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-
eraclass="underline" 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.