TRIUMPHUS
TRIUMPHUS is probably derived from the shout
triumphe (connected with
θρίαμβος) uttered by the soldiers and populace during the
procession (Varro,
L. L. 6.68, also occurring in the chant of
the Arval Brothers), but possibly an early transliteration from
θρίαμβος itself. (See further Wordsworth,
Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin, p. 394.)
The triumph was no doubt originally simply the return of the victorious army
headed by its general, his first act being naturally the offering of
sacrifice to the chief god of the city. A prominent feature in such an entry
would be the display of captives and spoil. Here we have the essence of a
triumph. (Varro,
l.c.:
“Triumphare appellatum quod cum imperatore milites redeuntes clamitant
per urbem in Capitolium eunti 10 triumphe.” An early triumph of
this kind is described in
Liv. 3.29,
4.) It would take place, as a matter of course,
after every successful campaign. After the ceremony had been elaborated and
its importance thereby increased, there would naturally be a tendency,
coincident with the weakening of the executive, to restrict it to
exceptional successes, and gradually a body of rules grew up by which the
granting of what had become a coveted favour was conditioned and limited.
Above all, the consent of the senate became indispensable.
The triumph had two aspects, religious and military.
- 1. Before a general left Rome for the seat of war, his last act was to
go to the Capitol, and there (if a magistrate) procure the auspices,
without which the war could not properly be begun, and in every case
make vows for the success of his arms (Liv.
45.39, &c.; Caes. B.C. 1.6; Plin.
Pan. 5). If the campaign was successful, and a
triumph was granted him, this took the form of a progress to the
Capitol, there to pay his vows and offer sacrifice to Jupiter. This
religious character of the triumph was emphasised by the fact that the
general appeared in the procession in the character of the god. His
dress was the same, and it was the property of the temple, and brought
thence for the occasion. (Hence it is spoken of as exuviae Jovis:
Suet. Aug. 94; cf. Juv. 10.38; Liv. 10.7, 10. Gordian was the first who had the costume
as his own: Vita Gord. 4; cf. Vita Alex.
Sev. 40.) So, too, the golden crown (Tertull. de
Coron. 13) and the sceptre with its eagle belonged to the god;
the body of the general was, in early times at least, painted red like
that of the image in the temple (Plin. Nat.
33.111); and the white chariot horses used by the emperors,
and earlier by Camillus, recalled the white steeds of Jupiter and the
Sun (Liv. 5.23, 5,
and v. inf.). As to the importance of this
identification of the priest (such as the triumphator was on this
occasion) with the deity, see SACERDOS
- 2. The triumph was also a military act, the last performed by the
general in his command, and therefore it was essential that he should
during its performance be in full possession of the military imperium;
this being inherent in the office of the chief magistrates (consul,
praetor, dictator). Although ordinarily in abeyance within the city,
such magistrates, if they obtained a triumph during their term of
office, were already in possession of the essential qualification, and
were consequently enabled (with the previous sanction of the senate) to
exercise their military imperium on that occasion within the city. (For
difficulties connected with the loss of the auspicia in certain cases, see Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, 1.124, note 5.) So long as the command of
the army was regularly taken by one of the chief magistrates during his
year of office, the right to a triumph belonged to this class
exclusively (in an exceptional case like that of Q. Publilius Philo,
consul in B.C. 327, where the command was prolonged beyond the regular
term, the right was not lost: Liv. 8.26,
7); and hence, when during the Second
Punic War it became necessary to appoint commanders who were not at the
same time holders of one of the regular chief magistracies, the triumph
was in such cases refused (e. g. P. Scipio in B.C. 206, Liv. 28.38, 4; L.
Manlius Acidinus in B.C. 199, Liv. 32.7,
4; Cn. Cornelius Blasio in B.C. 196,
Liv. 33.27; and L. Lentulus in B.C. 200,
Liv. 31.20, 3, “exemplum a majoribus non accepisse ut qui neque
dictator neque consul neque praetor res gessisset
triumpharet.” The rule is also stated in Plut. Pomp. 14, ὑπάτῳ ἢ
στρατηγῷ μόνῳ [θρίαμβον] δίδωσιν ὁ νόμος). Later,
when it became the practice (finally legalised by Sulla) that the
command of an army in a province should only be taken after the
expiration of the year of office in Rome, it was found necessary to
relax the rule, for the practical reason that, since none of the regular
magistrates had the chance of gaining a victory, no triumphs whatever
could have been granted. Accordingly, for the later period of the
Republic, the triumphs celebrated are ordinarily those of proconsuls and
propraetors. The fact that such had already held one of the chief
magistracies in the city no doubt facilitated the modification of the
old rule; but even where this had not been so, as in the exceptional
case of Pompey in B.C. 81 and 71, the triumph was not refused. The
imperium in the case of proconsuls and propraetors being granted (by
prorogatio) strictly for the command in
the province only, in order to facilitate the triumph Sulla legalised
the practice of treating the imperium as subsisting until the general
reached the city (Cic. Fam. 1.9, 25: cf. Liv.
34.10; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1.619, notes 1 and
2). Such extension, however, only availed up to the pomerium, and
special legislation (privilegium) was
necessary to keep the imperium alive within the city on the day of the
triumph (voted by the people ex auctoritate senatus,
Liv. 26.21, cf. 45.35). Until this had been
passed the general remained without the walls, for if he had entered the
city the continuity of his imperium would have been lost, and he would
have become a privatus, and thereby
excluded from a triumph. (Hence Lucullus remained without the city for
three years: Cic. Acad. pr.
2.1, 3: cf. the case of Cicero in B.C. 50, ad Att.
7.10.)
After an important victory the general was saluted by his troops as Imperator
(a frequent but not universal preliminary to a triumph: Mommsen,
Staatsr. 1.123); he assumed the
fasces
laureati (
Cic. pro Lig.
3, 7,
ad Att. 7.10), and forwarded to the senate
litterae laureatae (
Liv. 5.28,
13;
Plin. Nat. 15.40; Zon. 7.21; cf. Tac.
Agr. 18), i. e. a despatch announcing the victory. If the
intelligence proved satisfactory,
[p. 2.895]the senate
decreed a public thanksgiving [
SUPPLICATIO], which was so frequently the forerunner of a
triumph, that Cato thinks it necessary to remind Cicero that it was not
invariably so (
Cic. Fam. 15.5,
2). After the return of the general with his
army to the neighbourhood of Rome, the next point was to obtain the consent
of the senate, but before this could be given certain conditions must have
been fulfilled.
- 1. The triumphator must be to the end of the ceremony in
possession of the highest magisterial power--i. e. the imperium as
belonging to the consul, praetor, dictator, proconsul, and
propraetor; and this imperium must have been conferred in regular
constitutional course (the tribuni consulari
imperio were therefore excluded from a triumph; it was
otherwise with the triumvirs, Mommsen, Staatsr. 1.126
c). This point has been already discussed, but some of its
exceptions and consequences remain to be mentioned. When a
pro-magistrate was elected consul during his command, his triumph
took place on the day on which he entered on his magistracy (e. g.
Marius in B.C. 104: Mommsen, Staatsr. 1.124, note 4).
The imperium outside Rome being unlimited, and therefore only
exercisable by one person in the same district and at the same time,
if there were two commanders only one triumph could be granted, and
it was therefore given either to the one of highest rank (e. g. a
dictator before a consul, a consul before a praetor: Liv. 2.31, 4.29,
4; Ep. xix.), or, in
the case of two consuls, to the one to whose turn the imperium and
auspicium came on the day of battle (e. g. the battle of the
Metaurus: Liv. 28.9, 10). So a triumph could not be claimed by a commander
who had won a victory in the district assigned for the exercise of
another's imperium (Liv. l.c. The battle of
the Metaurus was fought in the provincia of M. Livius: cf. Liv.
10.37, 34.10). Exceptions to
these rules occur after the First Punic War, and the lesser triumph
(ovatio) was generally granted if
the greater honour was refused. On the same principle one who
commanded alienis auspiciis, i.e. as
the representative of an absent general or the subordinate of one
who was present, was excluded from a triumph (D. C. 43.42). This rule was broken by Caesar towards the
end of his life in the case of his legati (Dio Cass. l.c., Q. Fabius Maximus and Q. Pedius: cf.
Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1.127, note 3). This example
was followed under the triumvirate (e. g. P. Ventidius, legatus of
Antony: D. C. 48.41, 5). Lastly, in spite of the rule laid down
by Cicero (de Leg. Agr. 2.12, 30), about the
necessity of a lex curiata for the
military imperium, there is an instance towards the end of the
Republic of a triumph obtained by one who had never had the imperium
so conferred (Cic. Att. 4.1. 6,
12; C. I. L. i.
p. 460, xxvii.).
- 2. The victory must have been won in a legitimate contest against
public foes (justis hostilibusque bellis,
Cic. pro Deiot. 5,
13), and not in a civil war or insurrection of slaves (V. Max. 2.8, 7; D. C. 43.42; Florus, 2.10, 9; Lucan 1.12; Gel.
5.6, 21; Plut. Caes. 56). Hence there was no triumph after the
capture of Capua in B.C. 211, or of Fregellae in 125, though the
former had not the full citizenship, and the latter was only a Latin
colony. (The reason given in Val. Max. l.c.,
that Capua had belonged to Rome and that a triumph was only granted
pro aucto imperio, is wrong:
Mommsen, Staatsr. i. p. 129, note 3.) Caesar's
triumphs after Thapsus and Munda, and Octavian's after Actium, do
not violate this rule, for in each case the victory was represented
as having been won over foreigners; while, on the other hand, Caesar
celebrated no triumph for Pharsalia. The feeling appears as late as
Septimius Severus (Herodian, 3.9, 1).
- 3. The victory must have been won in the course of serious
fighting (Gel. 5.6, 21); and according to Valerius Maximus (2.8, 1), a law
enacted that a minimum loss of 5,000 men must have been inflicted on
the enemy in a single battle. (By a plebiscitum of B.C. 62 the
general had to affirm his returns on oath, and penalties were fixed
for falsification.) This rule is obviously of recent date, and even
later there are many instances of triumphs granted for general
results (in the case of P. Cornelius and M. Baebius, Liv. 40.38, there had been no war. Cf.
8.26, 7; 37.46;--Cic. in Pis.
26, 62).
- 4. The war must have been brought to a conclusion (debellatum), so that the army could be
withdrawn (deportatio exercitus), the
presence of the victorious soldiers being an essential part of the
ceremony (Liv. 26.21; 31.49). Originally, therefore, the fact of
handing over an army at the seat of war to a successor excluded from
a triumph. Later, when circumstances compelled the maintenance of
permanent armies at a great distance from Italy, the condition as to
deportatio was dispensed with,
provided that the war had been brought to a conclusion (Liv. 39.29, 4).
Decisive victories in a war of great extent or duration could be rewarded by
a triumph, i. e. they were treated as the conclusion of separate wars: e. g.
in the Hannibalic war the battle of the Metaurus and the capture of
Tarentum. The claims for triumphs after the conquest of Sicily and Spain in
the same war were only rejected on other grounds (cf.
Tac. Ann. 1.55;
2.41).
Granting that a chief magistrate had an absolute right to exercise his full
imperium within the city on the day of his triumph, the existence of this
body of rules implies the recognition of some authority, other than the
general himself, which should decide on their applicability. As a matter of
fact we find that from the earliest times the senate was so recognised
(
Liv. 2.47,
10;
3.29,
4;
63,
9: cf.
Plb. 6.13; Sen.
de Ben. 5.15) that
its decision was regularly treated as final (e. g.
Liv.
10.36,
19;
Dionys. A. R. 9.26), and only
exceptionally set aside by an appeal to the people (
Liv.
3.63,
8;
7.17,
9;--Zon. 8.20), or by violence
(cases of L. Postumius Megellus,
Liv. 10.37; and
Appius Claudius,
Cic. pro Cael.
14, 34;
Suet. Tib. 2). We know of no
case in which the senate was not first applied to. The point, no doubt, at
which that body made its authority felt was the senatusconsultum, without
which there could be no grant of public money for the expenses of the
triumph (
Plb. 6.15,
8;
Liv. 33.23,
8:
cf.
D. C. 74.2). In the case of pro-magistrates,
whose imperium rested on
prorogatio, the
consent of the senate was followed by the
privilegium allowing the
[p. 2.896]retention of
the imperium within the city for the triumph (see above). It is probably
from a confusion with this that it is sometimes said that the consent of the
senate must be ratified by the people: e. g. Suet.
Fr. viii.
ed. Roth. See Willems,
Le Sénat de la
République Romaine, vol. ii. p. 672, note 2. But the
early mention of the co-operation of the people in
Liv.
4.20, of B.C. 437 (cf.
Dionys. A. R.
3.59), perhaps points to the existence of a different state of
things in early times. The senate met for these deliberations outside the
walls, usually in the temple of Bellona (
Liv.
26.21,
36.39) or Apollo (
Liv. 39.4), in order that the general might have an
opportunity of urging his claims in person. After the erection of the temple
of Mars Ultor by Augustus in his forum, at least the final sitting was held
there (
Suet. Aug. 29).
When the day appointed had arrived, the whole population poured forth from
their abodes in holiday attire; some stationed themselves on the steps of
public buildings, while others mounted scaffoldings erected for the purpose
of commanding a view of the show. The temples were all thrown open, garlands
of flowers decorated every shrine and image, and incense smoked on every
altar (
Plut. Aem. 32;
Ov. Tr. 4.2,
4). Meanwhile the
general, who had passed the night in the Campus Martius (Joseph.
B.
J. 7.5, 4), addressed his soldiers in a
contio, and announced the rewards that were to be distributed
to the officers and men (
Liv. 10.30,
46;
30.45,
3;
33.23, &c.;
Plin. Nat. 37.16;
D. C. 43.21).
The procession was then marshalled in the Campus, where it was met by the
senate and magistrates (Josephus,
l.c.). Generally
the following order was preserved, but naturally there were variations under
special circumstances (a good instance of such is the triumph of Aurelian,
described in
Vita Aurel. 33).
- 1. The magistrates and senate (D. C.
51.21, 9).
- 2. Trumpeters (tubicines:
Plut. Aem. 33; Appian, App. Pun. 66).
- 3. The tangible results of the victory, including spoils of
armour, objects materially or artistically valuable, representations
of conquered countries, cities, rivers, &c., by means of
pictures, models, and allegorical figures (Liv.
26.21, 7; Cic. Phil. 8.6, 18;. Tac.
Ann. 2.41; Plin. Nat.
5.5. In one of the inner reliefs on the Arch of Titus all the
bearers of these are represented wearing laurel wreaths), together
with boards on which were painted the names of the vanquished
nations and countries. With these were displayed the golden crowns
presented to the general by the towns of the conquered province
(Liv. 26.21, 34.52; Plut. Aem. 34. In
earlier times they were of laurel: Gel.
5.6, 7).
- 4. The white oxen destined for sacrifice, with gilded horns,
decorated with vittae and serta, attended by the priests with their
implements, and followed by the Camilli, bearing in their hands
paterae and other sacred vessels
and instruments (Plut. Aem. 33).
- 5. The principal captives in chains (e. g. Perseus, Jugurtha,
Vercingetorix, Zenobia. The dead Cleopatra was represented by an
image: D. C. 51.21, 8).
- 6. The lictors of the general in red tunics, their fasces wreathed
with laurel (Appian, App. Pun. 66.
The fasces were probably without the axes: so in the relief of the
Arch of Titus. See, however, Mommsen, Staatsr. 1.129;
LICTOR p. 66
a).
- 7. Citharistae or ludiones, dancing and singing if in exultation over the
conquered enemy Appian, l.c.: cf. Dionys. A. R. 7.72).
- 8. The general himself, in a chariot of circular form (Zon. 7.21),
drawn by four horses.
 |
|
Triumphal chariot: from a relief. (Montfaucon, Ant.
Exp. iv. pl. cv.)
|
As to the use of white horses,
v. sup. After Camillus
(
Liv. 5.23;
D. C.
52.13;
Plut. Cam. 7), we hear of no
general venturing to introduce them till Caesar (
D. C.
43.14,
3), but his example appears to
have been regularly followed by the emperors (
Suet.
Nero 25; Plin.
Pan. 22. The Augustan poets mention
it as an ordinary detail: Ovid,
A. A. 1.214;.
Propert. 5.1, 32). Both chariot and horses were adorned with laurel (
Suet. Aug. 94;
Ov.
Pont. 2.1,
58;
Flor. 1.5,
6; Zon. 7.8).
In the 3rd century, if the triumph was over the Parthians (
triumphus Persicus), the chariot was drawn by four
elephants (
Vita Alex. Sev. 57, 4;
Gord. Tert.
27, 9; and cf. the coin of Diocletian and Maximian described in Cohen,.
Médailles Impériales, vi. p. 479,
3). Pompey had unsuccessfully attempted to gain permission for this at his
African triumph (
Plut. Pomp. 14: cf.
Marquardt,
Staatsverwaltung, ii. p. 586, note 7). Incense was
burnt in front of the chariot (Appian,
App. Pun.
66). The dress of the, general (
v. sup. as to
its general character), consisted of a flowered tunic (
tunica palmata) and gold embroidered robe (
toga picta), both of purple (
Plut.
Aem. 34;
Liv. 10.7,
9). In. his right hand he carried a laurel bough
(
Plut. Aem. 32;
Plin. Nat. 15.137), and in his left an
ivory sceptre crowned by an eagle (
Dionys. A.
R. 3.61,
5.47;
V. Max. 4.4,
5;.
Juv.. 10.43). In early times his body seems to have been painted red (
Plin. Nat. 33.111, and)
v. sup.). On his head was a wreath of laurel. (
Plin. Nat. 15.137). Behind him stood a
public slave, holding over his head the heavy golden crown of Jupiter, made
in the form of ant oak-wreath (
Juv. 10.39; Plin.
H. N. xxxii,1.11, 38.7; Zon. 7.21; Tertull.
de Cor. 13). That this culmination of human and
almost divine honours might not provoke the evil
[p. 2.897]consequences of pride,
invidia, and the evil
eye, an amulet (
fascinus) was worn by him or
was attached to the chariot, together with a little bell and a scourge
(
Plin. Nat. 28.39; Zon. 7.21;
Macr. 1.6,
9); and the
slave who rode beside him whispered in his ear, “Respice post te,
hominem te memento” (Tertull.
Apol. 33, confirmed
by Arrian,
Diss. Epict. 3.24, 85, and Plin.
H.
N. l.c.: cf.
Juv. 10.41). We can hardly
suppose that the slave was present in the case of an emperor. The monuments
almost invariably show a figure of Victory beside the emperor in the
chariot, holding a crown of laurel over his head. A state chair (
sella) also appears to have belonged to the
triumphator, for such is mentioned in connexion with the other triumphal
distinctions (
Liv. 10.7,
9;
D. C. 44.6;
Suet. Jul. 76; Mommsen,
Staatsr. i. p. 423). His
children who were under age (of both sexes) rode with him in the chariot or
on the horses (
Liv. 45.40,
8;
V. Max. 5.7,
1;
10,
2;--
Tac. Ann. 2.41;
Vita
M. Ant. Phil. 12, 10;
Cic. pro
Mur. 5, 11;
Suet. Tib. 6).
His grown--up sons rode behind (
Liv. 45.40,
4) after the
apparitores (Appian,
App. Pun.
66), together with his
legati and
tribuni (
Cic.
in Pis. 25, 60; Appian,
App. Mith. 117). Then sometimes came the
Roman citizens whom he had rescued from slavery by his victory, in the
character of freedmen (
Liv. 30.45,
5;
33.23,
6;
34.52,
12). The rear was brought up by the whole body of
the infantry in marching order, their spears adorned with laurel (
Plin. Nat. 15.133), shouting
Io triumphe (Varro,
L. L. 5.7; Hor.
Od. 4.2,
49;
Tib. 2.6,
121), and singing songs which contained the praises of the general
as well as the coarsest ribaldry at his expense (
Liv.
4.20;
53,
11, &c.;--
Suet. Jul. 49,
51;
Mart. 1.5,
3; other references given in Marquardt,
Staatsverw. ii. p. 588, note 2. See also Munro,
Criticisms and Elucidations of Catullus, p. 90).
The procession entered the city by the Porta Triumphalis [
Cic. in Pis. 23, 55. It seems to
have been between the Temple of Isis and the Circus Flaminius (Joseph.
B. J. 7.5, 4), and was apparently only opened on these
occasions, as there was a special resolution of the senate in the case of
the funeral of Augustus,
Tac. Ann. 1.8]. Here
sacrifices were offered to certain deities (Joseph.
B. J.
7.5, 4). It then passed through the Circus Flaminius, and through or at
least near the theatres in the same region, as affording places for the
crowds of spectators (
Plut. Luc. 37, Joseph.
B. J. l.c.), and probably entered the city proper by the
Porta Carmentalis, as we know that the Velabrum (apparently the Vicus
Tuscus) and Forum Boarium were traversed (
Suet. Jul.
37;
Cic. Ver. 1.59, 154). The circuit of the Palatine hill was
then made by the Circus Maximus (Cic.
l.c.;
Plut. Aem. 32), and the road between the
Palatine and the Caelian, at the end of which the Via Sacra was reached,
which conducted the procession to the Forum (Hor.
Od.
4.2,
35;
Epod. 7,
8). The route probably passed along the south side of the Forum (Jordan,
Capitol, Forum, und Sacra Via, Berlin, 1881). From the
end of the Via Sacra started the Clivus Capitolinus, and as the general was
about to ascend this the principal captives were led aside into the
adjoining prison, and there put to death (
Cic. Ver.
5.30, 77;
Liv. 26.13; Trebell Poll.
Trig. Tyr. 22.
Originally such were beheaded with the axe; in later times they were
strangled: cf.
Liv. 26.13,
15, with Trebell. Poll.
Trig. Tyr. 22, 8, and see
Mommsen,
Staatsr. 1.129). To spare the lives of such captives
was exceptional. The earliest case is that of Perseus, spared by Aemilius
Paulus (Plut. 37), whose example was followed by Pompey (Appian,
App. Mith. 117), Tiberius in his Pannonian
triumph of A.D. 12 (
Ov. ex Pont.
2.1, 45), and Aurelian in the case of Zenobia (Trebell. Poll.
Trig. Tyr. 30, 27). The sacrifice in the temple could not
begin until the execution had taken place (Joseph.
B. J. 7.5,
6).
The general then ascended to the Capitol (Alexander Severus went on foot,
Vita, 57, 4). When the temple was reached,
the laurel branch and the wreaths of the fasces were deposited in the lap of
the god (Sen.
Consol. ad Helv. 10;
Plin. Nat. 15.40; Plin.
Pan.
8;
Sil. Ital. 15.118;
Stat. Silv. 4.1,
41; Pacatus,
Paneg. in Theod. 9, 5), and in later
times a palm branch (cf. Marquardt,
Staatsverw. ii. p. 589,
note 2). Then the victims were sacrificed. The
insignia
triumphi, i.e. the most notable spoils (e. g. the recovered
standards of Crassus,
D. C. 54.83, and no doubt
those of Varus,
Tac. Ann. 2.41), were
afterwards placed in the temple of Mars Ultor (
Suet.
Aug. 29). Finally, the general with the senate was entertained at
a public feast in the temple (
Liv. 45.39). It
was the practice to invite the consuls to this banquet, and then to send a
message requesting them not to come, in order, doubtless, that the
triumphator might be the most distinguished person in the company (Plut.
Quaest. Rom. 80;
V.
Max. 2.8,
6). A similar
entertainment was provided for the soldiers, and for the citizens in the
temple of Hercules (
Plut. Luc. 37;
Athen. 5.221 f).
The whole of the proceedings, generally speaking, were brought to a close in
one day; but when the quantity of plunder was very great, and the troops
very numerous, a longer period was required for the exhibition. Thus the
Macedonian triumph of Flaminius continued for three days in succession
(
Liv. 39.52; cf.
Plut. Aem. 32).
The honours of the triumphator did not end with the day. At public spectacles
he appeared with the laurel wreath (
Plin. Nat.
15.126;
V. Max. 3.6,
5), and in exceptional cases in the
vestis triumphalis (e.g. L. Aemilius Paulus and
Pompey; Auctor,
de Vir. ill. 56; Vell. 2.40). It was
customary to provide him at the public expense with the site for a house,
such mansions being called
triumphales domus
(
Plin. Nat. 36.112). His name was
inscribed in the
Fasti Triumphales (
C.
I. L. i. p. 453); he was allowed to decorate the entrance to his
house with trophies (Plin.
H. N. xxxv. § 7;
Cic. Phil. 2.2. 8;
Liv.
10.7,
9); and a laurel-wreathed statue
standing erect in a triumphal car, displayed in the
vestibulum, transmitted his fame to posterity (
Juv. 8.3). Finally, after death, his ashes might be
deposited within the walls of the city (Plut.
Quaest.
Rom. 79; Mommsen,
Staatsr. i. p. 426, note 1).
Triumphus in Monte Albano consisted in a
procession to the temple of Jupiter Latiaris on the Alban Mount. It took
place
jure consularis
[p. 2.898]imperii (
Liv. 33.23,
3),
sine publica auctoritate (
Liv. 42.21,
7), but was
only resorted to in case of the refusal of a regular triumph by the senate,
and was regarded as an inferior distinction (
Liv.
33.23). Although it was recorded in the
Fasti
Triumphales, it was not equivalent to a triumph in the city;
for when Marcellus in B.C. 211 was refused the greater but allowed the
lesser triumph (
ovatio), he still celebrated a
triumph on the Alban Mount on the day before the ovation (
Liv. 26.21,
6). The
first instance was C. Papirius Maso in B.C. 231 (
Plin. Nat. 15.126;
V. Max. 3.6,
5), and his example
was followed by many others (
Liv. 26.21,
6;
33.23,
3;
42.21,
7;
45.38;--
Plut. Marc. 22).
Triumphus Navalis.--The earliest on record was
celebrated by C. Duilius for his naval victory over the Carthaginians in
B.C. 260 (Liv.
Ep. xvii.;
Flor.
1.8,
10;
Plin. Nat. 34.20). Other instances are M. Aemilius Paulus in
B.C. 254 (
Liv. 42.20,
1), C. Lutatius Catulus in B.C. 241 (
V. Max.
2.8,
2), Q. Fabius Labeo in B.C. 189
(
Liv. 37.60,
6),
Cn. Octavius in B.C. 167 (
Liv. 45.42,
2); and see the
Fasti
Triumphales for the years 497, 498, 513, 526. Of its special
details nothing is known. C. Duilius and M. Aemilius Paulus erected
columnae rostratae to commemorate their victories
(
Liv. 42.20,
1).
Triumphus Castrensis.--A procession of the
soldiers through the camp in honour of an officer, inferior to the general,
who had performed a brilliant exploit (
Liv.
7.36).
Under the Empire, when the monarch became the sole possessor of the imperium
and all commanders were only legati acting under his auspices, the condition
stated above as to the possession of the imperium was strictly applied, and
the precedent created by Caesar in favour of his legati was only followed by
Augustus at the beginning of his reign (
D. C.
54.12;
Suet. Aug. 38). Even in the
case of the holders of the secondary
proconsulare
imperium, the triumph became rare, and then only if they were
members of the imperial family (
D. C. 54.24
gives B.C. 14 as the date of the change, when Agrippa refused a triumph as
he had done in B.C. 19,
D. C. 54.11). Triumphs
were celebrated by Tiberius (B.C. 7, Vell. 2.97,
D. C.
4.6; and A.D. 12, Vell. 2.121,
Suet. Tib.
20), Germanicus (A.D. 26,
Tac. Ann.
2.41), and Titus (A.D. 71, associated with his father,
Suet. Tit. 6). Up to the time of Caligula the
proconsuls of Africa held a kind of independent position with an imperium of
their own, and they no doubt retained the rights and practices of the
republican magistrates with regard to the triumph. Triumphs of such are
recorded for B.C. 21 and 19 (Mommsen,
Staatsr. 1.127, note 5;
132, 133, notes 1 and 2;
Res Gestae D. Aug. 21).
Under these circumstances the custom was introduced of bestowing the
ornamenta triumphalia, i.e. the right to appear on
festivals in so much of the triumphal dress as generals had been allowed to
retain under the Republic (viz. the laurel wreath,
v.
sup. Cf. Mommsen,
Staatsr. 1.422, 423; Marquardt,
Staatsverw. 2.591. At the triumph of Claudius in A.D. 44
M. Crassus Frugi appeared in the
tunica
palmata, but this was an exceptional honour; the others who
obtained the ornamenta on that occasion wore the
praetexta:
Suet. Cl. 17; cf.
D. C. 51.20,
2), and, after the completion of the Forum of Augustus in B.C. 2, to
have a bronze statue (
statua laureata) erected
there (
D. C. 55.10. Cf.
Tac. Ann. 4.23: perhaps to be distinguished
from the
statua triumphalis,
Plin. Nat. 33.131;
Tac. Ann. 15.72,
Hist. 1.79,
Agr. 40;
Plin.
Ep. 2.7; Peine,
de Ornamentis
Triumphalibus, c. iv.). Like the triumph, they were decreed by the
senate sitting in the temple of Mars Ultor (
D. C.
4.10;
Suet. Aug. 29). The senate only
is generally said to grant the honour (
Tac. Ann.
2.52;
Hist. 4.4), and even to the
emperor himself (
Suet. Cl. 17); but in the
inscriptions of the time of Vespasian and later the words
auctore imperatore are generally added, and perhaps this was
the case earlier (
Tac. Ann. 3.72,
Agr. 40;
D. C. 60.23,
2: cf. Mommsen,
Staatsr. 1.450,
note 3). Under Augustus they appear to have been granted only if the
conditions for a regular triumph were in existence (but cf.
D. C. 51.20,
2),
excepting of course the independent imperium. According to Suetonius
(
Tib 9), Tiberius was the first to receive them, and
there were numerous other instances in the reign of Augustus (
Suet. Aug. 38). Afterwards, owing to the
indiscriminate bestowal of the honour by the Julian emperors (Tiberius
rewarded
delators with it,
D.
C. 58.16: cf.
Tac. Ann. 11.20,
3,
12.3,
2;
Suet. Cl.
24;
Nero, 15;--
D.
C. 60.23,
2;
31,
7), it was no longer regarded as
such (
Tac. Ann. 13.53). Vespasian seems to
have restored its position for a time (Marquardt,
Staatsverw.
2.592), but the abuses reappeared under Domitian (
Plin. Ep. 2.7). The last instance known is of the time of
Hadrian (
C. I. L. 3.2830). Forty-eight in all have been
collected by Peine. In the time of the Antonines and later, when the full
triumphal dress was regularly worn by every consul on entry into office and
other state occasions (Mommsen,
Staatsr. 1.399, and note 4),
the only military distinction that remained was
a statua
inter triumphales, i.e. in the Forum of Trajan or some other
public place reserved for such memorials (
C. I. L. 6.1377,
1540, &c.: cf. Trebell. Poll.
Trig. Tyr. 21. See
generally Mommsen,
Staatsr. 1.449; Marquardt,
Staatsverw. 2.592; Peine,
de
Ornamentis Triumphalibus, Berlin, 1885).
The last triumph recorded is that of Diocletian in A.D. 302 (
Eutrop. 9,
27.
Marquardt,
Staatsverw. 2.591, n. 7, considers the so-called
triumph of Belisarius after the recovery of Africa to have been rather a
processus consularis: Procop.
B.
Vand. 2, 9). The total number of triumphs upon record down to
this period amounts to about 350 (Orosius,
7.9,
reckons 320 from Romulus to Vespasian).
After the triumph had assumed its distinctive form, it seems to have been
taken as the type of a festival procession in which any of the chief
magistrates took part, and hence the procession of the Praetor Urbanus in
the Circus Maximus before the games of Apollo was modelled on it (
Juv. 10.36
sqq., 11.194,
similis
triumpho),--a fact which Mommsen is inclined to attribute to the
original connexion between the
ludi and the
triumph, both being parts of the public rejoicings after a victory
(
Staatsr. i.
[p. 2.899]p. 397). It is
remarkable that the same idea seems to have influenced the funeral
procession of Augustus. (It passed through the Porta Triumphalis, an image
of Victory accompanied the bier, and boards inscribed with the names of the
peoples he had conquered were carried. See
Tac. Ann.
1.8,
4;
Suet. Aug. 100.) Under the Empire the triumphal costume became
an official imperial dress (as early as Pompey, Vell. 2.40). Caesar appears
to have intended to use it on every public occasion (
D.
C. 44.4; cf.
Plut. Caes. 61), but
Augustus and his successors wore it only at festivals and spectacles.
(Domitian, however, more freely:
D. C. 67.4,
3; Mommsen,
Staatsr. i. pp.
401, 423.) Its use by the consuls when they entered upon their office has
been mentioned above.
[
G.Mc.N.R]
