Plautus, Am. 192, 196, 657) have been minutely scrutinized for what they
might reveal about the precise legal or other qualifications for a triumph
(Versnel [1970] 176–81; 356–71). But the point may be far less technical
than that: by piling up different ways of expressing the general’s responsi-
Notes to Pages 213–219
373
bility for his victory, it may serve rather to make that responsibility seem
uncontestable.
72. Livy 40, 38. Despite Livy’s claim of a triumphal innovation here, there are
stories of earlier triumphs said to have involved no fighting (Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Ant. 8, 69, 1–2; Livy 37, 60, 5–6).
73. Livy 31, 48, 5; 49, 8–11.
74. Livy 33, 22, 9.
75. Livy 35, 8.
76. The same theme is reflected in Cato the Elder’s speech, “On false battles,”
delivered against the triumphal claims of Quintus Minucius Thermus in
190; ORF Cato, fr. 58.
77. Greater strife: Livy 39, 5, 12. The prospect of a triumph: Livy 28, 38, 4.
Nasica: Livy 36, 39, 8. “Desire for (true) glory”: Sallust, Cat. 7, 3; Harris (1979) 17–32.
78. Attacks on those who had come to terms: Suetonius, Jul. 54, 1; Dio
Cassius 36, 18, 1.
79. Livy 2, 47, 10–11. Among vain attempts to account for this: Auliard (2001)
140–1; and see below, p. 300–1.
80. Valerius Maximus 2, 8, 3.
81. Pis. 44; reminiscent of Caelius’ quip (see above, n. 3).
82. Nisbet (1961) 172–80.
83. Cicero, Pis. 37–8; 54.
84. Cicero, Pis. 51–2 (Cicero’s return); 53–64 (Piso’s return). Piso’s return as
“anti-triumph”: Itgenshorst (2005) 82–8.
85. Griffin (2001) is a careful analysis of the Epicurean elements in the
speech, attempting to reveal both Piso’s own philosophical position and
the original audience’s philosophical familiarity and understanding.
86. Cicero, Pis. 60. This section is so expertly parodic that it has been taken for Cicero’s own philosophical critique of triumphal trinkets (Brilliant
[1999] 225). The passage continues, dropping the parody, to make Piso
“put his own case in the worst light” (Nisbet [1961] ad loc.).
87. Cicero, Pis. 56.
88. Cicero, Pis. 62, 58.
7 . P L AY I N G G O D
1. Cafiero (1986) 38–9.
2. A particular puzzle is their relationship to eight similar reliefs, originally
depicting Marcus, later incorporated into the Arch of Constantine. Dif-
Notes to Pages 221–222
374
ferent solutions: Ryberg (1967) 1–8, 84–9; Angelicoussis (1984); Cafiero
(1986).
3. Schollmeyer (2001) 152–68. Examples include: Arch of Germanicus:
Crawford et al. (1996) 1, no. 37, 18–21; Arch of Nero: F. S. Kleiner (1985) 78–9.
4. This is another of those faux, or nearly faux, Latin terms that litter modern writing in ancient history ( Romanitas, lararium are others). So far as I have been able to discover, in surviving classical Latin it is used twice by
Apuleius ( Apol. 17 of Manius Curius; Mun. 37 of Jupiter), once by Minucius Felix ( Octavius 37 of a Christian). From the late third century
ce it is commonly found in inscriptions among the titles of emperors
( triumphator perpetuus/aeternus/semper—that is “perpetual triumphator”):
e.g., CIL VI 1141, 1144, 1178; CIL VIII, 7011 (= ILS 698, 700, 5592, 715).
From the fourth century, it is found similarly in coin legends: e.g., RIC
VIII, 410, Constantius II and Constans ( triumfator gentium barbarum—
that is, “triumphator over barbarian tribes”); RIC X, 325–6, Honorius
(triumfator gent[ium] barb[arum]).
5. Suggestions include the arch spanning the road up the Capitoline hill
with the nearby Temple of Jupiter Tonans (the Thunderer) or alterna-
tively Jupiter Custos (the Protector); the Arch of Augustus in the Forum,
with the nextdoor Temple of Divus Julius; the Porta Triumphalis with its
supposed neighbor Fortune the Home-Bringer; the Temple of Bellona.
General review: Ryberg (1967) 19–20; Cafiero (1986) 39. Arch of Augus-
tus: M. R. Alföldi (1999) 93.
6. Diodorus Siculus 31, 8, 10 (from the excerption of George Syncellus); Plu-
tarch, Marc. 22, 2; Appian, Pun. 66. Musicians at various Roman ceremonies, including the triumph: Fless (1995) 79–86.
7. The relief: Fless (1995) pl. 10. 2. It is dated, stylistically, to the mid-first century bce. Musicians also appear in a relief now in Spain, which almost
certainly depicts the procession of Augustus’ triumph of 29 bce (Trunk
[2002] 250–4; pl. 68, 71a; ThesCRA I, 48, no. 75) and the manuscript copy
of a lost processional relief (Pfanner [1980] 331).
8. Zonaras, Epitome 7, 21. Roman and Italic chariots of various types:
Emiliozzi (1997).
9. Suetonius, Nero 25, 1; Dio Cassius 63, 20, 3 (from a Byzantine abridg-
ment). J. F. Miller (2000) 417–9. A different version is offered by the bi-
ographer of the late third-century emperor Aurelian (SHA, Aurelian 33,
2): that in his triumph Aurelian used a chariot captured from the king of
the Goths.
Notes to Pages 223–229
375
10. Ginzrot (1817) 2, 41.
11. Suetonius, Vesp. 12. Similar problems: SHA, Severus 16, 6.
12. Appian, Mith. 117; Diodorus Siculus, 31, 8, 12 (from the excerption of George Syncellus); Livy 10, 7, 10. Among the host of other references to
gold, gilded, or ivory chariots: Horace, Epod. 9, 21–2; Florus, Epit. 1, 1 (1, 5, 6); Tibullus 1, 7, 8; Ovid, Tr. 4, 2, 63.
13. Propertius 4, 11, 11–2. See also Cicero, Fam. 15, 6, 1; Florus, Epit. 2, 13 (4, 2, 89); Pliny, Nat. 5, 36.
14. Valerius Maximus 1, 1, 10.
15. Ryberg (1967) 17–8; Chilosi and Martellotti (1986) 48.
16. Germanicus: Tacitus, Ann. 2, 41. Scipio: Appian, Pun. 66. Aemilius Paullus: Livy 45, 40, 7–8. Flory (1998) doubts that girls were part of the
triumph until the imperial period, and (not implausibly) considers that
Appian and Dio (Zonaras, Epitome 7, 21) are retrojecting imperial prac-
tice into the Republic.
17. Briefly reported by Murray (2004) 9.
18. Suetonius, Tib. 6, 4.
19. E.g., Gnecchi (1912) pl. 60, 7; RIC III, Marcus Aurelius, no. 1183.
20. Boscoreale: Kuttner (1995) 145.
21. Livy 10, 7, 10.
22. Frazer (1911) 174–8.
23. Religious representation: Scheid (1986). Other advocates of the general’s
divine status include: Wissowa (1912) 126–8; Strong (1915) 64–5; with fur-
ther references in Versnel (1970) 62.
24. Seminal critics include: Reid (1916); Warde Fowler (1916) (from whom
the challenge, p. 157); Deubner (1934); most recently Rüpke (2006) 254–
9. Full review of the debate: Versnel (1970) 56–84; (2006), specifically in
response to Rüpke. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 3, 61–2; with 4, 74, 1