the consuls and other chief magistrates of the city, stretching right back
to the beginning of Rome’s history. Though the monument does not
survive intact, a large cache of fragments was excavated near the Temple
of Antoninus and Faustina (see Plan) in the mid-sixteenth century—a
discovery that partly inspired the researches of Panvinio and his con-
temporaries, who saw in them the chronological key to Roman history.
The fragments were reconstructed, reputedly by Michelangelo (such was
their importance), in the Palazzo dei Conservatori on the Capitoline,
first in its courtyard, then moved to an upstairs room shared with the
famous Roman bronze wolf, where they still remain; hence their mod-
ern title Fasti Capitolini, “The Capitoline Chronology” or “Calendar.”
Pieces unearthed since the Renaissance have been incorporated in the re-
construction, or are displayed alongside (Fig. 14).39
Despite numerous gaps in the surviving text, it is absolutely clear
that the register of generals ( Fasti Triumphales, as it is sometimes now
known) originally offered a complete tally—or so it was presented—of
those who had celebrated triumphs, from Romulus in the year of the
city’s founding (traditionally 753 bce) to Lucius Cornelius Balbus in 19
bce (see Fig. 36). The Fasti still preserves the full or partial record of Th e
R o m a n Tr i u m p h
6 2
[To view this image, refer to
the print version of this title.]
Figure 14:
The modern display of the Fasti Capitolini in the Capitoline Museums, Rome.
The combination of the iconic wolf with the list of magistrates and generals makes a particularly powerful symbol of ancient Roman culture—as those who devised this layout no doubt intended.
more than two hundred triumphs, making it the most extensive ancient
chronology of the ceremony that we have. Each entry is given in a stan-
dard format, with the full name of the general, the formal title of the of-
fice he held, the name of the peoples or places over which he triumphed,
and the date of the ceremony—the day, month, and year from the
founding of Rome: “Quintus Lutatius Cerco, son of Gaius, grandson of
Gaius, consul, over the Falisci, first of March, year 512.”40
The list adopts a generous definition of the “triumph” and notably
includes the record of two forms of celebration that ancient writers often
took care to distinguish from the triumph “proper”: the ovation (ovatio)
and the triumph on the Alban Mount (triumphus in Monte Albano). 41
The ovation differed from the triumph mainly in that the general pro-
The Impact of the Triumph
63
cessed to the Capitoline either on foot or horseback, not in the trium-
phal chariot, and he was crowned with myrtle, not laurel. Ancient schol-
ars dreamed up a variety of unconvincing theories to explain this
ceremony: Aulus Gellius, for example, claimed it was used when the
war had not been properly declared, or when it had been against “un-
suitable” enemies, such as slaves and pirates—though these conditions
match very few of the thirty ovationes known to us. In practice it seems
to have been often seen, and used, as a consolation prize for generals
who, for whatever reason, were refused a full ceremony; and it was
sometimes known as the “lesser triumph.”42
The triumph on the Alban Mount was a more drastic response to re-
fusal. A few generals between the late third century and the early second,
who had been turned down for a triumph in Rome, chose instead to cel-
ebrate one on the hill, now known as Monte Cavo, about 27 kilometers
outside the city—presumably, though we have no details of the ritual,
processing up to the shrine on the summit by the ruggedly paved road
that still survives.43 Both these ceremonies are given their place in the in-
scribed list (distinguished only by the addition of “ovans” in one case,
and “in Monte Albano” in the other), suggesting that for some purposes
they too could count as bona fide triumphs. Also noted are other variants
to the triumphal ceremony and occasionally special honors. “Naval tri-
umphs”—that is, those for naval victories—are consistently indicated
(the first being for Caius Duilius in 260 bce), even though we know of
no specific difference in their procedures. And the dedication in 222 of
the so-called spolia opima appears on the list too, a ceremony supposed
to have taken place only when the general himself killed the enemy
commander in single combat and then dedicated the captured armor to
the god Jupiter Feretrius.
Although the content and overall layout of the text is clear enough,
the Fasti Capitolini are puzzling in several ways. The question of where
exactly in the Forum they were originally displayed has been an issue of
intense dispute for centuries. Panvinio himself imagined that they origi-
nally stood near the Temple of Vesta. But this idea was based on an
emendation of a passage in Suetonius’ treatise De Grammaticis (On
Th e
R o m a n Tr i u m p h
6 4
[To view this image, refer to
the print version of this title.]
Figure 15:
Nineteenth-century reconstruction of the Regia in the Roman Forum, with the
inscribed lists of generals and consuls. The triumphs fill the tall pilasters, the magistracies the broader panels—and both are eagerly scanned by Roman passers-by. A nice idea, but we now think that the Regia was the wrong shape and too small for any such arrangement.
Grammarians) referring to fasti at “Praenestae,” which he erroneously read as pro aede Vestae (“in front of the Temple of Vesta”).44 By the nineteenth century, the location favored by most archaeologists was the
Regia (see Plan and Fig. 15), which served as the headquarters of the
priestly college of pontifices, who were themselves traditionally associated with the calendar and historical record-keeping. But excavations of this
building have suggested that it was hardly large enough to accommo-
date the whole of the text, encouraging most recent studies to opt in-
stead for one of the commemorative arches erected in the Forum by Au-
gustus; though, frankly, which arch is anyone’s guess (Fig. 16).45 Nor
is it certain at what precise date the texts were inscribed, whether the
consular and triumphal lists were planned together, or what process
of decision-making lay behind the later emendations and additions
(the consuls were continued down to the end of Augustus’ reign and
The Impact of the Triumph
65
[To view this image, refer to
the print version of this title.]
Figure 16:
Reconstruction of an arch erected in the Roman Forum to commemorate
Octavian’s victory at the battle of Actium in 31 bce. This is one of many attempts to pin the inscribed list of generals and consuls to one of the Augustan arches in the Forum—
though the history of these, their date, location, and appearance, remain controversial.
a note of the performance of the Secular Games was added as late
as 88 ce).46
Even more crucially, we do not know who compiled the lists, by what
methods, or drawing on what sources of information. Texts inscribed on
stone rarely blazon their authors, and we can easily fall into the trap of