Contested Triumphs: Politics, Pageantry, and Performance in Livy’s Republican Rome by Miriam R. Pelikan Pittenger (review)

Reviewed by: Contested Triumphs: Politics, Pageantry, and Performance in Livy’s Republican Rome by Miriam R. Pelikan Pittenger James T. Chlup Miriam R. Pelikan Pittenger. Contested Triumphs: Politics, Pageantry, and Performance in Livy’s Republican Rome. Berkeley: California University Press, 2008. Pp. XIII + 365. US $65.00. ISBN 9780520241398. One of the formative events which Livy is likely to have witnessed first-hand was Augustus’ triple triumph in 29 bc. The epitome of book 133 suggests that this event constituted a substantial passage, possibly serving as the epilogue of the historian’s narrative of the civil war. This triumph cast a (very) long shadow backwards in the Ab Vrbe Condita (= AVC), influencing the historian’s representation of all triumphs in his recreation of the longue durée of the glorious Roman past. In this book Pittenger (= P.) offers two interdependent studies of the Roman triumph, examining triumphs and their representation in the AVC. The first part of the book consists of six chapters, which explore different aspects of triumph debates; the second part comprises eight case studies of triumph narratives in AVC 21–45. The second part clearly advances the discussion from J. E. Phillips’ 1974 article, “Form and Language in Livy’s Triumph Notices”. The first chapter delineates the roles of the Senate and assemblies in granting triumphs, and the role of the general requesting one (25–53). To be sure, P. does not—and cannot—explore the triumph in the same detail as Mary Beard in her The Roman Triumph, which, P. notes, appeared too late to be taken in account in this book. P.’s interest lies in the debate concerning a triumph request, not the triumph itself, which is Beard’s primary focus. This book therefore should be seen as complementing, not [End Page 459] competing with, Beard. The case studies which constitute the second section are diverse: M. Claudius Marcellus, M. Livius Salinator, P. Cornelius Scipio set the (very high) standard in the Second Punic War (149–167); C. Aurelius Cotta and L. Furius Purpureo illustrate the difficulties when two people lay claim for the same victory (168–180); P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica reveals the peril of asking for a triumph too soon (187–195); M. Fulvius Nobilior reveals the difficulties requesting a triumph when strongly opposed by a political rival (196–212). The discussion builds up to the strong final chapter on L. Aemilius Paullus (246–274), whose triumph narrative by unfortunate coincidence stands as the final episode of the extant AVC. Paullus was (very probably) the last of Livy’s Great Romans, and his triumphal narrative conveys Roman self-awareness of Roman greatness when it will shortly begin to ebb away. This may explain why Livy works to advance Paullus’ cause, having heretofore refrained from taking sides. The focus of this chapter is the extensive speech of M. Servilius Pulex Geminus, the longest triumph speech in the extant text. Through P.’s close reading, Servilius reveals that granting a triumph where it is deserved is beneficial to the body politic, since it represents an opportunity to bring together soldiers, ordinary citizens, and elites, and through the spectacle, everyone comes to understand their place in the wider scheme. The break off in the text means that the description of the triumph is missing, but P. (rightly) hypothesizes that it was a substantial passage, one that probably built upon Servilius’ peroration, and which may have echoed the Augustan triumph referred to at the start of this review (to which P. surprisingly refers only once in a footnote in her conclusion). P.’s erudite analysis exposes the intricacy of Livy’s narrative, and she makes several thought-provoking points. First, those requesting triumphs are themselves historians, their description of their achievements serving as their (hi)story (res gestae), working with Livy as co-narrators. Requesting, holding, watching, and writing about a triumph come down to the same thing: negotiating a (positivist) narrative of Roman history, whereby a balance is sought between the general’s desire for recognition and the Senate’s perceived role as upholders of Roman collective identity. Second, those who seek and receive a triumph are exempla for the Roman elite, and by providing...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.