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 generaclass="underline" 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 generaclass="underline" 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 generaclass="underline" 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.