¹ For example, Levick, B. M., Tiberius the Politician (London, 1976), 32–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, accepting the story of the letter but exculpating Tiberius; more cautiously, J. A. Crook, in CAH 2 10.98–9.

² For his popularity with the citizen body, see Tac. Ann. 1.33.2, 2.41.3, 6.51.1.

³ Cf. Pliny's claim that Trajan would have wonspolia opima if any of the enemy kings had dared to face him(Paneg. 17.3).

⁴ Rosenstein, N. S.,Imperatores Victi: Military Defeat and Aristocratic Competition in the Middle and Late Republic (Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford, 1990), 116ff.Google Scholar; Goldsworthy, A. K., The Roman Army at War 100 BC.-A.D. 200 (Oxford, 1996), 154ff.Google Scholar

⁵ Campbell, Cf. J. B., The Emperor and the Roman Army 31 BC.-A.D. 235 (Oxford, 1984), 65Google Scholar, contrasting the circumspect conduct of emperors in battle with displays of bravery by princes of the imperial house. It is striking that no acts of personal valour are recorded of Tiberius, even in Velleius' eulogistic account of his campaigns: this may reflect Tiberius' characteristic preference for utility over show (Veil. 2.113.2:utilia speciosis praeferens).

⁶ Suet. Cat. 3.2: hostem comminus saepe percussit; cf. Tac. Ann. 2.20.3, 21.2.

⁷ See especially Veil. 2.97.2–3; Consolatio ad Liuiam 14–20, 259–62 (both sources stressing Drusus' excellence in both the civil and the military fields). There is little detailed characterization of Drusus in the Consolatio, which was not (as it purports to be) contemporary with Drusus' death, but a later composition so recently J. Richmond, 'Doubful works ascribed to Ovid', ANRW 2.31.2768–83; Schoonhoven, H., The Pseudo-Ovidian Ad Liuiam de morte Drusi (Groningen, 1992), 1–39Google Scholar; Cogitore, I., ‘Praecursoria consolatoria: hypotheses de travail sur la Consolatio ad Liuiam de Morte Drusi’, MEFRA 106 (1994), 1095–1117.Google ScholarFraschetti, A., ‘Sulla datazione della Consolatio ad Liuiam’, RFIC 123 (1995), 409–27Google Scholar, and id., ‘Indice analitico della Consolatio ad Liuiam’, MEFRA 108 (1996), 191–239, defends the contemporary dating of the poem, but fails to account for the reference to the temple of Castor (not dedicated until AD. 6) in lines 283–8. The sources on Drusus’ career are conveniently collected at PIR 2 C 857; A. Stein, ‘Claudius (139)’, RE 3.2703–19.

⁸ Rich, J. W., ‘Augustus and the spolia opima‘, Chiron 26 (1996), 85–127.Google Scholar

⁹ Rich, J. W., ‘Augustus’ Parthian honours, the temple of Mars Ultor and the arch in the Forum Romanum’, PBSR 66 (1998), 71–128.Google Scholar

¹⁰ RG 29.2; Dio 55.10.4.

¹¹ Levick (n. 1), 34. So also Mottershead, J.,Suetonius, Claudius (Bristol, 1986), 31Google Scholar, who, however, holds that ‘Augustus may have secretly told Drusus that if he had a legitimate claim to the spolia opima it would be honoured.’

¹² Cf. Brunt, P A., Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford, 1990), 448Google Scholar: ‘so far as possible, the military glory accruing from aggrandizement of the empire was reserved to the reigning house, in furtherance of Augustus’ dynastic plans’.

¹³ On the cessation of non-imperial triumphs, see W. Eck, ‘Senatorial self-representation: developments in the Augustan period,’ in Millar, F. G. B. and E., Segal (edd.), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (Oxford, 1984), 129–67, esp. 138–9.Google Scholar

¹⁴ RG 4.1; Dio 53.26.5, 55.6.6; Florus 2.33.53.

¹⁵ Dio 54.11.6,24.7 (19,14 B.C.). Agrippa had already declined a triumph in 38 (Dio 48.49.3–4). C. J. Simpson, 'Agrippa's rejection of a triumph in 19 B.C.’, LCM 16 (1991), 137–8, offers a different explanation for his refusals.

¹⁶ RG 4.1–2. For the deposition of the laurels see also Dio 54.25.4, 55.5.1 (discussed below). See further Hickson, F. V., ‘Augustus triumphator: manipulation of the triumphal theme in the political program of Augustus’, Latomus 50 (1991), 124–38.Google Scholar

¹⁷ For Augustus' movements, see Halfmann, H., Ilinera Principum (Stuttgart, 1986), 159, 162.Google Scholar

¹⁸ On the complicated problems posed by these honours and the associated imperatorial salutations for Augustus, see especially Mommsen, Th., Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Berlin, 1883), 13–15Google Scholar; Barnes, T. D., ‘The victories of Augustus’, JRS 64 (1974), 21–26Google Scholar, at 22; R. Syme, 'Some imperatorial salutations',Phoenix 33 (1979), 308–29 = Roman Papers 3.1198–1219, at 1200–4; Rich, J. W., Cassius Dio: The Augustan Settlement (Roman History 53–55.9) (Warminster, 1990), 210–24Google Scholar; Kienast, D., Rbmische Kaisertabelle (Darmstadt, 1996), 66Google Scholar, 69, 76, 78; Hurlet, F., Les collegues du prince sous Auguste et Tibere (Rome, 1997), 86–102.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The salutation is attested on milestones of the Via Iulia Augusta, the new coast road linking northern Italy with southern France, constructed in 13/12 B.C. (CIL v.8088, 8094 [= ILS 5816], 8100–1, 8105) and on undated coins of the Lugdunum mint (RIC i Augustus 162–73).

²⁰ Augustus’ eleventh salutation is not epigraphically attested, but the twelfth appears on inscriptions of his thirteenth and fourteenth tribunician years (respectively, 11/10 and 10/9 B.C): CIL iii.3117, vi.701–2 (= ILS9/), x.8035. Both salutations appear on undated Lugdunum issues, the eleventh merely on two small issues (RIC i, Augustus 174–5), the twelfth on a large number of issues (RIC i Augustus 176–84, 186–97).

²¹ Dio 54.31.4, 33.5; Suet. Tib. 9.2, Claud 1.3.

²² Piso: Dio 54.34.7. Onornamenta triumphalia see Rich (n. 18), 210–11, with further references.

²³ Drusus already held imperium as praetor in 11, and so his imperium proconsulare did not take effect until 1 January 10 B.C. Drusus’ ius ovandi is also attested at Suet. Claud. 1.3. As usual, Dio refers to an ovation by the phrase ‘to enter the city on horseback’. Ovations had been per-formed on horseback rather than on foot since that of Caesar in 44: Humphrey, J. W. and Reinhold, M., ‘Res Gestae 4.1 and the ovations of Augustus’, ZPE 57 (1984), 60–2.Google Scholar

²⁴ So G. Rohde, RE xviii.1902; Seager, R., Tiberius (London, 1972), 26–7Google Scholar; Kienast (n. 18); G. Alföldy CIL vi.40359.

²⁵ Veil. 2.96.3, 97.4, 99.1, 122.1.

²⁶ So rightly Syme, Roman Papers 3.1200–1; Hurlet (n. 18), 86–8, 97.

²⁷ Dio 54.36.4: ὂπα ⋯πí ταîς νίκαις ⋯ψ⋯φιστο ἢ καí ἂλλως καθ⋯κοντα ἣν γενσθαι πετλεσαν.

²⁸ Rich (n. 18), 214. Augustus spent the winter in Gaul: Dio 54.36.2–4; ILS 92 (= CIL vi.30974); P. Oxy. 3020, Off; Halfmann (n. 17), 159.

²⁹ Augustus’ thirteenth salutation is attested for his fifteenth tribunician year (9/8 B.C.) at CIL v.7231 (= ILS 94), vi.457 (= ILS 91), x.931; CIL vi.457 is dated to the consular year 9, and, since Drusus is named as consul, before his death. Tiberius’ and Drusus' salutations are noticed at Tac. Ann. 1.3.2: priuignos imperatoriis nominibus auxit. Tiberius’ first salutation is not epigraphically attested, but must have been conferred before the dying Drusus sent his troops to greet him as imperator (Val. Max. 5.5.3; contra Barnes [n. 18], 22). Drusus is credited with a single salutation on his elogium from the Forum Augustum (CIL vi.40330) and on an inscription from Vicenza (CIL v.3109). Inscriptions from the city gates at Saepinum record him as imp. II: A. U. Stylow, ‘Noch einmal zu der Tiberius-Inschrift von Saepinum’, Chiron 7 (1977), 487–91. Hurlet (n. 18), 91–2, concludes that Drusus received salutations in both 10 and 9 B.c, but that is surely excluded by his failure to hold an ovation in 10 and by the failure of Augustus to take a salutation in both years (on all other occasions Augustus added one to his total when a member of his family received a salutation). The Saepinum inscriptions may be in error (like the inscription from the town's Forum in which Drusus is styledimp. III: AE 1959, 278). Alternatively, they may have counted the salutation which Drusus had received in 11, while he was praetor, which had been officially disallowed (Dio 54.33.5).

³⁰ Sources on Drusus’ death and funeral journey include Livy,Per. 142; Suet. Tib. 7.3, Claud. 1.3; Val. Max. 5.5.3; Cons. liv. 167-270; Sen. ad Marc. 3.1–2, ad Polyb. 15.5; Tac. Ann. 3.5.1; Dio 55.2.1–3. On the date of Drusus’ death, see Hurlet (n. 18), 93–4, arguing for late October or early November. According to Tacitus, Augustus had gone to meet the body at Ticinum asperrimo hiemis.

³¹ Dio 55.2.4—5 (still in his account of the consular year 9 B.C.). Other sources for Tiberius’ ovation: Veil. 2.96.3; Suet. Tib. 9.2; Jerome,Chron. 167 Helm.

³² Taylor, L. R., ‘Tiberius’ ovatio and the Ara Numinis August’, AJP 58 (1937), 185–93Google Scholar; Syme, Roman Papers 3.1202–4,1215–9; Hurlet (n. 18), 97–100. Bersanetti, G., Tiberiana’, Athenaeum 25 (1947), 3–16Google Scholar, dates the ovation to 16 January 8 B.C. This accepts the natural interpretation of Dio that the ovation followed the funeral, but disregards Dio's dating of it to the consular year 9 B.c.

³³ See Degrassi, A., Inscriptiones Italiae 3.2 (Rome, 1963), 141–2Google Scholar (arguing that the entry on the dedication of the temple of Castor in AD. 6 was in the original version).

³⁴ So Wissowa, G., ‘Neue Bruchstücke des römischen Festkalenders’, Hermes 58 (1923), 369–92Google Scholar, at 375–7; E. Hohl, Die Siegesfeier des Tiberius und das Datum der Schlacht in Teutoburger Wald (SBBerl 1952, i). The alternative dating to 16 January A.D. 9, on the basis of Dio 56.1.1, overlooks the fact that the return ceremony mentioned there is said to have taken place μετ⋯ τόν χειμ⋯να.

³⁵ Cf. Degrassi, Inscr. Ital. 13.2.398–400, proposing the supplementex Pan[nonia reuersus dedica]nit.

³⁶ Rich (n. 18), 223, with references.

³⁷ Joint salutation in 8 B.C.: Dio 55.6.4-5. Tiberius as imp. II: ILS 95 (7 B.C.), 147. The salutations were conferred in the early summer of 8 B.C. ifIRT 319 is correct to style Augustus imp. XIIH in his fifteenth tribunician year (9/8 B.C.). However, Spanish milestones dated to his sixteenth tribunician year have both imp. XIII and imp. XIIII (CIL ii.4920, 4922, 4931, 4936). Tiberius’ triumph: Dio 55.6.5, 8.2; Veil. 2.97.4; Suet. Tib. 9.2.

³⁸ So rightly Levick (n. 1), 31–2; Hurlet (n. 18), 81–5.

³⁹ That the emperor preferred Drusus to his brother was conjectured by Syme, R., Tacitus (Oxford, 1958), 425Google Scholar, and id., History and Ovid (Oxford, 1978), 153.

⁴⁰ αí áανοχαí δεύτερον τ⋯ν χάριν α⋯το⋯ πρòς τò τ νικητ⋯ρια ⋯ν ⋯κείναις αὐτòν ορτάσι, γεν⋯σεσθαι μελλον. Dio regularly uses the term ⋯νοχαί (‘intermission’) of the Feriae Latinae, probably because all the magistrates left the city to attend it, rather than in reference to the sacred truce enjoined on the participating communities (so A. Alfoldi, Early Rome and the Latins [Ann Arbor, 1965], 30). He frequently includes details about the festival: see U. Boissevain, Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum quae supersunt V. 64–5, s.v. ⋯νοχαί.

⁴¹ See now Brennan, T. C., ‘Triumphus in Monte Albano’, in Wallace, R. W. and Harris, E. M. (edd.), Transitions to Empire: Essays in Greco-Roman History 360-146 B.C., in honor of E. Badian (Norman and London, 1996), 315–37.Google Scholar Brennan questions Niebuhr's widely followed view that th e practice was a revival of a n archaic Latin rite (pp. 321–2).

⁴² Livy 26.21.1–6; Plut. Marc. 22.1;vir. ill. 45.6; Val. Max. 2.8.5.

⁴³ Inscr. ltd. 13.1, pp. 86–7, 567; Dio 44.4.3, 10.1; cf. Suet. Jul. 79.1. See further S. Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford, 1971), 320–31.

⁴⁴ Brennan, (n. 41), 333, n. 46.

⁴⁵ There may also have been a punning element in the design: Drusus would celebrate at Alba the extension of Roman power to the remote Albis (Elbe).

⁴⁶ It may be noted that there is also a link between Caesar's ovation and the spolia opima. When in 45/4 the senate granted Caesar the right to return from the Feriae Latinae in ovation, the numerous other honours conferred on him included the privilege of dedicating spolia opima ‘as if he had killed an enemy commander by his own hand’, and Dio reports these two honours together (44.4.3). Caesar's right to dedicate spolia opima is rejected without good reason by R. Syme, Roman Papers 1.166, 366, 419, n. 1. See further Weinstock (n. 43), 233.

⁴⁷ On Drusus’ arch, see especially Kleiner, F. S., The Arch of Nero in Rome (Rome, 1985), 33–5Google Scholar; De Maria, S., Gli archi onorari cli Roma e dell’ Italia romana (Rome, 1988), 272–4Google Scholar; Lebek, W. D., ‘Ehrenbogen und Prinzentod: 9 v. Chr.’ 23 n. Chr.’;, ZPE 86 (1991), 47–78Google Scholar, at 71–8; Richardson, L. Jr, A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore, 1992). 25Google Scholar; Sartorio, G. Pisani, in Steinby, E. M. (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, vol. 1 (Rome, 1993), 93.Google Scholar Drusus’ honours also included a tumulus at Mainz, on which see Lebek, W. D., ‘Die Mainzer Ehrungen fur Germanicus, den alteren Drusus und Domitian’, ZPE 78 (1989), 45–82Google Scholar, esp. 46–62, with earlier bibliography. We have no information on how Drusus was portrayed at the Mainz monument.

⁴⁸ RIC i2, Claudius 69–72 = BMCRE Claudius 95–103; RIC i2, Claudius 98 = BMCRE Claudius 121–3.

⁴⁹ For illustrations, see Kleiner (n. 47), pi. vii; De Maria (n. 47), pi. 51. Some of theaurei and denarii (RIC i2, Claudius 71–2) show Drusus in a quite different pose, raising his right hand in the act of address and with his horse at a walk. This pose seems to be modelled on that of Claudius on his British arch, which in some other respects apparently evoked the arch of Drusus (see RIC i2, Claudius 30, 33–4, 44–5).

⁵⁰ Lebek (n. 47), 71–8, offering a sample text.

⁵¹ See above at n. 16.

⁵² Bonnefond, M., ‘Transferts de fonctions et mutation idèologique: le Capitole et le Forum d';Auguste’, in L’Urbs: Espace urbain et histoire (Ier siécle av. J.-C.-IIIe siécle ap. J.-C. (Rome, 1987), 251–78Google Scholar, at 274–5.

⁵³ For such dinners, see RE viiA.510. Although commanders celebrating ovations wore myrtle rather than laurel wreaths, Tiberius’ and Drusus’ fasces had presumably been wreathed with laurel since their salutations.

⁵⁴ Suet. Aug. 29.2; Dio 55.10.3; Bonnefond (n. 52), 258–9.

⁵⁵ I am very grateful to Barbara Levick and Thomas Wiedemann for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.