Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T13:13:48.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Triumph, the Praetors and the Senate in the Early Second Century B.C.*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

J. S. Richardson
J. S. Richardson
Affiliation:
The University of St. Andrews
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Rome's decisive defeat of Carthage in the Hannibalic War led inevitably to an immense expansion of the area of Roman activity, both diplomatic and military. The numbers of men under arms for the period down to 167 B.C. obtained from Livy's history show hardly any decline, and this alone is a clear reflection of the new role that Rome had assumed as the major military power of the Mediterranean region. One immediate result of her changed situation was a commensurate expansion in the opportunities of Roman magistrates for military commands, and a more widespread expectation of that reward for military success which the republic valued above all others, the triumph.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 65 , November 1975 , pp. 50 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © J. S. Richardson 1975. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See most recently Brunt, P. A., Italian Manpower 225 B.C.–A.D. 14 (Oxford 1971), 416–426Google Scholar.

2 On the value of the triumph, see the words given by Livy to Scipio Africanus: ‘neque magnificentius quicquam triumpho apud Romanos’, L. ( = Livy) 30, 15, 12. On the prestige of the triumphator, amounting almost to divinization, see most recently Warren, L. B., JRS 60 (1970), 68 f.Google Scholar; Versnel, H. S., Triumphus (Leiden 1970), 67–93Google Scholar.

3 Mommsen, , StR. ( = Römisches Staatsrecht, Leipzig 1887–1888) 3, 126–135Google Scholar.

4 Mommsen, StR. i3, 126–134.

5 For the triumphs from 241 to 133 B.C. see the list in Degrassi, A., Inscriptiones Italiae xiii, 1 (Rome 1947), 549–559Google Scholar. Note that in what follows ‘triumphs’ includes those celebrated without senatorial sanction in monte Albano, while ‘celebrations’ includes any ovationes also. Indeed this seems to be the practice of the Fasti Triumphales, where the entry for Fulvius Nobilior's triumph over the Aetolians in 187 is most plausibly restored ‘[M.Fu]lvius M.f.Ser.n. Nobil[ior n]’, i.e. his second triumph, although the first was an ovatio in 191 (Degrassi, Inscr. It. xiii. 1, 80 f., 554).

6 Inscr. It. xiii, 1, 535–548.

7 Inscr. It. xiii, 74–77; 548–9. The sixteen are counted from that of M. Valerius Maximus Messala in 263, to that of Q. Valerius Falto in 241.

8 So Klebs, RE ii, 2081, contra Degrassi, Inscr. It. xiii. 1, 76 f. and 548; Broughton, MRR i, 208, n. 2; ‘proconsule’ is always rendered PROCOS. in the Fasti, while, though no other entry for a praetor survives, ‘pro praetore’ appears as PRO PR.

9 Compare, for example, Ap. Claudius Caecus, cos. 11 296, M. Atilius Regulus, cos. 294, and L. Papirius Cursor, cos. 1 293, each praetor in the year following his consulship.

10 Degrassi, Inscr. It. xiii, 1, 549.

11 L., per. 18 etc.; Degrassi, Inscr. It. xiii. 3, 69.

12 Mommsen, StR. i3, 127–8; for the relationship here, see Zonaras 8, 17.

13 Val. Max. 2, 8, 2.

14 De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani iii, 1 (Torino 1916), 192, n. 100Google Scholar, cf. Pais, E., Fasti Triumphales Populi Romani (Rome 1920), 103Google Scholar.

15 In the second century—L. 39, 43, 5; Cic., de off. 3, 19, 77; Gellius, NA 14, 2, 21 and 26; in the first century b.c, Cic., I Verr. 45, 115–6; II Verr. 5, 54, 140–2.

16 Gaius 4, 93–5; cf. Schulz, F., Classical Roman Law (Oxford 1951), 368 f.Google Scholar; Kaser, M., Das römische Privatrecht2 (Munich 1971), 435Google Scholar.

17 On the importance of imperium and auspictum for the triumph see Laqueur, R., Hermes 44 (1909), 215–236Google Scholar; and the important modifications of G. Beseler, ibid. 352–361.

17a See Degrassi, Inscr. It. xiii, 1, 550–551.

18 L. 28, 38, 4, cf. Dio fr. 57, 56; Val. Max. 2, 8, 5.

19 Pol. 11, 33, 7; App., Ib. 38, 156.

20 L. 45, 35–39; the suggestion of Scullard, H. H., Roman Politics 220–150 (Oxford 1951), 75, n. 2Google Scholar, that Scipio celebrated ‘in monte Albano’ has the merit of giving both accounts something to refer to, though neither of them mentions such a triumph, and it must be regarded purely as guesswork. Broughton's hypothesis (MRR i, 299) that he celebrated an ovatio is difficult in view of the similar case of L. Cornelius Lentulus (see below), for whom even an ovatio was said to be unprecedented (L. 31, 20, 5).

21 There had, of course, been triumphs celebrated by dictators in the past, the latest having been that of M. Valerius Corvus in the ‘dictator year’ 301; however, such men were hardly in a comparable position.

22 Thus in 204, their imperium was extended by the comitia tributa, L. 29, 13, 7.

23 L. 31, 20, 1–7.

24 Thus Pais describes it as ‘in certo modo una transazione tra la concessione del pieno trionfo e l'assoluto diniego’ (o.c, p. xxiv).

25 L. 31, 10–11, 3.

26 L. 31, 21–22, 3.

27 L. 31, 47, 4 ff.

28 He is the first of his family in RE to bear the cognomen, and it may be that it refers to his extra ordinary achievement in assuming the vestis triumphalis which was of course purple (Mommsen, StR. i3, 411; W. Ehrlers, RE 7A, 504 f.).

28a See above, n. 5.

29 Plautus, Bacchides 1067–1075. On the unusual literary use of so Roman an institution, see Fraenkel, E., Elementi Plautini in Plauto (Firenze 1960), 230 f.Google Scholar; on the historical significance, Schlag, U., Regnum in Senatu (Stuttgart 1968), 17 ff.Google Scholar

30 These figures, moreover, exclude one triumph mentioned in the sources by a praetor from Spain, L. Aemilius Paullus, praetor in 191, but which almost certainly was not entered on the Fasti, and in all probability was never celebrated—Veil. Pat. 1,9, 3, cf. Degrassi, Inter. It. xiii, 1, 553.

31 On Aemilius' relations with Scipio, see L. 37, 33 and 33, 47, 3–4; on those of Fabius with Vulso see L. 37. 50. 1 and 38, 49, 2.

32 Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 8, 67, 10.

33 Cicero, Cat. mai. 55, and Apuleius, Apol. 17 say that he celebrated three triumphs, over the Samnites and the Sabines (which two L. Per. 11 places in his consulship), and later over Pyrrhus. Plutarch, Cato Maitor 2, confirms the number three. However, the entry in the Fasti for his last triumph reads ‘M’. Curius M'. f. M'. n. Dentat. IV …'. The required fourth celebration may be supplied by the reference in de vir. ill. 33, 4 that ‘tertio de Lucanis ovans urbem introiit’ (Inscr. It. xiii, 1, 77, 545).

34 L. 26, 21, 1–13; Plutarch, Marcellus 22; [Victor], de vir. ill. 45, 6.

35 cf. Cassola, F., I gruppi politici romani nel III secolo a. C. (Trieste 1962), 330 f.Google Scholar

36 Noted as ‘primus in monte Albano’ in the Fasti (Degrassi, o.c. 78).

37 H. A. Goell, de triumphi Romani origine etc. (Schleizae 1854), § 1; see now Versnel, H. S., Triumphus (Leiden 1970), 281 fGoogle Scholar.

38 Thus L. 4, 20, 5–11; cf. Broughton MRR i, 59.

39 L. 28, 9, 9–11; Val. Max. 4, 1, 9; [Victor], de vir. ill. 48, 5 and 50, 2.

40 Thus Plutarch, Marcellus 22, 2; Dion. Hal. 5, 27. 3; similarly in the Res Gestae 4, 1, Augustus' claim that he had ‘ovans triumphavi’, is translated πες[ὸν ἐθριάμβευσα] as opposed to [ἐ]φ' ἁρματος of the standard triumph (Weber, W., Princeps i (Stuttgart 1936), 108*, n. 459, and 156*, n. 580Google Scholar). Some ancient doubt as to this case may be reflected by Gellius, NA 5, 6, 27, who records that some of the ‘veteres scriptores’ have it that the commander celebrating an ovatio entered ‘equo vehentem’; but that Sabinius Masurius said that he entered ‘pedibus’.

41 L. 28, 9, 10.

42 L. 28, 10, 1; Broughton MRR i, 298, n. 1, cf. Degrassi, Inter. It. xiii, 1, 46 f. and 450 f.

43 There was only one consular triumph from the province during the period, celebrated by the only consular to go to Spain, between P. Cornelius Scipio in 217 and Q. Fulvius Nobilior in 152, that is M. Porcius Cato, who triumphed in 194.

44 Degrassi, Inscr. It. xiii, 1, 558–9.

45 Val. Max. 9, 12, 3; Pliny, NH 7, 53, 182.

46 Thus L. 45, 28, 8.

47 Paullus celebrated on IIII, III and prid. Kal. Dec., and Octavius on Kal. Dec. (Inscr. It. xiii, 1, 80, 81). See also above, n. 12.

48 L. 43, 9, 6.

49 Philippus' secret intrigues against him through Polybius (Pol. 28, 13, 7 ff.) seem to say more about Philippus' methods than Claudius' position, pace Broughton MRR i, 425 and 427, n, 5.

50 L. 45, 17, 1 ff; 45, 34, 9 and 35, 4.

51 L. 45, 43, 2.

52 App., Ib. 57, 243.

53 Degrassi, Inscr. It. xiii, 1, 550–563.

54 M. Perperna, praetor perhaps in 133, and P. Rupilius, consul 132, may have celebrated ovationes from Sicily (Degrassi, Inscr. Ii. xiii, 1, 558; Broughton MRR i, 499, n. 2; on Perperna, see Floras 2, 7, 8); the only other such celebrations under the Republic were by M'. Aquillius from Sicily in 99 (Cic., de or. 2, 47, 195), and M. Licinius Crassus in 71 (Cic., in Pis. 24, 58). Compare Gellius' statement (NA 5, 6, 21) that the fact that a war was against slaves was an ‘ovandi ac non triumphandi causa’.

55 Thus the cases in 206 and 200 mentioned above. Note also the cases of L. Manlius Acidinus in 199 (L. 32. 7, 4); P. Scipio Nasica in 191 (L. 36, 39, 3–40, 14); Q. Minucius Theltnus in 190 (L. 37, 46, 1–2); Cn. Manlius Vulso in 187 (L. 38, 44, 9–50, 3); M. Fulvius Nobilior in 187 (L. 39, 4, 1–5, 17); L. Manlius Acidinus in 185 (L. 39, 29, 4–7); Q. Fulvius Flaccus in 180 (L. 40, 35, 3–36, 12); C. Cicereius in 172 (L. 42, 21, 6–7).

56 Cic., ad fam. 15, 4, 13.

57 Dion. Hal. 9, 71, 4.

58 L. 3, 63, 5.

59 L. 7, 17, 9.

60 L. 21, 63, 2; 23, 14, 4.

61 L. 10, 37, 6–12.

62 Cic., Cael. 34; Val. Max. 5, 4, 6; Dio, fr, 74. 2.

63 That is the celebrations of C. Papirius Maso in 231, Q. Minucius Rufus in 197 and C. Cicereius in 172. Marcellus' triumph in 211 was presumably on the lost section that covers the years 219–197 (Degrassi, Inscr. It. xiii, 1, 551).

64 Thus the descriptions at App., Lib. 65, 292–66, 300, and Plutarch, Aem. Paull. 32–34.

65 For instance L. 28, 9, 7; 38, 44, 9; 39, 4, 2.

66 L. 45. 39. 10.

67 Thus recently Versnel, H. S., Triumphus (Leiden 1970)Google Scholar; Warren, L. B., JRS 60 (1970), 49–66Google Scholar.

68 Thus prayers at the outbreak of war in 218 (L. 21, 17, 4); thanksgiving for the safe arrival of Scipio's troops in Africa (L. 30, 1, 11); on triumphs Pol. 21, 2, 1–3; cf. Mommsen, StR. i3, 1059; Wiljems, P., Le senat de la république romaine ii (Louvain 1883), 305Google Scholar.

69 At Cic., ad fam. 15, 5, 2.

70 L. 3, 63, 5–11; further, in the case of the ‘unauthorized’ triumphs where there is no mention of a supplicatio, it is most improbable that one was decreed.

71 Thus L. 26, 21, 5; 45, 35, 4; Cic., ad Att. 4. 18, 4.

72 Thus L. 31, 47, 6 etc.

73 Goell thought this was done through the comitia curiata, o.c. (n. 37), § 2, but the reference to voting in tribes (e.g. L. 45, 36, 7, 10) and the lack of mention of a lex curiata makes the procedure seem more like that used to send so-called ‘privati cum imperio’ to Spain (thus L. 30, 27, 9; 31, 50, 11). This fact also makes it hard to understand the recent insistence on the lex curiata de imperio in the understanding of the triumph (thus Versnel, o.c. (n. 67), 319–349).

74 L. 45, 35, 1–39, 20.

75 Goell, o.c. (n. 37), § 2.

76 L. 3, 63, 6; 28, 9, 5; 33, 22, 1; Mommsen, StR. i3, 127, n. 2.

77 Versnel, o.c. (n. 67), 191 f., contra Mommsen, StR. i3, 132, n. 3.

78 Mommsen, StR. i3, 72.

79 Especially the cases of L. Postumius Megellus in 294, and Ap. Claudius Pulcher in 143.

80 Mommsen, StR. i3, 132, n. 3.

81 Versnel, o.c. (n. 67), 384–388, who stresses the phrase ‘triumphans urbem inire’ used in the official request for a triumph; cf. J. E. Phillips, Class. Phil. 69 (1974), 54–5.

82 Thus the story of Scipio Africanus and his response to the demand for his brother's accounts for the war against Antiochus (Pol. 23, 14).

83 L. 33, 23, 8.

84 Dio, fr. 74, 2.

85 Pol. 6, 15, 8: the consuls τοὺς γὰρ προσαγορευομένους παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς θριάμβους … οὐ δύνανται χειρίζειν, ὡς πρέπει, ποτὲ δὲ τὸ παράπαν οὐδὲ συντελεῖν ἐὰν μὴ τὸ συνέδριον συνκατάθηται καὶ δῷ τὴν εἰς ταῦτα δαπάνην.

86 There is only one case known of an ovatio being prevented, that of L. Manlius Acidinus in 199 (L. 32, 7, 4), and this was done by the veto of the tribune P. Porcius Laeca. A similar threat had been made against L. Cornelius Lentulus' ovatio in the previous year (L. 31, 20, 5–6).

87 Gellius, NA 5, 6, 20 ff. on the corona ovalis.

88 Val. Max. 2, 8.

89 Gellius, NA 5, 6, 21.

90 L. 38, 45, 1–50, 3; it is clear from 38, 47, 5 that Manlius thought he was being accused of ‘bellum iniustum’.

91 Gellius, NA 5, 6, 21; cf. Florus, 2, 7, 8.

92 Gellius, NA 5, 6, 21; Val. Max. 2, 8, 1.

93 L. 26, 21, 3–4; cf. Plutarch, , Marcellus 22, 1Google Scholar.

94 L. 28, 9, 10.

95 L. 31, 49, 3.

96 L. 31, 49, 8–11.

97 L. 34, 10, 6–7; 17, 1.

97a L. 37, 46, 1–6.

98 It should be noted, however, that the complaint against P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica in 191 was not of this type, but rather that he should have left his forces behind (L. 36, 39, 3–40, 11).

99 L. 39, 29, 5.

99a L. 39, 38, 4–12.

100 L. 40, 35, 3–36, 12; the connection is stressed by the language of the request ‘ut ob res prospere gestas diis immortalibus honos haberetur, deinde ut Q. Fulvio decedenti de provincia deportare exercitum … liceret’ (35, 5).

101 Val. Max. 2, 8, 5, where he is linked with Scipio returning from Spain.

102 Oros. 5, 4, 7.

103 Val. Max. 2, 8, 1.

104 L. 40, 38, 9; Rotondi, G., Leges publicae populi Romani (Milan 1912), 279Google Scholar, places Valerius Maximus' law in 179, because of this event.

105 Mommsen, StR. i3, 136, n. 1; Dio Cassius 54, 24, 8.