the arch at Lepcis Magna): Strocka (1972) 154–7; Kampen (1991) 233–5.
Other visual images, “accurately” or not, including women in the gen-
eral’s group: Crawford et al. (1996) 1, no. 37, 19–21; Furtwängler (1900) 1, tab. 66 (a cameo, possibly a modern fake).
57. Plutarch, Flam. 13, 3–6; Livy 34, 52, 12 (they had been sold into slavery after capture by Hannibal); two other such occasions are noted, both (sus-
piciously?) within a decade (201: Livy 30, 45, 5; Valerius Maximus 5, 2, 5.
197: Livy 33, 23, 6).
58. Suetonius, Jul. 78, 2. Ancient scholars puzzled too. Aulus Gellius (5, 6, 27) quotes the (unlikely) view of Masurius Sabinus, who had probably never
witnessed an ovation, that in an ovation the general was followed by the
whole senate, not by his soldiers as at a triumph.
59. Dio Cassius 43, 19, 2–4; above, p. 136–7.
60. Dio Cassius 51, 21, 9. Quotation: Reinhold (1988) 158.
61. Livy 28, 9, 11–16; Valerius Maximus 4, 1, 9.
62. Valerius Maximus 3, 2, 24; Pliny, Nat. 7, 101–3.
63. Livy 45, 38, 12–14. A fragment of what appears to be a representation of
triumphal soldiers: De Maria (1988) 280–2, pl. 61–2 (from Claudius’ Arch
in Rome for his British victory).
64. Appian, BC 2, 93.
65. 201–167 bce: Brunt (1971) 394. First century bce: Brunt (1962) 77–9;
ESAR I, 323–5.
66. Livy 37, 59, 6, for example, arouses suspicion (a donative is recorded, but
at a triumph at which no troops were present; Briscoe [1981] 394). Emen-
dations: Livy 33, 37, 11; 34, 46, 3; the ratio of 1:2:3 is attested on numerous
occasions, but this is no reason to distrust or emend away variants.
67. Not always: Livy (45, 38, 14) represents Aemilius Paullus’ troops as hang-
ing around the city before the triumph (albeit in special circumstances).
Notes to Pages 244–248
379
68. Livy 45, 35, 5–39, 20; Plutarch, Aem. 30–32. At a reported 100 denarii for each of the common soldiers, the donative offered was larger than any recorded before—but then the spoils were unprecedentedly lavish too.
69. Livy 45, 40, 4; Plutarch, Aem. 34, 4; Plutarch, Marc. 8, 2.
70. Soldiers’ chant: Livy 45, 38, 12; Tibullus 2, 5, 118. Derivation: Varro, LL 6, 68. Obscure hymn (of the Arval Brethren): Scheid (1990) 616–23; 644–6;
(1998) no. 100a.
71. Latest linguist: Biville (1990) 220–1. Other theories: Bonfante Warren
(1970b) 112; Versnel (1970) 38–55; (2006) 309–13 (“there is only one way in
which Latin triumpe can have been derived from Greek thriambe, and that is via the Etruscan language,” p. 309).
72. Livy 45, 38, 12.
73. A male head, with the legend “TRIUMPUS” on a silver denarius issued
around the time of Julius Caesar’s triumph in 46 bce ( RRC no. 472.2) has
been taken to be the personification of the triumph; though there is no
further evidence for or against such an identification.
74. Servius (auct.), Ecl. 8, 12; Isidore, Orig. 17, 7, 2.
75. Pliny, Nat. 15, 133–5; Festus (Paulus) p. 104L (the assumption has been that this “information” goes back to the Augustan scholar Verrius
Flaccus); Pliny later (15, 138) does himself refer, in general, to the use of
the plant in “purifications.” The triumph as a rite of purification: (for ex-
ample) Warde Fowler (1911) 33, Lemosse (1972) 448. The passage through
the porta triumphalis as purificatory: Warde Fowler (1920) 70–5.
76. Myths of Delphi, in particular stories of the purification of Orestes and
of the god Apollo himself (Pausanias 2, 31, 8; Aelian, VH 3, 1) may have
been influential on them too. Reid (1912) 45–7 is refreshingly skeptical
about the original purificatory significance of the triumph (“mere guess-
work”).
77. Above, pp. 50–1. The connection between the triumph and the myth of
Apollo and Daphne: Barkan (1986) 225–6.
78. See, e.g., Livy 4, 20, 2; 53, 11; 5, 49, 7 etc. The potentially dangerous popu-
lar politics implied by the term inconditus: O’Neill (2003a) 6 with
(2003b) 157–62.
79. Suetonius, Jul. 51.
80. Suetonius, Jul. 49, 4.
81. Dio Cassius 43, 20.
82. Livy 28, 9, 18.
83. Livy 10, 30, 9. Decius Mus senior, when a tribune, was similarly
marked out in a triumph (7, 38, 3). He later also sacrificed himself for
Roman victory (8, 9) and Livy stresses that in 295 the songs concern-
Notes to Pages 248–253
380
ing the son evoked the father’s memory as well. The tradition of self-
sacrifice (devotio), which suspiciously clusters in this particular family: Beard, North, and Price (1998) 2, 157–8. Other instances of the songs, in
different ways, “re-hierarchizing” the ceremony: Livy 4, 20, 2; 53, 11–3.
84. Versnel (1970) 70; Richlin (1983) 10, 94; O’Neill (2003a) 3–4.
85. Plutarch, Aem. 34, 7; Marc. 8, 2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 2, 34, 2; Livy 4, 53, 11–2.
86. I am closer here to the other view expressed in O’Neill (2003a) 4, namely
that the songs had a sociological function. They contributed, he argues,
to the reincorporation of the glorious general “whose outstanding fortune
threatened to place him above his peers in the senatorial aristocracy”
(drawing on Kurke [1991], who discusses the function of Pindaric Odes in
the reintegration of the victor into the life of the city). Rüpke (2006) 268
sees a satiric “rite of reversal” in the soldiers’ mockery (including their
shouts of triumpe) and points in a similar direction.
87. Caesar: Dio Cassius 43, 21, 2. Claudius: Dio Cassius 60, 23, 1. The sacri-
fice is mentioned only by Josephus ( BJ 7, 155).
88. Triumphal dedication: Ovid Tr. 4, 2 56 and Pont. 2, 1, 67. Dedication of laurel could also take place outside a triumph proper: Suetonius, Nero 13, 2; Dom. 6, 1; Pliny, Pan 8, 2–3; Dio Cassius 55, 5, 1.
89. The connection with the Temple of Jupiter is reviewed, skeptically, in
CIL I. 1, 78 (2nd ed.).
90. This is implied by Plutarch’s description of Aemilius Paullus’ triumph:
Aem. 32–4.
91. Valerius Maximus 4, 1, 6 (though Livy 38, 56, 12–3 claims that Scipio re-
fused the statue); Sehlmeyer (1999) 112–31; 134–41. Such connections be-
tween general and commemoration do not entail adopting the radical po-
sition of Rüpke (2006), of the ritual links between the ceremony as a
whole and commemorative statuary.
92. CIL XIV, 3606 and 3607 = ILS 921 and 964.
93. E.g. Livy 35, 10, 5–9; Cicero, Mur. 15.
94. Harris (1979) 32; though Rosenstein (1990), esp. 9–53, stresses how mili-
tary defeat appears not decisively to blight a man’s further political career.
There are not enough surviving examples to draw any meaningful conclu-
sions from a comparison of the careers of those victors who celebrated a
triumph and those who did not.
95. Florus, Epit. 1, 34 (2, 18, 17).
96. Camillus: Livy 5, 23, 5; Plutarch, Cam. 7, 1–2. Scipio: Livy 38, 52–3, with Astin (1989) 179–80.