previous next


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 στρατηγῷ μόνῳ [θρίαμβον] δίδωσιν 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.


hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: