40. Plautus, Am. 188–92 (with Christenson [2000] 174–6); see also 655–7 and Pers. 753–4. Plautine triumphal parodies: Fraenkel (1922) 234–40; Halkin
(1948). The distinctive style (including series of ablative absolutes): Livy
10, 37, 8 (with Oakley [2005b] 375); 40, 52, 5–6; 41, 28, 8–9 (with Galli
[1987–8]); ILLRP 122. Livy 38, 48, 15 claims to quote part of the official phraseology of the senatorial vote.
41. See, e.g., Livy 45, 35, 4: “The praetor, Quintus Cassius, was assigned the
task of arranging with the tribunes that, following a resolution of the sen-
ate, they should propose a motion to the people that the generals should
possess imperium on the day that they rode into the city in triumph” (167
bce). It seems that the senate might also authorize additional honors to
accompany a triumph: Dio Cassius 43, 14, 3.
42. Apart from Livy 45, 35, 4, the only direct evidence is a similar reference
concerning Marcellus’ ovation in 211 (Livy 26, 21, 5). The accounts of
Pomptinus’ triumph in 54 bce (see esp. Cicero, Q. fr. 3, 4, 6) imply a po-
tentially illegitimate vote of imperium.
43. This theory, in its essentials, goes back to Laqueur (1909). Recent re-
finements and restatements: Brennan (2000) 52–3; Linderski (1990) 44–6
(prompted by the question of why those who held the office of consular
tribune did not, and so perhaps could not, triumph, despite having imperium). The basic controversy, imperium vs auspicia, is reviewed by Versnel (1970) 164–95; it is further and minutely dissected by Vervaet (2007) 41–85.
44. From the many accounts of petitioning a triumph, these are mentioned
only by Livy 5, 28, 13 (an obvious anachronism), 45, 1, 6–7, and Cicero,
Pis. 39. Pliny, Nat. 15, 133 refers to this as one of the uses of the laurel tree, but from what date and how regularly is unclear; Appian, Mith.77 refers
to it as “the custom” for victors. The idea (Livy 30, 43, 9) that the fetial
priests carried their own sacred boughs (verbenae) with them might just
provide a parallel for the general and his laurels.
45. In addition to the early triumphs imagined to have taken place against the
will of the senate: Livy 7, 17, 9 (Caius Marcius Rutilus, 356); 10, 37, 6–12
Notes to Pages 203–208
371
(Lucius Postumius Megellus, 294), with Oakley (1997) 721. One way
round this has been to claim that the senate acquired its triumphal au-
thority only later (perhaps under Sulla): Ogilvie (1965) 513, following
Mommsen (1887) 3, 1233–4.
46. Polybius 6, 15, 8 (though he appears to allow the possibility of proceeding
without funds). Self-funding: Orosius, Historia Contra Paganos 5, 4, 7
(Appius Claudius, 143 bce); also Livy 33, 23, 8 (Alban Mount, 197 bce).
47. Cicero, Cael. 34; Valerius Maximus 5, 4, 6; Suetonius, Tib. 2, 4; Dio Cassius 22, fr. 74 (from a Byzantine excerption); Orosius, Historia Contra
Paganos 5, 4, 7.
48. Brennan (1996) 319–20.
49. Develin (1978) 437–8.
50. Mommsen (1887) 1, 132; Versnel (1970) 191–3; Brennan (1996) 316. It is
partly with these problems in mind that the key role in the triumph of
auspicia (rather than imperium) has been stressed; though, so far as I can see, that only raises further slippery issues.
51. Versnel (1970) 384–8; J. S. Richardson (1975) 59–60.
52. The legal and constitutional notion of imperium (as well as of the sup-
posed subdivisions, imperium domi and imperium militiae) has been the subject of innumerable learned but inconclusive discussions over the last
two centuries at least (largely building on or refining the work of
Mommsen). Useful introductions to the subject include: Drummond
(1989) 188–9; J. S. Richardson (1991).
53. The one major exception is the debate on the triumph of Aemilius
Paullus in 167 bce, which is set by Livy in the popular assembly convened
to extend his imperium (45, 35, 5–39, 20).
54. Livy 26, 21, 1–6.
55. Livy 31, 20.
56. Recent contributions to the traditional industry include: Petrucci (1996);
Auliard (2001). Gruen (1990) 129–33 is a rare case of dissent, though may
overstate the case.
57. Mommsen (1887) 1, 126–36; Laqueur (1909) (with n. 43, above).
58. J. S. Richardson (1975); and, with even greater emphasis on flexibility,
Brennan (1996), with quotation, p. 317.
59. Changing requirements to bring home the army: J. S. Richardson (1975)
61. The Mommsen “rule” (that even magistrates whose victory occurred
in the period directly after their year of office, when their imperium had been seamlessly prorogued, could not triumph): Mommsen (1887) 1, 128–
9; Versnel (1970) 168–9.
Notes to Pages 209–213
372
60. Harris (1979) 255 argues for the “partial confidentiality” of senatorial de-
bates—though how long that lasted, or how strictly it was enforced, is
unclear.
61. Valerius Maximus 2, 8. Ius triumphale is Valerius’ term.
62. Orosius, Historia Contra Paganos 5, 4, 7. For the “what-if?” style of legal conundrum, see the Declamationes of the Elder Seneca and Pseudo-Quintilian.
63. On Valerius’ evidence the date would be 62 bce, the date of Cato’s
tribunate. Lucius Marcius or Marius (the text is uncertain) is otherwise
unknown—though he creeps into reference works on the basis of this
passage.
64. Brennan (2000) 83–5 is the sharpest analysis of Valerius Maximus’ ac-
count of the controversy. Vervaet (2007) 59–64 is a less skeptical discus-
sion.
65. Harris (1979) 123. The classic case of a triumph awarded for the recovery
of territory is Livy’s account (5, 49, 7) of the triumph of Camillus in 390:
“Having won his country back from the enemy, the dictator returned to
Rome in triumph.”
66. Modern writers have also disagreed over the ovation awarded to
Marcellus, but for different reasons: J. S. Richardson (1975) 54–5 sees it as
driven by narrowly political concerns, Develin (1978) 432 as a proper ap-
plication of the rules. Different controversies surround Scipio’s triumph:
against Valerius Maximus and Livy (26, 21, 1–5), both Polybius (11, 33, 7)
and Appian ( Hisp. 38) claim that he celebrated a triumph.
67. The role of precedent (and innovation) in Livy: Chaplin (2000) 137–67.
68. Livy 28, 38, 4; 34, 10, 5.
69. Concern with the fair apportioning of triumphal glory: Livy 28, 9; 33, 22, 2.
70. Livy 31, 48–49, 3 (with Brennan [2000] 197–200 for a full discussion of
the many factors that might have been at work here); 38, 44, 9–50, 3.
71. The need to assert authoritative command perhaps lies behind the list of
terms used to refer to military leadership in several records of victory, and
parodied by Plautus: in its fullest form (found only once, Livy 40, 52, 5),
“under the command, the auspices, the authority and through the success
of so-and-so” (ductu, auspicio, imperio, felicitate). Predictably enough, this phrase and its variants (see, for example, Livy 41, 28, 8; ILLRP 122;