Cassius Dio Greek Intellectual and Roman Politician Edited by Carsten Hjort Lange Jesper Majbom Madsen LEIDEN | BOSTON For use by the Author only | © 2016 Koninklijke Brill NV Contents Historiography of Rome and Its Empire Series vii Carsten Hjort Lange and Jesper Majbom Madsen Notes on Contributors viii Between History and Politics 1 Carsten Hjort Lange and Jesper Majbom Madsen Part 1 Cassius Dio and the Transformation from Republic to Empire 1 Cassius Dio’s Sulla: Exemplum of Cruelty and Republican Dictator 13 Gianpaolo Urso 2 Cassius Dio on Pompey’s Extraordinary Commands 33 Marianne Coudry 3 The Sources of Cassius Dio for the Roman Civil Wars of 49–30 BC 51 Richard Westall 4 Cassius Dio and the Foreigners 76 Søren Lund Sørensen 5 Mock the Triumph: Cassius Dio, Triumph and Triumph-Like Celebrations 92 Carsten Hjort Lange Part 2 Imperial History in Cassius Dio 6 Cassius Dio and the City of Rome 117 Alain M. Gowing 7 Criticising the Benefactors: The Severans and the Return of Dynastic Rule 136 Jesper Majbom Madsen For use by the Author only | © 2016 Koninklijke Brill NV vi contents 8 Dio the Dissident: The Portrait of Severus in the Roman History 159 Jussi Rantala 9 Cassius Dio’s Secret History of Elagabalus 177 Josiah Osgood Part 3 Rhetoric and Speeches in Cassius Dio 10 Fictitious Speeches, Envy, and the Habituation to Authority: Writing the Collapse of the Roman Republic 193 Christopher Burden-Strevens 11 Speeches in Dio Cassius 217 Andriy Fomin 12 Dio, Caesar and the Vesontio Mutineers (38.34–47): A Rhetoric of Lies 238 Adam Kemezis 13 Parrhêsia in Cassius Dio 258 Christopher Mallan 14 Historiography and Panegyric: The Deconstruction of Imperial Representation in Cassius Dio’s Roman History 276 Verena Schulz 15 Cassius Dio – Pepaideumenos and Politician on Kingship 297 Brandon Jones 16 Alexander the Great in Cassius Dio 316 Jesper Carlsen Bibliography 333 Index 359 For use by the Author only | © 2016 Koninklijke Brill NV Mock the Triumph: Cassius Dio, Triumph and Triumph-Like Celebrations1 Carsten Hjort Lange, Aalborg University lange@cgs.aau.dk In C.H. Lange & Jesper M. Madsen (eds.) (2016) Cassius Dio: Greek Intellectual and Roman Politician (Brill's Historiography of Rome and its empire Series 1), Brill Academic Publishers, Pp.92-114. To consider the Roman war ritual of the triumph within the historical narrative of Cassius Dio can at times be an extremely frustrating process, as he often appears quite indifferent to events of great historical significance. The explanation lies in both Dio himself and his sources, although it is principally the former. Dio’s primary concern remained a sustained historical narrative, and his discussions of rituals such as the triumph were coloured by the need to support that narrative: on Caesar, for example, the changing line on civil war triumphs reflects Caesar’s slide into megalomania, while on the post-Mutina developments he is primarily interested in the Senate’s breach with Young Caesar (see below). My question is accordingly quite simple: in what ways does Dio, himself a Roman citizen, consul, and senator, approach triumphal matters in his historical narrative and interpret the ius triumphandi and customary practices. Itgenshorst is right to emphasise that a large proportion of the surviving descriptions of the republican triumph are written during the Empire. She focuses on the story in Zonaras – from Dio – of Furius Camillus’ triumph after he had conquered Veii in 396 BCE (2005, 19-22; see below). She considers the Greek accounts to be extremely vague and proposes reading them in terms of Max Weber’s idealtypus rather than as descriptions of real historical events.2 Consequently, she dismisses Dio. At the outset it seems strange that she focuses exclusively on early triumphs (before 1 All translations are those of the Loeb Classical Library, with minor corrections. 2 Cf. Lundgreen 2011, 180, and n. 516. 1 200 BCE) – as we find similar problems in the Latin evidence for early triumphs (mainly Livy). Descriptions of later triumphs, however, are full of specific details.3 Beard (2007, 271) suggests “In its simplest terms, ‘good emperors’ held proper triumphs for proper victories, while ‘bad emperors’ held sham ceremonies for empty victories”. Investigating the triumphal narrative of Dio, this seems too simplistic an approach. Dio often changes his attitude to the triumphal ritual during the course of his narrative. This may partly be due to his evidence, but also down to his working method. Dio spent ten years gathering his material for the period to Severus’ death, and another twelve years composing his work (73[72].23.5).4 This may at least partly help us explain the various responses to the triumph in his narrative. Dio had a clear understanding as to what a triumph was.5 The triumphal ritual itself may be described as follows:6 (1) receive a provincia while holding iustum imperium, (2) win a battle/war, (3) secure peer support for one’s request to be granted a 3 Neither do I accept Itgenshorst’s proposal to restrict triumphal discussions to contemporary evidence only. Imperial historiographers drew on Republican sources in their writings about the past. See Lange 2009, 125-157, on Dio as a comparatively reliable source on the Augustan age – he probably used the acta of the Senate. The classical and very dismissive article is Schwartz 1899, with later corrections mainly by Millar 1964. See now also Simons 2009. For a detailed critique of Itgenshorst’s approach, see Östenberg 2007. 4 Kemezis (2014, 90-145) analyses the Roman History as Dio’s commentary to the Severan period. Even if there is no denying the value of this approach, there is always the problem that it underestimates the historian at work; Dio also tried to understand Roman history on its own terms. 5 Beard (2007, 85-92) on what the slave uttered to the triumphator is in fact a textbook example of how we should approach Cassius Dio: apparently without realizing it, she shows that ‘Remember you are a man’ is an unreliable Christian addition, but that there is good reason to think that the slave said ‘Look behind you’ (so Dio/Zonar. 7.21). So the Dio excursuses are invaluable evidence for this customary practice, although they must be handled critically. In particular, on each of Dio’s points one must consider whether the practice reported is genuinely customary or an ancient scholar’s ‘invented tradition’. 6 Cf. Lange & Vervaet 2014, esp. 10. On the issue of how we define the Roman triumph, see Östenberg 2009, 2-6, with references. See also: Itgenshorst 2005, esp. 180–188; Beard 2007, esp. 2 triumph, (4) conduct a visually spectacular triumphal parade, followed by (5) the triumph’s commemorative afterlife. While the rules of triumph were elastic, the ritual itself often varied much more than we have been traditionally made to believe, with remarkable individual variation. This is apparent in Dio, and, crucially, he also drew attention to divergences from customary practices. A catalogue of triumph: Zonaras 7.21: References to triumphs in Dio derive in part from his concern with Roman political institutions. Zonaras’ introductory treatment of the triumph (7.21) is of immense interest – his summary of the early books of Dio include descriptions of various magistracies and the triumph.7 Dio perhaps also provided such digressions on other institutions that Zonaras did not reproduce.8 Studies of these passages, most notably Urso (2005) and Simons (2009), tend to focus on the magistracies and disregard the triumph. Zonaras in fact has remarkably few references to triumphs: he does however 187–218; Pittenger 2008; Goldbeck and Mittag 2008; Lundgreen 2011, 178–253; Rich 2013; Rich 2014; Vervaet 2014, 68-130; Lange & Vervaet 2014. The classic treatments are Mommsen 1887, 126-136; Ehlers 1939; Richardson 1975; Develin 1978. Beard’s book, dominant in contemporary debates about the triumph, is sadly overly sceptical about the possibility of reconstructing customary practises and a major issue with her book is the lack of interest in chronology and historical development (2007, 266-272: When was a triumph a triumph?). Recently Vervaet (2014, 120, n. 157) has made the point that all who ever celebrated a public triumph under the Republic before Caesar’s legates (Munda 45 BCE: Fabius and Pedius, who had no independent imperium) did so because of victories won when holding an independent imperium. This concerns a fact of constitutional history regardless of, and distinct from, the issue of whether the Senate authorized a public triumph or an ovation. Mommsen (1887, 134) emphasizes that in order to keep triumphhunting within acceptable limits it was customary to request a triumph. 7 Ioannes Zonaras, whose twelfth-century Epitome Historiarum, synopsises Dio. See Millar 1964, 1- 4, 195-203; Swan 2004, 37; Rich 1990, 18-19; Simons 2009, 25-32. He seems at times to have paraphrased Dio rather freely (and shortened him as well). 8 Zonar. 7.9.8-9 may preserve traces of such an excursus on the patricians. And of course briefer institutional excursuses were frequent. Zonaras clearly reproduced the excursuses on the magistrates and the triumph so extensively because of the interest of these topics for Byzantine readers (cf. Tzetzes’ letter, see below). 3 preserve much of what in Dio’s original would have been a substantial excursus on the subject at 7.21. Surviving fragments of Dio prove that he referred to more triumphs than recorded in Zonaras’ Epitome of Histories – for example, that of Furius Purpureo in 200 BCE for whom Dio (frg. 57.81) preserves an account of the triumphal dispute, while Zonaras (9.15) reports only the campaign. In the context of the triumph of Furius Camillus, Zonaras (7.21) provides us with a basic description of the Roman triumph. This description, surprisingly, has received only cursory and incidental comments, often outright dismissal (as above) in recent scholarship on the triumph. However, the excursus is one of our main accounts of what actually occurred during a triumph, and accordingly deserves as much attention as does Valerius Maximus on the ius triumphandi (2.8.7, cf. Joseph. BJ 7.121-157). Therefore, I wish to propose that Zonaras 7.21, probably drawn from Dio’s account of Camillus, is fundamental to understanding his views on triumphal history and is an indispensable description of the customary Roman triumph. What Dio said about Camillus’ triumph itself remains obscure, because Zonaras uses Plutarch’s life of Camillus as his primary source at this point, with Dio just as a supplement. It is only the excursus that is taken from Dio, which is a general account of the triumph and not specific to Camillus. We can be sure that Dio will have gone into some detail about Camillus’ triumph before proceeding to the excursus. He must have mentioned the novel white horses, and we can infer from the later reference at Zon. 9.24.3 that he mentioned Camillus’ prayer that an evil should befall only him and not the state, thus portending his exile. Furthermore, Zonaras is not our only source for Dio’s triumph excursus: it’s also drawn upon by John Tzetzes, in his Letters (Epistula 107, addressed to an emperor recommending the triumphal ritual for possible adoption) and (more briefly) and in his historical poem Chiliades 13.43-53. Tzetzes reproduces material from Dio’s early books a number of times. In the letter, he explicitly refers to ‘Dio Cocceianus’ as his source, thus confirming that Dio is the source of Zonaras’ excursus. Turning to the content of 7.21: after a worthy and great military victory the commander was saluted imperator by his soldiers, adding laurel to his fasces. A laurelled letter was sent to the city, announcing the victory. Returning to Rome, the victor would seek a positive vote from the Senate and people, confirming the title and allowing him to triumph. If still in office, his magistracy continued until the end of the celebration, whereas if this was not the case, and his term had expired, he “received some other title”, as no private individual was allowed to triumph (cf. Cass. 4 Dio frg. 57.56; Val. Max. 2.8.5; Lundgreen 2011, 221-222). Dio (Zonar. 8.17) emphasises the triumph as a ritual to end wars,9 citing the naval triumph of Lutatius Catulus (Valerius Falto also received one) in 241 BCE after the victory that ended the First Punic War.10 The people were then called together (contio) by the triumphator, who appeared with a laurel crown on his head and a branch in his right hand.11 The actual spectacle followed: relatives and children would accompany the triumphator in the chariot or on horses.12 There follows a description of the procession: at the head were the spoils of war, including figural representations of forts, cities, mountains, rivers, lakes, and seas,13 and its movements towards the Forum Romanum, where captives were executed (Cic. Verr. 5.77; Ov. Ex Ponto 2.1.41-6; Plut. Mar. 12.3-4). The procession ended on the Capitoline, where certain rites were performed and offerings were made. The victor then departed to his home, accompanied by flutes and pipes. Zonaras/Dio ends his introductory digression on the triumph as follows: “Such were the triumphs in olden times; but staseis and dynasteiai effected many changes in them” αῦ α ( α ἦ α π α α· α αἵ υ α ῖα π ῖ α ἐ α ἐπ᾿ ῖ ).14 The Late Republic is singled out as the main period of change. In a well-known passage, Dio describes dynasteiai (52.1.1): “Such were the achievements of the Romans and such their suffering under the kingship (ἔ 9 α ᾳ), under the Republic ( α ᾳ), and under the On triumph and closure, see Westall 2014. Many triumphs of course did not end wars, an issue discussed at length by Rich (2014). Ending one’s war was never a requirement for a triumph, except, at least at certain points, for those who did not bring their army home. 10 See Dart & Vervaet 2011, esp. 271-272; Dart & Vervaet 2014, 56-57. 11 Decorations were presented to the soldiers – the triumph was after all a military ritual, including a naval crown for naval victories. On military decorations, see Maxfield 1981. On naval triumphs, see Lange & Rich forthcoming. 12 Cf. the quadriga on the Nicopolis relief from the Victory Monument of Augustus; see Pollini 2012, 192, illustration. 13 See Östenberg 2009, 189-261. 14 Dio prefers epinikia and niketeria, and avoids thriambos, the normal Greek equivalent for ‘triumph’ – characteristic of his scrupulousness over Greek equivalents for Roman official terminology, often avoiding the established equivalents. 5 dominion of a few [dynasteiai], during a period of seven hundred and twenty-five years”).15 The statement about later innovations through staseis and dynasteiai will be Dio’s own, not that of his sources, and, as noted above, presages his later treatment. Zonaras/Dio then returns to Camillus. The excursus is about procedure: what happened before, during and after a triumph. The excursus also specifies the following requirements (cf. mainly Livy 38.50.1-3, who is less rigid – and thus to be preferred – than Valerius Maximus 2.8.4): that the commander had to be a magistrate or exmagistrate, and a privatus could not triumph; and that the triumph had to be approved by the Senate and the people. The latter statement is erroneous, as in fact the popular vote was only required for pro-magistrates who needed a grant of imperium for the day.16 Further requirements may also have been specified by Dio, but omitted by Zonaras/Tzetzes. The medieval authors were primarily concerned with the ceremony itself. An obvious question is also the source(s) Dio used for the triumph excursus. It does seem likely that Dio was following an antiquarian account at this point: there are too many specific details for the account to be only his general knowledge. In this case we should surely be thinking of a late republican or early imperial writer, perhaps someone like Varro. As mentioned above, Itgenshorst (2005, 21) argues that although the account of Camillus is the longest surviving description of the republican triumph, it is disappointing, as it lacks detail of the actual triumph of Camillus. However, as in the other digressions this account includes an overall description of the triumph, while parallel evidence corroborates much of the detail provided in the narrative. Most intriguingly, the final sentence emphasises triumphal procedure, that is, what actually happened in a triumph. This is also an honest description of the political and historical developments during the Late Republic. It does not appear to be a description of Dio’s own days, but rather a description of a historical period with great interest for him. It emphasises how the spectacle should have been carried out: the excursus describes a regular practice which it claims was followed ‘in the olden times’, and then says that many innovations occurred in the time of 15 For this construct [dynasteiai], based on the differences between Dio’s republican and late- republican narratives, see Kemezis 2014, 90-149. Dynasteiai begins at some point during the second Century BCE, for which Dio’s books are fragmented, and ends with Actium (Kemezis 2014, 102; 107, n. 36 with scholarship on dynasteiai). The term starts to become common in the fragments about the Gracchi (109). 16 Rich 2014, 210. 6 staseis and dynasteiai; this is surely also implying a negative view of these innovations, as the consequences of political instability and tokens of the gradual collapse of the demokratia.17 Presumably under dynasteiai, according to Dio, triumphs become expressions of the dynast’s power rather than expressions of popular approval. Staseis may here however refer to civil war triumphs. Undeniably, Dio’s triumphal catalogue reveals the problematic triumphal history of Rome, not just emphasising the problems of the Late Republic, in a manner reminiscent of Livy. The more problematic a triumph, the more fascinating it becomes, prompting longer descriptions in our evidence. Republican triumphs: The first triumphal entry by Zonaras drawn from Dio (7.19)18 is the case of Valerius Poplicola and Horatius Barbatus in 449 BCE, who were denied triumphs and thanksgivings by the patricians and the Senate, even though they had been victorious in war. The triumph was in the end granted to them by the people (Degrassi 1947, 66-67, 537-538; Livy 3.63.8-11), the first occasion upon which a triumph was voted by the people without senatorial authorisation (cf. 10.37.10; Dion. Hal. 11.50.1). Triumphs without senatorial backing are also otherwise attested beyond the Alban Mount triumphs (see Lange 2014). In 223 BCE the consuls Flaminius and Furius Philus secured triumphs from the popular assembly instead of the Senate (Zonar. 8.20.7; Degrassi 1947, 78-79, 550); while in 143 BCE Appius Claudius Pulcher triumphed without approval and with the opposition of tribunes (Oros. 5.4.7; Suet. Tib. 2.4: usque in Capitolium. See Lundgreen 2011, 239-243). Claudius had 17 Dio wrote in the realist tradition of Thucydides; cf. 52.14.3, emphasising the realities of power; the consequences which come from the things themselves ( …ἀ 18 αἐ α π π π ὸ π π α ὀ α α). Zonaras reports the third triumph of Romulus (7.4), the two triumphs of Valerius Publicola (7.12- 13), and all three triumphs of Camillus (7.21, 23-4), but his source for these notices is not Dio, but Plutarch, his primary source on these individuals. 7 killed 5,000 enemies in a single battle but lost as many of his own men.19 He was accompanied to the Capitoline by his sister, a Vestal virgin, thus making it a sacrilege for the tribunes to impose their veto (Suet. Tib. 2.4; Val. Max. 5.4.6). The case of Claudius is also mentioned by Dio (frg. 74.1-2): ὅ Κ α αὶ , α ῃ π ἐ υ ἂ ὶ φα ᾳ ἐ ἐ φ αἀ α ῳπ α, ἐ α π α ὅ ἐ ὥ ᾽ π ἐπ α α, α π πα ἀ α α αα ,ἀ ᾽ ὖ αὶ α π α α. Claudius, even though he realised perfectly well that he had won no victory, nevertheless even then displayed such arrogance as not to say a word in either the Senate or the assembly about the triumph; but acting as if it belonged to him in any case, even if no one should vote to that effect, he asked for the necessary funds. This and similar cases more than anything show that there was debate in ancient times on the question of granting of triumph; moreover it reveals that there was a focus on exceptional cases. Dio concludes that there was no victory in a non-legal war, as there was no pretext for war, and thus no triumph should have been granted. Seen from Dio’s senatorial point of view, the right way to claim a triumph was to request one (from the Senate). No doubt Dio included notices of other triumphs that do not survive in the extant fragments, but he tended to think of departures from the norm as mainly occurring in the years of staseis and dynasteiai. Zonaras did not have access to Dio for the period starting in 145 BCE and so omitted it altogether from his history; he then used Plutarch exclusively down to the death of Caesar, when he reverted to Dio. As a result, we depend just on the fragments for our knowledge of Dio’s account of the period from 145 to 69, when Dio’s own text becomes extant. Dio must have referred to triumphs at a number of points in this part of his work, and his treatment of triumphal innovations resulting from stasis surely started in this period. Later allusions give us some indications: 48.4.5 implies 19 Val. Max. 2.8.1; cf. Oros. 5.4.7. The historicity of the “law” is unconvincingly denied by Beard 2007, 209-210. See also Lundgreen 2011, 217-219. Rich 2014, 235 suggests that they are not a statute law, but merely informal customary expectations. See also Lange 2011, 620-621. 8 treatment of Marius’ first triumph on the first day of his second consulship; 36.25.3 clearly points back to a discussion of Pompeius’ first two triumphs that contravened the restriction of triumphs to those who had held magistracies. The Late Republic saw a transformation of the Roman political system which led to a corresponding transformation in the function and character of the triumph, with triumphal processions of unparalleled grandeur being celebrated by the leading dynasts. This development is unsurprisingly evident in Dio. In 62 BCE Caecilius Metellus Creticus triumphed over Crete (36.17a (Xiphilinus); Degrassi 1947, 84-85, 566). According to our evidence, including Dio (cf. Vell. Pat. 2.40.5; cf. 34.2; Livy Per. 99; App. Sic. 6; Flor. 2.13.9), Pompeius sought to claim a share in his triumph, as he had commanded the sea and inland territories, even though Metellus had put an end to the war. Victories in war were central in the establishing of commanders’ pre-eminence in Roman politics (McCormick 1986: “triumphal rulership”). Dio’s main argument is that Creticus did in fact end the war on the island and thus deserved the title. In 36.18.3 he adds that Metellus conquered the whole island, which had never been under foreign control. However, the Principal enemies did not march in his triumph, as they were taken by Pompeius Magnus. Pompeius claimed that he, and not Metellus, had secured the settlement with them.20 Beard (2007, 34) is right to emphasise that Dio makes us reflect on the concepts of victory and defeat. This was a highly political game. In 77 BCE Pompeius went to Spain to fight the enemies of Sulla. He returned in 71 BCE to celebrate his Spanish triumph together with Metellus Pius. The enemy commanders had been Roman: Sertorius and Perperna (Degrassi 1947, 565), making this an issue of triumph and civil war.21 We may doubt whether Dio will have stated explicitly in the excursus that triumphs could (in principle) not be held for a civil war: he will have taken it for granted. Dio has Pompeius give a speech in which he explains his triumph. He was entrusted with the command against Sertorius when no one else was willing or able to undertake it. As a result he celebrated a triumph, contrary to custom (36.25.1-3; this was his rei publicae causa). One might suspect that the problem was the civil war victory, but it clearly refers to the fact that Pompeius was not even a senator. Parallel 20 Cf. Marius and Catulus in 101 BCE, see Lange 2016b, esp. 75-76. 21 See Lange 2013; Lange 2016b; Östenberg 2014; Havener 2014. 9 evidence, however, does suggest that the civil war context was the problem.22 The speech provides us with Dio’s assessment of the matter.23 Crucially, in the speech the enemy is even mentioned by name – a detail usually omitted in a civil war;24 only the problem of not being eligible is emphasised. Dio is unconcerned with the civil war triumph of Pompeius. Other issues are at stake, to which I shall return below. Dio reports that a Senate decree of 48 BCE had authorised Caesar to fight the Pompeians in Africa and to be arbiter of war and peace (42.20.1). There is no parallel evidence, but also no reason to doubt his claim. He also suggests that the Senate even voted the triumph to Caesar, over Juba and the Romans fighting with him, before the war had begun. After the victory, they voted 40 days’ supplicationes and, echoing Camillus, the right to triumph with white horses – thus reflecting back on the negative assessment in 7.21.25 Dio discusses excessive honours being given to Caesar (44.34), including the right to wear triumphal dress and the right to offer spolia opima, as if he had slain an enemy commander. These honours were awarded to Caesar without prior victory. This was a development in absurdum. Similarly, the Senate, according to Dio (68.28.3; 29.2), later granted Trajan permission to celebrate as many triumphs as he wished in connection with his eastern campaign 116-117 CE. The triumph had become a medium for negotiating status and prestige under a monarchy. 22 Flor. 2.10.1; Plin. HN 7.96. Sadly, the notice of Pompeius’ and Metellus’ triumphs is lost in the Fasti Triumphales, but they were most likely specified just as ex Hispania. 23 On speeches: Rich 1990, 11–12; see Burden-Strevens, Fomin and Mallan in this volume. 24 See Lange 2016b. 25 Cass. Dio 42.20.5; 43.14.3. See Weinstock 1971, 68–71 on the white horses; cf. Cass. Dio 52.13.3. Concerning civil war and triumph, the fact remains that the principle that triumphs and related ceremonies should not be held for civil wars is well attested in connection with the triumphs of Caesar, as mentioned by Dio (42.18.1, 43.42.1; cf. Val. Max. 2.8.7). A commander could, however, in practice expect to triumph after a civil war victory if it could also be represented as being over a foreign enemy, even if the foreign nature of the enemy was dubious at best. Significantly, the civil aspect of the war did not have to be denied (Lange 2013; Lange 2016b). 10 Caesar’s final triumph, following his defeat of Pompeius’ sons at Munda in 45 BCE, had been over only civil opponents.26 This is seemingly a new departure, triumphing after an unequivocally civil war victory, and it is said to have provoked disapproval.27 Caesar is judged by Dio as the man who, contrary to custom, associated triumph with civil war. In fact this was a development already well under way.28 During the Social War Pompeius Magnus’ father triumphed de Asculaneis Picentibus (Degrassi 1947, 84-85, 563; see now mainly Dart 2014, on the war of the Socii). P. Ventidius, consul suffectus in 43 BCE and triumphator in 38 BCE over the Parthians (Degrassi 1947, 86-87, 569; Cass. Dio 49.21.1-3), was led in this triumph (Val. Max. 6.9.9; Vell. Pat. 2.65.3; Plin. HN 7.135; Gell. 15.4.3; Cass. Dio 43.51.5; 49.21.3). The war of the Socii, together with the MariusSulla civil war, prepared the way for later events: fighting battles in Italy itself, whether the enemy was Roman or allies, was no longer impossible. Such precedent is only a short step away from triumphs in civil war. Dio tells the story twice, but he emphasises the man, not the “civil war” triumph. This may be a lack of interest on his part, or perhaps reflects the reality that civil war gradually stopped being an anomaly and became a normal feature of Roman political and social life as a result of the growth of Empire. In book 43 Dio emphasises that Lepidus was granted a triumph “although Lepidus had conquered no foes nor so much as fought with any, the pretext being that he had been present at the exploits of Longinus and of Marcellus” (43.1.2; cf. 48.4.2-3, on the undeserved triumph of Lucius Antonius).29 Cicero (Phil. 5.40-41) mentions a proposal he made to honour Lepidus because he had avoided civil war with Sextus Pompeius (in 44 BCE, celebrated in 43), the last of Pompeius’ sons in Spain.30 This served as a precedent for the joint ovation of Antonius and Young Caesar in 40 BCE (cf. the ovation of Caesar in 44: see below). Dio (45.10.6) claims that Sextus Pompeius had his fathers’ estate in Spain restored to him. We may wonder whether Dio is downplaying the civil war 26 Livy Per. 116; Vell. Pat. 2.56; Suet. Iul. 37; Plin. HN 14.97; Quint. Inst. 6.3.61; Plut. Caes. 56.7; Cass. Dio 43.42.1-3; Flor. 2.13.88; Sumi 2005, 63–64. Triumph 46 BCE: Cass. Dio 43.22.1. 27 Plut. Caes. 56; Cass. Dio 43.42.1. 28 See Lange 2013. 29 Lepidus’ triumph: Degrassi 1947, 86–87, 567; Fasti Barb., see Degrassi 1947, 342–343. 30 Lepidus in Spain: Vell. Pat. 2.63.1; App. B Civ. 2.107; 3.46; Cass. Dio 43.51.8; 45.10.6. For Sextus Pompeius’ restitution and subsequent proscription, see Manuwald 2007, 683-695, esp. 686 (Phil. 5.39-40); Welch 2012, esp. 134-136. 11 settlement, or, more probably, whether Lepidus’ triumph was called ex Hisp., thus giving the pretext of a foreign victory. No incident reveals this development from foreign to civil war more clearly than the triumph of Decimus Brutus after Mutina (Cass. Dio 46.40.1), granted in connection with a civil war in Italy itself. Cicero was happy to support Decimus Brutus’ triumph, but in the end Brutus never celebrated it, as he never returned to Rome.31 As a result no triumph was recorded on the Fasti Triumphales. Havener (2014, esp. 166) rightly points out that there was no prolonged debate about the triumph of Decimus Brutus – at least nothing is recorded in our evidence, which includes a brief statement by Dio. He is only surprised that Young Caesar did not receive any appropriate honours. Dio provides the context: not only did the Senate grant Decimus Brutus a triumph, they intrusted the fleet to Sextus Pompeius, while Marcus Brutus received Macedonia and Cassius received Syria. Significantly, in trying to answer why Dio ignores the civil war aspect of Brutus’ triumph, the answer seems to be that on the post-Mutina developments he is primarily interested in the Senate’s breach with Young Caesar, and thus the propriety of their voting Decimus Brutus a triumph is of lesser interest. The joint ovation of Antonius and Young Caesar in 40 is also relevant here: the Fasti Triumphales entry mentions neither a foreign foe, nor indeed any foe, and a similar entry was made for Antonius (Degrassi 1947, 86-87, 568; cf. 342-343 (Fasti Barberiniani). An ovation was granted because the two triumvirs made peace with one other. Precedents did exist: there was neither victory nor enemy in Caesar’s 44 BCE ovans ex monte Albano (Cass. Dio 44.4.3; Suet. Iul. 79; Degrassi 1947, 86-87, 567), nor in the Lepidus affair in Spain. Yet surprisingly Dio is more taciturn here (48.31.3): the “victors” moved across the pomerium in triumphal dress and on horseback “as if at a triumph” (ἐ ᾽ ὖ ἐπ ἵππ α ὺ ὥ π ἐ ἐπ ὶ ἐ α α ). In this case it clearly was a matter of concern and, although it was mentioned on the Fasti Triumphales and thus officially recognised as a triumph in Augustan times at least, in his mind this was not a real triumph/ovation. Nevertheless, he was right that these examples represented a new kind of triumph altogether. 31 Cic. Ad Brut. 1.3.4; 1.5.1; Livy Per. 119; Vell. Pat. 2.62.4; Cass. Dio 46.40.1 and a supplication of fifty days: Cic. Phil. 14.36-38; 14.11; 14.29; Cass. Dio 46.38.1-2; Fam. 11.18.3; App. B Civ. 3.74; Cass. Dio 46.39.3: suggesting 60 days as the only source. 12 Another fascinating late republican development involves triumphs and triumphal celebrations outside Rome. Dio mentions that Sextus Pompeius celebrated victory games, probably in 42 BCE.32 As for an interpretation of the adjective epinikios: “victory” games in a Roman setting are “triumphal” games.33 Since ta epinikia is Dio’s standard term for a triumph, this is the clear implication. Gowing (1992, 185) considers this a mock triumph and he rightly points out that there was no mention of triumph in Appian, although an imperator coin may show Dio to be right (RRC 511/1). But even if this may not have been officially sanctioned, Sextus Pompeius may have regarded it as a triumph – unable to return to Rome to celebrate, this ceremony served as an alternative. Alternatively, Sextus Pompeius may have been staking a claim to hold a triumph when he eventually returned to Rome following the restoration of the res publica, and in the meantime was holding a triumph-like celebration. The question remains as to whether Dio accepted the theai epinikioi as a triumph. Dio was concerned with the customary observances of the triumph, and it would be surprising had he accepted such a very different celebration as constituting triumph. It is nevertheless striking that he repeatedly comments on observance or breach of triumphal custom by emperors (Augustus, Claudius, Nero: see below).34 32 48.19.1: “After this Sextus occupied the whole of the island and put Bithynicus to death on the charge that he had plotted against him. He also produced triumphal spectacles and held a naval battle of the captives in the strait close to Rhegium itself”. 33 Parallel evidence: Cass. Dio 36.25; 37.21; 49.40.3; 51.5.4; 51.7.3; 54.31.4; 54.33.5; 55.10.3; 55.28.4; 56.1.2; 58.4.8; 60.8.6; 60.20.4; 60.23.2; 61[60].31.7; 66.20.3; cf. Vell. Pat. 2.56.1-2. 34 At several later points Dio remarks on features of individual triumphs or triumph-related matters as being in accordance with or contrary to ‘custom’ (to nomizomenon or to nenomismenon). Some of these certainly refer back to the excursus and some others may refer to points made in the excursus but omitted by Zonaras/Tzetzes. The passages are: 36.25.3 (Pompeius triumphing as a private citizen); 37.6.2 (Pompeius giving the captive Tigranes the title king (or king of kings?) in his triumph); 37.40.2 (Antonius’ salutation); 51.21.9 (Young Caesar’s triumphs in accord with custom except for magistrates following him); 55.5.1 (Augustus dedicating laurel in temple of Jupiter Feretrius); 60.23.1 (Claudius climbing the temple steps on his knees: see above); 62.23.4 (Nero). Similar, but with a different formulation, is 37.21.1: Pompeius’ triumphing without his troops although this was not hosion according to the panu patria. 13 Antonius may also have celebrated a triumph in 34 BCE in Alexandria over the Armenians (49.40.3-4).35 Dio even mentions that the captured Armenians were Antonius’ superiors, as they refused to address Cleopatra and made no obeisance to her (49.40.4). Dio here is clearly mocking Antonius. Plutarch (Ant. 50.4) uses the word ethriambeusen, a standard Greek term for triumph, although Icks (forthcoming) highlights the fact that no earlier evidence mentions this Alexandrian triumph at all. However, in a situation in which Young Caesar had defeated Sextus Pompeius (36 BCE: Degrassi 1947, 86-87, 569) and won in Illyria (33 BCE: Degrassi 1947, 570) Antonius clearly felt the need to respond.36 He conquered Armenia, probably to counter what he had lost during the Parthian campaign. Antonius is only mentioned on the Fasti Triumphales for the joint ovation with Young Caesar for avoiding civil war (40 BCE: Degrassi 1947, 86-87, 568), while even Lepidus had two triumphs to show.37 Dio speaks of this ritual in similar terms to his reference to Sextus’ celebration (as above). His language here (49.40.3: en epinikiois tisin, ‘in a sort of triumph’) is closer to acknowledging it as a triumph than is the case for Sextus, and is not far from Plutarch’s ethriambeusen. Dio’s description certainly does suggest a Roman triumph: the procession is triumphal, with Antonius in his chariot, spoils of war and the defeated enemy are present. It is obvious that Dio is negative towards the presence of Cleopatra:38 he is clearly mocking Antonius for following a foreign woman, and this may be the reason for his dismissal, in contrast to Young Caesar and Sextus Pompeius. In Alexandria Antonius proclaimed Cleopatra Queen of Kings and Caesarion the King of Kings (49.41.1). He then sent a despatch to Rome; no doubt this was similar to a 35 Vell. Pat. 2.82.3-4; Plut. Ant. 50.6; cf. Pelling 1988, 241, dismissing this as a triumph, and instead suggesting a Dionysiac procession. Levick 2010, 43 talks of a parody of a Roman triumph. 36 See Ober 2001 for a fine analysis of the political and military situation after the death of Caesar. He rightly emphasises that all might have been different had Antonius not suffered defeat against Parthia. 37 47 BCE: Degrassi 1947, 566; Cass. Dio 43.1.2, suggesting that nothing was conquered and that he had not fought an enemy, the result being that only money from plundered allies was sent to Rome. 43 BCE: Degrassi 1947, 86-87, 567. 38 Cf. Fulvia and the triumph of Lucius Antonius: Cass. Dio 48.3-14; 48.4 on the unmerited triumph of L. Antonius: Lucius claims a victory over Alpine tribes, even though he had held no command in the region. Fulvia’s favour in the end secured the triumph. See also Gowing 1992, 79. 14 commander’s quest for a triumph, even though he had in fact already celebrated the ritual on his own accord. Antonius required the Senate to ratify his acta in the East, and thus settle his affairs. But the Senate certainly never voted on this triumph. Dio may thus be right that he wanted ratification in Rome, although courtesy of Domitius Ahenobarbus and Sosius the despatches were not read in public. According to Dio, Antonius’ triumphal despatch was not publicised due to intervention by Young Caesar (49.41.5), which may at least in part explain the lack of early evidence. This may seem peculiar, as Young Caesar could have made great capital from Antonius’ breaching of custom. Antonius could not return to Rome to celebrate any triumph, but a victory was still a victory. Antonius’ despatch to the Senate, suppressed by Young Caesar (Dio 49.41.5), may however have been the traditional commander’s despatch, reporting his victory and acclamation of imperator, and requesting a supplicatio, and so indicating the intention to claim a triumph on return to Rome. Beard’s suggestion that this was Young Caesar’s propaganda is too simple.39 Whatever the case, one should not dismiss Dio out of hand so readily. The story suggests that in the political climate of the Late Republic, Young Caesar took this claim of victory by his enemy seriously.40 Antonius considered this a triumph and, as far as we know, it was in principle no different (albeit outside Italy) than the Alban Mount triumph during the Middle Republic.41 However, Dio’s addition of tisin shows that he did not after all ascribe such a claim to Antonius. To complicate matters further, Polybius (1.88.6) had used triumphal language to describe something that was not: Hamilcar Barca's victory parade 237 BCE (cf. Diodorus 16.81.4.). Polybius describes a thriambos, Greek for triumphus. Using familiar language to explain something out-of-the-ordinary. Young Caesar also celebrated peculiar triumphs: at Actium there was no enemy paraded or even mentioned as far as we know – although Cleopatra was paraded on the last day in the Egyptian triumph (Cass. Dio 51.21.7-8). In Dio there is no doubt that the war was officially declared against 39 Beard 2007, 269, and n. 30: “It is not, however, absolutely clear that Velleius’ Dionysiac procession is to be equated with the “triumphal ceremony”. See also Woodman 1983, 213-215. 40 For triumph-like celebration, see also Cass. Dio 67.7.2-4: the booty coming from the store of imperial furniture (Domitian). See also 9.6. Murison 1999, 237: “bogus triumph”. 41 Lange 2014. In some sense surprisingly, Antonius minted coins in 34 BCE, celebrating the conquest of Armenia, depicting both him and Cleopatra (RRC 1, 543). 15 Cleopatra, although all knew that in reality it was against Antonius (50.4.5: αὶ π ὸ ἐ π ἐπ α : ἅπ α π π π υ ῳ α α ὸ π ὸ Κ ῦ Κα α , π α ,ἔ ῳ αὶ π ὸ ὡ ὸ Ἀ ὸἘ υ ῖ αὶ φ α υ, (“and went to the temple of Bellona, where they performed through Caesar as fetialis all the rites preliminary to war in the customary fashion. These proceedings were nominally directed against Cleopatra, but really against Antonius”). For Dio, holding Augustus as his model emperor, it was necessary to dismiss any suggestions of wrongdoing.42 Nevertheless he does admit the very core of Augustan justification: this was a civil war. Indeed, he does echo Augustus’ own justification for the triumph by simply saying as little as possible.43 No civil war triumph is mentioned by Dio. As a result, he does appear remarkably close to the ideology of the regime in this case. Imperial triumphs: The remainder of the Augustan period witnessed a number of interesting new developments, including triumph-like celebrations and honours such as the adventus.44 Furthermore, there was the ornamenta triumphalia and the monopolisation of the triumph: with Augustus and the coming of the Principate the triumph rapidly became the exclusive prerogative of Augustus and his house. Dio is the main evidence for this development. Over a seventh of his entire work, Books 45-56, are devoted to the period from 44 BCE to 14 CE.45 The refusal of triumph is of special interest. Augustus declined triumphs in 25 BCE (Flor. 2.33.53; Cass. Dio 53.26.5; Val. Max. 2.8.3 in general on declining triumphs; Lundgreen 2011, 220) and in 20 BCE. At 54.8.3 Dio makes a mistake: the Parthian victory did not produce an ovation, as claimed by Dio, as becomes evident by looking at 42 For Dio as an advocate of the Principate as supported by the Senate, with Augustus as the model emperor, see Reinhold 1988, 12-14; Rich 1990, 13-18; contra Millar 1964, 73-118. 43 Cf. Nicopolis monument and inscription: no enemy is mentioned; see Lange 2016b, 141-153. The obvious precursor is 36: The Fasti Triumphales entry says ex Sicilia (Degrassi 1947, 86-87, 569; Fasti Barb.: Degrassi 1947: 342-343). The Res Gestae (25; 34.1) reaffirms that no enemy was mentioned. Cass. Dio 51.21.7: ἐ ὖ π ὸ ῃ Ἀ ῳ αυ α α, ἀ π ῃ Α ᾳ αῦ α π υ α α ,ἐ υ ᾳ φ (“This was the first day’s celebration. On the second day the naval victory at Actium was commemorated, and on the third the subjugation of Egypt”). 44 See Lange 2015; Rich 2015, 121-138. 45 Reinhold & Swan 1990, 156. 16 the parallel evidence (RG 4.1 and the Fasti Triumphales). Agrippa declined triumphs in 19 and 14 BCE (Cass. Dio 54.11.6; 54.24.7), as he had also done in 37 BCE (Cass. Dio 48.49.3). Dio (55.24.7-8, events in 14) is clearly wrong to suggest that people like Agrippa did not triumph after Augustus declined to triumph.46 The highly problematic triumphal celebrations of Caligula are also a good test for Dio’s assessments of the ritual. Caligula (for Dio’s negative views on Caligula, see Kleijwegt 1994) was granted a smaller triumph/ovation as if he had defeated some enemies: ὡ αὶ π υ π α α ἔ ἐπ α α α (59.16.11: “They also granted him the right to celebrate an ovation, as if he had defeated some enemies”).47 This curious honour does resemble late republican developments as already mentioned: bloodless “victories” were granted to Caesar in 44 BCE and to Antonius and Young Caesar in 40 BCE (cf. Livy 40.38; Gell. 5.6.20, 21:“dustless” and bloodless victories). However, according to Dio, Caligula despised riding on horseback on land, and preferred to ride his horse in a fashion on sea – this of course makes much better sense in relation to the ovation decree. He wanted to bridge the waters between Puteoli and Bauli, building a bridge of boats.48 In doing so Dio emphasises just how poor an emperor Caligula was: not only did he receive an ovation without a victory, but he thought so little of this traditional honour that he instead celebrated a mock show at the Bay of Baiae in contempt of the Senate. Interestingly, Dio does use the word ἐπ 46 α for the ovation (in 59.16.11 and 59.23.2 ἐπ α Cf. Rich 2014, 238 and n. 211: his calculation of triumphs covers the 22 triumphs held by senatorial commanders in 43-19 BCE, the three triumphs declined by Agrippa, the ovation and two triumphs held by Tiberius, and the ovation decreed for Drusus, a total of 29. Augustus is even credited with generosity in the award of triumphs by Cass. Dio 54.12.2; Suet. Aug. 38.1. 47 Domitian also acted as though he had won a victory against the Dacians (Cass. Dio 67.7.3: α π ὡ ἀ α ὼ ὡ ). This may at least partly be an unsubstantiated critique; Dio leaves out the war against the Chatti. An officially celebrated triumph is thus claimed by Dio to be no triumph at all (cf. Tac. Agr. 39.1; Plin. Pan. 16.3). See Schulz in this volume, who talks of counter reaction to the panegyrical discourse. 48 59.17.1; cf. Kleijwegt 1994 for parallel evidence and the differences between accounts. There are problems regarding the relative chronology for the Baiae and the English Channel “victories”. See Goldbeck forthcoming. 17 α, “the lesser triumph”).49 According to Goldbeck (forthcoming) this was Caligula showing that he could mount a triumph without the Senate and outside Rome. I shall return to this point below. Kleijwegt (1994, 656) accurately calls Dio’s account a parody of a military expedition – and we must assume this is the reason why he used the word “triumph”, even if he does not believe that it was. Dio mockingly contextualises the triumph by emphasising the warlike nature of the spectacle (59.17.1-11; cf. Amm. Marc. 16.10.1-18 on Constantius II): Caligula, in what he himself styled as the breastplate of Alexander the Great, sacrificed to Neptune and crossed the bridge with horsemen and soldiers. He then rode into Puteoli, as though in pursuit of an enemy, and rested there as if from battle. Then he returned over the bridge, carrying spoils of war, including Darius, a Parthian hostage. There followed a speech to his soldiers, who were also given money. This ceremony may relate to the idea that Caligula was styling himself as Jupiter Latiaris (Cass. Dio 59.28.5; Kleijwegt 1994, 662, n. 34). It may also have been a critique of the Senate: during the Middle Republic, an Alban Mount triumph may have appeared as poor second for a consul who had a triumph declined, but it nevertheless remained a potent display of consular authority.50 Correspondingly Caligula declined the ovation (59.16.11; 17.1). He awarded himself a special triumph, as had earlier victors when they went to the Alban Mount. This was in fact a bloodless triumph, held without senatorial backing.51 Caligula was also granted an ovation after his phoney war against the English Channel (Cass. Dio 59.25.3; Suet. Cal. 43-49: in 40 CE he entered Rome in ovation (Suet. Cal. 49.2)).52 According to 49 These are, curiously, the only times Dio uses this designation for an ovation. Elsewhere he refers to it as the triumph ‘on horseback’ (epi keletos, eph’ hippou): 44.4.3; 49.15.1; 54.8.3, 33.5; 55.2.4. Dio may well not have mentioned ovations in his Republican narrative. 50 See Lange 2014, esp. 76-77. 51 See also Winterling 2007, 120-124 on the spectacle: “Sie [the “war” and triumphal celebrations at Baiae] bedeuteten eine zeremonielle Manifestation kaiserlicher Größe” (123) and adds that this was about Caligula’s independence from the Senate (124). 52 According to Kienast (1966, 51) Caligula was granted a triumphus navalis (cf. Woods 2000, 85). This is not however supported by the ancient evidence and primarily rests on the idea that this was a naval victory. Similarly, the campaign at Actium produced a triumph, not a naval triumph. 18 Dio (59.23.2-3) it was granted by the Senate. He places the decreeing of the ovation at an early stage, before the advance to the Channel. It is likely enough that a full triumph was voted later, but in the event, as Suetonius shows, he limited himself to an ovation when re-entering the city. Dio also suggests that Caligula did not like minor honours (59.23.4) – perhaps referring to the ovation (so Goldbeck forthcoming). Goldbeck sees a contradiction here: celebrating an ovation after the Senate awarded a triumph amounted to a dismissal of Senatorial authority. This is the act of a bad emperor. Dio does indeed portray a conflict between the emperor and the Senate (59.25.4). The language echoes that of the Baiae triumph-like celebration: there was no battle, but the spectacle was meant to be battle-like. Booty, mostly shells, was taken to Rome for the triumphal procession (59.25.3-4). According to Barrett (1989) the ceremony concerned the so-called defection of Adminius, which was used as a pretext. He adds: “It might have been arranged that the submission would take place at sea, with Caligula sailing out to receive Adminius in the trireme mentioned in Dio” (137). This is supported by Suetonius (Cal. 44.2), but not by Dio. Goldbeck suggests that the original ovation was given for ending an uprising in Germania – during which, according to Dio (59.22), the governor Lentulus Gaetulicus was murdered because he was endeared to the soldiers. Whatever the case, Dio dismisses any notion of a campaign against Britain. It is at the very best the story of a triumph-like and bloodless celebration, but probably a damning critique of a mock triumph: Caligula embarked on a trireme and having sailed out a little from land, returned to his soldiers on the beach. The soldiers appear as in battle and gathered shells from the beach, as spoils of war for the triumphal procession.53 Dio emphasises the role of the Senate and their problems: praise for a trivial affair was always going to be difficult. Caligula then entered the city – Dio’s text is lost for Caligula’s return to Rome; 59.25.2-5 is Xiphilinus and we cannot trust him as evidence about how exactly Dio reported Caligula’s entry to the city – and reacted angrily towards the Senate, because he wanted divine honours. He showered the populace with money from a lofty position – many perished (59.25.5). He was even styled imperator, Germanicus, and Britannicus, as if he had subdued these countries (59.25.5a). There can be little doubt that Dio was negative towards Caligula and this is reflected in the emperor’s misuse of the Roman triumph. Barrett (1989, 138) emphasises that “A victory over Britain in such circumstances would represent in the Roman 53 See however Woods 2000, 83: “It is my argument, therefore, that when Caligula ordered his soldiers to collect the conchae, he was referring to some small boats, not seashells. The surviving tradition is simply mistaken”. This appears to be entirely unfounded. 19 mind a victory over Oceanus. Thus a symbolic collection of shells, the “booty” of Oceanus, to be part of the offering of spoils for the Capitoline, would not be out of order”. Even with Suetonius in mind this is extreme, but looking at Dio, he uses the story to criticise a poor emperor. There was no triumph for Caligula.54 In the end Claudius conquered and accordingly celebrated a triumph over Britain, which was granted by the Senate when they heard about his success.55 They also voted an annual festival and arches in both Gaul and Rome. He was also given the title Britannicus (60.22.1-2). Celebrating the actual triumph on his return home in 44 CE, Dio adds that it followed custom (60.23.1: α ὸ ) and that Claudius climbed to the Capitoline on his knees.56 Dio reports both Caesar and Claudius as climbing the steps on their knees, evidently regarding them as following the customary practice, as is explicitly stated for Claudius (43.21.1, 60.23.1). Weinstock (1971, 77) and Beard (2007, 249) regard this as an ‘invented tradition’, first practised by Caesar or Claudius. We may ask whether they are right, or was Dio correct to state that it was a standard part of the ritual. Nor did Claudius forget to honour members of the Senate who had participated in the campaign (given ornamenta triumphalia. Cf. 61[60].30.2). This was in marked contrast to Caligula (cf. Tac. Ann. 12.20). Interestingly, Dio (60.8.6) records that Claudius was granted the ornamenta triumphalia in 41 CE for the annexation of Mauretania, although he had gained no success and was not emperor when the war was finished. This is a rather curious award of a relatively minor distinction usually conferred on senatorial commanders. The honour is also mentioned by Suetonius (Claud. 17.1), who implies that it was declined. This may be a critique of an emperor who received a triumph contrary to custom. A picture emerges, with two forms of problematic triumph: firstly, a triumph-like or phoney triumph, and secondly, a triumph contrary to the mos maiorum. In the case of Nero, we have a possible “triumphal” celebration in 59 after the murder of his mother Agrippina.57 Goldbeck (forthcoming) emphasises that no ovation was celebrated. According to Dio 54 For an altogether different view, see Winterling 2009, 111. 55 See now mainly Osgood 2011 on Claudius, pages 84-106 on the expedition to Britain. 56 ‘Climbed to the Capitoline’ suggests all the way up the Clivus Capitolinus. More probably Dio means only the steps of the temple (cf. Beard 2007, 249). 57 Champlin 2003, 219-221, calls it an informal triumph. 20 the people rejoiced at the news of her murder while the Senate pretended to rejoice (what survives of Dio here is just Xiphilinus: 62[61].15.1; cf. 16.1-4; 17.1; 18.3; cf. Tac. Ann. 14.13). Nero was playing around with the ritual of triumph-like celebrations. Dio uses this to exemplify the problematic relationship between the Senate and the emperor. Of greater interest is the conflict between the Parthians and the Romans over Armenia. Tiridates, a Parthian, was installed as king of Armenia by his brother, the king of Parthia. The Romans tried to replace him, but in the end he successfully made peace with Rome, accepting the crown from the Romans. This was celebrated as a Roman victory and accordingly Nero triumphed in 63 CE (Cass. Dio 63.1-6 (Xiph.); Suet. Nero 13; Champlin 2003, 221-229; Beard 2007, 271-272). There is disagreement today on the matter of whether this was a triumph or a triumph-like celebration, but importantly, Pliny (HN 30.16: triumphus Armeniacus) and Dio (62[61].23.4) talk of triumph, albeit “contrary to custom” ( ἐπ α ἔπ πα ὸ ).58 Dio’s words echoes book 36 (36.25.3) on Pompeius Magnus, who was not a senator at the time (see above). However, we do not know exactly what Dio means by “contrary to custom” in this context. Champlin (2003, 225) emphasises that it was a triumph, as it was granted as such by the Senate. I agree, and Dio does not seem to suggest otherwise, but there nevertheless must be a reason why it was “contrary to custom”. It may refer to the procession itself. Curiously this triumph involved the enemy entering Rome, but apparently not Nero himself. The route all the way from the Euphrates was presented as a triumphal procession (Cass. Dio 63.1.2). There is no defeated enemy and Tiridates was treated with honour.59 Nero granted him the kingship of Armenia and the king paid homage (Suet. Nero 13; Cass. Dio 63.3.4-5.3; Champlin (2003, 224, n. 20) rightly points out that there must be a common source). Usually a Roman victory was presented as such, diplomatic solution or otherwise; the exception being the joint ovation of Antonius and Young Caesar, which was altogether different as both were Romans. A parallel example is the procession of Augustus in 29: Dio (51.20.2) emphasises that the senators and magistrates were relocated “contrary to custom”. The answer in the latter case may be as simple as the fact that they had been involved the fighting, a point missed by Dio, who clearly struggles to understand.60 58 Champlin accepts a triumph, contra Griffin 1984, 232-233. 59 Champlin 2003, 222-223; Beard 2007, 135 talks of a paradox. 60 Beard 2007, 240; Lange 2009, 148-156. 21 Champlin (2003, 227) may however be wrong to suggest that the parallel between the Roman triumph and Nero’s Parthian spectacle is restricted to the theatrical nature of the ceremony. Nero’s triumph should also be compared to Augustus’ Parthian settlement in 20 BCE. In 22 BCE Augustus had travelled to the East and in 20 he was voted an ovation for the Parthian settlement (Cass. Dio 54.8.3), which he declined. In 19 BCE he returned to Rome and entered the city by night (Cass. Dio 54.10.4). There was also a peace treaty between the countries, but no military victory. Importantly, Dio believes Augustus received an ovation, although he is wrong. According to Dio (54.8.3), Augustus entered the city on horseback, that is in ovation, but this cannot be, as the two ovations of Young Caesar (40 and 36 BCE) are well attested (mentioned on the Fasti Triumphales) and because Dio himself states that Augustus entered the city by night (54.10.4; Rich 1998, 77). Thus in the case of Nero, this may suggest that ‘contrary to custom’ did not mean the actual triumph itself. In 67 CE Nero celebrated his triumphal return from Greece. He entered Rome as a Greek victor, with the Senate acclaiming him “Olympic Victor”, “Pythian Victor”, “Hercules” and “our Apollo” (Suet. Nero 25; Cass. Dio 63.19-20, esp. 20.1-6; Beard 2007, 269). The procession took an alternative route, as it entered through a breach in the city walls, as did Greek victors in the Panhellenic games (63.20.1; Suet. Nero 25.1: victor in sacred games). He did however ride in the triumphal chariot of Augustus (Cass. Dio 63.20.3; Suet. Nero 25.1). The procession ended on the Palatine at the Temple of Apollo – Dio (63.20.4) in fact mentions not only the palace, but also the Capitoline. This sounds very much like a hybrid, a triumphal adventus or triumph-like return. But there is more. At 63.8 there is further detail: it becomes a story of subversion and parody, as Dio contrasts Nero’s achievements with past victors such as Flamininus and Mummius, or Agrippa and Augustus. Nero did not win victories, but drove chariots, played the lyre, acted and so forth. This was his great Greek triumph. Dio (63.8.2) is mocking Nero. According to Dio this spectacle was no triumph, even if it had clear triumphal connotations. Edwards (1994, 90) sees this as the greatest of insults to the Roman military tradition and suggest that it was a “cultural triumph”. This is as it may be, but neither Dio nor Suetonius call this parade a triumph. Champlin (2003, 230) suggests that we can look at this spectacle in three different ways: triumphal, Greek and spectacle. He concludes that this was a deliberate anti-triumph (2003, 231, but also that it was not a parody (234: “triumph of an artist”)). Icks (forthcoming) suggest that it may have been Suetonius and Dio who turned it into a parody of a triumph. He concludes that if the 22 victory had not been on the battlefield, it did not count as a victory at all. We need, however, to remember that the triumphal ritual, including the route, was a flexible spectacle. Beard (2007, 270) concludes: “It is, of course, impossible now to recover the original form of Antonius’ or Nero’s displays, let alone the intention behind them. What is clear enough, however, is that the triumph, as a cultural category as well as a ritual, had shifting and potentially controversial boundaries” (contra Lange 2012). Her conclusion that this both was and was not a triumph is altogether rather unhelpful. She is probably correct to say that Suetonius and Dio both provide hostile accounts (2007, 269). The question, however, is why. The simple answer must be that this was because, according to our evidence, this spectacle was not a triumph, even if it had clear triumphal connotations, such as the chariot of Augustus. These accounts were all part of an ongoing Roman debate about the issue of what constituted a triumph. We conclude with Vespasian and Titus. It is only mentioned briefly by Dio, and he does not include any information about the potential problems of this triumph (65[66].12.1a).61 As attested by Valerius Maximus (2.8.4), the Romans could not triumph for recovering what already belonged to the Roman people. Valerius Maximus cites this as a measure to prevent triumphs after the recovery of Capua and Fregellae. It was perhaps never applied to extra-Italian possessions. Dio was clearly not interested. As a postscript, a few comments on the reign of Septimius Severus, Dio’s contemporary, seem appropriate. The new emperor returned to Rome and entered the city, not in armour, but in civilian attire and on foot; Dio adds that this was the most splendid spectacle he ever witnessed (75[74].1.35, an imperial adventus; cf. 77[76].1.1-5: the tenth anniversary of Severus’ accession). Is he mocking the emperor? The evidence does not appear to suggest that any triumphal procession 61 See Lange 2012, 35-36; Lundgreen 2011, 221. Cf. Joseph. BJ 7.121-157, the main surviving evidence on the Flavian triumph; see Ash 2014, rightly suggesting that the perceptions of the Jewish War must have been filtered through contemporary experiences of civil war (145). There is however more to it: Tacitus (Hist. 4.4.2) has an intriguing notice, describing triumphal ornaments for Vespasian’s commander Mucianus and others, disguised by reference to a Sarmatian campaign: multo cum honore verborum Muciano triumphalia de bello civium data, sed in Sarmatas expeditio fingebatur (“In magnificent terms the senators gave Mucianus the insignia of a triumph, in reality for a civil war, although his expedition against the Sarmatae was made the pretext”) 23 actually took place during Septimius Severus’ reign, although his victory over the Parthians would warrant a triumph. After his victory Severus sent a letter to Rome and received the title Parthicus Maximus.62 The SHA explicitly states that he declined a triumph (Sev.16.6-7). This is corroborated by the striking failure of both Dio and Herodian (Hdn. 3.10.1-2) to mention a triumph in their rather detailed accounts of his return. Conclusions Hekster (2007, 101-105) suggests that mock triumphs were alternatives to fighting, military victory and (real) triumphs. Indeed, we may ask whether the Fasti Triumphales was discontinued because it became increasingly difficult to tell what was what. Moreover, the triumph changed during the Principate, as part of the new system of honours surrounding the emperor. This development, however, began during the Late Republic. These changes made it all the more difficult to determine whether a ritual was a genuine triumph or not, and at times this is clearly visible in the narrative of Dio. This is partly due to the ongoing debate on triumphal matters, and perhaps partly due to the nature of his evidence. Importantly, Dio was critical when considering a potential misuse of the Roman triumph and triumphal customs. Even if he was sometimes wrong, Dio knew a triumph when he saw one. Finally, the quality of his narrative is perhaps best tested when looking at triumph and civil war: the principle that triumphs and related ceremonies should not be held for civil wars is well attested in connection with the triumphs of Caesar, as mentioned by Dio (42.18.1, 43.42.1; Lange 2013). But Dio seems to have had no issues with Decimus Brutus’ triumph (Cass. Dio 46.40.1). Once more we must ask whether this is due to Dio or his evidence. Again, principally the former, since his interest in all these passages seems mainly in what for him is the primary narrative point. His shifting position on civil war triumphs reflects Caesar’s slide into despotism – and on Pharsalus he is focusing on the Senate’s need to change allegiance suddenly. On the post-Mutina developments he is primarily concerned with the Senate’s breach with Young Caesar – and he does not consider their voting of a triumph to Decimus Brutus to be important. 62 Hdn. 3.9.12; in 203 CE an arch was dedicated to Severus and his two sons Caracalla and Geta, and positioned in front of the Temple of Concord. It depicts the wars against Parthia (Inscription: CIL 6 1033 = ILS 425). 24 Significantly, however, Zonaras does preserve what in Dio’s original would have been a substantial excursus on the subject at 7.21 – a passage which has unfortunately been all too often misunderstood, overlooked and dismissed. Dio generally does not record many triumphs, but he does draw attention to divergences from customary procedure, particularly when they are symptomatic of political disorder, in the period of staseis and dynasteiai. This explains why he seems to have had so much more to say about triumphs in the late republican books than earlier – in so far as we can judge from Zonaras and the fragments. These tokens of the gradual collapse of the demokratia could only be resolved by the coming of Augustus, the model emperor. This is thus surely another instance of Dio attributing to the late republican period changes that most scholars assumed to have occurred only under the monarchy.63 63 See now Lange 2016b, esp. chapter 4. 25