BMCR 2009.05.26: Östenberg on Krasser, Triplici invectus triumpho. Der romische Triumph in augusteischer Zeit. Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beitrage 25

Helmut Krasser, Dennis Pausch, Ivana Petrovic (ed.), Triplici invectus
triumpho. Der roemische Triumph in augusteischer Zeit. Potsdamer
Altertumswissenschaftliche Beitraege 25.  Stuttgart:  Franz Steiner
Verlag, 2008.  Pp. 327.  ISBN 9783515092494.  EUR 60.00.

Reviewed by Ida Oestenberg, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
([email protected])
Word count:  3265 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-05-26.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/05/20090526.html
-------------------------------

[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]

In recent years, the triumph has been a topic in vogue. Several
monographs have appeared,[[1]] and last year saw a major exhibition on
Trionfi romani in the Colosseum, followed by a publication that besides
detailed descriptions of the exhibited items included papers on some
central aspects of the procession.[[2]] New trends are manifold, but
one tendency stands out: to look away from distant origins and ask new
questions about the ritual in its contemporary context. As a
consequence, the triumphs of Imperial times, formerly considered
insignificant events deprived of original political and religious
meaning, have gained increased attention. The book under review here,
specifically devoted to the Augustan age, should be seen as part of
this new direction.

Triplici invectus triumpho. Der roemische Triumph in augusteischer Zeit
is a publication of contributions discussed at two conferences held at
the Universities of Giessen and Erfurt in 2004/2005. According to the
very short introduction, the aims of the meetings and the book are to
focus on the significant changes in the Roman triumph that occurred
with Augustus and on how these changes were represented and reflected
in different media: art, cityscape and literature. The scope is
laudably interdisciplinary, and the book contains papers written from
different perspectives: historical, art-historical, topographical and
philological. Still, the discussions themselves reveal rather little
communication between these approaches. In particular, this goes for
the historical papers on one side and the literary analyses on the
other. As it turns out, the scopes of the two mostly differ, the former
striving for historical explanation, the second for textual
interpretation. The gap between the two is not a specific fault for
this publication, which does indeed open doors for multi-disciplinary
approaches and debates. Rather, it reveals a constant problem involved
in creating interdisciplinary in-depth discussions between our academic
fields. The publication would, however, have benefited largely from a
more extensive introduction that illuminated the different
methodological traditions and addressed the central topics and
objectives in greater depth.

The theme of the publication is highly interesting and indeed worth
extensive exploration. The age of Augustus formed a true turning point
in history that is reflected clearly in the celebration of the triumph.
Augustus himself (as Octavian), performed a manifest triplex triumphus
in 29 BC, after which he chose to decline all further offers of
triumph. At the same time, Rome under Augustan leadership exploded with
art, monuments and texts that trumped forth the message of triumph.
Decline and aggressive boasting -- the triumph at the transition point
between Republic and Empire is indeed a complex theme.

There is more to the complexity: in 19 BC, Rome saw the last triumph
held by a non-member of the Imperial house. This change brought about
new meanings in the ritual as well as a significant decrease in the
number of celebrations held. The people of Rome, formerly used to
witnessing competing generals returning in triumph rather frequently,
now had to wait for years to see an all-powerful emperor riding his car
up the Capitol. At the same time, our written testimonies for the Roman
triumph, on which centuries of scholarship have built their case, stem
almost exclusively from the Imperial age. There are certainly
Republican sources missing, but nevertheless it seems clear that Greek
and Latin writers started to write extensively on the ritual,
especially on the Republican practice, only after the triumph had
turned into a rare event of Imperial monopoly.

The title of the book under review Triplici invectus triumpho is drawn
from Vergil's famed description of Octavian's triple triumph on the
shield of Aeneas (Aen. 8.714). With such a declaration of contents, I
found it somewhat surprising that the volume includes no essay that
focuses specifically on this central passage. The quotation seems
chosen rather for its symbolic qualities, but a paper on Vergil's
passage is definitely a gap in a volume explicitly targeting triumph,
representation and the Augustan age. The subtitle too Der roemische
Triumph in augusteicher Zeit is somewhat misleading, as few papers
dwell in any depth on the actual triumphs celebrated under Augustus.
Instead, many papers (as also stated in the introduction) analyse
representations of Augustan changes, while others include rather
general discussions of the triumph that are more or less loosely tied
to the Augustan age. Still others focus on triumphal themes in Augustan
poetry. In consequence, even with this seemingly narrow topic, the
articles are very varied in contents and methods.

That said, several of the individual papers present stimulating and
innovative ways to look at this much-discussed ritual with fresh aims
and questions. Several others, though more descriptive, give good
readings of a more general kind.

The book is presented in three sections 1. Triumph als politisches
Ritual, II. Triumph in Bildkunst und staedtischem Raum, III. Triumph im
Text. There is some dominance in number of papers in the last part.

The first section, centring on historical issues, includes three very
different analyses. First out is Joerg Ruepke, whose focus, in spite of
the title 'Neue Perspektiven auf alte Statuenrituale: Ueberlegungen zu
Res gestae divi Augusti 4', is Republican rather than Augustan. One of
Ruepke's main arguments is that the triumphing general was presented as
a statue in the procession, a circumstance that he believes helps to
explain many of the triumph's characteristic traits.[[3]] His
discussion on the tensions and conflicts in representing mortals in
divine guise in triumphal contexts is very valuable. More problematic
is his theory that the triumphator's driving into the victorious city,
was modelled on how gods were called out of fallen cities as part of
the evocatio. Were these gods even taken into Rome? We know that the
canonical example, Juno Regina from Veii, was given a temple on the
Aventine, outside the walls. Overall, Ruepke's discussion is original
and provocative, but includes too many weighty diverse a priori
arguments for its short format. Also, its Republican-centred discussion
falls outside the scope of the publication's title, a circumstance that
is unfortunately highlighted by its prominent position as initial
piece.

In the following article, written by Tanja Itgenshorst, 'Der Princeps
triumphiert nicht. Vom Verschwinden des Siegesrituals in augusteischer
Zeit', the author paints a highly expert picture of the significant
changes in the triumphal celebrations that Augustus implemented. The
paper is rather descriptive, but very readable. The most significant
question comes up at the very end: Was it in effect the Augustan
abolition of the triumph as held in Republican times that paved the
way, or even formed the requisite condition, for the many Imperial
literary discussions on the topic? Here lies a paradox of a
considerable nature, and one that calls for future analyses.

The third paper is a joint work by Fabian Goldbeck and Peter Franz
Mittag called 'Der geregelte Triumph. Der republikanische Triumph bei
Valerius Maximus und Aulus Gellius'. Valerius Maximus' account of the
ius triumphandi and Aulus Gellius' discussion of the difference between
triumphus and ovatio are two much-used sources in countless modern
attempts to reconstruct the Republican triumph. Lately, however,
scholars have noted that the criteria, rules and definitions given by
the two strike a discordant note with what seems from other sources to
have been a very flexible Republican practice.[[4]] Goldbeck and Mittag
take the discussion one step further and ask a very legitimate but
hitherto little-explored question: What do the passages in Valerius
Maximus and Aulus Gellius mean, not as sources to an earlier procedure,
but in their own contemporary textual and political context? Goldbeck
and Mittag's main argument is that with some scraping of the surface,
the passage in Valerius Maximus reveals criticism of the Imperial
triumphal monopoly. Also, Aulus Gellius' distinction between triumphus
and ovatio should be understood as a wholly Imperial text, with little
relevance to the early and middle Republic. Several of their remarks
are apt. Valerius Maximus does, after all, write that triumphs were not
bestowed for victories in civil war and that refusal to accept a
granted triumph was a religious offence, both 'rules' that could be
read as criticism of Augustus. At least, they do not match the
traditional image of Valerius as imperial panegyrist. Some arguments in
this paper are taken too far, though, and I am not wholly convinced by
the idea that Valerius Maximus arranged his seven criteria
systematically, intensifying his critique with a peak at rule four then
gradually turning it down in the last three points. I also wonder if
one could read such thorough criticism of the Imperial house into a
passage that ends with Augustus' triumphant oak-crowned doorposts and
an author who dedicated his work to Tiberius.

The second section of the publication includes four papers, two of
which discuss the enigmatic triumphal route. The first, Wolfram
Martini's 'Raum und Ritual im roemischen Triumph. Die Wegstrecke des
Triumphzugs' asks no specific Augustan questions but analyses the via
triumphalis, non-defined in time, as vivid 'Erinnerungsort' with a
specific eye on its interplay with adjacent monuments. This is a key
aspect, but extremely hazardous to explore, as all modern attempts at
reconstructing the route are full of question marks. Martini addresses
none of the difficulties, but simply takes as his points of departure
that Coarelli's reconstruction is basically correct, that the route was
constant through time and that the procession passed under the
triumphal arches, all positions that could be and have been contested.
Unfortunately, the author's unwillingness to face the basic
complications undermines much of the value of this paper.

Sven Th. Schipporeit's 'Wege des Triumphes. Zum Verlauf der
Triumphzuege im spaetrepublikanischen und augusteischen Rom' is well
written, but uses most of its space to paint a very general background
picture. On the final pages, Schipporeit presents his thesis: the
Parthian arch placed to the south of the temple of Divus Iulius
indicates that Augustus changed the triumphal route through the Forum
and had it pass to the south instead of the north of Caesar's temple.
This could well be so, but again, the reading is based on the premise
that the procession passed through the arches, a circumstance that is
far from clear and requires further argumentation.

In 'Ein fruehkaiserzeitliches Relief mit pompa triumphalis', Thomas
Schaefer discusses a little-known relief in Cordoba representing a
triumphator in his quadriga. The relief is dated to the Claudian age
and once formed part of a longer frieze, of which several other
scattered pieces have survived. Schaefer makes a useful iconographical
analysis, concluding that the relief without doubt represents Octavian
entering Rome in his threefold triumph. He also notes the spectacular
relief with the same motif found at Nicopolis, and briefly discusses
the presence in Octavian's triumphal car of two children, whose
identity has caused debate. His own reading of the two as the twins of
Antony and Cleopatra is far from unproblematic, as children riding in
the triumphal currus were by tradition relatives of the victorious
general rather than captives. Hence, in my view, the two children at
Nicopolis are more likely to represent Julia, daughter of Augustus, and
Drusus, younger brother of Tiberius.[[5]]

Concluding the second section is Ulrike Theisen's 'Princeps triumphans
oder der gebaute Triumph des iulisch-claudischen Kaiserhauses in Rom,
Pompeji und Me/rida'. Theisen discusses the monumental representations
of Augustan triumph and virtues both in Rome and the Italic and
provincial cities. She emphasises the central symbolic character of the
Forum Augustum and shows that both private and public buildings in
Pompeii and Me/rida throughout Julio-Claudian times continued to
construct statue galleries of summi viri as bearers of Imperial
political and ideological concepts. The argumentation is solid, but the
paper would have benefited from including drawings and photos of the
monuments discussed.

The third section focuses on representations of triumph in Augustan
poetry. Vera Binder starts off the discussion with a paper on Horace,
'Roemischer Triumph und griechisches Epinikion: Bemerkungen zu Hor. Od.
4.4'. Binder is refreshingly sceptical of current scholarly excuses for
Horace's praise of the Imperial house. She soundly challenges common
views of the poem as failed, incidental, and unwillingly composed, and
argues that the piece formed an integral part of the whole fourth book
of the Odes that deliberately (and partly through references to Pindar)
celebrated Augustus as winner of triumphs and restorer of peace.

Ivana Petrovic ('Aitiologie des Triumphes--Triumph als Motiv in Properz
4,6') discusses Propertius' very complex and varied use of the
triumphal theme. She exposes an evident evolution of the motif in the
poet's corpus and makes several apt remarks on textual details. Her
main thesis concerns carmen 4.6, famously depicting the battle of
Actium and the temple of Apollo on the Palatine. Again, the question
concerns a poet's relation to the Imperial house: does Propertius sing
Augustus' praise or is there a second voice of irony and scorn?
Petrovic assumes no definitive position, but argues, very politically,
and with a specific eye on the many references to the hymns of
Callimachus, that the poem is deliberately ambivalent. She also
maintains that Propertius depicts Augustus' triumph as paving the way
for a pax Romana that embraced concord between Apollo and Dionysus and
even between the Roman and the Ptolemaic world. As a literary analysis,
this is a valid reading, but historically, it is deeply difficult. The
idea of a triumph not over but side by side with Egypt seems to me very
un-Roman.

The two following papers deal with Vergil. Ulrike Egelhaaf-Gaiser
discusses 'Werkstattbesuch bei Vulcanus: Triumphale Geschichtsbilder
aus Vergils intertextueller Waffenschmiede (Aen. 8,407-453)'. Scholars
have written at great length on the shield of Aeneas, but
Egelhaaf-Gaiser turns our attention instead to the making of the shield
-- Vulcan's visit to his forge under Mount Aetna, where he orders the
Cyclopes to produce arms for Aeneas. Egelhaaf-Gaiser's intent is to
expose the centrality of this formerly neglected passage in its poetic
and historic function. In her view, the workshop scene is not just
Vergilian 'Kleinkunst' indebted to Hellenistic forerunners to be read
as a prelude to the monumental shield description. Quite the opposite;
it is central to the Aeneid and fundamental for reading the concepts of
history and poetry that are moulded into the triumphal scenes of the
shield. This is an excellent piece of work with several persuasive
arguments. Her discussion of the constructive tensions between nature
(Aetna, old Italy) and art (shield, temple of Apollo) is deeply to the
point. The poet's self-construction forms part of the discussion.
Hence, when Vulcan takes use of the primordial forces buried under
Aetna to shape his masterpiece, he mirrors the author, who in his text
produces a monument of culture and victory out of the burning matter of
chaos and war.

The second paper on Vergil is Dennis Pausch's 'hi nostri reditus
exspectatique triumphi? Die Heimkehr des Pallas zwischen pompa funebris
und pompa triumphalis (Verg. Aen. 11,1-99)'. Pausch focuses on  the
return to the future site of Rome of young Pallas' dead body after the
successful battle against the Latins. The procession has been read as a
funus triumpho simillimum, but Pausch strives to show that it should be
interpreted vice versa: the triumphus had interpretational precedence
over the funus. I am not all persuaded by his arguments. How could a
procession centred on a dead hero not be a funeral (that included, of
course, massive symbolic references to triumph, as did historical Roman
public funerals at this time)? I remain also to be convinced of the
importance of the question of precedence. Is it not the very tension
between victory and death, triumph and funeral, joy and sorrow that
forms the dynamic of the passage? Pausch's point is that to
contemporary readers who discovered the funerary subtext in Vergil's
description of triumph, Augustus triplix triumphus (as in the Pallas
case in realty held for victories in civil war) became problematic.
Hence, in Pausch's view, the passage is a clear example of the
two-voices theory, in its recent understanding as pessimistic undertone
rather than private critique.

Two contributions on Ovid conclude the book, the first of which is
Helmut Krasser's 'Ianus victor. Ein Leitmotiv im ersten Fastenbuch
Ovids'. Krasser argues that despite Ovid's own statement that his work
is to sing arae rather than arma, Book 1 of the Fasti dwells
substantially on themes of Augustan victory and triumph. In particular,
Krasser explores the function of Janus, and maintains that Ovid used
the twofaced god as representation of transition between past wars and
Augustan peace. The end of the month of Janus takes the reader to the
Ara Pacis. A sacrifice (also playing with the inaugural sacrifice at
the start of the year/book) celebrates the end of triumphs at this
altar of peace, a pax achieved however, only through Roman victory.
Krasser's arguments are well presented and convincing.

Julia Schaefer-Schmitt ('candida victima im tristen Tomis. Zur
Funktionalisierung des Triumphmotivs in Ovids Epistulae ex Ponto 2,1')
discusses the development of the triumphal theme in Ovid's poems. In
the Amores, he is a captive, in the Ars amatoria a spectator. Finally,
Schaefer-Schmitt argues that in the exile poetry, exemplified by Pont.
2.1, Ovid plays with several parallel aspects of triumph, thereby
exploiting the complexity of the topic to its full potential. On one
hand, he (or rather his persona) is a powerless servant of the Imperial
house, who like the captive Bato in Tiberius' triumph hopes for pardon.
On the other, he is a powerful poetic triumphator, who through his
verses retains the capacity of writing triumph, hereby creating for
Rome's leaders an everlasting monument of their success. The tension
between powerful victor and powerless victim is central to
understanding the triumph and its performance as representation, and
Schaefer-Schmitt makes a strong case for Ovid's play with these close
opposites.

The text in general includes few misprints, but there are several such
faults in the English abstracts as well as in some of the
bibliographies. There is no detailed list of contributors.

The variety of contributions in Triplici invectus triumpho reveals the
high potential involved in studying the very complex nature of the
Roman triumph at the age of Augustus. Also, several of the papers,
intended to highlight the topic 'in exemplarischen Studien', present a
stimulating read. One can but join the editors in their wish that both
present and future contributions will pave the way for further rich
discussions on topics related to the triumph and its representation in
the Roman cityscape and its visual and textual arts.

Authors and titles:
I. Triumph als politisches Ritual
Joerg Ruepke: Neue Perspektiven auf alte Statuenrituale: Ue;berlegungen
zu Res gestae divi Augusti 4
Tanja Itgenshorst: Der Princeps triumphiert nicht. Vom Verschwinden des
Siegesrituals in augusteischer Zeit
Fabian Goldbeck und Peter Franz Mittag: Der geregelte Triumph. Der
republikanische Triumph bei Valerius Maximus und Aulus Gellius

II. Triumph in Bildkunst und staedtischem Raum
Wolfram Martini: Raum und Ritual im roemischen Triumph. Die Wegstrecke
des Triumphzugs
Sven Th. Schipporeit: Wege des Triumphes. Zum Verlauf der Triumphzuege
im spaetrepublikanischen und augusteischen Rom
Thomas Schaefer: Ein fruehkaiserzeitliches Relief mit pompa triumphalis
Ulrike Theisen: Princeps triumphans oder der gebaute Triumph des
iulisch-claudischen Kaiserhauses in Rom, Pompeji und Me/rida

III. Triumph im Text
Vera Binder: Roemischer Triumph und griechisches Epinikion: Bemerkungen
zu Hor. Od. 4. 4
Ivana Petrovic: Aitiologie des Triumphes--Triumph als Motiv in Properz
4,6
Ulrike Egelhaaf-Gaiser: Werkstattbesuch bei Vulcanus: Triumphale
Geschichtsbilder aus Vergils intertextueller Waffenschmiede (Aen.
8,407-453)
Dennis Pausch: hi nostri reditus exspectatique triumphi? Die Heimkehr
des Pallas zwischen pompa funebris und pompa triumphalis (Verg. Aen.
11,1-99)
Helmut Krasser: Ianus victor. Ein Leitmotiv im ersten Fastenbuch Ovids
Julia Schaefer-Schmitt: candida victima im tristen Tomis. Zur
Funktionalisierung des Triumphmotivs in Ovids Epistulae ex Ponto 2,1
------------------
Notes:


1.   T. Itgenshorst, Tota illa pompa. Der Triumph in der roemischen
Republik, Goettingen 2005; M. Beard, The Roman triumph, Cambridge,
Mass. 2007; M. R. Pelikan Pittenger, Contested triumphs: politics,
pageantry, and performance in Livy's Republican Rome, Berkeley 2008; I.
Oestenberg, Staging the world. Spoils, captives, and representations in
the Roman triumphal procession, Oxford 2009.

2.   E. La Rocca and S. Tortorella (eds.), Trionfi romani. Catalogue of
the exhibition held at Colosseum in Rome, 5 March-14 September 2008,
Rome 2008.

3.   Here, as in an article published in 2006, Ruepke redates the
earliest triumphs to the late 4th century BC when the practice of
erecting honorific statues commenced, 'Triumphator and ancestor
rituals: between symbolic anthropology and magic', Numen 53, 2006,
251-289; contested by H. S. Versnel,  'Red (herring?) comments on a new
theory concerning the origin of the triumph', Numen 53, 2006, 290-326.

4.   T. Itgenshorst, Tota illa pompa. Der Triumph in der roemischen
Republik, Goettingen 2005, pp. 180-188, reads Valerius Maximus' account
as a lieu de me/moire with little relevance to Republican practice. See
also M. Beard, The Roman triumph, Cambridge, Mass. 2007, pp. 209-212.

5.   Cf. M. Beard, The Roman triumph, Cambridge, Mass. 2007, pp.
224-225.