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 ceremoniaclass="underline" “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).