Valerius Maximus on 'Undeserved Triumphs' (2.8.5)

Abstract

Valerius Maximus on 'Undeserved Triumphs' (2.8.5)* David Wardle In the middle of his discussion on the right to hold a triumph, Valerius Maximus sets out a ius that forbade the decree of a triumph in cases where the empire had not been extended, but territory had merely been regained (2.8.5). Below is the text as it appears in the edition of Briscoe:1 Quin etiam ius de quo loquor sic custoditum est ut P. Scipioni ob reciperatas Hispanias M. Marcello ob captas Syracusas triumphus non decerneretur, quod ad eas res gerendas sine ullo erant missi magistratu. probentur nunc cuiuslibet gloriae cupidi, qui ex desertis montibus myoparonumque piraticis rostris laudis inopes laureae ramulos festinabunda manu decerpserunt: Carthaginis imperio abrupta Hispania et Siciliae caput abscisum triumphales iungere currus nequiuerunt. et quibus uiris? Scipioni et Marcello, quorum ipsa nomina instar aeterni sunt triumphi. sed clarissimos solidae ueraeque uirtutis auctores umeris suis salutem patriae gestantes, etsi coronatos intueri senatus cupiebat, ueriori tamen reseruandos laureae putauit. Indeed the regulation of which I speak was so well enforced that no triumph was decreed for P. Scipio for the recovery of the Spanish provinces or for M. Marcellus for the capture of Syracuse because they had been sent to carry out these operations without any magistracies. Now let approval be given to those who are eager for glory of any kind, those who have plucked with hasty hand sprigs of laurel that are destitute of praise from uninhabited mountains and the prows of pirate pinnaces: Spain torn away and the capital of Sicily amputated from Carthage's empire did not suffice to yoke triumphal chariots. And for what men? For Scipio and Marcellus, whose names them [End Page 231] -selves are like an everlasting triumph. But, although the Senate was eager to see them crowned, it thought that the most illustrious embodiments of substantial and true virtue, bearing the safety of their country on their shoulders, should nonetheless be reserved for a truer laurel.2 Valerius' thought moves from praise of the Senate for upholding the line that triumphs should not be given except where territory had been added to the Roman empire (2.8.4)3 to two examples of the Senate's adherence to another principle. Briefly stated, triumphs were not awarded to Scipio and Marcellus because they held no magistracy. Next he evinces apparent approval, signalled by probentur nunc, for granting triumphs that, while they do in some sense result from adding to Roman territory, nonetheless arise from achievements the merit of which Valerius may plausibly be demonstrated to have doubted. He then returns to the refusals of triumphs to Scipio and Marcellus again to laud the Senate for its adherence to principle. It is immediately apparent that the argument is interrupted by probentur … decerpserunt. This note focuses on the sentence that interrupts the argument. Only Ballesteros Pastor and Dart and Vervaet have paid any attention to it, and have proposed that Valerius alludes to L. Licinius Murena or Pompey respectively.4 Both suggestions require that Valerius is drawing a contrast between exempla from the third century BC and those from a more recent period.5 [End Page 232] From the absence of any clues to suggest that Valerius has Murena or Pompey in mind I will argue that these interpretations are improbable. First, L. Licinius Murena, father of the homonymous consul of 62 BC, appears nowhere among Valerius' exemplars, nor is there any inclusion of any material relating to the so-called 'Second Mithradatic War'.6 As for Pompey, who is a significant figure in Valerius' work, nothing in the chapter De iure triumphandi has suggested that Pompey is anywhere in view – only the tribunician Lex Maria et Porcia mentioned in the first exemplum has been drawn from Pompey's lifetime and, as far as I know, has never been interpreted as a measure aimed at Pompey.7 Pompey was not beyond criticism by Valerius, even though under both Augustus and Tiberius the treatment of Pompey's memory was generally positive:8 for example, although Pompey could be criticised for ignoring divine warnings of his impending defeat at Pharsalus (1.6.12), for displaying ingratitude in ordering the death...