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 skepticaclass="underline" 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).