for any general interpretation of the ritual. In order to prepare the way for a new hypothesis, I now invoke Victor Turner’s principle of contextual meaning and start by addressing the relationship between the triumph and the pompa circensis. The conspicuous parallels in the apparel of the triumphator and the magistrate who led the pompa circensis have provoked several studies that postulate a historical relationship between the two ceremonies.17 Whereas Versnel argued for the godlikeness of the magistrate who supervised the pompa by way of analogy with the triumphator, and identified an original meaning for the triumph by analyzing the rituals of the Ides of September, I shall reverse his approach and concentrate on differences rather than similarities.
First, it must be pointed out that Versnel’s most convincing arguments in favor of the hypothesis that the triumphator impersonated Iuppiter are based on elements of the costume that he shared with the leading magistrate of the pompa circensis. Leaving aside the dream of Augustus’s father, in which the future Augustus appeared to him with the insignia of Iuppiter,18 two sources that employ the term ornatus Iovis (or the like) concern the triumphator, while the other two are about the magistrate.19 The same holds true of the golden crown (corona aurea or Etrusca), which is attested for both, triumphator and magistrate.20 But is there any reason to identify the magistrates in charge of the pompae with Iuppiter?21 They were neither victorious nor were they permanently honored, either in life or after death, for having performed this ritual role. They were—and this needs to be stressed—never acclaimed with io triumphe. There is one further argument that makes such an identification highly unlikely. The most important task of the magistrate was to round out a procession of gods to the circus. But IuppiterIuppiter himself had already appeared in the pompa,in the form of a statue that was paraded together with those of the other gods. Why should he appear twice?
All this has important consequences for our interpretation of the triumphator. I submit that we can no longer regard the paraphernalia that the triumphator shared with the procession-leading magistrate as viable evidence of the triumphator’s Iuppiter-like status. That the costume worn by the protagonists in these rituals matched that of Iuppiter,22 in recalling the (temporary? periodic?) clothing of his Capitoline statue, simply does not entail that the Romans regarded other bearers of the tunica palmata, the purple toga, or the gold crown (which was too heavy to be worn on the head and hence—in both cases!—had to be held by a slave instead),23 as indicators that Iuppiter was being impersonated.24 The same is true of the eagle-crowned scepter, which again was perhaps common to both ritual roles:25 it is too general a symbol of sovereignty to ensure a specific reference to Iuppiter.26 Given the ease with which this combination of symbols was applied to a variety of ritual roles in different ludi, the meaning of these symbols was most likely a generic one, not closely related to the specific contents of these rituals. The easiest way to interpret the costume is to see it as temporarily distinguishing an outstanding, extraordinary magistrate with regal symbols, which, in other ritual contexts, were also used to honor Iuppiter.27
There remain two differences between the triumphator and the game-leading magistrate. First, the triumphator rode on a quadriga, a chariot drawn by four horses, whereas the magistrate was granted only a biga, drawn by two horses.28 The quadriga, being the more prestigious vehicle, elevated the triumphator above the normal magistrate. This might be taken to imply a reference to Iuppiter, as well as to royal status—that is to say, to the highest degree of political power.29 And second, apart from the io triumphe, the triumphator was also colored in red, which is not attested for a game-leading magistrate. Does this mean that the Romans saw Iuppiter at the heart of the triumphal procession, as Versnel maintains?30 Or did they see something else?
Parading a Living Statue
The earliest and principal source for the coloring of the triumphator with red paint is Pliny the Elder:
Iovis ipsius simulacri faciem diebus festis minio inlini solitam triumphanti-umque corpora; sic Camillum triumphasse; hac religione etiamnum addi in unguenta cenae triumphalis et a censoribus in primis Iovem miniandam locari.
On days of festivals the face of the statue of Iuppiter himself was usually smeared with cinnabar, and likewise the body of triumphatores. Camillus was said to have triumphed thus; according to the same scruple it was added even at that time to the unction at the triumphal meal, and the commission of coloring Iuppiter was among the first things censors had to do.31
Now why should the face of the statue of Iuppiter be painted red?32 The answer has nothing to do with some protohistoric use of red color, as Versnel suggests,33 but with material conditions and a cultural code. The statue would have been made out of terra-cotta like the Hercules fictilis of the ara maxima.34 This meant that, instead of the oil used in caring for statues of marble, the freshening up of the natural color (as opposed to colorfully painted parts) was done with red paint.35 Urgency was supported by a cultural code. The faces of terra-cotta male deities—the type of statue for which we have ample evidence—were differentiated from the light faces of female terra-cotta deities by their darker red color.36 A Roman triumphator celebrated the ritual colored in red, not in imitation of Iuppiter, but in imitation of a male statue of terracotta.37 Being carried on a chariot in a frozen pose,38 he additionally applied red coloring to his body (which, I presume, means the visible parts of his skin) to ensure that he was understood as a terra-cotta statue. The ancient Romans who watched a triumph saw a procession during which a “stand-in” terra-cotta statue of a male was carried into the city. They neither saw monarchy returning, even temporarily, nor did they see Iuppiter coming home or being carried around. As has been pointed out in dealing with the pompa circensis, Iuppiter was in any event a familiar figure on Roman streets. Everyone knew what he looked like: he was paraded around town on a stretcher, in the form of a statue or bust, or his insignia, especially the lightning, were carried in a tensa, a special car for a long time drawn by children. No one would have confused him with a triumphator.
Statues for the Nobility
The only form of the triumph known to us—and, indeed, the only form known to the Romans of the late Republic and empire—was an invention of the second half of the fourth century. It was a ritual performed following the (often difficult) decision of the Senate to publicly acknowledge the martial achievements of a returning general. In the face of an increasing display of private statuary on public ground (statuary probably already in marble or bronze)—such displays being described by Demosthenes as a contemporary development39—the Roman nobility as a whole tried to concentrate public prestige on a ritual, which included the publicly decreed concretization of a consciously archaic representation, namely the terra-cotta statue still in use for deities housed in temples. And who better to act the part of the temporary statue than the one who was honored by it? The ritual did not force the honorand to reject later real statuary. Rather, the ritual should be understood as participating at once in the establishment of a monumentalized commemorative culture and in its regulation.40 Far from rendering real statues otiose, therefore, the ritual increased their symbolic value and legitimized their public display.
Markus Sehlmeyer observed that the earliest known honorific statues, that is, statues put up for a living person, represented triumphatores. He went on to postulate a regular connection between triumphs and honorific statues.41 The first recorded instance of this connection is attributed to the year 338 and coincides with the first award of an honorific statue after the dictator Camillus refounded Rome after the Gallic sack. After the successful completion of the war against Pedum, the final phase of the Latin Wars of 340–338, the consuls L. Furius Camillus and C. Maenius “returned to Rome for a triumph decreed by the consensus of all. To the triumph the honor was added that they receive equestrian statues in the Forum, a rare
