Aspects of the Principate of Tiberius

Author
Grant, Michael, 1914-2004
Series
Numismatic Notes and Monographs
Publisher
American Numismatic Society
Place
New York
Date
Source
Donum
Source
Worldcat
Source
Worldcat Works
Source
HathiTrust

License

CC BY-NC

Acknowledgement

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

Export

Table of Contents

FRONT

BODY

CHAPTER I

THE COINS AND THE COLONIES

(i) Description of the Coinage1

A. WESTERN EUROPE

PAESTUM 2

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.

Rev. L·CAEL·CLEM·FLA·TI·CAESAR. Apex.

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

PANORMUS

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
1
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.
2
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.
3
For the duoviri L. Suei. M. Nun. see Appendix 1.

B. Africa

ACHULLA

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.).

CARTHAGE (?)

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.

HIPPO DIARRHYTUS

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.

THAPSUS

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.

Hague.

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.

Rev. PERMIS· P· CORNELL· DOLABELLAE PROCOS· C·P· CAS· D·D· C·P·I· 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.

Rev. PERMIS· P· DOLABELLAE PROCOS· C·P·G·CAS·C·P·I· as no. 25.

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

Müller, II, p. 156, no. 338.

31. As no. 26.

Rev. PERM· DOLABELLAE PROCOS· C·P·G· CAS· 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
4
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.
5
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.

C. MACEDONIA

CASSANDREA

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.

DIUM

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.

PELLA

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

Rev. C.BAEBIVS P·F·L·RVSTICELIVS BASTERNA IIVIR· QVINQ·D·D· in five lines.

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.

Rev. C·BAEBIVS P·F·L·RVSTICELIVS BASTERNA IIVIR·QVINQ· in four lines.

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
6
Professor A. R. Bellinger considers that the portrait looks Antonine.

D. EPIRUS AND ACHAIA

DYRRHACHIUM

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).

CORINTH

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.

E. EASTERN PROVINCES

CNOSSUS7

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.

Antioch IN PISIDIA

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.

SINOPE

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
7
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

A. METROLOGY

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
8
See Appendix 3.
9
Cf. Caley, p. 149.
10
FITA, p. 300 and n. 2.
11
FITA, p. 493, no. 48.
12
A tin, B lead.
13
B tin, B lead.
14
Caley, p. 63.
15
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.
16
See Appendix 2.
17
FITA, p. 493, nos. 55 and 56.
18
D tin, A lead.
19
E tin, A lead.
20
See Appendix 3.
21
Cf. Caley, pp. 114, 125, 139, 172, 189.
22
B tin, B lead.
23
B tin.
24
FITA, p. 493, no. 69.
25
Vives, IV, p. 124, no. 3.
26
B tin, C lead.
27
Vives, IV, p. 124, no. 2—spectograph.
28
Vives, IV, p. 42, no. 10.
29
B tin, C lead.
30
Vives, IV, p. 41, no. 6—spectograph.
31
Vives, IV, p. 37, no. 41.
32
E tin—negligible, cf. Appendix 3.
33
Caley, pp. 83, 109, Table XVI.
34
Memorial Numismático Espanol V, 1880, p. 123; cf. FITA, p. 300, n. 2: = Vives, IV, p. 83, no. 59.
35
B zinc, E tin, C lead. But on the zinc see Appendix 3.
36
FITA, pp. 198, 493, no. 43 (misprinted as 44 on p. 198, n. 4).
37
FITA, p. 493, no. 63.
38
Ibid., no. 57.
39
E.g. of Elagabalus at Nicaea: Caley, p. 90; cf. a coin of Hadrian at Alexandria, ibid., p. 91, 102.
40
P. 191; cf. p. 149.
41
Cf. Caley, pp. 69 f.
42
See Appendix 4.
43
FITA, p. 300.
44
Cf. also Appendices 2, 4 and 5.
45
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).
46
See Appendix 4.

B. OCCASIONS OF ISSUE

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
47
Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, II, 1, p. 90. Cf. for a similar argument regarding the coinage of municipia, Appendix 2.
48
EC, p. 279, n. 26.
49
The evidence is discussed in Appendix 5.
50
Saria, Dissertationes Pannonicae, II, 10, 1938; cf. CIL, III, 10768.
51
Liber Coloniarum = Schriften der römischen Feldmesser, p. 224, cf. Ciaceri, Tiberio Successore di Augusto , p. 218.
52
Stade, CAH, XI, pp. 531 f.
53
This period is used throughout the present section for purposes of comparison (see last subsection; cf. also Appendices 2, 4 and 5).
54
Dyrrhachium, Cnossus, Patrae(?), Uselis, Cirta(??), Carthage (?), Lugdunum(?), Lystra; for summary see FITA, p. 295.
55
All except Dyrrhachium and Cnossus.
56
For a discussion of the evidence see Appendix 6.
57
FITA, p. 253, n. 3.
58
BMC, Pontus, etc., p. 101, no. 55. See also Addenda.
59
See below, Chapter II, section ii, subsection A, and RAI, Chapter III, section iii.
60
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.

C. SIGNATORIES AND FORMULAS

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
61
See RAI, Chapter III.
62
FITA, pp. 330 ff.
63
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.
64
Cf. Wissowa, RKR 2, p. 499, and nn. 5, 6.
65
E.g., ILS, 6481 (Venusia), cf. Nock, CAH, p. 493, Beurlier, Essai sur le Culte Rendu aux Empereurs Romains, p. 169.
66
ILS, 6080, cf. 116, etc.
67
Ibid., 158 (and of senate), cf. Sutherland, JRS, 1934, p. 34.
68
Cf. also a sexvir Augustalis et Tiberialis at Asculum, ILS, 6565.
69
ILS, 6896. Cf. Sutherland, JRS, 1934, p. 34, id., RIS, p. 159.
70
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.
71
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.
72
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).
73
FITA, p. 508 (references).
74
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.
75
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).
76
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.
77
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.
78
Tac., Ann., I, 79, cf. Marsh, p. 125.
79
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.
80
Suet., Tib., 37.
81
Ibid., 38.
82
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.
83
Tac., Ann., IV, 67 (a.d. 27): perosus ... municipia et colonias omniaque in continenti sita.
84
FITA, pp. 317 ff.
85
Ibid., p. 321.
86
CIL, V, 6358 (Laus Pompeia), cf. Frank, ESAR, V, p. 95; Rogers, p. 136.
87
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.
88
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).
89
Cf. Balsdon, p. 148; Scramuzza, EC, p. 271, n. 57.
90
FITA, p. 322.
91
Nero and Drusus may be recorded in the same capacity at Utica: see Appendix 2.
92
See below, subsection D.
93
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.
94
On these see above, subsection B.
95
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.
96
Cf. Hardy, Six Roman Laws, p. 148; FITA, p. 270, n. 14.
97
See Appendix 1 (Cnossus).
98
Emporiae and Carthago Nova.
99
Cf. above, subsections A and B; below, subsection D, and Appendices 2, 4 and 5.
100
See Appendix 2.
101
FITA, p. 231.
102
Ibid., cf. n. 7.
103
FITA, p. 232.
104
See Appendix 7.
105
Cf. Milne, The Development of Roman Coinage, p. 22; Piganiol, RA, XXII, 1944, p, 124; FITA, 287.
106
Does the fact that a rare ethnic of Carthago Nova follows in imply a similar restriction of local authority? Cf. Appendix 7.
107
FITA, p. 284.
108
Head, p. 706.
109
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.
110
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.
111
Cf. FITA, p. 289.
112
FITA, pp. 323 f., 427.
113
Cf. a senatusconsultum apparently authorising an Augustan refoundation (Apamea) preceding coinage, FITA, pp. 292 f. Cf. p. 255.
114
FITA, pp. 295, 321.
115
FITA, p. 260. Was there a change in a.d. 13 (ibid., p. 453)?
116
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.
117
ILS, 6286 (Q. Decius Saturninus) (Aquinum).
118
ILS, 942 (C. Pontius Paelignus) (Brixia); Mommsen, St. R., III3, p. 674, n. 1.
119
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.
120
Hammond, p. 296, n. 23; Scramuzza, EC, p. 270, n. 57; Kornemann, Gnomon, 1938, p. 561.
121
Tac., Ann., IV, 6, cf. Marsh, p. 105.
122
Marsh, p. 220.
123
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.
124
Cf. FITA, p. 448.
125
Romula, Italica: Vives, IV, p. 124, nos. 2 f., p. 127, no. 9.

D. EXTENT OF THE COINAGE

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
126
Chapter II, section iv, subsection B.
127
Outside Spain (FITA, pp. 205 ff.): Narbonese colony ("Arausio"??), Babba, Cirta(??). Simitthu(??), Tyndaris, Lystra, Apamea, Patrae, Buthrotum, Philippi, Berytus(?).
128
E.g. Corduba Patricia (FITA, p. 220); Traducta (ibid., pp. 175, 221; on the colony see Abaecherli Boyce, NNM, 109, 1947, pp. 16 ff.).
129
Cf. last three subsections, and Appendices 2, 4 and 5.
130
Carthage, Cirta(?), Lystra, Sinope, Berytus, Cnossus, Patrae, Corinth, Buthrotum. See FITA, ss. vv.
131
Acci, Caesaraugusta, Carthago Nova, Celsa, Ilici, Tarraco, Romula, Emerita.
132
Caesaraugusta, Carthago Nova, Tarraco, Emerita.
133
Cascantum, Osicerda, Graccurris, Ercavica.
134
FITA, pp. 335 ff. Here again the coinages may have been due to constitutiones (in this case Tiberian).
135
See Appendix 2.
136
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."
137
The acceptance of this view in FITA, p. 289, must be queried.
138
Nos. 1 ff. seem early in the reign, no. 4 of the early or middle period, and nos. 6 ff. late.
139
Vives, IV, p. 82, nos. 54 f.
140
Vives, IV, p. 81, nos. 44 f.
141
See Appendix 2.
142
BMC. Imp., I, p. xxiii.
143
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.
144
Abaecherli Boyce, NNM, 109, 1947, pp. 21 ff., and Plate III, 8, 9.
145
Cf. Appendix 2.
146
Lederer, NC, 1943, pp. 92 ff.
147
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).
148
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.
149
RC, p. 112, cf. pp. 194 f., Hammond, pp. 70 f.
150
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."
151
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.
152
BMC. Imp., I, p. xviii.
153
BMC. Imp., I, p. xviii; RC, p. 195.
154
See Appendix 8.
155
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.
156
FITA, p. 296.
157
Ibid.
158
Ibid., p. 253, n. 3.
159
Ibid., p. 260. For Tiberius, see Appendix 1, no. 8.
160
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).
161
FITA, p. 182, n. 1. Cf. below, Appendix 2.
162
For this mint see now Farrés, AEA, 1946, pp. 209 ff.
163
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.
164
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.
165
Strabo, VI, 288; Tac., Agr., 13, Ann., I, 72, 77, II, 87, IV, 37; cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X, pp. 612 f.

CHAPTER II

TIBERIUS AS PRINCEPS

(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

1
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.
2
BMC. Imp., I, pp. 87 ff., 94, 97; cf. ILS, 104, Hammond, p. 247, n. 1. But cf. p. 47.
3
Cf. FITA, pp. 257, 293, n. 1, and below, Chapter III, section i.
4
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).
5
For parallels on the official coinage see BMC. Imp., I, pp. 120 ff.; cf. ILS, 164.
6
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."
7
Cf. FITA, pp. 109 f. (examples p. 109, n. 2; these seem to outweigh the doubts of Mattingly, NC, 1946, p. 131).
8
Cf. Ehrenberg, p. 203.
9
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.
10
For some of the references see ILS, III, 1, p. 262.
11
See below, Chapter III, section i.
12
Suet., Tib., 26.2, Dio 57.2.1 (qualified 57.8.1).
13
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.
14
Cf. Gagé, RA, XXXIV, 1931, pp. 23, 36; Pippidi, RCI, p. 132, n. 1.
15
See below, Chapter III, section i.
16
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.
17
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.
18
CIL, II, 2038 (Anticaria); cf. Sutherland, RIS, p. 159, JRS, 1934, p. 35.
19
FITA, p. 250 (Antioch in Pisidia); but not Sinope, ibid., p. 253.
20
Henderson, JRS, 1942, p. 13 (Asido).
21
FITA, pp. 408, 414 ff. For the early principate see Fraenkel, RE, XVI, 2, 1663.
22
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.
23
Weber, p. 264, n. 692.
24
Compos factus votorum meorum, Suet., Aug., 58.
25
Cf. Mommsen, St. R., II3, p. 780; FITA, p. 444 (n. 6 references).
26
It was revived by Caligula and began to have a special significance as pater exercitus; cf. Kornemann, Gnomon, 1938, p. 555.
27
De Clem., I, 14, 2; cf. von Premerstein, p. 174 and n. 5.
28
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.
29
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.
30
See below, Chapter III, section iv, subsection C, n. 269.
31
RG, 6: for recent discussions of this phrase, see Magdelain, pp. 67 ff., and the present writer in Greece and Rome , 1949, p. 104.
32
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.
33
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).
34
BMC. Imp., I, p. 144 (Caesarea in Cappadocia).
35
ILS, III, 1, p. 262.
36
See below, Chapter III, section iv, subsection B.
37
Cf. Balsdon, p. 147.
38
The latter is especially emphasized by Homo, Mélanges G. Glotz , p. 443; Kornemann, QAS, IV, 1938, p. 11.
39
See below, Appendix 11.
40
Vives, IV, p. 132, no. 20.
41
Ibid., p. 80, nos. 44 ff.; cf. Hill, NNM, 50, 1931, p. 94.
42
FITA, p. 446, cf. pp. 219, 251.
43
Cf. above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection D.
44
FITA, p. 446 and n. 2, cf. pp. 99 f., 106, 119, 135, 139, 145.
45
References in Smith, p. 18, n. 28.
46
Also the Assembly: Grant, Greece and Rome , 1949, pp. 108 ff.
47
A statement in FITA, p. 446, might be thus interpreted as intending such a deduction. See above, p. 31.
48
FITA, pp. 408 ff.
49
FITA, pp. 440 if.
50
BMC. Imp., I, p. 50, no. 275.
51
RAI, Chapter II, section ii.
52
FITA, p. 440.
53
Ibid., pp. 415, n. 9, 440, 441, n. 1; von Premerstein, pp. 174, n. 2, 255; Charles-worth, CAH, X, p. 617, n. 2.
54
Hill, NNM, 50, 1931, p. 170 (IMP·CAESAR TI·AVGVS·DIVI AVGVSTI F·).
55
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.
56
E.g. Archäologisch-epigraphische Mitteilungen, VIII, p. 110; RA, 1914, p. 488, no. 172; cf. Dessau ap. ILS, 151; Abaecherli, loc. cit.
57
Mommsen, St. R., II3, p. 769, n. 2; Dessau, loc. cit.
58
For the distinction cf. FITA, pp. 409, 415.
59
Vives, IV, pp. 66 f.
60
Vives, IV, p. 84, no. 64.
61
Vives, IV, p. 132, no. 19.
62
E.g. ILS, 155, 161, 2280, 2281, 5829, etc.
63
BMC. Imp., I, pp. 120 ff., 128 ff.; cf. ILS, 113, 152, 156, 160, 164, etc.
64
FITA, pp. 414 f.
65
BMC. Imp., I, p. 161, no. 102 (Caesarea in Cappadocia).
66
Ibid., pp. 181 ff.
67
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.
68
Dio 57.8, FITA, p. 441.
69
Cf. Chapter I, section ii, subsection C.
70
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.
71
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).
72
P. Cornelius Dolabella, a.d. 23-24, cf. de Laet, p. 43, no. 129.
73
Cf. FITA, p. 426, and n. 2.
74
Cf. the Ara Pacis reliefs, on which he stands between the consuls, de Francisci, Augustus , p. 98, n. 5.
75
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.
76
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

A. AMICITIA PRINCIPIS AND c. A.D. 21

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
77
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.
78
Suet., Tib.: miseram et onerosam iniungi sibi servitutem; cf. Syme, RR, p. 344, n. 6; Smith, pp. 33 f.
79
Tac., Ann., III, 53; cf. Klostermann, Philologus, 1932, pp. 365 f.; Charlesworth, JRS, 1943, p. 2.
80
FITA, pp. 197 f., n. 6; see also below, Appendix 5.
81
De Laet, p. 26, no. 39.
82
The third year of his tenure; and COS. IV. (Gelzer, RE, X, 506).
83
De Laet, p. 56, no. 198. No. 27, at least, refers to his second year.
84
Ibid., p. 43, no. 129.
85
FITA, p. 224.
86
FITA, p. 228.
87
FITA, p. 230.
88
FITA, pp. 232 f.
89
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.
90
FITA, pp. 229, 387, but see next note.
91
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.
92
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.
93
BMC, Mysia, p. 140, no. 251.
94
See Appendix 9.
95
BMC, Phrygia, p. 163, no. 26.
96
De Laet, p. 73, no. 302.
97
De Laet, p. 22, no. 16.
98
BMC, Mysia, p. 39, no. 253.
99
BMC, Ionia, p. 268, no. 266.
100
Müller, I, pp. 159 ff. See Appendix 2.
101
De Laet, p. 70, no. 283.
102
De Laet, p. 92, no. 410.
103
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.
104
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.
105
Cf. Syme, RR, pp. 373, 379; FITA, p. 229.
106
Ibid., p. 228 (references); Mattingly, NC, 1946, p. 130, describes this view as "quite convincing." So does Fink, CP, 1949, p. 258.
107
Though not the right of permissus, which was the prerogative of certain consular governorships, see p. 31 and n. 115.
108
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.
109
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.
110
Cf. Smith, p. 119; Rogers, p. 139, and TAPA, 1941, p. xlii, etc.
111
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.
112
See Appendix 2.
113
Tac., Ann., IV, 74 (a.d. 28; but the date is questionable).
114
Suet., Tib., 55; cf. Syme, RR, p. 408, n. 3, and for a different view of the consilium Last, JRS, 1943, p. 105.
115
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.
116
ILS, 964, cf. Instinsky, Philologus, 1942/3, p. 246.
117
ILS, 206, cf. von Premerstein, p. 224.
118
ILS, 212, cf. von Premerstein, loc. cit.
119
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.
120
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).
121
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).
122
II, 125, 5, cf. PIR 2, II, p. 319, no. 1348; de Laet, p. 43, no. 129.
123
Cf. Syme, RR, p. 434.
124
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).
125
Vell., II, 127; cf. Syme, RR, p. 437, PIR, II, 234, 479; de Laet, p. 56, no. 198.
126
Cf. Tac., Ann., VI, 8: ut quisque Seiano intimus, ita ad Caesaris amicitiam validus.
127
Vell., II, 116, cf. PIR 2, I, p. 188, no. 971; de Laet, p. 26, no. 39.
128
Cf. Marsh, p. 190 (L. Apronius Caesianus).
129
Tac., Ann., II, 79; for his importance cf. Marsh, p. 217.
130
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.
131
Tac., Ann., VI, 40; cf. Syme, RR, p. 438, n. 1; PIR 2, I, p. 61, no. 369.
132
Cf. de Laet, pp. 293 ff.
133
Seneca, Apocolocyntosis, 14, cf. PIR, III, p. 26, no. 198; de Laet, p. 70, no. 283.
134
Tac., Ann., VI, 39; cf. Syme, RR, p. 499 and n. 1, PIR, III, p. 86, nos. 627, 628.
135
Cf. Smith, p. 152.
136
P. Vitellius and Cornelius Lupus (amicus Claudii): see Appendix 9.
137
Cf. Syme, RR, p. 397, Groag, Schriften der Balkankommission, Ant. Abt., IX, 1939, p. 24, Stein, Dissertationes Pannonicae, I, 11, 1940, pp. 18 ff.
138
See Appendix 9.
139
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.
140
FITA, p. 224.
141
See below, Chapter III, section ii. For the ovatio of Drusus see Rohde, RE, XVIII, 2, 1902.
142
Cf. Rogers, p. 139.
143
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).
144
II, 96. On the Magliano (Heba) Tablet, 1.5 (NS, 1948, pp. 49 ff.), they are called fratr. Ti. Caesaris Aug.
145
II, 103.
146
RG, 14.
147
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.
148
RAI, Chapter II, section ii.

B. THE AUSPICES OF Tiberius

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
149
RAI, Chapter III, section iii.
150
RAI, Chapter VIII, section i (summary).
151
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.
152
FITA, p. 260; cf. below, Appendix 9.
153
PIR 2, II, p. 10, no. 64; his daughter Junia was betrothed to Nero Germanici f.
154
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.
155
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.
156
Cf. above, p. 31 and n. 115, p. 59.
157
II, 129.
158
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.
159
AE, 1940, no. 68; PIR 2, II, p. 333, no. 1380; Syme, JRS, 1946, p. 156.
160
Syme, JRS, 1946, p. 156; cf. Hammond, p. 232, n. 31.
161
FITA, p. 143.
162
RR, p. 435, n. 9; JRS, 1946, p. 156; PIR 2, II, p. 334.
163
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."
164
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, 11.cc.). For the auspicia maiora see also Liegle, Hermes, 1942, p. 285, and especially Hägerström, pp. 8, 10 f.
165
For the position of the vicegerents see Appendix 10, p. 166.
166
See Appendix 10. But not, apparently, ordinary legati Augusti pro praetore: cf. Pease, Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 126.
167
Cf. Abaecherli Boyce, CP, 1942, pp. 134 f.; for the ornamenta see Borszák, RE, XVIII, 1, 1121 f.
168
Cf. FITA, p. 429 and nn. 9, 10 (Tiberius and Nero Drusus)—after refusals in c. 12 b.c.
169
Cf. Syme, JRS, 1946, p. 156, etc. (L. Cornelius Balbus).
170
This seems to be implied by Syme, JRS, 1946, p. 152.
171
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.
172
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.
173
See now Liegle, Hermes, 1942, pp. 297 ff.
174
De Divinatione, I, 3.
175
For list of references to this, see H. Volkmann, Mos maiorum als Grundzug des augusteischen Prinzipats (Das Neue Bild der Antike, II).
176
VI, 41.
177
De Divinatione, II, 77.
178
Cf. Greenidge, p. 40, n. 1.
179
Cicero, De Divinatione, II, 77; cf. Hägerström, p. 11, on Livy, VII.6.10.
180
Cicero, De Legibus, III, 9; cf. Homo, Roman Political Institutions, p. 100, Mommsen, St. R., I3, p. 90.
181
De Republica, II, 17. Here the question of "transmission" from a predecessor, stressed by Homo, op. cit., p. 34, does not arise.
182
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.
183
P. 162.
184
Thus Greenidge himself qualifies his statement later, p. 165.
185
Ericsson, ARW, 1936, p. 302, against Hägerström, pp. 5 ff.
186
Gagé, RH, 1933, p. 3; Levi, RRIL, 1938, Estr., pp. 2 ff.; Wissowa, RE, II, 2, 2583.
187
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, 11.cc.
188
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.
189
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.
190
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.
191
The material is collected by Hägerström, pp. 8, 10 f.
192
FITA, pp. 424 ff. This question is further discussed in SWC.
193
JRS, 1947, pp. 157 ff.
194
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).
195
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.
196
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.
197
Op. cit., p. 163: "about these conclusions every student must form his own judgment for himself."
198
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.
199
See Appendix 10.
200
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.
201
Cf. Wissowa, RE, II, 2583.
202
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.
203
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."
204
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.
205
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."
206
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.
207
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.
208
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).
209
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.
210
Cf. above, p. 47.
211
FITA, pp. 411 ff.
212
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.
213
See now Liegle, Hermes, 1942, pp. 297 ff.
214
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.
215
Cf. Liegle, Hermes, 1942, p. 285, n. 5, Wagenvoort, p. 38.
216
Cf. Gagé, RH, 1933, p. 5.
217
P. 93(L.) (Paul. Diac.), cf. Levi, RRIL, 1938, Estr., pp. 15 ff.
218
Suet., Aug., 7, cf. Gagé, MAH, 1930, pp. 139, n. 1, 157, Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1935, p. 25. See also Addenda.
219
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.
220
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.
221
Cf. Gagé, MAH, 1930, p. 164, Levi, RRIL, 1938, Estr., p. 17, and n. 13.
222
MAH, 1930, p. 167, cf. RH, 1933, p. 33.
223
JRS, 1947, p. 114.
224
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).
225
See Appendix 11.
226
Cf. above, p. 45. See also Addenda.
227
Cf. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People, p. 447, n. 2 (references).
228
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X, p. 615; and for his augurium salutis, Liegle, Hermes, 1942, p. 305.
229
ILS, 107, 173, 174, 176-178, 222 and references in Smith, p. 64, n. 19.
230
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.
231
Tac., Ann., III, 58 f., cf. Liegle, Hermes, 1942, p. 254.
232
Cf. Seltman, CAH, Plates IV, p. 144.
233
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.
234
Cf. Gagé, MAH, 1930, p. 164, Seltman, CAH, Plates IV, p. 176.
235
Tac., Ann., IV, 9, cf. Savage, Classical Journal, 1938/9, p. 238, n. 2.
236
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

237
JRS, 1947, p. 114.
238
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.
239
Cf. Gagé, RA, XXXII, 1930, pp. 5 ff. Tiberius was the greatest living general, cf. Pippidi, ED, 1938 = AT, p. 44, n. 74.
240
Gagé, RA, XXXII, 1930, p. 34.
241
The interpretation as hasta must not, however, be pressed owing to the scrappy execution and preservation of the coins.
242
BMC. Imp., I, p. 76, no. 438, cf. Sutherland, NC, 1945, p. 66.
243
BMC. Imp., I, p. 16, no. 86.
244
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).
245
Cf. BMC. Imp., I, p. clxxiii. See also Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1935, p. 66.
246
Ibid., p. 204, no. 27—but considered by Mattingly, loc. cit., to represent Virtus rather than Mars.
247
Cf. Rostovtzeff, JRS, 1942, p. 93 (n. 2 references).
248
Cf. RAI, Chapter IV, section 3.
249
BMC. Imp., II, p. 190, no. 782, cf. pp. xlv, lvi.
250
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.
251
Cf. Pettazzoni, Augustus, p. 226.
252
Tac., Ann., II, 64, cf. Kornemann, DR, p. 40.
253
Tac., Ann., II, 22, cf. Gagé, RA, XXXII, 1930, p. 5, n. 3.
254
Cf. Hirschfeld, Kleine Schriften, pp. 850 f., cf. Gagé, loc. cit., against MSS. Marti et Iovi et Augusto .
255
BMC. Imp., I, p. 140, nos. 141 ff.
256
E.g. among colonies, Philippi, FITA, p. 274, cf. Collart, Philippes, pp. 232, 237.
257
See Appendix 10.
258
FITA, p. 443, n. 3.
259
BMC. Imp., I, pp. ccxiv f., 353 (apparently posthumous).
260
BMC. Imp., I, pp. ccxiv, ccxxi, 367.
261
Cf. Gagé, MAH, 1932, p. 89.
262
Cf. above, pp. 69 ff.
263
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

A. PAX

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
273
Helmreich, 162, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 143.
274
For the praenomen see above, section i.
275
Cf. Pippidi, RCI, pp. 47, 199 f., pace Taylor, AJP, 1937, pp. 187, 192.
276
RAI, Chapter III, section 2.
277
Huelsen, Das Forum Romanum, p. 80, cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp., I, p. cxxxviii.
278
See Appendix 12.
279
Cf. Gagé, RA, xxxii, 1930, pp. 1 ff., id., MAH, 1932, p. 89, and the comment of Mattingly, BMC. Imp., III, p. xxxix.
280
Ann., II, 30, VI, 34, XI, 3.
281
BMC. Imp., p. 131, no. 81.
282
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.
283
Vives, IV, p. 127, no. 9.
284
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.
285
For the identification see Servius, ad Aen., I, 292, cf. Adcock, CAH, IX, p. 720.
286
See above, Chapter II, section ii, subsection B.
287
Servius, ad Aen., VI, 860, cf. Dumézil, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus, p. 89.
288
See above, section ii, subsection B.
289
Cf. Carcopino, Points de Vue sur l'Impérialisme Romain, pp. 107 f., cf. p. 97.
290
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.
291
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.
292
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.
293
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.
294
BMC. Imp., I, p. cxl.
295
Not the temple of Janus, as A. Occo, Imperatorum Romanorum Numismata (1683), p. 70.
296
FITA, pp. 271,281.
297
Cf. below, Chapter III, section i.
298
FITA, p. 215.
299
See FITA, pp. 197 f., n. 6 and below, Appendix 5.
300
Georg ., II, 425, Aen., VIII, 16, cf. d'Herouville, REL, 1941, p. 146.
301
It was also perhaps stressed by reasons of official agricultural policy, cf. d'Herouville, loc. cit., pp. 142 ff.
302
BMC. Imp., I, pp. cxxiii, 100, no. 611.
303
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.
304
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.
305
Cf. Pippidi, RC, 1941/2 = AT, p. 175, n. 2.
306
Cf. W. Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, I, p. 427.
307
5.9, cf. Pippidi, RC, 1941/2 = AT, p. 144.
308
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.
309
Apologeticum, V, 2, cf. XXI, 4; Pippidi, REL, 1934 = AT, pp. 194 f. (references).
310
Cf. Gagé, RA, XXXIV, 1931, pp. 34 f., RH, 1936, Piganiol, Histoire de Rome , p. 247.
311
ILS, 3786, cf. von Premerstein, p. 126.
312
RAI, Chapter III, section 2.
313
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.
314
FITA, p. 271. Cf. under Tiberius AETERNITATIS AVGVSTAE (Plate VII, 2), etc.
315
BMC. Imp., I, pp. lxiv, 165 ff.
316
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).
317
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.
318
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.
319
RIC, IV, 1, pp. 617 f.
320
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.
321
RIC, V, 2, pp. 352 f. Also Probus and Cams.
322
BMC. Imp., I, pp. lxxiv, clxxviii ff. (Nero).
323
Cf. Gagé, RH, 1936, p. 81, MAH, 1936, p. 70, Pippidi, RHSE, 1942 = AT, p. 144, Momigliano, JRS, 1942, p. 63 and n. 44.
324
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.

B. PERPETVITAS

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
325
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.
326
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.
327
BMC. Imp., II, pp. lxiii, 86.
328
BMC. Imp., IV, pp. clxix, n. 3, 752, 833.
329
Cf. Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1935, p. 91, n. 3.
330
RIC, IV, 1, pp. 71, 75; cf. pp. 130, 212, 276.
331
RIC, V, 1, p. 333. Marcus Aurelius introduces PAX AETERNA AVG·, BMC. Imp., IV, p. 648, no. 1549, etc.
332
RIC, IV, 2, p. 84.
333
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.
334
RIC, V, 2, pp. 13, 19, 110 f., cf. Gagé, RH, 1933, p. 34.
335
Pearce, NC, 1938, pp. 126 ff.
336
RAI, Chapter VII, section 4.
337
Pearce, NC, 1938, p. 128 (PERPETVETAS [sic]).
338
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."
339
RIC, IV, 2, p. 81. Doubted by Fink, YCS, 1940, p. 62, n. 1.
340
RIC, V, 1, pp. 352 f., V, 2, p. 108, cf. Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1935, p. 98.
341
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.
342
RIC, V, 1, pp. 330, 333, V, 2, p. 21.
343
Seston, Dioclétien et la Tétrarchie, I, p. 220, n. 1. See in general Instinsky, Hermes, 1942, p. 344.
344
Cf. Hoey, YCS, 1940, pp. 105 f., Instinsky, Hermes, 1942, p. 323, Ensslin, SB München, 1943, VI, pp. 39 ff.
345
De Nat. Deorum, I, 15, 40.
346
De Inv., II, 54, 164.
347
Phil., XIII, 6, 13.
348
Fam., VI, 13, 2.
349
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.
350
II, 121, cf. Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1935, p. 91, n. 3.
351
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.
352
ILS, 157, cf. Charlesworth, HTR, 1936, p. 112, n. 14, Rogers, p. 28 (Interamna).
353
ILS, 3786: see last subsection. Cf. also Addenda.
354
Ad Marc., 19. 15.
355
Requiescit in pace, etc.—from the Hebrew. Cf. Augusta in pace, RIC, V, I, p. 197.
356
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.
357
De Clem., I.8.2; cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist., 27.1.1.3.
358
Cf. Charlesworth, HTR, 1936, p. 122, cf. Rogers, p. 32.
359
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

360
ILS, 163, as restored by Mommsen.
361
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.
362
Ensslin, SB München, 1943 (VI), p. 41.
363
Id., CAH, XII, p. 68 (n. 1 references). But see above, n. 339.
364
RIC, V, 1, p. 115.
365
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.
366
BMC. Imp., IV, pp. clxv and n. 2, 731, 813, 821, 858; Nock, JRS, 1947, p. 113, n. 91.
367
RIC, V, 2, pp. 32, 41, cf. Gagé, RH, 1933, pp. 27, 31, 34.
368
See above, section iii.
369
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.
370
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.
371
FITA, pp. 272 (cf. Kubitschek, Gnomon, 1937, p. 24), 225.
372
For temples and shrines, cf. below, Chapter II, section iv, subsections A and B, Chapter III, section i.
373
E.g. Romula (Plate VII, 7), Acci, Tarraco, and municipia Bilbilis and Osca; also at municipium Utica.
374
E.g. Seltman, CAH, Plates IV, p. 152.
375
See Chapter II, section iii.
376
Cf. Tac., Ann., III, 21, for conferment on Tiberius.
377
Cf. Schulz, Die Rechtstitel und Regierungsprogramme auf römischen Kaisermünzen, p. 9 n. 19, p. 12, Mattingly, BMC. Imp., I, pp. xcix f.
378
FITA, p. 174.
379
FITA, p. 187.
380
BMC. Imp., I, pp. 56, 62, 80, 107, 110, 113.
381
For the patera held by Livia as priestess, see below, Chapter III, section iv, subsection B.
382
See above, section ii, subsection B; also Appendix 11.
383
BMC. Imp., I, p. 40.
384
FITA, pp. 281 f.
385
Cf. above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection C.
386
Vives, IV, p. 131, no. 12.
387
See below, Chapter III, section iii.
388
Ibid., n. 120.
389
Vives, IV, p. 127, no. 9; cf. above, section iv, subsection A.
390
BMC. Imp., I, p. 180, no. 109, p. 184, no. 140.
391
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.
392
BMC. Imp., I, p. 133, no. 98.
393
Vives, IV, p. 80, no. 37; cf. below, Chapter III, section iv, subsection A.
394
BMC. Imp., III, pp. cxvii, cxli, 307, 334.
395
See below, Chapter III, section i.
396
Vives, IV, p. 42, no. 10; cf. below, Chapter III, section ii.
397
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).

CHAPTER III

THE FAMILY OF Tiberius

(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

1
Edwards, Corinth , VI, p. 7.
2
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.
3
Earle Fox, JIAN, 1899, p. 105, no. 30.
4
Ann., II, 41, cf. Weber, p. 91*, n. 424, Gagé, MAH, 1931, p. 20, n. 3.
5
ILS, 298, cf. Gagé, MAH, 1931, p. 20, n. 3, Syme, RR, p. 68.
6
Ann., II, 83, cf. Gagé, MAH, 1930, p. 170, n. 4.
7
Henzen, Acta Fratrum Arvalium, p. 57.
8
Smith, JRS, 1926, pp. 99 ff. (a military diploma).
9
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.
10
AJA, 1925, p. 307, n. 2.
11
DRE, p. 193, n. 25. See above, p. 77.
12
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.
13
Pippidi, RCI, pp. 72, n. 3, 201, reserves his judgment.
14
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.
15
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.
16
Cagnat, CRAI, 1913, p. 684, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 130, n. 1.
17
Cf. Stuart Jones, CAH, X, p. 147, von Premerstein, pp. 153, 157.
18
See above, Chapter II, section i.
19
Cf. FITA, pp. 257, 293, n. 1.
20
Cf. Gsell, Histoire Ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord, VIII, p. 179, Henderson, JRS, 1942, p. 13.
21
Cf. FITA, pp. 259 f.
22
Cf. above, Chapter II, section v.
23
See above, Chapter II, section i.
24
Cf. above, Chapter II, section i, and below, section iii.
25
See below, section iv, subsection B.
26
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.
27
See above, Chapter II, section i.
28
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).
29
CIL, II, 2038 (Anticaria); cf. Sutherland, JRS, 1934, p. 35, id., RIS, p. 159.
30
ILS, 163 (Tucci), as restored by Mommsen.
31
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.
32
Cf. Pettazzoni, Augustus, p. 220.
33
Mattingly, NC, 1930, pp. 132 f.
34
Smith, JRS, 1926, pp. 99, 101, cf. above, Chapter II, section iv, subsection A.
35
Sutherland, JRS, 1934, p. 34, id., RIS, p. 158.
36
For references see Chapter III, section iv, subsection A.
37
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.
38
CIL, II, 2105 (Urgavo), cf. Sutherland, JRS, 1934, p. 34, n. 27.
39
Pippidi, RCI, p. 129.
40
Ex Ponto, II, 2, 76, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 131; cf. Philo, In Flacc., 4, 23.
41
Op. cit., III, 1, 135, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 131, n. 1.
42
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).
43
Cf. the "Virtues," Chapter II, section iv, subsection A.
44
Cf. von Premerstein, p. 66.
45
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.
46
Cf. Rose, Handbook of Latin Literature, p. 358 and n. 52.
47
Fab., V, 7, 8, cf. Pippidi, RCI, pp. 123, 128 and n. 3.
48
CIL, XIII, 4635, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 137, cf. p. 132.
49
Cf. Charlesworth, HTR, 1936, p. 112, n. 14.
50
For references see particularly Eitrem, Symbolae Osloenses, XI, 1932, pp. 11 ff., Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1935, p. 86, n. 3, Pippidi, RCI, 11.cc., Ensslin, SB München, 1943 (VI), pp. 37, 71 ff.
51
Cf. Pippidi, RCI, pp. 133 f.
52
Mowat, La Domus Divina et les Divi, pp. 1 ff., cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 132, n. 1.
53
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.
54
E.g. by Vitruvius, prooem., divina tua mens, cf. Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1934, p. 32. Largus and Seneca wrote similarly of Claudius.
55
Cf. below, section iii.
56
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

57
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.
58
Cf. Balsdon, pp. 29 ff., 41 ff.
59
Cf. FITA, p. 268.
60
This is on the assumption that a small Corinthian(?) piece with GER·—DRV· is not a colonial issue of Tiberius: see Appendix 1.
61
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.
62
Corinth , VI, p. 20, no. 44.
63
Cr. IVNCTIO at Ilici: Vives, IV, p. 42, no. 10; Plate VI, 6, Chapter II, section v.
64
FITA, p. 268; cf. last section.
65
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.
66
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.
67
Cf. Gardthausen, RE, X, 433, Kuntz, Tiberius Caesar and the Roman Constitution, p. 58, Hammond, p. 239, nn. 42, 68.
68
Kornemann, DR, p. 41.
69
See above, Chapter II, section ii, subsection A.
70
See Appendix 5.
71
Cf. above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection C.
72
See above, Chapter II, section i.
73
Cf. von Premerstein, p. 66 and n. 2, Wickert, Klio , 1939, p. 336, n. 2, Hohl, Klio , 1942, p. 243.
74
See Appendix 2. This coin might be of Caligulan date, NC, 1948, p. 114.
75
Vives, IV, pp. 82, 37, n. 37.
76
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.
77
Vives, IV, p. 37, no. 41.
78
Vives, IV, p. 82, nos. 54 f.; cf. above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection C.
79
For such honours cf. Kornemann, DR, p. 47, n. 7, Balsdon, p. 18 and n. 1.
80
For L. Caelius see above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection C.
81
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.
82
CIL, VI, 892.
83
See Appendix 1.
84
For this, see above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection C, p. 25.
85
For this as the senior post, cf. Hardy, Roman Laws and Charters, p. 69, FITA, p. 196, n. 13 (Agrigentum).
86
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X, pp. 642, 652, etc.
87
See above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection C, pp. 26 f.
88
ILS, 171.
89
Giglioli, Bullettino archeologico communale di Roma, 1930, pp. 150 f. = AE, 1933, p. 25, no. 94.
90
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.
91
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.
92
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

93
As Balsdon, p. 18.
94
Philo, In Flacc., 9, 22, cf. Gelzer, RE, X, 384, Balsdon, p. 132.
95
BMC. Imp., I, p. 133, no. 95 (busts in cornuacopiae).
96
BMC Cyrenaica , pp. ccxxv ff., p. 121, nos. 49 ff.
97
Dressel, ZfN, 1922, p. 182: Berlin collection (TI·IVLIVS GER· TI· IVLIVS NERO).
98
On the deceased elder brother of these princes see Hohl, Klio , 1942, p. 234, n. 3, Rogers, pp. 95, 96, n. 23.
99
Cf. the attempts of Tiberius to achieve a titulature that would not invite comparison, see above Chapter II, section i.
100
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.
101
BMC. Imp., I, pp. 124, 130, 134, 136, 140 ff.
102
Cf. Rogers, pp. 72, 84, etc.
103
RAI, Chapter III.
104
See above, section i, p. 97.
105
FITA, pp. 328 ff., 463 ff.
106
See above, Chapter II, section i.
107
See above, Chapter II, sections iii and iv.
108
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.
109
BMC. Imp., I, pp. 140 ff.
110
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.
111
Vives, IV, p. 131, nos. 10-13. For a recent bibliography see d'Ors Pérez Peix, Emerita , 1942, p. 205, n. 1.
112
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.
113
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).
114
RAI, Chapter VII, section i.
115
Helmreich, 31, 177, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 144.
116
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.
117
FITA, p. 360.
118
Ibid., p. 361.
119
Hill, Anatolian Studies to Ramsay , p. 221, cf. FITA, p. 361.
120
BMC. Imp., III, p. 395, no. 1094, cf. pp. clvii, clxi, RAI, Chapter V, section iii.
121
FITA, pp. 360 f.
122
FITA, p. 374.
123
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).
124
FITA, pp. 374 f.
125
Vives, IV, p. 82, no. 53.
126
Vives, IV, p. 94, no. 18.
127
But for the usage of Horace, etc., see now D. Norberg, Eranos Rudbergianus, 1946, pp. 389 ff.
128
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]).
129
References in Pippidi, RCI, pp. 9 ff., 47 ff. (49, n. 3), 193 ff. See also now Wagenvoort, pp. 73 ff.

(iv) Julia Augusta

A. JULIA AUGUSTA AS GODDESS AND "VIRTUE"

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
130
On this see subsection B.
131
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 Rostovtzeff, History of the Ancient World, II, Rome , p. 186.
132
E.g. Ceres at Sardes, Tralles, Syedra, Thessalonica, Panormus; Juno at Pergamum, Tarsus and Perinthus. This list contains doubtful cases, which cannot be discussed here.
133
E.g. ILS, 120 (cf. 119, 121), cf. BMC. Imp., I, p. cxxxvi. But Rohde, RE, XVIII, 1, 753, against Jordan, Römische Mythologie, II, p. 23, Grether, AJP, 1946, p. 226, n. 21, discounts the possibility that the Roman altars to Ceres and Ops in 7 a.d. were in honour of Livia.
134
E.g. ILS, 6896, 7160.
135
Vives, IV, p. 124, n. 3, cf. Alföldi, Röm . Mitt., 1935, p. 99, n. 2 (κοσμοκράτωρ idea), Willrich, p. 57, Kornemann, GFA, pp. 206, 422, n. 22, who points out that the crescent under the bust anticipates the ruler-portrait of the Severi. Possibly the Boscoreale cup depicts Livia as Venus Genetrix, Seltman, CAH, Plates IV, p. 128, Rostovtzeff, SEH, p. 76 = SES, Plates VII, XIII; cf. perhaps also the Ravenna relief (Ollendorff, RE, XIII, 913, Grether, AJP, 1946, p. 229, Seltman, loc. cit., p. 160, etc.) and coins of Agrippias Caesarea, BMC. Pontus, etc., p. 1, nos. 1 ff., Ars Classica (Levis) sale XI (1925), 264, Willrich, p. 67. Ovid describes Livia as Venus and Vesta, cf. Ollendorff, loc. cit., 914. Colin, RA, 1946, pp. 40 ff., stresses the importance attached to Venus in this principate.
But the crescent also recalls the Stoic doctrine Minervam esse Lunam, Arnobius 3.31, cf. Weinstock, JRS, 1946, p. 107, n. 39, and next note but one.
136
ILS, 3208, cf. Link, RE, xiv, 533.
137
Buresch, Ath. Mitt., 1894, p. 116 and n. 4, doubted by Willrich, p. 67, who, however, cites also CIL, XI, 3859, Diana Augusta . Cf. also last note but one (end).
138
IGRR, I, 1150, cf. Ollendorff, RE, XIII, 1, 917, Buresch, loc. cit.
139
BMC. Imp., I, p. 183, no. 136. The first personification to be called Augusta on the official coinage was Salus under Tiberius, BMC. Imp., I, p. 131, no. 81.
140
Though this is perhaps suggested by BMC. Imp., I, p. clvi.
141
Cf. RAI, Chapter III, section i.
142
Cf. Nock, CAH, X, p. 498.
143
Cf. Milne, Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins in the Ashmolean Museum, p. 1, no. 23; this is the interpretation of Willrich, p. 67, n. 1. In the principate of Augustus Livia had also appeared on an official coinage of Bithynia (M. Granius Marcellus, FITA, p. 145), and at municipium Turiaso (ibid., p. 169, and n. 2).
144
FITA, p. 250, and Plate VIII, 11 there.
145
The obverse legend will then terminate (or begin) with the words IMP· AVG. This designation might seem inappropriate to Claudius; but Lystra was a long way from Rome, and in any case IMP·AVG· might be Divus Augustus (cf. last section).
146
For Ceres (unnamed) under Augustus, see FITA, pp. 224, 258.
147
Cf. Rogers, p. 19, etc.
148
Rogers, p. 18.
149
Charlesworth, JRS, 1943, p. 7, n. 37, Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship, pp. 249 f., cf. Pippidi, RCI, pp. 16 f. (references).
150
Berlin collection: Dressel, ZfN, 1922, p. 182 (A·VITELLIVS CVR·).
151
See below, subsection B.
152
Recent contributions to a vast literature include those of Kornemann, GFA, pp. 210 ff., GR, pp. 90 ff., Scramuzza, AJP, 1944, pp. 404 ff., Charlesworth, Papers of British School at Rome , XV, pp. 5 ff., Montevecchi, Epigraphica, VII, 1945, pp. 104 ff. (references).
153
ILS, 116, 120; for doubtful examples cf. Taylor, AJP, 1937, p. 190, but see Pippidi, RCI, p. 198 and n. 2; and Grether, AJP, 1946, p. 225 and n. 12.
154
Cf. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People, p. 135, cf. pp. 87 f., n. 21, Wissowa, RKR 2, p. 180, Weinstock, JRS, 1946, p. 127, Wagenvoort, pp. 190 ff.
155
Nock, CAH, X, pp. 480, 484. For a supposed connection of Genius Augusti with Gens Iulia cf. Poinssot, Notes et Documents de la Direction des Antiquités de Tunisie , 1929, pp. 14 ff.; cf. Gagé, RA, XXXIV, 1931, p. 35, RH, 1936, pp. 314, 333. For an Augustan coin of municipium Italica with GEN(ius) P(opuli) R(omani), see FITA, p. 173, cf. perhaps later at Philippi, Kubitschek, Gnomon , 1937, p. 24; for this conception see Blanchet, CRAI, 1943, July-Sept.
156
Cf. FITA, p. 280.
157
RAI, Chapter III, especially section i; and NC, 1949 (in press).
158
So were Italian colonies: cf. the many local priests of Tiberius himself, inside and outside Italy, Nock, CAH, X, p. 493.
159
For the description of "Virtues" as numina see Mattingly, HTR, 1937, pp. 108 f., BMC. Imp., IV, p. xxv, JRS, 1943, p. 77.
160
For a definition of the "Virtues" see Cicero, De Legibus, II, 11, 28; he distinguishes "Blessings," cf. Grant, Univ. of Edinburgh Review, 1949, p. 232.
161
RAI, Chapter III.
162
E.g. at Gythium: see references above, n. 152.
163
Willrich, p. 67, cf. n. 3, Ollendorff, RE, XIII, 1, 907, 917 (references), Buresch, Ath. Mitt., 1894, p. 116.
164
IG, III, 460 (Athens), cf. Ollendorff, loc. cit., 907.
165
Cf. Gagé, RA, XXXII, 1930, p. 19, n. 1. Ibid., his conjecture that she appears as Felicitas on the Paris cameo.
166
Vives, IV, p. 80, 37, cf. Hill, NNM, 50, 1931, p. 92, no. 19, cf. p. 96.
167
See Appendix 1.
168
See above, Chapter II, section iv.
169
CIL, XIII, 4635; see above, section i. Cf. SALVS AVGVSTA imitated from Rome by Emerita, Vives, IV, p. 67, no. 66, and SAL·AVG· at Ilici (Plate VI, 7), Vives, IV, p. 41, no. 6, Rogers, p. 28, n. 114. The colonials are very likely to have identified Salus with Livia (now deceased, FITA, p. 447)—cf. Sutherland, JRS, 1934, p. 36—even if this was not the intention at Rome.
170
See above, Chapter II, section iv, subsection B.

B. JULIA AUGUSTA AS PRIESTESS

There is greater novelty in this subject. This comprises the well-known type of Livia seated to right, veiled, with patera and sceptre. This occurs, in almost identical form, at no less than seven of our cities, namely Paestum, Carthage(P), Hippo Diarrhytus, Dium, Corinth, Cnossus(?) and Pisidian Antioch (nos. 4, 15, 18, 35, 46, 49 and 52: Plate I, 5, II, 1, 4, IV, 5, V, 9, 11, 15)–as well as at municipia Italica and Utica (Plate VIII, 8, 9), and coloniae Caesar-augusta (Plate VI, 2) and Emerita (Plate VI, 9).171 This much favoured type is directly imitated from a vast series of official asses with DIVVS AVGVSTVS PATER (Plate VIII, 13),172 or from an identical representation on further asses of Tiberius dated to a.d. 15-16 (Plate VIII, 12).173 These two series constitute practically the whole of the important category174 of his "accession" aes.175

Doubts that the figure on this large range of coinage was intended to represent Livia176 are removed by the accompanying legends IVL· AVG· at Hippo Diarrhytus (Plate II, 4), and the same two names written in full as IVLIA AVGVSTA at Emerita, Caesar-augusta and Italica. Indeed a further issue that even appears to be official (of Cyprus[?]) (Plate VIII, 11)177 represents the same figure with the same inscription. It may therefore be confidently assumed that the identical figure on the central official asses of Tiberius and Divus Augustus, as well as at all these eleven Roman cities, likewise represents Livia. It is true that a seated figure on contemporary aurei and denarii (which, however, carries different emblems and was inaugurated under Augustus rather than Tiberius 178) perhaps represented, in the first instance at least, not Livia, but the composite divinity lustitia-Pax.179 But that type is rarely if ever imitated by the Roman cities, and is never labelled IVLIA AVGVSTA like the figure on the aes. The latter seems to represent Livia neither as a goddess nor as a "Virtue" but as a priestess,180 veiled and with characteristic patera .181 It was easier for the official mints, which concentrated to so great an extent on this type, to represent Livia as a priestess than as a deity or even a "Virtue," matters in which imperial policy had certain reservations. A Vienna sardonyx, probably of post-Augustan date, seems to show Livia in the same rôle of priestess;182 so perhaps does a statue from Pompeii with the same terminus post quem,183 and a bust in the Uffizi gallery.184

The belief that it is as priestess that Livia figures in these representations, as on coins, is confirmed by historical considerations. On the death of Augustus, Livia became priestess of the new divus; and Gagé 185 is right in pointing out that–in close accordance with the Augustan emphasis on priesthoods–it was this office which formed the occasion of her chief honours at Rome.186 Ovid writes coniunxque sacerdos,187 and Velleius Livia ... quam transgressi ad deos sacerdotem ac filiam (vidimus).188 The evidence of Velleius is particularly significant here since, while not apparently a member of Livia's most intimate circle, he is just the man whom we should expect to reflect the official publicity of Tiberius.189 This publicity directed much of its attention, not to the suppression of Livia's glory—far from it—but to her presentation as priestess, rather than as goddess or empress.

Certain implications of this rôle have been described in recent years. As the coinage of Pella (no. 38: PLATE IV, 10; and especially no. 39) and its Roman prototype suggest,190 the priestess may well be regarded in some sense as the representative (though not, since she is labelled IVLIA AVGVSTA, as the equivalent) of Pietas .191 The composite character of this Augustan and Tiberian "Virtue" has been analysed by the present writer elsewhere.192 In this connection we must not boggle at the conception—unfamiliar to us—revealed by Velleius' description of Livia not only as her deified husband's sacerdos but also as his filia. The former wife of the divus had been adopted in his will,193 and she was now correctly described as his "daughter."194 Another result of this measure was her assumption of the gentile name "Julia," and cognomen "Augusta," to which our coins bear witness. Her adoption of the former name may not have been particularly strange,195 but the latter appellation represented a somewhat startling adaptation of the Augustan name or title. Kornemann 196 (probably, in this statement, at least, without the exaggeration which Ehrenberg attributes to him197) describes it as having been as surprising to the world in general as it was tiresome for Tiberius; though others have taken the view that, whatever its embarrassing effects, it had been intended by Augustus to help Tiberius 198 rather than to hinder him.199

The present study will not touch further on the psychological relations of the three great personages, which raise questions that are fascinating but may be insoluble. The coins are concerned rather with the façade with which imperial publicity presented, or covered up, those relations. This publicity made great play with the theme of Livia as priestess. But, as Weber has pointed out, this theme contained scarcely less novelty than the other manifestations of Livia's posthumous adoption to which reference has been made.200 Usually only goddesses, not gods, had been tended by priestesses; gods had been looked after by male priests.201 Livia's priesthood, then, could not fail, in this respect at least, to be almost unprecedented.202

But so, too, was the problem with which her survival, and her place in the testament of Augustus, faced the government of Tiberius. Many attempts have been made in modern times to define the special position of the Augusta in the state. This position of hers faced Tiberius with a problem which lacked a complete precedent and thus permitted of no orthodox solution. But those of our coins which are here interpreted as emphasising the "priestess" formula indicate the principles on which his attempted solution was founded; and these principles must now briefly be discussed. A student of Tiberius' rule would be surprised if he found his administration, even in so unusual a situation, acting without attention to some Roman precedent or part-precedent, drawn either from the Republic or from the policy of Augustus, or from both. He is not prima facie likely to have introduced Hellenistic innovations in such a matter, and indeed Hellenistic cults, to which certain scholars have attributed other features of Livia's position,203 do not appreciably help us to understand her priesthood. It can be shown that this was not quite so "un-Roman" as Weber says,204 and that, whatever features of novelty it contained, its presentation to the Roman public, through the coins, gave due consideration to Roman institutions.

image

Fig.i

image

Fig.ii

image

Fig.iii

The connection of the coins, and of the "priestess" formula in general, with Roman traditions seems to be provided by certain other seated figures of veiled women which had appeared on coinage of an earlier date. We may particularly compare the pose of a veiled seated figure (carrying a cymbium) on the denarii of C. Clodius Vestalis issued in the late forties b.c. (Figure iii).205 Another veiled lady, standing, and holding—together with a simpulum—a sceptre as on our Tiberian aes, was depicted at about the same date by M. Aemilius Lepidus and L. Livineius Regulus (Figure ii).206 An earlier M. Lepidus had shown a veiled head of the same lady in pre-Caesarian days (Figure i).207 Now the figures represented by these three types are none of them goddesses or "Virtues," but all human beings. Moreover they all share another and more distinctive feature, namely that of being Vestal Virgins. It is the Vestal Aemilia who is represented by both of the Marci Lepidi, and C. Clodius Vestalis—whose cognomen is significant in this context—is depicting the Vestal Claudia Quinta. The seated figures on the denarii of the Lepidi and Regulus and Vestalis are by no means unlike the "Livia as priestess" type, and hold priestly emblems as she does. Moreover, a conscious reminiscence is suggested by Livia's kinship, as a Claudian by birth as well as by marriage,208 to one of these Vestals, Claudia Quinta—who is known to have been honoured by a Claudian emperor.209

Livia's career provides a special raison d'être for such a connection. She was given sacrosanctitas early in her husband's rule (b.c. 35),210 during which she already appeared in a veil like that worn by the Vestal Virgins.211 Long before the death of Augustus her position could be compared with that of the Vestals in a number of ways.212 It was only as the formalisation and finalisation of a long process that in a.d. 24—perhaps in connection with the decennalian ceremonies213—she was given the right to sit in their midst.214 In such circumstances identification with the guardian deity of the Vestals was easy:215 we find the combination Vesta Augusta ,216 and a description of Livia as Vesta by Ovid;217 and on common asses of Caligula, a seated figure very similar to those on the Tiberian aes, and like them provided with a veil and long sceptre, is actually described as VESTA.218

Thus the widespread type of Livia as priestess was neither a pure invention nor an adaptation from the Hellenistic world: it was firmly based on the Roman Vestal tradition. This descent had obvious and impressive implications. The patroness of the type, Vesta, represents, in the words of Warde Fowler, "the reality and continuity of Roman religious feeling."219 The Vestal Virgins, to whom Livia is compared, embodied the highest ideals of the Roman concept of womanhood.220 The founders of the principate appreciated the significance of the Vestal tradition, and, as in the case of so many historic institutions, took careful steps to annex it for themselves. Of Julius Caesar, the adoptive father of Livia's husband, Ovid inspires Vesta to say Ne dubita meminisse: meus fuit ille sacerdos.221 Both Vesta and her Virgins were deliberately exalted by Augustus.222 As so often, Tiberius did the same:223 this range of ideas lost nothing of its impetus during the decades following the death of Augustus. While Augustus was alive, Livia's Vestal rôle had linked her closely with him in his capacity of pontifex maximus , and after his death, when she herself had obtained a great and special priesthood, a similar link united her with the new pontifex maximus , her son—now her "brother"—Tiberius: for the Vestal Virgins were traditionally the direct subordinates of the high priest.224 Later in the century Vitellius, reproducing on his coinage a seated figure very like that of the Tiberian coinage, was to label it PONT · MAXIM·,225 thus stressing further the connection between Vesta and the high-priesthood.

The cult of Vesta was also closely associated with that of Divus Augustus, with whose portrait the seated priestess is so often associated.226 Indeed, for centuries after the death of Augustus, the temple of Vesta was regularly accorded numismatic portrayal on the principal anniversaries of the death of Augustus—and on practically no other occasions but these anniversaries.227 Livia, who sat among the Vestals and was priestess of Augustus, was the link and unifier of these two great branches of Roman religion, Vesta and Divus Augustus—thus maintaining the sacerdotal tradition of her family by adoption, the Gens Iulia. It is in these capacities that she appears on the numerous issues with the "seated priestess" type, which first dominated the official "accession" issues of Tiberius and then remained the most persistent and widespread feature of the local aes coinage of his principate.

A notable feature of this type is that it was considered as appropriate for the years after Livia's death (a.d. 29) as for the years before it. In the first place, its appearance at Utica with the names of at least nine duoviri or quinquennales,228 apparently between the years 27 and 30 inclusive,229 suggests that a number of these coins should be attributed to 30, the year after her death. Secondly, for pressing reasons of portraiture and execution,230 some of the Divus Augustus Pater asses with the same type231 must be ascribed to the period following the death not only of Livia but of Tiberius as well—notably to the principate of Caligula or Claudius.232 Her deification did not occur until the latter of these two reigns;233 under Tiberius she was not deified,234 and he took care, as usual, that her posthumous honours should not be exaggerated.235 We might expect to find the official view in Velleius. Writing very soon after Livia's death, he describes her as eminentissima et per omnia deis quam hominibus similior femina.236 This is high praise, but it is not the description of a diva: it harmonises admirably, however, with the characteristics of the "seated priestess" type, which was, as we have seen, retained after her death.

Official aes coinage attributable to the same early years after Livia's death conveys a similar suggestion. The present writer237 has elsewhere supported the view—which Sutherland describes as "now generally admitted"238—that certain coins of Tiberius were issued after the dates represented by the tribunician numbers that they bear. Among these is an official sestertius of Tiberius with a carpentum and the words S·P·Q·R· IVLIAE AVGVSTAE.239 This seems to have been issued shortly after the death of Livia—that is to say at about the time when Velleius wrote. Carpentum types on other Roman coins of the first century a.d. are habitually posthumous,240 and suggest that the same is true of this one. We may compare also Italian urn-reliefs on which this type of vehicle is used by the dead on their journey from the world.241 It is improbable, in view of the moderatio of Tiberius in such respects, that Livia was conceded the right of using a carpentum in her lifetime, a right which Messalina and Agrippina junior seem to have been the first to possess.242 More likely parallels are those provided by a series of personages beginning with Agrippina senior, for whom, after her death, an identical coin-type was issued243 when Caligula—in this respect conservative in his attitude to imperial women244—granted her the same honour of a carpentum posthumously.245

These carpenta were closely associated with the priesthood. Antonia's position during the last weeks of her life was modelled on that of Livia,246 so that Claudius later entitles her SACERDOS DIVI AVGVSTI;247 and one posthumous denarius in her name shows a carpentum with the sole inscription SACERDOS.248 Tacitus describes the award of these vehicles as honos sacerdotibus et sacris antiquitus concessus.249 (Furthermore, carpenta were more appropriate to priestesses than to priests, for they were especially associated with women.)250 Thus the carpentum on the sestertius of Livia seems to confirm that, after her death as before it, Tiberius intended her position as priestess to be in the forefront of his publicity. This is perhaps borne out by the veil which she wears on an exceedingly rare official coin-portrait that appears to be posthumous.251 These corroborate the suggestion conveyed by survivals of the seated priestess type after a.d. 29. Even if Tiberius felt a great deal freer after the death of his mother252—and his feelings, obscure enough at the time, cannot be reconstructed now—he apparently made no change in the picture of her presented by his publicity.253 For this was the official rôle in which he preferred her to appear, live or dead—as sacerdos Divi Augusti and heiress to the Roman Vestal tradition.

End Notes
171
Thus there is one in each of the three Spanish provinces.
172
BMC. Imp., I, p. 141, no. 151, Sutherland, JRS, 1941, pp. 102 ff., ibid., Plate I, 1-10.
173
BMC. Imp., I, p. 128, no. 65.
174
Cf. above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection B.
175
The only exception is a particularly rare as with wreath and chair, which was probably commemorative, and never current coin (cf. RAI, Chapter III, section iii, and for the theme Diez, JAIW, 1946, p. 107).
176
E.g. Hill, NC, 1914, p. 303 ("Gens Iulia"–on the idea, see above, section i), cf. Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1935, pp. 115, 125, who compares with representations of divinities.
177
Hill, NC, 1914, pp. 299 ff., no. 12a (attributed to Antioch in Pisidia), Imhoof-Blumer, KM, p. 30, no. 1 (to Parium). It is just possible that an ethnic is missing from the exergue.
178
BMC. Imp., p. 91, no. 544. Mattingly's distinction of the Augustan and Tiberian types is, in the present writer's opinion, unjustifiable. Another late Augustan seated female figure (on an aes piece of M. Granius Marcellus in Bithynia) is described in FITA, p. 145, as Livia; but, whether this is true or not, she does not provide a precedent for the priestess type since she carries a cornucopiae; nor does she appear to be veiled.
179
Cf. above, Chapter II, section iv, subsection A.
180
BMC. Imp., I, p. cxxxiii and n. 4, cf. Gagé, RA, XXXIV, 1931, p. 16, Kornemann, GFA, p. 208.
181
For this as the priestly emblem cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp., I, p. cciv, n. 2.
182
Cf. Aschbach, Livia Gemahlin des Kaisers Augustus , Plate III, 2, Ollendorff, RE, XIII, 1, 924.
183
Maiuri, Villa dei Misteri, pp. 223 ff., cf. Seltman, CAH, Plates IV, p. 168. Cf. the Uffizi altar under Augustus, ibid., p. 136 (a.d. 2).
184
Cf. Beurlier, Essai sur le Culte rendu aux Empereurs romains, p. 29, n. 3.
185
Res Gestae Divi Augusti, p. 166.
186
She held other priesthoods also; cf. Waldhauer, JRS, 1923, p. 190, on a bust apparently showing her as priestess of Ceres (for whom see last subsection).
187
Ex Ponto, IV, 9, 107, cf. Weber, pp. 92 f.*, n. 427.
188
II, 75, 3.
189
See Abraham, Velleius und die Parteien in Rom unter Tiberius , pp. 13 f., cf. Smith, p. 126, n. 39. As Syme, JRS, 1946, p. 188, puts it, "Velleius knew all the tricks."
190
Cf. also Caesaraugusta, Vives, IV, p. 80, no. 37.
191
Cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp., I, p. 141, no. 151 ("as priestess or as Pietas"); but he prefers the former alternative on pp. cxxxiii and 128. The PIETAS head is veiled like the head of the priestess; and the priestess-"daughter" was an obvious reminiscence of Pietas.
192
RAI, Chapter III, section i.
193
For discussion see especially Kornemann, DR, p. 35, GFA, SB München, 1947, I, p. 5.
194
This point has rarely been faced except by Gagé, RA, XXXII, 1930, p. 26, n. 1, ibid., XXXIV, 1931, p. 16, and von Premerstein, p. 269.
195
Cf. Ehrenberg, p. 205.
196
DR, pp. 35 f., 50, n. 3, 189, cf. GFA, pp. 199, 204. Pippidi, ED, 1938 = AT, p. 40.
197
P. 205.
198
Cf. Ollendorff, RE, XIII, 1, 916, Gagé, RA, XXXIV, 1931, p. 17.
199
Ehrenberg, p. 206, does not rule out the possibility that Augustus intended to damage Tiberius.
200
Pp. 92* f., n. 427.
201
Cf. Wissowa, RKR2 , pp. 185, 218, n. 6, 299, n. 10.
202
Possibly the flaminica Dialis was a partial exception and precedent: as Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People, pp. 135, 143.
203
E.g. Kornemann, GFA, pp. 219, 221, 230.
204
Pp. 92* f., n. 427.
205
BMC. Rep., I, p. 564, no. 4195; cf. FITA, pp. 49 f., n. 14 (and Errata); but the present writer no longer agrees with Groag, RE, IV, 104 f., in eliminating these pieces from the Roman Series of the late 40's. For Vestalis see Barbieri, Rivista di Filologia , 1947, pp. 166 f.
206
BMC. Rep., I, p. 580, no. 4259 (c. 39 b.c.); Bahrfeldt, Die römische Gold-munzenprägung, pp. 55, 58 f. (43-42 b.c.).
207
BMC. Rep., I, p. 450, no. 3650.
208
Cf. Syme, RR, p. 229. Her father was a Claudius adopted in infancy by the tribune Livius Drusus—M. Livius Drusus Claudianus.
209
Cf. Nock, CAH, X, p. 499-Claudius.
210
Cf. Adcock, CAH, IX, p. 901, Hohl, Klio , 1939, p. 70, FITA, p. 450.
211
E.g. on the Uffizi Altar, Seltman, CAH, Plates IV, p. 136.
212
Cf. Weber, pp. 92* f., n. 427; Hor., Od., III, 14, 5 f.
213
For these see RAI, Chapter III, section i.
214
Cf. Weber, loc. cit., Rogers, p. 32, Nock, CAH, X, p. 479.
215
For such identifications of Livia with goddesses see last subsection.
216
CIL, II, 1166, 3378, cf. Charlesworth, JRS, 1943, p. 7, n. 37.
217
Ex Ponto, IV, 13, 29. Her house was associated with the cult of Vesta, Richmond, JRS, 1914, pp. 209, 211.
218
BMC. Imp., I, p. 154, no. 45, p. cxlvi.
219
The Religious Experience of the Roman People, p. 137.
220
Cf. Altheim, A History of Roman Religion, p. 88.
221
Fasti, III, 699, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 151 (but cf. p. 173 and n. 3).
222
Cf. Nock, CAH, X, p. 479.
223
Cf. Rogers, pp. 11 f. For the Vestal connection of the Tiberian Aeternitas, see above, Chapter II, section iv, subsection B.
224
Stuart Jones, CAH, X, p. 426, Mommsen, St. R., II3, p. 54.; cf. BMC. Imp., I, pp. cxxxi, ccxxiv, Rogers, p. 32, Charlesworth, HTR, 1936, p. 123.
225
BMC. Imp., I, p. 373, no. 33.
226
Charlesworth, HTR, 1936, p. 123, Sutherland, NC, 1941, p. 116 n. Ibid., p. 114, for this significance of the star and thunderbolt on the obverse of the Divus Augustus Pater "seated priestess" coins, cf. our no. 14 of Achulla (Plate I, 21).
227
RAI, Chapter VI, section ii (init.), etc.
228
See Appendix 2; Plate VIII, 8 and 9.
229
De Laet, p. 92, no. 410 and p. 246.
230
The present writer hopes to publish elsewhere a note defending the validity of such criteria.
231
Sutherland, NC, 1941, pp. 103 f., n. 13, p. 102, n. 22, ibid., Plate I, 10.
232
RAI, Chapter IV, section i; ibid., Plate II, 9, 10.
233
Cf. Weber, p. 101*, Nock, CAH, X, p. 498.
234
Cf. Rogers, Hermes, 1933, p. 122, Smith, p. 151, n. 75.
235
Cf. Rogers, p. 70.
236
II, 80, 5, cf. Balsdon, p. 11, n. 3.
237
FITA, pp. 447 f.
238
JRS, 1947, pp. 211 f. He rightly points to a number of important historical questions raised by this conclusion. Cf. also above, p. 32, n. 123.
239
BMC. Imp., I, p. 130, no. 76.
240
E.g. BMC. Imp., I, p. 159, no. 81 (Agrippina senior), p. 180, n. (Antonia), II, p. 270, no. 226, p. 271, no. 229 (Domitilla), pp. 402 f., 405 f., (Julia Titi). Against these instances, the only non-posthumous example is on a non-Roman and apparently medallic anniversary piece of Agrippina junior, ibid., I, p. 195n., cf. RAI, Chapter IV, section ii.
241
E.g. from Volaterrae in Museo Archeologico, Florence, cf. Brunn-Körte, Urne Etrusche, III, p. 96, Plate LXXX, 4c.
242
Dio 60.22, 33, Suet., Claud., 17, Tac., Ann., XII, 42, cf. BMC. Imp., I, p. cxxxv, nn. 2, 3, cliv, n. 2, clix; see also last note but one.
243
BMC. Imp., I, p. 159, n. 81.
244
Revolutionary aspects of his policy in this respect are stressed e.g. by Kornemann, Die Stellung der Frau, in Die vorgriechische Mittelmeerkultur, pp. 13 ff. See also Balsdon, pp. 41 ff., Grant, NC, 1949 (in press).
245
Suet., Cal., 15, cf. Abaecherli, Bollettino dell Associazione Intenazionale degli Studi Mediterranei, VI, 1935/6, p. 5.
246
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X, p. 655, Gagé, RA, XXXIV, 1931, p. 21, n. 3, Kornemann, DR, pp. 51 f.
247
BMC. Imp., I, p. 180, no. 112, Weber, p. 92*, n. 427.
248
BMC. Imp., I, p. 180, n. (Vienna), cf. Kubitschek, NZ, 1921, p. 151, Plate VII, 5.
249
Ann., XII, 42.
250
Cf. Lewis and Short, Latin Dictionary, s.v., e.g. Festus, p. 245 (Müller), Becker's Gallus, p. 346, etc. The first veto on women driving in the city was short-lived (the lex Oppia), but even this was nisi sacrorum publicorum causa veheretur (Livy, XXXIV, 1). Caesar revived the veto in similar form, Adcock, CAH, IX, p. 699. Cf. BMC. Imp., I, p. cxxxv, n. 1.

C. POSITION OF JULIA AUGUSTA IN THE STATE

Much has recently been written of the reluctance of Tiberius to overload Livia with honours, whether public or divine.254 Our present material tends to confirm the view that, as far as Romans are concerned, the interpretation of her official position as "Hellenistic" cannot be substantiated: it had a truly Roman background. Indeed, even in dealing with Greeks, Tiberius was cautious about her divinity, as is suggested by the Gythium inscription;255 but peregrini, even if such instructions had been less suspensa et obscura,256 could scarcely be expected to achieve moderation. Roman colonies, too, were sometimes apt to regard her as a goddess. But more often they imitated Rome, where, in official circles, there was no doubt on this subject: the fact that her late husband had become divus did not make her diva. Even after her death, as Velleius so tactfully put it, although she was more like a goddess than a human being, she was from straying outside the borders of this picture.272 These attempts were over-simplified or perverted into imaginary attempts by Tiberius–moderandos feminarum honores dictitans 273–to keep Livia "out of the news." But the coinage confirms that she was very much in the official news: she had a vast share of the imperial publicity. Indeed, in another passage of Tacitus we read of the emperor's inveteratum erga matrem obsequium 274 Both these ungenerous epigrams strike home, and the fact that they are contradictory only underlines the delicate nature of the problem which Tiberius was trying to face.

The place assigned to Livia in the framework of the principate was an exalted one. But it was also, in its chief aspect, restricted to a quasi-Vestal rôle. The retirement of Tiberius to Capri, with its effects on the quality of his administration275 and particularly on the system of auctoritas principis,276 may well have been due, in part at least, to difficult relations with Livia, which the official interpretation of her did nothing to mitigate. It cannot have been easy for that very real personality277 to fit into the coldly elevated niche in the imperial façade which Tiberius had designed for her. Tiberius tried to base his policy and publicity on the practice of Augustus, and particularly on that of the last decennium of the latter's principate. But just as he was to some extent defeated in that aim by the posthumous greatness of his own model, so too he was defeated–though this again was never admitted–by the personality of Livia and, more particularly, by the position left to her by Augustus in his will. The present discussion has suggested the means employed by Tiberius to rescue this situation, by the application of his own standards—namely those of Roman traditionalism, which had likewise been the standards of the stepfather who had left him this uncomfortable heritage. Even at this distance of time, these methods appear as only partially successful; for behind the façade of mos maiorum they reveal what Tiberius most wished to avoid but in these peculiar circumstances could not conceal—namely an element of novelty.

End Notes
251
RAI, Chapter III, section 3, and ibid., Plate II, 1.
252
Cf. Kornemann, Forschungen und Fortschritte, 1929, p. 343.
253
Possibly, however, he presented it less assiduously: cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X, p. 634.
254
Rogers, pp. 68 ff., etc.
255
For references, see above, subsection A.
256
Cf. Tac., Ann., I, 11.
272
Cf. Rogers, pp. 69 f., Ciaceri, Tacito, p. 158. An instance particularly annoying to Tiberius (if true) must have been her initiative in directing the fire-brigade to put out a fire—next to the temple of Vesta (Suet., Tib., 50)! Her supporters could, however, argue that even Vestal Virgins had at times performed public services outside the cloister, e.g. Aemilia and her kinswoman Claudia Quinta (see above, subsection B).
273
Tac., Ann., I, 14, cf. Pippidi, ED, 1938 = AT, p. 40.
274
Ann., V, 3, cf. Pippidi, ED, 1938 = AT, p. 59.
275
Cf. Thiel, Mnemosyne, 1935/6, p. 211, n. 5, Smith, p. 163, Hammond, p. 169. But these effects must not be overestimated, Kornemann, RG, II, p. 197.
276
Cf. below, Conclusion.
277
For her character see Kornemann, GFA, pp. 172 ff. Charlesworth, CAH, X, p. 634, describes the aspersions of Tacitus as a "farrago of nonsense."

BACK

CONCLUSION

The rule of Tiberius possesses many features which warrant its description as an aftermath of the principate of Augustus rather than a prelude to the principates which follow. Thus, in our present study, we have found in a number of fields that changes often attributed to Tiberius prove, on examination, to be features of the preceding principate (often of its final period), which Tiberius maintained as he found them.1 The whole subjects of his colonial coinages2 and attitude to Roman cities3 seem to fall into this category; indeed, in respect of his own titulature (in which he was eager to avoid comparisons),4 and in the honouring of his heirs,5 he was more conservative than Augustus and may even perhaps be said to have introduced a Republican reaction.6

Moreover, in many respects the contrast with the future is no less clear than the link with the past; and Tiberius has been regarded not only as the second, but also as the last, of the true principes.7 For immediately after him came the first of the imperial tyrants, Caligula, in whose brief reign—though the force of continuity and tradition must not be minimised8—the Augustan system received a severe, and at some points a fatal, shock; as was fitting under the first of three emperors descended from M. Antonius.9 In particular Caligula had little patience for the tactful exercise of government by auctoritas.10 This régime died with Tiberius.11 His was the last principate in which other auctoritates survived alongside the auctoritas principis,12 and other principes viri alongside the princeps;13 in which, indeed, the latter liked to seem ut senator et iudex, non ut princeps.14 The significance of the year of his death, a.d. 37, may have been partly clear to those who came after him; at any rate, until the period of detraction set in,15 and his critics began to be read in earnest soon after the fall of his admirer Domitian,16 his memory received from posterity the marked respect17 which it deserved, and which is said to have been his highest ambition.18 Thus the tricennium of his death was commemorated by Nero on an official Alexandrian issue,19 and possibly, too, its half-centenary by a Roman as of Domitian.20 The death of Tiberius represented the end of an epoch, and it was fitting that a great landmark of the Augustan aureum saeculum, namely its half-centenary, was still receiving numismatic commemoration when he died.21

Yet, for all these deliberate and far-reaching links with Augustus as with the Republic which had preceded him, it is the feature of the principate of Tiberius that, in another and no less potent sense, it prepared the way for a future which he would have found most distasteful. The very fact of his accession pointed ahead rather than backwards: for it was the first occasion on which a man had succeeded to the statio principis, and this was so decisive an event that it has been described by Syme as "marking the legal termination of the Republic."22 Thus, if in one sense a.d. 37 marked the end of an era, it is equally true to say that, despite the wishes of the new princeps, a.d. 14 marked the beginning of one.23 It is not, therefore, fortuitous or surprising that this great year was one of the dates of which the anniversaries were celebrated longest and most attentively in ancient times.24 To judge by the coinage, other such dates were b.c. 43, 31-30, 27, 23, 17-16 and 12.25 Each of these years was commemorated as having in some degree witnessed the inauguration of the principate; but the same is true in a very special sense of a.d. 14.26

Indeed, this year was remarkable for more than the accession of Tiberius. For in it also, from causes beyond his control, there came into being two other great features of subsequent Roman history. For the first time a princeps, in the new sense, was deified;27 and for the first time, by his testament, a woman was raised high above other women.28 Thus, a dead man still dominated the State; while his widow and priestess hampered it and, despite the official concentration on her religious aspect, set the precedent for a monstrous regiment of women. DEO AVGVSTO and GENETRIX ORBIS, on the coinage of Spanish colonies,29 show respectively the repercussions, ominous for the future, of the embarrassing greatness of Tiberius' predecessor and his no less embarrassing will. By these factors, at the very outset of the reign and through no fault of his own, two serious limitations were set to the auctoritas of the new princeps. Moreover, he himself, for all his outstanding experience and ability,30 was ill-equipped by nature to govern by auctoritas as had Augustus before him. For that system depended greatly on personal relations, and it was in the personal touch31—and so in judgment of men32—that Tiberius was lacking. Indeed, his retirement to Capri, ascribed by Suetonius to a desire to cherish his auctoritas,33 made its tactful exercise impossible.34 So Tiberius himself, cramped by his character as well as by his inheritance, contributed to the failure of the system which it was his greatest desire to maintain.

The alternative to government by advice was the formal autocracy which was so soon to come into existence. Of this Tiberius was scrupulous to avoid any of the symbolism. But none the less, from the periphery of the empire, many signs of the future were apparent. The greatest of all the achievements of Tiberius, the stabilisation of the imperial Peace, brought on to a colonial mintage a Pax Aug. Perpetua which has in it—like GENETRIX ORBIS and DEO AVGVSTO—little of the past and much of the future; it is strangely suggestive of the contemporary Mission of Christ.35 To the future too point the Tiberian coin-legends of other colonies, like PIETAS AVGVSTA, AETERNITATIS AVGVSTAE and PROVI-DENTIAE AVGVSTI;36 and GENT· IVLI· at Corinth reminds us that the Gens Iulia, a modest enough conception in itself, advanced in this principate towards the status of an imperial family already unofficially called the divina domus.37 The conservatism of Tiberius kept such phrases away from public parlance, but for a time only; they were advancing apace outside Rome. It is to his involuntary coincidence with such pregnant developments, no less than to his conscious and constructive stabilisation of the Pax Augusta , that his principate owes its place—which has begun to be attributed to it in recent years—as a decisive stage in the history of the Roman Empire.

End Notes

1
Cf. Tac., Ann., II, 65: nihil aeque Tiberium anxium habebat quam ne composita turbarentur; and Pippidi, ED, 1938 = AT, p. 38, Charlesworth, CAH, X, p. 625.
2
Chapter I, section ii, and Appendices 4, 6, 7.
3
Chapter II, section ii, and Appendices 2, 5.
4
Chapter II, section i.
5
Chapter III, section ii.
6
For references see Chapter II, section i.
7
Cf. Kornemann, GR, p. 159, RG, II, p. 204.
8
It is illustrated by his coinage, cf. Mattingly, CAH, XII, p. 716; e.g. his conservative titulature, and coinage for Agrippina senior, see above, Chapter III, section iv, subsection C.
9
Syme, RR, p. 495; cf. Kornemann, GFA, p. 221.
10
Cf. Kornemann, RG, II, p. 209. Levi, La Politica Imperiale di Roma, p. 269, argues that Caligula tried to restore "the auctoritas principis that had been cheapened by Tiberius"; but he is using the word in the general sense of "authority," and his meaning is that Caligula wanted to avoid the "Republican menace" which, according to Levi, Tiberius had allowed to develop.
11
Cf. Kornemann, RG, II, p. 204, GR, p. 159. "Restorations of the Republic" by emperors on whom powers were conferred by a "lex de imperio," like Vespasian, did not set the clock back to the days of Tiberius.
12
Cf. Muller, MKAW, 63, XI, 1927, pp. 29 S., Wagenvoort, QAS, X, 1938, p. 14. He even considered himself in auctoritate senatus, cf. Heinze, Vom Geist des Römertums, Wells, JRS, 1939, p. 105.
13
Cf. Gwosdz, Der Begriff des römischen Princeps, Diss: Breslau, 1933, p. 3.
14
Veil., II, 129, 2, cf. Kornemann, Staaten Völker Männer, p. 95, n. 45, Forschungen und Fortschritte, V, 1929, pp. 342 f.
15
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X, p. 652.
16
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH, XI, p. 23, Pippidi, ED, 1938 = AT, pp. 11 ff., p. 20, n. 1.
17
Tiberian allusions on the coinage of the first century are commented on in RAI, Chapters IV-VI (Chapter III, section iii, for the attitude of Caligula). Cf. also Dio, 60, 10, ILS, 212; posthumous statues and busts, Africa Italiana, 1940-1941, pp. 76 f., 91, Abb. 76, 77, Schweitzer, Röm. Mitt., 1942, p. 105, Merlin, RA, 1941, p. 330, no. 105, cf. Poulsen, Acta Archaeologica, 1946, p. 9 and n. 32, p. 47, 105–sometimes in temples, BMC, Ionia , p. 288, no. 403 (Caracalla); cf. his cult in Lycia, Fougères, De Lyciorum Communi, p. 105; and the names of months, Beurlier, Essai sur le Culte Rendu aux Empéreurs Romains, p. 160.
18
Tac., Ann., VI, 46: quippe illi non perinde curae gratia praesentium quam in posteros ambitio, cf. Pippidi, ED, 1938 = AT, p. 39, n. 7.
19
Milne, Catalogue of the Alexandrian Coins in the Ashmolean Museum, pp. xxv, xxxv, 7, as interpreted by RAI, Chapter IV, section ii.
20
BMC. Imp., II, p. 387, no. 698, cf. p. xciv, as interpreted by RAI, Chapter V, section ii.
21
The types (BMC. Imp., I, pp. 134 ff.) continued unchanged for the remaining three years of Tiberius' lifetime which followed the anniversary year, and one type even seems to have been retained for a short time after his death (RAI, Chapter III, section ii), which was also overlapped by the celebrations of the centenary of Augustus' birth (RAI, Chapter III, section iii).
22
RR, p. 374, cf. Hohl, Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1936, p. 137.
23
Kornemann, GFA, p. 221, stresses the division between the Augustan régime and the government by Claudians (and soon "Antonians") that followed. Tiberius, like Livia, was Claudian on both sides, cf. Syme, RR, p. 493.
24
RAI, Chapter VIII, section i (summary).
25
Ibid. The Eastern provinces added 20 b.c., and the Western provinces 14-13 b.c. (in addition to the annexation dates of individual provinces, such as 25 b.c. for Galatia).
26
Kornemann, DR, p. 41, also draws special attention to a.d. 19 as a decisive date—the year in which a princeps first raised his own son to the heirship of the empire, cf. above, Chapter III, section ii.
27
Chapter III, section iii.
28
Chapter III, section iv, especially subsection C.
29
Chapter II, section v; Plate VI, 8, and VII, 6.
30
This is the view of Kornemann, RG, II, pp. 196, 200; but, since comparisons between great men are a barren pursuit, no comment is offered here on his assertion of Tiberius' superiority over Augustus. By way of contrast, Charlesworth (CAH, X, p. 652), though appreciative of many of Tiberius' qualities, does not agree with Kornemann (op. cit., p. 204, GR, p. 158; but see also GFA, p. 236) that he was a better princeps than Claudius. Opinions of every kind have been expressed about the merits and demerits of Tiberius; one of the least favourable modern estimates is that of Siber, Abh. Leipzig , 2, 1940, p. 82.
31
Charlesworth, CAH, X, p. 652: "he lacked the graciousness in dealing with men and the tact that Augustus had possessed in so supreme a degree"; cf., on the diritas of Tiberius, Scott, AJP, 1932, pp. 150 ff., Pippidi, RCI, 1941/2 = AT, p. 173, Kornemann, RG, II, pp. 188 f.
32
Cf. Kornemann, RG, II, pp. 193 ff., 196 ff.
33
Suet., Tib., 10, cf. Thiel, Mnemosyne, 1935, p. 211, n. 5.
34
Cf. Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten, p. 471, Scramuzza, EC, p. 84. For the effect of this on the administration, and a possible cause, see above, Chapter III, section iv, subsection C.
35
Chapter II, section iv, subsection A.
36
Chapter II, section v; Plate VII, 2, 4, 8.
37
Chapter III, section i; Plate V, 4, 7.

APPENDIX 1

Some non-Spanish colonial coins of uncertain princeps

In this Appendix will be collected certain colonial coins which might belong to the principate of Tiberius but are on the whole more probably attributable to other periods.1

(1) Nemausus. Many of the aes pieces with heads of Augustus and Agrippa, and reverses with COL· NEM· and crocodile, are apparently post-Augustan.2 One such group, described on iconographical grounds as belonging to "Tiberius or probably later,"3 seems likely to be Claudian. In any case it is doubtful whether the issues of Nemausus are official or colonial,4 and also whether the Augustan colony at Nemausus was a Roman or a Latin one5—probably it was the former (14 b.c.).

(2) Paestum. Muensterberg ascribes to Tiberius the coinage of the Paestan duoviri L. Suei. & M. Nun., and M. I. Ne.;6 but attribution to Augustus seems preferable.7

(3) Uncertain Spanish city. Nicodemi 8 attributes to Tiberius a coin signed by C. Aquinus Mela and P. Baebius Pollio duoviri quinquennales, but the present writer ascribes it to Augustus. However the attribution to Pella must be abandoned owing to Spanish provenance: but A. Beltrán's reversion to Carthago Nova is still not convincing.9

(4) Buthrotum. Sestini's10 attribution to this principate is uncertain. Imhoof-Blumer's 11 and Muensterberg's 12 ascription to Buthrotum concerns a genuinely Tiberian coin, but it is here assigned rather to Cnossus(?) (no. 49; Plate V, 10 and 11).

(5) Patrae. A frequently published coin or medallion at Patrae with a veiled head of Livia(?) and biga, with the legend INDVLGENTIAE AVG· MONETA IMPETRATA,13 is probably not Tiberian.14 It is certainly not of Augustus,15 but its reverse type seems to be taken from dupondii of Germanicus issued in the principate of Caligula.16

(6) Corinth. Edwards 17 rightly attributes to Caligula the duoviri A. Vatronius Labeo and L. Rutilius Plancus, ascribed earlier to Tiberius 18 or Augustus.19 She also abandons the attribution to Tiberius of the Augustans Insteius and L. Cassius.20 But certain other coins of Corinth lacking imperial heads21 may conceivably belong to the principate of Tiberius. So also might a small piece with GER· and DRV·, and two heads,22 though it may also be post-Tiberian and might in any case be official rather than colonial.

(7) Parium. Mionnet quotes as bearing the ethnic of colonia Parium (C·G·I·P·) two small pieces with the usual type of priest or colonist ploughing; one has the head and name of Drusus junior,23 and the other those of Tiberius and Drusus junior 24 (Plate VIII, 10). But it is doubtful whether Mionnet was right in saying that the ethnic occurs on these coins.25 They appear to be of an anniversary character.26

(8) Berytus. The present writer has yet to see a Berytan issue which does not seem more probably attributable either to a later date (e.g. Plate VIII, 5)27 or to an earlier one.28 But the stylistic peculiarities of this series make it impossible to conclude with certainty at what period any of these pieces were struck. Tiberian pieces may well exist.

(9) Cnossus. As Muensterberg 29 suggests, some of the coins of Cnossus ascribed to the principate of Augustus by the present writer30 may conceivably have been issued under Tiberius, to whom some of them are ascribed in the British Museum Cabinet. This applies particularly to a diverse but obscure group bearing the following names:

(i) M. Aemilius (Plate VIII, 4, only partially legible) described on one occasion as praefectus Imperatoris IIvir;31 elsewhere he lacks a title (Plate VIII, 2).

(ii) Labeo, who now seems not to be identical with M. Aemilius as was thought;32 he figures as IIvir,33 possibly as [IIvir?]iter. (Plate VIII, 3)34 and apparently as IIvir quinquennalis iter. (Plate VIII, 1).35

(iii) Pollio, who appears with Labeo as [IIvir?]iter. and IIvir quinquennalis iter. (Plate VIII, 1).36

(iv) Ti. Caesar, who figures as IIvir (Plate VIII, 2)37 and IIvir tier.38

The present writer has preferred to consider the series Augustan and to identify Ti. Caesar here as Tiberius (in the reign of Augustus);39 it is, however, possible that this duovir is instead Ti. Gemellus (in the reign of Tiberius), as at Paestum.40 What is needed, as so often, is a carefully described Corpus of this coinage.

(10) Antioch in Pisidia. Hill attributes to "the time of Augustus and Tiberius" a small piece with the ethnic C·C·AN·;41 but Ramsay ascribes the introduction of the name "Antiochia" to Vespasian or thereabouts.42 Hill43 and Babelon44 rightly reject a piece with CAE·ANTIO·COL·S·R·, on which the third century obverse has been tooled to show legend and portrait of Tiberius.

(11) Perhaps Cassandrea (no. 32) should also have been included in this list rather than in the text (PLATE IV, 4).

End Notes

1
A list of the pieces attributed to Tiberius is given in Chapter I, section i.
2
FITA, pp. 75 ff.; accepted by le Gentilhomme, RN, 1947, p. vii, and viewed with cautious favour by Mattingly, NC, 1946, p. 132, Sutherland, CR, 1947, p. 115; cf. de Laet, AC, 1946, p. 372.
3
FITA, p. 75, n. 11. One of these pieces is illustrated by Willers, NZ, 1902, Plate VII, 9.
4
FITA, pp. 70 ff., describes them as purely official, whereas Mattingly, NC, 1946, p. 131, doubts if this can be formally true, while admitting their de facto official scope. The present writer is now disposed to regard the first issue of c. 28 b.c. as local, the main Augustan and Neronian issues as official (P. P. on the latter is interpreted as Pecunia Publica in FITA, p. 78, n. 11, but this is doubted by Mattingly, op. cit., p. 132); and at least some of the scarcer intervening pieces of Claudius and particularly Caligula, perhaps also the last emissions of a.d. c. 68-69, as medallic or semi-medallic. See also the present writer in NC, 1948, pp. 121 ff.
5
FITA, p. 72, n. 18, gives some references. For comprehensive material concerning imperial Nemausus, Forma Orbis Romani, VIII (1941), cf. Grenier, RH, 1944, p. 155 f.
6
NZ, 1911, p. 81.
7
Cf. FITA, pp. 284 ff.
8
P. 74, no. 726.
9
Las Monedas Latinas de Cartagena (1949), p. 27, FITA, p. 283.
10
Descrizione d'alcune Med. Greche del Mus. Hedervariano, Europa, II, p. 24, no. 4.
11
MG, p. 140.
12
NZ, 1911, p. 110.
13
Paris, Naples, Vienna (Pink describes the last as tooled but apparently genuine).
14
As FITA, p. 295, n. 9, following Gaebler, p. 61, n.
15
As Gabrici, Corolla Numismatica, 1911, p. 102.
16
BMC. Imp., I, p. 160, nos. 94 ff. Cf. Grant, NC, 1948, p. 116.
17
Corinth , VI, p. 20.
18
By Earle Fox, JIAN, II, 1899, p. 96; Nicodemi, p. 74.
19
BMC, Corinth , etc.
20
Corinth , VI, p. 6, no. 3, cf. FITA, p. 266.
21
Edwards, op. cit., pp. 7, 24 ff.; BMC, 680 f., etc.
22
Edwards, op. cit., p. 74, no. 471.
23
Mionnet, Supplément, V, p. 397, no. 719.
24
Ibid., p. 413, no. 818.
25
As FITA, p. 112, nn. 19, 20. The Oxford and Paris specimens of the former piece, and BMC, 92, of the latter, show no sign of the ethnic; though the first-named of these, illustrated here (Plate VIII, 10), is struck off the flan to such an extent that this would not in any case be visible. The Berlin specimens are now inaccessible.
26
See below, Appendix 6.
27
E.g. Rouvier, JIAN, 1900, p. 279, nos. 497 f., and probably ibid., no. 281, no. 503. No. 497 recalls portraits on issues of peregrine cities ascribed to Claudius (e.g. FITA, Plate X, 20 ff., 31 ff., etc.). The head of 498, an uncouth coin of which variants exist at Vienna and Munich, somewhat recalls the features of Tiberius, but the execution of the reverse strongly suggests a considerably later (Flavian?) date.
28
Rouvier, JIAN, 1900, p. 281, nos. 504 f., cf. FITA, p. 260.
29
NZ, 1911, p. 125.
30
FITA, p. 262: the description there is augmented, and to some extent superseded, by new material quoted here.
31
Mr. A. M. Woodward has kindly informed the writer of a specimen in his collection reading apparently M. AEMIL. PRAE. IMP. IIVIR.
32
A newly acquired British Museum example reads . . .MILI. PRAE. LAB. . . .
33
BMC, Corinth , etc., p. 62, no. (attributed to Corinth) 513.
34
Svoronos, I, p. 92, no. 201: POLLION. ITER. LABEON.
35
Svoronos, I, p. 92, no. 199; id., RN, 1888, p. 355 and Plate XVII, 4; Grose, II, p. 490, no. 7073: LABEONE POLLIONE IIVIR. Q. ITER.
36
See last two notes.
37
Paris, Vienna: FITA, p. 262, no. 9.
38
British Museum (the piece which seems to distinguish Labeo from M. Aemilius): TI. CAISAR IIVIR. ITER.
39
FITA, p. 263.
40
See above, Chapter III, section ii.
41
NC, 1914, p. 303, no. 10.
42
SBRP, p. 150, cf. Hill, op. cit., p. 304, n. 6.
43
Op. cit., p. 304.
44
Inventaire de la Collection Waddington, 3580.

APPENDIX 2

The municipia civium Romanorum

The municipia 1 do not form part of the subject of this study, but they are closely linked with it; so that an examination of the colonies would be incomplete without some reference to the municipal coinages, and to the relative status of the two kinds of community.

As regards the former of these two questions, there are only two non-Spanish municipia of which Tiberian coins have been identified.2 One of these two cities is Utica (Plate VIII, 8, 9),3 which was still of this status and not an Augustan colony as Scramuzza calls it:4 some of its issues under Tiberius have, alternating with D·D·P·P·, the ethnic M(unicipes?) M(unicipi?) I(uliae) V(ticae).5 Though not a very common series, the coins of this city show several remarkable features, some of which have been referred to cursorily in the text.6 Most of them show the "Livia as priestess" type, and mention, in the Dative or Ablative, the name of the proconsul C. Vibius Marsus (a.d. c. 27-30).7 The names of seven duoviri appear singly,8 two of them being called AVG· or A·,9 signifying Augustalis 10 or [duovir] Augusti.11 Two further varieties are inscribed with the names of Ner. Caes. q(uinquennalis) pr(aefectus?) A·N· Gemellus, Dr. Caes. q(uinquennalis) pr(aefectus?) T·D· Rufus.12

The second city of this category coining outside Spain after the death of Augustus is Tingis; possibly it was linked with Baetica administratively.13 Carcopino wrongly describes it as a colony.14 Its coins show on either side the heads of Nero and Drusus, the sons of Germanicus, inscribed NERO IVL· TIN· and DRVSVS respectively.15 But it cannot be regarded as certain that this piece was not issued in the principate of Caligula,16 under whom honours to these princes were revived.

At first sight this paucity of municipal coinages seems to present a contrast to the reign of Augustus, in which about eight non-Spanish municipia coined;17 but the contrast diminishes when we limit the comparison to the last decade or two of the latter's lifetime.18 For in this more limited period not more than three such cities coined,19 and two of those apparently for foundations—that is to say, special occasions which could not be expected to recur under Tiberius. The apparent reduction in the latter's reign becomes even more negligible when it is recalled that Utica's extensive coinage seems to have had no precedent under Augustus,20 and that, in Spain, eight municipia appear to have issued coinage under Tiberius 21and only five in the last years of Augustus.22 It cannot, therefore, be concluded that any diminution of municipal mints started at the accession of Tiberius, any more than a diminution of colonial mints;23 nor is any diminution noticeable during his reign, in which a number of municipal issues are late.24

From this point of view, then, no light is thrown on the problem of the relative status of municipia and colonies. The distinction between these two classes of community had been sufficient under Augustus for the municipia to preserve greater outward signs of independence which were sometimes reflected on the coinage; though this did not apply to all coinages. In any case the distinction had already come to be of little practical significance.25 Under Tiberius the numismatic signs of autonomy on the one hand and dependence on the other retain roughly similar proportions, and there are no signs of an increased tempo in the assimilation of the two classes of community.26 For Utica, in portraying Tiberius as princeps, is doing as other municipia had done under Augustus;27 Tingis represents the domus Augusta as Gades had before it.28 Again, municipia Osca, Saguntum and Turiaso begin under Tiberius to describe their fourth magistrates as aediles,29 like colonies; but even under Augustus other municipia had done the same.30 Municipium Dertosa seems to follow a further Augustan precedent by celebrating the jubilee of its foundation by coinage.31 It is true that municipium Bilbilis excels all colonies in its attention to imperial affairs by being the only Roman city, and indeed apparently the only city of any kind, to accord numismatic mention to the consulship of Sejanus.32 But, against this, municipium Emporiae in the same province retains complete "autonomy" of type which persisted until the cessation of its issues, which probably occurred in the reign of Caligula;33 and in any case a reference to Sejanus cos. is comparable to the Balbus pont. of Gades under Augustus.34

On the whole, then, it cannot be concluded that the coinage bears witness either to any diminution of municipal mints under Tiberius, or to any increased assimilation of colonies and municipia. This negative conclusion is in accordance with our literary locus classicus for this principate; for we learn from a speech of Hadrian, reported by Gellius,35 that the distinction between the two classes of community was still considered significant enough under Tiberius for Praeneste to petition for a return from colonial status to the theoretically more independent position of a municipium. Moreover, certain new municipia seem to have been created after his accession as before it, notably Cambodunum and conceivably Anagnia and Carnuntum.36

End Notes

1
For the present purpose this term is restricted to municipia civium Romanorum, i.e. does not include the Latin cities which were sometimes likewise described as municipia, cf. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, I, p. 293, n. 23, Steinwenter, RE, X, 1269, FITA, p. 336.
2
The earliest coins of municipium Stobi (Numismaticar, II, 1935, p. 33, cf. Kubitschek, Gnomon, 1937, p. 25, n. 1) seem to be later.
3
Müller, II, pp. 159 ff.
4
EC, p. 277, n. 16.
5
As restored by Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum, IV, pp. 247 ff., cf. Müller, II, p. 164. Borghesi, Oeuvres, Decade X, Oss. IV, prefers some such formula as municipium munitum (for munitum cf. FITA, p. 285).
6
E.g. for local signatories and formulas, Chapter I, section ii, subsection C; for Utica as mint, ibid., subsection D; for the proconsul, Chapter II, section ii, subsection A; for Livia as priestess, Chapter III, section iv, subsection B.
7
De Laet, p. 92, no. 410, p. 246.
8
L. Caecilius Pius, Q. Caecilius Jovinus, Sex. Tadius Faustus, C. Sallustius Justus, M. Tullius Judex, C. Caelius Pax, C. Cassius Felix.
9
C. Caelius Pax Aug., C. Cassius Felix A.
10
As Müller, II, p. 166, cf. the interpretation by Florez, Medallas de las colonias, municipios y pueblos antigos de España, p. 652 (rejected by FITA, p. 237, n. 7) of quinq. Aug. under Augustus (of which the tentative attribution to Thermae Himeraeae is rightly refuted by A. Beltrán, Las Monedas Latinas de Cartagena, p. 29, on grounds of provenance; but his reversion to Carthago Nova is not satisfactory). One specimen is now seen to read Augur.
11
Cf. the interpretation by Cuntz, Klio, 1906, p. 471 (cf. FITA, pp. 195 f.) of Ilvir Aug. des. at municipium Halaesa under Augustus; cf. IIIIvir.Au. at Thuburnica(??), FITA, p. 185.
12
I.e. quinquennalis Genitive; or quaestor propraetore, as Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum, IV, pp. 247 ff., cf. Müller, II, p. 165.
13
Cf. FITA, p. 15.
14
BAF, 1934, pp. 165 f.
15
New York City; Abaecherli Boyce, NNM, 109, 1947, pp. 21 ff. and Plate III, 8, 9.
16
Cf. NC, 1948, p. 114.
17
FITA, pp. 149 ff.
18
As is done also in Chapter I, section ii, subsections A-D, and in Appendices 4 and 5.
19
Uselis, Agrigentum, Haluntium (?): FITA, pp. 153, 196 f., 199 (see also Appendix 5).
20
Cf. FITA, p. 182, n. 1.
21
Bilbilis, Calagurris, Dertosa, Emporiae, Osca, Saguntum, Turiaso, Italica.
22
Bilbilis, Calagurris, Emporiae, Osca, Turiaso.
23
See above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection D.
24
E.g. Bilbilis, and apparently Italica, Osca, Calagurris. Tingis, if Tiberian, falls in the late twenties. Cf. Chapter I, loc. cit.
25
FITA, pp. 324 f. Possibly, however, as Jones suggests (JRS, 1941, p. 29) the municipia did not yet possess what was later known as the ius italicum, attributed to them in FITA, p. 315.
26
Such assimilative developments as occurred (if any) would form part of a process, inherited from Augustus, of gradual encroachment on Romancities in general: see Chapter II, section ii, subsection C.
27
E.g. Calagurris, Italica, Uselis.
28
FITA, p. 172.
29
Cf. FITA, pp. 162, 169.
30
FITA, p. 169, n. 3, against Rudolph, Stadt und Staat im römischen Italien, p. 87.
31
See above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection B; and below, Appendix 6.
32
Vives, IV, p. 56, no. 17 (TI·CAESARE V·, L· AELIO SEIANO COS·), cf. Ciaceri, Tiberio Successore di Augusto, p. 293; Schiller, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, I, p. 299, n. 3; Kornemann, DR, p. 45, n. 4; Rogers, p. 28.
33
Cf. FITA, p. 156. Henderson, JRS, 1942, p. 7, doubts whether this was a Caesarian municipium, as FITA, p. 155.
34
FITA, p. 172.
35
Noct. Att., XVI, 3, cf. Last, CAH, XI, p. 454, Pippidi, RCI, pp. 708, n. 1, FITA, p. 325.
36
se See below, Appendix 5.

APPENDIX 3

Spectrographic Analyses1

Spectrographic analyses recorded in From Imperium to Auctoritas, by the method there described,2 were made by Mr. D. M. Smith under the auspices of the British Non-Ferrous Metals Research Association. Such analyses as are quoted in the text of the present study, where no reference to From Imperium to Auctoritas is given, were undertaken by the same expert through the kindness of Messrs. Johnson, Matthey and Co., Ltd. The method used, somewhat different from that employed on the earlier occasion, is described as follows: "A spark (0.005 uF capacity and 0.06 mH added self-inductance, a 2 mm. spark gap) was passed between a pointed rod of pure graphite and the edge of the coin supported in a specially constructed V-shaped holder with spring clip. A pre-spark period of 5 seconds was given and two exposures of 20 seconds on the same spot were photographed with a flat-field medium size quartz spectrograph, on Ilford Ordinary plates. ... In the absence of standard copper alloys of known composition, it is not possible to give the percentages of the alloys in question. The coins showing the highest content are grouped under 'A,' the next highest content 'Β,' and so on. Unfortunately these groups are not very sharply divided and in some cases it has been difficult to assign a coin definitely to one group. Moreover, the relative proportions as represented by the various groups cannot be stated, again on account of the lack of analysed samples." Lead and zinc constituents are classified A-C, and tin A-E, since "tin can be detected in smaller quantities than zinc."

It should be noted that these classifications do not necessarily correspond with those in From Imperium to Auctoritas. The following notes on the new classifications need to be added:

(1) Mr. D. M. Smith points out that all the coins analysed under the auspices of Messrs. Johnson and Matthey—a varied selection including official copper and orichalcum, and the bronze of peregrine cities, in addition to the colonial and municipal coins described here—"probably contain lead present as an impurity,"3 even where it is not present as an intended constituent. The spark spectra do not show it in every case, but he considers that the more sensitive arc method probably would. However, the spark method is for our purpose quite sensitive enough, indeed too sensitive, in identifying minute constituents; for, from the metrological standpoint, accidental constituents are of little interest.4

(2) "E tin," in the new classification, is estimated by Mr. D. M. Smith at less than 0.1%. Likewise "C lead" and "C zinc" are estimated at more than 0.01% but less than 1%: that is to say, for the present purpose they are negligible quantities. This means, however, that the possibility of "B lead" and "B zinc" also being occasionally accidental cannot be entirely ruled out. This last point raises a question in regard to the old (From Imperium to Auctoritas) classification which deserves to be mentioned here. Does "C/D zinc," in that classification, justify interpretation as orichalcum? "C zinc" has been considered by the present writer to do so,5 and this is probably correct; but zinc is known to occur in many cases as an impurity.6 The spectrographic method has remarkable advantages—in respect of the saving of time, coins, labour and expense—which may well lead to its extensive use by numismatists; but there are individual cases of this kind in which chemical analyses, such as have recently yielded good results to Caley, should as far as possible be continued. Only a minute proportion of Roman aes coinage has so far received either chemical or spectrographic analysis.

End Notes

1
See Chapter I, section ii, subsection A.
2
FITA, p. 493.
3
For impurities see Caley, pp. 151 ff.
4
Perhaps, however, they might eventually be used to test provenance.
5
FITA, pp. 13, 493, n. 12.
6
E.g. Caley, pp. 28, 82, 109, 159.

APPENDIX 4

Weights and Denominations1

While not minimising the importance of metrology, the present writer has not weighed (or recorded the weighings of) more than eighty-five specimens of the coinages described in this study. The results are recorded here in the hope that they will render some small assistance to the much more thorough operations of an eventual corpus.

No. in list Number of specimens weighed Average weight to nearest grain
4 3 64
5 1 50
6 3 77
8 1 62
11 4 125
12 4 71
13 1 143
15 25 106
16 1 63
18 2 333
19 2 199
20 2 107
21 1 317
22 2 239
23 2 121
24 2 462
25 1 315
26 3 106
29 3 678
30 4 228
31 2 125
32 1 87
33 1 118
34, 37-39 8 172
35 1 72
41 2 101
50 1 51
52 1 96
53 1 82

This evidence is not complete enough to warrant any confident metro-logical conclusions. Indeed, even if every extant specimen had been weighed, it would still be necessary to bear in mind the likelihood that many different standards existed simultaneously. However, the following conjectural arrangement of denominations is one of a number of possibilities:

Sestertii: Nos. 17, 24, 29.

Dupondii: Nos. 14 (?), 18, 25, 27, 30.

Asses: Nos. 13, 19, 21 (?), 22, 34, 37-39, 49 (?).

Semisses: Nos. 10, 11, 15, 20, 23, 26, 28, 31, 32 (?), 33, 41 (?), 42- 46, 48, 52, 53.

Quadrantes: Nos. 1-9, 12, 16, 35, 36, 40, 47, 50, 51.

The coins of Paestum, which weigh the same under Tiberius as in the later years of Augustus, are believed to be quadrantes,2 and in the list given above a number of other pieces are ascribed to the same denomination; but such interpretations are more usually conjectural, since quadrantes often deviated in weight (usually in an upward direction) from one-quarter of the as on which they were based.3

The bulk of our pieces are here tentatively classified as semisses, a denomination not unknown under the early principate.4 One would have expected the unitary denomination to be the more frequent, and it might have been struck below weight; but, none the less, a low denomination for these small pieces is suggested by the considerable number of larger denominations issued, and particularly by the very large size of certain other coins—e.g. issues of Gades under Augustus (c. 630 gr.),5 and our no. 29 of Hippo Diarrhytus (c. 678 gr.).6 These bronze pieces7 are presumably sestertii, since a higher aes denomination than this is improbable:8 their high weight is not inconsistent with the 421 grains of the official sestertius of orichalcum.9 But if this is what they are, nos. 25, 27 and 30 are likely to be dupondii, nos. 26, 28 and 31 asses; compare nos. 22 and 23 respectively at Thapsus.10 If this is so, then the smaller pieces in this series cannot, if they belong to the same standard (of which, indeed, there is no proof), be asses also, but must be semisses.

On this assumption our bronze as ranges from c. 234 to c. 160 grains. Within this range, too, fall the abundant Tiberian bronze pieces of many Spanish cities, and also the bronze units (surely asses) of Nemausus during the whole Julio-Claudian period.11 The weight of the copper as at Rome is, appropriately,12 at the bottom of this range (168.5 grains).13

As stated in the text, however, no tightening of the standard under Tiberius can be deduced from the apparently smaller fluctuations of the colonial as in his reign than in the reign of Augustus. It is true that under Augustus such asses seem on occasion to have been as heavy as 350 and as light as 80 grains,14 but if we limit the comparison to the last sixteen years of his reign (the procedure that has been adopted for other such comparisons15), variations of this magnitude no longer occur. For in that period16 there are practically no colonial pieces over 300 grains and very few over 250; the Spanish coinage already varies within comparatively narrow limits; and such small pieces as are attributable to those years have as much claim to be considered semisses as have similar pieces under Tiberius.

End Notes

1
See Chapter I, section ii, subsection A.
2
FITA, p. 288 and n. 2 (nos. 1-9 here).
3
Cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp., I, p. xlviii.
4
FITA, p. 125 (references).
5
FITA, p. 172 and n. 6.
6
But weights here fluctuate so greatly, among the only three pieces weighed, that the average may not be reliable: they are 840, 628.8 and 564.8 grains (Müller). These pieces with the name of P. Cornelius Dolabella weigh considerably more than the corresponding ones with that of L. Apronius (no. 24), which average only c. 462 grains, rather more than Tiberian issues of Acci (c. 415), Tarraco (c. 400), Caesaraugusta (c. 440) and Turiaso (c. 390) : Hill, NNM, 50, 1931, Plates XV, 5, V, 8, XXXIII, 4, etc. But this disparity of weights between the two sets of pieces of apparently the same denomination may conceivably have something to do with the fact that the former overlapped, while the latter preceded, Tiberius' reform of the coinage in A.D. c. 22-23 (RAI, Chapter III, section i). For this reform included the issue of sestertii of orichalcum attaining for the first time the proper weight of 421 grains (no sestertii at all having been issued at Rome for many years), and this may have compelled local mints (which probably had an unfavourable rate of exchange with official issues, cf. Caley, p. 149) to keep their bronze issues heavier.
7
But the Gades coins have not been analysed, so it cannot be proved that they are of bronze.
8
There is no evidence of survival of the Republican tressis (FITA, pp. 31, 44, 88, 208).
9
For the weight of the latter, Mattingly, BMC. Imp., I, p. liv. Bronze was considered less valuable than orichalcum: RIC, I, p. 24, FITA, p. 300, against Burns, Money and Monetary Policy in Ancient Times, p. 302.
10
On this interpretation, the issues of Hippo and Thapsus are tridenominational and quadridenominational respectively.
11
C. 189 grains: FITA, pp. 75, 300.
12
For bronze was probably considered less valuable than copper: FITA, p. 300, against Burns, Money and Monetary Policy in Ancient Times, p. 305.
13
BMC. Imp., I, p. xlv.
14
FITA, p. 300.
15
Cf. Chapter I, section ii, subsections A-D, Appendices 2, 5.
16
For the coinage of those years see Chapter I, section ii, subsection D; for municipia, Appendix 2.

APPENDIX 5

Colonial foundations and their coinages under Tiberius 1

The fact that a number of cities which had coined between Actium and a.d. 14 did not coin under Tiberius is of no economic significance, since it is often to be explained by the fact that these cities had owed their Augustan mintages to a deductio or constitutio or restitutio, occasions which did not recur at the same cities under the second princeps. A very considerable proportion of the colonial and municipal issues of Augustus had belonged to this category of "foundation" or "restoration" coinages.2 In attempting to examine the practice of his successor in this respect, we are faced at the outset with an apparent contrast. Under Tiberius no municipium, and not more than one colony (if that), seems to maintain the custom of celebrating its foundation by coinage. This single colony to which a Tiberian issue of this category is tentatively attributed is Panormus: the present writer has elsewhere offered arguments, albeit admittedly conjectural ones, for attributing our issue no. 10 (Plate 1, 15) to a colonial foundation (or rather re-foundation in the Roman right, after a peregrine hiatus since there had been a long-extinct Julian constitutio as a municipium 3) in the early years of the principate of Tiberius.4 This attribution is chiefly based on the probability that all other names of proconsuls appearing on the coinage of Roman cities in Sicily are ascribable to a similar purpose.5 The other governors in question are Augustan, but a Tiberian date seems not improbable for the foundation of Panormus.6 If this is so, Silva or Silvanus,7 whose coin strikingly resembles a peregrine issue of that city,8 was (by the analogy of the Augustan governors9) perhaps the proconsul who undertook the adsignatio on behalf of the deductor Tiberius. Issues nos. 11 ff., lacking proconsular signatures, could conveniently (though conjecturally) be considered to belong, in whole or in part, to the category, described in From Imperium to Auctoritas, of second mintages from the foundation fund.10 These attributions are, however, it must be repeated, still guess-work. We cannot, for instance, exclude the possibility that another issue, mentioning L. Seius, might be the foundation issue of Panormus, rather than of Haluntium to which it has been ascribed.11

There is nothing surprising about the idea of a Tiberian colonial or municipal foundation; for recent research has suggested that a number of such foundations may have occurred. Most of the possible instances to which attention has been directed are in the Danubian provinces. Saria 12 and Chilver 13 plausibly ascribe Emona to this class. The present writer has attempted, in Roman Anniversary Issues, to attribute a coin of Gallienus to the quarter-millenary of a Tiberian deductio of Siscia.14 Scarabantia 15 and Narona 16 also may well have been colonised not long after the death of Augustus. The same could apply to Aquincum,17 and possibly to a site on Lake Balaton.18 Cambodunum looks like a Tiberian municipium.19 Perhaps, like other early imperial municipia, it contained a draft of settlers.20 The same may conceivably be true of Carnuntum.21

Nor are such possibilities (for they cannot be called more) limited to the Danubian area. In Sicily at least one municipium, namely Haluntium, may have been founded in the immediately preceding period, that is to say in the last years of Augustus.22 A late Augustan "foundation" at Haluntium (if there was one) would add plausibility to the suggestion that, under Tiberius, Sicily was still considered a suitable area for city-foundations such as that of Panormus. This would be consistent with the building activity which is known to have occurred in this province under Tiberius.23 Immigration into Africa may also conceivably have caused deductiones,24 and other areas possibly witnessed similar developments.25 As regards Italy, the evidence, if not necessarily more accurate, is at least more positive: we hear of a new deductio at Tifernum,26 and Anagnia is said to have been "refounded" by "Drusus Caesar,"27 presumably Drusus junior.28

We cannot, then, confidently accept statements that no colonisation occurred under Tiberius.29 It seems probable that he founded certain colonies in the Western provinces. When Augustus bequeathed to Tiberius a warning to be cautious in his grants of citizenship,30 he would not expect such foundations to be dispensed with altogether. Indeed Augustus himself, while almost totally abstaining from new Eastern foundations, had established or re-established many more Western colonies and municipia than has generally been believed.31 The list of Roman foundations which have here been quoted as possibly ascribable to Tiberius is likewise exclusively Western.32

Besides the Augustan precedents, there are other historical grounds for not rejecting out of hand this view of Tiberian foundations. The conciliatory discharges of troops which, we know, followed the mutinies of A.D. 1433 may well have been accompanied by land allotments, as in the comparable stress of the early Augustan period, rather than by the gratuities which, since 13 b.c., had cost Augustus so much.34 One of our possible Tiberian colonies, Anagnia, seems to have been founded, as has been said, by Drusus junior, and the settlers were possibly men who had been ex-soldiers under him in Illyricum.35 Moreover, a number of the colonies here ascribed tentatively to Tiberius are situated in the very Illyrian lands in which the most serious mutiny had taken place. It was only later that in the interests of economy, Tiberius could venture to be more grudging in the award of civitas to discharged veterans36—and, as an alternative procedure, to grant civitas in lieu of discharge.37

This obscure subject of Roman foundations by Tiberius reminds us that his enactments on a variety of subjects may have been more numerous and important than our surviving information reports.38 Comparable to deductiones and constitutiones of Roman cities, on a smaller scale, were promotions of communities to Latinitas, and these too may well have continued in the principate of Tiberius.39 This may have been the cause of unprecedented and isolated Tiberian coinages at three Latin cities of Nearer Spain, namely Graccurris, Osicerda and Cascantum.40 Similar isolated issues, both in Spain and elsewhere, have very often proved to commemorate city-promotions and foundations;41 and, indeed, this character has been specifically ascribed to Augustan mintages of Segobriga, Ercavica, Segovia and other Latin cities.42 Finally, outside Roman or Latin foundations, Tiberius, doubtless without exceeding the bounds prescribed by Augustus, also awarded citizenship to a fair number of individuals.43

Perhaps then the policy of Tiberius regarding enfranchisement, if not spectacular in comparison with Caesar, was not altogether negative.44 At first sight, it is true, his foundations and foundation-coinages seem few in comparison with those of Augustus; but if, as is more appropriate,45 we compare his practice with Augustus' last period (2 b.c.-a.d. 14), the apparent contrast vanishes. The last decade or so of the lifetime of Augustus may perhaps have witnessed the constitutio of municipia Agrigentum and Haluntium;46 but a policy of economic retrenchment was being followed, and the ascription to that period of colonies—at least in appreciable numbers—is unlikely. Thus in those years, as under Tiberius, the foundation-coinages that were so common in the first decade after Actium do not recur;47 and there is no reason to suppose that the tempo of foundations was any livelier than it became under Tiberius. But even if we consider, not the sparsity of the late Augustan period only, but the abundance of foundation issues in the early post-Actian years, deductions can only be drawn with great caution. For there is another contrast besides the merely numerical one which would explain, in part at least, the disparity of foundation-coinage. This other contrast is a geographical one: for Spain, the area where Augustan foundation-coinage was most abundant, had no doubt been colonised to capacity, and is not the area in which traces of Tiberian colonisation and municipalisation are prominent. The latter regions are rather those where action was necessitated by one of the great revolts of a.d. 14—namely Illyricum and Pannonia. But unlike Spain, these are areas in which no colonial or municipal coinage of Tiberius, whether celebrating foundations or otherwise, is to be expected. For no such coinage occurs in this part of the world in any other principate either.48 These were provinces where the official aes circulated, and had already circulated,49 too freely for local currencies to be considered necessary;50 and the general ban on the latter evidently comprised foundation-issues.

End Notes

1
See Chapter I, section ii, subsection B.
2
FITA, pp. 290 ff. sum up.
3
FITA, p. 190.
4
FITA, pp. 197 f., n. 6.
5
FITA, pp. 196 ff., 237 f. The present writer's chronological interpretation of the Augustan colonisation and municipalisation of Sicily differs from that of Kahrstedt, Klio, 1942, pp. 254 ff.
6
FITA, pp. 197 f., n. 6.
7
For the name see recently Groag, PIR 2, III, p. 94, 2, who, however, favoured an earlier date.
8
Cf. Bahrfeldt, RS, 1904, PLATE IV, 92.
9
Cf. FITA, p. 293.
10
Ibid., p. 291, nn. 3 ff. See Plate I, 16-20.
11
FITA, pp. 197, 199.
12
Dissertationes Pannonicae, II, 10, 1938. Cf. CIL, III, 10768.
13
JRS, 1939, p. 269.
14
RAI, Chapter VII, section i.
15
Cf. Ritterling, RE, XII, 1243 ff., against Kornemann, RE, XVI, 596. Kahrstedt, Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1935, p. 239, is sceptical about such foundations.
16
Ritterling, loc. cit. On sources for Illyrian road-building under Tiberius, see Last, JRS, 1943, pp. 104, Charlesworth, CAH, X, p. 651.
17
Cf. Alföldi, CAH, XI, p. 544 (garrison).
18
Ibid., pp. 544 f., cf. Kuszinsky, The Archaeology of the Neighbourhood of the Lake Balaton (in Hungarian), figures 88, 101, 108.
19
Cf. Stade, CAH, XI, p. 532.
20
FITA, pp. 155, 169, 324.
21
It at least reached the stage of being a legionary headquarters (cf. Betz, Wiener Akademische Rundschau, V, 1, 1945, p. 3), though this does not necessarily imply that it was an oppidum civium Romanorum.
22
FITA, p. 199.
23
Cf. Rogers, p. 213, n. 127, Scramuzza, ESAR, III, p. 372, 376.
24
Cf. Rostovtzeff, SEH, p. 282.
25
The possibility of foundations under Gaius should likewise be considered.
26
Liber Coloniarum = Schriften der römischen Feldmesser, p. 224, cf. Ciaceri, Tiberio Successore di Augusto, p. 218.
27
Schriften der römischen Feldmesser, p. 230, cf. Ciaceri, loc. cit. But the character of the foundation is uncertain since Anagnia was, later, still a municipium, cf. Rogers, p. 136. References in the Liber Coloniarum to "Calagna" (Schriften der römischen Feldmesser, p. 231, and Cereatae Marianae (ibid., p. 233) cannot be corroborated, cf. Rogers, loc. cit., discounting Ciaceri, loc. cit.
28
Cf. FITA, p. 285, n. 6. For other possibilities in Italy see Pais, Mem. Lincei, 1920, pp. 80, 84, Degrassi, Athenaeum, 1946, pp. 42 ff. (Parentium).
29
E.g. Dessau, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, II, 1, p. 90, Scramuzza, EC, p. 279, n. 26, p. 281, n. 45.
30
Dio 52.33.3, cf. Gardthausen, Augustus und seine Zeit, I, ii, p. 543.
31
FITA, p. 306.
32
In the East Tiberius, like Augustus, concentrated on peregrrine foundations: cf. Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, pp. 74, 89, 137, 163 f., 267, Smith, p. 240, Ciaceri, Tiberio Successore di Augusto, p. 221, Charlesworth, CR, 1932, p. 265.
33
Cf. FITA, p. 197, n. 6.
34
On the Augustan policy see particularly Syme, RR, p. 352.
35
On his régime there, see most recently Betz, JAIW, 1943; Beiblatt, pp. 131 f.; and Rogers, pp. 119 ff. The Liber Coloniarum says populus deduxit of Anagnia (FITA, p. 284), but possibly Drusus—and Germanicus elsewhere—may have been allowed to hold the position of founder, perhaps like C. Caesar Aug. n. earlier at Berytus, FITA, p. 259, cf. pp. xv, 239, n. 7. Drusus junior also gave a city-gate to Laus Pompeia with Tiberius, CIL, V, 6358, cf. Rogers, p. 136.
36
There seems no good reason to assign the change in policy to a.d. c. 19, as Scramuzza, EC, p. 279, n. 26, p. 281, n. 45.
37
Birley, JRS, 1938, p. 226. It may, however, have been not Tiberius but Claudius who developed most extensively the practice of giving civitas to auxiliarii, cf. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship, p. 192.
38
On various aspects of these, see Hammond, pp. 161, 163, 296, n. 23, 298, n. 40; Charlesworth, CAH, X, p. 613, n. 2; Buckland, ibid., XI, p. 812; Kornemann, Gnomon, 1938, p. 561; Arangio-Ruiz, Augustus, p. 142.
39
Cf. McElderry, JRS, 1918, p. 74. But Abdera should probably not be included in this category, Sutherland, RIS, p. 245, n. 29, against Hübner, CIL, II, p. 267; probably there were some stipendiary foundations also.
40
Vives, IV, pp. 113, 101, 108; Hill, 50, 1931, pp. 181, 100, 168. For the Latin status of these cities see Pliny, Nat. Hist., III, 24.
41
FITA, p. 290.
42
Ibid., pp. 335 ff. For Tiberian coinages of Segobriga and Ercavica see Vives, IV, pp. 48, 109, BMC. Imp., I, p. xxiii. Another Latin city which coins under Tiberius is Carteia, cf. FITA, p. 473, Rogers, p. 135 (GERMANICO ET DRVSO II VIR·).
43
Cf. Pippidi, REL, 1932, p. 285; Scramuzza, EC, pp. 84, 257, n. 2, 258, n. 11, 259, n. 14; Smith, pp. 118 f., 244, nn. 106 f.; Ramsay, SBRP, p. 46; Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule, IV, p. 239. For the constitutional basis of enfranchisement, Hammond, p. 256, n. 50; Scramuzza, EC, p. 276, n. 7; cf. M. Pomponius Marcellus: tu enim, Caesar, civitatem dare potes hominibus, verbo non potes, Suet., Gramm., 22; cf. Buckland, CAH, XI, p. 816, n. 1.
44
As Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship, p. 181; Last, CAH, p. 447.
45
Cf. Chapter I, section ii, subsections A-D, and Appendices 2 and 4.
46
FITA, pp. 197 ff.
47
Sicily, the one province which may have issued foundation-coinage in the last years of Augustus, may have remained the one province to do so under Tiberius.
48
The only peregrine coinage, even, is as far south as Apollonia, Head, p. 315. (But Augustan issues ascribed to that mint by Mionnet, Supplément, III, p. 321, no. 1736, are to be reattributed to Apollonia Pontica of the Euxine Hexapolis, FITA, p. 353.)
49
FITA, p. 92, nn. 15, 16, p. 93, nn. 1, 2 (references).
50
Barbarous imitations to some extent took their place. Such imitations of Augustan and late Tiberian official aes are common, but those of early Tiberian pieces are very rare. Many copies are known of the asses with Agrippa and Neptune: these are ascribed to the last years of Tiberius by Sutherland, Report of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London , XIV, 1947 (Camulodunum), p. 155, but in NC, 1948, pp. 125 f., the present writer prefers to attribute them to Caligula and Claudius.

APPENDIX 6

Local and imperial jubilees under Tiberius 1

If one of the main features of colonial and municipal coinage under Augustus was the foundation-issue, another was 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.2 Unlike foundation coinages,3 this custom of jubilee issues shows no sign of waning before the death of Augustus, for the relevant issues of all of these cities except two4 fall within the last decennium of his principate.

An examination of the issues of Tiberius seems to warrant the suggestion that, as under Augustus, certain cities issued coinage to celebrate anniversaries of their deductio, constitutio or restitutio In considering the coinage of Augustus it was found that isolated colonial issues—that is to say those which followed and were followed by long numismatic silences at the cities in question—were often of this jubilee character. Just such an isolated piece is our no. 52 of Pisidian Antioch (Plate V, 15). Its portrait is of Tiberius' middle period (a.d. 22).5 The only known preceding issues of this mint had portraits imitated from official coinage of c. 19-17 b.c., 6 and no subsequent mintage seems to occur until a.d. 76, under Vespasian. The issue of Vespasian has been ascribed in Roman Anniversary Issues7 to the centenary—which fell in that very year—of whatever change occurred in the status of Pisidian Antioch when the kingdom of Amyntas passed into Roman hands in 25 b.c. The significantly isolated issue of Tiberius may celebrate either the half-centenary of the same occasion, which occurred in a.d. 26, or alternatively the half-centenary of Galatia's provincialisation in c. 20-19 b.c., which was perhaps contemporary with the deductio of the colony at Antioch in Pisidia.

Comparable, and a more straightforward example of a likely half-centenary coinage, is an issue under Tiberius of the Spanish municipium of Dertosa (Plate VI, 5).8 This, too, has a portrait of the middle period. It is even more completely isolated in date than the mintage of Pisidian Antioch. For Dertosa does not seem to have coined previously since the single occasion of its constitutio, which has been attributed in From Imperium to Auctoritas to c. 30-28 b.c.;9 and after the single Tiberian issue no further coins of this mint are known.

A variant of the same custom of jubilee coinage seems to be provided by colonia Parium. Here a coinage showing Drusus junior, tentatively interpreted as official10 (Plate VIII, 10), must have been issued just about half-a-century after 30-29 b.c., the date to which a restitutio of this city has been ascribed.11 A restitutio of Pella by Octavian is attributable to the same year,12 and its fiftieth anniversary (a.d. 20-21) would be a suitable date for the early portrait of our no. 34 (PLATE IV, 6-7).

Hippo Diarrhytus and Thapsus, however, which seem to have begun their coinage in honour of proconsuls at about the same date13 (Plate II, 7, Plate III, 6, etc.), recall that the anniversaries commemorated by such coinages need not be purely local or even—as perhaps in the case of Pisidian Antioch—provincial in significance. The anniversaries thus celebrated may instead, or as well, possess an imperial character. For the mintages of these two African cities, with their honours—simultaneously paralleled in Asia—to the proconsuls who were also amici principis, coincided, not perhaps with colonial half-centenaries,14 but particularly with the half-centenaries of great occasions which prompted much official anniversary coinage, namely Actium and Aegyptus capta.

There was nothing new about this Tiberian celebration of imperial anniversaries by Roman cities. The same practice had occurred under Augustus. Moreover he too apparently, on precisely these occasions, had allowed similar numismatic honours to his amici, for he seems to have selected for this purpose an official anniversary, namely the vicennium of the republica restituta (7 b.c.). 15 Indeed, in this whole question of jubilee coinages, as in regard to foundation-issues, our limited evidence suggests that Tiberius did not deviate from the practice of Augustus.

End Notes

1
See Chapter I, section ii, subsection B.
2
FITA, p. 295 (summary): Dyrrhachium, Cnossus, Patrae(?), Uselis (as municipium), Cirta(??), Carthage(?), Lugdunum(f), Lystra. Cf. the peregrine city of Leptis Minor, FITA, p. 338.
3
See Appendix 5.
4
Dyrrhachium and Cnossus.
5
It is hoped to publish elsewhere a note on local coin-portraiture and the deductions which it is permissible to draw from it.
6
FITA, p. 251 and n. 8.
7
RAI, Chapter V, section i.
8
Vives, IV, p. 18; Hill, NNM, 50, 1931, p. 74; FITA, p. 158, n. 6.
9
FITA, pp. 158, 161.
10
See Appendix 1.
11
FITA, p. 249.
12
FITA, p. 283.
13
See above, Chapter II, section ii, subsection A.
14
The present writer now believes the two cities to have been founded in c. 47-46 b.c. and c. 36-35 b.c. respectively.
15
See above, Chapter II, section ii.

APPENDIX 7

Some Case-Usages in Ethnics

  • (a) Unusual form of Nominative Singular(?): THAPSVM (nos. 22 f.: Plate III, 1, 2).
  • (b) Ablative Singular: HIPPONE LIBERA (nos. 18-20: Plate II, 4, 6, 8).
  • (c) Nominative Plural: THAMPSITANI (sic) (no. 21: Plate I, 14).
  • (d) Genitive Plural: PAN[H]ORMITANORV[M] (nos. 11-13: Plate I, 16).

Comments. (a) At first sight this would seem to be an Accusative, and the same interpretation has been given to CORINTHVM under Augustus.1 But the significance of an Accusative ethnic would be obscure, and the full legend THAPSVM (presumably Subject) IVN·AVG· (presumably Object or recipient2) increases our doubts. The terminations of city-names sometimes vary, especially in Africa.3

(b) This is repeated from Augustan issues.4 At Carthago Nova under Tiberius we find an Ablative Singular following IN,5 which seems rather derogatory to the authority of the city.6 ACHVLLA (no. 14) and similar unvarnished ethnics are usually treated as Nominatives but may in some cases have been intended as Ablatives.

(c) The only known precedents are at Greek cities,7 among which Antioch, as here, associates the Nominative Plural with a dedicatory Dative.8 At Utica under Tiberius we apparently have M(unicipes) M(unicipi) I·V· (Plate VIII, 9).9

(d) A Hellenism: the city had, only a few years earlier while still peregrine, been inscribing its coinage with the Greek Genitive Plural, the normal Ethnic Case in that language. The legend HISPAN-ORVM had been placed by Sex. Pompeius on coinage issued apparently at this very city, and also perhaps at Syracuse.10

Finally, Thapsus 11 and Paestum,12 like other cities under Augustus,13 show varying arrangements of initials comprising ethnic titles.

End Notes

1
FITA, pp. 225, 266.
2
For its interpretation see Chapter III, section iv, subsection A.
3
E.g. SITVM and Zit(h)a, Σύλλ∊κτοv and Sullechthi, Thubursicum and θουβουρσίκα: FITA, pp. 187 f.
4
FITA, p. 224.
5
Ibid., p. 215, n. 11, cf. Lorichs, Recherches Numismatiques, p. 111, etc.
6
Cf. above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection C, n. 106.
7
E.g. Pitane (FITA, p. 387) and Pergamum (FITA, p. 388), both with Accusative Singulars of the person honoured.
8
FITA, p. 376.
9
See above, Appendix 2.
10
FITA, pp. 29 ff.
11
C·P·I· (nos. 24 ff., Plate III, 3 ff.), as against C·I·P· under Augustus (FITA, p. 225).
12
image (Plate I, 1), S·P· (Plate I, 9), P·S· (normal).
13
E.g. Cnossus (FITA, p. 262).

APPENDIX 8

The alleged suppression of "Altar" coinage in c. A.D. 21

Mattingly seems to be wrong in suggesting that the revolts of Sacrovir and Tacfarinas led Tiberius to diminish the Western coinage of Roman cities.1 But the same writer links this to a second theory which, because of this link, needs to be mentioned here. According to this theory the revolt of Sacrovir was likewise followed by "the suppression of the 'Altar' coinage of the 'Council of the Gauls' at Lugdunum.2... There was some justification for mistrust of anything that fostered separatist tendencies in those provinces (sc. Gaul and Africa). The special Gallic issues, the 'Altar' coins of Lugdunum, were suspended."3

But this view seems to the present writer indefensible, since:

(i) There is no internal reason whatever for fixing c. a.d. 21 as the terminus ante quem for such few "Altar" sestertii, dupondii and asses as may have been issued by Tiberius after a.d. 14. If any such coins were issued at all, they are so rare that it is more natural to postulate a single issue, which might equally have been much earlier than a.d. 21. Indeed, the postulation of that date is doubly hazardous since, as Mattingly himself does not deny, it is actually uncertain whether any such pieces exist or ever existed;4 but, even if they turn up, the objection remains valid.

(ii) This being so, the whole onus of Mattingly's theory falls on a Tiberian coinage that does not exceed the most insignificant dimensions. Indeed, though one must not rule out the possibility that some of the coins mentioned in (i) may exist, at present the only piece that remains firmly attributable to the principate of Tiberius is a mere quadrans or semis.5 This issue is undateable: there is no internal reason whatever for attributing it to a.d. 21 rather than e.g. a.d. 15, or any date between the two (or even after a.d. 21); moreover, it is not nearly large enough to be regarded as occupying the seven years a.d. 14-21, i.e. as representing a continuation, until the latter date, of the extensive late Augustan coinage.

(iii) The external arguments also are weak. The "Altar" pieces have no "separatist" qualities: they were official Roman coinage.6

(iv) Likewise, the Altar itself, far from being a focus for disloyalty, was chiefly devoted (naturally in Gallic forms) to the worship of the ruler: it was the very opposite of "separatist," for it was the deliberately chosen medium through which Gallic religious feeling was linked with emperor-worship.7

End Notes

1
See above, Chapter I, section ii, subsection D.
2
BMC. Imp., I, p. xviii.
3
RC, p. 112, cf. p. 195.
4
BMC. Imp., I, p. 127 n.: sestertius in British Museum "probably tooled" from a specimen issued before a.d. 14. "2 AE" with TI· CAESAR DIVI AVG· F· AVGVSTVS (Cohen 40) is accepted and described as an as in RIC, I, p. 104, no. 11; but BMC, loc. cit., is more cautious on both counts: "such a dupondius or as may, so far as we can judge, exist." "2 AE" adding PATER PATRIAE (Cohen 42) is doubted by BMC, loc. cit., as well as by RIC, I, p. 104, n. 3. Cf. also Willers, NZ, 1902, n. 94, and Strack, Bonner Jahrbücher, CXI, 1904, p. 423.
5
Willers, NZ, 1902, p. 98. BMC. Imp., I, p. 127, no. 62, describes it as a quadrans, contradicting the description as a semis (ibid., p. lvi, and in RIC, p. 104, nos. 12-13).
6
FITA, pp. 115 ff.
7
Ibid., p. 116, cf. (the best modern description of the Altar), N. J. de Witt, Urbanisation and the Franchise in Roman Gaul, Diss: Johns Hopkins, 1938 (1940), pp. 14 f., n. 49.

APPENDIX 9

Non-imperial Romans at peregrine cities under Tiberius

A few words on this subject, in so far as it concerns the reign of Tiberius, are necessary in order that the comparable, though different, phenomenon of governors' appearances at Roman cities1 may be seen in proper perspective. First, there are a number of exceedingly rare peregrine coinages showing the heads of non-imperial Romans:

(1) Aegina: ΣAB[EINOΣ Α1ΓIN]HΤΩN bare-headed portrait to right of C. Poppaeus Sabinus amicus principum

AIAKOΣ dead man standing before seated figure of Aeacus: countermark of star.2

(2) Apollonia-Mordiaeum: TIBEPIOΣ ΣEBAΣTOΣ laureate head of Tiberius to right—

AПΟΛΛΩNIΑΤΩN KOPNOYTOΣ EΥEPΓEΤHΣ portrait of Cornutus, perhaps C. Julius Patrinus Cornutus, to right.3

(3) Priene (perhaps of Augustus) [ΠΟΜΠHI]OΣ MAKEP portrait to right of Pompeius Macer, librarian of Augustus or friend of Tiberius— ΠPIHNEΩN Zeus standing to left by tripod-altar.4

(This custom by which peregrine cities honour Romans with coin-portraiture [for the procedure is purely honorary] does not end with Tiberius, for under Claudius [who spoke of his legati as comites,5 thereby following a Republican tradition6] we find portraits of M. Annius Afrinus [legatus Augusti propraetore of Galatia] on local coinage at Iconium and Pessinus;7 and of Veranius,8 Marcellus9 and Antius10 [legati of Lycia-Pamphylia] at Cibyra.)

Secondly, the following mentions of non-imperial Romans—without portrayal—occur on Tiberian peregrine coinages (in the Genitive after EΠI, cf. above, p. 52, n. 92):

(i) Nicomedia:11 P. Vitellius, proconsul and comes of Germanicus 12 (with the latter's head).

(ii) Seleucia in Pieria:13 Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus, legatus and proposed relative by marriage of the imperial family.14

(iii) Antioch in Syria: ditto,15 and L. Pomponius Flaccus.16

(iv) Aegeae (Cilicia):17 (Q. Terentius?) Culleo.18

(v) Caesarea—Germanica (?): Sura.19

(vi) Tabae. Se . . . . (?), with the heads of Germanicus and Drusus junior (or Nero Drusus—in which case a Claudian date is perhaps more probable).20

(vii)-(xi) (silver coinage) Cydonia,21 Eleuthernae,22 Gortyna,23 Hierapytna24 and Polyrhenium.25 Cornelius Lupus,26 amicus Claudii.27

The aes coins of Galatian mintage mentioning T. Helvius Basila, near the end of the reign,28 seem to be official.29

End Notes

1
See above, Chapter II, section ii, subsection A.
2
FITA, Plate XII, no. 4, cf. p. 229 and n. 13 (Berlin). The head is rightly recognised as a non-imperial portrait by Friedlaender, Archäologische Zeitung, 1871, p. 180, who does not, however, seem justified in refusing to attribute the piece to Aegina; Aeacus was the son of the nymph of that name.
3
FITA, Plate XI, nos. 37 and 59 (Copenhagen, from Rhusopoulos collection, Hirsch sale XIII, no. 3873). In NC, 1949 (in press), I argue that this coin belongs to Apollonia-Mordiaeum and not Apollonia Salbace.
4
FITA, Plate IX, 34, pp. 388 f. (Paris, Waddington, no. 1928). Not of the third century, as Babelon (J.), Aréthuse, I, 1923, p .3.
5
E.g. ILS, 986, cf. later ILS, 42327, 5864.
6
Cf. Stevenson, CAH, IX, p. 458.
7
FITA, Plate XII, 10; Imhoof-Blumer, KM, p. 416, no. 3; Babelon, RN, 1887, pp. 109 ff.; PIR, I2, 106, 630; Ramsay, JRS, 1922, p. 159.
8
FITA, Plate XII, 16; Imhoof-Blumer, KM, p. 256, no. 26; Löbbecke, ZfN, 1887, p. 51.
9
FITA, Plate XII, 17; Imhoof-Blumer, KM, p. 257, no. 27.
10
Berlin: legend wrongly restored by Imhoof-Blumer, KM, p. 256, no. 25.
11
Paris (Waddington, 458), Berlin, Zagreb: cf. Bosch, II, 1, p. 79, RGMG, I, 3, p. 516, no. 12.
12
Syme, RR, pp. 356, 361, 487.
13
BMC, Galatia, p. 273, nos. 33 f.
14
Cf. above, Chapter II, section ii, subsection A.
15
BMC, Galatia, etc., p. 169, nos. 150-153.
16
BMC, Galatia, etc., p. 170, no. 161, cf. PIR, III, p. 76, no. 538.
17
Berlin, Rome, cf. Mionnet, Supplément, VII, p. 154, no. 120.
18
PIR, III, p. 301, no. 54. Bickermann, AJP, 1947, p. 356, no. 23, considers him to have been not a governor but a deputy of the legatus of Syria.
19
Sydenham, The Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia , p. 33, no. 54, cf. Macdonald, II, p. 582, no. 5; I hope to defend the present attribution elsewhere.
20
Paris (de Ricci), wrongly described by Mionnet, Supplément, VI, p. 547, no. 530.
21
Svoronos, I, pp. 113 f., nos. 110 ff.
22
Ibid., p. 136, nos. 48 ff.
23
Ibid., p. 181, no. 192.
24
Ibid., p. 194, nos. 46 f.
25
Ibid., p. 284, no. 52.
26
PIR, II2, p. 344, no. 1400; de Laet, p. 114, no. 594.
27
Seneca, Apocolocyntosis, 13, 5.
28
FITA, p. 328, nn. 2, 3.
29
FITA, p. 354, n. 9, p. 399 (Ancyra and Pessinus). He is legatus propraetore.

APPENDIX 10

The eastern command of Germanicus

The whole question of "vicegerents"1 must be borne in mind when considering the constitutional situation of other sorts of governors such as the proconsuls. Thus, as an Appendix to our discussion of Tiberian proconsuls in Africa,2 a brief statement is added here—and such a statement seems somewhat overdue—regarding the position, especially in the East, of the only Tiberian "vicegerent" in that area, Germanicus.

Tacitus describes the position of Germanicus in the East as comprising mains imperium, QVOQVO ADISSET, quam iis qui sorte aut missu principis obtinerent.3 This raises two main subjects—his relation to other proconsuls, and his relation to Tiberius. As regards the former of these subjects, we have two main possibilities: (1) that he possessed a "passive" (Type A) imperium maius, such as Cicero had hoped to secure for C. Cassius 4 before the latter obtained his more comprehensive and "active" (Type B) command.5 (2) that he possessed no imperium maius vis-à-vis existing proconsuls, but only superior auctoritas—the latter being interpreted as the former by later anachronisms (such as the present writer has attributed to Dio's description of Agrippa's vicegerency6); in which case any areas which needed to come under his imperium can have been temporarily detached from their usual senatorial province and brought into his provincia.7

If we consider the second aspect of the problem, his relation to Tiberius, we have three possibilities: (A) he was a proconsul under the imperium maius of Tiberius; (B) he was a proconsul whose imperium was aequum to that of Tiberius (the position ascribed to Agrippa under Augustus by Piganiol 8 and Magdelain9); (C) he was legatus Augusti propraetore, the position attributed to Augustan vicegerents by the present writer.10

But, in considering either the upward or the downward relations of his imperium, it is important to recall that for part of 18 he was consul (when a clash of imperia would hardly arise11); and that a special problem is raised by Egypt.12 Nor is the question of his auspices any clearer than those of Augustan vicegerents in the East.13 There is some excuse for doubts about the position of Germanicus when we recall that he himself was evidently at variance with Tiberius about his status in Egypt and with Piso about his powers in Syria. There are also ambiguities about his previous Western command, as regards imperium 14 and auspicatio.15

It is unsatisfactory to finish this note without even a tentative conclusion; but the questions involved are too intricate for further consideration in the present study. As has been said, they are chiefly relevant to it by reason of the possible comparisons and contrasts which the position of Germanicus may present to the position of the proconsuls; but the problems that have been outlined here each require fundamental consideration, and, if necessary, reconsideration, before any profit can be derived from these analogies.

End Notes

1
I.e. of commanders and governors in the provinces who enjoyed a special position owing their membership of the imperial family.
2
See above, Chapter II, section ii.
3
Ann., II, 43, 2.
4
Cic., Phil., II, 30, cf. Syme, JRS, 1946, pp. 150, 154.
5
Cf. Last, JRS, 1947, p. 164 ("strikingly reminiscent.").
6
FITA, pp. 427, 429, 445.
7
However, for a time at least P. Vitellius seems to have enjoyed a normal proconsul-ship at this time: cf. Appendix 9 (Nicomedia).
8
Piganiol, Journal des Savants, 1937, p. 152, n. 2.
9
Pp. 73 f.
10
FITA, p. 428, etc.
11
Cf. FITA, pp. 420, n. 4, 426.
12
Hohl, Klio, 1942, pp. 227 f.; Siber, Sav. Z., 1944, p. 264; and Smith, p. 96, against Schönbauer, SB Wien, 224, 2, 1946, p. 105, n. 271, deny that he possessed imperium mains there. On his so-called Egyptian edict see also recently Oliver, AJA, 1942, p. 388; Kalbfleisch, Hermes, 1942, pp. 374 ff.; Post, AJP, 1944; p. 81.
13
Du Four, p. 69, n. 6, points out that Mommsen was in two minds about the auspices of C. Caesar: in Res Gestae Divi Augusti 1, p. 225, he credited him with auspicatio, but ibid., 2 pp. 173-175, he described this point as uncertain.
14
These present two aspects: (a) did he first receive imperium under Augustus or Tiberius (Schwartz, RPh, 1945, p. 37, n. 1; FITA, pp. xvi, 429, n. 12)? (b) what was his relation to the usually senatorial province of Gallia Narbonensis? (He had performed a census there, and Hohl, Klio, 1942, attributes to him an imperium maius, against Schweitzer, Klio, 1941, p. 345; for certain aspects of censuses see Hammond, p. 229, n. 9; FITA, p. 129.) See Syme, JRS, 1946, p. 156, on Siber, Abh. Leipzig , 44.2, 1940, p. 19.
15
The operations were conducted ductu Germanici auspiciis Tiberii, Tac., Ann., II, 41, cf. Gagé, RA, XXXII, 1930, pp. 1 ff.; but cf. Drusus junior, Tac, Ann., II, 19, repetendis auspiciis. Bayet, ed. Livy (Budé), I, p. xxi, n. 2, believes that Agrippa had possessed the auspices—unlike ordinary legati, Pease, Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 126. See also above, pp. 61 f.

APPENDIX 11

The Augustan origins of the auspices of Tiberius

It was under Augustus that the doctrine of imperial auspicia took shape;1 and it seems possible that events of 20-19 b.c. and 12 b.c. may have been related to its origins. The case of M. Antonius(?) Primus, a proconsul of Macedonia,2 who invaded Thrace in 24 or 23 b.c. 3 but then tried unsuccessfully to put the responsibility on the princeps, may conceivably suggest that an ambiguous position in regard to the auspices still existed at that time.4 But in 20-19 b.c. no less than three developments occurred which may have clarified this situation. In the first place, it was in 20 that the first ornamenta triumphalia appear to have been awarded:5 the fact that this new honour was, and remained, restricted to the imperial provincia seems to stress the monopolisation of the auspices. Secondly, it was no more than a single year later that the last triumph was awarded to a senatorial proconsul (L. Cornelius Balbus)6—the end of this custom may be associated with the recognition that such officials henceforward lacked the auspices. Thirdly, the same year witnessed the refusal of a triumph by Augustus, a refusal which was, however, far outweighed in historical importance by the simultaneous establishment in his honour of nothing less than a kind of triumphal cult7—indicating his position as the triumphator par excellence—a development highly relevant to the doctrine of the supreme auspicia. There is, it is true, no definite proof that this doctrine owed any part of its evolution to the events of 20-19 b.c., but this seems a not improbable deduction from their character.

In 12 b.c. Augustus became pontifex maximus , and his possession of that title was thereafter greatly stressed.8 Tiberius stressed it also: thus one of our coins honouring the proconsul L. Apronius (Pl. II, 7, 8) distinguishes his portrait from that of Tiberius by the addition to the latter of lituus and simpulum (simpuvium). Combined in this way in relation to a single person,9 the two implements symbolise the high-priesthood,10 just as they had already under Augustus.11 It has been suggested above that the auspicia principis, at least in so far as they related to Africa, were based primarily on the "Augustus"–auctoritas range of ideas. Whether or not high-priests possessed the auspices,12 its tenure by Augustus formally increased his religious authority and so perhaps further facilitated the enhancement of the imperial auspicia.

The possibility of this connection is underlined by the significance of one of the emblems of the high-priesthood that appear on these coins. This is the lituus.13 Developing a precedent utilised by Sulla,14 Pompey15 and Julius Caesar,16 Augustus had come to use the lituus as a symbol of his religious position with special regard to his triumphal Virtues.17 A lituus had appeared beside his bust on official coinage of 28 b.c., 18 the year after the augurium Salutis.19 It recurred in subsequent periods of the reign of Augustus;20 and colonies21 and peregrine communities22 followed suit. The lituus reminds us of his "Romulus" aspect,23 for Virgil24 and Ovid25 both link the lituus with Quirinus.26 Romulus was the originator of the auspices; and especially relevant to the present discussion is the obvious connection of this widely publicised emblem, through the college of augurs which it represented,27 with the name of Augustus, the concept of auctoritas, and (by the false etymology that has been indicated28) the auspicia principis. This again suggests that the high-priesthood, in regard to which the lituus was stressed, was considered as not unconnected with the imperial auspicia.29 This connection may in part account for the prominence of the simpulum and lituus on the colonial issue honouring Tiberius and L. Apronius (no. 20).30

Two conjectures, then, may be offered regarding the origin of the universal imperial auspices: first, that the doctrine came to be formulated in 20-19 b.c. in connection with the new triumphal cult, and secondly that its development was facilitated by Augustus' acceptance, in 12 b.c., of the high-priesthood.

End Notes

1
See above, Chapter II, section ii, subsection B.
2
For his position see Volkmann, Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung, 1935, p. 55.
3
For the date see Syme, RR, p. 333 (Stuart Jones, CAH, X, p. 136, n. 6, gives 23 b.c.).
4
For discussion see FITA, pp. 83 f.
5
Taylor, JRS, 1936, pp. 169 ff., considered probable by Abaecherli Boyce, CP, 1942, p. 140, cf. p. 135.
6
Cf. Stuart Jones, CAH, X, p. 138, n. 2, Syme, JRS, 1946, p. 156, etc.
7
Abaecherli Boyce, CP, 1942, pp. 136 ff., 139.
8
On this see now Koch, Gottheit und Mensch im Wandel der römischen Staatsform, pp. 133 ff.
9
I.e. when the combination does not comprise two separate persons, a pontifex and an augur respectively, e.g. Gaius and Lucius at Lugdunum, BMC. Imp., I, pp. 88 ff.
10
Cf. BMC. Imp., I, p.c; and see above, Chapter II, section v.
11
E.g. quadrantes of Pulcher, Taurus, Regulus, ibid., p. 40, no. 205. Sometimes other implements carry the same significance, e.g. tripod and patera (BMC. Imp., I, p. 20, no. 98 and p. 24, no. 119), but the latter are attributed to 14 b.c. by Pink, NZ, 1946, p. 123. For sculptural representations of the high-priesthood of Augustus, cf. E. M. Marianecci, Notizie di Archeologia, Storia e Arte, IV, 1941, 2, pp. 21 ff. (not seen).
12
See above, Chapter II, section ii, subsection B.
13
The simpulum seems to have been associated directly with the college of pontifices (Borghesi, Oeuvres, I, pp. 343 ff., III, pp. 428 ff., cf. BMC. Imp., I, p. cvi; Wissowa, RKR 2, p. 501, is cautious), of which the pontifex maximus was head.
14
Cf. Gagé, RH, 1933, p. 37, BMC. Rep., II, p. 459.
15
E.g. BMC. Rep., II, p. 560, no. 7 (posthumous, Sicily, c. 42-36 b.c.).
16
Ibid., I, p. 542, no. 4135, etc.
17
Cf. Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1935, pp. 24 f., Gagé, RH, 1936, p. 341.
18
BMC. Imp., I, p. 106, no. 650 (AEGVPTO CAPTA).
19
On this see especially Liegle, Hermes, 1942, pp. 249 ff., cf. Hohl, Historische Zeitschrift, 1943, pp. 621 f.
20
E.g. BMC. Imp., I, p. 20, no. 100, p. 113, no. 698 ff., FITA, p. 139.
21
E.g. FITA, Plate VIII, 1 (Thapsus), 2 (Simitthu?), p. 128 (Berytus).
22
Ibid., Plate X, 15, 56, 61, 64, 72, etc.
23
See above, Chapter II, section ii, subsection B, p. 70.
24
Aen., VII, 187.
25
Fasti, VI, 307.
26
On the lituus quirinalis see Dumézil, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus, p. 240, noting the connection with the ancile of Numa.
27
Cf. Wissowa, RKR 2, p. 524 and n. 7, Gagé, MAH, 1930, pp. 164 ff., 1931, pp. 87 f., 93, 106 f., RA, XXXII, 1930, p. 30, RH, 1936, p. 341, Liegle, Hermes, 1942, p. 275.
28
See above, p. 69.
29
Later the lituus was used to distinguish emperors from their heirs (Gagé, RH, 1933, p. 17, cf. n. 2), but under Augustus, on what appears to be official aes of Africa, we find it accompanying the head of Tiberius but not that of Augustus, FITA, p. 139, no. 5, RAI, Plate I, 2: does this suggest that in the latter's last years Tiberius was regarded as sharing the auspices, like so much else, with him?
30
The lituus also occurs on Tiberian colonial coinage at Paestum (Plate I, 1, 2, 5).

APPENDIX 12

The Augustan origins of the Victory of Tiberius

Certain coinages in honour of Tiberius' vicennium stress the theme of Felicitas which is so closely akin to that of Victoria Augusti.1 It is therefore significant that the same issues also allude in unmistakable fashion to the current half-centenary of the Augustan aureum saeculum of 17 b.c.—just as the Paestan issues of Tiberius (Pl. I, 7-10) show a close link with the coinage of 16 b.c., of which a large part explicitly refers to the new saeculum (p. 73). It may well be that this new Golden Age, which was understood to have been made possible only by the victories of the princeps, witnessed a decisive stage in the development of the idea of Victoria Augusti; just as the crowning 'victory" (20 b.c.), which shortly preceded the new saeculum, perhaps inspired a "Triumphal Cult" and enhancement of the imperial auspicia.2

Each decennium and quinquennium of the new régime of 27 b.c. was made the occasion for fresh propagandist manifestations3—17 b.c. (saeculum aureum), 12 b.c. ( pontifex maximus ), 7 b.c. (vicennium), and 2 b.c. ( pater patriae),4 are conspicuous examples. The assumption by Augustus of the high-priesthood in 12 b.c. may have had its effect on the imperial auspices;5 and a fresh stage in the evolution of the Victoria Augusti may conceivably have been reached at a date not far from the vicennium of the régime in 7 b.c. For it was at this time that the worship of the Genius Augusti was first fully installed in Italy:6 the Genius was very closely linked with the Victoria Augusti,7 and there was a triumph of Tiberius in the same year, apparently accompanied by the issue at Rome of an unparalleled series of aes medallions emphasizing the Victory of the princeps.8 The attribution to this date of a final enhancement of Victoria Augusti would give additional meaning to another numismatic phenomenon attributed to about the same year. For it is to c. 7 b.c. also that we have ascribed the development of the amicitia principis illustrated by the earliest groups of African, and perhaps, also, Asian, proconsuls honoured on local coinage of the principate—the prototype of a similar phenomenon under Tiberius.9 Was Augustus' enhancement of the cachet of amicitia intended, not only to close the ranks round the heirs to the principate, but also to serve as a consolation for the now evident monopoly of Victory (as of the auspices) in hands other than those of the proconsuls? But these are too clouded waters for further exploration here.

End Notes

1
RAI, Chapter III, section ii; cf. above, Chapter II, section iii.
2
See Appendix 11.
3
RAI, Chapter II, section ii.
4
See above, Chapter II, section i.
5
See Appendix 11.
6
Cf. Nock, CAH, X, p. 480, Pippidi, RCI, p. 37, n. 3.
7
Cf. Gagé, MAH, 1932, p. 71, n. 3.
8
RAI, Chapter II, section ii, where this interpretation is preferred to Pink's attribution to 12 b.c.
9
See above, Chapter II, section ii, subsection A.

List of some works cited

Notes

(1) In list B, references to periodicals are usually followed by a brief allusion, within brackets, to the subject-matter. Unless this allusion is enclosed within inverted commas, it does not purport to give the title of the article, but refers only to the aspect to which the citation in the present study is due; this may or may not be the article's main subject. (2) The names of periodicals and of certain other works are here given in the form of abbreviations used also in the footnotes (see list of Abbreviations). (3) Words or letters following the sign (=) (e.g. Inscriptiones Graecae = IG) likewise represent abbreviations used in the footnotes and figuring in the list. (4) In list B, works more than one hundred years old are not included. (5) Writers' initials are only given where there would otherwise be likelihood of ambiguity.

A. ANCIENT

1. Latin Writers

Arnobius, Adversus Nationes.

Aufustius (ap. Verr. Flacc., Fest., Paul. Diac).

Augustus, Res Gestae Divi Augusti = RG.

Cicero, De Divinatione; Ad Familiares; De Inventione; De Lege Agraria; De Legibus; De Natura Deorum; De Oratore; Philippica II, XIII; De Republica, XII Tabulae (ap. Cic., De Legibus).

Festus, De Verborum Significatu (Epit. of M. Verrius Flaccus) (ed. W. M. Lindsay, Glossaria Latina, IV, 1930).

Gellius, Noctes Atticae.

Horace, Odes.

Largus (Valerius?) (G. Helmreich).

Liber Coloniarum (Schriften der römischen Feldmesser).

Livy.

Martial, Epigrams.

Messalla augur, De Auspiciis (ap. Gell.).

Ovid, Fasti, Ex Ponto.

Paulus Diaconus, Epitome of Festus (q.v.).

Phaedrus, Fabellae Aesopiae.

Pliny sen., Historia Naturalis.

Seneca, Sen., Controversiae.

Seneca, jun., Apocolocyntosis; De Clementia; Ad Marciam; De Consolatione; De Tranquillitate Animi.

Servius, Commentary on Aeneid.

Suetonius, De Grammaticis; De Vita Caesarum.

Tacitus, Agricola, Annales.

Tertullian, Apologeticum.

Valerius Maximus, Facta et Dicta Memorabilia.

Valerius, see Largus, Messalla augur.

Varro, De Lingua Latina.

Velleius Paterculus.

Verrius Flaccus, see Festus.

Virgil, Georgics; Aeneid.

Vitruvius, De Architectura.

2. Greek Writers

Dio Cassius, Historia Romana.

Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae.

Pausanias, Descripto Graeciae.

Philo, Ad Flaccum.

Strabo, Geography.

3. Inscriptions

Acta Fratrum Arvalium (Henzen).

Annali dell' Africa Italiana, 1941 (Aurigemma).

L'Année Epigraphique = AE, 1933, 1940.

Archäologisch-epigraphische Mitteilungen, VIII.

Atti della Società Italiana per il Progresso delle Scienze, V, 1932 (Marzullo).

Bullettino archeologico comunale di Roma, 1930 (Giglioli).

Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (Boeckh) = CIG.

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum = CIL.

Fasti Antiates, Nolani, Praenestini (CIL, I2).

Inscriptiones Graecae = IG.

Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas pertinentes = IGRR.

Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (Dessau) = ILS.

JAIW, 1941, Beiblatt (Saria), 1943, Beiblatt (Betz).

JRS, 1926 (A.H. Smith).

Klio, 1942 (Vulic).

NS, 1907, 1948.

Res Gestae Divi Augusti = RG.

B. MODERN WRITERS

Abaecherli, see Boyce.

Abbott and Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire.

Abraham, Velleius und die Parteien in Rom unter Tiberius .

Alföldi, Röm. Mitt., 1934 ("Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniells am römischen Kaiserhofe"), 1935 ("Insignien und Tracht der römischen Kaiser"), CAH, XI ("The Latin West: the Central Danubian Provinces").

Allen, TAPA, 1941 (Germanicus and Drusus jun.).

Altheim, History of Roman Religion.

Andersen, Neue Deutsche Forschungen, CXCVI, 1938 ("Dio Cassius und die Begründung des Prinzipats").

Arangio-Ruiz, Augustus (see Abbreviations) ("La Legislazione").

Aschbach, Livia Gemahlin des Kaisers Augustus .

Atauri, see Quintero Atauri.

Aurigemma, Annali dell'Africa Italiana, IV, 1941 (Leptis Magna).

Babelon (E.), Inventaire de la Collection Waddington; RN, 1887 (M. Annius Afrinus); see also Waddington.

Babelon (J.), Aréthuse, I, 1923 (Pompeius Macer).

Bahrfeldt, Die Römische Goldmünzenprägung; RS, 1904 (Panormus).

Baker, Tiberius Caesar .

Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius = Balsdon; JRS, 1932 (Tiberius and nobiles), 1934 (Caligula), 1945 (reviewing Rogers), 1946 (reviewing Pippidi).

Barbieri, Rivista de Filologia, 1947 (Vestalis).

Bardon, Les Empereurs et les Lettres Latines d'Auguste à Hadrien.

Bellinger, AJA, 1947 (reviewing FITA).

Beltran, AEA, 1947 (Spain).

Berlinger, Zur inoffiziellen Titulatur der römischen Kaiser, Diss: Breslau, 1935.

Betz, JAIW, 1943, Beiblatt (Drusus junior, praefecti); Wiener Akademische Rundschau, V, 1, 1945 (Carauntum).

Beurlier, Essai sur le Culte rendu aux Empereurs Romains.

Bickermann, AJP, 1947 (Culleo).

Birley, JRS, 1938 (enfranchisement).

Blanchet, CRAI, 1943 (genius p.R.).

Borghesi, Oeuvres.

Borszák, RE, XVIII, 1121, s.v. ornamenta; Archivum Philologicum, 1943 (Romulus).

Bosch, Die kleinasiatischen Münzen der römischen Kaiserzeit, II, 1 = Bosch.

Boutkowski, Dictionnaire Numismatique.

Boyce (Abaecherli), TAPA, 1932 (praenomen imperatoris): SMSR, 1935 (deus); Bollettino dell' Associazione Internazionale degli Studi Mediterranei, 1935/6 (carpentum); CP, 1942 (triumphal cult, ornamenta); NNM, 109, 1947 (Tingis, Nero and Drusus, Traducta).

Brecht, Sav. Z., 1939 (imperium of p.m.).

British Museum Catalogues of Greek Coins = BMC; of Roman Coins, see Grueber (Rep.), Mattingly (Imp.).

Bruhn-Körte, Urne Etrusche, III (carpentum).

Buckland, CAH, XI ("Classical Roman Law").

Buresch, Ath. Mitt., 1894 (Livia as Hecate).

Burns, Money and Monetary Policy in Ancient Times.

Cagnat, Cours d'Epigraphie, fourth edition; CRAI, 1913 (Gens Iulia-Augusta).

Caley, Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, XI, 1939 ("The Composition of Ancient Greek Bronze Coins") = Caley.

Carcopino, MAH, 1932 (Carthage altar); BAF, 1934 (Tingis); Points de Vue sur l'Impérialisme Romain.

Cavedoni, Bullettino archeologico Italiano, 1862 (non-imperial portraits).

Charlesworth, CR, 1932 (Germanicus); HTR, 1936 (pro perpetua salute); JRS, 1943 (statio principis); CAH, X ("Tiberius," "Gaius and Claudius"), XI ("The Flavian Dynasty"); Papers of British School at Rome , XV, pp. 5 ff. (Gythium letter).

Charrier, Description des Monnaies de la Numidie et de la Maurétanie.

Chilver, JRS, 1939 (Emona).

Chittenden, NC, 1945 (Mercury).

Ciaceri, Tiberio Successore di Augusto; Tacito.

Cohen, Description Historique des Monnaies frappées sous l'Empire Romain, second edition = Cohen.

Collart, Philippes; RPh, 1941 (Ti. Gemellus).

Cordier, RPh, 1943 (amici).

Curtius, Röm. Mitt., 1934 (Livia).

De Francisci, see Francisci.

Degrassi, Athenaeum, 1937 (Mercury), 1946 (Parentium).

De Laet, De Samenstelling van den Romeinschen Senaat (see Abbreviations) = De Laet; AC, 1943 (reviewing Siber), 1946 (reviewing FITA).

Delgado, Nuevo Metodo de Clasificación de las Medallas Autónomas de España.

Del Rivero, see Rivero.

Dessau, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, II, 1; see also list A, 3, and Prosopographia.

d'Hérouville, see Hérouville.

Diez, JAIW, 1946 (wreath and chair).

Dorsch, De Civitatis Romanae apud Graecos Propagatione, Diss: Breslau, 1886.

Dressel, ZfN, 1922 (Ti. Julii Germanicus et Nero, Livia).

Drexler, Auf dem Wege zum nationalpolitischen Gymnasium, 1939 (Tacitus).

Du Four, C. Suetonii Tranquilli Vita Tiberii , Chs. I-XXIII, Diss: Pennsylvania, 1941 = Du Four.

Dumézil, Mitra-Varuna; Horace et les Curiaces; Naissance de Rome; Jupiter-Mars-Quirinus.

Durry, REA, 1940 (Mélanges Radet) (reviewing Gagé).

Duval, RA, 1944 (Paestum).

Earle Fox, JIAN, 1899 (coins of Corinth).

Edwards, Corinth , VI (coins of Corinth).

Ehrenberg, Aspects of the Ancient World = Ehrenberg.

Eitrem, Symbolae Osloenses, XI, 1932 (divina domus).

Ensslin, CAH, XII ("The End of the Principate"); Philologische Wochenschrift, 1942 (nobiles); Gnomon, 1943 (Ti. Gemellus); SB München, 1943, VI (divina domus, aeternitas).

Ericsson, ARW, 1936 (auspices).

Ernout, Riemann's Syntaxe Latine, seventh edition.

Falbe, Lindberg and Müller, see Müller.

Farres, AEA, 1946 (Emerita).

Fink, YCS, VIII, 1942 (Victoria).

Forma Orbis Romani, VIII (1941) (Nemausus).

Forrer, RB, 1900 (Sinope).

Fougères, De Lyciorum Communi.

Four, see Du Four.

Fowler, see Warde Fowler.

Fox, see Earle Fox.

de Francisci, Augustus (see Abbreviations) ("La Costituzione Augustea").

Frank, American Historical Review, 1915/16 (provincialisation); ESAR, V (Altinum).

Friedländer, Archäologische Zeitung, 1871 (C. Poppaeus Sabinus).

Froehner, RN, 1907 (duoviri).

Gabrici, Corolla Numismatica (Patrae).

Gaebler, Die Antiken Münzen Nordgriechenlands, III, 2 = Gaebler; ZfN, 1926 (Pella).

Gagé, RA, XXXII, 1930 ("La Victoria Augusti et les Auspices de Tibère"), XXXIV, 1931 ("Divus Augustus"); MAH, 1930 ("Romulus-Augustus"), 1931 ("Les sacerdoces d'Auguste et ses reformes réligieuses"), 1932 ("Un thème de l'art impérial romain: la Victoire d'Auguste"); RH, 1933 ("La Théologie de la Victoire Impériale"), 1936 ("De César à Auguste"); QAS, I, 1937 ("Gli Studi Francesci"); Res Gestae Divi Augusti.

Gardthausen, RE, X, s.v. Julius (136) (Drusus jun.), (156) (Ti. Gemellus); Augustus und seine Zeit.

Garrucci, Le Monete dell'Italia antica = Garrucci.

Geijeiro, Annuario de Historia del Derecho Español, 1941 (sources for auctoritas).

Gelzer, RE, X, s.v. Julius (154) (Tiberius); Gnomon, 1943 (nobiles).

le Gentilhomme, RN, 1947 (Nemausus).

Gercke-Norden, see Kornemann.

Glauning (A. E.), Festschrift für O. Glauning (augustum augurium).

Gnecchi, Numismatic Circular, 1908 ("The Coin-Types of Imperial Rome").

Goethert, RM, 1939 (iconography).

Grant, From Imperium to Auctoritas = FITA; Roman Anniversary Issues = RAI; 19 b.c.: A Step Towards World Coinage = SWC; NC, 1948 ("The Colonial Mints of Gaius"), 1949 (Apollonia-Mordiaeum); Univ. of Edinburgh Review, 1949 ("Pax Romana").

Greenidge, Roman Public Life = Greenidge.

Grenier, RH, 1944 (Nemausus).

Grether, AJP, 1946 (Livia).

Groag, Studien zur Kaisergeschichte; Wiener Studien, 1929 (imperial consulships); RE, XIII, 270 ff., s.v. Licinius (58) (M. Crassus); Schriften der Balkankommission, Ant. Abt., IX, 1939 (C. Poppaeus Sabinus); see also Prosopographia.

Grose, Catalogue of the McClean Collection = Grose.

Grueber, Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum.

Gruenwald, Die römischen Bronze- und Kupfermünzen mit Schlagmarken im Legionslager Vindonissa.

Gsell, Histoire Ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord, VIII.

Guey, Journal des Savants, 1938 (imp. perpet.).

Gwosdz, Der Begriff des römischen princeps, Diss: Breslau, 1933.

Hägerstrom, Dos Magistratische Ius (see Abbreviations) = Hägerström.

Hammond, The Augustan Principate = Hammond.

Hardy, Roman Laws and Charters; Six Roman Laws.

Haywood, ESAR, IV (Africa).

Head, Historia Numorum, second edition = Head.

Heichelheim, ESAR, IV (Syria).

Heinze, Vom Geist des Römertums.

Heiss, Les Monnaies de Antiques L'Espagne.

Henderson, JRS, 1942 (Spain).

Henzen, Acta Fratrum Arvalium.

d'Hérouville, REL, 1941 (olive-branch).

Heuberger, Klio, 1941 (titulature).

Heuss, Sav. Z., 1944 (imperium).

Hill, Coins of Ancient Sicily; NC, 1914 (Antioch in Pisidia); NNM, 50, 1931 (Spain); Anatolian Studies to Ramsay (Olbasa).

Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten; Kleine Schriften.

Hoey, YCS, 1940 (aeternitas).

Hohl, Hermes, 1933 (consulship); Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1936 (accession); Klio, 1939 (Res Gestae), 1942 (family of Drusus junior); Historische Zeitschrift, 1943 (reviewing Liegle).

Homo, Roman Political Institutions; Mélanges Glotz (p.m.).

Hübner, Monumenta Linguæ Ibericae.

Huelsen, Das Forum Romanum.

Imhoof-Blumer, GM, KM, LS, MG (see Abbreviations).

Instinsky, Hermes, 1943 (aeternus-perpetuus); Philologus, 1942/3 (P. Plautius Pulcher); Hamburger Beiträge zur Numismatik, I, 1947 (reviewing FITA).

John, Hermes, 1943 (Velleius Paterculus).

Johnson, ESAR, II (Egypt).

Jones (A. H. M.), Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces; JRS, 1941 (ius Italicum).

Jones (H. S.), see Stuart Jones.

Jongkees, Bulletin van de Vereeniging tot Bevordering der Kennis van te Antieke Beschaving, XVII, 1 (Ludovisi Juno).

Jordan, Römische Mythologie.

Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule, IV; Les Transformations Politiques de l'Italie sous les Empereurs romains.

Kahrstedt, Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1935 (city-statuses), 1938 (reviewing von Premerstein); Klio, 1942 (Sicily).

Kalbfleisch, Hermes, 1942 (Germanicus).

Klebs, see Prosopographia.

Klein, Die römischen Verwaltungsbeamten.

Klostermann, Philologus, 1932 (statio principis).

Koch, Gottheit und Mensch im Wandel der römischen Staatsform.

Koestermann, Bursians Jahresbericht, 1943 (bibliography).

Kornemann, DR, GFA, GR, RG (see Abbreviations); RE, IV, s.v. colonia, XVI, s.v. municipium; Staaten Völker Männer; Die römische Kaiserzeit (in Gercke-Norden's Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft, III, 2) (pax); Forschungen und Fortschritte, V, 1929 (Livia); Klio, 1938 ( Romulus ); Gnomon, 1938 (pater); Bericht über den IV. Internationalen Kongress für Archäologie in 1939 (Romulus); Die Stellung der Frau, in Die vorgriechische Mittelmeerkultur (Orient und Antike, IV); SB München, 1947, I (moderation).

Kovaceva, Prometej, VI, 1941/2 (Victoria).

Kubitschek, JAIW, 1902 (Ara Pacis); NZ, 1908 (Sinope), 1921 (Antonia); Gnomon, 1937 (Macedonia).

Kuntz, Washington University Publications in the Social Sciences, 2, i, 1924 ("Tiberius Caesar and the Roman Constitution").

Kuszinsky, The Architecture of the Neighbourhood of the Lake Balaton (in Hungarian).

Laet, see De Laet.

Larsen, CP, 1931 (quinquennales perpetui).

Last, CAH, XI ("The Principate and the Administration"; "Rome and the Empire"); CR, 1943 (reviewing Rogers); JRS, 1943 (reviewing Smith, C. E.), 1947 (imperium maius).

Lederer, NC, 1943 (Hippo Diarrhytus).

Le Gentilhomme, see Gentilhomme.

Levi (M. A.), La Politica Imperiale di Roma; RRIL, LXXI, 1, 1938 (auspicia).

Lévy, Quomodo Ti. Claudius Nero erga senatum se gesserit.

Liegle, Hermes, 1942 (augurium).

Link, RE, XIV, s.v. Maia.

Löbbecke, ZfN, 1887 (Cibyra).

Loehr, Führer durch die kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, XXX, 1944.

Löfstedt, Skrifter utgivna av Det Kongl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund, X, 1, 1942 (Ablative).

Lorichs, Recherches Numismatiques.

Macdonald, Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection = Macdonald.

McElderry, JRS, 1918 (Latinitas).

McFayden, CP, 1921 (imperium maius).

Mackail, ed. Vergil, Aeneid.

Magdelain, Auctoritas Principis = Magdelain.

Maiuri, Villa dei Misteri.

Maj, RPAA, 1936 (Carthage altar).

Mantey, De Gradu et Statu Quaestorum in Municipiis Coloniisque, Diss: Halle, 1882.

Marianecci, Notizie di Archeologia, Storia e Arte, IV, 1941, 2 (Augustus as p.m.).

Marot, Acta Universitatis Szegediensis, XIII, 1, 1939 (amicitia).

Marsh, The Reign of Tiberius (second edition) = Marsh.

Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum = BMC. Imp.; Roman Coins = RC; HTR, 1937 and JRS, 1943 (Virtues); NC, 1930 (thunderbolt), 1946 (reviewing Gruenwald and FITA); see also Roman Imperial Coinage.

Merlin, Bulletin archéologique du Comité des Travaux Historiques, 1915 (Thapsus); RA, 1941 (iconography).

Milne, Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins in the Ashmolean Museum; The Development of Roman Coinage.

Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den östlichen Provinzen des römischen Kaiserreichs.

Momigliano, JRS, 1942 (pax), 1944 (reviewing CAH, X), 1946 (reviewing Drexler, Ciaceri and Theiler).

Mommsen, Das Römische Staatsrecht, Vols. I-II, third edition = St. R.3; Res Gestae Divi Augusti, first and second editions; Gesammelte Schriften, I (praefecti).

Montevecchi, Epigraphica, VII, 1945 (Gythium letter).

Monteverde, AEA, 1942 (Clunia).

Mowat, La Domus Divina et les Divi.

Muensterberg, NZ, 1911 ("Die römischen Beamtennamen").

Müller (L.), in Falbe, Lindberg and Müllers Numismatique de l'ancienne Afrique = Müller.

Muller (F.), MKAW, 63, A, XI, 1927 ("Augustus").

Nailis, AC, 1942 (nobiles).

Neugebauer, Bonner Jahrbücher, 1942 (Mars).

Neumann, De Quinquennalibus Coloniarum atque Municipiorum, Diss: Leipzig, 1892.

Newby, Numismatic Commentary on the Res Gestae of Augustus = Newby.

Nicodemi, Catalogo delle Raccolte Numismatiche del Castello Sforzesco = Nicodemi.

Nilsson, Imperial Rome .

Nock, JRS, 1947 (auspicia, aeternitas, comes); CAH, X ("Religious Developments," etc.).

Norberg, Eranos Rudbergianus, 1946 (emperor worship).

van Nostrand, ESAR, III (Spain).

Oliver, AJA, 1942 (Germanicus).

Ollendorff, RE, XIII, s.v. Livius (37) (Livia).

Orestano, BIDR, 1937 (auctoritas).

d'Ors Pérez-Peix, Emerita , 1942 (emperor worship), 1943 (Victoria aeterna); Anuario de Historia del Derecho Español, 1942/3 (emperor-worship).

Pais, Memorie dell'Accademia dei Lincei, 1920 (colonisation).

Pearce, NC, 1938 (perpetuitas).

Pérez-Peix, d'Ors, see Ors.

Pettazzoni, Augustus (see Abbreviations) ("La Religione").

Pfleiderer, Die Idee des ewigen Friedens in Reden und Aufsätze, 1909.

Piganiol, Essai sur les Jeux Romains; Histoire de Rome; Journal des Savants, 1937 (constitution); RA, XXII, 1944 (Paestum); Mélanges Cagnat (Livia).

Pink, NZ, 1946 (Augustan moneyers).

Pippidi, Autour de Tibère = AT, reprinting ED, 1938 ("Tacite et Tibère"), Revista Clasica, 1941/2 ("Tibère, Dion et Pseudo-Callis-thène"), RHSE, 1941 ("L'Avènement officiel de Tibère en Égypte") and 1942 ("En marge d'un éloge Tibèrien d'Auguste"), REL, 1932 (reviewing Baker, Marsh and Tarver) and 1934 (reviewing Ciaceri), etc.; Recherches sur le Culte Impérial, reprinting (amended) REL, 1931 ("Numen Augusti"), RCI, 1933/4 ("Caesar deus noster") and 1935/6 ("L'Assomption de César dans un passage des Fastes d'Ovide"), Atheneum, 1937 ("dominus noster Caesar") and 1938 ("Autour de la Chronologie des épitres d'Ovide ex Ponto").

Poinssot, Notes et Documents de la Direction des Antiquités de Tunisie , 1929 (Carthage altar).

Pollak, JAIW, 1936 (Mars).

Post, AJP, 1944 (Germanicus).

Poulsen, Acta Archaeologica, 1946 (Ara Pacis, iconography).

von Premerstein-Volkmann, Vom Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats = von Premerstein (see Abbreviations); Mitteilungen aus den Papyrussammlungen der Giessener Universitätsbibliothek, V, 1939 (Ti. Gemellus).

Prosopographia Imperii Romani = PIR, first edition (Klebs-Dessau), second edition (Groag-Stein).

Quintero Atauri, Mauritania, XIV, 1941 (coins); Algo sobre Numismática Mauritana.

Ramsay (W. M.), JRS, 1922 (M. Annius Afrinus); The Social Basis of Roman Power in Asia Minor = SBRP.

Reinach, see Waddington.

Richmond (O. L.), JRS, 1914 (Livia and Vesta).

Riemann, RE, XVIII, s.v. Pacis Ara.

Ritterling, Annalen des Vereins für Nassauische Altertumskunde, XXXIV (peregrine coinage of Gaul); RE, XII, s.v. legio.

del Rivero, Catalogue of Madrid Collection.

Robinson (D. M.), AJA, 1924 (Antioch in Pisidia).

Rogers (R. S.), Hermes, 1933 (Livia); TAPA, 1940 (Republicanism); 1941 (Sejanus); Studies in the Reign of Tiberius = Rogers.

Rohde, RE, XVIII, s.v. Ops, ovatio.

von Rohden, RE, II, 1, 273 (M. Plautius Silvanus).

Rolfe, CP, 1915 (gens-familia).

Roman Imperial Coinage (Mattingly, Sydenham, Sutherland, Webb) = RIC.

Roos, Museum, 1942 (nobiles).

Rose, Handbook of Latin Literature.

Rosenberg, RE, IX, s.v. imperator.

Rostovtzeff, University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature, XV, 1922 ("Augustus"); BAF, 1925 (altars); RH, 1930 (Livia); SEH, SES, see Abbreviations; JRS, 1942 (vexillum); History of the Ancient World, II (Rome).

Rouvier, JIAN, 1900 (Berytus).

Sandels, Die Stellung der kaiserlichen Frauen aus dem julisch-claudischen Hause, Diss: Giessen, 1912.

Saria, Dissertationes Pannonicae, II, 10, 1938 (Emona); JAIW, 1941, Beiblatt (deus).

Savage, Classical Journal, 1939 (Germanicus and Aeneas).

Schiller, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, I.

Schilling, RPh, 1942 (Mars).

Schönbauer, SB Wien, 224, 2, 1946 (constitution).

Schulz, Die Rechtstitel und Regierungsprogramme auf römischen Kaisermünzen.

Schwartz, RPh, 1945 (a.d. 4-14).

Schweitzer, Klio, 1941 (Germanicus); RM, 1942 (iconography).

Schwering, Indogermanische Forschungen, 1914/15 (divus-deus).

Scott, Hermes, 1928 (Mercury); AJP, 1932 (diritas); CP, 1932 (titulature), 1941 (sidus Iulium).

Scramuzza, The Emperor Claudius = EC; AJP, 1944 (reviewing Smith).

Sebastian, De Patronis Coloniarum atque Municipiorum Romanorum, Diss: Halle, 1884.

Seltman (C. T.), CAH, Plates IV.

Sestieri, Epigraphica, IV, 1942 (Dyrrhachium).

Seston, Dioclétien et la Tétrarchie, I (aeternus-perpetuus).

Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship.

Siber, Festschrift P. Koschaker , I, 1939; Abh. Leipzig , 44, 2, 1940 (constitution); Sav. Z., 1944 (Germanicus).

Sickle, CP, 1929 (roads in Spain).

Smith (A. H.), JRS, 1926 ( Gens Julia ).

Smith (C. E.), Tiberius and the Roman Empire = Smith.

Smith (W.), Dictionary of the Bible; Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography.

Snyder, Klio, 1940 (Dio Cassius).

Stade, CAH, XI ("The Latin West: Roman Germany and Raetia").

Staedler, Sav. Z., 1941 (constitution).

Stein, Dissertationes Pannonicae, I, 11, 1940 (C. Poppaeus Sabinus); see also Prosopographia.

Steinwenter, RE, X, s.v. ius Latii.

Stevenson, CAH, X ("The Army and Navy").

Strack, Bonner Jahrbücher, CXI, 1904 (coins of Lugdunum); Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägung des zweiten Jahrhunderts.

Strong, CAH, X ("The Art of the Augustan Age").

Stuart, CP, 1940 (Germanicus and Drusus).

Stuart Jones, CAH, X ("The Princeps," "Senatus Populusque Romanus").

Sullivan, Classical Weekly, 1944 (emperor-worship).

Sutherland, JRS, 1934 (Spain), 1938 (Clementia), 1941 (Macedonian mint), 1947 (reviewing FITA; also CR, 1947); NC, 1941 (Divus Augustus), 1945 (Gold and silver of moneyers); Numismatic Review, II, 1944, and AJP, 1947 (character of Tiberian coinage); The Romans in Spain = RIS; Report of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London , XIV, 1947, Camulodunum (Agrippa); see also Roman Imperial Coinage.

Svoronos, Numismatique de la Crète Ancienne, I = Svoronos; RN, 1888 (Cnossus).

Sydenham, The Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia; The Coinage of Nero; see also Roman Imperial Coinage.

Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum (Copenhagen) = SNGC.

Syme, JRS, 1938 (Caesar), 1944 (reviewing Gelzer), 1945 (reviewing Stein), 1946 (reviewing Siber), 1948; The Roman Revolution = RR.

Taylor (L. R.), AJA, 1925 (Ara Gentis Iuliae), 1937 (numen, domus Augusti); The Divinity of the Roman Emperor = DRE (see Abbreviations).

Theiler, Tacitus und die Antike Schickalslehre in Phyllobolia für P. von der Mühll .

Thiel, Mnemosyne, 1935, 1935/6 (constitution).

Valejo, Emerita , 1946 (reviewing FITA).

Vandvik, Avhandlingar utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, II, Hist.-ftlos. Kl No. 2, 1941/2 (Ablative).

de Visscher, Les Édits d'Auguste decouverts à Cyrène; AC, 1946 (Romanisation).

Vives y Escudero, La Moneda Hispánica = Vives.

Volkmann, Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung, 1935 (M. Primus); Mos Maiorum als Grundzug des Augusteischen Prinzipats (Das Neue Bild der Antike, II); see also Premerstein.

Vulic, Klio, 1942 (Titulature).

Waddington, Babelon (E.) and Reinach, Recueil Général des Monnaies Grecques d'Asie Mineure = RGMG.

Wagenvoort, QAS, X, 1938 (auctoritas); Imperium; Roman Dynamism = Wagenvoort.

Waldhauer, JRS, 1923 (Livia).

Ward, SMSR, 1933 (Livia).

Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People.

Webb, see Roman Imperial Coinage.

Weber (W.), Princeps, I = Weber.

Weinstock, JRS, 1946 (genius, Minerva-Luna).

Wells (A. F.), JRS, 1939 (reviewing Heinze).

Westbury Jones, Roman and Christian Imperialism.

Westcott, The Epistles of St. John .

Wickert, Klio, 1939 (Nero and Drusus); 1940 (domus Caesarum).

Willers, NZ, 1902 (Coins of Gaul).

Willrich, Livia = Willrich.

Windisch, Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1925 (Peace).

Wissowa, RE, 2, s.v. auspicia; Religion und Kultus der Römer, second edition = RKR 2.

de Witt, Urbanisation and the Franchise in Roman Gaul, Diss: Johns Hopkins University, 1938/40.

Woodcock, CR, 1947 (reviewing Vandvik).

Zobel y Zangroniz, Memorial Numismático Español, V, 1880 (Caesar-augusta, metallurgy).

Note: The following reached me too late for consideration: Bersanetti, Athenaeum, 1947 ("Tiberiana"); Byvanck, Mnemosyne, 1947 (Paris cameo); Passerini, Studi giuridici in memoria di P. Capessoni , 1947 ("Per la Storia dell' Imperatore Tiberio"); de Visscher, Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, 5 sér., XXXV, 1949 ("La Table de Bronze de Magliano"); C. Koch , RE, XVIII, 4 (1949), 2430-2436, s.v. Pax.


Addenda

p. ix and n. 10. The new arrangement of the coins of Carthago Nova by A. Beltrán, Las Monedas Latinos de Cartagena, though it contains some improvements on FITA (pp. 19, 39), includes certain unlikely chronological (pp. 49-53) and geographical attributions (pp. 21, 27, 29, 42:—I now agree that the coins described on pp. 27, 29 are Spanish, but I believe them to belong to other cities).

p. 17 (no. 49). The attribution to Cnossus is confirmed by the occurrence of specimens among Col. Cameron's coins from Crete, now in the British Museum, cf. G. K. Jenkins (NC, 1949), who has kindly sent me information about these acquisitions.

pp. 24, 155 f. The argumenta a silentio could be refuted by the discovery of sufficient unknown coins; but the interpretation of anniversary issues is not likely to be seriously upset in this way, cf. RAI, pp. xxf.

p. 39, lines 10 ff. This argument receives further support if A. Beltrán, loc. cit., p. 55, is right in regarding large issues of Carthago Nova (M. Postumius Albinus II, P. Turullius quinq.) as Tiberian rather than Augustan.

p. 52, n. 92. But the name of a High-Priest of Asia after the same preposition was eponymous—a permissible distinction, though it is questioned by Fink, CP, 1949, p. 256 (and why does he suppose that Augustus and Agrippa Postumus cannot both have been such High-Priests?).

p. 54, n. 111. This Livilla (or Livia or Livia Julia—probably not Claudia, as RE, 10, 1, 275, Stammtafel; d. a.d. 31) is wrongly described in CAH, X, Table I (p. 1058) as the daughter of Germanicus, who was Julia (or Livilla), d. a.d. 41. Zonaras, XI, 2, p. 550 c, refers to Sejanus' betrothal to a further Julia (d. a.d. 43), the daughter of the former Livilla and Drusus jun.; but this may be due to a confusion. (Furneaux, ed. Tac. Annals, vol. II, p. 495 [index] wrongly describes this third Julia as "Augusta.")

p. 68, lines 1 f.: "formal truth rather than concealed sanctions of force." For studying the former and yet including a passing reference to the latter (FITA, p. 443, cf. pp. 321, 418; unduly minimised by Sutherland, JRS, 1947, p. 212, Salmon, Phoenix, 1948, pp. 135 ff.), the present writer is charged by Fink, loc. cit., with "himself demolishing his whole elaborate structure (sc. picture of the 'constitution') with his parenthetical concession." Surely not. A mailed fist could be, and was, concealed by a velvet glove. The two materials, each familiar today, were both regarded as indispensable, but for different reasons and purposes: if they are confused, the study of either will suffer. Cf. Greece and Rome , 1949, p. 97.

p. 69. For Verrius Flaccus as originator of both the quotations here (Fest. ap. Paul. Diac., and Suetonius), see W. M. Lindsay, Glossaria Latina, IV, p. 93; and as tutor to the grandsons of Augustus, Suet. De Grammaticis, 17. He also appears to have drawn up the Fasti Praenestini. It is highly probable that official policy should have followed his interpretations.

pp. 70 f., 167 f., cf. p. 45. On inscriptions referring to Claudius, the title pontifex maximus is stressed much more than any other, cf. M. Stuart, The Portraiture of Claudius, Preliminary Studies, p. 16, n. 110.

p. 86. ILS, 103, refers to the pacification of Baetica by Augustus beneficio eius et perpetua cura.

p. 136, n. 13. The Naples specimen, clearly genuine, is illustrated by Gabriel, Ad Res Gestas Augusti Commentanus de Re Nummaria (Acta Divi Augusti, I, 1945), Plate IX, no. 91.

coin no. 17. I learn through the kindness of Dr. C. H. V. Sutherland that the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford has now acquired a specimen of this piece.

Appendix 2. A. Beltrán, Crónica del I Congreso Nacional de Arqueología y del V Congreso Arqueológico del Sudeste, Almeria, 1949, p. 276, quotes a coin at Tetuan giving Tingis the title of colonia Iulia. I hope shortly to be able to discuss its date.


Indices

1. PERSONS1

  • L.A. Faustus, 6 f.
  • Aelia (?) L.f., 54
  • L. Aelius Sejanus, 54 ff., 58, 86, 114, 141 f.
  • Aemilia, 120, 128n.
  • M. Aemilius, 16n., 137, 138n.
  • M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus, 83, 120
  • M. Aemilius Paulii f. Lepidus, 52 f., 56, 72
  • M. Aemilius Q.f. Lepidus, 120
  • M. Agrippa, 18, 43n., 57, 66n., 154n., 165, 166n.
  • Agrippa Postumus, 99, Addenda (p. 52)
  • Agrippina (jun.), 123n., 124
  • Agrippina (sen.), 56, 123n., 124, 130n.
  • Albinus, see Clodius
  • Alexander Severus, see Severus
  • C. Allius Bala, 82n.
  • Amyntas, 155
  • L. Annaeus Seneca, see Seneca
  • M. Annius Afrinus, 162
  • Antius, 163
  • Antonia (minor), 36n., 83, 123n.
  • Antoninus Pius, 11n., 106
  • M. Antonius, 130, 132n.
  • M. Antonius (?) Primus, 167
  • L. Apronius Cf. 8 ff., 17, 50 ff., 55 ff., 59, 72, 147n., 168 f.
  • L. Apronius L.f. Caesianus, 56n.
  • C. Apro(nius) Ne., 17 f.
  • C. Aquinus Mela, 135
  • Arnobius, 109n.
  • L. Arrius Peregrinus, 14 f., 92
  • C. Asinius Gallus, 52, 53n.
  • L. Ateius Fuscus, 17
  • Aufustius, 107n.
  • Augustus, 1, 4 ff., 8, 14, 16 ff., 20-34, 38-53, 54n., 55-59, 60n., 61-81, 83n., 84, 88-90, 91n., 93-95, 97-101, 103-112, 114-123, 125-130, 132 f., 135-142, 146-159, 161 f., 165-171.
  • Marcus Aurelius, 83n.
  • M. Aurelius Antoninus, see Caracalla, Elagabalus
  • A. Avillius Flaccus, 103
  • C. Baebius, 12, 26n., 28
  • P. Baebius Pollio, 135
  • Balbus, see L. Cornelius
  • Bassus, see C:
  • Brutus, see M. Junius
  • Dec. C: Bassus, 6 f.
  • Q. Caecilius Jovinus, 139n.
  • Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus, 4 f., 59, 163
  • L. Caecilius Pius, 139n.
  • L. Caelius Clemens, 3 f., 25 f., 102
  • C. Caelius Pax(aeus?), 139n.
  • Q. Caepio Brutus, see M. Junius
  • Caesar, see Julius
  • C. Caesar Aug. n., see Gaius
  • Ti. Caesar Drusi Caes. f., see Gemellus
  • Caligula, 6, 19, 21, 24, 25n., 26 f., 35 f., 44n., 48, 90, 92, 98, 101 f., 114, 121, 123 f., 130, 131n., 135n., 136, 142. 151n., 154n.
  • Cn. Calpurnius Piso, 166
  • P. Caninius Agrippa, 16, 28
  • Caracalla, 131n.
  • Carausius, 82n.
  • Carus, 82n.
  • C. Cassius, 165
  • L. Cassius, 136
  • C. Cassius Felix, 139n.
  • L. Castricius Regulus, 16, 28
  • Cicero, 62 ff., 85, 165
  • Claudia Quinta, 120, 128n.
  • Claudius, 21, 32, 36, 48, 54, 56, 81, 90, 93, 97n., 110 f., 120n., 123 f., 133n., 135, 152n., 154n., 162, Addenda (p. 70)
  • Ap. Claudius Crassus, 63
  • Clodius Albinus, 82
  • T. Clodius Eprius Marcellus, 163
  • C. Clodius Vestalis, 119 f.
  • Commodus, 82n., 83, 87
  • L. Cornelius Balbus, 62n., 142, 167
  • P. Cornelius Dolabella, 10 f., 26n., 49n., 51, 55, 72, 147n.
  • C. Cornelius Gallus, 54n.
  • Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, 71
  • Cossus Cornelius Lentulus, 60 f., 70n.
  • Cornelius Lupus, 56n., 164
  • P. Cornelius Scipio, 52
  • L. Cornelius Sulla, In., 76, 168
  • Cornutus, 162
  • Culleo, see Q. Terentius
  • T.D: Rufus, 140
  • Q. Decius Saturninus, 31n.
  • Dio Cassius, vii, 42n., 43n., 49n., 67n., 68n., 106n., 124n., 165
  • Diocletian, 85n.
  • Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 70n.
  • Divus Julius, see C. Julius Caesar
  • M. Doius, 2
  • Domitian, 97, 131
  • Domitilla, 123n.
  • Cn. Dom(itius?) Proculus, 5
  • Drusus Claudi Aug. f., 54, 56
  • Drusus Germanici f., 16, 26n., 28n., 54, 56, 100-102, 140
  • Drusus (jun.), 7 f., 10 f., 16, 18, 26n., 28, 45, 57, 61, 71, 90, 96, 98-101, 103, 136, 151 f., 153n., 156, 163, 166n.
  • Drusus (sen.), 54n., 57, 62n., 163
  • M. Egnatius, 1 f.
  • Elagabalus, 21n.
  • T. Eprius Marcellus, see T. Clodius Eprius Marcellus
  • P. F: Silva(nus?), 4 f., 50, 149
  • Africanus Fabius Maximus, 51, 52n.
  • Paullus Fabius Maximus, 52
  • C. Fadius, 3 f., 26n.
  • L. Fadius, 4, 26n.
  • Faustus, see A:
  • Festus, 66n., 69, 107n., Addenda (p. 63)
  • M. Fictorius, 12
  • Florianus, 82, 84
  • Fulvianus, 101n.
  • L. Furius Labeo, 15, .92
  • Fuscus, 16 f., 26n.
  • Gaius, grandson of Augustus, 16, 57 f., 152n., 166n., 168n.
  • Gaius, see Caligula
  • Galba, 75, 76n.
  • Gallienus, 89, 105
  • P. Gavius Casca, 10 f.
  • Gellius, 61n., 142.
  • Gemellus, see N:
  • Ti. Gemellus, 3 f., 16n., 26 f., 35, 95n., 101-103, 138
  • Germanicus, 25, 54n., 57, 61, 67, 71 f., 74 f., 90, 92, 96, 98-100, 136, 152n., 153n., 163, 165 f.
  • Germanicus, Drusi f., see Julius
  • M. Granius Marcellus, 110n., 116n., 127n.
  • Gratian, 84
  • Hadrian, 21n., 89, 106, 142
  • T. Helvius Basila, 164
  • C. Herennius, 12
  • M. Herennius, 14
  • Horace, 87n., 107n.
  • M. I: Ne., 135
  • Insteius, 136
  • Julia Drusi jun. f., Addenda (p. 54)
  • Julia Drusi sen. f., and Germanici f., see Livilla
  • Julia Augusta, see Livia
  • Julia Titi, 123n.
  • C. Julius Caesar, 6, 15, 26n., 42, 65, 83 ff., 94, 97, 103, 121, 124n., 153, 168
  • Ti.(?) Julius Drusi f. (max.), 103n.
  • Ti. Julius Drusi f. Germanicus, 95n., 103
  • Ti. Julius Drusi f. Nero, see Gemellus
  • L. Julius Felix, 3 f.
  • Drusus Julius Germanici f. Caesar, see Drusus
  • Nero Julius Germanici f. Caesar, see Nero
  • C. Julius Patruinus Cornutus, 162
  • Julius Planta, 54
  • C. Julius Sacrovir, 36 ff., 160
  • L. Julius Vestinus, 54
  • Junia Q. Silani f., 59n.
  • Q. Junius Blaesus, 10, 51, 55, 66n., 70n., 72
  • M. Junius Brutus, 65
  • M. Junius Silanus, 60n.
  • M. Jus., 14
  • Labeo, 16n., 137, 138n.; see also L. Furius, A. Vatronius
  • A. Laetorius, 5
  • Largus, 42n., 77, 97n., 106
  • Lepidus, see Aemilius
  • L. Licinius, 2
  • M. Licinius Crassus, 67
  • Livia, x, 6 f., 9, 11, 15 ff., 18, 25, 44 f., 88n., 90, 92n., 95 f., 105n., 108-129, 132n., 133, 136, 139; see also Livilla
  • Livilla (or Livia or Julia) Drusi sen. f., 54n., Addenda (p. 54)
  • Livilla (or Julia) Germanici f., Addenda (p. 54)
  • L. Livineius Regulus, 120
  • M. Livius Drusus, 120n.
  • M. Livius Drusus Claudianus, 120n.
  • Livy, 63, 65n., 124n., 166n.
  • C. Lollius, 2
  • Luci., 4
  • Lucius, grandson of Augustus, 16, 58, 168n.
  • Marcella, 55
  • Marcellus, see T. Clodius Eprius
  • Marcus Aurelius, see Aurelius
  • Sex. Marius, 35n.
  • Martial, 105n.
  • St. Matthew, 80
  • Maximus, 16 f.
  • Messalla, see Valerius
  • Messal(l)ina (Valeria), 124
  • A. N: Gemellus, 140
  • Nero, 73, 79f., 82n., 89, 97, 131, 135n.
  • Nero Drusi f., see Gemellus
  • Nero Drusus, see Drusus (sen.)
  • Nero Germanici f., 16, 26n., 28n., 59n., 100-102, 140
  • Numa Pompilius, 70n., 78, 79n., 95, 169
  • M. Nun., 4n., 135
  • Octavian, see Augustus
  • Q. Octavius, 1 f.
  • T. Ollius, 56
  • C. Oppius, 124n.
  • Otho, 75
  • Ovid, 81, 96, 109n., 116f., 121, 169
  • M. Paccius Maximus, 26
  • L. Passienus Rufus, 55n.
  • Paulus Diaconus, 69n., 107n.
  • P. Perelius Hedulus, 93f.
  • P. Petronius, 53, 56
  • Phaedrus, 96f.
  • Philip (sen.), 87n.
  • Philo, 96n.
  • P. Plautius Pulcher, 54, 56
  • M. Plautius Silvanus, 56
  • Pliny (sen.), 6, 86n., 153n.
  • Pollio, 16n., 137
  • Sex. Pom: Celsus, 9
  • Sex. Pompeius Festus, see Festus
  • Pompeius Macer, 162
  • Sex. Pompeius Magni f., 159
  • Cn. Pompeius Magnus, 76, 168
  • L. Pomponius Flaccus, 163
  • M. Pomponius Marcellus, 153n.
  • C. Pontius Paelignus, 31n.
  • C. Poppaeus Sabinus, 56 f., 162
  • Q. Poppaeus Secundus, 52 f., 56, 72
  • M. Postumius Albinus, Addenda (p. 39)
  • M. Primus, see Antonius
  • Probus (emperor), 82n., 84, 87
  • Pulcher, 168n., see also Plautius
  • Pupus Agrippae f., see Agrippa Postumus
  • P. Quinctilius Varus, 51
  • Regulus, 168n; see also Livineius
  • Romulus, 63, 70f., 78, 169
  • Rufus, see D:
  • L. Rusticelius Basterna, 12, 26n., 28
  • L. Rusticelius Cordus, 13, 26n., 28
  • L. Rutilius Plancus, 136
  • Sabina, 90
  • Sacrovir, see C. Julius
  • Salasi., 4, 26n.
  • Salassus, 26n.
  • C. Sallustius Justus, 139n.
  • Salonina, 83n., 87
  • Se––––(?), 163
  • L. Seius, 4, 150
  • Sejanus, see L. Aelius
  • Seneca (jun.), 44, 54f., 56n., 60n., 86, 97n., 105n., 164
  • Seneca (sen.), 43n.
  • M. Septimius, 12
  • Septimius Severus, 82 f., 87, 109n.
  • Servius, 62n., 78n.
  • Severus, see Septimius
  • Severus Alexander, 83f., 87
  • Silva(nus?), see F:
  • Cn. Statilius Libo, 26n.
  • Statilius (?) Taurus, 168n.
  • Strabo, 19n., 40n.
  • L. Suei(llius?),4n., 135
  • Suetonius, vii, 27n., 42n., 43n., 44n., 49n., 50n., 69, 71n., 124n., 128n., 133, 153n., Addenda (p. 69)
  • Sulla, see L. Cornelius
  • Sura, 163
  • Tacfarinas, 36 ff., 57n., 60, 160
  • Tacitus (emperor), 83 f., 89
  • Tacitus (writer), vii, 27n., 32n., 40n., 43n., 50, 55n., 56n., 66n., 70n., 71n., 77, 86n., 92, 124n., 125n., 128, 130, 131n., 165
  • Sex. Tadius Faustus, 139n.
  • Ti. Tar(ius?), 14
  • Taurus, see Statilius
  • Q. Terentius (?) Culleo, 163
  • M. Terentius Varro, see Varro
  • Tertullian, 80
  • Tiberius, passim
  • L. Titucius, 12
  • Titus, 93
  • M. Tullius Cicero, see Cicero
  • M. Tullius Judex, 139n.
  • P. Turullius, Addenda (p. 39)
  • Valentinian I, 84
  • Valeria Messal(l)ina, see Messal(l)ina
  • Valerius (?) Largus, see Largus
  • Valerius Maximus, 61n.
  • M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus, 61n.
  • Varro, 64n.
  • A. Vatronius Labeo, 136
  • C. Ve., 14
  • Velleius Paterculus, viii, 55 f., 58, 60 f., 68n., 71 f., 86, 99n., 117, 123, 125 f., 131n.
  • Q. Veranius, 163
  • Vergil, see Virgil
  • A. Vergilius Opt(atus?), 2
  • Verrius Flaccus, 69, 107n., Addenda (p. 69)
  • Vespasian, 73 f., 83 ff., 89, 131, 137n., 138, 155
  • L. Vestinus, see Julius
  • P. Vibius, 26n.
  • C. Vibius Marsus, 53, 56, 139 f.
  • Vipsania, 53n.
  • M. Vipsanius Agrippa, see Agrippa
  • Virgil, 80, 85n., 169
  • Sex. Vistilius, 54n.
  • Vitellius, 73, 84n., 111n., 122
  • P. Vitellius, 56n., 163, 165n.
  • Vitruvius, 97n.
  • L. Volusius Saturninus, 51 f.

End Notes

1
This list follows the alphabetical order of gentile names, except in the cases of writers, imperial personages, and men of whose gentile names we do not know the initial letter.

2. PLACES

  • Abdera (Spain), 36n., 153n.
  • Acci, 24n., 34n., 35, 88n., 147n.
  • Achulla, 6, 8, 95, 104 f., 122n., 158
  • Actium, 24, 59, 73
  • Aegeae, 163
  • Aegina, 57, 162
  • Aezanis, 21
  • Agrigentum, 26n., 102n., 140n., 153
  • Agrippias, 109n.
  • Alba Pompeia, 102
  • Alexandria (Egypt), viiin., 21, 110, 127, 131
  • Altinum, 28n.
  • Ameria, 76
  • Anagnia, 142, 151n.
  • Ancyra, viii, 58, 164n.
  • Anticaria, 43n., 95n.
  • Antioch (Pisidia), 18, 24, 28n., 30, 43n., 46, 48, 95n., 115, 138, 155 f.
  • Antioch (Syria), viiin., 163
  • Antium, 41n.
  • Apamea (Bithynia), 33n.
  • Apollonia (Illyricum), 154n.
  • Apollonia—Mordiaeum, 162
  • Apollonia Pontica, 154n.
  • Apollonia Salbace, 162n.
  • Aquincum, 150
  • Aquinum, 31
  • Arausio, 33n.
  • Asculum, 25n.
  • Asido, 43n., 95n.
  • Athens, 113n.
  • Babba, 33n., 36
  • Balaton, see Pelso
  • Berytus, 33n., 34n., 38, 137, 152n., 169n.
  • Bilbilis, 35, 54, 88n., 140n., 141
  • Bithynian mint, 110n., 116n., 127n.
  • Bovillae, 92, 95
  • Brixia, 28n., 31n.
  • Buthrotum, 9, 17, 33n., 34n., 38, 79, 81, 136
  • Caesaraugusta, 20 f., 26n., 34n., 35, 39, 42n., 45 ff., 90, 101, 104, 107, 114 f., 147n.
  • Caesarea (Cappadocia), viiin., 45n., 163n.
  • Caesarea—Germanica, 163
  • Calagna(?), 151n.
  • Calagurris, 24n., 36n., 47, 140n., 141n.
  • Cambodunum, 23, 142, 150
  • Camulodunum, 154n.
  • Capreae, 32, 54, 128, 133
  • Carnuntum, 142, 150
  • Carteia, 36n.
  • Carthago, 6 f., 19, 24n., 30, 34n., 35, 36n., 38, 44, 47 f., 78 f., 81, 83, 86n., 89, 93 f., 114 f., 155n.
  • Carthago Nova, 7, 20, 26n., 29n., 30n., 34n., 35, 39, 45n., 101, 136, 140n., 158, Addenda (pp. ix, 39)
  • Cascantum, 34n., 153
  • Cassandrea, 11, 88, 138
  • Celsa, 34n.
  • Cereatae Marianae, 151n.
  • Cibyra, 163
  • Cirta, 24n., 30, 33n., 34n., 155n.
  • Claudiconium, see Iconium
  • Clunia, 36n.
  • Clypea, 9
  • Cnossus, 9, 16-19, 24n., 29n., 30, 34n., 101 f., 104 f., 115, 136 ff., 155n., 159n., Addenda (p. 17)
  • Corduba, 33n.
  • Corinth, ix, 9, 14 ff., 19, 28, 34n., 38, 79, 90, 92 ff., 98 ff., 104 f., 114 f., 134, 136, 137n.
  • Cortaeum, 52 f.
  • Cydonia, 163
  • Cyprus, mint in, 115
  • Cyrene, 49n., 103
  • Dertosa, 14, 24, 140n., 141, 156
  • Dium, 11 f., 14, 115
  • Dyme, 14
  • Dyrrhachium, 14, 24n., 89, 104-07, 155n.
  • Ebusus, 36n.
  • Eleuthemae, 163
  • Emerita, 31n., 34n., 36n., 39, 42n., 45n., 47, 85, 104 f., 114 f.
  • Emona, 23, 150
  • Emporiae, 9, 29n., 35, 140n., 142
  • Ercavica, 34n., 35, 153
  • Gades, 18, 141 f., 146, 147n.
  • Gangra, 98n.
  • Gaulus, 48n., 86
  • Gortyna, 163
  • Graccurris, 34n., 36n., 153
  • Gythium, 96, 112, 113n., 125
  • Hadrumetum, 6, 8, 39n., 51
  • Halaesa, 26, 140n.
  • Halicarnassus, 70n.
  • Haluntium, 4 f., 140n., 150 f., 153
  • Heba, 58n.
  • Hierapolis, 52
  • Hierapytna, 163 f.
  • Hippo Diarrhytus, 6-8, 35 f., 39, 45, 50 f., 57, 88, 98 ff., 115, 147, 156, 158
  • Hispalis, see Romula
  • Iconium, 162 f.
  • Ilici, 20, 34n., 36n., 45n., 79, 90, 114n.
  • Interamna, 86n.
  • Italica, 31n., 32, 35, 78, 88 f., 99, 112n., 115, 140n., 141n.
  • Lanuvium, 28n.
  • Laus Pompeia, 28n., 152n.
  • Lepcis Magna, 44, 127
  • Leptis Minor, 24n., 155n.
  • Lipara, 82n.
  • Lugdunum, 24n., 37, 155n., 160 f., 168n.
  • Lystra, 18, 24n., 33n., 34n., 111n., 155n.
  • Mordiaeum, see Apollonia
  • Narona, 150
  • Nasium, 97, 106n.
  • Nemausus, 37n., 135, 147
  • Nicaea, 21
  • Nicomedia, 163, 165n.
  • Olbasa, 106
  • Olbia, 20
  • Olisipo, 25, 96n.
  • Osca, 36n., 45n., 88n., 140n., 141
  • Osicerda, 34n., 153
  • Ostia, 96
  • Paestum, 1-4, 20, 25 f., 29 ff., 35, 38, 73 f., 101 f., 115, 135, 138, 146, 159, 169n., 170
  • Panormus, 4 ff., 19, 21, 23, 26n., 50, 79, 88 f., 104 f., 108, 109n., 111f., 114, 149 ff., 158 f.
  • Parentium, 151n.
  • Parium, 19, 26n., 38, 115n., 136 f., 156
  • Patrae, 14, 24n., 33n., 114, 136, Addenda (p. 136)
  • Patricia, see Corduba
  • Pella, 11 ff., 26n., 28, 38, 79, 89 f., 105 ff., 113, 117, 136, 156
  • Pelso, Lake (Balaton), 150
  • Pergamum, 52 f., 58n., 109n., 158n.
  • Perinthus, 109n.
  • Pessinus, 163, 164n.
  • Philadelphia, 102
  • Philippi, 33n., 74n., 112n.
  • Pitane, 52, 158n.
  • Polyrhenium, 164
  • Pompeii, 26n., 113, 116
  • Praeneste, 77, 127n., 142, Addenda (p. 69)
  • Priene, 162
  • Ravenna, 109n.
  • Romula, 20, 31n., 32, 34n., 39, 90, 99, 104, 109, 113
  • Saguntum, 20, 24n., 140n., 141
  • Salonae, 26n.
  • Sardes, 109n.
  • Scarabantia, 150
  • Segobriga, 35, 45n., 153
  • Segovia, 153
  • Seleucia in Pieria, 163
  • Simitthu, 33n., 51, 169n.
  • Sinope, 18 f., 24, 30, 34n., 38, 59, 95n., 98, 100
  • Siscia, 150
  • Situm, see Zitha
  • Smyrna, 21, 53
  • Stobi, 139n.
  • Sullechthi, 158n.
  • Syedra, 109n.
  • Syracuse, 159
  • Tabae, 52, 163
  • Tarraco, 20, 24n., 34n., 36n., 39, 45 f., 48, 85, 88n., 89, 99 f., 104 f., 114, 147n.
  • Tarsus, 109n.
  • Temnus, 52
  • Thapsus, 6, 8-11, 19, 39, 48 f., 51 f., 88, 98 ff., 108-113, 147, 156, 158 f., 169n.
  • Thermae Himeraeae, 139n.
  • Thessalonica, 109n.
  • Thuburnica, 140n.
  • Thubursicum, 158n.
  • Tifernum, 23, 151
  • Tingis, 36, 101, 140, 141n.
  • Tomi, 21
  • Traducta, 33n.
  • Tralles, 109n.
  • Troy, 71
  • Tucci, 87, 95n.
  • Turiaso, 20, 104, 107, 110n., 140n., 141, 147n.
  • Tyndaris, 33n.
  • Urgavo, 96n.
  • Uselis, 24n., 140n., 141n.
  • Utica, 17, 19, 26n., 28n., 30, 35, 37, 39, 53, 88n., 101n., 115, 122, 139-142, 158
  • Venusia, 25n.
  • Viminacium, 19
  • Vindonissa, 58n.
  • Volaterrae, 124n.
  • Zama Regia, 6
  • Zitha, 88, 158n.

3. GENERAL

  • accession issues, 24 f., 115
  • adsignatio, adsignator, see foundation of cities
  • Aeacus, 162
  • Aegina (nymph), 162n.
  • Aegyptus capta, 59, 82n., 168n.
  • Aeternitas, aeternus, 81n., 83n., 86 f., 89, 95 f., 114, 121n., 134
  • altars, 7, 37, 49n., 54, 77, 78n., 79, 81, 92-94, 160 ff.
  • amicitia, amid principle, 53-58, 156 f., 162, 164, 171
  • Ammon, see Jupiter
  • ancile, 169n.
  • anniversary issues, 24 f., 44n., 58 f., 81, 84, 89, 104, 122, 131 f., 137, 141, 155-157, 170
  • Antigonids, 107
  • apex, 3, 25
  • Apollo, 95, 111
  • ara, see altars
  • army, 60n., 67 f., 127, 150n., 152, Addenda (p. 68)
  • auctoritas, auctor, 30 ff., 39n., 41 f., 44, 49, 60, 68 ff., 75 f., 100, 103, 116n., 126, 128, 131, 133, 165, 168 f.
  • augurium, augur, 62, 64n., 68n., 69, 70n., 71, 140n.
  • Augustalis, 139
  • Augustus (-a), augustus, 41 ff., 49, 60, 68 ff., 75, 78, 90, 93 f., 96, 104, 106, 110, 114, 117 f., 168 f.
  • auspicium, auspicatio, 51, 57n., 59-72, 75, 166-171
  • barley, see corn
  • biga, 3, 74, 136
  • "binominalism," 42n.
  • "Blessings," 113
  • branch (as type), see olive
  • busts, see statues
  • caduceus, 9 f., 77
  • Caesar, Caesarea, -ina, 42 f., 95
  • calliditas, 77
  • cameos, viii, 71n., 109n., 116
  • capricorn, 5, 88
  • carpentum, 123 f.
  • Case usages, 15, 30, 52n., 53, 81 f., 90n., 139, 158 f., 163, Addenda (p. 52)
  • Ceres, 8, 82, 108-112, 116n.
  • chair, curule, 115n.
  • chariot, see biga, quadriga
  • Christianity, 80, 83n., 134
  • chronography, see eras
  • clientela, 55n.; see also patronus
  • colonisation, see foundation of cities
  • comes, 54, 56, 162 f.
  • comitia, 126
  • comitialis, 26n., 102
  • complex types, 112
  • composition of coins, see metallic composition
  • concilium Galliarum, 160 f.
  • Concordia, 77, 79, 81, 83, 86, 113
  • consensus, 44n.
  • consilium principis, 54
  • Constantia, constans, 85, 90
  • constitutio, see foundation of cities
  • consularis, 59n.
  • consulship, 49n., 57, 84n., 141 f., 166
  • corn, 5 f., 8, 111
  • cornucopiae, 80, 103n., 116n.
  • countermarks, 5, 12 ff., 58n., 162
  • crescent, 109n.
  • crocodile, 135
  • cup, 12, 109n.
  • cymbium, 119
  • decenniun e anniversary issues
  • decuriones, 27n., 29 f.
  • deductio, see foundation of cities
  • designatio, 140n.
  • deus, dea, 89, 105 ff., 123, 133 f.
  • Diana, 2, 109n., 111
  • dictator, 83 ff.
  • diploma, 93n.
  • diritas, 133n.
  • divinus, 97, 104 f., 134
  • domus, 54, 69, 78n., 95 f., 98, 104 f., 127n., 134, 141; see also gens
  • dona militaria, 66n.
  • doubles entendres, 112
  • ductus, 60, 166n.
  • duoviri, duoviri quinquennales, see magistrates (local)
  • ears of corn or barley, see corn
  • eminentissima femina, 123, 126
  • enfranchisement, of individuals, 151 f.; see also foundation of cities
  • eras, 18 f.
  • ethnics, 9, 18, 115n., 136 ff., 158 f.
  • etymology, 69, 85
  • Euthenia, 110
  • extra ordinem, 60n., 70n.
  • familia, 95n.
  • Felicitas, 76 f., 83, 104, 109n., 113n., 170
  • Fides, 82n.
  • flamen, 25 f., 76, 86n., 96, 102, 109, 113n.
  • flaminica, see priestess
  • Fortuna, 76, 87, 113
  • genetrix orbis, 90, 109, 113, 133 f.
  • genius, 25, 107, 112, 170
  • gens Iulia, Augusta , 15, 42, 43n., 78n., 79, 90, 92-98, 112n., 115n., 122, 134; see also domus.
  • globe, 84; see also genetrix orbis
  • hasta, 2 f., 73
  • Hecate, 109
  • Hellenisms, 91n., 106 f., 119, 125, 159; see also provincialisation
  • Hercules, 74n.
  • high-priest, see pontifex maximus; see also Addenda (p. 52)
  • honos, 124, 128
  • Hygieia, see Salus
  • imitations, 154n.
  • Imperator, 46-49, 62, 68, 84
  • imperium, 41, 45-49, 60, 63-72, 75 f., 86, 126, 165 f.
  • Indulgentia, indulgentia, 136
  • inimicitia, 54
  • Isis, 109
  • Janus, 79n., 81
  • jubilee, see anniversary issues
  • iunctio, 90, 99n.
  • Juno, iuno, 8, 79, 108-112
  • Jupiter, 74n., 88, 109n.
  • ius Italicum, 141n.
  • ius Latinum, 34, 36, 152 f.
  • Justitia, 80, 113, 116
  • Latinitas, see ius Latinum
  • laurel, see wreath
  • lead tokens, 95n., 103, 111
  • legati Augusti propraetore, 4, 56 f., 59, 61, 66n., 162-166
  • leges Augustae, Juliae , 94
  • "lex de imperio," 131n.
  • lex Oppia, 124n.
  • Liber, Libera, 110
  • liberae civitates, 6, 97n.
  • literary tradition, vii f.
  • lituus, 1 f., 8, 88, 168 f.
  • Luna, 109n.
  • magistrates, local, 25-29, 35, 101 f., 122, 135-141
  • Maia, 109
  • Mars, 2 f., 73-74, 78, 88
  • mater patriae, 44, 127
  • medallions, medallic pieces, 7, 78 f., 115n., 123n., 135n., 136
  • Mercury, 9, 88, 111
  • metallic composition, 19-22, 143 f.
  • metrology, 19-23, 144
  • Minerva, 109n., 111
  • mines, 35n.
  • moderatio, 44, 94, 96, 124 f.
  • modius, 8
  • Moneta, moneta, 136
  • monograms, 9
  • mos maiorum, 62 f., 129 f.
  • names, see titulature
  • nefastus, 64
  • Neptune, 154n.
  • nobiles, 55n.
  • nominatio, 70n.
  • numen, 25, 77, 78n., 93, 96n., 107, 113n.
  • oak, see wreath
  • oaths, 98n.
  • olive, 4, 80, 89
  • Ops, 109n.
  • orbis, see genetrix orbis
  • orichalcum, see metallic composition
  • ornamenta triumphalia, 62, 167
  • orthography, 158
  • ovatio, 47, 57n.
  • parazonium, 2, 73 f.
  • parens, 18, 43n., 107n.
  • pater, pater patriae, 22n., 43 f., 47, 49 f., 105, 115, 123n., 170
  • patera , 2, 5 ff., 9, 11 ff., 16 ff., 116, 168n.
  • patronus, patrocinium, 86; see also clientela
  • Pax, 49n., 77-83, 85-87, 89, 104, 113 f., 116, 134
  • Pegasus, 16
  • permissus, 31 ff., 39n., 46, 51 ff., 59
  • perpetuus, Perpetuitas, 48n., 76, 78, 81-87, 89, 93, 97, 134, Addenda (p. 86)
  • phoenix, 84
  • Pietas, 13, 90, 113 f., 117n., 134
  • plough, 14
  • pontifex, pontifex maximus , 43, 45, 64n., 71, 89, 95 f., 121 f., 126, 142, 167-170, Addenda (p. 70)
  • posthumous honours to Tiberius, 131
  • potestas, see imperium, tribunicia potestas
  • praefecti, see magistrates (local)
  • praefericulum, 2, 73 f.
  • praenomen, see Imperator
  • priest, see flamen, pontifex, sacerdos
  • priestess, 92n., 108 f., 111 f., 115-125, 139; see also Vestal Virgins
  • proconsuls, 31n., 46, 50-72, 149 f., 165 ff.
  • Pronoia, see Providentia
  • provenance, 17, 136, 144n.
  • Providentia, 78 f., 89 f., 113, 134
  • provincialisation, 91; see also Hellenisms
  • prow, 14
  • puns, see double entendres
  • quadriga, 4
  • quinquennales, see magistrates (local)
  • Quirinus, 78, 169; see also Romulus in Index 1
  • ram, 5, 88n.
  • reliefs, 109n., 124
  • "Republicanism" of Tiberius, 50n., 55n., 130, 131n.
  • roads, 28, 150n.
  • Roma, 83, 85
  • sacerdos, 26n., 93, 117, 121, 124 ff.
  • sacrosanctitas, 84n., 120
  • saeculum, 73n., 132, 170
  • Salus, salus, 70n., 71n., 78 f., 80n., 81, 86, 97, 110n., 113 f., 168
  • salutations, see Imperator
  • Securitas, 83
  • sella curulis, see chair
  • senate, local, see decuriones
  • senate, Roman, 30 ff., 68n., 100, 123, 126, 131
  • sheath, 76 f.
  • shrine, see Temple
  • sidus Julium , see star
  • simpulum, simpuvium, 8, 88, 120, 168 f.
  • spectrography, 19-22, 143 f.
  • Spes, 79, 82 f.
  • statues, 19n., 88, 116, 131n., 168n.
  • Stoics, 80, 109n.
  • strigiles, 12 f., 89
  • taxes, 27
  • temples, 5, 15, 71, 74, 79, 88n., 92, 94, 131n.
  • thunderbolt, 6, 102n., 122n.
  • Tiber, 27, 31
  • titulature, titles, 41-50, 76 f., 94 f., 100, 103n., 105, 111n.
  • tombstones, 49n., 101
  • tooling, 136n., 138
  • tribunicia potestas, 30n., 32, 45 f., 68, 99 f., 123, 126 f.
  • triskeles, triquetra, 4 f.
  • triumph, triumphator, 62, 74n., 167, 169 f.
  • triumphal ornamenta, see omamenta
  • trophy, 74
  • Tyche, see Fortuna
  • Vejovis, 95
  • Venus, 90, 109n.
  • Vesta, 87, 109n., 111, 121 f., 128n.
  • Vestal Virgins, 120 ff., 127 f.
  • vexillum, 3, 73
  • vicegerents, 61 f., 66 f., 94, 165 f.
  • vicennium, see anniversary issues
  • Victoria, 3, 47, 72-77, 84, 87 f., 104, 170 f.
  • Virtus, 73
  • weights, 22 f., 145-148
  • will (testament), 129, 133
  • wreath (as type), 1 f., 7, 13, 18, 88, 115n.
  • Zinc, see metallic composition

Key to the Plates

PLATE I

Number on plate Number in list in Ch. I Mint Pages of book on which discussed Collection
1 1 Paestum 1, 29, 38, 88, 159n., 169n. Berlin
2 2 Paestum 2, 38, 88, 169n. Naples
3 (reverse only) 2 Paestum 2, 38, 88 Paris
4 3 Paestum 2, 38, 74 Copenhagen
5 4 Paestum 2, 38, 115 ff., 169n. London
6 5 Paestum 2, 38 London
7 6 Paestum 3, 38, 73, 170 Vienna
8 6 Paestum 3, 38, 73, 170 Vienna
9 6 Paestum 3, 38, 73, 159n., 170 Paris
10 6 Paestum 3, 38, 170 Cambridge
11 7 Paestum 3, 25 f., 38 London
12 (reverse only) 8 Paestum 3, 25 ff., 35, 38, 74, 101 Paris
13 (reverse only) 8 Paestum 3, 25 ff., 35, 38, 74, 101 Copenhagen
14 8 Paestum 3, 25 ff., 35, 38, 74, 101, 158 Cambridge
15 10 Panormus 4, 19, 23, 26n., 50, 79 f., 149 London
16 11 Panormus 5, 88, 104 f., 158 f. London
17 12 Panormus 5, 88n., 108 ff., 111 Glasgow
18 (reverse only) 12 Panormus 5, 88n., 111 London
19 (obverse only) 13 Panormus 5 Glasgow
20 (reverse only) 13 Panormus 6, 114 London
21 14 Achulla 6, 41, 95, 104 f., 122n. Paris

PLATE II

Number on plate Number in list in Ch. I Mint Pages of book on which discussed Collection
1 15 Carthage(?) 6, 19, 30, 38, 44, 47, 115 ff. Glasgow
2 16 Carthage(?) 6 f., 30, 38, 44, 47 London
3 17 Carthage(?) 7, 30, 41, 78 ff., 88, 114 Berlin
4 18 Hippo Diarrhytus 7, 41, 95, 111, 115 ff., 158 London
5 (obverse only) 19 Hippo Diarrhytus 7, 41 Copenhagen
6 (reverse only) 19 Hippo Diarrhytus 7, 98, 158 London
7 (obverse only) 20 Hippo Diarrhytus 8, 41, 45, 71, 88, 156 Hague
8 (reverse only) 20 Hippo Diarrhytus 8, 50 f., 158 Berlin
9 21 Thapsus 8, 25, 47 f., 108 ff. London

PLATE III

1 22 Thapsus 8, 47 f., 108 ff., 158 London
2 23 Thapsus 9, 47 f., 108 ff., 158 Copenhagen
3 24 Thapsus 9, 47 ff., 51, 88, 159n. Hague
4 24 Thapsus 9, 47 f., 51, 88, 159n. Vienna
5 30 Thapsus 11, 19, 47 ff., 51, 111, 159n. London
6 26 Thapsus 10, 47, 51, 88, 98, 156 Paris
7 27 Thapsus 10, 47 ff., 51, 111 Hague

PLATE IV

1 29 Thapsus 10, 30, 47 ff., 51, 88 London
2 25 Thapsus 9, 47, 49, 51, 111 Hague
3 31 Thapsus 11, 47, 51, 88, 98 Vienna
4 32 Cassandrea 11, 88 Dresden
5 33 Dium 11, 30, 41, 115 ff. London
6 34 Pella 11 f., 28, 30, 38, 105 ff., 156 Oxford
7 (obverse only) 34 Pella 11 f., 28, 30, 38, 156 London
8 35 Pella 12, 28, 30, 38 London
9 37 Pella 13, 28, 30, 38, 88, 105 ff. Cambridge
10 38 Pella 13, 28, 30, 38, 113, 117 London
11 40 Pella 13, 28, 30, 38, 89 Budapest

PLATE V

1 41 Dyrrhachium 14, 41, 104 f. London
2 (obverse only) 41 Dyrrhachium 14 Berlin
3 (reverse only) 41 Dyrrhachium 14, 104 f. Paris
4 42 Corinth 15, 38, 79, 90, 92 ff., 104 f. London
5 (obverse only) 43 Corinth 15, 38, 114 Copenhagen
6 (obverse only) 43 Corinth 15, 38 London
7 44 Corinth 15, 38, 79, 90, 92 ff. London
8 (obverse only) 45 Corinth 15, 38, 114 Cambridge
9 46 Corinth 16, 28, 38, 98, 100, 115 ff. London
10 48 Cnossus(?) 16, 41, 136 Vienna
11 49 Cnossus(?) 17, 95, 104 f., 111, 115 ff. Writer's collection
12 (obverse only) 49 Cnossus(?) 17, 19, 104 f. London
13 50 Cnossus(?) 17, 30, 41 London
14 51 Cnossus(?) 17 f., 30, 95 Berlin
15 52 Antioch in Pisidia 18, 24, 48, 115 ff. London
16 53 Sinope 18 f., 24, 30, 59, 88, 98 Cambridge

PLATE VI (Spain)

Number on Plate Mint Pages of book on which discussed Collection
1 Caesaraugusta 20, 39, 101 Glasgow
2 Caesaraugusta 21, 39, 115 Glasgow
3 Carthago Nova 26n., 35, 45n., 101 Paris
4 Carthago Nova 101 Glasgow
5 Dertosa (municipium) 24, 156 Stockholm
6 Ilici 20, 45n., 90 Glasgow
7 (reverse only) Ilici 20, 114n. Cambridge
8 (obverseonly) Tarraco 89, 105 Stockholm
9 Emerita 39, 95, 112, 115 Stockholm

Plate VII (Spain)

1 (obverse only) Tarraco 39 Glasgow
2 (reverse only) Tarraco 39, 85 f., 114 Stockholm
3 Tarraco 39, 45, 100 Glasgow
4 Italica (municipium) 32, 39n., 78, 89 f. Stockholm
5 Romula 20, 32, 39, 99 Glasgow
6 Romula 20, 32, 39, 90, 95, 109, 113 Cambridge
7 Romula 39, 88, 99 Cambridge
8 Emerita 39, 85 f., 104 f., 114 Stockholm

Plate VIII (VARIOUS)

1 Cnossus (Augustus?) 137 London
2 Cnossus (Augustus?) 137 f. Vienna
3 Cnossus (Augustus?) 137 Writer's collection
4 Cnossus (Augustus?) 137 Copenhagen
5 Berytus (Claudius?) 137 London
6 Lepcis Magna (civ, libera) 44, 127 Cambridge
7 Utica (municipium) 88 London
8 Utica (municipium) 19, 37, 53, 115 London
9 (reverse only) Utica (municipium) 19, 37, 53, 115, 158 Vienna
10 Parium(?) (official issue?) 136 f., 156 London
11 Cyprus (official issue) 95, 111, 115 London
12 (reverse only) Rome (official issue) 115 Paris
13 (reverse only) Rome (official issue; Divus Augustus ) 115 Oxford

PRINCIPATE OF Tiberius

PLATE I - 1

image

1

PLATE I - 2

image

2

PLATE I - 3

image

3

PLATE I - 4

image

4

PLATE I - 5

image

5

PLATE I - 6

image

6

PLATE I - 7

image

7

PLATE I - 8

image

8

PLATE I - 9

image

9

PLATE I - 10

image

10

PLATE I - 11

image

11

PLATE I - 12

image

12

PLATE I - 13

image

13

PLATE I - 14

image

14

PLATE I - 15

image

15

PLATE I - 16

image

16

PLATE I - 17

image

17

PLATE I - 18

image

18

PLATE I - 19

image

19

PLATE I - 20

image

20

PLATE I - 21

image

21

PLATE II

PLATE II - 1

image

1

PLATE II - 2

image

2

PLATE II - 3

image

3

PLATE II - 4

image

4

PLATE II - 5

image

5

PLATE II - 6

image

6

PLATE II - 7

image

7

PLATE II - 8

image

8

PLATE II - 9

image

9

PLATE III

PLATE III - 1

image

1

PLATE III - 2

image

2

PLATE III - 3

image

3

PLATE III - 4

image

4

PLATE III - 5

image

5

PLATE III - 6

image

6

PLATE III - 7

image

7

PLATE IV

PLATE IV - 1

image

1

PLATE IV - 2

image

2

PLATE IV - 3

image

3

PLATE IV - 4

image

4

PLATE IV - 5

image

5

PLATE IV - 6

image

6

PLATE IV - 7

image

7

PLATE IV - 8

image

8

PLATE IV - 9

image

9

PLATE IV - 10

image

10

PLATE IV - 11

image

11

PLATE V

PLATE V - 1

image

1

PLATE V - 2

image

2

PLATE V - 3

image

3

PLATE V - 4

image

4

PLATE V - 5

image

5

PLATE V - 6

image

6

PLATE V - 7

image

7

PLATE V - 8

image

8

PLATE V - 9

image

9

PLATE V - 10

image

10

PLATE V - 11

image

11

PLATE V - 12

image

12

PLATE V - 13

image

13

PLATE V - 14

image

14

PLATE V - 15

image

15

PLATE V - 16

image

16

PLATE VI

PLATE VI - 1

image

1

PLATE VI - 2

image

2

PLATE VI - 3

image

3

PLATE VI - 4

image

4

PLATE VI - 5

image

5

PLATE VI - 6

image

6

PLATE VI - 7

image

7

PLATE VI - 8

image

8

PLATE VI - 9

image

9

Plate VII

Plate VII - 1

image

1

Plate VII - 2

image

2

Plate VII - 3

image

3

Plate VII - 4

image

4

Plate VII - 5

image

5

Plate VII - 6

image

6

Plate VII - 7

image

7

Plate VII - 8

image

8

Plate VIII

Plate VIII - 1

image

1

Plate VIII - 2

image

2

Plate VIII - 3

image

3

Plate VIII - 4

image

4

Plate VIII - 5

image

5

Plate VIII - 6

image

6

Plate VIII - 7

image

7

Plate VIII - 8

image

8

Plate VIII - 9

image

9

Plate VIII - 10

image

10

Plate VIII - 11

image

11

Plate VIII - 12

image

12

Plate VIII - 13

image

13


PUBLICATIONS
THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

Broadway at 156th Street, New York City 32, N. Y.

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NUMISMATICS

1866–1924

Vols. 1–3: Monthly, May, 1866–April, 1870.

Vols. 4–46: Quarterly, July, 1870–October, 1912.

Vols. 47–53: Annually, 1913–1924.

With many plates, illustrations, maps and tables. The numbers necessary to complete broken sets may, in many cases, be obtained. An index to the first fifty volumes has been issued as part of Volume LI. It may be purchased separately for $3.00.

NUMISMATIC NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS

The Numismatic Notes and Monographs is a series devoted to essays and treatises on subjects relating to coins, paper money, medals and decorations. Nos. 1–109 inclusive are approximately 4½ x 6⅝ inches in size. Beginning with No. 110 the size is 6⅛ x 9 inches.

  • Sydney P. Noe. Coin Hoards. 1921. 47 pp. 6 pls. 50¢.
  • Edward T. Newell. Octobols of Histiaea. 1921. 25 pp. 2 pls. Out of print.
  • Edward T. Newell. Alexander Hoards—Introduction and Kyparissia Hoard. 1921. 21 pp. 2 pls. Out of print.
  • Howland Wood. The Mexican Revolutionary Coinage, 1913–1916. 1921. 44 pp. 26 pls. Out of print.
  • Leonidas Westervelt. The Jenny Lind Medals and Tokens. 1921. 25 pp. 9 pls. Out of print.
  • Anges Balwdin. Five Roman Gold Medallions. 1921. 103 pp. 8 pls. $1.50.
  • Sydney P. Noe. Medallic Work of A. A. Weinman . 1921. 31 pp. 17 pls. Out of print.
  • Gilbert S. Perez. The Mint of the Philippine Islands. 1921. 8 pp. 4 pls. Out of print.
  • David Eugene Smith. Computing Jetons. 1921. 70 pp. 25 pls. $1.50.
  • Edward T. Newell. The First Seleucid Coinage of Tyre. 1921. 40 pp. 8 pls. Out of print.
  • Harrold E. Gillingham. French Orders and Decorations. 1922. 110 pp. 35 pls. Out of print.
  • Howland Wood. Gold Dollars of 1858. 1922. 7 pp. 2 pls. Out of print.
  • R. B. Whitehead. Pre-Mohammedan Coinage of N. W.">India . 1922. 56 pp. 15 pls. Out of print.
  • George F. Hill. Attambelos I of Characene. 1922. 12 pp. 3 pls. Out of print.
  • M. P. Vlasto. Taras Oikistes (A Contribution to Tarentine Numismatics). 1922. 234 pp. 13 pls. $3.50.
  • Howland Wood. Commemorative Coinage of the United States. 1922. 63 pp. 7 pls. Out of print.
  • Anges Balwdin. Six Roman Bronze Medallions. 1923. 39 pp. 6 pls. $1.50.
  • Howland Wood. Tegucigalpa Coinage of 1823. 1923. 16 pp. 2 pls. 50¢.
  • Edward T. Newell."> Alexander Hoards—II. Demanhur Hoard. 1923. 162 pp. 8 pls. $2.50.
  • Harrold E. Gillingham. Italian Orders of Chivalry and Medals of Honor. 1923. 146 pp. 34 pls. Out of print.
  • Edward T. Newell."> Alexander Hoards–III. Andritsaena. 1924. 39 pp. 6 pls. $1.00.
  • C. T. Seltman. A Hoard from Side. 1924. 20 pp. 3 pls. Out of print.
  • R. B. Seager. A Cretan Coin Hoard. 1924. 55 pp. 12 pls. $2.00.
  • Samuel R. Milbank. The Coinage of Aegina. 1925. 66 pp. 5 pls. $2.00.
  • Sydney P. Noe. A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards. 1925. 275 pp. $2.50.
  • Edward T. Newell. Mithradates of Parthia and Hyspaosines of Characene. 1925. 18 pp. 2 pls. 50¢.
  • Sydney P. Noe. The Mende (Kaliandra) Hoard. 1926. 73 pp. 10 pls. $2.00.
  • Anges Balwdin. Four Medallions from the Arras Hoard. 1926. 36 pp. 4 pls. $1.50.
  • H. Alexander Parsons. The Earliest Coins of Norway. 1926. 41 pp. 1 pl. 50¢.
  • Edward T. Newell. Some Unpublished Coins of Eastern Dynasts. 1926. 21 pp. 2 pls. 50¢.
  • Harrold E.">Gillingham. Spanish Orders of Chivalry and Decorations of Honor. 1926. 165 pp. 40 pls. $3.00.
  • Sydney P. Noe. The Coinage of Metapontum. (Part I.) 1927. 134 pp. 23 pls. $3.00.
  • Edward T. Newell. Two Recent Egyptian Hoards–Delta and Keneh. 1927. 34 pp. 3 pls. $1.00.
  • Edward Rogers. The Second and Third Seleucid Coinage of Tyre. 1927. 33 pp. 4 pls. $1.50.
  • Alfred R. Bellinger. The Anonymous Byzantine Bronze Coinage. 1928. 27 pp. 4 pls. $1.50.
  • Harrold E. Gillingham. Notes on the Decorations and Medals of the French Colonies and Protectorates. 1928. 62 pp. 31 pls. $2.00.
  • Oscar Ravel. The "Colts" of Ambracia. 1928. 180 pp. 19 pls. $3.00.
  • Howland Wood. The Coinage of the Mexican Revolutionists. 1928. 53 pp. 15 pls. $2.50.
  • Edward T. Newell."> Alexander Hoards—IV.">Olympia . 1929. 31 pp. 9 pls. $1.50.
  • Allen B. West. Fifth and Fourth Century Gold Coins from the Thracian Coast. 1929. 183 pp. 16 pls. $3.00.
  • Gilbert S. Perez. The Leper Colony Currency of Culion. 1929. 10 pp. 3 pls. 50¢.
  • Alfred R. Bellinger. Two Hoards of Attic Bronze Coins. 1930. 14 pp. 4 pls. 50¢.
  • D. H. Cox. The Caparelli Hoard. 1930. 14 pp. 2 pls. 50¢.
  • Geo.">F. Hill. On the Coins of Narbonensis with Iberian Inscriptions. 1930. 39 pp. 6 pls. $1.00.
  • Bauman L. Belden. A Mint in New York City . 1930. 40 pp. 4 pls. 50¢.
  • Edward T. Newell. The Küchük Köhne Hoard. 1931. 33 pp. 4 pls. $1.00.
  • Sydney P. Noe. The Coinage of Metapontum. Part II. 1931. 134 pp. 43 pls. $3.00.
  • D. W. Valentine. The United States Half Dimes. 1931. 79 pp. 47 pls. $5.00.
  • Alfred R. Bellinger. Two Roman Hoards from Dura-Europos. 1931. 66 pp. 17 pls. $1.50.
  • Geo.">F. Hill. Notes on the Ancient Coinage of Hispania Citerior. 1931. 196 pp. 36 double pls. $4.00.
  • Alan W. Hazelton. The Russian Imperial Orders. 1932. 102 pp. 20 pls. $3.00.
  • O. Ravel. Corinthian Hoards (Corinth and Arta). 1932. 27 pp. 4 pls. $1.00.
  • Jean B. Cammann. The Symbols on Staters of Corinthian Type (A Catalogue). 1932. 130 pp. 14 double pls. $3.00.
  • Shirley H. Weber. An Egyptian Hoard of the Second Century A. D. 1932. 41 pp. 5 pls. $1.50.
  • Alfred R. Bellinger. The Third and Fourth Dura Hoards. 1932. 85 pp. 20 pls. $1.50.
  • Harrold E. Gillingham. South American Decorations and War Medals. 1932. 178 pp. 35 pls. $3.00.
  • Wm. Campbell. Greek and Roman Plated Coins. 1933. 226 pp. 190+pls. $3.50.
  • E. T. Newell. The Fifth Dura Hoard. 1933. 14 pp. 2 pls. $1.00.
  • D. H. Cox. The Tripolis Hoard. 1933. 61 pp. 8 pls. 2 maps. $1.50.
  • E. T. Newell. Two Hoards from Minturno. 1933. 38 pp. 5 pls. $1.00.
  • Howland Wood. The Gampola Larin Hoard. 1934. 84 pp. 10 double pls. $3.00.
  • J. G. Milne. The Melos Hoard of 1907. 1934. 19 pp. 1 pl. $1.00.
  • A. F. Pradeau. The Mexican Mints of Alamos and Hermosillo. 1934. 73 pp. illus. 3 pls. $1.50.
  • E. T. Newell. A Hoard from Siphnos. 1934. 17 pp. 1 pl. 50¢.
  • C. H. V. Sutherland. Romano-British Imitations of Bronze Coins of Claudius I. 1935. 35 pp. 8 double pls. $2.00.
  • Harrold E. Gillingham. Ephemeral Decorations. 1935. 40 pp. 11 pls. $2.00.
  • Sawyer McA. Mosser. A Bibliography of Byzantine Coin Hoards. 1935. 116 pp. $1.50.
  • Edward T. Newell. Five Greek Bronze Coin Hoards. 1935. 67 pp. 9 double pls. $2.00.
  • Alfred R. Bellinger. The Sixth, Seventh and Tenth Dura Hoards. 1935. 75 pp. 5 pls. $1.00.
  • Frederick O. Waage. Greek Bronze Coins from a Well at Megara. 1935. 42 pp. 3 pls. $1.00.
  • Sydney P. Noe. The Thurian Di-Staters. 1935. 68 pp. 11 double pls. $2.00.
  • John Walker. The Coinage of the Second Saffarid Dynasty in Sistan. 1936. 46 pp. 4 double pls. $1.00.
  • Edward T. Newell. The Seleucid Coinage of Tyre. 1936. 34 pp. 5 pls. $1.00.
  • Margaret Crosby and Emily Grace. An Achaean League Hoard. 1936. 44 pp. 4 pls. $1.50.
  • Agnes Baldwin Brett. Victory Issues of Syracuse after 413 B.C. 1936. 6 pp. 2 pls. 50¢.
  • Edward T. Newell. The Pergamene Mint under Philetaerus. 1936. 34 pp. 10 pls. $2.50.
  • Charles C. Torrey. Aramaic Graffiti on Coins of Demanhur. 1937. 13 pp. 2 pls. $1.00.
  • Sydney P. Noe. A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards. (Second Edition). 1937. 362 pp. $4.00.
  • Naphtali Lewis. A Hoard of Folles from Seltz (Alsace). 1937. 81 pp. 5 pls. $2.00.
  • Harold Mattingly and W. P. D. Stebbing. The Richborough Hoard of 'Radiates.' 1931. 1938. 118 pp. 15 pls. $2.50.
  • Alfred R. Bellinger. Coins from Jerash. 1928–1934. 1938. 141 pp. 9 pls. $2.50.
  • Edward T. Newell. Miscellanea Numismatica: Cyrene to India . 1938. 101 pp. 6 pls. $2.00.
  • David M. Bullowa. The Commemorative Coinage of the United States 1892–1938. 1938. 192 pp. 10 pls. $2.50.
  • Edward T. Newell. Late Seleucid Mints in Ake-Ptolemais and Damascus. 1939. 107 pp. 17 pls. $2.00.
  • Alfred R. Bellinger. The Eighth and Ninth Dura Hoards. 1939. 92 pp. 13 pls. $2.00.
  • Harrold E. Gillingham. Counterfeiting in Colonial Pennsylvania . 1939. 52 pp. 2 pls. $1.00.
  • George C. Miles. A Byzantine Weight Validated by al-Walid. 1939. 11 pp. 1 pl. 50¢.
  • Jaime Gonzalez. A Puerto Rican Counterstamp. 1940. 21 pp. 2 pls. $1.00.
  • Harrold E. Gillingham. Mexican Decorations of Honour. 1940. 53 pp. 17 pls. $2.00.
  • Donald F. Brown. Temples of Rome as Coin Types. 1940. 51 pp. 9 pls. $1.50.
  • Eunice Work. The Early Staters of Heraclea Lucaniae. 1940. 40 pp. 8 pls. $2.00.
  • D. H. Cox. A Tarsus Coin Collection in the Adana Museum. 1941. 67 pp. 12 pls. $2.00.
  • Herbert E. Ives. Foreign Imitations of the English Noble. 1941. 36 pp. 5 pls. $1.50.
  • Louis C. West. Gold and Silver Coin Standards in the Roman Empire. 1941. 199 pp. $1.50.
  • Arthur D. McIlvaine. The Silver Dollars of the United States of America . 1941. 36 pp. 1 folded pl. $1.00.
  • J. G. Milne. Kolophon and its Coinage. A Study. 1941. 113 pp. 19 double pls. $2.50.
  • Sawyer McA. Mosser. The Endicott Gift of Greek and Roman Coins. 1941. 65 pp. 9 pls. $1.50.
  • Edgar Erskine Hume. The Medals of the United States Army Medical Department and Medals Honoring Army Medical Officers. 1942. 146 pp. 23 pls. $3.00.
  • Phares O. Sigler. Sycee Silver. 1943. 37 pp. 6 pls. $1.00.
  • Sydney P. Noe. The Castine Deposit: An American Hoard. 1942. 37 pp. 4 pls. $1.00.
  • H. F. Bowker. A Numismatic Bibliography of the Far East. 1943. 144 pp. $1.50.
  • Sydney P. Noe. The New England and Willow Tree Coinages of Massachusetts. 1943. 56 pp. 16 pls. $3.00.
  • Nai Chi Chang. An Inscribed Chinese Ingot of the XII Century A. D. 1944. 9 pp. 2 pls. 50¢.
  • George L. McKay. Early American Currency. 1944. 85 pp. 27 pls. Out of print.
  • Edward T. Newell. The Byzantine Hoard of Lagbe. 1945. 22 pp. 8 pls. $1.00.
  • James C. Risk."> British Orders and Decorations. 1945. 124 pp. 76 pls. $4.00.
  • Bluma L. Trell. The Temple of Artemis at Ephesos. 1945. 71 pp. 28 pls. $2.00.
  • Karel O. Castelin. The Coinage of Rhesaena in Mesopotamia. 1946. 11 pp. 17 pls. $2.00.
  • Aline A. Boyce. Coins of Tingi with Latin Legends. 1947. 27 pp. 5 pls. $1.00.
  • Sydney P. Noe. The Oak Tree Coinage of Massachusetts. 1947. 23 pp. 10 pls. $1.50.
  • George C. Miles. Early Arabic Glass Weights and Stamps. 1948. 168 pp. 14 pls. $5.00.
  • Philip V. Hill. "Barbarous Radiates:" Imitations of Third-Century Roman Coins. 1949. 44 pp. 4 pls. $2.00.
  • Richard N. Frye. Notes on the Early Coinage of Transoxiana. 1949. 49 pp. 1 pl. $2.00.

MUSEUM NOTES

The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes is a publication consisting principally of brief notes and papers on items in the Society's collections.

I–1946. 106 pp. 23 pls. $1.50.
II–1947. 118 pp. 19 pls. $1.50.
III–1948. 154 pp. 26 pls. $5.00.

NUMISMATIC STUDIES

This series accommodates works of full book length, 7¾ x 10¾ inches in size.

  • 1. Edward T. Newell. The Coinage of the Eastern Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III. 1938. 307 pp. 56 pls. $6.00.
  • 2. George C. Miles. The Numismatic History of Rayy. 1938. 240 pp. 6 pls. $4.00.
  • 3. Alfred R. Bellinger. The Syrian Tetradrachms of Caracalla and Macrinus . 1940. 116 pp. 26 pls. $5.00.
  • 4. Edward T. Newell. The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III. 1941. 450 pp. 86 pls. $10.00.
  • 5. Jocelyn M. C. Toynbee. Roman Medallions. 1944. 268 pp. 49 pls. Out of print.

NUMISMATIC LITERATURE

A quarterly listing of current numismatic publications with abstracts of their content. Subscription price to non-members is $2.00 per year postpaid. Single current issues, $.50 each.

George H. Clapp and Howard R. Newcomb. The United States Cents of the Years 1795, 1796, 1797 and 1800. 1947. 74 pp. 4 photographic pls. Bound in cloth. $10.00.

Edward T. Newell. The Coinages of Demetrius Poliorcetes. London . Oxford University Press. 1927. 174 pp. 18 pls. $5.00.