Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 August 2013
See end of article for abbreviations used.
1 On these themes see especially two papers by A. Wallace-Hadrill, dealing respectively with the significance of honours and the requirement that emperors should show a citizen-like restraint: ‘Roman arches and Greek honours: the language of power at Rome’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 36 (1990), 143–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Civilis princeps: between citizen and king’, Journal of Roman Studies 72 (1982), 32–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Price, S.R.F., Rituals and Power: the Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1984), 65ffGoogle Scholar. on the Imperial cult as a system of exchange, and most recently Lendon, J.E., Empire of Honour: the Art of Government in the Roman World (Oxford, 1997), 107ffGoogle Scholar.
2 For what follows see the valuable discussion by Hickson, F.V., ‘Augustus triumphator. manipulation of the triumphal theme in the political program of Augustus’, Latomus 50 (1991), 124–38Google Scholar. Note also Girardet, K.M., ‘“Traditionalismus” in der Politik des Oktavian/Augustus — mentalitätsgeschichtliche Aspekte’, Klio 75 (1993), 202–18, at pp. 212–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lacey, W.K., Augustus and the Principate: the Evolution of the System (Liverpool, 1996), 39–56, 72–3, 138–9Google Scholar.
3 On the cessation of non-Imperial triumphs see Eck, W., ‘Senatorial self-representation: developments in the Augustan period’, in Millar, F.G.B. and Segal, E. (eds), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (Oxford, 1984), 129–67, esp. pp. 138–9Google Scholar; Rich, J.W., Cassius Dio: the Augustan Settlement (Roman History 53–55.9) (Warminster, 1990), 202Google Scholar.
4 RG 4.1; Dio 53.26.5, 55.6.6; Florus 2.33.53.
5 RG 4.1–2. For the deposition of the laurels see also Dio 54.25.4, 55.5.1. Augustus's imperatorial salutations were for victories won by himself or by members of his family. He accepted supplicationes also for victories won by legati outside his family (Dio 54.34.7; ILS 918), but Claudius was the first emperor to accept a salutation for a victory of this kind. Dio 51.25.2, 53.26.4 is in error on this point: see Schumacher, L., ‘Die imperatorischen Akklamationen der Triumvirn und die Auspicia des Augustus’, Historia 34 (1985), 191–222Google Scholar; Brunt, P.A., Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford, 1990), 447–8Google Scholar; Rich, J.W., ‘Augustus and the spolia opima’, Chiron 26 (1996), 85–127, at pp. 93–9Google Scholar.
6 On Augustus's Parthian policy see Timpe, D., ‘Zur augusteischen Partherpolitik zwischen 30 und 20 v. Chr.’, Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 1 (1975), 155–69Google Scholar; Sherwin-White, A.N., Roman Foreign Policy in the East (London, 1984), 323–41Google Scholar; Brunt, Roman Imperial Themes (above, n. 5), 456–64; Campbell, J.B., ‘War and diplomacy: Rome and Parthia, 31 BC–AD 235’, in Rich, J. and Shipley, G. (eds), War and Society in the Roman World (London, 1993), 213–40, at pp. 220–8Google Scholar; Gruen, E.S., in CAH 2 X. 158–63Google Scholar.
7 Dio 51.18.2–3, 53.33.1–2; Justin 42.5.6–9; Rich, Cassius Dio (above, n. 3), 171.
8 So Dio 54.8.1; Justin 42.5.10–11. Other sources for the settlement include Strabo 748; Vell. 2.91.1; Suet., , Aug. 21.3Google Scholar; Livy, Per. 141.
9 The second closure: Dio 53.26.5; Oros. 6.21.11. Syme held that Janus was opened on Augustus's departure for the East: Roman Papers III (Oxford, 1984), 1181Google Scholar; ‘Janus and Parthia in Horace’, in Diggle, J., Hall, J.B. and Jocelyn, H.D. (eds), Studies in Latin Literature and its Tradition (PCPhS Supplement 15, 1989), 113–24, at p. 115Google Scholar. However, in that case it would surely have been closed on Augustus's return, and a closure at that time would not have gone unreported in our sources.
10 RG 29.2: ‘Parthos trium exercitum Romanorum spolia et signa reddere mihi supplicesque amicitiam populi Romani petere coegi’.
11 The poets: Hor., , Odes 4.15.6–8Google Scholar, Ep. 1.12.27–8, 18.56–7; Prop. 4.6.79–84; Ovid, , Fasti 5.580–94, 6.465–8Google Scholar, Tr. 2.227–8; Wissemann, M., Die Parther in der Augusteischen Dichtung (Frankfurt, 1982Google Scholar). The coinage: RIC 41, 58, 60, 80–7, 131–7, 287–9, 304–5, 314–15, 508–10, 521–6. Art: Schneider, R.M., Bunte Barbaren (Worms, 1986), 18–97Google Scholar; Zanker, P., The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor, 1988), 186–92Google Scholar. van der Vin, J.P.A., ‘The return of Roman ensigns from Parthia’, Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 56 (1981), 117–39Google Scholar, has discussed the settlement and its commemoration.
12 For the political crisis see also Vell. 2.92. Lucretius still had to be elected by the Comitia Centuriata, but as Augustus's nominee he would have been returned unopposed (cf. Brunt, P.A., ‘The senate in the Augustan regime’, Classical Quarterly 34 (1984), 423–44, at pp. 429–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar).
13 RG 12.1. Mommsen, T., Res Gestae Divi Augusti (second edition) (Berlin, 1883), 48Google Scholar, regarded this passage as a distorted account of the embassy on which Lucretius was appointed. However, this would have been a pointless deception on Augustus's part, and the details given about the personnel of the two missions are quite different (cf. Rich, Cassius Dio (above, n. 3), 186–7).
14 RG 11; RIC 53–6, 322 = BMCRE 358–61; Inscr. Ital. XIII.2.519–20, 538 = EJ pp. 53, 55. On the altar see Torelli, M., Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs (Ann Arbor, 1982), 28ff.Google Scholar; Richardson, L. Jr,A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore and London, 1992), 157Google Scholar; LTUR II.275 (F. Coarelli). On Augustus's reception in 19 BC see Lacey, Augustus and the Principate (above, n. 2), 45–6, 149–51.
16 RG 12.2; Inscr. Ital. XIII.2.404–5, 476 = EJ pp. 46, 49.
17 Inscr. Ital. XIII.2.504 = EJ p. 51; Dio 51.22.1.
18 For a brief commentary on this passage see Rich, Cassius Dio (above, n. 3), 181–2. The present discussion amplifies and in some respects modifies what I wrote there.
19 Cf. Rich, Cassius Dio (above, n. 3), 17.
20 On such digressions in Dio see Rich, Cassius Dio (above, n. 3), 10.
21 Halkin, L., La supplication d'action des grâces chez les Romains (Paris, 1953), 39ff., 64ff., 112Google Scholar. In 22 BC, supplicationes were held for the crushing of the conspiracy of Caepio and Murena (Dio 54.3.8; Rich, Cassius Dio (above, n. 3), 174–5, for the date).
22 For example, Mommsen, Res Gestae (above, n. 13), 13; Barnes, T.D., ‘The victories of Augustus’, JRS 64 (1974), 21–6, at pp. 21–2Google Scholar.
23 Combès, So R., Imperator (Paris, 1966), 461Google Scholar; Ritter, H.W., ‘Überlegungen zur Inschrift des Augustusbogens auf dem Forum Romanum’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 85 (1978), 371–84, at pp. 380–1Google Scholar. Syme, , Roman Papers III (above, n. 9), 1200Google Scholar, attributed the salutation to the two settlements jointly.
24 If Tiberius received the standards from the Parthians, as Suetonius (Tib. 9.1) states, he presumably did so after completing the settlement of Armenia, but, in view of the silence of Tiberius's panegyrist Velleius, Suetonius is probably mistaken: so, for example, Levick, B.M., Tiberius the Politician (London, 1976), 234CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rich, Cassius Dio (above, n. 3), 181; contra, Seager, R.J., ‘The return of the standards in 20 BC’, Liverpool Classical Monthly 2 (1977), 201–2Google Scholar.
25 RIC 518–20 = BMCRE 676–8. ‘IMP IX’ also appears on Pergamene cistophori showing an arch commemorating the return of the standards (RIC 508–10; Fig. 5.ii below), but it is accompanied by ‘TR PO(T) FV/V’ and so the salutation itself has less prominence.
26 Traditionally a commander celebrating an ovation entered the city on foot, but Caesar rode on horseback in his ovation in 44 BC, and Augustus followed suit for his ovations in 40 BC and 36 BC. See Humphrey, J.W. and Reinhold, M., ‘Res Gestae 4.1 and the ovations of Augustus’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 57 (1984), 60–2Google Scholar.
27 RG 4.1; Inscr. Ital. XIII.1.568–9 = EJ pp. 33–4; Suet., Aug. 22; Dio 48.31.3, 49.15.1; Oros. 6.18.34, 20.6.
28 So, for example, Mommsen, Res Gestae (above, n. 13), 19; Gagé, J., Res Gestae Divi Augusti (second edition) (Paris, 1950), 78Google Scholar; Brunt, P.A. and Moore, J.M., Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Oxford, 1967), 43Google Scholar; Kienast, D., Augustus: Prinzeps und Monarch (Darmstadt, 1982), 283–4Google Scholar; Hickson, ‘Augustus triumphator’ (above, n. 2), 126.
29 On Dio's methods of work see Rich, J.W., ‘Dio on Augustus’, in Cameron, A. (ed.), History as Text (London, 1989), 87–110, at pp. 89–92Google Scholar, and Cassius Dio (above, n. 3), 6ff.
30 Swan, P.M., ‘Cassius Dio on Augustus: a poverty of annalistic sources?’, Phoenix 41 (1987), 272–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar, shows that Dio will have drawn material of this kind from earlier annalistic histories, not from a collection of senatorial decrees, as argued by Andersen, H.A., Cassius Dio und die Begründung des Principates (Berlin, 1938), 9–23Google Scholar.
31 Comparison of the detail in which honours were specified for the dead Germanicus in the senatus consultum preserved on the Tabula Siarensis (González, J., ‘Tabula siarensis, fortunalcs siarenses et municipia civium romanorum’, ZPE 55 (1984), 55–100Google Scholar) with Tacitus's account (Ann. 2.83) shows how much would be omitted even in a relatively full historical narrative.
32 Dio notes refusals of honours by Julius Caesar or by Augustus at 42.19.3–4; 43.14.7, 46.1; 44.7.2; 49.15.3; 51.20.4; 54.10.3, 6. Another honour which Dio represents Augustus as accepting but which he probably declined is the supervision of morals offered in 19 BC (54.10.5; Rich, Cassius Dio (above, n. 3), 187). Whether Julius Caesar accepted as many honours as Dio implies is disputed.
33 The dedication: Vell. 2.100.2; Dio 55.10.2–8. For the Forum Augustum and its temple of Mars Ultor see especially P. Zanker, Forum Augustum: Das Bildprogramm (Tübingen, 1970), and Power of Images (above, n. 11), 192–215; Anderson, J.C. Jr, The Historical Topography of the Imperial Fora (Brussels, 1984), 65–100Google Scholar; KAVR 149–200 (J. Ganzert and V. Kockel); Richardson, New Topographical Dictionary (above, n. 14), 160–2; LTUR II.289–95 (V. Kockel); La Rocca, E., Ungaro, L. and Meneghini, R., I luoghi del consenso imperiale. Il foro di Augusto. Il foro di Traiano I (Rome, 1995), 38–87Google Scholar. Note also the following recent interpretations: Hannestad, N., Roman Art and Imperial Policy (Aarhus, 1986), 83–90Google Scholar; Simon, E., Augustus: Kunst und Leben in Rom und die Zeitenwende (Munich, 1986), 46–51Google Scholar; Evans, J.D., The Art of Persuasion: Political Propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus (Ann Arbor, 1992), 109–18Google Scholar; Galinsky, G.K., Augustan Culture (Princeton, 1996), 197–213Google Scholar; Flower, H.I., Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture (Oxford, 1996), 224–36Google Scholar. I have not been able to consult the following unpublished dissertations: Kellum, B.A., Sculptural Programs and Propaganda in Augustan Rome: the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine and the Forum of Augustus (Harvard, 1981Google Scholar); Spannagel, M., Rache und Prinzipat: Untersuchungen zum Ideologischen Programm des Augustusforums (Heidelberg, 1984Google Scholar).
34 RG 29.2: ea autem signa in penetrali quod est in templo Mortis Ultoris reposui. Construction of the temple: RG 21.1.
35 Fabricius, J.A., ap. Reimar, H.S., Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiae Romanae Quae Supersunt I (Hamburg, 1750), 736Google Scholar.
36 Dio 44.4.3; 51.24.4; 55.5.1.
37 Mars with standards: RIC 28, 39, 68–74 = BMCRE 315, 329, 366–70. Standards alone: RIC 103–6 = BMCRE 371–5. Sutherland dated the second group later than the first, c. 18 BC., on stylistic grounds (RIC, p. 48), but the case is not cogent. The figure of Mars holding standards also appears without the temple and with the legend ‘SIGNIS RECEPTIS’ on other issues of the same series: RIC 41, 58, 80–4 = BMCRE 332, 410–15. The attribution of the series to two Spanish mints, first proposed by Laffranchi, L., ‘La monetazione di Augusto. 1, Zecche della Spagna’, Rivista italiana di numismatica e scienze affini 25 (1912), 151ff.Google Scholar, rests on inconclusive similarities with Spanish civic issues. The discovery of a die from the series at Nîmes may show that at least some of the issues were produced in southern Gaul. For discussion see Grant, M., ‘A step toward worldcoinage: 19 BC’, in Coleman-Norton, P.R. (ed.), Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson (Princeton, 1951), 88–112, at pp. 100–4, 109–11Google Scholar; Giard, J., Bibliothèque nationale: catalogue des monnaies de l'empire romain I (Paris, 1976), 12–13Google Scholar; Sutherland, C.H.V., The Emperor and the Coinage (London, 1976), 42–5Google Scholar, and RIC, pp. 25–6.
38 RIC 507 = RPC 2220 = BMCRE 704 = Sutherland, C.H.V., The Cistophori of Augustus (London, 1970), nos. 536–88Google Scholar. Sutherland, Cistophori, pp. 102–3, showed that the issue must be ascribed to the mint of Pergamum, not Ephesus. The type is copied without its accompanying legend on an Alexandrian bronze issue (RPC 5003).
39 Augustus assumed the tribunician power in late June or early July, 23 BC, but its inception cannot be precisely dated, as usually supposed, to 26 June: see Rich, Cassius Dio (above, n. 3), 169; contra, Kienast, D., Römische Kaisertabelle (Darmstadt, 1990), 31Google Scholar.
40 The two other reverse types are the temple of Rome and Augustus at Pergamum and the Parthian arch (RIC 505–6, 508–10). In each case most specimens are dated by their legends to Augustus's fifth tribunician year, but a few pieces are dated to the fourth, suggesting that the issues began towards the end of the fourth tribunician year. It may be merely accident that no specimens of the Mars Ultor type dating to the fourth tribunician year have yet been discovered. I owe this point to Dr A.M. Burnett.
41 Simpson, C.J., ‘The date of dedication of the temple of Mars Ultor’, JRS 67 (1977), 91–4Google Scholar; ‘A shrine of Mars Ultor re-visited’, Revue Beige de Philologie et d'Histoire 71 (1993), 116–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For earlier denials of the temple's existence see Smith, H.R.W., ‘Problems historical and numismatic in the reign of Augustus’, University of California Publications in Classical Archaeology 2.4 (1951), 194–204Google Scholar; Morawiecki, L., ‘Le monoptère sur les monnaies alexandriennes de bronze de temps d'Auguste’, Eos 64 (1976), 59–82Google Scholar. More recent rejections include: D. Fishwick, ‘Coins as evidence: some phantom temples’, Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views n.s. 3 (1984), 263–70, at pp. 265–6; Riedl, R., Mars Ultor in Ovids Fasten (Amsterdam, 1989), 74–85Google Scholar; Nicolet, C., Space, Geography and Politics in the Early Roman Empire (Ann Arbor, 1991), 55 n. 54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rich, Cassius Dio (above, n. 3), 181–2; Richardson, New Topographical Dictionary (above, n. 14), 245–6 (equivocal at p. 160); Herbert-Brown, G., Ovid and the Fasti (Oxford, 1994), 95–108Google Scholar; Gurval, R.A., Actium and Augustus (Ann Arbor, 1995), 283Google Scholar.
42 Cassola, F., ‘I templi di Marte Ultore e i Ludi Martiales’, in Gasperini, L. (ed.), Scritti sul mondo antico in memoria diFulvio Grosso (Rome, 1981), 99–118Google Scholar.
43 For example, Croon, J.H., ‘Die Ideologic des Marskultes unter dem Principat und ihre Vorgeschichte’, ANRW II.17.1 (1981), 246–75, at pp. 250–5Google Scholar; van der Vin, ‘The return of Roman ensigns’ (above, n. 11), 127; Anderson, Historical Topography of the Imperial Fora (above, n. 33), 67–9; Bonnefond, M., ‘Transferts de fonctions et mutation idéologique: le Capitole et le Forum d'Auguste’, in L'Urbs: Espace urbain et histoire (Ier siècle av. J.-C.-IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.) (Rome, 1987), 251–78, at pp. 271–4Google Scholar; Siebler, M., Studien zum Augusteischen Mars Ultor (Munich, 1988), 160–8Google Scholar; Zanker, Power of Images (above, n. 11), 186–7; W. Trillmich, at KAVR 515; Hill, P.V., The Monuments of Ancient Rome as Coin Types (London, 1989), 27Google Scholar; Scheid, J., ‘Myth, cult and reality in Ovid's Fasti’, PCPhS 38 (1992), 118–31, at pp. 124ff.Google Scholar; Alföldy, G., Studi sull'epigrafia augustea e tiberiana di Roma (Rome, 1992), 23–5Google Scholar; Lacey, Augustus and the Principate (above, n. 2), 158–9, 192, 198–9, 225; Reusser, C., at LTUR III.230–1Google Scholar.
44 See Simpson, ‘The date of dedication’ (above, n. 41), 93; Prayon, F., ‘Projektierte Bauten auf römischen Münzen’, in Praestant Interna: Festschrift für Ulrich Haussmann (Tübingen, 1982), 319–20Google Scholar; Fishwick, ‘Coins as evidence’ (above, n. 41). For the coins showing the temples of Clementia Caesaris and Divus Julius see RRC 480/21, 540.
45 Fasti Maffeiani (Augustan, after 8 BC), Feriale Cumanum (AD 4–14; entry restored), Feriale Duranum (c. AD 225), Fasti of Philocalus (AD 354): Inscr. Ital. XIII.2.76, 84, 247, 279, 456–7 (= EJ p. 48); R.O. Fink, Hoey, A.S. and Snyder, W.F., ‘The Feriale Duranum’, Yale Classical Studies 7 (1940), 1–222Google Scholar, at pp. 44–5, 120–5. Ludi in the Circus: Fasti Maffeiani; Feriale Duranum. Two calendars probably of Augustan date have extant entries for 12 May which omit the festival of Mars, namely the Fasti Venusini and Fasti Tusculani: Inscr. Ital. XIII.2.57, 102. The inclusion in the Fasti Venusini of the festival of Quirinus on 29 June dates the calendar in or after 16 BC, if, as is usually supposed, the festival was instituted at the rededication of the temple of Quirinus in that year (Inscr. Ital. XIII.2.59, 62, 411–12, 475). The calendar's omission of the festival of Mars thus tells against the view (discussed below) that that festival commemorated the dedication of a temple on the Capitol c. 19 BC.
46 Ovid, Fasti 5.545–98. The games: 597–8.
48 See, however, Cassola, Anderson and Alföldy, cited above, nn. 42–3.
49 Scheid's attempt (‘Myth, cult and reality’ (above, n. 43)) to evade this difficulty is implausible.
50 Fasti Maffeiani, Vallenses, Amiterni, Antiates Ministrorum (Inscr. Ital. XIII.2.79, 149, 191, 208, 386, 489–90). From their practice elsewhere each of these calendars could be expected to have noticed a festival of Mars with ludi in the Circus. The last three were certainly inscribed after 2 BC.
51 The conjecture of Gardthausen, V., Augustus und seine Zeit (Leipzig, 1891–1904), I. 827–9Google Scholar, II. 476–7, that the Parthians handed over the standards on 12 May 20 BC, has been widely followed, but it is perhaps more likely that the surrender took place later in the year. Smith, ‘Problems historical and numismatic’ (above, n. 41), 197, held that 12 May was the date of the dedication of the Forum Augustum. Cassola, ‘I templi di Marte Ultore’ (above, n. 42), 116–18, suggested that it was the date of the constitutio, the decision to found the temple, but festivals commemorating a constitutio are attested only for altars, not temples (Fishwick, D., The Imperial Cult in the Latin West 1.2 (Leiden, 1987), 210Google Scholar).
52 Claudius, : CIL VI 37834Google Scholar (AD 110), 10050 (= ILS 5285, AD 124). Races instituted for Pertinax, : SHA Pert. 15.5Google Scholar. The Feriale Duranum records the races as honouring both emperor's birthdays: Fink, Hoey and Snyder, ‘The Feriale Duranum’ (above, n. 45), 46–7, 150. The later Fasti of Philocalus mention only Pertinax, (Inscr. Ital. XIII.2.253, 490–1Google Scholar).
53 So Simpson, ‘The date of dedication’ (above, n. 41), 93–4.
54 A further argument for identifying 12 May as the date of the dedication of the Forum temple is adduced by Alföldy ('Sludi sull'epigrafia augustea e tiberiana, above, n. 43) from Suetonius's statement (Aug. 26.3) that those of Augustus's consulships which he held for less than the whole year lasted, apart from the second, for nine, six, four or three months. Augustus did not take a nine-month tenure in 2 BC, since he was out of office by 18 September (ILS 9250 = EJ 140). Alföldy accordingly concludes that his tenure lasted for six months at the most and so, since he was consul with the suffect L. Caninius Gallus when the Forum temple was dedicated (Vell. 2.100.2), the dedication cannot have been as late as 1 August. Unfortunately, Suetonius's reliability on this point is questionable (he wrongly supposes that Augustus did not retain for the whole year the consulships he took in 31–29 BC). Others have adduced the fact that Augustus's colleague as ordinary consul, M. Plautius Silvanus, had already been replaced by the time of the dedication as an argument against dating it as early as 12 May (Mommsen, , in CIL I 2, above, n. 47Google Scholar; Cassola, ‘I templi di Marte Ultore’ (above, n. 42), 114–15). However, 2 BC, with Augustus holding an ordinary consulship and three suffects being appointed, was an exceptional year, and the regular replacement of ordinary by suffect consuls on 1 July, attested when the Fasti Capitolini and Fasti Gabini resume in AD 1–2, was perhaps instituted in 1 BC: see Inscr. Ital. XIII. 1.524–7; Bodel, J., ‘Chronology and succession 2: notes on some consular lists on stone’, ZPE 105 (1995), 279–96, at pp. 288–93Google Scholar.
55 For attempts see, for example, Smith, ‘Problems historical and numismatic’ (above, n. 41), 194–200; Simpson, ‘The date of dedication’ (above, n. 41), 93.
56 Morawiecki's interpretation (‘Le monoptère’ (above, n. 41)) of the coin issues, ‘Spanish’ as well as eastern, as commemorating a temple of the Imperial cult in Ephesus is wholly unconvincing.
57 For the Area Capitolina see Richardson, New Topographical Dictionary (above, n. 14), 31–3; Reusser, C., LTUR I.114–7, 395–6Google Scholar and Der Fidestempel auf dem Kapitol in Rom und seiner Ausstattung (Rome, 1993), 32–51Google Scholar. On round temples see Altmann, W., Die Italischen Rundbauten (Berlin, 1906Google Scholar); Favro, D., The Urban Image of Augustan Rome (Cambridge, 1996), 152–3Google Scholar. Favro remarks that the form is best suited to a location in an open space.
58 RIC 59, 63–7 = BMCRE 362–5: temple of Jupiter Tonans with figure of Jupiter inside, clearly paired with the issues showing the temple of Mars Ultor with a figure of Mars inside (RIC 68–74 = BMCRE 366–70). For the temple of Jupiter Tonans see Richardson, New Topographical Dictionary (above, n. 14), 226–7; LTUR III. 159–60 (P. Gros).
59 It is possible that there is an allusion to the rejection of a small temple of Mars Ultor on the Capitol in favour of a large temple in the new Forum at Ovid, , Fasti 5.553–4Google Scholar: ‘et deus est ingens et opus: debebat in urbe/ non aliter nati Mars habitare sui’. Cf. Scheid, ‘Myth, cult and reality’ (above, n. 43), 125.
60 The temple: Suet., , Jul. 44.1Google Scholar. The Parthian interpretation: Taylor, L.R., The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middlctown, Conn., 1931), 200–1Google Scholar; Weinstock, S., Divus Julius (Oxford, 1971), 128–32Google Scholar; Bonncfond, ‘Transferts de fonctions et mutation idéologique’ (above, n. 43), 270–1; Herbert-Brown, Ovid and the Fasti (above, n. 41), 98ff.; Siebler, Studien zum Augusteischen Mars Ultor (above, n. 43), 143–50. On Caesar's projected Parthian war see J. Malitz, ‘Caesars Partherkrieg’, Historian (1984), 21–59.
62 Weinstock and Herbert-Brown (cited above, n. 60), fail to show that the vow cannot be historical. The appearance of Mars on coins issued in 42 BC (RRC 494/7–9, 16–18, 497/3) and about or soon after Actium (RIC 274) and of a bull, perhaps his symbol, on coins issued in 15–10 BC (RIC 165–9, 176–8, 186–9) may refer to the avenging of Caesar, as argued by Kraft, K., Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Antiken Geldgeschichte und Numismatik I (Darmstadt, 1978), 315–21Google Scholar.
64 Suet., , Aug. 29.1Google Scholar. The dedication of the Forum is given a separate entry in the table of contents for Dio, Book 55 between Tiberius's departure for Rhodes, which took place in 6 BC, and the dedication of the temple of Mars Ultor. The lost passage to which this corresponds may have occurred at any point in Dio's narrative of the intervening years. Alternatively, it may have formed part of the same episode as the dedication of the temple. Cf. Degrassi, A., Scritti vari di antichità I (Rome, 1962), 286–91Google Scholar, unduly minimizing the time which may have been spent on the construction of the Forum. Simpson, C.J., ‘Thoughts on the ceremonial “opening” of secular buildings in early Imperial Rome’, Historia 45 (1996), 376–82Google Scholar, has argued that this and other secular structures in Rome did not undergo a formal dedication ceremony.
65 For the pageantry of 2 BC see especially RG 14, 22.3, 35; Ovid, , Ars Amat. 1.171–2Google Scholar, Fasti 2.119ff.; Suet., Aug. 58; Vell. 2.100.2; Dio 55.10.2ff.; EJ p. 47; Syme, , Roman Papers III (above, n. 9), 918ff.Google Scholar; Lacey, Augustus and the Principate (above, n. 2), 192ff. Herbert-Brown, Ovid and the Fasti (above, n. 41), 102–7, implausibly sought to link the dedication of the temple with Gaius Caesar's forthcoming visit to the East.
66 On the temple see Springer, L.A., ‘The cult and temple of Jupiter Feretrius’, Classical Journal 50 (1954), 27–32Google Scholar; Richardson, New Topographical Dictionary (above, n. 14), 219; LTUR III. 135–6 (F. Coarelli). The Augustan, rebuilding: RG 19.2Google Scholar; Nepos, , Att. 20.3Google Scholar; Livy 4.20.7.
68 Sources mentioning all three dedications: Prop. 4.10; Plut., Rom. 16, Marc. 8; Festus 204L; Val. Max. 3.2.3–5; Ampel. 21. Other sources for Romulus: Livy 1.10; Hal., Dion., Ant. Rom. 2.33–4Google Scholar; ILS 64 = Inscr. Ital. XIII.3.86; Flor. 1.1.11; Serv., , Aen. 6.859Google Scholar; vir. ill. 2.3–4. Other sources for Cossus include: Livy 4.19–20, 32.4; Hal., Dion., Ant. Rom. 12.5Google Scholar; Flor. 1.6.9; Serv., , Aen. 6.841Google Scholar; vir. ill. 25. Other sources for Marcellus include RRC 439; Inscr. Ital. XIII. 1, pp. 78–9, 550; Verg., , Aen. 6. 855, 859Google Scholar, and Serv. ad locc.; Livy, Per. 20; Frontin., , Strat. 4.5.4Google Scholar; Flor. 1.20.5; Eutrop. 3.6; Oros. 4.13.15; vir. ill. 45.1–2.
70 Rich, ‘Augustus and the spolia opima’ (above, n. 5).
71 On Augustus and Romulus see Scott, K., ‘The identification of Augustus with Romulus-Quirinus’, Transactions ofthe American Philological Association 56 (1925), 82–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gagé, J., ‘Romulus-Augustus’, Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'École Française de Rome 47 (1930), 138–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alföldi, A., Der Vater des Vaterlandes im Römischen Denken (Darmstadt, 1971), 36–9Google Scholar.
72 Dio 44.4.3, rejected without good reason by Syme, R., Roman Papers I (Oxford, 1979), 166, 366, 419 n. 1Google Scholar.
73 On the significance of Jupiter Feretrius as a model for the cult of Mars Ultor see Cassola, F., ‘Livio, il tempio di Giove Feretrio e la inaccessibility dei santuari di Roma’, Rivista slorica italiana 81 (1970), 1–27, at pp. 20–22Google Scholar; Bonnefond, ‘Transferts de fonctions et mutation idéologique’ (above, n. 43), 272–6. However, both these writers suppose that a temple of Mars Ultor was erected on the Capitol.
74 The passages cited by Cassola, ‘I templi di Marte Ultore’ (above, n. 42), 107, do not, as he claimed, show that it would have been regarded as sacrilege to remove a statue deposited in this way for dedication to another god. As Prof. E.M. Steinby has pointed out to me, a precedent may have been afforded by the black stone representing Mater Magna, which seems to have been lodged in the temple of Victoria from its arrival in 204 BC until the dedication of the goddess's own temple nearby in 191 BC (Livy 29.14.14; but according to vir. ill. 46.3 it was handed over to Scipio Nasica for safe-keeping).
75 Cf. Prop. 3.4.6: ‘assuescent Latio Partha tropaea Ioui’.
76 So Heinze, R., in Kiessling, A. and Heinze, R., Q. Horatius Flaccus Oden und Epoden (seventh edition) (Berlin, 1930), 462Google Scholar; Smith, ‘Problems historical and numismatic’ (above, n. 41), 194, 199; Simpson, ‘The date of dedication’ (above, n. 41), 92.
77 Cassola, ‘I templi di Marte Ultore’ (above, n. 42), 107–9.
78 Suet., , Aug. 29.2Google Scholar; Dio 55.10.2–5; Bonnefond, ‘Transferts de fonctions et mutation idéologique’ (above, n. 43), 251ff.
79 On the Forum and its statue programme see the works cited above, at n. 33. The elogia: Inscr. Ital. XIII.3, pp. 1–41, 57–72; Frisch, P., ‘Zu den Elogien des Augustusforums’, ZPE 39 (1980), 93–8Google Scholar; Luce, T.J., ‘Livy, Augustus and the Forum Augustum’, in Raaflaub, K.A. and Toher, M. (eds), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate (Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford, 1990), 123–54Google Scholar.
80 Suet., , Aug. 31.5Google Scholar: ‘ut ad illorum uitam uelut ad exemplar et ipse, dum uiueret, et insequentium aetatium principes exigerentur a ciuibus’.
81 The inscription: Ovid, , Fasti 5.567–8Google Scholar; Alföldy, Studi sull'epigrafia augustea e tiberiana (above, n. 43), 17–33. The chariot: RG 35; below, pp. 122–5.
83 The elogia: ILS 63–4 = Inscr. Ital. XIII.3.85–6. On the wall-paintings (Pompeii IX.13.5) see, for example, Spinazzola, V., Pompei alla luce degli scavi nuovi della via dell' Abbondanza I (Rome, 1953), 147–55Google Scholar; Zanker, Forum Augustum (above, n. 33), 17, 32, and Power of Images (above, n. 11), 201–3. The fuller presumably chose to decorate his shop in this way because of his trade's connections with the Building of Eumachia.
84 Trillmich, W., in Hispania Antiqua: Denkmäler der Römerzeit (Mainz am Rhein, 1993), 50–2, 287–90, 345–6Google Scholar; de la Barbera, J.L. and Trillmich, W., ‘Eine Wiederholung der Aeneas-gruppe vom Forum Augustum samt ihrer Inschrift aus Merida (Spanien)’, MDAI(R) 103 (1996), 119–38Google Scholar.
85 Dio 56.34.2. Imagines of Aeneas and Romulus were displayed at other Imperial funerals, such as that of the younger Drusus (Tac., , Ann. 4.9.2Google Scholar). On these funerals see Price, S.R.F., ‘From noble funerals to divine cult: the consecration of Roman emperors’, in Cannadine, D. and Price, S.R.F., Rituals of Royalty (Cambridge, 1987), 56–105Google Scholar; Flower, Ancestor Masks (above, n. 33), 237–55.
86 BMCRE Caligula 41–3, 58, 69; Antoninus Pius 916, 938–43, 1652, 1718, 1729, 2051, 2063–6, 2070, 2072, 2079, 2098; Gagé, ‘Romulus-Augustus’ (above, n. 71), 140–56; Richardson, New Topographical Dictionary (above, n. 14), 45–6. The statues, obscure on many specimens, are clearly shown on the Antoninus Pius sestertius reproduced by Galinsky, Augustan Culture (above, n. 33), fig. 117, at p. 205 (with mis-attribution to the temple of Mars Ultor).
87 Fuchs, W., ‘Die Bildgeschichte der Flucht des Aeneas’, ANRW 1.4 (1973), 615–32Google Scholar; Horsfall, N., ‘Stesichorus at Bovillae?’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 99 (1979), 26–48, at pp. 40–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; LIMC I.1.386–90, 394–5 (F. Canciani); Evans, The Art of Persuasion (above, n. 33), 35ff. Galinsky, G.K., Aeneas, Sicily and Rome (Princeton, 1969), 3–61Google Scholar, is unduly sceptical about the antiquity of the motif.
88 Gagé, ‘Romulus-Augustus’ (above, n. 71); Schneider, R.M., ‘Augustus und der frühe römische Triumph’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 110 (1990), 167–205, at pp. 187ffGoogle Scholar; LIMC VII. 1.640–1, 644 (J.P. Small).
89 Dio 49.15.1; 51.19.1; 54.8.3. Dio, who took care over the translation of Latin terms, regularly speaks of this type of monument as an ‘arch bearing trophies’ (άψὶς τροπαιοϕόρος). Comparable terminology is found in some early Imperial Latin texts (arcus ornatus … spoleis, EJ 69; arcus cum tropaeis, Suet., , Cl. 1.3Google Scholar). The term arcus triumphalis is post-classical. See Kähler, H., ‘Triumphbogen’, RE VIIA (1939), 373–493, at pp. 464–5Google Scholar; Lebek, W.D., ‘Ehrenbogen und Prinzentod: 9 v.Chr.-23 n.Chr.’, ZPE 86 (1991), 47–78, esp. p. 74Google Scholar. On the dropping of the Republican term fornix in favour of arcus or ianus in the Augustan period see Wallace-Hadrill, ‘Roman arches and Greek honours’ (above, n. 1), 144–6.
90 See De Maria, S., Gli archi onorari di Roma e dell'Italia romana (Rome, 1988), 236Google Scholar.
91 Notae is the conjecture of the first editor, A. Mai, for the manuscript's nitae. The standard edition by Hagen (Thilo, G. and Hagen, H., Servii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii Carmina Commentarii III.2, Appendix Serviana (Leipzig, 1902), 437–8Google Scholar) adopts the conjecture nicae, proposed by Wolff, G., Rheinisches Museum 19 (1864), 312–13Google Scholar, and this is the text cited in all subsequent discussions. However, it seems unlikely that the scholiast would have used the Greek word rather than its Latin equivalent, and to take the genitive huius facti as dependent on nicae with the meaning ‘images of Victory commemorating this achievement’ is harsh.
92 RIC 267 = BMCRE 624.
93 See especially Kraft, Gesammelte Aufsätze I (above, n. 62), 292–311.
94 Crawford, M.H., JRS 64 (1974), 246–7Google Scholar; Praestant Interna (above, n. 44), 322–5 (F. Prayon), 331–7 (D. Mannsperger); Zanker, Power of Images (above, n. 11), 53–7; Mannsperger, D., ‘Die Münzprägung des Augustus’, in Binder, G. (ed.), Saeculum Augustum III (Darmstadt, 1991), 348–99, at pp. 363–75Google Scholar; Gurval, Actium and Augustus (above, n. 41), 47–65. There is no good reason to date the ‘IMP CAESAR’ series later than the ‘CAESAR DIVI F’ series, with Sutherland, C.H.V, ‘Octavian's gold and silver coinage from c. 32 to 27 BC’, Numismatica e antichità classiche. Quaderniticinesi 5 (1976), 129–57Google Scholar, and RIC, pp. 30–1.
95 RIC 508–10 = RPC 2216, 2218 = Sutherland, Cistophori (above, n. 38), nos. 446–78. The type is copied without its accompanying legends on an Alexandrian bronze issue (RPC 5004).
96 See above nn. 39 and 40.
97 RIC 131–7 = BMCRE 427–9 = AMCRE 98–9. The standards are clearly shown on the fine Copenhagen specimen reproduced at KAVR 225.
98 RIC 359 = BMCRE 77–8. See Addendum (p. 128).
99 Cited at CIL VI 873.
101 Richter, O., ‘Die Augustusbauten auf dem Forum Romanum’, JDAI 4 (1889), 137–62, at pp. 151–62Google Scholar.
102 The most recent excavator, E. Nedergaard, reports the dimensions of the arch's passages as follows (slightly revising Richter's calculations): central passage, 4.15 m (14 Roman feet); side passages, 2.66 m (9 Roman feet) (LTUR I.83).
105 For example, Kähler, ‘Triumphbogen’ (above, n. 89), 379–81, suggesting that the Actium arch may have been uncompleted when the Parthian arch was decreed and so superseded by it. L.B. Holland's inspection of the remains demonstrated that all three arches of the excavated monument were erected at the same time, obliging him to withdraw his earlier suggestion that the central arch was erected after Actium and the two side arches were added after the Parthian settlement (‘The Triple Arch of Augustus’, American Journal of Archaeology 50 (1946), 52–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The foundation of the Arch of Augustus’, AJA 57 (1953), 1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar).
106 Degrassi, A., ‘L'edificio dei Fasti Capitolini’, Rendiconti della Pontificia accademia di archeologia 21 (1945–1946), 57–104, at pp. 90ffGoogle Scholar. (= Scritti vari (above, n. 64), 268ff.); Inscr. Ital. XIII. 1.17–19. Taylor, L.R., ‘The date of the Capitoline Fasti’, Classical Philology 41 (1946), 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Degrassi's edition of the consular and triumphal Fasti’, CPh 45 (1950), 84–95Google Scholar; ‘New indications of Augustan editing in the Capitoline Fasti’, CPh 46 (1951), 73–80Google Scholar; Taylor, L.R. and Holland, L.B., ‘Janus and the Fasti’, CPh 47 (1952), 137–42Google Scholar.
107 The fullest account of Gamberini Mongenet's results, which he himself never published, is given by Andreae, B., ‘Archäologische Funde im Bereich der Soprintendenzen von Rom 1949–1956/7’, Archäologischer Anzeiger 72 (1957), 110–359, at pp. 150–76Google Scholar. See also Degrassi, A., in Actes du deuxieme congres international d'épigraphie grecque et latine (Paris, 1953), 94–105Google Scholar; Nash, E., Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome (second edition) (London, 1968), I.92–101, II.244–51Google Scholar. For discussions based on acceptance of Gamberini Mongenet's conclusions, see (for example) Zanker, P., Forum Romanum: die Neugestaltung durch Augustus (Tübingen, 1972), 8, 15–18Google Scholar; Ritter, ‘Überlegungen zur Inschrift des Augustusbogens’ (above, n. 23); Studi sull'arco onorario romano (Rome, 1977), 22–4Google Scholar (M. Pensa), 33–7 (D. Scagliarini Corlaita), 81–9 (S. De Maria); Kleiner, F.S., The Arch of Nero in Rome (Rome, 1985), 23–8Google Scholar; Hannestad, Roman Art and Imperial Policy (above, n. 33), 58–60. For dissenting views see Stucchi, S., I monumenti della parte meridionale del Foro Romano (Rome, 1958), 39ff.Google Scholar; Lugli, G., Itinerario di Roma antica (Milan, 1970), 353Google Scholar.
108 Andreae, ‘Archäologische Funde’ (above, n. 107), 168–75, appears to give the most accurate report of Gamberini Mongenet's views. The plan given by Nash, Pictorial Dictionary (above, n. 107), 1.93, which has been widely reproduced, misrepresents his location for the Porticus of Gaius and Lucius.
109 Coarelli, F., Il Foro Romano 2: Periodo repubblicano e augusteo (Rome, 1985), 258–308Google Scholar.
110 Nedergaard, E., ‘Nuove indagini sull'Arco di Augusto nel Foro Romano’, Archaeologia laziale 9 (1988), 37–43Google Scholar; ‘Zur Problematik der Augustusbögen auf dem Forum Romanum’, in KAVR 224–39; ‘Arcus Augusti’, in LTUR I.80–5; ‘La collocazione originaria dei Fasti Capitolini e gli archi di Augusto nel Foro Romano’, Bullettino della Commissionearcheologica comunale di Roma 96 (1994–1995), 33–70Google Scholar. Full publication is promised in Analecta Romano Instituti Danici.
111 Steinby, E.M., ‘Il lato orientale del Foro Romano’, Arctos 21 (1987), 139–84Google Scholar; E. Carnabuci, L‘angolo sud-orientale del Foro Romano nel manoscritto inedito di Giacomo Boni (= Atti della Accademia nazionale dei lincei 1991, Memorie 9.1.4), esp. pp. 315–28. Other recent discussions include: E. Simon, Augustus (above, n. 33), 86–8; Castagnoli, F., ‘Gli iani del Foro Romano. Ianus = arco quadrifonte?’, BullCom 92 (1987–1988), 11–16Google Scholar; De Maria, Gli archi onorari (above, n. 90), 90–9, 105–6, 266–75; Künzl, E., Der Römische Triumph (Munich, 1988), 52–61Google Scholar; Kleiner, F.S., ‘The study of Roman triumphal arches 50 years after Kähler’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 2 (1989), 195–206, at pp. 198–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hill, The Monuments of Ancient Rome (above, n. 43), 52–3; Patterson, J.R., ‘The city of Rome: from Republic to Empire’, JRS 82 (1992), 186–215, at p. 194Google Scholar; Richardson, New Topographical Dictionary (above, n. 14), 23; Gurval, Actium and Augustus (above, n. 41), 36–47; L. Chioffi, Gli elogia augustei del Foro Romano: aspetti epigrafici e topografici (Rome, 1996), esp. pp. 24ffGoogle Scholar.
112 Nedergaard, ‘Nuove indagini sull'Arco di Augusto’ (above, n. 110), 42–3, ‘Zur Problematik der Augustusbögen’ (above, n. 110), 236; Carnabuci, L'angolo sud-orientale del Foro Romano (above, n. 111), 315–17.
113 Nedergaard, ‘La collocazione originaria dei Fasti Capitolini’ (above, n. 110), 50–63. For earlier objections to Coarelli's Parthian arch hypothesis see Castagnoli, ‘Gli iani del Foro Romano’ (above, n. 111), 15 n. 20; De Maria, Gli archi onorari (above, n. 90), 97; Kleiner, ‘The study of Roman arches’ (above, n. 111), 198–9.
114 Nedergaard, ‘La collocazione originaria dei Fasti Capitolini’ (above, n. 110), 54–6. Her view of the projecting southeast corner of the colonnade seems preferable to those of Carnabuci, L'angolo sud-orientale del Foro Romano (above, n. 111), 308 n. 129, or Chioffi, Gli elogia augustei del Foro Romano (above, n. 111), 51.
115 So van Deman, E.B., ‘The Porticus of Gaius and Lucius’, AJA 17 (1913), 14–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Coarelli, Il Foro Romano 2 (above, n. 109), 173–6. See also Carnabuci, L'angolo sud-orientale del Foro Romano (above, n. 111), 307–14; Chioffi, Gli elogia augustei del Faro Romano (above, n. 111), 42–3, 48–50. The Porticus of Gaius and Lucius is to be identified with the Porticus Iulia mentioned by Schol. Pers. 4.9 and perhaps Dio 56.27.5, contra Gamberini Mongenet, who held that the Porticus Iulia was a colonnade surrounding the temple of Divus Julius. (Dio 56.27.5 may refer instead to the Basilica Iulia.) The Basilica of Paullus was rebuilt after a fire in 14 BC (Dio 54.24.2–3), and the southern part of the basilica was probably converted into the Porticus of Gaius and Lucius after the death of Gaius Caesar in AD 4. Chioffi, in the work cited above and in Panciera, S., Iscrizioni greche e latine del Foro Romano e del Palatino (Tituli 7) (Rome, 1996), 99–139Google Scholar, argues that elogia found in the Forum Romanum come from statues of great men set up in this colonnade. If this is correct, it seems likely that the statues were set up after those of the Forum Augustum, rather than before, as Chioffi supposes.
116 On the Fornix Fabianus see Steinby, ‘Il lato orientale del Foro Romano’ (above, n. 111), 156–67; LTUR II.264–6 (L. Chioffi); Chioffi, Gli elogia augustei del Foro Romano (above, n. 111), 26ff. Coarelli, Il Foro Romano 2 (above, n. 109), 318, also adduced as evidence for the presence of arches on both sides of the temple sestertii of Hadrian, which show the emperor addressing citizens in front of a temple probably to be identified as that of Julius, Divus (RIC IIGoogle Scholar, Hadrian 639–41 = BMCRE III, Hadrian 1309–11). On some specimens from this issue (illustrated at LTUR II.428, fig. 80), horses appear on each side of the temple, and Coarelli took these as representing the chariots surmounting the arches. However, although the presence of the horses is puzzling, it seems unlikely that the engraver would have used horses, on their own and shown at the level of the temple podium, to indicate arches.
117 Steinby, ‘Il lato orientale del Foro Romano’ (above, n. 111), 163ff.; Simpson, C.J. ‘The original site of the Fasti Capitolini’, Historia 42 (1993), 61–81Google Scholar; Nedergaard, ‘La collocazione originaria dei Fasti Capitolini’ (above, n. 110). The erasure of the names of M. Antonius and his grand-father remains a difficulty for the attribution of the Fasti to the arch, since it is most naturally taken as the consequence of his damnatio memoriae in 31/30 BC and thus as implying an earlier date for the original inscription. It seems unlikely that the erasure took place by an unattested damnatio memoriae after the condemnation of the triumvir's son Iullus Antonius in 2 BC, as suggested by Taylor (‘The date of the Capitoline Fasti’ (above, n. 106)).
118 So rightly Nedergaard, ‘La collocazione originaria dei Fasti Capitolini’ (above, n. 110), 51.
119 Carnabuci, L'angolo sud-orientale del Foro Romano (above, n. 111), 323–8.
120 Rich, Cassius Dio (above, n. 3), 182; Simpson, C.J., ‘On the unreality of the Parthian arch’, Latomus 51 (1992), 835–42Google Scholar.
121 Richter, ‘Die Augustusbauten’ (above, n. 101), 152; Nedergaard, ‘Nuove indagini sull'Arco di Augusto’ (above, n. 110), 42–3, and ‘Zur Problematik der Augustusbögen’ (above, n. 110), 236.
122 So rightly Holland, ‘The Triple Arch’ (above, n. 105), 53–4.
123 Nedergaard, (‘Nuove indagini sull'Arco di Augusto’ (above, n. 121)), was thus wrong to state that 29 BC is a terminus post quem for the arch. Inception of the temple of Divus Julius: Dio 47.18.4. Its dedication: Inscr. Ital. XIII.2.497 = EJ p. 50; Dio 51.22.2.
124 Rostra Aedis Divi Iulii: Dio 51.19.2; Steinby, ‘Il lato orientale del Foro Romano’ (above, n. 111), 147–56; Richardson, New Topographical Dictionary (above, n. 14), 213–14. (Steinby showed that the Rostra were probably the front of the temple podium rather than a separate structure, as argued by Coarelli, Il Foro Romano 2 (above, n. 109), 308–24.) Columnae Rostratae: Serv., Georg. 3.29; Richardson, New Topographical Dictionary (above, n. 14), 96–7; LTUR I.308 (D. Palombi). In general on the commemoration of Actium see Hölscher, T., ‘Denkmäler der Schlacht von Actium’, Klio 67 (1985), 81–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zanker, Power of Images (above, n. 11), 79ff; Gurval, Actium and Augustus (n. 41). Gurval corrects some modern exaggerations, but unduly minimizes the celebration of the battle.
125 Cf. Simpson, ‘On the unreality of the Parthian arch’ (above, n. 120), 837ff.
126 In view of the precision of the scholiast's reference to ‘the arch … next to the temple of Divus Julius’, it seems unlikely that he was confused by the Parthians on the arch of Septimius Severus, as suggested by Simpson, ‘On the unreality of the Parthian arch’ (above, n. 120), 839 n. 14.
127 The alternative reading nicae (n. 91) would, if taken strictly, imply that the new sculpture groups included images of Victory.
128 On the free and often schematic way in which monuments were portrayed on Roman coins see especially Fuchs, G., Architekturdarstellungen auf Römische Münzen der Republik und der Frühen Kaiserzeit (Berlin, 1969), 92ffGoogle Scholar.
129 Nedergaard, ‘La collocazione originaria dei Fasti Capitolini’ (above, n. 110), 51–3, gives a similar explanation of the differences between the two coin types in terms of their designers' intentions. She shows, against Coarelli, that the conical cap and bow of the figure on the left-side arch of the Vinicius denarius identify him as a Parthian. For an alternative interpretation of the Vinicius denarius see below n. 137. See Addendum (p. 128).
130 Vollenweider, M.-L., Musée d'Art et d'Histoire de Genève: catalogue raisonné des sceaux, cylindres, intailles et camées II (Mainz, 1979), no. 538 (pp. 477–8Google Scholar and pl. 135). To my knowledge, Schneider, Bunte Barbaren (above, n. 11), 95, is the only other writer to cite the gem. In general on gems depicting Augustan themes see Simon, Augustus (above, n. 33), 153–65; KAVR 441–73 (C. Maderna-Lauter).
131 Above, n. 124. Prows from Actium were also incorporated in the victory monument outside the new city of Nicopolis, on the site of Octavian's headquarters before the battle: Murray, W.M. and Petsas, P.M., Octavian's Campsite Memorial for the Actian War (Philadelphia, 1989Google Scholar).
132 Coins: RIC 287–9, 304–5. Art: above, n. 11 (although note that on the Prima Porta statue the Parthian is standing).
133 Aurei: RIC 140 = BMCRE 432; RIC 141, 143. Denarii: RIC 144–5 = BMCRE 433–4. On the interpretation of these coins see Hölscher, T., Victoria Romana (Mainz, 1967), 86–7Google Scholar; Pekáry, T., Untersuchungen zu den Römischen Reichsstrassen (Bonn, 1968), 105–10Google Scholar; Fuchs, Architekturdarstellungen auf Römische Münzen (above, n. 128), 41–2; Kleiner, Arch of Nero (n. 107), 30–2 (implausibly taking them as reliable portrayals of monuments in Spain).
134 For denarii of this issue with and without prows see AMCRE 102, 103 (the type without prows is omitted from RIC).
135 RIC 360–2 = BMCRE 79–84. The subvention will have been for the work of the curatores viarum, appointed in 20 BC (Dio 54.8.4).
136 RIC 142, 362 = BMCRE 82–4, 435–6.
137 For the arches at Ariminum and the Milvian Bridge (the former partially surviving) see Dio 53.22.1–2; De Maria, Gli archi onorari (above, n. 90), 101–3, 260–2, 269. Dio states that they were surmounted by statues of Augustus, but no further details of these are known. On chariots drawn by elephants see below, pp. 118–20. It is possible that, as Dr Burnett has suggested to me, the denarius of Vinicius showing an arch (RIC 359; Fig. 5, iv) commemorates not Augustus's arch at Rome, as was assumed above, but the road repairs, like his other issues. However, in that case the arch depicted must be a composite, for the figures on the side arches must represent the Parthians on the arch at Rome.
138 On representations of Victory crowning the driver in triumphal chariots see Hölscher, Victoria Romana (n. 133), 81ff.; Kuttner, A., Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus: the Case of the Boscoreale Cups (Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford, 1995), 149–50Google Scholar.
139 See Wallace-Hadrill, ‘Roman arches and Greek honours’ (above, n. 1), 143–7.
140 However, the monumental entrance to the forum at Cosa constructed in the early second century BC took the form of a triple archway. See Brown, F.E., Cosa: the Making of a Roman Town (Ann Arbor, 1980), 42–4Google Scholar; De Maria, Gli archi onorari (above, n. 90), 59–61, 239.
141 Cassiodorus, , Chronica: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctorum Antiquissimorum 11 (1894), 135Google Scholar.
142 RIC 107–20 = BMCRE 384–96. The eagle-staff is omitted on RIC 109.
143 RIC 96–101 = BMCRE 397–402. ‘PARENTI’ is sometimes abbreviated.
144 AMCRE, n. 3 to pl. 2, on no. 92.
145 For similar switching of features between obverse and reverse in the Augustan coinage, see the series of paired issues within the ‘CAESAR DIVI FILIUS’ series, in which portraits of Octavian alternate with those of various gods (Kraft, , Gesammelte Aufsätze I (above, n. 62), 292ff.Google Scholar; Zanker, Power of Images (above, n. 11), 53–5), and the issues of the moneyers Petronius, Aquillius and Durmius, on which public and private types alternate (RIC 278–320 = BMCRE 5–68). On these and on the significance of issues not bearing Augustus's head see Wallace-Hadrill, A., ‘Image and authority in the coinage of Augustus’, JRS 76 (1986), 66–87, at pp. 71–2, 77–8Google Scholar.
147 ‘SC’ occurs elsewhere on the precious metal coinage only on RIC 321–2, 357–8 (= BMCRE 1–4, 91–4), all from the Roman mint, where it is associated respectively with the clupeus virtutis, the altar of Fortuna Redux and the vowing of games for Augustus's safe return, all of which were decreed by the senate. The legend ‘SPQR’ performs the same function of identifying honorific decrees and is much more common, particularly on the ‘Spanish’ issues. It appears both for honours conferred by the senate and the people, like the dupeus virtutis (RG 34.2; EJ 22), and for honours conferred by the senate alone, like the altar of Fortuna Redux (RG 11) and the vowing of games for Augustus's return (EJ 36, 38–9). On the significance of the letters ‘SC’ on the bronze coinage, see Wallace-Hadrill, ‘Image and authority in the coinage of Augustus’ (above, n. 145), 79–83, with references to earlier discussions.
148 There may be yet another commemoration of the honorific chariot on the denarii issued a few years later by the moneyer C. Marius with reverses depicting a riderless chariot drawn by four horses, although the upright palm shown in the chariot perhaps counts against the identification (RIC 399 = BMCRE 101–2).
149 RIC 280–4, 301, 311 = BMCRE 7–9, 36–7, 52–4.
150 For 19 BC: Sutherland, RIC, pp. 61ff. For 18 BC: Mattingly, BMCRE, pp. 2ff.; Kunisz, A., Recherches sur le monnayage et la circulation monétaire sous le regne d'Auguste (Wroclaw, 1976), 125–9Google Scholar; Burnett, A., ‘The authority to coin in the Late Republic and Early Empire’, Numismatic Chronicle 137 (1977), 37–63, at pp. 49–50Google Scholar.
151 Sutherland, RIC, pp. 48–9; cf. above, n. 37.
152 For this interpretation of these coins see Borghesi, B., Oeuvres complètes II (Paris, 1864), 96–105Google Scholar.
154 Ptolemy II's procession: Athen. 200d, 202a; Rice, E.E., The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus (Oxford, 1983), 82ffGoogle Scholar. On the processional use of elephants see Toynbee, J.M.C., Animals in Roman Life and Art (London, 1973), 39ff.Google Scholar; Scullard, H.H., The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (London, 1974), 254ffGoogle Scholar.
155 Contra Mommsen, Res Gestae (above, n. 13), 19, 151–2, and Römisches Staatsrecht I (third edition) (Leipzig, 1887), 395 n. 1 (but contrast 416–17Google Scholar n. 3).
156 Weinstock, Divus Julius (above, n. 60), 57, 273–4. See also Sutherland, C.H.V., Roman History and Coinage 44 BC-AD 69 (Oxford, 1987), 15–17Google Scholar.
157 Dio 49.15.1, 51.20.2, 53.26.5; Alföldi, A., Caesar in 44 v. Chr. (Bonn, 1985), 140ff.Google Scholar; Rich, Cassius Dio (above, n. 3), 162. Boyce, ‘The origin of ornamenta triumphalia’ (above, n. 146), followed by J. Crook, CAH 2 X. 91, is wrong to derive the later practice of conferring ornamenta triumphalia on Imperial legati from Augustus's honours of 19 BC. The recipients of ornamenta triumphalia enjoyed the same entitlement to triumphal dress as those who had celebrated triumphs, chiefly the right to wear the laurel crown at the games. Octavian had been granted this right in 40 BC (Dio 48.16.1). The origins of ornamenta triumphalia are to be found in the grants made to Tiberius, Drusus, and L. Calpurnius Piso in 12–11 BC (Suet., , Tib. 9.2Google Scholar; Dio 54.31.4, 33.5, 34.7; Rich, Cassius Dio 210–1, with further bibliography).
158 See Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life and Art and Scullard, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (both above, n. 154). For Augustus see Suet., , Claud. 11.2Google Scholar; Dio 61.16.4; Anth. Pal. 9.285; RIC Tiberius 56, 62, 68.
159 According to Pliny, , NH 34.19Google Scholar, elephant chariots first appeared in honorific statues in the reign of Augustus.
160 Dio 43.14.6; Weinstock, Divus Julius (above, n. 60), 54–9. For other views see G. Picard, ‘Le monument de Cesar Cosmocrator au Capitole’, Rev. Arch. 1973, 261–72; Nicolet, Space, Geography and Politics (above, n. 41), 38–41.
161 Dio 49.18.6; Weinstock, Divus Julius (above, n. 60), 56.
162 RIC 258–9 = BMCRE 590–1.
163 On the dating of the ‘CAESAR DIVI F.’ series see above, p. 98.
164 Dio 54.25.3; see above, pp. 74–5.
165 For example, Zanker, Forum Augustum (above, n. 33), 12, and Power of Images (above, n. 11), 214; Alföldy, Studi sull'epigrafia augustea e tiberiana (above, n. 43), 70.
166 Mommsen, Res Gestae (above, n. 13), 154.
167 On the honours of January 27 see, for example, RG 34.2; Alföldi, A., Die Lorbeerbäume des Augustus (Bonn, 1973Google Scholar); Zanker, Power of Images (above, n. 11), 92–4; Rich, Cassius Dio (above, n. 3), 148.
170 Zanker, Forum Augustum (above, n. 33), 12.
171 See especially Nicolet, Space, Geography and Politics (above, n. 41), 41–3; Alföldy, Studi sull'epigrafia augustea e tiberiana (above, n. 43), 67–75; Kuttner, Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus (above, n. 138), 81; Liverani, P., ‘Nationes e civitates nella propaganda imperiale’, MDAI(R) 97 (1990), 307–46, at p. 221Google Scholar.
172 Victory on the chariot voted in 19 BC: BMCRE 390–2, 394, 396–402. The Tiberian sestertii: RIC Tiberius 54, 60, 66 = BMCRE Tiberius 103, 113–5, 130, issued in AD 34–7 (cf. BMCRE Tiberius 131 with variant decoration). Nothing on these Tiberian coins explicitly associates them with Augustus, but several of the other types issued at the Roman mint in this period commemoratehim. On victory iconography on Augustan chariots see Kuttner, Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus (above, n. 138), 147–8.
174 The province of Baetica dedicated a small gold statue (ILS 103 = EJ 42) in the Forum Augustum and other provinces probably did the same, but Alföldy (Studi sull'epigrafia augustea e tiberiana (above, n. 43)) has plausibly argued that these were statues of the personified provinces rather than of Augustus himself. The colossal statue of Augustus in the hall at the end of the north-west colonnade was set up after his death: see Kreukenbom, D., Griechische und Römische Kolossalporträts bis zum Späten Ersten Jahrhundert nach Christ (Berlin/New York, 1990), 160Google Scholar.
175 Wallace-Hadrill, ‘Roman arches and Greek honours’ (above, n. 1).
Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.