Mary Beard, The Roman Triumph, London 2009

This book is both inspiring and provocative. Cambridge professor Mary Beard’s study does not, as one might expect, offer another conventional narration of the history of the Roman triumph. Instead, Beard has written a profound and thoughtful treatise on the (sometimes misleading) images and perceptions of this intriguing ritual in both ancient sources and modern research. As the author explains in the introductory chapter her account aims “to challenge many of the ways Roman ritual culture is studied, and the spurious certainties and prejudices that dog it. This is a manifesto of sorts” (p. 5).

Beard pursues this goal in nine chapters framed by a prologue and an epilogue. A detailed treatment of all chapters can’t be provided within the limited space available for this review. Therefore, the discussion will focus on certain topics Beard raises to illustrate her methodology and way of thinking.

A particularly compelling part of her analysis is her reflection on the elements generally assumed to have been integral parts of the triumphal ceremony. Beard lists some of these elements – e.g., the presented spoils and captives, the triumphator on his chariot, equipped with a scepter and laurels, the slave behind him who used to whisper “Look behind you. Remember you are a man” (p. 82) and, at the end of the procession, the chanting soldiers. The rhetorical question, Beard asks shortly after, exemplifies her reflected approach and focus on simple and pragmatic aspects that are too often neglected by modern scholars: “What kind of balancing act, for example, would be required of a general simply to stay upright in a horse-drawn chariot traveling over the bumpy Roman streets, both hands full with a scepter and laurel branch, sharing the ride with a couple of children and the obligatory slave?” (p. 83). Afterward Beard dedicates a sub-chapter to the slave that is thought to have stood behind the triumphator to remind him of his human status. Through a critical analysis of the sources, she shows that the words the slave is supposed to have said to the triumphator are in effect a modern invention that is made up of different pieces of information scattered through our literary evidence. Moreover, she shows the great variability in the depiction of the slave both in literature and imagery. This makes it impossible to assess which role he precisely played in the actual ritual. Beard’s considerations magnificently demonstrate the distortions and mistakes a generalizing and uncritical interpretation of the source material can lead to.

Another element of the triumph the author sheds new light on is the captives presented in the procession. The fourth chapter of the book is dedicated to this topic. Among the many issues, Beard discusses in this chapter, is the ambivalent relationship between the triumphator and his captives. The captives were insofar a potential danger for the staged celebration as they could also steal the triumphator the show. A particularly interesting example of this is Cassius Dio’snarrative of Caesar’s triumph in 46 BC. In this parade, Caesar presented an Egyptian princess in chains. Contrary to what one might expect (and contrary to what Caesar himself probably expected), the spectators did not rejoice about the captured enemy. Instead, they felt pity for the miserable young foreigner and even started to moan about their own infelicity.

Although Beard’s argumentation is often well-founded, there are also parts where a closer consideration of the evidence would have been helpful. When she talks about the rules for the permission to celebrate a triumph, for example, she claims that the widespread assumption that taking the auspices was a necessary prerequisite for the bestowal of a triumph is not compatible with the ancient evidence. Her main argument is that during the civil wars two commanders, Cnaeus Domitius Calvus and Publius Ventidius Bassus, triumphed although they did allegedly not fight under their own auspices. However, as Dalla Rosa has shown, these two men were in fact proconsuls which meant that they necessarily thought under their own auspices. This refutes Beard’s denial of the importance of the auspices and casts doubt on her certainly exaggerated skepticism regarding the existence of clear rules for the bestowal of triumphs.

Nevertheless, this mistake does not diminish the great value of Beard’s book who deserves a lot of credit for the courage to challenge many traditional convictions. Her study is so profound and covers so many different aspects that it will certainly be a starting point for any future research on the Roman triumph. Without a doubt, Beard has contributed to a better and less distorted picture of this enigmatic ancient ritual.

Dalla Rosa, Alberto: Dominating the auspices: Augustus, augury and the proconsuls. In: Richardson, James H. / Santangelo, Frederico (ed.): Priests and State in the Roman World. Stuttgart 2011, p. 243-269, here: p. 260f.