Aspects of the Principate of Tiberius

Grant, Michael, 1914-2004
Numismatic Notes and Monographs
American Numismatic Society
New York
Worldcat Works




Open access edition funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities/Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Humanities Open Book Program.


Table of Contents





(i) Description of the Coinage1



1. Laureate head to right, lituus.

Rev. Q OCTAVIVS M·EGNATIVS IIVIR·image·S·S·C· in oak(?)-wreath.

Berlin (PLATE I, 1), Copenhagen, writer's collection.

SNGC, Italy , III, Plate 27, no. 1381. Garrucci, Plate CXXIII, 16, quotes a variant with head to left and M· EGNATIVS Q· OCTAVI[VS IIVIR] PAES· (sic) S·S·C. For the probable date of these pieces (early Tiberius), see FITA, p. 287, n. 8. The coins of Q. Octavius and M. Egnatius, though too poorly preserved for any confident conclusions to be drawn from them, seem to differ from other issues of Paestum ascribed to Tiberius by showing a number of portraits reminiscent of the last years of Augustus, as well as others with the Tiberian cast of countenance that is more frequent at this mint. As is pointed out in FITA, loc. cit., cf. pp. 328, 463, a very large number of portraits of late Augustan type on local coinages are demonstrably posthumous; and the same may apply to these, though this cannot be regarded as certain.

2. Laureate head to left, lituus.

Rev. Q· OCT· M· EGN· IIVIR·S·P·S·[C·] in oak (?)-wreath.

Naples (PLATE I, 2), Paris, Copenhagen.

Garrucci, Plate CXXIII, 18; SNGC, Italy , III, Plate 27, no. 1382. A London piece has head to right. Vienna and Paris examples (PLATE I, 3) have M· EGN· Q· OCT· IIVIR· P·S·S·[C·] in wreath.

3. P·S·S·C· laureate head to right.

Rev. L· LICINIVS IIVIR. Victory standing or walking to right, holding laurel-wreath and palm.

Copenhagen (PLATE I, 4), London, Berlin.

Garrucci, Plate CXXIII, 21; SNGC, Italy , III, Plate 27, no. 1386. The portraits on these pieces and on all Paestan issues described hereunder are unmistakably Tiberian.

4. Bare head to right, lituus.

Rev. C· LOLLI·M·DOL· (sic) imageVIRI P·S·S·C. Livia seated to right, veiled, with patera and sceptre.

London (PLATE I, 5), Cambridge, Copenhagen.

BMC, Italy , p. 282, no. 78; Grose, I, p. 147, no. 1155; SNGC, Italy , III, Plate 27, no. 1383. Erroneously described by Garrucci, Plate CXXIII, 17.

5. Bare head to right, lituus.

Rev. C· LOLLI·M·DOI·IIVimage ITER· P·S·S·C. Diana standing facing, wearing short tunic, carrying bow, and carrying or leaning on spear.

London (PLATE I, 6), Cambridge, Munich.

BMC, Italy , p. 282, no. 80; Grose, I, p. 147, no. 1158; Garrucci, Plate CXXIII, 20; Boutkowski, Dictionnaire Numismatique, I, p. 74, no. 179 bis, II, p. 1578, no. 2635.

6. P·S·S·C· laureate head to right.

Rev.imageRGILL·OPT·IIVIR. Mars standing to left, helmeted, naked except for cloak hanging over left arm, holding hasta (?) and parazonium.

Vienna (PLATE I, 7), London. A Cambridge specimen (PLATE I, 10) also seems to represent this type.

Grose, I, p. 147, no. 1159. Garrucci, Plate CXXIII, 22, misdescribes. Garrucci, Plate CXXIII, 23: S·C·P·S. Copenhagen (SNGC, Italy , III, Plate 27, no. 1384): S·S·C·P·; this piece shows clearly that the shaft carried by Mars is that of a hasta or sceptre and not a vexillum. But on a variant at Vienna with [P·S·]S·C· (PLATE I, 8) Mars is carrying a vexillum instead. A Paris piece (PLATE I, 9) shows the latter variation, a pedestal under the figure of Mars and on the obverse S·P·C·S· and laureate head to left.

7. P·S·S· [C· ] laureate head to right.


London (PLATE I, 11).

Garrucci, Plate CXXIII, 24; Mattingly, RC, Plate XLVIII, 4.

8. P·S·S·C· laureate head to right.

Rev. L·CAEL·FLA·TI·AVG·TI· CAESAR IIVIR. Victory in biga of horses galloping to left; above horses' heads, apex.

Paris (PLATE I, 12); Copenhagen (PLATE I, 13); Cambridge (PLATE I, 14); Berlin, Vienna.

Grose, I, p. 147, no. 1162; SNGC, Italy , III, Plate 27, no. 1385, give incomplete descriptions. The full legend (in which there may be minor variations) is restored with difficulty from the specimens at Berlin (... TI·AVG·TI·CAESA....) and Cambridge (.. CAEL·FLA... TI·CAE ... IIVIR). The latter however (Grose, loc. cit.) may read FLA·AVG· instead of FLA·TI·AVG·; and so may the Copenhagen example.

9. P·S·S·C· laureate head to right.

Rev. C·FADI·L(?)... AR(?) same type as last.

Berlin, Naples.

This is the most that can at present be made of nos. 282 and 2748 in the Berlin and Naples collections respectively. They were noted by the present writer on earlier visits to those cabinets, but it has now been impossible to obtain casts or illustrations of either coin, since the two collections are not in situ. The description given above is conjectural. It is doubtful whether a piece quoted by Garrucci, Plate CXXIII, 24, "L·IVL· FEL·FLA·TI·CAESAR·AVG·, quadriga [sic] to left" (stated to be at Naples), has any separate existence. The same doubt was evidently felt by Muensterberg, whose manuscript addition to the Vienna Cabinet's copy of his Römische Beamtennamen (NZ, 1911, p. 81), shown to the present writer by the kindness of Dr. Pink, ascribes to "Naples 2748" both Garrucci's no. 25 and another legend which he reads as L·CAEL·FLA ... L·FAD·IIVIR. It is hazardous to attempt to restore the legend, but it is just possible that a C. Fadius, instead of partnering L. Cael. Fla. Aug., preceded or succeeded him as colleague of Ti. Caesar IIvir. No. 284 in the Berlin collection is another mysterious piece but too ill-preserved to be of much assistance; it may conceivably show the name of Fadius with a different type.3


10. P·F·SILVA·PR· olive (?)-branch.

Rev. SALASI·LVCI·II· triskeles.

London (PLATE I, 15), Berlin, Naples.

Not in BMC, Sicily. Imhoof-Blumer, MG, p. 37, corrects the F· on the obverse from the P· rendered by Klein, Die römischen Verwaltungsbeamten, p. 90. For the suggested attribution to Panormus, see FITA, pp. 197 f., n. 6. A somewhat similar piece bearing the name of L. Seius procos is attributed to Haluntium, FITA, p. 199. It is unlikely that both pieces are of the same mint, since the various aes pieces with names of proconsuls (for PR·, as here, for PR[aetor] or PR[oconsule], see FITA, pp. 35, 61) all appear to be foundation issues of different colonies and municipia (ibid., p. 198). It is not impossible that the coin of P. F. Silva is of Haluntium and that of L. Seius of Panormus (instead of vice versa), but the formers resemblance to a peregrine issue of Panormus (ibid., p. 197, n. 6; cf. Bahrfeldt, RS, 1904, PLATE IV, 92, 93) has made the present attribution seem preferable.

For the attribution of these pieces to a late Augustan or Tiberian date see FITA, loc. cit., against Groag, PIR 2, III (1943), p. 94, no. 2, etc.; cf. also a close resemblance in general composition (though not necessarily in style) to Roman quadrantes attributed by the present writer to a.d. c. 10-14 (this is briefly suggested in RAI, Chapter II, section ii; but the detailed demonstration still remains to be undertaken), and to small coins of Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus, legatus of Syria a.d. c. 12-17 (FITA, p. 127, nn. 16 ff.; wrongly given as a.d. 12-15 on p. 396; de Laet, p. 241, gives 11-17). Haluntium was perhaps established as a municipium not long before the death of Augustus (FITA, p. 199, n. 6), and it has been suggested on historical grounds that Panormus may have become a colonia civium Romanorum after the accession of Tiberius (FITA, pp. 197 f., n. 6). It cannot, however, be considered certain that the present issue belongs to the reign of Tiberius, but it is included here since the balance of probability seems slightly to favour this interpretation.

11. PANHORMITANORVM radiate head of Augustus to left.

Rev. CN·DO·PROCVA·LAETOR·IIVIR· Capricorn, triskeles with winged Gorgon's head, ears of corn or barley.

London (PLATE I, 16), Copenhagen.

BMC, Sicily, p. 125, no. 45; SNGC, Sicily, I, Plate 12, no. 564; Imhoof-Blumer, MG, p. 37; Klein, Die römischen Verwaltungsbeamten, p. 93; Macdonald, I, p. 212, 42; Hill, Coins of Ancient Sicily, Plate XIV, 17; Mattingly, RC, Plate XLVIII, 5. There are variants of the reverse legend.

12. PANORMITAN. Livia seated to right, veiled, with patera and corn-ears.

Rev. CN·DOM· A· LA· ram to left.

Glasgow (PLATE I, 17), Munich.

Macdonald, I, p. 212,no. 44. BMC, Sicily, p. 125, no. 47 (PLATE I, 18) and perhaps Cambridge (Grose, I, p. 297, no. 2524) have CN·D·, Berlin PANORMITANORVM. The coin is mentioned by Hill, Coins of Ancient Sicily, p. 208.

13. PANORMITAN. (?) bare head of Tiberius(?) to right.

Rev. imageGVS· veiled head of Livia to right.

Glasgow (PLATE I, 19), London, Munich, Copenhagen.

Macdonald, I, p. 211, no. 41; BMC, Sicily, p. 125, no. 44; SNGC, Sicily, I, Plate 12, nos. 562 and 563. A Vienna specimen has the countermark of a tetrastyle temple. On a Gotha example the head on the obverse seems to be laureate. A variant piece represented in London (BMC, Sicily, p. 125, no. 43), Berlin, and perhaps Copenhagen (SNGC, Sicily, I, Plate 12, no. 561) had the head of Livia to left (PLATE I, 20). Newby, p. 81, no. 123, reads PANORMITANORVM; on some pieces the abbreviations may vary. Macdonald, loc. cit., implies by his classification that this piece is of Augustan date.

End Notes
For doubtful pieces see Appendix 1. The discussions added to descriptions in this section are only concerned with the actual attribution of the coins to mints or principates, or with the status of the minting city. For the omission of Spain, see p. 9.
For the status of Paestum as an Augustan colony see FITA, pp. 201 f., 286 f., cf. Piganiol, RA, XXII, 1944, p. 123. Inscriptions with municipium and municeps (Marzullo, Atti della Società Italiana per il Progresso delle Scienze, V, 1932, Estratto, p. 17) seem too late to support Duval's view (RA, XXI, 1944, p. 171) of a Sullan colony.
For the duoviri L. Suei. M. Nun. see Appendix 1.

B. Africa


14. ... AESAR AVGV... bare head of Tiberius(?) to right.

Rev. [? DIVOS] AVG· [ACH]imageLLA radiate head of Augustus to left; thunderbolt, star.

Paris (PLATE I, 21).

Not in Müller. Apparently unpublished, at least in recent centuries, except for a passing description (in which the legend and type are incompletely described) in FITA, p. 230. The head on the obverse might conceivably be that of Caligula rather than Tiberius. The style resembles that of Augustan pieces of Achulla, e.g. Müller, II, p. 44, 7, 9-10; FITA, Plate VII, 29-31. Achulla was "free" before the reorganization of Julius Caesar, and is recorded by Pliny (Nat. Hist., V, 30) as an oppidum liberum. But towns described in this way were often coloniae civiurn Romanorum (FITA, p. 226, and n. 7; Zama Regia, Thapsus, Hadrumetum, Hippo Diarrhytus), and there are special reasons for believing the same to be true of Achulla (FITA, pp. 230 f.).


15. TI·CAESAR IMP·P·P· bare head of Tiberius to left.

Rev. L·A· FAVSTVS D·C·BASSVS IIVIR· P·P·D·D. Livia seated to right, veiled, with patera and sceptre.

Glasgow (PLATE II, 1), London, Cambridge, Milan.

Müller, II, p. 150, no. 327; Macdonald, III, p. 600, nos. 146 f.; Nicodemi, I, p. 72, 706. For the attribution, Müller, II, p. 154; compare the similar coin of Augustus, FITA, p. 231. Variant with head to right, Müller, II, p. 150, no. 328.

16. TI·CAESAR IMP·P·P· bare head of Tiberius to right.

Rev. L·A· FAVSTVS D·C· BASSVS IIVIR· P·P·D·D· three corn-ears joined.

London (PLATE II, 2), Hague.

Müller, II, p. 150, no. 329.

17. TI·CAESARI AVGVSTO D·D·COL· bare head of Tiberius to left.

Rev. PACE AVG· PERP· altar-precinct (altar-wall with two doors—with no intervening panel—and two horns); all in oakwreath.

Berlin (PLATE II, 3).

Not in Müller. This is perhaps the specimen quoted by J. Tristan, Commentaires Historiques, etc. (Paris, 1644), pp. 164 ff.; A. Occo, Imperatorum Romanorum Numismata (Milan, 1683), p. 70; A. Morellius, Thesaurus (Amsterdam, 1752), I, pp. 592 ff. But De Meyran (Marquis de Lagoy), Mélanges de Numismatique (Aix, 1845), p. 2, quotes a specimen shown from his illustration at PLATE II, 1, not to be the Berlin piece. Lagoy's coin, if correctly described, has the letter K· after COL· on the obverse. This led him to attribute the coin to Carthago Nova; but stylistic considerations, notably the individual style characteristic of Africa (FITA, p. 478), make Carthage far preferable. This exceptional piece looks medallic; cf. official issues of the same principate which seem to warrant a similar interpretation, RAI, Chapter III.


18. TI·CAESAR DIVI AVGVSTI F· AVGVSTVS bare head of Tiberius to right.

Rev. HIPPONE above, LIBERA below, IVL· AVG· in field. Livia seated to right, veiled, with patera and sceptre.

London (PLATE II, 4), Munich.

Müller, II, p. 167, no. 376. For Hippo Diarrhytus as a colonia lulia see FITA, pp. 224 f.

19. Same obverse.

Rev. DRVSVS CAESAR HIPPONE LIBERA bare head of Drusus junior to right.

Copenhagen (PLATE II, 5), London (PLATE II, 6), Vienna. Müller, II, p. 167, no. 377.

20. Same obverse legend and head; lituus and simpulum.

Rev. L·APRONIVS HIP[P]ONE LIBERA bare head of L. Apronius, proconsul, to right.

Hague (PLATE II, 7), Berlin (PLATE II, 8), Paris.

The reverse head is wrongly attributed to Drusus junior by Müller, II, p. 167, no. 378. For its ascription to the proconsul see FITA, p. 229, n. 1. Under Augustus also, the portraits of a number of proconsuls of Africa (as well as of Asia, FITA, p. 387) have appeared on the coinage of Roman colonies, including Hippo Diarrhytus (FITA, p. 224; cf. Hadrumetum, p. 228; Achulla, p. 230), as well as on what seems to be an official African issue (FITA, p. 139). Most of those portraits have, like the present one, been misinterpreted as representing imperial personages; e.g. in the case of Hadrumetum by Cavedoni, Bullettino archeologico Italiano, 1862, pp. 171 f.; Borghesi, Oeuvres, I, p. 312.


21. TI·CAE·DIVI AVG·F·AVG·IMP·VII· bare head of Tiberius to left.

Rev. CERERI AVGVSTAE THAMPSITANI (sic). Ceres Augusta seated to right holding long torch and two corn-ears; modius on ground.

London (PLATE II, 9), Tunis, Vatican (?).4

Mentioned in FITA, p. 225, and n. 14, but otherwise apparently unpublished, at least within the past century.

22. Same legend; bare head of Tiberius to right.

Rev. THAPSVM IVN·AVG· veiled head of Juno Augusta (or iuno Augustae) to left, apparently with wreath of corn-ears.

London (PLATE III, 1), Hague, Glasgow, Milan.

Müller, II, p. 47, no. 12; Macdonald, III, p. 583, no. 1; Nicodemi, I, p. 72, no. 707; cf. FITA, p. 225, and n. 13.

23. Same obverse.

Rev. THAPSVM IVN·AVG. Livia seated to right, veiled, with patera and sceptre.

Copenhagen (PLATE III, 2).

Müller II, p. 47, no. 13.

24. TI·CAE·DIVI AVG·F· AVG· IMP· VIII· COS·IIII bare head of Tiberius to left.

Rev. PERMISSV L· APRONI PROCOS· III· C· SEX· POM· CELSO C·P·I. Mercury wearing petasus and holding caduceus, seated to left on rock.

Hague (PLATE III, 3), Vienna (PLATE III, 4), Paris.

Misread as PROCOS·IIII by Nicodemi, I, p. 72, no. 708. This and all the following coins here assigned to Thapsus were misattributed to Clypea by Müller, II, p. 155, no. 331. For the ascription to Thapsus see FITA, p. 225. It is based on the following considerations. Two coins of Augustus have reverse types and stylistic traits identical to each other and to the present piece of Tiberius. One of these Augustan pieces has the legends AVGVSTVS IMP·—C·I·P· IIIIVIR· (Müller, II, p. 155, no. 330, Supplément, p. 56), but the other and earlier has CAESAR DIVI F· —COLONIAE IVLIAE and monograms decipherable as image and image (FITA, p. 225, and p. 494, no. 8; cf. Merlin, Bulletin archéologique du Comité des Travaux Historiques, 1915, p. cxciv), a circumstance which determines the attribution not only of the two Augustan pieces but also of the whole of the present series of Tiberius. For comparable variations or evolutions of ethnics during the early imperial period see coins of Buthrotum (FITA, p. 270), Emporiae (ibid., p. 154), Cnossus (ibid., p. 262), Corinth (ibid., p. 266; cf. p. 226 and n. 2).

25. Same obverse.

Rev. Same reverse legend. Livia seated to right, veiled, with two corn-ears and sceptre.

Hague (PLATE IV, 2), Milan.

Müller, II, p. 155, no. 332; Nicodemi, I, p. 73.

26. DRVSO CAESARI bare head of Drusus junior to left.

Rev. PERMISSV L· APRONL· PROCOS·III· bust of Mercury to left, wearing paenula and petasus; caduceus behind.

Paris (PLATE III, 6), Hague.

Müller, II, p. 155, no. 333. Variant with Mercury's bust to right, now untraceable, quoted ibid., p. 156, no. 334.

27. As no. 24.

Rev. PER[MIS· Q·I]VN· BLimageSI PROCOS· IT· C·P· GAVIO CASCA C· P·I· as no. 25.

Hague (PLATE III, 7).

Müller's reference to a "retouched" piece of Dolabella at the Hague, without any mention of Blaesus (Müller, II, p. 156, no. 339, and n. 6), probably concerns this specimen; but if so, his doubts, at least as regards the original character of the legend, seem unjustified.

28. As no. 26.

Rev. PER ... BLAESI PRO ... CA C·P·I· as no. 26.


Not in Müller, who wrongly reads here the legend of no. 31 (q.v.). The present description is owed to the kindness of Dr. J. H. Jongkees, of the National Collection at the Hague.5

29. As no. 24.


London (PLATE IV, 1), Berlin.

Müller, II, p. 156, no. 336. Müller also quotes the following variant reverse inscriptions: PERMIS· P· DOLABELLAE PROCOS· C·P·G· CAS·D·D· C·P·I· (II, p. 156, no. 335: Copenhagen, Paris), PERMIS·P· DOLABELLAE PROCOS·C·P·GAVIO CAS· (II, p. 156, no. 337).

30. As last.


London (PLATE III, 5), Paris, Hague, Copenhagen.

Müller, II, p. 156, no. 338.

31. As no. 26.


Vienna (PLATE IV, 3).

Müller, II, p. 156, no. 340. For lus reference to a Hague example, see above, no. 27.

End Notes
The Curator of the Bardo Museum has kindly written confirming the Tunis specimen. The British Museum has a sulphur cast of a piece stated to be in the Vatican; but, if so, it is presumably there ascribed to another city, since Marchese Serafini writes that there is no such coin ascribed to Thapsus.
Perhaps a large piece with the type of no. 24 and the name of Blaesus may one day come to light, to complete a series uniform with those of Apronius and Dolabella.



32. ..... DIVI(?) ..... laureate head of Tiberius (??) to right.

Rev. [CO]L·IVL ... [C]AS· head of Jupiter Ammon to right.

Dresden (PLATE IV, 4), Istanbul.

Apparently unpublished, except for mention in FITA, p. 272, n. 6. It is possible that this coin was issued at a later period than the reign of Tiberius.6 The end of the reverse inscription seems to be blundered.


33. TI· CAESAR DIVI AVG·F·AVGVSTVS bare head of Tiberius to right.

Rev. COLONIA IVL·DIENSIS D·D. Livia seated to right, veiled, with patera and sceptre.

London (PLATE IV, 5).

Gaebler, p. 60, and Plate XIII, 31; BMC, Macedon, etc., p. 71, no. 3; Sutherland, JRS, 1941, p. 81; FITA, p. 278.


34. TI·CAESAR AVG·F·AVGVSTVS bare head of Tiberius to right.


Oxford (PLATE IV, 6), London (PLATE IV, 7), Berlin, Milan, Vienna.

As regards this and the following pieces, Sutherland, JRS, 1941, p. 74, no. 3, ibid., Plate VII, 2, follows the tentative attribution to Dium adopted by Imhoof-Blumer, MG, p. 74, nos. 59 ff.; Gaebler, p. 60, nos. 3 ff.; Nicodemi, I, p. 74, no. 725; etc. The present writer, in FITA, p. 282, has preferred Pella, for the following reasons: (i) style, thickness and fabric; (ii) the reverse composition of the present piece and of nos. 37-39 is strongly reminiscent of Augustan coins (signed by the quinquennales M·FICTORI·M·SEPTVMI· and C·HERENNIVS L· TITVCIVS) convincingly assigned to Pella by Imhoof-Blumer, MG, p. 88, and Gaebler, p. 96; cf. FITA, pp. 281 f.; (iii) the type of nos. 36 and 40 below, a very unusual one, is the same as that on further pieces both of Fictorius and Septumius (FITA, p. 281) and of Herennius and Titucius (ibid., p. 282 and 284; cf. Gaebler, p. 98, no. 27). A London specimen of no. 34 (PLATE IV, 7) has a countermark; Berlin and Vienna examples are countermarked PEL· (in the two latter cases with the addition of a theta or patera ), and, as is pointed out in FITA, p. 282 and n. 11, it is common for such countermarks to comprise the ethnic of the very city where the coins on which they are stamped had been struck (e.g. FITA, p. 299, n. 12; cf. p. 246). This phenomenon is found particularly often on the coinage of Tiberius.

A variant of no. 34 (Sutherland, JRS, 1941, p. 74, no. 4) reads C·BAEBIO P·F·L·RVSTICELIO BASTERNA IIVIR· QVINQ· D·D.

35. D·D· female head to right, with hair knotted behind neck.


London (PLATE IV, 8).

Sutherland, JRS, 1941, p. 74, no. 5; ibid., Plate VII, 3. Not in Gaebler.

36. C·BAEBIVS P·F·D·D· cup without handles.

Rev. L·RVSTICELIVS BASTERNA praefericulum and two strigiles.

Berlin, Sofia.

Sutherland, JRS, 1941, p. 74, no. 6; Gaebler, p. 60, no. 3, Plate XIII, 31. The two Sofia specimens were found in Bulgaria.

37. TI·CAESAR AVG·F·AVGVSTVS bare head of Tiberius to right.

Rev. L·RVSTICELIVS CORDVS IIVIR QVINQ·D·D· in six lines in oak-wreath.

Cambridge (PLATE IV, 9), London, Paris.

Sutherland, JRS, 1941, p. 74, no. 8; cf. FITA, p. 282. A Paris specimen is countermarked (theta or patera ?). A variant has the reverse legend in five lines: Sutherland, JRS, 1941, p. 75, nos. 8 f.; Nicodemi, p. 74, 724. CESAR (sic) for CAESAR: Gaebler, ZfN, 1926, p. 134, no. 23.

38. PIETAS bust of Pietas to right, draped, diademed and veiled.

Rev. As last but no oak-wreath.

London (PLATE IV, 10), Hague.

Sutherland, JRS, 1941, p. 75, no. 10; ibid., Plate VII, 6; Gaebler, p. 60, 4, Plate XIII, 29.

39. PIETAS AVGVSTA bust of Pietas to right, with diadem ornamented with palmettes.

Rev. As last.

Paris, Berlin, Leningrad, Munich, Belgrade.

Sutherland, JRS, 1941, p. 75, no. 11; Gaebler, p. 61, 5, Plate XIII, 30; id., ZfN, 1926, p. 134, 25; ibid., Plate X, 16 (obverse).

40. Praefericulum and two strigiles.

Rev. As last.

Budapest PLATE IV,, 11).

Not in Sutherland, JRS, 1941, p. 73 ff., or Gaebler, and apparently unpublished.

End Notes
Professor A. R. Bellinger considers that the portrait looks Antonine.



41. TI·CAE·C·I·A·D· laureate head of Tiberius to right, countermark.

Rev. AVG·C·I·A·D· radiate head of Augustus to right.

London (PLATE V, 1), Athens.

Not in any BMC. Variants: (obv.) TI·CAE·C·I·A·D·, Imhoof-Blumer, MG, p. 165, 47; (obv.) TI·CA·C·I·A·D· (FITA, Plate VIII, 26) and (rev.) AVGV·, Paris (PLATE V, 3); (obv.) TI·CA·T·I·A·S· (sic), Berlin (PLATE V, 2) ; (rev.) AVG·P·P·, Vienna. The Athens specimen suggests that the countermark is a prow. These pieces have been attributed to Dium (London; British Museum Cabinet), Dyme (British Museum [also], Paris, Vienna), and even Dertosa (Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum, I, p. 47; Hübner, Monumenta Linguae Ibericae, p. 38; Newby, p. 83). In FITA, p. 278, an endeavour is made to refute these attributions—of which the last-mentioned at least is impracticable on grounds of style—and to group the issue instead with two pieces of Augustus ascribed to Dyrrhachium, which closely resemble it in portraiture. These are: (1) bare head of Augustus to right-CI·VE·TI·TAR·IIimage. Q D·D· in field (Gotha, London, FITA, p. 276; ibid., Plate VIII, 23), (2) CAESAR AVGVSTVS bare head of Augustus to right—plough, and legend conjecturally restored as C(oloniae) V(eneriae) R(estitutori) M·IVS(tuleius?) M·HERENNIVS IIVIR(i) QVINQ(uennales) C(oloniae) I(uliae) A(ugustae) D(yrrhachensium) : Vatican, FITA, pp. 277, 279; ibid., Plate VIII, 24). For Venus as the protectress of Dyrrhachium, see FITA, pp. 275, 277. (For the history of the colony, Sestieri, Epigraphica, IV, 1942, pp. 127 ff.) Dium was still COLONIA IVLIA DIENSIS (i.e. not yet C·I·A·D·) by the time of Tiberius (see no. 33). At Dyme, on the other hand, the colonia had indeed been C·I·A·D· for a short time, but it had then apparently failed during the lifetime of Augustus, who had allotted its lands to his new foundation at Patrae (Pausanias, VII, 17; cf. Dorsch, De Civitatis Romanae apud Graecos Propagatione, Diss: Breslau, 1886, p. 19; FITA, p. 265).


42. L·ARRIO PEREGRINO IIVIR· radiate head of Augustus to left.

Rev. L·FVRIO LABEONE IIVIR·COR· hexastyle temple inscribed GENT· IVLI.

London, Paris.

Edwards, Corinth , VI, p. 19, no. 40; Earle Fox, JIAN, 1899, p. 104, no. 25; BMC, Corinth , etc., p. 63, no. 520; Nicodemi, I, p. 55, 551. Edwards and BMC wrongly describe the head as Tiberius. Variant with names of duoviri reversed, BMC, Corinth , etc., p. 64, no. 522 (PLATE V, 4); ditto, with name of Peregrinus in nominative, Paris cf. Earle Fox, loc. cit. For the foundation of the colony shortly before or after the death of Julius see FITA, p. 266.

43. Legends as no. 42. Draped bust of Livia to left with hair knotted behind neck.

Rev. As last.

Copenhagen, London.

BMC, Corinth , etc., p. 63, no. 515; Earle Fox, JIAN, 1899, p. 104, no. 26. Variant with bust to right, BMC, Corinth , etc., p. 63, no. 514 (PLATE V, 6); Edwards, Corinth , VI, p. 20, no. 41. With bust to left and names of duoviri reversed, Copenhagen (PLATE V, 5), London, Earle Fox, loc. cit.

44. Same legends as no. 42. Laureate head of Tiberius to left.

Rev. As last.

London (PLATE V, 7), Copenhagen, Cambridge.

BMC, Corinth , etc., p. 63, no. 518; Edwards, Corinth , VI, p. 20, no. 43; Earle Fox, JIAN, 1899, p. 104, no. 28. Variants with names of duoviri reversed, BMC, Corinth , etc., p. 64, no. 521, and with L·ARRIO PEREGRINO IIVIR· on both sides, Earle Fox, loc. cit. (his own collection).

45. L·FVRIO LABEONE IIVIR· bust of Livia to right, veiled, with stephane.

Rev. L·ARRIO PEREGRINO IIVIR·COR· hexastyle temple inscribed GEimage·IVLI.

Cambridge (PLATE V, 8), London.

BMC, Corinth , etc., p. 63, no. 517; Edwards, Corinth , VI, p. 20, no. 42; Earle Fox, JIAN, 1899, p. 104, no. 27.

46. P· CANINIO AGRIPPA IIVIR· QVINQ· bare head of Drusus junior(?) to right.

Rev. L· CASTRICIO REGVLO IIVIR· QVIN· COR. Livia seated to right, veiled, with patera and sceptre.

London (PLATE V, 9).

Edwards, Corinth , VI, p. 20, no. 44, cf. pp. 6 f. (attributing to a.d. 22-23 and—following Earle Fox, JIAN, 1899, p. 105, no. 29, and Muensterberg, NZ, 1911, p. 121—to Drusus, whose coin-portraits this resembles), BMC, Corinth , etc., p. 64, no. 523, cf. Neumann, De Quinquennalibus Coloniarum et Municipiorum, Diss: Leipzig, 1892, pp. 37 f. Also with names of duoviri reversed, Earle Fox, loc. cit. (his collection). With P· CANINIO AGRIPPA IIVIR· QVINQ· on both sides, ibid. (Paris), cf. Muensterberg, loc. cit. : in a manuscript addition to the Vienna Cabinet's copy of his work Muensterberg added a query and an exclamation mark to this restoration of the reverse legend, but such a repetition of the name of a single duovir is paralleled on the coins of at least two other colleges, cf. Earle Fox, op. cit., p. 94.

47. Busts of two youths facing each other.

Rev. COR. Pegasus flying to right.

London, Milan.

The busts are identified as Nero and Drusus, the sons of Germanicus, by Nicodemi, I, p. 34, n.; cf. FITA, p. 268, n. 13; ibid., Plate IX, 13. BMC, Corinth , etc., p. 62, no. 508, attributes the heads to Gaius and Lucius. Our judgment on these identifications must be reserved, but on icono-graphical grounds it seems not improbable that the coin is of Tiberian rather than Augustan date. It is not quoted by Edwards, Corinth , VI.



48. TI·CAES·AVGVS· bare head of Tiberius to left.

Rev. FVSCO ET MAXIMO IIVimage· in four lines in field.

Vienna (PLATE V, 10), Berlin, Istanbul.

49. MAXIMO IIVimage· DIVOS AVG· bare head of Augustus to left.

Rev. FVSCO IIVimage· IVLIA AVGVS·D·D. Livia seated to right, veiled, with patera and sceptre.

Writer's collection (PLATE V, 11), London (PLATE V, 12), Vienna, Athens. See also Addenda.

Svoronos has rightly placed the Athens piece in the Cretan section of that collection. The Istanbul specimen is recorded as having been acquired in a bag with 20 other Cretan coins. The present writer's example was acquired in Athens, and almost certainly found somewhere on Greek territory. Imhoof-Blumer, MG, p. 140, in describing no. 48 only, points out its incompatibility with the issues of Buthrotum, with which it is classified in the Vienna Cabinet and by Muensterberg, NZ, 1911, p. 110 (on the inadequate grounds of a common Fuscus: L. Ateius Fuscus appears at Buthrotum, inadvertently omitted by FITA, p. 269). The Vienna specimen of no. 49 used to be placed with "uncertain Spanish." Muensterberg, in his manuscript addition to the Vienna Cabinet's copy of his work just cited, suggests Utica; but this is only because of Müller's erroneous ascription to that city of the piece which will next be discussed, which Muensterberg, rightly in the present writer's opinion, regarded as a product of the same mint as the FVSCO-MAXIMO pieces.

50. TI· CAESAR AVG· bare head of Tiberius to left.

Rev.imageRO·image· above, and IIVIR· below, D·D·P·Q· in field.

London (PLATE V, 13), Copenhagen.

Misread by Müller, II, pp. 162, 373. As stated in connection with no. 49, Muensterberg is probably right in associating this issue with the foregoing coins; it especially resembles no. 48. Müller attributes the present specimen to Utica, but it shows no close similarity to any issue of that city and the style is not African. Müller may have been influenced in his attribution by the nomen Apronius, cf. the proconsul L. Apronius (nos. 20, 24 ff.) ; but the name is not rare enough for this point to carry any weight.

51. IVLIA AVG· bare head of Livia to right, with hair knotted behind neck.

Rev. As last.

Berlin (PLATE V, 14).

Apparently unpublished.


52. [TI·CAES(AR?)DI]VI AVG·F·AVGVST·IMP·VIII· bare head of Tiberius to left.

Rev. C·C. Livia seated to right, veiled, with patera and sceptre.

London (PLATE V, 15).

Hill, NC, 1914, p. 303, 12, and ibid., Plate XIX, 8. For the attribution of the ethnic, FITA, p. 250. Pisidian Antioch's exceptional colonial epithet Caesarea—not paralleled at Sinope, ibid., p. 253, pace Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, p. 1007, etc.—is recorded on the only two Augustan mintages that can at present be attributed to this city: these read COL·CAES (BM, Berlin, Vienna: FITA, Plate IX, 5) and PARENS CAESAREA COL· (Berlin, cf. NC, 1914, p. 299, 40; FITA, Plate VIII, 12). In FITA, p. 251, it is suggested that the title Varens refers to the seniority of Antioch, as of Lystra, vis-à-vis the other colonies of the province, but the latter cities may not have been founded at the time of issue and the word probably refers rather to Augustus; cf. at Gades, Agrippa MVNICIPI PARENS (FITA, p. 171). For the foundation of the colonies see further RAI, Chapter V, sections i and iv.


53. DRVSO CAESARI bare head of Drusus junior to right.

Rev. EX D·D· C·I· F·image·LXIIII· in four lines in oak (?)-wreath.

Cambridge (from the writer's collection) (PLATE V, 16).

Apparently unpublished and unknown. Acquired in Istanbul and believed to have been found in Turkey. For the attribution of the ethnic C(olonia) I(ulia) F(elix) see FITA, p. 253: some pieces of Augustus have C·F·I·SI· (RGMG, I2, 1, p. 201, no. 76a) and probably also C·I·F·S· (Forrer, RB, 1900, p. 288). For the date image· LXIIII· (a.d. 19-20), see FITA, p. 253, n. 3. Although Kubitschek, NZ, 1908, p. 68, is wrong in completely restricting this type of chronography to coins of Sinope— it appears not only at Viminacium in the third century (Head, p. 273), but also on a second century coin of Parium, FITA, p. 253, n. 2, correcting RGMG, I, p. 200—his observation appears to be true as regards the first centuries b.c. and a.d.

End Notes
For coins of doubtful date with the names of M. AEMILIVS, LABEO, POLLIO and TI. CAESAR IIVIR. ( Plate VIII, 1-4), see Appendix 1.

(ii) The Character of the Coinage


Like many other aspects of this coinage, its composition, weights and denominations raise problems that are difficult and indeed at present insoluble. As regards composition, a number of spectrographic tests8 of these non-Spanish issues has so far recorded no abandonment of the Augustan practice according to which—either through conservatism or imperial monopoly9—such coinages, unlike main official issues which were of orichalcum and copper, remained of bronze.10 Strong, or fairly strong, lead and tin alloys still occur at Panormus(?) (no. 10: cf. Plate I, 15),11 Cnossus (no. 49: cf. Plate V, 12),12 and Sinope (no. 53: Plate V, 16),13 as at Corinth under Caligula.14 In the last case the proportion of neither metal exceeds ten per cent,15 and at municipium Utica under Tiberius (cf. Plate VIII, 8-9)16 the admixture was perhaps smaller still.17 Carthage(?) (no. 15: cf. Plate II, 1)18 and Thapsus (no. 30: cf. Plate III, 5)19 show a preponderance of lead over tin—in the latter case the amount of tin is negligible20—that is characteristic of city issues since the Hellenistic period.21

Contrasts to these findings are apparent in Spain. It is true that some, if not all, Tiberian coins of Turiaso, Saguntum and Caesaraugusta (cf. Plate VI, 1) again show fairly strong lead and tin alloys.22 At Tarraco,23 however, as at Paestum,24 there is sometimes no lead or virtually none, but a considerable quantity of the much more expensive constituent tin. Elsewhere, marked deviations occur even within the series of a single Spanish city. At Romula, for example, whereas one Tiberian piece (cf. Plate VII, 6)25 contains a little lead as well as tin,26 a smaller specimen of the same reign (cf. Plate VII, 5) is actually (accidental impurities apart) of pure copper.27 At Ilici the same distinction occurs, again under Tiberius, in two different coins of the same size (cf. Plate VI, 6,28 bronze;29 and 7,30 copper). Carthago Nova is a third Spanish mint31 to issue coins of pure copper32 in the same principate.

For the initiative of these three Roman cities in using pure copper we know of a few precedents at Greek cities (notably Olbia 33). No such phenomenon has so far been traced in any city coinage under Augustus; but it would be premature to say that Augustan precedents do not exist, for there are many issues of which no analyses have yet been made. All that can be said is that the practice of occasionally issuing colonial coinage in the official metal of pure copper was in existence, even if it did not originate, under Tiberius. This tendency, whether at the time it had any conscious purpose or not, points ahead to the date, not far distant, when the Western local coinages would give way altogether to the imperial system.

The complement to copper in the official coinage, namely orichalcum, has not yet been identified by the present writer in any mintage of a Roman city under either Augustus or Tiberius. It is, however, attributed to Caesaraugustan coinage of the latter princess (Plate VI, 2) by Zobel y Zangroniz.34 As regarded peregrine issues, there is a possible Tiberian instance of orichalcum at Tomi,35 and perhaps also at Panormus just before its colonisation.36 These precedents were followed by Caligula and Claudius, under whom local orichalcum coinages occur at Smyrna 37 and perhaps Aezanis 38 respectively, as well, probably, as at other cities; similar instances, though never apparently frequent, occur in the third century.39 Caley ascribes such deviations from the ordinary bronze alloy to the use for coinage—regardless of composition—of melted down aes pieces, which in this case would have been Roman orichalcum.40 This explanation can hardly apply in full to the Julio-Claudian period, when there would not yet have been time to melt down many coins in this recently originated alloy; but it is quite possible that the cities melted down other objects for conversion into their coinage,41 and in so doing they may have disregarded the composition of those objects. For this reason, and because of the incompleteness of analyses, it cannot confidently be stated that the Roman cities under Tiberius consciously varied the constituents of their coinage from Augustan practice.

As regards the second metrological factor, that of weights, again no indications of a new policy, after the accession of Tiberius, are detectable. Among such a varied collection of weights and sizes it would be hopeless to endeavour to find a norm; but, according to one reconstruction, the colonial issues of Tiberius (in Spain as well as outside it), seem to be based on a bronze as of c. 235 to c. 160 grains.42 At first sight this suggests greater consistency than had prevailed in the principate of Augustus, when the Roman towns had used a bewildering variety of weight-standards: their asses had apparently fluctuated from c. 350 to c. 80 grains, "and even at neighbouring Spanish cities, or on consecutive issues of the same mint, there is no attempt at uniformity."43 But this apparent distinction between Augustus and Tiberius is based on the whole of the former's reign, and does not take into consideration the possibility that, during its lengthy course, the practice later favoured by Tiberius had already been reached. Such a comparison is therefore confusing; and throughout the present section the practice of Tiberius will instead be compared—as seems historically more profitable—with only the final period of the principate of Augustus:44 namely his last sixteen years (2 b.c.a.d. 14).45 A glance at the colonial coinage during this period quickly shows that any tightening of standard perceptible under Tiberius may equally be attributed to the last years of Augustus: for among the colonial coinages of that period we already find no clear traces of the heaviest and lightest asses of the early Augustan period.46 It must be stressed, however, that any conclusions based on metrological considerations can, as regards colonial coinages, only be conjectural.

End Notes
See Appendix 3.
Cf. Caley, p. 149.
FITA, p. 300 and n. 2.
FITA, p. 493, no. 48.
A tin, B lead.
B tin, B lead.
Caley, p. 63.
8.39% tin, 7% lead: Caley, p. 63. Id., pp. 69 f., quotes Strabo VIII, 381, as evidence for the view that Corinth's coinage was made of melted-down statues.
See Appendix 2.
FITA, p. 493, nos. 55 and 56.
D tin, A lead.
E tin, A lead.
See Appendix 3.
Cf. Caley, pp. 114, 125, 139, 172, 189.
B tin, B lead.
B tin.
FITA, p. 493, no. 69.
Vives, IV, p. 124, no. 3.
B tin, C lead.
Vives, IV, p. 124, no. 2—spectograph.
Vives, IV, p. 42, no. 10.
B tin, C lead.
Vives, IV, p. 41, no. 6—spectograph.
Vives, IV, p. 37, no. 41.
E tin—negligible, cf. Appendix 3.
Caley, pp. 83, 109, Table XVI.
Memorial Numismático Espanol V, 1880, p. 123; cf. FITA, p. 300, n. 2: = Vives, IV, p. 83, no. 59.
B zinc, E tin, C lead. But on the zinc see Appendix 3.
FITA, pp. 198, 493, no. 43 (misprinted as 44 on p. 198, n. 4).
FITA, p. 493, no. 63.
Ibid., no. 57.
E.g. of Elagabalus at Nicaea: Caley, p. 90; cf. a coin of Hadrian at Alexandria, ibid., p. 91, 102.
P. 191; cf. p. 149.
Cf. Caley, pp. 69 f.
See Appendix 4.
FITA, p. 300.
Cf. also Appendices 2, 4 and 5.
This forms a convenient point of departure, since the title pater patriae, assumed in 2 b.c., appears on a very large proportion of all colonial coinage from that time onwards, and portraiture changes (cf. NC, 1949, in press).
See Appendix 4.


As regards occasions of issue, we are on equally uncertain ground, and indeed here on more uncertain ground than we were under Augustus. A large number of Roman cities had owed their Augustan issues to a deductio or constitutio or restitutio. Naturally a foundation that has occurred under Augustus could not occur again (except as a restitutio) under the second princeps; but the very scanty evidence at our disposal does not support the view of Dessau 47 and Scramuzza 48 that such foundations were suspended during his principate.49 On the contrary the evidence regarding foundations such as Emona 50 and Tifernum 51 suggests that Tiberius founded colonies (as well, perhaps, as municipia such as Cambodunum 52) no less frequently—and perhaps more frequently—than had Augustus during the last sixteen years of his life.53 No. 10 (Plate I, 15) has tentatively been identified as a Tiberian foundation coinage of colonia Panormus; others are hard to identify, but, even if they are few and far between, this paucity does not necessarily prove that Tiberius was stricter than Augustus in sanctioning them. The cause of monetary infrequency might instead lie rather in the geographical situation of the foundations of the second princeps: for most of the probable or possible examples of such foundations were located in provinces such as Illyricum and Pannonia, where colonial and municipal coinage does not in any case occur either in this or in any other principate.

Another of the main features of colonial and municipal coinage under Augustus had been the jubilee-issue. This category comprises mintages signalising the twenty-fifth, fiftieth, hundredth and other anniversaries of the deductio, constitutio or restitutio of the minting city.54 This custom, unlike that of foundation coinage, shows no sign of waning before the death of Augustus: for six of the eight issues tentatively ascribed to this category55 fall within the last decennium of his principate. An examination of the issues of Tiberius warrants the suggestion that, as one might expect, certain cities maintained the same practice in his reign. The evidence is again intractable, but it seems not improbable that our no. 52 of Antioch in Pisidia (Plate V, 15), among others, may be ascribed to a local half-centenary occasion; and that the same applies to a Tiberian issue of the Spanish municipium of Dertosa (Plate VI, 5).56 It also appears likely that the single issue of Sinope (Plate V, 16), dated to a.d. 19-20 and isolated in a long gap between issues under Augustus 57 and Caligula,58 celebrates—like other coinages59 —the imperial half-centenaries of Actium and Egypt (31-30 b.c.). The evidence is not sufficient to determine whether policy regarding local anniversary issues developed in any way within the principate of Tiberius.

Likewise we cannot tell whether any colonial and municipal issues are attributable to his accession60 or to its decennium or vicennium. At least one peregrine city (Leptis Minor) follows a similar practice; cf. ibid., p. 338. There are probably other cases.

These were all occasions which had prompted extensive official mintages,61 and the accession appears to have inspired peregrine issues also;62 it is quite likely, therefore, that our issue of Thapsus with the date IMP· VII· (a.d. 14-18) (no. 21: Plate II, 9) belongs to the same occasion.

In general, as far as the obscurity of our evidence enables any conclusions whatever to be drawn, it seems that the Roman cities probably coined both for local and for imperial anniversaries to much the same extent, and with much the same balance of emphasis between the same categories, as they had in the later years of Augustus.63

End Notes
Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, II, 1, p. 90. Cf. for a similar argument regarding the coinage of municipia, Appendix 2.
EC, p. 279, n. 26.
The evidence is discussed in Appendix 5.
Saria, Dissertationes Pannonicae, II, 10, 1938; cf. CIL, III, 10768.
Liber Coloniarum = Schriften der römischen Feldmesser, p. 224, cf. Ciaceri, Tiberio Successore di Augusto , p. 218.
Stade, CAH, XI, pp. 531 f.
This period is used throughout the present section for purposes of comparison (see last subsection; cf. also Appendices 2, 4 and 5).
Dyrrhachium, Cnossus, Patrae(?), Uselis, Cirta(??), Carthage (?), Lugdunum(?), Lystra; for summary see FITA, p. 295.
All except Dyrrhachium and Cnossus.
For a discussion of the evidence see Appendix 6.
FITA, p. 253, n. 3.
BMC, Pontus, etc., p. 101, no. 55. See also Addenda.
See below, Chapter II, section ii, subsection A, and RAI, Chapter III, section iii.
It is tempting, on iconographical and other grounds, to ascribe to this occasion issues of the Spanish coloniae Acci, Saguntum and Tarraco and municipia Calagurris and Utica.


The conclusion reached in the last subsection applies equally to the signatories and formulas that appear on these coinages; for they follow much the same practice as had been characteristic of the principate of Augustus. Prominent among signatories is L. Cael. Clem. IIvir at Paestum (no. 7-8: Plate I, 11-14). His type is the apex, which symbolises the flaminate:64 for this duovir is the colonial flamen Ti. Caesaris Augusti. Similar officials are found on inscriptions;65 and other inscriptions tell of cults of the genius 66 and numen 67 of the second princeps.68 Flamines of Germanicus and Livia occur at Olisipo.69 But Flamines of Augustus, too, had occurred in his lifetime. This particularly applies to the last period of his principate, in which we find M. Paccius Maximus, duovir at Halaesa, likewise described as Flamen on a coin of that city,70 like other officials recorded by inscriptions.71

L. Cael. Clem, is only one of a considerable number of city-magistrates who are signatories of our coins. Altogether at least twenty-six names appear.72 Their titles reveal certain tendencies that had not been so apparent under Augustus. None of these names are of praefecti representing the princeps or members of his family. The only princely duovir, Ti. Gemellus at Paestum (no. 8: Plate I, 12-14), is not, as far as the legend reveals, represented by a praefectus; and he is placed second to his colleague L. Cael. Clem. Earlier in the reign, as under Augustus,73 praefecti representing the younger princes had occurred elsewhere.74 The Paestan issue seems to reflect a tendency to discourage the practice; but other instances of it occur at least as late as a.d. 34,75 though possibly not thereafter. Thus its final abandonment might be due to Tiberius. But it might also date from the principate of Caligula,76 and from his unwillingness to allow similar honours to his short-lived "heir" Ti. Gemellus.77

At all events such praefecturae for princes seem to have been discouraged by Tiberius. This discouragement, serving to avoid emphasis on a "royal family," may well have been intended as a conservative rather than as an autocratic measure; but it none the less constituted a restriction of the Roman cities' initiative, if only of their initiative to flatter. Whether in this case Tiberius or Caligula was responsible, there is certain other evidence, not only of a numismatic kind, suggesting that Tiberius pursued a policy of gradual encroachment on the Roman cities. It is true that a joint protest of Italian cities about a Tiber regulation scheme still influenced the government.78 But they were deprived of the profits of local taxation;79 garrisons in Italy (where so large a proportion of these cities were) were increased in number;80 and the cities were now, if not earlier, called upon to provide supplies to the princeps when he travelled.81 Other restrictions too have been conjectured,82 and they are possible enough for a man who, like Tiberius, hated the Italian colonies and municipia in later life.83 But whether this influenced his attitude or not, there was nothing new in this policy: Augustus had followed precisely the same programme of gradual encroachment.84 In particular, Augustus had used a variety of indirect methods to this end; and Tiberius did the same. For example, his predecessor had "made personal gifts to the colonies an excuse for legislation regarding their maintenance";85 and we find Tiberius, imitated in this by his son Drusus junior,86 following suit.87 Road-building, too, in which Tiberius was active88 (if not always quite active enough89), recalls the use of this very method by Augustus as a means of influencing local communities.90

These are all matters in which Tiberius was continuing an Augustan policy or carrying it to its logical conclusion. At first sight, however, our coinage might seem to present a more original feature, in the diminished part played by duoviri quinquennales. Their names had frequently appeared on issues of the preceding principate. Our present series, however, only shows three such colleges—C. Baebius P.f. and L. Rusticelius Basterna at Pella (nos. 34-36: PLATE IV, 6-8), L. Rusticelius Cordus (with no mention of his colleague) at the same city (nos. 37-40: PLATE IV, 9-11), and P. Caninius Agrippa and L. Castricius Regulus at Corinth (no. 46: Plate V, 9).91

One reason for this diminution, as far as these non-Spanish issues are concerned, might be supplied by Tiberius' far smaller reliance than his predecessor on these coinages for practical augmentation of monetary output.92 At least in the earlier part of the principate of Augustus it had been the practice for many colonies, of which the issues fulfilled such purposes, to coin at the conclusion of their lustra.93 Now, however, the occasions for colonial coinage,94 less regular as this had become, coincide less often with local quinquennia.95 But this cannot be the whole story; for in Spain, too, where colonial coinage continued to contribute materially to the imperial monetary system, the recorded proportion of quinquennales to duoviri is likewise smaller in the principate of Tiberius than (if we take it as a whole) in the principate of Augustus. Did Tiberius, then, restrict the powers which the quinquennales had possessed over local finance?96 If we look into the matter more closely, it appears that no such view is warranted by the numismatic evidence. For the last decade or two of Augustus can only show a single quinquennalian college on a non-Spanish coin (and that a doubtful one97), and only one more within the peninsula.98 So it is clear that the impression gained by contrasting the two principates as a whole would be misleading. For if, adopting a procedure that is followed more than once in the present work,99 we compare the practice of Tiberius not with the whole principate of Augustus, but with the last part of the latter's reign, we find that there is no change: the diminution in the numismatic record of quinquennales, noted under Tiberius, had already begun under his predecessor.

Again, in the time of Tiberius, as in the time of Augustus, local formulae still greatly exceed official ones on the colonial issues. At Paestum itself we find P[AE](sti) S(ignatum) alongside S·C· (nos. 1, etc. : Plate I, 1) ; and elsewhere are D(ecreto) D(ecurionum) (nos. 17, 29, 33–40, 49: Plate II, 3, IV, 1, 5–11, V, 11), P(ecunia) P(ublica) O(ecreto) D(ecurionum) (nos. 15-16: Plate II, 1-2), D(ecreto) D(ecurionum) P(opuli) Q(ue) (nos. 50-51: Plate V, 13-14) and EX D(ecreto) D(ecurionum) (no. 53: Plate V, 16). The plain formula D·D· is commonest, as under Augustus. P·P·D·D·, at Carthage(?) (as at Utica 100) under Tiberius, repeats the formula used at the same mint under his predecessor.101 P(ecunia) P(ublica)—for such, here at least, is the likely interpretation of the first two letters102—probably refers to the purely local enactment to which the accompanying letters D·D· bear witness. Finally D·D·P·Q· at Cnossus(?) is a variant of P·P·D·D. It may be compared with the D(ecurionum) P(opuli) Q(ue) C(onsensu) at Cirta(??) under Augustus.103 Such formulae show no evidence of increasing uniformity under Tiberius, and the same applies to case-usages as regards ethnics, which remain varied.104

So, too, the Paestan formula S.C., referring apparently to the Roman rather than to the local senate,105 remains exceptional under Tiberius,106 just as it was exceptional under Augustus;107 it is not until the third century that S(enatus) R(oraarms) likewise appears on the issues of Pisidian Antioch.108 The Roman senate is mentioned by Paestum because it was by a senatusconsultum, moved auctoritate principis,109 that these issues, like the official aes coinage,110 were authorised. The persistence of this formula on Paestan issues throughout the principate of Tiberius suggests that he continued to use the senate as intermediary for their authorisation.

Regarding cities other than Paestum—which is unparalleled111—the situation in this respect is more obscure. Under Augustus their issues were authorised by auctoritas principis,112 and this may, sometimes at least, have been given expression by a senatusconsultum;113 however, the cities do not refer to the senatusconsulta, but sometimes cite the auctoritas principis, using formulas such as PERM(issu) AVG(usti)114—though not in provinces such as Africa and Syria where the governors were important enough to record their own permission.115 PERM·AVG· recurs under Tiberius,116 and its continued link with auctoritas is illustrated by the ex auctor[itate] Ti. Caesaris Augusti et permissu eius of an Aquinum inscription.117 Whether the auctoritas authorising these coinages with PERM· AVG· was exercised through senatusconsulta, and (if so) how long this practice continued, is uncertain. All that can be said is that there was a general tendency, in the Julio-Claudian period, for the senate's intermediary rôle in the expression of auctoritas principis to diminish. At first (recalling S·C· at Paestum) we still find formulae such as ex.s.c. ex auctorit(ate) Ti. Caesaris .118 Again, curatores riparum et alvei Tiberis were still appointed by senatusconsulta—no doubt on the suggestions of the princeps—during at least part of the reign of Tiberius; but similar officials are later recorded as completing their duties, no longer ex s.c., but merely ex auctoritate Ti. Claudii Caesaris ... principis sui.119

Tiberius is often stated to have contributed to such changes120a.d. 23121 and his departure to Capri122 in particular are described as turning points—but the most that can be said, in regard to the coinage, is that certain issues over a considerable period were now authorised, not by repeated senatusconsulta, but by a single one. For official aes pieces of a.d. c. 29 and later sometimes record the tribunicia potestas with the date of an earlier year,123 namely the year in which the princeps had exercised that potestas to move their permissive senatusconsultum.124 Moreover, two of the Spanish cities which inscribe their coinage under Tiberius PERM·AVG· also coin for a time under him on the basis of an authorisation of Augustus—PERM(issu) DIVI AVG(usti) (Plate VII, 4-6125). Whether Augustus used the senate as intermediary for such authorisations or not, this formula suggests that, at least by a.d. 14, they were already becoming less frequent than mintages.

Indeed, the closeness of PERM· DIVI AVG· to a.d. 14 suggests that any paucity of authorisations to which it bears witness owes its origin, like the other Tiberian phenomena that have been discussed in this section, to his predecessor. This consideration recalls that we likewise have no terminus post quern for the paucity of senatusconsulta illustrated by the delayed tribunician dating on the official aes. It has only been identified from later allusions in the types of coins dated to a.d. 22-23: and late Augustan official aes has types too uninformative for such delayed dating, if it occurred, to be identifiable. With the official aes this is as far as we can go; but, as regards the colonial issues, PERM· DIVI AVG· seems to indicate that this phenomenon of en bloc authorisations, covering a considerable period, was already established before the accession of Tiberius. If this is so, it shares this pre-Tiberian origin with certain other formulae on this coinage as well as with its weights, compositions and types; and it is this conservative aspect of the colonial issues that the present subsection has again illustrated. Later, certain more specifically Tiberian traits will be discussed.126

End Notes
See RAI, Chapter III.
FITA, pp. 330 ff.
Celebrations of anniversaries on colonial coinages did not cease with Tiberius. The present writer suggests in NC, 1948, pp. 117, 125, that two pieces of Caligula's reign should be ascribed to this category. For later emperors see RAI, Chapters IV and V.
Cf. Wissowa, RKR 2, p. 499, and nn. 5, 6.
E.g., ILS, 6481 (Venusia), cf. Nock, CAH, p. 493, Beurlier, Essai sur le Culte Rendu aux Empereurs Romains, p. 169.
ILS, 6080, cf. 116, etc.
Ibid., 158 (and of senate), cf. Sutherland, JRS, 1934, p. 34.
Cf. also a sexvir Augustalis et Tiberialis at Asculum, ILS, 6565.
ILS, 6896. Cf. Sutherland, JRS, 1934, p. 34, id., RIS, p. 159.
FITA, p. 195; cf. perhaps Cn. Statil. Libo praef. sacerdos (ibid., p. 163 and n. 1), but Rivero, Madrid Catalogue, p. 24, considers him to be of Julius; on this coin see now A. Beltran, AEA, 1947, pp. 137 ff. P. Vibius Sac. Goes, at Parium (FITA, p. 249) may be a priest of Julius.
See, e.g., Sutherland, JRS, 1934, pp. 32, 34; ILS, III, 1, p. 572, etc. Flamines Augusti are mainly found in Italy from c. 2 b.c.; cf. Nock, CAH, X, p. 487.
These names would repay investigation from a prosopographical viewpoint, a task which will not be attempted here. Sutherland, JRS, 1941, pp. 79 ff., has made a start by his study of the Baebii and Rusticelii at Pella (nos. 34 ff.). Salasi. at Panormus (no. 10) recalls Salassus Comitialis at Agrigentum under Augustus, FITA, p. 196, cf. n. 12. For Fadii and Fusci see recently PIR 2, III, p. 115, nos. 97 ff.; p. 234, nos. 599 ff. (for a late Republican Fadius at Paestum, FITA, p. 202).
FITA, p. 508 (references).
E.g. at Salonae for Drusus junior and P. Cornelius Dolabella, Betz, JAIW, 1943, Beiblatt, pp. 131 ff.; for Nero and Drusus, Abaecherli Boyce, NNM, 109, 1947, p. 24; cf. perhaps at Utica, see Appendix 2.
ILS, 639 f. (Pompeii, Caligula), Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, I, p. 308, n. 64; Kornemann, RE, XVI, 623. Of about the same date is a coin of Caesaraugusta likewise showing a praefectus of the young Caligula, Vives, IV, p. 82, no. 54 f.; but no praefectus of him is recorded at Carthago Nova (Plate VI, 3).
But the emperors themselves continued to be represented by praefecti at least until the second century: e.g. ILS, 6662, cf. Betz, JAIW, 1943, Beiblatt, p. 130, n. 17.
On this phase see von Premerstein, p. 66, and Mitteilungen aus den Papyrussammlungen der Giessener Universitätsbibliothek, V, 1939; Collart, RPh, 1941, p. 58; Ensslin, Gnomon, 1943, p. 169.
Tac., Ann., I, 79, cf. Marsh, p. 125.
Suet., Tib., 49; cf. Abbott and Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire, p. 147; Rogers, p. 244, n. 106; FITA, p. 203, n. 13.
Suet., Tib., 37.
Ibid., 38.
E.g. waning of local comitia (Sebastian, De Patronis Coloniarum atque Municipiorum Romanorum, Diss: Halle, 1884, p. 46), discouragement of local foundation committees (FITA, p. 285), diminutions of rights of certain city quaestors (Mantey, De Gradu et Statu Quaestorum in Municipiis Coloniisque, Diss: Halle, 1882, p. 9), abolition of decurional votes by proxy (Jullian, Les Transformations Politiques de l'Italie sous les Empereurs Romains, p. 34); moreover, in Gaul in particular, certain losses of rights by peregrine communities (Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule, IV, pp. 155, n. 3, 286, 337, 389, n. 1) may have involved curtailments of the independence of Roman cities also. There is no unqualified numismatic evidence for the repression or assimilation of rnunicipia as such: see Appendix 2.
Tac., Ann., IV, 67 (a.d. 27): perosus ... municipia et colonias omniaque in continenti sita.
FITA, pp. 317 ff.
Ibid., p. 321.
CIL, V, 6358 (Laus Pompeia), cf. Frank, ESAR, V, p. 95; Rogers, p. 136.
E.g. CIL, V, 2149 (Altinum), cf. Frank, ESAR, V, p. 101; NS, 1907, pp. 658 f. (Lanuvium); ILS, 114 (Brixia), cf. Frank, op. cit., p. 97; cf. the Tiberia Platea at Antioch in Pisidia, Robinson, AJA, 1924, pp. 438 ff. Smith, p. 212, n. 126.
E.g. in the Illyrian provinces (Last, JRS, 1943, p. 104, etc.); Gaul (Smith, p. 212, n. 6, etc.); Spain (Sickle, CP, 1929, p. 77; Sutherland, RIS, p. 171 and n. 6; van Nostrand, ESAR, III, p. 34; Rogers, p. 211, n. 110); Africa (Marsh, p. 148; Haywood, ESAR, IV, p. 34), etc. etc. Colonies were less affected by road-building in Syria and Egypt (Smith, p. 212, nn. 118, 119).
Cf. Balsdon, p. 148; Scramuzza, EC, p. 271, n. 57.
FITA, p. 322.
Nero and Drusus may be recorded in the same capacity at Utica: see Appendix 2.
See below, subsection D.
FITA, p. 162. Ibid., p. 283, it is quite wrong to consider coins with the names of quinquennales as peculiarly characteristic of Carthago Nova, as does Heiss, Monnaies Antiques de l'Espagne, p. 274.
On these see above, subsection B.
It was only in the troubled years of the end of the Republic that local lustra had been celebrated irregularly; cf. FITA, pp. 164 and n. 4, 311, 159.
Cf. Hardy, Six Roman Laws, p. 148; FITA, p. 270, n. 14.
See Appendix 1 (Cnossus).
Emporiae and Carthago Nova.
Cf. above, subsections A and B; below, subsection D, and Appendices 2, 4 and 5.
See Appendix 2.
FITA, p. 231.
Ibid., cf. n. 7.
FITA, p. 232.
See Appendix 7.
Cf. Milne, The Development of Roman Coinage, p. 22; Piganiol, RA, XXII, 1944, p, 124; FITA, 287.
Does the fact that a rare ethnic of Carthago Nova follows in imply a similar restriction of local authority? Cf. Appendix 7.
FITA, p. 284.
Head, p. 706.
The princeps exercised this auctoritas by virtue of a ius senatus consulendi (cf. the ius primae relationis) considered as forming part of his tribunicia potestas.
FITA, pp. 446 ff. This theory has been favourably received by Mattingly, NC, 1946, p. 132; Bellinger, AJA, 1947, p. 339; Sutherland, JRS, 1947, p. 211, and CR, 1947, p. 115; Vallejo, Emerita , 1946, p. 407.
Cf. FITA, p. 289.
FITA, pp. 323 f., 427.
Cf. a senatusconsultum apparently authorising an Augustan refoundation (Apamea) preceding coinage, FITA, pp. 292 f. Cf. p. 255.
FITA, pp. 295, 321.
FITA, p. 260. Was there a change in a.d. 13 (ibid., p. 453)?
E.g. at Emerita, Romula, Italica: Vives, IV, p. 64, no. 39, p. 124, no. 2, p. 127, no. 12. In Africa the governor's permission is still recorded, cf. below, Chapter II, section ii.
ILS, 6286 (Q. Decius Saturninus) (Aquinum).
ILS, 942 (C. Pontius Paelignus) (Brixia); Mommsen, St. R., III3, p. 674, n. 1.
ILS, 5926; cf. Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten, p. 263 and n. 3; von Premerstein, p. 211; Charlesworth, CAH, X, pp. 614 f. See also below, p. 46.
Hammond, p. 296, n. 23; Scramuzza, EC, p. 270, n. 57; Kornemann, Gnomon, 1938, p. 561.
Tac., Ann., IV, 6, cf. Marsh, p. 105.
Marsh, p. 220.
FITA, p. 447 (but the acceptance there of Sutherland's view of the Clementia type expressed in JRS, 1938, pp. 131 f., is withdrawn in RAI, Chapter III, section ii): Sutherland, JRS, 1947, pp. 211 f., describes this as "now generally admitted," against his earlier view in JRS, 1938, loc. cit. See also below, p. 123.
Cf. FITA, p. 448.
Romula, Italica: Vives, IV, p. 124, nos. 2 f., p. 127, no. 9.


In general our conclusions hitherto have suggested that the practice of Tiberius was based on that of the last years of Augustus. However, various other numismatic phenomena, and in particular certain restrictions of coinage, are sometimes attributed to Tiberius rather than to Augustus. In this subsection a number of these attributions will be discussed and, it may be said in anticipation, contested; for the present writer feels that they, too, have ascribed to Tiberius what should rightly be assigned to the latter part of the principate of Augustus.

The first question to be considered is the relative quantity of colonial mints operating under the two principes. Prima facie it would seem that Roman colonies coined less freely under Tiberius than under Augustus. For there are a number of colonies at which we find, in the principate of Tiberius, no repetitions of Augustan mintages.127 The apparent discrepancy between the two reigns is more noticeable outside Spain than inside it; but even in Spain examples occur.128 However, for two reasons, with which we are now familiar, this apparent contrast must be regarded with suspicion. First, a number of the Augustan issues had been prompted by the foundations of the colonies in question, events which took place once and for all and did not recur under Tiberius. Secondly—as in so much else129—the contrast disappears if, as regards Augustus, we limit our attention to the last period of his principate. From this angle, though it is impossible to attain any degree of certainty, it no longer seems as though any limitation of colonial minting-rights dates from Tiberius. For we cannot with any probability attribute to the years 2 b.c.-a.d. 14 the coinages of more than nine non-Spanish colonies.130 These mints differ somewhat from our Tiberian list; but, far from outnumbering it, they actually fall short of it in length.

The same sort of conclusion emerges from consideration of the Spanish issues. In this field, as far as can be seen in the present state of our knowledge, the number of mints of Tiberius at coloniae civium Romanorum amounts to at least eight.131 This total considerably exceeds that of the last sixteen years of the reign of Augustus, in which there can have been scarcely more than four such mints in action.132 Several Latin cities, too, coined in Spain under Tiberius,133 whereas none of the issues of the same towns can be attributed to the last sixteen years of Augustus.134

A consideration, on similar lines, of the municipal issues likewise fails to bear witness to a Tiberian policy of greater restriction (or of an increased rate of assimilation of colonies and municipia),135 In short, it would be rash to say that the principate of Tiberius, taken as a whole, shows greater restrictions in the use of the mints of Roman cities than the later years of Augustus. The number of colonial mints in action in the later of the two periods was certainly not smaller, and may have been larger, than it was in the preceding decade or two.

The theory of Tiberian restrictions might, however, still be upheld if it could be demonstrated that, even if the number of colonial mints striking in his principate as a whole did not decrease, the incidence of their new issues diminished, not indeed in a.d. 14, but at a later stage or stages during the reign.136 But the evidence does not tend in this direction either. First, it is very doubtful whether the suppression of the Paestan coinage should be attributed to Tiberius.137 Certain of these issues (nos. 8 f.—Plate I, 12-14—perhaps also no. 3) appear to have been issued very late in the reign,138 and their allusion to Ti. Gemellus may indicate that Caligula, rather than Tiberius, was the suppressor. Of the same late Tiberian date are pieces showing the young Caligula at Carthago Nova (Plate VI, 3), his praefectus 139 at Caesaraugusta, and on other pieces of the same mint the date a.d. 31-32;140 to which may be compared, at municipia, a coin of Bilbilis dated to a.d. 31, and the uninterrupted coinage of Emporiae.141

These considerations make it necessary to oppose a number of statements of Mattingly regarding Tiberian local coinages. In the first place, the issues of Carthago Nova and Emporiae to which reference has been made are ignored by his words: "In the latter part of his [Tiberius'] reign and under Caligula, coinage in Spain was limited to Italica, Acci, Bilbilis, Caesaraugusta, Ercavica, Segobriga—in Africa to Carthage, Utica and Hippo Diarrhytus."142 Indeed, the inclusion in the latter list of Hippo Diarrhytus, of which no coinage (under Tiberius) seems to be later than the mid-twenties, suggests that Mattingly's statement was intended to cover not only the thirties but the latter part of the twenties as well; in which case its incompleteness is probably much greater.143 Moreover, since he wrote, an issue of rnunicipium Tingis has come to light,144 which, if not late Tiberian, is Caligulan;145 and a coin of Hippo Diarrhytus 146 which, like issues of another even longer-lived colonial mint Babba,147 was issued under Claudius.148

For these reasons exception must also be taken to a second assertion by Mattingly: "The one important innovation of his reign—the severe restriction of local coinage in the West—was probably forced on him by the nationalist movements under Sacrovir in Gaul and Tacfarinas in Africa."149 At least as far as the Roman and Latin cities are concerned (and there is no evidence whatever on which to base any such assertion as regards other categories of city150), there was nothing approaching a "severe restriction of local coinage in the West" at or from the time of these revolts. There is no sign of a diminution of local coinages anywhere in the West from a.d. 21 or 24. Indeed, even if we take the actual province affected by the rebellion of Tacfarinas, Africa, we find that its most extensive series, that of municipium Utica, did not even start to issue its main coinages (Plate VIII, 8-9; cf. below, Appendix 2) until after the rebel's death. As regards Sacrovir's country, Gaul, there had been no genuine colonial issues in that country for a good many years before his revolt,151 so it is not significant that there were equally none just after it.

But Mattingly explicitly wishes to extend the connection to Spain also: "Africa and Spain had in no way participated in the revolt (sc. of Sacrovir), but they shared in its results to this extent [n., the war with Tacfarinas may have helped to influence Tiberius], that Tiberius after the early years of his reign more and more discouraged local town issues in those two provinces."152 As has been stated, the conclusion is unacceptable: both African and Spanish coinages persisted undiminished by these revolts. But even had they not done so, the argument that local coinage in Africa and Spain should have diminished or ceased as a direct result of revolts in Gallia Comata seems, in default of positive evidence, to be an unduly hazardous one. This theory of Mattingly's is linked to another—namely that the same occasion was responsible for the suppression of the "Altar" coinage at Lugdunum;153 but this view too seems to the present writer, for reasons discussed in an Appendix, to be baseless.154

In conclusion, then, it is impracticable to identify either any cessation of "Altar" coinage, or any diminution of Western local mints, with the revolts of Sacrovir or Tacfarinas; and it must rather be concluded, whether we take the principate of Tiberius as a whole or concentrate on any particular section of it, that the number of colonial and municipal mints coining was not smaller than in the last sixteen years of Augustus.

We reach a somewhat similar conclusion if we look, not at the number of mints, but at the extent of their output, that is to say, at the extent to which these coinages contributed to the bulk of the imperial small change. A prima facie comparison between Augustus and Tiberius is again deceptive. For, outside Spain, we find no colony issuing a large mass of coinage under Tiberius. Only Paestum (Plate I,1-14), Carthage (?) (Plate II, 1-2), Pella PLATE IV, 6-11) and Corinth (Plate V, 4-9) apparently issued a moderate quantity; whereas under Augustus not only had these cities done likewise,155 but also Buthrotum, Parium, Berytus and Sinope had contributed more or less considerably to the bulk of the empire's aes coinage.156 But if (as on the preceding pages) we adopt the more logical proceeding of restricting our comparison, as far as the principate of Augustus is concerned, to its last sixteen years, we find a very different story. For by then the colonial mints of Buthrotum, Parium, and indeed Pella as well, had ceased to issue, and did not do so again during the reign;157 whereas Sinope only continued to issue a few pieces that are very nearly as rare as the Tiberian example.158 It is true that Berytus issued a fair amount of coinage shortly before the death of Augustus;159 but in this respect it merely cancels out with Pella, which, by way of contrast, seems to have issued a fair bulk of coinage under Tiberius but none (as far as is known) during the last sixteen years of Augustus.

In general, then, outside Spain at least, the colonies contributed to the imperial monetary system under Tiberius no less than in the last years of Augustus;160 while one African municipium, Utica, seems to have started quite an extensive coinage after the death of Augustus.161 Spain reveals a similar situation. It is true that Carthago Nova may provide a smaller volume of coinage after the accession of Tiberius than it had shortly before it; but as against this the issues of Caesaraugusta (Plate VI, 1-2), Tarraco (Plate VII, 1-3), Romula (Plate VII, 5-7) and Emerita 162 (Plate VI, 9, and VII, 8) are actually more prolific under Tiberius than in the last years of his predecessor.163 In Spain, then, as outside Spain, the colonies' contribution in bulk to the imperial monetary system, viewed as a whole, seems as extensive in the reign of Tiberius as in the years immediately preceding his accession; and here again our evidence suggests the abandonment of theories attributing severe restrictions to the coinage of Roman cities during the first decade of his principate.

Thus our conclusion in regard to the bulk of colonial coinage, and the number of colonial mints, under Tiberius closely resembles the conclusions previously reached in connection with the types, signatories, formulas, metrology, and occasions of these issues. In every case apparent contrasts between the principates of Augustus and Tiberius have vanished when consideration of the former's reign is limited to his last sixteen years. To the practice of those years, in which he played so great a part himself,164 Tiberius remained faithful; and this conclusion accords exactly with the strong literary tradition of his reliance on Augustan precedents.165

End Notes
Chapter II, section iv, subsection B.
Outside Spain (FITA, pp. 205 ff.): Narbonese colony ("Arausio"??), Babba, Cirta(??). Simitthu(??), Tyndaris, Lystra, Apamea, Patrae, Buthrotum, Philippi, Berytus(?).
E.g. Corduba Patricia (FITA, p. 220); Traducta (ibid., pp. 175, 221; on the colony see Abaecherli Boyce, NNM, 109, 1947, pp. 16 ff.).
Cf. last three subsections, and Appendices 2, 4 and 5.
Carthage, Cirta(?), Lystra, Sinope, Berytus, Cnossus, Patrae, Corinth, Buthrotum. See FITA, ss. vv.
Acci, Caesaraugusta, Carthago Nova, Celsa, Ilici, Tarraco, Romula, Emerita.
Caesaraugusta, Carthago Nova, Tarraco, Emerita.
Cascantum, Osicerda, Graccurris, Ercavica.
FITA, pp. 335 ff. Here again the coinages may have been due to constitutiones (in this case Tiberian).
See Appendix 2.
This deduction could be drawn from Frank, ESAR, V, p. 39, n. 9, who describes the confiscations of the mines of Sex. Marius as having been "for the sake of controlling the coinage."
The acceptance of this view in FITA, p. 289, must be queried.
Nos. 1 ff. seem early in the reign, no. 4 of the early or middle period, and nos. 6 ff. late.
Vives, IV, p. 82, nos. 54 f.
Vives, IV, p. 81, nos. 44 f.
See Appendix 2.
BMC. Imp., I, p. xxiii.
Iconographical considerations suggest a late, or fairly late, date for coins of Ilici (Vives, IV, p. 41, no. 6), municipia Osca (Vives, IV, p. 51, nos. 12, 15, 18) and Calagurris, and coloniae Latinae Graccurris (Hill, NNM, 50, 1931, p. 181) and Cascantum (ibid., p. 168). It cannot be stated with any certainty that some coins of Tarraco and Emerita also are not of late Tiberian date.
Abaecherli Boyce, NNM, 109, 1947, pp. 21 ff., and Plate III, 8, 9.
Cf. Appendix 2.
Lederer, NC, 1943, pp. 92 ff.
Cf. Charrier, Description des Monnaies de la Numidie et de la Maurétanie, p. 150; BMC. Imp., p. xix, n. 2; FITA, pp. 222 f. For the Mauretanian coinage see now P. Quintero Atauri, Mauritania, XIV, 163, 1941, p. 167; AEA, 46, 1942, p. 63, Algo sobre Numismatica Mauritana (1945).
This, however exceptional its character and occasion, has made it necessary to avoid ascribing the final suppression of the coinage of this province to Tiberius, as Mattingly, RC, p. 195; BMC. Imp., I, p. XIX. For a possible coin of Claudius at Carthage, in honour of Antonia, see below, p. 83 and n. 325.
RC, p. 112, cf. pp. 194 f., Hammond, pp. 70 f.
We cannot tell at what point of the early principate the peregrine coinages in the west ended. But in Spain Abdera, Carteia, Ebusus and Clunia (on the earlier issues of which see now Monteverde, AEA, 1942, pp. 159 ff.) were still coining under Tiberius, and possibly the last-named city—though this is doubtful, cf. Sutherland, RIS, p. 245—even coined under Claudius (Vives, IV, p. 14, Mattingly, BMC. Imp., p. xxiii, n. 7). Ritterling's assumption that it was Tiberius who suppressed the peregrine coinage of Gaul (Annalen des Vereins für Nassauische Altertumskunde, XXXIV, pp. 38 f.) is a guess. In FITA, p. 474, it is conjectured that the "autonomous" African coinage continued "until late in the principate of Augustus."
The present writer does not consider the coinage of Nemausus to be "genuine colonial"; but even at that mint (though it coined under the later Julio-Claudians) there is no reliable evidence of Tiberian issues; see Appendix 1. For the colonial coinage of Gaul under Augustus, see FITA, pp. 206 ff.
BMC. Imp., I, p. xviii.
BMC. Imp., I, p. xviii; RC, p. 195.
See Appendix 8.
Carthage (FITA, p. 231) should perhaps have been added to the list of Augustan colonies with a fair output (ibid., p. 296)—at least as regards the last years of the reign. At the latter period its output was about the same as under Tiberius.
FITA, p. 296.
Ibid., p. 253, n. 3.
Ibid., p. 260. For Tiberius, see Appendix 1, no. 8.
In Africa the Tiberian issues of Hippo Diarrhytus and Thapsus, fairly varied but now very rare, correspond approximately with those of the former city and Hadrumetum under Augustus (FITA, p. 296).
FITA, p. 182, n. 1. Cf. below, Appendix 2.
For this mint see now Farrés, AEA, 1946, pp. 209 ff.
However, a few coins of Romula (Vives, IV, p. 124, 2: Plate VII, 5-6) and municipium Italica (Vives, IV, p. 127, 9: Plate VII, 4) inscribe their issues of the new principate, not PERM·AVG· or PERM·TI· CAES· AVG·, but PER[M]· DIVI AVG·—presumably without yet having received the permission of Augustus, but relying on the belief that measures ex auctoritate principis survived the death of their initiator; cf. Orestano, BIDR, 1937, p. 330, and last subsection.
On this aspect (of a period somewhat neglected, except as regards warfare, by CAH, X), see especially J. Schwartz, RPh, 1945, pp. 22 f.; Kornemann, DR, pp. 26 if.; GFA, pp. 199 ff.; GR, pp. 157 ff.
Strabo, VI, 288; Tac., Agr., 13, Ann., I, 72, 77, II, 87, IV, 37; cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X, pp. 612 f.



(i) The names and titles of Tiberius

On this as on other coinage of Tiberius, an overwhelming degree of preference is given to names and titles of which the link is not with imperium, or for the most part with any formal potestas, but with that range of conceptions lying outside the scope of such formal powers and conveniently comprised within the term auctoritas.1 In this category are the three most characteristic and frequent titulatures of Tiberius as princeps, all exemplified by our non-Spanish colonial issues:

  • (a) TI·CAESAR AVGVSTVS (nos. 14[?], 17, 48, 50: Plate I, 21[?], II, 3, V, 10 and 13).
  • (b) TI·CAESAR DIVI AVG·F· AVGVSTVS (nos. 18-20, 33: Plate II, 4, 5, 7, IV, 5).
  • (c) TI·CAES[AR] (no. 41: Plate V, 1).

The completest version (b) may be compared and contrasted with the latest official coin-title of his predecessor, CAESAR AVGVSTVS DIVI F· PATER PATRIAE.2 Let us consider the gentile, praenominal and cognominal positions in turn. In the Augustan titulature, "Augustus" is in the middle (gentile) position, just as coloniae luliae had been replaced by coloniae Augustae.3 Under Tiberius, "Augustus" usually4 moves from the gentile to the cognominal, and less conspicuous, position.5 This suggests that the appellation "Augustus" is less closely associated with Tiberius than with the first princeps. The same impression is created by version (c), which is paralleled on numerous inscriptions.6 Augustus had sometimes been called "Caesar" tout simple, throughout his life,7 and had also placed the name in the "gentile" position.8 But the latter practice was infrequent after his early days,9 whereas Tiberius followed it throughout his principate, in which plain "Ti. Caesar" was one of his commonest titulatures.10 This use of "Caesar" where his predecessor had used "Augustus" recalls that, in the reign of Tiberius, there likewise existed a tendency to avoid calling the imperial family Gens Augusta.11 For Tiberius, lacking somewhat the auctoritas of his predecessor, did not apparently feel able or willing to lay so much emphasis on the Augustan name. This may be the basis of the well-known assertions by the literary authorities that he refused the name altogether.12 That, however, was not the case;13 but he must have been conscious of the difficulty of competing with the illustrious dead. The use of "Caesar" instead of "Augustus" in the prominent gentile position does not particularly imply a link with Divus Julius, who plays no part in the coinage or publicity of Tiberius 14 and whose gentile name (though still used for the gens 15) does not figure in the latter's official titulatures.16 The name "Caesar" rather illustrates the desire for a principal name which, while stressing his inheritance,17 avoids the overwhelmingly close association with the first emperor possessed by the appellative "Augustus." Thus Tiberius was the "Caesar"; and his family could come to be known as the "Caesares"; we hear, in the provinces, of a pontifex Caesarum.18 Even under his predecessor, colonies had been called Caesarea 19 and perhaps Caesarina.20

But Augustus had, in his own last titulature, moved "Caesar" from the gentile position to that of praenomen (CAESAR AVGVSTVS DIVI F·PATER PATRIAE). Tiberius' treatment of the praenominal position can be considered and dismissed very briefly. For he evidently felt that any experiments with praenomina could be regarded by conservatives as too reminiscent of the revolutionary years, of which such usages had been a characteristic feature;21 and so he preferred to keep his own praenomen. In this respect, as in the relegation of "Augustus" from the gentile position, he deviated from the final practice of his predecessor.

For similar reasons he again deviated in regard to the cognominal position. The absence of PATER PATRIAE from his entire official coinage leaves us in no doubt that, as the literary tradition records,22 he refused this title or rather cognomen.23 Even apart from its close personal association with Augustus as his climactic designation24 it would, for his modest successor, have been rather an uncomfortable appellation: since, though primarily and initially honorary (i.e. an expression of auctoritas 25), it carried an autocratic suggestion26 owing to its implication, later stressed by Seneca,27 of patria potestas.28 The refusal, however, of this ambiguous cognomen by Tiberius was imperfectly appreciated by the cities of the empire, for it is none the less attributed to him by the coinage of Carthage (nos. 15 and 16: Plate II, 1 and 2), as well as by certain non-Roman inscriptions.29 Comparable, except that the community is a peregrine one, is the erroneous description of Livia by Lepcis Magna as MATER PATRIAE (Plate VIII, 6), a title which Tiberius is stated to have refused on her behalf.30 Outside Rome, little attempt was evidently made to fall in with the official moderatio of Tiberius.

This moderation, as is now clear, led him to prefer in each of the three parts of his name—nomen, praenomen, and cognomen—appellations less prominent than those which Augustus had finally used in those positions. Moreover, Augustus' cognomen at least had carried a still unofficial undertone of patria potestas, whereas, of the three regular names of Tiberius, one (his praenomen) was his own, and the others were firmly within the sphere of auctoritas. For Tiberius could have said, no less conscientiously than his predecessor, praestiti omnibus auctoritate, potestatis autem nihil amplius habui quant ceteri qui mihi quoque in magistratu conlegae fuerunt.31 In the titulatures of Tiberius there is an overwhelming prominence of appellations belonging to the former of these categories.

But his colonial coinages also bear witness to his permanent tenure of two offices comprising potestas: and their choice is significant, for, while neither has the autocratic taint of imperium,32 one is priestly and the other popular and collaborative—the high-priesthood and the tribunician power. To the former of these offices our non-Spanish issues, unlike their Spanish counterparts,33 an official issue,34 and a large proportion of epigraphic titulatures,35 do not refer explicitly; but Hippo Diarrhytus refers to it symbolically by the inclusion of simpulum and lituus on either side of the portrait of Tiberius (no. 20: Plate II, 7). There is a strong priestly trend apparent in many of his issues, and notably in the frequent and most characteristic representations of Livia.36 It has been considered not impossible that the principate of Tiberius witnessed an enhancement of the imperial high-priesthood.37 At all events that office did not decline under Tiberius from the striking importance which it had attained under Augustus,38 who may, it is suggested elsewhere, have linked it with the imperial auspices.39

This priestly office, then, was one of the two permanent potestates of Tiberius recorded in his coin-titulatures; and the other was the tribunician power. This does not figure on our non-Spanish issues, and we have to look to Spain for the inclusion in the titulatures of Tiberius and Drusus junior, at Tarraco, of TRIB(unicia) POT(estate) (Plate VII, 3);40 and the same phrase is applied to Tiberius, with number, at Caesaraugusta.41 The rarity of this title on the local coinages of Tiberius—for it does not occur at all on his peregrine issues—is in close accordance with the practice of Augustus, under whom the only cities to refer to the tribunician power on their coinage were the colonies Tarraco and Pisidia Antioch.42 These were both provincial centres of importance, and so was Caesaraugusta, the chief colonial mint of Tiberius.43 By their employment of this imperial title, these cities were imitating a very common usage, not indeed of the gold and silver coinage, but of the official aes;44 the latter, like many inscriptions,45 resemble the Tiberian issue of Caesaraugusta, rather than that of Tarraco, by adding a tribunician date. The tribunicia potestas was ostensibly a popular power comprising the ius auxilii, but its real meaning lay in the fact that, by it, the princeps was enabled to introduce motions in the senate.46 But the references to the power on these Spanish coinages do not entitle us to conclude that the senate figured as an intermediary in their authorisation; the process may have been purely imitative. On the other hand, it would be equally imprudent to deduce from the absence of the tribunician formula from our non-Spanish issues, and from its rarity even in Spain, that the senate did not figure as an intermediary as regards this type of issue;47 for the cities, especially those too remote or backward to be conscious of Roman procedure, might well have been preoccupied with the fact of the authorisation (PERM·AVG·, PERM DIVIAVG·, PERM ... PROCOS·) rather than with the medium through which it was promulgated.

These then are the only two permanent potestates to which the coin-titulatures of Tiberius bear witness; and neither of them includes imperium. In the revolutionary years before 27 b.c. the symbol of the rulers' imperium had been the praenomen Imperatoris.48 But thenceforward, by way of contrast, that title had ceased to represent the imperium and had almost entirely disappeared from the official coinage.49 It had momentarily reappeared on imperial aes near the end of Augustus' life (a.d. 11-12):50 but its reappearance had apparently been due, not to any connection with his current imperium or to any other constitutional reason, but to the past glories of the princeps—the Victoria Augusti, recalled to memory on the half-centenary of his first ovation.51 Possibly too there was a desire to distinguish him from his vicegerent Tiberius.52 The latter, on becoming princeps, evidently refused the title,53 which is only ascribed to him on a single irregular coin-titulature at Calagurris 54 and on unofficial inscriptions,55 many (though by no means all56) of the first part of his reign.57 These retain his personal praenomen also, so that Imperator, even on these unofficial issues, figures as a prefix rather than a true praenomen.58

Thapsus, however, attributes to Tiberius the cognomen Imperatoris, followed by a number in the traditional manner (nos. 21-31: Plate II, 9, III, 1-7, IV, 1-3). Carthage, on the other hand (Plate II, 1, 2) describes him by the cognomen Imperatoris without number: as is suggested by the equally inaccurate addition of the title pater patriae, this too is an unofficial and irregular usage. So also are similar examples on coins of Emerita,59 Caesaraugusta 60 and Tarraco,61 and on inscriptions.62 On his official issues—as at Thapsus (nos. 21 ff. : Plate II, 9, III, 1-5, 7, IV, 1) and Antioch in Pisidia (no. 52: Plate V, 15)—Tiberius never used his cognomen without salutation number.63 The unnumbered usage had been a feature of official titulatures in the early thirties b.c.,64 and was not to return to them until Caligula (exceptionally65) and Claudius (regularly66). It provided a means of describing emperors who, while not wishing to lay claim to the praenomen so closely associated with Augustus, were nevertheless, or wanted to be, the leading Imperatores of their time.

The titulature of our coins thus illustrates the recognition of Tiberius as the man with the greatest military record of anyone living.67 It would not, however, be justifiable to deduce from this any conclusions regarding his imperium: for, even on official titulatures of the Augustan period, the Imperator title had lacked any such significance. Praenomen and cognomen alike were purely honorific, and indeed the application of either to Tiberius was contrary to his cautious official policy. A positive record of that policy happens to exist, and it shows that Tiberius, in avoiding such honorary usages, desired the Imperator title to be restricted to purely military matters: α image τοκράτωρ (imperator) δ image των στρατιωτ image ν, τ image ν δ image δὴ λουττ image ν πρόκριτός (princeps) image μι.68 But centralisation was not so far advanced69 that he could or would prevent communities outside Rome from deviations; and instances such as our Carthaginian coinage with the unnumbered cognomen represent unofficial moves to attribute to him the glory which he officially discounted. Such examples abundantly justify the view that, no less and perhaps more than in the principate of Augustus, Imperator had become an expression not of imperium but of auctoritas.70

The same is true of the only group of non-Spanish colonial references to a magistracy with imperium, namely the consulship. For when Thapsus records a consulate of Tiberius, it alludes to the same fourth consulate under no less than three proconsuls (nos. 24 f., 27, 29 f.: Plate III, 3, 5, 7, IV, 1-2).71 He held that consulate in a.d. 21, a date in advance of at least one of the governorships in questions72—the coins of which thus record, not the imperium of a current tenure, but the auctoritas of a past tenure, of the office which excelled all others in both properties.73 From a desire to maintain its high auctoritas, Tiberius, like Augustus,74 paid the consulship marked attention and respect;75 and from a desire—again like Augustus—not to monopolize high imperium, he himself used it sparingly.76

For, as these titulatures have abundantly shown, imperium (like the title Imperator) was not intended to play a prominent part in the official presentation of the régime of Tiberius. This was one of the latter's negative aspects, and negative too was his aversion to each of the final names of his predecessor—the abnormal praenomina, "Augustus" in the gentile position, and the cognomen of pater patriae. Faithful as Tiberius was to every example left by Augustus, he was nevertheless unwilling to model himself so closely on him as to suggest comparison or rivalry: and in such respects, at least, he may be said to have looked to the Republic.77 Indeed, overwhelmed by the magnitude of his predecessor, at first he was reluctant to face the statio principis at all, at least as a permanent commitment.78 For he was grimly aware that the princeps was called upon to be more than other men were: mains aliquid et excehius a principe postulatur.79 It remains to be seen what positive means of fulfilling this rôle were available to Tiberius—that is to say, what means his exemplar Augustus had provided for him. And means there were, even to a man who shied at the titulature of Augustus; for Augustus had left more than names and titles.

End Notes

This is here interpreted as not comprising any legalised power or magistracy or source of law; cf. FITA, p. 426 (nn. 8, 9 for some references). The supposition of Magdelain, p. 90, that such a development occurred in a.d. 13 seems to be based on a mistranslation of Dio 56. 28. For lists of references to auctoritas in general see FITA, p. 443 f.; Geijeiro, Anuario de Historia del Derecho Español, XIII, 1941, pp. 409 ff.
BMC. Imp., I, pp. 87 ff., 94, 97; cf. ILS, 104, Hammond, p. 247, n. 1. But cf. p. 47.
Cf. FITA, pp. 257, 293, n. 1, and below, Chapter III, section i.
TI· AVGVSTVS, however, is occasionally found, e.g. on official coinage of Parium(?) with "colonist" type (FITA, PLATE IV, 31, cf. p. 111, n. 10), and in Fasti Antiates (CIL, I2, p. 284). In longer titulatures "Augustus" only appears in the gentile position in exceptional and irregular cases, e.g. Caesaraugusta (Hill, NNM, 50, 1931, p. 93, no. 21).
For parallels on the official coinage see BMC. Imp., I, pp. 120 ff.; cf. ILS, 164.
E.g. ILS, 154, 6285; cf. Gardthausen, RE, X, 1, 478; cf. also coins of Emerita, Vives, IV, p. 67, no. 66; and Largus (Helmreich, 97, 120, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 143). Prof. R. Syme has reminded me of the tendency to "binominalism."
Cf. FITA, pp. 109 f. (examples p. 109, n. 2; these seem to outweigh the doubts of Mattingly, NC, 1946, p. 131).
Cf. Ehrenberg, p. 203.
A revival of this usage on a late Augustan aes coinage is due to special commemorative circumstances, cf. below, this subsection, and RAI, Chapter II, section ii.
For some of the references see ILS, III, 1, p. 262.
See below, Chapter III, section i.
Suet., Tib., 26.2, Dio 57.2.1 (qualified 57.8.1).
See Hammond, p. 268, n. 22; von Premerstein, p. 174, n. 2; Scott, CP, 1932, pp. 43 f.; and (erroneously), Baker, Tiberius Caesar , p. 166; Haywood, ESAR, IV, p. 34, etc.
Cf. Gagé, RA, XXXIV, 1931, pp. 23, 36; Pippidi, RCI, p. 132, n. 1.
See below, Chapter III, section i.
It only appears on erroneously composed non-Roman inscriptions, e.g. ILS, 161, 244; CIG, 2657; cf. Gardthausen, RE, X, 1, 478. Even divi Iuli f. (of Augustus under Tiberius) is only used on ILS, 115, to achieve symmetry with the Divi Angusti f. of Tiberius.
For the replacement of the ordinary nomen stresses the special position of the imperial gens, cf. Ehrenberg, p. 203. Cf. for Agrippa, Sen. Controv., II, 4, 13, Syme, JRS, 1948, pp. 124 f.
CIL, II, 2038 (Anticaria); cf. Sutherland, RIS, p. 159, JRS, 1934, p. 35.
FITA, p. 250 (Antioch in Pisidia); but not Sinope, ibid., p. 253.
Henderson, JRS, 1942, p. 13 (Asido).
FITA, pp. 408, 414 ff. For the early principate see Fraenkel, RE, XVI, 2, 1663.
Tac., Ann., I, 72, II, 87 (parens), Dio 58, 12, 8, cf. 57, 8, 1; Suet., Tib., 26; cf. von Premerstein, p. 174; Rogers, pp. 63 f., 67 f.
Weber, p. 264, n. 692.
Compos factus votorum meorum, Suet., Aug., 58.
Cf. Mommsen, St. R., II3, p. 780; FITA, p. 444 (n. 6 references).
It was revived by Caligula and began to have a special significance as pater exercitus; cf. Kornemann, Gnomon, 1938, p. 555.
De Clem., I, 14, 2; cf. von Premerstein, p. 174 and n. 5.
Schönbauer, SB Wien, 224, 2, 1946, pp. 38, 44, 104, compares it from the beginning to the consensus universorum of 29 b.c., which he regards as a Rechtsquelle.
E.g. CIL, V, 6416, XI, 3085; IGRR, I, 853; cf. Smith, p. 23, n. 46. An as with PATER PATRIAE quoted by Cohen is doubted by RIC, p. 104, n. 3.
See below, Chapter III, section iv, subsection C, n. 269.
RG, 6: for recent discussions of this phrase, see Magdelain, pp. 67 ff., and the present writer in Greece and Rome , 1949, p. 104.
For the lack of imperium by the pontifex maximus cf. Rosenberg, RE, IX, 1207, Brecht, Sav. Z., 1939, pp. 291 f., against Mommsen, St. R., II3, p. 20 and n. 2.
E.g. Emerita (Vives, IV, p. 66, no. 65); Tarraco (ibid., p. 132, nos. 19 f.); Carthago Nova (Plate VI, 3); Ilici (Plate VI, 6); also municipium Osca (Vives, IV, p. 52, no. 18), and the peregrine town Segobriga (ibid., p. 48, no. 5).
BMC. Imp., I, p. 144 (Caesarea in Cappadocia).
ILS, III, 1, p. 262.
See below, Chapter III, section iv, subsection B.
Cf. Balsdon, p. 147.
The latter is especially emphasized by Homo, Mélanges G. Glotz , p. 443; Kornemann, QAS, IV, 1938, p. 11.
See below, Appendix 11.
Vives, IV, p. 132, no. 20.
Ibid., p. 80, nos. 44 ff.; cf. Hill, NNM, 50, 1931, p. 94.
FITA, p. 446, cf. pp. 219, 251.
Cf. above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection D.
FITA, p. 446 and n. 2, cf. pp. 99 f., 106, 119, 135, 139, 145.
References in Smith, p. 18, n. 28.
Also the Assembly: Grant, Greece and Rome , 1949, pp. 108 ff.
A statement in FITA, p. 446, might be thus interpreted as intending such a deduction. See above, p. 31.
FITA, pp. 408 ff.
FITA, pp. 440 if.
BMC. Imp., I, p. 50, no. 275.
RAI, Chapter II, section ii.
FITA, p. 440.
Ibid., pp. 415, n. 9, 440, 441, n. 1; von Premerstein, pp. 174, n. 2, 255; Charles-worth, CAH, X, p. 617, n. 2.
Hill, NNM, 50, 1931, p. 170 (IMP·CAESAR TI·AVGVS·DIVI AVGVSTI F·).
E.g. ILS, 151, 152, etc.; cf. Smith, p. 23, n. 46 (references); Gardthausen, RE, X, 1, 524; Abaecherli, TAPA, 1932, p. 267; von Premerstein, p. 256, n. 2. These were due to "carelessness or ignorance," cf. Cagnat, Cours d'Epigraphie 4, p. 181, n. 1.
E.g. Archäologisch-epigraphische Mitteilungen, VIII, p. 110; RA, 1914, p. 488, no. 172; cf. Dessau ap. ILS, 151; Abaecherli, loc. cit.
Mommsen, St. R., II3, p. 769, n. 2; Dessau, loc. cit.
For the distinction cf. FITA, pp. 409, 415.
Vives, IV, pp. 66 f.
Vives, IV, p. 84, no. 64.
Vives, IV, p. 132, no. 19.
E.g. ILS, 155, 161, 2280, 2281, 5829, etc.
BMC. Imp., I, pp. 120 ff., 128 ff.; cf. ILS, 113, 152, 156, 160, 164, etc.
FITA, pp. 414 f.
BMC. Imp., I, p. 161, no. 102 (Caesarea in Cappadocia).
Ibid., pp. 181 ff.
Cf. the equally irregular Imp. Perpet. of Gaulus, ILS, 121; Hammond, p. 218, n. 42; Charlesworth, CAH, X, p. 612, n. 3; Guey, Journal des Savants, 1938, p. 74; Momigliano, JRS, 1944, p. 114.
Dio 57.8, FITA, p. 441.
Cf. Chapter I, section ii, subsection C.
Cf. de Visscher, Les Édits d'Auguste découverts à Cyrene , p. 124; Schönbauer, SB Wien, 224.2, 1946, p. 73; FITA, p. 444 and n. 7, cf. pp. 434 ff. Cf. above, p. 47.
The combination of consular title with numbered cognomen Imperatoris is rare under Tiberius, but cf. BMC. Imp., I, p. 144, no. 174. Equally rare at this time is the precedence of the salutation title, though this was fairly common under Augustus and recurs on the tombstone of Tiberius (ILS, 164; cf. Hammond, p. 248, n. 1).
P. Cornelius Dolabella, a.d. 23-24, cf. de Laet, p. 43, no. 129.
Cf. FITA, p. 426, and n. 2.
Cf. the Ara Pacis reliefs, on which he stands between the consuls, de Francisci, Augustus , p. 98, n. 5.
Suet., Tib., 31, 2, Dio 57, 11; cf. Hohl, Hermes, 1933, p. 111. Rogers, p. 78; Groag, Wiener Studien, 1929, p. 144; Smith, p. 85, n. 26.
Three times; cf. Balsdon, p. 147, Hammond, p. 86. For the unfortunate character of his consulates see Thiel, Mnemosyne, 1935/6, p. 201. He was offered the consulship for himself and Sejanus for five years: Dio 58, 4.

(ii) Tiberius and the Proconsuls of Africa


Two African colonies and perhaps one Sicilian one provide allusions to contemporary proconsuls. The Sicilian colony is Panormus (no. 10: Plate I, 15). This shows the name of P. Silva (or Silvanus) PR., who was, according to a tentative interpretation, a Tiberian proconsul of Sicily, appearing in the capacity of colonial adsignator in which Augustan governors, too, had figured on the coinage of Sicilian cities.80 Here, however, attention will rather be devoted to the coins of the African colonies. One of these cities is Hippo Diarrhytus, which displays the portrait and inscription of L. Apronius (a.d. 18-21)81 (no. 20: Plate II, 8). The other city is Thapsus, which records the permissus of the same proconsul (nos. 24-26: Plates III, 3-4, 6, and IV, 2)—in a.d. 2182—and subsequently of Q. Junius Blaesus (a.d. 21-2383) (nos. 27, 28: Plate III, 7) and P. Cornelius Dolabella (a.d. 23-2484) (nos. 29-31: Plates III, 5, IV, 1, 3).

This and the following subsection will endeavour to assess the position of these proconsuls of Africa. Subsection B will discuss their relation to the auspices and imperium of Tiberius; but here, first of all, an attempt will be made to demonstrate that they owe their numismatic honours not to any rights or powers but to their friendship with Tiberius, and that it was for certain significant reasons that these honours began when they did.

These issues can only be properly appreciated if they are compared with coinage of the Augustan period; and several important analogies from that period are at hand. For our mintages both of Hippo Diarrhytus and of Thapsus closely imitate precedents from the principate of Augustus. Hippo Diarrhytus had coined with the name and portrait of Africanus Fabius Maximus,85 and so had Hadrumetum, adding P. Quinctilius Varus and L. Volusius Saturninus,86 both of whom were also portrayed at colonia Achulla.87 Likewise Simitthu (??), alone among Augustan cities in this respect, had shewn, not the portrait, but the permissus, of the last-named proconsul,88 like Thapsus under Tiberius.

There are further points of coincidence between these Augustan and Tiberian issues of Africa which suggest that the resemblances are not fortuitous. In the first place, the "portrait" coinages under Augustus, to which reference has been made, were clearly contemporary with the permissus piece, for one proconsul, L. Volusius Saturninus, was common to both: the same applies to the Tiberian issues, for here again a single governor, L. Apronius, appears on both portrait and permissus categories. His permissus coinage was struck in a.d. 21; thus the same may well apply to his portrait issue also. Moreover, it is likely that Volusius and Apronius, the two proconsuls who are common to the portrait and permissus categories, both inaugurated these categories as far as their respective principates are concerned. This is manifestly true of Apronius, and there is some reason to believe that the Augustan issues had commenced in c. 7 b.c., and that the proconsul at the time was Volusius.89

But there may be a further similarity between the African issues of Augustus and Tiberius. The former were exactly, or very nearly, contemporary with the first local coinages of Asia to honour proconsuls since 27 b.c. 90 These Asian issues were of Temnus, Pitane and Hierapolis, and the proconsuls were C. Asinius Gallus, P. Cornelius Scipio, and Paullus Fabius Maximus.91 Our Tiberian mintages of Africa seem likewise to find an almost contemporary parallel in the Asian cities. For, under Tiberius, two of the only three Asian proconsuls who were signalised on Asian coinages (with the difference, in this case, that only their names and not their portraits appear92) were Q. Poppaeus Secundus at Pergamum 93 and possibly Tabae,94 and M. Aemilius Lepidus at Cotiaeum.95 Poppaeus governed in some year between c. 15 and c. 20,96 and Aemilius in c. 21-23.97 Moreover, the third and last Asian proconsul to be recorded on coinage in this way under Tiberius, P. Petronius at Pergamum 98 and Smyrna,99 was not far from contemporary with a fourth and last African proconsul to receive a similar honour, C. Vibius Marsus, whose name appears in the Ablative (or Dative) on issues of municipium Utica (Plate VIII, 8-9).100 For Petronius governed Asia from c. 29/30-c. 34/35,101 and Vibius Marsus was proconsul of Africa from 27 to 30.102 Thus the Tiberian issues honouring proconsuls of Africa seem not unrelated with coinages in the other consular senatorial province, Asia;103 and this provides a further resemblance between the African issues under Tiberius and those under Augustus.

The governors selected by Augustus (or by the cities at a hint from him) for these honours were without exception amici principle, and every one of them was related to him104—a most important factor in amicitia.105 Thus under Augustus, though there is no question of portrait "rights,"106 numismatic portraiture and record (including the record of permissus)107 were considered by African and Asian cities—and probably this view originated from a central authority—as being chiefly, or indeed exclusively, appropriate to such arnici. That is to say, either the princeps indicated to cities that such a limitation was desirable, or, to look at it from a slightly different angle, the only people whom the cities felt impelled to honour to such an extent were those who had obtained this singular distinction.108

Amicitia principis (like its complement inimicitia 109) played a considerable part in the principate of Tiberius. Foremost among his friends was Sejanus, adiutor and socius laborum,110 linked to the domus Augusta by the betrothal of his daughter to the son of Claudius,111 and honoured on the coinage of Bilbilis 112 and by an Ara Amicitiae.113 Again, Tiberius constituted his consilium of his amici,114 and chose his companions at Capri from among them. P. Plautius Pulcher illustrates the tendency by adding to his titles those of comes (a word closely linked with amicus 115) of Drusus, the son of Germanicus, and uncle of another Drusus, the son of Claudius.116 Plautius Pulcher and the rest point the way to the Plantam Iulium amicum et comitem meum 117 and L. Vestinum familiarissime diligo 118 of Claudian proclamations, and to the cohors primae admissionis of Seneca.119 Under Tiberius, however, we are still in a period when the amici, though their political "colour" has been much disputed,120 were most frequently, though not invariably, the great officials and ex-officials.121

The six proconsuls honoured on local coins of Asia and Africa under Augustus had all been amici principis, and, in view of their various resemblances to our Tiberian governors, it will not now cause surprise if it can be shown that the latter, too, were amici of Tiberius. This was, indeed, the case. Every one of the four governors of Africa recorded on Tiberian local coinages was closely connected with Tiberius. P. Cornelius Dolabella, whose description as vir simplicitatis generosissimae by the devoted Tiberian Velleius122 illustrates his favoured status at court, was the grand-nephew of Marcella.123 Q. Junius Blaesus—who received the signal honour of the last salutation granted to a proconsul124—was the uncle of Sejanus,125 whose friends and relations were, in his lifetime, the friends of the princeps.126 L. Apronius—again excellenti virtute according to Velleius,127 and the father of a friend of Sejanus 128—and C. Vibius Marsus, whose return to Rome with Agrippina 129 indicates a close, if dangerous, relation with the ruling family, were the fathers-in-law respectively of M. Plautius Silvanus, amicus principle,130 and of P. Plautius Pulcher, uncle of one imperial Drusus and comes of another. Thus all these four proconsuls of Africa possessed the proper qualifications for amicitia principis.

The same is true of the three proconsuls recorded almost simultaneously on city-coinages of the other consular senatorial province, Asia. M. Aemilius Lepidus was not only the confidant of Tiberius, but also the father-in-law of Drusus Germanici f. and a grand-nephew by marriage of Augustus.131 P. Petronius, a proconsul whose tenure was greatly extended—a signal sign of personal confidence received also by C. Vibius Marsus and L. Apronius 132—was vetus convictor Claudii,133 and finally, Q. Poppaeus Secundus was the brother of C. Poppaeus Sabinus amicus principum,134 and thus, incidentally, the uncle by marriage of a friend of Sejanus, T. Ollius.135 Here, again, are three proconsuls who were "friends" of the ruling house; and so were the only Tiberian governors to be mentioned on coinages in the senatorial provinces of Bithynia and Creta-Cyrenaica.136

This very C. Poppaeus Sabinus, legatus Augusti propraetore of the whole Balkan province,137 provides striking evidence for the association of these numismatic honours, and especially of portraiture such as that of L. Apronius, with the imperial amicitia. For Sabinus too was given a coin-portrait, but at a peregrine city, namely Aegina.138 Just as L. Apronius was the only Tiberian governor to be portrayed by a colony, so Sabinus was apparently the only one to be represented on the coinage of a peregrine city. This unusual honour was fitting, since his tenure of his vast province was the longest even of this reign of long tenures: but it further confirms the view that, as under Augustus, the passport to numismatic honours of this kind was amicitia principis. The cities were not slow to appreciate the direction of imperial honour,139 and indeed Hippo Diarrhytus, which honours L. Apronius, had been one of the earliest "backers" of Tiberius himself.140

Nor is this characteristic of amicitia principis the last of the features which the issues with governors' names and portraits under Tiberius share with those under Augustus. The Augustan portraits and mentions of African and Asian proconsuls had apparently started in c. 7 b.c., at a time when there was special need of the amici. For Agrippa and Nero Drusus were dead; new men were needed to fill the consular posts and, especially, to help ensure the succession for C. Caesar. This was apparently the moment chosen by Augustus for the numismatic celebration of his amici. Now, in a.d. 21, the date to which has been ascribed the recurrence of this phenomenon in Africa (following shortly upon Asia) under Tiberius, the princeps was again sponsoring a new successor of his own blood, just as Augustus had been in 7 b.c. For Germanicus was dead, and Drusus junior was just beginning to receive greater honours than either he or Germanicus had received while both were alive.141 It was natural for Tiberius, following as usual the precedent of Augustus to choose this moment to allow cities to emphasize his reliance on his amici as supporters of the dynasty; and indeed the position of his special amicus and socius laborum, Sejanus, had just received new definition.142

Tiberius' imitation of the precedent of 7 b.c. is also noteworthy in that, at that date, he himself had just been passed over for the inheritance, and was no doubt already contemplating his retirement in the following year. But, in retrospect, Tiberius was quite open about the special position of Gaius and Lucius. For they still received numismatic honours from cities in his reign;143 and Velleius is no less frank about their preferred status144 (though he tries to ascribe this to the modesty of Tiberius 145) than is the Monumenturn Ancyranum itself.146 It was characteristic of Tiberius to follow the Augustan precedent with grim perseverance despite the unhappy features that it had possessed for himself;147 indeed its revival by him may have been part of an attempt to show the public that the theme held no embarrassment for him.

A further point stresses still further the legitimacy of the comparison between the issues inaugurated in c. 7 b.c. and those starting in a.d. c. 21. It has been argued elsewhere that the former, with the important development of the principate that they imply, had been timed to coincide with the vicennium of the "restoration of the Republic" in 27 b.c. 148 But a.d. 20-21 was equally one of the greatest anniversary years of the epoch: for it witnessed the half- centenaries of Actium and the capture of Egypt. There is strong reason to believe that major official coinages of Tiberius commemorated this very occasion;149 so too, in all probability, does our issue of Sinope (no. 53: Plate V, 16), dated to a.d. 19-20. Nor are such commemorations surprising when it is appreciated that anniversaries of Actium and the capture of Egypt were to continue to receive numismatic celebration for centuries to come.150

We may conclude, then, that Tiberius, with close attention to an Augustan precedent, selected this great Augustan anniversary to authorise, or to allow, Roman colonies in Africa to honour his friends who were governors of that province. This honour took the form of a record of their permissus, and in the first instance, of portrayal. Moreover, it may well have been as a result of a similar authorisation that the peregrine cities of Asia—the only other consular senatorial province—began a little earlier to record their proconsuls also; and the latter too were all amici principis. The coins of these Asian cities were of course Greek. Indeed, outside Africa, only one Tiberian governor has a permissus recorded on a Latin coinage.151 This was another consular, Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus, legatus Augusti propraetore in Syria 152—yet again an amicus principis.153

End Notes
For the interpretation of Tiberius as a "Republican" see especially Levi, La Politica Imperiale di Roma, p. 269; Syme, RR, pp. 344 f., 408, n. 3, 418, 507; Rogers, TAPA, 1940, pp. 534 f.; Kornemann, SB Miinchen, 1947, I, pp. 4, б ff. For his choice of friends see references in section ii, subsection A; and for the literary aspect, Bard on, Les Empéreurs et les Lettres Latines d'Auguste à Hadrien, pp. 108 ff.
Suet., Tib.: miseram et onerosam iniungi sibi servitutem; cf. Syme, RR, p. 344, n. 6; Smith, pp. 33 f.
Tac., Ann., III, 53; cf. Klostermann, Philologus, 1932, pp. 365 f.; Charlesworth, JRS, 1943, p. 2.
FITA, pp. 197 f., n. 6; see also below, Appendix 5.
De Laet, p. 26, no. 39.
The third year of his tenure; and COS. IV. (Gelzer, RE, X, 506).
De Laet, p. 56, no. 198. No. 27, at least, refers to his second year.
Ibid., p. 43, no. 129.
FITA, p. 224.
FITA, p. 228.
FITA, p. 230.
FITA, pp. 232 f.
Cf. FITA, p. 228 and n. 7; de Laet, p. 245, ascribes Volusius to c. 8-7 and Varus to c. 7-6. For Africanus Fabius Maximus see recently PIR 2, III, p. 102, no. 46.
FITA, pp. 229, 387, but see next note.
FITA, pp. 387 f., but suggesting c. 7-6 b.c. for Scipio and c. 5-4 for Paullus—but Syme attributes the latter to 9-8, PIR 2, II, p. 355 (cf. PIR 2, III, p. 103, no. 47) to 10-9.
Their names are recorded in the Genitive after EПI; there is a divergence here from the Augustan practice, for, whereas the portraits are honorific, EПI was not yet purely eponymous but implied a measure of executive action; indeed it can to a certain (though a limited) extent be compared with PERMISSV (FITA, pp. 398 ff.). Thus in a.d. 21 the compliment to the governors of Asia took rather a different form from the honours of c. 7 b.c.
BMC, Mysia, p. 140, no. 251.
See Appendix 9.
BMC, Phrygia, p. 163, no. 26.
De Laet, p. 73, no. 302.
De Laet, p. 22, no. 16.
BMC, Mysia, p. 39, no. 253.
BMC, Ionia, p. 268, no. 266.
Müller, I, pp. 159 ff. See Appendix 2.
De Laet, p. 70, no. 283.
De Laet, p. 92, no. 410.
The Asian issues must have started at least one year earlier than the African ones, but the permissions for them may none the less have been simultaneous.
FITA, p. 229, describes five of these governors as his relatives, omitting the marriage of the sixth, C. Asinius Gallus, to Vipsania; Syme, RR, pp. 416, 512.
Cf. Syme, RR, pp. 373, 379; FITA, p. 229.
Ibid., p. 228 (references); Mattingly, NC, 1946, p. 130, describes this view as "quite convincing." So does Fink, CP, 1949, p. 258.
Though not the right of permissus, which was the prerogative of certain consular governorships, see p. 31 and n. 115.
For the rôle of amici principis at Eastern cities, cf. von Premerstein, pp. 175, 224; Marot, Ada Universitatis Szegediensis, 13.1, 1939, has traced some Roman and mediaeval developments of amicitia.
E.g. Tac., Ann., III, 12, privatas inimicitias non vi principis ulciscar; VI, 9, Sex. Vistilius convictu principis prohibitus; cf. II, 70 (Germanicus) amicitiam ei renuntiabat; cf. Augustus and Cornelius Gallus, Syme, RR, p. 309.
Cf. Smith, p. 119; Rogers, p. 139, and TAPA, 1941, p. xlii, etc.
Cf. Kornemann, GR, p. 263. Though his own proposed marriage to Livilla, daughter of Drusus sen., was never finally approved, his daughter's marriage made him Claudiae et Iuliae domus partem (Tac., Ann., VI, 8). See also Addenda.
See Appendix 2.
Tac., Ann., IV, 74 (a.d. 28; but the date is questionable).
Suet., Tib., 55; cf. Syme, RR, p. 408, n. 3, and for a different view of the consilium Last, JRS, 1943, p. 105.
E.g. ILS, 206 (Claudius) : amicus et comes meus. Cf. also ILS, 946, comes Ti. Caesaris Aug. datus ab divo Aug., showing that the emperor selected (sc. from among his friends) the comites of the young princes. For the later development of comes see Nock, JRS, 1947, pp. 102 ff.
ILS, 964, cf. Instinsky, Philologus, 1942/3, p. 246.
ILS, 206, cf. von Premerstein, p. 224.
ILS, 212, cf. von Premerstein, loc. cit.
De Clementia, I, 10.1, cf. Syme, RR, p. 385, n. 2. The present writer quotes this phrase in FITA, p. 229, but it is very doubtful whether, strictly speaking, it should be applied to the Augustan period there under discussion.
No attempt will be made here to deal with the controversial question as to how far Tiberius' choice of friends represented a reaction from Augustus or an innovation. For aspects of this view see Syme, RR, pp. 383, 414, n. 1, 434, 437; Rogers, TAPA, 1940, pp. 534 f.; Levi, La Politica Imperiale di Roma, pp. 264, 266 f.; de Laet, p. 276; Cordier, RPh, 1943, p. 217. For the view that Tiberius was unfavourable to nobiles see de Laet, pp. 251 ff., 261 f., 271 if.; Ensslin, Philologische Wochenschrift, 1942, p. 1942, p. 481, opposed by Nailis, AC, 1942, p. 152; Gelzer, Gnomon, 1943, p. 108; Roos, Museum, 1942, pp. 200 f.; see also Thiel, Mnemosyne, 1935, p. 264, n. 2. Balsdon's view, JRS, 1932, p. 243, that Tiberius was not particular about ancestry still seems to hold. This problem is sometimes linked with the general question of Tiberius' "Republicanism" (see last section).
To be distinguished from these great amici are the "secretaries" of Tiberius who, though—especially later in the reign—of increased numbers and powers (cf. Scramuzza, EC, pp. 84, 257 if.) and the forerunners of the "Ministers" of Claudius, are still clientes rather than amici in the present period (ibid., p. 80).
II, 125, 5, cf. PIR 2, II, p. 319, no. 1348; de Laet, p. 43, no. 129.
Cf. Syme, RR, p. 434.
Cf. Hammond, pp. 205, 220, n. 74, etc.—the last was that of L. Passienus (also honoured on the coinage) in a.d. c. 3 (Syme, JRS, 1946, p. 156, cf. FITA, pp. 140, 229—the last passage omitting to mention Blaesus).
Vell., II, 127; cf. Syme, RR, p. 437, PIR, II, 234, 479; de Laet, p. 56, no. 198.
Cf. Tac., Ann., VI, 8: ut quisque Seiano intimus, ita ad Caesaris amicitiam validus.
Vell., II, 116, cf. PIR 2, I, p. 188, no. 971; de Laet, p. 26, no. 39.
Cf. Marsh, p. 190 (L. Apronius Caesianus).
Tac., Ann., II, 79; for his importance cf. Marsh, p. 217.
Von Rohden, RE, II, 1, 273 f.; cf. Syme, RR, p. 422; FITA, p. 229 and n. 11 and p. 388; Instinsky, Philologus, 1942/3, p. 245.
Tac., Ann., VI, 40; cf. Syme, RR, p. 438, n. 1; PIR 2, I, p. 61, no. 369.
Cf. de Laet, pp. 293 ff.
Seneca, Apocolocyntosis, 14, cf. PIR, III, p. 26, no. 198; de Laet, p. 70, no. 283.
Tac., Ann., VI, 39; cf. Syme, RR, p. 499 and n. 1, PIR, III, p. 86, nos. 627, 628.
Cf. Smith, p. 152.
P. Vitellius and Cornelius Lupus (amicus Claudii): see Appendix 9.
Cf. Syme, RR, p. 397, Groag, Schriften der Balkankommission, Ant. Abt., IX, 1939, p. 24, Stein, Dissertationes Pannonicae, I, 11, 1940, pp. 18 ff.
See Appendix 9.
Moreover, our African proconsuls, at least, enjoyed an unusual position owing to their conduct of the war against Tacfarinas. On their special selection and its possible influence on the auspicia, see below, p. 60, n. 155, p. 70, n. 224.
FITA, p. 224.
See below, Chapter III, section ii. For the ovatio of Drusus see Rohde, RE, XVIII, 2, 1902.
Cf. Rogers, p. 139.
E.g. FITA, p. 363 (Pergamum: BMC, Mysia, p. 140, no. 250). The same may apply to certain issues for Gaius at other cities also (FITA, p. 471).
II, 96. On the Magliano (Heba) Tablet, 1.5 (NS, 1948, pp. 49 ff.), they are called fratr. Ti. Caesaris Aug.
II, 103.
RG, 14.
The present writer, as he hopes to explain elsewhere, does not accept the theory of Gruenwald, Die römischen Bronze— und Kupfermünzen mit Schlagmarken im Legionslager Vindonissa, cf. Mattingly, NC, 1946, p. 80, that the retirement of Tiberius is shown by countermarks to have been accompanied by some sort of political disturbance among the troops.
RAI, Chapter II, section ii.


The last subsection has endeavoured to show that the proconsuls of Africa, L. Apronius and the rest, were linked to Tiberius by the powerful bond of amicitia. It remains, however, to consider their official relationship with him. The present coinage is not informative regarding this matter, which will however be discussed here since it is vital for an understanding of their position.

This discussion will be divided into three parts. First, it will be confirmed that these senior proconsuls governed and fought under the auspices of Tiberius. Secondly, it will be argued that these auspices were not, in so far as they affected Africa (the one senatorial province still to possess an army154), linked with an imperium relating to that same sphere. Thirdly, it will be concluded that, in such a territory, their link was rather with the religious ideas represented by the name "Augustus" and its quality auctoritas.

As regards the first of these points,155 there is both epigraphic and literary evidence in favour of the view that the consulars who were proconsuls of Africa, despite the auctoritas which enabled them to authorise local coinages,156 operated under the auspices of the princeps. Thus Velleius Paterculus, describing the war fought by our present governors against Tacfarinas, writes: bellum Africum ... auspiciis consiliisque eius (sc. Ti. Caesaris Augusti ) brevi sepultum est.157 Brevi is too flattering, but a contemporary historian like Velleius, who presented the official view, was not very likely to say that the auspicia for these campaigns belonged to Tiberius unless this was so.158 (Moreover an inscription describes the latest previous victories in Africa, those of a.d. c. 6, as auspiciis Imp. Caesaris Aug. pontificis maximi patris patriae, ductu Cossi Lentuli.159 It may be possible to compare the status of Cossus Cornelius Lentulus with that of the Tiberian proconsuls; for Tiberius is unlikely to have harnessed his senior governors with any constitutional limitation not existing in the last years of Augustus.160 There is, however, no absolute proof that Cossus Lentulus was a proconsul, and the present writer has elsewhere favoured the view that he was rather legatus Augusti propraetore, on the assumption that the province was transferred temporarily to the princeps;161 but Syme considers Cossus Lentulus to have been proconsul of Africa.162) Now the governors who are described by Velleius as fighting under the auspices of Tiberius were certainly proconsuls and not legati,163 so that it may be concluded that, at this period at least, proconsuls of Africa operated under the auspices of the princeps.

The superiority of the auspicia principis might indicate either that the proconsuls possessed some form of auspicia minora,164 i.e. minora vis-à-vis the princeps, or that they possessed no auspicatio at all. Great vicegerents like Germanicus and Drusus, at least while operating in the West,165 seem to have possessed a sort of auspicia minora;166 but even if this were certain it would prove nothing as regards the ordinary proconsuls: for the vicegerents in the West had started to rise above the proconsuls ever since the former had begun to receive the triumphalia ornamenta (probably in 20 b.c.),167 salutations and even triumphs (9 b.c.),168 which the latter did not obtain after 19 b.c. 169 Thus the possession by the Western vicegerents of the auspicia minora would not imply that the proconsuls possessed them too, and the latter question must be left open.

If, however, Augustus allowed these proconsuls no auspices at all, he had Republican precedents. For in the late Republic, as Cicero informs us—if not earlier170auspicatio had become so neglected that even wars were fought by proconsuls and propraetors qui auspicia non habent;171 that is to say, by governors operating without having taken, and thus without having, the auspices.172 A Republican and ritualist like Augustus, who devoted special attention to the college of augurs,173 was by no means the man to condone carelessness; but the fact that it had occurred, and that proconsuls had become accustomed to lack the auspices, made it easier for the omission to continue. So his proconsuls may not only have been under his superior auspices, but may—though this cannot be considered certain—have entirely lacked auspicatio themselves.

However, by Republican practice, if they lacked auspicatio, it was right for someone else to take it on their behalf: as Cicero tells us, technically speaking (in the old days) "nothing" had been done without the auspices.174 It is not at all astonishing that Augustus should have emphasised this characteristic feature of mos maiorum;175 and the words attributed to Ap. Claudius by Livy, who interpreted so much of Augustan official thought, convey the same suggestion—auspiciis hanc urbem conditam esse, auspiciis bello ac pace domi militiaeque omnia geri, quis est qui ignoret?176

It is not surprising, then, that mention of the auspicia should occur on an Augustan inscription and in Tiberian literature. But since the proconsuls lacked them or only possessed auspicia minora, to whom should the responsibility fall? As regards Republican precedent, Cicero answers this question rather vaguely. In such circumstances, he says, ab urbanis retenta videtur.177 In the Republic, in such circumstances, the urbani could variously be interpreted as the Roman people or as the senate; for while we read (in spite of the patrician origin of the institution178) a populo auspicia accepta habemus,179 we also hear of circumstances in which the auspicia belonged, or returned, to the senate,180 with which they are closely linked by Cicero as the duo firmamenta of the State of Romulus.181 But here we find that our African proconsuls of the early principate present an innovation. For, even if they lacked auspicatio altogether, there is no question of the auspices returning to the senate or people, since they are demonstrably operating under the auspices of the princeps; and that, it is clear, is the answer to the first of the three questions with which it is the aim of this discussion to deal.

The second question relates to the imperium;182 and it will be suggested here that the auspicia, by which Tiberius was superior to the proconsuls of Africa, were not linked with an imperium relating to the same area. The possession of these auspices by the princeps does not automatically prove an imperium maius in relation to the said proconsuls. Such an assumption would require too facile an assimilation of auspicia and imperium. When Greenidge wrote "the imperium and auspicia are indissolubly connected,"183 his words might be held to imply, first, that some original link had existed between them, secondly, that the one could not exist without the other, and, thirdly, that a man operating under another's auspices was necessarily also operating under his imperium. But the two last of these implications may not have been intended,184 and in any case, none of them may be legitimate. For, in the first place, an original link between the ius magistratus and ius auspiciorum is not yet proved.185 Secondly, certain magistrates, who did not possess imperium, none the less had the auspices186—notably the censors.187 Conversely we know, from a passage of Cicero that has already been quoted, of possessors of imperium, proconsuls and propraetors, qui auspicia non habent (in rather the same way as a magistrate who was appointed on a dies nefastus remained, technically speaking, none the less a magistrate).188 Neither imperium nor auspicatio were, in practice, unable to apply to a given area without the other. It is true that Augustus and Tiberius originally obtained the auspices in connection with their imperium, but it does not follow that the scope of the two properties remained coterminous.189 The possession, therefore, by Augustus and Tiberius of auspices comprising Africa does not necessarily warrant the conclusion that the same province was comprised in their imperium also. It would be equally dangerous to deduce subordination to an imperium maius from the lack of auspices,190 or possession of inferior auspices, by the Augustan and Tiberian proconsuls; the more so since maius and minus do not mean the same when applied to imperium as they do when applied to the auspices. Mention has already been made of the auspicia maiora and minora;191 and, without the intrusion of prejudice based on the scope of the auspices of Augustus and Tiberius, something will now be said about the term imperium maius as applied to their relation to proconsuls.

It has been customary to believe in the existence of such an imperium maius; but the present writer has opposed the view that Augustus possessed such a power.192 Last,193 commenting on this approach, distinguishes between two types of imperium maius.194 He describes as Type B ("active") "cases where, in the presence of an imperium maius, holders of imperia minora were relieved of the ultimate responsibility for their official acts and where this responsibility passed to the holder of the maius imperium, under whose general direction they were now placed." He agrees that, from 27 b.c., Augustus had no such power. That is to say, he did not control his proconsuls in the same active sense as Caesar, Brutus and the triumvirs had controlled theirs; and Tiberius was even more careful that this should be clear.195

There remains Last's Type A ("passive") of imperium maius. An example of this category is the relationship of the imperia of a consul and a praetor. "This sort of relation ... is one which, though it gave to the holder of the former the right to impose his will on the holder of the latter, did not imply that these two normally had any official dealings with one another and did not place any responsibility on the one for the acts of the other, but merely served to eliminate, if ever the two did come into contact, the danger of deadlock through the opposition of two equal constitutional forces."196 Last does not feel that the present writer has proved that the princeps lacked this weaker or "passive" version of imperium maius in his dealings with proconsuls. He does not make an assertion to the contrary, but leaves the question open.197 Here it will only be observed, in parenthesis, that a kindred doctrine (in regard to the same period) to that of the imperium maius in senatorial provinces, namely the no less established belief in the imperium maius of Augustus vis-à-vis the great vicegerents in the East, has received opposition which needs to be seriously considered and may prove conclusive.198 However, this is not the place to discuss the latter question —though, as regards the principate of Tiberius, the position of Germanicus needs careful consideration199—and equally no attempt will be made to answer Last's query about the relationship of the princeps to ordinary proconsuls; since for the present purpose his agreement that there was no "active" (Type B) imperium maius is enough.

For the alternative kind of imperium maius, the "passive" (Type A) variety, if it existed, could not have been enough to justify the auspicatio of the princeps in regard to the proconsuls of Africa. For it cannot be said that possession of the auspices, under which another man is acting, "did not place any responsibility on the one for the acts of the other." On the contrary, the auspicator, as Augustus had been careful to insist in regard to M. Licinius Crassus,200 was directly responsible for the acts of those operating under his auspicia.201 But the imperium of Augustus and Tiberius in relation to Africa, since no more than "Type A," cannot have comprised so high a degree of subordination; so the answer to the second question posed in this discussion is that this imperium was not the power on which their auspices in regard to that province were based.202 In this as in other respects, in modern times, the imperium of the early principate has been over-estimated, not of course in regard to the threat which underlay it, but as an ingredient of the constitutional adjustments of 27 and 23 b.c. on which the systems of Augustus and Tiberius were founded.203 Augustus himself made no such mistake when, with his usual adherence to formal truth rather than to concealed sanctions of force, he made no mention whatever of imperium in connection with these two occasions.204

For they were principally concerned with quite other ideas; and these bring us to our third question, namely the real character of the imperial auspices in regard to Africa. The chief feature of the second reform, that of 23 b.c., had nothing to do with imperium, but was the completion of executive machinery (tribunician power) enabling the princeps, now no longer consul, to exercise his auctoritas in the senate.205 This connection with auctoritas links the reform of 23 b.c. with that of 27 b.c.,206 in which the princeps, by resigning from the consulship, may be said to have terminated over twenty years of autocratic military commands and established a façade of auctoritas.207 The central symbol of the change of 27 b.c. had been the conferment of the name "Augustus,"208 a word which is so closely linked with auctoritas in language and meaning that Magdelain, with much plausibility, stresses that the former was in a sense the titular expression of the latter.209 Thus it became the symbol of the new régime, just as in the preceding years the praenomen Imperatoris (now of changed significance210) had been the titular expression and symbol of the previous régime of autocratic imperium maius infinitum 211 Thus "Augustus" and auctoritas were the formulae of the new order.

Now certain Roman authorities, bearing in mind the kinship of these words with augurium 212 (another conception much stressed by the princeps 213 and indeed closely linked with his rôle214) believed—though wrongly—that a close etymological connection likewise existed between "Augustus," and a word already almost synonymous with augury,215 namely auspicium.216 Thus Festus wrote (perhaps in the second century) augustus locus sanctus, ab avium gestu ... sive ab avium gust[at]u.217 Suetonius, too, or his scholiast, describes the name "Augustus" as follows: quod loca ... in quibus augurato quid consecratur augusta dicantur, ab auctu vel ab avium gestu gustuve,218 etc.—the latter suggestion, like that of Festus, wrongly comparing "Augustus" with the root avi- of auspicium.

Now etymology, accurate or otherwise, was very fashionable and influential under the first princeps; and Festus, indeed, goes back to the most learned of Augustan scholars, Verrius Flaccus, the tutor of the domus principis itself. Thus it seems to the present writer that this false etymology, linking the auspicia with the very bases of the Augustan régime, explains the official origins of the imperial auspices in regard to territories for which active imperium maius was lacking. The believed connection "Augustus"—auspicium indicates that the princeps could be considered the holder of the auspicia (not necessarily any longer coterminous with the imperium) in an entirely special sense comparable to the unique quality of his name "Augustus." It was inferred that the full auspical authority of Romulus, originator of auspicatio,219 greatly in vogue after Actium,220 and returned to him;221 and Gagé rightly concludes not only that the auspices were a most prominent feature of the statio principis, but, without speaking of imperium, that "son droit d'auspication s'étend ... à l'empire."222 Nock comments on this development as follows: "The fact that subordinates fought under his (sc. an emperor's) auspicia, not their own, may well have implied from early in the principate that the ruler was credited with potentialities operating beyond the range of his presence and even of his directives."223 That is no way of describing imperium, but refers to the religious ideas underlying the new system. The "potentialities" were those inherent in the régime of auctoritas expressed and sanctified by the name "Augustus"; and it seems that by the time of Tiberius, the imperial auspices based on these ideas had come, regardless of any geographical limitations of his imperium with which they had first of all been associated, to extend their validity even to African proconsuls such as those who are mentioned on our coinages.224 This idea of the auspices may have become clarified after the Parthian "success" of 20 b.c.; and from 12 b.c. onwards the religious authority of the princeps was formally enhanced by the high-priesthood225—of which the emblems are prominently displayed, in connection with the princeps, on one of the coins honouring proconsuls (no. 20: Plate II, 7).226

But though the important features of the imperial auspices seem traceable to the principate of Augustus, there is every reason to suppose that they were maintained by Tiberius. He was accustomed to maintaining Augustan institutions; he also paid scrupulous attention to religious custom and ritual.227 In particular, there is evidence indicating his attention to auspicatio. He took his own augurate seriously,228 and the same title often figures after the name of Germanicus,229 whom he sharply reminded of augural taboo.230 In the absence of Tiberius his deputy in the high-priesthood was Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, the augur maximus.231 Also, as part of a general interest in the Trojan myth,232 Tiberius continued the Augustan attention to Romulus, whose picture, together with that of Aeneas,233 was probably placed in the new temple of Divus Augustus,234 as well as being carried at the funeral of Drusus junior.235 There was no danger of the imperial auspicia no longer being taken seriously;236 and there is no reason to suppose that Velleius in mentioning them, did not mean what he said.

It may be concluded, then, that under Tiberius, as under Augustus, our proconsuls of Africa—who all enjoyed the amicitia of the princeps—were subordinate to his auspices; but that these auspices, in relation to that province, were thought of as linked not with imperium but with the religious conceptions embodied in the words "Augustus" and auctoritas.

End Notes
RAI, Chapter III, section iii.
RAI, Chapter VIII, section i (summary).
For this right in regard to colonial coinage is a prerogative of consular governors of both sorts of province, see above, p. 31 and n. 115.
FITA, p. 260; cf. below, Appendix 9.
PIR 2, II, p. 10, no. 64; his daughter Junia was betrothed to Nero Germanici f.
Until a.d. 38 (M. Junius Silanus), cf. Hammond, p. 230, n. 10. In this respect the parallel with Asia cannot be maintained. In a large part of the reign of Augustus, however, though not under Tiberius, the proconsul of Macedonia still possessed troops, cf. now Syme, JRS, 1945, p. 110. This is still often ignored, e.g. by Siber, Abh. Leipzig , XLIV, 2, 1940 (see Syme, JRS, 1946, p. 155); and Schönbauer, SB Wien, 224, 2, 1946, p. 92, wrongly talks of an imperial "monopoly" of the army from the outset.
It does not seem possible to distinguish between auspices for peace and auspices for war, cf. Wissowa, RE, 2, 2584; though it is possible that the question arose in an acute form because this was now the only senatorial province in which wars were waged, and it is even conceivable that the imperial auspices were particularly involved in the appointments of proconsuls for such purposes extra ordinem auctoritate principis (cf. Smith, pp. 184 ff.), as seems to be implied by PIR 2, II, p. 334. Cf. n. 224.
Cf. above, p. 31 and n. 115, p. 59.
II, 129.
Metaphorical usages of auspicor which begin to appear at this time do not seem relevant to the present case since they are concerned with initiation, and particularly the initiation of a career or office, e.g. Vell., II, 101, quem militiae gradum ante ... auspicatus, cf. Sen., Ep., 47, 10.
AE, 1940, no. 68; PIR 2, II, p. 333, no. 1380; Syme, JRS, 1946, p. 156.
Syme, JRS, 1946, p. 156; cf. Hammond, p. 232, n. 31.
FITA, p. 143.
RR, p. 435, n. 9; JRS, 1946, p. 156; PIR 2, II, p. 334.
Siber, Abh. Leipzig , XLIV, 2, 1940, pp. 23, 32, 85, attempts to assimilate the two categories of official from the earliest imperial period, but this is wrong: cf. Syme, JRS, 1946, p. 155, "the legal disparity between a proconsul and a legate of Augustus is clear and fundamental."
Auspicia minora in the proper sense were the auspices belonging to magistrates other than the consuls, praetors and censors, who possessed auspicia maiora (cf. Messalla, De Auspiciis, ap. Gell., XIII, 15, 4, Wissowa, RE, II, 2583). But the proconsuls, as counterparts of consuls, were too senior to have these auspicia minora (unless the original sense was modified). However, there were also differences of grade even within the auspicia maiora (Val. Max. II, 8, 2, Messalla, Wissowa, For the auspicia maiora see also Liegle, Hermes, 1942, p. 285, and especially Hägerström, pp. 8, 10 f.
For the position of the vicegerents see Appendix 10, p. 166.
See Appendix 10. But not, apparently, ordinary legati Augusti pro praetore: cf. Pease, Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 126.
Cf. Abaecherli Boyce, CP, 1942, pp. 134 f.; for the ornamenta see Borszák, RE, XVIII, 1, 1121 f.
Cf. FITA, p. 429 and nn. 9, 10 (Tiberius and Nero Drusus)—after refusals in c. 12 b.c.
Cf. Syme, JRS, 1946, p. 156, etc. (L. Cornelius Balbus).
This seems to be implied by Syme, JRS, 1946, p. 152.
De Divinatione, II, 76; cf. De Natura Deorum, II, 3, 9, and Mommsen, St. R., I 3, p. 101, n. 1, Levi, RRIL, 1938, Estr., pp. 2 ff.
Cf. Wissowa, RE, II, 2583, doubting Mommsen's view (St. R., I3, p. 92, and n. 1) that, despite the passages of Cicero, promagistrates "automatically" possessed the auspices. Mommsen, op. cit., p. 100, n. 3, quotes Servius, Aen., II, 178, regarding ad hoc measures that were sometimes taken to hold auspicatio abroad instead of, as was proper, on the Capitol.
See now Liegle, Hermes, 1942, pp. 297 ff.
De Divinatione, I, 3.
For list of references to this, see H. Volkmann, Mos maiorum als Grundzug des augusteischen Prinzipats (Das Neue Bild der Antike, II).
VI, 41.
De Divinatione, II, 77.
Cf. Greenidge, p. 40, n. 1.
Cicero, De Divinatione, II, 77; cf. Hägerström, p. 11, on Livy, VII.6.10.
Cicero, De Legibus, III, 9; cf. Homo, Roman Political Institutions, p. 100, Mommsen, St. R., I3, p. 90.
De Republica, II, 17. Here the question of "transmission" from a predecessor, stressed by Homo, op. cit., p. 34, does not arise.
For a theory of the nature of imperium see now Wagenvoort, Imperium (cf. Roman Dynamism) and reviews, e.g. Museum, 1942, p. 214; Revue de l'Histoire des Réligions, 1942/3, p. 58; Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 1942, p. 930; Gnomon, 1943, p. 204; RPh, 1943, p. 99; AC, 1942; Egyetemes Phil. Közlöny, 1943, p. 253; see also Heuss, Sav. Z., 1944, pp. 57 ff.
P. 162.
Thus Greenidge himself qualifies his statement later, p. 165.
Ericsson, ARW, 1936, p. 302, against Hägerström, pp. 5 ff.
Gagé, RH, 1933, p. 3; Levi, RRIL, 1938, Estr., pp. 2 ff.; Wissowa, RE, II, 2, 2583.
Mommsen, St. R., I3, p. 92, cf. Hägerström, p. 11. The same may apply also to the pontifex maximus , if Mommsen, ibid. and op. cit, II3, p. 20, is right (as Wissowa, RE, II, 2584, doubts) in ascribing to him the auspices; for he did not possess the imperium, Rosenberg, RE, IX, 1207, against Mommsen,
Varro, De Lingua Latina, VI, 30, cf. Hägerström, p. 5. For the connection of nefastus with augural procedure, see Fragm. XII Tab. ap. Cic., De Legibus, II, 8.
It remains, no doubt, technically true that the auspicia should have been an indispensable precondition of imperium, cf. Levi, RRIL, 1938, Estr., p. 7; as in early times, Livy, IV, 7, VIII, 23, cf. Ericsson, ARW, 1936, pp. 299 f.
Rightly enough, no one has attempted to deduce from Cicero, De Divinatione, II, 76, that he is only referring to those promagistrates who served under someone else's imperium maius. See above, p. 62 and n. 171.
The material is collected by Hägerström, pp. 8, 10 f.
FITA, pp. 424 ff. This question is further discussed in SWC.
JRS, 1947, pp. 157 ff.
In SWC it is suggested that a criticism of the present writer's terminology in this respect by Mattingly, NC, 1946, p. 132 (cf., more mildly—"légères réserves"—de Laet, AC, 1946, p. 373, Sutherland, CR, 1947, p. 116) is only justified in that a distinction should be made between two main types as by Last (or perhaps more than two).
He allowed the proconsul Q. Junius Blaesus a salutation (cf. Hammond, pp. 205, 220, n. 74), and was not averse to proconsuls granting dona militaria (Tac., Ann., III, 21, cf. Hammond, p. 232, n. 31, Syme, JRS, 1946, p. 156). The dealings of Tiberius with the proconsuls of Africa do not prove imperium maius, Smith, p. 184, n. 7, cf. McFayden, CP, 1921, p. 40. The point of Tacitus' sneer iussa principis magis quam incerta belli metuens (Ann., IV, 23) might well point in the opposite direction, cf. FITA, p. 441.
In a sense such distinctions could be made even between officials of the same rank; e.g. Festus praetores maiores et minores ... ad vim imperii, cf. Liegle, Hermes, 1942, p. 266, n. 2.
Op. cit., p. 163: "about these conclusions every student must form his own judgment for himself."
Piganiol, Journal des Savants, 1937, p. 15 (as regards Agrippa), and (more generally) Magdelain, pp. 73 f., believe that their imperium was not "secondary" but equal to his, and that he was their superior only in auctoritas. The present writer, in FITA, pp. 427, 429, 445, had in one respect come to a similar conclusion, in that he did not believe these vicegerents either to be proconsuls subordinated by imperium maius, or to subordinate proconsuls by an imperium maius of their own; but he suggested instead that they were legati Augusti propraetore and that all areas in their control temporarily formed part of the imperial provincia.
See Appendix 10.
Dio 51, 25, cf. Syme, RR, p. 308, n. 2; Charlesworth, CAH, X, p. 125; von Premerstein, p. 253; and especially Groag, RE, 13 (58), 270 ff.
Cf. Wissowa, RE, II, 2583.
In SWC it is similarly argued that the "passive" version of imperium maius, if this is what Augustus possessed, can scarcely have been potent enough to constitute the legal basis for official gold and silver coinage in a senatorial province.
Cf. FITA, pp. 424 ff., Schönbauer, SB Wien, 224, 2, 1946, p. 112 (procos. imp. "ist ... als wesentliches Element des Prinzipates abzulehnen"), de Laet, AC, 1943, pp. 150 ff. (of Siber), etc.; de Laet, ibid., 1946, pp. 371 ff., considers that the present writer errs in the opposite direction, but for reasons contested in Greece and Rome , 1949, pp. 102 ff., 104 ff. Sutherland, CR, 1947, p. 115, is rightly representing a view of part of the Roman public, but presumably not that of the governing class, when he suggests that, as early as Augustus, the distinction between action by one power or another "must often have been a vaporous one."
RG, 1, only refers to the original conferment of 43 b.c.; cf. FITA, p. 418, etc. Imperium was not everything: the senior augurs took precedence over its holders, cf. Liegle, Hermes, 1942, p. 253, and n. 3. See also Addenda.
Cf. FITA, pp. 446 ff.; favourably received by most reviewers, cf. Chapter I, section ii, subsection C. Instinsky, Hamburger Beiträge zur Numismatik, I, 1947, wrongly ascribes to the present writer the description of the tribunician power "als einen Ausfluss der auctoritas."
Vallejo, Emerita , 1946, pp. 406 f., while agreeing with the other constitutional conclusions of FITA, doubts its interpretation of the years 27-23 b.c.
For the erroneous beliefs that this became a legalised institution or magistracy or source of law in 27 b.c. or a.d. 13, see FITA, p. 426, Greece and Rome , loc. cit., p. 112, n. 2.
This did not constitute a legalised institution or magistracy, FITA, p. xvi, against Staedler, Sav. Z., 1941, pp. 101 ff., 119. It was only "legalised" in so far as (according to Velleius, II, 91, 1, Dio 53, 16, 6—though not RG, 34, which only refers to the senatusconsultum, which was still an auctoritas and not a source of law) it was a name conferred on Augustus by the Roman people (cf. Stuart Jones, CAH, X, p. 130, n. 2).
Pp. 60-63. One of a number of brief earlier expressions of the same idea is that of Piganiol, Journal des Savants, 1937, p. 164, n. 5. For other recent discussions of the name see Wagenvoort, pp. 12 ff., and especially Schönbauer, SB Wien, 224, 2, 1946, pp. 65 ff.; for some other references FITA, p. 444, n. 5.
Cf. above, p. 47.
FITA, pp. 411 ff.
Cf. Nock, CAH, X, p. 483, FITA, p. 425, n. 14, Heuss, Sav. Z., 1944, p. 83, n. 57, "Vermehrungsritualisten," etc. Rival etymologies of "Augustus" are quoted there, cf. also A. E. Glauning, Festschrift für O. Glauning , p. 58, n. 1, Wagenvoort, p. 17, n. 2.
See now Liegle, Hermes, 1942, pp. 297 ff.
Magdelain, p. 59, n. 3, is unwilling to accept this view (stressed by Muller and Gagé) except in the vaguer sense of a common venerability "abstraction faite de toute nuance augurale plus précise"; but this is an underestimate.
Cf. Liegle, Hermes, 1942, p. 285, n. 5, Wagenvoort, p. 38.
Cf. Gagé, RH, 1933, p. 5.
P. 93(L.) (Paul. Diac.), cf. Levi, RRIL, 1938, Estr., pp. 15 ff.
Suet., Aug., 7, cf. Gagé, MAH, 1930, pp. 139, n. 1, 157, Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1935, p. 25. See also Addenda.
Cf. Gagé, MAH, 1931, p. 96, n. 1, Levi, RRIL, 1938, Estr., p. 5, n. 2. But, "Numa" invented the auspicia maiora and the augurium Salutis; cf. Liegle, Hermes, 1942, pp. 285, 298 and section iv, subsection A.
Cf. von Premerstein, p. 11 (whose Augustan interpretation of Dionysius of Halicarnassus is, however, doubted by Kahrstedt, Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1938, p. 6); Kornemann, Klio , 1938, p. 82, id., Bericht über den IV. Internationalen Kongress für Archaologie in 1939, p. 471; Borszák, Archivium Philologicum, 1943, pp. 180 f.; FITA, p. 424.
Cf. Gagé, MAH, 1930, p. 164, Levi, RRIL, 1938, Estr., p. 17, and n. 13.
MAH, 1930, p. 167, cf. RH, 1933, p. 33.
JRS, 1947, p. 114.
This is relevant to the possibility (see n. 155) that the influence of the imperial auspices over Cossus Cornelius Lentulus may be due to his appointment extra ordinem: for actions extra ordinem were auctoritate principis (cf. von Premerstein, pp. 107 ff.), as is specifically stated in the appointment of one of our Tiberian proconsuls Junius Blaesus, Tac., Ann., III, 35 (nominatio of two candidates; cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X, p. 644).
See Appendix 11.
Cf. above, p. 45. See also Addenda.
Cf. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People, p. 447, n. 2 (references).
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X, p. 615; and for his augurium salutis, Liegle, Hermes, 1942, p. 305.
ILS, 107, 173, 174, 176-178, 222 and references in Smith, p. 64, n. 19.
Tac., Ann., I, 62, cf. Weber, I, p. 47, n. 210a, Pippidi, ED, 1938 = AT, p. 31, n. 2, Charlesworth, CAH, X, p. 618, n. 2; see also Appendix 10.
Tac., Ann., III, 58 f., cf. Liegle, Hermes, 1942, p. 254.
Cf. Seltman, CAH, Plates IV, p. 144.
For comparisons of the exploits of Germanicus to those of Aeneas see Savage, Classical Journal, 1938/9, pp. 237 ff. Aeneas may also appear on the Paris cameo, cf. Piganiol, Essai sur les Jeux Romains, p. 60, Gagé, RA, XXXII, 1930, p. 19, n. 2.
Cf. Gagé, MAH, 1930, p. 164, Seltman, CAH, Plates IV, p. 176.
Tac., Ann., IV, 9, cf. Savage, Classical Journal, 1938/9, p. 238, n. 2.
Suet., Tib., 69 (cf. Thiel, Mnemosyne, 1935, p. 260, n. 2), strangely calls Tiberius circa deos ac religiones neglegentior. This must be based either on his expulsion of the Chaldeans, etc., in spite of his personal interest in them (cf. Nock, CAH, X, p. 496), or on his careful moderation in the cult of Divus Augustus.

(iii) Mars, Victoria, Felicitas

In his association of the auspicia principis with "potentialities operating beyond the range of his presence and even of his directives"—quoted in the last subsection—Nock237 relates this idea, in pursuance of the studies of Gagé,238 to the Victoria Augusti: "So later he came to be credited with a continuous attribute of Victory, as distinct from whatever was seen behind this or that success in the field." This, then, is a theme which directly arises from that of the auspices; and it is also one which is not unconnected with our present colonial coinages. For the Tiberian revival of the numismatic commemoration of the great proconsuls by African and Asian cities—in honour of Apronius, Blaesus, Dolabella, Secundus and Lepidus—seems to have been timed to coincide not only with the emergence of a new heir, but also with the half-centenary of the crowning victory of Augustus. But, even before this anniversary occurred, the second princeps had already, in a very special sense, asserted his succession to the Victoria Augusti by claiming the credit for the victories of Germanicus.239

One of our cities, colonia Paestum, exemplifies the special emphasis on this theme under Tiberius by illustrating, among the few types of its coinage, both Victoria and the deity most closely associated with her,240 Mars—and in each case in more than one guise. On some pieces Mars seems to carry a hasta(?) and parazonium (Plate I, 7)241 whereas on another the hasta (if this is what it is) is exchanged for a vexillum (no. 6 and variant: Plate I, 8 and 9). The parazonium and vexillum have both appeared with Mars under Augustus, combined on a single coin of about 16 b.c. 242 On another Augustan piece of a moneyer (who is certainly of 16 b.c..), on which Mars carries hasta and parazonium, the god stands on a pedestal243 as on one of the Paestan variants of Tiberius (no. 6 var. : Plate I, 9). Thus the relation between these colonial issues and the mintages of c. 16 b.c. is a particularly close one.244

The relationship between Mars on the official Augustan issues of 16 b.c. and Mars on the Paestan coinages of Tiberius is emphasized by the rarity of this god on coinages of the immediately succeeding principates. The parazonium, emblem closely associated with Virtus,245 is not found again with Mars on the official coinage at least until Nero 246 and possibly until the Flavians. Likewise the vexillum, soon to become the imperial standard,247 is not again seen with this god on official issues until Vitellius—in the centenary year of Actium.248 As far as is known, vexillum and parazonium do not appear together at Rome between Augustus and Vespasian.249

Thus the appearance of these emblems with the Mars of Paestum under Tiberius does not happen to be paralleled under his Julio-Claudian successors; but it links the usages of Tiberius and Augustus. In his capacity as Vltor, Mars had been one of the most prominent deities of the first princeps.250 As so often, Tiberius followed this example. It was in the temple of Mars Ultor that he provisionally lodged the cult of Divus Augustus.251 Round the same temple, monuments were set up after the successes of Germanicus,252 who had himself given Mars first place in the dedication of his trophy.253 It was apparently dedicated Marti et Divo Augusto .254

Divus Augustus was as closely linked with Victoria as he was with Mars. This connection is emphasized by the abundant official aes issues of Tiberius with the type of Victory.255 For these bear on the obverse the portrait, not of the reigning princeps, but of Augustus, of whose Victoria Tiberius claimed to be the heir. The prominence of Victoria , no less than of Mars, in the latter's principate is again illustrated by Paestum, which devotes to this theme at least two types. In the one case Victory stands or walks to the right, holding laurel-wreath and palm (no. 3: Plate I, 4); in the other she stands in a biga of horses galloping to left (no. 8: Plate I, 12-14). Such types had abounded in the principate of Augustus, on official and local coinage alike.256

Here, then, is another Augustan theme taken over and maintained by Tiberius. But the conditions of its maintenance had somewhat changed. For, however superior Tiberius was to Augustus in generalship, the latter was incomparably the greater in auctoritas: so that Tiberius, though he laid claim to the reversion of the Victoria Augusti, possessed a proportionately less clear-cut claim to it. Thus ambiguities occurred in his official relations with Germanicus 257 and many others. How much greater, then, were to be the difficulties of a Galba and an Otho, the first principes to lack the great contribution to auctoritas afforded by Julio-Claudian blood.258 It was they, accordingly, whose Victories had to be described, not merely as Augusti, as by inheritance from a glorious ancestor, but as Galbae Aug.259 and Othonis.260 For one of the chief manifestations of the Julio-Claudian auctoritas was this Victoria Augusti, which was thus an essential and central feature of the Augustan statio principis. Augustus, and Tiberius after him, intended to be the holders of military glory par excellence, and in its higher grades this amounted to nothing less than a monopoly.261 It had become difficult for Romans to feel that any operation could be conducted under the auspices of anyone except the holder of the name "Augustus";262 and so, too, it became equally natural for him to monopolize Victoria .263 That is to say, the proconsul of Africa, the most likely of the proconsuls to be involved in war, would in such circumstances, regardless of any restriction that there may or may not have been on his imperium, be limited at two successive stages: first, it became impossible for him to claim auspicatio for himself; and secondly, if the battle was victorious, it was the princeps rather than the governor to whom the chief credit was due.

But the imperial Victory was not thought of as depending on mere martial prowess. There is the strongest link between Victoria plain praenomen TIBERIVS without addition (paralleled in Largus273) suggests his peculiarly personal association with the Virtue in question.274 The Fasti Praenestini seem to refer to Felicitas in connection with Tiberius' dedication of the Ara Numinis Augusti, which apparently occurred shortly before his accession.275 Moreover, a caduceus, emblem of Felicitas, was chosen as type for one of the largest official coinages, commemorating his vicennium.276 Another type first issued on the same occasion, or very slightly later, is the temple of Concord, into the floor of which a bronze caduceus was inserted.277 It seems, then, that, just as the warrior-king had achieved his successes by Felicitas rather than by simple valour, and just as Augustus attributed the Victoria Augusti to Felicitas Augusti—possibly the former idea became clarified by stages in c. 17 and c. 7 b.c. 278—so Tiberius likewise, on his accession if not to some extent earlier, became the living incarnation of both those numina.279 Indeed his well-known calliditas, though deplored by Tacitus,280 was but a personal variant, in this most peace-loving of emperors, of the Augustan talent for bloodless successes: and our next subject must be the Pax which was the essence of his government.

End Notes

JRS, 1947, p. 114.
See references in the course of this section; the theme recurs in RA, xxxii, 1930, xxxiv, 1931, MAH, 1930-1932, 1936, RH, 1933, 1936. The later of these articles do not figure in the bibliography of CAH. On Gagé's views see the comments of Mattingly, BMC. Imp., III, p. xxxix, and Durry, REA, 1940 (Mélanges Radet), p. 415. The present writer has not seen M. Kovaceva, Victoria , Prometej (Sofia), VI, 1941/2, pp. 69 ff.
Cf. Gagé, RA, XXXII, 1930, pp. 5 ff. Tiberius was the greatest living general, cf. Pippidi, ED, 1938 = AT, p. 44, n. 74.
Gagé, RA, XXXII, 1930, p. 34.
The interpretation as hasta must not, however, be pressed owing to the scrappy execution and preservation of the coins.
BMC. Imp., I, p. 76, no. 438, cf. Sutherland, NC, 1945, p. 66.
BMC. Imp., I, p. 16, no. 86.
Possibly the former celebrate an anniversary of the latter (like official coinages of a.d. c. 34, RAI, Chapter III, section ii), i.e., of the secular games of 17 b.c. with which the issues of the following year were explicitly connected (BMC. Imp., I, p. 17, no. 89).
Cf. BMC. Imp., I, p. clxxiii. See also Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1935, p. 66.
Ibid., p. 204, no. 27—but considered by Mattingly, loc. cit., to represent Virtus rather than Mars.
Cf. Rostovtzeff, JRS, 1942, p. 93 (n. 2 references).
Cf. RAI, Chapter IV, section 3.
BMC. Imp., II, p. 190, no. 782, cf. pp. xlv, lvi.
Cf. Pollak, JAIW, 1936, pp. 13 ff., Altheim, History of Roman Religion, pp. 385 ff. For Mars, Hercules and the triumphator see Schilling, RPh., 1942, pp. 31 ff.
Cf. Pettazzoni, Augustus, p. 226.
Tac., Ann., II, 64, cf. Kornemann, DR, p. 40.
Tac., Ann., II, 22, cf. Gagé, RA, XXXII, 1930, p. 5, n. 3.
Cf. Hirschfeld, Kleine Schriften, pp. 850 f., cf. Gagé, loc. cit., against MSS. Marti et Iovi et Augusto .
BMC. Imp., I, p. 140, nos. 141 ff.
E.g. among colonies, Philippi, FITA, p. 274, cf. Collart, Philippes, pp. 232, 237.
See Appendix 10.
FITA, p. 443, n. 3.
BMC. Imp., I, pp. ccxiv f., 353 (apparently posthumous).
BMC. Imp., I, pp. ccxiv, ccxxi, 367.
Cf. Gagé, MAH, 1932, p. 89.
Cf. above, pp. 69 ff.
Fink, YCS, VIII, 1942, p. 86, n. 23, points to the possibility of a distinction between this abstract imperial Victoria Augusti and the personal Victoria Augusti of an individual princeps.

(iv) Pax Perpetua


No less significant than Victoria and Felicitas among the ideas underlying the principate, and no less prominent than they under Tiberius as well as under Augustus, was Pax. Among our colonial mintages it is illustrated by the little known aes piece, apparently a medallion, here attributed tentatively to Carthage (no. 17: Plate II, 3). The legend of this reads PACE AVG·PERP(etua): AVG· may be an abbreviation either of Augusta—like SALVS AVGVSTA281 on official coinage of Tiberius—or of Augusti, a type of formula with slightly different nuances282 which has not yet reached the official coinage but is already found at municipium Italica (PROVIDENTIAE AVGVSTI, Plate VII, 4).283

The concept of the imperial Pax has been described as even eclipsing divus worship in importance in the philosophy of the principate.284 Romulus-Quirinus,285 the founder of the imperial auspices,286 was himself a personification of peace as well as of war: Quirinus autem est Mars qui praeest pact.287 Augustus, as has been said, at first laid great stress on Romulus.288 But there was general interest in the kings;289 and in the second decade of his principate he may have emphasized instead, or as well, the more civilian figure of Romulus' successor Numa Pompilius,290 who, for all the traits of Romulus as pacifier, was regarded, in the light of true man of peace, as his complement.291 The most famous manifestation of Augustus' pacific policy is the Ara Pacis Augustae.292 Does the type of our "medallion" represent this? It shows an altar-enclosure with two doors and no panels. This does not look the same as the ARA PACIS type of Nero, which displays one door and two panels.293 (The somewhat similar type of the official aes of Tiberius inscribed PROVIDENT· shows two doors, like our "medallion," but again two panels also.294) But accuracy need not be expected, and the altar of which the precinct is shown on our piece of Carthage(?) may well be intended to represent the Ara Pacis of Augustus at Rome.295 For other colonies too, notably Pella and Buthrotum, by their Augustan legends PACIS, SPES and SALVTIS, CONCORDIA respectively, seem to echo Roman dedications.296 Yet it might instead be a local altar. Thus at Corinth the dedication GENT· IVLI· (nos. 42 ff.: Plate V, 4 and 7) seem to refer to a local temple and not to a Roman Aedes Gentis Iuliae ;297 and likewise an Augustan dedication IVNONI at Ilici accompanies what is presumably a city-temple.298

A further reference to Pax Augusta seems to occur on another of our colonial coinages, namely no. 10 (Plate I, 15), which is tentatively interpreted as an issue commemorating the deductio of colonia Panormus.299 The type of this coin, though it is badly executed and preserved, appears to be an olive-branch, which, as Virgil reminds us,300 was the recognised symbol of Peace.301 It seems to have made its début on the Roman official coinage when it was placed, with a cornucopiae, beside a head of Pax(?) by the mint-masters of Octavian.302 We know of no appearance of the olive-branch as main type before our present bronze issue. Its first depiction in this capacity on the official coinage seems to occur under Nero.303

But this isolated and doubtful occurrence of the olive-branch is insignificant in comparison with its apparent attribution to Iustitia-Pax on a vast official coinage of Tiberius. For an overwhelmingly large percentage of all gold and silver coins minted during his reign, as well as a few issued shortly before Augustus' death, bear a figure which, although apparently intended in the first resort to represent Iustitia, seems to carry the olive-branch of Pax 304—a Roman synthesis which probably owed something to Stoic inspiration.305 These are traditionally the "Tribute Pennies" of the New Testament,306 of which the central events happened in this principate. Christ was credited by Matthew with the words "blessed are the peace-makers,"307 an idea to which the Roman concept of Peace with Justice is not alien; the two doctrines were formulated at the same time,308 and Tertullian rightly or wrongly (probably the latter) ascribed to Tiberius a favourable attitude to Christianity.309 The Tiberian coins with an olive-branch, and medallion invoking Pax, well illustrate the temper of the principate in which they were issued: for we know independently that the concept of Pax gained particular force and reality during it.310

Such, then, was the background of the remarkable legend PACE AVG·PERP· on our medallion of Carthage(?). This is to some extent paralleled by the Spanish dedication Augusto Pact perpetuae et Concordiae Augustae.311 In that inscription Pax Perpetua is associated with another of the concepts most closely connected with the Tiberian principate, namely Concordia, to which he accords emphatic anniversary commemoration on his official coinage.312 Under Augustus, also, the same two personifications had already been linked by Ovid—Ianus adorandus cumque hoc Concordia mitis, Et Romana Salus, araque Pacis erit.313

The reference to Pax on the medallion of Carthage(?), in a different Case from its appearances on the Spanish inscription and in the pages of Ovid, suggests a grammatical consideration which, although of minor importance in itself, illustrates a not unimportant tendency. For here, on a Tiberian colonial mintage, is a feature not found on official issues until many more years, if not centuries, have passed. On an Augustan coin of colonia Buthrotum, as in Ovid after Ara, we find the Genitive PACIS;314 on official coinages starting under Claudius, as at Ostia, there appears the dedicatory Dative.315 But our medallion of Carthage (?) exceptionally shows an Ablative. No such Ablative in connection with a Virtue or deity had ever appeared. This unusual inflection could be interpreted either as an elliptical Ablative Absolute,316 or an extension of the "Instrumental Ablative,"317 expressing Quality or the so-called "Attendant Circumstances."318 Here, as has been said, parallels cannot be found on official issues until a much later date. Indeed, the use of such Ablatives on official coinages to describe deities and "Virtues" is only found much after the Julio-Claudian period. We may quote the CERERE AVG[VS·] of Septimius Severus,319 the almost simultaneous SPE AVG· of Clodius Albinus,320 and the PERPETVITATE of Florian (a.d. 276)321 and his successors. But the first two of these are provincial, and an Ablative may not have been intended; though for our present medallic piece of Tiberius such an assumption would probably be unjustified. PAX, too, was to appear on official coinages in the Ablative, but in an unelliptical Ablative Absolute—PACE P·R· TERRA MARIQVE PARTA,322 a great early imperial theme.323

A grammatical form like this Ablative on our piece of Carthage(?), whatever its explanation, is, by the mere fact that its only parallels are not contemporary but far in the future,324 not inappropriate to the progressive developments in the idea of Pax which were a feature of the principate of Tiberius. The next subsection will suggest that the same medallion of Carthage(?) shows further anticipations of the practice of official coinage.

End Notes
Helmreich, 162, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 143.
For the praenomen see above, section i.
Cf. Pippidi, RCI, pp. 47, 199 f., pace Taylor, AJP, 1937, pp. 187, 192.
RAI, Chapter III, section 2.
Huelsen, Das Forum Romanum, p. 80, cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp., I, p. cxxxviii.
See Appendix 12.
Cf. Gagé, RA, xxxii, 1930, pp. 1 ff., id., MAH, 1932, p. 89, and the comment of Mattingly, BMC. Imp., III, p. xxxix.
Ann., II, 30, VI, 34, XI, 3.
BMC. Imp., p. 131, no. 81.
See Strack, Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägung des zweiten Jahrhunderts, I, pp. 49 ff., Fink, YCS, VIII, 1942, p. 87, n. 27, Gagé, RA, XXXII, 1930, p. 3, n. 3, BMC. Imp., I, pp. clvi f. nn., Koch RE, xviii, 4, 2432 f. Cf. domus Augusti-Augusta, numen Augusti-Augustum, Chapter III, section i.
Vives, IV, p. 127, no. 9.
Gagé, RH, 1936, p. 290. For the Pax theme, see Kornemann in Gercke-Norden, Einteilung in die Altertumswissenschaft, III, 2, p. 61, Koch, loc. cit., 2430 ff.
For the identification see Servius, ad Aen., I, 292, cf. Adcock, CAH, IX, p. 720.
See above, Chapter II, section ii, subsection B.
Servius, ad Aen., VI, 860, cf. Dumézil, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus, p. 89.
See above, section ii, subsection B.
Cf. Carcopino, Points de Vue sur l'Impérialisme Romain, pp. 107 f., cf. p. 97.
In SWC it is suggested that the aes pieces with Numa's head, which are mentioned in FITA, p. xvi, should be attributed to c. 18 b.c. instead of 23 b.c. to which Willers and Mattingly attribute them. Pink prefers 20 b.c.
Cf., for various aspects of this position, Dumézil, Mitra-Varuna, pp. 29 ff., Horace et les Curiaces, p. 79, Naissance de Rome , pp. 187 f. Augustus wanted to look like both, cf. Glaser, RE, XVII, 1, 1249; and there was apparently a statue of Numa ad Aram Gentis Iuliae (cf. Smith, JRS, 1926, pp. 99, 101), though the altar in question may be post-Augustan, cf. Chapter III, section i. For Numa's initiation of the auspicia maiora and augurium salutis see Liegle, Hermes, 1942, pp. 285, 298, and above, section ii, subsection B, n. 219.
On this, among the latest contributions to a vast literature are Poulsen, Acta Archaeologies I, 1946, pp. 1 ff., Moretti, Ara Pacis Augustae (1948), Ryder, Memoirs of American Academy at Rome , 1949.
BMC. Imp., I, pp. 271 f., cf. p. clxxx. As is seen by Sydenham, The Coinage of Nero , p. 63, n. 1, the comparison with Nero's coins should not be pressed as by Riemann, RE, XVIII, 2 (1942), 2087. On the type of the latter see Kubitschek, JAIW, 1902, pp. 153 ff.
BMC. Imp., I, p. cxl.
Not the temple of Janus, as A. Occo, Imperatorum Romanorum Numismata (1683), p. 70.
FITA, pp. 271,281.
Cf. below, Chapter III, section i.
FITA, p. 215.
See FITA, pp. 197 f., n. 6 and below, Appendix 5.
Georg ., II, 425, Aen., VIII, 16, cf. d'Herouville, REL, 1941, p. 146.
It was also perhaps stressed by reasons of official agricultural policy, cf. d'Herouville, loc. cit., pp. 142 ff.
BMC. Imp., I, pp. cxxiii, 100, no. 611.
BMC. Imp., I, pp. 256 ff. It is there described as a laurel-branch (cf. p. 415), but interpreted as an olive-branch, ibid., pp. clxxxi f., cf. p. 418.
Cf. RAI, Chapter III, section i, combining the views of Mattingly, BMC. Imp., I, p. cxxxi, Strack, Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägung des zweiten Jahrhunderts, I, p. 52, no. 128. Liegle, Hermes, 1942, p. 304, considers the figure to represent Salus, but without apparent justification.
Cf. Pippidi, RC, 1941/2 = AT, p. 175, n. 2.
Cf. W. Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, I, p. 427.
5.9, cf. Pippidi, RC, 1941/2 = AT, p. 144.
Cf. Wagenvoort, QAS, X, 1938, p. 18, Strong, JRS, 1939, pp. 148 ff., Westcott, The Epistles of St. John , p. 250, Westbury Jones, Roman and Christian Imperialism, p. 1.
Apologeticum, V, 2, cf. XXI, 4; Pippidi, REL, 1934 = AT, pp. 194 f. (references).
Cf. Gagé, RA, XXXIV, 1931, pp. 34 f., RH, 1936, Piganiol, Histoire de Rome , p. 247.
ILS, 3786, cf. von Premerstein, p. 126.
RAI, Chapter III, section 2.
Fasti, III, 881, cf. FITA, p. 271, Liegle, Hermes, 1942, p. 299; the present writer says more about this conjunction in Univ. of Edinburgh Review, 1949, p. 238.
FITA, p. 271. Cf. under Tiberius AETERNITATIS AVGVSTAE (Plate VII, 2), etc.
BMC. Imp., I, pp. lxiv, 165 ff.
For an earlier Ablative Absolute cf. AEGYPTO CAPTA, BMC. Imp., I, p. 106, no. 650, and the signatures of colonial magistrates (FITA, pp. 159, 189 f., 196 f., 262: cf. also—elliptically—C. Allio Bala at Lipara, ibid., p. 28); cf. later VOTIS X. MVLTIS XX etc. (for an early example under Commodus see BMC. Imp., IV, p. 743).
Precedents for this type of usage are perhaps partly supplied by TRIB(unicia) POT(estate), etc., BMC. Imp., I, p. lxviii, cf. II, pp. xxxiv, lxxxvi, Vandvik, AVAO, 1941, 2 (1942), p. 110.
For the Instrumental Ablative in general see Ernout, Riemann's Syntaxe Latine 7, pp. 160 ff. For the so-called Ablative of Manner (with adjective), ibid., p. 162. For the Ablative of "Quality" see Vandvik, AVAO, 1941, no. 2 (1942) (especially p. 64, "Komitative Begriffe"), Löfstedt, Skrifter utgivna av Det Kongl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund, X, 1, 1942, pp. 155 ff., cf. also Woodcock, CR, 1947, pp. 22 ff. Such an interpretation of our present legend requires the understanding of res publica or imperium p.R. or some such phrase.
RIC, IV, 1, pp. 617 f.
Ibid., 50, no. 41; cf. Carausius later (RIC, V, 2, pp. 542 f.). The latter also uses FIDES, FIDE and FIDEM indiscriminately (ibid., p. 529), but blunders are to be suspected and indeed expected.
RIC, V, 2, pp. 352 f. Also Probus and Cams.
BMC. Imp., I, pp. lxxiv, clxxviii ff. (Nero).
Cf. Gagé, RH, 1936, p. 81, MAH, 1936, p. 70, Pippidi, RHSE, 1942 = AT, p. 144, Momigliano, JRS, 1942, p. 63 and n. 44.
For the sake of completeness, mention should be made of an Ablative after a Preposition—AVGVSTA IN PACE of Salonina, RIC, V, 1, p. 197, cf. (for its "Christian" sound) Mattingly, RC, p. 162.


A second feature of our colonial piece with PACE·AVG·PERP·, which again anticipates by many years the practice of the official coinage, is the epithet perpetua. This is far from common on the Roman coinage of the early Principate; our present piece, unless partially paralleled by a second Carthaginian(?) issue of Antonia (now lost if it ever existed325), provides the only numismatic instance of the word—and a non-official one at that—between the DICTATOR PERPET· of Lepidus(?) for Divus Julius in c. 37 b.c. 326 (a titular instance which is hardly comparable) and the ROMA PERPETVA of Vespasian.327 After the latter there is no known parallel until the last decade of the second century, when Commodus inscribed an issue FELIC· PERPETVAE AVG.328 This is the earliest analogy, on the official coinage, to our present colonial use under Tiberius of perpetua with a "Virtue."329 The usage of Commodus was followed by Severus' ascription of the same epithet to Concordia, Securitas and Spes.330 But our Pax Perpetua did not occur on official issues until the emperor Tacitus (a.d. 275-276).331 Before that, however, Severus Alexander had personified the quality itself with PERPETVITATI AVG.332 Probus (276-282), the successor of Tacitus and Florian, was to follow, in part, the example of Caesar dictator perpetuo by applying the same term to himself as imperator, not perpetuo, but perpetuus 333—PERPETVO IMP(eratori) PROBO AVG.334 Two centuries afterwards, Valentinian I celebrated PERPETVITAS IMPERII,335 apparently on the three hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the death of Augustus,336 and Gratian was to illustrate a similar theme by a phoenix on a globe.337

Thus the appearance of perpetua on our colonial "medallion" inaugurates and anticipates a long line of uses on the official series. Apparently Perpetuitas, to begin with, did not mean quite the same as Aeternitas,338 though the distinction may sometimes be lost sight of. Vespasian's inauguration of the epithet perpetua on the official coinage in conjunction with Roma is a deviation from the far commoner Roma Aeterna which can scarcely be accidental. Much later, Severus Alexander must have had a distinction in mind if, inscribing one coin PERPETVITATI, he inscribed another AETERNITATIBVS.339 Florian and Probus were to substitute an occasional VICTORIA PERPETVA340 for the more frequent VICTORIA AETERNA,341 and the latter was to imitate their predecessor Tacitus in ringing the changes on the two epithets as applied to Pax.342 Later still, the Augusti and Caesars of the tetrarchy were sometimes distinguished from each other by being called aeterni and perpetui respectively.343 Apart from references to Caesar's dictatorship, both words had first been introduced to the coinage of the empire under Tiberius; for not only does this apply to Perpetuus, but it is in his reign, too, that other colonial issues of Tarraco (Plate VII, 2) and Emerita (Plate VII, 8) are inscribed with the novel legend AETERNITATI[S] AVGVSTAE.344

The difference between the two conceptions is perhaps illustrated by Cicero. It is true that he exemplifies the natural tendency to confusion by coupling aeternus and perpetuus at least once without apparent distinction.345 But what is more significant is his tendency to link the latter epithet with words like stabilise, 346 constans 347 and assiduus 348 Aeternus means "that which is raised above all time," whereas perpetuus signifies "unbroken, uninterrupted, continuous."349 As its etymology (peto) suggests, the latter term sometimes carries an undertone of striving or hard work. It is a less celestial and more worldly epithet than aeternus. When Vespasian substitutes ROMA PERPETVA for the more usual ROMA AETERNA, he perhaps intends to convey a sense, not of the objective eternity of the city or of Romanità, but of the successful effort for survival, as exemplified by the recent Civil Wars and by the strenuous reforms that followed them.

Thus, too, when a city speaks of Pax Augusta (or Augusti) Perpetua under Tiberius, the suggestion is that this peace needs to be worked for and will not come with the inevitability of fate. Such a conception is consistent with the sober and laborious spirit of Tiberius' rule, and deserves to rank with Moderatio as one of its peculiar catchwords. Indeed, we have independent evidence that his principate witnessed a considerably extended use of the epithet perpetuas. For example, he himself is described by Velleius as perpetuas patronus Romani Imperii 350 and by a Gaulus inscription (admittedly deviating from official usage) as imperator perpetuus;351 while the conspiracy of Sejanus called forth vows pro perpetua salute divinae domus.352 But the closest parallel of all is the dedication Augusto Paci perpetuae et Concordiae Augustae.353

By way of contrast, when Seneca wrote magna et aeterna pax,354 he was to mean, like Christians at a later date,355 no worldly peace, but death.356 His phrase for the former, and synonym of the Tiberian Pax perpetua, was pax Romana.357 Tiberius, too, tended to reserve aeternitas for superhuman ideas. In his principate, at provincial capitals, the phrase AETERNITATI[S] AVGVSTAE (Plate VII, 2, 8) seems to have been inscribed on temples; the idea was closely linked with that of the aeternitas populi Romani.358 Aeternitas Augusta does not claim Aeternitas for the ruling princeps, nor, very pointedly, did Tiberius, whose judgment was principes mortales, rem publicam aeternam esse.359 But Aeternitas Augusta does hint at a dynastic permanence which was not yet formulated by official policy; and so does Tucci's dedication pro ae[tern.] Caesarum,360 which pointed straight to the dynastic implications of the AETERNIT(as) IMPERI of the Severi,361 and was nearer still to the autocratic and theocratic Aeternitas Augusti.362

Was it in awareness of these divergent strands of aeternitas that Severus Alexander, who had room for many gods in his lararium,363 produced his surprising coin-legend AETERNITATIBVS? Perhaps the comprehensive plural suggests that variations on this theme were already a little threadbare. Later in the century, the VESTA AETERNA of Salonina 364 seems scarcely more than a tautological repetition.365 By way of contrast with the elevated character of aeternitas, and its danger of becoming lost in meaningless abstraction, one of the many numismatic innovations of Commodus had been the more concretely phrased FORTVNAE MANENTI;366 and simpler still was to be the VICTORIOSO SEMPER of Probus.367 This was the ideal of a warrior and a military monarchy, and contrasts vividly with Tiberius' text for his very different reign—PACE AVG· PERP.

End Notes
Cohen, I, p. 222, no. 3, doubted by BMC. Imp., I, p. 188 n. The legend is given as PACI (not PACE) PERP·, but, on the Tiberian piece also, the final E is so poorly constructed as to look like an I at first sight.
This is the interpretation given to a unique aes piece (at Copenhagen) in FITA, pp. 50 ff. But it might also have been issued by Octavian in c. 36 b.c.
BMC. Imp., II, pp. lxiii, 86.
BMC. Imp., IV, pp. clxix, n. 3, 752, 833.
Cf. Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1935, p. 91, n. 3.
RIC, IV, 1, pp. 71, 75; cf. pp. 130, 212, 276.
RIC, V, 1, p. 333. Marcus Aurelius introduces PAX AETERNA AVG·, BMC. Imp., IV, p. 648, no. 1549, etc.
RIC, IV, 2, p. 84.
Cf. the "perpetual consulship" of Vitellius, Stevenson, CAH, X, p. 826. For et sacrosanctus in perpetuum ut essem (RG, 10), Hammond, p. 245, n. 10, Hohl, Klio , 1939, p. 74, FITA, p. 451, etc.
RIC, V, 2, pp. 13, 19, 110 f., cf. Gagé, RH, 1933, p. 34.
Pearce, NC, 1938, pp. 126 ff.
RAI, Chapter VII, section 4.
Pearce, NC, 1938, p. 128 (PERPETVETAS [sic]).
For references see Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1935, pp. 83, 87, n. 1, 91, n. 1, Liegle, Hermes, 1942, pp. 273, 279 ff. According to Gnecchi, Numismatic Circular, 1908 = The Coin-Types of Imperial Rome , p. 55, the two conceptions "may almost be confused."
RIC, IV, 2, p. 81. Doubted by Fink, YCS, 1940, p. 62, n. 1.
RIC, V, 1, pp. 352 f., V, 2, p. 108, cf. Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1935, p. 98.
For this see Berlinger, Zur inoffiziellen Titulatur der römischen Kaiser, Diss: Breslau, 1935, p. 24, d'Ors Pérez-Peix, Emerita , 1943, p. 330, n. 1.
RIC, V, 1, pp. 330, 333, V, 2, p. 21.
Seston, Dioclétien et la Tétrarchie, I, p. 220, n. 1. See in general Instinsky, Hermes, 1942, p. 344.
Cf. Hoey, YCS, 1940, pp. 105 f., Instinsky, Hermes, 1942, p. 323, Ensslin, SB München, 1943, VI, pp. 39 ff.
De Nat. Deorum, I, 15, 40.
De Inv., II, 54, 164.
Phil., XIII, 6, 13.
Fam., VI, 13, 2.
Lewis and Short, ss. vv. Cf. the Vergilian meaning of perpetuus, "drawn out at full length"; Mackail, ed., Aen., VIII, 183, cf. IV, 32, VII, 176.
II, 121, cf. Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1935, p. 91, n. 3.
ILS, 121: see above, section i. At cities there were quinquennales perpetui (Larsen, CP, 1931, p. 322) and flamines perpetui; cf. Sac. Perp. at Carthage, Chapter III, section i.
ILS, 157, cf. Charlesworth, HTR, 1936, p. 112, n. 14, Rogers, p. 28 (Interamna).
ILS, 3786: see last subsection. Cf. also Addenda.
Ad Marc., 19. 15.
Requiescit in pace, etc.—from the Hebrew. Cf. Augusta in pace, RIC, V, I, p. 197.
But this contrast cannot be pressed too far; exceptions occur on both sides. For the theme see Pfleiderer, Die Idee des ewigen Friedens, in Reden und Aufsätze (1909), pp. 50 ff.
De Clem., I.8.2; cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist.,
Cf. Charlesworth, HTR, 1936, p. 122, cf. Rogers, p. 32.
Tac., Ann., III, 65, cf. Rogers, p. 33.

(v) Old and new types

The last two subsections have attempted to illustrate novel features of PACE AVG· PERP·; and there are other novelties in Tiberian colonial types. But these must be considered alongside many features already found under Augustus. Inherited from Augustus, apparently without change, were Mars and Victoria ;368 and so were certain other cults, likewise recorded on our coinage, which seem to have had a special local significance, such as Jupiter Ammon at Cassandrea (no. 32: PLATE IV, 4) and Mercury at Thapsus 369 (nos. 24, 26, 28-29, 31 : Plate III, 3-4 and 6, IV, 1 and 3) .370 Both these had been the special types of their cities under Augustus just as they were under Tiberius.371 If we turn to official types of an inanimate character,372 we find, as in Spain 373 and on statues,374 an abundance of laurel-wreaths ( Victoria Augusti 375) and oak-wreaths (ob cives servatos 376), always hard to tell apart377 (e.g. Plate I, 1-3, II, 3, IV, 9, V, 16, VII, 7, VIII, 7). These were both purely Augustan; and so was the capricorn at Panormus (no. 11: Plate I, 16), which recalls those imitated by municipia Italica 378 and Zitha 379—under Augustus—from his official issues.380 Pontifical implements, too, are common in both reigns.381 The simpulum and lituus at Hippo Diarrhytus (no. 20: Plate II, 7)382 had already appeared on Augustan coinages as emblems of the high-priesthood,383 and even the much rarer strigiles at Pella (nos. 36, 40: PLATE IV, 11) had figured at the same mint under the first princeps.384

On the other hand, in our discussion of PACE AVG· PERP·, one point that has emerged is the occasional appearance of new phrases and motifs on colonial issues many years, often very many years, before they are found on the official mintages; and it has become clear that, in spite of its many conservative traits,385 this applies particularly to the colonial series of Tiberius. Its epithet PERPETVA, like its personification AETERNITAS, does not appear on metropolitan issues until Vespasian. The olive-branch of Peace, apparently found at Panormus soon after (if not before) the accession of Tiberius, occurs first under Nero as the main type of official coins; while the actual PAX PERPETVA of our Tiberian medallion of Carthage(?) does not reappear at all until centuries later still, under Tacitus (a.d. 275-276).

Moreover, other colonial and municipal coinages of Tiberius provide analogous examples of such anticipations of the official practice. Thus the legend DEO AVGVSTO which appears at colonia Tarraco under Tiberius (Plate VI, 8: sometimes on the same coin as AETERNITATIS AVGVSTAE386) does not appear on official coinage until we find it—apparently in honour of an Augustan anniversary—on aurei of Gallienus (a.d. 253-268).387 Again, the omission of any divine title from the style of Augustus, at Dyrrhachium and Pella under Tiberius, is not paralleled on official issues until Hadrian.388 Yet another Tiberian anticipation, at a provincial Roman city, of a later official numismatic theme is provided by municipium Italica, which writes PROVIDENTIAE AVGVSTI in full (Plate VII, 4389), rendering explicit the deliberately generalised PROVIDENT· of the imperial aes. Here, however, the time-lag before the theme percolates to the official coinage is a shorter one; for it is not a third-century princeps, but Claudius, whose Roman issues first write this type of formula in full—CONSTANTIAE AVGVSTI.390 Similarly Pella (no. 39) and Caesaraugusta 391 write PIETAS AVGVSTA under Tiberius where Rome still writes PIETAS.392

Nor are these the only precocities or peculiarities of the Tiberian coin-types of citizen communities. For in some cases, as subjects discussed in the next chapter will indicate, we find strange terms or phrases which are not only alien to the official coinage of the principates of Tiberius and Augustus, but never, even in later years, recur on official or, for that matter, local coinages. Thus Romula's GENETRIX ORBIS of Livia (Plate VII, 6),393 only partially paralleled at a much later date by the VENERI GENETRICI of Sabina,394 is for the rest exceptional; the GENT· IVLI· of Corinth (Plate V, 4, 7) disappears after a brief survival under Caligula,395 while the IVNCTIO of Ilici (Plate VI, 6),396 applied to Germanicus and Drusus, has no precedent or parallel on coinage of any sort or period.

PACE AVG· PERP·, then, is only one of a number of types that present, along with elements inherited from Augustus, features which can be related to no Augustan precedent, but which instead are either unique or point the way to practices not apparent on the official coinage until much later principates. Phenomena of this latter type suggest a new aspect of the gradual and much-discussed "provincialisation" of Rome and the Romans.397 A further aspect of the same subject, the infiltration from the periphery of special honours to the imperial family, is the topic of the next section.

End Notes

ILS, 163, as restored by Mommsen.
RIC, IV, 1, pp. 73, 75, 77; cf. coinage of Philip. See Pearce, NC, 1938, p. 128, Ensslin, SB München, 1943 (VI), p. 39, Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1935, p. 124, Nock, JRS, 1947, p. 105, n. 30.
Ensslin, SB München, 1943 (VI), p. 41.
Id., CAH, XII, p. 68 (n. 1 references). But see above, n. 339.
RIC, V, 1, p. 115.
For the link between Vesta and Aeternitas see Charlesworth, HTR, 1936, pp. 107 ff., Rogers, p. 20. Last, CR, 1943, p. 32, suggests that no such inseparable link existed at a much earlier period; but cf. Hor., Od., III, 5, 11.
BMC. Imp., IV, pp. clxv and n. 2, 731, 813, 821, 858; Nock, JRS, 1947, p. 113, n. 91.
RIC, V, 2, pp. 32, 41, cf. Gagé, RH, 1933, pp. 27, 31, 34.
See above, section iii.
The ram at Panormus (no. 12: Plate I, 17 and 18) is interpreted as a symbol of Mercury by Hill, Coins of Ancient Sicily, p. 208; cf. Orth, RE, 2 R. 2, 393.
For the Augustan Mercury see Scott, Hermes, 1928, pp. 15 ff., Degrassi, Athenaeum, 1937, pp. 284 ff., Piganiol, RA, XXII, 1944, p. 123 and especially Chittenden, NC, 1945, pp. 41 ff.
FITA, pp. 272 (cf. Kubitschek, Gnomon, 1937, p. 24), 225.
For temples and shrines, cf. below, Chapter II, section iv, subsections A and B, Chapter III, section i.
E.g. Romula (Plate VII, 7), Acci, Tarraco, and municipia Bilbilis and Osca; also at municipium Utica.
E.g. Seltman, CAH, Plates IV, p. 152.
See Chapter II, section iii.
Cf. Tac., Ann., III, 21, for conferment on Tiberius.
Cf. Schulz, Die Rechtstitel und Regierungsprogramme auf römischen Kaisermünzen, p. 9 n. 19, p. 12, Mattingly, BMC. Imp., I, pp. xcix f.
FITA, p. 174.
FITA, p. 187.
BMC. Imp., I, pp. 56, 62, 80, 107, 110, 113.
For the patera held by Livia as priestess, see below, Chapter III, section iv, subsection B.
See above, section ii, subsection B; also Appendix 11.
BMC. Imp., I, p. 40.
FITA, pp. 281 f.
Cf. above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection C.
Vives, IV, p. 131, no. 12.
See below, Chapter III, section iii.
Ibid., n. 120.
Vives, IV, p. 127, no. 9; cf. above, section iv, subsection A.
BMC. Imp., I, p. 180, no. 109, p. 184, no. 140.
Vives, IV, p. 80, no. 37, cf. Hill, NNM, 50, 1931, p. 92, no. 19, and p. 96; cf. below, Chapter III, section iii, subsection A, n. 166. It is in the Genitive.
BMC. Imp., I, p. 133, no. 98.
Vives, IV, p. 80, no. 37; cf. below, Chapter III, section iv, subsection A.
BMC. Imp., III, pp. cxvii, cxli, 307, 334.
See below, Chapter III, section i.
Vives, IV, p. 42, no. 10; cf. below, Chapter III, section ii.
Cf. (for race) M. P. Nilsson, Imperial Rome , pp. 338 ff., Frank, American Historical Review, 1915/16, pp. 689 ff., Rostovtzeff, SEH, pp. 100, 517 f., n. 31, etc., etc. However, the view of Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht, pp. 85 ff., 111 ff., that Roman Law was similarly provincialised is now contested by de Visscher, AC, 1946, p. 58, who suggests that the influence was centrifugal. Kornemann, GR, p. 349 ff., says that "Hellenisation" came quickly after Augustus, who had delayed it (cf. Weber's unpublished Princeps, Vol. II, Chapters IV and V).



(i) The Gens Iulia

A TYPE which evokes collectively the theme of the imperial family is provided by the Tiberian coinage of Corinth. The larger and more varied of the two duoviral issues of this mint that can be attributed to Tiberius is that of the duoviri L. Arrius Peregrinus and L. Furius Labeo (nos. 42-45), apparently datable to some year before 22.1 Its type is a hexastyle temple inscribed GEimage (i or is) IVLI(ae) (Plate V, 4, 7). Though the imperial cult under Tiberius is a familiar theme, a brief commentary on this particular legend is perhaps needed in order to enable it to play its part among the rest of the evidence. For this is apparently the numismatic début of the phrase Gens Iulia ,2 and indeed, if we except a brief survival of the same series under Caligula,3 apparently its sole numismatic occurrence.

At the very period of our Tiberian coinages the Gens Iulia receives literary attention: for Tacitus records the dedication of a sacrarium Genti Iuliae in a.d. 16 at its ancestral Bovillae,4 from which too we have a Republican inscription of the genteiles Iuliei.5 In speaking of a.d. 19, Tacitus again illustrates the special position of the Gens Iulia by describing the stipulation according to which it alone should provide successors to the priestly posts of Germanicus.6 These developments are very close in date to the Corinthian coins, and the combined evidence bears witness to a decisive stage in the cult. Its preliminaries under Augustus are obscure. The Ara Gentis Iuliae at Rome, of which we have epigraphic evidence under Claudius 7 and Titus,8 was ascribed by Grueber to c. 39 b.c.,9 and Taylor too first attributed it to Augustus (12 b.c.);10 but subsequently she has withdrawn this view in favour of the opinion that the Ara Numinis Augusti, from its foundation (shortly before his death?) served the cult of the Gens Iulia .11 Though Augustus' family played a very great part in his policy,12 there seems to be no positive evidence for an Ara Gentis Iuliae at Rome in his lifetime;13 the altar existing in the time of Claudius may have been founded by the latter, but the founder could also have been Tiberius.

Similar chronological doubts attend our earliest known inscription recording a kindred concept, the Gens Augusta. This inscription is a private dedication from a fellow-colony of Corinth, namely Carthage, couched in the phrase Genti Augustae P. Perelius Hedulus sac. perp.14 This is usually ascribed to the lifetime of Augustus, but at one time Rostovtzeff envisaged a Tiberian date.15 Gens Augusta naturally does not mean quite the same as Gens Iulia . It has been suggested that the former implies the inclusion of the living family of the princeps in the cult, whereas the latter term only provides for the worship of his deceased relatives.16 This is doubtful, but it remains true that Gens Augusta is the more "advanced" of the two phrases. Augustus himself had pointed the distinction when he preferred his legislation to be known by the name of leges Iuliae rather than by the too autocratic designation (associated with a new "imperial" method) of leges Augustae.17 On the other hand he had finally used the name "Augustus" in the gentile position,18 and from 27 b.c. had allowed his colonies to be called coloniae Augustae,19 the previous designation colonia Iulia not, indeed, becoming extinct20 but perhaps being principally used henceforward for foundations associated with his vicegerents and relatives rather than with himself.21 The new term colonia Augusta was more autocratic; and, similarly, gens Augusta, apparently introduced at a somewhat later date, carried less conservative associations than gens Iulia.

It is uncertain whether the Carthaginian altar of the Gens Augusta is earlier or later than the Corinthian temple of Gens Iulia . But they are not precisely parallel, for the former was a private dedication, whereas the Corinthian temple was evidently an official institution of the colonia. It is reasonable enough that P. Hedulus should adopt a more "advanced" phrase than the official issue of a colony. Roman citizens abroad would naturally go further in such respects than the cities to which they belonged, just as the official practice of those cities would outrun the practice of Rome itself.22

The moderatio of Tiberius made him likely to extend his official preference to the less precocious of the two designations, Gens Iulia (which alone appears on coins), not least because the name "Augustus" was so much more closely linked with his predecessor than with Tiberius himself.23 Although little prominence was given to Julius Caesar at this time,24 the Iulii were the family into which he had been adopted in a.d. 4; and his mother, who was adopted into it posthumously by Augustus, from then onwards called herself IVLIA (as well as AVGVSTA) (Plate II, 4, V, 11 and 14, VI, 9, VII, 6, VIII, 11).25 The younger men of the family, however, after they had reached a certain age and status,26 did not do likewise: they were required to follow Tiberius in using the name CAESAR in the "gentile" position, unlike Augustus who had, in later life, preferred for it the place of the praenomen.27 This "gentile" use of CAESAR, if it may be so described, soon brings us to phrases which approach, but never quite achieve, Gens Caesarina 28 or Caesarum. Thus before long we hear of pontifex Caesarum ,29 possibly aeternitas Caesarum ,30 and closest of all— domus Caesarum .31 But this process never goes so far that we hear of a gens described in this way. For after all the Gens was the Gens Iulia , of which the ancient Republican history is recalled to us by the inscription at Bovillae. Incidentally, that inscription records their worship of Veiovis (a deity who likewise linked the family with Apollo Palatinus32); and a thunderbolt on the official coinage of Tiberius (for Divus Augustus), imitated at Achulla (no. 14: Plate I, 21), seems to carry a similar allusion33 and so may, perhaps, likewise be related to the cult of the Gens Iulia; so possibly may Numa, whose statue stood by the altar.34

Public worship of the Gens Iulia , whether at Rome or by a colony, represented a step, even if a short one, in the direction of autocracy, since it stressed the idea of an imperial family. Among citizens, as well as among foreigners, this idea began increasingly to take shape under Tiberius.35 As might be expected however, Tiberius himself, at Rome at least, discouraged this tendency. But, for all the caution of the Gythian decree,36 he could not, or did not, stop the cities of the empire from considerably outstripping this moderatio. For example, flamines of Livia, Germanicus and Drusus were, in the earlier part of the reign and in their lifetimes, appointed even by oppida civium Romanorum.37 Reference has been made to domus Caesarum, aeternitas Caesarum, pontifex Caesarum at peregrine communities; another was to have a pontifex domus Augustae some time during the first century.38

So this tendency—like those described in the last chapter—began at the periphery.39 But the Roman poets too are in the van of such movements: Ovid uses domus Augusta , 40 and domus Augusti 41 as well, as does an Ostian inscription also.42 Attention had begun to be deflected, even before the death of Tiberius, from the gens of the princeps to his domus.43 This was a word of deceptive associations with the Republican groups44 that did not prevent it from conveying the suggestion of a royal court and a dynasty.45 Phaedrus, writing after 31 a.d. and probably after 37,46 speaks of the divina domus;47 and inscriptions indicate that the same phrase was already being employed in the latter half of the principate of Tiberius. A Gallic community, Nasium, dedicates pro perpetua salute divinae domus,48 apparently just after the fall of Sejanus.49 The phrase divina domus 50 seems at first sight to anticipate the times of Nero or Domitian rather than to mirror the unpretentiousness of Tiberius, but in reality the phrase is not, in its inception, so adulatory to his person as it sounds: as so often its veneration is rather directed to his predecessor. For its meaning at this stage is not so much "the divine House" (though it is easy to see that confusion, and evolution towards that significance, could occur51) as "the house of the divi," and, in particular, "the house of the divus"52—refering not to Julius 53 but Augustus, who had, incidentally, been called divinus by writers even in his lifetime.54 The exceptional character of his posthumous position under Tiberius 55 makes it understandable that the Julian household—into which, after all, Tiberius himself had not even been born56—should have come to be described as the domus not so much of Tiberius the princeps as of Augustus the divus.

These ideas of the gens Iulia and Augusta , and the domus Augusta and divina, were full of autocratic potentialities, but at Rome Tiberius kept them within ostensible Republican bounds. No doubt, too, he kept an eye on the practices, in such matters, of citizens outside Rome. But adulation went farther in the remoter citizen communities than in Rome, and farther still in the peregrine areas of the empire;57 and the family feeling of Caligula greatly enhanced the Augustan house at Rome itself.58 The cives Romani at Corinth under Tiberius were on the way to such developments; and Corinth, which alone commemorates the Gens Iulia on coinage, was well qualified to take the lead, for that colony had always taken a particular interest in the junior members of the imperial house.59 However, even if the Corinthians missed no opportunities of flattery, the stage which they had reached on the way to dynasty-worship was a comparatively early one; and it may well be that the cult of the Gens Iulia there exceptionally recorded showed little deviation or development, other than by the inevitable addition of himself as divus, from the practice of Augustus.

End Notes

Edwards, Corinth , VI, p. 7.
The "Livia as priestess" type is sometimes (e.g. by Hill) described as representing the Gens Iulia , but it is labelled IVLIA AVGVSTA: see below, section iv, subsection B.
Earle Fox, JIAN, 1899, p. 105, no. 30.
Ann., II, 41, cf. Weber, p. 91*, n. 424, Gagé, MAH, 1931, p. 20, n. 3.
ILS, 298, cf. Gagé, MAH, 1931, p. 20, n. 3, Syme, RR, p. 68.
Ann., II, 83, cf. Gagé, MAH, 1930, p. 170, n. 4.
Henzen, Acta Fratrum Arvalium, p. 57.
Smith, JRS, 1926, pp. 99 ff. (a military diploma).
BMC Republic, I, p. 584 n. But the references which he quotes there (CIG, 6125 and Bullettino dell'Instituto Archeologico, 1845, p. 122) do not support this view.
AJA, 1925, p. 307, n. 2.
DRE, p. 193, n. 25. See above, p. 77.
Cf. Mommsen, St. R.3, II, p. 1168, n. 2, Kornemann, DR, p. 23, Groag, Studien zur Kaisergeschichte, p. 42, n. 5, Ehrenberg, p. 203.
Pippidi, RCI, pp. 72, n. 3, 201, reserves his judgment.
Poinssot, Notes et Documents de la Direction des Antiquités de Tunisie, 1929, pp. 14 f.; Gagé, RA, XXXIV, 1931, p. 11, QA, I, 1937, pp. 12 f., and MAH, 1932, p. 63; Carcopino, MAH, 1933, p. 23, Strong, CAH, X, p. 552, Seltman, CAH, Plates IV, p. 134, Maj, RPAA, 1936, p. 157, Pippidi, RCI, pp. 129 ff., etc. See also next note.
Röm. Mitt., 1923/4, pp. 290 ff., later qualified in BAF, 1925, p. 209, n. 1. He also discusses the altar in Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature, XV, 1922, p. 142, SEH, pp. 44, 46, SES, p. 50; in the first he wrongly calls it an Ara Gentis Iuliae.
Cagnat, CRAI, 1913, p. 684, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 130, n. 1.
Cf. Stuart Jones, CAH, X, p. 147, von Premerstein, pp. 153, 157.
See above, Chapter II, section i.
Cf. FITA, pp. 257, 293, n. 1.
Cf. Gsell, Histoire Ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord, VIII, p. 179, Henderson, JRS, 1942, p. 13.
Cf. FITA, pp. 259 f.
Cf. above, Chapter II, section v.
See above, Chapter II, section i.
Cf. above, Chapter II, section i, and below, section iii.
See below, section iv, subsection B.
The grandsons of Tiberius still appear, when very young, as Ti. Iulii Germanicus and Nero, e.g., on a lead piece at Berlin, Dressel, ZfN, 1922, p. 182; Nero (Gemellus) has not yet become Ti. Caesar Drusi Caes. f., as on CIL, VI, 892.
See above, Chapter II, section i.
Even under Augustus at least one colony had apparently been described as Caesarina , i.e., Asido (Henderson, JRS, 1942, p. 13). Cf. Caesarea, the epithet given to Pisidian Antioch, though for a special reason (FITA, p. 250—not Sinope, ibid., p. 253).
CIL, II, 2038 (Anticaria); cf. Sutherland, JRS, 1934, p. 35, id., RIS, p. 159.
ILS, 163 (Tucci), as restored by Mommsen.
Cf. Wickert, Klio , 1940, p. 136. For domus, see later in this section. For the relation of gens with another kindred word familia, see Rolfe, CP, 1915, pp. 445 f., Du Four, p. 10, n. 15.
Cf. Pettazzoni, Augustus, p. 220.
Mattingly, NC, 1930, pp. 132 f.
Smith, JRS, 1926, pp. 99, 101, cf. above, Chapter II, section iv, subsection A.
Sutherland, JRS, 1934, p. 34, id., RIS, p. 158.
For references see Chapter III, section iv, subsection A.
CIL, XII, 3180, 3207, cf. Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule, IV, p. 346, n. 3; ILS, 6896 (Olisipo), cf. Sutherland, RIS, p. 159, JRS, 1934, p. 34.
CIL, II, 2105 (Urgavo), cf. Sutherland, JRS, 1934, p. 34, n. 27.
Pippidi, RCI, p. 129.
Ex Ponto, II, 2, 76, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 131; cf. Philo, In Flacc., 4, 23.
Op. cit., III, 1, 135, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 131, n. 1.
CIL, XIV, Suppl. 4319, cf. Pippidi, RCI, 130 f. Domus Augusti is much the rarer form: contrast the relative frequencies of numen Augusti and numen Augustum, which is exceptional (CIL, XI, 3303, cf. Taylor, AJPh, 1937, p. 189, Pippidi, RCI, pp. 40, n. 1, 47).
Cf. the "Virtues," Chapter II, section iv, subsection A.
Cf. von Premerstein, p. 66.
Cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 139. Ibid., p. 129, the gens and domus Augusta are described as synonymous. But their emphases are different: domus stresses the "household" aspect, whereas the gens was a whole clan including several families.
Cf. Rose, Handbook of Latin Literature, p. 358 and n. 52.
Fab., V, 7, 8, cf. Pippidi, RCI, pp. 123, 128 and n. 3.
CIL, XIII, 4635, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 137, cf. p. 132.
Cf. Charlesworth, HTR, 1936, p. 112, n. 14.
For references see particularly Eitrem, Symbolae Osloenses, XI, 1932, pp. 11 ff., Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1935, p. 86, n. 3, Pippidi, RCI,, Ensslin, SB München, 1943 (VI), pp. 37, 71 ff.
Cf. Pippidi, RCI, pp. 133 f.
Mowat, La Domus Divina et les Divi, pp. 1 ff., cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 132, n. 1.
As Mowat, op. cit. Julius was not emphasized at this time, cf. Gagé, RA, XXXIV, 1931, pp. 23, 36, Pippidi, RCI, p. 132, n. 1; the sidus Iulium (cf. Scott, CP, 1941, p. 257) sometimes appears (e.g. no. 14: Plate I, 21) but it had become associated with Augustus.
E.g. by Vitruvius, prooem., divina tua mens, cf. Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1934, p. 32. Largus and Seneca wrote similarly of Claudius.
Cf. below, section iii.
Some imperial freedmen enfranchised by Tiberius even after a.d. 4 still seem to have been called Claudius rather than Julius, cf. Scramuzza, EC, pp. 141 f.

(ii) The younger Julio-Claudians

The representation by our colonies of the individual princes of the Gens Iulia does not go beyond Augustan precedent. Three and perhaps four of the fourteen coloniae civium Romanorum to which Tiberian coinage is here assigned—Hippo Diarrhytus, Thapsus, Corinth(?), Sinope (nos. 19, 26, 28, 31, 46, 53: Plate II, 6, III, 6, IV, 3, V, 9(?), 16)—portray Drusus junior (Thapsus several times). None of our colonies, however, seems to depict Germanicus.60 This does not, however, much illuminate the problem, of which so much has been written lately,61 of the relative position of the two princes while both were still alive. For the coins of Thapsus and Sinope to which reference has been made are demonstrably later than the death of Germanicus (a.d. 19); the same is almost certainly true of the issue of Hippo, and, according to Edwards,62 of the Corinthian coin also (a.d. c. 22-23). The apparent absence of Germanicus and Drusus junior from the coinage of these cities during the first quinquennium of Tiberius provides a contrast to Spain, where five cities celebrated both these princes on their issues of that period (e.g. Plate VII, 5). These Spanish communities mostly preserved a nice balance as regards the relative importance of the two men63 (as had Corinth even under Augustus—adding Agrippa Postumus as well64); only Romula seems slightly to prefer Germanicus (Plate VII, 7).65

Without throwing any light on the relative importance of the two princes while both were alive, our present coinages, like an issue of Tarraco,66 merely illustrate the known elevation of Drusus junior, after the death of Germanicus, to a position which neither had enjoyed before a.d. 19.67 This was the first occasion on which a princeps had raised his own son to such a position; and it has caused the year 19 to be described as an important moment in Roman imperial history.68 The issues of Sinope, Hippo and Thapsus suggest that this development was noticeable almost immediately after Germanicus died. The coin of Sinope (Plate V, 16) is dated to a.d. 19-20; and those of the two African cities were already being issued by a.d. 21.69

It is possible that Tiberius delegated to Drusus junior certain tasks of colonial foundation70—and even conceivably, through the latter's tribunicia potestas conferred in a.d. 22, the ius senatus consulendi comprising the right to become auctor of senatusconsulta.71 An issue of colonia Tarraco inscribed DRVSVS CAES·TRIB·POT·(Plate VII, 3), may well celebrate the conferment of the tribunicia potestas itself; Tarraco, as a provincial centre, had already shewn signs of an interest in that power unusual for colonies and their coinages.72 Corinth likewise was a leading colony, and one interested in potential heirs. Its issue honouring Drusus junior (?) (Plate V, 9) is ascribed to a.d. c. 22-23; thus it too may perhaps commemorate the conferment on Drusus of the tribunician power. But except for the fact that the elevation of the princeps' own son presented the dynastic aspect in an unprecedentedly vivid form, there was nothing exceptional about these honours to Drusus junior: for all of them precedents could be found, singly or severally, in the principate of Augustus.

Still less was there anything striking about the honours paid to Nero and Drusus, the sons of Germanicus, who, in part, took the place of Drusus junior as heirs to the principate after the latter's death.73 One of our colonies, Corinth, offers a possible parallel (no. 47) to the numismatic honours accorded to them by municipium Tingis in Mauretania 74 and by Spanish colonies such as Caesar-augusta (Plate VI, 1) and Carthago Nova (Plate VI, 4).75 At these Spanish cities the young princes are described as duoviri and duoviri quinquennales respectively.76 Carthago Nova also shows a portrait of Caligula before the end of the principate of Tiberius (Plate VI, 3),77 and at Caesaraugusta he is a duovir represented by a praefectus,78 phenomena for which no parallel can be cited from the coinage of our non-Spanish colonies.79

But like Nero Germanici f. before him (and others before that), Caligula had a junior co-heir; and unlike Caligula, this co-heir, Ti. Julius Nero (Gemellus), the son of Drusus junior, seems to be represented among our issues. For on a coin of Paestum (no. 8: Plate I, 12-14) the legend, as far as it is decipherable, appears to be L.CAEL(ius) FLA(men) [TI·]AVG(usti), TI·CAESAR IIVIR(i).80 The second duoviral name cannot be that of the princeps Tiberius: his name could not come second on a coin of his own principate,81 to which the legend TI·AVG· (supported by iconographical considerations) ascribes this piece. But the tombstone of Ti. Gemellus confirms that his official style was, as might be expected, Ti. Caesar;82 and the second name on the Paestan issue is likely to be his.

If this is so, we have a prince yielding the first place in a duoviral college to a "commoner." But there is no serious difficulty about this; and it is quite possible that, in the time of Augustus, an earlier princeps-to-be Tiberius had, at another Roman colony, Cnossus, likewise taken second place.83 Admittedly there the "commoner" had apparently been not merely duovir but praefectus Augusti, but the Paestan coin may present a partial parallel to this, for L. Caelius, even if not praefectus Ti. Augusti, may well have obtained similar priority on the grounds of his post as flamen Ti. Augusti:84 this perhaps entitled him, rather than Ti. Gemellus, to the position of duovir comitialis, that is, senior duovir.85 In view of the cautious attitude of the second princeps towards his last co-heirs, Caligula and Gemellus,86 as earlier (to a less extent) to Nero and Drusus, it is not surprising to find Gemellus here not only in the second place but apparently also unrepresented by a praefectus: for in about the thirties a.d., after the fall of Nero and Drusus, the appointment of praefecti for younger princes decreased considerably in number and perhaps ceased altogether.87

If this interpretation of its coinage is correct, Paestum joins other oppida civium Romanorum, such as Alba Pompeia 88 and another,89 in honouring Ti. Gemellus. But as usual the Roman cities did not go so far in the direction of dynastic flattery as peregrine Eastern cities. For example, Philadelphia placed his head on its coinage,90 apparently still during the lifetime of his grandfather Tiberius,91 in whose company a second coin, of an uncertain Asian mint, seems to represent him.92 Caligula, then, did not monopolise the honours of heirship in the last period of Tiberius;93 and indeed we know that so high an official as A. Avillius Flaccus, prefect of Egypt, believed in the prospects of Ti. Gemellus.94 Our colonial coinages do not illuminate the earliest years of Gemellus, in which official issues of Rome 95 and Cyrene,96 and lead tokens,97 had represented him with his twin brother Ti. Julius Germanicus.98

The heirs of Tiberius received honours in these cases less conspicuous, and in no case more conspicuous, than had the heirs of Augustus during the latter's lifetime. Indeed, none of the heirs of Tiberius possessed the power and auctoritas which he himself had attained during the last years of his adoptive father's lifetime; though Drusus junior might well have achieved these before long if he had lived.

End Notes

E.g. Gangra oath (3 b.c.) should perhaps be restored to include the phrase το image ς τ[έκ]vοις ἐγγό[vοις τ∊] αύτο image: von Premerstein, pp. 45 ff.
Cf. Balsdon, pp. 29 ff., 41 ff.
Cf. FITA, p. 268.
This is on the assumption that a small Corinthian(?) piece with GER·—DRV· is not a colonial issue of Tiberius: see Appendix 1.
See Drexler, Auf dem Wege zum nationalpolitischen Gymnasium, 1939, p. 151, Kornemann, RG, II, p. 151, Stuart, CP, 1940, pp. 64 ff., Allen, TAPA, 1941, pp. 1 ff., Betz, JAIW, 1943, Beiblatt, p. 131, especially Rogers, pp. 89 ff., and the probably right conclusion of Balsdon, JRS, 1945, p. 146 (agreeing with Rogers, etc.), that there was little to choose between the two princes in this respect. But the somewhat cryptic testimony of Velleius II, 116.1, 125.4, 129.2, 130.3 f., needs reconsideration as a probable reflection of the official view of a.d. 30: Allen, op. cit., p. 6, considers that he prefers Drusus to Germanicus.
Corinth , VI, p. 20, no. 44.
Cr. IVNCTIO at Ilici: Vives, IV, p. 42, no. 10; Plate VI, 6, Chapter II, section v.
FITA, p. 268; cf. last section.
Vives, IV, p. 124, no. 4 (GERMANICVS CAESAR TI·AVG·F·). This is—exceptionally—not paralleled, as far as we know, by a similar issue in honour of Drusus; though ibid. 2 offers the usual honours to the two princes together. Sutherland, JRS, 1934, p. 36, quotes an issue for Drusus junior at Italica: but there is a parallel one for Germanicus.
Vives, IV, p. 132, no. 20 (DRVSVS CAES·TRIB·POT·, IVLIA AVGVSTA); cf. Sutherland, JRS, 1934, p. 37, Hill, NNM, 50, 1931, p. 48; Plate VII, 3.
Cf. Gardthausen, RE, X, 433, Kuntz, Tiberius Caesar and the Roman Constitution, p. 58, Hammond, p. 239, nn. 42, 68.
Kornemann, DR, p. 41.
See above, Chapter II, section ii, subsection A.
See Appendix 5.
Cf. above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection C.
See above, Chapter II, section i.
Cf. von Premerstein, p. 66 and n. 2, Wickert, Klio , 1939, p. 336, n. 2, Hohl, Klio , 1942, p. 243.
See Appendix 2. This coin might be of Caligulan date, NC, 1948, p. 114.
Vives, IV, pp. 82, 37, n. 37.
Cf. Abaecherli Boyce, NNM, 109, 1947, p. 23 and n. 32. They held many such duovirates and quinquennalian duovirates, ibid., pp. 24 and 37; for a possible example of the latter at Utica, see Appendix 2.
Vives, IV, p. 37, no. 41.
Vives, IV, p. 82, nos. 54 f.; cf. above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection C.
For such honours cf. Kornemann, DR, p. 47, n. 7, Balsdon, p. 18 and n. 1.
For L. Caelius see above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection C.
Cf. FITA, p. 263, against Hill, NNM, 50, 1931, p. 91 (for Caesaraugusta; where Fulvianus is probably the praefectus of a prince). Indeed the princeps as duovir usually (though not always) lacked a colleague.
CIL, VI, 892.
See Appendix 1.
For this, see above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection C, p. 25.
For this as the senior post, cf. Hardy, Roman Laws and Charters, p. 69, FITA, p. 196, n. 13 (Agrigentum).
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X, pp. 642, 652, etc.
See above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection C, pp. 26 f.
ILS, 171.
Giglioli, Bullettino archeologico communale di Roma, 1930, pp. 150 f. = AE, 1933, p. 25, no. 94.
Imhoof-Blumer, LS, p. 120, no. 24, correcting GM, p. 52(576), no. 47, cf. also Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum, VIII, p. 204, Gardthausen, RE, X, 536.
The Tiberian portraiture, and the type of thunderbolt imitated from late Tiberian aes are against the suggestion of Imhoof-Blumer, LS, p. 120, cf. Bosch, II, 1, p. 24, that this was a memorial coinage.
Cast at Winterthur: TIBEPI . . . laureate head of Tiberius to right—TIB· head of Gemellus(?) to right. For other honours to Gemellus by peregrine cities cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X, p. 624.

(iii) Divus Augustus

To the question of his heirs and their honours, Tiberius could apply his customary Augustan yard-stick. But a situation to which no such criterion could be applied was provided by the death and deification of Augustus himself.99 The position of the new divus was much greater than had been that of Divus Julius in the preceding principate.100 The outstanding character of the reputation of Divus Augustus in the decades immediately following his death is illustrated by his predominance on the official coinages of Tiberius.101 Nor do the Tiberian mintages of Roman colonies and municipia fall short in this respect. Ten of them show portraits of the deified first princeps. These include our non-Spanish coloniae Panormus, Achulla, Dyrrhachium, Corinth and Cnossus (?) (nos. 11, 14, 41, 42 and 49: Plate I, 16, 21, V, 1, 3, 4, 11, 12); while in Spain the same phenomenon occurs at the Roman colonies of Romula, Emerita (Plate VII, 8), Tarraco and Caesaraugusta, and at municipium Turiaso. In each case the head of the deified Augustus is radiate, except only at Cnossus (?), where it seems to be bare.

This great emphasis on Divus Augustus is appropriate to the vast part played by his posthumous figure—despite the customary moderatio as regards extravagant flattery of his memory102—in Tiberian policy. The present writer has, in Roman Anniversary Issues, endeavoured to illustrate the punctilious and repeated care with which Tiberius celebrated Augustan anniversaries, and indeed to show that the occasions for his official coinage largely consisted of these.103 It has been suggested that the Tiberian phrase divina domus originally meant "the House of the DIVUS," namely Augustus;104 and similarly, when Tiberius commemorated decennia and vicennia, he was commemorating the anniversaries not so much of his own rule as of the deification of Augustus. For many years after the latter's death, the cities of the empire continued to coin in his name.105 Tiberius' own name "Augustus" was still far more closely associated with the dead man than with the ruling emperor,106 and Victoria , Felicitas, Pax Augusti, etc., under Tiberius carried an allusion to Augustus himself.107 Indeed it sometimes seemed as though Tiberius never considered himself more than a regent on earth for the real princeps, still Augustus. The second principate witnessed the vital stages in the development of the vastly important institution of divus worship;108 and, like the cognate institution of the divina domus, it centred round Augustus.

The main formulae by which the official coinage of Tiberius honoured Augustus were two in number—DIVVS AVGVSTVS PATER, which figured largely on the aes 109 (as well as at Emerita [Plate VII, 8] and Tarraco), and DIVOS AVGVST· DIVI F·, on the official gold and silver.110 None of our five colonies which commemorated Augustus imitated either of these titulatures exactly. Likewise, no parallel is found to the DEO AVGVSTO illustrating a temple on one of Tarraco's coins (Plate VI, 8);111 this phrase soon recurs on inscriptions112 and in writings,113 but it does not reach the official coinage until an Augustan anniversary as late as Gallienus.114

Four of the five non-Spanish colonies celebrating Augustus can be dismissed very briefly: Panormus (Plate I, 16) and Corinth (Plate V, 4) add no descriptive legend to their portraits of Augustus, whereas Cnossus (?) (Plate V, 11, 12) and probably Achulla (Plate I, 21) describe him in the simplest orthodox form—DIVOS AVG. At Dyrrhachium, on the other hand, though the radiate head shows that the coins were posthumous, we find merely AVG·, accompanied by no indication of divinity (no. 41: Plate V, 1, 3). This is a phenomenon to which Pella (nos. 34, 37: PLATE IV, 6, 9) provides a parallel in the form given to the patronymic of the reigning princeps: he is described as TI· CAESAR AVG·F·AVGVSTVS. This omission of divus and deus occurs also in early literature—for example in the writings of (Valerius?) Largus115—as well as in inscriptions.116 In the East it recalls the use of plain Σ∊βαστός, without Θ∊ός, that prevailed at peregrine cities for many years after the death of Augustus;117 and it seems probable that Dyrrhachium and Pella, being Eastern, are merely translating this usage into Latin. Aύγοimageστος was Occasionally used in the same way;118 and an even closer parallel to our coins of Dyrrhachium is provided by colonia Olbasa, of which the first known issues, under Antoninus Pius, bear portraits of Divus Augustus inscribed merely AVGVSTVS.119 Under Hadrian, likewise in the East, the same phenomenon was found on the official coinage, in which silver tetradrachms, apparently issued on an anniversary occasion, bore heads of Augustus inscribed IMP· CAESAR AVGVSTVS, again without DIVVS.120 It has been argued elsewhere by the present writer that these usages are owed to the vέος Θ∊ός— Θ∊ὸς έπιϕαvής conception.121

The comparable omission of DIVVS from the Tiberian pieces here attributed to Dyrrhachium is not surprising. But it calls for more comment at Pella. For Pella, unlike Dyrrhachium, was in the old Royal Macedonia. There, even peregrine cities described the divine Augustus on their coins, not merely as Σ∊βαστός—as (with overwhelming regularity) did the rest of the Greek world—but as Θ∊ὸς Σ∊βασός 122∊ός representing divus).123 The present writer has ascribed this practice, peculiar to Royal Macedonia, to a survival of the traditional Antigonid distaste for the worship of living rulers.124 This sentiment seems to have motivated the addition of the word Θ∊ός to distinguish the dead from the living ruler, a distinction which was blurred to Greeks living elsewhere but seems to have meant something to the Greek communities of Macedonia. However, this attitude does not seem to have been shared by their Roman neighbour Pella, which calls Tiberius AVG·F· rather than DIVI AVG· F. If Pella is translating from the Greek, it ignored the "Antigonid" practice of the Greek cities of Macedonia, and, like Dyrrhachium at the other end of the Via Egnatia (outside Royal Macedonia), followed the ordinary Greek practice of considering the word Σ∊βαστός (alone) to carry the significance of actual deification.

But this explanation, based as it is on the assumption of a Hellenising usage, will scarcely suit two Spanish cities, colonia Caesar-augusta 125 and municipium Turiaso,126 which omit divus in precisely the same way but are unlikely to have been inspired by Greek ways of thought. Perhaps these cities were the more ready to omit the divine epithet owing to an imperfect understanding of the nuances of ruler-worship in Italy itself. The living Augustus had never officially been deus or even divus to citizens,127 but his Genius 128 and his Numen 129 had been worshipped; so Caesaraugusta and Turiaso—and the same may apply to some extent to Dyrrhachium and Pella—perhaps did not realise that the worship, in Augustus' lifetime, of his Genius and Numen was not the same thing as worshipping his living person. If they had worshipped him in his lifetime, it was hardly necessary to add divus to his name when he was dead.

These colonial usages are only minor aberrations, which vary slightly the general picture of Divus Augustus drawn by Tiberian officials and cities. The unlimited reiteration of the theme, in one guise or another, bears witness to the dilemma with which Tiberius was faced. Careful as he was to regulate all other matters (such as the honours to younger relatives) by Augustan precedents, precedents could not be applied to the posthumous position of their creator any more than they could be applied to his own titulature.

End Notes

As Balsdon, p. 18.
Philo, In Flacc., 9, 22, cf. Gelzer, RE, X, 384, Balsdon, p. 132.
BMC. Imp., I, p. 133, no. 95 (busts in cornuacopiae).
BMC Cyrenaica , pp. ccxxv ff., p. 121, nos. 49 ff.
Dressel, ZfN, 1922, p. 182: Berlin collection (TI·IVLIVS GER· TI· IVLIVS NERO).
On the deceased elder brother of these princes see Hohl, Klio , 1942, p. 234, n. 3, Rogers, pp. 95, 96, n. 23.
Cf. the attempts of Tiberius to achieve a titulature that would not invite comparison, see above Chapter II, section i.
For the "soft-pedalling" of Julius under Augustus see Syme, RR, pp. 317 f., JRS, 1938, p. 125, FITA, p. 442; for a continuance of this under Tiberius see Gagé, RA, XXXIV, 1931, pp. 23, 36, Pippidi, RCI, p. 132, n. 1, cf. above, section i, and Chapter II, section i.
BMC. Imp., I, pp. 124, 130, 134, 136, 140 ff.
Cf. Rogers, pp. 72, 84, etc.
RAI, Chapter III.
See above, section i, p. 97.
FITA, pp. 328 ff., 463 ff.
See above, Chapter II, section i.
See above, Chapter II, sections iii and iv.
For a recent short bibliography see Pippidi, RCI, p. 11, n. 2. Add d'Ors Pérez Peix, Emerita , 1942, pp. 197 ff., id., Anuario de Historia del Derecho Español, 1942/3, pp. 33 ff. (the latter not seen by the present writer), Sullivan, Classical Weekly, 1944.
BMC. Imp., I, pp. 140 ff.
BMC. Imp., I, p. 124, nos. 28 f. Entirely irregular (and aiming only at symmetry) is the Divo Caesari divi Iulii f. Augusto of ILS, 115: cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 108, n. 4.
Vives, IV, p. 131, nos. 10-13. For a recent bibliography see d'Ors Pérez Peix, Emerita , 1942, p. 205, n. 1.
E.g. ILS, 9495, cf. Abaecherli (now Abaecherli-Boyce), SMSR, 1935, p. 179, Saria, JAIW, 1941, Beiblatt, p. 8. Cf. Liviae Augusti deae municipium, CIL, X, 7464, Ollendorff, RE, XIII, 1, 913.
For a study of Caesari deo nostro (Seneca, De Tranquillitate Animi, XIV, 9), see Pippidi, RCI, pp. 75 ff.; p. 93 for Martial, Epigr., II, 59, V, 64, 6 (Augustus as deus).
RAI, Chapter VII, section i.
Helmreich, 31, 177, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 144.
E.g. CIL, XIII, 4635 (?) (Nasium), CIL, III, 1698 = 138136, ILS, 151, 161, 2281, 3320, 5516; a number of these are irregular in other respects also. Cf. Abaecherli, SMSR, 1935, p. 164, n. 1, Vulic, Klio , 1942, p. 177.
FITA, p. 360.
Ibid., p. 361.
Hill, Anatolian Studies to Ramsay , p. 221, cf. FITA, p. 361.
BMC. Imp., III, p. 395, no. 1094, cf. pp. clvii, clxi, RAI, Chapter V, section iii.
FITA, pp. 360 f.
FITA, p. 374.
Dio Cassius was to prefer ἡμίθ∊ος (Pippidi, RHSE, 1941 = AT, p. 136, n. 2, Carcopino, Points de Vue sur L'Impérialisme Romain, p. 120, n. 4), no doubt thinking of the distinction between divus and deus (Schwering, Indogermanische Forschungen, 1914/15, pp. 1 ff., 39 f., Weber, p. 86*, n. 399, Pippidi, RCI, pp. 93, n. 3, 95).
FITA, pp. 374 f.
Vives, IV, p. 82, no. 53.
Vives, IV, p. 94, no. 18.
But for the usage of Horace, etc., see now D. Norberg, Eranos Rudbergianus, 1946, pp. 389 ff.
Sources are given by Pippidi, RCI, pp. 9 ff., 19, n. 1. Weinstock, JRS, 1946, p. 112, n. 67, quotes the unknown Aufustius in a definition of the half-divine status of the Genius: Genius . . . est deorum filius et pareus hominum, ex quo homines gignuntur (Verrius Flaccus, in the epitome of Festus epitomised by Paulus Diaconus, p. 214[L]).
References in Pippidi, RCI, pp. 9 ff., 47 ff. (49, n. 3), 193 ff. See also now Wagenvoort, pp. 73 ff.

(iv) Julia Augusta


Tiberius could not, then, apply his customary standard, that of the practice of Augustus, to the position after death of that princeps himself. The same difficulty applied, with even greater force, to the entirely new position of the widow of Augustus after the latter's death. Livia appears on the coinages of the empire, and of the colonies which are the subject of the present study, in three more or less distinct rôles—as goddess, as "Virtue," and as priestess. In the present section the first two of these manifestations will be briefly considered in turn.

Livia appears as a goddess at Thapsus if the legend should be restored IVN(o) AVG(usta) (or the Dative) (nos. 22, 23: Plate III, 1, 2). At the same city we find a dedication to a seated figure inscribed CERERI AVGVSTAE (no. 21: Plate II, 9); while a representation at Panormus (no. 12: Plate I, 17) shows another, resembling the "Livia as priestess" type,130 but with the corn-ears which, at Thapsus, both accompany Ceres and also encircle the head of IVN· AVG. Of the Panormus coin more will be said later; but Thapsus at least, on these two different coins, seems to identify Livia with Juno and Ceres respectively—and these identifications of her are here the commonest of all such associations.131 They are both paralleled at peregrine cities.132 Both were current well before the death of Augustus.133 In the reign of her son, under whom she possessed local flamines and flaminicae,134 Livia was described by colonia Romula as GENETRIX ORBIS135 (Plate VII, 6) and in Gaul as Maia.136 In the East she seems to have been identified with Hecate137 and perhaps Isis.138

Much has been written on these themes, but the two usages of Thapsus appear to introduce certain novelties. In the first place, if they refer to Livia, they are well ahead of the practice of main official coinages, on which, at least during her lifetime, Livia was identified with no goddess at all. Secondly, the official coinage calls no goddess Augusta until the principate of Claudius, when Ceres is described in this way.139

In the CERES AVGVSTA of Claudius, it is not customary to discover a reference to Livia140 or any other imperial lady; similarly, it is often unlikely that "Virtues" on official issues had any such intentions.141 These considerations might inspire doubts whether the IVN·AVG· and CERERI AVGVSTAE of Thapsus under Tiberius were really designed to carry any allusion to her. But, on the whole, the Thapsus pieces do not seem to warrant such doubts. The Juno head looks like Livia; and it was easier, in her lifetime, for colonial issues to associate her with Ceres and Juno than for Roman coinage to do so. Indeed after her death, too, Claudius may have wished to compare her to the goddess Ceres by his numismatically unprecedented addition of the word "Augusta" to the latter's name, since it was he who consecrated Livia.142 If so, his gesture may to some extent have been anticipated by another official mint, namely that of Alexandria, at which, even under Augustus, the closely related concept Euthenia may conceivably have been intended to represent Livia.143

If we hold that the Ceres Augusta of Thapsus is Livia, we are justified in asking whether the same does not apply, at an earlier date, to the appearance of the same deity on an issue of colonia Lystra reading CERERIS:144 at any rate this is the suggestion which the type might convey to those who saw it. But this Lystra coin shows no sign of AVGVSTAE, and, on reconsideration of its portrait, it should be reattributed from Augustus to Claudius.145 Thus it is not the earliest colonial issue to name Ceres; and the princeps under whom this first occurred seems to have been Tiberius, at Thapsus.146 A minor innovation of this kind was not out of keeping with his policy, since he paid great attention to the corn-supply,147 and also restored the temple which Ceres shared with Liber and Libera.148

Ceres Augusta has a familiar ring, but Juno Augusta is most unusual: throughout the imperial coinage of all periods we find instead merely IVNO. We may compare other rare non-Roman occurrences, with the same Augustan epithet, of Apollo, Mercury, Minerva, Vesta and Diana.149 On no. 22 of Thapsus (IVN· AVG·), the bust has been interpreted as showing a wreath of corn-ears; such a wreath is also found round Livia's head, not only on peregrine issues, but on a lead piece of Rome itself.150 At Thapsus, again, nos. 25, 27 and 30, as well as no. 12 at Panormus (Plate III, 5 and 7, IV, 2 and I, 17-18) modify the well-known "Livia as priestess" type151 to place in her hand, instead of the usual priestly patera , two ears of corn. These suggest an analogy with the corn-wreathed heads at Thapsus labelled as IVN· AVG·; whereas our other "Livia as priestess" figures, in all cases where they are explicitly labelled, are described not in terms of goddesses, but as IVLIA AVGVSTA (nos. 18, 49 and 51: Plate II, 4, V, 11; cf. also VIII, 11)–as at Roman cities in Spain (e.g. Plate VI, 9). Thus they differ from our coins of Thapsus and Panormus, on which the human suggestion of the priestess type is combined with an emblem and inscription recalling divinity. Possibly the colonials themselves suffered from a haesitatio iudicii on the humanity or divinity of Livia; and the letter of Tiberius to Gythium 152 show how cryptic his instructions on this matter were.

Indeed, a loophole for ambiguity is left by the legend IVN· AVG· itself. For this could mean not only "[to] Juno Augusta"—which is, as has been said, a very rare combination—but also "[to] the iuno of the Augusta," for which, in connection with Livia, there are epigraphic parallels.153 The iuno of a woman was the same as the genius of a man;154 the genius Augusti and iuno Augustae were Augustan adaptations of traditional ideas.155 The citizens of Thapsus may well have chosen the ambiguous legend IVN. AVG. deliberately so as to convey both interpretations, Iuno Augusta and iuno Augustae, simultaneously: for, not only were actual doubles entendres on local coinages not unknown,156 but official Tiberian coin-types, too, often combined a blend of different suggestions and significances.157

At all events, the IVN· AVG· and CERERI AVGVSTAE coinages of Thapsus seem to have intended some measure of identification of Livia with Juno and Ceres. In possessing and pursuing this intention, the citizens of Thapsus were, perhaps, behaving less like their fellow cives Romani of Rome than like the peregrini of Asia.158 The same is even more clearly true of colonia Romula with its extravagant GENETRIX ORBIS (Plate VII, 6).

We may now turn to the "Virtues," as certain of the numina consisting of personifications are nowadays called.159 Admittedly the line between goddesses and "Virtues" is sometimes a little uncertain, but it exists.160 The present writer has elsewhere emphasized the general and composite character of the "Virtues" which are found on the official issues of Tiberius.161 These "Virtues" on his coinage do not seem to have been primarily intended to compliment Livia, though the imperial authorities probably recognised her as one of the fairly numerous elements in the blend of associations conjured up by the concepts of Iustitia, Iustitia-Pax and Pietas . On the other hand the peregrine East naturally experienced no more difficulty in identifying her with "Virtues" or "Blessings" such as Tyche162 (if it is right to describe her thus), Pronoia,163 Hygieia,164 etc., than it experienced in equating her with goddesses.

Where do the coloniae civium Romanorum stand in the wide space between these two poles? In this case they seem to stand rather nearer to Rome than to the peregrini; but there are none the less some notable deviations from metropolitan practice. Pompeii describes her as Concordia Augusta on an inscription,165 and Pella (nos. 38, 39: PLATE IV, 10) not only imitates the Roman PIETAS but also adds PIETAS AVGVSTA, to which we may compare the PIETATI[S] AVGVSTAE of Caesaraugusta.166 It is possible that these colonials, less versés than Romans, interpreted the accompanying heads quite simply as Livia; indeed a similar head at Panormus (no. 13: Plate I, 20) is described as plain AVGVS(ta). The same almost certainly applies to the issues of other colonies such as Corinth (no. 34: Plate V, 8; cf. no. 43: Plate V, 5) and Patrae (under Caligula),167 on which similar heads are not labelled.

In the cases of Pella and Caesaraugusta, this same desire to identify the "Virtue" with Livia may have been the purpose of the AVGVSTA added to the name of Pietas . But this assumption is by no means necessary. For why should we consider Pietas Augusta to be Livia, when we do not necessarily consider Pax Augusta , on official coinages or elsewhere, to refer to her? PACE AVG· PERP· at Carthage(?) (no. 17: Plate II, 3) surely has no such meaning.168 Nor has the Salus Augusta invoked by an inscription after the conspiracy of Sejanus,169 and nor, in all probability, has AETERNITATI[S] AVGVSTAE at Tarraco (Plate VII, 2) and Emerita (Plate VII, 8).170 But there remains an obstinate suspicion that the citizens of Pella intended PIETAS AVGVSTA, to which the epithet was added by themselves, to reflect honour on Livia in a more direct fashion than did the original PIETAS design placed by their metropolitan counterparts on the coinage of Rome. Even if so, Pella was not behaving in any extraordinary fashion; and indeed, thus far, few or no honours to Livia have been noted which might not also have been found during the principate of Augustus.

End Notes
On this see subsection B.
Cf. Taylor, DRE, p. 232. For Livia as Juno, see especially Ward, SMSR, 1933, pp. 221 ff. (cf. Augustus as Jupiter, ibid., pp. 203 ff.); cf. on the Ludovisi Juno, Jongkees, Bulletin van de Vereeniging tot Bevordering der Kennis van te Antieke Beschaving, XVII, 1, pp. 13 ff. Livia's figure on the "Paris Cameo" is described as Ceres, e.g. by Curtius, Röm. Mitt., 1934, p. 120, but Gagé, RA, XXXII, 1930, p. 19, cf. n. 1, suggests that there she may rather be in the rôle of Felicitas. Her prominence on this cameo is emphasized by Kornemann, DR, p. 38, n. 1; Charlesworth, CAH, X, p. 634; Last, JRS, 1943, p. 105; cf. Seltman, CAH, Plates IV, p. 156. On the "Vienna Cameo" (Gemma Augustea) she is described by Schwartz, RPh., 1945, p. 60, as in the rôle of "Latin Ceres."
The value of these cameos as historical evidence is affected by the uncertainty of their dates. For the "Paris Cameo" see Hohl, Klio , 1942, pp. 227 ff., ibid., 1943, p. 144, against Schweitzer, Curtius, Piganiol, etc. The "Vienna Cameo" is usually considered Augustan, but it is attributed with some plausibility to the reign of Tiberius by Ro