1. Kleiner 1983, 298. [BACK]

2. Kleiner (1983, 299) adduces Aeneas' unarmed sacrifice on the Ara Pacis panel. But that panel does not narrate Aeneas' joint sacrifice with Latinus; it shows Aeneas' sacrifice of the Lavinian sow to the Dii Penates as his first act in the founding of Rome, a different episode described by Vergil ( Aen. 8.32ff. at 105-10; see 5.99-115 and 8.702-8, for example, for other sacrifices by Aeneas not in armor). [BACK]

3. RRC 28.1, 225-212 B.C.; 29.1, 225-214 B.C.; 234, den., 137 B.C.; pp. 43-44, 715 and n. 5. The first (225-212 B.C.) and third (137 B.C.), Strong 1988, fig. 3.J and P. [BACK]

4. Crawford, RRC at 715; bibl. in Zwierlein-Diehl 1973 to no. 1098, pl. 84, ca. 51-50 B.C.; Vollenweider 1984, pl. 40.1 = 1970, cat. 90. [BACK]

5. BMCRR III, pl. 99.9 (eight warriors), pl. 99.3 (four), pl. 99.5-6 (the original Roman group of two). Close-ups of the eight-warrior type: Kent et al. 1973, cat. 45, pl. 13 ("Schwurszene"); Hannestad 1986, 31, fig. 27. Crawford ( RRC ) ignores the Social War coinage. [BACK]

6. For the form of this altar and the manner in which it projects from the relief ground, compare the Augustan Merida relief; Trillmich 1986, pl. 44, 289 n. 21, citing (an Aurelian panel and) the foculus on an incense box ( acerra ) in the Ara Pacis friezes (Simon 1967, fig. 16; La Rocca 1983, fig. on p. 37); cf. the ivory acerra plaque from the Via Marsala in Kais. Aug. 1988, 372-73, cat. 205. [BACK]

7. CAESAR DIVI F. series: BMCRE I, clxvii, 160, nos. 93f., pls. 30.9f.; cf. Kais. Aug. 1988, figs. 211 and 508f., cat. 326f. at cat. 330 (Trillmich). [BACK]

8. Zanker 1988, s.v. fig. 42. [BACK]

9. Hanfmann in Vermeule and Hanfmann 1957, pl. 75, fig. 29.1, n. 47. [BACK]

10. Kleiner 1983, 296. [BACK]

11. See Kais. Aug. 1988, 194-95, 200, fig. 88.a(-b). [BACK]

12. On a relief of the first century B.C. from Capua (amphitheater), an armed honorific statue (over-life-size?) in a sacred portico complex leans on a spear with upright blade; Zanker 1988, fig. 19. [BACK]

13. Later, see noted paludatus equestrian figures like the Equeus Domitiani in the Forum Romanum or the Marcus Aurelius from the Capitoline, and also the emperors on the Anaglypha Traiani and the Arch of Constantine (figs. 36, 40). [BACK]

14. Forum Julium, statue of Caesar modified from a Lysippan statue of Alexander (Stat. Silv. 1.1.84-87); see p. 275 n. 15 on battle groups. Pliny HN 34.18, under Republican portrait types, cites as an example of cuirass statues a figure of Caesar in his Forum (the ex-Alexander?); he notes that people liked to put up nude portraits armed with a spear, saying nothing about a ban in the city or within the pomerium . Spear-bearing statues of Augustus at Rome: Dio 53.27.3 and 54.1.1. I cannot explore here the numismatic record of sculptural monuments; it indicates that arches in the capital might easily bear (as, for instance, Drusus' posthumous arch de Germanis, depicted often in Claudius' coinage) depictions of a mounted general charging with a spear, or that nude figures with lances (like the so-called Sulla) could stand in the capital, as in coinage of Octavian, for example, showing such a portrait statue upon a columna rostrata (see Zanker 1988, 25). An Aemilius of the first century A.D. had an equestrian statue with spear in the vestibule of his house in Rome; see p. 218 n. 33. [BACK]

15. "Offensive" portraits at Rome of Republican notables leading cavalry charges, cuirassed and wielding lances: Portico of Metellus—Metellus' group, originally by Lysippos of Alexander and Companions at the Granikos, taken in 148 B.C. from the Sanctuary of Zeus at Dion (Vell. Pat. 1.11.3-4); Capitoline—the imitation of this group by Metellus Scipio cos. 52, with portrait heads of his ancestors Scipio Aemilianus and Scipio Nasica Serapio (Cic. Att. 6.1.17, De or. 2.261). The various turmae deriving from the Granikos group, including a version in Greek marble placed by Licinius Murena in the Sanctuary of Juno Sospita at Lanuvium: Moreno 1981, 185-86, 202-3, 282-84; Coarelli 1981, 258-60 and n. 141 on the Forum Julium Caesar statue(s). [BACK]

16. Small-scale architectural representations: see esp. Fuchs 1969; Brown 1940; Jessop-Price and Trell 1977; Hommel 1954. Maier (1985) is interested in modes of abbreviation and signification and their relation to "reality," rather than in the deployment of architectural elements in narrative relief compositions; his is a good (though not complete) complement to Fuchs's work on numismatics. The BR Capitolium: Maier, cat. R 1, comparing in detail the real Capitolium; Hommel, 102 n. 435; Ryberg 1955, 201 n. 26, comparing the Capitolium image on a panel relief of Marcus Aurelius, which carefully shows the temple's triple doors as an identifying feature but wrongly makes it tetrastyle. [BACK]

17. Fuchs 1969, 65, pl. 2.16.18. [BACK]

18. Fuchs 1969, 69, pl. 4.51.4; Zanker 1988, fig. 17a. [BACK]

19. Fuchs 1969, 22, 58-59, pl. 3.29.30. Cf. his remarks at p. 59: We have "hier nicht die realistische Wiedergabe eines visuellen Eindrucks . . . sondern nur das Ergebnis eines erheblichen Abstraktionsprozeß." [BACK]

20. BMCRE I, 153, nos. 41-43; 156, no. +; 157, no. 69, pls. 28.6-9, 29.14; Ward Perkins 1981, fig. 17. The significance of this coin is noted by Strong 1988, 110; Hölscher 1988, n. 75. [BACK]

21. Dated Claudian by Koeppel 1983a, cat. 12, p. 98f. and figs. 13-14 (description and bibliography), pp. 71f. (dating by style). See below pp. 157-58; as it is best known for its depiction of the Temple of Mars Ultor, I call it the Temple of Mars Ultor relief. This is not the place to decipher the Valle Medici reliefs, a collection of relief fragments that I do not believe to be from one monument (see Koeppel, cat. 12-23) or one time period. Koeppel has done an inestimable service in his series of articles cataloguing unattached Roman historical reliefs in the Bonner Jahrbuch (1983: Julio-Claudian; 1984: Flavian; 1985: Trajanic). Yet somehow almost all of the Julio-Claudian reliefs end up being dated to the Claudian period (from which we have no monumental historical relief of fixed date from Rome), although wide divergences in drapery style, compositional grouping, etc., are evident among the pieces so grouped. One would have liked to see greater use of the admittedly limited but invaluable coin issues that show similar scenes, as they establish at least a terminus ante quem . [BACK]

22. Simon 1967, pl. at pp. 24-25; Strong 1988, fig. 33; not discussed in Maier's survey of architectural representations. Simon (1986, 204-5) connects the panel (fig. 99) to landscape painting and relief but ignores the temple depiction. Froning (1981) cites this panel only at p. 116, as an idealized rendering of a historical event; she does not discuss architectural elements. [BACK]

24. Certainly these reliefs are executed by one of the best workshops associated with the court. Another resemblance to the Aeneas panel is the way a garland is looped from the pinax stand in the lioness relief; compare the way a garland is displayed on Aeneas' altar. [BACK]

25. Zanker 1988, fig. 226; Simon 1986, fig. 263; Froning 1981, 72 n. 28 (it exemplifies spatiality, a criterion of Augustan decorative relief); Jucker 1980, 459, fig. 19. [BACK]

26. Jucker 1980; figs. 1, 2 (detail); p. 461, dated 50-25 B.C. The Tuscan temple is depicted as if standing upon the city wall running across the panel; note the patterning of the walls with drafted masonry, as on other of my examples, which does not appear on any of the other buildings crowding the background. It is evidently the temple of the deity to whom the sacrifice is performed, set as it is right over the altar.

Jucker (449) is interested in the "incorrect" perspective of her temple—at a three-quarter angle with front and side run together—comparing an example at fourth-century Gjölbaschi Trysa (fig. 12), a Roman coin of the late second century B.C., Nero's Januum issue and a Caracallan type (fig. 13), the Grimani relief, and the Pompeii mask relief. However, she is not interested in the deployment of such temples in a broader composition. [BACK]

27. Naples, MN 6633; Cain 1988, 141, fig. 35, cat. 45; Kraus and Matt 1975, 45, fig./cat. 42. [BACK]

28. Jucker 1980, 459. My scheme differs from hers, which sees the Munich relief as probably contemporary with the Praeneste panel. The Pompeii panel (n. 27) incorporates a temple into a small, square panel focused on a set of New Comedy masks propped in the foreground, a common decorative assemblage (e.g., on vessels). The temple, presumably of Dionysos, is at upper left without visible support, relatively large in proportion to the panel itself; its proportions and rendering suggest the Praeneste "temple," which also borrows the framing temple motif for a nonnarrative decorative genre scene. [BACK]

29. Near Dijon. Baltimore, Walters Art Gall. 57.708, 66 cm. On each side is a banqueting couple (one, Dionysos and Ariadne), satyr, temple on a crag. Greek and Roman Metalware 1976, cat. 11. [BACK]

30. Naples, MN 145505 (signed Apelles ), Le collezioni del Museo Nazionale di Napoli 1986, silver no. 2. A sacrifice scene, at right a little temple on a crag behind a gnarled tree (cf. the Munich relief, fig. 100). [BACK]

31. Genre scenes of Dionysiac sacrifice, or of Amorini sacrificing, are common in the gem repertoire; some show the act of worship directed toward a small temple at the edge of the scene on a rocky crag. A cult figure, Priapus or Dionysos, is usually indicated standing in the shrine's door. I would date all these signets to the late Republic and early Empire. A few have been dated later; even if this is not mistaken, the persistence of the motif can be put down to the extreme traditionalism observable in run-of-the-mill gem and glass intaglio production. The following list can no doubt be amplified; note that many printed cross-references do not specify whether a temple occurs or not, and equate "prospects" with full-size images.

Woman/maenad on rock, arm up in invocation: Kat. Wien II, cat. 628 (Zwierlein-Diehl, with cross-references, 50-25 B.C.). Maenad invoking god against satyr: Kat. Wien II, cat. 1063 (50-25 B.C.). Amor sacrificing: Sena della Chiesa 1966, 317, 339; Kat. Wien II, cat. 1339 (Zwierlein-Diehl, with cross-references, early second century A.D.). Woman sacrificing: Sena della Chiesa 1966, 819 (early first century A.D.), 823; Kat. Wien II, 1099 (Zwierlein-Diehl, with cross-references, first century A.D.); Scherf et al. 1970, cat. 143 (Scherf, second-third century A.D.); Brandt 1972, cat. 2740 (Gercke, third century A.D.). Two women sacrificing: Henig 1974, 494. Worshipper with staff. Sena della Chiesa 1966, cat. 253 (early first century A.D., with parallel). Old man offers with lifted hand, boy attendant carries basket: Kat. Wien I, cat. 500 (Zwierlein-Diehl, first century A.D.). Youth offers at baldachino (Tuscan cols.) on rocky outcrop: Henig 1974, cat. 493, pl. xv, App., and cat. 60, pl. xxvi ("late 2nd or e. 3rd c. AD"). Seated Silen plays lyre: Kat. Wien I, cat. 469 (Zwierlein-Diehl, with cross-references, first century A.D.); Scherf et al. 1970, cat. 101, 102 (Scherf, with cross-references, first century A.D.). Satyr plays with baby: Brandt 1972, cat. 2301 (Brandt, with cross-references, first century B.C./A.D.). Hunter rests with dog: Sena della Chiesa 1966, 844, 845 (cites parallel; end of first century B.C.). [BACK]

32. Zwierlein-Diehl, Kat. Wien I, cat. 292. [BACK]

33. Zwierlein-Diehl, Kat. Wien I, cat. 489, with literature. [BACK]

34. Ghedini (1987) explores the identity of this temple, but not its rendering. [BACK]

35. Baratte et al. 1989, 84-85, cat. 18; Paris B.N. Cab. Méd. Dedicated to Mercury (Augustus) by Q. Domitius Tutus, inscr. Q Domitius Tutus v (otum) s (olvit) l (ibens) m (erito). Corinth is localized by the spring of Peirene, a nymph seated on Pegasus under the Acrocorinth. [BACK]

36. This beaker was dedicated by Q. Domitius Tutus, with several other pieces. The height of its relief has led people to call it Claudian, though it may very well be still Augustan. Note the distinctly "Octavianic" herm bust, appropriate for an owner with a special devotion to Mercurius Augustus, as the god is named in the expanded inscription on one of the pair of oinochoai (Baratte et al. 1989, cat. 16) dedicated with the beaker ( Mercurio Augusto Q Domitius Tutus ex voto ). Both these vases have scenes from the Iliad on the body; the Achilles ewer has under the handle a little temple on a stepped platform, garlanded just like the BR temple. The motif, though used in isolation, is clearly from the same "sketchbook'' as the Corinth beaker temple made for the same man, which is not garlanded. [BACK]

37. An obscene parody is a cast handle group (5.58 cm), Swiss priv. coll.: a grotesque dwarf maneuvers his hoselike phallus toward a little temple upon an outcrop. Dörig 1975, cat. 308 (Ortiz). [BACK]

38. Anderson 1987-88, figs. 54, 55. [BACK]

39. One panel from the superb second-story salon is a sacrifice scene where several women move quietly or stand before a temple elevated at left. Kais. Aug. 1988, 287-90, cat. 135 at p. 288 (Carettoni). [BACK]

40. Caesarian. See chap. 1, n. 42. The goddess is flanked by temples set upon crags; these buildings replace the flanking human figures seated on rocks so often placed in Classical and classicizing paintings. [BACK]

41. An ekphrasis for his friend Piso: three women with offerings, a temple of Aphrodite and its image (cf. the Ara Pacis Penates!). Gow and Page, The Greek Anthology, 2: 27-28 (Antipater no. ix) = Anth.Pal. 6.208. [BACK]

42. Jucker (1980, 461) points out, for instance, that the artist of her Bern panel obviously did all his work in Italy. [BACK]

43. With Jucker I would argue for the integrity of the relief tradition, in its depictions of nature (vegetation and terrain) and of architecture, and especially in its integration of the two; when obvious similarities in basic taste (e.g., for the bucolic) are set aside, it is clear that rather different stylistic traditions are followed by painting and stucco workshops. Ridgway's explicit equation (1983) of the deployment of landscape elements in relief with a "painterly" approach assumes its thesis as a premise (and never addresses evidence for painting itself). [BACK]

44. Simon (1986, 204-5), for instance, is the latest to connect to landscape painting the Aeneas and Mars panels, not least because of the way that they are centered upon trees and incorporate animals. Certainly, a taste for the bucolic and its fusion with elements of myth narrative or religion can also be observed in Roman painting. However, if one is looking for structural, rather than merely iconographic, sources and parallels, it becomes obvious that the basic compositional structure of these reliefs has its origins in the Hellenistic relief tradition, in a genre of late Hellenistic votive reliefs where a tree rises behind a central altar, animals are led in from the left, and a figure (in these, the divinity) stands right gesturing toward the altar; cf Copenhagen, NM 4763, and Vienna 1439 from Kyzikos; Athens, NM 1486, from Mysia; and another relief from Mysia (L. Robert, BCH 107 [1983]: 545ff, fig. 1). [BACK]

45. One long side shows Augustus in the Roman Forum; one short side shows Romulus, (Venus), Mars, and Amor before Augustus' house on the Palatine. Jucker (1980, fig. 18) discusses its relation to genre scenes of the type of her Bern panel. Hölscher in Kais. Aug. 1988, 375-78, s.v. cat. 208 a-d (figs., p. 376); Zanker 1988, 210; Simon 1986, 24-25, fig. 17; LIMC II (1984), s.v. "Apollon," no. 147b (Palagia), s.v. "Apollon/Apollo," no. 404 (Simon); Roccos 1989, 573-76. [BACK]

46. Similarly in Cain's genre of "mask reliefs" the rare temple motif is shifted from framing element (see p. 277 n. 28) to a motif in the middle of the panel, with masks around it, e.g. 1988, cat. 87, fig. 43 (Rome, ex Coll. Sarto, lost), cat. 94 (Vatican, Mag. 438, from Rome?). [BACK]

47. These fragments belong to a series from the Forum still being documented and excavated. Trillmich (1986, 279-304, fig. 2) assembles the narrative fragments into a long panel (ca. 4 X 7 Roman feet): at either end a city gate, at left a sacrifice group centered on a togate celebrant wearing a heavy crown ( corona civica? ); farthest right, a victimarius looks away from the sacrifice; the portal fragment at far right has a lictor's head and (remains of) two sets of fasces with axes. A large object in high relief has been broken off crossing the face of the lictor: Trillmich (289, 300) identifies it as an axe head, like that carried by a popa in procession on the Ravenna reliefs, except that this axe is being swung. If so, the lacuna can have been filled only by some variant of the BR victim group, adjoining as on the Villa Medici (fig. 9) relief a building, framed as there and as on the Beneventum and Leptis reliefs by members of the gathering looking down on the victim at either side. The group will have been awkwardly arranged, with the victim either squashed in very abbreviated form or else put on the wrong side of the axe swinger; parallel would be the jammed, awkwardly arranged figures in the conventional sacrifice group at left (Trillmich, 289-92, 300). [BACK]

48. Trillmich (1986, 301) calls the celebrant Agrippa. Within the conventions of this second-rate atelier he could just as well be an emperor, such as Augustus. The combination of togate emperor at sacrifice with the BR group would echo Julio-Claudian compositions in Rome similar to the Beneventum passage frieze (fig. 92; pp. 161f.). This panel also could celebrate an occasion connected with imperial building projects, military achievement, and vows. Both Augustus and Agrippa were active in Spain and will have concerned themselves with Augustus' new colony there, overseeing its construction while conducting their Spanish campaigns (cf. Trillmich, 301-3). Compare the garlanded figure friezes on the Throne of Claudius (fig. 63) or at St. Remy. [BACK]

49. Brendel 1930, 46f., pl. 67. [BACK]

50. Brendel 1930, cat. 2, pl. 70; Ryberg 1955, pl. 21 bis, fig. 36d, pl. 21, fig. 36b; Koeppel 1983a, cat. 12. [BACK]

51. Inv. 3403. Reused. Very broken; axe swinger visible and scar of missing victim, at left a personification with cornucopia; Ronke 1987, cat. 101, fig. 126, ca. A.D. 25-50. [BACK]

52. Brendel 1930, cat. 4, pl. 72; Ryberg 1955, pl. 55, fig. 83. No work on the arch (chap. 7, n. 2) makes use of Brendel's work. [BACK]

53. Brendel 1930, cat. 5, pl. 73; Ryberg 1955, pl. 46, fig. 71; Boatwright (1987) means to illustrate this at pp. 234-35, ill. 57, but prints the Arcus Novus fragments (last sentence on p. 234) instead. [BACK]

54. Brendel 1930, cat. 7, pl. 76; Ryberg 1955, pl. 56, fig. 87; Tortorella 1985, 41-43, no. II, fig. 14. Probably a nuncupatio; cf. the paludatus lictor with axes in his fasces . [BACK]

55. Ryberg 1955, 197, after Giglioli. [BACK]

56. Brendel 1930, cat. 10, pl. 79; Ryberg 1955, pl. 57, fig. 89a. Sacrifice at far right, altar group at far left; the celebrant is the empress (!) Julia Domna. At center is Septimius Severus, portrayed as divine; Roma at his side indicates the locus of the ceremony. This practice of having the empress sacrifice with/for her husband was under way by the Hadrianic period; cf. a vota publica issue of Hadrian. Ryberg (fig. 107a) and Mattingly ( BMCRE III, pls. 62.4, 89.10) identified its celebrant as Hadrian, but her breasts are clear. [BACK]

57. Brendel 1930, cat. 9, pl. 78; Strong 1988, fig. 155. [BACK]

58. Ex Coll. della Valle. Cagiano de Azevedo 1951, 112, no. 272, pl. IL 105; added by Ronke 1987, 742. [BACK]

59. Anzio, Forestiera; DAI neg. 70.3738. Ronke 1987, cat. 135, fig. 147. [BACK]

60. My addition to the list. Ryberg 1955, pl. 63, fig. 105d = BMCRE II, pl. 79.4, p. 393, no. 438, falsely described as identical to no. 411 (p. 395: attendants with a sheep and goat). [BACK]

61. Brendel 1930, cat. 15; Ryberg 1955, 179-80, 186-87, pl. 64, figs. 107-8, pl. 66, fig. 114; Hölscher 1980, 299, fig. 33. [BACK]

62. Brendel 1930, cat. 3, pl. 71; Fuchs et al. 1989, 56, 89-91, cat. 13, figs. 86-89. She dates the altar specifically to 10 B.C., after Torelli; this date is somewhat problematic for the date of the cups, if they are held to replicate the prototype composition. [BACK]

63. Pal. Ven., Loggiato. Badly broken. DAI neg. 71.247; Ronke 1987, cat. 102, fig. 127. Right of a sacrifice scene, just before a break, is the kneeling cultrarius; the rest of the group is lost. [BACK]

64. Espérandieu 1907, 370-71, no. 575 (bull and servant holding his head); 372, no. 577 (kneeling servant) is probably a fragment of a repeat depiction. Narbonne, Mus. Lamourguier, from the city walls. Early to mid-second century A.D. (compare Beneventum, fig. 92). [BACK]

65. Louvre inv. 48991, marble, .52 m height; Ronke 1987, cat. 121, fig. 136. Axe swinger and bull; may have had kneeler right of the break. Includes Victory with palm, and bearded figure with cornucopia (?). [BACK]

66. Conflates the victim-slaying and victim-led-in-procession motifs. Ill.: Ryberg 1955, pl. 62, fig. 103. [BACK]

67. Mus. Civ. inv. 153; a victimarius holds the bull's head down, but the oblivious axe swinger salutes an officer. Ronke 1987, cat. 144, fig. 151; Ghedini 1980, 88f. [BACK]

68. Pollitt 1986, fig. 216. Compare, for example, the painting of Hephaistos' workshop visited by Thetis; Havelock 1970, color pl./cat. iii. [BACK]

69. Casa di Granduca del Toscana. Naples, MN 9042; Le collezioni del Museo Nazionale di Napoli 1986, no. 81. [BACK]

70. To Zanker (1988, 120), for instance, the intensity of the BR victim group documents a new (Augustan) sensibility, which relishes the display of the actual moment of death; I would call this rather a continuing streak of High Hellenistic relish for such effects. [BACK]

71. Ronke (1987) has some new examples (see p. 280 n. 51 and p. 281 nn. 58, 59, 63 above), though she is not always aware of them. She discusses the "Pausias motif" too briefly at p. 176. [BACK]

72. Mantua, Pal. Ducale: Brendel 1930, cat. 6, pl. 74; Ryberg 1955, pl. 58, fig. 90; Hölscher 1980, 288, fig. 23. Florence, Uffizi: Brendel, cat. 6a, pl. 75; Ryberg, pl. 58, fig. 91; Höscher, fig. 22; "contaminated" by the hunting sarcophagus genre, cf half-scene at farthest left. Los Angeles, County Mus.: Brendel, cat. II (formerly Rome, Villa Bonaparte, late Coll. Castellani); Ryberg, pl. 58, fig. 92. Frascati, Villa Taverna: Brendel, cat. 12; Hölscher, 288, fig. 21; cf. Reinsberg 1985, 8f. Poggio a Caiano, Villa Reale: Brendel, cat. 13; Gabelmann 1984, no. 85, pls. 184-85, with bibl. Rome, Villa Albani, frag.: Brendel, cat. 14. Ryberg classifies these as "payment of vota " after triumph, as she does the BR sacrifice (142-43), [BACK]

73. This reading of the sequence of scenes was established by Rodenwaldt in 1935 ( Über den Stilwandel in der antike Kunst, Abh. Berlin 1935, no. 3, 3ff). See further Ryberg 1955, 163f.; Fittschen 1969, 331-33; Hölscher 1980, 288-90. See Reinsberg 1985, 1-16, on the later evolution of this tripartite canon, highlighting the Frascati sacrophagus as representing a particular influential workshop. Fittschen shows how this tripartite canon influenced the sequence of episodes on Late Antique sarcophagi portraying the lives of Romulus and Aeneas. [BACK]

74. Gabelmann 1984, 182-88; Hamberg 1945, 172-89; Goette 1988a, 419-20. [BACK]

75. The "Rinuccini sarcophagus," known in Renaissance drawings, already puzzled Dütschke (1875, 2: 129, no. 316): in this elaborate, but jumbled, scene the general seems to pour a libation right onto the bull's head, and there is no altar or temple. Yet he does wear a cuirass, with tunic, paludamentum, and sword, and does not have his head veiled; perhaps the artist was trying to convey a transferral to legendary history or to myth. Villa Rinuccini, Camerata by S. Domenico; Horster 1975, fig. 12a-b. [BACK]

76. Summation by Kleiner 1983, 290f. Zanker 1988, s.v. fig. 181, Tiberius' profectio sacrifice. [BACK]

77. As noted by Ryberg, Kleiner, et al.; cf. Kleiner 1983, 294. [BACK]

78. Schrömbges 1986, 38; Hölscher 1980, 280-81; Koeppel 1969, 148; Kähler 1954b, 225-27. [BACK]

79. Ryberg 1955, 142-44, without explanation; Pollini 1978; Kleiner 1983, 295-96, by analogy to the reaction against Vitellius when he wanted to enter Rome in armor, against which see p. 139 below. He says the axes in the fasces of the lictors (actually visible in only one) place the scene outside Rome, citing the Cancelleria relief A ( profectio of Domitian), for he assumes the axe-bearing lictors there mark a division within the relief panel between "inside" and "outside" Rome. This is a tautology; and the literature is clear on the topic of paludati lictores (see below). Last, Kleiner says that Tiberius would not be armed "offensively" with a spear within Rome; but see pp. 275-76 nn. 14, 15. [BACK]

80. Pollini 1978, 285-91: Tiberius' military dress means he is outside Rome, the site is the Temple of Bellona just over the pomerium, and the Capitolium is a "vista"; and Tiberius' spear is that kept in the Temple of Bellona and dipped in blood at the outbreak of a war (fetial rites). On the military dress, see this section. The other two points: ably corrected by Kleiner (1983, 296), who notes that the sacrificant in armor traditionally has a spear and that in Roman art there are no other instances of a given sacred site being indicated by the depiction of another sacred site. [BACK]

81. Gabelmann 1986, pls. 24, 27, 30.2; Ryberg 1955, fig. 44. [BACK]

82. Kleiner 1983, 297, in contrast to his remarks against Pollini at p. 296; see n. 80. [BACK]

83. Kleiner 1983, 295; Hölscher 1980, 282 n. 59; cf. Alföldi 1935, 47-49. [BACK]

84. Cf the profectio of Marcus Aurelius (Ryberg 1967, fig. 18): the emperor paludatus is just leaving the city, its monuments directly behind him at the foot of the Via Flaminia (personified at his feet, right); at right a small armed cavalry escort with vexilla waits to take him to his troops. More texts: Livy 34.14-1, P. Sulpicius (200 B.C.): "secundum vota in Capitolio nuncupata paludatis lictoribus profectus ab urbe Brundisium venit"; Festus Ep. I.11.7, in the Latin wars the Romans attack Praeneste "nuncupatis in Capitolio votis"; Varro Ling. 6.60, s.v. "nuncupare": "quod tunc <pro> civitate vota nova suscipiuntur"; 7.37, s.v. ''paluda": "a paludamentis, haec insignia atque ornamenta militaria: ideo ad bellum cum exit imperator ac lictores mutarunt vestem et signa incinuerunt, paludatus dicitur proficisci." [BACK]

85. Compare the ludi saeculares, depicted only in Domitian's unique coin series. And take the case of the supplicationes in his honor, of which Augustus was so proud (55, totaling 890 days: RG 4.1.55); no more than a scant few of these can be dated by reference to other historical texts, and unless such a supplicatio is shown on the Ara Pacis procession frieze, we have no depictions of any of them. [BACK]

86. The Paris frieze, ca. 100-90 B.C.; pp. 56-57. The Praenestine cist, Villa Giulia 13 133: Kuttner 1991. [BACK]

87. An excellent study parallel to my investigation of the armed sacrifice is Schneider's 1990 article on "trophy dancers," who turn up in Augustan Neo-Attic relief, and triumph ritual and symbolism in ceremony and images in Republican Rome and Italy. [BACK]

88. Koeppel (1985a, 154-55, 204-12, cat. 50, figs. 35-41) follows Zanker (1970, 516f.) in assigning it to the Forum of Trajan and calls it an extispicium and nuncupatio without explanation. More informative, Tortorella (1985, 40, cat. 5, fig. 8) notes fragments in the Vatican probably from a companion relief. Ryberg 1955, pl. 45, fig. 69a-b. [BACK]

89. Ryberg 1955, pls. 43-44, figs. 66-67. [BACK]

90. Problematic is a late Antonine/early Severan relief fragment ( ex Villa Borghese), Louvre MA 1098: left of an altar the BR victim group motif, another bull being led up for sacrifice and a laureled paludatus lictor with axes in his fasces, before an architectural backdrop (a Tuscan colonnade and another construction).

Identified as a triumph ceremony; the paludamentum and axes of the lictor rule this out, however. Perhaps a nuncupatio votorum, taking place, for instance, in the Capitolium porticoes (?). Tortorella 1985, 41-43, cat. 11, fig. 14; Ryberg 1955, 158-59, fig. 87. [BACK]

91. Cf. contemporary vota suscepta coinage (no victim): Maximinus and Maximus paludati sacrifice in camp, Ryberg 1955, pl. 66, fig. 113d; Diocletian and Maximian paludati offer to images of Jove and Hercules, Ryberg, 186, pl. 66, fig. 113a. This depends on Antonine formulae for joint sacrifice by paludati, such as scene 75 of the Column of Marcus Aurelius (Ryberg, pl. 44, fig. 68). [BACK]

92. Laubscher (1975, 17, pls. 40.1-42.2) thinks that Diocletian is in civilian garb and that the subject is not vota suscepta (vs. Laubscher's n. 274: Ryberg, Vollbach, Brilliant, Vermeule, Kinch) but a victory sacrifice (Carcopino, Enslin), to account for the presence of Aion, Eirene, Oikoumene, and Homonoia in the scene. I think that this sacrifice would have looked like a conventional vota suscepta scene to its audience; it does not seem odd to trumpet the virtues of the united and "everlasting" Empire at the start of a campaign to defend that empire against the Parthians. Eirene and Homonoia (i.e., Pax and Concordia) are the virtues of civil concord in Roman political theology; Oikoumene is the civilized world that Rome is about to defend. [BACK]

93. Strong 1988, fig. 5, with the modern helmet; see now Cristofani 1985, 222-23, figs. 116-17, cat. p. 292 (ca. 400 B.C.). Lamellar cuirass, iron lance, patera. [BACK]