Aspects of The Principate of Tiberius: Historical Comments On The Colonial Coinage Issued Outside Spain / by Michael Grant

Generated on 2015-10-15 10:15 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.
$b460939
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#cc-by-nc-sa-4.0
ASPECTS
OF THE
PRINCIPATE OF TIBERIUS
HISTORICAL COMMENTS ON THE
COLONIAL COINAGE ISSUED
OUTSIDE SPAIN
BY MICHAEL GRANT
THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY
BROADwAY AT 156TH STREET
NEW YORK
1950
Generated on 2015-10-15 10:15 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b460939

COPYRIGHT,
1950, BY THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY
THE ANTHOENSEN
PRESS, PORTLAND,
MAINE

NUMISMATIC NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS

Number 116

is devoted to essays and treatises on subjects relat
ing to coins, paper money, medals and decorations.
PUBLICATION COMMITTEE
HERBERT E. IvEs, Chairman
ALFREDR. BELLINGER
AGNES BALDwiN BRETT
THOMAS O. MABBOTT
SAwYER MCA. MossER, Editor
CONTENTS
PREFACE
ABBREVIATIONS
CHAPTER I. THE COINS AND THE COLONIES
(i)
Description of the Coinage

(ii)
|xiiivii
A. Western Europe
B. Africa
C. Macedonia
11
D. Epirus and Achaia
14
E. Eastern provinces
16
Character of the Coinage
19
A. Metrology
B. Occasions of Issue
19
23
C. Signatories and Formulas
25
D. Extent of the Coinage

CHAPTER
II.
(i) The
TIBERIUS AS PRINCEPs
41
names and titles of Tiberius
(ii) Tiberius
and the Proconsuls of Africa
A. Amicitia principis and c.
A.D. 21
B. The Auspices of Tiberius
(iii) Mars, Victoria, Felicitas

(iv) Pax Perpetua
41
50
50
59
72
A. Pax
77
B. Perpetuitas
87
(v) Old and new types

CHAPTER
III.
(i) The
THE FAMILY OF TIBERIUS
92
Gens Iulia
(ii) The younger
92
Julio-Claudians
V
98
Vi
Contents
(iii) Divus
Augustus
108
(iv) Julia Augusta

103
A. As Goddess and Virtue"
108
B. As Priestess
115
C. Position in the State
125
CONCLUSION
130
APPENDICES
135
Some non-Spanish colonial coins of uncertain princeps
135
The municipia civium Romanorum
139
Spectrographic
143
Weights and denominations
145
Colonial foundations and their coinages under Tiberius
149
Local and imperial jubilees under Tiberius
155
Some case-usages in ethnics
158
160
The alleged suppression of Altar coinage in c. A.D. 21

Non-imperial Romans at peregrine cities under Tiberius
The eastern command of Germanicus
165
The Augustan origins of the auspices of Tiberius
167
The Augustan origins of the Victory of Tiberius
170
:: .
12.
analyses
162
LIST OF SOME WORKS CITED
173
ADDENDA
189
INDICES
1. Persons
191
2. Places
194
3. General
196
KEY TO PLATES
201
PLATES
207
PREFACE
ROBLEMS concerning the principate of Tiberius have received
much attention during the last hundred years, and not least
during the decade now ending. The studies undertaken recently
have brought a number of these problems appreciably nearer to
solution. But at the same time these studies have underlined the
need for a general survey of the reign, which
will be cognisant of
all the material that has now been collected and studiedand of
to
writer
such
an
cuss, certain numismatic evidence which the
of
is
its
other material which has not yet received this attention.

The present work is far from being designed to provide any such
comprehensive survey. Instead
modest aim
set out, and dis
even
tual survey should take into consideration. For any serious esti
to
of
all
to
of
As
of
centuryin the last instance

us' and Dio Cassius," wrote nearly
two centuriesafter the rule
Tiberius. They saw him through
prejudices and misconceptions."
regards this peri
thick haze
as
is
of
to
regards continental literature, are

Good bibliographies, though not up
date
given by Smith, pp. 257 ff., and (supplementing it) Scramuzza, AJP, 1944, pp. 404 ff.;
Charlesworth, CAH, X, pp. 960 ff.,
that
excellent for the years before 1934.
8;
is
recent study
his Tiberius (concentrating on the years before A.D. 14)
Du Four (see Abbreviations).
that
J.
of M.
of
as
ff.
ff.
11
et
P.
(I
E.
of
of of
of
Important studies during this period are those

Pippidi, AT (some
this, like
RCI, was first published somewhat earlier); Kornemann, parts
GFA and
GR; Smith; and Rogers (see Abbreviations).
Among many recent studies see H. Drexler, Tacitus: Grundzge einer politischen
Pathologie, Auf dem Wege zum Nationalpolitischen Gymnasium, 1939, Heft
Ciaceri, Tacito
grandi Italiani, iii), 1945; W. Theiler, Tacitus und die Antike
Schicksalslehre (Phyllobolia fr
von der Mhll), 1945all reviewed by A. Momigli
Tibre, ED, 1938
ano, JRS, 1946, pp. 225 f.and especially D. M. Pippidi, Tacite
AT, pp.
ff., reviewed by Balsdon, JRS, 1946, pp. 168
Pippidi's work has
good
bibliography,
has Koestermann, Bursians Jahresbericht, 1943, pp. 156
most
on
which the present writer perhaps diverges

Tiberius by Charlesworth, CAH, X, pp. 607
(Ch. XIX),
more favourable terms (but see
128
277).
ff.
the very few points
Vii
n.
p.
in
from the masterly study

who describes Tacitus
of
one
of
This
is
ff.
See Andersen, Dio Cassius und die Begrndung des Prinzipats, Neue Deutsche
Forschungen, CXCVI, 1938; Snyder, Klio, 1940, pp. 39
*

of
this principate will need

devote some attention (how
cursory)
contemporary coinage.
ever
the main branches
Our principal literary authorities for the period, Tacitus," Suetoni
mate
viii
Preface
od at least, they owe their reputation as primary sources of informa

tion to the accident that contemporary histories, other than that of
the useful but second-rate Velleius, have not survived. We are a
little better off as regards the visual arts under Tiberius; but
culties of chronology make the evidence of sculpture and cameos
diff
us.
so enigmatic that it is of limited value for historical purposes. The

same applies, in some degree, to the Tiberian inscriptions (cf.
papyri) that have come down to
They are relatively abundant,
on
to
is
so
be
to
by
of
is
us
as
but fragmentary and fortuitous; and just

the case against Tiberi
presented
reliable,
writers too late
too there
no
counterpart
Ancyranum
present
the Monumentum
the case
his behalf.
by
Ti
us
to
and
period
re
here, predominantly
un
of
have tried
In
Roman Anniversary Issues (Chapter III),

indicate certain features
his official mintages." Sec
attempted.
to
can
be
of
is
a
of
extorting information from the coins

the task
long one. They are various but often uncommon-la
Tiberius
conic and conventional, but complicated and obscure." Each sub
synthesis
division
them will need separate treatment before
of
However,
seem;
is
evidence
this kind
garding which the literary tradition
friendly.
as
of
the empire, wanted them

particularly necessary for
is,
of
ernment, and the cities
to
us
at
ly
be
of
the numerous gaps left

our information from other
expected
sources. Their types cannot
tell
how things real
were, but they will
least tell
how the princeps and his gov
fill some
in
1.
n.
p.
of
p.
this category, considered

include issues such as
Antioch, etc. (where no city ethnic ap
Cappadocia,
to
of
I,
of
et
For an attempted definition

Alexandria, Caesarea
pears), see FITA,
and
those
p.
9
f.,
p.
2;
n.
p.
p.
AT,
For his greater utility than has usually been believed, see Pippidi, ED, 1938
for his aim, cf. W. John, Hermes, 1943,
109.
A.JP, 1947,
57, JRS,
Cf. Sutherland, Numismatic Review, II, 1944, pp.
1938,
129. Compare the utterances
Tiberius himself (Tac., Ann.,
11): suspensa
AT, 37.
semper
obscura verba; cf. Pippidi, ED, 1938
67,

all
of
of
in
to
of
addition
these categories
information there are the
great many coins were issued during the principate
coins.
berius; and
them deserve examination, for they may perhaps
But
ix
Preface
ondly, as regards the coinage of peregrine cities during the same

period, I have made some tentative and preliminary observations
in From Imperium to Auctoritas. But fundamental treatment of
these two subjects is needed; and it will not be attempted here.
The third main category of coinage comprises the issues of Ro
by
If,
man cities, oppida civium Romanorum. They are divided by sta

however, we classify these cities
tus into coloniae and municipia.
as
at
of
geographical location but also

by the following further characteristics. First, the Spanish division
provides,
many mints
this period,
the whole
the non
Spanish division. Secondly, the Spanish coinages are mostly com
as
sions are differentiated not only
by
of
geography rather than status, they again fall into two divisions
Spain and those outside Spain. These two divi
the mintages
or
at
least not very rare, whereas the non-Spanish issues are

begin
almost without exception
the greatest rarity. Thirdly,
ning, and more than beginning, has been made with the publica
of
is
as to
by
of
of
to
to
be
It
of
of
tion and analysis

the Spanish issues. Comparatively full lists
this series have been published," and some
this material has
been correlated with historical data from other sources.
would
imprudent
try
carry this subject much further until the
publication, now planned,
the British Museum and the Hispanic
Society
America collections.
contrast
this activity present
in
at
regards the coinage

Roman cities outside Spain. For
these citieswith very few exceptions (e.g. Corinth)no such serv
ices have been performed
recent times; much less has any attempt
ed
of
as
in
to
conjunction. These,
been made
consider more than one mint
therefore, rather than the Spanish issues, have been selected
the
subject
present
rather,
chosen,
the
work. Or
have
not the non
ish
as
a
Spanish oppida civium Romanorum

whole, but the non-Span
coloniae only;" for very few municipia outside the Peninsula
of
on
of
10
de
E.g. by Heiss, Monnaies Antiques

l'Espagne; Delgado, Medallas autnomas de
Espaa; Vives
large part
Escudero, La Moneda Hispnica; and (for
the field)
Hill, The Coinage
Hispania Tarraconensis, NNM, 50, 1931.
I.e., the coloniae civium Romanorum. For some comments
the peregrine coloni
ae Latinae see Appendix
5.
11

of
mon
Preface
(Uticaandperhaps also Tingis) coined at this time, and it has

seemed better, at this stage, to relegate their peculiar problems,
all
like others which exist on the periphery of my subject, to a brief

Appendix.
This work begins (Chapter I) with a list and discussion of
the
in
of
to
of
non-Spanish colonial coinages that attribute

the principate
Tiberius. Both list and discussion are,
the present state
knowl
in
edge, included with considerable diffidence, and largely

inviting additions and corrections. The remaining
hope
two
of
Tiberius, with the friends
to
the colonies, towards Rome.
of of
II
chapters look, through the eyes

Chapter
deals with the person
the
or
is
III
by
he
and his government gave authority, and with the Vir

principles officially favoured
tues
that government. Chapter
concerned with his Julio-Claudian seniors and juniors, dead
whom
as
in
are
ly
the text for
to
as
discussion instead
mere
draw inferences from the information that they

provide. The various categories
evidence are inextricably inter
related, and cannot
very fruitful from historian's point
view
of
at be
of
to
endeavouring
of
use the colonial issues
dealing with the imperial auspices, allowed myself

as
in
example
of
In
of
to
co-ordinate the non-Spanish colonial coinages with

small selection
the other historical evidencenumismatic, epi
graphic and literary.
pursuit
this aim have sometimes,
for
have tried
as
as is
if
is
it
of
is
only looked
separately. Indeed,
this true
between
categories
numismatics,"
the various main
evidence such
literature, epigraphy, etc.,
equally true within the single but
each
if
of
Appendix
1.
Some doubtful cases are discussed
in
See Appendix
2.
of
of
complex field
numismatics. Thus, for instance, the Spanish aes
Tiberius, though not forming part
coinage
the subject-matter
14 18 12
This
numismatics with other sciences
stressed by A. von
Loehr, Fhrer durch die kunsthistorischen Sammlungen
Wien, XXX, 1944, pp.
ff.;
1947,
81,
but see Instinsky, Hamburger Beitrge zur Numismatik,
somewhat
contrary sense.
in
a
p.
in
is
need for combining
I,

up
and alive, and especially with Livia. Such conclusions

reached are summed
brief recapitulatory section.
xi
Preface
to
of
is
to
to of
to
to
to
it
to
2).
of this work, isas it needs to befrequently quoted for purposes

of comparison and illustration (see Index
The addresses appearing below this Preface bear witness
the
obligations
my
agreeable
first
which
task
record. For have
Trinity
College,
Cambridge,
express
the Master and Fellows
my profound gratitude for the special facilities which they have
granted me for the continuation, after interruption owing
the
grateful
war,
my Research Fellowship.
very
them,
am also
Appendix
of
3).
to
D.
Messrs. Johnson, Matthey and Co., Ltd., and

Mr.
M. Smith
spectrographic analyses (see
their staff, for undertaking
series
COmments.
MICHAEL GRANT
August, 1948; and
January, 1950
Cambridge, England; and
Edinburgh, Scotland
R.
A.
of
to
to
it
of
to
desire also
extend my sincere thanks
the publishers
this
study; and
gratitude
owe particular debt
Professor
Bellinger for reading most carefully and offering many invaluable

to
by
in
this monograph; and

private collectors. am obliged
of to
of
acknowledgment
to
an
lections and have contributed the casts

the Chiswick Press, illustrations appear
to
study their col

which, photographed
their coin-departments, who have allowed me
also owe
of
in
to
of a
of
of
of
Scotland, for de
the Carnegie Trust for the Universities
fraying the costs
preparing the present study. am indebted
museums, and
charge
number
the authorities
them and
and
ABBREVIATIONS
Abh. Leipzig
AC
AE
AEA
A.J.A
AJP
ARW
Alth. Mitt.
Augustus

AVAO
BAF
Balsdon
BIDR
BMC
BMC. Imp.
Bosch
CAH
Caley
CIG
CIL
Cohen
Abhandlungen der schsischen

schaften, Phil.-hist. Kl.
L'Antiquit Classique.
L'Anne Epigraphique (Appendix of Revue Archo
logique, or separate).
Arquivo Espaola
de Arqueologia.
American Journal of Archaeology.

American Journal of Philology.
Archiv fr Religionswissenschaft.
Mitteilungen
archologischen Instituts,
Abteilung.
Athenische
Augustus, Studi in Occasione del Bimillenario Augus
teo, Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome,
1938.
des deutschen
Avhandlingar utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps

emi i Oslo, Hist.-Filos. Kl.
Akad
Bulletin des Antiquaires de France.

J. P. V. D. Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius, Oxford, 1934.
Bullettino dell'Istituto di Diritto Romano.
British Museum Catalogues, London.

H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in
the
British
Museum, London, 1923.

C. Bosch, Die kleinasiatischen Mnzen der rmischen
Kaiserzeit, II, 1, Stuttgart, 1935.
Cambridge Ancient History.
E. R. Caley, The Composition of Ancient Greek Bronze

Coins (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Soci
ety, XI), Philadelphia, 1939.
Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (Boeckh).
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin, 1870.
H. Cohen, Description Historique des Monnaies
pes sous l'Empire
1880-1892.
CP
CR
Akademie der Wissen
Classical Philology.
Classical Review.
xiii
frap
Romain, second edition, Paris,
xiv
Abbreviations
CRAI
Comptes-Rendus des Sances de l'Acadmie des

tions et Belles Lettres.
De Laet
S.J.
de Laet, De Samenstelling van den
Inscrip
Romeinschen
Senaat gedurende de Eerste Eeuw van het Principaat

(Rijksuniversiteit te Gent, Werken uitgegeven door
de Faculteit van de Wijsbegeerte en Letteren, 92e
Diss:
Aflevering), Gent, 1941.

Dissertation.
Du Four
M. J. Du Four, C. Suetonii Tranquilli Vita Tiberii, Chs.
I-XXIII,
ED
Diss: Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
1941.
Ehrenberg
Ephemeris Dacoromana.
V. Ehrenberg, Aspects of the Ancient World,
1946.
ESAR
An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (ed. Tenney
FITA
Oxford,
Frank), Baltimore, 1933.
M. Grant, From Imperium
to Auctoritas,
Cambridge
(England), 1946.
Gaebler
Garrucci
Greenidge
Grose
H. Gaebler, Die Antiken Mnzen Nordgriechenlands,
III,
2, Berlin, 1906.
Garrucci,
R.
Le Monete dell'Italia antica, Rome, 1885.
A. H. J. Greenidge, Roman Public Life, London, 1901.
S. W. Grose, Catalogue of the McClean Collection,
Cambridge (England).
Hgerstrm
A. Hgerstrm, Uppsala Univ. Arsskrift, 1929, Jur.

Fak. Minneskrift,
Hammond
Head
VIII.
M. Hammond, The Augustan Principate, Cambridge

(Mass.), 1933.
B. V. Head, Historia Numorum,
second edition,
Oxford,
1911.
HTR
IG
Harvard Theological Review.

Inscriptiones Graecae.
IGRR
Inscriptiones
Graecae
ad Res Romanas Pertinentes,
Paris, 1911-1927.
ILS
H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae
Selectae, Berlin,
1892
1916.
Imhoof-Blumer,
GM
F. Imhoof-Blumer, Griechische Mnzen, Abhandlungen

der
Bayerischen
Philos.-hist. Abt.,
Akademie
18,
der
Wissenschaften,
Munich, 1890.
Abbreviations
Id., KM
Id., Kleinasiatische Mnzen, Sonderschrift
Id., LS
Id., Lydische Stadtmnzen (from Revue Suisse

Numismatique, 1897).
Id., Monnaies Grecques, Paris, 1883.
des ster
reichischen archologischen Instituts, Vienna, 1901
1902.
Id., MG
JAIW
Jahreshefte
stituts.
JIAN
JS
Kornemann,
des sterreichischen archologischen
de
In
Journal International dArchologie Numismatique.

Journal of Roman Studies.
Journal des Savants.
JRS
DR
E. Kornemann, Doppelprinzipat und Reichsteilung im

Imperium Romanum, Leipzig-Berlin,

XV
1930.
Id., GFA
Id., GR
Id., RG
Id., Grosse Frauen des Altertums, Leipzig, 1942.

Id., Gestalten und Reiche, Leipzig, 1943.
Id., Rmische Geschichte, Stuttgart, 1938-1939.
Macdonald
G. Macdonald, Catalogue of Greek Coins in
the
Hun
Magdelain
MAH
terian Collection, Glasgow, 1899-1905.

A. Magdelain, Auctoritas Principis, Paris, 1947.
Mlanges d'Archologie et d'Histoire de lcole
Fran
Marsh
F. B. Marsh, The Reign of Tiberius,
aise de Rome.
second
edition,
Oxford, 1927.
Mattingly, RC
H. Mattingly, Roman Coins, London, 1928
Mionnet
T. E.
MKAW
BMC. Imp. and RIC).
(see also
Mionnet, Description de Mdailles Antiques

Grecques et Romains, Paris, 1807-1837.
Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Weten
Afd. Lett.
Th. Mommsen, Das Rmische Staatsrecht, third edition
of Vols. I-II, Leipzig, 1887.
schappen,
Mommsen, St. R.
Mller
L. Mller in Falbe, Lindberg & Mller's Numismatique
NC
de l'Ancienne Afrique, Copenhagen, 1860-1874.

Numismatic Chronicle.
Newby
J. D. Newby,
Nicodemi
Numismatic Commentary on the Res Ges

Augustus,
Iowa, 1938.
tae of
G. Nicodemi, Catalogo delle Raccolte Numismatiche
del Castello Sforzesco, Milan, 1939.
xvi
Abbreviations
NNM
NS
Numismatic Notes and Monographs.

Notizie degli Scavi di Antichit.
NZ
Numismatische Zeitschrift.
Pippidi, AT
Id., RCI
D. M. Pippidi, Autour de Tibre, Bucharest, 1944.

Id., Recherches sur le Culte Imprial, Bucharest, 1940.
PIR
Prosopographia Imperii Romani (Klebs-Dessau)

Ber
lin, 1897, second ed. (Groag-Stein), Berlin-Leip
von Premerstein
zig, 1933.
A. von Premerstein, Vom Werden und Wesen des Prin
zipats, Abhandlungen der bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Philos.-hist. Abt., NF. 15, Mnich,
1937.
QA
QAS
Quaderni Augustei, Rome, 1937.

Quaderni Augustei, Studi Stranieri, Rome, 1937.
Revue Archologique.
RA
RAI

Ramsay,
RB
RC
RE
M. Grant, Roman Anniversary Issues, Cambridge

land), 1950.
SBRP
(Eng
W. M. Ramsay, The Social Basis of Roman Power in

Asia Minor, Aberdeen, 1941.
Revue Belge de Numismatique.

Revista Clasic.
Real-Encyclopdie
schaft
1894.
der Classischen Altertumswissen

Stuttgart,
(Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll-Ziegler),
REA
REL
Revue des tudes Anciennes.
RG
Res Gestae Divi Augusti.

Waddington, Babelon and Reinach, Recueil Gnral des
Monnaies Grecques d'Asie Mineure, Paris, 1904.
RGMG
RH
RHSE
Revue des tudes Latines.
RIC
Revue Historique.
Revue Historique du Sud-Est Europen.
H. Mattingly and E. A. Sydenham (also C. H. V. Suth
erland and P. H. Webb), Roman Imperial Coinage,
London, 1923.
Rogers
Revue Numismatique Franaise.

R. S. Rogers, Studies in the Reign of Tiberius,
more, 1943.
Balti
xvii
Abbreviations
Rm. Mitt.
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts,

Rmische Abteilung.
Rostovtzeff,
M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of
SEH
the
Roman Empire, Oxford, 1926.
Id., SES
Id., Storia Economica
Sociale dell'Impero Romano,
Florence, 1933.
RPAA
Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di

cheologia.
RPh.
Ar
Revue de Philologie.
Rendiconti del Reale Istituto Lombardo di Scienze
Lettere.
RRIL
RS
Sav. Z.
Revue Suisse de Numismatique (Schweizerische Numis

matische Rundschau).
Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte,
SB Mnchen
Romanistische Abteilung.
Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wis
Philos.-hist. Kl.
Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Wien, Philos.-hist. Kl.
V. M. Scramuzza, The Emperor Claudius (Harvard
senschaften,

SB Wien
Scramuzza,
EC
Historical
1940.
Smith
XLIV),
Studies
Studi e Materiali della Storia di Religioni.

Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, National
Copenhagen, 1942.
Sutherland,
RIS
Svoronos, Numismatique
SWC
Macon, 1890.
M. Grant, 19 B.C.:
(in
RR
Taylor, DRE
Museum,
C. H. V. Sutherland, The Romans in Spain, London,

1939.
Svoronos
TAPA
(Mass.),
C. E. Smith, Tiberius and the Roman Empire, Baton

Rouge, Louisiana, 1942.
SMSR
SNGC
Syme,
Cambridge
de
la Crte Ancienne,
I,
A Step Towards World Coinage
press, Princeton,
N.J.).
R. Syme, The Roman Revolution, Oxford, 1939.

Transactions of the American Philological Association.
L. R. Taylor, The Divinity of
the Roman Emperor

by the Ameri
(Philological Monographs published
can Philological Association,
1931.
I), Middletown,
Conn.,
xviii
Vives
Abbreviations
A. Vives y Escudero, La
Moneda Hispnica,
Madrid,
1924-1926.
Wagenvoort
Weber
Willrich
Wissowa, RKR
YCS

ZfN
H. Wagenvoort, Roman Dynamism, Oxford,

W. Weber, Princeps, I, Stuttgart, 1936.
H. Willrich, Livia, Leipzig-Berlin,
L. Wissowa,
1947.
19.11.
Die Religion und Kultus der Rmer, sec

Munich, 1912 (in I. van Mller's Hand
edition,
ond
buch der Altertumswissenschaft).

Tale Classical Studies.
Zeitschrift
fr Numismatik.
CHAPTER
THE COINS AND THE COLONIES

(i) Description of the Coinage'
A. WESTERN
EUROPE
PAESTUM2
1. Laureate head to right, lituus.
M.EGNATIVS IIVIR.PAE.S.S.C.
Q OCTAVIVS
oak(?)-wreath.
Berlin
(PLATE I, 1),
SNGC, Italy, III, Plate
in
Copenhagen, writer's collection.
CXXIII, 16, quotes

a variant with head to left and M. EGNATIVS Q. OCTAVIIVS IIVIR]
PAES (sic) S.S.C. For the probable date of these pieces (early Tiberi
us), see FITA, p. 287, n. 8. The coins of Q. Octavius and M. Egnatius,
27, no. 1381.
Garrucci, Plate
though too poorly preserved for any confident conclusions to be drawn

from them, seem to differ from other issues of Paestum ascribed to
berius 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
pp.
more frequent at this mint. As is pointed out in FITA, loc. cit,
type
328,463,
very large number
portraits
Augustan
late
local
coinages are demonstrably posthumous; and the same may apply
on
certain.
9. or
f., p.
to
of
of
or
of
1.
to
descriptions
For doubtful pieces see Appendix
The discussions added
section are only concerned with the actual attribution
the coins
mints
Spain, see
pates,
with the status
the minting city. For the omission
in
regarded
as
these, though this cannot
be
to
of
of
cf.
Ti
this
princi
f.,
an
1944,
171)
XXI,
of
Duval's view (RA,
p.
support
seem too late
to
il
p.
p.
as
of
Augustan colony see FITA, pp. 201

For the status
Paestum
286
cf.
Piganiol, RA, XXII, 1944,
123. Inscriptions with municipium and municeps (Mar
zullo, Atti della Societ Italiana per
Progresso delle Scienze, V, 1932, Estratto,
17)
2

Rev.
Sullan colony.
Principate of Tiberius
2. Laureate head to
left, lituus.
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.
Rev. Q.
3.
P.S.S.C. laureate head to right.
Rev.
L. LICINIVS IIVIR. Victory
standing or walking to right,
holding laurel-wreath and palm.
(PLATE I, 4), London, Berlin.

Garrucci, Plate CXXIII, 21; SNGC, Italy, III, Plate 27,
all
Copenhagen
to
no. 1386. The
Paestan issues described hereunder
right, lituus.
LOLLI.M. DOI.
(sic)
IIVIRIP.S.S.C.
Livia seated
to
C.
Bare head
Rev.
right, veiled, with patera and sceptre.
ITER. P.S.S.C.
Diana stand
lean
on
ing facing, wearing short tunic, carrying bow, and carrying

ing
spear.
or
5.
to
right, lituus.
Bare head
Rev. C. LOLLI.M. DOI.IIVIRI
17.
by
p.
I,
p.
I,
5), Cambridge, Copenhagen.

London (PLATE
BMC, Italy, 282, no. 78; Grose,
147, no. 1155, SNGC, Italy, III,
Garrucci, Plate CXXIII,
Plate 27, no. 1383. Erroneously described
I,
1578, no. 2635.
P.S.S.C. laureate head
to
p.
II,
bis,
p.
I,
p.
p.
I,
6), Cambridge, Munich.

London (PLATE
BMC, Italy,
282, no. 80, Grose,
147, no. 1158, Garrucci, Plate
CXXIII, 20; Boutkowski, Dictionnaire Numismatique,
74, no. 179
6.
right.
to
left, helmet
Rev.
VERGILI. OPT.IIVIR, Mars standing
ed, naked except for cloak hanging over left arm, holding hasta (?)
and parazonium.
A.

4.
portraits on these pieces and on

are unmistakably Tiberian.
The Coins and the Colonies
Vienna (PLATE I, 7), London. A Cambridge specimen (PLATE I,

0) also seems to represent this type.
Grose, I, p. 147, no. 1159. Garrucci, Plate CXXIII, 22, misdescribes.
Barrucci, 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
'arried 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 varia
tion, 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 FLATI.AVG.T.I. CAESAR IIVIR. Victory in
biga of horses galloping to left;
above horses heads, apex.
Paris (PLATE I, 12); Copenhagen
(PLATE I, 13); Cambridge

I,
14); Berlin, Vienna.
(PLATE
Grose, I, p. 147, no. 1162, SNGC, Italy, III, Plate 27, no. 1385, give in
complete descriptions. The full legend (in which there may be minor
variations) is restored with difficulty from the specimens at Berlin (....
AVG.T.I.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.
TI
...
P.S.S.C. laureate head to right.

Rev. C. FADI.L.(?) . . . . . . . . AR(?) same type
9.
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 im
possible to obtain casts or illustrations of either coin, since the two col
lections 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 FLATI-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 Rmische 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-pre
served to be of much assistance; it may conceivably show the name of
Fadius with a different type.
PANORMUS
10.
Rev.
P.F.SILVA.PR. olive (?)-branch.

SALASI.LVCI. II. triskeles.
(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 rmischen Verwaltungs
For the suggested attribution to Panormus,
FITA,
FITA,
Seius
is
It
of
or
cf.
to
a
III
2,
also
late Augustan
Tiberian date
(1943),
94, no.
etc.;
general composition (though not necessarily
cit., against Groag, PIR,
p.
FITA, loc.
of
see
ii;
to
to
of
Suei.
M. Nun.
see
Appendix
1.
For the duoviri
L.
Q.
of
II,
in
is
still remains
be undertaken), and
small
Silanus,
legatus
Syria
Caecilius Metellus Creticus
A.D.
detailed demonstration
coins
to
by
in
close resemblance
Roman quadrantes attributed
the present writer
A.D.
RAI,
briefly
Chapter
suggested
10-14 (this
section
but the
style)
to
in
F.
of
of
to
cf.
n.
6;
p.
ent attribution seem preferable.

For the attribution these pieces
c.
P.
of
of
be
It
L. is
of
of
is
p.
to
all
as
or
of
of
is
to
unlikely that both

attributed
199.
pieces are
the same mint, since the various aes pieces with names
PR[oconsule], see FITA,
proconsuls (for PR.,
here, for PR[aetor]
pp. 35, 61)
appear
foundation issues
different colonies and
municipia (ibid.,
impossible
198).
not
that the coin
Silva
Haluntium and that
Seius
Panormus (instead
vice versa),
peregrine issue
but the former's resemblance
Panormus (ibid.,
IV,
Bahrfeldt, RS, 1904, Plate
92,93) has made the pres
197,
procos
Haluntium,
see
of
L.
somewhat similar piece bearing the name
p.
6.
f.,
n.
beamten, p. 90.
pp. 197

London
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),
6).
be
197
It
f.,
(FITA, pp.
n.
and it has been suggested on historical grounds that Panormus may have
become a colonia civium Romanorum after the accession of Tiberius
cannot, however,
considered certain that

is
it
or
of
with winged Gorgon's head, ears
corn
Augustus
to
PANHORMITANORVM radiate head

Rev. CN-DO.PROCV.A.LAETOR.IIVIR,
11.
of
to
of
to
of
Tiberius, but
the present issue belongs
the reign
included here
probability
slightly
since the balance
seems
favour this interpreta
tion.
left.
capricorn, triskeles
barley.
p.
to
5.
of
of
p.
PANORMITAN. Livia seated
12.
right, veiled, with patera
and corn-ears.
CN.DOM. A.
Glasgow
(PLATE
L.A. ram to left.
I,
Rev.
17), Munich.
I,
p.
of
by
p.
(PLATE
Macdonald,
to
Livia
to
Tiberius(?)
right.
right.
19), London, Munich, Copenhagen.
211, no. 41,
BMC, Sicily,
p.
Glasgow
I,
AVGVS. veiled head

p.
Rev.
bare head
of
PANORMITAN (?)
I,
13.
of
p.
is
I,
p.
I,
Macdonald,
212, no.44 BMC, Sicily,
125, no.47 (PLATE
18)
CN.D.,
Cambridge
(Grose,
perhaps
297,
and
no. 2524) have
Berlin
Hill, Coins Ancient
PANORMITANORVM. The coin mentioned
Sicily,
208.
125, no. 44,
SNGC, Sicily,
of
p.
in
43), Berlin, and perhaps Copenhagen
(SNGC, Sicily,
I,
125, no.
be
on
I,
Plate 12, nos. 562 and 563.

Vienna specimen has the countermark
tetrastyle temple. On Gotha example the head
the obverse seems
laureate.
variant piece represented
London (BMC, Sicily,
to a

I,
p.
I,
p.
I,
16), Copenhagen.
London (PLATE
BMC, Sicily,
125, no. 45, SNGC, Sicily,
Plate 12, no. 564, Imhoof
Blumer, MG,
Klein,
37;
93,
Die rmischen Verwaltungsbeamten,
Macdonald,
212,42; Hill, Coins
Ancient Sicily, Plate XIV, 17;
Mattingly, RC, Plate XLVIII, There are variants
the reverse legend.
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.
AFRICA
B.
ACHULLA
... AESARAVGV...
14.
bare head of
Tiberius(?) to right.
Rev. [? DIVOS] AVG..[ACH]VLLA radiate head of Augustus to

left; thunderbolt, star.
Paris
(PLATE I, 21).
7,
II,
44,
9-10,
as
V,
by
is
an
Plate VII, 29-31. Achulla was free before the reorganization

op
Pliny (Nat. Hist,
Julius Caesar, and recorded
30)
FITA,
of
7,
n.
of
be
to
p.
in
pidum liberum. But towns described

this way were often coloniae
(FITA,
226,
civium Romanorum
and
Zama Regia, Thapsus,
Hadrumetum, Hippo Diarrhytus), and there are special reasons for be
lieving the same
true
Achulla (FITA, pp. 230 f.).
CARTHAGE (?)
TI. CAESAR IMP.P.P.
L. A. FAVSTVS D.C. BASSVS IIVIR. P. P. D. D. Livia
to
Rev.
seated
bare head of Tiberius to left.
231.
Variant with head
to
II,
FITA,
p.
Augustus,
p.
p.
II,
of
p.
I,
ler,
II,
similar coin
f.;
1), London, Cambridge, Milan.

Mller,
150, no. 327; Macdonald, III,
600, nos. 146
Nico
72,706. For the attribution, Mller,
demi,
154, compare the
(PLATE
p.
Glasgow
II,
15.
p.
right,
Ml
150, no. 328.
corn-ears joined.
to
right.
TI. CAESAR IMP.P.P. bare head Tiberius
Rev. L. A. FAVSTVS D.C. BASSVS IIVIR. P.P. D.D. three
16.
of

bles that of Augustan pieces of Achulla, e.g. Mller,
p.
Not in Mller. Apparently unpublished, at least in recent centuries,

except for a passing description (in which the legend and type are in
completely described) in FITA, p. 230. The head on the obverse might
conceivably be that of Caligula rather than Tiberius. The style resem
II,
II,
17.
p.
2), Hague.
London (PLATE
Mller,
150, no. 329.
TI. CAESARIAVGVSTO D.D.COL.
bare head of
Tiberi
us to left.
in
no
all
Rev. PACE AVG. PERP. altar-precinct (altar-wall with two

intervening paneland two horns);
doorswith
oak
wreath.
A. A. by
(PLATE II, 3).
Berlin
f.
2,
the Berlin piece.

after COL.
the
on
K. to
II,
1,
if
at
men shown from his illustration

Plate
not
Lagoy's coin, correctly described, has the letter
of
to
to
Carthago Nova; but styl

obverse. This led him
attribute the coin
istic considerations, notably the individual style characteristic
Africa
(FITA,
to
of
cf.
p.
478), make Carthage far preferable. This exceptional piece

looks medallic;
official issues
the same principate which seem
RAI,
Chapter III.
interpretation,
warrant
similar
a
TI. CAESAR DIVI AVGVSTI F. AVGVSTVS
FITA,
For Hippo Diarrhytus
as
a
167, no. 376.
colonia Iulia
Same obverse.
junior
to
Rev. DRVSVS
sus
field.
pp. 224f.
right.
p.
Copenhagen
Mller,
CAESAR HIPPONE LIBERA bare head of Dru
(PLATE
167, no. 377.
5), London (PLATE
II,
19.
IVL. AVG.
4), Munich.
II,
see
below,
(PLATE
II,
London
Mller,
to
Livia seated
LIBERA
above,
in
HIPPONE
p.
Rev.
bare head
right.
II,
Tiberius
to
18.
of
HIPPO DIARRHYTUS
II,

be p.
de
de
I,
p.
is
in
J.
Tristan,
perhaps the specimen quoted
Mller. This
f.;
Occo, Im
Commentaires Historiques, etc. (Paris, 1644), pp. 164
peratorum Romanorum Numismata (Milan, 1683),
Morellius,
70,
pp. 592
Thesaurus (Amsterdam, 1752),
But De Meyran (Marquis
Lagoy), Mlanges
Numismatique (Aix, 1845),
quotes speci
Not
6), Vienna.
20. Same obverse legend and head;
HIP[P]ONE LIBERA
L.APRONIVS
Rev.
lituus and simpulum.

bare head
of L.
(PLATE
7), Berlin (PLATE
II,
Hague
II,
Apronius, proconsul, to right.

8), Paris.
to
p.
of
I,
f.;
an
to
p.
of
byas
of
be cf.
p.
on
as
as
p.
p.
p.
in
Af
of
on
p.
of
as
of
of
to
its
is
p.
1.
n.
II,
wrongly attributed
The reverse head
Drusus junior by Mller,
ascription
proconsul
229,
167, no. 378. For
the
see FITA,
proconsuls
Under Augustus also, the portraits
number
FITA,
Asia,
appeared
rica (as well
387) have
the coinage
224;
Roman colonies, including Hippo Diarrhytus (FITA,
Hadru
230),
metum,
228, Achulla,
well
what seems
offi
cial African issue (FITA,
139). Most
those portraits have, like the
present one, been misinterpreted
representing imperial personages;
Cavedoni, Bullettino archeologico
e.g.
the case
Hadrumetum
Italiano, 1862, pp. 171
Borghesi, Oeuvres,
312.
TI. CAE. DIVI AVG. F. AVG. IMP.VII.
Rev.
bare head of
Ti
left.
CERERI AVGVSTAE THAMPSITANI (sic).
Ceres
Au
right holding long torch and two corn-ears; modius
on
gusta seated
ground.
to
berius
to
21.
n.
un
Tiberius
to
22. Same legend; bare head
of
at
in
p.
London (PLATE II, 9), Tunis, Vatican (?)."

FITA, 225, and
14, but otherwise apparently
Mentioned
published,
past
century.
least within the
right.
to
225,
and
n.
FITA,
p.
Nicodemi,
I,
583, no.
1;
III,
p.
Hague, Glasgow, Milan.
47, no. 12; Macdonald,
p.
II,
72, no. 707,
p.
(PLATE III, 1),

cf.
London
Mller,
(or
of
of
Rev. THAPSVM IVN AVG. veiled head

Juno Augusta
left, apparently with wreath
iuno Augustae)
corn-ears.
13.
in
to
of
to
is
it
is
to
of
The Curator
the Bardo Museum has kindly written confirming the Tunis speci
sulphur cast
piece stated
men. The British Museum has
be
the Vatican; but,
so,
presumably there ascribed
another city, since Marchese Serafini writes
Thapsus.
that there
no such coin ascribed
if

THAPSUS
23. Same obverse.
Rev. THAPSVM
patera and sceptre.
24.
II,
p.
seated to right, veiled,
with
VIII. COS. IIII
bare
(PLATE III, 2).
Copenhagen
Mller
IV.N.AVG. Livia
47, no. 13.
TI. CAE. DIVI
AVG. F. AVG. IMP.
head of Tiberius to left.
PERMISSV L. APRONI PROCOS.
Rev.
III. C. SEX.
POM.
CELSO C.P.I. Mercury wearing petasus and holding caduceus,

Hague
left on rock.
(PLATE III, 3), Vienna (PLATE III, 4), Paris.

by
seated to
to all
p.
I,
II,
of
on
is
It
to
p.
by
p.
p.
II,
of
56), but the other and earlier has CAESAR
COLONIAE IVLIAE and monograms decipherable
DIVI
PI F.
330, Supplment,
p.
to
of
to
Augustus have reverse types and stylistic traits identical

each other
present
piece
Augustan
pieces has
and
the
Tiberius. One
these
(Mller,
155, no.
the legends AVGVSTVS IMP.C.I.P. IIIIVIR
as
of
al
p.
494, no.
cf.
225,
8;
p.
p.
THAP and
Merlin,
archologique
and
Bulletin
du
cxciv), circumstance which
Comit des Travaux Historiques, 1915,
determines the attribution not only
the two Augustan pieces but
(FITA,
of
of
the present series
n.
cf.
p.
p.
p.
of
or
of
so
Tiberius. For comparable vari

during
ations
evolutions
ethnics
the early imperial period see coins
270), Emporiae (ibid.,
154), Cnossus (ibid.,
Buthrotum (FITA,
p.262), Corinth (ibid., p.266;
226 and
2).
the whole
of
Rev. Same reverse legend. Livia seated

corn-ears and sceptre.
Nicodemi,
I,
155, no. 332;
p.
Mller,
(PLATE IV, 2), Milan.

p.
Hague
to
25. Same obverse.
II,

to
as
Nicodemi,
72, no. 708. This and
Misread
PROCOS. IIII
following
Thapsus
assigned
the
coins here
were misattributed
Clypea
Mller,
Thapsus see
155, no. 331. For the ascription
FITA, 225.
following
based
the
considerations. Two coins
73.
right, veiled, with two
10
26.
DRVSO CAESARI bare head of Drusus junior to left.
PERMISSV L- APRONI- PROCOS-III- bust of Mercury
Rev.
to left, wearing paenula and petasus; caduceus behind.
(PLATE III, 6), Hague.

Miiller, II, p. 155, no. 333. Variant
Paris
untraceable, quoted ibid., p.

27.
with Mercury's bust to right, now
156, no. 334.
As no. 24.
Reu.PER[MIS- Q I]VN BLAESI PROCOS- IT- C-P GAVIO

CASCAC-P-I-asno.25.
Hague
(PLATE III, 7).
Generated on 2015-10-16 11:59 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/inu.32000004560357

Midler's reference to a "retouched" piece of Dolabella at the Hague,

without any mention of Blaesus (Miiller, 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 Miiller, 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.6
29. As no. 24.
PERMIS- P- CORNELI- DOLABELLAE PROCOS- C

P- CAS- D-D- C-P-I- as no. 24.
Rev.
London (PLATE IV, 1), Berlin.

Miiller, II, p. 156, no. 336. Miiller also quotes the following variant
C-P Greverse inscriptions: PERMIS- P- DOLABELLAE PROCOS
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).
r-
Perhaps a large piece with the type of no. 24 and the name of Blaesus may one day
a series uniform with those of Apronius and Dolabella.
come to light, to complete

As last.
30.
PERMIS. P. DOLABELLAE PROCOS. C. P.G.C.A.S.C.
Rev.
as no. 25.
(PLATE III, 5),
II,
London
Mller,
p.
Paris, Hague, Copenhagen.
156, no. 338.
As no. 26.
PERM. DOLABELLAE PROCOS. C. P.G. CAS.

(PLATE IV, 3).
Mller,
p.
Vienna
II,
Rev.
above, no. 27.
156, no. 340.
For his reference
31.
to
P.I.
11
as no. 26.
Hague example,
see
C. MACEDONIA
Dresden
to
to
[C]AS. head
of
Tiberius(??)
Jupiter Ammon
laureate head
of
[CO]L.IVL
DIVI(?)
Rev.
right.
right.
(PLATE IV, 4), Istanbul.

of
It
n.
6.
be
of
to
is
at
a
in
p.
FITA, 272,
Apparently unpublished, except for mention
period
possible that this coin was issued
later
than the reign
Tiberius." The end
the reverse inscription seems
blundered.
TI. CAESAR DIVI AVG. F. AVGVSTVS
berius
Rev.
bare head
Ti
right.
COLONIA IVL.DIENSIS D.D. Livia
seated
to
to
33.
of
DIUM
right,
Gaebler,
71, no.
p.
p.
60, and Plate XIII, 31; BMC, Macedon, etc.,

Sutherland, JRS, 1941,
81, FITA,
278.
3,
(PLATE IV, 5).
p.
London
p.
veiled, with patera and sceptre.
34.
TI. CAESAR AVG. F. AVGVSTVS
bare head
of
PELLA
right.
6

32.
CASSANDREA
Professor A. R. Bellinger considers that the portrait looks Antonine.
Tiberius to
12
C.BAEBIVS P.F. L. RVSTICELIVS BASTERNA IIVIR.
Rev.
QVINQ.D.D.
Oxford
in five lines.
(PLATE IV, 6), London (PLATE IV, 7), Berlin, Milan,
enna.
Vi
36
of 40
as
on
of
f.;
cf.
As regards this and the following pieces, Sutherland, JRS, 1941, p. 74,
no. 3, ibid., Plate VII, 2, follows the tentative attribution to Dium adopt
ed 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 fab
ric; (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) con
vincingly assigned to Pella by Imhoof-Blumer, MG, p. 88, and Gaebler,
FITA, pp. 281 (iii) the type
below, very
p. 96;
nos.
and
p.
of
34
of
p.
pointed out
FITA,
p.
or
of
IV,7) has countermark; Berlin and Vienna examples are countermarked

patera), and,
PEL (in the two latter cases with the addition
theta
C.
4) of
p.
BASTERNA IIVIR. QVINQ. D.D.
right, with hair knotted behind neck.
C. BAEBIVS P. F. L. RVSTICELIVS BASTERNA IIVIR.
JRS,
1941,
74, no.
ibid., Plate
VII,
Not
C.BAEBIVSP.F.D.D. cup without handles.

Rev. L.RVSTICELIVS BASTERNA praefericulum
in
Sutherland,
3.
(PLATE IV, 8).

5;
London
four lines.
p.
QVINQ.
in
Rev.
female head
to
D.D.
n.
p.
on
34
is
of
BAEBIO P.F.L.RVSTICELIO
35.
cf.
p. on
is
11,
it
n.
282 and
of
in
to
is
as
common for such counter

comprise the ethnic
marks
the very city where the coins
which
they are stamped had been struck (e.g. FITA,
299,
12;
246).
This phenomenon
found particularly often
the coinage
Tiberius.
(Sutherland, JRS, 1941,
74, no.
variant
no.
reads

cf.
p.
is
unusual one,
the same
that
further pieces both
Fictorius and
Septumius (FITA,
281) and
Herennius and Titucius (ibid.,
282
Gaebler,
98, no. 27).
and 284;
London specimen
no.
(PLATE
Gaebler.
36.
strigiles.
Berlin, Sofia.
and two

Sutherland, JRS,
13
p. 74, no. 6; Gaebler, p. 60, no.

31. The two Sofia specimens were found in Bulgaria.
37.
1941,
TI. CAESAR AVG. F. AVGVSTVS
3, Plate
XIII,
bare head of Tiberius to
right.
IIVIR QVINQ.D.D.
Rev. L.RVSTICELIVS CORDVS

lines in oak-wreath.
1941, p. 74, no. 8;
Paris.
FITA,
282.
Sutherland, JRS,
p.
(PLATE IV, 9), London,

cf.
Cambridge
in six
Paris specimen
in
p.
p.
f.;
p.
is
or
patera?). variant has the reverse legend

countermarked (theta
JRS,
Nicodemi,
Sutherland,
75, nos.
74,724.
1941,
five lines:
134, no. 23.
CESAR (sic) for CAESAR: Gaebler, ZfAN, 1926,
bust
Pietas
Gaebler,
p.
6;
to
PIETAS AVGVSTA
to
39.
XIII, 29.
of
Plate
p.
London (PLATE IV, 10), Hague.

75, no. 10, ibid., Plate VII,
4,
right, with diadem
60,
or
namented with palmettes.
Rev. As last.
Budapest
Not
published.
16
5,
p.
Plate
XIII, 30,
and two strigiles.
(PLATE IV,
Sutherland,
61,
(obverse).
JRS,
11).
1941,
or
Rev. As last.
ff.,
40. Praefericulum
ibid., Plate
X,
134, 25,
75, no. 11; Gaebler,
73
1926,
1941,
p.
id, ZfAN,
p.
Sutherland, JRS,
p.
Paris, Berlin, Leningrad, Munich, Belgrade.
in

of
right, draped, diademed and veiled.

38. PIETAS bust
Pietas
Rev. As last but no oak-wreath.
Gaebler, and apparently
un
14
D. EPIRUS AND ACHAIA

DYRRHACHIUM
41.
TI. CAE.C.I.A.D.
laureate head of Tiberius to right,
coun
termark.
Rev.
AVG.C.I.A.D.
radiate head of Augustus to right.
(PLATE V, 1),
London
Athens.
TI-CAE.C.I.A.D., Imhoof-Blu
MG,
mer,
p. 165,47; (obv.) TI-CA.C.I.A.D. (FITA, Plate VIII, 26) and
(rev.) AVG.V., Paris (PLATEV,3); (obv.) TI-CA.T.I.A.S. (sic), Ber
Not in any BMC. Variants: (obv.)
lin (PLATEV,2); (rev.) AVG.P.P., Vienna. The Athens specimen sug

gests that the countermark is a prow. These pieces have been attributed
to Dium (London; British Museum Cabinet), Dyme (British Museum [al

so], Paris, Vienna), and even Dertosa (Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum, I,
p. 47, Hbner, Monumenta Linguae Ibericae, p. 38; Newby, p. 83). In
FITA, p. 278, an endeavour is made to refute these attributionsof which
at least is impracticable on grounds of styleand to

group the issue instead with two pieces of Augustus ascribed to Dyrr
hachium, which closely resemble it in portraiture. These are: (1) bare
head of Augustus to rightCI.VE.TI.TAR-IIVIR,
Q D.D. in field
(Gotha, London, FITA, p. 276, ibid., Plate VIII, 23), (2) CAESAR
AVGVSTVS bare head of Augustus to rightplough, and legend con
jecturally restored as C(oloniae) V(eneriae) R(estitutori) M.IVS(tu
at
to
p.
p.
its
leius?) M.HERENNIVS IIVIR(1) QVINQ(uennales) C(oloniae) I(uli

ae) 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 COLONIAIVLIA 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
lands
his new foundation
Patrae (Pausanias, VII, 17; cf.
Dorsch, De Civitatis Romanae apud Graecos Propagatione, Diss: Bres
lau, 1886,
19, FITA,
265).
42.
left.
L.ARRIO PEREGRINO IIVIR
radiate head
of
CORINTH
to

the last-mentioned
Augustus
L.FVRIO LABEONE IIVIR COR.

GENT.IVLI.
Rev.
scribed
15
hexastyle temple
in
London, Paris.
Edwards, Corinth, VI, p.
BMC, Corinth,
and BMC wrongly
25,
describe the head as Tiberius. Variant with names of
Earle Fox, loc. cit. For

after the death
Julius
left with hair
Livia
to
Legends
as
43.
of
no. 42. Draped bust

knotted behind neck.
of
with name of Peregrinus in nominative, Paris

the foundation
the colony shortly before
see FITA, p.266.
cf.
or
BMC, Corinth, etc., p. 64, no. 522 (PLATEV,4); ditto,
of
duoviri
reversed,
19, no. 40, Earle Fox, JIAN, 1899, p. 104, no.

etc., p.63, no. 520, Nicodemi, I, p. 55,551. Edwards
Rev. As last.
p.
Tiberius
to
of
to
p.
as
no. 42. Laureate head
left.
V,
44. Same legends

Rev. As last.
of
to
V,
p.
p.
of p.
7), Copenhagen, Cambridge.

London (PLATE
BMC, Corinth, etc., p.63, no. 518; Edwards, Corinth, VI, 20, no.43,
104, no. 28. Variants with names
Earle Fox, JIAN, 1899,
duoviri re
versed, BMC, Corinth, etc.,
64, no. 521, and with L.ARRIO PERE
GRINO IIVIR.
both sides, Earle Fox, loc. cit. (his own collection).
L.FVRIO LABEONE IIVIR,
bust
Livia
to
45.
of
on
right, veiled,
with stephane.
L.ARRIO PEREGRINO IIVIR COR.

inscribed GENT.IVLI.
(PLATE
8), London.
BMC, Corinth, etc., 63,

JIAN, 1899,
p.
42; Earle Fox,
hexastyle temple
no. 517; Edwards, Corinth,

104, no. 27.
VI,
p.
Cambridge
V,
Rev.
p.

p.
Copenhagen, London.
BMC, Corinth, etc., 63, no. 515, Earle Fox, JIAN, 1899,
104, no.
BMC,
Corinth,
p.63,
right,
etc.,
26. Variant with bust
no. 514 (PLATE
6); Edwards, Corinth, VI, 20, no. 41. With bust
left and names
duoviri reversed, Copenhagen (PLATEV,5), London, Earle Fox, loc. cit.
20, no.
16
P. CANINIO AGRIPPA
46.
sus
junior(?) to right.
IIVIR. QVINQ.
bare head of
Dru
L. CASTRICIO REGVLO IIVIR. QVIN. COR. Livia
Rev.
with patera and sceptre.

to
f.
an
of
at
p.
of
on
is of
of
47. Busts
two youths facing each other.

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

M. AEMILIVS, LABEO,
VIII,
1-4),
Appendix
CAESAR IIVIR. (PLATE
see
For coins
TI.
10), Berlin, Istanbul.

1.
and
(PLATE
Tiberius
left.
four lines
field.
in
FVSCO ET MAXIMO IIVIR.

V,
Rev.
bare head
in
TI. CAES. AVGVS.
of
48.
of
CNOSSUS7

cf. of to
a
of
in
a
to
cf.
on
of
P.
et
37
f.
cf.
p.
p.
p.
23
cf.
London (PLATE V, 9).

Edwards, Corinth, VI, p. 20, no. 44,
(attributing
pp.
A.D. 22
andfollowing Earle Fox, JIAN, 1899,
105, no. 29, and Muenster
berg, NZ, 1911,
121to Drusus, whose coin-portraits this resembles),
BMC, Corinth, etc.,
64, no. 523,
Neumann, De Quinquennalibus
Municipiorum,
Leipzig,
1892, pp.
Coloniarum
Diss:
Also with
Fox,
reversed,
names
duoviri
Earle
loc. cit. (his collection). With
CANINIO AGRIPPA IIVIR. QVINQ.
both sides, ibid. (Paris),
Muensterberg, loc. cit.:
manuscript addition
the Vienna Cabinet's
copy
query and
his work Muensterberg added
exclamation mark
this restoration
the reverse legend, but such repetition
the name
single duovir
paralleled
the coins
least two other colleges,
Earle Fox, op. cit.,
94.
POLLIO

49.
left.
MAXIMO IIVIR DIVOS AVG.
17
bare head of Augustus to
Rev. FVSCO IIVIR. IVLIAAVGVS.D.D. Livia seated to right,

veiled, with patera and sceptre.
Writer's collection (PLATE V, 11), London (PLATE V, 12), Vien
na, 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 ac
of
p.
is
it
in
by
its
quired in a bag with 20 other Cretan coins. The present writer's exam
ple was acquired in Athens, and almost certainly found somewhere on
Greek territory. Imhoof-Blumer, MG, p. 140, in describing no. 48 only,
points out
incompatibility with the issues
Buthrotum, with which
Muensterberg, NZ, 1911,
classified
the Vienna Cabinet and
L.
p.
be
of
above, and
IIVIR,
to
bare head of Tiberius
below,
as
left.
D.D.P.Q.
13), Copenhagen.
As
II,
(PLATE
London
V,
C.APRO.NE.
by
Rev.
field.
in
as
of
TI. CAESAR AVG.
the present writer's opinion, regarded

the FVSCO-MAXIMO pieces.
in
of
to
which Muensterberg, rightly

product
the same mint
50.
be
is
of
to
in
his manuscript addition

the Vienna Cabinet's copy
only because
his work just cited, suggests Utica; but this
Mller's
ascription
city
piece
discussed,
erroneous
that
the
which will next
a
in
of
to
no
it
is
to
L.
cf.
is
by
to
it
is
in
in
Mller,
pp. 162, 373.
stated
connection with no.
probably right
associating this issue with the fore
49, Muensterberg
going coins;
especially resembles no. 48. Mller attributes the present
Utica, but
specimen
any issue
shows
close similarity
that
city and the style not African. Mller may have been influenced
his
Apronius (nos.
attribution
the nomen Apronius,
the proconsul
ff.); but the name
carry any
20,
not rare enough for this point
Misread
24
51.
IVLIA AVG.
behind neck.
bare head
Livia
to
weight.
of

Muensterberg,
to
of
49
at
by
of
110 (on the inadequate grounds

common Fuscus:
Ateius Fuscus
FITA,
Buthrotum, inadvertently omitted
appears
269). The
specimen
placed
Vienna
no.
used
with uncertain Spanish.
right, with hair knotted
18
Rev. As last.
Berlin
(PLATE V,
14).
Apparently unpublished.
ANTIOCH IN PISIDIA
AVG.F.AVGVST.IMP.VIII.
[TI.CAES(ARP)DI]VI
52.
bare
head of Tiberius to left.

C.C. Livia
Rev.
London
(PLATE V,
with patera and sceptre.
15).
ibid., Plate XIX, 8. For the attribution

p.
of
250. Pisidian Antioch's exceptional colonial epi
thet Caesareanot paralleled at Sinope, ibid., p. 253, pace Smith, Dic
tionary of Greek and Roman Geography, p. 1007, etc.is recorded on the
Hill, NC,
1914, p. 303, 12, and
the ethnic,
FITA,
VIII,
it
cf. at
to
sections
founda
iv.
171). For the
the colonies see
further RAI, Chapter
p.
MVNICIPI PARENS (FITA,
V,
tion
of
Gades, Agrippa
at
of is
of
of
to
of
as
In
p.
FITA, 251,
suggested that the title Parens re
12).
Antioch,
Lystra, vis--vis the other colonies
fers
the seniority
province,
may
the
but the latter cities
not have been founded
the
Augustus;
time
issue and the word probably refers rather
Plate
and
oak
(?)
V,
four lines
right.
in to
AN. LXIIII.
F.
EX D. D.
I.
Rev.
wreath.
Drusus junior
in
DRVSO CAESARI bare head
C.
53.
of
SINOPE
p.
coins
is
of
p.
chronography
to
completely restricting this type
of
3.
p.
288). For the date AN.LXIIII. (A.D. 19-20),

Although Kubitschek, NZ, 1908,
wrong
68,
1900,
n.
p.
F.S. (Forrer, RB,

253,
see FITA,
1,
I*,
p.
to
in
of of
in
Cambridge (from the writer's collection) (PLATE

16).
Apparently unpublished and unknown. Acquired
Istanbul and be
Turkey. For the attribution
lieved
have been found
the ethnic
FITA,
Augustus
pieces
C(olonia) I(ulia) F(elix) see
253: some
201, no. 76a) and probably also C.I.
have C.F.I.S.I. (RGMG,
in

cf.
only two Augustan mintages that can at present be attributed to this

city: these read COL-CAES (BM, Berlin, Vienna: FITA, Plate IX, 5)
NC, 1914, p.299,40, FITA,
and PARENS CAESAREA COL. (Berlin,
Sinope
19
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, correct
ing RGMG, I, p. 200his observation appears to be true as regards the
first centuries B.C. and A.D.
(ii) The Character of the Coinage
Like many other
of this coinage,
aspects
its
A. METROLOGY
composition, weights
of
no
so
of of
As
at
and denominations raise problems that are difficult and indeed

spectro
present insoluble.
regards composition,
number
graphic tests"
these non-Spanish issues has
far recorded
or
to
the Augustan practice according

whicheither
through conservatism
imperial monopoly"such coinages, un
abandonment
at
as
of
In
V,
V,
I,
cf.
or
of
at
cf.
of
cf.
II,
cf.
2.
n.
149.
300 and
493, no. 48.
lead.
lead.
tin,
2.
p.
tin,
A A
E D
FITA,
p.
See Appendix
493, nos. 55 and 56.
lead.
lead.
quotes Strabo VIII, 381,

melted-down statues.
as
63.
158.39% tin, 7% lead: Caley,

63. Id., pp. 69
dence for the view that Corinth's coinage was made
of f.,
Caley,
3.
tin,
B B
tin,
p.
B A
14 13 12 11 10
FITA,
FITA,
p.
Cf. Caley,
p. p.
See Appendix
at
municipium Utica under Tiberius

(cf. Plate VIII, 8-9)" the admixture was perhaps smaller still.
Carthage(?) (no. 15:
Plate
1)" and Thapsus (no. 30;
Plate III, 5)" show preponderance
lead over tin-in the latter
al
exceeds ten per cent, and
19 18 17 16

of
like main official issues which were

orichalcum and copper, re
fairly strong, lead and tin alloys still
mained
bronze." Strong,
15)," Cnossus (no.
occur
Panormus(?) (no. 10;
Plate
16),"
12), and Sinope (no. 53: Plate
49;
Plate
Cor
inth under Caligula."
the last case the proportion
neither met
evi
20
of tin is negligible"that is characteristic of city

issues since the Hellenistic period.
Contrasts to these findings are apparent in Spain. It is true that
some, if not all, Tiberian coins of Turiaso, Saguntum and Caesarau
gusta (cf. Plate VI, 1) again show fairly strong lead and tin alloys.
At Tarraco, however, as at Paestum, there is sometimes no lead
case the amount
or virtually none, but a considerable quantity of the much more ex

pensive 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) contains a little

lead as well as tin, a smaller specimen of the same reign (cf. Plate
VII, 5)
At Ilici
is actually (accidental impurities apart) of pure copper.

the same distinction occurs, again under Tiberius, in two

different coins of the same size (cf. Plate
VI, 6, bronze,
and
7,
copper). Carthago Nova is a third Spanish mint" to issue coins of

pure copper in the same principate.
For the initiative of
these three Roman cities in using pure
cop
per we know of a few precedents at Greek cities (notably Olbia").

No such phenomenon has so far been traced in any city coinage un
der Augustus; but it would be premature to say that Augustan
precedents do not exist, for there are many issues of which no anal
yses have yet been made. All that can be said is that the practice of
20 See
21
Appendix 3.
Cf. Caley, pp. 114, 125, 139, 172, 189.

tin, B lead.
22 B
23
B tin.
24
FITA,
p. 493, no. 69.
25 Vives, IV, p. 124, no. 3.

26 B tin, C lead.
27
28
Vives, IV, p. 124, no. 2-spectograph.

Vives, IV, p. 42, no. 10.
B tin, C lead.
30 Vives, IV, p. 41, no. 6-spectograph.
31 Vives, IV, p. 37, no. 41.
29
32
E tin-negligible,
88
Caley, pp. 83, 109, Table
cf. Appendix 3.
XVI.
21
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
is,
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 ori
chalcum, has not yet been identified by the present writer in any
mintage of a Roman city under either Augustus or Tiberius. It
of
is
its of As
to
the latter prin

regarded peregrine
Caesaraugustan coinage
by
2)
however, attributed
ceps (Plate VI,
at
as
well, probably,
at
other cities; similar instances,
of
to
in
though never apparently frequent, occur

the third century."
Caley ascribes such deviations from the ordinary bronze alloy
compositionof melted down aes
the use for coinageregardless
to
in
to
in
pieces, which
this case would have been Roman orichalcum."
explanation
This
can hardly apply
full
the Julio-Claudian pe
riod, when there would not yet have been time
melt down many
is
so
300,
2:
FITA,
n.
of
123; cf.
the incompleteness
p.
p.
For this reason, and because
Memorial Numismtico Espanol, V, 1880,
Vives,
n.
3.
198,
4).
149.
f.
p.
coin
Hadrian
at
90; cf.
of
Caley,
Nicaea:
p.
of
191; cf.
Cf. Caley, pp. 69
at
493, no. 63.
Ibid., no. 57.

E.g.
Elagabalus
ibid.,
91, 102.
P. p.
44 on
p.
lead. But on the zinc see Appendix

as
tin,
pp. 198, 493, no. 43 (misprinted

p.
zinc,
FITA,
FITA,
83, no. 59.
p. 84
IV,
those objects.
39 38 37 36 35
of
in
it
in
quite possible that

this recently originated alloy; but
the cities melted down other objects for conversion into their coin
age," and
doing they may have disregarded the composition
coins
41 40

respectively,
as at
by
at
is
a
Zobel Zangroniz.
Tomi,
possible Tiberian instance
sues, there
orichalcum
and perhaps also
Panormus just before
colonisation." These
Caligula and Claudius, under whom
precedents were followed
Smyrna and perhaps Aezanis
localorichalcum coinages occur
Alexandria,
22
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. 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
bility that, during
its
tinction between Augustus and Tiberius is based on the whole of

the former's reign, and does not take into consideration the possi
is
be
of
by
lengthy course, the practice later favoured

Tiberius had already been reached. Such comparison
there
fore confusing; and throughout the present section the practice
of
14)."
glance
at
B.C.A.D.
tus. namely his last sixteen years
(2
of
comparedas seems historically more

Tiberius will instead
Augus
profitablewith only the final period
the principate
of
It
must be
and
5.
300.
Cf. also Appendices
2,
4
FITA,
the early Augustan period."
4.
See Appendix
p.
45 44 43 42
est and lightest asses
of
of
no
of
to of
be
the colonial coinage during this period quickly shows that any
tightening
standard perceptible under Tiberius may equally
Augustus: for among the colonial
attributed
the last years
coinages
that period we already find
clear traces
the heavi
4.
in
of
of
in
departure, since the title pater patriae, assumed

This forms convenient point
B.C., appears on
very large proportion
all colonial coinage from that time on
wards, and portraiture changes (cf. NC, 1949,
press).
See Appendix
46

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. But this apparent dis
23
stressed, however, that any conclusions based on metrological con

siderations can, as regards colonial coinages, only be conjectural.
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 Augus
tan issues to a deductio or constitutio or restitutio. Naturally a foun
dation that has occurred under Augustus could not occur again (ex
cept as a restitutio) under the second princeps; but the very scanty
evidence at our disposal does not support the view of Dessau" and
Scramuzza" that such foundations were suspended during his prin
cipate." On the contrary the evidence regarding foundations such
Emona" and Tifernum" suggests that Tiberius founded colonies
(as well, perhaps, as municipia such as Cambodunum) no less
frequentlyand perhaps more frequentlythan had Augustus

ing the last sixteen years of his life. No. 10 (Plate I, 15) has
dur
ten
tatively 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
p.
similar argument
in
re
2.
90. Cf. for
XI,
III,
10768.
224, cf. Ciaceri,
p.
Schriften der rmischen

Augusto,
218.
CIL,
Feldmesser,
p.
10, 1938; cf.
pp. 531
2,
is
used throughout the present section for purposes

cf. also Appendices
and 5).
period
of
Stade, CAH,
II,
Pannonicae,
Ti
f.
di
Liber Coloniarum
berio Successore
5.
in
is
n.
p.
of
47
51 50 49 48
Saria, Dissertationes
This
in
such foundations were located
Geschichte der rmischen Kaiserzeit, II,

garding the coinage
municipia, Appendix
EC,
279,
26.
Appendix
The evidence
discussed
last subsection;
the
Illyricum and Pannonia, where colonial and mu

1,
as
provinces such
mon
situ
of
possible examples
of
or
probable
of
of
lie
was stricter than Augustus in sanctioning them. The cause of

etary infrequency might instead
rather
the geographical
ation
the foundations
the second princeps: for most
53 52

as
comparison
(see
24
nicipal 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 compris
es mintages signalising the twenty-fifth, fiftieth, hundredth and
other anniversaries of the deductio, constitutio or restitutio of the
minting city. 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 category fall within
the last decennium of his principate. An examination of the issues
of Tiberius warrants the suggestion that, as one might expect, cer
tain cities maintained the same practice in his reign. The evidence
is again intractable, but
it seems not improbable that our no. 52 of
to a local half-centenary occasion; and that the same applies to a

Tiberian issue of the Spanish municipium of Dertosa (Plate VI,
5)." 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 and Caligula, celebrateslike other coinages
Actium and Egypt (31-30 B.C.).

The evidence is not sufficient to determine whether policy regard
ing local anniversary issues developed in any way within the prin
cipate of Tiberius.
Likewise we cannot tell whether any colonial and municipal is
the imperial half-centenaries of
sues are attributable to his accession" or to its decennium or
vicen
Dyrrhachium, Cnossus, Patrae (?), Uselis, Cirta (??), Carthage (?), Lugdunum
Lystra; for summary see FITA, p. 295.
At least one peregrine city (Leptis Minor) follows a similar practice; cf. ibid., p. 338.
There are probably other cases.
54
(?),
except Dyrrhachium and Cnossus.
55
All
56
For a discussion of the evidence

p. 253, n. 3.
see
57 FITA,
sues
Utica.
Appendix 6.
etc., p. 101, no. 55. See also Addenda.
Chapter
II,
section
subsection
A,
and
RAI,
Chapter
III,
section iii.
to
to
is
tempting, on iconographical and other grounds,

ascribe
this occasion is
the Spanish coloniae Acci, Saguntum and Tarraco and municipia Calagurris and
It
60
59 See below,
ii,
BMC, Pontus,
58
of

Antioch in Pisidia (Plate V, 15), among others, may be ascribed
25
9) of
the same occasion.

to
conclusions whatever
the obscurity
our evidence enables any
drawn,
be
seems that the Roman cities
of
far
it
general,
as
In
belongs
as
to
II,
is
it
to
all
nium. These were

occasions which had prompted extensive of
ficial mintages," and the accession appears
have inspired pere
grine issues also,
quite likely, therefore, that our issue
Thapsus with the date IMP. VII. (A.D. 14-18) (no. 21: Plate
the later years
of
they had
in
between the same categories,
as
sis
of
to
probably coined both for local and for imperial anniversaries

empha
much the same extent, and with much the same balance
Augustus."
SIGNATORIES AND FORMULAS
C.
of
on
in
L.
Augustus. Prominent among signatories
is
as
of
principate
Cael.
al
on
is
is
I,
at
Clem. IIvir
Paestum (no. 7-8. Plate
11-14). His type
the
apex, which symbolises the flaminate:"for this duovir the coloni
flamen Ti. Caesaris Augusti. Similar officials are found
in
See
RAI,
FITA,
of of
III.
Chapter
pp. 330
ff.
68 62 61
at
of
of
of
scriptions," and other inscriptions tell

cults
the genius" and
numen"
the second princeps." Flamines
Germanicus and
Olisipo." But Flamines
Augustus, too, had oc
Livia occur
p.
JRS,
at
1934,
34, id., RIS,
p.
6896. Cf. Sutherland,
p.
ILS,
senate), cf. Sutherland, JRS, 1934,

34.
ILS,
Asculum,
Tiberialis
6565.
sexvir Augustalis
et
Cf. also
of
6080, cf. 116, etc.
66
ILS,
Ibid., 158 (and
159.
le
493, Beurlier, Essai sur
p.
E.g., ILS, 6481 (Venusia), cf. Nock, CAH,

Rendu aux Empereurs Romains,
169.
p.
5,
p.
65 64
6.
to
in
of
of
Celebrations
anniversaries on colonial coinages did not cease with Tiberius.
NC, 1948, pp. 117, 125, that two pieces
Caligula's
The present writer suggests
reign should be ascribed
this category. For later emperors see RAI, Chapters IV and V.
499, and nn.
Cf. Wissowa, RKR2,
***

to
the last subsection applies equally

the signatories and formulas that appear
these coinages; for they
follow much the same practice
had been characteristic
the
The conclusion reached
Culte
26
curred 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, like
other officials recorded by inscriptions.
six
L. Cael. Clem is only one of a considerable number of city-mag

istrates who are signatories of our coins. Altogether at least twenty
er in
of
I,
8:
12
praefec
L.
be
as
as to
at
its
it
of
to
princes had occurred elsewhere. The Paestan issue seems

re
tendency
discourage
practice;
flect
the
but other instances
34,
though
possibly
occur
least
late
A.D.
not thereafter.
of
it
to
final abandonment might

due
Tiberius. But might
Caligula," and from his unwilling
also date from the principate
Thus
p.
at
P.
of
n.
p.
of
ff.
to
p.
70
p.
FITA, 195; cf. perhaps Cn. Statil. Libo praef. sacerdos (ibid.,
1),
163 and
Julius; on this coin see now
24, considers him
but Rivero, Madrid Catalogue,
be
A. Beltran, AEA, 1947, pp. 137
Vibius Sac. Caes.
Parium (FITA,
249)
priest
may be
Julius.
p.
p.
ff.
p.
n.
p. at
FITA,
p.
74 73
at
p.
p.
at
at
of
a a
72
c.
in
1,
71
See, e.g., Sutherland, JRS, 1934, pp. 32, 34; ILS, III,
572, etc. Flamines
Augusti are mainly found
Italy from
B.C.; cf. Nock, CAH, X,
487.
These names would repay investigation from prosopographical viewpoint, task
which will not be attempted here. Sutherland, JRS, 1941, pp. 79 ff., has made
start
by his study
the Baebii and Rusticelii
Pella (nos. 34 ff.). Salasi.
Panormus (no.
Agrigentum under Augustus, FITA,
196, cf.
10) recalls Salassus Comitialis
12.
III, 115, nos. 97 ff.; 234, nos. 599
PIR2,
recently
For Fadii and Fusci see
(for
Paestum, FITA,
late Republican Fadius
202).
n.
of
p.
is
at
of
is
of
p.
I,
2.
f.
75
at
p.
at
P.
508 (references).
E.g.
Salonae for Drusus junior and
Cornelius Dolabella, Betz, JAIW, 1943,
Beiblatt, pp. 131 ff.; for Nero and Drusus, Abaecherli Boyce, NNM, 109, 1947,
24;
Utica, see Appendix
cf. perhaps
ILS, 639
(Pompeii, Caligula), Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften,
308,
64; Kornemann, RE, XVI, 623. Of about the same date
Caesaraugusta like
coin
praefectus
82, no. 54 f.; but no
wise showing
the young Caligula, Vives, IV,
Carthago Nova (Plate VI, 3).
praefectus
him
recorded
n.
p.
to
at
But the emperors themselves continued

be represented by praefecti
least un
JAIW,
ILS,
Betz,
century:
e.g.
666.2,
1943, Beiblatt,
130,
the second
cf.
17.
76
til

Plate
placed second
his colleague
Cael. Clem. Earlier
Augustus,
praefecti
representing
under
the young
to
tus; and
the reign,
as
is
he
is as
as
only princely duovir, Ti. Gemellus

Paestum (no.
14), not,
far
the legend reveals, represented
by
at or
of
so
of
names appear. Their titles reveal certain tendencies that had

apparent under Augustus. None
not been
these names are
praefecti representing the princeps
members
his family. The
27
all
ness to allow similar honours to his short-lived heir"Ti. Gemellus.
on
to
to
events such praefecturae for princes seem

have been
discouraged by Tiberius. This discouragement, serving
avoid
At
as
royal family, may well have been intended

conservative rather than
an autocratic measure; but
none the
restriction
the Roman cities initiative,
if
it
of
less constituted
as
emphasis
only
or
on
is
of of
in
to
of
Calig
their initiative
flatter. Whether
this case Tiberius
ula was responsible, there
certain other evidence, not only
policy
numismatic kind, suggesting that Tiberius pursued
in
to
provide supplies
prin
the
he
to
not earlier, called upon
if
were now,
ceps when
in a
travelled." Other restrictions too have been conjec

tured, and they are possible enough for man who, like Tiberius,
hated the Italian colonies and municipia
later life. But whether
of
in
or
not, there was nothing new

this influenced his attitude
this
policy: Augustus had followed precisely the same programme
125.
the Roman
n.
p.
n.
p.
p.
Suet., Tib., 49; cf. Abbott and Johnson, Municipal Administration

Empire,
147; Rogers,
244,
106; FITA,
203,
13.
in
79, cf. Marsh,
p.
Suet., Tib., 37.

Ibid., 38.
I,
79 78
Tac., Ann.,
82 81 80
p.
p.
77
p.
66, and Mitteilungen aus den Papyrussamm

On this phase see von Premerstein,
lungen der Giessener Universittsbibliothek, V, 1939; Collart, RPh, 1941,
58; Enss
lin, Gnomon, 1943,
169.
of
p.
of
timenti sita.
municipia
of
colonias omniaque
in
perosus
et
67 (A.D. 27)
.
.
.
2.
or
of
of
3,
n.
in
la
of
no
such: see Appendix
Tac., Ann., IV,
municipia
as
is
n.
1)
de
in
p.
of
de
in
et
p.
of p.
of
E.g. waning
local comitia (Sebastian, De Patronis Coloniarum atque Municipi
46), discouragement
orum Romanorum, Diss: Halle, 1884,
local foundation com
285), diminutions
rights
mittees (FITA,
certain city quaestors (Mantey, De
9), abo
Municipiis Coloniisque, Diss: Halle, 1882,
Gradu
Statu Quaestorum
lition
decurional votes by proxy (Jullian, Les Transformations Politiques
l'Italie
34); moreover,
particular, certain losses
sous les Empereurs Romains,
Gaul
rights by peregrine communities (Jullian, Histoire
Gaule, IV, pp. 155,
286,
337, 389,
may have involved curtailments
the independence
Roman cities
unqualified numismatic evidence for the repression
also. There
assimilation
83

so
Italy (where
large proportion
number;"
these cities were) were increased
and the cities
in
local taxation, garrisons
in
of of
of
of
is
It
joint
gradual encroachment
the Roman cities.
true that
protest
Italian cities about
Tiber regulation scheme still
fluenced the government. But they were deprived
the profits
con
28
gradual encroachment. In particular, Augustus had used a variety

of indirect methods to this end; and Tiberius did the same. For ex
ample, his predecessor had made personal gifts to the colonies an
excuse for legislation regarding their maintenance, and we find
of
by
(if
Tiberius, imitated in this by his son Drusus junior," following suit."

Road-building, too, in which Tiberius was active"
not always
quite active enough"), recalls the use
this very method
Au
an
Augus
At
to in
These are
of
influencing local communities."

matters
which Tiberius was continuing
means
all
as
a
gustus
on
in
by
to
its
it
or
carrying
logical conclusion.
tan policy
first sight, how
ever, our coinage might seem
present more original feature,
the diminished part played
duoviri quinquennales. Their names
6-8),
of
Rusticelius Basterna
no at
L.
P.f. and
Pella (nos. 34-36: Plate
IV,
V,
at
P. of
as
in
of
Tiberius' far smaller reliance

coinages
these
for practical augmentation
least
the earlier part
the principate
of
had been the practice for many colonies,
pp. 317
which
95; Rogers,
136.
n.
in
ff.
p.
p.
E.g. CIL, V, 2149 (Altinum), cf. Frank, ESAR, V,

101; NS, 1907, pp. 658
(Lanuvium); ILS, 114 (Brixia), cf. Frank, op. cit.,
97; cf. the Tiberia Platea
Pisidia, Robinson, AJA, 1924, pp. 438
Smith,
212,
Antioch
126.
at f.
ESAR, V,
p.
321.
6358 (Laus Pompeia), cf. Frank,
p. p.
CIL, V,
by
on be
Ibid.,
supplied
ff.
FITA,
p.
87 86 85 84
Augustus
it
monetary output.
of of
are concerned, might

than his predecessor
At
as
at
L.
L.
Rusticelius Cordus (with

mention
his colleague)
the same city (nos. 37-40: Plate IV, 9-11), and
Caninius Agrippa
and
Castricius Regulus
Corinth (no. 46: Plate
9)."
One reason for this diminution,
far
these non-Spanish issues
p.
p.
n.
p.
6;
p.
n.
p.
n.
p.
Utica:
see
Appendix
2.
the same capacity
at
322.
Nero and Drusus may be recorded

See below, subsection D.
in
FITA,
p.
p.
p.
in
p.
p.
p.
in
n.
6, 88
E.g.
212,
104, etc.); Gaul (Smith,
the Illyrian provinces (Last, JRS, 1943,
etc.); Spain (Sickle, CP, 1929,
77; Sutherland, RIS,
171 and
van Nos
trand, ESAR, III,
211,
110); Africa (Marsh,
34; Rogers,
148; Haywood,
ESAR, IV,
34), etc. etc. Colonies were less affected by road-building
Syria and
Egypt (Smith,
212, nn. 118, 119).
271,
148; Scramuzza, EC,
Cf. Balsdon,
57.
92 91 90 89

us
had frequently appeared

issues
the preceding principate. Our
present series, however, only shows three such collegesC. Baebi
29
the issues fulfilled such purposes, to coin at the conclusion of their

lustra. Now, however, the occasions for colonial coinage," less
regular as this had become, coincide less often with local quin
quennia. 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 quinquen
nales 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?" If we look into the matter more
closely, it appears that no such view is warranted by the numis
matic 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 one"), and only one more within the peninsula."
it is clear that the impression gained by contrasting the two

pro
principates as a whole would be misleading. For
adopting
a
if,
is
no
Again,
in
of
of
of
is
in
followed more than once

the present work," we
compare the practice
Tiberius not with the whole principate
Augustus, but with the last part
the latter's reign, we find that
cedure that
in
of
change: the diminution

there
the numismatic record
quinquennales, noted under Tiberius, had already begun under his
predecessor.
etc.: Plate
I,
1,
of
At
on
in
as
of
Tiberius,
Augustus, local
the time
the time
formulae still greatly exceed official ones
the colonial issues.
S(ignatum)
alongside S.C. (nos.
Paestum itself we find P[AE](sti)
1); and elsewhere are D(ecreto) D(ecurionum) (nos.
B.
of
in
148;
Cf.
below, subsection D, and Appendices
14.
and
5.
2,
and
above, subsections
270,
n.
p.
It
Cf. Hardy, Six Roman Laws,

See Appendix
(Cnossus).
Emporiae and Carthago Nova.
B;
FITA,
the Republic that local lustra had

311, 159.
4,
see above, subsection
was only
the troubled years
the end
been celebrated irregularly; cf. FITA, pp. 164 and
of
n.
On these
p.
95 94
p.
of
as
of
to
is
it
p.
as
98
p.
FITA,
283,
quite wrong
162. Ibid.,
consider coins with the names
quinquennales
peculiarly characteristic
Carthago Nova,
does Heiss, Monnaies
Antiques de lEspagne,
274.
99 98 97 96

So
30
11), P(ecunia) P(ublica)
V, II,
5-11,
V,
IV,
1,
3,
17, 29, 33-40, 49: Plate
II,
D(ecreto) D(ecurionum) (nos. 15-16: Plate
D(e
1-2), D(ecreto)
at
of
be
may
no
P(opuli) Q(ue) C(onsensu)
of at
P.P.D.
It
variant
D.
of
is
at
to
to
is
at
at
at
is
as
V,
curionum) P(opuli) Q(ue) (nos. 50-51: Plate

13-14) and EXD(e
creto) D(ecurionum) (no. 53: Plate
16). The plain formula D.D.
Carthage(?) (as
commonest,
under Augustus. P.P.D.D.,
Utica") under Tiberius, repeats the formula used
the same
predecessor."
mint under his
P(ecunia) P(ublica)for such, here
least,
the likely interpretation
the first two letters"prob
ably refers
the purely local enactment
which the accompany
ing letters D.D. bear witness. Finally D.D.P.Q.
Cnossus(?)
compared with the D(ecurionum)
Cirta(??) under Augustus." Such
der Tiberius," just
as to
to
So, too, the Paestan formula S.C., referring apparently

the
senate,"
exceptional
Roman rather than
the local
remains
un
Appendix
104 See
105
n.
is
232.
Appendix
Cf. Milne, The Development

FITA, 287.
Roman Coinage,
p.
FITA,
p.
108
231.
of
Ibid., cf.
Paes
7.
102
this formula
7.
FITA,
p.
101
like the official aes
2.
coinage," were authorised. The persistence

100 See
these issues,
senatusconsultum,
on
principis," that
was
of
moved auctoritate
is
it
it
Paestum because
by
mentioned
it
by
of
on
was exceptional under Augustus;"

not until the third century that S(enatus) R(omanus) likewise ap
pears
the issues
Pisidian Antioch." The Roman senate
22; Piganiol,
RA, XXII,
1944,
284.
109 The princeps exercised this auctoritas by virtue

forming part
the ius primae relationis) considered
pp. 446
(cf.
of
ius senatus consulendi

his tribunicia potestas.
This theory has been favourably received by Mattingly,
as
FITA,
ff.
110
re
706.
of
108 Head,
similar
7.
of
FITA,
p. p.
107
imply
Carthago Nova follows

fact that
rare ethnic
local authority? Cf. Appendix
106 Does the
striction
in
124;
of
p.

to
as
increasing uniformity under Tiberi

formulae show
evidence
us, and the same applies
case-usages
regards ethnics, which
remain varied."
NC,
31
tan issues throughout the principate of Tiberius suggests that he

continued to use the senate as intermediary for their authorisation.
Regarding cities other than Paestumwhich is unparalleled"
the situation in this respect is more obscure. Under Augustus their
issues were authorised by auctoritas principis, and this may,
sometimes at least, have been given expression by a senatuscon
sultum;" however, the cities do not refer to the senatusconsulta,
but sometimes cite the auctoritas principis, using formulas such
as
ex
by
et
of
an
is
its
PERM(issu) AVG(usti)"though not in provinces such as Africa

and Syria where the governors were important enough to record
their own permission." PERM, AVG.. recurs under Tiberius," and
continued link with auctoritas
illustrated
the
auctor
inscrip
Augusti
Aquinum
permissu
[itate] Ti. Caesaris
eius
tion. Whether the auctoritas authorising these coinages with
in
is
be
was exercised through senatusconsulta, and (if so)

how long this practice continued,
uncertain. All that can
said
that there was general tendency,
the Julio-Claudian period,
is
at
to
At
in
of
for the senate's intermediary rle

the expression
auctoritas
principis
diminish.
first (recalling S.C.
Paestum) we still
by
ex
ex.s.c.
112
323 f., 427.
ILS,
ILS,
re at
of
(Apa
(ibid.,
p.
13
in
p.
A.D.
p.
453)?
2,
p.
p.
p.
Emerita, Romula, Italica: Vives, IV,

64, no. 39,
124, no.
Africa the governor's permission
still recorded, cf. below, Chapter
6286 (Q. Decius Saturninus)
942 (C. Pontius Paelignus)
(Aquinum).
(Brixia); Mommsen,
St. R., II3,
II,
674,
127,
sec
1.
118
CR,
n.
117
change
p.
tion ii.
260. Was there
is
no. 12.
E.g.
211, and
pp. 295, 321.
at
116
1947,
authorising an Augustan refoundation

Cf.
255.
f.
FITA,
115 FITA,
114
JRS,
407.
289.
Cf.
senatusconsultum apparently
mea) preceding coinage, FITA, pp. 292
113
339; Sutherland,
p.
FITA,
FITA, pp.
111. Cf.
p. p.
of
132; Bellinger, AJA, 1947,

115; Vallejo, Emerita, 1946,
p.
1946,
1947,
p. p.
of
on
et
as
auctorit(ate) Ti. Caesaris." Again,

curatores riparum
alvei Tiberis were still appointed
senatus
consultano doubt
the suggestions
the princepsduring
Tiberius; but similar officials are later
least part
the reign
find formulae such
In

PERM, AVG.
32
corded as completing their duties, no longer ex s.c., but merely ex

auctoritate Ti. Claudii Caesaris
principis sui."
Tiberius is often stated to have contributed to such changes"

A.D. 23 and his departure to Capri in particular are described
as turning pointsbut 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, namely the
year in which the princeps had exercised that potestas to move
their permissive senatusconsultum. Moreover, two of the Span
ish cities which inscribe their coinage under Tiberius PERM. AVG.
also coin for a time under him on the basis of an authorisation of Au
(Plate VII, 4-6"). Whether
Augustus used the senate as intermediary for such authorisations
or not, this formula suggests that, at least by A.D. 14, they were al
DIVI AVG(usti)
its
ready 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
origin, like the other Tiberian phenomena that have been discussed
to
this section,
on
by
of
no
in
his predecessor. This consideration recalls that

we likewise have
terminus post quem for the paucity
senatus
delayed
dating
consulta illustrated
the
tribunician
the official
EC,
n.
p.
f.
270,
n.
23; Scramuzza,
p.
296,
Verwaltungsbeamten,
263 and
pp. 614
See also below,
46.
X,
57; Kornemann, Gnomon,
Marsh,
FITA,
p. p.
cf. Marsh,
p.
Ann., IV,
6,
561.
121 Tac.,
122
p.
Hammond,
p.
120
1938,
n.
p.
119 ILS, 5926; cf. Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichen

211; Charlesworth, CAH,
von Premerstein,
p.
to
It
in
of
has only been identified from later allusions

the types
coins dated
A.D. 22-23; and late Augustan official aes has types
aes.
3;
105.
220.
in
p.
as
in
f.,
is
of
of
447 (but the acceptance there

Sutherland's
view
the Clementia
JRS, 1938, pp. 131
RAI, Chapter III, section ii):
withdrawn
Sutherland, JRS, 1947, pp. 211 f., describes this
now generally admitted, against
JRS, 1938, loc. cit. See also below,
his earlier view
123.
123
type expressed
in
Cf. FITA,
448.
Romula, Italica: Vives, IV,
127, no.
9.
f.,
p.
124, nos.
125
p.
124
p.

gustusPERM(issu)
33
for such delayed dating, if it occurred, to be

identifiable. With the official aesthis is as far as we can go; but, as
too uninformative
regards the colonial issues, PERM. DIVI AVG. seems to indicate

that this phenomenon of en bloc authorisations, covering a consid
Ti
well
its
this coinage
as
other formulae
as
on
it
so,
erable period, was already established before the accession of

berius. If this is
shares this pre-Tiberian origin with certain
with
weights, compo
of
be
is
it
sitions and types; and

this conservative aspect
the colonial
issues that the present subsection has again illustrated. Later, cer
tain more specifically Tiberian traits will
discussed."
D. EXTENT OF THE COINAGE
in of
of
of
in
be
it
be
to
In
to
of
coinage, are sometimes attributed

certain restrictions
Tiberius
Augustus.
rather than
this subsection number
these attri
and,
may
anticipation,
butions will
discussed
said
con
of
at
of
is
no
considered
it of
the relative quantity

colonial mints operating under the two principes. Prima facie
would seem that Roman colonies coined less freely under Tiberius
than under Augustus. For there are number
colonies
which
to
The first question
be
of
to
be
to
tested; for the present writer feels that they, too, have ascribed
assigned
Tiberius what should rightly
the latter part
the
principate
Augustus.
126
occur. However, for two reasons, with which we are now
Chapter
127 Outside
II,
section iv, subsection
Spain
(FITA,
Cirta(??). Simitthu(??),
pp. 205
Tyndaris,
B.
amples
in
it;
is
of
of
Tiberius,
repetitions
Augustan
the principate
mintages. The apparent discrepancy between the two reigns
Spain ex
more noticeable outside Spain than inside
but even
we find,
in
ff.):
Narbonese
Lystra, Apamea,
(Arausio??), Babba,
Patrae, Buthrotum, Philippi,
colony
Berytus(?).
E.g. Corduba Patricia (FITA,

220); Traducta (ibid., pp. 175, 221; on the
see Abaecherli Boyce, NNM, 109, 1947, pp.
ff.).
16
128
colony
p.

of
on
In
general our conclusions hitherto have suggested that the prac

Augustus.
tice
Tiberius was based
that
the last years
However, various other numismatic phenomena, and
particular
34
all
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
no
as
certainty,
it
attain any degree
of
impossible
to
it
angle, though
as is
to
of
so
if,
in
and did not recur under Tiberius. Secondlyas

regards Augustus,
much else"the contrast disappears
we limit our attention
the last period
his principate. From this
once and for
of
in
it
of
Tiberius
mints
at
in
of be
as
of
In
Spanish issues.
state
our knowledge, the number
of as
The same sort
they actually fall short

length.
conclusion emerges from consideration
the
this field,
far
can
seen
the present
of
but, far from outnumbering
it,
of
14
to
though any limitation
of
colonial minting-rights
dates from Tiberius. For we cannot with any probability attribute
the years B.C.-A.D.
the coinages
more than nine non-Span
ish colonies." These mints differ somewhat from our Tiberian list;
longer seems
coloniae
in
of
Tiberius, whereas none
of
mints
of
of
of
in
which there can have been scarcely more than four such
Spain under
action. Several Latin cities, too, coined
in
tus,
the issues
the same towns can be
at
of
of
tum. See FITA, ss. v.v.

131. Acci, Caesaraugusta,
132 Caesaraugusta,
Celsa,
of
of of
Ilici, Tarraco, Romula, Emerita.
Carthago Nova, Tarraco, Emerita.

Graccurris, Ercavica.
pp. 335
2.
(in this case Tiberian).

135 See Appendix
Here again the coinages may have been due
to
FITA,
Carthago Nova,
Patrae, Corinth, Buthro
Osicerda,
ff.
183 Cascantum,
134
5.
Cf. last three subsections, and Appendices

and
Carthage, Cirta (?), Lystra, Sinope, Berytus, Cnossus,
4
129
180
Augustus. The number
2,
Roman cities than the later years
of
in
to
be
it
as
a
assimilation
of
colonies and municipia).

Tiberius,
say that the principate
rash
whole, shows greater restrictions
the use
the mints
increased rate
short,
would
taken
of to
an
In of
to
on
to
of
Augustus.
tributed
the last sixteen years
consideration,
similar lines,
the municipal issues likewise
greater restriction (or
fails
bear witness
Tiberian policy
of

to
at
civium Romanorum amounts

least eight." This total consid
Augus
erably exceeds that
the last sixteen years
the reign
constitutiones
35
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 up

held if it could be demonstrated that, even if the number of colo
nial 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." But the evidence does
not tend in this direction either. First, it is very doubtful whether
the same mint the date A.D. 31-32;" to which may be compared,
at municipia, a coin of Bilbilis dated to A.D. 31, and the uninterrupt
ed coinage of Emporiae.
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 ref
erence 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, Sego

brigain Africa to Carthage, Utica and Hippo Diarrhytus. In
deduction could be drawn from Frank, ESAR, V, p. 39, n. 9, who de
the confiscations of the mines of Sex. Marius as having been for the sake of
controlling the coinage.
136
This
scribes
The acceptance of this view in FITA, p. 289, must be queried.

188 Nos. 1
seem early
the reign, no.
the early
middle period, and nos.
Vives, IV,
140
Vives, IV,
142
Appendix
BMC. Imp.,
81, nos. 44
I,
141 See
82, nos. 54
p. 2.
139
xxiii.
f. f.
ff. late.
or
ff.
in
4
of
137
p. p.

Ti
the suppression of the Paestan coinage should be attributed to

berius." Certain of these issues (nos. 8 f.Plate I, 12-14perhaps
also no. 3) appear to have been issued very late in the reign, 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" at Caesaraugusta, and on other pieces of
36
deed, the inclusion in the latter list of Hippo Diarrhytus, of which

no coinage (under Tiberius) seems to be later than the mid-twen
ties, suggests that Mattinglys statement was intended to cover not
of
to
of a
second
his
as
reign
the Westwas probably
on
no evidence whatever
regards other categories
of
as
base any such assertion
as
in
the nationalist movements under Sacrovir

Gaul
Africa. At least far the Roman and Latin
cities are concerned (and there

to
in
local coinage
as
forced
him
and Tacfarinas
in by
on
the severe restriction
which
city"),
of
III,
8,
9.
It
Abaecherli Boyce, NNM, 109, 1947, pp. 21 ff., and Plate

Cf. Appendix
2.
145
of
p.
p.
p.
p.
144
or
Iconographical considerations suggest

fairly late, date for coins
late,
41, no. 6), municipia Osca (Vives, IV,
51, nos. 12, 15, 18) and
Calagurris, and coloniae Latinae Graccurris (Hill, NNM, 50, 1931,
181) and Cas
cantum (ibid.,
168).
cannot be stated with any certainty that some coins
Tar
raco and Emerita also are not of late Tiberian date.
143
Ilici (Vives, IV,
p.
P.
la
et
la
p.
p.
f.
2;
n.
p.
de
ff.
Lederer, NC, 1943, pp. 92

Maurtanie,
150;
147 Cf. Charrier, Description des Monnaies de
Numidie
FITA, pp. 222 For the Mauretanian coinage see now
xix,
BMC. Imp.,
63, Algo sobre
167; AEA, 46, 1942,
Quintero Atauri, Mauritania, XIV, 163, 1941,
Numismtica Mauritana (1945).
146
as
at
to
of
p.
I,
n.
p.
f.,
RC,
p. of p.
of
of
it
to
necessary
148 This, however exceptional its character and occasion, has made
Tiberius,
avoid ascribing the final suppression
the coinage
this province
Mat
tingly, RC,
Carthage,
195; BMC. Imp.,
XIX. For possible coin
Claudius
Antonia, see below,
honour
83 and
325.
in
is
is
of
it
p.
in
a of
n.
p.
it
p.
is
p.
in
of
in
at
of
112, cf. pp. 194
f.
Hammond, pp. 70
150 We cannot tell
what point
the early principate the peregrine coinages
the
Spain Abdera, Carteia, Ebusus and Clunia (on the earlier issues
west ended. But
which see now Monteverde, AEA, 1942, pp. 159 ff.) were still coining under Tiberius,
doubtful, cf. Sutherland, RIS,
and possibly the last-named citythough this
245
xxiii,
14, Mattingly, BMC. Imp.,
even coined under Claudius (Vives, IV,
7).
Ritterling's assumption that
was Tiberius who suppressed the peregrine coinage
Gaul (Annalen des Vereins fr Nassauische Altertumskunde, XXXIV, pp. 38 f.)
FITA, 474,
guess.
conjectured that the autonomous African coinage contin
Augustus.
ued until late
the principate
149
In

taken
Mattingly: The one important innovation
is
sertion
of
by
For these reasons exception must also
be
of
is
to
of is
an
if he its
only the thirties but the latter part of the twenties as well; in which
incompleteness
probably much greater." Moreover,
case
light,"
wrote,
municipium Tingis has come
since
issue
which, not late Tiberian, Caligulan," and coin
Hippo Di
arrhytus" which, like issues
another even longer-lived colonial
mint Babba, was issued under Claudius.
37
there was nothing approaching a severe restriction of local coin

age 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
is
it
its
good many
that country for
not significant that there were
a
it.
so
genuine colonial issues

been
years before his revolt,
equally none just after
in
no
As
2)
cf.
to
of
its
by the rebellion of Tacfarinas, Africa, we find that

most exten
municipium Utica, did not even start
sive series, that
issue
below, Appendix
main coinages (Plate VIII, 8-9;
until after
regards Sacrovir's country, Gaul, there had
the rebel's death.
to
in
by
is
in
As
of
that Tiberius after the early years

his reign more and more dis
couraged local town issues
those two provinces.
has been
stated, the conclusion
unacceptable: both African and Spanish
linked
an
to be
to of
as
a
Mattingly's
is
unduly hazardous one. This theory
of of
in
in
or
in
so,
coinages persisted undiminished

these revolts. But even had
they not done
argument
the
that local coinage
Africa and
Spain should have diminished
ceased
direct result
revolts
positive
evidence,
seems,
Gallia Comata
default
an
any diminution
identify either any ces

of
to
is
it
Altar coinage,
impracticable
or
sation
Appendix,
conclusion, then,
of
In
to be baseless.
an
at
the present writer, for reasons discussed
in
seems
to
of
othernamely that the same occasion was responsible for the sup
Lugdunum," but this view too
pression
the Altar coinage
Western local mints,
154
BMC. Imp.,
See Appendix
xviii.
xviii; RC,
p.
BMC. Imp.,
p. p.
158
8.
152
I, I,
ff.
195.
to
of
1.
of
it
at
of
151 The present writer does not consider the coinage

Nemausus
be genuine
colonial; but even
that mint (though
coined under the later Julio-Claudians) there
no reliable evidence
Tiberian issues; see Appendix
For the colonial coinage
Gaul under Augustus, see FITA, pp. 206
is

to
to
its
in
of
in
no to
Spain
But Mattingly explicitly wishes
extend the connection
way participated
also: Africa and Spain had
the revolt
Sacrovir), but they shared
(sc.
results
this extent [n.,
the war with Tacfarinas may have helped
influence Tiberius],
38
with the revolts of Sacrovir or Tacfarinas; and it must rather be con
in
of
it,
cluded, whether we take the principate of Tiberius as a whole or

concentrate on any particular section of
that the number
colo
nial and municipal mints coining was not smaller than
the last
somewhat similar conclusion
the
to
at
of
is
to
of
at
to
of
say,
the extent
their output, that
the extent
which these coinages contributed
the bulk
the
imperial small change.
prima facie comparison between Augus
number
mints, but
we look, not
at
Augustus.
if
of
sixteen years
We reach
II,
(?) (Plate
1-14), Carthage
V,
tum (Plate
I,
of
is
again deceptive. For, outside Spain, we find no

tus and Tiberius
colony issuing
large mass
coinage under Tiberius. Only Paes
IV, 6-11)
moderate quan
1-2), Pella (Plate
of
as
as
its
to
as by
of
Buthrotum,
then the colonial mints
well, had ceased
issue, and did not
to
very different story. For

Parium, and indeed Pella
do
to
on
of
is of
if or
less considerably
like
con
the bulk
the empire's aes
coinage." But
(as
the preceding pages) we adopt the more
logical proceeding
restricting our comparison,
far
the prin
cipate
Augustus
concerned,
last sixteen years, we find
tributed more
of
as
to it
by
in
of
is
It
as
to
so
again during the reign, whereas Sinope only continued

issue few pieces that are very nearly
rare
the Tiberian ex
ample."
Berytus
coinage
true that
issued
fair amount
Augustus," but
shortly before the death
this respect
mere
is
as
known) during the last sixteen years
of
of
of
way
contrast, seems
cancels out with Pella, which,
have
coinage
issued fair bulk
under Tiberius but none (as far
ly
Augustus.
general, then, outside Spain

least, the colonies contributed
Augustan
155 Carthage (FITA,
231) should perhaps have been added
the list
Ibid.,
253,
260. For Tiberius,
see
Appendix
no.
8.
Ibid.,
159
1,
158
296.
3.
Ibid.
n.
FITA,
p. p.
156
157
p.
as
as
p.
regards the last years

with
fair output (ibid.,
296)at least
reign. At the latter period its output was about the same
under Tiberius.
colonies
of
of
to
p.
at
In

4-9) apparently issued

tity; whereas under Augustus not only had these cities done
wise," but also Buthrotum, Parium, Berytus and Sinope had
and Corinth (Plate
the
39
to the imperial monetary system under Tiberius no less than in the

last years of Augustus," while one African municipium, Utica,
seems to have started quite an extensive coinage after the death
of Augustus." Spain reveals a similar situation. It is true that Car
3), Romula
(Plate VII, 5-7)
and
VI,
as
VII,
and VII,
1-2), Tarraco (Plate
Emerita (Plate VI,
Caesaraugusta (Plate
9,
the issues
of
it;
thago Nova may provide a smaller volume of coinage after the ac

against this
cession of Tiberius than it had shortly before
but
as
as
the imperial monetary system, viewed

extensive
the reign
Tiberius
the years
bulk
to
contribution
in
In
in
of 8)
are actually more prolific under Tiberius than

the last years
Spain, then,
his predecessor."
outside Spain, the colonies'
in
as
of
the abandonment
theories attributing severe restric
tions
the coinage
Roman cities during the first decade
his
principate.
of
to
of
suggests
the bulk
of
to
regard
of
In
in
of
in
colonial coinage,
and the number
colonial mints, under Tiberius closely resembles
the conclusions previously reached
connection with the types,
signatories, formulas, metrology, and occasions
these issues.
Thus our conclusion
of
every case apparent contrasts between the principates

Augustus
and Tiberius have vanished when consideration of the former's
so
of
his last sixteen years. To the practice

those
played
great
part himself," Tiberius re
he to
years,
limited
which
in
is
reign
of
Hippo Diarrhytus and Thapsus, fairly varied but

160
Africa the Tiberian issues
now very rare, correspond approximately with those
the former city and Hadrumetum
under Augustus (FITA,
296).
p.
of
In
FITA,
2.
of
2:
p.
ff.
f.;
J. a
as
p.
of
ex
of
9:
or p. of
1.
182,
n.
p.
Cf. below, Appendix

162 For this mint see now Farrs, AEA, 1946, pp. 209 ff.
124,
168 However,
few coins
Romula (Vives, IV,
Plate VII, 5-6) and mu
VII,
nicipium Italica (Vives, IV,
127,
Plate
4) inscribe their issues
the new
principate, not PERM.AVG..
PERM.TI. CAES AVG., but PER[M]. DIVI AVG-Augustus, but relying on the
presumably without yet having received the permission
belief that measures
auctoritate principis survived the death
their initiator; cf.
Orestano, BIDR, 1937,
330, and last subsection.
period somewhat neglected, except
regards warfare, by
164 On this aspect (of
CAH, X), see especially
Schwartz, RPh, 1945, pp. 22
Kornemann, DR, pp. 26 ff.;
GFA, pp. 199 ff.; GR, pp. 157
161

of
in
as
whole, seems
im
mediately preceding his accession; and here again our evidence
40
mained faithful; and this conclusion accords exactly with the strong
literary tradition of his reliance on Augustan precedents."
165

VI, 288; Tac., Agr., 13, Ann.,

pp. 612 f.
Strabo,
CAH, X,
I,
72, 77,
II,
87,
IV,
37; cf. Charlesworth,
CHAPTER
II
TIBERIUS AS PRINCEPS
(i) The names and titles of Tiberius
this as on other coinage of Tiberius, an overwhelming de
gree of preference is given to names and titles of which the
link is not with imperium, or for the most part with any formal po
testas, but with that range of conceptions lying outside the scope
of such formal powers and conveniently comprised within the term

frequent titulatures of Tiberius as princeps,
exemplified
by
all
In this category are the three most characteristic and
auctoritas.
our
non-Spanish colonial issues:

10
3,
II,
and 13).
(nos. 18-20, 33:
be
V,
5,
7,
4,
I,
(nos. 14[?], 17,48, 50: Plate
(b) TI-CAESAR DIVI AVG.F.AVGVSTVS

IV, 5).
Plate II,
(c) TI-CAESIAR] (no. 41: Plate
1).
PATER PATRIAE. Let

is
in
as
In
and cognominal positions

titulature, Augustus
the middle (gentile) position, just
coloniae Iuliae had been replaced by coloniae Augustae. Under
in
praenominal
consider the gentile,

turn.
the Augustan
us
GVSTVS DIVI
F.
of
compared and contrasted

The completest version (b) may
with the latest official coin-title
his predecessor, CAESAR AV
to
Tiberius, Augustus usually" moves from the gentile
cog
the
of
in
p.
to
13
in
TI
III,
But cf.
p.
1.
247,
section
n.
104, Hammond,
47.
i.
ILS,
and below, Chapter
p.
pp. 87 ff., 94, 97; cf.
pp. 257, 293,
1,
FITA,
n.
Cf.
I,
BMC. Imp.,
de
ff.
to
of
of
f.;
or
or
8,
as
426 (nn.
p.
is
here interpreted
law; cf. FITA,

90, that such
p. of
magistracy
not comprising any legalised power
Mag
for some references). The supposition
delain,
development occurred
A.D.
seems
be based on
mis
general see FITA,
translation
Dio 56. 28. For lists
references
auctoritas
Geijeiro, Anuario
443
Historia del Derecho Espaol, XIII, 1941, pp. 409
This
source
in
n.
in
In
p.
p.
is
of
AVGVSTVS, however,
occasionally found, e.g. on official coinage
Pari
10), and
111,
um (?) with colonist type (FITA, Plate IV, 31, cf.
Fasti Anti
longer titulatures Augustus only appears
ates (CIL, I2,
284).
the gentile po
*

21[?],
V,
(a) TI-CAESAR AVGVSTVS
41
42
nominal, and less conspicuous, position." This suggests that the ap

pellation 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." Augustus had
sometimes been called Caesar tout simple, throughout his life,"
and had also placed the name in the gentile position. But the
latter practice was infrequent after his early days," whereas Tiberi
us followed it throughout his principate, in which plain Ti. Cae
sar was one of his commonest titulatures." This use of Caesar"
what 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. That, however, was not the
case, but he must have been conscious of the difficulty of com
peting 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" and whose gentile name (though still
sition in exceptional
93, no.
and irregular cases, e.g. Caesaraugusta
(Hill, NNM,
50, 1931, p.
21).
For parallels on the official coinage see BMC. Imp., I, pp. 120 ff.; cf. ILS, 164.
E.g. ILS, 154, 6285; cf. Gardthausen, RE, X, 1, 478; cf. also coins of Emerita,
Vives, IV, p. 67, no. 66; and Largus (Helmreich, 97, 120, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 143).
Prof. R. Syme has reminded me of the tendency to binominalism.
5
6
7. Cf. FITA, pp. 109 f. (examples p. 109, n. 2; these seem to outweigh

Mattingly, NC, 1946, p. 131).
8
the doubts of
Cf. Ehrenberg, p. 203.
p.
1,
III,
262.
i.
26.2, Dio 57.2.1 (qualified 57.8.1).

p.
132,
1.
RCI,
n.
1931, pp. 23, 36; Pippidi,
2;
n.
p.
XXXIV,
174,
Scott, CP, 1932, pp.
34,
166; Haywood, ESAR, IV,
n.
Cf. Gag, RA,
p.
268,
22; von Premerstein,
See Hammond,
and (erroneously), Baker, Tiberius Caesar,
p.
Tib.,
p.
Suet.,
f.; 13
43
etc.
For some
the references see ILS,
III, section
below,
Chapter
See
of
12 11 10
ii.
9 A revival of this usage on a late Augustan aes coinage is due to special commemo
rative circumstances, cf. below, this subsection, and RAI, Chapter II, section
14

where his predecessor had used Augustus recalls that, in the

reign of Tiberius, there likewise existed a tendency to avoid call
ing the imperial family Gens Augusta." For Tiberius, lacking some
43
Tiberius as Princeps
used for the gens") does not figure in the latter's official
titula
tures." The name Caesar rather illustrates the desire for a prin
cipal name which, while stressing his inheritance," avoids the over
whelmingly 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." Even under his predeces
sor, colonies had been called Caesarea" and perhaps Caesarina.

But Augustus had, in his own last titulature, moved Caesar
from the gentile position to that of praenomen (CAESAR AVGVS
TVS DIVI F. PATER PATRIAE). Tiberius' treatment of the prae
years, of which such usages had been a characteristic feature, 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 cognomi.
See below, Chapter
III,
section
i.
16 15
as
its
nal position. The absence of PATER PATRIAE from his entire of.
ficial coinage leaves us in no doubt that, as the literary tradition re
cords, he refused this title or rather cognomen. Even apart from
close personal association with Augustus
his climactic desig
only appears on erroneously
of
f.
is
to
f.
It
composed non-Roman inscriptions, e.g. ILS, 161,

244; CIG, 2657; cf. Gardthausen, RE, X, 1,478. Even divi Iuli
(of Augustus under
only used on ILS, 115,
Tiberius)
achieve symmetry with the Divi Augusti
Tiberius.
692.
of
67
f.
f.,
p.
1934,
p.
p.
35.
253.
Fraenkel, RE,
cf. 57,
XVI,
Suet.,
2,
see
8,
174; Rogers, pp. 63
264,
JRS,
1;
For the early principate

87 (parens), Dio 58, 12,
72,
n.
p.
von Premerstein,
II,
I,
Tac., Ann.,
Weber,
1942,
pp. 408, 414
159,
not Sinope, ibid.,
ff.
JRS,
Henderson,
FITA,
cf. Sutherland, RIS,
Pisidia); but
(Asido).
8,
250 (Antioch
p. in
2038 (Anticaria);
p.
FITA,
13
1948, pp. 124
CIL, II,
p.
22 21 20 19 18
JRS,
f.
p.
4,
of
17
For the replacement

the ordinary nomen stresses the special position
the
imperial gens, cf. Ehrenberg,
13, Syme,
203. Cf. for Agrippa, Sen. Controv., II,
23

nominal 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
1663.
Tib., 26; cf.
44
its
by
nation it would, for his modest successor, have been rather an

uncomfortable appellation: since, though primarily and initially
honorary (i.e. an expression of auctoritas), it carried an autocrat
Seneca,
implication, later stressed
ic suggestion owing to
by
of
of
by by
of
to
II,
is
it
by
of
patria potestas. The refusal, however,

this ambiguous cog
nomen
Tiberius was imperfectly appreciated
the cities
the
empire, for
none the less attributed
him
the coinage
by
as
of
of
now clear, led him
prefer
of
with the official moderatio

to
as
This moderation,
fall
in
to
tempt was evidently made
in
stated
title which Tiberi

have refused on her behalf. Outside Rome, little at
Tiberius.
in
at
of
is
each
the
three parts
his namenomen, praenomen, and cognomenappel
lations less prominent than those which Augustus had finally used
those positions. Moreover, Augustus' cognomen
least had car
of
of
of
patria potestas, whereas,

still unofficial undertone
the
Tiberius, one (his praenomen) was his own,
three regular names
and the others were firmly within the sphere
auctoritas. For
ried
no
of
Ti
berius could have said,

less conscientiously than his predeces
sor, praestiti omnibus auctoritate, potestatis autem nihil amplius
the former
of
an
is
these categories.
p.
It
to
p.
Compos factus votorum meorum, Suet., Aug., 58.

780, FITA,
Cf. Mommsen, St. R., II3,
444 (n.
references).
special significance
was revived by Caligula and began
have
pater ex
5.
2,
n.
p.
2;
RG,
begin
as
a
p.
in
of
6:
for recent discussions

this phrase,
present writer
Greece and Rome, 1949,
104.
n.
iv, subsection
C,
see
n.
with
3.
n.
is
III, section
p.
I,
p.
of
to
29
31 30
See below, Chapter
it
from the
Rechtsquelle.
the consensus universorum
29 B.C., which he regards
E.g. CIL, V, 6416, XI, 3085; IGRR,
23,
853; cf. Smith,
46. An
104,
PATER PATRIAE quoted by Cohen doubted by RIC,
ning
as
I,
28 27
p.
ercitus; cf. Kornemann, Gnomon, 1938,

555.
14,
De Clem.,
cf. von Premerstein,
174 and
Schnbauer, SB Wien, 224,
1946, pp. 38, 44, 104, compares
as
of
appellations belonging
to
inence
of In
in
magistratu conlegae fue

habui quam ceteri qui mihi quoque
overwhelming prom
runt.
the titulatures
Tiberius there
26 25 24

as
is
MATER PATRIAE (Plate VIII, 6),

to
is
us
Magna
as
is
15
and 16: Plate

and 2),
well
certain
non-Roman inscriptions. Comparable, except that the community
Lepcis
peregrine one,
the erroneous description
Livia
Carthage (nos.
269.
Magdelain, pp. 67 ff., and the
45
But his colonial coinages also bear witness to his permanent ten
ure of two offices comprising potestas: and their choice is signifi
cant, for, while neither has the autocratic taint of imperium, one
is priestly and the other popular and collaborativethe high-priest
hood and the tribunician power. To the former of
these offices
our
parent
strong priestly trend ap

the frequent and most
the imperial high-priesthood.
all
At
of
of
an
It
of
in
of
his issues, and notably

characteristic representations
Livia." has been considered not
impossible that the principate
Tiberius witnessed
enhance
in
many
7). There
is
a
of Tiberius (no. 20: Plate
II,
non-Spanish issues, unlike their Spanish counterparts," an official

issue, and a large proportion of epigraphic titulatures, do not
refer explicitly, but Hippo Diarrhytus refers to it symbolically by
the inclusion of simpulum and lituus on either side of the portrait
events that office did

striking
importance which
not decline under Tiberius from the
suggested elsewhere,
had attained under Augustus, who may,
This does not figure
is
the tribunician power.
on
in
of
of
it
have linked with the imperial auspices."

This priestly office, then, was one
the two permanent potes
tates
Tiberius recorded
his coin-titulatures; and the other was
our non-Spanish
to
this title
RE, IX, 1207,
p.
n.
2.
p. p.
f.,
of
32
imperium by the pontifex maximus cf. Rosenberg,

For the lack
Brecht, Sav. Z., 1939, pp. 291
against Mommsen, St. R., II3,
20 and
E.g. Emerita (Vives, IV,
66, no. 65); Tarraco (ibid.,
132, nos. 19 f.);
thago Nova (Plate VI, 3); Ilici (Plate VI, 6); also municipium Osca (Vives, IV,
48, no. 5).
no. 18), and the peregrine town Segobriga (ibid.,
Imp.,
Cappadocia).
BMC.
144 (Caesarea
Car
52,
in
p.
I,
p.
132, no. 20.

80, nos. 44 ff.; cf.
Hill, NNM,
50, 1931,
p.
Ibid.,
p.
Vives, IV,
94.
Glotz,
p.
by Homo, Mlanges
p.
is
especially emphasized
The latter
mann, QAS, IV, 1938,
11.
39See below, Appendix 11.
G.
p.
B.
p.
ILS, III,
262.
See below, Chapter III, section iv, subsection
Cf. Balsdon,
147.
1,
38 37 36 35 34
p.
p.
33
Ti
on
Caesaraugusta." The rarity
of
berius, with number,
at
at
is of
in
to
look
of
to
Spain for the inclusion

the titula
Tarraco,
tures
Tiberius and Drusus junior,
TRIB(unicia)
VII,
3);"
applied
POT(estate) (Plate
and the same phrase
sues, and we have
41 40

it
is
it
ment
443;
Korne
46
all
of on
to
to
in
the local coinages of Tiberiusfor it does not occur at

peregrine issuesis
close accordance with the practice
gustus, under whom the only cities
refer
the tribunician
his
Au
pow
very
this imperial title, these cities were imitating
common usage, not indeed
the gold and silver coinage, but
the
official aes;" the latter, like many inscriptions," resemble the Tiberi
real meaning lay
by
of
power comprising the ius auxilii, but
adding
popular
in a
of
of
Tarraco,
Caesaraugusta, rather than that
tribunician date. The tribunicia potestas was ostensibly
issue
its
an
of
of
employment
so
of of
er
on
their coinage were the colonies Tarraco and Pisidian Anti

importance, and
och. These were both provincial centres
was Caesaraugusta, the chief colonial mint
Tiberius." By their
as
an
on
to
to
us
do
to
of
it
be
in
their authorisation; the process may have been purely imi

equally imprudent
tative. On the other hand,
would
deduce
non-Spanish
from the absence
the tribunician formula from our
diary
be of
as
an
as
in
its
rarity even
Spain, that the senate did not fig
intermediary
regards this type
issue," for the cities,
issues, and from
of
it
of
to
or
ure
especially those too remote
backward
conscious
Roman
procedure, might well have been preoccupied with the fact
the
DIVIAVG.,
(PERM.AVG.,
authorisation
PERM.
PERM...PRO
COS.) rather than with the medium through which was promul
gated.
which the
of
of
to
These then are the only two permanent potestates

coin-titulatures
Tiberius bear witness; and neither
them
in
f.,
n.
n.
p. 2,
in
I,
section
subsection D.
106, 119, 135, 139, 145.
cf. pp. 99
Smith,
18,
28.
446 and
References
ii,
p.
FITA,
p.
Cf. above, Chapter
ff.
31.
as
in
p.
See above,
FITA, pp. 408
duction.
p.
ff.
Also the Assembly: Grant, Greece and Rome, 1949, pp. 108
FITA,
446, might be thus interpreted
intending such
statement
47 46 45 44 43 42
of
In
27
the revolutionary years before

B.C. the sym
bol
the rulers' imperium had been the praenomen Imperatoris."
FITA, 446, cf. pp. 219, 251.
cludes imperium.
48

in
to
it,
by
the fact
princeps
the
was enabled
introduce motions
the
power
Spanish
coinages
senate." But the references
the
these
not entitle
conclude that the senate figured
interme
that,
de
47
But thenceforward, by way of contrast, that title had ceased to rep
its
resent the imperium and had almost entirely disappeared from the
official coinage." It had momentarily reappeared on imperial aes
to to
memory
the princepsthe Victoria Augusti, recalled
on the half-centenary
his first ovatio." Possibly too there was
distinguish him from his vicegerent Tiberius. The latter,
desire
to
of
of
glories
to
or
to
reappearance
near the end of Augustus' life (A.D. 11-12):" but
any connection with his current
had apparently been due, not
imperium
any other constitutional reason, but
the past
no at
in
by
a
IV, 1-3). Carthage,
the other hand (Plate

cognomen
Imperatoris
describes him
the
without num
suggested
equally
the
inaccurate addition
the title
by
1-7,
So
of
of
also
and
ff.
FITA,
unofficial and irregular usage.

Emerita, Caesaraugusta"
coins
ii.
p.
I,
pp. 440
50, no. 275.
BMC. Imp.,
RAI, Chapter II, section
Hill, NNM,
50, 1931,
170
pp. 174,
2,
von Premerstein,
n.
1;
n.
440, 441,
p.
p.
n.
440.
Ibid., pp. 415,
worth, CAH, X,
617,
n. 9,
2.
FITA,
p.
58 52 51 50 49
are similar examples
an
on is
is
as
ber:
pater patriae, this too
55 54
on
9,
III,
by
1,
II,
Plate
2) II,
to
Thapsus, however, attributes

Tiberius the cognomen Impera
toris, followed
number
the traditional manner (nos. 21-31:
255; Charles
(IMP. CAESARTI.AVGVS-DIVI AVGVSTI F.).
St. R., II3,
p.
Vives, IV,
84, no. 64.
Dessau, loc. cit.
pp. 409, 415.
p.
1.
2.
n.
p.
n.
p.
n.
4,
769,
FITA,
f.
For the distinction cf.

Vives, IV, pp. 66
n.
2;
Mommsen,
p.
56
p.
to
or
p.
p.
E.g. ILS, 151, 152, etc.; cf. Smith,

23,
46 (references); Gardthausen, RE,
X, 1,524; Abaecherli, TAPA, 1932, 267; von Premerstein,
256,
These were
ignorance, cf. Cagnat, Cours d'Epigraphie
181,
due
carelessness
E.g. Archologisch-epigraphische Mitteilungen, VIII,
488,
110, RA, 1914,
no. 172; cf. Dessau ap. ILS, 151; Abaecherli, loc. cit.
60 59 58 57

as
that Imperator, even

these unofficial issues, figures
prefix rather than true praenomen.
so
also,
on
of
of
on
by
to
on
is
only
on becoming princeps, evidently refused the title," which
Calagurris"
single irregular coin-titulature
ascribed
him
and
unofficial inscriptions," many (though
means all")
the first part
his reign. These retain his personal praenomen
48
V,
in
1)
7,
9,
II,
Tarraco," and on inscriptions." On his official issuesas at Thapsus

III, 1-5, IV, and Antioch Pisidia (no.
(nos. 21 ff.: Plate
to
in
to
of
15)Tiberius never used his cognomen without saluta

tion number." The unnumbered usage had been feature
of
ficial titulatures
the early thirties B.C.," and was not
return
52: Plate
of
be, the leading Imperatores
Ti
of
of
of
on
to
be
as
It
ing."
wanted
our coins thus illustrates the recognition

anyone liv
the man with the greatest military record
justifiable
would not, however,
deduce from this any
The titulature
berius
or
tus, were nevertheless,

their time.
to so
of
to
to
It
them until Caligula (exceptionally") and Claudius (regularly").

provided
describing emperors who, while not wish
means
ing lay claim
closely associated with Augus
the praenomen
of
to
in
to
purely mili
restricted
tov otpatworw, rav
Tpkpits (princeps) elut." But centralisation was not

far advanced" that
could
would prevent communities
Nowrav
outside Rome from deviations; and instances such

Vives, IV,
p.
our
Cartha
unof
cognomen represent
132, no. 19.
of
3;
n.
p.
p.
subsection
C.
441.
section
ii,
Cf. Chapter
p.
FITA,
I,
Dio 57.8,
218,
74;
n.
Cappadocia).
p.
161, no. 102 (Caesarea
Ibid., pp. 181 ff.

Gaulus, ILS, 121; Hammond,
Cf. the equally irregular Imp. Perpet.
Guey, Journal des Savants, 1938,
42; Charlesworth, CAH, X,
612,
migliano, JRS, 1944,
114.
p.
pp. 414
BMC. Imp.,
I,
FITA,
in
I,
E.g. ILS, 155, 161, 2280, 2281, 5829, etc.

BMC. Imp., pp. 120 ff., 128 ff.; cf. ILS, 113, 152, 156, 160, 164, etc.
p. f.
67 66 65 64 63 62 61
ginian coinage with the unnumbered
as
or
he
so 8%
to
usages, desired the Imperator title

tary matters: abrokprop (imperator)
be
it
to
to
of
ific, and indeed the application

either
Tiberius was contrary
positive record
his cautious official policy.
that policy hap
pens
avoiding such honorary
exist, and
shows that Tiberius,
69 68

of
conclusions regarding his imperium: for, even

official titulatures
Imperator
Augustan
period,
the
the
title had lacked any such
significance. Praenomen and cognomen alike were purely honor
Mo
49
moves to attribute to him the glory which he officially dis

counted. Such examples abundantly justify the view that, no less
and perhaps more than in the principate of Augustus, Imperator
ficial
had
become an expression not of imperium but of auctoritas."

The same is true of the only group of non-Spanish colonial refer
ences 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., 27,29f.: Plate III,3,5,7, IV, 1-2). He held that consulate in A.D.
21, a date in advance of at least one of the governorships in ques
to
himself used
it
monopolize high imperium,
he
to
gustusnot
spar
ingly."
For,
to of in
of
of to
as
these titulatures have abundantly shown, imperium (like

play prominent part
the title Imperator) was not intended
the official presentation
the rgime
Tiberius. This was one
negative
aspects,
negative
the latter's
and
too was his aversion
124; Schnbauer,
p.
ff.
7,
p.
of p.
70
Cyrene,
Cf. de Visscher, Les dits dAuguste dcouverts
73; FITA,
SB Wien, 224.2, 1946,
444 and
cf. pp. 434
p.
in
of
of
of
each
the final names
his predecessorthe abnormal praenom
ina, Augustus
pater
the gentile position, and the cognomen
at
is
is
n.
n.
p.
FITA,
426, and
n.
2.
Cf.
p.
P.
74 73 72
of
p.
of
I,
p.
71
Cf. above,
47.
The combination
consular title with numbered cognomen Imperatoris
rare
144, no. 174. Equally rare
under Tiberius, but cf. BMC. Imp.,
this time
the
precedence
the salutation title, though this was fairly common under Augustus and
248,
recurs on the tombstone
Tiberius (ILS, 164; cf. Hammond,
1).
Laet,
43,
Cornelius Dolabella, A.D. 23-24, cf. de
no. 129.
4.
p.
p.
76
147, Hammond,
Three times; cf. Balsdon,
his consulates see Thiel, Mnemosyne, 1935/6,
for himself and Sejanus for five years: Dio 58,
p.
111. Rogers,
78;
n.
p.
p. p.
2,
75
Suet., Tib., 31,

Dio 57, 11; cf. Hohl, Hermes, 1933,
Groag, Wiener Studien, 1929,
144; Smith,
85,
26.
p.
5.
n.
p.
Cf. the Ara Pacis reliefs, on which he stands between the consuls, de Francisci,
Augustus,
98,
of

in
all
tionthe coins of which thus record, not the imperium of a cur

rent tenure, but the auctoritas of a past tenure, of the office which
excelled
others
both properties. From
desire
maintain
high
Tiberius,
paid
auctoritas,
Augustus,
consulship
its
like
the
respect,
desireagain
marked attention and
and from
like Au
86. For the unfortunate character

201. He was offered the consulship
50
patriae. Faithful as Tiberius was to every example left by Augus

tus, 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. 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. For he was grimly aware that the princeps was
called upon to be more than other men were: maius aliquid et ex
celsius a principe postulatur. It remains to be seen what positive
means of fulfilling this rle were available to Tiberiusthat 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 Au
gustus; for Augustus had left more than names and titles.
Proconsuls of Africa
AMICITIA PRINCIPIS AND
A.
C.
A.D. 21
Two African colonies and perhaps one Sicilian one provide allu
sions 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 adsigna
tor in which Augustan governors, too, had figured on the coinage

of Sicilian cities." 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.
Aproni
p.
ff.
ii,
et
cf. Syme, RR,
see also below,
Appendix
5.
6;
pp. 197
f.;
53; cf. Klostermann, Philologus, 1932, pp. 365
f.,
FITA,
III,
n.
1943,
p.
Tac., Ann.,
2.
JRS,
onerosam iniumgi sibi servitutem;
344,
f.
6; 78
Suet., Tib.: miseram

Smith, pp. 33
79
n.
et
in
of
ff.
77 For the interpretation

of Tiberius as a Republican see especially Levi, La Po
litica Imperiale di Roma, p. 269; Syme, RR, pp. 344 f., 408, n. 3, 418, 507; Rogers,
TAPA, 1940, pp. 534 f.; Kornemann, SB Mnchen, 1947, I, pp. 4, 6
For his choice
friends see references
section
subsection A; and for the literary aspect, Bardon,
Hadrien, pp. 108
Les Empreurs
les Lettres Latines dAuguste
80

(ii) Tiberius and the
Charlesworth,
51
II,
an
be
to
1,
of
of
of
to 5,
P.
7)
6,
of
Q.
of
is
us (A.D. 18-21)" (no. 20. Plate

8). The other city Thapsus,
which records the permissus
the same proconsul (nos. 24-26:
III,
3-4,
Plates
and IV, 2)in A.D. 21"and subsequently
Junius Blaesus (A.D. 21-23") (nos. 27, 28. Plate III,
and
Cor
III,
IV,
nelius Dolabella (A.D. 23-24") (nos. 29-31: Plates
3).
This and the following subsection will endeavour
assess the
position
these proconsuls
Africa. Subsection
will discuss
Tiberius; but here,
their relation
the auspices and imperium
to
or
to
it
to
of
all,
attempt will
first
made
demonstrate that they owe
any rights
powers but
their numismatic honours not
their
friendship with Tiberius, and that was for certain significant rea
be
sons that these honours began when they did.

properly appreciated
These issues can only
of
Likewise Simitthu (??), alone among Augustan cities

spect, had shewn, not the portrait, but the permissus,
named proconsul," like Thapsus under Tiberius.
of in
at
of
P.
L.
so
of
of
Augustus. Hippo Diarrhytus had coined with the

the principate
name and portrait
Africanus Fabius Maximus," and
had
Hadrumetum, adding
Quinctilius Varus and
Volusius Satur
ninus," both
portrayed
whom were also
colonia Achulla."
this
the
re
last
26, no. 39.
p.
p.
224.
228.
230.
pp. 232
f.
p. p. p.
FITA,
FITA,
FITA,
FITA,
IV. (Gelzer, RE, X, 506).
least, refers
to
his tenure; and COS.
56, no. 198. No. 27,

De Laet,
Ibid.,
43, no. 129.
at
The third year
of
De Laet,
p.
to
In of
of
There are further points

coincidence between these Augustan
and Tiberian issues
Africa which suggest that the resemblances
are not fortuitous.
the first place, the portrait coinages under
Augustus,
which reference has been made, were clearly contem
88 87 86 85 84 88 82 81

at
of
of
if
they are com

pared with coinage
the Augustan period, and several important
analogies from that period are
hand. For our mintages both
Hippo Diarrhytus and
Thapsus closely imitate precedents from
his second year.
52
porary 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 pro
consuls who are common to the portrait and permissus categories,

both inaugurated these categories as far as their respective princi
pates are concerned. This is manifestly true of Apronius, and there
But there may be a further similarity between the African is

sues 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." These Asian issues were of Temnus, Pi
tane and Hierapolis, and the proconsuls were C. Asinius Gallus,
P. Cornelius Scipio, and Paullus Fabius Maximus. 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 appear") were Q. Poppaeus Secundus at Perga
mum" and possibly Tabae," and M. Aemilius Lepidus at Cotiae
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 PIR2, III, p. 102, no. 46.
FITA,
FITA,
pp. 229, 387, but see next note.
f.,
90
to
p.
to
p.
c.
c.
pp. 387
but suggesting
7-6 B.C. for Scipio and
5-4 for Paullus
9-8, PIR2, II,
103, no. 47)
but Syme attributes the latter
355 (cf. PIR2, III,
91
10-9.
BMC, Mysia,
p.
See Appendix
9.
c.
140, no. 251.
of
to
in
to
it
is
of
in
92
III; there
divergence here
Their names are recorded
the Genitive after
from the Augustan practice, for, whereas the portraits are honorific, EIII was not yet
purely eponymous but implied
measure
executive action; indeed
can
certain
(though limited) extent be compared with PERMISSV (FITA, pp. 398 ff.). Thus
A.D. 21 the compliment
the governors
Asia took rather
different form from the
honours of
B.C.
94 93

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."
53
um. Poppaeus governed in
some year between c. 15 and c.
20,"
VIII, 8-9)."
For
and Aemilius in c. 21-23. Moreover, the third and last Asian pro
consul to be recorded on coinage in this way under Tiberius, P.
Petronius at Pergamum" and Smyrna," was not far from contem
porary 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
Petronius governed Asia from c. 29/30-c. 34/35, and Vibius Mar

sus was proconsul of Africa from 27 to 30. Thus the Tiberian is
sues honouring proconsuls of Africa seem not unrelated with coin
ages in the other consular senatorial province, Asia;" and this pro
vides a further resemblance between the African issues under
Ti
(or by the cities at
hint
from him) for these honours were without exception amici princi
pis, and every one of them was related to him"a most important
factor in amicitia." Thus under Augustus, though there is no ques
tion of portrait rights," numismatic portraiture and record (in
cluding the record of permissus)" were considered by African
and Asian citiesand probably this view originated from a central
95
BMC, Phrygia,
p. 163, no. 26.
Laet, p. 73, no. 302.

De Laet, p. 22, no. 16.
BMC, Mysia, p. 39, no. 253.
BMC, Ionia, p. 268, no. 266.
100
101
102
Mller, I, pp. 159

See Appendix
70, no. 283.
De Laet,
92, no. 410.
De Laet,
ff.
98
99
p. p.
97
2.
96 De
at
The Asian issues must have started

least one year earlier than the African ones,
but the permissions for them may none the less have been simultaneous.
229, describes five
104 FITA,
these governors
his relatives, omitting the mar
riage
Vipsania; Syme, RR, pp. 416, 512.
the sixth,
Asinius Gallus,
as
to
C.
of
p.
103
of
p.
Cf. Syme, RR, pp. 373, 379, FITA,

229.
130, describes this view
106 Ibid.,
228 (references); Mattingly, NC, 1946,
quite convincing. So does Fink, CP, 1949,
258.
permissus, which was the prerogative
107 Though not the right
certain consular
governorships, see
31 and
115.
n.
p.
of
of
p.
as
p.
105
p.

berius and those under Augustus.

The governors selected by Augustus
54
an
honour
to
different angle, the only people whom the cities felt impelled
such
to
it
at
or,
to
authorityas being chiefly, or indeed exclusively, appropriate to

such amici. That is to say, either the princeps indicated to cities
slightly
that such a limitation was desirable,
look
from
singu
extent were those who had obtained this
lar distinction."
by
to
in
of
its
complement inimicitia") played

Amicitia principis (like
considerable part
the principate
Tiberius. Foremost among
his friends was Sejanus, adiutor and socius laborum," linked
the
an
of
and chose his companions
of
of
of
of
of
(a
to
adding
Plautius Pulcher illustrates the tendency
his titles
Drusus,
those
comes
word closely linked with amicus")
Germanicus,
Drusus,
the son
and uncle
another
the son
diligo"
Claudian proclamations, and
to
miliarissime
of
et
L.
to
Claudius." Plautius Pulcher and the rest point the way

the
Plantam Iulium amicum
comitem meum" and
Vestinum fa
the cohors
of
at
of
108 For the rle

amici principis
Eastern cities, cf. von Premerstein, pp. 175,
224; Marot, Acta Universitatis Szegediensis, 13.1, 1939, has traced some Roman and
mediaeval developments
amicitia.
p.
p.
p.
p.
ei
vi
9,
principis ulciscar; VI,

109 E.g. Tac., Ann., III, 12, privatas inimicitias non
Sex.
renuntiabat;
Vistilius convictu principis prohibitus; cf. II, 70 (Germanicus) amicitiam
cf. Augustus and Cornelius Gallus, Syme, RR,
309.
xlii, etc.
119; Rogers,
139, and TAPA, 1941,
110 Cf. Smith,
to
p.
Livilla,
111. Cf. Kornemann, GR,
263. Though his own proposed marriage
daughter
Drusus sen., was never finally approved, his daughter's marriage made him
Claudiae
Iuliae domus partem (Tac., Ann., VI, 8). See also Addenda.
Appendix
112 See
different view
of
and for
the
con
p.
n.
p.
questionable).
3,
Tac., Ann., IV, 74 (A.D. 28; but the date

408,
114 Suet., Tib., 55; cf. Syme, RR,
silium Last, JRS, 1943,
105.
113
is
2.
et of
et
E.g. ILS, 206 (Claudius): amicus

comes meus. Cf. also ILS, 946, comes Ti.
Aug. datus ab divo Aug., showing that the emperor selected (sc. from among
his friends) the comites
the young princes. For the later development
comes see
Nock, JRS, 1947, pp. 102 ff.
115
of
Caesaris
964, cf. Instinsky, Philologus, 1942/3,

206, cf. von Premerstein,
p.
ILS,
117 ILS,
118 ILS,
116
212, cf. von Premerstein,
loc. cit.
224.
p.
of

Capri from among them.

by
at
ci,"
P.
of
of
on
to
of
the betrothal
his daughter
the son
Claud
ius," and honoured
the coinage
Bilbilis" and by
Ara
Amicitiae. Again, Tiberius constituted his consilium
his ami
domus Augusta
246.
55
primae admissionis of Seneca. Under Tiberius, however, we are

still in a period when the amici, though their political colour has
been much disputed, were most frequently, though not invari
ably, the great officials and ex-officials.
to
of
P. on
of
it
of
be
can
shown that the latter, too, were amici
Tiberius. This was, indeed, the case. Every one
the four gover
nors
Africa recorded
Tiberian local coinages was closely con
if
cause surprise
of
it in
all
The six proconsuls honoured on local coins of Asia and Africa

under Augustus had
been amici principis, and,
view
their
governors,
various resemblances
our Tiberian
will not now
Junius Blaesuswho received the signal honour

proconsulwas the uncle
the last salutation granted
Sejanus, whose friends and relations were,
his lifetime, the
Aproniusagain excellenti virtute ac
friends
the princeps.
2.
n.
it
as
it
is
p.
p.
I,
Clementia,
385,
10.1, cf. Syme, RR,
The present writer quotes this
229, but
very doubtful whether, strictly speaking,
should be
the Augustan period there under discussion.
FITA,
to in
119 De
phrase
applied
L.
of
in
to
of
Q.
Marcella.
to
or
p.
f.;
1,
2. p.
of
is
of
to
p.
n.
p.
f.;
p.
p.
f.,
to
p.
di
f.;
n.
of
of
to
120 No attempt will be made here

deal with the controversial question
how
far Tiberius choice
friends represented
reaction from Augustus
an innovation.
434, 437; Rogers, TAPA,
For aspects
this view see Syme, RR, pp. 383, 414,
Levi, La Politica Imperiale
1940, pp. 534
Roma, pp. 264, 266
276;
de Laet,
Cordier, RPh, 1943,
217. For the view that Tiberius was unfavourable
nobiles see
1942,
de Laet, pp. 251 ff., 261
271 ff.; Ensslin, Philologische Wochenschrift, 1942,
481, opposed by Nailis, AC, 1942,
152; Gelzer, Gnomon, 1943,
108; Roos, Mu
264,
seum, 1942, pp. 200
1935,
see also Thiel, Mnemosyne,
Balsdon's view,
JRS, 1932,
243, that Tiberius was not particular about ancestry still seems
hold.
This problem
sometimes linked
with the general question
Tiberius Republican
ism (see last section).
121 To be distinguished from these great amici are the secretaries
Tiberius who,
p.
p.
p.
p.
in
p.
of
of
in
thoughespecially
later
the reign-of increased numbers and powers (cf. Scramuzza,
EC, pp. 84, 257 ff.) and the forerunners
Claudius, are still clientes
the Ministers
rather than amici
the present period (ibid.,
80).
319, no. 1348; de Laet,
43, no. 129.
122 II, 125,
cf. PIR2, II,
123 Cf. Syme, RR,
434.
5,
dus.
ut
L.
p.
p.
p.
to
c.
in
n.
of
74, etc.the last was that

124 Cf. Hammond, pp. 205, 220,
Passienus (also
(Syme, JRS, 1946,
156, cf. FITA, pp. 140, 229
honoured on the coinage)
A.D.
the last passage omitting
mention Blaesus).
437, PIR, II, 234,479; de Laet,
56, no. 198.
125 Vell., II, 127; cf. Syme, RR,
quisque Seiano intimus, ita ad Caesaris amicitiam vali
126 Cf. Tac., Ann., VI,
8:

of of
as
at by
nected with Tiberius.

Cornelius Dolabella, whose description
simplicitatis
generosissimae
vir
the devoted Tiberian Vellei
us illustrates his favoured status court, was the grand-nephew
56
of
of
city-coinages
prov
the other consular senatorial
Ti
f.
Augustus.
Petronius,
of a
marriage
P.
grand-nephew
of
by
of
of
ince, Asia.
Aemilius Lepidus was not only the confidant
berius, but also the father-in-law
Drusus Germanici
and
confidence received also
Apronius
Poppaeus
Q.
Claudii," and finally,
was vetus convictor
Secun
be
of
of
were the only Tiberian governors

Bithynia and
the senatorial provinces
to
of
in
on
the ruling house; and

coinages
mentioned
so
of T.
by
C.
of
Poppaeus Sabinus amicus principum,

dus was the brother
marriage
Sejanus,
and thus, incidentally, the uncle
friend
Ollius. Here, again, are three proconsuls who were friends
Poppaeus Sabinus, legatus Augusti propraetore
C.
This very
of
Creta-Cyrenaica."
of
188, no. 971; de Laet,
190 (L. Apronius Caesianus).

II, 79; for his importance cf. Marsh,
p.
116, cf. PIR2,
26, no. 39.
229 and
11 and
Cf. Smith,
p.
p.
p.
1,
n.
p.
VI, 39;
p.
135
Ann.,
61, no. 369.
14, cf. PIR, III,

26, no. 198; de Laet,
70, no. 283.
PIR, III,
86, nos. 627, 628.
cf. Syme, RR,
499 and
133 Seneca, Apocolocyntosis,

184 Tac.,
PIR2,
I,
438,
1;
cf. Syme, RR,
n.
VI, 40;
p.
Ann.,
Cf. de Laet, pp. 293
ff.
131 Tac.,
132
p.
p.
FITA,
n.
p.
217.
422,
p.
1,
Von Rohden, RE, II,

273 f.; cf. Syme, RR,
388; Instinsky, Philologus, 1942/3,
245.
130
p.
II,
128 Cf. Marsh,

129 Tac., Ann.,
p.
Vell.,
p.
127
I,
of
the whole Balkan province, provides striking evidence for the as

portrai
sociation
these numismatic honours, and especially
p.
152.
ff.
18
I,
p.
9.
P.
Vitellius and Cornelius Lupus (amicus Claudii): see Appendix

397, Groag, Schriften der Balkankommission, Ant. Abt.,
187 Cf. Syme, RR,
1939,
24, Stein, Dissertationes Pannonicae,
11, 1940, pp.
136
p.

Vibius Marsus and
procon
personal
L.
by
C.
sul whose tenure was greatly extendeda signal sign
M. on is
taneously
of
all
cording to Velleius, and the father of a friend of Sejanus"and

C. Vibius Marsus, whose return to Rome with Agrippina indi
cates a close, if dangerous, relation with the ruling family, were the
fathers-in-law respectively of M. Plautius Silvanus, amicus princi
pis," and of P. Plautius Pulcher, uncle of one imperial Drusus and
comes of another. Thus
these four proconsuls
Africa possessed
the proper qualifications for amicitia principis.
The same
true
the three proconsuls recorded almost simul
IX,
57
ture such as that of L. Apronius, with the imperial amicitia. For

Sabinus too was given a coin-portrait, but at a peregrine city, name
ly Aegina." 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
in to
of
in
of
C.
by
to
fill
Nor is this characteristic of amicitia principis the last of the fea

tures 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 start
ed 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
help ensure the succes
to
the consular posts and, especially,
sion for
Caesar. This was apparently the moment chosen
Au
Now,
gustus for the numismatic celebration
his amici.
A.D. 21,
the date
which has been ascribed the recurrence
this phe
nomenon
Africa (following shortly upon Asia) under Tiberius,
a
of
the princeps was again sponsoring new successor

his own blood,
just
Augustus had been
B.C. For Germanicus was dead, and
Drusus junior was just beginning
receive greater honours than
either he or Germanicus had received while both were alive.
188 See
Appendix
of
usual the precedent
Au
9.
was natural for Tiberius, following
as
It
to
in
as
224.
141 See below, Chapter
2, 1902.
III, section
n.
p.
For the ovatio
of
FITA,
ii.
140
n.
p.
of
to
at
an
Moreover, our African proconsuls,

least, enjoyed
unusual position owing
their conduct
the war against Tacfarinas. On their special selection and its possible in
60,
155,
70,
fluence on the auspicia, see below,
224.
139
p.

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 hon
ours of this kind was amicitia principis. The cities were not slow to
appreciate the direction of imperial honour," and indeed Hippo
Diarrhytus, which honours L. Apronius, had been one of the ear
liest backers of Tiberius himself."
Drusus
see Rohde,
RE, XVIII,
58
gustus, to choose this moment to allow cities to emphasize his re

liance 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.
also noteworthy
in that, at that date, he himself had just been passed over for the
inheritance, and was no doubt already contemplating his retire
ment in the following year. But, in retrospect, Tiberius was quite
Tiberius' imitation of the precedent of 7
B.C. is
open about the special position of Gaius and Lucius.
For they still

received numismatic honours from cities in his reign," and Vel
leius is no less frank about their preferred status" (though he tries
to ascribe this to the modesty of Tiberius") than is the Monumen
tum Ancyranum itself." It was characteristic of Tiberius to follow
an
of
to
com
and those start
of
further point stresses still further the legitimacy
the
c.
It
27
to
of
of
c.
in
in
parison between the issues inaugurated

B.C.
ing A.D. 21.
has been argued elsewhere that the former, with
the important development
the principate that they imply, had
been timed
coincide with the vicennium
the restoration of
Cf. Rogers,
148 E.g. FITA,
of
it
the
half
139.
144 II, 96. On the Magliano (Heba)

called fratr. Ti. Caesaris Aug.
145
II,
146
RG,
ap
p.
p.
140, no. 250). The same may

363 (Pergamum: BMC, Mysia,
certain issues for Gaius
other cities also (FITA,
471).
at
ply
to
142
p. p.
of
in
the Republic
B.C." But A.D. 20-21 was equally one
greatest anniversary years
the epoch: for
witnessed the
Tablet,
1.5
(NS,
1948, pp. 49
ff.),
they are
103.
14.
RAI, Chapter II,
section
of
ii.
to
148
of
p.
of
to
as
explain elsewhere, does not accept the theory

147 The present writer,
he hopes
Gruenwald, Die rmischen Bronze- und Kupfermnzen mit Schlag marken im Le
gionslager Vindonissa, cf. Mattingly, NC, 1946,
80, that the retirement
Tiberius
political disturb
shown by countermarks
have been accompanied by some sort
ance among the troops.
is

by
its
the Augustan precedent with grim perseverance despite the un

happy features that it had possessed for himself," indeed
re
part
public
may
attempt
vival
him
have been
show the
that the theme held no embarrassment for him.
59
to
of
V,
all
centenaries of Actium and the capture of Egypt. There is strong

reason to believe that major official coinages of Tiberius commem
probability, does our issue
orated this very occasion," so too, in
Sinope (no. 53: Plate
16), dated
A.D. 19-20. Nor are such
to
to
to
is
of
of
it
appreciated that anniver

commemorations surprising when
Egypt were
saries
Actium and the capture
continue
re
ceive numismatic celebration for centuries
come."
may conclude, then, that Tiberius, with close attention
an Augustan precedent, selected this great Augustan anniversary
allow, Roman colonies
authorise,
Africa
honour his
to
in
to
or
to
to
We
portrayal. Moreover,
of
in
of
of
of
friends who were governors

that province. This honour took the
form
record
their permissus, and
the first instance,
all
consuls also; and the latter too were
amici principis. The coins

course Greek. Indeed, outside Africa,
a
on
amicus
Syriayet again
an
cus Silanus, legatus Augusti propraetore
in
Q.
of
of these Asian cities were

only one Tiberian governor has permissus recorded
Latin
coinage. This was another consular,
Caecilius Metellus Creti
principis.
B.
THE AUSPICES OF TIBERIUS

by
to
It
of
to
L.
of
to
The last subsection has endeavoured

show that the proconsuls
Africa,
Apronius and the rest, were linked
Tiberius
the
powerful bond
remains,
however,
amicitia.
consider their
151
For this right
governors
n.
is
to
in
260; cf. below, Appendix
consular
9.
II,
p.
p. of
153
PIR2,
p.
FITA,
regard
(summary).
prerogative
colonial coinage
province, see above,
31 and
115.
152
both sorts
III, section iii.

VIII, section
10, no. 64; his daughter
Junia
was betrothed
Nero Germanici
f.
Chapter
of
Chapter
RAI,
to
RAI,
150
149
of
is
it
an
be
is
official relationship with him. The present coinage

not informa
regarding
matter,
tive
this
which will however
discussed here
understanding
position.
since
vital for
their
of

to
of
it
as
of
may well have been

result
similar
authorisation that the peregrine cities
Asiathe only other con
sular senatorial provincebegan little earlier
record their pro
60
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 aus
pices were not, in so far as they affected Africa (the one senatorial
province still to possess an army), linked with an imperium
re
is
of
As
its
lating to that same sphere. Thirdly, it will be concluded that, in

such a territory, their link was rather with the religious ideas repre
quality auctoritas.
sented by the name Augustus and
regards the first
these points," there
both epigraphic
of
in
of
and literary evidence

favour
the view that the consulars who
Africa, despite the auctoritas which enabled
were proconsuls
by
to
of
them
authorise local coinages," operated under the auspices
the princeps. Thus Velleius Paterculus, describing the war fought
our present governors against Tacfarinas, writes: bellum Afri
a
to
as
6,
c.
in
of an
to
say that the auspicia for these campaigns belonged

Tiberius
inscription describes the latest
unless this was so." (Moreover
Africa, those
previous victories
auspiciis Imp. Cae
A.D.
Lentuli.
230,
10.
In
(M. Junius Silanus), cf. Hammond,
n.
154. Until A.D. 38
p.
saris Aug. pontificis maximi patris patriae, ductu Cossi
this respect
of
of
p.
of
to an
of
p.
2,
2,
is
p.
of
In
large part
Augustus,
the parallel with Asia cannot be maintained.
the reign
however, though not under Tiberius, the proconsul
Macedonia still possessed troops,
cf. now Syme, JRS, 1945,
110. This
still often ignored, e.g. by Siber, Abh. Leip
JRS,
zig, XLIV,
155); and Schnbauer, SB Wien, 224,
Syme,
1946,
1940 (see
92, wrongly talks
imperial monopoly
1946,
the army from the outset.
in
it
is
in
is
it
2,
It
distinguish between auspices for peace and auspices

155
does not seem possible
2584; though
possible that the question arose
for war, cf. Wissowa, RE,
an
acute form because this was now the only senatorial province
which wars were
waged, and
even conceivable that the imperial auspices were particularly involved
proconsuls for such purposes extra ordinem auctoritate principis
the appointments
(cf. Smith, pp. 184 ff.),
seems
be implied by PIR2, II,
334. Cf.
224.
157 II,
31 and
n.
p.
to
115,
p.
Cf. above,
n.
156
p.
as
of
in
59.
129.
at
of
1940, no. 68; PIR2,
.
.
.
II,
333, no. 1380; Syme,
JRS,
1946,
p.
AE,
p.
159
or
relevant
to
Metaphorical usages
to
auspicor which begin

appear
this time do not seem
the present case since they are concerned with initiation, and particularly the
office, e.g. Vell., II, 101, quem militiae gradum ante
initiation
career
aus
picatus, cf. Sen., Ep., 47, 10.
158
of

is
Ti.
cum ... auspiciis consiliisque eius (sc.

Caesaris Augusti) brevi
sepultum est. Brevi too flattering, but contemporary historian
like Velleius, who presented the official view, was not very likely
156.
61
It may be
possible to compare the status of Cossus Cornelius Len

tulus with that of the Tiberian proconsuls; for Tiberius is unlikely
to have harnessed his senior governors with any constitutional limi
on
he
is,
tation not existing in the last years of Augustus." There

howev
er, no absolute proof that Cossus Lentulus was proconsul, and the
present writer has elsewhere favoured the view that
was rather
legatus Augusti propraetore,
the assumption that the province
it
of so
at
at
be
of
as
by
to
of
to
was transferred temporarily

the princeps," but Syme considers
Cossus Lentulus
have been proconsul
Africa.") Now the gov
fighting under the auspices
ernors who are described
Velleius
Tiberius were certainly proconsuls and not legati,
that
may
least, proconsuls
concluded that,
this period
Africa
at no
or
auspicatio
that they possessed
all. Great vicegerents like Germanicus and Drusus,
least while
West,"
operating
auspicia
possessed
the
seem
have
sort
minora," but even
of
in
to
at
minora vis--vis the princeps,
9;
n.
JRS,
1946,
as
II,
334.
p.
232,
n.
435,
156; cf. Hammond,
156; PIR2,
p.
RR,
p.
162
1946,
143.
2, p.
JRS,
FITA,
p.
160 Syme,
161
p.
to
in
it
if
this were certain

would prove nothing
regards the ordinary proconsuls: for the vicegerents
the West
proconsuls
had started
rise above the
ever since the former had
31.
of
is
p.
is
of
to
1940, pp. 23, 32, 85, attempts

168 Siber, Abh. Leipzig, XLIV,
assimilate the
wrong: cf. Syme,
two categories
official from the earliest imperial period, but this
JRS, 1946,
Augustus
155, the legal disparity between
proconsul and
legate
clear and fundamental.
of
to
of
as
4,
to
in
magistrates
164 Auspicia minora
the proper sense were the auspices belonging
other than the consuls, praetors and censors, who possessed auspicia maiora (cf. Mes
salla, De Auspiciis, ap. Gell., XIII, 15,
Wissowa, RE, II, 2583). But the proconsuls,
counterparts
consuls, were too senior
have these auspicia minora (unless the
original sense was modified). However, there were also differences
grade even with
p.
8,
2,
8,
Messalla, Wissowa, 11.cc.). For the aus

the auspicia maiora (Val. Max. II,
picia maiora see also Liegle, Hermes, 1942,
285, and especially Hgerstrm, pp.
in
lof.
p.
For the position

the vicegerents see Appendix 10,
166.
Appendix 10. But not, apparently, ordinary legati Augusti pro praetore; cf.
Pease, Oxford Classical Dictionary,
126.
165
of
166 See
p.

of
of
of
operated under the auspices

the princeps.
The superiority
the auspicia principis might indicate either
auspicia minora," i.e.
that the proconsuls possessed some form
62
begun to receive the triumphalia ornamenta (probably in 20 B.C.),

salutations and even triumphs (9 B.C.)," which the latter did not
no
as at
in
all,
however, Augustus allowed these proconsuls

auspices
had Republican precedents. For
the late Republic,
he
If,
obtain after 19 B.C." Thus the possession by the Western vicege

rents of the auspicia minora would not imply that the proconsuls
possessed them too, and the latter question must be left open.
to
it
to
for the omission

continue.
been under his superior auspices, but maythough this cannot
be
So
er
consuls had become accustomed
certainhave entirely lacked auspicatio themselves.

However,
Republican practice,
they lacked auspicatio,
it
on
at
all
it
if
by
considered
c.
as
for the ornamenta
see
mos
mai
Borszk, RE,
429 and nn.
10 (Tiberius
and Nero Drusus)after
refusals
in
f.
FITA,
9,
Cf.
1121
p.
168
Cf. Abaecherli Boyce, CP, 1942, pp. 134

1,
167
XVIII,
f.;
should have emphasised this characteristic feature
of
is
It
to
was right for someone else

take
their behalf:
Cicero tells
us, technically speaking (in the old days) nothing had been done
astonishing that Augustus
without the auspices.
not
12 B.C.
JRS,
3,
ff.
1,
n.
p.
9,
p.
1946,
to
Cf. Syme,
p.
156, etc. (L. Cornelius Balbus).

implied
by Syme, JRS, 1946,
170 This seems
be
152.
II,
Divinatione,
76;
171 De
cf. De Natura Deorum, II,
and Mommsen, St. R.,
I3,
Levi, RRIL, 1938, Estr., pp.
101,
169
3,
1942, pp. 297
ff.
to
n.
p. of
Liegle, Hermes,
Divinatione,
I,
174 De
3.
178 See now
n.
p.
92, and
Cf. Wissowa, RE, II, 2583, doubting Mommsen's view (St. R., I8,
that, despite the passages
Cicero, promagistrates automatically possessed the
auspices. Mommsen, op. cit.,
100,
quotes Servius, Aen., II, 178, regarding ad
hoc measures that were sometimes taken
hold auspicatio abroad instead of, as was
proper, on the Capitol.
172
1)

no
had occurred, and that pro

lack the auspices, made
easi
his proconsuls may not only have
but the fact that
to
done carelessness,
it
to
of
by
at A
by
is
to by
so
neg
Cicero informs usif not earlier"auspicatio had become
proconsuls and propraetors
lected that even wars were fought
qui auspicia non habent;" that
say,
governors operating
without having taken, and thus without having, the auspices.
Republican and ritualist like Augustus, who devoted special
augurs, was
tention
the college
means the man
con
63
orum,
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?"
It is not surprising,

then, that mention of the auspicia should oc

cur 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 prece
dent, Cicero answers this question rather vaguely. In such circum

stances, he says, ab urbanis retenta videtur." 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 institution") a populo auspicia accepta
habemus," we also hear of circumstances in which the auspicia
belonged, or returned, to the senate," with which they are closely
linked by Cicero as the duo firmamenta of the State of Romulus."
But here we find that our African proconsuls of the early principate
present an innovation. For, even if they lacked auspicatio alto
gether, there is no question of the auspices returning to the senate
or people, since they are demonstrably operating under the aus
pices 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, and it will be

175
For list of references to this, see H. Volkmann, Mos maiorum als Grundzug des
Prinzipats (Das Neue Bild der Antike, II).
augusteischen
176
VI, 41.
177 De
Divinatione,
178 Cf. Greenidge,
II,
77.
p. 40, n. 1.
Cicero, De Divinatione, II, 77; cf. Hgerstrm, p. 11, on Livy, VII.6.10.

180 Cicero, De Legibus, III, 9; cf. Homo, Roman
Political Institutions, p. 100,
Mommsen, St. R., I8, p. 90.
179
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 lHistoire des
Rligions, 1942/3, p. 58; Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 1942, p. 930; Gnomon, 1943, p.
64
suggested here that the auspicia, by which Tiberius was superior

to the proconsuls of Africa, were not linked with an imperium re
lating to the same area. The possession of these auspices by the
princeps does not automatically prove an imperium maius in rela
tion 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,
his words might be held to imply, first, that some original link had
existed between them, secondly, that the one could not exist with
out 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,
not possess imperium, none the less had the auspices"notably

the censors. 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,
tech
nically speaking, none the less a magistrate)." 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
Phil. Kzlony, 1943, p. 253, see also
ff.
204, RPh, 1943, p. 99, AC, 1942; Egyetemes

Heuss, Sav. Z., 1944, pp. 57
Gag, RH, 1933,
RRIL,
1938, Estr., pp.
3;
p.
Levi,
ff.; Wissowa, RE,
II,
2,
186
165.
ff.
Thus Greenidge himself qualifies his statement later,

Ericsson, ARW, 1936,
302, against Hgerstrm, pp.
p.
185
184
p.
183 P. 162.
Mommsen, St. R., I3,
to
92, cf. Hgerstrm,

11. The same may apply also
right (as Wissowa,
20,
ibid. and op. cit, II*,
ascribing
him the auspices; for
did not possess the im
8.
5.
p.
to
he
RE, II, 2584, doubts)

perium, Rosenberg, RE, IX, 1207, against Mommsen, 11.cc.
188 Varro, De Lingua Latina, VI, 30, cf. Hgerstrm,
For the connection
nefastus with augural procedure, see Fragm. XII Tab. ap. Cic., De Legibus, II,
of
Mommsen,
is
p.
maximus,
p.
187
the pontifex
p.
2583.
in if

and in any case, none of them may be legitimate. For, in the first
place, an original link between the ius magistratus and ius auspici
orum is not yet proved." Secondly, certain magistrates, who did
65
does not follow that the scope of the two properties remained co
terminous." The possession, therefore, by Augustus and Tiberius
of auspices comprising Africa does not necessarily warrant the con
clusion 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," or possession of in
ferior 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 al
ready been made of the auspicia maiora and minora," and, with
out 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.
customary to believe in the existence of such an im
perium maius; but the present writer has opposed the view that
Augustus possessed such a power. Last," commenting on this
approach, distinguishes between two types of imperium maius."
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 respon
sibility 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
189 It remains, no doubt, technically true that the auspicia should have been an in
dispensable 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.
This
question
pp. 8, 10 f.
further discussed
in
192 FITA, pp. 424

193 JRS, 1947, pp.
is
The material is collected by Hgerstrm,

ff.
191
SWC.
157 ff.
in
of
in
is
as p.
be
p.
p.
is
it
suggested that
194
SWC
criticism
the present writer's terminology
this respect by Mattingly, NC, 1946,
132 (cf., more mildlylgres rserves-de
Laet, AC, 1946,
373, Sutherland, CR, 1947,
only justified
116)
that
dis
by Last (or perhaps more than two).
tinction should
made between two main types
In

It has been
66
care
There remains Last's Type A (passive) of imperium maius. An

example of this category is the relationship of the imperia of a con
sul 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 responsi
bility on the one for the acts of the other, but merely served to elim
inate, if ever the two did come into contact, the danger of deadlock
through the opposition of two equal constitutional forces. 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 con
trary, but leaves the question open." Here it will only be observed,
in parenthesis, that a kindred doctrine (in regard to the same peri
od) to that of the imperium maius in senatorial provinces, namely
the no less established belief in the imperium maius of Augustus
vis--vis the great vicegerents in the East, has received opposition
which needs to be seriously considered and may prove conclu
sive." However, this is not the place to discuss the latter question
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
berius 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
Ti
incerta
FITA,
belli metuens
p. 441.
(Ann.,
IV,
23) might well point in the opposite direction, cf.
In a sense such distinctions could be made even between officials of the same
rank; e.g. Festus praetores maiores et minores . . . ad vim imperii, cf. Liegle, Hermes,
1942, p. 266, n. 2.
Op. cit., p. 163: about these conclusions every student must form his own judg
ment for himself.
*
*
of
in
in
in
of
to
an
to
in
to
to in
f.,
Piganiol, Journal des Savants, 1937, p. 15 (as regards Agrippa), and (more
generally) Magdelain, pp. 73
believe that their imperium was not secondary but
his, and that he was their superior only
equal
auctoritas. The present writer,
FITA, pp. 427, 429,445, had one respect come
similar conclusion,
that he did
not believe these vicegerents either
be proconsuls subordinated by imperium maius,
imperium maius
subordinate proconsuls by
their own; but he suggested in
stead that they were legati Augusti propraetore and that all areas
their control tem
porarily formed part
the imperial provincia.
or

triumvirs had controlled theirs; and Tiberius was even more

ful that this should be clear.
67
though, as regards the principate of Tiberius, the position of Ger

manicus needs careful consideration"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 an
other 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," was
directly responsible for the acts of those operating under his aus
no
of
of
on an
as
23
27
of
it,
Africa, since no more than Type A, cannot have comprised so

high a degree of subordination; so the answer to the second ques
tion posed in this discussion is that this imperium was not the pow
er on which their auspices in regard to that province were based.
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
ingredient
the threat which underlay
but
the constitu
adjustments
systems
tional
and
B.C.
which the
Au
gustus and Tiberius were founded. Augustus himself made
199 See
Appendix 10.
p.
2;
to
p.
2,
in
is
often have been
vaporous one.
of
or
as
of
is
p.
ff.
in
in
if
of
13
is
it
In
p.
n.
p.
Charlesworth, CAH, X,
308,
125; von
Dio 51, 25, cf. Syme, RR,
(58), 270 ff.
Premerstein,
253; and especially Groag, RE,
201 Cf. Wissowa, RE, II, 2583.
similarly argued that the passive version
imperium maius,
202
SWC
this
what Augustus possessed, can scarcely have been potent enough
constitute the
legal basis for official gold and silver coinage
senatorial province.
1946,
203 Cf. FITA, pp. 424 ff., Schnbauer, SB Wien, 224,
112 (procos. imp.
ist
als wesentliches Element des Prinzipates abzulehnen), de Laet, AC, 1943, pp.
150
(of Siber), etc.; de Laet, ibid., 1946, pp. 371 ff., considers that the present
writer errs
the opposite direction, but for reasons contested
Greece and Rome, 1949,
Sutherland, CR, 1947,
rightly representing
part
pp. 102 ff., 104
115,
view
of the Roman public, but presumably not that
the governing class, when he suggests
that, as early
Augustus, the distinction between action by one power
another must
200
ff. .

picia. But the imperium of Augustus and Tiberius in relation to
68
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.

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 pow

er) enabling the princeps, now no longer consul, to exercise his
auctoritas in the senate. This connection with auctoritas links the
reform of 23 B.C. with that of 27 B.C.," in which the princeps, by re

signing from the consulship, may be said to have terminated over
had been the conferment of the name Augustus, 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. Thus it became the
symbol of the new rgime, just as in the preceding years the prae
nomen Imperatoris (now of changed significance") had been the
I,
of
or
p.
of
is n.
to
as p.
so
p.
2,
p.
12
47.
5.
n.
p.
of
of
of
Cf. above,
p.
210
it
of
on
an
1,
to
It
in
or
p.
or
in
of
of
of
f.,
to
ly
C.
ii,
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, sec
Instinsky, Hamburger Beitrge zur Numismatik,
1947, wrong
tion
subsection
ascribes
the present writer the description
the tribunician power als einen
Ausfluss der auctoritas.
206 Vallejo, Emerita, 1946, pp. 406
while agreeing with the other constitutional
FITA, doubts its interpretation
conclusions
the years 27-23 B.C.
magistracy or
legalised institution
207 For the erroneous beliefs that this became
426, Greece and Rome, loc. cit.,
112,
source
law
27 B.C.
A.D. 13, see FITA,
n. 2.
xvi, against
legalised institution
magistracy, FITA,
208 This did not constitute
(according
Staedler, Sav. Z., 1941, pp. 101 ff., 119.
was only legalised
far
Velleius, II, 91,
Dio 53, 16, 6though not RG, 34, which only refers
the sen
atusconsultum, which was still
auctoritas and not
source
law)
was
name
Augustus by the Roman people (cf. Stuart Jones, CAH, X,
130,
conferred
2).
209 Pp. 60-63. One
number
brief earlier expressions
the same idea
that
Piganiol, Journal des Savants, 1937,
164,
For other recent discussions
the
ff., and especially Schnbauer, SB Wien, 224,
1946,
name see Wagenvoort, pp.
444, n.5.
pp. 65 ff.; for some other references FITA,
of

twenty years of autocratic military commands and established a

faade of auctoritas. The central symbol of the change of 27 B.C.
69
titular expression and symbol of the previous rgime of autocratic

imperium maius infinitum. 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 (another conception much stressed
by the princeps and indeed closely linked with his rle") be
lievedthough wronglythat a close etymological connection
wise existed between Augustus, and a word already almost
like
syn
onymous with augury, namely auspicium. Thus Festus wrote

(perhaps in the second century) augustus locus sanctus, ab avium
gestu ... sive ab avium gust at]u. Suetonius, too, or his scholiast,
...
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
211
FITA,
pp. 411
ff.
that this false etymology, linking the auspicia with the very bases
of the Augustan rgime, explains the official origins of the imperial
auspices in regard to territories for which active imperium maius
was lacking. The believed connection Augustusauspicium in
dicates that the princeps could be considered the holder of the
216
n.
p.
2.
n.
p.
1,
n.
to
of
a
3,
is
n.
p.
285,
n.5, Wagenvoort,
p.
Cf. Liegle, Hermes, 1942,

Cf. Gag, RH, 1933,
38.
p.
5.
215
is
nuance augurale
1942, pp. 297
unwilling
59,
accept this view (stressed by Muller and
the vaguer sense
common venerability abstraction faite de toute
plus prcise; but this
an underestimate.
p.
Gag) except
in
Magdelain,
ff.
O.
E.
Liegle, Hermes,
213 See now

214
p.
of
n.
p.
p.
483, FITA,
425,
83,
14, Heuss, Sav. Z., 1944,
212 Cf. Nock, CAH, X,
Augustus are quoted there,
57, Vermehrungsritualisten, etc. Rival etymologies
Glauning, Festschrift fr
Glauning,
58,
Wagenvoort,
17,
cf. also A.
1,
ff.
15
(L.)
n.
93
7,
P.
(Paul. Diac.), cf. Levi, RRIL, 1938, Estr., pp.

157, Alfldi, Rm. Mitt.,
218 Suet., Aug.,
cf. Gag, MAH, 1930, pp. 139,
1935,
25. See also Addenda.
217
p.

describes the name Augustus as follows: quod loca

in quibus
augurato quid consecratur augusta dicantur, ab auctu vel ab avi
um gestugustuve, etc.the latter suggestion, like that of Festus,
70
It
ity
of
auspicia (not necessarily any longer coterminous with the imperi

um) in an entirely special sense comparable to the unique qual
his name Augustus.
was inferred that the full auspical
Actium, and returned
auspicatio, greatly
vogue
him, and Gag rightly concludes
in
of
Romulus, originator
to
after
of
authority
an
as
on
of
of
not only that the auspices were

most prominent feature
the
principis,
but, without speaking
imperium, that "son droit
statio
l'empire.
dauspication s'tend...
Nock comments
this de
velopment
follows: The fact that subordinates fought under his
emperor's) auspicia, not their own, may well have implied
(sc.
to
of
by
it
by
in
of
the religious ideas underlying the new system. The potentialities"

were those inherent
the rgime
auctoritas expressed and sanc
tified
the name Augustus"; and
seems that
the time
Ti
to of
to
as
on
of
all
of
on
berius, the imperial auspices based

these ideas had come, re
gardless
any geographical limitations
his imperium with
which they had first
been associated,
extend their validity
even
African proconsuls such
those who are mentioned
our
coinages. This idea
of
12
of
the auspices may have become clarified

after the Parthian success
20 B.C.; and from
B.C. onwards
2.
5,
n.
p.
1,
n.
p.
Levi, RRIL, 1938, Estr.,

But,
96,
219 Cf. Gag, MAH, 1931,
Numa invented the auspicia maiora and the augurium Salutis; cf. Liegle, Hermes,
1942, pp. 285, 298 and section iv, subsection A.
RH,
1947,
p.
JRS,
167, cf.
164, Levi,
1933,
RRIL,
p.
1930,
1938, Estr.,
17, and
n.
MAH,
p.
222
p.
Cf. Gag, MAH, 1930,
p.
424.
221
223
of
of
p.
p.
11
in
FITA,
p.
180
f.;
p.
p.
Dionysius
220 Cf. von Premerstein,
(whose Augustan interpretation
Halicarnassus is, however, doubted by Kahrstedt, Gttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen,
6); Kornemann, Klio, 1938,
1938,
82, id., Bericht iiber den IV. Internationalen
Kongress fr Archaologie
471; Borszk, Archivium Philologicum, 1943, pp.
1939,
13.
33.
114.
of
of
of
of
is
644).
in
as
to
n.
relevant
to
This
is
the possibility (see

155) that the influence
the imperial
auspices over Cossus Cornelius Lentulus may be due
his appointment extra ordinem:
for actions extra ordinem were auctoritate principis (cf. von Premerstein, pp. 107 ff.),
specifically stated
the appointment
one
our Tiberian proconsuls Junius
Blaesus, Tac., Ann., III, 35 (nominatio
two candidates; cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X,
224
p.

of
of
no
is
of
in
from early
the principate that the ruler was credited with poten
tialities operating beyond the range
his presence and even
his
way
describing imperium, but refers
directives. That
71
the religious authority of the princeps was formally enhanced by

the high-priesthoodof which the emblems are prominently dis
of
II,
played, in connection with the princeps, on one of the coins hon

ouring proconsuls (no. 20: Plate
7).
though
important
But
the
features
the imperial auspices seem
lous attention
to
is
religious custom and
ritual.
In
to
to
he
by
to
of
Augustus, there
every reason
traceable
the principate
suppose that they were maintained
Tiberius. He was accus
maintaining Augustan institutions;
tomed
also paid scrupu
particular, there
of
in
of
In
of
he
is
to
auspicatio. He took his own

evidence indicating his attention
augurate seriously, and the same title often figures after the
Germanicus, whom
sharply reminded
augural ta
name
boo."
the absence
Tiberius his deputy
the high-priest
of
of
to
Appendix 11.
p.
225 See
no
is
of
no
at
as
no
as
in
of
Aeneas, was probably placed

the new temple
Divus
Augustus,
being carried
well
the funeral
Drusus jun
danger
longer be
ior. There was
the imperial auspicia
ing taken seriously; and there
suppose that Vel
reason
that
III, 58
232 Cf. Seltman,
cf. Liegle, Hermes,
CAH, Plates IV,
31,
n.
AT,
p.
n.
p.
210a, Pippidi, ED, 1938

Appendix 10.
n.
2; p.
n.
47,
see also
1942,
p.
Tac., Ann.,
p.
231
f., p.
I,
62, cf. Weber,

230 Tac., Ann.,
618,
I,
in
p.
p.
n.
of
p.
Cf. above,
45. See also Addenda.
447,
Cf. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience
the Roman People,
(references).
615; and for his augurium salutis, Liegle, Hermes,
228 Cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X,
1942,
305.
Smith,
64,
220 ILS, 107, 173, 174, 176-178,222 and references
19.
226
227
2,
254.
144.
of
to
of
(cf. Thiel, Mnemosyne,

religiones
neglegentior.
2.
2.
2), strangely calls

260,
must be based either on his expul
1935,
This
n.
69
p.
Tib.,
n.
p.
9,
236 Suet.,
Tiberius circa deos
176.
238,
n.
p.
164, Seltman, CAH, Plates IV,

Cf. Gag, MAH, 1930,
IV,
Tac.,
Ann.,
Savage,
235
cf.
Classical Journal, 1938/9,
234
p. p.
p.
ff.
of
283 For comparisons

the exploits
Germanicus
those
Aeneas see Savage,
Classical Journal, 1938/9, pp. 237
Aeneas may also appear on the Paris cameo, cf.
Piganiol, Essai sur les Jeux Romains,
60, Gag, RA, XXXII, 1930,
19,
ac

to in
of
as
hood was Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, the augur maximus. Also,

part
general interest
the Trojan myth, Tiberius continued
Romulus, whose picture, together with
the Augustan attention
72
Augus
all
leius, in mentioning them, did not mean what he said.

It may be concluded, then, that under Tiberius, as under
as
in
to
of
to
of
tus, our proconsuls of Africawho

enjoyed the amicitia
the
princepswere subordinate
auspices,
auspices,
his
but that these
province,
thought
relation
that
were
linked not with im
in
perium but with the religious conceptions embodied

Augustus and auctoritas.
the words
(iii) Mars, Victoria, Felicitas
in
his
of
Gag,
be
the studies
to
of
in
the last subsectionNock relates this idea,
the Victoria Augusti: So
of
of in
to
Victory,
later
came
credited with continuous attribute
as distinct from whatever was seen behind this or that success
by
of
is
is
it
is
a
the field. This, then,

theme which directly arises from that
the auspices; and
also one which
not unconnected with our
present colonial coinages. For the Tiberian revival
the numis
of
of
matic commemoration
the great proconsuls
African and Asian
Dolabella,
Apronius,
Blaesus,
citiesin honour
Secundus and
of
very special sense,
JRS,
1947,
p.
237
claiming the
X,
of
in
his personal interest

them (cf. Nock, CAH,
the cult
Divus Augustus.
in
of
in
spite
the Chaldeans, etc.,
on his careful moderation
496),
or
sion
of
to
asserted his succession

the Victoria Augusti
credit for the victories of Germanicus.
by
occurred, the second princeps had already,
in
a
of
of
to
have been timed

coincide not only with the
emergence
new heir, but also with the half-centenary
the
crowning victory
Augustus. But, even before this anniversary
to
Lepidusseems
p.
114.
of in
44,
n.
74.
ff.
1930, pp.
p.
XXXII,
AT,
=
239 Cf. Gag, RA,

cf. Pippidi, ED, 1938
ff.
p.
of
p.
of
of
in
RA, xxxii, 1930,

the course
this section; the theme recurs
xxxiv, 1931, MAH, 1930-1932, 1936, RH, 1933, 1936. The later
these articles do
Mattingly,
not figure
the bibliography
CAH. On Gag's views see the comments
xxxix, and Durry, REA, 1940 (Mlanges Radet),
BMC. Imp., III,
415. The pres
ent writer has not seen M. Kovaceva, Victoria, Prometej (Sofia), VI, 1941/2, pp. 69
2.38 See references
in

he
pursuance
of
tivesquoted
his
of
of
In
his association
the auspicia principis with potentialities
operating beyond the range
presence and even
direc
Tiberius was the greatest living general,
73
in
is
is)
it
is
I,
I,
on
(if
to
in
its
One of our cities, colonia Paestum, exemplifies the special em

phasis on this theme under Tiberius by illustrating, among the few
types of
coinage, both Victoria and the deity most closely as
sociated with her, Marsand
each case
more than one guise.
carry
On some pieces Mars seems
hasta(?) and parazonium
(Plate
7) whereas another the hasta
this
what
exchanged for vexillum (no. and variant: Plate
and 9). The
on
16
on
is
of
of
of 16
and vexillum have both appeared with Mars under

Augustus, combined
single coin
about
B.C. On another
Augustan piece
moneyer (who
certainly
B.C.),
which
on
a
parazonium
is
c.
16
Thus the relation between these colonial issues and the mintages
particularly close one.
B.C.
of
I,
of
of
as
on
pedestal
Mars carries hasta and parazonium, the god stands
one
the Paestan variants
Tiberius (no. var.: Plate 9).
is
of
on
of
on
of
by
16
of
at
is
on
ceeding principates. The parazonium, emblem closely associated

with Virtus,
not found again with Mars
the official coinage
least until Nero" and possibly until the Flavians. Likewise the
do
is
34.
hasta must not, however,

the coins.
pressed owing
to
1930,
76, no. 438, cf. Sutherland,
NC,
1945,
p.
I, I,
248
BMC. Imp.,
BMC. Imp.,
p. p.
242
is
as
on to
XXXII,
241 The interpretation

execution and preservation
be
Gag, RA,
p.
240
not again seen

official issues until Vitelliusin the centenary year
As far
known, vexillum and parazonium
not
the scrappy
of
Actium."
become the imperial standard,
as
of
vexillum, soon
with this god
66.
16, no. 86.
no.
p.
I,
17
of
of
c.
of
of
Possibly the former celebrate an anniversary

the latter (like official coinages
34, RAI, Chapter III, section ii), i.e.,
A.D.
the secular games
B.C. with
17,
which the issues
the following year were explicitly connected (BMC. Imp.,
244
of
89).
p.
to
93
3.
248
Cf. Rostovtzeff, JRS, 1942,

Cf. RAI, Chapter IV, section
p.
247
p.
I,
Cf. BMC. Imp.,

clxxiii. See also Alfldi, Rm. Mitt., 1935,
66.
Ibid.,
204, no. 27but considered by Mattingly, loc. cit.,
represent Virtus
rather than Mars.
246
p.

on
The relationship between Mars

the official Augustan issues
empha
B.C. and Mars
the Paestan coinages
Tiberius
coinages
sized
the rarity
this god
the immediately suc
(n.2
references).
74
appear together at Rome between Augustus and Vespasian.

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 Augus
tus. In his capacity as Vltor, Mars had been one of the most promi
nent deities of the first princeps. As so often, Tiberius followed
this example. It was in the temple of Mars Ultor that he provision
ally lodged the cult of Divus Augustus. Round the same temple,
Divus Augustus was as closely linked with Victoria as he was with

Mars. This connection is emphasized by the abundant official aesis
sues of Tiberius with the type of Victory. For these bear on the ob
verse 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
lustrated by Paestum, which devotes to this theme at least two
types. In the one case Victory stands or walks to the right, holding
il
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
in
to
its
local coinage alike.

Here, then, is another Augustan theme taken over and main
tained by Tiberius. But the conditions of
maintenance had some
Augustus
what changed. For, however superior Tiberius was
252
Tac., Ann.,
II,
258
Tac., Ann.,
II, 22, cf.
of
13
Cf. Hirschfeld, Kleine Schriften, pp. 850

Ioviet Augusto.
cf. Gag,
3.
5,
n.
40.
1930,
p.
RA, XXXII,
f.,
Gag,
p.
64, cf. Kornemann, DR,
loc. cit., against
MSS.
140, nos. 141
FITA,
p.
E.g. among colonies, Philippi,
I,
BMC. Imp.,
p.
255
256
ff.
254
Marti
p.
ff.
250
385
p.
251
190, no. 782, cf. pp. xlv, lvi.

BMC. Imp., II,
ff., Altheim, History
Cf. Pollak, JAIW, 1936, pp.
Roman Religion, pp.
For Mars, Hercules and the triumphator see Schilling, RPh., 1942, pp. 31 ff.
Cf. Pettazzoni, Augustus,
226.
249
et

monuments were set up after the successes of Germanicus, who

had himself given Mars first place in the dedication of his trophy.
It was apparently dedicated Marti et Divo Augusto.
274, cf. Collart, Philippes, pp. 232, 237.
75
it.
generalship, the latter was incomparably the greater in auctoritas:

so that Tiberius, though he laid claim to the reversion of the Vic
toria Augusti, possessed a proportionately less clear-cut claim to
Thus ambiguities occurred
be
to
by
of
an
to
in
his official relations with Germani

cus and many others. How much greater, then, were
the dif
Otho, the first principes
ficulties
Galba and
lack the great
It
be
by
as
Aug.
Othonis." For one
of
as
as
to
to
contribution
auctoritas afforded
Julio-Claudian blood.
described, not
was they, accordingly, whose Victories had
merely
Augusti,
glorious ancestor, but
inheritance from
the chief manifesta
tions
the Julio-Claudian auctoritas was this Victoria Augusti,
which was thus
essential and central feature
the Augustan
statio principis. Augustus, and Tiberius after him, intended
and
It
of
of to
be
to
in
of
military glory par excellence, and

higher grades
monopoly.
nothing less than
this amounted
had become
any
operation
difficult for Romans
feel that
could
conducted
auspices
anyone
except
under the
the holder
the name Au
the holders
in
of
in
of
is it
of to to
be
to
gustus, and so, too, became equally natural for him

monop
Africa, the most
say, the proconsul
olize Victoria. That
likely
war, would
the proconsuls
involved
such cir
any restriction that there may
may
not have been
his imperium,
limited two successive stages:
first,
became impossible for him
claim auspicatio for himself,
and secondly,
the battle was victorious,
was the princeps rather
at
to
on
be
or
cumstances, regardless
it
if
it
on
as
is
of
to
than the governor

whom the chief credit was due.
Victory
depending
But the imperial
was not thought
mere martial prowess. There
the strongest link between Victoria
261
Cf. Gag, MAH, 1932,
pp. ccxiv. f., 353 (apparently posthumous).

pp. ccxiv, ccxxi, 367.
89.
ff.
be
an
of
to
n.
p.
Cf. above, pp. 69

86,
23, points
263 Fink, YCS, VIII, 1942,
the possibility
distinction
tween this abstract imperial Victoria Augusti and the personal Victoria Augusti
individual princeps.
262
of
259
I, I,
260
BMC. Imp.,
BMC. Imp.,
p.
443,
3.
Appendix 10.
258 FITA,
n.
257 See
p.

its
to
be
of
an
of
Galbae
76
Augusti and the more subtle Virtue Felicitas Augusti. The lat
ter was the magic quality which, according to Roman tradition,
availed the warrior king better than simple valour. It was this
intangible superiority and wiliness which enabled him to ensnare
his enemies. It had nothing to do with any magistracy or official
power: it belonged to the realm of auctoritas rather than to that
of imperium." Like Sulla and Pompey before him, Augustus at
Indeed, his Par
tached special importance to Felicitas-Fortuna.
thian settlement of 20-19 B.C., emphasised by him as the crowning
by
by
of as
its
The evidence for the connection of Felicitas Augusti and Vic

toria Augusti is never stronger than in the principate of Tiberius.
In the whole post-Augustan period, Felicitas Augusti, like Victoria
Augusti, sometimes seems to refer, not only to the current, but al
so in a sense to the first, princeps. Tiberius, not least, maintained
and enhanced the significance not only of the imperial Victoria but
also of the imperial Felicitas, which thereafter maintained
position
leading official coin-type. This emphasis and com
on
Fe
the
p.
p.
Cf. Dumzil, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus,
the
sword
sheath, and
the Ameria inscription Flamen Victoriae
lic[itatis] Caesar[is] perpetuus. The use,
the sheath,
of et
by
on
bination
the two concepts
Tiberius are illustrated
legend FELICITASTIBERIVIC(toria) AVG(usti)
n.
Mattingly, BMC. Imp.,
33, cf. Alfldi, Rm. Mitt., 1935,
89,
3.
see too
n.
1930, pp.
But
p.
RA, XXXII,
2,
269 Gag,
100,
1.
SWC.
n.
pursued
Cf. Alfldi, Rm. Mitt., 1935,

xxxix.
p.
theme
in
This
9,
p.
III,
268
is
is
in
In
267
p.
p.
197, cf.
195.
Not fortune but personal excellence; cf. Wagenvoort,
61.
436, Wagenvoort,
266
the phrase Felicitas Imperii (Weber, pp. 99*, 101*,
71), imperium
used
its wider and non-technical sense.
264
265
p.
2.
n.
p.
p.
9,
n.
of
to
Galba, who, owing

his lack
Julian origin, was less closely associated than
his predecessors with the Felicitas Augusti, coins with FELICITAS PVBLICA (BMC.
Imp.,
329,
120).
XIII, 6796, RA, XXXII, 1930,
CIL,
Gag,
24,
271
Du Four,
VIII,
ILS,
Fink,
TCS,
6631,
6632,
1942,
272
cf.
94.
270
I,

glory of his reign, clearly belonged to this magic or "clever or

der of things rather than to the strictly military domain of straight
forward valour.
77
plain praenomen TIBERIVS without addition (paralleled in Lar

gus) suggests his peculiarly personal association with the Virtue
in question. 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. More
over, a caduceus, emblem of Felicitas, was chosen as type for one
of the largest official coinages, commemorating his vicennium.
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. 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 Au

gustipossibly the former idea became clarified by stages in c. 17

and c. 7 B.C.so Tiberius likewise, on his accession if not to some
extent earlier, became the living incarnation of both those numi
na. Indeed his well-known calliditas, though deplored by Taci
tus,"
was but a personal variant, in this most peace-loving of em

perors, of the Augustan talent for bloodless successes; and our next
subject must be the Pax which was the essence of his government.
(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
278
Helmreich, 162, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 143.
275
For the praenomen see above, section i.

Cf. Pippidi, RCI, pp. 47, 199 f., pace Taylor,
276
RAI,
274
Chapter
277 Huelsen,
III,
AJP,
1937, pp. 187, 192.
section 2.
Das Forum Romanum,

Appendix
278 See
12.
279 Cf. Gag, RA, xxxii, 1930, pp.
Mattingly, BMC. Imp., III, p. xxxix.
280 Ann., II, 30, VI, 34, XI, 3.
p. 80, cf. Mattingly,

1 ff.,
BMC. Imp., I,
p. cxxxviii.
id., MAH, 1932, p. 89, and the comment of
78
of
PACEAVG. PERP(etua); AVG. may

Augustalike SALVS AVGVSTA"
of
of
abbreviation either
official coinage
Tiberiusor
Augusti,
type
of
of
this reads
an
on be
3). The legend
II,
mintages it is illustrated by the little known aes piece, apparently

a medallion, here attributed tentatively to Carthage (no. 17: Plate
formula with
is
at
slightly different nuances which has not yet reached the official
coinage but
already found
municipium Italica (PROVIDEN
as
as
peace
the
the imperial aus

well
war:
as
of
personification
of
in
in
pices," was himself
principate. Romulus-Quirinus, the founder
even
of
the imperial Pax has been described

eclipsing divus worship
importance
the philosophy
of
The concept
VII, 4).
Plate
of
TIAEAVGVSTI,
of
all
the traits
true man
BMC. Imp.,
p.
his complement. The most famous manifestation
of of of
in
as
281
as
peace,
of
or
as
in
of he
Romulus' successor Numa Pompilius, who, for

pacifier, was regarded,
Romulus
the light
131, no. 81.
Strack, Untersuchungen zur rmischen Reichsprgung des zweiten Jahr

87,
27, Gag, RA, XXXII, 1930,
pp. 49 ff., Fink, TCS, VIII, 1942,
pp. clvi
nn., Koch RE, xviii,
BMC. Imp.,
2432
Cf. domus Augusti
Augusta, numen Augusti-Augustum, Chapter III, section
127, no.
f.
i. 4,
n.
9.
p.
Vives, IV,
f.
I,
I,
3,
n.
3,
288
p.
282 See
hunderts,
p.
ff.
p.
ii,
p.
cf.
97.
that the aes pieces with Numa's head, which are men
xvi, should be attributed
18 B.C. instead
23 B.C.
which
to
of
is
it
FITA,
89.
suggested
to
c.
tioned
SWC
p.
290
Cf. Carcopino, Points

in In
289
B.
Vue sur l'Imprialisme Romain, pp. 107
subsection
f.,
288 See above, section
subsection B.
Dumzil, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus,
p.
Servius, ad Aen.,
de
287
II, section
VI, 860, cf.
Chapter
ii,
286 See above,
p.
I,
in
2,
in
p.
Gercke-Norden,
284 Gag, RH, 1936,
290. For the Pax theme, see Kornemann
Einteilung
61, Koch, loc. cit., 2430
die Altertumswissenschaft, III,
292, cf. Adcock, CAH, IX,
285 For the identification see Servius, ad Aen.,
720.
to
in
of
f.
1,
de
p.
of
Willers and Mattingly attribute them. Pink prefers 20 B.C.

291. Cf., for various aspects
this position, Dumzil, Mitra-Varuna, pp. 29 ff.,
Augustus wanted
79, Naissance
Rome, pp. 187
Horace
les Curiaces,
look
1249; and there was apparently
like both, cf. Glaser, RE, XVII,
statue
Numa
question
ad Aram Gentis Iuliae (cf. Smith, JRS, 1926, pp. 99, 101), though the altar
et

in
at
on
as
Quirinus autem est Mars qui praeest paci. Augustus,

has been
said,
great
first laid
stress
Romulus. But there was general
interest
the kings, and
the second decade
his principate
well, the more civilian figure
may have emphasized instead,
79
Augustus' pacific policy is the Ara Pacis Augustae. 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.
(The somewhat similar type of the official aes of Tiberius inscribed
PROVIDENT shows two doors, like our medallion, but again
two panels also.") 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. For other colonies too, notably Pella and Buthrotum,

by their Augustan legends PACIS, SPES and SALVTIS, CON
CORDIA
respectively, seem to echo Roman dedications." Yet it
temple and not to a Roman Aedes Gentis Iuliae, and likewise an

Augustan dedication IVNONI at Ilici accompanies what is pre
sumably a city-temple.
A further
reference to Pax Augusta seems to occur on another of

our colonial coinages, namely no. 10 (Plate I, 15), which is tenta
tively interpreted as an issue commemorating the deductio of co
lonia Panormus. The type of this coin, though it is badly executed
n.
ii,
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, sec
tion
subsection B,
219.
to
a
of
is
p.
I,
as
RE, XVIII,
pp. 271
cf.
clxxx. As
seen by Sydenham, The Coinage
by Riemann,
the comparison with Nero's coins should not be pressed
(1942), 2087. On the type
the latter see Kubitschek, JAIW, 1902, pp.
of
63,
1,
BMC. Imp.,
2 n.
293
Nero,
f.,
at
I,
of
Ar
292 On this, among the latest contributions

vast literature are Poulsen, Acta
chaeologica,
1946, pp.
ff., Moretti, Ara Pacis Augustae (1948), Ryder, Memoirs
Rome, 1949.
American Academy
p.
cxl.
Janus,
as
Not the temple

(1683),
70.
295
of
BMC. Imp.,
I,
294
p.
153 ff.
A. Occo, Imperatorum
206
FITA,
297
Cf. below, Chapter
pp. 271,281.
III,
section
and below, Appendix
5.
f.,
197
n.
p.
298 FITA,
215.
299 See FITA, pp.
i.
p.

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
Romanorum
Numismata
80
on
and preserved, appears to be an olive-branch, which, as Virgil re

minds us," was the recognised symbol of Peace." It seems to have
it
of
by
of
as
Its of
of
no
its
dbut
the Roman official coinage when
was placed,
with cornucopiae, beside head
Pax(?)
the mint-masters
appearance
Octavian. We know
the olive-branch
main
made
in
of
all
on
titia-Pax
ingly large percentage
Tiberius. For
to
apparent attribution
Ius
an
comparison with
vast official coinage
in
insignificant
of its
is
to
on
type before our present bronze issue.

first depiction
this ca
pacity
the official coinage seems
occur under Nero."
But this isolated and doubtful occurrence of the olive-branch
overwhelm
gold and silver coins minted during
of
to
to a
in
as
a
as
his reign,
well
few issued shortly before Augustus' death,
figure which, although apparently intended
bear
the first re
represent Iustitia, seems
carry the olive-branch
sort
Pax"
which probably owed something

Stoic in
spiration." These are traditionally the Tribute Pennies
the
New Testament,"
which the central events happened
this
principate. Christ was credited
Matthew with the words bless
peace-makers,
are the
idea
which the Roman concept
Peace with Justice
not alien, the two doctrines were formu
wrongly (prob
lated
the same time," and Tertullian rightly
ably the latter) ascribed
Tiberius favourable attitude
Chris
in of
to
by
of
BMC. Imp.,
REL,
1941,
146.
official agricultural policy, cf. d'Herou
I, I,
ff.
It
302
to
16, cf. d'Herouville,
p.
II, 425, Aen., VIII,
was also perhaps stressed by reasons

ville, loc. cit., pp. 142
801
of
Georg.,
to
at
or
is
to
an
of ed
300
pp. cxxiii, 100, no. 611.
of
p.
I,
to
p.
p. 2.
Cf. W. Smith, Dictionary

the Bible,
427.
5.9, cf. Pippidi, RC, 1941/2 AT,
144.
=
307
of
306
n.
p.
I,
p.
p.
I,
p.
p. as
is
It
pp. 256
olive-branch,
i,
an
interpreted
as
BMC. Imp.,
ff.
415), but
there described
laurel-branch (cf.
ibid., pp. clxxxif., cf.
418.
combining the views
Mattingly, BMC. Imp.,
804 Cf. RAI, Chapter III, section
cxxxi, Strack, Untersuchungen
zur rmischen Reichsprgung des zweiten Jahr
repre
hunderts,
52, no. 128. Liegle, Hermes, 1942,
304, considers the figure
sent Salus, but without apparent justification.
AT,
175,
305 Cf. Pippidi, RC, 1941/2
808
p.
p.
of
p.
18, Strong, JRS, 1939, pp. 148 ff., Westcott,

808 Cf. Wagenvoort, QAS, X, 1938,
250, Westbury Jones, Roman and Christian Imperialism,
The Epistles
St. John,
1.

a Roman synthesis
81
tianity." 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."
Such, then, was the background of the remarkable legend PACE
AVG. PERP. on our medallion of Carthage(?). This is to some ex
tent paralleled by the Spanish dedication Augusto Paci perpetuae
et Concordiae Augustae."
In that inscription Pax Perpetua is as
sociated 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.
Under Augustus, also, the same two personifications had already
been linked by OvidIanus adorandus cumque hoc Concordia
mitis, Et Romana Salus, araque Pacis erit.
on
al in
of
dif
the Spanish inscription and

grammatical consideration which,
itself, illustrates
minor importance
not unimportant
tendency. For here,
Tiberian colonial mintage,
feature not
many
years,
centuries,
found
official issues until
more
not
have
as
in
colonia Buthrotum,
Ovid after
Ara, we find the Genitive PACIS,
official coinages starting un
Claudius,
Ostia, there appears the dedicatory Dative."
der
in of at
as
on
Augustan coin
of
passed. On
an
if
on
is
a
on
in
of
though
its
appearances
ferent Case from

Ovid, suggests
the pages
314
FITA,
an
as
194
f.
AT, pp.
(references).
1936, Piganiol, Histoire
de
R.H.,
Rome,
126.
2.
312
ILS, 3786, cf. von Premerstein,

RAI, Chapter III, section
311
Pippidi, REL, 1934
1931, pp. 34
cf. XXI,
RA, XXXIV,
f.,
310 Cf. Gag,

247.
4;
Apologeticum, V,
p.
309
2,
be
or
an
Carthage(?) exceptionally shows

But our medallion
Ablative.
deity had ever ap
No such Ablative
connection with Virtue
peared. This unusual inflection could
interpreted either
p.
271.
Cf.
BMC. Imp.,
pp. lxiv, 165
ff.
315
AETERNITATIS AVGVSTAE
p.
p.
under Tiberius
etc.
I,
2),
of
in
p.
271, Liegle, Hermes, 1942,

299; the present
813 Fasti, III, 881, cf. FITA,
Edinburgh Review, 1949,
writer says more about this conjunction
Univ.
238.
p.

The reference to Pax on the medallion of Carthage(?), in a
(Plate
VII,
82
elliptical Ablative Absolute," or an extension of the Instrumental

Ablative, expressing Quality or the so-called Attendant Cir
cumstances. 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 AVGIVS.] of Septimius Severus, the almost simul
taneous SPE AVG. of Clodius Albinus, and the PERPETVI
TATE of Florian
276)
and his successors. But the first two

of these are provincial, and an Ablative may not have been intend
ed; though for our present medallic piece of Tiberius such an as
(A.D.
sumption 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,
a great
ear
its
by
its
is,
A grammatical form like this Ablative on our piece of Carthage

(?), whatever
only
explanation,
the mere fact that
in
parallels are not contemporary but far
the
future, not inap

I,
I,
p.
usage are perhaps partly supplied by TRIB (unicia)

lxviii, cf. II, pp. xxxiv, lxxxvi, Vandvik, AVAO,
p.
317 Precedents for this type

POT(estate), etc., BMC. Imp.,
(1942),
1941,
110.
of
p.
at
p.
of
f.,
p.
106,
For an earlier Ablative Absolute cf. AEGYPTO CAPTA, BMC. Imp.,
650,
no.
and the signatures
colonial magistrates (FITA, pp. 159, 189
196 f., 262:
28); cf. later VOTIS X. MVLTIS
Lipara, ibid.,
cf. alsoelliptically-C. Allio Bala
XX etc. (for an early example under Commodus see BMC. Imp., IV,
743).
316
f.).
or
The latter also uses

are
sus
to
p.
pp. 542
529), but blunders
be
pp. 617
320 Ibid., 50, no. 41; cf. Carausius later (RIC, V,

FIDES, FIDE and FIDEM indiscriminately (ibid.,
2,
RIC, IV,
f.
819
1,
or
of
of
1,
p.
p.
of in
general see Ernout, Riemanns Syntaxe Latine",

For the Instrumental Ablative
For the so-called Ablative
Manner (with adjective), ibid.,
162. For the
Quality see Vandvik, AVAO, 1941, no.
64, Komi
Ablative
(1942) (especially
tative Begriffe), Lfstedt, Skrifter utgivna av Det Kongl. Humanistiska Vetenskaps
Lund, X,
1942, pp. 155 ff., cf. also Woodcock, CR, 1947, pp. 22 ff. Such
samfundet
interpretation
present
legend requires the understanding
an
our
res publica
im
perium p.R.
some such phrase.
318
pp. 160
of ff.
AT,
Also Probus and Carus.
pp. lxxiv, clxxviiiff.
For the sake
of
824
81,
p.
p.
Cf. Gag, RH, 1936,

144, Momigliano, JRS, 1942,
323
(Nero).
MAH,
63 and
completeness,
1936,
70, Pippidi,
RHSE,
1942
p.
I,
pp. 352
44.
mention
should
be made
an Ablative after
BMC. Imp.,
of
322
p.
RIC, V,
n.
321
f.
pected and indeed expected.
2,

ly imperial theme.
83
propriate 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.
PERPETVITAS
B.
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 existed), provides the only numismatic in
stance of the wordand a non-official one at thatbetween the
c. 37
B.C. (a titular instance which is hardly comparable) and the

ROMA PERPETVA of Vespasian. After the latter there is no
known parallel until the last decade of the second century, when
Commodus inscribed an issue FELIC. PERPETVAE AVG. This
is the earliest analogy, on the official coinage, to our present colo
nial use under Tiberius of perpetua with a Virtue. The usage
of Commodus was followed by Severus' ascription of the same epi

thet to Concordia, Securitas and Spes." But our Pax Perpetua did
not occur on official issues until the emperor Tacitus (A.D. 275
276). Before that, however, Severus Alexander had personified

Preposition-AVGVSTA IN PACE of Salonina, RIC, V,
1, p. 197,
tian sound) Mattingly, RC, p. 162.
cf. (for its Chris
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 at first sight.
BMC. Imp., II, pp. lxiii, 86.

328 BMC. Imp., IV, pp. clxix.,
in
FITA,
c.
in
it
ff.
given to a unique aes piece (at Copenhagen)

326 This is the interpretation
might also have been issued by Octavian
pp. 50
But
36 B.C.
3,
n.
327
752, 833.
Imp., IV,
p.
1,
3.
RIC, V,
n.
331
333. Marcus Aurelius introduces

648, no. 1549, etc.
1,
329
p.
330
91,
Cf. Alfldi, Rm. Mitt., 1935,
RIC, IV,
pp. 71, 75; cf. pp. 130, 212, 276.
p.

DICTATOR PERPET. of Lepidus(?) for Divus Julius in
PAX AETERNA AVG., BMC.
84
Probus (276-282),
the successor of Tacitus and Florian, was to follow, in part, the ex
ample of Caesar dictator perpetuo by applying the same term to
the quality itself with
PERPETVITATIAVG.."
himself as imperator, not perpetuo, but
perpetuusPERPETVO
IMP(eratori) PROBO AVG. Two centuries afterwards, Valen

tinian Icelebrated
PERPETVITASIMPERII," apparently
on the
Augustus,
anniversary
three hundred and fiftieth
of the death of
and Gratian was to illustrate a similar theme by a phoenix on a
globe.
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, though the distinction may sometimes be lost
of Vespasian's inauguration of the epithet perpetua on the
PERPETVITATI,
he
if,
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
inscribed an
AETERNITATIBVS. Florian and Probus were
sub
stitute an occasional VICTORIA PERPETVA for the more fre
quent VICTORIA AETERNA, and the latter was
imitate
ringing the changes
their predecessor Tacitus
the two epi
inscribing
one coin
to
mind
in
on
to
other
RIC, IV,
883
Cf. the perpetual
451, etc.
837 Pearce,
NC,
1938,
p.
836
1933,
et
of
p.
RH,
34.
4. ff.
pp. 13, 19, 110 f., cf. Gag,
NC, 1938, pp. 126

RAI, Chapter VII, section
885 Pearce,
n.
essem
Vitellius, Stevenson, CAH, X,

826. For
245,
10, Hohl, Klio,
(RG, 10), Hammond,
p.
ut
consulship
p.
p.
FITA,
RIC, V,
84.
perpetuum
2,
384
in
sacrosanctus
1939,
74,
2,
p.
832
p.
(PERPETVETAS [sic]).
128
For this see Berlinger, Zur inoffiziellen Titulatur der rmischen

Breslau, 1935,
330,
24, d'Ors Prez-Peix, Emerita, 1943,
1.
n.
p.
841
p.
1.
62,
n.
p.
p.
1,
n.
to
ff.
V,
2,
p.
p.
2, of
81. Doubted by Fink, YCS, 1940,
pp. 352
f.,
340
RIC, IV,
RIC, V,
1,
839
1,
n.
Liegle,
91,
For references see Alfldi, Rm. Mitt., 1935, pp. 83, 87,
Hermes, 1942, pp. 273, 279
According
Gnecchi, Numismatic Circular, 1908
Imperial Rome,
55, the two conceptions may almost be confused.
The Coin-Types
388
p.

sight
98.
Kaiser, Diss:
85
thets as applied to Pax. Later still, the Augusti and Caesars of

the tetrarchy were sometimes distinguished from each other by
being called aeterni and perpetui respectively. Apart from ref
erences to Caesar's dictatorship, both words had first been intro
duced to the coinage of the empire under Tiberius; for not only
does this apply to Perpetuus, but
colonial issues of Tarraco (Plate
it is in his reign, too, that other
VII, 2)
and Emerita (Plate
8) are inscribed with the novel legend AETERNITATIIS]

GVSTAE.***
VII,
AV
The difference between the two conceptions is perhaps illus

trated by Cicero. It is true that he exemplifies the natural tendency
to confusion by coupling aeternus and perpetuus at least once with
an
its
time, whereas perpetuus signifies unbroken, uninterrupted, con

tinuous. As etymology (peto) suggests, the latter term some
of he
is
of
by
of
Pax Augusta (or Augusti)

p.
Per
See
in
220,
1.
21.
Ttrarchie,
n.
la
V,
the strenuous
general
Instinsky,
1942,
p.
Instinsky, Hermes,
323, Ensslin, SB
ff.
344 Cf. Hoey, TCS, 1940, pp. 105

Mnchen, 1943, VI, pp. 39
f.,
p.
Diocltien
1942,
344.
2,
p.
pp. 330, 333,
343 Seston,
Hermes,
city speaks
et
RIC, V,
1,
Thus, too, when
Civil Wars and
I,
vival,
exemplified
the recent
reforms that followed them.
342
It
or
of
by
of
to
perhaps intends
convey sense, not
the objective eter
Romanit, but
the city
the successful effort for sur
or
NA,
nity
of
striving
undertone
hard work.
less ce
worldly
epithet
Vespasian
lestial and more
than aeternus. When
substitutes ROMAPERPETVA for the more usual ROMA AETER
times carries
as
I,
15, 40.
Nat. Deorum,
II,
54, 164.
De Inv.,
Phil., XIII,
13.
345 De
348 Fam.,
VI,
13,
of
perpetuus, drawn out

Lewis and Short, ss. v.v. Cf. the Vergilian meaning
full length; Mackail, ed., Aen., VIII, 183, cf. IV, 32, VII, 176.
849
at
347
2.
346
6,

out apparent distinction. But what is more significant is his tend

ency to link the latter epithet with words like stabilis," constans"
and assiduus. Aeternus means that which is raised above all
86
petua 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
berius' rule, and deserves to rank with Moderatio as one of its
Ti
peculiar catchwords. Indeed, we have independent evidence that

his principate witnessed a considerably extended use of the epithet
perpetuus. For example, he himself is described by Velleius as
all
perpetuus patronus Romani Imperii" and by a Gaulus inscription

(admittedly deviating from official usage) as imperator perpetu
us, while the conspiracy of Sejanus called forth vows pro perpet
no et
of
et
is
ua salute divinae domus. But the closest parallel of

the dedi
cation Augusto Paci perpetuae
Concordiae Augustae.
By way
contrast, when Seneca wrote magna
aeterna pax,
at
Ti
at
on
to
8)
2,
In
pro
reserve aeternitas for superhuman ideas.
his principate,
vincial capitals, the phrase AETERNITATIIS] AVGVSTAE (Plate
VII,
temples; the idea was
seems
have been inscribed
of
closely linked with that

the aeternitas populi Romani. Aeter
nitas Augusta does not claim Aeternitas for the ruling princeps,
nor, very pointedly, did Tiberius, whose judgment was principes
91,
3.
II,
n.
350
p.
mortales, rem publicam aeternam esse. But Aeternitas Augusta

121: see above, section
At cities there were quinquennales perpetui (Lar
Carthage, Chapter III,
sen, CP, 1931,
322) and flamines perpetui; cf. Sac. Perp.
section
i.
ILS,
at
p.
851
Ad Marc.,
HTR,
3786: see last subsection.
1936,
112,
14, Rogers,
p.
854
157, cf. Charlesworth,
n.
358
ILS,
ILS,
352
p.
i.
28 (Interamna).
Cf. also Addenda.
19. 15.
Cf. Charlesworth, HTR, 1936,

Tac., Ann., III, 65, cf. Rogers,
122, cf. Rogers,

33.
p.
358
359
p. p.
in
356
32.
I,
p.
Requiescit
in
pace, etc.from the Hebrew. Cf. Augusta

pace, RIC, V,
197.
But this contrast cannot be pressed too far; exceptions occur on both sides. For
the theme see Pfleiderer, Die Idee des ewigen Friedens,
Reden und Aufstze (1909),
pp. 50 ff.
357 De Clem., I.8.2; cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist., 27.1.1.3.
355
in

to
of
to
he
worldly peace,
mean, like Christians
later date,
but death." His phrase for the former, and synonym
the
berian Pax perpetua, was pax Romana. Tiberius, too, tended
was
87
does hint at a dynastic permanence which was not yet formulated

by official policy; and so does Tucci's dedication pro ae[tern..] Cae
sarum," which pointed straight to the dynastic implications of the

AETERNIT(as) IMPERI of the Severi," and was nearer still to
the autocratic and theocratic Aeternitas Augusti.
Was it in awareness of these divergent strands of aeternitas that

Severus Alexander, who had room for many gods in his lararium,"
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"
seems scarcely more than a tautological
its
repetition." By way of contrast with the elevated character of
the
VICTORIOSO SEMPER
of
of
be
to
simpler still was
Probus."
of
This was the ideal

warrior and military monarchy, and con
trasts vividly with Tiberius' text for his very different reignPACE
AVG. PERP.
tures
illustrate novel
PACE AVG. PERP.; and there are other novelties

1, as
ILS, 163,
361 RIC, IV,
360
fea
in
of
The last two subsections have attempted
to
(v) Old and new types
Ti
restored by Mommsen.
p.
n.
p.
p.
of
p.
Philip. See Pearce, NC, 1938,

pp. 73, 75, 77; cf. coinage
128,
Ensslin, SB Mnchen, 1943 (VI),
39, Alfldi, Rm. Mitt., 1935,
124, Nock, JRS,
1947,
105,
30.
864
RIC, V,
p.
1,
see above,
n.
p.
p.
363
Ensslin, SB Mnchen, 1943 (VI),

41.
Id., CAH, XII,
68 (n.
references). But
362
339.
115.
367
no
731, 813, 821, 858; Nock,
91.
RIC, V,
pp. 32, 41, cf. Gag,
RH,
1933, pp. 27, 31, 34.
JRS,
1947,
p.
5,
p.
2,
pp. clxv and
n.
BMC. Imp., IV,

2,
366
113,
at
p.
365 For the link between Vesta and Aetermitas see Charlesworth, HTR, 1936, pp.
32, suggests that
107 ff., Rogers,
20. Last, CR, 1943,
such inseparable link ex
isted
much earlier period; but cf. Hor., Od., III,
11.
n.

of
in
of
aeternitas, and
danger
becoming lost
meaningless abstrac
tion, one
the many numismatic innovations
Commodus had
MANENTI;"
concretely
phrased
been the more
FORTVNAE
and
88
berian colonial types. But these must be considered alongside many

features already found under Augustus. Inherited from Augustus,
apparently without change, were Mars and Victoria;" 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 (nos.

24, 26, 28-29, 31: Plate III, 3-4 and 6, IV, 1 and 3). Both these had
been the special types of their cities under Augustus just as they
were under Tiberius. If we turn to official types of an inanimate
by
II,
20: Plate
7) had
already appeared
Augustan coinages
as
on at
from his official issues." Pontifical implements, too, are common

Hippo Diarrhytus (no.
both reigns. The simpulum and lituus
in
iii.
of
as
a
is
2
R.
2,
section iv, subsections
and
B,
II,
i.
372 For temples and shrines, cf. below, Chapter

Chapter III, section
p.
p.
15
of
p.
at
I,
symbol
interpreted
The ram
Panormus (no. 12: Plate
17 and 18)
Mercury by Hill, Coins
208; cf. Orth, RE,
Ancient Sicily,
393.
ff., Degrassi, Athe
870 For the Augustan Mercury see Scott, Hermes, 1928, pp.
Chittenden,
naeum, 1937, pp. 284 ff., Piganiol, RA, XXII, 1944,
especially
123 and
NC, 1945, pp. 41 ff.
24), 225.
1937,
87.1 FITA, pp. 272 (cf. Kubitschek, Gnomon,
369
378
VII, 7),
E.g. Romula (Plate

municipium Utica.
Acci, Tarraco, and municipia Bilbilis and Osca;
3.74 E.g. Seltman,

375 See
Chapter
CAH,
II,
Plates
IV,
p.
also
at
152.
section iii.
Cf. Tac., Ann., III, 21, for conferment on Tiberius.

877 Cf. Schulz, Die Rechtstitel und Regierungsprogramme
miinzen,
19,
12, Mattingly, BMC. Imp.,
pp. xcix
379
FITA,
FITA,
880
BMC. Imp.,
Kaiser
f.
auf rmischen
174.
187.
ii,
Livia
as
pp. 56,62, 80, 107, 110, 113.
881 For the patera held

section B.
by
I,
378
I,
p.
376
p.
9
p. p. n.

those imitated
16), which recalls

municipia Italica and Zitha"under Augustus
I,
was the capricorn
were both purely Augustan; and
so
II,
VIII, 7). These

at
VII,
7,
V,
9,
16,
3,
character, we find, as in Spain and on statues, an abundance

of laurel-wreaths (Victoria Augusti") and oak-wreaths (ob cives
IV,
servatos"), always hard to tell apart" (e.g. Plate I, 1-3,
subsection
priestess, see below, Chapter
B; also Appendix 11.
III,
section iv,
sub
89
emblems of the high-priesthood," and even the much rarer strig

iles at Pella (nos. 36, 40: Plate IV, 11) had figured at the same
mint under the first princeps.

On the other hand, in our discussion of PACE AVG. PERP., one
point that has emerged is the occasional appearance of new phrases
particularly
to
of
epithet PERPET
the colonial series
Tiberius.
personification AETERNITAS, does not appear
met
on
its
VA, like
Its
its
and motifs on colonial issues many years, often very many years,
before they are found on the official mintages; and it has become
many conservative traits," this applies
clear that, in spite of
all
at
Carthage(?) does not reappear

der Tacitus (A.D. 275-276).
until centuries later still, un
on
the same coin

on
AETERNITATIS AVGVSTAE")
sometimes
does not appear

official
Augustan an
honour
an
Tarraco under Tiberius (Plate VI,
8:
at
of
of
of
Moreover, other colonial and municipal coinages

Tiberius pro
vide analogous examples
such anticipations
the official prac
tice. Thus the legend DEO AVGVSTO which appears
colonia
as
provincial
is
of
provided
man city,
later official numismatic theme
cipium Italica, which writes PROVIDENTIAE AVGVSTI
387 See
IV,
120.
III,
section
iii.
C.
subsection
131, no. 12.
below, Chapter
Ibid.,
section
ii,
f.
40.
I,
p.
pp. 281
Cf. above, Chapter
386 Vives,
388
I,
FITA,
p.
384
BMC. Imp.,
n.
388
Ro
muni
in
on
is
official issues until
by
Hadrian."
not paralleled
Yet another Tiberian anticipation,
at
a
and Pella under Tiberius,
at
of
of
in
of
coinage until we find itapparently

niversaryon aurei
Gallienus (A.D. 253-268). Again, the omis
Dyrrhachium
any divine title from the style
Augustus,
sion
of

of
as
of
at
of
of
ropolitan issues until Vespasian. The olive-branch

Peace, appar
ently found
Panormus soon after (if not before) the accession
Tiberius, occurs first under Nero
the main type
official coins,
while the actual PAX PERPETVA of our Tiberian medallion
full
90
4"),
(Plate VII,
rendering explicit the deliberately generalised

PROVIDENT of the imperial aes. Here, however, the time-lag be
fore the theme percolates to the official coinage is a shorter one; for
it is not a third-century princeps, but Claudius, whose Roman
sues first write this type of formula in
fullCONSTANTIAE
is
AV
PI
GVSTI." Similarly Pella (no. 39) and Caesaraugusta" write

ETAS AVGVSTA under Tiberius where Rome still writes PIE
TAS.892
Nor are these the only precocities or peculiarities of the Tiberian

coin-types of citizen communities. For in some cases, as subjects
or,
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,
for that matter, local coinages. Thus Romula's

GENETRIXORBIS Livia (Plate VII, 6)," only partially paral
leled
much later date by the VENERI GENETRICI
Sa
of
at
V, is a
bina,"
to
parallel
coinage
of
on
precedent
or
cus and Drusus, has

period.
no of
7)
4,
of
for the rest exceptional, the GENT. IVLI.

Corinth
disappears after
(Plate
brief survival under Caligula,"
while the IVNCTIO
Ilici (Plate VI, 6)," applied
Germani
any sort
or
PACE AVG. PERP.,
of
of
to
on
no
only one
or
to
then,
is
types that
number
present, along with elements inherited from Augustus, features
Augustan precedent, but which instead
which can
related
point the way
practices not apparent
are either unique
the
be
398 Vives,
IV,
Vives,
IV,
It
is
in
133, no. 98.
80, no. 37; cf. below, Chapter
III,
III,
section
396
42, no.
10; cf. below,
Chapter
ii.
i.
394 BMC. Imp., III, pp. cxvii, cxli, 307, 334.

395 See below, Chapter III, section
92, no. 19, and

the Genitive.
p.
1931,
p.
184, no. 140.
NNM, 50,
A,
166.
n.
9;
p.
p.
392
III,
80, no. 37, cf. Hill,

section iii, subsection
p.
low, Chapter
cf. above, section iv, subsection A.
180, no. 109,
p.
BMC. Imp.,
390
p.
127, no.
BMC. Imp.,
IV,
Vives,
391
I,
Vives, IV,
I,
389
p.
of
of
official coinage until much later principates. Phenomena

this lat
type
suggest
aspect
gradual
ter
new
the
and much-discussed
p.

of
recur on official
96; cf.
A.
be
91
provincialisation
of Rome and the Romans. A further aspect of

the same subject, the infiltration from the periphery of special hon
ours to the imperial family, is the topic of the next section.

397 Cf. (for race) M. P. Nilsson, Imperial Rome, pp. 338 ff., Frank, American His
torical 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 Ro
man 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 un
published Princeps, Vol. II, Chapters IV and V).
III
CHAPTER
THE FAMILY OF TIBERIUS

(i) The Gens Iulia
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 Pere
TYPE which
to
of
its
if
of
it
is to
in
order
of
is
play
part among
enable
apparently the numismatic d
the rest
the evidence. For this
but
the phrase Gens Iulia, and indeed,
we except brief sur
vival
the same series under Caligula, apparently
sole numis
matic Occurrence.
A.D.
of
the genteiles Iuliei."

19, Tacitus again illustrates the special position
describing the stipulation according
which
Republican inscription
by
speaking
of
it of In
which too we have
at
in
16
of
of
At
the very period

our Tiberian coinages the Gens Iulia re
ceives literary attention: for Tacitus records the dedication
sacrarium Genti Iuliae
A.D.
its ancestral Bovillae," from
7.
3.
p.
4.
3,
n.
92
MAH, 1931,
20,
RR,
68.
Syme,
p.
424, Gag,
n.
91*,
n.
105, no. 30.
MAH, 1931,
20,
MAH,
1930,
170,
cf. Gag,
cf. Gag,
83,
sometimes
IVLIA AVGVSTA:
p.
II,
(e.g. by Hill) described

represent
see below, section iv, subsec
as
is
Ann.,
p. p.
ILS, 298,
3
4
Earle Fox, JIAN, 1899,

Ann., II, 41, cf. Weber,
it
is
priestess type
The Livia
ing the Gens Iulia, but
labelled
tion B.
p. n.
VI,
p.
Edwards, Corinth,
as
to to
in
to
of
to
the Gens Iulia

alone should provide successors
the priestly posts
Germani
cus." These developments are very close
date
the Corinthian
coins, and the combined evidence bears witness
decisive stage

its
perhaps needed
7). Though the imperial cult under

brief commentary
this particular
on
legend
4, is
V,
familiar theme,
Tiberius
is)
IVLI(ae) (Plate
is
or
(i
Its
grinus and L. Furius Labeo (nos. 4245), apparently datable to

type
hexastyle temple inscribed GENT
some year before 22.
93
The Family of Tiberius
no
by
in
at
be
to
in
ily
of
its
in the cult. Its preliminaries under Augustus are obscure. The Ara
Gentis Iuliae at Rome, of which we have epigraphic evidence un
der Claudius' and Titus," was ascribed by Grueber to c. 39 B.C.,"
and Taylor too first attributed it to Augustus (12 B.C.);" but subse
quently she has withdrawn this view in favour of the opinion that
the Ara Numinis Augusti, from
foundation (shortly before his
death?) served the cult
the Gens Iulia." Though Augustus' fam
posi
played very great part
his policy, there seems
tive evidence for an Ara Gentis Iuliae
Rome
his lifetime, the
in
of
altar existing
the time
Claudius may have been founded
the latter, but the founder could also have been Tiberius.
of
of
to
of
the more advanced"
the
remains true that Gens Augusta
is
is
of in
of
of
It
as
at
it
but
23, Groag, Studien
203.
n.
Kornemann, DR,
3,
zur Kaisergeschichte,
Pippidi, RCI, pp. 72,
p.
77.
2,
p.
p.
25. See above,
1168,
St. R.3, II,
42, n.5, Ehrenberg,
p.
Cf. Mommsen,
2.
307,
p.
193,
n.
p.
1925,
DRE,
n.
AJA,
p.
12 11 10
p.
p.
I,
n. ff.
p.
Henzen, Acta Fratrum Arvalium,

57.
Smith, JRS, 1926, pp. 99
military
diploma).
(a
Republic,
BMC
584
But the references which he quotes there (CIG, 6125
and Bullettino dellInstituto Archeologico, 1845,
122) do not support this view.
n.
p.
p.
f.,
p.
p. p.
I,
p.
la
et
f.; 14
13
201, reserves his judgment.

Poinssot, Notes
Documents de
Direction des Antiquits de Tunisie, 1929, pp.
Gag, RA, XXXIV, 1931,
11, QA,
1937, pp. 12
63;
14
and MAH, 1932,
Carcopino, MAH, 1933,
23, Strong, CAH, X,
552, Seltman, CAH, Plates IV,
134, Maj, RPAA, 1936,
157, Pippidi, RCI, pp. 129 ff., etc. See also next note.
p.
1.
n.
p.
1.
130,
n.
p.
684, cf. Pippidi, RCI,
it
in
in
Cagnat, CRAI, 1913,
p.
p.
in
in
15
BAF, 1925,
209,
Rm. Mitt., 1923/4, pp. 290 ff., later qualified
He also
Language and Literature, XV, 1922,
142,
discusses the altar
Wisconsin Studies
SEH, pp. 44, 46, SES,
50;
the first he wrongly calls
an Ara Gentis Iuliae.
10

is in
P.
is
Similar chronological doubts attend our earliest known inscrip

tion recording
kindred concept, the Gens Augusta. This inscrip
Corinth, namely
private dedication from fellow-colony
tion
Carthage, couched
the phrase Genti Augustae
Perelius Hedu
perp."
usually
Augustus,
lus sac.
This
ascribed
the lifetime
but
one time Rostovtzeff envisaged
Tiberian date." Gens Au
gusta naturally does not mean quite the same
Gens Iulia.
has
been suggested that the former implies the inclusion
the living
family
the princeps
the cult, whereas the latter term only pro
doubtful,
vides for the worship
his deceased relatives." This
94
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." On the other hand he
had finally used the name Augustus in the gentile position, and
had allowed his colonies to be called coloniae Augus
tae," the previous designation colonia Iulia not, indeed, becoming
extinct" but perhaps being principally used henceforward for foun
from 27
B.C.
dations associated with his vicegerents and relatives rather than

with himself. 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
gusta 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 offi
cial institution of the colonia. It is reasonable enough that P. Hedu
has 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.
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. Although little prominence was given
to 'ulius Caesar at this time, the
.. Cf. Stuart
Iulii were
18 See above,
19
Cf. FITA,
Jones, CAH, X, p. 147, von Premerstein,

Chapter II, section i.
pp. 257, 293, n. 1.
20
Cf. Gsell, Histoire Ancienne
de
l'Afrique du Nord,
the family into which

pp. 153, 157.
VIII,
1942, p. 13.
FITA, pp. 259

Cf. above, Chapter II, section
See above, Chapter II, section
Cf. above, Chapter
II,
section
i, i. v.
Cf.
f.
24 23 22 21.

Au
and below, section
iii.
p. 179, Henderson,
JRS,
95
11
and 14,
family, however,
VI,
af
do
of
6,
9,
V,
II,
IVLIA (as well as AVGVSTA) (Plate

VII, VIII, 11). The younger men the
self
4,
he had been adopted in A.D. 4; and his mother, who was adopted
into it posthumously by Augustus, from then onwards called her
certain age and status, did not

likewise:
using the name CAESAR
follow Tiberius
the gentile position, unlike Augustus who had,
later life,
preferred for
the place
the praenomen. This gentile use
of
of of
or
it
so
described, soon brings

phrases which
approach, but never quite achieve, Gens Caesarina
Caesarum.
Caesarum,"
long
pontifex
possibly
Thus before
we hear
aeterni
if
may
us
to
CAESAR,
be
it
of
in
in
in
to a
ter they had reached

they were required
in
of
so
of
tas Caesarum," and closest

all-domus Caesarum. But this proc
gens described
ess never goes
far that we hear
this way.
For after all the Gens was the Gens Iulia,
which the ancient Re
of
(a
at
by
us
be
I,
to
of
26 25
by
to
may, perhaps, likewise

related
the cult
possibly may Numa, whose statue stood
the
See below, section iv, subsection B.
28 27
of
ilar allusion and

the Gens Iulia;
altar.
so so
on
Tiberius (for Divus Augus

carry sim
Achulla (no. 14: Plate 21), seems
the official coinage
at
thunderbolt
tus), imitated
See above, Chapter
II,
section
as
i.
f.,
at
p.
of
as
The grandsons
Tiberius still appear, when very young,
Ti. Iulii Germanicus
Berlin, Dressel, ZfAV, 1922,
182; Nero (Gemellus)
and Nero, e.g., on
lead piece
has not yet become Ti. Caesar Drusi Caes.
on CIL, VI, 892.
p.
this section. For the re

1915, pp. 445 f., Du
p.
p.
p.
in
RIS,
35, id.,
159.
p.
as
CIL, II, 2038 (Anticaria); cf. Sutherland, JRS, 1934,

ILS, 163 (Tucci),
restored by Mommsen.
Klio,
Wickert,
1940,
Cf.
136. For domus, see later
gens with another kindred word familia, see Rolfe,

10,
15.
CP,
n.
p. of
Cf. Pettazzoni, Augustus,

220.
Mattingly, NC, 1930, pp. 132
Smith, JRS, 1926, pp. 99, 101, cf. above, Chapter
f.
p.
31. 30 29
lation
Four,
to
p.
at
as
Even under Augustus

least one colony had apparently been described
Caesar
ina, i.e., Asido (Henderson, JRS, 1942,
13). Cf. Caesarea, the epithet given
Pisid
ian Antioch, though for special reason (FITA,
250not Sinope, ibid.,
253).
34 23 32

is
to
publican history
recalled
the inscription
Bovillae. In
cidentally, that inscription records their worship
Veiovis
de
ity who likewise linked the family with Apollo Palatinus); and
II,
A.
96
Public worship of the Gens Iulia, whether at Rome or by a colo

ny, represented a step, even if a short one, in the direction of autoc
racy, since it stressed the idea of an imperial family. Among citi
well as among foreigners, this idea began increasingly to
take shape under Tiberius. As might be expected however,
berius himself, at Rome at least, discouraged this tendency. But,
all
even
Ti
he
for
to ed
zens, as
or
in
by
in
of
of
of
of
the Gythian decree,"

could not,
did not,
stop the cities
the empire from considerably outstripping this
Livia, Germanicus and Drusus
moderatio. For example, flamines
were,
the earlier part
the reign and
their lifetimes, appoint
the caution
to
at
oppida civium Romanorum. Reference has been made

domus Caesarum, aeternitas Caesarum, pontifex Caesarum
peregrine communities; another was
pontifex domus
have
of
in
an
as
be
to as
such movements: Ovid uses domus Augusta," and domus Augusti"

well,
does
Ostian inscription also. Attention had begun
of
of
it
to
of
Tiberius, from the gens

deflected, even before the death
deceptive associa
the princeps
his domus." This was word
tions with the Republican groups" that did not prevent
from
3;
n.
n.
Flacc.,
4,
131; cf. Philo,

131,
In
p. p.
la
RCI,
RCI,
23.
1.
135, cf. Pippidi,
n.
129.
76, cf. Pippidi,
p. p.
p.
Ex Ponto, II,
Op. cit., III,
2, p.
Pippidi, RCI,
1,
42 41 40 39 38
p.
p.
37 36 35
p.
of
conveying the suggestion

royal court and dynasty." Phaedrus,
34, id., RIS,
158.
III, section iv, subsection A.
Chapter
For references see
CIL, XII, 3180, 3207, cf. Jullian, Histoire de
ILS,
Gaule, IV,
346,
159, JRS, 1934,
6896 (Olisipo), cf. Sutherland, RIS,
34.
CIL, II, 2105 (Urgavo), cf. Sutherland, JRS, 1934,
34,
27.
II,
p.
Cf. the Virtues, Chapter
n.
p.
47).
45 44 43
1, is
of
f.
is
CIL, XIV, Suppl. 4319, cf. Pippidi, RCI, 130 Domus Augusti
much the rarer
form: contrast the relative frequencies
numen Augusti and numen Augustum, which
exceptional (CIL., XI, 3303, cf. Taylor, AJPh, 1937,
189, Pippidi, RCI, pp. 40,
A.
p.
p.
Cf. von Premerstein,

66.
129, the gens and domus Augusta are described
Cf. Pippidi, RCI,
139. Ibid.,
synonymous. But their emphases are different: domus stresses the household as
pect, whereas the gens was whole clan including several families.
a
as

at
in
So
Augustae some time during the first century.

this tendencylike those described
the last chapterbe
gan
the periphery." But the Roman poets too are
the van
97
writing after 31 A.D. and probably after 37," speaks of the divina
domus; and inscriptions indicate that the same phrase was al
ready being employed in the latter half of the principate of
berius. A Gallic community, Nasium, dedicates properpetua salute
divinae domus," apparently just after the fall of Sejanus." The
phrase divina domus" 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
inception,
adu
latory
his person
sounds:
often
veneration
rather
meaning
directed
his predecessor. For
this stage
not
easy
much the divine House (though
see that confusion,
so
is is
so
to at its its
so
is
its as
it
to
it
to
as
Ti
as
towards that significance, could occur")

the
particular, the house
house
the divi, and,
the divusre
fering not
Julius" but Augustus, who had, incidentally, been
of
n.
52.
p.
p.
3. n.
p.
of
of
Tiberius the princeps
Cf. Rose, Handbook

Latin Literature,
358 and
Fab., V,
cf. Pippidi, RCI, pp. 123, 128 and
CIL, XIII, 4635, cf. Pippidi, RCI, 137, cf.
132.
Ti
as to
of
much
7,
8,
50 49 48 47 46
described
the domus not
Augustus the divus.
so
as
it
of
in
writers even
his lifetime." The exceptional
character
his posthumous position under Tiberius" makes
un
derstandable that the Julian householdinto which, after all,
berius himself had not even been born"should have come
be
called divinus
(VI),
3,
n.
p.
11
n.
p.
112,
Cf. Charlesworth, HTR, 1936,
14.
particularly
Eitrem,
ff.,
Symbolae
Osloenses, XI, 1932, pp.
For references see
Alfldi, Rm. Mitt., 1935,
Pippidi, RCI, 11.cc., Ensslin, SB Mnchen,
86,
1.
n.
p.
32.
still seem
f.
Cf. below, section iii.

Some imperial freedmen enfranchised by Tiberius even after A.D.
have been called Claudius rather than Julius, cf. Scramuzza, EC, pp. 141
to
of
54
E.g. by Vitruvius, prooem., divina tua mens, cf. Alfldi, Rm. Mitt., 1934,
Largus and Seneca wrote similarly
Claudius.
p.
it
1;
I,
n.
p.
at
et
p.
53 52 51.
f.
pp. 37, 71 ff.

RCI, pp. 133
Pippidi,
Cf.
Mowat, La Domus Divina
ff., cf. Pippidi, RCI,
132,
les Divi, pp.
As Mowat, op. cit. Julius was not emphasized
this time, cf. Gag, RA, XXXIV,
1931, pp. 23, 36, Pippidi, RCI,
132,
the sidus Iulium (cf. Scott, CP, 1941,
257) sometimes appears (e.g. no. 14: Plate
21) but
had become associated with
Augustus.
1943
56 55

by
to
in
of
and evolution
98
These ideas of the gens Iulia and Augusta, and the domus Au
gusta 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 out
side Rome. But adulation went farther in the remoter citizen com
munities than in Rome, and farther still in the peregrine areas of
the empire, and the family feeling of Caligula greatly enhanced
the Augustan house at Rome itself. The cives Romani at Corinth
under Tiberius were on the way to such developments; and Cor
inth, 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.
However, even if the Corinthians missed no opportunities of flat
tery, the stage which they had reached on the way to dynasty-wor
comparatively early one; and it may well be that the cult
of the Gens Iulia there exceptionally recorded showed little devi
ation or development, other than by the inevitable addition of him
a
self as divus, from the practice of Augustus.
(ii) The younger Julio-Claudians
3,
of V,
6,
Corinth(?), Sinope (nos. 19, 26, 28, 31, 46, 53: Plate
IV,
9(?), 16)portray Drusus junior (Thapsus several
III,
6,
II,
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 assignedHippo Diarrhytus, Thapsus,
times).
FITA,
This
to
so
rols
268.
on the assumption that

small Corinthian(?)
colonial issue
Tiberius: see Appendix
1.
piece with
GER.DRV.
is
Cf.
p.
Cf. Balsdon, pp. 29 ff., 41
pp. 45
ff.
von Premerstein,
include the phrase
ff.
arov
of
not
ry'y[vots
T[k]vous
re]
E.g. Gangra oath (3 B.C.) should perhaps be restored
is
57
of
to
depict Germanicus." This

our colonies, however, seems
does not, however, much illuminate the problem,
which
much
None
a 60 59 58

ship was
99
has been written lately," 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," 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 quin
quennium 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
only Romula seems slightly to prefer Germanicus (Plate VII, 7)."

Without throwing any light on the relative importance of the
two princes while both were alive, our present coinages, like an is
sue of Tarraco," merely illustrate the known elevation of Drusus
junior, after the death of Germanicus, to a position which neither
had enjoyed before A.D. 19." This was the first occasion on which a
princeps had raised his own son to such a position; and it has caused
Wege zum nationalpolitischen
Gymnasium, 1939, p. 151,
Stuart, CP, 1940, pp. 64 ff., Allen, TAPA, 1941, pp. 1 ff.,
p. 131, especially Rogers, pp. 89 ff., and the probably right
1945, p. 146 (agreeing with Rogers, etc.), that there was
little to choose between the two princes in this respect. But the somewhat cryptic testi
mony of Velleius II, 116.1, 125.4, 129.2, 130.3
probable
needs reconsideration
reflection
the official view
A.D. 30: Allen, op. cit.,
considers that he prefers
Drusus to Germanicus.
as
a
VI,
Chapter
II,
section
v.
6,
p.
42, no. 10; Plate
6,
IVNCTIO
FITA, 268;
Cr.
20, no. 44.

Ilici: Vives, IV,
p.
of
p.
VI,
at
Corinth,
p.
65 64 68 62
of
f.,
61 See Drexler, Auf dem

Kornemann, RG, II, p. 151,
Betz, JAIW, 1943, Beiblatt,
conclusion of Balsdon, JRS,
cf. last section.
tion,
p.
132, no. 20
1934,
37,
is
of
(DRVSVS CAES TRIB. POT., IVLIA AVGVSTA); cf.

Hill, NNM, 50, 1931,
48; Plate VII,
p.
p.
IV,
JRS,
Cf. Gardthausen, RE, X, 433, Kuntz, Tiberius Caesar and the Roman Constitu
58, Hammond,
239, nn. 42, 68.
p.
67
66
Vives,
Sutherland,
in
Germanicus.
Sutherland, JRS,
parallel one for
3.
to
offers the usual honours

the two princes together.
36, quotes an issue for Drusus junior
Italica: but there
at
1934,
p.
though ibid.
as
as
p.
Vives, IV,
124, no.
(GERMANICVS CAESAR TI-AVG-F.). This isexcep
tionally-not paralleled,
Drusus;
far
we know, by
similar issue
honour
p.

balance as regards the relative importance of the two men" (as had
Corinth even under Augustusadding Agrippa Postumus as well");
100
the year 19 to be described as an important moment in Roman im

perial history." 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
sued by
is
A.D.
21."
It is possible that Tiberius delegated to Drusus junior certain

tasks of colonial foundation"and even conceivably, through the
latter's tribunicia potestas conferred in A.D. 22, the ius senatus con
sulendi comprising the right to become auctor of senatusconsulta.
An issue of colonia Tarraco inscribed DRVSVS CAES. TRIB. POT.
VII, 3), may well celebrate
on c.
Its
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. Corinth likewise was a leading colony, and one inter
junior (?) (Plate

22-23; thus
ascribed
A.D.
too may perhaps commem
orate the conferment
Drusus
the tribunician power. But ex
cept for the fact that the elevation
the princeps own son pre
unprecedentedly vivid form, there
sented the dynastic aspect
was nothing exceptional about these honours
Drusus junior: for
found, singly
severally,
them precedents could
the
it
issue honouring Drusus
principate
of
in
or
be
all
of
to
in
an
of
of
to
is
9)
V,
ested in potential heirs.
Augustus.
in
by
to
subsection
A.
336,
2,
Wickert, Klio, 1939,
n.
66 and
p.
section
subsection C.
i.
ii,
2,
Cf. von Premerstein,

1942,
243.
section
II,
n.
I,
Cf. above, Chapter

See above, Chapter
p.
section
p.
See Appendix
41.
II,
5.
See above, Chapter
ii,
Kornemann, DR,
p.
to
of
to
as
of
of
to
Still less was there anything striking about the honours paid
Germanicus, who,
part, took the
place
Drusus junior
heirs
the principate after the latter's
death. One
our colonies, Corinth, offers possible parallel (no.
municipium
47)
the numismatic honours accorded
them
73 72 71. 70 69 68

(Plate
Hohl, Klio,
101
Tingis
in Mauretania and by Spanish colonies such as Caesar

augusta (Plate VI, 1) and Carthago Nova (Plate VI, 4). At these
Spanish cities the young princes are described as duoviri and duo
viri quinquennales respectively." Carthago Nova also shows a por
trait of Caligula before the end of the principate of Tiberius (Plate
VI, 3), and at Caesaraugusta he is a duovir represented by a prae
fectus," phenomena for which no parallel can be cited from the
coinage of our non-Spanish colonies."
But like Nero Germanici f. before him (and others before that),
Caligula had
junior co-heir; and unlike Caligula, this co-heir, Ti.

Julius Nero (Gemellus), the son of Drusus junior, seems to be rep
resented 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)."
a
in
a
no
of
is
in
Caligulan date, NC, 1948,
p.
coin might be
of
This
Vives, IV, pp. 82, 37,
n.
See Appendix
2.
76 75 74
at
is
an
commoner. But there

serious difficulty about
this; and
quite possible that,
Augustus,
the time
ear
lier princeps-to-be Tiberius had, another Roman colony, Cnossus,
it to
a
college
so,
his name could not come second on a coin of his own principate,"
to which the legend TI. AVG (supported by iconographical con
siderations) ascribes this piece. But the tombstone of Ti. Gemellus
confirms that his official style was, as might be expected, Ti. Cae
sar, and the second name on the Paestan issue is likely to be his.
If this is we have prince yielding the first place
duoviral
114.
37.
2.
82, nos. 54 f.; cf. above, Chapter
section
subsection
C.
37, no. 41.
ii,
IV,
IV,
I,
Vives,
Vives,
p. p.
81 80 79 78 77
at
of
n.
p.
Cf. Abaecherli Boyce, NNM, 109, 1947,

23 and
32. They held many such
possible example
duovirates and quinquennalian duovirates, ibid., pp. 24 and 37; for
Utica, see Appendix
the latter
CIL, VI,
892.
as
1.
n.
p.
18
7,
n.
ii,
p.
is
of
p.
I,
L.
p.
47,
Balsdon,
For such honours cf. Kornemann, DR,
and
Chapter
above,
For
Caelius see
section
subsection C.
263, against Hill, NNM, 50, 1931,
Cf. FITA,
91 (for Caesaraugusta; where
probably the praefectus
prince). Indeed the princeps
Fulvianus
duovir usually
(though not always) lacked
colleague.
82

The second duoviral name cannot be that of the princeps Tiberius:
102
likewise taken second place." 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. Caeli
us, even
if not praefectus Ti. Augusti, may well have obtained sim
to
as
of
of
In
is,
ilar priority on the grounds of his post as flamen Ti. Augusti:" this
perhaps entitled him, rather than Ti. Gemellus, to the position of
duovir comitialis, that
senior duovir.
view
the cautious at
titude
the second princeps towards his last co-heirs, Caligula
and Gemellus,"
earlier (to
less extent)
Nero and Drusus,
of
in
is
Alba Pompeia" and another,

usual the Roman cities did not
as
as
go in
oppida civium Romanorum, such

honouring Ti, Gemellus. But
its
him." Caligula, then, did not monopolise the honours
p.
FITA,
p.
p.
69,
ii,
Roma, 1930, pp. 150
communale
f.
171.
Giglioli, Bullettino archeologico
di
ILS,
f.
13
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X, pp. 642, 652, etc.

section
subsection C, pp. 26
See above, Chapter
I,
89 ss 87 86
n.
as
I,
For this, see above, Chapter

section
subsection
25.
For this
the senior post, cf. Hardy, Roman Laws and Charters,
(Agrigentum).
196,
p.
C,
ii,
See Appendix
1.
represent
85 84 83
to
of
of
on
as
of
in
so
dynastic flattery
peregrine Eastern
far
the direction
coinage,"
cities. For example, Philadelphia placed his head
apparently still during the lifetime
his grandfather Tiberius,"
in whose company second coin,
an uncertain Asian mint, seems
AE,
1933,
25, no. 94.

p.
p.
1,
to
of
to
p. to
.
.
.
at
92
of
p.
of
91
p.
90
p.
52(576), no. 47, cf. also

Imhoof-Blumer, LS,
120, no. 24, correcting GM,
Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum, VIII,
204, Gardthausen, RE, X, 536.
The Tiberian portraiture, and the type
thunderbolt imitated from late Tiberian
Imhoof-Blumer, LS,
120, cf. Bosch, II,
24, that
aes are against the suggestion
this was
memorial coinage.
rightTIB.. head
Cast
Winterthur: TIBEPI
laureate head
Tiberius
right.
by
peregrine
Gemellus(?)
For other honours
Gemellus
cities cf. Charles
worth, CAH, X,
624.
of

its
younger princes decreased considerably

number and perhaps ceased altogether."
coinage
correct, Paestum joins other
this interpretation
of
praefecti
If
in
pointment
for
of
by
in
to
is
it
not surprising
find Gemellus here not only
the second
place but apparently also unrepresented
praefectus: for
about the thirties A.D., after the fall
Nero and Drusus, the ap
103
of heirship in the last period of Tiberius," and indeed we know

that so high an official as A. Avillius Flaccus, prefect of Egypt, be
lieved in the prospects of Ti. Gemellus." Our colonial coinages do
not illuminate the earliest years of Gemellus, in which official issues
of Rome" and Cyrene," and lead tokens," had represented him
with his twin brother Ti. Julius Germanicus."
The heirs of Tiberius received honours in these cases less con
spicuous, 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.
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." The position of the new divus
was much greater than had been that of Divus Julius in the pre
ceding principate." 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 Tiberi
As Balsdon, p. 18.
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
98
3,
n.
234,
under Augustus see Syme, RR, pp. 317

continuance
this under Tiberius see Gag,
RCI,
132,
cf. above, section
and Chap
i,
1,
n.
of
Julius
p.
p.
titulature that would not invite compari

f.,
achieve
125, FITA,
442; for
1931, pp. 23, 36, Pippidi,
p.
these princes see Hohl, Klio, 1942,

a
i. to
section
For the soft-pedalling
i.
100
Tiberius
II,
of
Cf. the attempts

son, see above Chapter
JRS, 1938,
RA, XXXIV,
ter II, section
(TI-IVLIVS GER TI. IVLIVS
n.
On the deceased elder brother

23.
Rogers, pp. 95, 96,
of
98
182: Berlin collection
p.
1922,
of
ZfAN,
NERO).
Dressel,
p.
97
ff.
94
99

(iii) Divus Augustus
104
us." Nor do
the Tiberian mintages of Roman colonies and mu

nicipia fall short in this respect. Ten of them show portraits of the
deified first princeps. These include our non-Spanish coloniae Pan
ormus, Achulla, Dyrrhachium, Corinth and Cnossus (?) (nos. 11,
41,42 and 49: Plate I, 16, 21, V,
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 mu
14,
1,
nicipium 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 figuredespite the customary mod
eratio as regards extravagant flattery of his memory"in Tiberian
show that the occasions for his official coinage largely consisted of
these." It has been suggested that the Tiberian phrase divina do
mus originally meant the House of the
DIVUS, namely Augus
tus;"
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." Tiberius' own name Augustus was still far more closely
associated with the dead man than with the ruling emperor," and
Victoria, Felicitas, Pax Augusti, etc., under Tiberius carried an al
101
BMC. Imp., I,
pp. 124, 130, 134, 136, 140
97.
pp. 328 ff., 463 ff.
106 See above,
Chapter
107 See above, Chapter
II,
II,
section
i.
FITA,
sections
iii
105
i,
102 Cf. Rogers, pp. 72, 84, etc.

103 RAI, Chapter III.
and iv.
ff.
lusion to Augustus himself." 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
p.

policy. The present writer has, in Roman Anniversary Issues, en

deavoured to illustrate the punctilious and repeated care with
which Tiberius celebrated Augustan anniversaries, and indeed to
105
witnessed the vital stages in the development of the vastly impor

tant institution of divus worship;" 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 numberDIVVS AVGVSTVS
PATER, which figured largely on the aes" (as well as at Emerita
[Plate VII, 8] and Tarraco), and DIVOS AVGVST. DIVI F., on
the official gold and silver." None of our five colonies which com
memorated 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);"
this phrase soon
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 Augus
tus, whereas Cnossus (?) (Plate V, 11, 12) and probably Achulla
(Plate I, 21) describe him in the simplest orthodox formDIVOS
AVG. At Dyrrhachium,
on the other hand, though the radiate head
shows that the coins were posthumous, we find merely AVG., ac

companied 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) pro
vides a parallel in the form given to the patronymic of the reigning
BMC. Imp.,
pp. 140
ff.
109
I, I,
ff.
108 For a recent short bibliography see Pippidi, RCI, p. 11, n. 2. Add d'Ors Prez
Peix, Emerita, 1942, pp. 197 ff., id., Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espaol, 1942/3,
pp. 33
(the latter not seen by the present writer), Sullivan, Classical Weekly, 1944.
4.
n.
at
p.
1.
n.
p.
p.
f.
of
f.
p.
124, nos. 28
Entirely irregular (and aiming only
symmetry)
110 BMC. Imp.,
ILS, 115; cf. Pippidi, RCI,
Augusto
108,
the Divo Caesari divi Iulii
131, nos. 10-13. For
111 Vives, IV,
recent bibliography see d'Ors Prez Peix,
Emerita, 1942,
205,
is
deus).
114
RAI, Chapter VII,
8.
deo nostro (Seneca, De Tranquillitate Animi, XIV, 9),

(Augustus
93 for Martial, Epigr., II, 59, V, 64,
section
as
Caesari
pp. 75 ff.;
study
RCI,
i.
For
p.
113
see Pippidi,
of
p.
p.
179,
112 E.g. ILS, 9495, cf. Abaecherli (now Abaecherli-Boyce), SMSR, 1935,
Saria, JAIW, 1941, Beiblatt,
Cf. Liviae Augusti deae municipium, CIL, X, 7464,
Ollendorff, RE, XIII, 1,913.
a

recurs on inscriptions and in writings," but it does not reach the

official coinage until an Augustan anniversary as late as Gallienus.
106
princeps: he is described as
TI. CAESAR AVG.F.AVGVSTVS.
This omission of divus and deus occurs also in early literaturefor

example in the writings of (Valerius P) Largus"as well as in in
scriptions." In the East it recalls the use of plain XeSaorrs, with
out 6es, that prevailed at peregrine cities for many years after the
death of Augustus;" and it seems probable that Dyrrhachium and
Pella, being Eastern, are merely translating this usage into Latin.
Ayo0orros was occasionally used in the same way;" and an even
closer parallel to our coins of Dyrrhachium is provided by colonia
Olbasa, of which the first known issues, under Antoninus Pius,
found on the official coinage, in which silver tetradrachms, appar

ently issued on an anniversary occasion, bore heads of Augustus in
scribed IMP. CAESAR AVGVSTVS, again without DIVVS. It
has been argued elsewhere by the present writer that these usages
are owed to the vos @es6eos tudyavis conception.
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 Xe Saorrsas (with
overwhelming regularity) did the rest of the Greek worldbut as
6eos XeSaorrs (6es representing divus). The present writ
Helmreich, 31, 177, cf. Pippidi, RCI, p. 144.
E.g. CIL, XIII, 4635 (?) (Nasium), CIL, III, 1698 = 138136, ILS, 151, 161,
2281, 3320, 5516; a number of these are irregular in other respects also. Cf. Abaecherli,
SMSR, 1935, p. 164, n. 1, Vuli, Klio, 1942, p. 177.
115
116
117
FITA,
118
Ibid., p. 361.
p. 360.
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,
119
FITA,
122 FITA,
121
section
iii.
pp. 360 f.
p. 374.
3,
n.
n.
p.
123 Dio Cassius was to prefer

hutdeos (Pippidi, RHSE, 1941 = AT, p. 136, n. 2,
Carcopino, Points de Vue sur L'Imprialisme Romain, p. 120, n. 4), no doubt thinking
of the distinction between divus and deus (Schwering, Indogermanische Forschungen,
1914/15, pp. 1 ff., 39
Weber,
86*,
95).
f.,

bear portraits of Divus Augustus inscribed merely AVGVSTVS."

Under Hadrian, likewise in the East, the same phenomenon was
107
er has ascribed this practice, peculiar to Royal Macedonia, to a sur

vival of the traditional Antigonid distaste for the worship of living
rulers. This sentiment
seems to have motivated the addition of
the word 8es to distinguish the dead from the living ruler, a
dis
tinction 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 e/3aorrs (alone) to carry the significance of actual dei
But this explanation, based as it is on the assumption of a Hel
lenising usage, will scarcely suit two Spanish cities, colonia Caesar
augusta and municipium Turiaso, which omit divus in precise
ly 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 nu
ances of ruler-worship in Italy itself. The living Augustus had never
officially been deus or even divus to citizens, but his Genius and
his Numen" 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
FITA, pp. 374 f.
IV, p. 82, no. 53.
Vives,
125
126 Vives, IV, p. 94, no. 18.
124
But for the usage of Horace, etc.,
see
now D. Norberg, Eranos Rudbergianus,
ff.
127
1946, pp. 389
p.
of
1.
of
et
p.
3),
193
ff.
(49,
n.
ff., 47
ff.
Pippidi, RCI, pp.
of
in in .
.
.
ff.
129 References
voort, pp. 73
in
n.
Weinstock, JRS, 1946,

ff., 19,
are given by Pippidi, RCI, pp.
67, quotes the unknown Aufustius
definition
the half-divine status
the
parens hominum, ex quo homines gigmuntur
Genius: Genius
est deorum filius
(Verrius Flaccus,
the epitome
Festus epitomised by Paulus Diaconus,
214.[L]).
128 Sources
112,
n.

fication.
See also now
Wagen
108
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
by
as
all
guise or another, bears witness to the dilemma with which Tiberius

was faced. Careful as he was to regulate
other matters (such
of
to
be
to
be
to
younger relatives)
Augustan precedents, prece
applied
dents could not
the posthumous position
their cre
any
they
applied
ator
more than
could
his own titulature.
the honours
JULIA AUGUSTA
AS GODDESS AND VIRTUE"

of
three more
priestess.
the
be
In
in
as
Virtue, and
or
of
of of
as
the present study,
briefly
the legend should
re
these manifestations
will
be
Thapsus
if
goddess
at
Livia appears
as
a
in
present section the first two

considered
turn.
of
colonies which are the subject

less distinct rlesas goddess,
of
on
to
of
to
of
Augustus,
the practice
the position after death
that prin
ceps himself. The same difficulty applied, with even greater force,
Augustus after the lat
the entirely new position
the widow
ter's death. Livia appears
the coinages
the empire, and
the
CERERIAVGVSTAE (no.21:
Plate
9), while
II, to
At
stored IVN(o) AVG(usta) (or the Dative) (nos. 22, 23: Plate III, 1,2).
the same city we find
dedication
seated figure inscribed
representation
as
180 On this see subsection
B.
to
be
said later, but
the Panormus coin more will

least,
these two different coins, seems
on
sus
at
AVG.
Of
sus, both accompany Ceres and also encircle the head
of at
I,

17) shows another, resembling the
Thap
priestess type," but with the corn-ears which,
Livia
at

Tiberius could not, then, apply his customary standard, that
of
A.
(iv) Julia Augusta
IV.N.
Thap
identify Livia
109
her son, under whom she
Maia." In
the East she seems
to
as
co
and
Gaul
have been identified with
in
as
lonia Romula
6)
sessed local flamines and flaminicae, Livia was described
GENETRIXORBIS" (Plate VII,
pos
by
the reign
of
Augustus."
In
death
of
at
all
with Juno and Ceres respectivelyand these identifications of her

are here the commonest of
such associations." They are both
paralleled
peregrine cities. Both were current well before the
Hecate and perhaps Isis."
n.
p.
is
1,
as
p.
is
1; of
of
in
as
is
p.
p.
p.
n.
p.
in
p.
1,
ff.
te
as
as
p.
Juno, see especially Ward, SMSR, 1933,

131 Cf. Taylor, DRE,
232. For Livia
Jupiter, ibid., pp. 203 ff.); cf. on the Ludovisi Juno, Jong
pp. 221 ff. (cf. Augustus
kees, Bulletin van de Vereeniging tot Bevordering der Kennis van
Antieke Beschaving,
XVII,
pp. 13
Ceres, e.g. by
Livia's figure on the Paris Cameo
described
Curtius, Rm. Mitt., 1934,
120, but Gag, RA, XXXII, 1930,
19, cf.
suggests
that there she may rather be
the rle
Felicitas. Her prominence on this cameo
emphasized by Kornemann, DR,
38,
634; Last, JRS,
1943,
105; cf. Seltman, CAH, Plates IV,
156. On the Vienna Cameo (Gemma
Augustea) she
60,
described by Schwartz, RPh., 1945,
the rle
Latin
The value these cameos

For the Paris Cameo
p. of
is
of
historical evidence
affected by the uncertainty
their
Hohl, Klio, 1942, pp. 227 ff., ibid., 1943,
144,
against Schweitzer, Curtius, Piganiol, etc. The Vienna Cameo
usually considered
Augustan, but
attributed with some plausibility
the reign
Tiberius by Ros
tovtzeff, History
the Ancient World, II, Rome,
186.
see
p.
it
of is
to
of
is
dates.
at
at
Perga
Sardes, Tralles, Syedra, Thessalonica, Panormus; Juno
132 E.g. Ceres
mum, Tarsus and Perinthus. This list contains doubtful cases, which cannot be dis
cussed here.
185 Vives, IV,

idea), Willrich,
3,
p.
E.g. ILS, 6896, 7160.

cf.
134
to
in
p.
p.
I,
188 E.g. ILS, 120 (cf. 119, 121), cf. BMC. Imp.,
cxxxvi. But Rohde, RE, XVIII,
753, against Jordan, Rmische Mythologie, II,
226,
23, Grether, AJP, 1946,
21, discounts the possibility that the Roman altars
Ceres and Ops
A.D. were
in honour of Livia.
n. 1,
n.
p.
p.
as 1
p.
p.
of
1,
p.
p.
as
p.
of
n.
p.
n.
p.
Alfldi, Rm. Mitt., 1935,

124,
99,
(roquosprop
22, who points out that the
57, Kornemann, GFA, pp. 206,422,
crescent under the bust anticipates the ruler-portrait
the Severi. Possibly the Bos
128, Ros
coreale cup depicts Livia
Venus Genetrix, Seltman, CAH, Plates IV,
tovtzeff, SEH,
SES, Plates VII, XIII; cf. perhaps also the Ravenna relief (Ollen
76
dorff, RE, XIII, 913, Grether, AJP, 1946,
229, Seltman, loc. cit.,
160, etc.) and
Agrippias Caesarea, BMC. Pontus, etc.,
ff., Ars Classica (Levis)
coins
nos.
sale XI (1925), 264, Willrich,
67. Ovid describes Livia
Venus and Vesta, cf. Ol
to
lendorff, loc. cit., 914. Colin, RA, 1946, pp. 40 ff., stresses the importance attached
Venus
this principate.
But the crescent also recalls the Stoic doctrine Minervam esse Lunam, Arnobius 3.31,
107,
39, and next note but one.
cf. Weinstock, JRS, 1946,
136
ILS,
3208, cf.
n.
p.
in
Link, RE, xiv,
533.
p.
4,
n.
p.
Buresch, Ath. Mitt., 1894,

67, who,
116 and
doubted by Willrich,
however, cites also CIL, XI, 3859, Diana Augusta. Cf. also last note but one (end).
1150, cf. Ollendorff, RE, XIII, 1,917, Buresch, loc. cit.
138 IGRR,
137
I,

as
Ceres.
110
Much has been written on these themes, but the two usages of
Thapsus appear to introduce certain novelties. In the first place,
they refer to Livia, they are well ahead of the practice of main
if
of
ficial 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
way."
described in this
In the CERES AVGVSTA of Claudius, it is not customary to dis

cover
reference to
Livia" or any other imperial lady;
similarly, it
in
is often unlikely that Virtues on official issues had any such

tentions." These considerations might inspire doubts whether the
IVN. AVG. and CERERIAVGVSTAE of Thapsus under Tiberius
to
by
to
so.
issues to associate her with Ceres and Juno than for Roman coinage
to do
Indeed after her death, too, Claudius may have wished
compare her
the goddess Ceres
his numismatically unprece
at
of
by
If
to
it
to
the word Augusta
he
of
the latter's name, since

so, his gesture may
was
who consecrated Livia.
some ex
tent have been anticipated
another official mint, namely that
Alexandria,
which, even under Augustus, the closely related con
dented addition
to
cept Euthenia may conceivably have been intended
represent
Livia.
Cf. RAI, Chapter III, section

142 Cf. Nock, CAH, X,
498.
to
p.
clvi.
p.
141
BMC. Imp.,
I,
perhaps suggested by
p.
Though this
be called Augusta on
131, no. 81.
i.
140
is
I,
p.
I,
183, no. 136. The first personification

139 BMC. Imp.,
the official coinage was Salus under Tiberius, BMC. Imp.,
an
is
of at
an
of
on
in
If
of
Livia, we are jus

Thapsus
we hold that the Ceres Augusta
asking whether the same does not apply,
tified
earlier date,
the appearance
the same deity
issue
colonia Lystra
to
1,
p.
p.
of
in
1.
n.
In
n.
an
on
at
p. of p.
of of
143 Cf. Milne, Catalogue

Alexandrian Coins
the Ashmolean Museum,
no.
Willrich,
Augustus Livia
23; this
67,
the interpretation
the principate
Bithynia (M. Granius Marcellus, FITA,
had also appeared
official coinage
145), and
municipium Turiaso (ibid.,
169, and
2).
is

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

reading
CERERIS:"
111
at any rate this is the suggestion which the
to
it
its
the earliest colonial issue
it
is
to
of
on
be of
no
it.
type might convey to those who saw

But this Lystra coin shows
AVGVSTAE, and,
sign
portrait,
reconsideration
should
reattributed from Augustus
Claudius. Thus
not
name Ceres; and the princeps under
to
at
Thapsus."
have been Tiberius,
keeping with his pol
minor innovation
this kind was not out
icy, since
paid great attention
the corn-supply, and also
re
of
to
he
of
whom this first occurred seems
un
of
all
is
stored the temple which Ceres shared with Liber and Libera."
Ceres Augusta has familiar ring, but Juno Augusta
most
Thapsus
(IVN. AVG.),
is
as
priestess
patera, two
an
in
to
of
I,
IV, and
17-18) modify the well-known Livia
type" place her hand, instead the usual priestly
2
7,
At
at
12
as
as
27
of
on
a
is
on
as
showing
of
the bust
corn-ears,
wreath
such
head,
only
peregrine
wreath also found round Livia's
not
sues, but
piece
Thapsus, again, nos.
lead
Rome itself."
25,
and 30,
well
no.
Panormus (Plate III,
and
has been interpreted
FITA,
p.
144
250, and Plate
VIII,
as
at
11;
cf.
V,
4,
II, of
and 51: Plate
IVLIA AVGVSTA
VIII,
also
11)as
Ro
goddesses, but
11
terms
(nos. 18,
in
are described not

49
in
all
at
as
of
analogy with the corn-wreathed

corn. These suggest
IV.N.AVG.; whereas our other Livia
Thapsus labelled
heads
priestess" figures,
cases where they are explicitly labelled,
ears
as
there.
a
to
145 The obverse legend will then terminate (or begin) with the words IMP. AVG.
This designation might seem inappropriate Claudius; but Lystra was long way from
Rome, and
any case IMP AVG. might be Divus Augustus (cf. last section).
in
For Ceres (unnamed) under Augustus,

Cf. Rogers,
FITA,
pp. 224, 258.
151 See below, subsection
n.
37, Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship,

(references).
Dressel, ZfM, 1922,
182 (A.VITELLIVS CVR.).
p.
B.
Berlin collection:
f. p.
7,
18.
149 Charlesworth, JRS, 1943,

pp. 249 f., cf. Pippidi, RCI, pp.
150
see
19, etc.
16
148 Rogers,
p.
146
147
p.

of
Diana. On no.
Vesta and
22
of
periods we find instead

usual: throughout the imperial coinage
merely IVNO. We may compare other rare non-Roman occurren
Apollo, Mercury, Minerva,
ces, with the same Augustan epithet,
112
man 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 haesi

tatio iudicii on the humanity or divinity of Livia; and the letter of
Tiberius to Gythium show how cryptic his instructions on this
matter Were.
of
as
of
in
of as
is,
Indeed, a loophole for ambiguity is left by the legend IV.N. AVG.

itself. For this could mean not only [to] Juno Augustawhich
very rare combinationbut also [to] the iuno
has been said,
the Augusta, for which,
connection with Livia, there are epi
graphic parallels. The iuno
woman was the same
the gen
man;" the genius Augusti and iuno Augustae were Augus
ius
as
on
to
lo
simultaneously: for, not only were actual doubles entendres

cal coinages not unknown," but official Tiberian coin-types, too,
different suggestions and significances.
AVG. and CERERIAVGVSTAE coinages
of
all
At
often combined blend

events, the IV.N.
In
in
to
of
Thapsus seem
have intended some measure
identification
possessing
pursuing
Livia with Juno and Ceres.
and
this
of of
ff. of
of
n.
the Roman
1946,
People,
p.
JRS,
p.
of
p.
2;
Cf. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience

21, Wissowa, RKR2,
180, Weinstock,
pp. 87
pp. 190
p.
154
n.
p.
p.
at
to
a
Kornemann, GFA, pp.

152 Recent contributions
vast literature include those
210 ff., GR, pp. 90 ff., Scramuzza, AJP, 1944, pp. 404 ff., Charlesworth, Papers
Rome, XV, pp.
ff., Montevecchi, Epigraphica, VII, 1945, pp. 104
British School
(references).
190, but see
153 ILS, 116, 120; for doubtful examples cf. Taylor, AJP, 1937,
Pippidi, RCI,
198 and
and Grether, AJP, 1946,
225 and
12.
f.,
ff.
n.
135, cf.
127, Wagenvoort,
de
et
157
Cf.
FITA,
280.
RAI, Chapter III,
especially
section
i;
156
p.
at
p.
of
p.
p. la
of
supposed connection
155 Nock, CAH, X, pp. 480, 484. For
Genius Augusti with
Gens Iulia cf. Poinssot, Notes
Documents
Direction des Antiquits de Tunisie,
ff.; cf. Gag, RA, XXXIV, 1931,
35, RH, 1936, pp. 314, 333. For an
1929, pp.
Augustan coin
municipium Italica with GEN (ius) P(opuli) R(omani), see FITA,
Philippi, Kubitschek, Gnomon, 1937,
24; for this conception
173, cf. perhaps later
see Blanchet, CRAI, 1943, July-Sept.
14

so
of
Thapsus may
traditional ideas. The citizens
well have chosen the ambiguous legend IV.N. AVG. deliberately
convey both interpretations, Iuno Augusta and iuno Augustae,
of
tan adaptations
and
NC,
1949
(in press).
113
of
to
as
of
its
tention, the citizens of Thapsus were, perhaps, behaving less like

their fellow cives Romani of Rome than like the peregrini of Asia."
The same is even more clearly true of colonia Romula with
ex
travagant GENETRIX ORBIS (Plate VII, 6).
We may now turn the Virtues,
certain
the numina con
sisting
personifications are nowadays called." Admittedly the
line
of
of
it
is
between goddesses and "Virtues

sometimes
little uncer
tain, but exists." The present writer has elsewhere emphasized
the general and composite character
the Virtues which are
found on the official issues
Tiberius." These Virtues on his
to
in
of
by
up
it (if in
it
or
etas. On the other hand the peregrine East naturally experienced

identifying her with Virtues
Blessings
no more difficulty
right
in
in
to
Tyche"
is
describe her thus), Pronoia," Hy

gieia," etc., than experienced
equating her with goddesses.
Where do the coloniae civium Romanorum stand
the wide
such
as
an
as
on
to
to
In
this case they seem

stand
rather nearer
Rome than
the peregrini; but there are none the
less some notable deviations from metropolitan practice. Pompeii
inscription," and Pella
describes her
Concordia Augusta
to
space between these two poles?
cf. the many local priests

p.
158 So were Italian colonies:

outside Italy, Nock, CAH, X,
of
IV, 10) not only imitates the Roman PIETAS
(nos. 38, 39: Plate
Tiberius himself, inside and
493.
of
as
For the description

Virtues
numina see Mattingly, HTR, 1937, pp. 108 f.,
xxv, JRS, 1943,
77.
160 For
definition
the Virtues see Cicero, De Legibus, II, 11, 28; he distin
Edinburgh Review, 1949,
guishes Blessings, cf. Grant, Univ.
232.
p.
of
of
p.
p.
159
BMC. Imp., IV,
Ath. Mitt., 1894,
see references
67, cf.
p.
p.
Gythium:
above,
n.
E.g.
163 Willrich,
3,
RAI, Chapter III.
162
n.
161
at
Ollendorff, RE,
152.
XIII,
1,907, 917 (references), Buresch,
116.
IG, III, 460 (Athens), cf. Ollendorff, loc. cit., 907.

Ibid., his conjecture that she appears
19,
Cf. Gag, RA, XXXII, 1930,
Felicitas on the Paris cameo.
as
1.
166
n.
164
p.

of
to
of
as
do
compli
coinage
not seem
have been primarily intended
ment Livia, though the imperial authorities probably recognised
her
one
the fairly numerous elements
the blend
associ
Iustitia,
conjured
concepts
ations
the
Iustitia-Pax and Pi
114
but also adds PIETAS AVGVSTA, to which we may compare the

PIETATIIS] AVGVSTAE of Caesaraugusta." It is possible that
these colonials, less verss than Romans, interpreted the accom
panying heads quite simply as Livia; indeed a similar head at Pan
5)
no. 43: Plate
(un
and Patrae
on
Caligula),"
cf.
Corinth (no. 34: Plate V, 8;
V,
ormus (no. 13: Plate I, 20) is described as plain AVGVS(ta). The

same almost certainly applies to the issues of other colonies such as
which similar heads are not labelled.

the cases
Pella and Caesaraugusta, this same desire
iden
tify the Virtue with Livia may have been the purpose
the AV
by
GVSTA added
the name
Pietas. But this assumption
means necessary. For why should we consider Pietas Augusta
Livia, when we
not necessarily consider Pax Augusta,
official
themselves,
at
no
to
an
VII,
obstinate suspicion that the citizens

AVGVSTA,
which the epithet was add
on
by
ed
Pella intended PIETAS
and Emerita (Plate
of
remains
VII,
to
8). But there
Tarraco (Plate
an
at
AVGVSTAE
2)
cy
of
by
3)
all
refer
II,
to
elsewhere,
in
or
her? PACE AVG. PERP.

Car
thage(?) (no. 17: Plate
surely has
such meaning." Nor
inscription after the conspira
has the Salus Augusta invoked
Sejanus," and nor,
probability, has AETERNITATIIS]
coinages
IV,
80, 37, cf.
Hill, NNM,
50, 1931,
92, no. 19, cf.
p.
Vives,
p.
166
p.
of
to
no
in
or
so,
bya
in
if
of
on
to
reflect honour
Livia
more direct fashion
original
design
placed
than did the
PIETAS
their metropolitan
counterparts
the coinage
Rome. Even
Pella was not be
having
any extraordinary fashion; and indeed, thus far, few
honours
Livia have been noted which might not also have
Augustus.
been found during the principate
96.
1.
167 See Appendix

170 See above,
Chapter
at
II,
are very likely

have identified Salus
447)cf. Sutherland, JRS, 1934,
36even
B.
if
p.
to
114. The colonials
with Livia (now deceased, FITA,

this was not the intention at Rome.
p.
28,
n.
Rogers,
p.
41, no.
6,
p.
i.
II, section iv.

XIII,
CIL,
4635; see above, section
169
Cf. SALVS AVGVSTA imitated from Rome
by Emerita, Vives, IV,
67, no. 66, and SAL'AVG
Ilici (Plate VI, 7), Vives, IV,
p.

be no
on
do
to
is
to
of
of
to
of
In
der

B.
JULIA AUGUSTA
115
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(?), Hippo Diarrhytus, Dium,
Corinth, Cnossus(?) and Pisidian Antioch (nos. 4, 15, 18, 35, 46,
49 and 52: Plate
I,
II,
5,
1,
IV,
4,
5,
V, 9,
11, 15)as
well as at mu
at
in
as
II,
identical representation on further asses of Tiberius dated to A.D.

15-16 (Plate VIII, 12). These two series constitute practically the
whole of the important category" of his accession aes.
Doubts that the figure on this large range of coinage was intend
ed to represent Livia" are removed by the accompanying legends
4), and the same two
IVL. AVG.. at Hippo Diarrhytus (Plate
Emerita, Caesar
names written
full
IVLIA AVGVSTA
a
to
augusta and Italica. Indeed

further issue that even appears
official (of Cyprus.[?]) (Plate VIII, 11)" represents the same
all
at
as
as
of
be
these eleven Roman
ii,
subsection
JRS,
1941, pp. 102 ff., ibid., Plate
I,
of
128, no. 65.
I,
p.
BMC. Imp.,
section
Ti
the three Spanish provinces.
141, no. 151, Sutherland,
174 Cf. above, Chapter
confidently
the central official asses
p.
178
each
well
may therefore
BMC. Imp.,
I,
172
1-10.
one
I, is
171 Thus there
in
berius and Divus Augustus,
on
figure with the same inscription.

assumed that the identical figure
It
be
B.
p.
is
as
particularly rare
only exception
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,
107).
175 The
the exergue.
in
is
is
It
to
of
p.
176 E.g. Hill, NC, 1914,

303 (Gens Iuliaon the idea, see above, section i), cf.
Alfldi, Rm. Mitt., 1935, pp. 115, 125, who compares with representations
divinities.
Pisidia), Imhoof
177 Hill, NC, 1914, pp. 299 ff., no. 12a (attributed
Antioch
Blumer, KM,
30, no.
just possible that an ethnic
missing from
(to Parium).
p.

nicipia Italica and Utica (Plate VIII, 8, 9), and coloniae Caesar
augusta (Plate VI, 2) and Emerita (Plate VI, 9). This much fa
voured type is directly imitated from a vast series of official asses
with DIVVS AVGVSTVS PATER (Plate VIII, 13), or from an
116
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 Tiberi
perhaps represented, in the first instance at least, not Livia,

but the composite divinity Iustitia-Pax." But that type is rarely if
ever imitated by the Roman cities, and is never labelled IVLIA
us)
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,
veiled and with characteristic patera." 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 rle of priestess, so perhaps does a statue from Pompeii
with the same terminus post quem," and a bust in the Uffizi gal
The belief that it is as priestess that Livia figures in these repre

sentations, as on coins, is confirmed by historical considerations.
On the death of Augustus, Livia became priestess of the new divus,
and Gag" is right in pointing out thatin close accordance with
the Augustan emphasis on priesthoodsit was this office which
formed the occasion of her chief honours at Rome." Ovid writes
178 BMC. Imp., p. 91, no. 544. Mattinglys distinction of the Augustan and Tiberian
types is, in the present writer's opinion, unjustifiable. Another late Augustan seated fe
male 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.
Cf. above, Chapter II, section iv, subsection A.

180 BMC. Imp., I, p. cxxxiii and n.4, cf. Gag, 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.
179
183 Maiuri, Villa dei Misteri, pp. 223 ff., cf. Seltman,
the Uffizi altar under Augustus, ibid., p. 136 (A.D. 2).
Plates
IV,
p. 168.
Cf.
of
Waldhauer,
186 She held other priesthoods also;
parently showing her
priestess
Ceres (for whom
JRS,
see
1923,
190,
last subsection).
on
a
le Culte rendu aux Empereurs romains, p. 29, n. 3.

Augusti,
p. 166.
Res Gestae Divi
p.
185
CAH,
Cf. Beurlier, Essai sur
cf.
184
as

lery."
bust ap
117
...
coniunxque sacerdos, and Velleius Livia

quam transgressi ad
deos sacerdotem ac filiam (vidimus). The evidence of Velleius is
its
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." This publicity
or
as
to
as
to
of
attention, not
directed much of
the suppression
Livia's
gloryfar from itbut
priestess, rather than
her presentation
goddess
empress.
of
recent
Pella (no.38: Plate IV, 10; and especially
Roman prototype suggest," the priestess may well
some sense
the representative (though not, since
in
this rle have been described
as
be
no. 39) and

regarded
in its
of
As
Certain implications
years.
the coinage
In
to
at
had been adopted
in
his
as
husband's sacerdos but also
Livia not only

her deified
his filia. The former wife
the divus
as
of
Velleius' description
of
by
revealed
will," and she
was now correctly described
of
to
of
of
as
his daughter. Another result

this measure was her as
"Julia,
sumption
gentile
the
name
and cognomen Augusta,
which our coins bear witness. Her adoption
the former name may
75,
9,
Ex Ponto, IV,
II,
107, cf. Weber, pp. 92
f.*,
427.
3.
187
188
n.
not have been particularly strange," but the latter appellation rep
or
RAI,
193
For discussion
III,
section
see especially
Kornemann, DR,
35, GFA, SB Mnchen, 1947,
195
Cf. Ehrenberg,
16, and von Premerstein,

205.
p.
1931,
p.
269.
26,
1,
1930,
n.
XXXII,
p.
point has rarely been faced except by Gag, RA,
XXXIV,
p.
194 This
ibid.,
Chapter
p.
192
was an obvious reminiscence
of
the priestess; and the priestess-daughter
5.
I,
Pietas.
i.
the head
of
is
as
it,
in
p. p.
p.
I,
126,
n.
p.
13
Abraham, Velleius und die Parteien

f., cf.
Rom unter Tiberius, pp.
188, puts
39. As Syme, JRS, 1946,
Velleius knew all the tricks.
Vives, IV,
80, no. 37.
190 Cf. also Caesaraugusta,
Pietas); but
141, no. 151 (as priestess
191. Cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp.,
he prefers the former alternative on pp. cxxxiii and 128. The PIETAS head
veiled like
189 See
Smith,
p.

by
of
is
as
of
labelled IVLIA AVGVSTA,

the equivalent)
Pietas."
The composite character
this Augustan and Tiberian Virtue
has been analysed
the present writer elsewhere."
this con
nection we must not boggle
the conceptionunfamiliar
us
she
118
resented a somewhat startling adaptation of the Augustan name or

title. Kornemann" (probably, in this statement, at least, without
had been intended
to
by
embarrassing effects,
it
ever
its
the exaggeration which Ehrenberg attributes to him") describes it

as having been as surprising to the world in general as it was tire
some for Tiberius; though others have taken the view that, what
Augustus
as
be
to
at
by
to
in
of
too, was the problem with which her survival, and her
Augustus, faced the government
the testament
of
place
so,
But
in
Ti
of
no
in
of
in
to
berius. Many attempts have been made

modern times
define
the special position
the Augusta
the state. This position
hers
faced Tiberius with problem which lacked complete precedent
P. 205.
of
GFA,
pp. 199, 204. Pippidi,
ED,
1938
AT,
p.
197
189, cf.
DR, pp. 35 f., 50,
3,
196
n.
as
of
and thus permitted

orthodox solution. But those
our coins
interpreted
emphasising
priestess
which are here
the
formula
40.
p.
to
p.
Cf. Ollendorff, RE, XIII, 1,916, Gag, RA, XXXIV, 1931,

17.
206, does not rule out the possibility that Augustus intended
199 Ehrenberg,
damage Tiberius.
200 Pp. 92* f.,
427.
198
n.
n.
as
202
6,
n.
299,
Cf. Wissowa, RKR2, pp. 185,218,
10.
Possibly the flaminica Dialis was
partial exception and precedent:
Fowler, The Religious Experience
the Roman People, pp. 135, 143.
201
of

of
as
of
or
be
of
on
to
help Tiberius" rather than

hinder him."
present
study
The
will not touch further
the psychological re
lations
the three great personages, which raise questions that are
fascinating but may
insoluble. The coins are concerned rather
with the faade with which imperial publicity presented,
cov
publicity
play
up,
great
ered
those relations. This
made
with the
But,
priestess.
pointed
out, this
theme
Livia
Weber has
theme contained scarcely less novelty than the other manifesta
tions
Livia's posthumous adoption
which reference has been
made." Usually only goddesses, not gods, had been tended by
priestesses; gods had been looked after
male priests. Livia's
priesthood, then, could not fail,
least,
this respect
almost
unprecedented.
Warde
119
indicate the principles on which his attempted solution was found

ed; 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 Ro
man 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 attrib
uted 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.
Fig. i
Fig. ii
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 coin
age 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 An

203
E.g. Kornemann, GFA,
20*
Pp. 92* f., n. 427.
pp. 219, 221, 230.
p. 564, no. 4195; cf. FIT A, pp. 49 f., n. 14 (and Errata); but the
agrees with Groag, RE, IV, 104 f., in eliminating these pieces
longer
present writer no
from the Roman Series of the late 40's. For Vestalis see Barbieri, Rivista di Filohgia,
1947, pp. 166 f.
ZO5
BMC. Rep., I,
120
other veiled lady, standing, and holdingtogether with a simpulum

a sceptre as on our Tiberian aes, was depicted at about the same
L. Livineius Regulus (Figure

Lepidus
ii)." An earlier M.
had shown a veiled head of the same
lady in pre-Caesarian days (Figure i). Now the figures repre
sented by these three types are none of them goddesses or Vir
all
tues, but
all
date by M. Aemilius Lepidus and
is
It
in
of
is
C.
is
by of
human beings. Moreover they

share another and
being Vestal Virgins.
more distinctive feature, namely that
represented
the Vestal Aemilia who
both
the Marci Lepidi,
and
Clodius Vestaliswhose cognomen significant
this con
depicting the Vestal Claudia Quinta. The seated figures on

the denarii
the Lepidi and Regulus and Vestalis are
means
priestess type, and hold priestly emblems
unlike the Livia
suggested by Liv
she does. Moreover,
conscious reminiscence
marriage,"
ia's kinship,
Claudian
birth
well
one
oured by
to
to
is
known
have been
hon
special raison d'tre for such connec

tion. She was given sacrosanctitas early
her husband's rule (B.C.
35)," during which she already appeared
veil like that worn
Virgins.
Long
Augustus her po
the Vestal
before the death
a
in
in
Livia's career provides
as
as
Claudia Quintawho
Claudian emperor.
of
these Vestals,
ways.
was only
number
of
the Vestals
in
compared with that
of
sition could
be
of
by
In
in
to
sit
in
as
in
process that
of
long
the formalisation and finalisation
24perhaps
A.D.
connection with the decennalian
given
ceremonies"she was
the right
their midst.
It
Gold
Cf. Syme, RR,
229. Her father was
Claudius adopted
une Livius DrususM. Livius Drusus Claudianus.
in
infancy by the
section
i.
III,
32, Nock,
CAH, X,
p.
214
For these see RAI, Chapter

Cf. Weber, loc. cit., Rogers,
p.
218
f.
f.,
n.
p.
p.
p.
p.
Cf. Nock, CAH, X,

499Claudius.
901, Hohl, Klio, 1939,
70, FITA,
Cf. Adcock, CAH, IX,
211 E.g. on the Uffizi Altar, Seltman, CAH, Plates IV,
136.
III,
Weber,
pp.
427;
Hor.,
Od.,
14,
212 Cf.
92*
200
210
479.
p.
208
I,
f.
I,
p.
580, no. 4259 (c. 39 B.C.); Bahrfeldt, Die rmische

206 BMC. Rep.,
munzenprgung, pp. 55, 58
(43-42 B.C.).
450, no. 3650.
207 BMC. Rep.,
p. p.

as
a
by
by is
as
as
no
of
by
textis
450.
trib

such circumstances identification
121
with the guardian deity of the
Vestals was easy: we find the combination Vesta Augusta, and
a description of Livia as Vesta by Ovid, 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 de
scribed as
VESTA.
and impressive implications. The patroness of the type, Vesta, rep

resents, in the words of Warde Fowler, the reality and continuity
of Roman religious feeling. The Vestal Virgins, to whom Livia
is compared, embodied the highest ideals of the Roman concept of
womanhood. 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 in
spires Vesta to say Ne dubita meminisse: meus fuit ille sacerdos.
Both Vesta and her Virgins were deliberately exalted by Augus
tus. As so
of
its
often, Tiberius did the same: this range of ideas lost

nothing of
impetus during the decades following the death
Augustus. While Augustus was alive, Livia's Vestal rle had linked
a
in
of
pontifex maximus, and after

her closely with him
his capacity
his death, when she herself had obtained great and special priest
hood, similar link united her with the new pontifex maximus, her
sonnow her brotherTiberius: for the Vestal Virgins were tra
a
CIL, II,
of
n.
For such identifications
p.
7,
216
of
Livia with goddesses see last subsection.

1166, 3378, cf. Charlesworth, JRS, 1943,
37.
Vesta, Richmond,
217 Ex Ponto, IV, 13, 29. Her house was associated with the cult
JRS, 1914, pp. 209, 211.
215
p.
p.
of
11
223 Cf. Rogers, pp.

For the Vestal connection
above, Chapter II, section iv, subsection B.
n.
p.
p.
of
p.
p.
221
222
of
220
f. p.
219
154, no. 45,

BMC. Imp.,
cxlvi.
Religious
Experience
The
the Roman People,
137.
History
Cf. Altheim,
Roman Religion,
88.
Fasti, III, 699, cf. Pippidi, RCI,
151 (but cf.
173 and
Cf. Nock, CAH, X,
479.
I,
218

Thus the widespread type of Livia as priestess was neither a pure

invention nor an adaptation from the Hellenistic world: it was firm
ly based on the Roman Vestal tradition. This descent had obvious
3).
the Tiberian Aetermitas,
see
122
ditionally the direct subordinates of the high priest. 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.,
thus stressing further the connection between Vesta and the

priesthood.
high
The cult of Vesta was also closely associated with that of Divus
Augustus, with whose portrait the seated priestess is so often asso
ciated. 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 Augustusand on prac
tically no other occasions but these anniversaries. Livia, who sat
Divus Augustusthus 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.
feature of this type is that it was considered as appro
priate for the years after Livia's death (A.D. 29) as for the years be
appearance
fore
the first place,
Utica with the names
of
at
its
In
it.
A notable
30
p.
on
p.
21).
hopes
publish elsewhere
note defending
the validity
of
The present writer
and
246.
280
criteria.
p.
229
VIII,
9.
Plate
92, no. 410 and
p. 8
Appendix
De Laet,
to
228 See
2;
ii
of
Ibid.,
114,
116
the Divus Augustus
n.
p.
of
I, of
p.
I,
p.
373, no. 33.

BMC. Imp.,
123, Sutherland, NC, 1941,
226 Charlesworth, HTR, 1936,
for this significance
the star and thunderbolt
the obverse
Pater seated priestess coins, cf. our no. 14
Achulla (Plate
(init.), etc.
227 RAI, Chapter VI, section
225
pp.
p.
p.
p.
426, Mommsen, St. R., II8,

54; cf. BMC. Imp.,
224 Stuart Jones, CAH, X,
cxxxi, ccxxiv, Rogers,
32, Charlesworth, HTR, 1936,
123.
I,
of
of
to
be
27
of
or
quinquennales, apparently between the

least nine duoviri
inclusive, suggests that number
years
and
these coins
year
Secondly,
30,
should
attributed
the
after her death.
for
pressing reasons
portraiture and execution, some
the Divus
at

among the Vestals and was priestess of Augustus, was the link and
unifier of these two great branches of Roman religion, Vesta and
such
123
Augustus Pater asses with the same type" 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. Her deifica
tion did not occur until the latter of these two reigns, under Tiber
ius she was not deified, and he took care, as usual, that her post
humous honours should not be exaggerated. 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." 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
Official aes coinage attributable to the same early years after
Livia's death conveys a similar suggestion. The present writer
has elsewhere supported the viewwhich Sutherland describes as
now generally admittedthat certain coins of Tiberius were is
sued after the dates represented by the tribunician numbers that
they bear. Among these is an official sestertius of Tiberius with a
S.P.Q.R. IVLIAEAVGVSTAE." This
carpentum and the words
seems to have been issued shortly after the death of Liviathat is

to say at about the time when Velleius wrote. Carpentum types on
other Roman coins of the first century A.D. are habitually posthu
Cf. Rogers, Hermes, 1933,
235
Cf. Rogers,
n.
151,
n.
p.
p.
122, Smith,
75.
n.
3.
p.
I,
n.
of
important historical ques

number
123.
32,
p.
130, no. 76.

BMC. Imp.,
E.g. BMC. Imp.,
159, no.
p. a
He rightly points
Cf. also above,
to
f.
f.
11,
tions raised by this conclusion.

289
10.
9,
n.
i;
p.
p.
p.
5,
237
22, ibid., Plate
70.
II, 80, cf. Balsdon,

FITA, pp. 447
238 JRS, 1947, pp. 211
286
p.
234
232
f.,
233
Sutherland, NC, 1941, pp. 103

13,
102,
RAI, Chapter IV, section
ibid., Plate II,
10.
X,
CAH,
Weber,
101*,
Nock,
Cf.
498.
231
I,
mous, and suggest that the same is true of this one. We may com
p.
n.
f.,
ii.
cf.
I, is
p. on
of
f.,
p.
81
I,
p.
(Antonia), II,
(Agrippina senior),
180,
270, no. 226,
271, no. 229 (Domitilla), pp. 402
405
(Julia Titi). Against these
instances, the only non-posthumous example
non-Roman and apparently medallic
RAI, Chapter IV, section
Agrippina junior, ibid.,
anniversary piece
195n.,
240
p.

seen, retained after her death.
124
pare also Italian urn-reliefs on which this type of vehicle is used by

the dead on their journey from the world. 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. 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 issued when Caligulain this
respect conservative in his attitude to imperial womengranted
her the same honour of a carpentum posthumously.
These carpenta were closely associated with the priesthood.
tonia's position during the last weeks of her life was modelled on
that of Livia, so that Claudius later entitles her SACERDOS
An
DIVI AVGVSTI;
sacris antiquitus concessus. (Furthermore, carpenta were more

appropriate to priestesses than to priests, for they were especially
associated with women.)" Thus the carpentum on the sestertius of
241 E.g. from Volaterrae in Museo Archeologico, Florence,
Etrusche, III, p. 96, Plate LXXX, 4c.
242 Dio 60.22, 33, Suet., Claud., 17, Tac., Ann.,
nn. 2, 3, cliv, n. 2, clix; see also last note but one.
XII,
42, cf.
cf. Brunn-Krte,
BMC. Imp., I,
Urne
p. cxxxv,
BMC. Imp., I, p. 159, n.81.

Revolutionary aspects of his policy in this respect are stressed e.g. by Kornemann,
Die Stellung der Frau, in Die vorgriechische Mittelmeerkultur, pp. 13
See also Bals
don, pp. 41 ff., Grant, NC, 1949 (in press).
243
ff.
244
3,
n.
p.
92*,
n.
p.
Ann.,
180,
427.
(Vienna), cf. Kubitschek, NZ, 1921,
p.
p.
249
180, no. 112, Weber,

n.
BMC. Imp.,
BMC. Imp.,
247
I, I, f.
248
p. p.
p.
5.
245 Suet., Cal., 15, cf. Abaecherli, Bollettino

dell Associazione Internazionale degli
Studi Mediterranei, VI, 1935/6,
655, Gag, RA, XXXIV, 1931,
21,
246 Cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X,
Korne
mann, DR, pp. 51
151, Plate
VII,
5.
XII,
42.
p.
Cf. Lewis and Short, Latin Dictionary, s.v., e.g. Festus,

245 (Mller), Becker's
Gallus,
346, etc. The first veto on women driving
the city was short-lived (the lex
Oppia), but even this was nisi sacrorum publicorum causa veheretur (Livy, XXXIV, 1).
Caesar revived the veto
similar form, Adcock, CAH, IX,
699. Cf. BMC. Imp.,
cxxxv,
1.
I,
p.
p.
in
in
p.
250
n.

and one posthumous denarius in her name

shows a carpentum with the sole inscription SACERDOS. Taci
tus describes the award of these vehicles as honos sacerdotibus et

of it,
Tiberius
the forefront
his
pub
on
in
by to
as
priestess
intended her position
licity. This perhaps borne out
be
seems to confirm that, after her death as before
an
Livia
125
be
if
of
by
to
is
the veil which she wears

exceedingly rare official coin-portrait that appears
posthu
mous. These corroborate the suggestion conveyed
survivals
the seated priestess type after A.D. 29. Even
Tiberius felt
by
her presented
his pub
preferred her
which
C.
the
Ro
POSITION OF JULIA AUGUSTA IN THE STATE

to
of
Romans are
it
of
her official position

Hellenistic
cannot
substantiated:
had truly Roman background. Indeed,
dealing with Greeks, Tiberius was cautious about her
even
be
concerned, the interpretation
far
as as
confirm the view that,
as or
ent material tends
to
of
Much has recently been written

the reluctance
Tiberius
overload Livia with honours, whether public
divine. Our pres
by
in
di
et
as
is
the Gythium inscription, but peregrini,

obscura, could
even
such instructions had been less suspensa
scarcely
expected
achieve moderation. Roman colonies, too,
suggested
to
be
if
vinity,
in
to
as
a
regard her
goddess. But more often they
were sometimes apt
imitated Rome, where,
official circles, there was no doubt on this
RAI, Chapter III, section

and ibid., Plate II,
Cf. Kornemann, Forschungen und Fortschritte, 1929,
343.
Possibly, however, he presented
less assiduously; cf. Charlesworth, CAH,
p.
1.
it
253
634.
256
Rogers, pp. 68 ff., etc.

For references,
Cf. Tac., Ann.,
see above, subsection
I,
254
255
it,
252
3,
251
so
as
subject: the fact that her late husband had become divus did not
tactfully put
make her diva. Even after her death,
Velleius
although she was more like goddess than human being, she was
p.

to
or
For this was the official rle

appear, live
deadassacerdos DiviAugusti and heiress
man Vestal tradition.
to
he
the picture
in of
licity.
change
in
ently made
no
at
be
of
great deal freer after the death his mother"and his feelings, ob
scure enough
the time, cannot
reconstructed nowhe appar
11.
A.
X,
126
still no more than eminentissima femina. Still less, then, could Ro

mans at home have considered her divine in her lifetime, even if
Roman colonies abroad had their moments of deviation from the
Roman model.
of
as
of
it
at
in
if of
no
in
of
in as
of
to
bunician power. Much the same applies
Livia's lack
as
of of
in
an
it
to
at
not possible,
the date
which we are speaking,
describe
man, whose auctoritas was
co-ruler any person, even
were
not given
administrative voice
the senate by means
the tri
is
imperi
in
258
DR, pp. 35 ff., GFA, pp. 199 ff., SB Mnchen, 1947,
RH,
260
Cf. last subsection,
224.
261
Cf. above, Chapter

section
Cf. FITA, pp. 447, 452,
subsection C.
1949,
110.
p.
and Greece and Rome,
p.
ii,
as 4,
n.
I,
4.
St. R., II3, pp. 788 f.,

n.
259
262
cf. Rostovtzeff,
24.
n.
1930,
5;
P. 205.
p.
257
I,
it
of
of
um. Whatever the exact rle

that power
the administrative
position
gave him not only military glory but
the princeps,"
p.
f.
of
co-rule, cf. Ehrenberg,

For the tribunician power
the real basis
202
(against Mommsen, St. R., II3, pp. 1152 f.); Grant, Greece and Rome, 1949, pp. 111
264 Cf. above, Chapter II, section
subsection B.
263
ii,

he
of
of
it:
As regards her lifetime, the repeated allusions to Livia by our

coin-types illustrate the position which she held in the framework
and government of the state. That position was formidable. But, as
Ehrenberg points out, there is no reason to follow Kornemann's
exaggeration of a cautious remark of Mommsen, and call the Ves
indeed,
tal-like sacerdos Augusti a co-ruler or anything like
the Vestals with whom she was equated were the direct subordi
nates
the pontifex maximus." But there were other limitations
Augustus had been his auctoritas.
also. The basis
the rule
died, his priestess and daughter, however great and
When
powerful lady, and however potent her names "Julia Augusta,
large measure
did not inherit
his auctoritas
did his son
principis.
thing
and successor
the statio
For one
the auctoritas
Augustus and then
Tiberius was largely exercised,
the ad
field,
through
ministrative and executive
the senate" and comi
all; and
tia. These were aspects which Livia had
share
127
all
also military strength. Livia's deficiency in these, as in the tribu

nicia potestas, prevented her from being co-ruler. Owing to the
inevitability of these deficiencies, Augustus cannot, for
the re
or
he to
coin-type
her figure
Tiberius was inclined
did not shirk. Indeed,
if
of
to
as
of
to
of
proclaimed
the Roman world his official interpretation
her
position. Yet this picture
priestess and Vestal
the Augusta,
devotee rather than worldly ruler, perhaps seemed little austere
the more ambitious
her admirers,
not
Livia herself; and,
as to
or
to
of
by
of
it
of
regards numismatic honours,

even fell short
one
two man
Augustus'
literary
ifestations
lifetime. The
tradition records
embarrassing
attempts
prevent Livia
number
Tiberius
As Piganiol,
268
For references
Mlanges
Cagnat,
153.
p.
p.
to
p.
22, n.,
mater Augusti, see Smith,
43. He sometimes allowed
precede his
monuments, e.g. Fasti Praen., cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X,
on
her name
634.
to
267
p.
p.
p.
F.
Sandels, Die Stellung der kaiserlichen Frauen aus dem julisch-claudischen

265 Cf.
Hause, Diss: Giessen, 1912, pp. 22 f., 75 ff., Ehrenberg,
206.
266 As Kornemann, GFA,
204.
i.
of
as
I,
14, Dio, 57, 12, cf. von Premerstein,

269 Tiberius refused her the title, Tac., Ann.,
pp. 174 f., Rogers, pp. 60, 68; just
pater patriae, see
he himself refused the title
Chapter II, section
p.
p.
p.
in
p.
p.
1,
n.
as p.
of
of
of
is
at
ff.
at
of
n.
2.
Mller,
37,
I,
623, Grose, III,

458, no. 10003, cf. Willrich,
57, Kornemann,
Lepcis Magna, see Aurigemma,
For the cult
the domus Augusta
Annali dell'Africa Italiana, 1941, pp. 585
38,
36;
271 E.g.
Alexandria (Kornemann, DR,
CAH, X, 634), and
right
Charlesworth,
question
coinage,
but there
no
Bithynia, where the busts
Augustus and Livia appear jugate on an official coinage
(M. Granius Marcellus, FITA, Plate IV, 33, cf. pp. 145 f.).
270
DR,
p.

be
as
a to
it
at in
he
an
sight. The enormous emphasis

out
entirely different story. Even
tells
shirk problems, this was one which
if on
of
to or
or
be
to
of
to
in A
to
of
markable stipulations
his will, have intended her
become co
fortiori,
co-ruler,
ruler after his death.
since she was not
she
matriarch,
was not
relation either
her son
(for all
Lepcis Magna" [Plate
the unauthorised" MATER PATRIAE
VIII, 6]) the State.
wrong
Nevertheless, while we should
postulating un-Ro
imperial honours for Livia
Rome,
man
divine
would
equally wrong
suppose that Tiberius endeavoured
keep her
128
from straying outside the borders of this picture. These attempts

were over-simplified or perverted into imaginary attempts by
Ti
beriusmoderandos feminarum honores dictitans"to keep

out of the news. But the coinage confirms that she was very
Livia
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 in
veteratum erga matrem obsequium. Both these ungenerous epi
grams strike home, and the fact that they are contradictory only
underlines the delicate nature of the problem which Tiberius was
its to
to
to
fit
It
to
of to
at
of
he in
by
of
so
to
of to of
he on
as
to
on
in
by
by
f.,
of
ty
aim
the posthumous greatness
his own model,
too
was
defeatedthough this again was never admittedby the personali
Livia and, more particularly,
the position left
her
Au
p.
1938
AT,
59.
169.
of
as
a
of
ff.
277 For her character see Kornemann, GFA, pp. 172
634, describes the aspersions
farrago
Tacitus
nonsense.
p.
p.
p.
n.
1935/6,
211,
Smith,
163, Hammond,
275 Cf. Thiel, Mnemosyne,
But these effects must not be overestimated, Kornemann, RG, II,
197.
276 Cf. below, Conclusion.
p.
ED,
p.
cf. Pippidi,
5,
Ann., V,
p. =
274
3,
I,
at
of
to
to
in
p.
Ciaceri, Tacito,
272 Cf. Rogers, pp. 69
158. An instance particularly annoying
directing the fire-brigade
put
Tiberius (if true) must have been her initiative
out
fire-next
the temple
Vesta (Suet., Tib., 50) Her supporters could, how
ever, argue that even Vestal Virgins had
times performed public services outside the
cloister, e.g. Aemilia and her kinswoman Claudia Quinta (see above, subsection B).
AT, 40.
14, cf. Pippidi, ED, 1938
278 Tac., Ann.,
to

of
in
of
on
of
its
trying to face.
The place assigned to Livia in the framework of the principate
was an exalted one. But it was also, in
chief aspect, restricted
Capri, with
quasi-Vestal rle. The retirement
Tiberius
effects
the quality
his administration and particularly on
the system
auctoritas principis, may well have been due,
part
least,
difficult relations with Livia, which the official in
terpretation
mitigate.
her did nothing
cannot have been
easy for that very real personality
into the coldly elevated
niche
the imperial faade which Tiberius had designed for her.
Tiberius tried
base his policy and publicity
the practice
Augustus, and particularly
that
the last decennium
the lat
just
principate.
ter's
But
was
some extent defeated
that
129
gustus in his will. The present discussion has suggested the means
employed by Tiberius to rescue this situation, by the application of
his own standardsnamely 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 faade
of mos maiorum they reveal what Tiberius most wished to avoid

but in these peculiar circumstances could not concealnamely an

element of novelty.
CONCLUSION
HE
in
of
of
an
of
examination,
be
on
Tiberius prove,
of
of
in
to
as
its
rule of Tiberius possesses many features which warrant

Augustus
description
aftermath
the principate
rather than prelude
the principates which follow. Thus,
our
present study, we have found
number
fields that changes
to
its
of
of
in
to
in
of
he
to
to
as
he
of
to
features
period),
final
which Tiberius
subjects
maintained
found them. The whole
his colonial
coinages and attitude
Roman cities" seem
fall into this cate
gory; indeed,
respect
his own titulature (in which
was
eager
comparisons),
honouring
heirs,
avoid
and
the
his
he
Augustus
may
perhaps
was more conservative than
and
even
be
ten attributed
the preceding principate (often
no
is
of
be
in
of
of
as
as
not only
the second, but also
the last,
the true principes."
For immediately after him came the first
the imperial tyrants,
Caligula,
continuity and
whose brief reignthough the force
a
as
In
Caligula had little patience for the tactful exercise
of
of
M.
at
tradition must not

minimised"the Augustan system received
severe, and
fatal, shock;
some points
was fitting under the
particular
first
three emperors descended from
Antonius."
government
4,
p.
For references see Chapter II, section

159, RG, II,
Cf. Kornemann, GR,
p.
p. i.
ii.
i.
and Appendices
6,
5.
7.
II, section
II,
Chapter
section
Chapter III, section
Chapter
2,
I,
2
3
ii, ii,
p.
1.
Cf. Tac., Ann., II, 65: nihil aeque Tiberium anxium habebat quam ne composita
AT, 38, Charlesworth, CAH, X,
turbarentur; and Pippidi, ED, 1938
625.
Chapter
Appendices
section
and
p.
RR,
495; cf. Kornemann,
GFA,
130
p.
Syme,
p.
is
8.
It
204.
CAH, XII,
by
Mattingly,
coinage,
716; e.g. his conserva
illustrated
his
cf.
tive titulature, and coinage for Agrippina senior, see above, Chapter III, section iv, sub
section C.
9

in
to
Republican reaction."
said
have introduced
Moreover,
many respects the contrast with the future
less
clear than the link with the past, and Tiberius has been regarded
221.
Conclusion
131
by auctoritas. This
rgime died with Tiberius." His was the last

principate in which other auctoritates survived alongside the auc
toritas principis, and other principes viri alongside the princeps,"
in which, indeed, the latter liked to seem ut senator et iudex, non
ut princeps. 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," and his critics began to be
read in earnest soon after the fall of his admirer Domitian," his
memory received from posterity the marked respect" which it de
served, and which is said to have been his highest ambition." Thus
of
of
as
its
by
the tricennium of his death was commemorated by Nero on an of

half-centenary
ficial Alexandrian issue," and possibly, too,
Roman
Domitian. The death
Tiberius represented the end
p.
di
to
of
to
of
to
159. Restorations
the Republic by
lex de imperio, like Vespasian, did not
of
204, GR,
p.
II,
p.
to
is
11.
Cf. Kornemann, RG,
emperors on whom powers were conferred by

set the clock back
the days
Tiberius.
p.
in
12
p.
Cf. Muller, MKAW, 63, XI, 1927, pp. 29 ff., Wagenvoort, QAS, X, 1938,
14.
He even considered himself
auctoritate senatus, cf. Heinze, Vom Geist des Rmer
tums, Wells, JRS, 1939,
105.
3.
ff.,
20,
1.
n.
pp.
n.
AT,
on p.
23, Pippidi, ED, 1938
11
XI,
p.
2,
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH,
p. p. f.
17 16 15
14 13
p.
Cf. Gwosdz, Der Begriff des rmischen Princeps, Diss: Breslau, 1933,
Vell., II, 129,
95,
45, Forschungen
cf. Kornemann, Staaten Vlker Mnner,
und Fortschritte, V, 1929, pp. 342
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH, X, 652.
in
the first century
p.
interpreted
BMC. Imp.,
ii.
section
II,
of
39,
387, no. 698, cf.
xciv,
quam
pos
7.
AT,
the Alexandrian Coins

by RAI, Chapter IV, section
p.
as
Milne, Catalogue
7,
19
xxxv,
1938
Museum, pp. xxv,
the Ashmolean
as ii.
ED,
in n.
46: quippe illi non perinde curae gratia praesentium

p.
VI,
p.
Ann.,
*Tac.,
teros ambitio, cf. Pippidi,
in
p.
le
in
in p.
of
p.
p.
n.
p.
9
p.
f.,
of
the coinage
of
on
RAI,
Tiberian allusions
are commented
Caligula). Cf. also Dio, 60,
Chapters IV-VI (Chapter III, section iii, for the attitude
91,
10, ILS, 212; posthumous statues and busts, Africa Italiana, 1940-1941, pp. 76
330, no. 105,
105, Merlin, RA, 1941,
Abb. 76, 77, Schweitzer, Rm. Mitt., 1942,
32,
47, 105sometimes
temples,
cf. Poulsen, Acta Archaeologica, 1946,
and
BMC, Ionia,
288, no. 403 (Caracalla); cf. his cult
Lycia, Fougres, De Lyciorum
Communi,
105; and the names
months, Beurlier, Essai sur
Culte Rendu aux
Empreurs Romains,
160.
20

is
in
to
10
p.
269, ar
Roma,
Cf. Kornemann, RG, II,
209. Levi, La Politica Imperiale
gues that Caligula tried
restore the auctoritas principis that had been cheapened by
Tiberius; but he
using the word
authority, and his meaning
the general sense
Levi,
that Caligula wanted
avoid the Republican menace which, according
develop.
Tiberius had allowed
interpreted
by
RAI, Chapter V,
132
of
is
no
it
as
all
he
its
of an epoch, and it was fitting that a great landmark of the Augus

half-centenary, was still receiv
tan aureum saeculum, namely
ing numismatic commemoration when
died.
Yet, for
these deliberate and far-reaching links with Augustus
with the Republic which had preceded him,
the feature
he
suc
an
man had
to
so
the statio principis, and this was

decisive
event that
Syme
marking the legal termination
has been described
as
by
ceeded
it
was the first occasion on which
backwards: for
it
of
it
in
of
the principate
Tiberius that,
another and
less potent sense,
prepared the way for future which
would have found most
distasteful. The very fact
his accession pointed ahead rather than
of
of
is
It
of
or
of
surprising that this great year was one

the dates
longest
which the anniversaries were celebrated
and most atten
tively
judge
coinage,
ancient times. To
the
other such dates
in
by
fortuitous
very special sense
of
true
in
of
the principate; but the same

A.D. 14.
tion
is
in
as
of
were B.C.43, 31-30, 27, 23, 17-16 and 12." Each

these years was
having
commemorated
some degree witnessed the inaugura
it
in
of
Indeed, this year was remarkable for more than the accession
also, from causes beyond his control, there came
Tiberius. For
374, cf. Hohl, Gttingische
Gelehrte
of
of
III, section iii).
Anzeigen, 1936,
p.
Chapter
RR,
p.
23 22
(RAI,
to
of
I,
21
pp. 134 ff.) continued unchanged for the remaining

The types (BMC. Imp.,
three years
Tiberius lifetime which followed the anniversary year, and one type even
seems
have been retained for
short time after his death (RAI, Chapter III, section
ii), which was also overlapped by the celebrations
Augustus birth
the centenary
137.
VIII, section
added 20 B.C., and the Western provinces 14-13 B.C.

individual provinces, such
25 B.C. for Galatia).
the annexation dates
to
ii.
in
as
19
to
p.
Kornemann, DR,
41, also draws special attention
A.D.
the year
which princeps first raised his own son
the heirship
above, Chapter III, section
of a
provinces
as
Ibid. The Eastern
addition
(summary).
Chapter
of
(in
RAI,
to
25 24
p.
p.
Kornemann, GFA,
221, stresses the division between the Augustan rgime and
the government by Claudians (and soon Antonians) that followed. Tiberius, like
Livia, was Claudian on both sides, cf. Syme, RR,
493.
26

of
37
in
to
14
is
it
if
an of
the Republic. Thus,

one sense A.D.
marked the end
era,
equally true
say that, despite the wishes
the new
princeps, A.D.
not, therefore,
marked the beginning
one.
decisive date
the empire, cf.
Conclusion
133
into being two other great features of subsequent Roman history.

For the first time a princeps, in the new sense, was deified, and for
the first time, by his testament, a woman was raised high above
other women. Thus, a dead man still dominated the State; while
by
to
by
of
it
in
had Augustus before him. For that system depended

personal relations, and
was
the personal touch"
judgment
menthat Tiberius was lacking. Indeed,
in on as
and
so
toritas
greatly
30 29 28 27
Chapter
Chapter
III,
to
by
as
iii.
section
III, section
iv, especially subsection C.

6.
v;
p. of
is
p.
of
of
is
of
p.
2, of
of
p.
p.
of
of
is
of
section
8,
Plate VI,
and VII,
II, pp. 196, 200; but, since comparisons be
Kornemann,
RG,
This
the view
tween great men are
barren pursuit, no comment
offered here on his assertion
contrast, Charlesworth (CAH, X,
Tiberius superiority over Augustus. By way
652), though appreciative
many
Tiberius qualities, does not agree with Korne
204, GR,
158; but see also GFA,
mann (op. cit.,
236) that he was
better
princeps than Claudius. Opinions
every kind have been expressed about the merits
Tiberius; one
Siber,
and demerits
the least favourable modern estimates
that
1940,
Abh. Leipzig,
82.
Chapter
II,
as
by
its
So
to
to
Capri, ascribed
Suetonius
desire
cherish
his auctoritas, made
tactful exercise impossible.
Tiberius
himself, cramped
his character
well
his inheritance,
his retirement
10, cf.
II,
p.
of
on
in
pp. 193 ff., 196
Thiel,
Mnemosyne,
1935,
211,
p. 5.
Tib.,
n.
Suet.,
p.
Cf. Kornemann, RG,
ff.
f.
so
in
31
p.
dealing with men
652: he lacked the graciousness
supreme
degree; cf.,
and the tact that Augustus had possessed
the diritas
Tiberius, Scott, AJP, 1932, pp. 150 ff., Pippidi, RCI, 1941/2 AT,
173, Kornemann,
RG, II, pp. 188
84 38 32
p.
471, Scramuzza, EC,

Cf. Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten,
possible cause, see above, Chapter
84. For the effect
this on the administration, and
III, section iv, subsection C.
of

by
all
his widow and priestess hampered it and, despite the official con
centration on her religious aspect, set the precedent for a mon
strous regiment of women. DEO AVGVSTO and GENETRIXOR
BIS, on the coinage of Spanish colonies, show respectively the
repercussions, ominous for the future, of the embarrassing great
ness 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
his outstanding expe
govern
rience and ability," was ill-equipped
nature
auc
134
contributed to the failure of the system which it was his greatest

desire to maintain.
The alternative to government by advice was the formal auto

cracy which was so soon to come into existence. Of this Tiberius was
to of
a
on
all
scrupulous to avoid any of the symbolism. But none the less, from
the periphery of the empire, many signs of the future were appar
Tiberius, the stabili
ent. The greatest of
the achievements
is
of
it
of
of
of
in
of
sation
the imperial Peace, brought
colonial mintage
Pax Aug. Perpetua which has
itlike GENETRIX ORBIS and
past
DEO AVGVSTOlittle
the
and much
the future;
strangely suggestive
the contemporary Mission
Christ. To
the future too point the Tiberian coin-legends
that the Gens Iulia,
Corinth reminds us
of
an
in
of
in
itself, advanced
modest enough conception
imperial family already
this principate towards the status
unofficially called the divina domus. The conservatism
Tiberius
kept such phrases away from public parlance, but for
less than
to
is
no to
time only;
his involuntary co
It
they were advancing apace outside Rome.

incidence with such pregnant developments,
his
con
Empire.
4,
8.
2,
4,
Chapter
II, section iv, subsection A.

II, section
Plate VII,
III, section Plate V,
7.
Chapter
i; v;
Chapter
of
it
to
be
to
in
in
its
of
scious and constructive stabilisation

the Pax Augusta, that his
principate owes
placewhich has begun
attributed
recent yearsas
decisive stage
the history
the Roman
87 86 35

at
PIETAS AVGVSTA, AETERNITATIS

DENTIAE AVGVSTI;" and GENT. IVLI.
of
other colonies, like

AVGVSTAE and PROVI
APPENDIX
Some non-Spanish colonial coins of uncertain princeps

N this
Appendix will be collected certain colonial coins which might

belong to the principate of Tiberius but are on the whole more prob
ably attributable to other periods."
(1)
Many of the aes pieces with heads of Augustus and
Nemausus.
Agrippa, and reverses with COL. NEM. and crocodile, are apparently
post-Augustan. One such group, described on iconographical grounds
as belonging to Tiberius or probably later, seems likely to be Claudi
an. In any case it is doubtful whether the issues of Nemausus are official
or colonial, and also whether the Augustan colony at Nemausus was a

Roman or a Latin one"probably it was the former (14 B.C.).
(3) Uncertain
Spanish city. Nicodemi
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
Chapter I, section i.
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.
8 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 Pe
cunia 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,
A list of the pieces attributed to Tiberius is given in

RN,
2 FITA, pp. 75 ff.; accepted by le Gentilhomme,
1
See also
18, gives some references. For comprehensive material concerning

VIII (1941), cf. Grenier, RH, 1944, 155
p.
81.
pp. 284
ff.
1911,
FITA,
p.
Cf.
P.
NZ,
imperial Nemausus, Forma Orbis Romani,
74, no. 726.
185
f.
72,
n.
FITA,
p.
ff.
perhaps also the last emissions of A.D. c. 68-69, as medallic or semi-medallic.

the present writer in NC, 1948, pp. 121

(2) Paestum. Muensterberg ascribes to Tiberius the coinage of the

Paestan duoviri L. Suei. & M. Nun., and M. I. Ne; but attribution to
Augustus seems preferable."
136
Appendix
to Pella must be abandoned owing to Spanish provenance: but A. Bel

trn's reversion to Carthago Nova is still not convincing.
(4) Buthrotum. Sestini's" attribution to this principate is uncertain.
Imhoof-Blumer's" and Muensterberg's" ascription to Buthrotum con
cerns a genuinely Tiberian coin, but
sus(?) (no. 49; Plate V, 10 and 11).
it is here assigned rather to Cnos
A.
Caligula."
of
to
or
Vatronius Labeo and

Augustus." She also abandons the attribution
to
to
Caligula the duoviri

Plancus,
Rutilius
ascribed earlier
Tiberius"
L.
(6) Corinth. Edwards" rightly attributes
be
to
the principate
of
Germanicus issued
in its
dupondii
of
(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," is probably not Tiberian. It is cer
tainly not of Augustus, but
reverse type seems
taken from
Tiberius
Au
of
of
to
L.
be
in
it
be
So
rather than colonial.
or
is
it
II,
p.
p.
p.
27,
24,
110.
tooled but apparently
n.
p.
9,
n.
p.
as
Paris, Naples, Vienna (Pink describes the last

following Gaebler,
61,
295,
As FITA,
VI,
cf.
no.
p.
Edwards, op. cit., pp.

Edwards, op.cit.,
FITA,
413, no. 818.
p.
96; Nicodemi,
266.
24 ff.; BMC, 680 f., etc.
74, no. 471.
Mionnet, Supplment,
p.
1899,
p.
Corinth,
6,
II,
p.
By Earle Fox, JIAN,

BMC, Corinth, etc.
p.
V,
397, no. 719.
74.
p.
ff.
p.
20.
p.
VI,
7, 3,
Corinth,
p.
I,
p.
As Gabrici, Corolla Numismatica, 1911,

102.
160, nos. 94
BMC. Imp.,
Cf. Grant, NC, 1948,
Ibid.,
doubtful
140.
NZ, 1911,
p.
MG,
Med. Greche
d'alcune
10). But
FITA, 283.
Hedervariano,
Europa,
del Mus.
(1949),
Latinas de Cartagena
Descrizione
p.
no. 4.
VIII,
Tiberius and Drusus junior (Plate
Las Monedas
10
those
of
of
of
as
of
bearing the ethnic

colonia Parium
priest
(C.G.I.P.) two small pieces with the usual type
colonist
ploughing; one has the head and name
Drusus junior, and the other
(7) Parium. Mionnet quotes
24 28 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 18 12 11

the
Cassius. But certain other coins

Corinth lack
ing imperial heads may conceivably belong
principate
the
Tiberi
us.
also might small piece with GER. and DRV., and two heads,
post-Tiberian and might
though
may also
any case
official
gustans Insteius and
116.
genuine).
Appendix
137
whether Mionnet was right in saying that the ethnic occurs on these
coins. They appear to be of an anniversary character.
(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.
VIII,5)
or to an earlier one. But the stylistic peculiarities of this

impossible
series make it
to conclude with certainty at what period any
of these pieces were struck. Tiberian pieces may well exist.
Plate
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;" elsewhere he lacks a title
(Plate VIII, 2).
(ii) Labeo, who now seems not to be identical with M. Aemilius as
was thought, he figures as IIvir, possibly as [IIvir?]iter. (Plate VIII,
apparently as IIvir quinquennalis iter. (Plate VIII, 1).
(iii) Pollio, who appears with Labeo as [IIvir?]iter and IIvir
quennalis iter. (Plate VIII, 1).
3)" and
As FITA, p. 112, nn. 19, 20. The Oxford and Paris specimens of the former
BMC, 92, of the latter, show no sign of the ethnic; though the first-named of
25
and
quin
piece,
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.
FITA,
260.
490, no. 7073:

86 See
to
...MILI. PRAE. LAB.
.
.
.
his collec
Corinth) 513.
last two notes.
4;
92, no. 199; id.,
p.
92, no. 201:
Grose,
II,
p.
62, no. (attributed
POLLION. ITER, LABEON.

RN, 1888,
355 and Plate XVII,
LABEONE POLLIONE IIVIR. Q. ITER.
p. p.
Svoronos,
I, I,
Svoronos,
etc.,
to
newly acquired British Museum example reads
BMC, Corinth,
specimen
in
the writer
some extent superseded,
has kindly informed
and
AEMIL. PRAE. IMP. IIVIR.
p.
M.
augmented,
of
Mr. A. M. Woodward
tion reading apparently
there
is
p.
FITA, 262: the description

by new material quoted here.
81
cf.
p.
Rouvier, JIAN, 1900, p. 281, nos. 504

NZ, 1911,
125.
p.
80 29
28
f.,
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 execu
tion of the reverse strongly suggests a considerably later (Flavian?) date.
85 34 88 32

(9) Cnossus. As Muensterberg suggests, some of the coins of Cnos

sus ascribed to the principate of Augustus by the present writer" may
138
Appendix
(iv) Ti.
Caesar, who figures as
IIvir (Plate VIII, 2) and IIvir iter.

is,
The present writer has preferred to consider the series Augustan and
to identify Ti. Caesar here as Tiberius (in the reign of Augustus); it
Tiberius
is
a
so
as
is
at
the time
C.C.A.N.," but
of
attributes
Augustus and
Ramsay
ascribes
or
show
legend
British Museum (the piece which seems
distinguish Labeo from M. Aemilius):
Inventaire
304,
6.
Hill, op.cit.,
n.
150, cf.
p.
p.
section
303, no. 10.
304.
de
la
Op. cit.,
p.
SBRP,
p.
NC, 1914,
ii.
p.
to
262, no.
9.
FITA,
p.
Paris, Vienna:
TI. CAISAR IIVIR. ITER.

FITA, 263.
See above, Chapter III,
44 43 42 41 40 39

38 87
in
(11) Perhaps Cassandrea (no. 32) should also have been included
this list rather than
the text (Plate IV, 4).
in
of
which the third century obverse has been tooled

and portrait
Tiberius.
to
to
of
Vespasian
the name Antiochia
thereabouts.
rightly
reject
piece
and Babelon"
with CAE-ANTIO.COL.S.
on
R.,
Hill
small piece with the ethnic
the introduction
Hill"
Pisidia.
to
(10) Antioch
in
of
as
of
(in the reign

carefully
is
instead Ti. Gemellus

Tiberius),
needed,
often,
Paestum." What
Corpus
coinage.
described
this
however, possible that this duovir
Collection Waddington, 3580.
APPENDIX
The municipia civium Romanorum

of
an
of
non
of
which Tiberian coins have been identified. One

Utica (Plate VIII, 9)," which was still
this sta
its
it:
of
8,
is
these two cities
these two questions, there are only two
an
of
so
of
regards the former
Spanish municipia
of
As
to
to be
it;
HE municipia do not form part of the subject of this study, but

they are closely linked with
that
examination
the col
municipal
incomplete
onies would
without some reference
the
coinages, and
community.
the relative status
the two kinds
of
of
or of
to
cursorily
the text." Most
them show the
Ablative, the
priestess type, and mention,
the Dative
name
the proconsul
Vibius Marsus (A.D.
27-30). The names
A.," sig
seven duoviri appear singly, two
them being called AVG.
nifying Augustalis"
or
of
or
c.
of
of
C.
in
as
Livia
[duovir] Augusti." Two further varieties are
in
n.
p.
II,
1935,
Kubit
33, cf.
to
1)
n.
p. of
municipium Stobi (Numismaticar,

25,
seem
be later.
pp. 159 ff.
ii,
p.
pp. 247 ff., cf. Mller, II,

164.
municipium
some such formula
IV,
p.
16.
As restored by Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum,

Borghesi, Oeuvres, Decade X, Oss. IV, prefers
munitum (for munitum cf. FITA,
285).
as
II,
277,
n.
EC,
p.
Mller,
The earliest coins

schek, Gnomon, 1937,
p.
p.
I,
is
to
municipia civium Romanorum,

For the present purpose this term
restricted
i.e. does not include the Latin cities which were sometimes likewise described as mu
nicipia, cf. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften,
293,
23, Steinwenter, RE, X,
1269, FITA,
336.
C.
Sallustius Justus,
Cassius Felix
A.
by Florez, Medallas de las colonias,

166, cf. the interpretation
237,
pueblos antigos
Espaa,
652 (rejected by FITA,
7)
139
to
of
n.
p.
p.
de
municipios
quinq. Aug. under Augustus (of which the tentative attribution
y
C.
p.
Caelius Pax Aug.,
As Mller, II,
C.
C.
C.
Caecilius Pius, Q. Caecilius Jovinus, Sex. Tadius Faustus,

Caelius Pax,
Cassius Felix.
M. Tullius Judex,
p.
L.
p.
as
as
ii,
I,
E.g. for local signatories and formulas, Chapter

section
subsection C; for
mint, ibid., subsection D; for the proconsul, Chapter II, section
Utica
subsection
A; for Livia
priestess, Chapter III, section iv, subsection B.
92, no. 410,
De Laet,
246.
10

which have been referred
in
of
as
Augustan colony
tus and not
Scramuzza calls
some
issues
D.D.P.P.,
under Tiberius have, alternating with
the ethnic M(uni
cipes?) M(unicipip) I(uliae) V(ticae). Though not very common
series, the coins
this city show several remarkable features, some
Thermae Himeraeae
Appendix 2
140
scribed with the names of Ner. Caes, q(uinquennalis) pr(aefectusP)

A.N. Gemellus, Dr. Caes, q(uinquennalis) pr(aefectus?) T. D. Rufus.
in
of
of
Its
The second city of this category coining outside Spain after the death
of Augustus is Tingis; possibly it was linked with Baetica administra
tively." Carcopino wrongly describes it as a colony.
coins show on
Germanicus,
either side the heads
IVL TIN.
At
to
as
in
of
it
and DRVSVS respectively. But cannot be

certain that this piece was not issued
the principate
Caligula," under whom honours
these princes were revived.
NERO
scribed
regarded
to
in
of
to
of
municipal coinages seems

present
first sight this paucity
Augustus,
contrast
the reign
which about eight non-Spanish mu
limited period not more than three such cities coined," and two
of
in
nicipia coined," but the contrast diminishes when we limit the compari
son to the last decade or two of the latter's lifetime. For
this more
those
in
to
be
is
to
apparently for foundationsthat

say, special occasions which could
expected
not
recur under Tiberius. The apparent reduction
the
no
in
to
to
Ti
It
at
of
be
in
of
Augustus.
cannot, therefore,
berius"and only five
the last years
municipal mints started
concluded that any diminution
the ac
to
is
to
is of is
p.
rightly refuted by A. Beltrn, Las Monedas Latinas de Cartagena,

29, on grounds
Carthago Nova
provenance; but his reversion
not satisfactory). One specimen
now seen
read Augur.
at
at
12
15.
pp.
153, 196
1.
n.
182,
Cf. FITA,
Bilbilis, Calagurris, Dertosa, Emporiae, Osca, Saguntum, Turiaso, Italica.
Bilbilis, Calagurris, Emporiae, Osca, Turiaso.
p.
and
199 (see also
5.
Appendices
8,
9.
III,
A-D, and
f.,
subsections
(?): FITA,
and Plate
in
section
Uselis, Agrigentum, Haluntium

pendix 5).
ii,
Chapter
I,
in ff. p.
pp. 149
done also
ff.
pp. 165
f.
p.
FITA,
As
Eckhel, Doctrina Numor
165.
New York; Abaecherli Boyce, NNM, 109, 1947, pp. 21

Cf. NC, 1948,
114.
is
19 18 17 16 15 14 13
Cf. FITA,
BAF, 1934,
quaestor propraetore,
as
185.
I.e. quinquennalis Genitive;

um, IV, pp. 247 ff., cf. Mller, II,
p. or
p.
FITA,
IIvir
(??),
of
p.
11.
Cf. the interpretation by Cuntz, Klio, 1906,

471 (cf. FITA, pp. 195 f.)
Aug. des.
municipium Halaesa under Augustus; cf. IIIIvir. Au.
Thuburnica
22 21 20

it
is
latter's reign becomes even more negligible when

recalled that Utica's
precedent under Augustus, and
extensive coinage seems
have had
that,
Spain, eight municipia appear
have issued coinage under
Ap
Appendix 2
141
cession of Tiberius, any more than a diminution of colonial mints, nor

is any diminution noticeable during his reign, in which a number of mu
nicipal issues are late.
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. Under Tiberius the numismatic signs of autono
municipia Osca, Saguntum and Turiaso begin under Tiberius to de

scribe their fourth magistrates as aediles, like colonies; but even under
Augustus other municipia had done the same." Municipium Dertosa
by
is
It
by
colonies
coinage."
true that municipium Bilbilis excels
imperial affairs
being the only Roman
attention
to
foundation
its
all
of
in
its
seems to follow a further Augustan precedent by celebrating the jubilee
of
See above, Chapter
ii,
to
24 23
to
of
city, and indeed apparently the only city

any kind,
accord numis
Sejanus. But, against this, municipi
matic mention
the consulship
p.
as
of
in
of
26
as
in
p.
to
as
f.
25
in
I,
if
I,
section
subsection D.
E.g. Bilbilis, and apparently Italica, Osca, Calagurris. Tingis,
Tiberian, falls
the late twenties. Cf. Chapter
loc. cit.
FITA, pp. 324
Possibly, however,
Jones suggests (JRS, 1941,
29) the
municipia did not yet possess what was later known
the ius italicum, attributed
FITA, 315.
them
proc
Such assimilative developments
occurred (if any) would form part
gradual encroachment on Roman cities
ess, inherited from Augustus,
general: see
ii,
II, section
subsection C.
E.g. Calagurris, Italica, Uselis.
Chapter
p.
FITA,
172.
FITA,
pp.
Cf.
FITA,
169,
and below, Appendix
p.
Italien,
87.
6.
subsection
B;
section
ii,
See above, Chapter
against Rudolph, Stadt und Staat im rmischen
I,
3,
162, 169.
n.
p.
32 81 30 29 28 27
p.
L.
4;
n.
p. p.
n.
3;
I,
di
17
p.
Vives, IV,
56, no.
(TI-CAESARE. V.,
AELIO SEIANO COS.), cf. Cia
Augusto,
ceri, Tiberio Successore
293; Schiller, Geschichte der rmischen Kaiser
299,
Kornemann, DR,
45,
zeit,
Rogers,
28.
p.

my on the one hand and dependence on the other retain roughly similar
proportions, and there are no signs of an increased tempo in the assimi
lation of the two classes of community. For Utica, in portraying Tiberi
us as princeps, is doing as other municipia had done under Augustus,
Tingis represents the domus Augusta as Gades had before it. Again,
Appendix 2
142
cannot
Sejanus cos.
Gades under Augustus.
concluded that the coinage bears
of
municipal mints under Tiberius,

any diminution
ness either
any increased assimilation
colonies and municipia. This negative
of
to
is
to
reference
wit
or
to
On the whole, then,
any case
be of
Caligula; and
the Balbus pont
it
in
to of
the reign
comparable
in
its
um Emporiae in the same province retains complete autonomy of type

issues, which probably occurred
which persisted until the cessation of
con
to
to
of
of
by
in
is
clusion
accordance with our literary locus classicus for this princi
Gellius, that
Hadrian, reported
pate; for we learn from speech
community was still consid
the distinction between the two classes
petition for re
ered significant enough under Tiberius for Praeneste
position
theoretically
independent
turn from colonial status
the
more
Caesar
1,
doubts whether this was
n.
CAH, XI,
7,
it,
to
See below, Appendix
5.
cf. Last,
p.
1942,
p.
172.
XVI,
JRS,
p.
156. Henderson,
FITA,
155.
3,
p.
35 34
p.
FITA,
Noct. Att.,
325.
86

33
Cf. FITA,
ian municipium,
as p.
as
of
Moreover, certain new municipia seem

have been
notably Cambodunum and con
created after his accession
before
ceivably Anagnia and Carnuntum.
municipium.
FITA,
APPENDIX
Spectrographic Analyses'
analyses recorded in From Imperium to Auc
toritas, by the method there described, were made by Mr. D. M.
Smith under the auspices of the British Non-Ferrous Metals Research
PECTROGRAPHIC
Association. Such analyses as are quoted in the text of the present study,
where no reference to From Imperium to Auctoritas is given, were un
dertaken by the same expert through the kindness of Messrs. Johnson,
Matthey and Co., Ltd. The method used, somewhat different from that
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 B, 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. More
over, the relative proportions as represented by the various groups can
not 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
corre
(1) Mr. D. M. Smith points out that
all
spond with those in From Imperium to Auctoritas. The following notes

on the new classifications need to be added:
FITA,
section
ii,
I,
See Chapter
p.
to
subsection
A.
493.
143
in
of
of
the coins analysed under the

Mattheya
Messrs. Johnson and
varied selection including
peregrine cities,
official copper and orichalcum, and the bronze
ad
dition
the colonial and municipal coins described hereprobably con
auspices

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
Appendix 3
144
impurity, even where it is not present as an in

tended constituent. The spark spectra do not show it in every case, but
tain lead present
as an
he considers that the more sensitive arc method probably would. How
ever, the spark method is for our purpose quite sensitive enough, indeed
too sensitive, in identifying minute constituents; for, from the
cal standpoint, accidental constituents are of little interest."
metrologi
(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 en

tirely ruled out. This last point raises a question in regard to the old
(From Imperium to Auctoritas) classification which deserves to be men
tioned here. Does C/D zinc, in that classification, justify interpretation
as orichalcum?C zinc has been considered by the present writer to do
probably correct; but zinc is known to occur in many cases

as an impurity." The spectrographic method has remarkable advantages
in respect of the saving of time, coins, labour and expensewhich may
well lead to
extensive use by numismatists; but there are individual
its
spectrographic
n.
to
ff.
E.g. Caley, pp. 28, 82, 109, 159.
For impurities see Caley, pp. 151

Perhaps, however, they might eventually be used
FITA, pp. 13, 493,
12.
test provenance.
be
analysis.
ical
or
of
so
as
as
as
in
this kind
to
ed
of
which chemical analyses, such

have recently yield
good results
Caley, should
possible
far
continued. Only
minute proportion
Roman aes coinage has
far received either chem
cases

so," and this is
APPENDIX
Weights and Denominations1

not minimising the importance of metrology, the present
writer has not weighed (or recorded the weighings of) more
WHILE
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 as
sistance to the much more thorough operations of an eventual corpus.

No. in list
Number of specimens
weighed
Average weight to
nearest grain
64
50
77
62
11
125
12
71
13
143
15
25
106
16
63
18
333
19
199
20
107
21
317
22
239
23
121
24
462
25
315
26
106
29
678
30
228
31
125
32
87
33
118
34, 37-39
172
I,
section ii, subsection A.
See Chapter
145
Appendix 4
146
No. in list
Number of specimens
weighed
35
nearest grain
72
41
101
50
51
52
96
53
82
Average weight to
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 follow

ing conjectural arrangement of denominations is one of a number of pos

sibilities:
Nos. 17, 24, 29.
Sestertii
Dupondii
: Nos. 14
Asses
: Nos. 13,19, 21
Semisses
Quadrantes:
(?),
18, 25, 27, 30.
(?),
(?).
(?),
31, 32
33,41 (?), 42
22, 34, 37-39, 49
Nos. 10, 11, 15, 20, 23, 26, 28,

46,48, 52, 53.
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, and in the list
given above a number of other pieces are ascribed to the same denomi
nation; but such interpretations are more usually conjectural, since quad
rantes often deviated in weight (usually in an upward direction) from
one-quarter of the as on which they were based.
The bulk of our pieces are here tentatively classified as semisses, a de
nomination not unknown under the early principate. 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 coinse.g. issues of Gades under Augustus
2
3
FITA,
p. 288 and n. 2 (nos. 1-9 here).

Mattingly,
Cf.
BMC. Imp., I, p. xlviii.
FITA,
5 FITA,
4
p. 125 (references).
p. 172 and n. 6.
(c. 630 gr.), and our
Appendix 4
147
is a
is
(c.
no. 29 of Hippo Diarrhytus

678 gr)." These bronze pieces are pre
sumably sestertii, since higher aes denomination than this improb
27
to
in
If
at
160 grains.
bronze pieces
of
234
c.
c.
as
On this assumption our bronze ranges from

Within this range, too, fall the abundant Tiberian
to
be
be
if
no
is
31
be
to
23
in
is 28 is
if
of
of
able:" their high weight not inconsistent with the 421 grains
the of
ficial sestertius
orichalcum." But
this
what they are, nos. 25,
likely
dupondii,
26,
asses; compare nos.
and 30 are
nos.
and
Thapsus."
respectively
so, then the smaller pieces
22 and
this
they belong
this series cannot,
the same standard (of which,
deed, there
proof),
asses also, but must
semisses.
many
of
of
of
no
at
is
It
of
as
Ti
4,
8,
of
of
10
C.
12 11
189 grains:
FITA,
24,
FITA,
c.
Hippo and Thapsus are tridenominational
pp. 75, 300.

p.
in
p.
I,
to
302.
For bronze was probably considered less valuable than copper:

against Burns, Money and Monetary Policy
Ancient Times,
305.
BMC. Imp.,
xlv.
13
pp. 31, 44, 88,
p.
(FITA,
liv. Bronze was consid

300, against Burns, Money
I,
it
BMC. Imp.,
p.
I,
tressis
FITA,
p.
Ancient Times,
On this interpretation,
the issues
respectively.
and quadridenominational
p.
in
and Monetary Policy
RIC,
p.
the latter, Mattingly,
than orichalcum:
cannot be proved that they are
the Republican
of
survival
of
For the weight
ered less valuable
of
no evidence
of
There
208).
is
But the Gades coins have not been analysed,

of bronze.
so
of
p.
at
of
at of
of
in
of
to
of
5,
of
c.
L.
of
of
P.
so
greatly, among the only three pieces weighed, that

But weights here fluctuate
the average may not be reliable: they are 840, 628.8 and 564.8 grains (Mller). These
pieces with the name
Cornelius Dolabella weigh considerably more than the cor
responding ones with that
Apronius (no. 24), which average only
462 grains,
rather more than Tiberian issues
Acci (c. 415), Tarraco (c. 400), Caesaraugusta
XXXIII,
V,
(c. 440) and Turiaso (c. 390): Hill, NNM, 50, 1931, Plates XV,
weights between the two sets
pieces
apparently the same
etc. But this disparity
denomination may conceivably have something
do with the fact that the former over
lapped, while the latter preceded, Tiberius reform
the coinage
A.D.
22-23 (RAI,
Chapter III, section i). For this reform included the issue
sestertii
orichalcum at
taining for the first time the proper weight
421 grains (no sestertii
all having been
issued
Rome for many years), and this may have compelled local mints (which prob
ably had an unfavourable rate
exchange with official issues, cf. Caley,
keep
149)
their bronze issues heavier.

in
berius can
colonial
the bottom
this range (168.5 grains)."
tightening
the text, however,
the standard under
deduced from the apparently smaller fluctuations
the
Augustus.
his reign than
the reign
true that under
be in
As stated
appropriately,
in
Rome
is,
at
of
as
of
Spanish cities, and also the bronze units (surely asses)

Nemausus
during the whole Julio-Claudian period." The weight
the copper
300,
Appendix 4
148
Augustus such asses seem on occasion to have been as heavy as 350 and
as light as 80 grains," but if we limit the comparison to the last sixteen
years of his reign (the procedure that has been adopted for other such
comparisons"), variations of this magnitude no longer occur. For in that
period" 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 un
der Tiberius.

2.
section
5.
A-D, Appendices
ii, 2,
subsections
those years see Chapter
I,
of
16
For the coinage

cipia, Appendix
ii,
FITA,
p. 300.
15 Cf. Chapter I, section
14
subsection
D; for muni
APPENDIX
Colonial foundations and their coinages under

Tiberius'
HE fact that
a number of cities which had coined between Actium
and A.D. 14 did not coin under Tiberius is of no economic signifi

cance, 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 prin
ceps. A very considerable proportion of the colonial and municipal issues
of Augustus had belonged to this category of foundation or restora
tion coinages. In attempting to examine the practice of his successor in
10
of its
at
is
is
to
of
to
celebrating
coinage. This
maintain the custom
foundation
single colony
tentatively
which Tiberian issue
this category
present
tributed
Panormus: the
writer has elsewhere offered argu
ments, albeit admittedly conjectural ones, for attributing our issue no.
p.
8
4
subsection
of a
of
or
issue
of
is
If
Tiberian date seems not improbable for

Silvanus, whose coin
this so, Silva
peregrine
ii,
I,
section
similar purpose." The other governors
that city, was (by the anal
B.
sum up.
190.
pp. 197
f.,
n.
6.
FITA, pp.
pp. 290
ff.
FITA,
FITA,
FITA,
FITA,
2
5
See Chapter
strikingly resembles
of
in
to
Sicily are ascribable

question are Augustan, but
the foundation
Panormus."
cities
on
on
of
in all
is
of
as
in
to
a
in
I,
colonial foundation (or rather re-foundation

the
long-ex
peregrine hiatus since there had been
municipium")
early
years
tinct Julian constitutio
the
the prin
cipate
chiefly based
Tiberius. This attribution
the probability
proconsuls appearing
that
other names
the coinage
Roman
(Plate
15)
Roman right, after
see recently
Groag, PIR2,
Cf. Bahrfeldt, RS, 1904, Plate IV, 92.

149
III,
94,
2,
For the name

earlier date.
p.
197 f.,
n.
6.
ff.
of
of
f.
of
pp. 196 ff., 237

The present writer's chronological interpretation
the
Augustan colonisation and municipalisation
Sicily differs from that
Kahrstedt,
Klio, 1942, pp. 254

by
(if
this respect, we are faced at the outset with an apparent contrast. Under
that), seems
Tiberius no municipium, and not more than one colony
who, however, favoured an
Appendix 5
150
ogy of the Augustan governors") perhaps the proconsul who undertook

the adsignatio on behalf of the deductor Tiberius. Issues nos. 11 ff., lack
ing 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 founda
tion fund." These attributions are, however, it must be repeated, still
guess-work. We cannot, for instance, exclude the possibility that an
other issue, mentioning L. Seius, might be the foundation issue of
mus, rather than of Haluntium to which it has been ascribed."
Panor
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 and Chilver" plausibly ascribe Emona to this class. The pres
ent writer has attempted, in Roman Anniversary Issues, to attribute a
of
Tiberian deductio of
Sis
cia. Scarabantia" and Narona" also may well have been colonised not
long after the death of Augustus. The same could apply to Aquincum,
and possibly to a site on Lake Balaton." Cambodunum looks like a
berian municipium." Perhaps, like other early imperial municipia,
a draft of settlers. The same may conceivably
Carnuntum.
15 14 13 12 11
FITA,
Dissertationes
JRS,
See Plate
pp. 197, 199.
1939,
II,
Pannonicae,
I,
Cf. FITA, p. 293.

Ibid., p. 291, nn. 3
10
p.
ff.
contained
Ti
it
be true of
16-20.
10, 1938. Cf.
CIL, III,
10768.
269.
i.
RAI, Chapter VII, section

Cf. Ritterling, RE, XII, 1243 ff.,
p.
16
is
p.
against Kornemann, RE, XVI, 596. Kahrstedt,

Gttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1935,
239,
sceptical about such foundations.
Ritterling, loc. cit. On sources for Illyrian road-building under Tiberius, see Last,
JRS, 1943, pp. 104, Charlesworth, CAH, X,
651.
XI,
the Neighbourhood
of
of
f.,
Cf. Stade, CAH,
FITA,
p.
21. 20 19
18 17
p.
Cf. Alfldi, CAH, XI,

544 (garrison).
Ibid., pp. 544
cf. Kuszinsky, The Archaeology
Lake Balaton (in Hungarian), figures 88, 101, 108.
the
532.
pp. 155, 169, 324.

p.
of
1,
at
It
being legionary headquarters (cf. Betz, Wiener

least reached the stage
3), though this does not necessarily imply that
1945,
Akademische Rundschau, V,
was an oppidum civium Romanorum.
it

coin of Gallienus to the quarter-millenary
Appendix 5
151
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 Ha
luntium ( if there was one ) would add plausibility to the suggestion that,
under Tiberius, Sicily was still considered a suitable area for city-foun
dations 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?* 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 "ref ounded" by "Drusus Caesar," 27 presumably Drusus
junior.28
We cannot, then, confidently accept statements that no colonisation
It
seems probable that he founded certain
colonies in the Western provinces. When Augustus bequeathed to Ti

berius 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 col
onies and municipia than has generally been believed.31 The list of Ro
22
FITA,
23
Cf. Rogers, p. 213, n. 127, Scramuzza, ESAR,
24
Cf. Rostovtzeff, SEH, p. 282.

The possibility of foundations under Gaius should likewise be considered.
Liber Coloniarum = Schriften der romischen Feldmesser, p. 224, cf . Ciaceri, Ti-
-'26
p. 199.
III,
p. 372, 376.
berio Successors di Augusta, p. 218.

27 Schriften der romischen 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 romischen Feld
messer, p. 231, and Cereatae Marianae (ibid., p. 233) cannot be corroborated, cf.
Rogers, loc. cit., discounting Ciaceri, loc. cit.
28
FIT A,
For other possibilities in Italy see Pais, Mem. Lincei, 1920,

(Parentium).
E.g. Dessau, Geschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit, II, 1, p. 90, Scramuzza, EC,
Cf.
p. 285, n. 6.
pp. 80, 84, Degrassi, Athenaeum, 1946, pp. 42 ff.

2
p. 279, n. 26, p. 281, n. 45.

30
3i
Dio 52.33.3, cf. Gardthausen, Augustus und

F1TA, p. 306.
seine Zeit,
I,
ii,

occurred under Tiberius.29
p. 543.
Appendix 5
152
man foundations which have here been quoted as possibly ascribable to

Tiberius is likewise exclusively Western.
Besides the Augustan precedents, there are other historical grounds
for not rejecting out of hand this view of Tiberian foundations. The con
ciliatory discharges of troops which, we know, followed the mutinies of
14" may well have been accompanied by land allotments, as in the

comparable stress of the early Augustan period, rather than by the gra
tuities which, since 13 B.C., had cost Augustus so much. One of our pos
A.D.
sible 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. 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
This obscure subject of Roman foundations by Tiberius reminds us

that his enactments on a variety of subjects may have been more numer
ous and important than our surviving information reports. Comparable
to deductiones and constitutiones of Roman cities, on a smaller scale,
were promotions of communities to Latinitas, and these too may well
p.
p.
di
On the Augustan policy see particularly Syme,
RR,
p.
6.
197,
n.
FITA,
p.
85 34 33
Cf.
p.
f.,
32 In the East Tiberius, like Augustus, concentrated

on peregrine foundations; cf.
Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, pp. 74, 89, 137, 163
267, Smith,
240, Ciaceri, Tiberio Successore
Augusto,
221, Charlesworth, CR, 1932,
265.
352.
at
to
n.
19,
as
A.D.
c.
to
to
policy
may, however,
Scra
have been not Tiberius but Claudius
giving civitas
auxiliarii, cf. Sherwin
p.
2;
n.
p.
p.
40;
23, 298,
812; Kornemann, Gnomon,
pp. 161, 163, 296,
XI,
n.
these, see Hammond,
n.
aspects
613,
Buckland, ibid.,
1938,
561; Arangio-Ruiz, Augustus,
142.
p.
On various
of
p.
who developed most extensively the practice

White, The Roman Citizenship,
192.
to
226.
assign the change
45.
of
1938,
n.
p.
n.
JRS,
It
Birley,
p.
87
p.
86
There seems no good reason

muzza, EC,
279,
26,
281,
in
p.
7.
n.
p.
of
C.
to
p.
ff.
of
On his rgime there, see most recently Betz, JAIW, 1943; Beiblatt, pp. 131 f.;
Anagnia (FITA,
and Rogers, pp. 119
The Liber Coloniarum says populus deduxit
284), but possibly Drususand Germanicus elsewheremay have been allowed
founder, perhaps like
Berytus, FITA,
hold the position
Caesar Aug.
earlier
259, cf. pp. xv, 239,
city-gate
Drusus junior also gave
Laus Pompeia with
Tiberius, CIL, V, 6358, cf. Rogers,
136.
88

only later that in the interests of economy, Tiberius could venture to be

more grudging in the award of civitas to discharged veterans"and, as
an alternative procedure, to grant civitas in lieu of discharge.
Appendix 5
153
have continued in the principate of Tiberius. This may have been the
cause of unprecedented and isolated Tiberian coinages at three Latin
cities of Nearer Spain, namely Graccurris, Osicerda and Cascantum."
Similar isolated issues, both in Spain and elsewhere, have very often
proved to commemorate city-promotions and foundations;" and, indeed,
this character has been specifically ascribed to Augustan mintages of
Segobriga, Ercavica, Segovia and other Latin cities. Finally, outside
Roman or Latin foundations, Tiberius, doubtless without exceeding the
bounds prescribed by Augustus, also awarded citizenship to a fair num
ber of individuals.
Perhaps then the policy of Tiberius regarding enfranchisement, if not
spectacular in comparison with Caesar, was not altogether negative."
At
of
the lifetime
as
in
of
common
in
in
that were
so
the foundation-coinages
of
of
to
of
municipia
Agrigentum and Haluntium," but policy economic retrenchment was
being followed, and the ascription
that period
coloniesat least
appreciable numbersis unlikely. Thus
those years,
under Tiberius,
Augustus may perhaps have witnessed the constitutio
the first decade after
FITA,
p.
42 41
p.
n.
of
40
in
39
p. p.
Cf. McElderry, JRS, 1918,

74. But Abdera should probably not be included
245,
29, against Hubner, CIL, II,
267; prob
this category, Sutherland, RIS,
ably there were some stipendiary foundations also.
Vives, IV, pp. 113, 101, 108; Hill, 50, 1931, pp. 181, 100, 168. For the Latin
status
these cities see Pliny, Nat. Hist., III, 24.
290.
is
II
p.
p.
I,
p.
ff.
of
Ibid., pp. 335

Segobriga and Ercavica see Vives, IV,
For Tiberian coinages
pp. 48, 109, BMC. Imp.,
xxiii. Another Latin city which coins under Tiberius
Carteia, cf. FITA,
473, Rogers,
135 (GERMANICO ET DRVSO
VIR.).
197 ff.
p.
tu
p.
4.
ii,
I,
p.
181; Last, CAH,

As Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship,
Cf. Chapter
section
subsections A-D, and Appendices
and
FITA, pp.
n.
2,
n.
p.
of
7;
n.
1.
816,
n.
XI,
p.
p.
la
p.
n.
f.;
43
p.
285; Scramuzza, EC, pp. 84, 257,

258,
11,
Cf. Pippidi, REL, 1932,
Ramsay, SBRP,
46; Jullian, Histoire
14; Smith, pp. 118 f., 244, nn. 106
Gaule, IV,
enfranchisement,
Hammond,
de
239. For the constitutional basis
256, n.50; Scramuzza, EC,
276,
enim, Caesar,
cf. M. Pomponius Marcellus:
civitatem dare potes hominibus, verbo non potes, Suet., Gramm., 22; cf. Buckland, CAH,
259,
46 45 44

14), the apparent contrast vanishes. The last decade
or
so
(2
if,
as
is
first sight, it is true, his foundations and foundation-coinages seem

few in comparison with those of Augustus; but
more appropri
ate," we compare his practice with Augustus' last period
B.C.-A.D.
447.
Appendix 5
154
Actium do not recur;" 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, deduc
tions 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 geographi
cal 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 neces
sitated by one of the great revolts of A.D. 14namely Illyricum and Pan
nonia. But unlike Spain, these are areas in which no colonial or munici
pal coinage of Tiberius, whether celebrating foundations or otherwise,
is to be expected. For no such coinage occurs in this part of the world
cies to be considered necessary;"
and the general ban on the latter
evi
dently comprised foundation-issues.

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.
48The only peregrine coinage, even, is as far south as Apollonia, Head, p. 315. (But
Augustan issues ascribed to that mint by Mionnet, Supplment, III, p. 321, no. 1736,
are to be reattributed to Apollonia Pontica of the Euxine Hexapolis, FITA, p. 353.)
FITA,
p. 92, nn. 15, 16, p. 93, nn. 1, 2 (references).

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,
Caligula and Claudius.
1948, pp. 125
the present writer prefers
attribute them
49
to
to
50
f.,

in any other principate either." These were provinces where the official
aes circulated, and had already circulated," too freely for local curren
APPENDIX
Local and imperial jubilees under Tiberius'

F 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 res
all
of
titutio of the minting city. Unlike foundation coinages," this custom of

jubilee issues shows no sign of waning before the death of Augustus, for
to
of
as
of
of
the relevant issues of

these cities except two fall within the last
decennium
his principate.
An examination
the issues
Tiberius seems
warrant the sugges
by
it
of
to
ing issues
Its
V,
of
of
is
52
in
at
an
portrait
is
such
questionwere often
the cities
this jubilee character. Just
isolated piece
our no.
Pisidian Antioch (Plate
15).
Tiberius middle period (A.D. 22)." The only known preced
of of
is
silences
c.
in
of
to
no
of
this mint had portraits imitated from official coinage

subsequent mintage seems
19-17 B.C.," and
occur until A.D. 76, un
Vespasian has been ascribed
der Vespasian. The issue
Roman An
25
in
of
in
of
to
in
niversary Issues
the centenarywhich fell
that very yearof what
change
ever
occurred
the status
Pisidian Antioch when the king
Amyntas passed into Roman hands
dom
B.C. The significantly
FITA,
See Appendix
of
section
ii,
I,
See Chapter
in
or
of
isolated issue
Tiberius may celebrate either the half-centenary
the
alternatively the half-cente
same occasion, which occurred
A.D. 26,
subsection
B.
5.
p.
of
p.
295 (summary): Dyrrhachium, Cnossus, Patrae (?), Uselis (as municipi

um), Cirta(??), Carthage(?), Lugdunum (?), Lystra. Cf. the peregrine city
Leptis
Minor, FITA,
338.
section
it. a
note on local coin-portraiture and the deductions
i.
251 and
n. to
8.
FITA,
RAI, Chapter V,
p.
is
it is
5.
It
to
Dyrrhachium and Cnossus.

publish elsewhere
hoped
permissible
which
draw from
7

In
or
to
under Augustus, certain cities issued coinage

celebrate
considering
anniversaries
their deductio, constitutio
restitutio.
Augustus was found that isolated colonial issuesthat
the coinage
long numismatic
say those which followed and were followed
of
tion that,
155
Appendix 6
156
nary 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)." 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
c.
to
to
in
its
single occasion of
constitutio, which has been attributed
From Im
perium
Auctoritas
30-28 B.C.," and after the single Tiberian issue
no further coins of this mint are known.
to
of
of
as
by
jubilee coinage seems

the same custom
be provided
coinage showing Drusus junior, tentatively
colonia Parium. Here
interpreted
official" (Plate VIII, 10), must have been issued just
variant
proconsuls
of
is
seem
IV, 6-7).
have begun
II,
of
of
be
their coinage
(Plate
to
34
fiftieth anniversary (A.D. 20-21) would
suitable date for the early portrait

our no.
Hippo Diarrhytus and Thapsus, however, which
at
in
of
in
in
or
be
III,
honour
6,
7,
about the same date" (Plate

etc.), recall that the anniversaries commemorated by such
purely local
coinages need not
evenas perhaps
the case
Antiochprovincial
significance.
Pisidian
The anniversaries thus cel
Plate
an
as
in of
or
well, possess
imperial character. For the
ebrated may instead,
mintages
these two African cities, with their honourssimultaneously
paralleled
Asiato the proconsuls who were also amici principis, coin
74,
FITA,
249.
section
subsection
A.
have been founded
c.
II,
The present writer now believes the two cities

B.C. and
36-35 B.C. respectively.
in
See above, Chapter
to
283.
ii,
p. p.
FITA,
FITA,
1.
pp. 158, 161.
See Appendix
c.
158,
imperial
6.
50, 1931,
n.
Hill, NNM,
p.
18;
p.
FITA,
p.
Vives, IV,
There was nothing new about this Tiberian celebration
of
of
cided, not perhaps with colonial half-centenaries, but particularly with

great occasions which prompted much official an
the half-centenaries
niversary coinage, namely Actium and Aegyptus capta.
14 18 12 11 10

by
of
the same year, and
its
to
utable
to
about half-a-century after 30-29 B.C., the date

which
restitutio
city
this
has been ascribed."
restitutio
Pella
Octavian
attrib
47-46
Appendix 6
157
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 amid, 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.

i5 See above, Chapter
II,
section ii.
APPENDIX
Some Case-Usages in Ethnics
(nos. 18-20: Plate
THAMPSITANI (sic) (no.
21: Plate
I,
6,
8).
(c) Nominative Plural:
II,
(b) Ablative Singular: HIPPONE LIBERA

4,
(nos.
1,
f.:
(a) Unusual form of Nominative Singular(?): THAPSVM

22
Plate III, 2).
14).
(nos.
11-13:
an
be
16).
At
Plate
I,
(d) Genitive Plural: PAN[H]ORMITANORV[M]
be
of
recipient)
the authority
at
Utica under Tiberius we apparently have M(unicipes)

(Plate VIII, 9).
FITA,
I.
V.
catory Dative.
only known precedents are

Greek cities, among
here, associates the Nominative Plural with
dedi
At
which Antioch,
as
(c) The
M(unicipi)
Nominatives
as
in
of
the city."
14) and similar unvarnished ethnics are usually treated
but may
some cases have been intended
Ablatives.
to
seems rather derogatory
IN, which
ACHVLLA (no.
Ablative Singular following

as
Nova under Tiberius we find
an
is
At
in
or
increases our doubts. The terminations

city-names sometimes vary, especially
Africa.
Carthago
repeated from Augustan issues.
(b) This
For its interpretation
pp. 225, 266.

see
Chapter
III,
A.
XA\exrov and Sullechthi, Thubursicum and 6ovSoupaika:
376.
2.
p.
See above, Appendix
158
p.
111, etc.
106.
(FITA,
p.
p.
of
FITA,
n.
subsection
E.g. Pitane (FITA,

387) and Pergamum
Singulars
the person honoured.
Numismatiques,
C,
section
ii,
11, cf. Lorichs, Recherches
I,
215,
n.
Cf. above, Chapter
p.
Ibid.,
p.
f.
E.g. SITVM and Zit(h)a,

FITA, pp. 187
FITA, 224.

ably Object
an
of
to
to
Accusative, and
Comments. (a)
first sight this would seem
the same interpretation has been given
CORINTHVM under Augus
obscure, and
tus. But the significance
Accusative ethnic would
Subject)
the full legend THAPSVM (presumably
IVN. AVG.. (presum
388), both with Accusative
Appendix 7
(d) A Hellenism:
159
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" and Paestum,12 like other cities under Augustus,18
show varying arrangements of initials comprising ethnic titles.
10
11
225).
FIT A,
OP;I-
pp. 29 ff.
(nos. 24 ff., Plate
IH,
ff.),
as against
C-I-P-
under Augustus

PAFS- (Plate I, 1), S-P- (Plate I, 9), P-S- (normal).

E.g. Cnossus (FITA, p. 262).
(FITA,
p.
APPENDIX
The alleged suppression of Altar" coinage in c. A.D. 21
seems to be wrong in suggesting that the revolts of

Sacrovir and Tacfarinas led Tiberius to diminish the Western
ATTINGLY
coinage of Roman cities.
But the same writer links this to
a second
the
ory which, because of this link, needs to be mentioned here. According

to this theory the revolt of Sacrovir was likewise followed by the sup
pression of the Altar coinage of the Council of the Gauls at Lugdu

num.*... There was some justification for mistrust of anything that fos
tered separatist tendencies in those provinces (sc. Gaul and Africa). The
special Gallic issues, the Altar coins of Lugdunum, were suspended.
But this view seems to the present writer indefensible, since:
(i)
as
to
is
it
or
Mattingly's theory falls
the whole onus
on
(ii) This being
of
so,
if
is
it
is
of
at
so
all, they are

single issue,
postulate
rare that
more natural
might
equally
which
have been much earlier than A.D. 21. Indeed, the
doubly hazardous since,
Mattingly himself
postulation
that date
actually uncertain whether any such pieces exist
does not deny,
they turn up, the objection remains valid.
ever existed; but, even
Ti
I,
p.
2
3
section
there
or
is
a
no internal reason whatever
subsection D.
xviii.
195.
as
so
is as
p.
or
I,
in
as
a
is
is
as
F.
in
I,
127 n.: sestertius

British Museum probably tooled from
specimen issued before A.D. 14. 2 AE with TI-CAESAR DIVI AVG.
AVGVSTVS
RIC,
accepted and described
104, no. 11; but BMC, loc.
(Cohen 40)
an
cit.,
dupondius
may,
more cautious on both counts: such
far
we can
4
BMC. Imp.,
p. p. p.
I,
See above, Chapter
ii,
undateable:
is
is to
semis." This issue

BMC. Imp.,
RC,
112, cf.
of
in
at
of
berian coinage that does not exceed the most insignificant dimensions.
Indeed, though one must not rule out the possibility that some
the
coins mentioned
(i) may exist, present the only piece that remains
firmly attributable
the principate
Tiberius
mere quadrans
n.
3.
160
p.
in
as
a
it
p.
p.
as
I,
p.
p.
n.
p.
I,
as
as
judge, exist. 2 AE adding PATER PATRIAE (Cohen 42)

doubted by BMC, loc.
cit.,
by RIC,
94, and Strack,
104,
well
Cf. also Willers, NZ, 1902,
Bonner Jahrbcher, CXI, 1904,
423.
Willers, NZ, 1902,
quadrans,
127, no. 62, describes
98. BMC. Imp.,
RIC,
contradicting the description
lvi, and
104, nos. 12-13).
semis (ibid.,
5

If
14.
There is no internal reason whatever for fixing c. A.D. 21 as the ter

minus ante quem for such few Altar sestertii, dupondii and asses as may
any such coins were issued
have been issued by Tiberius after A.D.
Appendix 8
161
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
represent
ing 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."

(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."
FITA,
pp. 115 ff.

Ibid.,
p.
116, cf. (the best modern description of the Altar), N. J. de Witt, Urban
7
isation and the Franchise in Roman Gaul, Diss: Johns Hopkins, 1938 (1940), pp. 14
n. 49.

f.,
APPENDIX
Non-imperial Romans at peregrine cities under

Tiberius
words on this subject, in so far as it concerns the reign of

Tiberius, are necessary in order that the comparable, though dif
ferent, phenomenon of governors' appearances at Roman cities may be
seen in proper perspective. First, there are a number of exceedingly
peregrine coinages showing the heads of non-imperial Romans:
rare
(1) Aegina: SAB[EINOX. AITIN]HTON bare-headed portrait to right

of C. Poppaeus Sabinus amicus principum
AIAKOX dead man standing before seated figure of Aeacus: counter
mark of star.
(2) Apollonia-Mordiaeum: TIBEPIOX SEBASTOX
right
head of
per
KOPNOYTOS EYEPTETHS portrait of Cornutus,
haps C. Julius Patrinus Cornutus, to right.
(3) Priene (perhaps of Augustus) [IIOMIIHI]os MAKEP portrait to

right of Pompeius Macer, librarian of Augustus or friend of Tiberius
IIPIHNEoN Zeus standing to left by tripod-altar."
(This custom by which peregrine cities honour Romans with coin
portraiture [for the procedure is purely honorary] does not end with
berius, for under Claudius [who spoke of his legati as comites," thereby
following a Republican tradition"] we find portraits of M. Annius
Ti
Af
II,
section
subsection
p.
XII,
4,
FITA,
of
ii,
rinus [legatus Augusti propraetore of Galatia] on local coinage at Iconi
that name.
A.
p.
is
n.
no.
to
E.g. ILS, 986, cf. later ILS, 42327, 5864.

Cf. Stevenson, CAH,
IX,
p.
I,
as
f.
lonia-Mordiaeum and not Apollonia Salbace.

FITA, Plate IX, 34, pp. 388
(Paris, Waddington, no. 1928). Not
century,
1923, p.3.
Babelon (J.), Arthuse,
458.
162
of
from Rhusopoulos collection,

argue that this coin belongs
Hirsch
to
to
sale
the nymph
FITA, Plate XI, nos. 37 and 59 (Copenhagen,

XIII, no. 3873).
NC, 1949 (in press),
In
was the son
of
in
as
rightly recog
cf.
229 and
13 (Berlin). The head
non-imperial portrait by Friedlaender, Archologische Zeitung, 1871,
180,
nised
refusing
Aegina; Aeacus
who does not, however, seem justified
attribute the piece
Plate

Tiberius to
AIIOAAQNIATON
laureate
Apol
the third
Appendix 9
168
52,
P.
Pieria:*
by Q.
(ii)
n.
92):
Vitellius, proconsul and comes
Nicomedia:"
(with the latter's head).
of
above,
p.
EIII,
(i)
cf.
um and Pessinus; and of Veranius, Marcellus" and Antius" [legati of

Lycia-Pamphylia] at Cibyra.)
Secondly, the following mentions of non-imperial Romanswithout
portrayaloccur on Tiberian peregrine coinages (in the Genitive after
Germanicus
of
le
in
L.
in
Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus,

gatus and proposed relative
marriage
the imperial family.
Pomponius Flaccus."
(iii) Antioch Syria: ditto," and
Seleucia
case
Claudian date
is
junior (or Nero Drususin which
.
.
.
.
of
Se
(iv) Aegeae (Cilicia): (Q. Terentius?) Culleo."

(v) CaesareaGermanica(?): Sura.
(?), with the heads
(vi) Tabae.
Germanicus
and Drusus
perhaps more
probable).
Babelon, RN, 1887, pp.
p.
256,
1o.
26; Lbbecke,
ZfAW,
1887,
257, no. 27.

Plate XII, 17; Imhoof-Blumer, KM,
Berlin: legend wrongly restored by Imhoof-Blumer, KM,
Paris (Waddington, 458), Berlin, Zagreb; cf. Bosch, II,
516, no. 12.
I,
79, RGMG,
3,
p.
256, no. 25.
1,
11 10
p.
p.
FITA,
RR, pp. 356, 361, 487.

BMC, Galatia,
273, nos. 33
ii, f.
p.
Syme,
of a
governor but
deputy
III,
VII,
AJP,
76, no. 538.
154, no. 120.
356, no. 23, considers him

Syria.
p.
1947,
the legatus
Ibid.,
181, no. 192.
VI,
p.
in
ff.
136, nos. 48
ff.
Ibid.,
p. p.
I,
hope
to
Paris (de Ricci), wrongly described by Mionnet, Supplment,

Svoronos,
pp. 113 f., nos. 110
5;
p. 19
The Coinage
p.
33, no. 54, cf. Macdonald,

Cappadocia,
Caesarea
defend the present attribution elsewhere.
Sydenham,
582, no.
23 22 21 20
have been not
of
p.
Berlin, Rome, cf. Mionnet, Supplment,

PIR, III,
301, no. 54. Bickermann,
PIR,
of
170, no. 161, cf.
p.
etc.,
p.
BMC, Galatia,
p. p.
Cf. above, Chapter II, section

subsection A.
BMC, Galatia, etc.,
169, nos. 150-153.
18 17 16 15 14 13 12
p.
II,
3;
p.
416, no.
159.
51.
9
p.
p.
FITA, Plate XII, 10; Imhoof-Blumer, KM,

109 ff.; PIR, I2, 106,630; Ramsay, JRS, 1922,
FITA, Plate XII, 16; Imhoof-Blumer, KM,
to

(vii)-(xi) (silver coinage) Cydonia, Eleuthernae, Gortyna, Hier
547, no. 530.
Appendix 9
164
apytna and Polyrhenium. Cornelius Lupus, amicus Claudii.

The aes coins of Galatian mintage mentioning T. Helvius Basila, near
the end of the reign, seem to be official.
Ibid., p. 194, nos. 46 f.
Ibid.,
p. 284, no. 52.
25
26 PIR, II2, p. 344, no. 1400; de Laet, p. 114, no. 594.
24
27 Seneca, Apocolocyntosis,
FITA,
29 FITA,

28
13, 5.
p. 328, nn. 2, 3.
p. 354, n. 9, p. 399 (Ancyra and Pessinus). He is legatus propraetore.
APPENDIX
10
The eastern command of Germanicus

HE whole question
of vicegerents 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 Tiberi
an proconsuls in Africa, a brief statement is added hereand such a
statement seems somewhat overdueregarding 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 compris
C. Cassius' before the latter obtained his more comprehensive and ac

tive (Type B) command." (2) that he possessed no imperium maius
vis--vis existing proconsuls, but only superior auctoritasthe latter be
ing interpreted as the former by later anachronisms (such as the present
writer has attributed to Dio's description of Agrippa's vicegerency"); in
which needed to come under his imperium can

have been temporarily detached from their usual senatorial province
and brought into his provincia.
which
case any areas
If we consider the second aspect of the problem, his relation to Tiberi

us, we have three possibilities: (A) he was a proconsul under the imperi
um maius of Tiberius; (B) he was a proconsul whose imperium was
aequum to that of Tiberius (the position ascribed to Agrippa under Au
gustus by Piganiol" and Magdelain"); (C) he was legatus Augusti pro
However,
II, 30, cf.

JRS, 1947,
Syme,
JRS,
1946, pp. 150, 154.
164 (strikingly reminiscent.).

have enjoyed
P.
at
165
normal proconsul
Pp. 73
f.
152,
n.
2.
Piganiol, Journal des Savants, 1937,
p.
for time
least
Vitellius seems
this time: cf. Appendix
(Nicomedia).
to
pp. 427, 429,445.
ship
43,
p.
3
4.
FITA,
at
Cf. Last,
Cic., Phil.,
II,
Ann.,
2.
ii.
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

ing maius imperium, QVOQVO ADISSET, quam is qui sorte aut missu
principis obtinerent. This raises two main subjectshis 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 pas
sive (Type A) imperium maius, such as Cicero had hoped to secure for
Appendix 10
166
praetore, 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 arise"); and that a special prob
lem is raised by Egypt. Nor is the question of his auspices any clearer
than those of Augustan vicegerents in the East." There is some excuse
for doubts about the position of Germanicus when we recall that he him
self 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" and auspicatio."
It is
unsatisfactory to finish this note without even a tentative conclu

sion; 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
prob
lems that have been outlined here each require fundamental considera
if necessary, reconsideration, before any profit can be derived
tion, and,
426.
f.;
FITA, p. 428, etc.

Cf. FITA, pp. 420,
4,
12 11.
10
n.
from these analogies.
p.
p.
n.
6,
in
69,
points out that Mommsen was
two minds about the aus
225, he credited him with auspicatio,
Caesar:
Res Gestae Divi Augustii,
pp. 173-175, he described this point
uncertain.
in
as p.
but ibid.,
p.
Du Four,
2
pices
of
C.
13
p.
p.
n.
p.
2,
Hohl, Klio, 1942, pp. 227

Siber, Sav. Z., 1944,
96, against
264; and Smith,
271, deny that he possessed imperium
1946,
105,
388;
maius there. On his so-called Egyptian edict see also recently Oliver, AJA, 1942,
Kalbfleisch, Hermes, 1942, pp. 374 ff.: Post, AJP, 1944;
81.
n.
p.
of
p.
p.
9;
p.
to
of
1;
n.
to
p.
or
14
These present two aspects: (a) did he first receive imperium under Augustus
FITA, pp. xvi, 429, 12)? (b) what was
37,
Tiberius (Schwartz, RPh, 1945,
his relation
the usually senatorial province
Gallia Narbonensis? (He had performed
census there, and Hohl, Klio, 1942, attributes
him an imperium maius, against
Schweitzer, Klio, 1941,
229,
345; for certain aspects
censuses see Hammond,
FITA,
156, on Siber, Abh. Leipzig, 44.2, 1940,
129.) See Syme, JRS, 1946,
p. n.
19.
The operations were conducted ductu Germanici auspiciis Tiberii, Tac., Ann., II,
41, cf. Gag, RA, XXXII, 1930, pp.
ff.; but cf. Drusus junior, Tac., Ann., II, 19,
xxi,
repetendis auspiciis. Bayet, ed. Livy (Bud),
believes that Agrippa had
ordinary legati, Pease, Oxford Classical Dictionary,
possessed the auspicesunlike
126. See also above, pp. 61
f.
p.
2,
n.
I,
p.
15

Germanicus may present to the position of the proconsuls, but the
APPENDIX
11
The Augustan origins of the auspices of Tiberius
I'
23
or
24
but then
B.C."
the princeps, may con

regard
the auspices
to
an
to
in on
in
Macedonia, who invaded Thrace

put the responsibility
tried unsuccessfully
ceivably suggest that
ambiguous position
of
proconsul
of
its
was under Augustus that the doctrine of imperial auspicia took

shape; and it seems possible that events of 20-19 B.C. and 12 B.C. may
origins. The case
have been related to
M. Antonius(?) Primus,
of
no
of
associated with the recognition that such officials

henceforward lacked the auspices. Thirdly, the same year witnessed the
triumph
Augustus,
refusal
refusal which was, however, far out
by
of
in a
by
this custom may
weighed
in
of
true,
no
is
the supreme auspicia. There
it
the doctrine
is,
of
vant
to
as
of
historical importance
the simultaneous establishment
nothing less than kind
triumphal cult"indicating his
his honour
position
triumphator
par
the
excellencea development highly rele
defi
to
its
of
of
nite proof that this doctrine owed any part

evolution
the events
20-19 B.C., but this seems
not improbable deduction from their char
For his position
see
II,
section
subsection
of
B.
See above, Chapter
became pontifex maximus, and his possession

ii,
12
B.C. Augustus
Volkmann, Mnchener Beitrge zur Papyrusforschung, 1935,

136,
gives 23
f.
CAH, X,
6,
333 (Stuart Jones,
n.
RR,
p.
see Syme,
For discussion see FITA, pp. 83

Taylor, JRS, 1936, pp. 169 ff., considered
CP,
138,
Syme,
1942, pp. 136 ff., 139.
167
probable
JRS,
by Abaecherli Boyce, CP,
1946,
p.
Abaecherli Boyce,
2,
Cf. Stuart Jones, CAH, X,
n.
135.
p.
140, cf.
1942,
p.
For the date

B.C.).
p.
55.
p.
p.
In
acter.

was awarded
single year later that the last triumph

more than
senatorial proconsul (L. Cornelius Balbus)"the end
be
was
to
Secondly,
it
to
to
to
20
it
in
In
in
at
no
that time." But

20-19 B.C.
less than three develop
ments occurred which may have clarified this situation.
the first place,
was
that the first ornamenta triumphalia appear
have been
was,
remained,
awarded: the fact that this new honour
and
restricted
imperial
provincia
monopolisation
the
seems
stress the
the auspices.
still existed
156, etc.
Appendix
168
II
in
to of
of
by
to 7,
in
8)
II,
that title was thereafter greatly stressed." Tiberius stressed it also: thus
one of our coins honouring the proconsul L. Apronius (Pl.
distin
guishes his portrait from that
Tiberius
the addition
the latter
lituus and simpulum (simpuvium). Combined
this way
relation
single person," the two implements symbolise the high-priesthood,
they had already under Augustus."
has been suggested above
Africa, were
they related
that the auspicia principis,
least
far
based primarily
the Augustusauctoritas range
ideas. Whether
to
as
so
by
of
on
at
in
It
as
just
on
of
by
is
by
of
is of
of
of
or
so its
Augustus for
tenure
perhaps further facili
tated the enhancement
the imperial auspicia.
The possibility
this connection
underlined
the significance
high-priesthood
appear
one
the emblems
the
that
these coins.
not high-priests possessed the auspices,
mally increased his religious authority and
A of
28
on
8.
On this see now Koch, Gottheit und Mensch

pp. 133 ff.
of
of
Staatsform,
im Wandel der rmischen
pontifex and
I,
at
I.e. when the combination does not comprise two separate persons,
Lugdunum, BMC. Imp.,
an augur respectively, e.g. Gaius and Lucius
pp. 88
ff.
Salutis."
B.C.," the
official coinage
subsequent periods
recurred
in
year after the augurium
It
lituus had appeared beside his bust
I,
of
ff.
2,
di
of
p.
to
p.
p.
of
p.
v.
I,
11 10
p.c.; and see above, Chapter II, section

Cf. BMC. Imp.,
E.g. quadrantes
Pulcher, Taurus, Regulus, ibid.,
40, no. 205. Sometimes
other implements carry the same significance, e.g. tripod and patera (BMC. Imp.,
20, no. 98 and
24, no. 119), but the latter are attributed
14 B.C. by Pink, NZ, 1946,
Augustus, cf. E. M.
123. For sculptural representations
the high-priesthood
Marianecci, Notizie
Archeologia, Storia Arte, IV, 1941,
pp. 21
(not seen).
Sicily,
542, no. 4135, etc.

Gag, RH, 1936,
Cf. Alfldi, Rm. Mitt., 1935, pp. 24
106, no. 650 (AEGVPTO CAPTA).
BMC. Imp.,
42-36 B.C.).
p.
f.,
I,
341.
p.
I,
p.
459.
c.
II,
(posthumous,
p.
Ibid.,
37, BMC. Rep.,
560, no.
p.
of
Cf. Gag, RH, 1933,

E.g. BMC. Rep., II,
p. p.
is
p.
I,
I,
of
to
13 12
ii,

subsection B.
pontifices
The simpulum seems
have been associated directly with the college
(Borghesi, Oeuvres,
pp. 343 ff., III, pp. 428 ff., cf. BMC. Imp.,
cvi; Wissowa,
RKR2,
cautious),
501,
which the pontifex maximus was head.
19 18 17 16 15 14
On this see especially

Zeitschrift, 1943, pp. 621
f.

to
to
as
Sulla," Pompey"
This the lituus. Developing precedent utilised
symbol
and Julius Caesar," Augustus had come
use the lituus
his religious position with special regard
his triumphal Virtues."
Liegle, Hermes,
1942, pp. 249 ff., cf. Hohl, Historische
Appendix
169
11
the reign of Augustus, and colonies and peregrine communities fol

lowed suit. The lituus reminds us of his Romulus aspect, for Virgil
and Ovid both link the lituus with Quirinus. Romulus was the
orig
inator 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, with the name of Augustus,
the concept of auctoritas, and (by the false etymology that has been in
dicated) the auspicia principis. This again suggests that the high-priest
hood, in regard to which the lituus was stressed, was considered as not
with the imperial auspicia. 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)."
unconnected
Two conjectures, then, may be offered regarding the origin of the uni
VII, 187.
Fasti, VI, 307.
p.
ii,
Ibid., Plate X, 15, 56, 61, 64, 72, etc.

subsection B,
p.
FITA,
p.
p.
20, no. 100,

113, no. 698 ff.,
(Thapsus),
(Simitthu ?),
VIII,
Plate
I,
12
B.C.,
139.
128 (Berytus).
70.
Aen.,
Mars, Quirinus,
p.
of
26 25 24 23 22 21 20
FITA,
On the lituus quirinalis see Dumzil, Jupiter,

connection with the ancile of Numa.
240, noting the
See above,
p.
p.
7,
n.
p.
p.
29 28
f.,
27
p.
Gag, MAH, 1930, pp. 164 ff., 1931, pp.

Cf. Wissowa, RKR2,
524 and
XXXII,
RA,
f.,
30,
RH,
341, Liegle, Hermes, 1942,
93,
1930,
1936,
87
106
275.
69.
of
p.
of
in
2:
(Plate
2,
Paestum
I,
also occurs on Tiberian colonial coinage
1,
The lituus
at
as
I,
5,
it
of
to
n.
p.
to
distinguish emperors from their heirs (Gag, RH,

Later the lituus was used
2), but under Augustus, on what appears
Africa,
17, cf.
be official aes
Augustus, FITA,
accompanying the head
139,
we find
Tiberius but not that
RAI, Plate
no.
does this suggest that
the latter's last years Tiberius was re
sharing the auspices, like so much else, with him?
garded
1933,
30

E.g. BMC. Imp.,

E.g.
p.
its
development was facilitated by Augustus' acceptance,

high-priesthood.
the
that
in
versal imperial auspices: first, that the doctrine came to be formulated

in 20-19 B.C. in connection with the new triumphal cult, and secondly
5).
APPENDIX
12
The Augustan origins of the Victory of Tiberius

ERTAIN
the
coinages in honour of Tiberius' vicennium stress

theme of Felicitas which is so closely akin to that of Victoria
Au
It is therefore significant that the same issues also allude in un

mistakable fashion to the current half-centenary of the Augustan aureum
gusti.
(Pl. I, 7-10)
saeculum of 17 B.C.just as the Paestan issues of Tiberius
show a close link with the coinage of 16 B.C., of which a large part ex
plicitly 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 develop

ment 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.
B.C.
was
made the occasion for fresh propagandist manifestations"17 B.C. (saecu

lum aureum), 12 B.C. (pontifex maximus), 7 B.C. (vicennium), and 2 B.C.
are conspicuous examples. The assumption by Augustus
of the high-priesthood in 12 B.C. may have had
effect
the imperial
auspices;" and fresh stage
the evolution
the Victoria Augusti may
a
in
of
its
on
(pater patriae),
of
at
an
Tiberius
of
of
triumph
by
linked with the Victoria Augusti, and there was
in
it
in
at
a
of
conceivably have been reached

date not far from the vicennium
rgime
the
B.C. For
was
this time that the worship
the Genius
Augusti was first fully installed
Italy:" the Genius was very closely
at
of
of
ii;
480, Pippidi, RCI,
37,
3.
170
preferred
to
3.
ii,
n.
p.
71,
Cf. Gag, MAH, 1932,
RAI, Chapter II, section
where this interpretation
bution to 12 B.C.
is
section
n.
II,
p.
See Appendix 11.

Cf. Nock, CAH, X,
p.
section
II, section iii.
i.
See above, Chapter
cf. above, Chapter
ii.
RAI, Chapter II,
See Appendix 11.
section
RAI, Chapter III,
to
of
of
in
the same year, apparently accompanied

the issue
Rome
unparalleled series
Victory
emphasizing
aes medallions
the
the
princeps." The attribution
this date
final enhancement
Victoria

Each decennium and quinquennium of the new rgime of 27
Pink's attri
Appendix 12
171
Augusti would give additional meaning to another numismatic phenom

enon 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 hon
oured on local coinage of the principatethe prototype of a similar phe
nomenon under Tiberius." Was Augustus' enhancement of the cachet of
amicitia intended, not only to close the ranks round the heirs to the prin
cipate, 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 procon

9 See above,
Chapter
II,
section
ii,
suls? But these are too clouded waters for further exploration here.
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 pres
ent 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 Abbrevi
ations). (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.
ANCIENT
1.
Latin Writers
II,
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 Agrar
XIII;
ia; De Legibus; De Natura Deorum; De Oratore; Philippica
XII Tabulae
M.
(ap. Cic., De Legibus).

Festus, De Verborum Significatu (Epit.
Verrius Flaccus) (ed.
W. M. Lindsay, Glossaria Latina, IV, 1930).
Gellius, Noctes Atticae.
of
De Republica,
Horace, Odes.
Largus (Valerius?) (G. Helmreich).

Liber Coloniarum (Schriften der rmischen Feldmesser).
Livy.
Martial, Epigrams.
Messalla augur, De Auspiciis (ap. Gell.).
Ovid, Fasti, Ex Ponto.
Paulus Diaconus, Epitome
Festus (q.v.).
Phaedrus, Fabellae Aesopiae.
of

A.
173
174
List of Some Works Cited
Pliny sen., Historia Naturalis.

Seneca, Sen., Controversiae.
De Clementia; Ad Marciam; De Consola
Seneca, jun., Apocolocyntosis;
tione; 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'Anne Epigraphique
AE,
1933, 1940.
Mitteilungen, VIII.
Atti della Societ Italiana per il Progresso delle Scienze, V, 1932
zullo).
-
Archologisch-epigraphische
Bullettino archeologico comunale di Roma, 1930 (Giglioli).

Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (Boeckh) = CIG.
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum = CIL.
Fasti Antiates, Nolani, Praenestini (CIL, I).
Inscriptiones Graecae = IG.
Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas pertinentes
Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (Dessau) = ILS.
IGRR.
(Mar
175
JAIW,
JRS,
Beiblatt (Saria),
(A. H. Smith).
1941,
1926
1943,
Beiblatt (Betz).
Klio, 1942 (Vulic).

NS, 1907, 1948.
Res Gestae Divi Augusti
MODERN WRITERS
B.
Abaecherli,
RG.
see Boyce.
Abbott and Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire.

Abraham, Velleius und die Parteien in Rom unter Tiberius.
Alfldi, Rm. Mitt,
1934
(Die Ausgestaltung
moniells am rmischen
der rmischen Kaiser),
Kaiserhofe),
1935
des monarchischen
Zere
(Insignien und Tracht
CAH, XI (The Latin West: the Central Dan

ubian Provinces").
Allen, TAPA, 1941 (Germanicus and Drusus jun.).
Altheim, History of Roman Religion.
Andersen, Neue Deutsche Forschungen,
die Begrndung des Prinzipats").
CXCVI, 1938(Dio Cassius und
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.
(J.),
I,
(Pompeius Macer).
Bahrfeldt, Die Rmische Goldmnzenprgung, RS, 1904 (Panormus).
Baker, Tiberius Caesar.
Balsdon, The Emperor Gaius = Balsdon, JRS, 1932 (Tiberius and no
biles), 1934 (Caligula), 1945 (reviewing Rogers), 1946 (reviewing
Babelon
Arthuse,
1923
Pippidi).
Barbieri, Rivista de Filologia,
1947
(Vestalis).
Bardon, Les Empereurs et les Lettres Latines d'Auguste a Hadrien.

Bellinger, AJA, 1947(reviewing FITA).
Beltran,
AEA,
1947
(Spain).
Berlinger, Zur inoffiziellen Titulatur der rmischen Kaiser, Diss: Bres

lau, 1935.
176
JAIW,
Beiblatt (Drusus junior, praefecti); Wiener Akade

mische Rundschau, V, 1, 1945 (Carnuntum).
Beurlier, Essai sur le Culte rendu aux Empereurs Romains.
Betz,
Bickermann,
Birley, JRS,
Blanchet,
1943,
AJP,
1938
CRAI,
1947
(Culleo).
(enfranchisement).
1943 (genius p.R.).
Borghesi, Oeuvres.
Borszk, RE, XVIII, 1121, s.v. ornamenta; Archivum Philologicum, 1943
(Romulus).
Bosch, Die kleinasiatischen
Bosch.
Mnzen der rmischen Kaiserzeit,
II,
Brecht, Sav. Z., 1939 (imperium of p.m.).

British Museum Catalogues of Greek Coins
BMC; of Roman Coins, see
Grueber (Rep.), Mattingly (Imp.).
Bruhn-Krte, 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'Imprialisme Romain.
Cavedoni, Bullettino archeologico Italiano, 1862 (non-imperial portraits).
Charlesworth, CR,
1932
(Germanicus); HTR,
1936
(pro perpetua
sa
1943 (statio principis), CAH, X (Tiberius, Gaius and

Claudius"), XI (The Flavian Dynasty); Papers of British School
JRS,
(Gythium letter).
at Rome, XV, pp. 5
Charrier, Description des Monnaies
Numidie
la
de
la
de
et
lute);
ff.

Boutkowski, Dictionnaire Numismatique.

Boyce (Abaecherli), TAPA, 1932 (praenomen imperatoris): SMSR, 1935
(deus); Bollettino dell'Associazione Internazionale degli Studi Medi
terranei, 1935/6 (carpentum), CP, 1942 (triumphal cult, ornamenta),
NNM, 109, 1947 (Tingis, Nero and Drusus, Traducta).
Maurtanie.
177

Chilver, JRS, 1939 (Emona).
Chittenden, NC, 1945 (Mercury).
Ciaceri, Tiberio Successore di Augusto; Tacito.
Cohen, Description Historique des Monnaies frappes sous l'Empire
main, second edition = Cohen.
Collart, Philippes, RPh, 1941 (Ti, Gemellus).
Cordier, RPh, 1943 (amici).
Ro
Curtius, Rm. Mitt., 1934 (Livia).

De Francisci, see Francisci.
Degrassi, Athenaeum, 1937 (Mercury), 1946 (Parentium).
De Laet, De Samenstelling van den Romeinschen Senaat (see Abbrevi
ations) = De Laet, AC, 1943 (reviewing Siber), 1946 (reviewing
FITA).
Delgado, Nuevo Metodo de Clasificacin de las Medallas Autnomas de
Espaa.
Del Rivero,
see
Rivero.

Dessau, Geschichte der rmischen Kaiserzeit,
II,
1; see
also list
A, 3, and
Prosopographia.
d'Hrouville,
Diez,
JAIW,
see
Hrouville.
(wreath and chair).

Dorsch, De Civitatis Romanae apud Graecos Propagatione, Diss: Bres
lau, 1886.
1946
Dressel, ZfAN, 1922
(Ti, Julii Germanicus et Nero, Livia).
Drexler, Auf dem Wege zum nationalpolitischen

(Tacitus).
Du Four, C. Suetonii Tranquilli Vita Tiberii, Chs.
= Du Four.
Dumzil, Mitra-Varuna; Horace et les Curiaces;
Jupiter-Mars-Quirinus.
Gymnasium,
1939
I-XXIII, Diss: Penn
sylvania, 1941
Naissance de Rome;
Durry, REA, 1940 (Mlanges Radet) (reviewing Gag).

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).
178
Ensslin,
CAH, XII ("The End of the Principate"); Philologische Wo-
chenschrift,
1942
(nobiles); Gnomon,
1943
VI
(Ti. Gemellus); SB Miin-
(divina domus, aeternitas).

Ericsson, ARW, 1936 (auspices).
Ernout, Riemann's Syntaxe Latine, seventh edition.
chen, 1943,
Falbe, Lindberg and Miiller, see Miiller.

Farres, AEA, 1946 (Emerita).
Fink, YCS, VIII, 1942 (Victoria).

Forma Orbis Romani,
Forrer, RB,
VIII
( 1941 ) ( Nemausus ) .
(Sinope).
1900
Fougeres, De Lyciorum Communi.

Four, see Du Four.
Fowler,
see
Fox,
Earle Fox.
see
Warde Fowler.
de Francisci, Augustus (see Abbreviations)
("La Costituzione Augus-
tea").
Frank, American Historical Review, 1915/16 (provincialisation);
ESAR,
V (Altinum).
Friedliinder, Archaologische Zeitung,
Froehner, RN, 1907 (duoviri).
1871 (
C. Poppaeus Sabinus
Gabrici, Corolla Numismatica (Patrae).

Gaebler, Die Antiken Miinzen Nordgriechenlands,
III, 2 = Gaebler;
).
ZfN,
(Pella).
Gage, RA, XXXII, 1930 ("La Victoria Augusti et les Auspices de Tibere"), XXXIV, 1931 (" Divus Augustus"); MAH, 1930 (" Romulus1926
Augustus"),
euses"), 1932
guste");
RH,
("Les sacerdoces dAuguste et ses reformes rligi("Un theme de I'art imperial remain: la Victoire dAu
1931
1933
f La Theologie
de la Victoire Imperiale"),
1936
De Cesar a Auguste"); QAS, I, 1937 ("Gti Studi Francescf'); Res

Gestae Divi Augusti.
Gardthausen, RE, X, s.v. Julius ( 136) (Drusus jun. ), ( 156) (Ti. Gemel
lus ) ; Augustus und seine Zeit.
Garrucci, Le Monete dell'Italia antica
Garrucci.
Ceijeiro, Annuario de Historia del Derecho Espanol,

auctoritas).
1941
( sources
for
179

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

Gentilhomme,
RN, 1947 (Nemausus).
le
Gercke-Norden, see Kornemann.
1943 (nobiles).
Glauning (A.E.), Festschrift fr O. Glauning (augustum augurium).

Gnecchi, Numismatic Circular, 1908 (The Coin-Types of Imperial
Rome").
Goethert, RM, 1939 (iconography).
Grant, From Imperium to Auctoritas =
=
RAI;
19 B.C.:
Step Towards
FITA,
Roman Anniversary Issues
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).
in
of
of
Schriften der Balkankommission, Ant. Abt, IX, 1939 (C. Poppaeus

Sabinus); see also Prosopographia.
Grose, Catalogue
the McClean Collection
Grose.
Grueber, Coins
Republic
the Roman
the British Museum.
Gruenwald, Die rmischen Bronze- und Kupfermnzen mit Schlag

Legionslager Vindonissa.
marken
Gsell, Histoire Ancienne
l'Afrique du Nord, VIII.
de
im
Hgerstrm, Das Magistratische Ius (see Abbreviations)

Hammond, The Augustan Principate Hammond.
Hardy, Roman Laws and Charters; Six Roman Laws.
Haywood, ESAR,
(Africa).
Head, Historia Numorum, second edition
Head.
=
IV
Heichelheim, ESAR,
(Syria).
Heinze, Vom Geist des Rmertums.
de
Antiques L'Espagne.
Henderson, JRS, 1942 (Spain).
Henzen, Acta Fratrum Arvalium.
d'Hrouville, REL, 1941 (olive-branch).
Heiss, Les Monnaies
Guey, Journal des Savants, 1938 (imp. perpet.).

Gwosdz, Der Begriff des rmischen princeps, Diss: Breslau,
IV

ff.,
Groag, Studien zur Kaisergeschichte, Wiener Studien, 1929 (imperial

consulships); RE, XIII, 270
s.v. Licinius (58) (M. Crassus);
1933.
Hgerstrm.
180
Heuberger, Klio,
1941
(titulature).
Heuss, Sav. Z., 1944 (imperium).
1914 (Antioch in Pisidia); NNM, 50,

(Spain);
1931
Anatolian Studies to Ramsay (Olbasa).
Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten, Kleine Schriften.
Hill, Coins of Ancient Sicily, NC,
Hoey, YCS,
1940 (aeternitas).
Hohl, Hermes, 1933 (consulship), Gttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen,

1936 (accession); Klio, 1939 (Res Gestae), 1942 (family of Drusus
junior); Historische Zeitschrift, 1943 (reviewing Liegle).
Homo, Roman Political Institutions; Mlanges Glotz (p.m.).
Hbner, Monumenta Lingua Ibericae.
Huelsen, Das Forum Romanum.

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

Instinsky, Hermes, 1943 (aeternus-perpetuus); Philologus, 1942/3
Plautius Pulcher); Hamburger Beitrge zur Numismatik, I, 1947
(P.
(re
viewing 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,

Jordan, Rmische Mythologie.
(Ludovisi Juno).
Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule, IV, Les Transformations

l'Italie sous les Empereurs romains.
Kahrstedt, Gttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen,
(reviewing von Premerstein); Klio, 1942
Kalbfleisch, Hermes, 1942 (Germanicus).
Klebs,
1935
Politiques de
(city-statuses),
1938
(Sicily).
see Prosopographia.
Klein, Die rmischen Verwaltungsbeamten.

Klostermann, Philologus, 1932 (statio principis).
Koch, Gottheit und Mensch im Wandel der rmischen Staatsform.
Koestermann, Bursians Jahresbericht, 1943 (bibliography).
Kornemann, DR, GFA, GR, RG (see Abbreviations); RE, IV, s.v. colo
nia, XVI, s.v. municipium; Staaten Vlker Mnner; Die rmische
181
Kaiserzeit (in Gercke-Norden's Einleitung in die Altertumswissen

schaft, III, 2) (pax); Forschungen und Fortschritte, V, 1929 (Livia);
Klio, 1938 (Romulus); Gnomon, 1938 (pater); Bericht tiber den IV.
Internationalen Kongress fr Archologie in 1939 (Romulus); Die
Stellung der Frau, in Die vorgriechische Mittelmeerkultur (Orient
und Antike, IV); SB Mnchen, 1947, I (moderation).
Kovaceva, Prometej,
Kubitschek, JAIW,
tonia); Gnomon,
VI, 1941/2(Victoria).
(Ara Pacis), NZ, 1908 (Sinope), 1921 (An

1937 (Macedonia).
Kuntz, Washington University Publications in the Social Sciences, 2, i,
1902
(Tiberius Caesar and the Roman Constitution).

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

1924
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.),
Lederer, NC,
1943
1947 (imperium
maius).
(Hippo Diarrhytus).
Le Gentilhomme, see Gentilhomme.

Levi (M.A.), La Politica Imperiale di Roma; RRIL, LXXI,
1, 1938
(aus
picia).
Lvy, Quomodo Ti. Claudius Nero erga senatum segesserit.
Liegle, Hermes, 1942 (augurium).
Link, RE, XIV, s.v. Maia.
Lbbecke, ZfAN, 1887 (Cibyra).
Loehr, Fhrer durch die kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, XXX,
1944.
Lfstedt, Skrifter utgivna av Det Kongl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssam

fundet 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.
182
Magdelain, Auctoritas Principis

Maiuri, Villa dei Misteri.
Maj, RPAA,
1936
Magdelain.
(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.
RC,
HTR,
JRS,
(Virtues),
NC,
Imp., Roman Coins =
1937 and
1943
1930
(thunderbolt),
1946
(reviewing Gruenwald and
FITA);
see

also Roman Imperial Coinage.

Merlin, Bulletin archologique du Comit 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 stlichen Provinzen des
rmischen Kaiserreichs.
Momigliano, JRS,
1942 (pax), 1944
(reviewing CAH,
X),
1946
(review
ing Drexler, Ciaceri and Theiler).

Mommsen, Das Rmische Staatsrecht, Vols. I-II, third edition = St. R.",
Res Gestae Divi Augusti, first and second editions; Gesammelte
Schriften,
I (praefecti).
Montevecchi, Epigraphica,
Monteverde,
AEA,
1942
VII,
1945
(Gythium letter).
(Clunia).
Mowat, La Domus Divina et les Divi.

Muensterberg, NZ, 1911 (Die rmischen Beamtennamen).
Mller (L.), in Falbe, Lindberg and Mller's Numismatique de l'anci
enne Afrique = Mller.
Muller (F.), MKAW,63, A, XI, 1927 (Augustus").
Nailis, AC, 1942 (nobiles).
Neugebauer,
Bonner Jahrbcher, 1942
(Mars).
Neumann, De Quinquennalibus Coloniarum atque Municipiorum, Diss:
Leipzig,
1892.
183

Newby, Numismatic Commentary
Newby.
on the Res Gestae of Augustus
Nicodemi, Catalogo delle Raccolte Numismatiche del Castello

zesco = Nicodemi.
Sfor
Nilsson, Imperial Rome.

Nock, JRS,
1947 (auspicia,
aeternitas, comes),
CAH, X (Religious De
velopments, etc.).
Norberg, Eranos Rudbergianus, 1946 (emperor worship).

van Nostrand, ESAR, III (Spain).
Oliver, AJA, 1942 (Germanicus).
Ollendorff, RE,
Orestano,
XIII, s.v.
BIDR,
d'Ors Prez-Peix,
Livius (37) (Livia).
1937 (auctoritas).
Emerita,
(emperor worship),

1943 (Victoria
Espaol,
aeterna); Anuario de Historia del Derecho
1942/3 (em
peror-worship).
Pais, Memorie dell'Accademia dei Lincei, 1920 (colonisation).
1942
Pearce, NC, 1938 (perpetuitas).

Prez-Peix, d'Ors, see Ors.
Pettazzoni, Augustus
(see Abbreviations) (La Religione").

Pfleiderer, Die Idee des ewigen Friedens in Reden und Aufstze, 1909.
Piganiol, Essai sur les Jeux Romains; Histoire de Rome; Journal des
Savants, 1937 (constitution); RA, XXII, 1944 (Paestum); Mlanges
Cagnat (Livia).
Pink, NZ, 1946 (Augustan moneyers).
Pippidi, Autour de Tibre = AT, reprinting ED, 1938 (Tacite et
bre"), Revista Clasic, 1941/2 (Tibre, Dion et Pseudo-Callis
thne"), RHSE, 1941 (LAvnement officiel de Tibre en Egypte)
Ti
and 1942 ("En marge d'un loge Tibrien d'Auguste"), REL, 1932 (re
viewing Baker, Marsh and Tarver) and 1934 (reviewing Ciaceri),
etc.; Recherches sur le Culte Imprial, reprinting (amended)
REL,
(Numen Augusti"), RCI, 1933/4(Caesar deus noster") and

1935/6 (LAssomption de Csar dans un passage des Fastes
1931
d'Ovide),
Atheneum,
1937 (dominus
noster Caesar")
and 1938
(Autour de la Chronologie des pitres d'Ovide ex Ponto").

Poinssot, Notes et Documents de la Direction des Antiquits de Tunisie,
1929 (Carthage altar).
184
Pollak,
Post,
JAIW,
AJP,
(Mars).
1936
1944
(Germanicus).
Poulsen, Acta Archaeologica,
1946
(Ara Pacis, iconography).
Vom Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats

von Premerstein (see Abbreviations); Mitteilungen aus den Papy
russammlungen der Giessener Universittsbibliothek, V, 1939 (Ti.
von Premerstein-Volkmann,
Gemellus).
Imperii Romani = PIR, first edition (Klebs-Dessau),
second edition (Groag-Stein).
Quintero Atauri, Mauritania, XIV, 1941 (coins); Algo sobre Numismti
ca Mauritana.
Prosopographia
Ramsay (W. M.), JRS, 1922 (M. Annius

Roman Power in Asia Minor = SBRP.
Afrinus); The Social Basis of
L.), JRS,
XVIII,
RE,
s.v.
Richmond (O.
1914
Riemann,
Pacis Ara.
(Livia and Vesta).
Ritterling, Annalen des Vereins fr 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).
(R.S.),
(Livia); TAPA,
1940
Rohde, RE,
von Rohden,
Rolfe, CP,
XVIII, s.v.
RE,
(Republicanism);
=
Rogers.
Ops, ovatio.
1,273 (M. Plautius Silvanus).
1915 (gens-familia).
Roman Imperial Coinage (Mattingly, Sydenham, Sutherland, Webb)
1941
Hermes, 1933
(Sejanus); Studies in the Reign of Tiberius
II,
Rogers
RIC.
Rose, Handbook
Rosenberg,
of
Roos, Museum, 1942 (nobiles).
RE, IX,
Latin Literature.
s.v. imperator.
of
in
Language and Literature,

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

Reinach, see Waddington.
Rouvier,
JIAN,
1900
(Berytus).
185
Frauen aus dem julisch-claud
Saria, Dissertationes
II,
Sandels, Die Stellung der kaiserlichen

ischen Hause, Diss: Giessen, 1912.
Pannonicae,
10, 1938
(Emona);
JAIW,
1941,
I.
Beiblatt (deus).
Savage, Classical Journal, 1939 (Germanicus and Aeneas).
Schiller, Geschichte der rmischen Kaiserzeit,
Schilling, RPh,
(Mars).
1942
2,
1946 (constitution).
Schulz, Die Rechtstitel und Regierungsprogramme
auf rmischen
Kai
Sermunzen.
Schwartz, RPh,
1945 (A.D. 4-14).
(Germanicus); RM,
Schweitzer,
Klio,
Schwering,
Indogermanische
1941
Forschungen,
AJP,
Scott, Hermes, 1928 (Mercury);
ture),
1932
(iconography).
1942
1914/15 (divus-deus).
(diritas), CP,
1932
(titula
Iulium).
1941 (sidus
Diss: Halle,
Ttrarchie,
(aeternus-perpetuus).
1940
(con
in
I,
P.
Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship.

Siber, Festschrift
Koschaker,
1939, Abh. Leipzig, 44,
stitution); Sav. Z., 1944 (Germanicus).
Spain).
Sickle, CP, 1929 (roads
2,
Seston, Diocltien
Sestieri,
et
la
Seltman
1884.
(C.T.), CAH, Plates IV.

Epigraphica, IV, 1942 (Dyrrhachium).
Iulia).
Smith
Geography.
Smith.
of
1926 (Gens
(C.E.), Tiberius and the Roman Empire

(W.), Dictionary
the Bible; Dictionary
Smith
(A. H.), JRS,
of
Smith
Greek and Roman
Snyder, Klio, 1940 (Dio Cassius).

Stade, CAH,
(The Latin West: Roman Germany and Raetia).
Staedler, Sav. Z., 1941 (constitution).
Stein, Dissertationes
Pannonicae,
I,
XI
11, 1940
see also Prosopographia.

Steinwenter, RE, X, s.v. ius Latii.
Stevenson,
CAH,
(The Army and Navy").

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

Sebastian, De Patronis Coloniarum atque Municipiorum Romanorum,
(C. Poppaeus Sabinus);
List of Some works Cited
186
Strack, Bonner Jahrbcher, CXI, 1904 (coins of Lugdunum); Unter

suchungen zur rmischen Reichsprgung des zweiten Jahrhunderts.
CAH, X (The Art of the Augustan Age).

CP, 1940 (Germanicus and Drusus).
Stuart Jones, CAH, X(The Princeps, Senatus Populusque Romanus").
Strong,
Stuart,
Sullivan, Classical Weekly, 1944 (emperor-worship).

Sutherland, JRS, 1934 (Spain), 1938 (Clementia), 1941 (Macedonian
mint), 1947 (reviewing FITA; also CR, 1947); NC, 1941 (Divus Au
gustus),
(Gold and silver of moneyers); Numismatic Review,

1944, and AJP, 1947 (character
Tiberian coinage); The Romans
RIS, Report
Spain
the Research Committee
the Society
Antiquaries
London, XIV, 1947, Camulodunum (Agrippa); see
of
of
of
la
de
also Roman Imperial Coinage.

Svoronos, Numismatique
Crte Ancienne,
of
in
of
II,
1945
Svoronos,
RN, 1888
in
The Coinage
of
Cappadocia; The Coinage

Caesarea
Imperial
Coinage.
see also Roman
Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum (Copenhagen)
SNGC..
Sydenham,
of
(Cnossus).
JRS,
(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 Au
gusti); The Divinity
the Roman Emperor
DRE (see Abbrevi
1938
von
2,
II,
av
Thiel, Mnemosyne, 1935, 1935/6 (constitution).

Valejo, Emerita, 1946 (reviewing FITA).
Vandvik, Avhandlingar utgitt
Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi
Oslo,
Hist-filos. Kl. No.
1941/2 (Ablative).
Phyllobolia fr
P.
ations).
Theiler, Tacitus und die Antike Schickalslehre
der Mhll.
in
of
Syme,
Visscher, Les dits d'Auguste decouverts

Cyrene; AC, 1946 (Ro
manisation).
Vives Escudero,
Moneda Hispnica Vives.
Volkmann, Mnchener Beitrge zur Papyrusforschung, 1935 (M. Pri
La
de

Nero;
mus); Mos Maiorum als Grundzug des Augusteischen

(Das Neue Bild der Antike, II); see also Premerstein.
Vuli, Klio, 1942 (Titulature).
Prinzipats
187
Waddington, Babelon (E.) and Reinach, Recueil Gnral 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,
(reviewing Heinze).
Westbury Jones, Roman and Christian Imperialism.
Westcott, The Epistles of
John.
Wickert, Klio, 1939 (Nero and Drusus); 1940 (domus Caesarum).
Willers, NZ, 1902 (Coins
Gaul).
Willrich, Livia Willrich.
Windisch, Zeitschrift fr neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1925 (Peace).
=
2,
Wissowa, RE,
s.v. auspicia; Religion und Kultus der Rmer, second
edition RKR*.
Roman Gaul, Diss: Johns
Espaol,
Zangroniz, Memorial Numismtico

Zobel
augusta, metallurgy).
V,
in
de
Witt, Urbanisation and the Franchise

Hopkins University, 1938/40.
Woodcock, CR, 1947 (reviewing Vandvik).
1880
(Caesar
de
de
P.
de
C. de
de
et
la
et de
in
di
NoTE: The following reached me too late for consideration: Ber

sanetti, Athenaeum, 1947 (Tiberiana"); Byvanck, Mnemosyne, 1947
Capessoni,
(Paris cameo); Passerini, Studi giuridici
memoria
Visscher, Bulletin
1947 (Per
Storia dell Imperatore Tiberio");
Politiques
Classe des Lettres
des Sciences Morales
l'Acad
Belgique,
sr., XXXV, 1949 (La Table
mie Royale
Bronze
Magliano"),
Koch, RE, XVIII,
(1949), 2430-2436, s.v. Pax.
la

of
St.
1939
Addenda
p. ix and n. 10. The new arrangement of the coins of Carthago Nova by A.
Beltrn, Las Monedas Latinas de Cartagena, though it contains some im
FITA (pp.
19, 39), includes certain unlikely chronological

geographical
and
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).
provements on
(pp. 49-53)
p. 17 (no. 49). The attribution

cf.
Museum,
G.
of
K.
to Cnossus is confirmed by the occurrence

specimens among Col. Cameron's coins from Crete, now in the British
Jenkins (NC, 1949), who
kindly
has
sent me
infor
pp. 24, 155f. The argumenta
by
mation about these acquisitions.
is
cf.
in
be
p.
52,
A.
of
in
as
P.
is
p.
if
p.
39, lines 10ff. This argument receives further support

Beltrn, loc.
cit.,
right
55,
regarding large issues
Carthago Nova (M. Postu
mius Albinus II,
Turullius quinq.)
Tiberian rather than Augustan.
p.
is
he
it
by
of
n.
of
High-Priest
92. But the name
Asia after the same preposition
Fink,
questioned
was eponymousa permissible distinction, though
CP, 1949,
Agrippa
why
Augustus
suppose
256 (and
does
that
and
due
in
is
Sejanus' betrothal
to
refers
to
of
2,
p.
550
43), the daughter
of c,
A.D.
XI,
Livilla and Drusus

confusion. (Furneaux, ed. Tac. Annals, vol.
the former
495 [index] wrongly describes this third
Julia
as
p.
further Julia (d.

jun.; but this may
II,
or
d.
as
A.D. 41. Zonaras,
d.
Livilla),
to
1,
RE, 10,
X, Table
This Livilla (or Livia
Livia Juliaprobably not Claudia,

CAH,
275, Stammtafel;
wrongly described
A.D. 31)
(p. 1058)
daughter
Germanicus,
the
who was Julia (or
111.
be
54,
n.
as p.
Postumus cannot both have been such High-Priests?).
Augusta.)
charged
to of
by
cf.
is
212, Salmon, Phoenix, 1948, pp. 135 ff.), the present writer
Fink, loc. cit., with himself demolishing his whole elaborate
by
1947,
p.
p.
f.:
68, lines
formal truth rather than concealed sanctions
force. For
studying the former and yet including
passing reference
the latter
(FITA,
443,
Sutherland, JRS,
pp. 321,418, unduly minimised
p.

to
of
of
be
silentio could
refuted
the discovery
anniversary issues
sufficient unknown coins; but the interpretation
RAI, pp. xxf.
seriously upset
not likely
this way,
189
Addenda
190
structure (sc. picture of the constitution') with his parenthetical conces

sion. Surely not. A mailed fist could be, and was, concealed by a velvet
glove. The two materials, each familiar today, were both regarded as
in
dispensable, but for different reasons and purposes: if they are confused,
the study of either will suffer. Cf. Greece and Rome, 1949, p. 97.
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 prob
p. 69.
f.,
able that official policy should have followed his interpretations.
n.
Baetica
by
of
to
the pacification
Augustus beneficio
perpetua cura.
136,
13. The Naples specimen, clearly genuine,
illustrated by Ga
brici, Ad Res Gestas Augusti Commentarius
Re Nummaria (Acta Divi
Augusti,
1945), Plate IX, no. 91.
Sutherland that
specimen
of
V.
H.
Oxford has now acquired
the Ashmolean Museum
Dr.
C.
learn through the kindness

at
coin no. 17.
of
I,
de
is
n.
p.
this
able
be a
colonia Iulia.
276, quotes
hope shortly
to
the title
Arqueologia
p. de
A.
2.
discuss its date.
coin
Tetuan giving Tingis
of
del
Beltrn, Crnica del Congreso Nacional

Congreso Arqueolgico del Sudeste, Almeria, 1949,
Appendix
piece.
to at

ILS, 103, refers
86.
eius
et
p.
of
p.
cf.
to
p.
is cf.
pp. 70f., 167

Claudius, the title
45. On inscriptions referring
pontifex maximus
stressed much more than any other,
M. Stuart, The
Claudius,
Preliminary
Studies,
16,
Portraiture
110.
Indices
1.
L. A.
Faustus, 6f.
Aelia (?) L.f.,
L.
PERSONS1
A. Avillius Flaccus,
Aelius Sejanus, 54 ff., 58, 86, 114,
Aemilia, l20, 128n.

M. Aemilius, 16n., 137, 138n.
M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus, 83, 120
M. Aemilius Paulii f. Lepidus, 52 f., 56,
72
Aemilius Q.f. Lepidus, 120

Agrippa, l8, 43n., 57, 66n., 154n.,
165, 166n.
Agrippa Postumus, 99, Addenda (p. 52)

Agrippina (jun.), l23n., 124
Agrippina (sen.), 56, 123n., 124, 130n.
Albinus, see Clodius
Alexander Severus, see Severus
C. Allius Bala, 82n.
Amyntas, l55
C. Baebius, 12, 26n., 28
l4l. f.
M.
M.
L. Annaeus Seneca,
M. Annius Afrinus,
see Seneca
162
ll4-123,
125-130, 132 f., 135-142,

159, 161 f., 165-171.
Marcus Aurelius, 83n.
Elagabalus
Antoninus,
see
P. Baebius Pollio,
146
Caracalla,
135
Balbus, see L. Cornelius

Bassus, see C:
Brutus, see M. Junius
Dec. C: Bassus, 6 f.
Q. Caecilius Jovinus, l39n.
Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus,
4f., 59, 163
L. Caecilius Pius, l39n.
L. Caelius Clemens, 3 f., 25 f., 102
C. Caelius Pax(aeus?), 139n.
Q. Caepio Brutus, see M. Junius
Caesar, see
Antius, 163
Antonia (minor), 36n., 83, 123n.
Antoninus Pius, lln., l06
M. Antonius, l30, 132n.
M. Antonius (?) Primus, 167
L. Apronius C.f. 8 ff., 17, 50 ff., 55 ff., 59,
72, 147n., 168 f.
L. Apronius L.f. Caesianus, 56n.
C. Apro(nius) Ne., l7 f.
C. Aquinus Mela, l35
Arnobius, 109n.
L. Arrius Peregrinus, 14 f., 92
C. Asinius Gallus, 52, 53n.
L. Ateius Fuscus, l7
Aufustius, 107n.
Augustus, 1, 4 ff., 8, 14, 16 ff., 20-34, 38
53, 54n., 55-59, 60n., 61-81, 83n., 84,
88-90, 9 ln., 93-95, 97-101, 103-112,
M. Aurelius
103
54
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, 10 l f., ll4, 121,
l23 f.,
l5ln.,
130,
13
ln.,
135n.,
l36,
142.
154n.
Cn. Calpurnius Piso, 166

P. Caninius Agrippa, 16, 28
Caracalla, l3ln.
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., l 10 f., l20n., 123 f., 133n.,
l35, 152n., l54n., 162, Addenda (p.
7O)
Ap. Claudius Crassus, 63
Clodius Albinus, 82
T. Clodius Eprius Marcellus, 163
C. Clodius Vestalis, l 19 f.
Commodus, 82n., 83, 87
L. Cornelius Balbus, 62n., 142, 167
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.
191
Indices
192
P. Cornelius Dolabella, l0f., 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, ln., 76, 168
Cornutus, l62
Culleo, see Q. Terentius
T.D: Rufus, 140

Q. Decius Saturninus, 3ln.
Dio Cassius, vii, 42n., 43n., 49n., 67n.,
68n., 106n., 124n., 165
Diocletian, 85n.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 70n.

Divus Julius,
M. Doius, 2
see
C. Julius Caesar
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., l53n., 156, 163, l66n.
Drusus (sen.), 54n., 57, 62n., 163
M. Egnatius, l f.
Elagabalus, 2ln.
T. Eprius Marcellus,
us Marcellus
Gallienus, 89, 105

P. Gavius Casca, 10 f.
Gellius, 6ln., 142.
Gemellus, see N:
Ti. Gemellus, 3 f., l6n., 26 f., 85, 95n.,
101-103,
188
Germanicus, 25, 54n., 57, 61, 67, 71 f.,

74f., 90, 92, 96, 98-100, 136, 152n.,
153n.,
163, 165
f.
Germanicus, Drusi f., see Julius

M. Granius Marcellus, llOn., ll6n., 127n.
Gratian, 84
Hadrian, 2ln., 89, 106, 142
Helvius Basila, l64
C. Herennius, 12
M. Herennius, l4
Horace, 87n., 107n.
T.
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, 12l, l24n., 153, 168
Ti.(?) Julius Drusi f. (max.), lOSn.
Ti. Julius Drusi f. Germanicus, 95n.,
IOS
see
T.
Clodius
Epri
P. F: Silva(nus?), 4f., 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, 10ln.
L. Furius Labeo, 15, 92
Fuscus, 16 f., 26n.
Gaius, grandson of Augustus, 16, 57 f.,
l52n., 166n., 168n.
Gaius, see Caligula
Galba, 75, 76n.
Ti. Julius Drusi f. Nero,

L. Julius Felix, 8 f.
see Gemellus
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., l60
L. Julius Vestinus, 54
Junia Q. Silani f., 59n.
Q. Junius Blaesus, l0, 51, 55, 66n., 7On.,
72
M. Junius Brutus,
M. Junius Silanus,
M. Jus., l4
65
60n.
Labeo, 16n., l37, 138n.;

us, A. Vatronius
A. Laetorius, 5
see
also
L. Furi
Indices
Largus, 42n., 77, 97n.,
Lepidus, see Aemilius
L. Licinius, 2
M.
106
Licinius Crassus, 67
x, 6 f., 9,
15 ff., l8, 25, 44 f.,
88n., 90, 92n., 95 f., 105n., l08-129,
132n., 133, 136, 139; see also Livilla
Livilla (or Livia or Julia) Drusi sen. f.,
54n., Addenda (p. 54)
Livilla (or Julia) Germanici f., Adden
da (p. 54)
L. Livineius Regulus, l20
M. Livius Drusus, l2On.
M. Livius Drusus Claudianus, 120n.
Livy, 63, 65n., l24n., l66n.
C. Lollius, 2
ll,
Livia,
Luci., 4

Lucius, grandson
l68n.
of Augustus,
l6, 58,
Marcella, 55
Marcellus, see T. Clodius Eprius
Marcus Aurelius, see Aurelius
Sex. Marius, $5n.
Martial, 105n.
St. Matthew, 80
Maximus, l6 f.
Messalla, see Valerius
Messal(l)ina (Valeria),
124
A. N: Gemellus, 140
Nero, 73, 79 f., 82n., 89, 97,
Nero Drusi f., see Gemellus
131, 135n.
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., l35
see Augustus
Q. Octavius, f.
T. Ollius, 56
Octavian,
C. Oppius, l24n.
Otho, 75
Ovid, 81, 96, 109n., 116 f., 121, 169
M. Paccius Maximus, 26
L. Passienus Rufus, 55n.
Paulus Diaconus, 69n., 107n.
P. Perelius Hedulus, 93 f.
P. Petronius, 53, 56
Phaedrus,
96
f.
198
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, l62
Sex. Pompeius Magni f., 159
Cn. Pompeius Magnus, 76, 168
L. Pomponius Flaccus, l63
M. Pomponius Marcellus, 153n.
C. Pontius Paelignus, 3ln.
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, l68n., see also Plautius
Pupus Agrippae f., see Agrippa Postumus
P. Quinctilius Varus, 5l
Regulus, 168n; see also Livineius
Romulus, 63, 70 f., 78, 169
Rufus, see D:
L. Rusticelius Basterna, l2, 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-- (?), l63

L. Seius, 4, 150
Sejanus, see L. Aelius
Seneca (jun.), 44, 54 f., 56n., 60n., 86,
97n., l05n., 164
Seneca (sen.), 43n.
M. Septimius, l2
Septimius Severus, 82f., 87, 109n.
Servius, 62n., 78n.
Severus, see Septimius
Severus Alexander, 83 f., 87
Silva(nus?), see F:
Cn. Statilius Libo, 26n.
Statilius (?) Taurus, 168n.
Strabo, l9n., 40n.
Indices
L. Suei (llius?), 4n., 135

Suetonius, vii, 27 n., 42n., 43n., 44n., 49n.,
50n., 69, 7 ln., 124n., 128n., 133, 153n.,
Addenda (p. 69)
Sulla, see L. Cornelius
Sura, 163
f.,
Tacfarinas, 36ff., 57 n., 60, 160

Tacitus (emperor), 83
89
Tacitus (writer), vii, 27 n., 32n.,
4On.,
ln.,
43n., 50, 55n., 56n., 66n., 70n.,
77, 86n., 92, 124n., 125n., 128, 130,
131n., 165
Sex. Tadius Faustus, 139n.
Taurus,
14
138, 155
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.
Turullius, Addenda (p. 39)
see
L. Vestinus,
f.
P.
80, 85n., 169

Sex. Vistilius, 54n.
Vitellius, 73, 84n., 111n., 122
Vitellius, 56n., 163, 165n.
Vitruvius, 97n.
L. Volusius Saturninus, 51
I,
see
Messal(l)ina
2.
PLACES
8,
6,
Abdera (Spain), 36n., 153n.

Acci, 24n., 34n., 35, 88n., 147n.
Achulla,
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, 28m., 30, 43m.,
46, 48, 95n., 115, 138, 155
Antioch (Syria), viiin., 163
f.
Julius
Virgil,
P.

Valentinian
84
Valeria Messal(l)ina,
see
P. Vibius, 26n.
C. Vibius Marsus, 53, 56, 139
Vipsania, 53n.
M. Vipsanius Agrippa, see Agrippa
f.
Ti. Tar (ius?),
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, 60f.,
68m., 71 f., 86, 99n., 117, 123, 125f.,
13 ln.
Q. Veranius, 163
Vergil, see Virgil
A. Vergilius Opt(atus?),
Verrius Flaccus, 69, 107n., Addenda (p.
69)
Vespasian,
73 f., 83 ff., 89, 131, 137 n.,
2
194
Antium, 41n.
(Bithynia), 33n.
Apollonia (Illyricum), 154n.
ApolloniaMordiaeum, 162
Apollonia Pontica, 154n.
Apollonia Salbace, 162n.
Aquincum, 150
Aquinum, 31
Arausio, 33n.
Asculum, 25n.
Asido, 43n., 95n.
Athens, 113n.
Apamea
Babba, 33n., 36
Balaton, see Pelso
Berytus, 33n., 34n., 38, 137, 152n., 169n.
Bilbilis, 35, 54, 88m., 140n., 141
Bithynian mint, 110n., 116n., 127n.
Bovillae, 92, 95
Brixia, 28m., 31n.
Caesaraugusta, 20 f., 26n., 34n., 35, 39,

42n., 45ff., 90, 101, 104, 107, 114 f.,
147n.
Caesarea (Cappadocia), viiin., 45n., 163n.
CaesareaGermanica, 163
f.,
f.,
146, 147n.
8,
Iconium, 162
f.,
f.
35
f.,
6,
Hadrumetum,
39n., 51
Halaesa, 26, 140n.
Halicarnassus, 70n.
Haluntium,
140n., 150f., 153
Heba, 58n.
Hierapolis, 52
Hierapytna, 163f.
Hippo Diarrhytus, 6-8,
39, 45, 50f.,
57, 88, 98 ff., 115, 147, 156, 158
Hispalis, see Romula
Ilici, 20, 34n.,
f.,
36n., 45n., 79,90, 114n.

Interamna, 86n.
Italica, 31n., 32, 35, 78, 88
99, 112m.,
115, 140n., 141n.
Lanuvium, 28n.
Laus Pompeia, 28n., 152n.
Lepcis Magna, 44, 127
Leptis Minor, 24n., 155n.
Lipara, 82n.
Lugdunum, 24n., 37, 155n., 160
168n.
Lystra, 18, 24n., 33n., 34n., 111n., 155n.
Mordiaeum,
see
Apollonia
Narona, 150
Nasium, 97, 106n.
Nemausus,
37n.,
Nicaea, 21
Nicomedia, 163,
Dertosa, 14, 24, 140n., 141, 156

f., 14, 115
Dium,
Dyme, 14
Dyrrhachium, 14, 24n., 89, 104-07, 155n.
f.
Ebusus, 36n.
Eleuthernae, 163
Emerita, 31n., 34n., 36n., 39, 42n., 45n.,
135, 147
165m.
Olbasa, 106
Olbia, 20
Olisipo, 25, 96n.
Osca, 36n., 45n., 88m., 140n., 141
Osicerda, 34n., 153
Ostia, 96
Paestum, 1-4, 20, 25
101
170
f.,
Cydonia, 163
Cyprus, mint in, 115
Cyrene, 49n., 103
47, 85, 104 f., 114

Emona, 23, 150
18, 141
f.,
f.,
9,
52
f.
137n.
Cortaeum,
Gades,
Gangra, 98n.
Gaulus, 48n., 86
Gortyna, 163
Graccurris, 34n., 36n., 153
Gythium, 96, 112, 113n., 125
140n., 141n.
Cambodunum, 23, 142, 150

Camulodunum, 154n.
Capreae, 32, 54, 128, 133
Carnuntum, 142, 150
Carteia, 36n.
Carthago, 6f., 19, 24n., 30, 34n., 35, 36n.,
38, 44, 47 f., 78f., 81, 83, 86m., 89,
93 f., 114f., 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.,
115, 136ff., 155n., 159n.,
101 f., 104
Addenda (p. 17)
Corduba, 33n.
Corinth, ix,
14 ff., 19, 28, 34n., 38, 79,
90, 92ff., 98 ff., 104
134, 136,
114
11

Calagna (?), 151n.

Calagurris, 24n., 36n., 47,
Emporiae,
29n., 35, 140n., 142
Ercavica, 34n., 35, 153
f.,
17, 33n., 34n., 38, 79, 81,
136
f.,
Buthrotum, 9,
9,
Indices
29ff., 35, 38, 73 f.,

115, 135, 138, 146, 159, 169n.,
Indices
11
f.,
f.,
f. f.,
Panormus, 4 ff., 19, 21, 23, 26n., 50, 79,

108, 109n., 111 f., 114,
88 f., 104
149 ff., 158
Parentium, 151n.
Parium, 19, 26n., 38, 115n., 136
156
Patrae, 14, 24n., 33n., 114, 136, Adden
da (p. 136)
Patricia, see Corduba
Pella,
ff., 26n., 28, 38, 79, 89
105 ff.,
127n.,
158m.
Tingis,
142, Addenda (p.
69)
Priene, 162
Troy,
109n.
Urgavo, 96n.
Uselis, 24n., 140n., 141n.
Utica, 17, 19, 26n., 28n., 30, 35, 37, 39,
53, 88n., 10ln., 115, 122, 139-142,
141
158
Venusia, 25n.
Viminacium, 19
Vindonissa, 58n.
Volaterrae, 124n.
Zama Regia,
Zitha, 88, 158m.
GENERAL
altars,
cities
Aeacus, 162
Aegina (nymph), 162n.
Aegyptus capta, 59, 82n., 168m.
Aeternitas, aeternus, 81n., 83n., 86 f., 89,
95 f., 114, 121n., 134
37, 49n., 54, 77, 78n., 79, 81,

160ff.
amicitia, amici principis, 53-58, 156
92-94,
f.,
accession issues, 24 f., 115

adsignatio, adsignator, see foundation
of
3.
f.,
in
Pieria, 163
Simitthu, 33n., 51, 169n.
Sinope,
24, 30, 34n., 38, 59, 95n.,
98, 100
Siscia, 150
Situm, see Zitha
Smyrna, 21, 53
140m.,
Sardes, 109n.
Scarabantia,
150
Segobriga, 35, 45n., 153
Segovia, 153
Seleucia
147n.
Tyndaris, 33n.
104, 109, 113
Saguntum, 20, 24n.,

Salonae, 26n.
71
Tucci, 87, 95n.

Turiaso, 20, 104, 107, 110n., 140n., 141,
Romula, 20, 31n., 32, 34n., 39, 90, 99,
18

Ravenna,
36, 101, 140, 141n.
Tomi, 21
Traducta, 33n.
Tralles, 109n.
162, 164, 171
Ammon, see Jupiter

ancile, 169n.
anniversary issues, 24f., 44n., 58
84, 89, 104, 122, 131
157, 170
f.,
f.,
77,
Tabae, 52, 163

Tarraco, 20, 24n., 34n., 36n., 39, 45 f., 48,
85, 88n., 89, 99
104 f., 114, 147n.
Tarsus, 109n.
Temnus, 52
Thapsus,
8-11, 19, 39, 48 f., 51f., 88,
98 ff., 108-113, 147, 156, 158 f., 169n.
Thermae Himeraeae, 139n.
Thessalonica, 109n.
Thuburnica, 14On.
Thubursicum, 158m.
Tifernum, 23, 151
7,
Praeneste,
Syedra, 109n.
Syracuse, 159
6,
113, 117, 136, 156
Pelso, Lake (Balaton), 150

Pergamum, 52 f., 58n., 109n.,
Perinthus, 109n.
Pessinus, 163, 164n.
Philadelphia, 102
Philippi, 33n., 74n., 112m.
Pitane, 52, 158m.
Polyrhenium, 164
Pompeii, 26n., 113, 116
Stobi, 139n.
Sullechthi, 158m.
f.,
196
81,
137, 141, 155
Indices
139
olive
f.,
caduceus, 9.f., 77
Caesar, Caesarea, -ina, 42
anniversary issues
see foundation
cities
designatio, 14On.
deus, dea, 89, 105 ff., 123, 133
Diana,
109n.,
dictator, 83 ff.
diploma, 93m.
diritas, 133n.
divinus, 97, 104 f., 134
domus, 54, 69, 78n., 95
98, 104 f.,
127 n., 134, 141; see also gens
dona militaria, 66n.
lll
entendres,
112
ductus, 60, 166n.

duoviri, duoviri quinquennales,
trates (local)
95
see
magis
77
enfranchisement,
individuals,
see also foundation of cities
151 f.;
of
eras,
18
ethnics,
f.
18, 115n., 136ff., 158

69, 85
Euthenia, 110
etymology,
extra ordinem, 60n., 70n.

familia, 95n.
Felicitas, 76
Fides, 82n.
f.,
of
f.
corn or barley, see corn

femina, 123, 126
83, 104, 109m.,
113n., 170
76, 86n., 96, 102, 109, 113n.

flaminica, see priestess
Fortuna, 76, 87, 113
flamen, 25
of
complex types, 112

composition
coins, see metallic compo
ears
eminentissima
f.,
f.,
f.
5,
cameos, viii, 71n., 109m., 116

capricorn,
88
carpentum, 123
90n.,
Case usages, 15, 30, 52n., 53, 81
139, 158 f., 163, Addenda (p. 52)
Ceres,
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
cities
comes, 54, 56, 162
comitia, 126
comitialis, 26n., 102
of
calliditas,
see
27 n., 29
deductio,
doubles
8,
genetrix orbis, 90, 109, 113, 133

genius, 25, 107, 112, 170
gens Iulia, Augusta, 15, 42, 43n., 78m.,
79, 90, 92-98, 112n., 115n., 122, 134;
f.
sition
concilium Galliarum, 160
Concordia, 77, 79, 81, 83, 86, 113
consensus, 44n.
consilium principis, 54
Constantia, constans, 85, 90
constitutio, see foundation of cities
f.

barley, see corn

biga, 3, 74, 136
binominalism, 42n.
Blessings, 113
branch (as type), see
busts, see statues
decennium,
decuriones,
f.,
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, 57 n., 59-72, 75,
166-171
109n.
crocodile, 135
cup, 12, 109n.
cymbium, 119
f.
Augustalis,
crescent,
116n.
12ff., 58n., 162
of
augur, 62, 64n., 68n., 69, 70n.,
71, 14On.
80, 103m.,
9, f.
augurium,
cornucopiae,
countermarks,
f.
111
5,
Apollo, 95,
ara, see altars

army, 6On-, 67f., 127, 15On., 152, Ad
denda (p. 68)
auctoritas, auctor, 30 ff., 39n., 41 f., 44,
49, 6O, 68 ff., 75 f., 100, 103, 116m.,
126, 128, 131, 133, 165, 168 f.
consularis, 59n.
consulship, 49n., 57, 84n., 141 f., 166
corn, 5f.,
111
8,
107
apex, 3, 25
2,
Antigonids,
197
see also domus.
globe, 84;
see also
genetrix orbis
Indices
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, 7.4n., 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, viif.

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, 78f., 115n.,
123n., 135m.,
136
Mercury, 9, 88, 111

metallic composition,
metrology,
19-23, 144
Minerva, 109n., 111
19-22, 143 f.
names, see titulature

nefastus, 64
Neptune, 154n.
mobiles, 55n.
nominatio, 7On.
numen, 25, 77, 78m., 93, 96n., 107, 113n.

oak, see wreath
oaths, 98m.
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., 107m.
pater, pater patriae, 22n., 43 f., 47, 49 f.,
105, 115, 123n., 170
patera, 2, 5 ff., 9, 11 ff., 16 ff., 116, 168m.
patronus, patrocinium, 86; see also clien
tela
Pax, 49n., 77-83, 85-87, 89, 104, 113 f.,
116, 134
Pegasus, 16
permissus, 31 ff., 39n., 46, 51 ff., 59
perpetuus, Perpetuitas, 48m., 76, 78, 81
87, 89, 93, 97, 134, Addenda (p. 86)
phoenix, 84
Pietas, 13, 90, 113 f., 117 n., 134
plough, 14
pontifex, pontifex maximus, 43, 45, 64n.,
71, 89, 95
121 f., 126, 142, 167-170,
Addenda (p. 70)
Tiberius, 131
posthumous honours
potestas, see imperium, tribunicia potestas
praefecti, see magistrates (local)
praefericulum,
73
praenomen, see Imperator
priest, see flamen, pontifex, sacerdos
priestess,
92n., 108
115-125,
111
139; see also Vestal Virgins
proconsuls, 31n., 46, 50-72, 149
165
ff.
honos, 124, 128
f.,
al
f.,
see
f.
to
see also provincialisation

Hercules, 74n.
high-priest, see pontifex maximus;
so Addenda (p. 52)
159;
f.
119, 125,
f.,
106 f.,
mines, 35n.
moderatio, 44, 94, 96, 124
modius, 8
Moneta, moneta, 136
monograms, 9
mos maiorum, 62 f., 129 f.
f.,
hasta, 2 f., 73
Hecate, 109
Hellenisms, 91n.,
2,
198
Indices
Providentia
f., 89
15, 71, 74, 79, 88m., 92, 94,
(local)
also Romulus
thunderbolt,
102n., 122n.
Tiber, 27, 31
titulature, titles, 41-50, 76 f., 94 f., 100,
68,
tribunicia potestas, 3On., 32, 45
99 f., 123, 126
triskeles, triquetra,
triumph, triumphator, 62, 74n., 167, 169
triumphal ornamenta, see ornamenta
trophy, 74
Tyche, see Fortuna
f.
f.
Tiberius, 50n., 55n.,
f.,
124
f.
f.
f.
senate, local, see decuriones

senate, Roman, 30 ff., 68m., 100, 123, 126,
131
sheath, 76
Vejovis, 95
Venus, 90, 109n.
Vesta, 87, 109n., 111, 121f., 128m.
Vestal Virgins, 120ff., 127
vexillum,
73
vicegerents, 61
66 f., 94, 165
vicennium, see anniversary issues
Victoria,
47, 72-77, 84, 87
104, 170
Virtus, 73
f.,
ff.
sacerdos, 26n., 93, 117, 121, 124

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
f.,
88n.
109n.,
f.
103n., 105, 111n.

tombstones, 49n., 101
tooling, 136n., 138
f.
169; see
Republicanism
130, 131n.
roads, 28, 15On.
Roma, 83, 85
Temple
spectrography,
Spes, 79, 82
weights, 22 f., 145-148
19-22, 143
wreath (as type),
129, 133
f.,
13, 18, 88, 115n.
7,
f.
88, 120, 168
will (testament),
see
f.
see
Julium,
star
simpulum, simpuvium,
sidus
8,
shrine,
f.

12
6,
78,
of
5,
see magistrates
in
Quirinus,
ram,
reliefs,
f.,
f.,
quinquennales,
Index
taxes, 27
temples,
13 ln.
quadriga,
strigiles,
5,
statues, 19n., 88, 116, 131n., 168m.

Stoics, 80, 109n.
17, 136, 144n.

Providentia, 78
113, 134
89
provincialisation, 91; see also Hellenisms
prow, 14
puns, see double entendres
3,
see
provenance,
3,
Pronoia,
199
Zinc,
see
metallic composition
11
12 13
Plates
88
7.4
115
38,
38,
38,
38,
38,
38,
88,
35,
35,
35,
25 ff.,
25 ff.,
38,
38,
38,
159n.,
170
170
only)
(obverse
(reverse
18 19
20
only)
only)
(reverse
Achulla
Panormus
Panormus
Panormus
Panormus
Panormus
Panormus
41,
95,
158
122n.
ff., 111
104
111
114
108
88m.,
104
88,
101,
101
101
169n.
79
50,
26n.,
88m.,
23,
19,
74,
74,
74,
170
ff., 169n.
159n.,
book on
discussed
169n.
25 ff.,
38
73,
170
38,
25f.,
73,
73,
38,
38
38,
88,
29,
Pages
which
f.,
21
Paestum
Paestum
Paestum
Paestum
Paestum
Paestum
Paestum
Paestum
Paestum
Paestum
Paestum
Paestum
Paestum
Paestum
Mint
the
1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5,
f.
17
in
16
only)
(reverse
in Ch.
Number
list
to
15
14
only)
only)
on plate
(reverse
(reverse
Number
Key

of
f.,
f.,
5 6, 6,
149
158
Paris
London
Glasgow
London
Glasgow
London
London
Cambridge
Copenhagen
Paris
London
Cambridge
Paris
Vienna
Vienna
London
London
Copenhagen
Paris
Naples
Berlin
Collection
Key to Plates
202
be
4-
..
i^
-r
nil
OJJ
bJ3
CO
5e
U)
2x>a
^c3a>r3rC
00
^
1^'
rH
-o"
co
00
Jt
00
oo
rH
, ft^4
rH QO" rH O ir;
(N
-<* o>
^*
I>
t-
o o
* tw
OO 00
00
rn"*
IO
f,
rT rf fc *r OT" 1-" J>

f^ 1> f^ b- rH
--? Tf -"^ -^i
^
-*
.
r> rH
" oT Cft O rH
rH
OH
XX
0}
O>
0
(M
C3
1,
8,
a,
en
1.
1
C3
60
^
^
^
P 1
SI
OH OH OH _rt
SI
en
GO
ca
CD
S,8, 8,8.
CU
I-
fc
C3
O
M
o o
3
4=
Ol
hj1
X
fc
3
o
-5
en
-M
00
8,8,
CO C3
Us,
s
C3
^^
"t
U U
--
43
H
cd
en
-M
bo
CS
J= J=
-B
U)
to
t^
00
IB
! -S
bo
C3
P
P
P
P
be
^
>-
s6 s
IN. (N.
^^ >-'*w*
f*
0-
en
*-" -M
rH
,_, rH
rH
r-
-*-j
00
00
rH
rH
rH
fc
g ^
H
rH
r
O)
o"^
M
00
00
rH
00 00
U)
5 >o rH
OO"
^^ ^^
1
( O>
^
~
cc
oo" *
00
fc 00 oo
00
00 00 rH
"^
rH rH
fc
<n
oo"
O)
*-
of
rH

<O
00
r, 1
^V ^^
d)
ft
iges
B ihich
of
disi
-si
s
"2
rH
rH
-^
rH
tN
(N
fN
C4
05
rH
(N
fN
CM
o
m d
T}>
irj to
-*
NW*
O
\*x
10
1>
(N
O> U) rH
(N <N M
00
00
rH
Mumber
5 6
78
only)
only)
(obverse
(reverse
I 23
4.
50
51
52
53
14
15
16
12
13
Cnossus(?)
49
41
95,
19,
30,
16,
17,
17,
17,
18
18,
48,
24,
24,
30,
59,
115
95
88,
111,
100,
92
92 ff.,
ff.
Sinope
Pisidia
104
104
41,
16,
f.,
Antioch
136
28,
15,
30,
38,
38,
15,
17
114
38,
15,
98,
79,90,
38,
38
15,
f.
Cnossus(?)
Cnossus(?)
114
38,
15,
f.,
Cnossus(?)
Cnossus(?)
Corinth
46
48
Corinth
45
49
Corinth
44
11
only)
only)
(obverse
Corinth
79,90,
104
14,
89
ff.,
98
115ff.
115
104
117
105
ff.
(obverse
only)
(obverse
Corinth
43
104
41,
14,
14
38,
113,
88,
156
105
156
f.
10
only)
56 7 8 9
(obverse
43
Corinth
Dyrrhachium
Dyrrhachium
30,
28,
13,
38,
f.
42
41
Dyrrhachium
4l
PLATE
30,
28,
41
Pella
40
11
30,
28,
13,
38,
30,
28,
13,
38
38,
30,
28,
f.
12,
11
38,
30,
28,
115ff.
discussed
ff.
10
Pella
35
38
9
Pella
Pella
which
11, 30, 41,
f., f.,
37
only)
Pella
Pella
34
34
Dium
33
Ch.
Iw Li-irst/ter in
list
in
11
(obverse
on plate

Writer's
Cambridge
London
Berlin
London
London
collection
Vienna
London
Cambridge
London
London
Copenhagen
London
Paris
Berlin
London
Budapest
London
Cambridge
London
London
Oxford
London
;
CDCo
ff.
f.,
in
204
Key to Plates
n c ,c
&P-O
-e
IT)
-*
i-l
rH
rH
O)
^
^
tO
"^ O O G}
<N r-H O) <N (N 00
r-
cr
o
f-
co~
U)
o>
00
3.
82
-5i
efl
BB 99
SOu
hi
% g
>
>
1
V
oT oT
co
co
d o o
OH
o"
<y>
O> O> O)
CO CO CO CO O)
0>
o>
o>
O> (N O) 00
CO CO CO 00
U)
P-,
CO
'***
O>
(N
o>
CO
fc
**N
O>
00
a:

Pages of boo
-which discu
eo
<-
U)
00
11
only)
only)
(reverse
only)
(reverse
(reverse
issue)
issue;
Augustus)
(official
Divus
issue)
Rome
(official
(official
Cyprus
Rome
(?)
(official
(municipium)
Parium
Utica
(municipium)
Utica
issue?)
libera)
53,
115
158
London
London
Vienna
Oxford
115,
115
115
156
53,
London
Paris
111,
37,
37,
London
115
95,
136f.,
19,
19,
88
Cambridge
Copenhagen
collection
44,
Writer's
London
127
dot is
137
137
tunitt fi tisov
is
10
(municipium)
Utica
(civ.
(Claudius?)
Berytus
Magna
(Augustus?)
Cnossus
Lepcis
(Augustus?)
|
Cnossus
137

12 13

PLATE I

I.LVdIONIRId.
IO
SOIRIGHQI.L
H.LVICI
II

1.
PLATE
III

PLATE
IV

PLATE V

PLATE
(SPAIN)
WI

PLATE VII
(SPAIN)

PLATE VIII
(VARIOUS)
PUBLICATIONS
THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

Broadway at 156th Street, New York 32,
N.Y.
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NUMISMATICS

18661924
Vols. 1-3: Monthly, May, 1866April, 1870.
Vols. 446: Quarterly, July, 1870October,
1912.
Vols. 4753: Annually, 1913-1924.
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.
With

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 4% x 6% inches in size. Beginning with No. 110 the size is 6% x 9 inches.
P. Noe. Coin Hoards. 1921.47 pp. 6 pls. 50.
T. Newell. Octobols of Histiaea. 1921. 25 pp. 2 pls. Out of print.
.
T. Newell. Alexander HoardsIntroduction and Kyparissia Hoard. 1921.
21 pp. 2 pls. Out of print.
. Howland Wood. The Mexican Revolutionary Coinage, 19131916. 1921.44 pp. 26
pls. Out of print.
5 . Leonidas Westervelt. The Jenny Lind Medals and Tokens. 1921. 25 pp. 9 pls. Out
of print.
. Agnes Baldwin. 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.
11. Harrold E. Gillingham. French Orders and Decorations. 1922. 110 pp. 35 pls. Out
of print.
12. Howland Wood. Gold Dollars of 1858. 1922. 7 pp. 2 pls. Out of print.
13. R. B. Whitehead. Pre-Mohammedan Coinage of N. W. India. 1922. 56 pp. 15 pls.
Out of print.
14. George F. Hill. Attambelos I of Characene. 1922. 12 pp. 3 pls. Out of print.
15. M. P. Vlasto. Taras Oikistes (A Contribution to Tarentine Numismatics). 1922. 234
pp. 13 pls. $3.50.
16. Howland Wood. Commemorative Coinage of the United States. 1922.63 pp. 7 pls.
Out of print.
17. Agnes Baldwin. Six Roman Bronze Medallions. 1923. 39 pp. 6 pls. $1.50.
18. Howland Wood. Tegucigalpa Coinage of 1823. 1923. 16 pp. 2 pls. 50.
19. Edward T. Newell. Alexander HoardsII. Demanhur Hoard. 1923. 162 pp. 8 pls.
$2.50.
20. Harrold E. Gillingham. Italian Orders of Chivalry and Medals of Honor. 1923. 146
pp. 34 pls. Out of print.
. Sydney

I|
Edward
Edward

Aspects of The Principate of Tiberius: Historical Comments On The Colonial Coinage Issued Outside Spain / by Michael Grant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aspects of The Principate of Tiberius: Historical Comments On The Colonial Coinage Issued Outside Spain / by Michael Grant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Generated on 2015-10-15 10:15 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.

THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

BROADwAY AT 156TH STREET

Generated on 2015-10-15 10:15 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b460939

Generated on 2015-10-15 10:15 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b460939

NUMISMATIC NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS

NUMISMATIC NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS

AGNES BALDwiN BRETT

CHAPTER I. THE COINS AND THE COLONIES

Description of the Coinage

Generated on 2015-10-15 10:15 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b460939

D. Epirus and Achaia

Character of the Coinage

C. Signatories and Formulas

D. Extent of the Coinage

names and titles of Tiberius

and the Proconsuls of Africa

A. Amicitia principis and c.

B. The Auspices of Tiberius

(iii) Mars, Victoria, Felicitas

(v) Old and new types

THE FAMILY OF TIBERIUS

(ii) The younger

(iv) Julia Augusta

Generated on 2015-10-15 10:15 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b460939

A. As Goddess and Virtue"

C. Position in the State

Some non-Spanish colonial coins of uncertain princeps

The municipia civium Romanorum

Weights and denominations

Colonial foundations and their coinages under Tiberius

Local and imperial jubilees under Tiberius

Some case-usages in ethnics

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

The eastern command of Germanicus

The Augustan origins of the auspices of Tiberius

The Augustan origins of the Victory of Tiberius

LIST OF SOME WORKS CITED

cuss, certain numismatic evidence which the

other material which has not yet received this attention.

centuryin the last instance

regards continental literature, are

Important studies during this period are those

which the present writer perhaps diverges

the very few points

from the masterly study

Generated on 2015-10-15 10:15 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b460939

this principate will need

od at least, they owe their reputation as primary sources of informa

so enigmatic that it is of limited value for historical purposes. The

but fragmentary and fortuitous; and just

Roman Anniversary Issues (Chapter III),

extorting information from the coins

the empire, wanted them

ernment, and the cities

the numerous gaps left

this category, considered

For an attempted definition

Generated on 2015-10-15 10:15 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b460939

ondly, as regards the coinage of peregrine cities during the same

man cities, oppida civium Romanorum. They are divided by sta

geographical location but also

sions are differentiated not only