions: Ryberg (1967) 1–8, 84–9; Angelicoussis (1984); Cafiero

(1986).

3. Schollmeyer (2001) 152–68. Examples include: Arch of Germanicus:

Crawford et al. (1996) 1, no. 37, 18–21; Arch of Nero: F. S. Kleiner (1985) 78–9.

4. This is another of those faux, or nearly faux, Latin terms that litter modern writing in ancient history ( Romanitas, lararium are others). So far as I have been able to discover, in surviving classical Latin it is used twice by

Apuleius ( Apol. 17 of Manius Curius; Mun. 37 of Jupiter), once by Minucius Felix ( Octavius 37 of a Christian). From the late third century

ce it is commonly found in inscriptions among the titles of emperors

( triumphator perpetuus/aeternus/semper—that is “perpetual triumphator”):

e.g., CIL VI 1141, 1144, 1178; CIL VIII, 7011 (= ILS 698, 700, 5592, 715).

From the fourth century, it is found similarly in coin legends: e.g., RIC

VIII, 410, Constantius II and Constans ( triumfator gentium barbarum—

that is, “triumphator over barbarian tribes”); RIC X, 325–6, Honorius

(triumfator gent[ium] barb[arum]).

5. Suggestions include the arch spanning the road up the Capitoline hill

with the nearby Temple of Jupiter Tonans (the Thunderer) or alterna-

tively Jupiter Custos (the Protector); the Arch of Augustus in the Forum,

with the nextdoor Temple of Divus Julius; the Porta Triumphalis with its

supposed neighbor Fortune the Home-Bringer; the Temple of Bellona.

General review: Ryberg (1967) 19–20; Cafiero (1986) 39. Arch of Augus-

tus: M. R. Alföldi (1999) 93.

6. Diodorus Siculus 31, 8, 10 (from the excerption of George Syncellus); Plu-

tarch, Marc. 22, 2; Appian, Pun. 66. Musicians at various Roman ceremonies, including the triumph: Fless (1995) 79–86.

7. The relief: Fless (1995) pl. 10. 2. It is dated, stylistically, to the mid-first century bce. Musicians also appear in a relief now in Spain, which almost

certainly depicts the procession of Augustus’ triumph of 29 bce (Trunk

[2002] 250–4; pl. 68, 71a; ThesCRA I, 48, no. 75) and the manuscript copy

of a lost processional relief (Pfanner [1980] 331).

8. Zonaras, Epitome 7, 21. Roman and Italic chariots of various types:

Emiliozzi (1997).

9. Suetonius, Nero 25, 1; Dio Cassius 63, 20, 3 (from a Byzantine abridg-

ment). J. F. Miller (2000) 417–9. A different version is offered by the bi-

ographer of the late third-century emperor Aurelian (SHA, Aurelian 33,

2): that in his triumph Aurelian used a chariot captured from the king of

the Goths.

Notes to Pages 223–229

375

10. Ginzrot (1817) 2, 41.

11. Suetonius, Vesp. 12. Similar problems: SHA, Severus 16, 6.

12. Appian, Mith. 117; Diodorus Siculus, 31, 8, 12 (from the excerption of George Syncellus); Livy 10, 7, 10. Among the host of other references to

gold, gilded, or ivory chariots: Horace, Epod. 9, 21–2; Florus, Epit. 1, 1 (1, 5, 6); Tibullus 1, 7, 8; Ovid, Tr. 4, 2, 63.

13. Propertius 4, 11, 11–2. See also Cicero, Fam. 15, 6, 1; Florus, Epit. 2, 13 (4, 2, 89); Pliny, Nat. 5, 36.

14. Valerius Maximus 1, 1, 10.

15. Ryberg (1967) 17–8; Chilosi and Martellotti (1986) 48.

16. Germanicus: Tacitus, Ann. 2, 41. Scipio: Appian, Pun. 66. Aemilius Paullus: Livy 45, 40, 7–8. Flory (1998) doubts that girls were part of the

triumph until the imperial period, and (not implausibly) considers that

Appian and Dio (Zonaras, Epitome 7, 21) are retrojecting imperial prac-

tice into the Republic.

17. Briefly reported by Murray (2004) 9.

18. Suetonius, Tib. 6, 4.

19. E.g., Gnecchi (1912) pl. 60, 7; RIC III, Marcus Aurelius, no. 1183.

20. Boscoreale: Kuttner (1995) 145.

21. Livy 10, 7, 10.

22. Frazer (1911) 174–8.

23. Religious representation: Scheid (1986). Other advocates of the general’s

divine status include: Wissowa (1912) 126–8; Strong (1915) 64–5; with fur-

ther references in Versnel (1970) 62.

24. Seminal critics include: Reid (1916); Warde Fowler (1916) (from whom

the challenge, p. 157); Deubner (1934); most recently Rüpke (2006) 254–

9. Full review of the debate: Versnel (1970) 56–84; (2006), specifically in

response to Rüpke. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 3, 61–2; with 4, 74, 1

and similarly Florus, Epit. 1, 1 (1, 5, 6).

25. Versnel (1970) 84–93; Bonfante Warren (1970a).

26. Ovid, Ars. 1, 214; Tr. 4, 2, 48; Livy 45, 39, 2; 45, 40, 6; Silius Italicus 17, 645.

27. Livy, Periochae 67; Plutarch, Mar. 12, 5. Variants include cultus triumphantium (Velleius Paterculus 2, 40, 4); habitus triumphalis (Pliny, Nat. 34, 33).

28. I am not including here images of late antique consuls dressed in costume

which may mirror triumphal costume; below, pp. 277–9.

29. The repertoire is fully rehearsed by Ehlers, RE 2. VIIA, 1, 504–8, with references. As usual the evidence is more fragile than the reconstruction

Notes to Pages 229–231

376

tends to imply: the amulet is, for example, referred to once by Macrobius

(1, 6, 9), the iron ring by Pliny only ( Nat. 33, 11–2). The sanest modern

account, though not quite skeptical enough for my taste: Oakley (2005b)

100–4.

30. Ehlers, RE 2. VIIA, 1, 505–6; Versnel (1970) 74–7.

31. Festus, p. 228L; Martial 7, 2, 8; Apuleius, Apol. 22. Less precise: Oakley (2005b) 101 (of course, we have no idea how precise the terminology was

in, say, the third century bce).

32. Festus, p. 228L.

33. Livy 10, 7, 10; see also Juvenal 10, 38 (the praetor leading the games in the

“tunic of Jupiter”), a passage quoted by Servius ( Ecl. 10, 27) who refers to triumphing generals having “all the insignia of Jupiter”; in the dream of

Augustus’ father (Suetonius, Aug. 94, 6), his son holds the “thunderbolt,

scepter, and attributes of Jupiter” (the closest we come to answering

Warde Fowler’s challenge, n. 24).

34. Tertullian, De Corona 13, 1, with Versnel (1970) 73–4; (2006) 302–3. By contrast, Andreas Alföldi, among others, seems to have envisaged a costume store-cum-dressing-up box in the Capitoline temple (A. Alföldi

[1935] 28).

35. There is very little evidence for the appearance of the cult statue; but it

would be surprising if (at least those versions installed after 83 bce) were

only life-size (Martin [1987] 131–44).

36. Triumphal impersonations at funerals: Polybius 6, 53, 7; Pompey’s pyre:

Lucan 9, 175–9. None of this is easily compatible with a puzzling passage

in the late imperial life of Gordian I (SHA, Gordians 4, 4): “He was the

first private citizen among the Romans to possess his own tunica palmata

and toga picta, for previously even emperors had taken them from the

Capitol or from the palace.” It is possible that the author has the ceremo-

nial/inaugural dress of the imperial consuls in mind.

37. As a technical term, Versnel (1970) 58 (and passim); (2006) 295–6, 301

(and passim); Bonfante Warren (1970a) 59 (“the Romans often refer to

the insignia of the triumphator as the ‘ornatus’ of Jupiter Optimus

Maximus”).

38. Pliny, Nat. 33, 111–2 (the full quotation is rarely given by modern theorists; in particular, Pliny’s expression of bafflement is almost never in-

cluded); see also 35, 157 where he explains the coloring of the original

statue of Jupiter as necessary because it was made of terracotta. Later writ-

ers: Servius (auct.), Ecl. 6, 22; Isidore, Orig. 18, 2, 6; Tzetzes, Epistulae 97.

39. Statue of Jupiter: Versnel (1970) 78–84, with discussion of other theories.

Notes to Pages 232–236

377

The most extreme argument for the equivalence of the general with com-

memorative statuary more widely is Rüpke (2006), countered by Versnel

(2006) esp. 304–8. Scheid (1986) esp. 221–4 offers a more subtle version.

40. Quotation: Wagenvoort (1947) 167. Austronesian idea of mana as a useful term in the analysis Roman religion (and as an equivalent of the Latin

word numen): H. J. Rose (1948) 12–49; Wagenvoort (1947) 5–11; with the

devastating critique of Dumézil (1970) 18–31.

41. Martin (1987) 131–44.

42. The difficulties of identifying a clear Etruscan prehistory for the triumph

is discussed below, pp. 306–12.

43. Beard, North, and Price (1998) 1, 84–7; 140–9; 2, 216–28. Deification as a

problematic Roman category: Beard and Henderson (1998).

44. Note, however, that the especially splendid head of the outermost horse is

restoration of the late sixteenth century (La Rocca [1986] col. pl. 3).

45. SHA, Aurelian 33, 3.

46. Dio Cassius 43, 14, 3.

47. Camillus: Livy 5, 23, 5–6; Plutarch, Cam. 7, 1; see also Dio Cassius 52, 13, 3

and Diodorus Siculus, 14, 117, 6 (with a variant tradition that Camillus

did not triumph at all). Full discussion of Caesar, Camillus, and the di-

vine associations of white horses: Weinstock (1971) 68–75, which is part of

a sustained argument for Caesar’s personal ambition to become a god

during his lifetime. Different emphasis, critiques, and further references:

Versnel (1970) 67–8; North (1975) 173.

48. Quotation: Weinstock (1971) 68. Any such argument relies on the conve-

nient assumption that no writer bothered to mention the usual, but only

drew attention to the exceptions.

49. Propertius 4, 1, 32; Ovid, Fast. 6, 723–4; Tibullus 1, 7, 7–8 (translating nitidis, though the variant reading niveis would make them more securely white); Pliny, Pan. 22, 1. Servius, Aen. 4, 543 asserts the general rule that

“the triumphing general uses four white horses.”

50. Suetonius, Aug. 94, 6; though four horses are the usual number, several visual representations multiply the animals, as here (e.g. RIC II, Trajan, no. 255; IV Septimius Severus, no. 259); see also SHA, Gordians 27, 9.

51. Whether elephants were more a feature of triumphal imagination than

triumphal reality is a moot point. But various later emperors are (reliably

or not) said to have succeeded where Pompey failed: SHA, Gordians 27, 9;

Severus Alexander 57, 4 (an empty chariot); cf Lactantius De Mortibus

Persecutorum 16, 6.

52. Arch of Titus: Cassiodorus, Variae 10, 30, 1; Pfanner (1983) 3, 99; LTUR

Notes to Pages 236–243

378

s.v. Arcus Titii (Via Sacra). Domitian: Martial 8, 65; above pp. 98–9. Au-

gustus: De Maria (1988) 269; pl. 43.4; BMCRE I, Augustus, no. 432 ( =

Fig. 18); Rich (1998) 119, suggesting that the triumph voted to Augustus in

19 bce, but not celebrated, included the use of elephants.

53. Above, p. 17.

54. Pfanner (1983) 76–9; Beard and Henderson (1998) 209–10.

55. See, for example, Figs. 23, 26, and 30. It is hard to determine exactly the

status of these men, but a case has been made for identifying some as

equestrian officials (Gabelmann [1981]).

56. “The whole senate”: Valerius Maximus 7, 5, 4. Magistrates: Dio Cassius

51, 21, 9. Messalina: Suetonius, Cl. 17, 3; Flory (1998) 492–3. Carpentum: Boyce (1935–6) 5–7. Julia Domna represented in a triumphal context (on

the arch at Lepcis Magna): Strocka (1972) 154–7; Kampen (1991) 233–5.

Other visual images, “accurately” or not, including women in the gen-

eral’s group: Crawford et al. (1996) 1, no. 37, 19–21; Furtwängler (1900) 1, tab. 66 (a cameo, possibly a modern fake).

57. Plutarch, Flam. 13, 3–6; Livy 34, 52, 12 (they had been sold into slavery after capture by Hannibal); two other such occasions are noted, both (sus-

piciously?) within a decade (201: Livy 30, 45, 5; Valerius Maximus 5, 2, 5.

197: Livy 33, 23, 6).

58. Suetonius, Jul. 78, 2. Ancient scholars puzzled too. Aulus Gellius (5, 6, 27) quotes the (unlikely) view of Masurius Sabinus, who had probably never

witnessed an ovation, that in an ovation the general was followed by the

whole senate, not by his soldiers as at a triumph.

59. Dio Cassius 43, 19, 2–4; above, p. 136–7.

60. Dio Cassius 51, 21, 9. Quotation: Reinhold (1988) 158.

61. Livy 28, 9, 11–16; Valerius Maximus 4, 1, 9.

62. Valerius Maximus 3, 2, 24; Pliny, Nat. 7, 101–3.

63. Livy 45, 38, 12–14. A fragment of what appears to be a representation of

triumphal soldiers: De Maria (1988) 280–2, pl. 61–2 (from Claudius’ Arch

in Rome for his British victory).

64. Appian, BC 2, 93.

65. 201–167 bce: Brunt (1971) 394. First century bce: Brunt (1962) 77–9;

ESAR I, 323–5.

66. Livy 37, 59, 6, for example, arouses suspicion (a donative is recorded, but

at a triumph at which no troops were present; Briscoe [1981] 394). Emen-

dations: Livy 33, 37, 11; 34, 46, 3; the ratio of 1:2:3 is attested on numerous

occasions, but this is no reason to distrust or emend away variants.

67. Not always: Livy (45, 38, 14) represents Aemilius Paullus’ troops as hang-

ing around the city before the triumph (albeit in special circumstances).

Notes to Pages 244–248

379

68. Livy 45, 35, 5–39, 20; Plutarch, Aem. 30–32. At a reported 100 denarii for each of the common soldiers, the donative offered was larger than any recorded before—but then the spoils were unprecedentedly lavish too.

69. Livy 45, 40, 4; Plutarch, Aem. 34, 4; Plutarch, Marc. 8, 2.

70. Soldiers’ chant: Livy 45, 38, 12; Tibullus 2, 5, 118. Derivation: Varro, LL 6, 68. Obscure hymn (of the Arval Brethren): Scheid (1990) 616–23; 644–6;

(1998) no. 100a.

71. Latest linguist: Biville (1990) 220–1. Other theories: Bonfante Warren

(1970b) 112; Versnel (1970) 38–55; (2006) 309–13 (“there is only one way in

which Latin triumpe can have been derived from Greek thriambe, and that is via the Etruscan language,” p. 309).

72. Livy 45, 38, 12.

73. A male head, with the legend “TRIUMPUS” on a silver denarius issued

around the time of Julius Caesar’s triumph in 46 bce ( RRC no. 472.2) has

been taken to be the personification of the triumph; though there is no

further evidence for or against such an identification.

74. Servius (auct.), Ecl. 8, 12; Isidore, Orig. 17, 7, 2.

75. Pliny, Nat. 15, 133–5; Festus (Paulus) p. 104L (the assumption has been that this “information” goes back to the Augustan scholar Verrius

Flaccus); Pliny later (15, 138) does himself refer, in general, to the use of

the plant in “purifications.” The triumph as a rite of purification: (for ex-

ample) Warde Fowler (1911) 33, Lemosse (1972) 448. The passage through

the porta triumphalis as purificatory: Warde Fowler (1920) 70–5.

76. Myths of Delphi, in particular stories of the purification of Orestes and

of the god Apollo himself (Pausanias 2, 31, 8; Aelian, VH 3, 1) may have

been influential on them too. Reid (1912) 45–7 is refreshingly skeptical

about the original purificatory significance of the triumph (“mere guess-

work”).

77. Above, pp. 50–1. The connection between the triumph and the myth of

Apollo and Daphne: Barkan (1986) 225–6.

78. See, e.g., Livy 4, 20, 2; 53, 11; 5, 49, 7 etc. The potentially dangerous popu-

lar politics implied by the term inconditus: O’Neill (2003a) 6 with

(2003b) 157–62.

79. Suetonius, Jul. 51.

80. Suetonius, Jul. 49, 4.

81. Dio Cassius 43, 20.

82. Livy 28, 9, 18.

83. Livy 10, 30, 9. Decius Mus senior, when a tribune, was similarly

marked out in a triumph (7, 38, 3). He later also sacrificed himself for

Roman victory (8, 9) and Livy stresses that in 295 the songs concern-

Notes to Pages 248–253

380

ing the son evoked the father’s memory as well. The tradition of self-

sacrifice (devotio), which suspiciously clusters in this particular family: Beard, North, and Price (1998) 2, 157–8. Other instances of the songs, in

different ways, “re-hierarchizing” the ceremony: Livy 4, 20, 2; 53, 11–3.

84. Versnel (1970) 70; Richlin (1983) 10, 94; O’Neill (2003a) 3–4.

85. Plutarch, Aem. 34, 7; Marc. 8, 2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 2, 34, 2; Livy 4, 53, 11–2.

86. I am closer here to the other view expressed in O’Neill (2003a) 4, namely

that the songs had a sociological function. They contributed, he argues,

to the reincorporation of the glorious general “whose outstanding fortune

threatened to place him above his peers in the senatorial aristocracy”

(drawing on Kurke [1991], who discusses the function of Pindaric Odes in

the reintegration of the victor into the life of the city). Rüpke (2006) 268

sees a satiric “rite of reversal” in the soldiers’ mockery (including their

shouts of triumpe) and points in a similar direction.

87. Caesar: Dio Cassius 43, 21, 2. Claudius: Dio Cassius 60, 23, 1. The sacri-

fice is mentioned only by Josephus ( BJ 7, 155).

88. Triumphal dedication: Ovid Tr. 4, 2 56 and Pont. 2, 1, 67. Dedication of laurel could also take place outside a triumph proper: Suetonius, Nero 13, 2; Dom. 6, 1; Pliny, Pan 8, 2–3; Dio Cassius 55, 5, 1.

89. The connection with the Temple of Jupiter is reviewed, skeptically, in

CIL I. 1, 78 (2nd ed.).

90. This is implied by Plutarch’s description of Aemilius Paullus’ triumph:

Aem. 32–4.

91. Valerius Maximus 4, 1, 6 (though Livy 38, 56, 12–3 claims that Scipio re-

fused the statue); Sehlmeyer (1999) 112–31; 134–41. Such connections be-

tween general and commemoration do not entail adopting the radical po-

sition of Rüpke (2006), of the ritual links between the ceremony as a

whole and commemorative statuary.

92. CIL XIV, 3606 and 3607 = ILS 921 and 964.

93. E.g. Livy 35, 10, 5–9; Cicero, Mur. 15.

94. Harris (1979) 32; though Rosenstein (1990), esp. 9–53, stresses how mili-

tary defeat appears not decisively to blight a man’s further political career.

There are not enough surviving examples to draw any meaningful conclu-

sions from a comparison of the careers of those victors who celebrated a

triumph and those who did not.

95. Florus, Epit. 1, 34 (2, 18, 17).

96. Camillus: Livy 5, 23, 5; Plutarch, Cam. 7, 1–2. Scipio: Livy 38, 52–3, with Astin (1989) 179–80.

Notes to Pages 254–261

381

97. Plautus, Am. 186–261; above pp. 201–2.

98. Janne (1933); Hermann (1948); Galinsky (1966); P. Harvey (1981); O’Neill

(2003a) 16–21.

99. Dupont (1976); O’Neill (2003a) 7–16.

100. Beard (2003a) 39–43.

8 . T H E B O U N D A R I E S O F T H E R I T UA L

1. Dio Cassius 67, 9.

2. “Autocratic sadism”: Murison (1999) 239–42. Elegant wit or philosophical

fantasy: Waters (1964) 75–6; Dunbabin (1986) 193–5.

3. Either two separate triumphs or a single, joint celebration: Griffin (2000)

63.

4. Plautus, Bac. 1072–4 (the “triumph” and “soldiers” in question are part of an elaborate comic metaphor).

5. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 2, 34, 2; 5, 17, 1–2; Livy 3, 29, 4–5.

6. Lavish celebration: Dio Cassius 43, 42, 1; Suetonius, Jul. 38, 2 (though it is not certain that these “dinners” [prandia] are closely connected with his

triumphs). Triclinia: Plutarch, Caes. 55, 2. Wine: Pliny, Nat. 14, 97. Lampreys: Pliny, Nat. 9, 171.

7. “Greatest occasions”: Purcell (1994) 685. “Capstone”: D’Arms (1998) 35

(the capstone of major public holidays and funerals too, he claims).

8. Polybius 30, 14 (from a Byzantine excerption); Livy 45, 32, 11; Purcell

(1994) 686.

9. Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 5, 221f; 4, 153c, with Kidd (1988) 282–3 (a passage which could refer to elite dining only).

10. Varro, RR 3, 2, 16; 3, 5, 8.

11. Plutarch, Luc. 37, 4. The claims that Sulla and Crassus also held mass triumphal banquets depend on interpreting the feasts they offered on dedi-

cating a tenth of their property to the god Hercules (Plutarch, Mor.

267E–F ( = Quaestiones Romanae 18) as simultaneously triumphal cele-

brations (Plutarch, Sull. 35, 1; Crass. 12, 2).

12. Tiberius: Dio Cassius 55, 2, 4. Vespasian and Titus: Josephus, BJ 7, 156.

Domitian: above, n. 1.

13. Livy 39, 46, 2–3.

14. There is a clash here, I suspect, between an ideal of the commensality of

the whole people (as fantasized by Martial of a later victory celebration of

Domitian: “the knights, and the people, and the senators all eat with

you,” 8, 49, 7) and the political reality of hierarchy and separation. Hand-

Notes to Pages 262–268

382

outs for the people (versus feasting for the elite) feature on other occa-

sions in the Empire (e.g., Suetonius, Cal. 17, 2).

15. Appian, Pun. 66; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 5, 17, 2; Dio Cassius 55, 8, 2 (a ladies’ occasion was hosted by Livia elsewhere).

16. Livy 45, 39, 13.

17. Valerius Maximus 2, 8, 6 (quoted); Plutarch, Mor. 283A (= Quaestiones Romanae 80).

18. Scheid (1988).

19. Ludi triumphales: Stern (1953) 82; McCormick (1986) 37–9. Modern writ-

ers (e.g. Klar [2006]) are too eager to use the adjective “triumphal” for

any celebration connected with military victory. The closest suggestion of

earlier “triumphal” games are the “victory games” of L. Anicius in 167

(Polybius 30, 22 quoted by Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 14, 615a–e)—as

the Greek word “epinikioi” could also, but need not, refer to a “trium-

phal” celebration. Tacitus, Ann. 14, 21 implies a connection between tri-

umph and drama, but does not clearly state that the actors performed at

Mummius’ triumph.

20. Dio Cassius 43, 23, 4.

21. Gruen (1990) 93–4; Flower (1995) esp. 181–3; Klar (2006) 168–70.

22. Flower (1995) 184–6. Triumph: Livy 39, 5, 13–7. Games: Livy 39, 5, 7–10;

22, 1–2. Temple: LTUR s.v. Hercules Musarum, aedes.

23. Horace, Ep. 2, 1, 187–93. Spoils: Brink (1982) 431–2. Chariots: above, pp. 53, 125.

24. Pliny, Nat. 15, 125; though, of course, part of the point of emphasizing this as an “exception” is to preserve the general rule that myrtle was worn at

ovations.

25. Aemilius Paullus: Plutarch, Aem. 30, 1–3. Flamininus: Livy 34, 52, 2 (prope triumphantes). Junior officer, Decius Mus: Livy 7, 36, 8 (with Oakley

[1998] 349, who points to further triumphal terminology in Livy’s de-

scription). See also Cicero, Ver. 2. 5, 66; Phil. 14, 12–3 (with Sumi [2005]

174–7); Suetonius, Nero 2, 1; Vit. 10, 2.

26. Josephus, BJ 7, 96; 147; Ando (2000) 256–7.

27. Caesar’s hybrid (which seems to have been in some way connected with

the ceremony of the feriae latinae, held at the Alban Mount): Dio Cassius

44, 4, 3. Octavian and Antony: Dio Cassius 48, 31, 3. Sumi (2005) 196

stresses the use of the ovation rather than the “full triumph” in framing

these political or dynastic celebrations unrelated to military victory in the

strict sense of the word.

28. Dio Cassius 49, 40, 3–4; Plutarch, Ant. 50, 4; Velleius Paterculus 2, 82, 3–

4; Strabo 11, 14, 15.

Notes to Pages 268–274

383

29. Suetonius, Nero 25, 1–2; Dio Cassius 63, 20.

30. Syme (1939) 270 (“hostile propaganda has so far magnified and distorted

these celebrations that accuracy of fact and detail cannot be recovered”);

Huzar (1978) 182–3; Pelling (1988) 241, Woodman (1983) 213–5. It is not,

however, absolutely clear that Velleius’ Dionysiac procession is to be

equated with the “triumphal” ceremony.

31. Dio Cassius 63, 8, 3.

32. Answer: Griffin (1984) 230–1. Insult: Edwards (1994) 90.

33. Merging: Bradley (1978) 148–9, with Vitruvius 9, praef. 1 (Gagé [1955]

660–2 sees it as a parody of both ceremonies). Theater: Champlin

(2003b) 233–4. Nonmilitary achievement: Morford (1985) 2026.

34. J. F. Miller (2000).

35. Tacitus, Ann. 3, 47.

36. Dio Cassius 60, 8, 6 (though Pliny Nat. 5, 11 has a different story: that these campaigns in Mauretania were a bona fide Claudian war).

37. Caligula: Suetonius, Cal. 19; Dio Cassius 59, 17. Nero: Tacitus, Ann. 14, 13, 2–3; Champlin (2003b) 219–21.

38. Tacitus, Ann. 15, 1–18, 24–31; Dio Cassius 62, 19–23; Griffin (1984) 226–7.

39. Tacitus, Ann. 15, 29, 7 (ostentui gentibus); Dio Cassius 63, 1, 2.

40. Suetonius, Nero 13; Dio Cassius 63, 6, 1–2. Champlin (2003b) 221–9.

41. Pliny, Nat. 30, 16; Dio Cassius 62, 23, 4. Griffin (1984) 232–3: “Nero does not appear to have held a triumph, though he dressed up in triumphal

garb”— contra Champlin (2003b) 329, n. 23.

42. The implication of Dio Cassius 48, 16, 1; though it is uncertain from what

date. Contra Weinstock (1971) 107–8, I see no reason to suppose (on the

basis of Polybius 6, 39, 9) that men who had triumphed would have been

entitled to wear their laurel wreaths at the games.

43. Aemilius Paullus: De Viris Illustribus 56, 5. Pompey: Velleius Paterculus 2, 40, 4; Dio Cassius 37, 21, 4. Marius: Plutarch, Mar. 12, 5. Metellus Pius: Valerius Maximus 9, 1, 5; Plutarch, Sert. 22, 2; Sallust, Hist. 2, 59. I am not convinced by Sumi (2005) 37 that Cato the Younger was granted a similar

honor.

44. Only the clipped account of Aemilius Paullus’ honor implies no unfavor-

able moral judgment.

45. Polybius 6, 53, 7.

46. E.g., Rawson (1975a) 155: “the gift of the trappings of a triumphator to

foreign kings.”

47. Massinissa, 203: Livy 30, 15, 11–2 (also 31, 11, 11–2, under 200 bce);

Appian, Pun. 32 (though listing a different set of gifts). Honors to Syphax and others, 210 bce (with nothing specifically triumphal, though

Notes to Pages 274–277

384

Deubner (1934) 318 would see purple tunic and toga here as a reflection of

early triumphal dress): Livy 27, 4, 8–10. Honors to Eumenes, 172, and

Ariarathes, 160 (curule chair and scepter; the scepter may, or may not,

specifically evoke the triumph): Livy 42, 14, 10; Polybius 32, 1, 3. Mythical

regal examples: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 3, 61; 5, 35, 1. Other gifts of chairs or thrones: Weinstock (1957) 148. Despite a tendency to treat it

as a similar example, Caesar, Gal. 1, 43 (gifts to Ariovistus) does not specify what the gifts were.

48. Tacitus, Ann. 4, 26 (Dolabella is also contrasted earlier, 4, 23 with those generals who left the enemy alone once they had done enough to earn triumphal insignia); Martin and Woodman (1989) 155–60.

49. Maxfield (1981) 105.

50. Whether the Augustan triumphal ornaments could have influenced Livy’s

account depends on the (disputed) date of their first award, which could

have been before or after the composition of this section of Livy’s History.

Suetonius, Tib. 9, 2 states that the first award went to Tiberius, but

whether that was in 12 bce (Dio Cassius 54, 31, 4) or earlier is uncertain;

see Taylor (1936) 168–70.

51. Statue: Dio Cassius 55, 10, 3. Dress: Suetonius Cl. 17, 3, with discussion above, p. 70.

52. Dio Cassius 43, 44, 2; Suetonius, Jul. 76, 1 both claim that this title went back to Caesar. Modern scholarship (critically reviewed by Weinstock

[1971] 106–11) has suspected a retrojection from an Augustan innova-

tion—which was fully established practice by the end of the Julio-

Claudian dynasty.

53. A. Alföldi (1935) 25–43.

54. Dio Cassius 43, 43, 1; 44, 4, 2; Appian, BC 2, 106.

55. Dio Cassius 48, 16, 1; 49, 15, 1; 51, 20, 2; 53, 26, 5. Date of Tiberius’ tri-

umph: Dio Cassius 55, 8, 1–2. Augustus’ absence on Jan. 1, 7 bce:

Halfmann (1986) 159.

56. Royal costume: Dio Cassius 44, 6, 1. Confusion: Mommsen (1887) 1, 416.

Two separate decrees: Weinstock (1971) 271.

57. Plutarch, Ant. 12, 1; Dio Cassius 44, 11, 2.

58. Weinstock (1971) 270–5. Quotation: Pelling (1988) 145.

59. Suetonius, Cal. 52; Dio Cassius 59, 26, 10.

60. Dio Cassius 67, 4, 3; 60, 6, 9.

61. Claudian: Panegyricus de IV Consulatu Honorii esp. 1–17, 565–656; De VI Consulatu Honorii esp. 560–602, with MacCormack (1981) 52–4; Dewar

(1996) 370–97. Corippus: In Laudem Justini Minoris 4, with Cameron

Notes to Pages 278–281

385

(1976) 194–211. Discussions of the processus, with further references:

Jullian (1883); Meslin (1970) 55–9.

62. Cameron (1976) 12.

63. Corippus, In Laudem Justini Minoris. 4, 80, 227, 101. Claudian too presents a triumphal image: Panegyricus de IV Consulatu Honorii 14; De VI

Consulatu Honorii. 579–80; and through analogy with triumphal Bacchus

(below, pp. 315–8). Triumphal/consular toga: Delbrueck (1929) esp. 65–6;

Stern (1953) 152–68 (though exactly how close any of these version are to

the strictly triumphal toga picta is unclear).

64. Other poems of Claudian celebrate the inauguration of consuls other

than the ruling emperor (e.g. De Consulatu Stilichonis 2, 356–69) and

these are less emphatically triumphal. However, Stern (1953) 152–68 sug-

gests an increasing divergence between the dress of emperor-consuls and

others—the latter remaining more strictly “triumphal.”

65. Ovid, Pont. 4, 4, 27–42; 9, 1–56. Livy 21, 63, 8 may perhaps have a republican version of such a ceremony in mind. The scanty other evidence for

consular inauguration is assembled by Mommsen (1887) 1, 615–7.

66. Martial 10, 10, 1.

67. Documentary depiction: D. E. E. Kleiner (1983) 81–90. Metaphor/

literalization: Schäfer (1989) 380–1; Smith (1998) 71 (though exactly what

Smith means by “a metaphorical consular pompa[?]” [sic] is not clear).

Stern (1953) 158–63 argues strongly that the ceremonial of consular inau-

guration did not involve a chariot, and would see in this a representation

of the procession at the consular games. Others, including Schäfer, are

warm to this possibility, even though consular games were not at this date

a regular obligation of the office and despite the clear reference to the

Arch of Titus.

68. Cameron (1976) 196, 201, 202.

69. Marius: Sallust, Jug. 114, 3; Velleius Paterculus 2, 12, 1; Plutarch, Mar. 12, 2; Dio Cassius 48, 4, 5. Pompey: Velleius Paterculus 2, 30, 2. Lepidus:

Degrassi, Inscr. It. XIII. 1, 567; Antonius: Dio Cassius 48, 4, 3–6;

Censorinus: Degrassi, Inscr. Ital. XIII. 1, 568; Maximus: Degrassi, Inscr.

Ital. XIII. 1, 567, in October roughly at the beginning of his “three-month consulship” (Suetonius, Jul. 80, 3). Lucius Munatius Plancus also triumphed in 43 just a few days before his consulship (Degrassi, Inscr. It.

XIII. 1, 567). Sumi (2005) 248 and Hölscher (1967) 85 see some of the im-

portance of the connection; Mommsen (1887) 1, 127 n. 1 predictably tries

to link it to the imperium of the general/consul.

70. Juvenal 10, 36–46.

Notes to Pages 281–283

386

71. It is often taken for granted that Juvenal is referring to the Ludi

Apollinares (e.g. Versnel [1970] 130); but other games were conducted by a

praetor (Dio Cassius 54, 2, 3). Unconvincingly, “consul” has been taken as

an interpolation (Courtney [1980] 458) or a desperate attempt to avoid

too much alliteration with the letter “p” (Ferguson [1979] 258).

72. Versnel (2006) 294 sums up trenchantly: “The idea that the pompa

circensis and the triumph belong in some way together is one of the uni-

versals in the discussion of the triumph.”

73. Mommsen (1859), quotation p. 81. He also pointed to the fact that Livy

claims that the “ludi Romani alternatively called magni” (Livy 1, 35, 9) were founded to celebrate a military victory and that the starting point of

the pompa circensis was the same as the endpoint of the triumphal proces-

sion, namely, the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Modern ac-

counts: Künzl (1988) 105; New Pauly VII s.v. Ludi Romani.

74. Versnel (1970) 103–15 (critique of Mommsen); 255–303 (alternative

version). Versnel’s stress on the primitive New Year festival allows him

economically to incorporate the processus consularis on January 1 as a

simultaneously new and old aspect of triumphal style celebration

(pp. 302–3).

75. One literary account: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 7, 72, 1–13.

Conflicting views: Piganiol (1923) 15–31 (general reliability of Dionysius),

84–91 (plebeian agricultural origin); Thuillier (1975) esp. 577–81 (inadver-

tent reliability of Dionysius); Bernstein (1998) 254–68 (Greek character of

Dionysius’ account, in the context of a largely skeptical discussion over-

all).

76. Livy 1, 35, 9 (on the foundation of the games under King Tarquin):

“sollemnes deinde annui mansere ludi Romani magnique varie appellati.”

With no comma, it means “From then on the solemn games, known al-

ternatively as the ludi Romani or magni, were celebrated annually.” With a comma after solemnes, it would mean “the games known alternatively as

the ludi Romani or magni became a solemn ritual, and later they became annual.” Only the second is compatible with Mommsen’s theory.

77. Juvenal 11, 194–5 (note the pun on praetor and praeda).

78. Tacitus, Ann. 1, 15; Dio Cassius 56, 46, 5. Other evidence commonly cited does not bear the weight that has been laid on it. Livy 5, 41, 2 need not

mean that the “stately robes” were the same for those triumphing and

those conducting the games (nor, contra Versnel [1970] 130, does he refer

to “triumphal ornatus”). Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 6, 95, 4 does not say “that the aediles plebis during the games wore triumphal garb”

(Versnel [1970] 130); he says that they were honored with a purple robe

Notes to Pages 283–285

387

and “various insignia which the kings had had” (which could refer to

different types of ceremonial dress). Martial 8, 33, 1 refers only to a leaf

from a praetor’s corona, with the implication that it is gold; any allusion to games must be understood from that alone. Pliny, Nat. 34, 20 refers

only to praetors riding around the Circus in a chariot, not to triumphal

attire. Mayor (1881) 76–7 is a particularly splendid farrago of inaccuracy on this subject.

79. Drawings: Codex Coburgensis fol. 75, 3; Codex Pighianus fol. 99 v. 100r; Codex Vat. lat. 3439 (Ursinianus) fol. 58a v. 58b r. Engraving: Dupérac in O. Panvinio, De Ludis Circensibus (Padua, 1642) 7 (original engraving

1566). Discussion: Rodenwaldt (1940) 24–5 (Figs. 10 and 11); Wrede (1981)

111–2; Ronke (1987) 219–20, 236–7, 716.

80. General discussions: Stern (1953) 158–63; Ronke (1987) 221–55; ThesCRA I, 46–50. These include some brave but ultimately unconvincing attempts

to distinguish triumphal from circus processions by, for example, the

form of the scepter carried (topped by a bust in the case of the circus pro-

cession, by an eagle in the case of a triumph?) or the types of chariot (two-

horse for the circus, four horse for the triumph?). In addition to the mon-

ument of Philopappos, disputed images include: a sarcophagus fragment

in Berlin, Pergamum Museum, inv. 967 (Ronke [1987] 735, n. 200),

and even the famous opus sectile image of Junius Bassus (now in the

Museo delle Terme, Rome, MNR 375831), which has been seen both as

a circus image and less plausibly as a processus consularis (Becatti [1969]

196–202).

81. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 7, 72, 10–2; Dionysius surprisingly does not refer to—and maybe does not know of—the satyr dances reported by

Appian ( Pun. 66) at the the triumph of Scipio in 201. These would fit his

model even more closely.

82. Flower (1996) 107; Bömer, RE XXI, 2, 1976–7. Flaig (2003a) 34–

8; (2003b) 301–3 urges a semiotic connection between the three proces-

sions.

83. Versnel (1970) 115–29 dissects the similarities between the two rituals opti-

mistically assembled by Brelich (1938); though, as Flower (1996) 101 im-

plies, perhaps throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

84. Flower (1996) 109, 113. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 8, 59, 3, which she cites in support, in fact refers to the funeral of the traitor Coriolanus,

who never celebrated a triumph at all (though it does refer in general

terms to “what was needed to do proper honor to excellent men”); and

the observation that the troops marched at the funeral of Sulla “as they

had done in earlier triumphs” is not made by Appian ( BC 1, 105) but by

Notes to Pages 285–292

388

Flower alone (p. 101). The closest we have to any such practice is the

clothing used at Julius Caesar’s funeral: below, n. 87.

85. Suetonius, Aug. 100, 2 (proposal on triumphal gate and statue of Victory); Tacitus, Ann. 1, 8 (proposal on triumphal gate and placards); Dio Cassius

56, 34. Dio’s account of the funeral ceremony of Pertinax (74, 4–5) in-

cludes some similar triumphal elements. Modern discussion: Flower

(1996) 244–5.

86. Richard (1978) 1122–5 (overstating the case); Arce (1988) 35–7 (warning

against taking the practical parallels too far). The (tomb) monument of

Philopappos appropriates these ideas in a private context.

87. Suetonius, Jul. 84, 4.

88. Seneca, Dial. 6 (Ad Marciam), 3, 1; the triumphal theme is also developed—albeit in a different direction, predicting a triumph to avenge

Drusus’ death—in the poem of consolation to his mother Livia, once at-

tributed to Ovid (Ps. Ovid, Consolatio ad Liviam esp. 271–80).

89. Plutarch, Phil. 21, 2–3.

9 . T H E T R I U M PH O F H I S TO RY

1. Pliny, Nat. 15, 136–7.

2. Suetonius, Gal. 1.

3. Dio Cassius 48, 49, 2–52.

4. Bruhl (1929); Bonfante Warren (1970a) 64–6.

5. Bonfante Warren (1970a) 49 (“the gradual transformation . . . from a

purification ritual . . . into a purely honorific ceremony”). Similarly

McCormick (1986) 12; Nicolet (1980) 353; Künzl (1988) 7; Holliday

(2002) 22–3; and many more.

6. Alban Mount: Brennan (1996), though Livy (45, 38, 4) claims—in an ad-

mittedly tendentious context—that “many” had triumphed on the Alban

Mount. Chronology of ovations: Rohde, RE XVIII, 2, 1900–3. Aulus

Plautius: Tacitus, Ann. 13, 32; Suetonius, Cl. 24, 3. Rise and fall of insignia: A. E. Gordon (1952) 305–30; Maxfield (1981) 105–8; CIL XI, 5212 =

ILS 1058 (last known award, 138 ce). “Undeserved” awards: Dio Cassius

58, 4, 8; Tacitus, Ann. 12, 3; 13, 53.

7. Brennan (1996) 329 (Caius Cicereius was a former scribe).

8. A view implied by A. Alföldi (1934) 93.

9. J. S. Richardson (1975) esp. 56–7.

10. Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983), especially Cannadine (1983) on royal

ritual.

Notes to Pages 292–298

389

11. The stronger version of this point would be to argue that “cultural con-

servatism” is always a state of mind, not a description of practice. Para-

doxically, a society which did not change any of its ritual practice would

be the most innovatory of all.

12. Propertius 4, 10, 45–8; Livy 1, 10, 6, with Ogilvie (1965) 70–1; Festus

(Paulus) p. 81L (bringing [ferre] peace); Plutarch, Marc. 8, 4 (adding an

even more unlikely possibility).

13. The three celebrations: Propertius 4, 10; Valerius Maximus 3, 2, 3–5; Plu-

tarch, Rom. 16, 5–8; Marc. 8, 1–5; Festus pp. 203–4L. Debates on the nature of the ceremony (especially on eligibility and the different protocols

for different ranks of dedicator): Dumézil (1970) 166–8; Versnel (1970)

308–9; Rich (1996) 88–9, 123–6.

14. Florus, Epit. 1, 33 (2, 17, 11). Dismissed: Astin (1967) 46; Rich (1996) 89.

Versnel (1970) 309 imagines that, like others, Scipio won the spolia, but was not allowed to dedicate them (following Valerius Maximus 3, 2, 6a). Oakley

(1985) 398 hazards many now lost dedications, at least in the early period.

15. Picard (1957) 130–3; Bonfante Warren (1970a) 50–7; Versnel (1970) 306–

13.

16. Flower (2000).

17. Livy 4, 20, 5–7. The Crassus “controversy”: Dio Cassius 51, 24, 4; Rich

(1996); Flower (2000) 49–55; less skeptically, Vervaet (forthcoming). The

importance of the spolia in Augustan culture more generally: Harrison

(1989); Rich (1999); R. M. Schneider (1990). The fact that temple had

been in ruins at one stage in the first century bce, before restoration by

Augustus (Livy 4, 20, 7; Nepos, Att. 20, 3) makes the survival of any fifth-century corselet even more unlikely.

18. Overview: Hickson (1991). Forum of Augustus: above, pp. 43–4. Coins:

e.g., BMCRE 1, Augustus, 36, 384–6, 390–402. Arches: Rich (1998) 97–

115. Imperator (and acclamations): above, p. 275, and Augustus, RG 4, 1.

Laying of laurels: Dio Cassius 54, 25, 1–4; 55, 5, 1. Triumphal poetry:

Galinsky (1969) with pp. 48–52. 111–4, 142 above. A range of triumphal

ceremonies is stressed in Augustus, RG 4.

19. Tibullus 1, 7, esp. 1–22; 2, 5, 113–20. Messalinus’ insignia: Velleius Paterculus 2, 112, 2; Ovid, Pont. 2, 2, 75–90.

20. Syme (1939) 404 (lapidarily; “Nor any more triumphs”); Eck (1984) 138–9;

Hickson (1991) 138.

21. “Since they did not possess independent auspicia, none of these generals received triumphs,” Hickson (1991) 128; Brunt (1990) 447; with slightly

different emphasis, J. S. Richardson (1991) esp. 8.

Notes to Pages 298–306

390

22. Velleius Paterculus 2, 115, 2–3; Augustus, RG 4, 2.

23. Dio explicitly points to the subordinate status of the triumphing general:

48, 42, 4 (Cnaeus Domitius Calvus); 49, 21, 2–3 (Publius Ventidius

Bassus).

24. Or so Syme (1979) 310–1 over-confidently asserts: “An axiom stands. No

triumph can be celebrated without an antecedent acclamation, no accla-

mation taken without the possession of a pronconsul’s imperium. ” Lucius

Passienus Rufus was clearly acclaimed imperator and went on to receive

triumphal insignia: Schumacher (1985) 215–8. Rich (1990) 202 points to

examples of campaigns which one might have expected would have led to

triumphs.

25. Tacitus, Ann. 2, 41. Brunt (1974) reviews some of the (unfathomable) difficulties of the legal status of the imperial princes. J. S. Richardson (1991)

8 tries to get round such difficulties by postulating “delegation” of aus-

pices by the emperor himself. The problematic case of Drusus: Rich

(1999) 552.

26. Acclamations: Schumacher (1985) arguing strongly that Dio is “anachro-

nistic,” contra Combès (1966) 155–86. Recent discussion of auspices in

this period: Giovannini (1983) 43–4, 77–9; Rich (1996) 101–5 (quote

p. 104). The account of Ventidius’ triumph (49, 21) is a classic case of

Dio’s muddle.

27. Refusals: Dio Cassius 53, 26, 5; 54, 10, 3; 54, 31, 4; 54, 33, 5; 55, 6, 6; Florus, Epit. 2, 33 (4, 12, 53). Blazoning: Augustus, RG 4, 1.

28. Dio Cassius 54, 12, 1–2.

29. Dio Cassius 54, 24, 8.

30. Suetonius, Aug. 38, 1.

31. Pliny, Nat. 5, 36; Velleius Paterculus 2, 51, 3.

32. CIL 1, 1, 78 (2nd ed.), also noting the theory that the Egyptian and Actian victories were similar enough to count as one. Whether we should give

any significance to the omission of “palmam dedit” in the second entry is

unclear.

33. Of course, practical considerations may help to explain the quality (the

original location may have been inconveniently placed for a neat inscrip-

tion)—but can hardly be a sufficient explanation on their own. This is

only one of several mysteries about this text: the date of carving is an-

other.

34. Rüpke (2006), with the detailed point by point critique of Versnel

(2006). Though Versnel fires some mortal blows at Rüpke’s thesis, this

Notes to Pages 306–311

391

learned debate as a whole, framed in these precise chronological terms,

seems a sadly fruitless one.

35. Durante (1951) 138–43; Wallisch (1954–5) arguing also for an origin as late

as the third century bce.

36. Bonfante Warren (1970a) esp. 57–64 (seeing the “triumphal route” estab-

lished in the pre-Etruscan phase, but culminating at the Temple of Jupiter

Feretrius); Versnel (1970) esp. 255–303 (Etruscan link); 306–13 (spolia

opima); (2006) 295–304.

37. Bonfante Warren (1970a) 64–5; Holliday (2002) 65–74.

38. Etruscan triumph: ThesCRA I, 22 and 28 (Cerveteri: no. 56; Perugia: no.

57). Praeneste: Torelli (1989) 28–30; Chateigner (1989) esp. 127–30, 137–8;

Colonna (1992) 39–43. Rome: Carandini and Cappelli (2000) 322–8.

39. Florus, Epit. 1, 1 (1, 5, 6).

40. Holliday (2002) 73 nonetheless asserts that he is wearing a toga picta. The other painted scenes in the tomb do not give a clear guide to the interpretation of Vel Saties: they depict scenes of warfare from the Homeric to the

more recent Etruscan past, but only provide a general background of mil-

itary activity to the figure, who is in any case isolated from them on a sep-

arate panel.

41. Del Chiaro (1990). The condition of the object is poor and, as it is in a

Swiss private collection, re-examination is not easy. Sino (1994) discusses

a similar frieze from Murlo (Poggio Civitate), briefly reflecting (esp. 112–

3) on the difficulties of such identifications.

42. Jannot (1984) 42–4; Cherici (1993), sympathetic to the triumphal inter-

pretation (because of the ordering of the prisoners and spoils), but noting

several very different interpretations.

43. Andrén (1974) reviews several similar objects, suggesting that the

Praenestine examples depict a simple warrior scene. The interpretation of

most such processional scenes is controversial. Winged horses sometimes

seem to indicate a mythological scene, sometimes not.

44. No less fragile are the constructions based on the puzzling iconography of

the famous cista Praenestina. This has been seen as a representation of

some form of triumph (e.g., Bonfante Warren [1964]); but a variety of

other interpretations, mythical and theatrical, have been proposed (e.g.

Adam [1989], with review of earlier literature). I am likewise unconvinced

by other attempts to see triumphs in early Roman tomb painting

(Holliday [2002] 33–43).

45. Ryberg (1955) 16–7; Holliday (1990) 86–90. In fact Vel Saties too may be

Notes to Pages 312–321

392

of Roman date. The tomb was built in the fifth century bce, but—as

Bonfante Warren (1970a) 65 briefly discusses—the paintings have been

variously dated between the fourth and first centuries bce.

46. This would be taken as self-evident in the case of poetic or obviously

mythic aetiologies of rituals, such as we find in Ovid’s Fasti (Calendar

Poem) and elsewhere. Convenient summary: Graf (2002) 115–21.

47. Africa: Servius (auct.), Aen. 4, 37 (in the context of Virgil’s description of Africa as “rich in triumphs”). Tripartite honor: Isidore, Orig. 18, 2, 3.

48. Varro, LL 6, 33; Cicero, Leg. 2, 54.

49. An idea echoed in Plutarch, Rom. 16; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 2, 34.

50. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 5, 47; Festus (Paulus) p. 213L.

51. Plutarch, Marc. 22, 4.

52. Servius, Aen 4, 543.

53. Pliny Nat. 7, 191.

54. Euripides, Ba. 13–19.

55. Nock (1928) 21–30; Bowersock (1994) 157.

56. Curtius 3, 12, 18.

57. In addition to that illustrated, Matz (1968) 271–3, pl. 156–9 (prisoners and

spoils); 263–7, pl. 144, 152–6 (procession and Dionysiac “general”).

58. Pliny, Nat. 8, 4.

59. Another case of an originary story being reinscribed in the ritual as per-

formed is hinted at by Appian ( Pun. 66). He refers to lyre players and pipers “acting out” an Etruscan procession, as if they were putting on a show

of imitating Etruscan origins.

60. Celebration: Procopius, Vand. 2 ( Bella 4), 9, with McCormick (1986) 65–

6, 125–9. Mosaic: Aed. 1, 10, 16–18, with MacCormack (1981) 74–5.

61. Graves (1954) foreword; Cameron (1976) 119.

62. “Post-Roman” victory celebrations in Constantinople and elsewhere:

McCormick (1986) esp. 36–78 (for developments from the fourth to

eighth centuries).

63. John Lydus, De Magistratibus 2, 2 (triumphal vocabulary, but focused on Justinian); Jordanes, Getica 171–2 ( MGH AA 5.1, 102–3); John Malalas 18, 81; Marcellinus Comes, year 534.

64. Barini (1952) 161–200; some celebrations may have fallen out of the re-

cord.

65. SHA Aurelian 33–4; Tyranni XXX (Thirty Pretenders) 30, 4–11, 24–6.

66. Merten (1968) 101–40; Paschoud (1996) 160–9. A particular target has

been the stags pulling the chariot, often thought to be the author’s confu-

Notes to Pages 322–329

393

sion of a Greek source referring to elephants (Greek elaphos = stag;

elephas = elephant); though stags are defended by A. Alföldi (1964) 6–8

and Alföldi-Rosenbaum (1994).

67. SHA, Severus Alexander 56.

68. Dio 76, 1; Herodian 3, 10, 1–2; SHA, Severus 16, 6–7.

69. MacCormack (1981) 17–61.

70. Ammianus Marcellinus 16, 10, 10 and 1.

71. Ammianus Marcellinus 16, 10, 2.

72. MacCormack (1981) 51.

73. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 2, 34, 2; 5, 17, 1–2; Livy 3, 29, 4–5. Ando (2000) 257.

74. Panegyrici Latini 11, 4; Eutropius 9, 27, 2; Chrongraphus anni 354 =

MGH AA 9, 148; Cassiodorus, Chronica = MGH AA 11, 150; with Nixon (1981).

75. Panegyrici Latini 4, 30, 4–32, 3 (quotation 31, 1), Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 44, 10; Zosimus 2, 17, 1; Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 9, 9, 9; Vita Constantini 1, 39. Omission of sacrifice: Straub (1955), with criticism of McCormick (1986) 101; Nixon and Rodgers (1994) 323–4;

Fraschetti (1999).

76. Claudian, Panegyricus de VI Consulatu Honorii 369–70, 404–6, 393.

77. Currus: McCormick (1986) 87. Ioci: Panegyrici Latini 12, 18, 3. Early Roman precedents: Procopius, Vand. 2 ( Bella 4), 9, 2; Priscian, De laude Anastasii 174–7.

78. Thesiger (1987) 54–6; Maitland (2006) 44–5.

Bibliography

A number of fundamental works on the Roman triumph stand behind most of what I say in this book. The annotated chronology of republican Roman ceremonies in A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Italiae XIII.1 (Rome, 1947), and on the CD accompanying T. Itgenshorst, Tota illa pompa: der Triumph in der römischen Republik (Göttingen, 2005), can be taken as the first port of call for the basic information on any individual ceremony. I have not normally referenced these in the endnotes. Throughout my research I have had at my side W. Ehlers’ entry, “Triumphus,” in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie (RE) 2. VIIA, 1, 493–511; H. S. Versnel, Triumphus: an inquiry into the origin, development and meaning of the Roman triumph (Leiden, 1970); E. Künzl, Der römische Triumph: Siegesfeiern im antiken Rom (Munich, 1988); and in the later stages Itgenshorst’s Tota illa pompa and I. Östenberg, Staging the world: Rome and the other in the triumphal procession (diss.

Lund, 2003; rev. ed. Oxford, forthcoming). These are usually referenced only in the case of particular disagreement, to highlight a discussion that might otherwise be hard to locate, or—especially in the case of Versnel—where his treatment of the topic has become the starting point of modern debate.

Abaecherli, A. L. 1935–6. “Fercula, carpenta, and tensae in the Roman procession.” Bollettino dell’Associazione Internazionale degli Studi Mediterranei 6, 1–20.

Aberson, M. 1994. Temples votifs et butin de guerre dans la Rome républicaine.

Rome.

Adam, R. 1989. “Faux triomphe et préjugés tenaces: la ciste Berlin misc. 3238.”

MEFRA 101, 597–641.

Adamo Muscettola, S. 1992. “Per una riedizione dell’arco di Traiano a

Benevento: appunti sul fregio trionfale.” Prospettiva 67, 2–16.

Agnoli, N. 2002. Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Palestrina: le sculture. Rome.

Bibliography

395

Alföldi, A. 1934. “Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniells.”

MDAI(R) 49, 1–118.

——— 1935. “Insignien und Tracht der römischen Kaiser.” MDAI(R) 50, 1–

171.

——— 1964. “Zwei Bemerkungen zur Historia Augusta.” Historia Augusta

Colloquium 1963. Bonn. 1–8.

Alföldi, M. R. 1999. Bild und Bildersprache der römischen Kaiser. Mainz.

Alföldi-Rosenbaum, E. 1994. “Heliogabalus’ and Aurelian’s stag chariots and

the Caesar contorniates.” Historiae Augustae Colloquium Genevense.

Macerata. 5–10.

Ammerman, A. 2006. “Adding time to Rome’s imago, ” in L. Haselberger and J.

Humphreys, eds. Imaging ancient Rome: documentation—visualization—

imagination. JRA supplement 61, Portsmouth, RI. 297–308.

Anastasiadis, V. I., and G. A. Souris. 1992. “Theophanes of Mytilene: a new in-

scription relating to his early career.” Chiron 22, 377–83.

Anderson, W. S. 1963. “Pompey, his friends and the literature of the first

century bc.” University of California Publications in Classical Philology 19, 1, 1–81.

Ando, C. 2000. Imperial ideology and provincial loyalty in the Roman Empire.

Berkeley.

Andreae, B. 1979. “Zum Triumphfries des Trajansbogens von Benevent.”

MDAI(R) 86, 325–9.

Andrén, A. 1974. “Osservazioni sulle terrecotte architettoniche etrusco-

italiche.” ORom 8, 1–16.

Angelicoussis, E. 1984. “The panel reliefs of Marcus Aurelius.” MDAI(R) 91, 141–205.

Arce, J. 1988. Funus imperatorum: los funerales de los emperadores romanos.

Madrid.

Astin, A. E. 1967. Scipo Aemilianus. Oxford.

——— 1978. Cato the censor. Oxford.

——— 1989. “Roman government and politics, 200–134 bc,” in A. E. Astin et

al., eds. Cambridge Ancient History VIII. 2nd ed. Cambridge. 163–96.

Athanassaki, L. 1992. “The triumph of love and elegy in Ovid’s Amores 1, 2.”

MD 28, 125–41.

Auliard, C. 2001. Victoires et triomphes à Rome: droit et réalités sous la

République. Besançon.

Ault, N., and J. Butt, eds. 1954. The poems of Alexander Pope, vol. 6: Minor poems. Twickenham.

Badian, E. 1955. “The date of Pompey’s first triumph.” Hermes 83, 107–18.

Bibliography

396

——— 1961. “Servilius and Pompey’s first triumph.” Hermes 89, 254–6.

Barchiesi, A. 2000. “Rituals in ink: Horace on the Greek lyric tradition,” in M.

Depew and D. Obbink, eds. Matrices of genre: authors, canons, and society.

Cambridge. 167–82.

——— 2002. “Martial arts: Mars Ultor in the Forum Augustum,” in G. Her-

bert-Brown. Ovid’s Fasti: historical readings at its bimillennium. Oxford. 1–

22.

Barchiesi, A., J. Rüpke, and S. Stephens, eds. 2004. Rituals in ink: a conference on religion and literary production in ancient Rome held at Stanford University in February 2002. Stuttgart, 2004.

Barini, C. 1952. Triumphalia. Imprese ed onori militari durante l’Impero Romano.

Turin.

Barkan, L. 1986. The gods made flesh: metamorphosis and the pursuit of paganism.

New Haven and London.

——— Unearthing the past: archaeology and aesthetics in the making of Renais-

sance culture. New Haven and London.

Barnes, T. D. 1971. Tertullian: a historical and literary study. Oxford.

Baumstark, R., and F. Büttner, eds. 2003. Grosser Auftritt: Piloty und die

Historienmalerei. Exhibition catalogue. Munich.

Bayet, J. 1940. “16 août 48: la date de la mort de Pompée d’après Lucain,” in

Mélanges de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes offerts à A.

Ernout. Paris. 5–10.

Beacham, R. C. 1999. Spectacle entertainments of early imperial Rome. New Haven and London.

Beard, M. 1987. “A complex of times: no more sheep on Romulus’ birthday.”

PCPhS n.s. 33, 1–15.

——— 2002. “Ciceronian correspondences: making a book out of letters,” in

T. P. Wiseman, ed. Classics in progress: essays on ancient Greece and Rome.

Oxford. 103–44.

——— 2003a. “The triumph of the absurd: Roman street theatre,” in C. Ed-

wards and G. Woolf, eds. Rome the cosmopolis. Cambridge. 21–43.

——— 2003b. “The triumph of Flavius Josephus,” in A. J. Boyle and W. J.

Dominik, eds. Flavian Rome: culture, image, text. Leiden and Boston. 543–58.

——— 2003c. “Picturing the Roman triumph: putting the Fasti Capitolini in

context.” Apollo 158, no. 497, 23–8.

——— 2004. “Writing ritual: the triumph of Ovid,” in Barchiesi, Rüpke, and

Stephens. 2004. 115–26.

Beard, M., and J. Henderson. 1998. “The emperor’s new body: apotheosis from

Rome,” in M. Wyke, ed. Parchments of gender: deciphering the bodies of an-

tiquity. Oxford. 191–219.

Bibliography

397

Beard, M., J. North, and S. Price. 1998. Religions of Rome, 2 vols. Cambridge.

Becatti, G., ed. 1969. Scavi di Ostia 6: Edificio con opus sectile fuori Porta Ma-rina. Rome.

Bell, C. 1992. Ritual theory, ritual practice. New York and Oxford.

Bellemore, J. 2000. “Pompey’s triumph over the Arabs,” in C. Deroux, ed.

Studies in Latin literature and Roman history, Vol. 10. Brussels. 91–123.

Beloch, K. J. 1926. Römische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der Punischen Kriege.

Berlin.

Bennett, J. 1997. Trajan: optimus princeps. London.

Bernardo, A. S. 1962. Petrarch, Scipio and the “Africa”: the birth of humanism’s dream. Baltimore.

Bernstein, F. 1998. Ludi publici: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und

Entwicklung der öffentlichen Spiele im republikanischen Rom. Stuttgart.

Biondo, F. 1459. De Roma triumphante libri decem. Brescia. 1503 ed. cited.

Birley, A. R. 1997. Hadrian: the restless emperor. London.

Biville, F. 1990. Les emprunts du latin au grec: approche phonétique 1. Leuven.

Boissier, G. 1870. Cicéron et ses amis: étude sur la société romaine du temps de César. 2nd ed. Paris.

Bonfante Warren, L. 1964. “A Latin triumph on a Praenestine cista.” AJA 68, 35–42.

——— 1970a. “Roman triumphs and Etruscan kings: the changing face of the

triumph.” JRS 60, 49–66.

——— 1970b. “Roman triumphs and Etruscan kings: the Latin word

triumphus, ” in R. C. Lugton and M. G. Saltzer, eds. Studies in Honor of J.

Alexander Kerns. The Hague and Paris. 108–20.

——— 1974. Review of Versnel. 1970. Gnomon 46, 574–83.

Bonneau, D. 1961. “Nouvelles données sur la crue du Nil et la date de la mort

de Pompée.” REL 39, 105–11.

Bonnefond-Coudry, M. 1989. Le sénat de la République romaine de la guerre

d’Hannibal à Auguste: pratiques délibératives et prise de décision. Rome.

Bowersock, G. 1994. “Dionysus as an epic hero,” in N. Hopkinson, ed. Studies

in the Dionysiaca of Nonnus. Cambridge Philological Society Supplement

17. 156–66.

Boyce, A. Abaecherli. 1942. “The origin of ornamenta triumphalia.” CPh 37, 130–41.

Braccesi, L. 1981. Epigrafia e storiografia: interpretazioni augustee. Naples.

Bradley, K. R. 1978. Suetonius’ Life of Nero: an historical commentary. Brussels.

Braund, S. Morton. 1996. “Ending epic: Statius, Theseus and a merciful re-

lease.” PCPhS n.s. 42, 1–23.

Brelich, A. 1938. “Trionfo e morte.” SMSR 14, 189–93.

Bibliography

398

Brennan, T. C. 1996. “Triumphus in Monte Albano,” in R. W. Wallace and

E. M. Harris, eds. Transitions to empire: essays in Greco-Roman history, 360–

146 bc. Oklahoma. 315–37.

——— 2000. The praetorship in the Roman Republic. Oxford.

Brilliant, R. 1967. The Arch of Septimius Severus in the Roman Forum. Rome.

——— 1999. “‘Let the trumpets roar!’ The Roman triumph,” in B. Bergmann

and C. Kondoleon, eds. The art of ancient spectacle. CASVA Studies in the

History of Art, Symposium Papers 34. Washington/New Haven and Lon-

don. 221–9.

Brink, C. O. 1982. Horace on poetry: Epistles Book II: The letters to Augustus and Florus. Cambridge.

Briscoe, J. 1981. A commentary on Livy Books XXXIV–XXXVII. Oxford.

Bruhl, A. 1929. “Les influences hellénistiques dans le triomphe romain.”

MEFRA 46, 77–95.

Brunt, P. A. 1962. “The army and the land in the Roman revolution.” JRS 52, 69–86. Repr. in The fall of the Roman Republic, and related essays. 1988.

Oxford. 240–80.

——— 1963. Review of H. D. Meyer, Die Aussenpolitik des Augustus und die

Augusteische Dichtung. JRS 53, 170–6. Repr. in Brunt. 1990. 96–109.

——— 1971. Italian manpower, 225 bc–ad 14. Oxford.

——— 1974. “C. Fabricius Tuscus and an Augustan dilectus.” ZPE 13, 161–85.

——— 1978. “Laus imperii,” in P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker, eds.

Imperialism in the ancient world. Cambridge. 159–91. Repr. in Brunt. 1990.

288–323.

——— 1990. Roman imperial themes. Oxford.

Buchan, M. 1995. “Ovidius Imperamator: beginnings and endings of love po-

ems and empire in the Amores.” Arethusa 28, 53–85.

Buchheit, V. 1972. Der Anspruch des Dichters in Vergils Georgika. Darmstadt.

Cafiero, M. L. 1986. “I rilievi della chiesa di S. Martina: documentazione

storica etc,” in La Rocca. 1986. 38–45.

Cameron, A. 1976. In laudem Iustini Augustu minori libri IV, Flavius Cresconius Corippus. London.

Campbell, J. B. 1984. The emperor and the Roman army 31 bc–ad 235. Oxford.

Cannadine, D. 1983. “The context, performance and meaning of ritual: the

British monarchy and the ‘invention of tradition,’ c. 1820–1977,” in

Hobsbawm and Ranger. 1983. 101–64.

Capoferro Cencetti, A. M. 1979. “Variazioni nel tempo dell’identità funzionale

di un monumento: il teatro di Pompeo.” RdA 3, 72–85.

Carandini, A., and R. Cappelli, eds. 2000. Roma: Romolo, Remo e la fondazione

della città. Exhibition catalogue. Milan.

Bibliography

399

Champlin, E. 2003a. “Agamemnon at Rome: Roman dynasts and Greek

heroes,” in D. Braund and C. Gill, eds. Myth, history and culture in repub-

lican Rome: studies in honour of T. P. Wiseman. Exeter. 295–319.

——— 2003b. Nero. Cambridge.

Chaplin, J. D. 2000. Livy’s exemplary history. Oxford.

Chastel, A. 1983. The sack of Rome, 1527. Princeton.

Chateigner, C. 1989. “Cortèges en armes en Étrurie: une étude iconographique

de plaques de revêtement architectoniques étrusques du VIe siècle.” RBPh

67, 122–38.

Cherici, A. 1993. “Per una lettura del sarcofago dello Sperandio.” XAnt. 2, 13–22.

Chilosi, M. G., and G. Martellotti. 1986. “Dati sulle techniche esecutive etc,”

in La Rocca. 1986. 46–52.

Chilver, G. E. F., and G. B. Townend. 1985. A historical commentary on Tacitus’

Histories 4 and 5. Oxford.

Chioffi, L. 1996. Gli elogia augustei del Foro Romano: aspetti epigrafici e topo-grafici. Rome.

Christ, W. von, et al. 1920. Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur. Part II. 6th ed.

Munich.

Christenson, D. 2000. Plautus Amphitruo. Cambridge.

Churchill, J. B. 1999. “Ex qua quod vellent facerent: Roman magistrates’ authority over praeda and manubiae.” TAPhA 129, 85–116.

Coarelli, F. 1968. “La Porta Trionfale e la Via dei Trionfi.” DdA 2, 55–103.

——— 1971–72. “Il complesso pompeiano del Campo Marzio e la sua

decorazione scultorea.” RPAA 44, 99–122.

——— 1985. Il Foro Romano II: periodo repubblicano e augusteo. Rome.

——— 1992. Il Foro Boario: dalle origini alla fine della repubblica. 2nd ed. Rome.

——— 1997. Il Campo Marzio: dalle origini alla fine della repubblica. Rome.

Colilli, P. 1990. “Scipio’s triumphal ascent in the Africa,” in Eisenbichler and Iannucci. 1990. 147–59.

Colonna, G. 1992. “Praeneste arcaica e il mondo etrusco-italico,” in La Necro-

poli di Praeneste: periodo orientalizzante e medio repubblicano. Atti del 2−

Convegno di Studi Archeologici. Palestrina 21/22 Aprile 1990, Palestrina.

13–51.

Combès, R. 1966. Imperator: recherches sur l’emploi et la signification du titre d’imperator dans la Rome republicaine. Paris.

Connor, W. R. 1987. “Tribes, festivals and processions: civic ceremonial and

political manipulation in archaic Greece.” JHS 107, 40–50.

Cornell, T. J. 1986. “The value of the literary tradition concerning archaic

Rome,” in K. A. Raaflaub, ed. Social struggles in archaic Rome: new perspec-

tives on the conflict of the orders. Berkeley. 52–76.

Bibliography

400

Courtney, E. J. 1980. A commentary on the satires of Juvenal. London.

Crake, J. E. A. 1940. “The annals of the pontifex maximus.” CPh 35, 375–86.

Crawford, M. H., et al . 1996. Roman statutes. London.

D’Arms, J. H. 1998. “Between public and private: the epulum publicum and

Caesar’s Horti trans Tiberim,” in M. Cima and E. La Rocca, eds. Horti

romani. Rome. BCAR Supp. 6, 33–43.

Daut, R. 1984. “Belli facies et triumphus.” MDAI(R) 91, 115–23.

Degrassi, A. 1943. “Le sistemazioni dei Fasti Capitolini.” Capitolium 18, 327–35.

Repr. in Degrassi, Scritti vari. 1962. Rome. 229–38.

Delbrueck, R. 1929. Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler. Berlin.

Del Chiaro, M. 1990. “An Etruscan funerary ‘naiskos.’” NAC 19, 51–8.

De Maria, S. 1988. Gli archi onorari di Roma e dell’Italia romana. Rome.

Dench, E. 2005. Romulus’ asylum: Roman identities from the age of Alexander to

the age of Hadrian. Oxford.

Deubner, L. 1934. “Die Tracht des römischen Triumphators.” Hermes 69, 316–23.

Deutsch, M. E. 1924. “Pompey’s three triumphs.” CPh 19, 277–9.

Develin, R. 1978. “Tradition and development of triumphal regulations in

Rome.” Klio 60, 429–38.

Dewar, M. 1996. Claudian, Panegyricus de sexto consulatu Honorii Augusti. Oxford.

Dillon, S., and K. E. Welch, eds. 2006. Representations of war in ancient Rome.

Cambridge.

Dreizehnter, A. 1975. “Pompeius als Städtegründer.” Chiron 5, 213–45.

Drummond, A. 1989. “Rome in the fifth century 1: the social and economic

framework; 2: the citizen community,” in F. W. Walbank et al., eds. The

Cambridge Ancient History VII 2. 2nd ed. Cambridge. 113–204.

Dumézil, G. 1970. Archaic Roman religion. Chicago.

Dunbabin, K. M. D. 1986. “Sic erimus cuncti . . . : The skeleton in Graeco-

Roman art.” JDAI 101, 185–255.

Duncan-Jones, R. 1990. Structure and scale in the Roman economy. Cambridge.

——— 1994. Money and government in the Roman empire. Cambridge.

Dupont, F. 1976. “Signification théâtrale du double dans l’Amphitryon de

Plaute.” REL 54, 129–41.

Durante, M. 1951. “Triumpe e triumphus: un capitolo del più antico culto dionisiaco latino.” Maia 4, 138–44.

Ebert-Schifferer, S. 1988. “Ripandas Kapitolinischer Freskenzyklus und die

Selbstdarstellung der Konservatoren um 1500.” Römisches Jahrbuch für

Kunstgeschichte, 23/24, 75–218.

Eck, W. 1984. “Senatorial self-representation: developments in the Augustan

Bibliography

401

period,” in F. Millar and E. Segal, eds. Caesar Augustus: seven aspects. Oxford, 1984. 129–67.

———

1999.

“Kaiserliche

Imperatorenakklamation

und

ornamenta

triumphalia.” ZPE 124, 223–7.

——— 2003. The age of Augustus. Oxford.

Edwards, C. 1994. “Beware of imitations: theatre and the subversion of impe-

rial identity,” in J. Elsner and J. Masters, eds. Reflections of Nero. London.

83–97.

Egan, R. B. 1977. “Lexical evidence on two Pauline passages.” NT 19, 34–62.

Eisenbichler, K., and A. A. Iannucci, eds. 1990. Petrarch’s Triumphs: allegory and spectacle. Toronto.

Emiliozzi, A. 1997. Carri da guerra e principi Etruschi. Exhibition catalogue.

Rome.

Evangelides, D. E. 1958. “Anaskaphe tou theatrou Mytilenes.” PAAH, 230–32.

Faccenna, D. 1956. “Il Pompeo di Palazzo Spada.” ArchClass. 8, 173–201.

Favro, D. 1994. “The street triumphant: the urban impact of Roman triumphal

parades,” in Z. Çelik et al., eds. Streets: critical perspectives on public space.

Berkeley. 151–64.

——— 1996. The urban image of Augustan Rome. Cambridge.

Ferguson, J. 1979. Juvenal. The Satires. Basingstoke.

Ferrary, J.-L. 1988. Philhellénisme et impérialisme: aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde hellénistique, de la seconde guerre de Macédoine

à la guerre contre Mithridate. Rome.

Fine, S. 2005. “The Temple Menorah—where is it?” Biblical Archaeology Re-

view 31.4, 18–25, 62–3.

Flaig, E. 2003a. Ritualisierte Politik: Zeichen, Gesten und Herrschaft im Alten Rom. Göttingen.

——— 2003b. “Warum die Triumphe die römische Republik ruiniert haben,”

in K.-J. Hölkeskamp et al., eds. Sinn(in) in der Antike. Mainz. 299–313.

Fless, F. 1995. Opferdiener und Kultmusiker auf stadtrömischen historischen Re-

liefs. Mainz.

Flory, M. B. 1998. “The integration of women into the Roman triumph.”

Historia 47, 489–94.

Flower, H. I. 1995. “Fabulae praetextae in context: when were plays on

contemporary subjects performed in Republican Rome?” CQ n.s. 45, 170–