Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
Dr. Langford
HIS 6939.901 – Ethnicity and Empire in Ancient Rome
Fall 2010 Seminar
When one thinks about the triumph, either within or without
a Roman context, a multiplicity of ideas, images, and
associations inevitably come to mind. The breadth of the
interpretive discourse surrounding the triumph is extensive,
covering a wide range of topics. For the Romans themselves, it is
difficult at best to positively nail down every theme and hidden
meaning of the triumph. This ritual was a ceremony that
celebrated and honored not only the triumphator himself and his
achievements, but also the Romans as a people.1 The complex web
of meaning interwoven throughout it may never find complete
understanding today, and the signification of the triumphs exist
in both their recounting and in the actual course of the event
1 Robert Payne, The Roman Triumph (London: Abelard-Schuman, 1963), 14 also asserts that the triumph was a ritual from “which all Roman history revolves” that strengthens the idea that this arguable most important spectacular ceremony functions – even if unconsciously – as a visual ethnography.
1
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
that together constructs, conveys, and maintains the cultural
associative elements in the minds of the Romans.2 It is through a
careful examination of the available evidence that one is able to
focus in on the strands of this essentially complex Roman
tapestry. Although each strand is fascinating individually, one
must always be conscientious of the entirety of this tapestry and
that each one inexorably involves and relates to the others.
Moreover, just as a multiplicity of meaning exists, so too does
the multiplicity of interpretations of the triumph – both from
the ancients themselves and from all others throughout history
who found (and continue to find) it to be an alluring and
mysterious ritual. The strands under examination in the present
study, while certainly involving the other strands in the whole
tapestry, explores how the triumph served as a “visual
ethnography.”3 In other words, the procession informed about the
2 Mary Beard, The Roman Triumph (London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009), 41.
3 Ibid., 4 argues “that the very ceremony which glorified military victory andthe values underpinning that victory also provided a context within which those values could be discussed and challenged.” It is within this vein of thought that allows too for an analysis of the display of captives as a visualethnography, for this concept likewise exists within the context of the triumphal procession.
2
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
ethnic identities of not only the captives, but also the
identities of the Roman spectators too.
The fact that the triumph is the most treated public ritual
in ancient accounts contributes to the transmission and
discussion of the meanings of the triumph to anyone who reads
about them.4 Moreover, it reveals just how important to the
Romans this ceremony was and gives insight into how they thought
of it at various points throughout their history. More
importantly for the present study, this also attests to how the
Romans memorialized and maintained the ethnicities of their
captives put on display long after their actual appearance in the
procession. The discourse involving these descriptions thus
weaves itself into the overall tapestry and conception of the
triumph not only for the ancients, but also for all who read
about it later.
There are two principal avenues of discussion in this
examination of the triumph as a visual ethnography. The first
endeavor is to show how the triumph initially constructed the
ethnic identities of the captives on display, then how the Romans
4 Ibid., 60-1.3
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
maintained and perpetuated these constructions. The second argues
that the constructed ethnicities of the captives also served to
shape the identities of the Roman spectators themselves through a
(conscious or unconscious) process of negative identification.
This latter aspect primarily involves a power relationship
between the Romans and the captives. For the former discursive
avenue, it is necessary to define captives broadly to include not
just the display of human prisoners, but captured spolia that
includes various images, statuary, simulacra, and other captured
objects as well. The reason for this rather broad definition is
that each piece of captive booty served to build upon the ethnic
conceptualizations of the human captives also on display.
Overall, the both human and material captives become symbolic
capital for the Roman imagination that allows for the
apperception of the ethnic identities of both the captives and
the spectators.
Nearly every ancient description of the captives displayed
in the triumphs, almost without exception, includes some
reference to their exotic character and place of origin. Several
scholars have associated this imagery as a means in which the
4
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
display “amounted to a physical realization of empire and
imperialism.”5 Furthermore, this ostensibly is a discourse of
power and how conquered and conqueror relate to one another, a
concept which this paper will address later. What is important to
note here, however, is that although the triumph certainly
contains an overtly apparent expression of power that scholarship
primarily focuses on, nowhere is there meaningful consideration
on how this also includes a discourse of identity for both the
conquered and conqueror. The following discussion will attempt to
fill this gap, beginning with describing how the triumph in the
first place constructs the identities of the conquered.
Arguably, one of the primary features of any triumph for the
spectators apart from the triumphator himself was the often-
extravagant display of captives paraded through the streets. The
Romans employed a variety of methods for constructing the way in
which these captives appeared, in turn constructing their images
in the imagination of the spectators. The focus on the production
5 Ibid., 123. See also Trevor Murphy, Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: the Empire in the Encyclopedia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 154-5 who explains thatthe triumph as a ritual has the ability to inform Romans about foreign lands, yet he does not take the avenue of interpretation this paper follows in regards to viewing it as a way to not only inform about ethnicity, but construct it as well.
5
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
of the images exhibited in the triumph brings the spectator into
the conversation about what is on display. That is, they each
would decide for themselves upon the reality of the
representations shown to them and thus the construction of the
spectacle creates a discourse in which both the orchestrators of
the display, the spectators, and even the captives themselves
engage.6 This discourse subsequently formulates a complex image –
whether real or not – in the minds of all involved of a
multiplicity of constructions, including their ethnicities.7 The
triumph itself thus served as a conduit for the transmission of
the ethnic associations, rather than simply at first glance
functioning to exaggerate and bolster the achievements of the
conquest(s) celebrated. In other words, the triumph created and
passed on the Roman conceptualization of Otherness, but they did
this through a carefully constructed way that in no way required
6 Yasmin Syed, Vergil’s Aeneid and the Roman Self: Subject and Nation in Literary Discourse (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005): 53-4 discusses the concept of the Gaze and its function in turning the reader into a spectator. This line of thought works well for the present study in that the literary accounts of the triumphs subsequently brings the reader into the associated discourses by allowing them to view the triumph from a distance.
7 Beard, 181-2 makes the case that descriptions of triumphs would consistentlyhighlight the method in which the Romans displayed the various elements in theprocession.
6
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
the accurate representation of the ethnic and cultural realities
of the foreigners on display.
The activities of the actual conquest are the first step in
the conceptualization of the Other in the minds of the Romans
afield, which they subsequently put on display in triumph. In his
panegyric to Trajan, Pliny the Younger first mentions how the
emperor’s forays abroad taught him mores gentium, the customs of
the inhabitants there (Pan. 15.3). This exposure to foreign ways
is an interesting notation, given that Pliny then projects a
future triumph over the Dacians.8 Contact with the Other provides
the initial formulation and perception of these people for the
Romans, who then constructs these notions for the spectator
through the medium of the triumph. Thus, first the triumph
transmits the conquered spolia to the spectators in Rome, which in
turn ostensibly constructs and transmits their identities.
As stated above, the Romans used several methods of
displaying their captives, each one contributing to the
construction of ethnic identity. The most visible method was the
8 Ibid., 121-2 discusses this same imagined triumph, but with a focus on how ancient writers would concentrate on the names of captured royalty.
7
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
use of tituli that spelled out for the spectators the identity of
each captive, including their places of origin, and examples of
these are prevalent in nearly every ancient description of the
triumph. Although at first glance this provided a utilitarian way
of informing the crowd about what they were seeing, the choice of
words in these labels would intimate the ethnicity of the
captives as well. For instance, placards in Claudius’ triumph
over Britain labeling Transalpine Gaul uses a word (comata) to
call to mind the long hair of the inhabitants – a stereotypical
association for them.9 Another good example of this feature of
the triumph occurs in the description of Aurelian’s triumph,
where placards identified every captive in relation to their
ethnicity. Included among the catalogue of various captives on
display, a placard identified ten Gothic women as Amazons. This
moreover shows that the Romans would also attach mythological
references to their captives that provide the spectator with
9 Pliny NH 33.16.54: Gallia comata titulis indicavit. It is important to note here, however, that its mention in the triumph itself did not coin this word to describe Transalpine Gaul, but rather was one of the names the Romans used forthat region (Transalpinus being another choice without an ethnic association). Either way, this lends to the point that the for this instance the label used in the context of the triumph still allowed for the transmission of ethnic identity of the captives displayed.
8
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
another way to construct the ethnic identities of captives in
their minds.10 The placards thus not only labeled the captives,
but also worked together closely with other methods of
representation that created a discourse of ethnic construction.
In addition to the tituli were models (simulacra), statuary,
paintings, and even floats (fercula) that together created scenery
relating to the exploits of the conquest.11 Inevitably, these
scenes contained representations of the captives both on display
and absent the event. The Romans carefully constructed each one
in a way that not only magnified or accentuated their
accomplishments, but also highlighted their conceptualization of
the peoples they conquered. Nearly every triumph that bears
descriptions of captives likewise portrays these other forms of
captive display. These constructed scenes could take a variety of
forms, from the simple to the grandiose, but each explicitly held
10 SHA Aurel. 33-4: ducta sunt et decem mulieres, quas virili habitu pugnantes inter Gothos ceperat, cum multae essent interemptae, quas de Amazonum genere titulus indicabat — praelati sunt tituli gentium nomina continentes.See also Beard, 122-3.
11 Tacitus, in a pedestrian manner, mentions that in the triumph of Germanicus, there were simulacra montium, fluminum, proeliorum, bellumque without any more detail (Ann. 2.41), but is a pithy list of the usual types of these scenes. See also App. Pun. 9.66 who mentions that the Romans carried πύργοι τεπαραφέρονται μιμήματα τῶν εἰλημμένων πόλεων, καὶ γραφαὶ καὶ σχήματα τῶν γεγονότων.
9
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
ethnic associations that the Roman spectator would be able to
relate to and understand. Artistic representation was an
important element for any triumph, and the Romans took extensive
pains to create the scenery for displaying to the crowd.12 Even
the rogue poet Ovid, in creating an imaginative triumph for
Germanicus, creates a picture of these other forms of media,
where he describes silver depictions of battlements and captured
barbarian towns that had their inhabitants painted on them.13 In
similar fashion, Pliny the Younger in his panegyric to Trajan
paints the scene of the captive parade complete with scenes of
the exploits of the barbarians, created in a way to highlight
their savagery. The captives themselves then followed the
representations, creating a strong link between the stereotypical
constructions displayed and the captives in tow.14 Thus, here is
evidence that the Romans specifically constructed the captive 12 Peter J. Holliday, “Roman Triumphal Painting: It’s Function, Development, and Reception,” in The Art Bulletin 79.1 (1997): 130 points out how these paintings served as cognitive tools for the Romans in that they had the ability “to affect and manipulate an audience.” Holliday’s article, however, does not apply this line of thought to the construction of ethnicity, but nonetheless it makes this essential point.
13 Ovid Pont. 2.1.37-8: protinus argento versos imitantia muros | barbara cum pictis oppida lataviris
14 Plin. Pan. 17.2: videor intueri immanibus ausis barbarorum onusta fercula, et sua quemque facta vinctis manibus sequentem.
10
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
procession in a way to highlight not the ethnic realities of
barbarian identities, but the Roman perception of such.
Velleius Paterculus, in describing the triumphs of Caesar,
describes several apparatus of each victory fashioned in materials
associated with each conquered land that one may assume also
conjured up correlating ethnic associations.15 Describing the
same triumphs, Florus takes the descriptions a step further by
illustrating the representations of the Rhine and Rhone Rivers,
along with Oceanus in gold for the Gallic triumph and a depiction
of the Nile on a float that also featured Arsinoe and a model of
the Pharos.16 This scene exhibits the personification of foreign
lands through their rivers that were “the bearers of cultural
identity,” which reinforced the ethnic identities corresponding
with the inhabitants.17 In other words, the rivers themselves
were both cultural and ethnic substitutions for the captives
present in the triumph and the people living within the lands
represented. Furthermore, that Caesar displayed Arsinoe on the
15 Vell. Pat. 2.121.3: Gallici apparatus ex citro, Pontici ex acantho, Alexandrini testudine, Africi ebore, Hispaniensis argento rasili constitit.
16 Flor. 2.13.88-9; see also Murphy, 158-9 and Beard, 136-7; 146; 154.
17 Murphy, 138.11
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
Egyptian simulacrum exemplifies in one sense that the display of
captives also visually functioned to encapsulate the
circumstances of their own defeat. Along these same lines, the
captives participated in the construction and subsequent
communication of their own ethnicity.
The Romans would sometimes force the captives to interact
with the scenery in which they were a part, as shown in the
example given regarding the display of Arsinoe in Caesar’s
triumph. Additionally, the ethnic associations related to these
captives would permeate these elaborate constructions. Thus, the
captives became not only living representations of their own
ethnicities, but also of the inhabitants in their homelands.18
Josephus provides a spectacular (pun intended) account of the
triumph celebrated concurrently by Vespasian and Titus, which is
one of the most thoroughly extensive ancient reports that
survives. His perspective is also unique in that it is possible
that he was a captive in the procession, and if true affords a
perspective of the triumph that does not have an equal. Before
describing the triumphal procession itself, he even makes a very
18 Beard, 145 and 147.12
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
acute comment on the impossibility of being able to describe the
totality of the display that gives the impression on the impact
the event had for all involved.19 Josephus’ account is one of the
best surviving reports on the Roman triumph that provides a
wealth of detail, made even more valuable given that he does not
maintain a Roman perspective. Amongst his listing of items on
display, he includes in his portrayal moving three-to-four-storey
high stages, representing various scenes from the war. The
appearance of these πηγμάτων evoked a sense of wonder among the
spectators, on which the Romans forced enemy commanders to act
out scenes in the war that led to their defeat.20 One can easily
imagine that the excitement these structures summoned forth
allowed these images and captive displays to render more firmly
in mind the ethnic identities associated with each one.
Even the images of captured deities could invoke the
ethnicities of the people who worshipped them.21 Appian gives an
example of this in his account of the triumph of Pompey over
19 Joseph. BJ. 7.132 and 146.
20 Ibid., 7.139 and 147.
21 Although Plutarch notes that in the triumph of Marcellus, the captive statues met with disapproval from the old guard in Rome (Marc. 21.4).
13
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
Mithridates in 61 BCE where, in addition to the captives
themselves, the procession featured εἰκόνες of vanquished foes
that also helped to formulate the ethnicities of the captives who
were there through artistic representation. Yet even more
tantalizing is the mentioning of the θεῶν τε βαρβαρικῶν εἰκόνες
καὶ κόσμοι πάτριοι, representations of barbarian gods dressed in
the garb of their homeland. 22 Dressing up these εἰκόνες thus
exemplified another way the Romans, in the construction and
discourse of ethnic identity, enlisted even these deities.
Josephus also gives a very enticing description of the statues of
the gods on display in the aforementioned triumph of Vespasian
and Titus. He reports that they were not only impressively large,
but that they were also impressive in their artifice, which taken
together suggests a conscious construction to magnify the image
desired by the orchestrators of the ceremony.23 The sense one
gets when reading this description, especially considering that
Josephus does not write from a Roman perspective, is the
impression made to the spectator that in turn strengthens any
22 App. Mith. 17.117, see also Beard 182.
23 Joseph. BJ 7.136: ἐφέρετο δὲ καὶ θεῶν ἀγάλματα τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς μεγέθεσι θαυμαστὰ καὶ κατὰ τὴν τέχνην οὐ παρέργως πεποιημένα.
14
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
ethnic association connected to these images presented in the
triumph.
The tituli, simulacra, paintings, and other such scenic
representations are only one part of the picture in how the
Romans constructed the ethnicity of the captives. The Romans
would use the captives themselves as symbolic capital in the
triumphal display that, although not expressly stated, greatly
influences the ethno-cultural identity associated with them. The
Romans did this in several ways, including the above-mentioned
passages referring to the utilization of captives in the scenic
representations. Yet the most common way for the Romans to
communicate the identities of the captives was to dress them in
their native garb that instantiated the dress of these people
into their ethnic persona for the Romans, which also resulted in
the frequent usage by Roman authors of distinctive clothing for
describing Others. Polybius provides one example of this in
describing the triumphal return to Rome by L. Aemilius Papus in
224/5 BCE, where he mentions among the spoils μανιάκαις, which is
the Greek term for the distinctive torques worn by the Gauls. He
states that Aemilius dedicated these in the Capitol and displayed
15
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
the remaining spoils – including the captives – in his triumph.24
Why these torques were chosen for display is most likely because
they are, to the Romans, ethnic identifiers of the conquered.
Their display here and in triumph – which the captives probably
wore – thus adds the captive’s ethnic identities to the Roman
mind.25
Constructing the appearance of captives down to the garb
worn by them during the procession was able to conjure in the
Roman mind various emotive responses as well. These in turn work
as powerful re-cognitive tools for remembering after the event
has concluded the associations with the memories of the triumph.
For instance, when Scipio returned to Rome in 201 BCE to
celebrate a triumph over Carthage, the procession of captives
evoked memories of the danger they used to pose.26 While it is
not the contention here to dispute Polybius on this, one can
24 Polyb. 2.31.5-6; see also Tac. Ann. 12.36-7.
25 Another famous example of this is the triumphal scenery emblazoned on Aeneas’ shield that includes a description of captives that Vergil (Aen. 8.722-8) described in terms of their ethnic garb or by how different their language, dress, and weaponry was. All these elements are identifiers for the Roman mind in constructing, maintaining, and perpetuation the image of ethnicity for the Other through the institution of the triumph.
26 Ibid., 16.23.4-6.16
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
certainly imagine how this would also extend to the
conceptualization of the Other in the Roman mind. This idea is
even more potent when one considers that the Romans also tended
to select for display in the triumph only those who suited the
desired look and role to play in the ceremony.
One of the motivations for dressing up captives, and thus
constructing their identities, was to display the glory of
conquest. It was in the triumphator’s best interest to show his
captives to be worthy foes rather than beaten down and
unimpressive.27 Thus because the level of glory and the
appearance of the captives ties together in such a way that
inexorably linked both to the discourse informing the spectators
on the identities of those on display. Furthermore, it was in
their best interest to construct these images of captives in as
fierce and imposing manner as possible, thus feeding into,
maintaining, and constructing their ethnicities all at once.
Conversely, the spectators had the opportunity with each passing
captive to reaffirm their own identity by negatively equating
themselves to them. That is to say, by seeing the captives going
27 Beard, 134.17
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
by, they are able to see and identify with what they are not,
which then gives them the moment to construct their own identity
as Romans. Thus, the triumphator, the captives, and the spectators
all participate (whether willing or not) in an elaborate
discourse of identity constructions. The way in which Romans are
able to self-identify through the display of captives will be in
the following section in more detail, but the essential point
here is that captives were selectively chosen for display in the
triumph and that the name/character/reputation of the enemy had
to be worthy enough to warrant a triumph at all.28 Thus, when one
celebrated a triumph, they decked out their captives in their
most formidable appearance to accentuate this concept, which in
turn also accentuated (if not exaggerated) the ethnic
associations and identities of the captives.
Another method using the captives themselves, which goes
hand-in-hand with the constructed appearance, was in the Roman
selectivity for choosing which ones to exhibit in the procession.
Before the captives made it onto the streets of Rome in the
28 Aul. Gel. 5.6.20-3 for instance states that the names of slaves and pirateswould not be worth adorning a triumph with: ovandi ac non triumphandi causa est cum...hostium nomen humile et non idoneum est, ut servorum piratarumque.
18
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
triumph, the Romans selectively picked which ones they wanted to
display. They were selective in several ways, but their
selectivity was primarily in order to fit whichever captives to
be in the triumph into a preconceived stereotype or because they
were the most imposing-looking. For instance, Velleius Paterculus
in describing the triumph of Tiberius over Germany, in which he
claims to have actually participated, describes the captives as
being omnis eminentissimos hostium duces…fama.29 The most eminent
leaders of the enemies were on display is the usual translation,
but eminentissimus also has the additional connotation of referring
to one’s height. Thus, this suggests that the Romans selected for
display only the tallest captives, which also is a trait the
Romans commonly associated with the Germans. Another instance of
this sense comes in Plutarch’s description of Aemilius Paulus’
three-day triumph in 167 BCE, where he describes that one of them
featured the most costly and beautiful Macedonian armaments that
were not only polished to a gleam, but were carefully arranged by
the Romans to appear as they had fallen right onto the
29 Vel. Pater. 2.121.3.19
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
battlefield.30 Plutarch here also notes how these weapons clanged
together, their sound and appearance evoking awe at their
formidability, which shows not just the level of impact such
displays had on the spectator, but also helped cement the
associated ethnic connotations.31
Triumphs also introduced a vast array of nova materia to the
Romans in the triumphal display, from the luxurious to the exotic
(although these two sometimes are one and the same to the Roman
mind). The introduction of captives into the heart of Rome
conjured up a variety of responses, each one revealing something
regarding their ethnicity and the effects of their introduction.
To exemplify this response and discursive participation, Pliny
the Elder records that the triumphs of Pompey, Scipio, Manlius,
and Mummius resulted in the Roman desire for foreign objects such
as pearls, embossed silver, Attalic (Pergamene) garments, bronze
30 Plut. Aem. 32.3: The use of the superlatives in κάλλιστα καὶ πολυτελέστατατῶν Μακεδονικῶν ὅπλων suggest a selective process was involved in choosing them for display.
31 Ibid., 32.4. Another reference to the selectivity of the Romans occurs in Josephus where Titus selected 700 captives to display in his triumph (Joseph. BJ 7.118; see also Murphy, 155; Beard, 118-9).
20
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
triclinia, and Corinthian pictures and bronze objects. 32 He
continues his description of the triumph by enumerating the great
panoply of spoils displayed at Pompey’s triumph, each one
highlighting the luxury and ostentation associated with the East
(orientis opes).33 Interestingly enough, the verb Pliny uses
(inclinavit) to describe this newfound interest in such things can
also carry a negative connotation denoting a decline, rather than
the usual meaning “to turn towards something.” Thus, this word
choice by Pliny hints at the disapproval associated with such
ostentation and luxury that many of our sources echo. Pliny’s
account accentuates this contempt even more by exclaiming that
Pompey’s ostentatious display, including a large portrait made of
pearls, conquered the Roman severitas of their ancestors.
Furthermore, this declamation regarding these foreign luxuries
shows how such a display becomes involved within the discourse of
32 Pliny NH 37.6.12: Victoria tamen illa Pompei primum ad margaritas gemmasque mores inclinavit, sicut L. Scipionis et Cn. Manli ad caelatum argentum et vestes Attalicas et triclinia aerata, sicut L. Mummi ad Corinthia et tabulas pictas. id uti planius noscatur, verba ex ipsis Pompei triumphorum actis subiciam.
33 Ibid., 37.6.13-7; see also 37.6.18-20 where Pompey presumably had Chinese porcelain (myrhinna)among the spoils paraded through Rome in his triumph that subsequently became the rage for luxurious display among elites. For the introduction of luxury through triumph that can subsequently inform upon ethnic associations, see also Plut. Marc. 21; Livy 39.6.6-7; August. De civ. D. 3.21; Beard, 68-9.
21
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
Roman identity, a point that the following section of this paper
will elucidate further.34 Moreover, many of these luxuries, such
as the ones listed above, in their descriptions will carry ethnic
identifiers that support the idea that things displayed in
triumph serve as a way of constructing ethnic identities for the
captives. The simple act of displaying and recording these
objects along with their ethnic associations constructs,
perpetuates, and maintains the Roman attitude regarding them. In
other words, because these foreign objects introduced a strong
desire for them, those who tried to acquire them took on the
negative connotations that correlated to their places of origin.
The ethnic associations of various luxury items had the potential
to alter the ethnic identity of the Romans themselves.35
In contrast with the attitude Pliny exhibited above, it is
reasonable to assume that the incorporation of objects originally
paraded and introduced by the conquests of exotic and foreign
34 Ibid., 37.6.14-5: ita severitate victa et veriore luxuriae triumpho! numquam profecto inter illos viros durasset cognomen Magni, si prima victoria sic triumphasset! For the introduction of luxury through triumph that can subsequently inform upon ethnic associations, see also Plut. Marc. 21; Livy 39.6.6-7; August. De civ. D. 3.21; Beard, 68-9.
35 Edward Ch. L. Van der Vliet, “The Romans and Us: Strabo’s Geography and the Construction of Ethnicity,” in Mnemosyne 56.3 (2003): 264.
22
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
lands into the homes of elites in some way also allowed them to
partake in the glory of the triumph, and by extension reinforcing
their own identities as Romans. These are also able to perpetuate
and maintain the ethnic associations inherent with them, as
evidenced by the declamation Pliny gives in regards to the
introduction of such Eastern luxuries. In other words, Eastern
luxury became associated with the negative connotations often
given to Eastern societies under Rome and in contact with Rome,
which in turn perpetuates the connection of these connotations to
the ethnic identities of those same conquered realms.
The captive objects displayed and introduced in the triumph
would also find their way into various places in Rome, adorning
homes and public spaces and buildings. These items would in turn
perpetuate and maintain the connotations originally constructed
in the triumph.36 They served as visual reminders to all who
viewed them, where they would conjure up the memory of the event,
often long after it had occurred. Statues, monuments, and even
literary descriptions of the triumph all worked to maintain the
36 Pliny states that the images and statues from triumphs that adorned houses stayed there even after the house changed owners: aliae foris et circa limina animorum ingentium imagines erant adfixis hostium spoliis, quae nec emptori refigere liceret, triumphabantque etiam dominis mutatis aeternae domus (NH 35.2.7).
23
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
constructed ethnic discourse from the event itself.37 One amusing
example of this comes from Suetonius when he mentions that in a
dream of Nero statues of Pompey set up around his theater harass
Nero.38 These statues presumably all originally adorned Pompey’s
triumphs, and this brief mention is evidence that even these
memorials reinforced the ethnic constructions in the Roman mind,
however stereotyped. Spolia dedicated in various temples throughout
Rome also served as visual reminders of the triumph, as evidenced
in its origin story given by Plutarch where he describes how
Romulus dedicated the first captive arms (spolia opima). These
would thus continue to display a constant reminder and
reinforcement of the conceptualizations associated with the
weapons – presumably including ethnicity.39 The Forum was also
another popular place for the dedication and setting up of
various spolia displayed in the triumphs. Florus remarks that
spoils were still on display in the Forum from the triumph of
Maenius over Antium. The display of spolia in such a way continues
37 Holliday 1997, 147 echoes this thought by asserting that the triumphal display and subsequent representations of it “kept the spectacle alive in the minds of those who had seen it.”
38 Suet. Nero 46.1; see also Beard, 25.
39 Plut. Rom. 16.24
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
the ethnic associations related to them, as well as perpetuating
them into the future, thus preserving the moment of the triumph
for posterity.40
The best example of the perpetuation and maintenance of the
ethnic identities constructed in the triumph occurs in Cicero’s
speech against Verres. Here Cicero mentions that Publius Servius,
after his triumph, registered a catalog of the spoils both in the
treasury and inscribed on public tablets that included full
descriptions of captured statues.41 These public tablets would
thus serve to conjure up any association related to their
triumphal display in the minds of the Roman reading them,
including the ethnic identities of the spoils. Cicero then
accentuates this further in the following passage (2.1.58), where
he mentions how captive statues and paintings adorned the Forum
and Comitium. Placed here, they served as a more powerful and
40 Flor. 1.5; see also Beard, 19 who makes the point that the triumphatores wanted to make the moment of their triumph last beyond the events themselves “to spread the experience beyond…the day itself.” In addition to the examples given above, they achieved this through other mediums of artistic expression, such as coinage, architecture, and monuments. Buildings constructed from triumphal proceeds, such as temples, memorialized the triumph and the events leading up to them (21), therefore both maintaining and perpetuating the associations implicit within the scenes.
41 Cicero Ver. 2.1.57: in tabula publica ad aerarium perscribenda curavi
25
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
continuous reminder and reinforcement of the ethnic
conceptualizations associated with them for all who saw them. He
illustrates the re-cognitive power of these monuments in the next
passage where he points out how Asian and Greek foreigners would
come to worship the statues of their deities set up there for
display (2.1.59). For these visitors, these captured statues
invoked in their minds the circumstances that led to their
placement there, but a different emotive and cognitive response
would occur for a Roman viewer. A Roman viewer of these statues
would not only instantly be able to correlate the constructed
identities associated with them, but they would also have these
conceptualizations reinforced at the same time. Thus, here one
sees how triumphal display and the constructed identities with
them perpetuate long after the event itself.
Cicero makes an illuminating comment regarding the spectacle
of the triumph in that he hints at one purpose underlying the
event that bears brief discussion here. In his speech against
Verres regarding the holding back of an enemy commander, he
points out that those ones slated for display in the triumph are
for the people. Cicero’s word choice here is interesting, where
26
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
he uses the verb percipere in reference to how the people interact
with and regard the display. This word has several connotations
besides the usual translation “to take completely,” one of which
is “to learn/understand/perceive/conceive” and other cognitive
associations. The usual translation melded with the cognitive
sense works especially well when considering how the spectator
interacts with the triumphal display. Cicero provides this
essential glimpse, which gives one the impression that the
procession of captives thoroughly allowed the spectator to
conceptualize the presentation and depiction of the display.
Thus, the populus Romanus is able to conceptualize thoroughly –
percipere – the most splendid triumphal display – pulcherrimum
spectaculum – and the results of victory – fructumque victoriae.42
Before concluding with how the triumphal imagery, in
relation to the captives, in a way constructed and informed the
spectators about their own identities, it is useful first to look
at a pair of examples that combine the elements discussed above.
The first comes from Suetonius and Persius in their accounts of a
42 Ibid., 2.5.77: at etiam qui triumphant eoque diutius vivos hostium duces reservant, ut his per triumphum ductis pulcherrimum spectaculum fructumque victoriae populus Romanus percipere possit
27
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
sham triumph celebrated by Caligula over the Germans. In
preparing for the event, Caligula had not only selected a few
captives and barbarians, but also had used various Gauls that
were ἀξιοθριάμβευτον (fit to be displayed in a triumph). These
Gauls, who were procerissimum (the most tallest or greatest in
stature), were compelled learn to speak German and take German
names, and they had to grow out their hair and dye it red.43
Thus, Suetonius provides a very telling piece of evidence that
the Romans did not only construct the identities of captives, but
also participated in the discourse of ethnic identity and its
perpetuation, however stereotyped. Persius also satirized
Caligula’s bogus triumph in some detail, stating that his wife
Caesonia was contracting for (locat) captives to put on display,
complete with distinctive garb and armaments that they were to
wear, having them fit more within the ethnic conceptualization
that people would believe.44 Even if the triumph itself was a
total fabrication all the way down to the fake captives, Caligula
had to draw upon some common image of what the Germans looked and43 Suet. Cal. 47: coegit rutilare et summittere comam et sermonem Germanicum addiscere et nomina barbarica ferre.
44 Pers. 6.46-7: ac iam postibus arma iam chlamydas regum, iam lutea gausapa captis essedaque ingentesque locat Caesonia Rhenos.
28
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
acted like so that the Roman spectators would find it believable.
To make that happen he utilized some of the same methods
described above, such as selecting captives with certain traits
or qualities. Of course, as Suetonius himself is testament, this
construction did not fool everyone.45
Ovid’s imaginative triumph of Tiberius over Germany
encapsulates nearly every element discussed above that argues for
the triumph as a visual ethnography. First, he envisions the
attitudes of the spectators, who would actively engage in the
identification of the passing captives, even after reading the
names.46 The method in which the Romans dressed up the captives
for this display, including the tituli that labeled them, as
discussed above, greatly influenced the transmission and
conceptualization of their identity to the spectators. Ovid
furthers this imagery by giving ethnic associations to his
descriptions, such as the depiction of Germany personified, where
the poet portrays it with the word crinibus: a reference to the
45 Beard, 185-6.
46 Ovid Tr. 4.2.19-26. Cf. Ars Am. 1.217-28: In his advice to the would-be lover boy trying to impress a girl at a triumph, he suggests that the boy should identify everything that passed – even if he really did not know. See also Beard, 183-4.
29
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
distinctive ethnic marker of the longhaired Germans.47 Mentioned
here too are the representations of the lands conquered, along
with the captives – all this, especially given that Ovid is
creating the entire scene in his imagination, illustrates just
how effective triumphal imagery and the associated ethnic
constructions exemplifies the idea that these thus contribute to
the Roman perception of the captives.48 Ovid had to conjure up
this scene from what he knows about the triumph, and thus he
(consciously or unconsciously) engages within the discourse
regarding the maintenance and conceptualization of these ethnic
associations. In sum, Ovid is an imaginative spectator of the
triumph – a rare instance of the perspective of the spectator,
and his cerebral creation is valuable for seeing the result of
the constructed captive display in the triumph infusing into the
minds of the spectators.
So far, the primary focus has zeroed in on the construction,
maintenance, and perpetuation of the ethnic identities of the
captives, but how did all this also play into the
47 Ibid., 4.2.44.
48 Ibid., 4.2.27-46 and 4.2.57.30
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
conceptualization of the identity of the spectator? As stated
above, the way the spectator was able to engage in a discourse
involving their own identity at the triumph was in relation to
how they viewed themselves in juxtaposition to the captives on
display. This constituted a sort of negative mirror, where the
Roman spectators identified themselves in terms of not being the
one on display.49 Thus, their identity during the triumph found
definition within a discourse of power where they essentially
distinguished themselves as Roman by seeing that they were the
conquerors rather than the conquered. The triumph was a ceremony
that not only constructed the identities of the viewer and the
viewed, but the concept of Roman power too.50 In other words, the
display engendered for the spectator a sense of possession and
49 Van der Vliet, 270, in discussing Strabo’s Geography, uses this concept of “negative self-identification, a kind of mirror” in a different way. His pointin using this concept is how Romans identify themselves as civilized vs. the uncivilized barbarian, and he describes a series of concentric circles to illustrate how identity relates to geographic (and political) position. This conceptual arrangement within the context of a triumph works well in that the act of displaying barbarians in the heart of Rome itself is a way of not only forming the image of these captives in the Roman imagination, but also a way to fortify the Roman identity itself through the power relationships implicit within the ceremony.
50 Beard, 4 states that the Romans did this through the “humiliation of the conquered,” which works well with the idea that the Romans could self identifyby not being the ones humiliated.
31
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
dominance over the captives and consequently served to conjure up
the image of their own ethnicities.51
The primacy and personification of power in the Roman
triumph was with the triumphator, whose imperium resulted in the
celebration of the ceremony. H.S. Versnal convincingly argues
that the imperium these men held was a power in itself that
transcended the secular. It was a power that allowed the
triumphator to accomplish astonishing acts, and it was a power
that others could draw from.52 It is reasonable to assume that
this power thus accentuated the Otherness of the captives on
display in the triumph, which in turn would also serve to cement
the image and construction of the ethnicities of the conquered.
Yet, more importantly, given that this power could impart itself
to others, it would indirectly highlight the ethnicities of the
spectators in a self-identification based upon the simple fact
they were not on display themselves. Moreover, the self-
identification involved here for the Romans finds definition in
terms of power – those in power watching those not in power were
51 Murphy, 158.
52 H.S. Versnal, Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 356-71.
32
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
Roman. The act of seeing these captives driven through the
streets of Rome, along with the panoply of ethnic identifiers,
allow each Roman to identify themselves as not those Others,
which the imperium of the triumphator strengthens in their minds by
means of that mystical power associated with it during the
triumph.53
One of the best ways of illustrating this concept within the
ancient accounts is in the extreme taboo of displaying Romans in
triumph. The multiple triumphs of Julius Caesar exemplify this
well in that, although resulting from successes in a civil war,
he celebrated them in the guise of foreign conquest. As discussed
above, he constructed his triumphs for the Roman spectators in
terms of conquering Gaul, Egypt, Pontus, Spain, and Africa.54
Appian, in his account of Caesar’s multiple triumphs,
unequivocally expresses this point by reporting that Caesar took
care not to label anything in his triumph as Roman. The Romans 53 Ibid., 371-82. See also Murphy, 158 who roughly echoes this line of thoughtby asserting that the display of foreign captives injected into the mind of the spectators “a sense of the culture divide” that laid between themselves and the captives on display.
54 Dio Cass. 43.19.2-3 suggests that this guise did not fool everyone in that some Roman citizens ostensibly were on display. Although this caused some consternation, he reports that the multitude of foreign captives overshadowed the circumstantial realities of the triumphs (43.20.1). Cf. Lucan 1.12 who classified the civil war as one that could bear no triumphs at all.
33
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
considered the display of citizens in triumph to be inauspicious,
and although Caesar did not expressly label anything as Roman,
his triumph still featured scenes depicting the demise of his
Roman foes – much to the distress of the spectators.55 Another
example that highlights the odious concept of captive Romans on
display occurs in a tantalizing account of a mock triumph the
Parthians “celebrated” over the disastrous defeat of Crassus at
Carrhae in 53 BCE. They constructed the procession in a way that
flaunted the trappings of an actual Roman triumph, such as
dressing up a Roman prisoner who looked like Crassus in a female
robe and forced to call himself αὐτοκράτωρ.56 Although this
episode highlights the abhorrence the Romans felt about their own
display in a triumph, it also shows how the discourse of
ethnicity extended outside the Roman context. This taboo and the
subsequent revulsion felt by Romans regarding the display of
their own strengthens the idea that their identity interwoven
55 App. B Civ. 2.15.101. See also Beard, 123-4 and Peter J. Holliday, “‘Ad Triumphum Excolendum’: The Political Significance of Roman Historical Painting,” in Oxford Art Journal 3.2 (1980), 7. This is also another example of how the emotive responses of the spectators played into the overall discourse surrounding ethnic identity.
56 Plut. Crass. 32: αὐτοκράτωρ = imperator.34
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
through the triumphal procession is defined by a power
relationship that must never be transgressed.
In conclusion, one can indeed interpret the triumph in terms
of its function as a visual ethnography, although it was a
ceremony infused with a multiplicity of interconnected meanings
steeped within the overarching discourse of power. The triumph
thus not only allowed the Romans to identify and construct the
ethnicities of those they conquered, but their own ethnicities as
well. Moreover, the actual event of the triumph represented only
one facet of this process of identification. The constructions,
themes, and meanings built into the thoroughly Roman procession
continued on well past the event itself through not just the
literary tradition, but through other mediums of representation.
Although a complete handling of every form of representation
would fill an entire volume, the examples provided throughout
this paper illustrate how the triumph functioned as a visual
ethnography for Roman and Other alike. In closing, it is useful
to point out that the captives, once paraded through Rome in the
triumph, did not typically come to an end. Instead, their
participation in the triumph represented a first step to becoming
35
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
Romans themselves in that the triumph in a way exposed these
people to the complexities of Roman power discourse that
consequently allowed them to find a place in Roman
society.57Although this was a popular topic of ancient authors to
point out the dimming of Romanness, the once captives would now
be able to fully engage in the socio-cultural tapestry of being
Roman.58 Thus, the triumph as a visual ethnography also became a
transformative ritual whereby newly conquered peoples could meld
their own ethnicities with that of their Roman conquerors.
57 Beard, 140-2 shows that many former captives eventually shed their captive identity for a Roman one.
58 Suet. Jul. 78-80 exemplifies this by reporting on Caesar’s decision to allowGauls to become senators and the subsequent contempt felt by the conservativesthat eventually led to his infamous assassination. Cf. Plut. Caes. 55.1-2 wherethe infant Juba paraded in Caesar’s triumph ended up becoming one of the most educated historians.
36
Bird, Andrew J.Fall 2010 Seminar Paper – Triumph as Visual Ethnography
Bibliography
Beard, Mary. The Roman Triumph. London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009.
Bradley, Keith. “On Captives under the Principate.” Phoenix 58.3/4(2004): 298-318.
Deutsch, Monroe E. “Caesar’s Triumphs.” The Classical Weekly 19.13 (1926): 101-106.
Holliday, Peter J. “‘Ad Triumphum Excolendum’: The Political Significance of Roman Historical Painting.” Oxford Art Journal 3.2 Propaganda (1980): 3-8.
_____________. “Roman Triumphal Painting: Its Function, Development, and Reception.” The Art Bulletin 79.1 (1997): 130-47.
Murphy, Trevor. Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire in the Encyclopedia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Payne, Robert. The Roman Triumph. London: Abelard-Schuman, 1963.
Syed, Yasmin. Vergil’s Aeneid and the Roman Self: Subject and Nation in Literary Discourse. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005.
Versnal, H. S. Triumphus: an Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Van der Vliet, Edward Ch. L. “The Romans and Us: Strabo’s Geography and the Construction of Ethnicity.” Mnemosyne 56.3(2003): 257-72.
37
Top Related