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