sion, namely, the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Modern ac-
counts: Künzl (1988) 105; New Pauly VII s.v. Ludi Romani.
74. Versnel (1970) 103–15 (critique of Mommsen); 255–303 (alternative
version). Versnel’s stress on the primitive New Year festival allows him
economically to incorporate the processus consularis on January 1 as a
simultaneously new and old aspect of triumphal style celebration
(pp. 302–3).
75. One literary account: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 7, 72, 1–13.
Conflicting views: Piganiol (1923) 15–31 (general reliability of Dionysius),
84–91 (plebeian agricultural origin); Thuillier (1975) esp. 577–81 (inadver-
tent reliability of Dionysius); Bernstein (1998) 254–68 (Greek character of
Dionysius’ account, in the context of a largely skeptical discussion over-
all).
76. Livy 1, 35, 9 (on the foundation of the games under King Tarquin):
“sollemnes deinde annui mansere ludi Romani magnique varie appellati.”
With no comma, it means “From then on the solemn games, known al-
ternatively as the ludi Romani or magni, were celebrated annually.” With a comma after solemnes, it would mean “the games known alternatively as
the ludi Romani or magni became a solemn ritual, and later they became annual.” Only the second is compatible with Mommsen’s theory.
77. Juvenal 11, 194–5 (note the pun on praetor and praeda).
78. Tacitus, Ann. 1, 15; Dio Cassius 56, 46, 5. Other evidence commonly cited does not bear the weight that has been laid on it. Livy 5, 41, 2 need not
mean that the “stately robes” were the same for those triumphing and
those conducting the games (nor, contra Versnel [1970] 130, does he refer
to “triumphal ornatus”). Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 6, 95, 4 does not say “that the aediles plebis during the games wore triumphal garb”
(Versnel [1970] 130); he says that they were honored with a purple robe
Notes to Pages 283–285
387
and “various insignia which the kings had had” (which could refer to
different types of ceremonial dress). Martial 8, 33, 1 refers only to a leaf
from a praetor’s corona, with the implication that it is gold; any allusion to games must be understood from that alone. Pliny, Nat. 34, 20 refers
only to praetors riding around the Circus in a chariot, not to triumphal
attire. Mayor (1881) 76–7 is a particularly splendid farrago of inaccuracy on this subject.
79. Drawings: Codex Coburgensis fol. 75, 3; Codex Pighianus fol. 99 v. 100r; Codex Vat. lat. 3439 (Ursinianus) fol. 58a v. 58b r. Engraving: Dupérac in O. Panvinio, De Ludis Circensibus (Padua, 1642) 7 (original engraving
1566). Discussion: Rodenwaldt (1940) 24–5 (Figs. 10 and 11); Wrede (1981)
111–2; Ronke (1987) 219–20, 236–7, 716.
80. General discussions: Stern (1953) 158–63; Ronke (1987) 221–55; ThesCRA I, 46–50. These include some brave but ultimately unconvincing attempts
to distinguish triumphal from circus processions by, for example, the
form of the scepter carried (topped by a bust in the case of the circus pro-
cession, by an eagle in the case of a triumph?) or the types of chariot (two-
horse for the circus, four horse for the triumph?). In addition to the mon-
ument of Philopappos, disputed images include: a sarcophagus fragment
in Berlin, Pergamum Museum, inv. 967 (Ronke [1987] 735, n. 200),
and even the famous opus sectile image of Junius Bassus (now in the
Museo delle Terme, Rome, MNR 375831), which has been seen both as
a circus image and less plausibly as a processus consularis (Becatti [1969]
196–202).
81. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 7, 72, 10–2; Dionysius surprisingly does not refer to—and maybe does not know of—the satyr dances reported by
Appian ( Pun. 66) at the the triumph of Scipio in 201. These would fit his
model even more closely.
82. Flower (1996) 107; Bömer, RE XXI, 2, 1976–7. Flaig (2003a) 34–
8; (2003b) 301–3 urges a semiotic connection between the three proces-
sions.
83. Versnel (1970) 115–29 dissects the similarities between the two rituals opti-
mistically assembled by Brelich (1938); though, as Flower (1996) 101 im-
plies, perhaps throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
84. Flower (1996) 109, 113. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. 8, 59, 3, which she cites in support, in fact refers to the funeral of the traitor Coriolanus,
who never celebrated a triumph at all (though it does refer in general
terms to “what was needed to do proper honor to excellent men”); and
the observation that the troops marched at the funeral of Sulla “as they
had done in earlier triumphs” is not made by Appian ( BC 1, 105) but by
Notes to Pages 285–292
388
Flower alone (p. 101). The closest we have to any such practice is the
clothing used at Julius Caesar’s funeraclass="underline" below, n. 87.
85. Suetonius, Aug. 100, 2 (proposal on triumphal gate and statue of Victory); Tacitus, Ann. 1, 8 (proposal on triumphal gate and placards); Dio Cassius
56, 34. Dio’s account of the funeral ceremony of Pertinax (74, 4–5) in-
cludes some similar triumphal elements. Modern discussion: Flower
(1996) 244–5.
86. Richard (1978) 1122–5 (overstating the case); Arce (1988) 35–7 (warning
against taking the practical parallels too far). The (tomb) monument of
Philopappos appropriates these ideas in a private context.
87. Suetonius, Jul. 84, 4.
88. Seneca, Dial. 6 (Ad Marciam), 3, 1; the triumphal theme is also developed—albeit in a different direction, predicting a triumph to avenge
Drusus’ death—in the poem of consolation to his mother Livia, once at-
tributed to Ovid (Ps. Ovid, Consolatio ad Liviam esp. 271–80).
89. Plutarch, Phil. 21, 2–3.
9 . T H E T R I U M PH O F H I S TO RY
1. Pliny, Nat. 15, 136–7.
2. Suetonius, Gal. 1.
3. Dio Cassius 48, 49, 2–52.
4. Bruhl (1929); Bonfante Warren (1970a) 64–6.
5. Bonfante Warren (1970a) 49 (“the gradual transformation . . . from a
purification ritual . . . into a purely honorific ceremony”). Similarly
McCormick (1986) 12; Nicolet (1980) 353; Künzl (1988) 7; Holliday
(2002) 22–3; and many more.
6. Alban Mount: Brennan (1996), though Livy (45, 38, 4) claims—in an ad-
mittedly tendentious context—that “many” had triumphed on the Alban
Mount. Chronology of ovations: Rohde, RE XVIII, 2, 1900–3. Aulus
Plautius: Tacitus, Ann. 13, 32; Suetonius, Cl. 24, 3. Rise and fall of insignia: A. E. Gordon (1952) 305–30; Maxfield (1981) 105–8; CIL XI, 5212 =
ILS 1058 (last known award, 138 ce). “Undeserved” awards: Dio Cassius
58, 4, 8; Tacitus, Ann. 12, 3; 13, 53.
7. Brennan (1996) 329 (Caius Cicereius was a former scribe).