Ida Östenberg, ‘Triumph and Spectacle. Victory Celebrations in the Late Republican Civil Wars’, in Carsten Hjort Lange & Frederik Juliaan Vervaet (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph. Beyond the Spectacle, Rome 2014, pp. 181–193.

tto t ra es Carsten Hjort Lange & Frederik Juliaan Vervaet THE ROMAN REPUBLICAN TRIUMPH BEYOND THE SPECTACLE Edizioni Quasar tto t ra es The Roman Republican Triumph Beyond the Spectacle EDITED BY CARSTEN HJORT LANGE & FREDERIK JULIAAN VERVAET EDIZIONI QUASAR ROMA MMXIV tto t ra es Analecta Romana Instituti Danici – Supplementum XLV Accademia di Danimarca, via Omero, 18, I – 00197, Rome © 2014 Edizioni Quasar di Severino Tognon srl, Roma ISBN 978-88-7140-576-6 Published with the support of grants from: The Carlsberg Foundation Cover: The Fasti Capitolini, containing the Fasti Consulares and the Fasti Triumphales. Rome, Musei Capitolini, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Sala della Lupa. Photo: Courtesy of © Archivio Fotografico dei Musei Capitolini. Print in Italy by LitografTodi - Todi (PG) tto t ra es Triumph and Spectacle. Victory Celebrations in the Late Republican Civil Wars by IDA ÖSTENBERG Abstract. This article examines how the victors in late Republican Rome expressed and celebrated military success in civil war. It is argued that the Senate and the victorious generals turned to the traditional triumph as a means to embrace civil war victories within an accepted frame of external conquest. It is further argued that the triumphal procession, in its capacity as a well-established spectacle performed as a role-playing between Roman victors and foreign losers, proved an inadequate means to give voice to Romans conquering other Romans. Novel forms of expressions were hence exploited: the memorial and the calendar. The memorial was alien to the Roman culture and did not succeed in winning acclaim. The calendar proved a more effective means. Both Caesar and Octavian were able to use the fasti anni as a medium to articulate their success in civil war, commemorating even their victories at Pharsalus and Philippi. Roman Republican history is a tale of continuous expansion through external warfare. Romans defeated Samnites, Gauls and Ligurians, fought victoriously against Carthage and Macedonia, and waged war successfully in Spain, Greece and Asia Minor. Having mastered the battlefield, the general and his army returned to Rome and entered the city in triumph.1 After the celebration, further performances, monuments, temples, games and records confirmed Roman supremacy over others. Time and time again, rituals and representations promoted the prime myth of eternal conquest, in which Romans always won and non-Roman adversaries always lost (Fig. 1). Roman victors filled the city with processions, buildings and inscriptions that trumped forth the message of military success. Romans were constantly staged as superior masters and non-Romans as defeated others, preferably dressed in local costumes and placed in submissive postures to underline their defeated otherness. Through such a repetitive ritual and visual language, Rome confirmed her own masFig. 1: Denarius minted by Caesar in 48/47 B.C. The reverse shows tery and promoted a collective percep- a conventional image of the defeated foreign other, a bearded Gallic tion of the world, an identity and sense captive seated at the foot of a trophy adorned with spoils from Gaul. Crawford 1974, 452/4 © the Trustees of the British Museum. of oneness based on the idea of military and moral superiority over others. Indeed, not that many monuments in public Rome lacked the message of victory in war. In Rome, war was understood as external conflict. “Us” and “them” formed the two basic entities that framed and structured all representations of warfare. This dualistic notion of the world as a constant battle between self and others, in which virtuous Romans fought and defeated non-Roman foreigners, was turned completely upside down by the civil wars of the late Republic. As Romans now attacked and killed other Romans on the battlefield, the very basis of the long-established idea 1. Recent works on the Roman triumph include Auliard 2001; Itgenshorst 2005; Bastien 2007; Beard 2007; Krasser, Pausch & Petrovic 2008; La Rocca & Tortorella 2008; Pelikan Pittenger 2008; Östenberg 2009. tto t ra es 182 IDA ÖSTENBERG of war as external combat and conquest collapsed. The traditional categories of self and others that had set conflict and death into an understandable framework were charged with a new and very different meaning. This article focuses on Roman ritual and visual strategies at a time of major change. How did Rome as a community handle the novel construction of us and them? How did her generals and Senate choose to represent wars fought between Romans? More specifically, the paper aims to examine the means used by the victorious side to launch success. The basic question is this: Did the Roman civil war victors use traditional schemes of representing war as a way to make confusion and turmoil understandable through safe patterns? Or did civil war instead force them to develop novel expressions in order to better articulate and grasp this very different reality? In the following, I will explore these questions by analysing how Rome during the civil wars exploited three central forms of ritual and visual public displays to formulate outcomes of wars and battles. I will first and foremost focus on the triumph in its capacity as the prime military celebration and, of course, as the topic of this conference volume. Second, I will discuss Roman war memorials, the very idea of which seems to have been born out of the civil war context. Third, I will look into how the Roman calendar was used to express victories in the late Republican civil wars. The discussion in this paper will be limited to Roman contemporary responses and not inquire into later commemorations. Hence, although they are of profound importance to the post-Augustan formulation of the Battle of Actium, the article will not explore the reliefs from Seville, Cordoba and Budapest, which for a time were exhibited together to show scenes from Actium, Octavian’s subsequent triumph and what has been interpreted as a ceremony performed after the death of Augustus.2 Moreover, I am well aware that further kinds of visual and literary expressions could be added to the analysis.3 For this short format, however, I have chosen triumphs, memorials and calendars as they were significant public manifestations that expose the balancing act between tradition and innovation, which, I will argue, characterised Roman responses to civil war at this time. Triumphs in civil war On the basis of Valerius Maximus’ account on “triumphal law”, it has long been an accepted fact that triumphs were not awarded for victories in civil war.4 Recently, however, scholars have started to cast doubts on the verity of this claim. In a recent article, Carsten Hjort Lange argues that late Republican triumphs were regularly performed after civil war victories.5 Indeed, Sulla’s two-day celebration 2. 3. Thomas Schäfer should be credited for proposing that the dispersed slabs were once part of the same monument. The reliefs were first displayed together at the Augustus exhibition in Rome 2013-2014, according to Schäfer’s suggestions (Schäfer 2013). Schäfer has previously discussed the reliefs (2002, 2008) and is currently preparing a larger study on the monument. He proposes a Claudian date, which most scholars seem to accept. For a longer discussion of the slabs, their previous research, date and context, see Lange (forthcoming). Contrary to most scholars, John Rich (in a forthcoming article) proposes an Augustan date. A further study could include discussions also of Augustus’ use of mythological themes to allude to his victory over Antony. For example, the Campana plaque from the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine that shows Apollo and Hercules fighting over the tripod has been interpreted as a reference to Octavian and Antony engaged in civil war, although I believe with Hekster (2004, 4-6) that we should avoid overloading mythological representations with too precise political meaning. A larger study on how the Romans manifested the victories and defeats in the 4. 5. late Republican civil wars would also include analyses of poetry, especially of Vergil’s works. In this article, however, my focus lies with public manifestations launched by the victorious side in the time of Pompey, Caesar and Octavian, before the rise of monarchy with Emperor Augustus. Val. Max. 2.8.7: “Verum quamvis quis praeclaras res maximeque utiles rei publicae civili bello gessisset, imperator tamen eo nomine appellatus non est, neque ullae supplicationes decretae sunt, neque aut ovans aut curru triumphavit, quia ut necessariae istae, ita lugubres semper existimatae sunt victoriae, utpote non externo sed domestico partae cruore” [“No man, however, although he might have accomplished great deeds most useful to the state in civil war, was given the name imperator on that account, nor were any thanksgivings decreed, nor did he hold an ovation or a triumph – for such victories, even if necessary, have always been judged grievous, as they were won by domestic not foreign blood”]; cf. Cic. Phil. 14.2224; Luc. 1.12; Plut. Caes. 56.7-9; Tac. Hist. 4.4.2; App. B. Civ. 2.101; Dio Cass. 42.18.1, 43.42.1, 51.19.5. Lange 2013. See also Lange 2012. tto t ra es TRIUMPH AND SPECTACLE. VICTORY CELEBRATIONS IN THE LATE REPUBLICAN CIVIL WARS 183 in 81 B.C. included references to the victory over the younger Marius at Praeneste obtained on his return to Rome.6 Pompey, Caesar and Octavian were certainly granted and celebrated triumphs for victories that had been achieved by killing other Romans on the battlefield. Pompey had subdued Marians in Africa and Sertorius in Spain, and Caesar’s African and Spanish triumphs were held for wars fought against Pompey’s followers and sons. Octavian’s victory over Sextus Pompey was honoured with an ovatio, and Octavian’s Actian success had seen Antony and a large number of other Romans on the losing side. Certainly, the performed triumphs were not announced as conquests over other Romans but inscribed in the Fasti as ex Sicilia, ex Aegypto and, very likely, ex Hispania.7 In consequence, it is generally assumed that civil war aspects were covered up by the foreign wars. Lange instead maintains that the civil war victories were openly recognised as a regular part of the late Republican triumphs. Still, he too acknowledges that the qualification for a triumph depended on the external character of the victory at large. All the more striking is hence the triumph that the Senate chose to award to Decimus Brutus after Octavian, Hirtus and Pansa had relieved him from Antony’s siege at Mutina in 43 B.C. This is a clearcut case of civil war.8 In contrast to Sulla, Pompey, Caesar and Octavian, Decimus Brutus’ triumph could not be placed in a context of external conflicts or foreign battlefields.9 Decimus Brutus soon lost the support of his former saviours and was killed before he could return to Rome and claim the triumph. But the question of why the Senate chose to grant him a triumphus for a battle that others fought against fellow Romans remains. Certainly, the reward should be read as part of the political play at the time, and it formed part of a strategy to limit Octavian’s new influence.10 For Cicero, a supplicatio for the victors at Mutina and a triumph for Decimus Brutus would also give final proof that Antony should be declared hostis.11 The Senate was well aware that they acted far outside the mos maiorum in this particular case, and the decision shows, I would argue, how desperately it tried to regain political control at this turbulent time. In the quest to find an adequate means to celebrate a fortunate war result in a novel situation, the Senate agreed to sell out the principle of granting triumphs only for external wars in order to once more secure power for itself. The Mutina case is remarkable, but could be interpreted as the result of decades of strife in which the Senate had shown itself willing to deal, compromise and negotiate traditional honours as the great generals stepped up their game to become masters of Rome and the world.12 The honour bestowed on Decimus Brutus, as also the triumphs of Sulla, Pompey, Caesar and Octavian, suggest that the Senate turned to a traditional award, the triumph, when faced with the need to observe success in civil war. As noted above, the performed triumphs were not announced as conquests over other Romans but inscribed in the Fasti as ex Sicilia, ex Aegypto and so forth. All but 6. 7. On his way back to Rome from the East, Sulla had defeated Marius the Younger and his followers at Praeneste. Since Sulla’s triumph lasted for two days, it has been suggested that one of the days was reserved for the win at Praeneste. The sources are sparse, however, and it is in my view unlikely that Sulla reserved a whole day for civil war victories. The entry in the Fasti triumphales is corrupt, but in all probability stated only de rege Mithridate. Valerius Maximus (2.8.7) states that Sulla displayed images of Greek cities but led no town with Roman citizens in his procession. Pliny (HN 33.16) writes that gold and silver taken at Praeneste were on display, with a placard giving the name of Marius the Younger and announcing his earlier robbing of the riches from the Capitol. Also, the Samnites and the Praenestians were severely punished (App. B Civ. 1.94), and according to Velleius Paterculus (2.27.6), Sulla held annual games to celebrate his success at Praeneste. From this evidence, it seems reasonable to conclude that Sulla’s triumph was held de Mithridate, but did nevertheless include references to Marius’ defeat. As Lange notes, the one reference to civil war on the Fasti triumphales is the entry for 40 B.C., which records the ovationes held by Octavian and Antony for making peace with each other. 8. Liv. Per. 119; Vell. Pat. 2.62.4-5; Dio Cass. 46.40.1. 9. Lange (2013, esp. 86) also notes that Mutina was exceptional. 10. Velleius (2.62.4-5) shows indignation that Octavian was given no credit for the Mutina victory: “et D. Bruto, quod alieno beneficio viveret, decretus triumphus, Pansae atque Hirtii corpora publica sepultura honorata, Caesaris adeo nulla habita mentio” [“Decimus Brutus was voted a triumph, presumably because, thanks to another’s services, he had escaped with his life. Hirtius and Pansa were honoured with a public funeral. Of Caesar not a word was said”]. Livy (Per. 119) and Dio Cassius (46.40) also stress that Octavian unjustly received no recognition for his achievements. For an excellent discussion of the period following Caesar’s death, see Osgood 2006. 11. To have Antony painted as and declared hostis is a recurrent theme of the Philippics. 12. For the unprecedented triumphs held by particularly Pompey and Caesar, see Hölscher 2005; Östenberg 2009, 280-282. tto t ra es 184 IDA ÖSTENBERG the Mutina triumph – and this was never held – had been fought in foreign lands and had included large numbers of non-Roman adversaries. An external war fought outside Italy provided the basis for granting a triumph, and it furnished the procession with exotic captives and looted spoils. Problems occurred when the major battles of the war had been fought between predominantly Roman armies under the greatest and most appreciated Roman leaders, such as the battles at Pharsalus and Philippi. Indeed, no triumphal honours were bestowed on Caesar, Octavian and Antony for these victories.13 Very generally, one could say that successful battles performed in foreign lands, involving also large contingents of non-Roman enemies and later honoured and celebrated in Rome, offered a setting that could harbour also victories in civil war. These late Republican civil war triumphs might be read as an agreement between Senate and general that served to embrace the new disorder within a familiar, recognisable and secure frame. Triumph and spectacle Rome in the late Republic hence continued to exploit a time-honoured reward, the triumph, as a means to acknowledge success also in times of civil war. Still, it is, according to my view, precisely because the triumph was such a deeply rooted honour that civil war triumphs failed. That is, the civil war triumph worked fine in theory, when discussed in the Curia and when provided and accepted as an honour by keen senators and generals. It fulfilled its purpose, if I may say so, “beyond the spectacle”. In practice, however, staged on the streets as a ritual and a procession, the triumph, I would argue, proved time after time monumentally incapable of performing civil war victories. Fig. 2: A so-called Campana relief showing two grieving male The triumph was in its essence a repetitive prisoners, bearded and dressed in trousers, being drawn on a cart in a triumphal procession. The captives are chained role-playing in which Roman victors and those to their necks and ankles, and the two attendants walking conquered were staged as clearly distinguished alongside hold and seemingly also pull them by the chains. British Museum. neg. 291166 © the Trustees of the British groups.14 The prisoners were never Romans, but Museum. always foreigners.15 They were dressed (up) in shabby clothes, national costumes or at times even in regal outfits.16 They were dragged in chains, humbled and mocked (Fig. 2).17 They were bewildered, holding their heads down and crying for forgiveness.18 At times, it seems that they even uttered some words in their strange languages.19 They 13. Pharsalus: Cic. Phil. 14.23-24; Luc. 1.12; Dio Cass. 42.18.1. Philippi: Suetonius (Aug. 22) wrongly claims that Octavian held an ovatio after Philippi. The Fasti Capitolini and Barberiani, both well preserved for that time, have no records of such an ovation. Augustus himself writes in the Res Gestae that he had held two ovations, which doubtlessly refer to the one performed with Antony in 40 B.C. and the one held in 36 B.C. after having defeated Sextus Pompey. 14. Östenberg 2009, esp. 262-266. 15. Hence, for example, Lucullus, having captured the Roman senators Varius and Alexander the Paphlagonian, put Varius to death as he was unsuitable for the triumph. Alexander was saved to embellish the parade, App. Mith. 76-77. 16. E.g. Ov. Tr. 4.2.27-28, Pont. 3.4.109-110; Pers. 6.46; Joseph. BJ 7.138; Suet. Cal. 47; App. Mith. 116; S.H.A. Gall. 8-9. Östenberg 2009, 152-156. 17. Östenberg 2009, 156-159. 18. Ov. Tr. 4.2.23-24; Sil. Pun. 17.629-630; cf. Ov. Tr. 4.2.2930, [Ov.] Cons. ad Liv. 275-276. 19. Suetonius states that the fake prisoners in Caligula’s triumph were asked to learn the German tongue, Cal. 47, cf. Verg. Aen. 8.722-723: “incedunt victae longo ordine gentes, / quam variae linguis, habitu tam vestis et armis” [“the conquered peoples passed in long array, varied in languages as in their style of dress and arms”]. tto t ra es TRIUMPH AND SPECTACLE. VICTORY CELEBRATIONS IN THE LATE REPUBLICAN CIVIL WARS 185 all walked or were carried or drawn before the triumphator in the parade, to separate them from the wreathed Romans further back.20 They performed a negative contrast to Roman-ness that was understandable as inferior. Spectators could easily read the parade that passed by, recognising whom to cheer as “us” and whom to despise and ridicule as “them”. The defeated others were essential to the spectacle, as is clearly shown from Pompey’s famed parade in 61 B.C., in which prisoners were sent back home after the parade at public expense.21 Cicero gives another example as he describes how Servilius Vatia Isauricus in 74 B.C. led pirate chiefs to and in his triumph. In contrast to the deplorable behaviour of Verres, Cicero describes Vatia’s display of the pirates in these words (Cic. Verr. 2.5.66): Unus plures praedonum duces vivos cepit P. Servilius quam omnes antea. Ecquando igitur isto fructu quisquam caruit, ut videre piratam captum non liceret? At contra, quacumque iter fecit, hoc iucundissimum spectaculum omnibus vinctorum captorumque hostium praebebat; itaque ei concursus fiebant undique ut non modo ex iis oppidis qua ducebantur sed etiam ex finitimis visendi causa convenirent. Ipse autem triumphus quam ob rem omnium triumphorum gratissimus populo Romano fuit et iucundissimus? Quia nihil est victoria dulcius, nullum est autem testimonium victoriae certius quam, quos saepe metueris, eos te vinctos ad supplicium duci videre. One man, Publius Servilius, captured more pirate chiefs alive than all his predecessors put together. And when did he ever deny to anyone the satisfaction of seeing a captured pirate? On the contrary, wherever he journeyed, he offered everybody the most enjoyable spectacle of captured enemies in chains; and so, crowds gathered from all around to set eyes on the show not just from the towns through which the prisoners were led, but from the neighbouring towns as well. And why was the actual triumph the most welcome and pleasing of all triumphs to the Roman people? Because nothing is more delightful than victory, and there is no more certain evidence of victory than to set eyes on those whom you have often feared, led in chains to their execution. Cicero repeatedly stresses the importance of viewing the defeated enemies (“ut videre piratam captum”, “eos vinctos videre”). In fact, people came flocking from everywhere just to be able to lay eyes on those (“visendi causa”), who now formed the most pleasing spectacle (“iucundissimum spectaculum”). Why was that? Because those adversaries had been feared (“quos saepe metueris”). The sight of them in chains (“vinctorum captorumque”, “eos vinctos”) proved that Rome had won (“testimonium victoriae”). To view with your own eyes the long-feared enemies, defeated, chained, scorned, and crushed was central to the Roman people in order to comprehend and acknowledge the completed war, the earlier fears, troubles, misfortunes and defeats, as well as the conclusive victory.22 Performance offers the community a time and space to actively share in a collective experience that strengthens identity.23 Viewing and feeling are key components of rituals and spectacles, as they allow for the active participation of the people of the community at large. Through that very process of travelling to see, of viewing together, of sharing past experiences, of crowded talking, smelling and screaming, a sense of Roman identity was shaped. Putting formerly feared others on public display over and over again thus confirmed and strengthened the Roman view of military and moral supremacy over others. Another passage in the Verrines tells a similar story (2.5.77): “At etiam qui triumphant eoque diutius vivos hostium duces reservant, ut his per triumphum ductis pulcherrimum spectaculum 20. Östenberg 2009, esp. 262-264. Hence, I don’t agree with Havener (in this volume), who argues that the homecoming formerly exiled Romans in Sulla’s triumph (Plut. Sull. 34.1) were substitutes for foreign prisoners. Liberated Romans do at times form part of triumphal processions, but just like the exiles in Sulla’s parade, they always walk, wearing wreaths, behind the triumphator’s car; Liv. 30.45.5, 33.23.6-7, 34.52.12, Per. 30; Plut. Flam. 13.6, Mor. 196e; Oros. 4.19.6. 21. App. Mith. 117. 22. For the triumph as a place and time for emotional healing of earlier traumas and defeats, see now Östenberg 2014, esp. 263-264. 23. Hopkins (1991) published a pioneering article on the importance of ritual in Rome. For Roman processions as performance staging the Republican dualistic key components of competition and consent, see Hölkeskamp 2008, with further references. For the triumph as performance, see Östenberg 2009, 6-14. For a semiotic interpretation of the pompa funebris, see Flaig 2003, 49-68. General works on ritual and performance are abundant, but see e.g. Geertz (1973) and Turner (1982, 1988) for earlier influential studies, and Bell (1992, 1997 (2009)). tto t ra es 186 IDA ÖSTENBERG fructumque victoriae populus Romanus percipere possit, …” [“But even triumphing generals who on that account keep the generals of the enemy alive a longer time, in order that, when they are led in triumph, the Roman people may enjoy a fine spectacle and a splendid fruit of victory …”]. Enemy leaders were kept alive for one specific reason: to be led and shown in triumph so that the Roman people could grasp, understand, through sight and in mind (“percipere”), this most beautiful spectacle (“pulcherrimum spectaculum”). Of all enemies, the principal enemy constituted the most important display. His presence was crucial: this is why Caesar saved Vercingetorix for his Gallic triumph for six years,24 and this is why important enemies who could not be present in person in the procession, such as Hannibal or Cleopatra, were represented by images.25 The defeated main enemy was shown close to the victorious general in the rear of the parade. Together they formed the climax of the show and of peoples’ expectations.26 It was also important to visually represent the defeats and deaths of the Roman enemies. In Pompey’s triumph, Mithridates and Tiridates were shown vanquished, fleeing and, in the former’s case, dying.27 At the same time, no triumph displayed Romans defeated or killed in battle. The spectators were to behold only non-Roman military failures and non-Roman battle casualties. The same seems to be the case in Roman art. To our knowledge, Romans are represented defeated and killed in battle first on the Arch of Constantine.28 Here, reliefs show civil war, and the victors were Romans too. Earlier representations might certainly present Roman difficulties and hardships in struggling with the enemy. One scene on Trajan’s column shows Romans being tortured, and the new Actium reliefs suggest that Romans are soon to clash and that some of them will eventually lose.29 But nowhere, not here or anywhere else before Constantine, do we find Romans depicted dead on the battleground. Roman military failures were simply not accepted into the ritual and memorial cityscape.30 The problem of presenting late Republican civil war victories in the traditional triumphal format is thus evident. Certainly, foreign adversaries were given important roles in the play.31 But the main enemy, the opposing Roman leader, could not be displayed. Caesar was unable to show any images of Pompey, and Antony was conspicuously absent from Octavian’s triumph.32 Civil war triumphs certainly never showed any Roman in chains, and there were no images of Romans defeated in battle. This is probably why Caesar and Octavian did not venture to hold triumphs for Pharsalus and Philippi. Any such procession would either have been conspicuously void or have laid bare something that was doubly unthinkable: Romans destroying other Romans, and perhaps even more problematic, Romans defeated and killed on the battlefield. Caesar resented being held back by convention, and in his triumphs of 46 B.C., held two years after Pharsalus, he went to extremes. Appian writes (B Civ. 2.101): τὰ δὲ Ῥ ωμαίων φυλαξάμενος ἄρα, ὡς ἐμφύλια οὐκ ἐοικότα τε αὑτῷ καὶ Ῥ ωμαίοις αἰσχρὰ καὶ ἀπαίσια, ἐπιγράψαι θριάμβῳ, παρήνεγκεν ὅμως αὐτῶν ἐν τοῖ σδε τὰ παθήματα ἅπαντα καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐν εἰκόσι καὶ ποικίλαις γραφαῖ ς, χωρίς γε Πομπηίου· τοῦτον γὰρ δὴ μόνον ἐφυλάξατο δεῖ ξαι, σφόδρα ἔτι πρὸς πάντων ἐπιποθούμενον. ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἐπὶ μὲν τοῖ ς οἰκείοις κακοῖ ς, καίπερ δεδιώς, ἔστενε, καὶ μάλιστα, ὅτε ἴ δοι Λεύκιόν τε Σκιπίωνα τὸν αὐτοκράτορα 24. Dio Cass. 40.41.3, 43.19.4; cf. Plut. Caes. 27.5. See also Plut. Mar. 12.2 for the spectators’ reaction to the display of Jugurtha in Marius’ triumph. 25. Cleopatra: Prop. 3.11.53-54; Dio Cass. 51.21.8-9. Östenberg 2009, 143-144. Hannibal: Sil. Pun. 17.643-644. Silius’ depiction is poetic, but still true to the common Roman practice. 26. Östenberg 2009, 131-135. 27. App. Mith. 117. 28. Mayer (2006) and Lange (2012) both show that Constantine’s triumph in A.D. 312 and the Arch of Constantine formed a break with tradition in that they openly and specifically celebrated a civil war win. 29. Trajan’s column: Scene 45. For the Actium reliefs, see above, n. 2. 30. See further Östenberg (2014). 31. In Caesar’s triumph in 46 B.C., the exhibition of foreign captives was crucial. Vercingetorix was led in the Gallic parade (Plut. Caes. 27.5; Dio Cass. 40.41.3, 43.19.4), Arsinoë in the Egyptian procession (Flor. 2.13.88-89; Dio Cass. 43.19.2-4) and the young Juba in the African triumph (Plut. Caes. 55.1-2; App. B Civ. 2.101). Similarly, the display of Cleopatra (through an image) and her children formed an important part of Octavian’s triplex triumphus (Prop. 3.11.53-54; Dio Cass. 51.21.8-9), as did the Eastern kings led as captives (Aug. RG 4). 32. Pompey: App. B Civ. 2.101. Antony: Liv. Per. 133; Dio Cass. 51.19.1, 4-5. tto t ra es TRIUMPH AND SPECTACLE. VICTORY CELEBRATIONS IN THE LATE REPUBLICAN CIVIL WARS 187 πλησσόμενον ἐς τὰ στέρνα ὑφ' ἑαυτοῦ καὶ μεθιέμενον ἐς τὸ πέλαγος, ἢ Πετρήιον ἐπὶ διαίτῃ διαχρώμενον ἑαυτόν, ἢ Κάτωνα ὑφ' ἑαυτοῦ διασπώμενον ὡς θηρίον· Ἀχιλλᾷ δ' ἐφήσθησαν καὶ Ποθεινῷ καὶ τὴν Φαρνάκους φυγὴν ἐγέλασαν. Although he took care not to inscribe any Roman names in his triumph (as it would have been unseemly in his eyes and base and inauspicious in those of the Roman people to triumph over fellow-citizens), yet all their misfortunes were represented in the processions and the men also by various images and pictures, all except Pompey, whom alone he did not venture to exhibit, since he was still greatly regretted by all. The people, although restrained by fear, groaned over their domestic ills, especially when they saw L. Scipio, the general-in-chief, wounded in the breast by his own hand, casting himself into the sea, and Petreius killing himself at the banquet, and Cato torn open by himself like a wild beast. They applauded the death of Achillas and Pothinus, and laughed at the flight of Pharnaces. Appian’s narrative tells of a failed attempt to break with convention. Appian states that triumphs were not to be held over other Romans, and Caesar accordingly avoided showing Roman names in the processions. It is not clear from the passage why written names would have been more resentful than representations, but it is conceivable that spelling out the Roman adversaries would de facto have labelled his triumphs de Pompeio, Scipione et Catone, a transgression of worldly and divine rules unthinkable even to Caesar. Still, great military successes had been achieved against these Romans, and Caesar could not resist showing their images. Crucially, however, Scipio, Cato and Petreius were not displayed as defeated on the battlefield, as were often principal foreign enemies in Roman triumphs.33 Romans could not be represented as conquered in battle; this proved another limit for Caesar’s display. Instead, their post-battle suicides were staged. In this way, Caesar was able to underline, in a flagrantly humiliating and revengeful way, that Cato and Scipio had refused his clementia and preferred to take their lives. Appian’s narrative reveals that while people responded well to the customary displays of non-Romans in defeat, they resented that Roman deaths were put on show. A ritual works because participants join to celebrate communal sentiments and shared values. Caesar, however, found no favourable response for his extraordinary untraditional displays. Scholars generally refer to Caesar’s display of Roman adversaries at being limited to his African parade. Indeed, the Romans all formed part of the triumphus ex Africa. However, Appian starts off the passage in 2.101 by mentioning all four triumphs held by Caesar as he returned to Rome in 46 B.C. Also, he explicitly states that Roman misfortunes and men, represented by images, were shown in the processions (ἐν τοῖ σδε) in the plural sense. The reference to Pompey’s absence and to the presence of Achillas, Pothinus and Pharnaces also makes it clear that Appian is painting a picture of all four triumphs. I have argued elsewhere that Caesar’s display of a titulus inscribed veni vidi vici in his Pontic triumph refers also to his civil war success,34 and we cannot exclude that images of other Romans and further references to the civil strife formed part of the four triumphs. From Appian’s description and from our general knowledge of the time, however, it still seems likely that the representations of Scipio and Cato were seen as particularly offensive. Unfortunately, we know very little of what Caesar put on parade after his victory over Pompey’s sons in Spain a year later. The campaign formed part of the civil conflict, but as it had been fought on foreign soil, it provided opportunities for a triumphal display of defeated non-Romans. We know from Quintilian (Inst. 6.3.61) and Dio Cassius (43.42) that Caesar showed ivory representations of defeated cities. Also, his two generals Q. Fabius Maximus and Q. Pedius, who were likewise awarded triumphs for the Spanish campaign, displayed images of conquered cities made of wood. Such representations were common tokens of conquest shown in the triumphs,35 and they reveal that traditional manifestations of external wins were present and that they were noticed.36 No text tells of displays that openly manifested the civil war aspects, but, as noted, the sources are sparse. Had Caesar taken note of the negative response towards the previous triumphs and now refrained from putting images of other Romans on parade? Or did he rather choose to push the message of civil war 33. Östenberg 2009, 256-261. 34. Östenberg 2013. 35. Östenberg 2009, 209-215. 36. According to Quintilian and Dio Cassius, people laughed at the wooden city images, making jokes that they were cases for Caesar’s ivory models. tto t ra es 188 IDA ÖSTENBERG victory even further? We cannot tell. What we do know is that Caesar’s example of displaying images of defeated Romans had no predecessors and was never again repeated until Constantine.37 This is certainly no coincidence. The triumphal procession proved an inadequate means to express civil war victories.38 Either you were Caesar and showed other Romans vanquished, thereby running the risk of having all Rome turned against you, or, as a non-Caesar, you refrained from displaying them at all. This latter strategy, however, risked emphasising and even giving presence to the absent dead – spectators noted, for example, that Pompey and Antony were not seen. Moreover, the absence of the true enemies of the victorious side, the defeated Romans, devoided the ritual of much of its meaning. It unveiled the discrepancy between the war fought and the war represented, and the triumph became a halting, unbalanced performance that told only half the story. It did not match people’s experiences from the war, and it could not provide a place of healing and celebration in which people gathered to view the true and jointly feared enemies as a forceful sign of victory, a testimonium victoriae. Civil war meant Romans defeating other Romans, but the civil war triumphs continued to celebrate Romans beating foreign others. Reality and representation simply did not match. Indeed, what was Decimus Brutus supposed to have paraded in his triumph after Mutina? An image of Antony defeated? Roman soldiers in chains? Such displays were of course unthinkable, and we should probably imagine Decimus Brutus’ procession, had it taken place, to have been limited to a triumphal entry, an adventus. Cicero’s proposal: A war memorial The inherent problem of articulating a civil war victory through a traditional triumph provided, I would argue, incentives to explore different and novel forms of acknowledging and commemorating important domestic victories. This is, I believe, how we should interpret the passages from the end of the 14th Philippic, in which Cicero praises the victors at Mutina. He proposes a supplicatio to the victors and honours to their soldiers too.39 Cicero suggests that a monument of the grandest possible scale should be erected to those who fought against Antony, and “who have shed their blood for the life, liberty and estate of the Roman people, for the city of Rome, and for the temples of the immortal gods” [“qui sanguinem pro vita, libertate, fortunis populi Romani, pro Urbe, templis deorum immortalium profudissent”].40 The monument should be embellished with an inscription eternally recalling the bravery of the fallen.41 “Death in flight is shameful”, declares Cicero, “but in victory glorious.”42 The monument, he explains, would render the dead everlasting glory, carry the memory of those who sacrificed themselves pro patria, and help console their relatives.43 Marta Sordi has proposed that Cicero was inspired from Greek practice,44 and indeed, Cicero’s insistence on lives sacrificed for the good of the community and his focus on the grief and pride of the relatives of the fallen suggests that he had Athenian state burials in mind. Cicero even argues for 37. In his entry into Rome in A.D. 312, Constantine made a show out of Maxentius’ head, Pan. Lat. 4.28-31, 12.17-18. See Kristensen (forthcoming). 38. In this volume, Havener claims that the triumphal performance provided ample opportunities to showcase civil war victories. My stand is the opposite; I argue that the spectacle of triumph resisted ostentatious displays of Romans defeating other Romans. 39. Brutus and others thought Cicero went too far, especially in honouring the young Octavian, Cic. Ad. Brut. 23.8-9 (1.15.8-9). The letter also reveals that Cicero proposed an ovation for Octavian after Mutina. 40. Cic. Phil. 14.38. 41. Cic. Phil. 14.31: “Placet igitur mihi, patres conscripti, legionis Martiae militibus et eis qui una pugnantes occiderint monumentum fieri quam amplissimum” [“Therefore, members of the Senate, I recommend the erection of a monument on the grandest possible scale to the soldiers of the Martian legion and to those who fell fighting at their side”]. Cf. 14.38, and 14.33: “Erit igitur exstructa moles opere magnifico incisaeque litterae, divinae virtutis testes sempiternae” [“Therefore, a magnificent structure will be raised and incised with an inscription that will bear eternal witness to your godlike valour”]. For the Philippics, I follow Shackleton Bailey’s translation, as revised by Ramsey and Manuwald in the Loeb Classical Library edition of 2009. 42. Cic. Phil. 14.32: “In fuga foeda mors est; in victoria gloriosa”. 43. Cic. Phil. 14.31-36, 38. 44. Sordi 1990. tto t ra es TRIUMPH AND SPECTACLE. VICTORY CELEBRATIONS IN THE LATE REPUBLICAN CIVIL WARS 189 a public oration to comfort parents, children, wives and brothers in their mourning and help them rejoice over the bravery of the near ones.45 This certainly echoes Pericles’ funeral speech.46 Dio Cassius claims that a public burial was voted to the fallen at Mutina,47 but the political situation quickly changed, and the memorial was never built. We know from Suetonius, however, that the city of Nursia did erect a memorial for the citizens who fought for liberty and met their death at Mutina, and that Octavian, as he joined forces with Antony, had them fined.48 It is possible that the people of Nursia had been inspired by Cicero’s proposal; the inscription “they fell for liberty” (“pro libertate eos occubuisse”) does bring to mind his words in the 14th Philippic. To our knowledge, there existed no Roman precedence of any memorial to the fallen, neither in victory nor in defeat. In fact, the very idea of a memorial built to commemorate Roman war victims is thoroughly alien to the Republican mind. Unlike the Athenian democracy, where the single soldier was honoured for actively fighting for the polis,49 the Roman Republican aristocracy never paid tribute to their fallen soldiers.50 Hence, the lines from Cicero and the monument from Nursia give voice to a novel form of expressing military victory. Cicero says this himself: “Multi saepe exercitus Punicis, Gallicis, Italicis bellis clari et magni fuerunt, nec tamen ullis tale genus honoris tributum est” [“Often many armies were great and famous in the Punic, Gallic and Italian wars, and yet to none was paid an honour of this kind”].51 The memorial was, I believe, developed as a response to the new circumstances of civil war, an untraditional manifestation taken up in order to express and create a sense of community for the victorious side in civil war. As such it stressed sacrifice, patria and liberty. Unlike the triumph, the memorial did not have to cope with the major difficulties in representing conquered Romans. Antony and his troops were certainly targeted as the enemy, but, being a novelty, the memorial was not forced by traditions to represent the other Romans as defeated. The monument had the advantage over the triumph in that it could give voice to the collective honour of Senate and people, by reminding of the virtus of the fallen, the pietas of the Roman people, the fides of the Senate, and indeed stand as a memorial to the civil war itself (“memoria crudelissimi belli”).52 Still, the concept of the memorial seems not to have gained acclaim. Cicero’s Roman monument was not built and the tumulus in Nursia was heavily criticised by Octavian. We hear of no more memorials later during the civil wars, and there is only one example of a Roman memorial from imperial times.53 Very likely, the idea as such was simply too un-Roman in character to win general acceptance. Also, Octavian’s fining the people in Nursia might have set the entire concept of a war memorial in a negative light. Caesar’s calendar The time-honoured triumph proved an inadequate means to manifest victories in civil war. The war memorial, on the other hand, was seemingly too untraditional to gain ground in Rome. The victors of civil war sought other means to express their success. The calendar proved such a medium, and again, Caesar took the lead. Appian provides the first clue. He writes that among the many honours 45. 46. 47. 48. Cic. Phil. 14.34. Thuc. 2.34-46. Dio Cass. 46.38.2. Suet. Aug. 12: “Et quo magis paenitentiam prioris sectae approbaret, Nursinos grandi pecunia et quam pendere nequirent multatos extorres oppido egit, quod Mutinensi acie interemptorum civium tumulo publice exstructo ascripserant pro libertate eos occubuisse” [“To show more plainly that he regretted his connection with the former party, he imposed a heavy fine on the people of Nursia and banished them from their city when they were unable to pay it, because they had at public expense erected a monument to their citizens who were slain in the Battle of Mutina and inscribed upon it: ‘They fell for liber- 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. ty’”]. Nursia is situated closer to Perusia, and Suetonius’ account is often taken to refer to the Perusine War rather than to the Battle of Mutina. Low 2010, 2012. For communal war tombs, public orations and memorials for the fallen as a Greek practice rather than a Roman tradition, see Sordi 1990; Edwards 2007, 19-24; Cooley 2012; Östenberg 2014, esp. 256-258. Cic. Phil. 14.33. Cic. Phil. 14.35, 14.38. Sordi 1990, 175. At Adamklissi, Romania, probably in the time of Domitian (or Trajan), an altar was built and inscribed with the names of Romans who had fallen in battle, Stefan 2005, 442-444, Stefan 2009; Cooley 2012, 67-71. tto t ra es 190 IDA ÖSTENBERG bestowed on Caesar upon his return to Rome from Spain in 45 B.C., it was decreed “that each year the city should celebrate the days on which he had won his victories”.54 Now, the Senate had already granted Caesar four triumphs the year before, for his victories in Gaul, Egypt, Pontus and Africa, followed by the Spanish triumph in 45 B.C.55 Even if the triumphs were loaded with messages of civil war (see above), they were all noted and recorded as victories over foreign peoples. It comes as no surprise then, to find further evidence of yearly victory celebrations in the fasti anni. Indeed, both the fasti Caeretani and Farnesiani record a festal day on 17 March, the day that Caesar won at Hispania ulterior (Munda).56 Further, the fasti Verulani, Caeretani and Maffeiani show that there was public feasting on 27 March to commemorate the taking of Alexandria,57 the fasti Praenestini note 6 April for the victory against Juba in Africa, and five calendars (fasti fratrum Arvalium, Maffeiani, Vallenses, Amiternini, Antiates ministrorum) have 2 August marked down as double victories in Hispania citerior and Pontus (Zela).58 More astonishing is the fifth date recorded. Four calendars (the Amiternini, Antiates ministrorum, Maffeiani and probably the Allifani) give 9 August as the day on which Caesar was victorious at Pharsalus (Fig. 3).59 Now, as we have seen, Caesar’s victory at Pharsalus was the one success that he did not endeavour to celebrate, and Cicero emphasises that although Caesar sent laurelled letters from Alexandria and Zela, no such dispatches arrived from Pharsalus.60 Unlike the records in the fasti for the African and Pontic victories, which spell out the names of Caesar’s enemies Juba and Pharnaces, Pompey’s Fig. 3: The entry for 9 August on the fasti Amiternini stating name is not mentioned in the Pharsalus entry. Fer(iae), q(uod) e(o) die C. Caes(ar) C. f. Pharsali devicit. From Pointing out Pompey as a defeated enemy again Degrassi 1963, 190. proved a limit for Caesar’s aggressive victory commemorations.61 The calendars underline the external nature of the victories that rendered Caesar triumphs in Rome. The entries announce that Caesar subdued foreign kings and places: “Caesar in Africa regem Iubam devicit”, “Caesar Hispaniam citeriorem vicit”, “Alexandriam recepit”, “In Ponto regem Pharnacem devicit”. Through this epigraphical recording, the calendars form part of the late Republican strategy to embrace civil war victories within a general framework of military success in distant areas such as Africa, Hispania and Pontus. In sharp contrast, the entry for 9 August does not provide any name of a person or place conquered. Caesar has won not over but at Pharsalus: Phasali (de)vicit. There is no foreign pretext, no non-Roman framework to embed the civil win. The entry bluntly spells out Caesar’s victory over other Romans. The NP placed at the date on the fasti reveals its character: the day holds feriae publicae, a holiday celebrated by the state at public expenses for the benefit of the whole people: “Fer(iae), q(uod) e(o) die C. Caes(ar) C. f. Pharsali devicit.”62 How was it possible for Caesar, who refrained specifically from celebrating his victory at Pharsalus, to have that victory inscribed as a sacred day of public feasting in the calendar, thus demanding of all Romans to annually remember and celebrate that he had defeated other Romans including the 54. App. B Civ. 2.106: τὴν δὲ πόλιν ἀνὰ ἔτος ἕκαστον, αἷ ς αὐτὸς ἡμέραις ἐν παρατάξεσιν ἐνίκα, cf. Dio Cass. 43.44.6. 55. Liv. Per. 115-116; Vell. Pat. 2.56.1-2; Suet. Iul. 37; App. B Civ. 2.101-102; Plut. Caes. 27, 55, 56; Flor. 2.13.88-89; Dio Cass. 40.41.2-3, 42.20.5, 43.14, 19-24, 42. 56. Degrassi 1963, 66, 225, 426. 57. Degrassi 1963, 66, 74, 168-169, 432. 58. 6 April: Degrassi 1963, 30-31, 126-127, 437. 2 Aug: De- grassi 1963, 30-31, 79, 148-149, 190-191, 208, 491. 59. Degrassi 1963, 79 (Hispali vicit), 180-181 (corrupt), 190191 (Pharsali devicit), 208 (Pharsali vicit), 493. 60. Cic. Phil. 14.23-24; Luc. 1.12; Dio Cass. 42.18.1. 61. As noted above, Caesar showed images of other defeated Romans in his triumphs, but did not dare to include Pompey, App. B Civ. 2.101. 62. Degrassi 1963, 190-191. tto t ra es TRIUMPH AND SPECTACLE. VICTORY CELEBRATIONS IN THE LATE REPUBLICAN CIVIL WARS 191 popular Pompey? The answer, I think, should be sought in the calendar itself. As is well known, Caesar reformed the Roman calendar, and the Julian calendar took effect from 45 B.C.63 The Romans attached great importance to the specific days on which significant events had taken place; still, the old Republican calendar has left no traces of any communal celebrations of victorious days.64 Caesar’s reform, in which days become even more significant as they were now given a fixed and repetitive place in seasons and time, presented him with a novel political and ritual arena in which he could express his complete victories without being hindered by mos maiorum. Caesar’s calendar offered him the possibility to brag even about Pharsalus. Two years later, Cicero proposed that Decimus Brutus’ name should be inscribed on the potent date 21 April, Brutus’ birthday and the day when the Mutina victory was announced.65 The suggestion came to nothing, of course, but shows that the fasti had quickly become an acceptable space to verbalise civil war victory. Caesar also paved the way for Augustus, and the consul list from Amiternum includes information of Octavian’s civil wars and names his opponents Antony, L. Antonius, Brutus and Cassius.66 The entries laconically state “Bellum civile Mutinese cum M. Antonio”, “Bellum in campis Phillipicis cum M. Bruto et C. Cassio”, “Bellum Perusinum cum L. Antonio”, “Bellum Actiense classiarum cum M. Antonio”. These are not entries that mark annual celebrations, but are notes of information pertaining to the specific years when the wars took place. Still, it is noteworthy that the names of Octavian’s Roman opponents are spelled out. More importantly, the dates of Octavian’s victories at Mutina, at Philippi, in Sicily, at Actium and at Alexandria were inscribed into the fasti anni.67 Here, they were noted as anniversaries, Fig. 4: The fasti Praenestini marks 23 October as the day dates of battles to be commemorated and celwhen Octavian won at Philippi and Brutus fell. From Deebrated by the community. Most astonishing grassi 1963, 134. is the entry given in the fasti Praenestini for 23 October, stating “Caesar Augustus vicit Philippis posteriore proelio Bruto occiso” (Fig. 4).68 Again, the fasti anni were able to celebrate a victory that had proven unsuitable for a triumph. In fact, the Philippi entry takes civil war manifestations one step further than Caesar’s inscribed victory at Pharsalus; it mentions not only the site of the battle but also the defeated Roman, Brutus, even telling of his death. This is highly notable, as neither Pompey before nor Antony later were spelled out as vanquished. Although this entry thus goes very far in revealing the civil nature of the war, it still does not state explicitly that Brutus was defeated in war. Juba and Pharnaces could be described as conquered (as in “Caesar Iubam devicit”), whereas Brutus is recorded as having died in the second battle. Again, this appears as the ultimate border of the “us and them” notion that could not be transgressed. A Roman could fall (“Bruto occiso”), but he was not defeated in battle.69 63. For Caesar’s calendar, see in particular Feeney 2007, and Rüpke 2011, esp. 109-121. 64. The fasti Antiates Maiores give only two historical dates: the birth of Rome on 21 April and the defeat at the Allia on 18 July. Degrassi 1963, 9, 15; see also Rüpke 2011, 105, 138, 151; Östenberg 2014. 65. Cic. Ad Brut. 23.8 (1.15.8). 66. Degrassi 1947, 170-171. 67. Mutina: Degrassi 1963, 128-129 (Praen.), 279 (Fer. Cum.); Ov. Fasti 4.625. Philippi: Degrassi 1963, 134-135. Sicily: Degrassi 1963, 32-33 (Arv.), 150-151 (Vall.), 192-193 (Amit.). Actium: Degrassi 1963, 32-33 (Arv.), 150-151 (Vall.), 192-193 (Amit.), 209 (Ant. Min.). Alexandria: Degrassi 1963, 30-31 (Arv.), 134-135 (Praen.), 190-191 (Amit.), 208 (Ant. Min.). 68. Degrassi 1963,134-135. 69. One could argue that there is an element of honouring Brutus implied in this entry as well. Death dates were marked down and remembered in Roman culture. Certainly, the celebration concerned above all Octavian’s victory, but Brutus had been well respected on both sides, and people might well have commemorated him on the same day. tto t ra es 192 IDA ÖSTENBERG Conclusions I have argued that Rome as a community, through their prime agents, the general and the Senate, struggled with finding adequate and acceptable means to celebrate and commemorate civil war victories. During these years, they explored, negotiated and experimented with both traditional and novel ritual and visual forms. It is quite clear that the triumph was their first choice, in its capacity as the premier honour given to Roman victors since Romulus himself. The triumph certainly provided a political platform and created cultural capital also in times of discord. But the performance itself, which had traditionally contrasted Roman winners with foreign losers, proved an inadequate form to display conquered fellow-Romans, and it was met with resistance. Instead, or rather parallel to the triumph, other expressions were explored: the memorial, probably unsuccessful due to its un-Roman character, and the calendar, in which first Caesar and later his heir Octavian managed to express even their civil war victories. The fasti anni proved useful, I think, because it was both rooted in tradition – Romans venerated days of importance – and set in a completely new form, as the new calendar was launched by Caesar in close interplay with the civil wars themselves. In the long run, however, even the fasti could not uphold the uncomfortable notion of Romans beating Romans. At least we know that Caligula forbade celebrations of the anniversaries of the battles at Actium and Naulochus, as they had proved disastrous for the Roman people.70 Perhaps, in the end, there existed no satisfactory way, within or beyond the spectacle, for this aristocratic society, based as it was on the principle of peers competing to do honour to Rome, to display that they had destroyed each other instead of the ever present and always foreign other. BIBLIOGRAPHY Auliard, C. 2001 Victoires et triomphes à Rome: Droit et réalités sous la République, Paris. Bastien, J.-L. 2007 Le triomphe romain et son utilisation politique à Rome aux trois derniers siècles de la République (Collection de l’École française de Rome 392), Rome. Beard, M. 2007 The Roman Triumph, Cambridge, MA. Bell, C. 2003 Ritual theory, ritual practice, Oxford. Bell, C. 1997 (with new foreword 2009) Ritual. Perspectives and dimensions, Oxford. Cooley, A. 2012 “Commemorating the war dead of the Roman world”. In: Low, P., Oliver G. & Rhodes, P.J. (eds.), Cultures of commemoration. War memorials, ancient and modern (Proceedings of the British Academy 160), Oxford, 61-88. Crawford, M. 1974 Roman Republican coinage, Vols. I and II, Cambridge. Degrassi, A. 1947 Inscriptiones Italiae 13/1, Fasti consulares et triumphales, Roma. 70. Suet. Cal. 23.1. Degrassi, A. 1963 Inscriptiones Italiae 13/2, Fasti et elogia, Roma. Edwards, C. 2007 Death in ancient Rome, New Haven. Feeney, D. 2007 Caesar’s calendar. Ancient time and the beginnings of history (Sather Classical Lectures 65), Berkeley. Flaig, E. 2003 Ritualisierte Politik. Zeichen, Gesten und Herrschaft im Alten Rom (Historische Semantik 1), Göttingen. Geertz, C. 1973 The interpretation of cultures. Selected essays, London. Hekster, O. 2004 “The constraints of tradition. Depictions of Hercules in Augustus’ reign”. In: Roman, C. et al. (eds.), ORBIS ANTIQUUS. Studia in honorem Ioannis Pisonis (Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis 21), Cluj-Napoca, 235-241. Hölkeskamp, K.-J. 2008 “Hierarchie und Konsens. Pompae in der politischen Kultur der römischen Republik”. In: Arweiler, A.H. & Gauly, B.M. (eds.), Machtfragen. Zur kulturellen Repräsentation und Konstruktion von Macht in Antike, Mitteralter und Neuzeit, Stuttgart. Hölscher, T. 2005 “Provokation und Transgression als politischer Hab- tto t ra es TRIUMPH AND SPECTACLE. VICTORY CELEBRATIONS IN THE LATE REPUBLICAN CIVIL WARS itus in der späten römischen Republik”, Römische Mitteilungen 111, 83-104. Hopkins, K. 1991 “From violence to blessing. Symbols and rituals in ancient Rome”. In: Molho, A., Raaflaub, K. & Emlen, J. (eds.), City states in classical Antiquity and medieval Italy, Ann Arbor, 479-498. Itgenshorst, T. 2005 Tota illa pompa. Der Triumph in der römischen Republik (Hypomnemata. Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben 161), Göttingen. Krasser, H., Pausch D. & Petrovic, I. (eds.) 2008 Triplici invectus triumpho. Der römische Triumph in augusteischer Zeit (Potsdamer altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge 25), Stuttgart. Kristensen, T.M. (forthcoming) “Maxentius’ head and the rituals of civil war”. In: Börm, H. et al. (eds.), Civil War in Ancient Greece and Rome. Contexts of Disintegration and Reintegration, Stuttgart. La Rocca, E. & Tortorella, S. (eds.) 2009 Trionfi romani, Milano. Lange, C.H. 2012 “Constantine’s civil war triumph of AD 312 and the adaptability of triumphal tradition”, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 34, 29-53. Lange, C.H. 2013 “Triumph and civil war in the late Republic”, Papers of the British School at Rome 81, 67-90. Lange, C.H. (forthcoming) Triumphs in the age of civil war. The late Republic and the adaptability of triumphal tradition. Low, P. 2010 “Commemoration of the war dead in classical Athens. Remembering defeat and victory”. In: Pritchard, D. (ed.), War, democracy and culture in classical Athens, Cambridge, 341-358. Low, P. 2012 “The monuments to the war dead in classical Athens. Form, contexts, meanings”. In: Low, P., Oliver G. & Rhodes, P.J. (eds.), Cultures of commemoration. War memorials, ancient and modern (Proceedings of the British Academy 160), Oxford, 13-39. Mayer, E. 2006 “Civil war and public dissent. The state monuments of the decentralised Roman Empire”. In: Bowden W., Gutteridge A. & Machado, C. (eds.), Social and political life in late Antiquity, Leiden, 141-155. Osgood, J. 2006 Caesar’s legacy. Civil war and the emergence of the Roman Empire, Cambridge 2006. 193 Östenberg, I. 2009 Staging the world. Spoils, captives, and representations in the Roman triumphal procession (Oxford Studies in Ancient Culture and Representation), Oxford. Östenberg, I. 2013 “Veni, vidi, vici and Caesar’s triumph”, Classical Quarterly 63.2, 813-827. Östenberg, I. 2014 “War and remembrance. Memories of defeat in ancient Rome”. In: Scheffer, C. (ed.), Attitudes towards the past in Antiquity. Creating identities. Proceedings of an International Conference held at Stockholm University, 15-17 May 2009, Stockholm, 255-265. Pelikan Pittenger, M.R. 2008 Contested triumphs. Politics, pageantry, and performance in Livy’s Republican Rome, Berkeley. Rüpke, J. 2011 The Roman calendar from Numa to Constantine (originally published in German, Kalender und Öffentlichkeit: die Geschichte der Repräsentation und religiösen Qualifikation von Zeit in Rom, Berlin 1995), Hoboken, N.J. Schäfer, T. 2002 “Römisches Relief mit Tensa”, Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts 96, 31-49. Schäfer, T. 2008 “Ein frühkaiserzeitliches Relief mit pompa triumphalis”. In: Krasser, H., Pausch D. & Petrovic, I. (eds.), 137-154. Schäfer, T. 2013 “Ciclo di rilievi Medinaceli”. In: La Rocca, E. (ed.), Augusto (exhibition catalogue), Milano, 321-323. Sordi, M. 1990 “Cicerone e il primo epitaffio romano”. In: Sordi, M. (ed.), Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori: la morte in combattimento nell’antichità (Contributo dell’Istituto di storia antica 16), Milano, 171-179. Stefan, A.S. 2005 Les guerres daciques de Domitien et de Trajan. Architecture militaire, topographie, image et histoire (Collection de l’École française de Rome 353), Rome. Stefan, A.S. 2009 “Tropaeum Domitiani à Adamclissi (Mésie Inférieure)”. In: Marangio, C. & Laudizi, G. (eds.), Palaia Filia. Studi di topografia antica in onore di Giovanni Uggeri, Galatina. Turner, V. 1982 From ritual to theatre. The human seriousness of play, New York. Turner, V. 1988 The anthropology of performance, New York. tto t ra es