8. A view implied by A. Alföldi (1934) 93.
9. J. S. Richardson (1975) esp. 56–7.
10. Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983), especially Cannadine (1983) on royal
ritual.
Notes to Pages 292–298
389
11. The stronger version of this point would be to argue that “cultural con-
servatism” is always a state of mind, not a description of practice. Para-
doxically, a society which did not change any of its ritual practice would
be the most innovatory of all.
12. Propertius 4, 10, 45–8; Livy 1, 10, 6, with Ogilvie (1965) 70–1; Festus
(Paulus) p. 81L (bringing [ferre] peace); Plutarch, Marc. 8, 4 (adding an
even more unlikely possibility).
13. The three celebrations: Propertius 4, 10; Valerius Maximus 3, 2, 3–5; Plu-
tarch, Rom. 16, 5–8; Marc. 8, 1–5; Festus pp. 203–4L. Debates on the nature of the ceremony (especially on eligibility and the different protocols
for different ranks of dedicator): Dumézil (1970) 166–8; Versnel (1970)
308–9; Rich (1996) 88–9, 123–6.
14. Florus, Epit. 1, 33 (2, 17, 11). Dismissed: Astin (1967) 46; Rich (1996) 89.
Versnel (1970) 309 imagines that, like others, Scipio won the spolia, but was not allowed to dedicate them (following Valerius Maximus 3, 2, 6a). Oakley
(1985) 398 hazards many now lost dedications, at least in the early period.
15. Picard (1957) 130–3; Bonfante Warren (1970a) 50–7; Versnel (1970) 306–
13.
16. Flower (2000).
17. Livy 4, 20, 5–7. The Crassus “controversy”: Dio Cassius 51, 24, 4; Rich
(1996); Flower (2000) 49–55; less skeptically, Vervaet (forthcoming). The
importance of the spolia in Augustan culture more generally: Harrison
(1989); Rich (1999); R. M. Schneider (1990). The fact that temple had
been in ruins at one stage in the first century bce, before restoration by
Augustus (Livy 4, 20, 7; Nepos, Att. 20, 3) makes the survival of any fifth-century corselet even more unlikely.
18. Overview: Hickson (1991). Forum of Augustus: above, pp. 43–4. Coins:
e.g., BMCRE 1, Augustus, 36, 384–6, 390–402. Arches: Rich (1998) 97–
115. Imperator (and acclamations): above, p. 275, and Augustus, RG 4, 1.
Laying of laurels: Dio Cassius 54, 25, 1–4; 55, 5, 1. Triumphal poetry:
Galinsky (1969) with pp. 48–52. 111–4, 142 above. A range of triumphal
ceremonies is stressed in Augustus, RG 4.
19. Tibullus 1, 7, esp. 1–22; 2, 5, 113–20. Messalinus’ insignia: Velleius Paterculus 2, 112, 2; Ovid, Pont. 2, 2, 75–90.
20. Syme (1939) 404 (lapidarily; “Nor any more triumphs”); Eck (1984) 138–9;
Hickson (1991) 138.
21. “Since they did not possess independent auspicia, none of these generals received triumphs,” Hickson (1991) 128; Brunt (1990) 447; with slightly
different emphasis, J. S. Richardson (1991) esp. 8.
Notes to Pages 298–306
390
22. Velleius Paterculus 2, 115, 2–3; Augustus, RG 4, 2.
23. Dio explicitly points to the subordinate status of the triumphing generaclass="underline"
48, 42, 4 (Cnaeus Domitius Calvus); 49, 21, 2–3 (Publius Ventidius
Bassus).
24. Or so Syme (1979) 310–1 over-confidently asserts: “An axiom stands. No
triumph can be celebrated without an antecedent acclamation, no accla-
mation taken without the possession of a pronconsul’s imperium. ” Lucius
Passienus Rufus was clearly acclaimed imperator and went on to receive
triumphal insignia: Schumacher (1985) 215–8. Rich (1990) 202 points to
examples of campaigns which one might have expected would have led to
triumphs.
25. Tacitus, Ann. 2, 41. Brunt (1974) reviews some of the (unfathomable) difficulties of the legal status of the imperial princes. J. S. Richardson (1991)
8 tries to get round such difficulties by postulating “delegation” of aus-
pices by the emperor himself. The problematic case of Drusus: Rich
(1999) 552.
26. Acclamations: Schumacher (1985) arguing strongly that Dio is “anachro-
nistic,” contra Combès (1966) 155–86. Recent discussion of auspices in
this period: Giovannini (1983) 43–4, 77–9; Rich (1996) 101–5 (quote
p. 104). The account of Ventidius’ triumph (49, 21) is a classic case of
Dio’s muddle.
27. Refusals: Dio Cassius 53, 26, 5; 54, 10, 3; 54, 31, 4; 54, 33, 5; 55, 6, 6; Florus, Epit. 2, 33 (4, 12, 53). Blazoning: Augustus, RG 4, 1.
28. Dio Cassius 54, 12, 1–2.
29. Dio Cassius 54, 24, 8.
30. Suetonius, Aug. 38, 1.
31. Pliny, Nat. 5, 36; Velleius Paterculus 2, 51, 3.
32. CIL 1, 1, 78 (2nd ed.), also noting the theory that the Egyptian and Actian victories were similar enough to count as one. Whether we should give
any significance to the omission of “palmam dedit” in the second entry is
unclear.
33. Of course, practical considerations may help to explain the quality (the
original location may have been inconveniently placed for a neat inscrip-
tion)—but can hardly be a sufficient explanation on their own. This is
only one of several mysteries about this text: the date of carving is an-
other.
34. Rüpke (2006), with the detailed point by point critique of Versnel
(2006). Though Versnel fires some mortal blows at Rüpke’s thesis, this
Notes to Pages 306–311
391
learned debate as a whole, framed in these precise chronological terms,
seems a sadly fruitless one.
35. Durante (1951) 138–43; Wallisch (1954–5) arguing also for an origin as late
as the third century bce.
36. Bonfante Warren (1970a) esp. 57–64 (seeing the “triumphal route” estab-
lished in the pre-Etruscan phase, but culminating at the Temple of Jupiter
Feretrius); Versnel (1970) esp. 255–303 (Etruscan link); 306–13 (spolia
opima); (2006) 295–304.
37. Bonfante Warren (1970a) 64–5; Holliday (2002) 65–74.
38. Etruscan triumph: ThesCRA I, 22 and 28 (Cerveteri: no. 56; Perugia: no.
57). Praeneste: Torelli (1989) 28–30; Chateigner (1989) esp. 127–30, 137–8;
Colonna (1992) 39–43. Rome: Carandini and Cappelli (2000) 322–8.
39. Florus, Epit. 1, 1 (1, 5, 6).
40. Holliday (2002) 73 nonetheless asserts that he is wearing a toga picta. The other painted scenes in the tomb do not give a clear guide to the interpretation of Vel Saties: they depict scenes of warfare from the Homeric to the
more recent Etruscan past, but only provide a general background of mil-
itary activity to the figure, who is in any case isolated from them on a sep-
arate panel.
41. Del Chiaro (1990). The condition of the object is poor and, as it is in a
Swiss private collection, re-examination is not easy. Sino (1994) discusses
a similar frieze from Murlo (Poggio Civitate), briefly reflecting (esp. 112–
3) on the difficulties of such identifications.
42. Jannot (1984) 42–4; Cherici (1993), sympathetic to the triumphal inter-
pretation (because of the ordering of the prisoners and spoils), but noting
several very different interpretations.
43. Andrén (1974) reviews several similar objects, suggesting that the
Praenestine examples depict a simple warrior scene. The interpretation of