¹ Dumézil, G., La Religion romaine archaïque (Paris 1966)Google Scholar; Mazzarino, S., Dalla monarchia allo stato repubblicano (Catania 1945)Google Scholar; P. De Francisci, Primordia Civitatis (1959); A. Alfödi, Early Rome and the Latins (1965); U. Coli, Regnum (1951). I wish to thank Dr. R. M. Ogilvie for useful criticism, Otto Brendel, Elias Bickerman, Leo Raditsa and my father Giuliano Bonfante for advice on specific points. All the errors are my own. The material was presented, in part, in lectures given in 1969 at the Department of History of the University of Oregon, and at the Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften in East Berlin.

² G. Rohde, RE s.u. ouatio, 1890–1903, with references: R. Cagnat, Daremberg—Saglio s.u. triumphus 491. Rohde is careful to distinguish the ouatio, which had to be granted by the Senate, from the unofficial triumph celebrated at the Alban Mount, though both were celebrated by Marcellus in 211 B.C. (Plut., Marc. 22). Rohde also lists the differences between the ouatio and triumph proper: 1. The ouatio was celebrated on foot (later on horseback). 2. The dress was the toga praetexta, not the uestis triumphalis. 3. On his head the general wore a myrtle, not the triumphal laurel, crown.

³ C. Hülsen, RE s.u. Albanus Mons, 1310–1311. R. Cagnat, Daremberg-Saglio s.u. triumphus 491. Livy XXVI, 21; XXXIII, 23; XLII, 21; XLV, 38. Feriae latinae ex Monte Albano, Cass. Dio XLIV, 4, 3. The procession went from the Alban Lake to the Temple of Jupiter Latiaris above.

⁴ Dion. Hal. v, 47, 2; Pliny, , HN XV, 37 (125).Google ScholarDegrassi, A., Fasti Capitolini (Turin 1954), 91Google Scholar; Fasti Triumphales, 503 B.C. Ogilvie, R. M., Gymnasium 75 (1968), 506.Google Scholar

⁵ Degrassi F. Capit. 101; Fasti triumphales, 231 B.C. Cf. Piganiol, A., Recherches sur les jeux remains (Paris 1923).Google Scholar

⁶ Alföldi, A., Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor 1963), 392Google Scholar: ‘B. G. Niebuhr, Römische Geschichte 2², 42, observed for the first time that the Roman triumph on the Alban Mountain was not a new invention, but it revived an old custom … though his opinion was rejected or passed in silence by excellent scholars (Mommsen, St, R. 1³, 134. Aust, in Roscher's Lex. 2, 693 ff., etc.).…’ (This is not quite the same as saying ‘the Latin triumph on the Alban mountain … was certainly the prototype of the Roman triumph, not vice versa, as the Annals would have us believe’; Alföldi, 391–2.)

In the pompa of the games, Piganiol (28) distinguishes the same basic three phases to be found in the triumph, as in most Roman institutions; Roman, archaic Greek or Etruscan, and Hellenistic; on the development of votive games, offered by ambitious generals; … ‘les jeux voués par les généraux sont un phénomène tardif, ils sont un symptôme des progrès de l'individualisme, ils annoncent la révolte des généraux contre l'État …’ (83); cf. the same phenomenon reflected in the celebration of the triumph.

In these, as in most rituals, tradition preserves elements from several periods, without however preserving the chronological distinctions among them.

⁷ E. Samter, RE s.u. Iuppiter, (14), Latiaris, 1137–1135; and Feriae Latinae, 2213–2216, held in his honour on the Alban Mount, of which the last day was called Latiar. The registration of the feriae latinae in the Fasti dates only from 451, but the festival was very ancient, predated Roman supervision, and was connected with the Etruscan kings of Rome. Tarquin—either Priscus or Superbus—was said to have instituted the Roman festival, and built the temple of Jupiter Latiaris at the same time as the Capitoline Temple in Rome; its remains were still visible in the eighteenth century, A. Nibby, Analisis… della carta de' dintorni di Roma (Rome 1837), 118–19. On the recording of the feriae latinae in the Fasti, A. Momigliano, review of Alföldi, A., Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor 1965)Google Scholar in JRS LVII (1967), 217; and “II Rex Sacrorum e l'origine della repubblica’, Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra 1 (1969), 359.

⁸ Ambarualia (cf. amburbium), Dumézil, o.c. 230–31, 563. Alföldi, o.c. 296–99. Latte, K., Römische Religionsgeschichte (Munich 1960)Google Scholar, 41, 42, 65; Catalano, P., Contributi alla storia del diritto augurale (Turin 1960) 353, 388.Google Scholar Hymn of the Arval Brothers; Pisani, V., Testi latini arcaici e volgari (2nd ed., Turin 1960), No. A2, 2–5.Google Scholar

Concerning these and other early Roman religious institutions, see the list, in De Francisci, Primordia, cit. 430–478, of those words which he believes predate even the establishment of the monarchy in Rome; augures, pontifices, uestales, Fratres Aruales, Luperci, Salii, sodales Titii, sacerdotes bidentales, Fetiales. See also Dumézil, o.c. 91, and Devoto, G., Origini Indoeuropee (Florence 1962), 298Google Scholar, on the large number of early Latin words dealing with this ritual aspect of the Roman religion.

⁹ On the Salii and their tripudium, Bloch, R., ‘Surles danses armées des Saliens,’ Annales, Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations 13 (1958), 706–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Charles-Picard, Gilbert, Les Trophées romains (Paris 1957), 130–132Google Scholar; cited by Dumézil, o.c. 237, n. 1. I am grateful to Otto Brendel for pointing out this connection between the original triumphal ceremony and the dedication of the spolia opima, and drawing my attention to Charles-Picard's reconstruction. On the triumphator and the importance of rituals connected with the distribution of the praeda in pre-Etruscan Rome, see also Gagé, Jean, Huit recherches sur les origines italiques et romaines (Paris 1950)Google Scholar, and the thoughtful review by Bernardi, A., Riv. Stor. Ital. 63 (1951), 251.Google Scholar

¹¹ Livy 1, 24, 8; 1, 32, 5 ff. E. Samter, RE s.u. Fetiales, 2259–2265.

¹² Devoto, G., Tabulae Iguvinae (Rome 1940)Google Scholar; id., Le Tavole di Gubbio (Florence 1948); Poultney, J. W., The Bronze Tables of Iguvium (Baltimore and Oxford 1959)Google Scholar; Ernout, A., Le Dialecte ombrien (Paris 1961).Google Scholar Religious commentary, Rosenzweig, I., Ritual and Cults of Pre-Roman Iguvium (Studies and Documents ed. Lake, K. and Lake, S., 9 (London 1937))Google Scholar; Pisani, V., Le lingue dell'Italia antica oltre il latino (Turin 1953)Google Scholar, whose text I follow.

¹³ Feriae latinae, above, n. 7, and below.

¹⁴ J. Heurgon, review of Poucet, Jean, Recherchessur la légende sabine des origines de Rome (Univ. de Louvain 1967)Google Scholar, in REL 45 (1967), 574–577.

¹⁵ Above, n. 2.

¹⁶ I have examined the origin of the word triumphus, in Studies in Honor of J. Alexander Kerns, to be published by Mouton, 1970. For the antiquity of the word tripudium in Latin, compare the ancient legal word repudium, also related to pes and originally meaning ‘to kick (your wife) out’ (Brugmann, KG 145), though the later Romans preferred a more moral sense and related the word to pudet (Festus 350, 3; ob rem pudendam). Ernout-Meillet and Walde-Hofmann, s.u., also prefer the latter etymology.

¹⁷ Ernout-Meillet, s.u. ouatio. G. Rohde, RE 1891–1892. Ouis; Plut., Marc. 22, 8. Serv., ad Aen. 4, 543. Lyd., de mens. 4, 3 (67 W.). Paul., Festus 195: ‘ab eo clamore, quem faciunt redeuntes ex pugna uictores milites geminata O littera.’ Cf. Dion. Hal. V, 47, 2. The second hypothesis, which assumes a formation similar to that of triumpus from seems more likely, but the history of the word is wrapped in mystery.

¹⁸ Pisani, o.c. (n. 8), with bibliography. Norden, E., Aus altrömischen Priesterbüchern (Lund 1939–1940), 107, 228 f.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Below, n. 70 and text.

²⁰ Ferri, S., ‘Il Carmen Fratrum Arualium e il metodo archeologico’, Latomus 13 (1954), 390 ff.Google Scholar and Studi Classici e Orientali (Pisa 1955), 87 ff.

²¹ Pisani, o.c. (n. 8), 5.

²² atripursatu VI b, 16; atropusatu VI b, 36; ahatripursatu VII a, 23 and VII a, 36; cf. AHTREPUŘATU, Pisano 154. See notes 12, 46.

²³ Above, n. 10.

²⁴ Charles-Picard, o.c. (above, n. 10), 130.

²⁵ ibid. 133.

²⁶ ibid. 130.

²⁷ Leges Regiae in Bruns, C. G., Fontes Juris Romani ⁷ (Tübingen 1909), 8.Google ScholarPisani, V., Testi latini arcaici e volgari ² (Turin 1960), 41.Google Scholar Festus 189 M. (= 202 L.) s.u. Opima spolia. On Numa, most recently, Gabba, E., Les Origines de la république romaine, Fondation Hardt, Entretiens, 13 (1967), 162–3.Google Scholar

²⁸ The order was apparently changed: those said to have been dedicated to Mars as spolia secunda must originally have been the spolia tertia, working back from the climax of the spolia opima dedicated to Jupiter Feretrius, and the secunda, offered to Janus Quirinus.

²⁹ Festus, loc. cit.

³⁰ Charles-Picard, op. cit. 130. Recently the antiquity of Janus Quirinus as a god has been questioned by Jean Poucet, Recherches sur la légende sabine des origines de Rome (op. cit. n. 14) 39–40. I cannot do better than quote Jacques Heurgon's sensible criticism in his review, REL 45 (1967), 576; ‘M. Poucet, pour faire descendre jusqu’à l'époque augustéenne l'apparition de Janus Quirinus, récuse, à juste titre, le témoignage de Lucilius, mais à tort ceux de Tite-Live dans la formule des féciaux et de Festus dans la loi des dépouilles opimes.' In both cases, Jupiter Feretrius and Janus Quirinus are listed together.

³¹ Plutarch, Rom. 16. For ‘spolia’ dedicated on the Capitoline Hill, see the suggestion of Reinach, S., ‘Tarpeia’, RA 4 s.2 (1908), 42 f.Google Scholar, that an early sanctuary of the goddess Tarpeia was covered with enemy shields or spolia, thus giving rise to the later legend of Tarpeia; quoted by Momigliano, A., Misc. Fac. di Lett, e Filosofia s.2, Torino (1938), 28Google Scholar (also 23, n. 2); ‘forse prima che fosse costruito il tempio di Giove Capitolino.’

³² Festus 104 L (117 M).

³³ Above, n. De Francisci, I. P., ‘Intorno all' origine etrusca del concetto di imperium’, St. Etr. 24 (1955–1956), 19–43.Google ScholarPallottino, M., St. Etr. 20 (1947), 321.Google Scholar

³⁴ Wagenvoort, H., Roman Dynamism (Oxford 1947), 72 f.Google Scholar

³⁵ Festus 104 L (117 M), quoted above, n. 32.

³⁶ Above, n. 8.

³⁷ See infra, text and notes 45–48, comparisons between the Iguvine and the Roman rite.

³⁸ Dumézil, op. cit. (n. I), 190 f., 285 f.

³⁹ Dumézil, op. cit., 184, 147 ff., for the nature of this divinity and of a possible pre-Capitoline ‘triad’.

⁴⁰ G. Wissowa, RE s.u. Feretrius. E. Samter, RE s.u. Juppiter, Fetiales, (above, n. 11).

⁴¹ Castagnoli, F., ‘Note sulla topografia del Palatino e del Foro Romano’, Arch. Class. 16 (1964), 177.Google ScholarCoarelli, F., ‘La porta trionfale e la via deitrionfi’, Dial. Arch. 2 (1968), 61Google Scholar, 95, note 36. Rosenzweig, op. cit. (n. 12), 13.

⁴² Most recently Coarelli, op. cit., 55–103, with bibliography. For information on the results of recent excavations I thank Frank Brown; in a preliminary report in Les Origines de la république romaine, Fondation Hardt, Entretiens, 13 (1966), 45–61, he discusses the development of the Forum in this area during the first three quarters of the sixth century (before the ‘Etruscan Triumph’). See E. Gjerstad, Les Origines de la république romaine 17, on the pre-Etruscan divinities of the Forum, the sacred unit of Jupiter-Mars-Quirinus, Janus and Vesta, represented by their respective priests, the rex sacrorum (Janus), flamines maiores (Jupiter-Mars-Quirinus), pontifex maximus (‘sacerdos Vestae’). Detailed discussion of these divinities and sources in Dumézil's works. Sources for the Sacra Via collected by Rosenberg, RE s.u. Sacra Via, 1674–1677.

⁴³ Pliny HN XXXIV, 33; ‘per triumphos uestitur habitu triumphali.’ Cf. n. 88.

⁴⁴ Hercules Victor, Inuictus; involved in the triumph, Dumézil 424–25. Latte, op. cit., 215 ff.; Makin, E., ‘The Triumphal Route’, JRS XI (1921), 34Google Scholar and maps.; Coarelli, op. cit., 60, n. 28.

⁴⁵ Bibliography above, n. 12. These passages are discussed by Ernout, A., Philologica III (Paris 1965), 55–81.Google Scholar Cf. Bloch, R., ‘Parenté entre religion de Rome et religion d'Ombrie; Thème de recherches’, REL 41 (1963), 115 f.Google Scholar; Dumézil, G., ‘À propos de Quirinus’, REL 33 (1955), 105–108.Google Scholar Date of the Tables; Devoto places those in Etruscan script between 200 and 120 B.C., the others between 150 and 70 B.C.

Ernout's remark (57), that the Iguvine Tables bear witness to the later stages of an ancient cult, applies also to historical triumphs, and to the recording of the hymn of the Arval Brothers. Both this text and the Law of Numa discussed above (nn. 10, 27), for example, were updated by the mention of specific fines to be paid, in order to keep pace with a higher economic development; Charles-Picard, op. cit. 131, Ernout 58.

⁴⁶ An ^*adfertor (arsfertor: Devoto, ‘flamen’) led the procession and performed the stated sacrifices after a ritual consultation with the auspex (in Umbrian, poi angla aseriato est, ‘qui oscines observatum ibit’). The purification of Iguvium begins by defining the limits of the templum, the boundaries of the city. The ^*adfertor, then, dressed in the perca arsmatia (or having taken it up, if perca means staff rather than costume), leads the people around to perform sacrifices at each of the gates of the city in turn (VI a, 19; perca arsmatia habitu; see n. 48).

There is a definite route to procession and sacrifice. The first sacrifice is dedicated to Jupiter Grabovius, with a prayer on behalf of the citadel Fisia (ocar ^*Fisir) and the people of Iguvium (I a, 3–4, VI a, 22; “te hoc bove opimo piaculo tertio’, cf. spolia opima?) There follow sacrifices to Trebus Iovius, Mars Grabovius, and Fisus Sancius (cf. Dius Fidius). A prayer to another god, Fisovius Sancius, on behalf of the citadel, the ocar^*Fisir, and the people of Iguvium (VI b, 5 f., 6–16), ends with instructions to the officiating priest to perform a tripudium (Pesculu semu uesticatu atripursatu; ‘tripodato’, Pisani 154, Buck 118; above, n. 22). After other sacrifices, including two to Vofionus Grabovius (equivalent to the Roman Quirinus, the god of the people, and the Etruscan Bacchus, Fufluns, whose name seems also related to ^*poplo- ‘of the people’), the hill is purified.

The lustratio populi also was performed by means of a procession around the city, led by the priest after he has put on his ceremonial dress. The route is once more marked by sacrifices along the way, including one traf Sahatam, ‘trans Sanctam (uiam ?)’, perhaps equivalent to the Sacra Via (TRASATE, I b, 31; SATAME I b, 38; trahaf Sahate VII a, 41; traha Sahatam VII a, 41 and 45). The priest must return by the same route. A kind of corrida, when animals are let loose and caught again, may be comparable to the ludi, but their nature is not clear. The importance of the number three is striking in this ritual, as in a number of Roman traditions; for example, the prayer repeated three times, este triper deitu, ‘haec ter dicito’. For the magic character of the number three, cf. the triads (nn. 51, 85), and the tripudium.

⁴⁷ cf. the ambarualia, amburbium, etc. Above, n. 42.

⁴⁸ The special costumes worn by the persons celebrating these rites—Iguvine purification ceremonies, dedication of the spolia opima, or Etruscanized triumph—are described in our sources by means of technical terms difficult to interpret, and have been in each case the objects of considerable speculation.

The Iguvine rites. The perca (above, n. 46) has been interpreted as either a staff (uirga) or a garment; it is arsmatia, ‘sacred’ (ritualis), and it is anouihimu (VI b, 49), ‘put on’, or ‘girded’. Opinions are almost evenly divided on the meaning. In favour of ‘staff’ are Walde-Hofmann³ (s.u. pertica), Poultney (239), Pisani (135, 168), Whatmough (Language 29 (1953) 297–298, ‘measuring-rod’; and review of Ernout, Le Dialecte ombrien in CW 56 (1962), 82). ‘Dress’ has as its supporters Bréal (56: ‘cf. praetexta’), Devoto (172; ‘cf. toga’), Bottiglioni, (Convivio, racc, nuova (1951), 449: ‘cf. trabea’), Ernout (125; “… emploi technique de perca au sens de vêtement rayé; cf. uirgatis lucent sagulis, Verg., Aen. VIII, 660’). The word ponisiater, puniçate, which has been connected with perca, ‘dress’ (Ernout), is often translated as puniceatus, purpureus, or ‘dressed in a purple garment’, a tempting theory in the present context. (Devoto, Tab. Iguv, 271; Poultney 271, puniceus; why ‘purple stripe’?; cf. Bréal, praetextam (cum) purpureis (clavis). Contra, Pisani 169).

The dedication of the spolia opima may have been connected with the cinctus Gabinus, not a special garment but a special way of wearing the toga, which was girded up for action, and was therefore the dress for war; Mau, RE s.u. Cinctus Gabinus. Livy VIII, 9, 5, cf. VIII, 9, 9; X, 7, 3. Servius, ad Aen. V, 755; cf. Aen. VII, 612, opening the Temple of Janus, Alföldi, 39 and note. The sources unfortunately do not describe just how the general was dressed. See, for example, the passage on Numa's lex on the spolia opima, Festus 189 M; 'M. Varro ait … esse etiam Pompili regis legem opimorum spoliorum talem; ‘Cuius auspicio classe procincta opima spolia capiuntur, Iovi Feretrio darier oporteat …’ The dress here signifies the state of action. The spoils the general has won when dressed for war (Paul, ex Fest. 251 b, 225 M; ‘Procincta classis dicebatur cum exercitus cinctus erat Gabino cinctu confestim pugnaturus’) must be dedicated to the gods, and the general must make amends, perhaps in order to be allowed to make the final consecration in the dress of peace, the prototype of the triumphal costume. The triumphal dress of the Etruscan period and later will be discussed in the text.

⁴⁹ Catalano, P., Contributi allo studio del diritto augurale (Turin 1960), 59, 375Google Scholar; 447 ff., comparison of auspicium and imperium; also 438, 441. Coarelli, op. cit., 59. Cf. in Rome the ritual meeting of the triumphator with the Senate, who granted him for the day of the triumph the necessary imperium within the pomoerium.

⁵⁰ Momigliano, A., JRS LIII (1963), 98.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Devoto, Tabulae Iguvinae 183; ‘Cum trinitate Etruscorum ab love, Iunone, Minerva constitute, umbrica Grabouia non comparanda est; similior contra romana Iovis Martis Quirini ‥ Apud Etruscos cultus trinitatis in arce fiebat, Iguvii ante portas urbis: quod “extra” portas mihi uidetur.’ Jupiter and the oak, cf. Livy 1, 10; the spolia was dedicated at a sacred oak tree. To be noted is the absence of cult statues in both Italic and proto-Latin rites. Poultney's translation of ereçlu as ‘statue’ (209–210) is purely hypothetical; cf. Devoto, Tab. Iguv. 259, ‘aliquod altare subsidiarum.’

⁵² Cf. supra, Festus 104 L (117 M).

⁵³ Devoto, Tabulae Iguvinae 270.

⁵⁴ Tabulae Iguvinae 261 (cf. 277 f.) on no. 144. For the populus as army, Coli, Ugo, ‘Sur la notion d'imperium en droit public romain’, Rev. int. des droits de l'Antiquité 7 (1960), 376.Google Scholar For the ludi, Piganiol, op. cit.

⁵⁵ See nn. 16, 79–81. Cf. also acclamations in the highly conservative ceremonial of the Byzantine court, and commands in the Byzantine army, which continued to be in Latin, though few knew their derivation. Constantine VII Porphyrogenetos himself, who transcribed some of these phrases into Greek phonetically, no longer realized the original meaning of —tu uincas! or ‘may you win!’, a shout resembling the triumpe of the Etruscanized triumph at Rome. Marrou, H. I., A History of Education in Antiquity (Histoire de l'éducation dans l'antiquité, Paris, 1948Google Scholar; English translation, Mentor, N.Y. 1964), 549; Lot, F., ‘La Langue de commandement dans les armées romaines’, Mél. F. Grat, I (Paris 1946), 203–209.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ For the Etruscan king, the lucumo, Pallottino, M., Etruscologia ⁶ (Milan 1968), 216Google Scholar, with bibliography. The ruler of Caere, ca. 500 B.C., however, is called zilac in the Etruscan tablets from Pyrgi, the equivalent of ‘king’ in the Phoenician, mlk (malek) (Pallottino 224).

⁵⁷ Relief from Velletri, Åkerstrom, Å., Opuscula Romana I (1954)Google Scholar, fig. 29. Similar one found at Rome, on the Esquiline, Bloch, R., Origins of Rome (1960), pl. 45.Google Scholar Bibliography on Etruscan chariots, Bronson, Richard C., ‘Chariot Racing in Etruria’, Studi in Onore di Luisa Banti (Rome 1965), 89–106Google Scholar, and Frederiksen, Martin W., ‘Campanian Cavalry. A Question of Origins’, Dialoghi di Archeologia 2 (1968)Google Scholar, notes 49, 50. The Monteleone chariot in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, dating from soon after the middle of the sixth century, gives us an idea of the kind of decorated chariot the Etruscan king drove into the city. Cf. the story of Tullia who ran over her own father with a carpentum on the Capitoline Hill (Livy 1, 48); Tarquinius Priscus and Tanaquil come to Rome in a carpentum (1,4). Though this is a covered wagon rather than a chariot, obviously Livy always sees the Etruscan rulers driving carriages or chariots. Helbig, W., ‘Le currus du roi romain,’ Mélanges Piot (Paris 1903) 167–172Google Scholar, collects the material known at that time, but erroneously assigns the currus of the Etruscan king to the Latin rex of Rome.

Chariot fragments are found in tombs as early as the seventh century; Camporeale, G., La Tomba del Duce. Vetulonia I (Florence 1967), 23 f.Google Scholar, 28. For the currus triumphalis, Ehlers, RE 503. According to some (below, n. 75; Fowler 153–7), Jupiter himself took part in the pompa, carried in the triumphal tensa; this may be illustrated on the Praenestine cista in Berlin with a representation of a triumph, Bonfante Warren, L., AJA 68 (1964), 35 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar I do not believe it was originally the ‘chariot of Jupiter’, as some sources call it, though this connotation was undoubtedly present in later times.

⁵⁸ References in Ehlers, RE 495 (he thinks the sceptre did not originally belong), and Ryberg, Inez Scott, ‘Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art’, MAAR 22 (1955), 20.Google Scholar According to Alföldi the symbol of rule was originally, in the pre-Etruscan triumph, the lance which the victorious general carried back from war. He agrees with W. Helbig (Abh. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen, phil.-hist. Klasse, n. F. 10 (1908), no. 3) in recognizing the hasta or lance as the symbol of the imperium of the Latin king (vs. the Greek sceptre) and sees a lance, rather than a slender staff, as the attribute of one of the figures on the late-sixth-century Etruscan relief from Chiusi, now in Palermo (Pl. VII, 2): Alföldi, A., ‘Hasta, Summa Imperii’, AJA 63 (1959), 1 ff.Google Scholar, illustrated 4, pl. 3, 1. Mazzarino, op. cit. (n. 1) 69 ff., first used this as a historical document. Paribeni, Cp. E., St. Etr. 12 (1938), 93 f.Google Scholar, No. 74, pl. 19; Francisci, De, St. Etr. 24 (1955–1956), 19 f.Google Scholar; Åkerstrom, op. cit. (n. 57), 214, fig. 26 (p. 195).

⁵⁹ Gold and enamel sceptre with eagles or hawks, originally mounted on an ivory or wooden staff. from Kourion, Cyprus. Dikaios, P., A Guide to the Cyprus Museum ³ (Nicosia 1961), 159Google Scholar, dates it (in my opinion correctly) ca. 600 B.C., from a comparison of the scale-pattern with that of Corinthian pottery, though it was allegedly found in an eleventh-century tomb (Pennsylvania University Museum Expedition to Curium). For illustrations, see Karageorghis, V., Treasures in the Cyprus Museum (1962), pl. XLGoogle Scholar, Higgins, I. R. A., Greek and Roman Jewellery (London 1961), 25.Google ScholarVermeule, E., Greece in the Bronze Age (Univ. of Chicago 1964), 225CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. XLIV, d, cites Aristophanes, Birds 508, as evidence for the use of such sceptres in the ancient Greek world. There are other numerous and striking connections between Cyprus and Etruria in the period from the seventh to the fifth century B.C.

Alternatively, the eagle symbol on the triumphator's sceptre could have been added at a later stage, in imitation of the Greek image of Zeus by Pheidias (below, n. 83).

⁶⁰ Camporeale, La Tomba del Duce, pl. V d. Cf. bronze and ivory knobs from Tarquinia, Hencken, H., Tarquinia, Villanovans and Early Etruscans (American School of Prehistoric Research, Bulletin 23, 1968), 296Google Scholar, 320, figs. 286, 316; Tarquinia and Etruscan Origins (London 1968), 52, fig. 20e;.

⁶¹ Alföldi, op. cit., 36, pl. I. Giglioli, AE pl. 108, Pallottino, I. M., Etruscan Painting (Skira 1952), 33 f.Google Scholar (not illustrated). Heurgon, J., La Vie quotidienne chezles étrusques (Paris 1961) 59Google Scholar, 219, fig. 9. Roncalli, F., Le lastre dipinte di Cerveteri (Florence 1966) No. 6, pl. 6, 48–52, 95.Google Scholar Date: 540–530 B.C. (Pallottino). In the ouatio the sceptre was not used.

⁶² Giglioli, , Not. Sc. 1919, 13 ff.Google Scholar; AD 3, 5, 53 f., figs. 2–9, pls. 45–55, 1. Riis, P. J., Tyrrhenika (Copenhagen 1941) 45 f.Google ScholarPallottino, M., Arch. Cl. 6 (1954) 115Google Scholar; Mostra dell'arte e della civiltà etrusca (Milan 1955), No. 295; Alföldi, A., Die Trojanischen Urahnen der Romer (Basel 1957) 17Google Scholar; Banti, L., Il mondo degli etruschi (Rome 1960), pls. 44–45.Google Scholar For the tebenna or rounded mantle, Richardson, E. H., ‘The Etruscan Origins of Early Roman Sculpture’, MAAR 21 (1953) 110 ff.Google Scholar

⁶³ Richardson, E. H., The Etruscans (Chicago 1964) 152.Google Scholar Banti, op. cit. pls. 56, 57, dancers; pl. 80, Perseus; pl. 83, hero, perhaps Argonaut, for which cf. pl. III, Ficoroni cista, where the bullae are worn on the arms.

⁶⁴ Dion. Hal. VI, 95, 4; cf. 111, 61, 1 and Livy 1, 8, 2; Strabo 5, 220.

⁶⁵ Livy XXX, 15; XXVII, 4. Vide Tacitus, , Ann. IV, 26.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Plutarch, Rom. 26, 2; Caesar 61. Taylor, Lily Ross, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (American Philological Assoc., 1931), 72.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Alföldi, A., ‘Insignien und Tracht der römischen Kaiser’, RM 50 (1935), 1–58.Google ScholarDelbrueck, R., Die Consulardiptychen (Berlin 1929), 53 f.Google Scholar, and ‘Der spätantike Kaiserornat’, Die Antike 8 (1932), 1 f.

⁶⁸ Livy X, 7, 10; ‘Iovis optimi maximi ornatu decoratus’; Juvenal X, 38, ‘Tunica Iouis’; Servius, ad Ecl. X, 27, ‘triumphantes, qui habent, omnia Iouis insignia, sceptrum, palmatam’; Taylor, op. cit. 44.

⁶⁹ For the relief cippus from Chiusi, above, n. 58. Cf. a terracotta relief from Velletri; Åkerstrom 205 f., fig. 4; Alföldi, , AJA 63 (1959), 3 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Pl. 3, fig. I. Luisa Banti argues (Il mondo degli etruschi, pl. 52 below and text; cf. pl. 37 above) against interpretation of the Chiusi relief as an assembly of magistrates from Clusium, pointing to similar scenes with female figures which would speak in favour of assemblies of divinities; such a standard scene, however, could also be adopted to represent human scenes. Recently, scenes on sixth-century terracotta relief frieze-plaques, excavated at Poggio Civitate, have reopened the question. Of the four frieze-types found (banquet; chariot race; funeral or wedding procession; and group of seated figures), the last is interpreted as an assembly of major deities by the excavator, Phillips, Kyle M., ‘Bryn Mawr Excavations in Tuscany 1967’, AJA 72 (1968), 121–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Archaeology 21 (1968), 254–257. The size and attributes of the figures, rather than their dress, distinguishes them from the servants in attendance, but there is nothing about their dress that distinguishes them further as divine; it is the way the second figure holds out her mantle which makes it likely she is to be identified as Hera, or Juno (Uni in Etruscan), with her husband Zeus (Jupiter, Tinia).

The armour-bearing figure behind him is probably not Athena, as Kyle Phillips suggests, but conceivably a male servant. Nor do the three make up a ‘Capitoline Triad’ in the company of the triad of the lower world, according to Otto Brendel and Georges Dumézil, with whom I have discussed this question. In an article on ‘Etruscan Dress as Historical Source’, to appear in AJA in 1970, and in a forthcoming book on Etruscan dress, I discuss the problem of the interpretation of divine vs. human figures according to their dress.

⁷⁰ Servius, ad Aen. VII, 612. Cf. Alföldi, A., Die altrömische Reiteradel und seine Ehrenabzeichen (Baden-Baden 1952)Google Scholar on the trabea, which was not, however, restricted to the knights, but was a ceremonial uniform which was practical for people such as the Salii, since it was short, and pinned securely at the shoulder.

⁷¹ Livy 11, 12. Compare the painted terracotta plaque from Cerveteri (ca. 530 B.C.) showing two men seated on sellae curules, wearing laced calcei and purple robes, Roncalli, F., Le lastre dipinte di Cerveteri (Florence 1965), No. 5, pl. 5.Google Scholar A Roman of the time of Livy or even earlier would have thought it strange to see here two men dressed according to the Romans' idea of an Etruscan king!

⁷² Koch, C., Der römische Juppiter (Frankfort 1937), 125.Google Scholar Mazzarino, op. cit. 29, note 23. Dumézil, op. cit. 286 (but not in the English translation). De Francisci, loc. cit.; Latte, op. cit. 152. Piganiol already noted, however, in Recherches sur les jeux remains (Paris 1923) 89, ‘… le costume triomphal est l'ancien costume royal étrusque et aussi celui des plus vieilles idoles … ce n'est done pas aux triomphateurs mais plus probablement aux rois que les présidents des jeux annuels auront emprunté le costume triomphal.’

⁷³ Pliny, , HN XXXV, 157–8Google Scholar: ‘Vulcan Veiis accitum, cui locaret Tarquinius Priscus Iouis effigiem in Capitolio dicandam; fictilem eum fuisse et ideo miniari solitum ‥ hae tum effigies deorum erant lautissimae.’ Cf. XXXIII, 36, 11 f.; XXXV, 44–46. Cf. Plutarch, Quaest. Rom. 98. The red paint on the face (and body) of the triumphator has a quite different origin, and is due to religious, magic reasons; Wagenvoort, op. cit. 166 f.; Deubner, op. cit. 321; cf. Wunderlich, E., Bedeutung der roten Farbe im Kultus der Gr. und Röm. (Breslau-Tübingen 1925), 21 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The coincidence between the two facts has confused both ancient Romans (Pliny, , HN XXXIII, 36, 111–112Google Scholar) and modern scholars. Wagenvoort, op. cit. 166 f.; ‘Indeed the general was not the image of the god, but the god was the counterfeit of the victorious commander.’ Cf. De Francisci, op. cit. 31 f. For the painting of the triumphator, Cicero, , Ad Fam. IX, 16, 8.Google Scholar Pliny, HN XXXIII III; ‘Iouis ipsius simulacri faciem diebus festis minio inlini solitam triumphantiumque corpora.’ Contra, Deubner, op. cit. 319 f.

⁷⁴ ‘Respice post te, hominem te esse memento.’ Tert., Apol. XXXIII, 4. Other references in Ehlers, RE 507. The bulla, Deubner points out, would not be necessary to protect the triumphator from inuidia if he were indeed the personification of Jupiter Optimus Maximus; cf. Mazzarino, op. cit. 229, n. 24.

⁷⁵ Deubner, L., ‘Die Tracht des römisehen Triumphators’, Hermes LXIX (1934), 316–323.Google ScholarReid, J. S., JRS VI (1916), 153 f.Google Scholar According to Deubner, the ‘royal’ emblems, dedicated to Jupiter and kept in his temple, belonged to Jupiter in this sense only.

⁷⁶ Deubner, op. cit. 321 f. Fowler, op. cit. 156, was no doubt right: triumphator and divine image were each originally painted red for different reasons. The statue's colour at this date, though, was as much due to artistic convention as for ‘intensiveres Leben’.

⁷⁷ Wagenvoort, loc. cit., De Francisci, loc. cit.

⁷⁸ For the painting of sculpture, see Richter, G. M. A., Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks (New Haven² 1950), 148 f.Google Scholar See also note 73.

⁷⁹ Devoto, op. cit., 389; A. Momigliano, JRS LIII (1963), 98, doubts this, but at any rate, the word is not IE.

⁸⁰ Heurgon, op. cit., 248.

⁸¹ Alabaster urn in Florence, Museo Archeologico, Inv. No. 5513. Representations of processions on Etruscan urns, which earlier scholars once thought to represent triumphs, actually represent pompae funebres. Brunn-Körte, , I Rilievi delle Urne Etrusche (Rome, Berlin) III, 1916, 10 f.Google Scholar, pl. 84–96; Giglio i AE pl. 396–402. This does not, however, disprove their essential similarity. Leifer, F., ‘Studien zum antiken Ämterwesen’, Klio XXIII (1931), 82Google Scholar, note 1. Cf. Wallisch, E., “Name und Herkunft des römischen Triumphes’, Philologus XCIX (1955), 246–247Google Scholar; Coarelli, , Dial. Arch. 2 (1968), 64Google Scholar, 84, notes 35, 40 for connections between the triumph, the pompa circensis, and funerals, with bibliography and references. For the image of the triumphator carried in the insult in Horace, Epodes VIII, II f. (and notes, the funeral procession of a member of his family, see Kiessling, A.—Heinze, R., Oden und Epoden, Zürich-Berlin 1964)Google Scholar, funus atque imagines.

⁸² LL VI, 68.

⁸³ Bieber, M., The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (New York 1961 ²) 180.Google ScholarLippold, G., ‘Serapis und Bryaxis’, Festschrift Paul Arndt (Munich 1925), 123 f.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Aug., Civ. Dei IV, 31.

⁸⁵ Capitoline triad, Banti, L., “Il culto del cosiddetto tempio “dell' Apollo” a Veio e il problema delle triadi etruscoitaliche’, St. Etr. XVII (1943), 187 f.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ The figure, found in 1952, is dressed in a diagonally draped himation; traces of colour on the (fragmentary) leg suggest he may have been wearing calcei; Sestieri, P. C., ‘Statua fittile di Posidonia’, Boll. d'Arte XL (1955), 193–202Google Scholar; Riv. 1st. Arch. V–VI (1956–7), 65 ff.; Langlotz, Ernst, Die Kunst der Westgriechen in Sizilien und Unteritalien (Munich 1963), colour pl. III, IV.Google Scholar Emeline Richardson kindly informs me that all Etruscan cult statues found so far are standing, which makes it more than likely that Vulca's was, too; she quotes the Ovid passage as evidence. For the question of standing vs. seated divinity, Gross, W., RM LXX (1963), 13 f.Google Scholar, and Schwabacher, W., RM LXXII (1965), 209–212.Google Scholar Cf. Wunderlich, op. cit. (n. 73) 83 f., for representations of divinities wearing purple mantles.

⁸⁷ See above, notes 61, 69, 62. The colour cannot be seen on these reliefs, though others have traces of red on the borders. For the dress, Richardson, The Etruscans 132–133.

⁸⁸ Pliny, , HN XXXV, 157.Google Scholar Cf. notes 43–44. Hercules and generals; Dumézil, op. cit. 424. Dumézil suggests, however, that the statue might not really have been made at Rome, but brought in from Veii later, as were so many statues of divinities. Certainly there must have been a tendency to attribute late Etruscan influences to an early period.

⁸⁹ Festus 428 (36 L); ‘Senex cum toga praetexta bullaque aurea.’ Appian, , Pun. VIII, 66Google Scholar; Plutarch, , Rom. XXV, 5Google Scholar; Quaest. Rom. 53. Deubner, op. cit. 322. Pliny, , HN XXIII, 4, 9–10Google Scholar, connects, in a different context, the toga praetexta and the bulla with the Tarquins; Gagé, Jean, MEFR (1962), 99 f.Google Scholar, thinks he represented the king of Veii of the fourth century. Cf. Piganiol, op. cit. 29–30, who is, I think, probably right in identifying him as one of the original Pyrrhic dancers of the procession; they had belonged to the ancient Roman rite—witness the Salii and their armed dance—but adopted Etruscan dress during the transformation of the triumph; their sole survivor was later looked upon as a clown by the people of Rome.

⁹⁰ Leifer, loc. cit. (n. 81). Ritual space in Roman cult and architecture, Brown, Frank, Roman Architecture (New York 1961).Google Scholar

⁹¹ Bruhl, Adrien, ‘Les influences hellénistiques dans le triomphe romain’, MEFR XLVI (1929), 77–95.Google ScholarWallisch, , Philologus XCIX (1955), 245–258Google Scholar, goes too far in attributing the triumph as a whole to this late date. Latte, op. cit., 212 f., 221 ff. Cf. also Gagé, Jean, ‘De Tarquinies à Vulci; les guerres entre Rome et Tarquinies au 4^e siècle avant J. C. et les fresques de la “Tombe François,”’ MEFR (1962), 99, 122.Google Scholar

⁹² Coarelli, op. cit. 92.

⁹³ Other changes in ‘official’ Roman dress in cluded the use of the gold ring and the regularization of the width of the stripe on the tunic: Pliny, , HN XXXIII, 7, 29.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Festus 228 L (209 M), ‘picta quae nunc toga dicitur, purpurea ante vocitata est, eaque erat sine pictura. eius rei argumentum est … pictum in aede Vertumni, et Consi, quarum in altera M. Fulvius Flaccus, in altera T. Papirius Cursor triumphantes ita picti sunt’ (after the destruction of Volsinii, 264 B.C.).

⁹⁵ Festus, loc. cit.; ‘Tunica autem palmata a latitudine clauorum dicebatur, quae nunc a genere picturae appellatur.’ Clauus refers to either a border, or to a stripe like the angustus or latus clauus of the civil tunic. Martial, VII, 2, 8; Servius, ad Bucol. X, 27; Tertullian, de corona militis 13. A toga palmata is also mentioned. That the later decoration consisted of a palmette design was suggested to me by Otto Brendel. For the symbolism of the palm tree, see Déonna, W., Rev. Hist. Relig. 139–140 (1951), 143 f.Google Scholar The kind of decoration, the genus picturae, might have been considered by the Romans to be a Phoenician luxury: cf. von Lorentz, F., ‘βαρβάρων υφάσματα’ RM LII (1937), 165–222Google Scholar; Pliny, , HN VIII, 195–196.Google Scholar Since tunics are usually covered, they are difficult to identify. See, however, the bordered tunic worn by the principal figure on a Praenestine cista (Bonfante Warren, L., AJA 68 (1964), 35 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, figs. 1–5), at least partly dressed as a triumphator, but probably representing the magistrate leading the pompa circensis, who wore triumphal dress (Piganiol, above, n. 72); Otto Brendel points to the dishes laid out for the epulum Iouis as evidence that the representation refers to these ludi, rather than to the triumph proper (Piganiol 87, 100). The description of the pompa in my article stands, since there is no real difference between the procession of the triumph and that of the ludi (Piganiol 75). A palmette border-decoration on the tunic of one of the other figures on the same cista may give us an idea of what this other palmata decoration looked like.

⁹⁶ The François Tomb was constructed in the fifth century, but the paintings are variously dated. Most recently, Cristofani, M. (“Ricerche sulle pitture della tomba François di Vulci. I fregi decorativi’, Dial. Arch. I (1967), 186–219Google Scholar, with previous bibliography) accepts a date in the fourth century on the basis of the decorative motifs. Cf. Pallottino, , Mostra dell'arte e della civiltà etrusca (Milan 1955)Google Scholar no. 420 (second-first century B.C.); Alföldi, op. cit. 212 f., 221 ff. Cf. also Gagé, Jean, ‘De Tarquinies à Vulci: les guerres entre Rome et Tarquinies au 4^e siècle avant J.-C. et les fresques de la “Tombe François,”’ MEFR (1962), 99, 122.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ I have suggested elsewhere (Worcester Etruscan Symposium, May 1967, to be published as ‘Etruscan Dress as Historical Source’, AJA 1970) that on a more or less contemporary funerary representation of another important personage, the rectangular himation may be due to a desire to show the deceased as heroized, wearing dress appropriate to a more universal world; e.g. a sarcophagus, also from Vulci, now in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts; Herbig, R., Die Jüngeretruskischen Steinsarcophage (Berlin 1952), 13–14Google Scholar, No. 5, pl. 4 C; Hanfmann, G. M. A., JHS LXV (1945), 47, pl. 8Google Scholar; Richardson, op. cit., I43–146, pl. XLIII.

⁹⁸ Matz, F., ‘Belli Facies et Triumphus’, Festschrift Carl Weickert (Berlin 1955), 41 f.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Bruhl, op. cit., 82 f.; “… c'est surtout à partir du début du II^e siècle que les changements se précipitent. C'est l'époque des guerres contre Philippe et Persée de Macédoine, et contre Antiochus III de Syrie, qui marque cette croissante rapidité dans l'introduction des coutumes helléniques …. Il y a une gloire qui les obsède tous, Marius, Pompée, et César, c'est celle du conquérant de l'Orient, Alexandre. Or, pour les remains du I^er siècle, cette grande figure apparaissait telle qu'elle avait été transformée par ses successeurs, les souverains des grands royaumes hellénistiques, c'est-à-dire, divinisée.’ Cf. Wallisch, loc. cit.

¹⁰⁰ loci militares, W. Ehlers, RE s.u. triumphus 495, 509. Cf. Wissowa, RE s.u. fescennini versus (cf. licentia); R. Cagnat, Daremberg-Saglio, s.u. triumphus, and G. Lafaye, s.u. fascinus, with refs. I am grateful to Dr. K. Treu and Dr. Liselotte Welskopf for discussing this question when I read my paper at the Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften in East Berlin.

¹⁰¹ Cp. works cited above, n. 91.